NOBODY knows for sure where they are going after they die, even the POPE himself lives on the faith that he is doing Gods work, earning him a spot in heaven, or wherever he thinks he's going.... There isn't anyone who ever lived, not matter how religious or pious, that knows for sure where they are going after they depart the earthly plane. Nobody.
What about people that have been clinically dead... flatlined... they know, and im sure theyll tell its was nothingness becasue there unconcious. Find one that will tell u they were sitting there over their body watching the nurses and doctors work on them.
0
Quote Originally Posted by RichardA:
NOBODY knows for sure where they are going after they die, even the POPE himself lives on the faith that he is doing Gods work, earning him a spot in heaven, or wherever he thinks he's going.... There isn't anyone who ever lived, not matter how religious or pious, that knows for sure where they are going after they depart the earthly plane. Nobody.
What about people that have been clinically dead... flatlined... they know, and im sure theyll tell its was nothingness becasue there unconcious. Find one that will tell u they were sitting there over their body watching the nurses and doctors work on them.
Well first of all he just threw in some negative language "contradictions and immorality" there is no verses coming from God telling anyone to do anything immoral. I guarantee he will reply with "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" which is always taken wayyy out of contest.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dude_Abides:
Explain...seems valid to me
Well first of all he just threw in some negative language "contradictions and immorality" there is no verses coming from God telling anyone to do anything immoral. I guarantee he will reply with "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" which is always taken wayyy out of contest.
It's ok to not have all the answers, but it's not ok to say well, since I don't know how things happened, "a god" must have done it, and that we should believe in a book written by man that is full of contradictions and immorality
Once again no one is actually forcing you to believe in God your just a dumbass who can't make a good point about religion. Why don't you take your dumbass to an intelligent design lecture ? And actually see modern day christian scholars discuss many of the questions of the day.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SYSTEM:
It's ok to not have all the answers, but it's not ok to say well, since I don't know how things happened, "a god" must have done it, and that we should believe in a book written by man that is full of contradictions and immorality
Once again no one is actually forcing you to believe in God your just a dumbass who can't make a good point about religion. Why don't you take your dumbass to an intelligent design lecture ? And actually see modern day christian scholars discuss many of the questions of the day.
Why don't you take your dumbass to an intelligent design lecture ? And actually see modern day christian scholars discuss many of the questions of the day.
______
I listened to the supreme leader of the Catholic church flat out lie and allow certain people to stay in their parishes and continue to molest children. God is omnicient....and all powerful. He is capable of granting ever lasting life, but He can't affect the lives of these children until they die? What kind of cruel person says, "I can grant you everlasting life, but I will sit back and watch as you are abused by the very people preaching on behalf of me?"
That aint right, my friend.
0
Why don't you take your dumbass to an intelligent design lecture ? And actually see modern day christian scholars discuss many of the questions of the day.
______
I listened to the supreme leader of the Catholic church flat out lie and allow certain people to stay in their parishes and continue to molest children. God is omnicient....and all powerful. He is capable of granting ever lasting life, but He can't affect the lives of these children until they die? What kind of cruel person says, "I can grant you everlasting life, but I will sit back and watch as you are abused by the very people preaching on behalf of me?"
By the way, if the devil is doing his work on earth (which many believe is the case), then wouldn't a person who was in line with his beliefs actually welcome going to hell and being with him? If you murder someone....which is an evil act to say the least....wouldn't you want to go to hell so you and the devil could slap each other on the back and say, "great job" to each other?
Seems to me that "banished to hell" would be a welcome outcome for someone who has been doing the "devil's work."
0
By the way, if the devil is doing his work on earth (which many believe is the case), then wouldn't a person who was in line with his beliefs actually welcome going to hell and being with him? If you murder someone....which is an evil act to say the least....wouldn't you want to go to hell so you and the devil could slap each other on the back and say, "great job" to each other?
Seems to me that "banished to hell" would be a welcome outcome for someone who has been doing the "devil's work."
Well first of all he just threw in some negative language "contradictions and immorality" there is no verses coming from God telling anyone to do anything immoral. I guarantee he will reply with "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" which is always taken wayyy out of contest.
Wow, there isn't? Slavery isn't immoral???????
Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Deuteronomy 15:12-18 "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
Exodus 21:7 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."
Deuteronomy 20:14 "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"
You better go read your bible again.
0
Quote Originally Posted by OnlyGod:
Well first of all he just threw in some negative language "contradictions and immorality" there is no verses coming from God telling anyone to do anything immoral. I guarantee he will reply with "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" which is always taken wayyy out of contest.
Wow, there isn't? Slavery isn't immoral???????
Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Deuteronomy 15:12-18 "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
Exodus 21:7 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."
Deuteronomy 20:14 "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"
Once again no one is actually forcing you to believe in God your just a dumbass who can't make a good point about religion. Why don't you take your dumbass to an intelligent design lecture ? And actually see modern day christian scholars discuss many of the questions of the day.
It doesn't matter if anyone is trying to force me to believe in God or not. But, people who believe in "god" do have an affect on my life.
And why are you getting so mad? Can't you make a point with trying to insult someone? Nice example of someone who believes in God. I'll go to an intelligent design lecture right after I go to a lecture on fairy tales and mythology.
0
Quote Originally Posted by OnlyGod:
Once again no one is actually forcing you to believe in God your just a dumbass who can't make a good point about religion. Why don't you take your dumbass to an intelligent design lecture ? And actually see modern day christian scholars discuss many of the questions of the day.
It doesn't matter if anyone is trying to force me to believe in God or not. But, people who believe in "god" do have an affect on my life.
And why are you getting so mad? Can't you make a point with trying to insult someone? Nice example of someone who believes in God. I'll go to an intelligent design lecture right after I go to a lecture on fairy tales and mythology.
I don't really wish to get involved with trying to convince someone that God exists when they obviously have an aversion to that. However, in the interest of discussion, I'll throw out this wiki regarding Pascal's Wager (link here). In a nutshell, he theorizes (and attempts to prove) this:
There are two options for fact: (1) God exists, or (2) God does not exist.
Also, there are two options for you to believe: (1) that God exists, or (2) that He does not.
Therefore, you could create a matrix showing your choices and the possible outcomes (much as you would when betting a football game). Here are the four possible results:
1) God DOES exist and you DO believe in him. (result; go to Heaven/everlasting life/etc.)
2) God DOES exist and you DO NOT believe in Him. (result: go to Hell/purgatory/etc.)
3) God DOES NOT exist and you DO believe in Him. (result: nothing)
4) God DOES NOT exist and you DO NOT believe in Him. (result: nothing)
Basically, he proposes that the safest/most profitable bet is too believe in God, no matter if He actually exists or not.
I'm neither endorsing nor denouncing Pascal. Just thought it'd be interesting to hear everyone's ideas about his proposition.
0
I don't really wish to get involved with trying to convince someone that God exists when they obviously have an aversion to that. However, in the interest of discussion, I'll throw out this wiki regarding Pascal's Wager (link here). In a nutshell, he theorizes (and attempts to prove) this:
There are two options for fact: (1) God exists, or (2) God does not exist.
Also, there are two options for you to believe: (1) that God exists, or (2) that He does not.
Therefore, you could create a matrix showing your choices and the possible outcomes (much as you would when betting a football game). Here are the four possible results:
1) God DOES exist and you DO believe in him. (result; go to Heaven/everlasting life/etc.)
2) God DOES exist and you DO NOT believe in Him. (result: go to Hell/purgatory/etc.)
3) God DOES NOT exist and you DO believe in Him. (result: nothing)
4) God DOES NOT exist and you DO NOT believe in Him. (result: nothing)
Basically, he proposes that the safest/most profitable bet is too believe in God, no matter if He actually exists or not.
I'm neither endorsing nor denouncing Pascal. Just thought it'd be interesting to hear everyone's ideas about his proposition.
I don't really wish to get involved with trying to convince someone that God exists when they obviously have an aversion to that. However, in the interest of discussion, I'll throw out this wiki regarding Pascal's Wager (link here). In a nutshell, he theorizes (and attempts to prove) this:
There are two options for fact: (1) God exists, or (2) God does not exist.
Also, there are two options for you to believe: (1) that God exists, or (2) that He does not.
Therefore, you could create a matrix showing your choices and the possible outcomes (much as you would when betting a football game). Here are the four possible results:
1) God DOES exist and you DO believe in him. (result; go to Heaven/everlasting life/etc.)
2) God DOES exist and you DO NOT believe in Him. (result: go to Hell/purgatory/etc.)
3) God DOES NOT exist and you DO believe in Him. (result: nothing)
4) God DOES NOT exist and you DO NOT believe in Him. (result: nothing)
Basically, he proposes that the safest/most profitable bet is too believe in God, no matter if He actually exists or not.
I'm neither endorsing nor denouncing Pascal. Just thought it'd be interesting to hear everyone's ideas about his proposition.
this fails from ignorance from the outset. there are not two options. there are hundreds of options. if you base this premise on the idea that either God exists or God doesn't exit, you are assuming a single concept of God. is your God and bin laden's God the same such that your beliefs are equal and suitable to get you both the 72 virgins in heaven? satanists worship a higher power. is that the same as yours? many gods are contrary to others just as religions are contrary to other religions. what of polytheistic religions which make up the majority of religions?
as i've said over and over, ther are more than a thousand religions. most are polytheistic. if you dismiss any of those gods as false you are an atheist. if you believe in just your god, you go to some version of hell many times over from other religions. how does that mesh with your ridiculously simplistic proposition?
0
Quote Originally Posted by WendysRox:
I don't really wish to get involved with trying to convince someone that God exists when they obviously have an aversion to that. However, in the interest of discussion, I'll throw out this wiki regarding Pascal's Wager (link here). In a nutshell, he theorizes (and attempts to prove) this:
There are two options for fact: (1) God exists, or (2) God does not exist.
Also, there are two options for you to believe: (1) that God exists, or (2) that He does not.
Therefore, you could create a matrix showing your choices and the possible outcomes (much as you would when betting a football game). Here are the four possible results:
1) God DOES exist and you DO believe in him. (result; go to Heaven/everlasting life/etc.)
2) God DOES exist and you DO NOT believe in Him. (result: go to Hell/purgatory/etc.)
3) God DOES NOT exist and you DO believe in Him. (result: nothing)
4) God DOES NOT exist and you DO NOT believe in Him. (result: nothing)
Basically, he proposes that the safest/most profitable bet is too believe in God, no matter if He actually exists or not.
I'm neither endorsing nor denouncing Pascal. Just thought it'd be interesting to hear everyone's ideas about his proposition.
this fails from ignorance from the outset. there are not two options. there are hundreds of options. if you base this premise on the idea that either God exists or God doesn't exit, you are assuming a single concept of God. is your God and bin laden's God the same such that your beliefs are equal and suitable to get you both the 72 virgins in heaven? satanists worship a higher power. is that the same as yours? many gods are contrary to others just as religions are contrary to other religions. what of polytheistic religions which make up the majority of religions?
as i've said over and over, ther are more than a thousand religions. most are polytheistic. if you dismiss any of those gods as false you are an atheist. if you believe in just your god, you go to some version of hell many times over from other religions. how does that mesh with your ridiculously simplistic proposition?
this fails from ignorance from the outset. there are not two options. there are hundreds of options. if you base this premise on the idea that either God exists or God doesn't exit, you are assuming a single concept of God. is your God and bin laden's God the same such that your beliefs are equal and suitable to get you both the 72 virgins in heaven? satanists worship a higher power. is that the same as yours? many gods are contrary to others just as religions are contrary to other religions. what of polytheistic religions which make up the majority of religions?
as i've said over and over, ther are more than a thousand religions. most are polytheistic. if you dismiss any of those gods as false you are an atheist. if you believe in just your god, you go to some version of hell many times over from other religions. how does that mesh with your ridiculously simplistic proposition?
You are wrong. What I think Pascal is saying is that the only two options are that (1) there is one true God or (2) there is NOT one true God. In other words, if there is not one true God, then any of the other possibilities fall under the category of "there is not one true God".
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
this fails from ignorance from the outset. there are not two options. there are hundreds of options. if you base this premise on the idea that either God exists or God doesn't exit, you are assuming a single concept of God. is your God and bin laden's God the same such that your beliefs are equal and suitable to get you both the 72 virgins in heaven? satanists worship a higher power. is that the same as yours? many gods are contrary to others just as religions are contrary to other religions. what of polytheistic religions which make up the majority of religions?
as i've said over and over, ther are more than a thousand religions. most are polytheistic. if you dismiss any of those gods as false you are an atheist. if you believe in just your god, you go to some version of hell many times over from other religions. how does that mesh with your ridiculously simplistic proposition?
You are wrong. What I think Pascal is saying is that the only two options are that (1) there is one true God or (2) there is NOT one true God. In other words, if there is not one true God, then any of the other possibilities fall under the category of "there is not one true God".
And, I'd suggest at least reading the wiki, as that will probably answer questions more accurately than I can. The link didn't seem to work, however. So, here it is again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
0
And, I'd suggest at least reading the wiki, as that will probably answer questions more accurately than I can. The link didn't seem to work, however. So, here it is again:
how is that God defined? is your definition of God the same as Bin Laden's such that both of your different beliefs maintain your "safety"?
when this prpposition is characterized in terms of "safe", i am assuming that means in terms of making it into heaven. if there are different versions of God or gods and different versions of heaven and therefore many different ways to get into heaven, hundreds in fact, there cannot just be two choices, one of which is the safe choice.
0
how is that God defined? is your definition of God the same as Bin Laden's such that both of your different beliefs maintain your "safety"?
when this prpposition is characterized in terms of "safe", i am assuming that means in terms of making it into heaven. if there are different versions of God or gods and different versions of heaven and therefore many different ways to get into heaven, hundreds in fact, there cannot just be two choices, one of which is the safe choice.
with a statement like that, the most apprpriate thing to say is ignorance will never end. and it won't. that comment confirms it.
How do you figure? His comments clearly show that his faith is driven by fear. Fear of what may happen to him had he continued to live a life without praising god. Read the guys posts, he sounds like robot, or someone who is brain washed. To believe in something because you fear what will happen if you do not is, to me, no way to live your life. He also stated earlier that you cannot truly understand something until you have foud christ, and that is just absurd. I am sure there are thousands of scientist who know more about this world and universe than any of us in here will ever know, and it would shock me if many of them have found jesus. To really think that there is a place known as heaven which is lead by an almighty leader in god, again to me, is where the ignorance lies. To think that christianity is the only right religion is spreading intolerance, and closed minded. I would contest taht if many of you were raised in differnt cultures and were exposed to different relisigions as part of your socialization then whatever religion was accepted by that culture you would follow with just as much passion, and be wrong as well. To believe what the bible says means that MANY MANY good people would be banished to hell because they have not found the path to heaven through jesus. What about all the people in this world who were never exposed to jesus, by default they are banished to enternity in hell? That hardly seems fair coming from an all forgiving god. He basicly says that the 70 or 80 years you spent on earth not praising me can never be forgiven. Not even with an eternity of worship and praise after life, in heaven.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
with a statement like that, the most apprpriate thing to say is ignorance will never end. and it won't. that comment confirms it.
How do you figure? His comments clearly show that his faith is driven by fear. Fear of what may happen to him had he continued to live a life without praising god. Read the guys posts, he sounds like robot, or someone who is brain washed. To believe in something because you fear what will happen if you do not is, to me, no way to live your life. He also stated earlier that you cannot truly understand something until you have foud christ, and that is just absurd. I am sure there are thousands of scientist who know more about this world and universe than any of us in here will ever know, and it would shock me if many of them have found jesus. To really think that there is a place known as heaven which is lead by an almighty leader in god, again to me, is where the ignorance lies. To think that christianity is the only right religion is spreading intolerance, and closed minded. I would contest taht if many of you were raised in differnt cultures and were exposed to different relisigions as part of your socialization then whatever religion was accepted by that culture you would follow with just as much passion, and be wrong as well. To believe what the bible says means that MANY MANY good people would be banished to hell because they have not found the path to heaven through jesus. What about all the people in this world who were never exposed to jesus, by default they are banished to enternity in hell? That hardly seems fair coming from an all forgiving god. He basicly says that the 70 or 80 years you spent on earth not praising me can never be forgiven. Not even with an eternity of worship and praise after life, in heaven.
I don't really wish to get involved with trying to convince someone that God exists when they obviously have an aversion to that. However, in the interest of discussion, I'll throw out this wiki regarding Pascal's Wager (link here). In a nutshell, he theorizes (and attempts to prove) this:
There are two options for fact: (1) God exists, or (2) God does not exist.
Also, there are two options for you to believe: (1) that God exists, or (2) that He does not.
Therefore, you could create a matrix showing your choices and the possible outcomes (much as you would when betting a football game). Here are the four possible results:
1) God DOES exist and you DO believe in him. (result; go to Heaven/everlasting life/etc.)
2) God DOES exist and you DO NOT believe in Him. (result: go to Hell/purgatory/etc.)
3) God DOES NOT exist and you DO believe in Him. (result: nothing)
4) God DOES NOT exist and you DO NOT believe in Him. (result: nothing)
Basically, he proposes that the safest/most profitable bet is too believe in God, no matter if He actually exists or not.
I'm neither endorsing nor denouncing Pascal. Just thought it'd be interesting to hear everyone's ideas about his proposition.
Do you honestly think God wants to save people based on Pascal's wager (ie. they believe in Him because the alternative is a bit scary?)?
0
Quote Originally Posted by WendysRox:
I don't really wish to get involved with trying to convince someone that God exists when they obviously have an aversion to that. However, in the interest of discussion, I'll throw out this wiki regarding Pascal's Wager (link here). In a nutshell, he theorizes (and attempts to prove) this:
There are two options for fact: (1) God exists, or (2) God does not exist.
Also, there are two options for you to believe: (1) that God exists, or (2) that He does not.
Therefore, you could create a matrix showing your choices and the possible outcomes (much as you would when betting a football game). Here are the four possible results:
1) God DOES exist and you DO believe in him. (result; go to Heaven/everlasting life/etc.)
2) God DOES exist and you DO NOT believe in Him. (result: go to Hell/purgatory/etc.)
3) God DOES NOT exist and you DO believe in Him. (result: nothing)
4) God DOES NOT exist and you DO NOT believe in Him. (result: nothing)
Basically, he proposes that the safest/most profitable bet is too believe in God, no matter if He actually exists or not.
I'm neither endorsing nor denouncing Pascal. Just thought it'd be interesting to hear everyone's ideas about his proposition.
Do you honestly think God wants to save people based on Pascal's wager (ie. they believe in Him because the alternative is a bit scary?)?
so if a pastor walks out onto the street and a car comes... is there supposed to be some miraculous invisible buffer shield to save his life to make God seem real you? its called: free will. the best gift God has given us. free will can be taken for granted and used to sin against others (like your story). it has nothing to do with the proof of God existing or not.
0
so if a pastor walks out onto the street and a car comes... is there supposed to be some miraculous invisible buffer shield to save his life to make God seem real you? its called: free will. the best gift God has given us. free will can be taken for granted and used to sin against others (like your story). it has nothing to do with the proof of God existing or not.
so if a pastor walks out onto the street and a car comes... is there supposed to be some miraculous invisible buffer shield to save his life to make God seem real you? its called: free will. the best gift God has given us. free will can be taken for granted and used to sin against others (like your story). it has nothing to do with the proof of God existing or not.
i guess mlb's post is the best response to this one.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
- Epicurius
and what exactly does that bolded part mean?
0
Quote Originally Posted by GoTribe1986:
so if a pastor walks out onto the street and a car comes... is there supposed to be some miraculous invisible buffer shield to save his life to make God seem real you? its called: free will. the best gift God has given us. free will can be taken for granted and used to sin against others (like your story). it has nothing to do with the proof of God existing or not.
i guess mlb's post is the best response to this one.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
club dirt, id like an explination as to why my comment was ignorant.
squinta, none needed. it was just a misunderstanding. i did not refer to your comment as ignorant. i think your comments are intelligent and rational. supereagle's comment was ignorant. i was agreeing with you as fear and ignorance go together.
what i think is ignorant is the people who try the what if you are wrong, is it worth the risk argument. it's a poor attempt to promote religion by using fear and ignorance as if the world is split in two groups: the people who believe in supereagle's part5icular version of god and religion and those who don't.
squinta
0
Quote Originally Posted by squinta1:
club dirt, id like an explination as to why my comment was ignorant.
squinta, none needed. it was just a misunderstanding. i did not refer to your comment as ignorant. i think your comments are intelligent and rational. supereagle's comment was ignorant. i was agreeing with you as fear and ignorance go together.
what i think is ignorant is the people who try the what if you are wrong, is it worth the risk argument. it's a poor attempt to promote religion by using fear and ignorance as if the world is split in two groups: the people who believe in supereagle's part5icular version of god and religion and those who don't.
You guys keep talking about Catholic Priests and child molesting. Im about to really ruffle some feathers, Catholicism is a cult. Thats not to say that there are no Christian Catholics. They have made up there own set of rules to live by and dont have a lot to do with the Bible.
0
You guys keep talking about Catholic Priests and child molesting. Im about to really ruffle some feathers, Catholicism is a cult. Thats not to say that there are no Christian Catholics. They have made up there own set of rules to live by and dont have a lot to do with the Bible.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.