Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back a page or two to re-sync the thread and this will then show latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
...anyway, if I were a Muslim I would have no problem with my children being taught that Islam was the one true faith...
I'm pretty sure this exemplifies the entire issue. What if you weren't a Muslim?
You don't want your kids learning about something that contradicts your faith. I, in turn, do not want my children to learn anything that is not based in reality.
Because you are unable to argue coherently against the scientific validity of evolutionary theory, you are reduced to insults and mockery, to p*ss-poor attempts to reduce hundreds of years of scientific endeavour to the same level as your imaginary dealings with a man in the sky. It's truly sad. You subvert scientific method, you spread lies and plead discrimination when nobody takes you seriously. Pathetic.0 -
...it loses none of the impact ... it would be naked discrimination either way!!!!doctoremma wrote: »I don't know what this is meant to illustrate. If someone is unfit for the job, you can refuse to hire them or sack them if their incompetence becomes apparent at a later date. In your scenario, the most salient point to be made is that it would be highly unlikely that eating cocktail sausages made by the boss' wife is a necessary part of a job and were you to be sacked for such a thing, I would strongly receommend a lawsuit. It may be worth noting at this stage that, as a vegetarian, this would be the action I would take.
Kinda loses it's impact when you switch the scene from religious discrimination, huh?
...the 'unfit for the job' allegation has no foundation when the person is eminently qualified and eminently capable of teaching science ... and you are sacking them for merely mentioning that there is considerable contoversey surrounding the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled - and Causes Creation Scientists to Laugh'
...any balanced curriculum SHOULD cover the weaknesses of Evolutionary Theory, its limitations and the alternative Theories that are currently held by other Eminent Conventionally Qualified Scientists on the 'origins issue'.
The current situation in America is the equivalent of a Religion Teacher teaching about ONLY ONE Religion ... in a public school before a group of student from multiple faith backgrounds!!!!
...oh YES they CAN ... on the basis that they are interrupting the delivery of the curriculum ... which everybody knows is essential to the continued existence of life as we know it ... at least in so far as the Darwinists are concerned!!!!:(Originally Posted by J C
...and are they going to expel any student who questions this baloney in science class ... on the basis that they are interrupting a Religious Worship Service
doctoremma
Don't be so f*cking ridiculous. Pupils don't get expelled for asking questions.
...you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that this is all about offering a 'broad liberal education' ... when it is ACTUALLY about presenting students with a one-sided presentation of a one-sided view of the 'origins' issue.
Have a look at the movie trailer below ... and tell me HOW LONG the science teacher would put up with 'questions' from 'Young Master Stein' ... before his parents would get a note warning them that he must CEASE his questioning of the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled - and Causes Creation Scientists to Laugh'
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php0 -
...Emma Honey bunch ... you have JUST 'got it in one' ....doctoremma wrote: »I'm pretty sure this exemplifies the entire issue. What if you weren't a Muslim?
You don't want your kids learning about something that contradicts your faith. I, in turn, do not want my children to learn anything that is not based in reality.
Darwinism contradicts MY faith ... and that of my children.
... it is also completely scientifically invalid.
... as a TRUE liberal ... I have no problem with it being taught to my children AS LONG AS its (very obvious) limitations and the alternative Theories that are currently held by other Eminent Conventionally Qualified Scientists on the 'origins issue' ... are ALSO taught!!!
... if this isn't possible ... then I guess, that ALL religious ideas (including the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled') should be banned from school.
I personally think that such a move would be quite regressive and I would regret it very much!!!0 -
...it loses none of the impact ... it would be naked discrimination either way!!!!
I'm sorry but if a Jewish person or a vegetarian is refused a job where eating (pork) cocktail sausages is a necessary task, that's not discrimination based on religion or personal philosophy, that's discounting people who are unable to perform the job. Unless of course, the Jewish person or vegetarian agrees to eat the cocktail sausages during work hours and for the prescribed task, in which case, there is no reason to discount them for the job. Unless you feel that they might compromise their sausage-eating facade by using their spare time to tell everyone that eating cocktail sausages is evil....the 'unfit for the job' allegation has no foundation when the person is eminently qualified and eminently capable of teaching science ...
It has foundation if and when they refuse to teach the curriculum appropriately. That, after all, is what they are employed to do.and you are sacking them for merely mentioning that there is considerable contoversey surrounding the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled - and Causes Creation Scientists to Laugh' the theory of evolution
This is not an issue of free speech. You are free to say whatever you wish. What you are not free to do is claim that what you say has any scientific merit or basis in reality (and worse, teach my children that what you say has scientific merit) in the absence of supporting evidence....any balanced curriculum SHOULD cover the weaknesses of Evolutionary Theory, its limitations and the alternative Theories that are currently held by other Eminent Conventionally Qualified Scientists on the 'origins issue'.
You appear to be trying to portray yourself as a dissenting but reasonable voice bravely speaking out against a world-wide conspiracy. Anyone who has read even two or three pages from this thread will realise how ridiculous this is.
Compare the following:
Scientist 1: This sample is 3.5 billion years old.
Scientist 2: Hmm, I'm concerned about the error margins on this device, it means that this sample might not be as old as you say.
Scientist 1: Ok, I accept that. What can we do?
Scientist 2: How about we use a second method to date it?
with
Scientist 1: This sample is 3.5 billion years old.
Creationist 1: Hmm, I'm concerned about the error margins on this device, it means that this sample might not be as old as you say. And that means that god dunnit.
Scientist 1; Eh???????
The first situation is a discussion of a weakness in a scientific conclusion. The second, which is your technique, is not discussing a weakness in a conclusion. It is akin to a small child randomly shouting for sweets.
Which leads to the issue of children asking questions in class:...oh YES they CAN ... on the basis that they are interrupting the delivery of the curriculum
A child who puts up their hand and says "But I don't believe that this is a transtional fossil" would be more likely to get credit than punishment because frankly, for a child to know/understand/be able to talk about a transitional fossil is pretty impressive. This type of questioning is likely to lead to a fruitful discussion and no child should be expelled for this. A child who screams that evolution is the word of satan is completely interrupting the whole class and disrespecting the teacher. Unfortunately, repeating this type of behaviour is likely to lead to expulsion.0 -
Hello again.
I'm deeply appreciative of JC's on-going valiant defence of the truth. I've quickly reviewed the posts since I last was here and see not a lot has changed - the truth is still being posted, and darkened minds are trying to shout it down.
But such is the nature of the gospel. We preach the word, we reason with men - but it is God alone who can give light.
Anyway, it is good to see more Christians stepping up to the plate in defence of Genesis. The book I linked to includes Prof. Norman Nevin, our local genetic expert, who has openly defended creationism for many years. But it also includes new support from world-class theologians like Wayne Grudem:
I was previously aware that theistic evolution had serious difficulties, but I am now more firmly convinced than ever that it is impossible to believe consistently in both the truthfulness of the Bible and Darwinian evolution. We have to choose one or the other.
http://www.ivpbooks.com/1059
The list of commendations indicate the standing of the book:
http://shouldchristiansembraceevolution.com/commendations
Good also to see a relatively new creationist organisation in the U.K:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/191/82/0 -
Advertisement
-
...Emma Honey bunch ... you have JUST 'got it in one' ....
Darwinism contradicts MY faith ... and that of my children.
I think it's unfortunate that a scientifically-sound and progressive theory contradicts your faith but would politely suggest that the onus is not on the scientific (or wider) community to protect your faith from the facts of reality.... it is also completely scientifically invalid.
You have yet to put forward any convincing argument that this statement may be true.... as a TRUE liberal ... I have no problem with it being taught to my children AS LONG AS its (very obvious) limitations and the alternative Theories that are currently held by other Eminent Conventionally Qualified Scientists on the 'origins issue' ... are ALSO taught!!!
You are not a true liberal. You do not stand up for freedom of speech. You wish to censor the information that your children and my children can access in their education.
And you still don't understand the concept that even if you were to completely disprove evolutionary theory, it does not say anything about the truth of alternative theories. Nothing is considered as approaching true until there is evidence for it. You can tear evolution apart until there is nothing left to support it, but that still won't mean that god dunnit. That's basic logic, one that applies in the editorial offices of Nature to the courtrooms of a free country.0 -
I'm deeply appreciative of JC's on-going valiant defence of the truth. I've quickly reviewed the posts since I last was here and see not a lot has changed - the truth is still being posted, and darkened minds are trying to shout it down.
But such is the nature of the gospel. We preach the word, we reason with men - but it is God alone who can give light.
Snort. Really?I was previously aware that theistic evolution had serious difficulties, but I am now more firmly convinced than ever that it is impossible to believe consistently in both the truthfulness of the Bible and Darwinian evolution. We have to choose one or the other.
I couldn't agree more. And given that only one of the options has any empirical evidence supporting it, it shouldn't be a tough choice.0 -
Hey J C, have you ever read Arthur C Brackman's "A delicate arrangement"? or John Langdon Brook's "Before the origin."? I have them both on order from Amazon. Apparently Darwin plagiarized someone else's papers on the theory and published without consent. I never heard that before. I wait in tense anticipation to read about it. Is this claim corroborated by sufficient evidence? What are your thoughts? Or anyone else's...0
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Hey J C, have you ever read Arthur C Brackman's "A delicate arrangement"? or John Lsngdon Brook's "Before the origin."? I have them both on order from Amazon. Apparently Darwin plagiarized someone else's papers on the theory and published without consent. I never heard that before. I wait in tense anticipation to read about it. Is this claim corroborated by sufficient evidence? What are your thoughts? Or anyone else's...
I think it's pretty well-documented that Darwin went to great lengths to scoop Wallace. I'm not sure whether plagiarism is the issue though?0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Hey J C, have you ever read Arthur C Brackman's "A delicate arrangement"? or John Lsngdon Brook's "Before the origin."? I have them both on order from Amazon. Apparently Darwin plagiarized someone else's papers on the theory and published without consent. I never heard that before. I wait in tense anticipation to read about it. Is this claim corroborated by sufficient evidence? What are your thoughts? Or anyone else's...
You could have used google to retrieve that information very easily, there's nothing being hidden about the musings on the evolutionary process before Darwin.
see aboutdarwin.com for details going all the way back to 520BC
sorry to spoil your expose :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
doctoremma said:
An apt response in defence of swinish doctrine. :pac:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm deeply appreciative of JC's on-going valiant defence of the truth. I've quickly reviewed the posts since I last was here and see not a lot has changed - the truth is still being posted, and darkened minds are trying to shout it down.
But such is the nature of the gospel. We preach the word, we reason with men - but it is God alone who can give light.
Snort.
Yes, really:Really?
John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.
I'm glad we agree on this. One cannot serve God and Mammon.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I was previously aware that theistic evolution had serious difficulties, but I am now more firmly convinced than ever that it is impossible to believe consistently in both the truthfulness of the Bible and Darwinian evolution. We have to choose one or the other.
I couldn't agree more. And given that only one of the options has any empirical evidence supporting it, it shouldn't be a tough choice.
As to the choice, I have evidence stronger than any scientific speculation. So has every Christian, if they would just listen to it rather than the 'wisdom' of men.0 -
SonOfPerdition wrote: »sorry to spoil your expose :rolleyes:
Gird yourself for the biggest ad hominem attack ever...0 -
Sure, that is assuming you read that I think Computer programming is also a religion. Somehow......so you ADMIT that Darwinism is a Religion just like Islam???...anyway, if I were a Muslim I would have no problem with my children being taught that Islam was the one true faith...
But you would have a problem with Christianity being taught as the on true faith, which was the point you beautifully managed to miss.Your argument that ... evolution should be taught exactly as per the curriculum ... gleefully ignores the fact that the curriculum has been devised by Darwinists for Darwinists ... so I guess then it should ONLY be taught to Darwinists ... and paid for by the Darwinsts as well!!!
So the majority of the populous should bend to meet the requirements of the minority, I'm sure the BNP would have a field day.
Also Darwinist is an idiotic term.
Calling it a faith is an idiotic thing to do.
If I'm a Darwinist then I'm also a Netwonist, a Pascalist, a Plankist,and a nigh-on-every-other-person-who-put-forward-a-theory-that-is-currently-accepted-by-the-scientific-community-ist.0 -
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Click if you dare
.
BTW .. i dared to click that link on your sig ..
youtube error -> "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."
tsk tsk0 -
...it would be discrimination to require all pupils and teachers to eat sausages ... and then sack/expel/not employ any Jews who refused to do so.doctoremma wrote: »I'm sorry but if a Jewish person or a vegetarian is refused a job where eating (pork) cocktail sausages is a necessary task, that's not discrimination based on religion or personal philosophy, that's discounting people who are unable to perform the job. Unless of course, the Jewish person or vegetarian agrees to eat the cocktail sausages during work hours and for the prescribed task, in which case, there is no reason to discount them for the job. Unless you feel that they might compromise their sausgae-eating facade by using their spare time to tell everyone that eating cocktail sausgaes is evil.
That was the kind of 'low grade' behaviour that the Nazis did to the Jews to completely demoralise them!!!
...it is a similar affront to a Saved Christian (or indeed an Orthodox Jew) to ask them to have their children forcibly indoctrinated with the core beliefs of Atheism dressed up as Darwinism ... and without any mention of its scientific weaknesses.
It is also naked discrimination to sack a Christian teacher who merely mentions the word ID within a science class ... when ID should be fully covered by the science curriculum in the first place ... and the ONLY reason that it isn't is because of the 'stranglehold' that Atheists and thieir 'fellow travellers' have on the specification of the curriculum ... backed up by a law that insists that no religion can be favoured ... but, whether by accident or design, the ONE Religion that has ended up being favouring is the Atheistic Religion!!!:(
...it sure does ... and the curriculum is the whole issue ... see my previous answer!!!doctoremma wrote: »It has foundation if and when they refuse to teach the curriculum appropriately. That, after all, is what they are employed to do.
...interestingly, I could say exactly the same thing about you ... and your right to indoctrinate my children with your scientifically invalid ideas!!!doctoremma wrote: »This is not an issue of free speech. You are free to say whatever you wish. What you are not free to do is claim that what you say has any scientific merit or basis in reality (and worse, teach my children that what you say has scientific merit) in the absence of supporting evidence.
...so we either leave our respectve children alone on this one ... or we agree a common and balanced curriculum that presents our two worldviews and the scientific evidence that supports each worldview.
...as a liberal person I would prefer the latter ... but I will understand if your illiberal views on Creationists mean that you will not go along with it :eek::)
...it would seem that I am everything you say ... except that it isn't a conspiracy ... it is open antagonism to everything that I stand for!!!!doctoremma wrote: »You appear to be trying to portray yourself as a dissenting but reasonable voice bravely speaking out against a world-wide conspiracy.
... a completely invalid caricature!!!. The key issue isn't the calibration of the measuring device ... it is the underlying assumption that what is being measured validly reflects the age of the rock being evaluated.doctoremma wrote: »Anyone who has read even two or three pages from this thread will realise how ridiculous this is.
Compare the following:
Scientist 1: This sample is 3.5 billion years old.
Scientist 2: Hmm, I'm concerned about the error margins on this device, it means that this sample might not be as old as you say.
Scientist 1: Ok, I accept that. What can we do?
Scientist 2: How about we use a second method to date it?
with
Scientist 1: This sample is 3.5 billion years old.
Creationist 1: Hmm, I'm concerned about the error margins on this device, it means that this sample might not be as old as you say. And that means that god dunnit.
Scientist 1; Eh???????
The first situation is a discussion of a weakness in a scientific conclusion. The second, which is your technique, is not discussing a weakness in a conclusion. It is akin to a small child randomly shouting for sweets.
All radiometric dating is seriously flawed when it comes to establishing the age of rocks ... and I have given some of the reasons here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64571288&postcount=21198
...more invalid caricaturing ... the questions that Ben Stein asked the teacher in the video clip were valid questions asked in a respectful manner ... and there wasn't any mention of Satan ... yet any child asking similar questions would be putting an american teachers job on the line if s/he even attmepted to answer them ... because NO ... and I do mean NO ... Intelligence is allowed to be discussed in american schools ... when it comes to the 'origins' question!!!!doctoremma wrote: »Which leads to the issue of children asking questions in class:
A child who puts up their hand and says "But I don't believe that this is a transtional fossil" would be more likely to get credit than punishment because frankly, for a child to know/understand/be able to talk about a transitional fossil is pretty impressive. This type of questioning is likely to lead to a fruitful discussion and no child should be expelled for this. A child who screams that evolution is the word of satan is completely interrupting the whole class and disrespecting the teacher. Unfortunately, repeating this type of behaviour is likely to lead to expulsion.
...they would therefore have to be ruled out without ANY further discussion ... and if the child persisted in looking for an answer they WOULD end up in the Principals Office to be disciplined.
This is the 'brave new world' that NOW confronts BOTH teachers and students !!!!
...and all because a bunch of Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' need to continuously re-assure themselves that God doesn't exist ... even though the evidence is clearly indicating that he does!!!0 -
-
...it would be discrimination to require all pupils and teachers to eat sausages ... and then sack/expel/not employ any Jews who refused to do so on the basis that it is an affront to their religion to do so.
That was the kind of 'low grade' behaviour that the Nazis did to the Jews to completely demoralise them!!!
...it is a similar affront to a Saved Christian (or indeed an Orthodox Jew) to ask them to have their children forcibly indoctrinated with the core beliefs of Atheism dressed up as Darwinism being delivered in school to their children.
Aw poor J C, reality is an affront to his religion. Diddums0 -
-
...more caricaturing ... the questions that Ben Stein asked the teacher in the video clip were valid questions asked in a respectful manner
[derpderpderp]
...and all because a bunch of Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' need to continuously re-assure themselves that God doesn't exist ... even though the evidence is indicating that he does!!!
1) Ben Stein is a 'tard.
2) The 'evidence' for creation science does not point to any particular deity.
So I guess I'll continue to accept The Theory That Explains The Diversity of Life Better Than Any Other Theory To Date.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
...it would be discrimination to require all pupils and teachers to eat sausages ... and then sack/expel/not employ any Jews who refused to do so, ecause it is an affront to their religion to do so.
That was the kind of 'low grade' behaviour that the Nazis did to the Jews to completely demoralise them!!!
...it is a similar affront to a Saved Christian (or indeed an Orthodox Jew) to ask them to have their children forcibly indoctrinated with the core beliefs of Atheism dressed up as Darwinism being delivered in school to their children.
It is also naked discrimination to sack a Christian teacher who merely mentions the word ID within a science class ... when ID should be fully covered by the science curriculum in the first place ... and the ONLY reason that it isn't is because of the 'stranglehold' that Atheists and thieir 'fellow travellers' have on the specification of the curriculum in the first place...backed up by a law that insists that no religion can be favoured ... but, whether by accident or design, the Law has ended up favouring the Atheistic Religion!!!:(
...it sure does ... and the curriculum is the whole issue ... see my previous answer!!!
...interestingly, I could say exactly the same thing about you ... and your right to indoctrinate my children with your scientifically invalid ideas!!!
...so we either leave our respectve children alone on this one ... or we agree a common and balanced curriculum that presents our two worldviews and the scientific evidence that supports each worldview.
...as a liberal person I would prefer the latter ... but I will understand if your illiberal views on Creationists mean that you will not go along with it :eek::)
...it would seem that I am everything you say ... except that it isn't a conspiracy ... it is open antagonism to everything that I stand for!!!!
... a completely invalid caricature!!!. The key issue isn't the calibration of the measuring device ... it is the underlying assumption that what is being measured validly reflects the age of the rock being evaluated.
All radiometric dating is seriously flawed when it comes to establishing the age of rocks ... and I have given some of the reasons why this has been PROVEN to be the case here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64571288&postcount=21198
...more caricaturing ... the questions that Ben Stein asked the teacher in the video clip were valid questions asked in a respectful manner ... and there wasn't any mention of Satan ... yet any child asking similar questions would be putting an american teachers job on the line if he even attmeped to answer them ... because NO ... and I do mean NO ... Intelligence is allowed to be discussed in american schools ... when it comes to the 'origins' question!!!!
...they would therefore have to be ruled out without ANY further discussion ... and if the child persisted in lookin for an answer they WOULD end up in the Principals Office to be disciplined.
This is the 'brave new world' that NOW confronts BOTH teachers and students !!!!
...and all because a bunch of Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' need to continuously re-assure themselves that God doesn't exist ... even though the evidence is indicating that he does!!!
JC, do you understand what "science" is?0 -
doctoremma wrote: »JC, do you understand what "science" is?
He are sciencetist!!!!;):rolleyes::o:p:D:):mad::cool:0 -
... a completely invalid caricature!!!. The key issue isn't the calibration of the measuring device ... it is the underlying assumption that what is being measured validly reflects the age of the rock being evaluated.
All radiometric dating is seriously flawed when it comes to establishing the age of rocks ... and I have given some of the reasons why this has been PROVEN to be the case here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64571288&postcount=21198
Ok, first to be clear, the subject matter of my caricature wasn't intented to be particularly relevant. But going from your links, and bearing in my mind I know this much (--) about geology, I have learned:
There are complete tree fossils that are found through several different geological strata? That would obviously point to a rapid sedimentation event where these fossils are found? If you date rock from close to the top of the fossil, do you get a different answer from the bottom? Or do the dates match, adding weight to the premise of rapid sedimentation? How does this invalidate radiological dating? In all circumstances or just in some types of stone? The lava flows you mention, where the rock atoms are dated at far older than than the rock formation, is this a problem? Could the atoms have been decaying before the rock was made? I don't understand the significance of the part you mention about all the calcium carbonate in all the rocks.
I hope we can discuss this - It's quite interesting. I obviously wish to limit discussion to the scientific evidence though, rather than conjectures about the supernatural.0 -
...and WHO determines this 'balance' ... another set of Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' ... I think that this is called a 'conflict of interest' .. by the rest of the known world!!!!:eek:Genghiz Cohen wrote: »It currently does.0 -
-
...and WHO determines this 'balance' ... only another set of Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' ... I think that this is called a 'conflict of interest' .. by the rest of the known world!!!!:eek:
JC, if you were set up a scale from +1 to -1, in terms of objectivity and with religion occupying +1, where do you perceive science and/or atheism to lie? I think you're suggesting we are all pushing for -1 but this is not true. Science should sit at 0 and Genghis exemplified it perfectly with his alternative name for evolutionary theory. None of us will say that the theory is perfect or not subject to change (see definitions of "science" for clarification). None of us would formally assert that it is "true" (although for the purposes of internet discussion, it doesn't always seem like that). All we know is that, as it stands, it is the most appropriate scientific model for the life we observe around us. It has been adapted and altered as new findings are made but the basic premise has never been found to be flawed.0 -
...the people who actually seem to have lost their grip on reality are the ones who believe in the mythical powers of 'Pondscum' to become Man with nothing added but time!!!Aw poor J C, reality is an affront to his religion. Diddums
...and they expect Christians and other rational people to 'roll-over' and have their children 'brainwashed' with a one-sided account of this stuff!!!
...and if they ask ANY questions they will be disciplined.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
...what has that got to do with anything ...Genghiz Cohen wrote: »The majority. This country is mainly RC, so yeah...
...are Roman Catholics now going to leave their children to the 'tender mercies' of Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' ... just like they unquestioningly entrusted them to priests and religious in the past?
... I think not ... but I could be wrong!!!
... once bitten ... twice shy ... would be my motto on this!!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement