How low will religion go

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

R.L.

Quote:

Can Catholic congregants be held liable for forcing their ministers to live under a vow of poverty under the guise of obedience to God's command

Priests don't take a vow of poverty, some monks and nun orders do. Is there ANY area of knowledge where you can't embarrass yourself with your ignorance? Hey we are all still waiting on the other thread for you to answer those questions on the conservation laws I asked you almost a month ago now. Amazing you know how the conservation laws acted at the big bang (even though you don't believe one took place), but can't even NAME them. The same way you know that priests are FORCED to take a vow of poverty!!!

ROFLMAO

You obviously can't spot sarcasm when it's straight in front of you.

Of course no one FORCES a Catholic minister to take a vow of poverty.

And no one FORCES those who donate to the Pentecostal preachers (who were the subject of the article) to do so either.

Both do so of their own free will.

That's my point.

Lighten up TCR and perhaps humor won't be so difficult for you to deal with.

So when you are caught in your ignorance it is either others who missed the "sarcasm" or you just ignore the post. Well, I can admit it when I'm wrong, your NOT a one trick pony, your actually a TWO trick pony.

I guess this is where you pull the other trick and ignore, for about the sixth time (and going on a month now), my questions to you on the conservation laws.

Why don't you finally just admit you are clueless about science. How is it the religious ones who want to judge others, and tell them how they should live, and how they can't have morals or ethics because they are not religious find telling the truth themselves such an insurmountable mountain?

I see in the other post Blatham caught you in your ignorance of Genesis. Gee, I see you are ignoring that post too, who'd a thunk it...Oh, or maybe you were just being satirical again?!

ROFLAMO!!!

Literacy, or the lack thereof, is the problem to which all other problems in education refer. Scientists are not, as FM pointed out, responsible for the inability of any particular school system produce literate children. If they are not literate by the time they reach the middle school level, there is little reason to hope that they will understand either a theory of evolution, or the creationism hogwash when it is presented to them.

Of course, the creationists follow the get 'em while they're young operational doctrine, and attempt to indoctrinate them before they are even old enough to understand the concepts which are involved. This can backfire on them, though. Contrary to popular belief, the young man who recently killed several people in Colorado before turning his gun on himself was not gunned down by a bible-thumping security guard in the church--the forensic evidence is that he shot himself. However, what makes him interesting is that he was a home-schooled Christian.

Chalk one up for the power of faith.

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

So when you are caught in your ignorance it is either others who missed the "sarcasm" or you just ignore the post. Well, I can admit it when I'm wrong, your NOT a one trick pony, your actually a TWO trick pony.

I guess this is where you pull the other trick and ignore, for about the sixth time (and going on a month now), my questions to you on the conservation laws.

Why don't you finally just admit you are clueless about science. How is it the religious ones who want to judge others, and tell them how they should live, and how they can't have morals or ethics because they are not religious find telling the truth themselves such an insurmountable mountain?

I see in the other post Blatham caught you in your ignorance of Genesis. Gee, I see you are ignoring that post too, who'd a thunk it...Oh, or maybe you were just being satirical again?!

ROFLAMO!!!

Your attempted diversion is of no interest to me. That's why it has never received an answer. If you want to establish it's relevance to the topic we were discussing at the time that you brought it up, be my guest.

As for telling you (or anyone else ) that they have no morals because they aren't religious, if you will quote the post where you think that was said, then we can discuss (hint: you won't find such a post).

As for your reference to Blatham, I've no idea what you are talking about, but if you will reference it instead of making vague comments, perhaps it could be an interesting discussion. If your only point is that Blatham and I have different views on the book of Genesis (and you automatically assume me to be in the wrong and he in the right), then save your pixels. We all know that.

btw Hope you are having a great holiday season.

real life wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

How is it the religious ones who want to judge others, and tell them how they should live, and how they can't have morals or ethics because they are not religious

As for telling you (or anyone else ) that they have no morals because they aren't religious, if you will quote the post where you think that was said, then we can discuss (hint: you won't find such a post).

As to you your not judging others I'll just point the interested reader to the "when does life begin thread" and let them take it from there

The Blatham post shows that when cornered with ignorance of the text of the bible

you get to fall back on your interpretation, YOU get to interpret it to determine what is literal and what isn't.

Funny how we are to accept your analysis of the most complex parts of the sciences, over even that of the experts

That someone would be unethical for big big bucks is not hard to understand when compared to what you will do on a little web forum where everyone has your number. You are a role model of what is wrong with religion

By the way you can stop the phony concern of how my holidays are going. Several posters have pointed that tactic doesn't pass the smell test.

I am mystified to know how someone could disagree and not be disagreeable.