When Dawkins says its "child abuse" to raise a child Catholic...

What means you are brought up as a Catholic? You are an antichristian propagandist. Did you fall over one of our bibles or failed you a silver bullet? Every Catholic in England has to be careful. I would say it's still dangerous to be a Catholic in England.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsY627gBDLc

 

That's exactly what the real scientific theory of evolution not says. It says for example if a species is at the high level of the own evolution (=in the best possible fitness with everything all around) then the species is on a level ("hill") where it goes down in all directions. Crocodiles are for example since about 350 million years always on nearly the same level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP8nqre54FQ

 

Not directly. We don't think for example that god is a poof - although he is not only the father of all people but also the mother of all people. And I specially believe sometimes for example that some people are unbelievable ... unbelievable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO_9Sti1Ty8

 

You don't have to teach kids how to be bad. Just sayin.

 

Sayin' it doesn't make it mean anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you know nothing of the circumstances of Catholics in England.

 

disclaimer>>> As a non-preaching* radical non-traditional Christian minister (primarily protestant), I use language and oftentimes display somewhat mild non-Christian behavior. Nothing drastic mind you, I haven&#8217;t mastered the 'turn the other cheek' teaching of my lord. I say that in advance to my Christian brothers and sisters to hopefully buffer the rough edges of my person. <<< disclaimer.


I despise not dawkins the man with a god given soul, but rather I despise his anti Christian/religion activism. Dawkins seems more interested on attacking the Christian religion and to a lesser extent religion in general than to pratice his claimed profession ie a biologist (but he is not a scientist according to one of his peers). Speaking of peers, one of his peers an accomplished real scientist publicly gave dawkings a dose of his own insulting medicine. But that is getting a bit off topic.. I suppose dawking's need to ridicule and insult not only religion and the religious or even his religious colleagues indicates a pathological of inferiority IMO. Many lay people that have no keen interest in religion or science find his behavior and language repulsive and or &#8216;Jerry Springfield sleazy&#8216;. So as long as he continues to offend for the purpose to sell his books, and as long as he demonstrates a questionable proficiency in his chosen field as a scientist I have no use for the man or his ridiculous theories or ideas.

* Non preaching means that I do not pastor a normal church. I do have an internet presence and two physical Christian humanitarian missions, sponsored by my church, which is an office space, the church btw is; (ABOTCC, or Apocalyptic Bearer Of The Cross Church I have and do guest preach, and do other pastoral activities. A full mission statement, (I teach and preach an epistemic Apocalyptic doctrine) is available on request.



reva

 

While that may be true for some, certainly not true of all.

 

There are many reasons the tomb would be empty but the only reference we have to the resurrection is the Bible so it is circular logic.

As for evolution versus the existence of God. Both can co-exist. There is no reason to think differently because one does not negate the other. IN fact I took my 600 level evolution class with a Catholic Priest professor.

 

Maybe. I do not even know that England has circumstances. I never was there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_TMqACTmzI

 

Matthew 7:5 matthew
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see
clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. (New Living Translation)


Mr Mayor Snork, You may be suffering from the same thing many of we, the students of life have contracted. That is we only can understand things seen from a modern perspective. Think back anywhere from a couple thou to five thousand or more years ago. I believe could be defended during that era. (not so with the female equivalent). I think Circumcision was first developed as an aid for cleanliness. Spiritual and physical cleanliness according to all historical accounts was valued amongst the devoutly religious common man, and was obsessively valued by the high priests, especially the Jewish high priests. So circumcision was not created for the express propose of sexual inhibition.
reva

 

And that is certainly true. I, and I think most christians fairly despise (the actions of, maybe even the people themselves) ie our called Christian brothers and sisters that are out only to enrich themselves. I hold a special um' emotion for the TV preachers that say; HURRY and send me your last dime granny, and I will ask Jesus to cure you of old age and bring back your entire family from the grave going back to Plymouth rock, and then I will ask Jesus to make you RICH and to&#8221; &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; ~ well you get the picture. I absolutely despise them, or rather their actions. They harm Christianity more than every atheist activist on earth has in the last hundred years.

Those satanic liver lipped snake oil salesman are far worse than dawkins and all the dawkins clones in the universe put together. I suppose and even hope God has a special baking HOT place reserved for the false prophets that ask the gullible and good hearted naive Christians to give until it literally hurts.

Scripture dwells on that very subject and to say those preachers that think themselves God, or that would drive their Benzes over a crowd of homeless people to grab a dollar bill blowing in the wind are in for a surprise in the afterlife (if they are not earmarked for Sheol) is an understatement of cosmic proportions.

reva

 

I know it may be hard for some to comprehend, but "Marxist-Leninist" is actually a different thing from "atheist". That's why they have different names.

 

Oh the irony. The current state of evolutionary theory roundly rejects any notion of being 'highly' evolved. It's a buzzword no professional scientist would use in a rigorous publication.

 

The Marxist-Leninist (Btw: Marx himselve said "I am not a Marxist") decided to be atheists. And as militant atheist they allowed no other religion to exist. Marxism-Leninism is nothing else in this context than a special sect of the belief atheism. In the so called culture revolution died about a hundred million chinese people and everything what showed another belief than atheism was forbidden. Short: Materialism was allowed - Spiritualism was forbidden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVAWKfJ4Go

 

And? If they had decided to be vegans, that wouldn't mean that they did what they did because of being vegans.

I could not disagree more. What about atheism espouses a particular economic model? A particular social paradigm? No, I don't think so.

 

do you despise fundies for attacking atheists and science?

 

That's one reason why I said what I said and what you did not understand. The sentence I answered on was completly wrong and had nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution. He speaks about a teleological concept within the theory of evolution. But the evolution has nothing what we could call "plan" (="teleology"). Short: nature has no plans - nature is. Or with other words. A bacterium of the third millenium ís in the same level of evolution as a human being. But a bacterium with a defect genecode is on a lower level of the own evolution (the yet evolved possible structures of the own species). In very very seldom cases it can happen that a new species will be born. But there is not an automatism. In another case - crocodiles for example - the crocodile stay stable on their Island of evolution (=they are fitting since 350 million years) and every change in the genetic structure leads only "downwards" = the danger to die out grows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx2Mc5K9VO0

 

no comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGgCC5l9H8Q

 

I must admit I wondered how long it would take before you would effectively admit, in this manner, that you have no leg to stand on.

 

And what was the result of your wandering?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UORKwBTKWqw

 

There is also no atheist children until their parents brainwash them.

Dawkins had a good childhood until be was introduce to atheist science that is when he started to become unstable maybe it was because he prayed and prayed to be cure of his disability and it did not happen instead he was bless with being very smart and he didn't like it?

 

Atheism is the default. What religion would they be if nobody told them about it?

 

Nonsense again. Communist countries allowed religion they just didn't allow children to be indoctrinated into religion. There were active churches in all European communist countries. Only a few Asian marxist states actually banned religion

 

They would create a religion. Why and what this religion would be is another discussion.

Why has theism been such an integral part of humanity throughout history? Every civilization has had gods.

 

My informations about China is completly different from this what you say here. Everthing what had to do with religion there was forbidden.

Even the commies in the former GDR fought very effective against all Christians there - and if they had not done so with their own allowness thenmaybe against their own allowness. Who for heavens sake believes in laws of tyrannies?

The Commies within the GDR misued brainwashed children even as spies against their own parents.

Yeah eah: Atheists were always the best leaders in the christian churches aginst the Christians. I would not be astonished if commie-protestant commie-priests in the commie-GDR had called Walter Ulbricht or Erich Honecker "holy commie-men" of the commie-church.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1ze3HFdbEQ