A well read critic would read her book as she herself is aware.

Glad you and her get no means no. Keep up your efforts to inform your 'Christian' friends.

The very same countries that persecute Christians to death also generally do the same to non-believers as well. I assume you mean Islam.

I could care less if someone chooses to pray as they sit down at a blackjack table as long as they don't ask for participation or expect it.

Christianity has entered politics though you may choose to not call the particular sects of believers that do so Christians if you like. 

As to other books containing records of Jesus, I was not aware you considered advocating Josephus for example to be a true history if that is one of the other books you mean. There is of course the prophet Jesus in the Quran, but you claim to be Christian not Muslim. As to the rest, they are very suspect. See Rook's thread on Jesus as historical. None of the supposed references are able to stand up under scrutiny. Then we have the lack of mention by authors who lived at the time or in the area, such as Philo of Alexandria who lived in Jerusalem during the period of Jesus' supposed life. Or how about Justus of Tiberias who came from Galilee the same area as Jesus who wrote nothing of him. Christian critics agree he was concise but was blinded because he was a Jew. Duh, so was Jesus supposedly. I realize the argument from lack of mention proves little. Perhaps these authors and dozens of others at the time just weren't into a cult believing in a resurrected messiah. Cap, I have done extensive 'homework' regarding the mention of Jesus even in works such as Clement.

The difference is I can actually see my sister in the real world and quiz her on the content of said diary. Can you do the same with God or Jesus in a physical form? No, didn't think so.

If said diary was found after her death her writing is so obvious that I would immediate recognize it. If she had a friend write it, transcribed literally without additions it would still be obvious, though I'd need an explanation from the friend. If it was not obvious that it was literal, my sis goes into a higher plane of intellect or conjecture, I would suspect it was not her original work and had been edited or altered or was pure BS.

I'm nearing completion on a 2nd installment of comments of the book.

Brian37 wrote:

I have a brother named Gary. No one has ever known about him. He has no birth certificate, he has no adress, and when doctors took his blood sample they could not find any DNA. BTW, he inspired me to write this post. Since you've never met him, you cant prove he doesn't exist.

Oh, and did I mention he can fart a Lamborginni out of his ass?

Right, but the question is do you know he exists?  If he's your brother and you seem to know him personally by your description so I have no reason to not believe you though I have questions.

Though if you were so inclined to bring it this far, I'm sure you're going to try to convince me that your brother actually exists.  Be it that he's your brother, maybe you can give me his story... ya know, if he's willing to tell it. 

I guess the bigger question is, does your brother want to get to know me?  Is it important for me to get to know your brother?  If so, I want to know more.

I'm kinda jellous.  Lucky bastard doesn't have to pay taxes. 

I point at the moon and you constantly stare at my finger tip. Your failure to see my point is that you are focused on detail, when I am trying to point out to you I MADE THAT CRAP UP.

Your worship of a motif of a super hero in the sky is MADE UP. As soon as you face reality, you will understand what I am saying. But because you are so deeply addicted to your nerological morphine case of "warm fuzzies", I might have to conceed to myself that I am fighting an uphill battle trying to free you from your needless adiction to superstition.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Christianity has entered politics though you may choose to not call the particular sects of believers that do so Christians if you like. 

That's not what I was saying either.  It's just that politics is no place for those matters.  People are stubborn.  They want their way so badly, that they want to force it upon others.  (This goes for both sides)

I was making a general statement that there are many other writings.  More even than you referenced including conflicting beliefs which makes a suggestion at least.

The point of your sisters diary is that you most likely would know her well enough to tell the next person that it was her writing (no matter how erronious or not) due to the fact that you know her personality and her style and approach to life.  That is unless your relationship with said sister is not close.  That would be the exception to the rule.

also same with followers of Christ. 

is that a better answer to your post?

Key word here:  His being is beyond our perception.  In other words, what he is, where he is, his existance as a lifeforce (as we understand lifeforce to be)... though we understand he lives because of that general perception that we have of him.

God generally is not beyond human perception.  If he was, then how could we follow Him?

Why am I even typing this post? I really do hope that I am not deluding myself into holding out hope that I can snap you out of your fairy tale dream.

I guess it is for the mere reason you have hung on so long. But in any case, Jesus was either divine or magical, pick a word, and humans do not survive rigor mortis. And no one ever claimed that George Washington spit in someone's eye to cure their blindness.

It simply bugs you that we face the reality that gods are merely made up words to placate the emotions of those who dont want to face the reality that this is all there is.

You think you are out to help us, but the reality is the reverse.

Dont try to make this about me. This is about your lack of evidence.

It is false. The Christian god or any claim of the super natural is a gap answer that you, and believers of other silly superstitions cling to because you merely like what you believe.

Humans don't pop out of dirt. The sun and moon reflect the same light from the sun, despite the claims in your convoluted pile of tripe.

Your main character "God" is merely a litterary characture and belongs in the same catigory of Isis and Menervia, despite your repeated claims.

And your claims of your magical camera in the sky, by virtue of the constant human suffering your daddy blames on us. Even if such a being were real(thank thor it isnt) but for argument's sake, I would have no choice but to intelectually view such a claimed being as moraly reprehensable and not worthy of even spitting on.

Facing reality for most is not easy, but is well worth it.

This is not about me. This is about YOU and your lack of evidence.

When you can replicate godsperm and poney it up in a petre dish, you won't just convince me, but Muslims and Jews and Scientologists. Good luck with that. I am sure the medical community and biological comunity is waiting with baited breath for your world shattering descovery.

Believing that the bible is true is like trusting the Weekly World News to tell you that the sun is made of marshmellows.

 Cap.

This is my 2nd installment of comments on the book.

Garrison next launched into a criticism of Dawkins and others stating they brought nothing new to the fray that one had not encountered in their freshman year in college. She satirizes that at best they were sophomoric and even that is unfair to college sophomores. She suggests many of her philosophy discussions were under the influence of illegal substances. This comment makes me wonder about her foundation in basic understanding. If her grandiose ideas and concepts especially conjecture in areas of philosophy have a basis in drug use it casts serious doubt on her eventual conclusions. Drugs play havoc with one's brain and mental processes for years after their use. Anyway, back to my comments. She likens them to be stuck in freshman mode from a theological point of view. Clear she wouldn't’t appreciate that my opinion of her is she is stuck in fantasyland, and she’s not even at Disney. She continues to not grasp the FSM idea especially the demand it be also taught in the event ID would be done in Kansas. In other words, it's just as ridiculous of an idea and has no basis in the real world. In my opinion, elective classes in college could be offered in virtually any subject including these. She goes on to insult Marilyn Manson by comparing him to Coulter at least in methods to generate revenue.

She then suggests that no serious theologian has been refuted by Harris or Dawkins or any other new atheist. They she says, use material from Thomas Aquinas, Anselm or Voltaire. She also claims they disagree on what an atheist is. She of course uses this to suggest if they can't get it together on atheism where do they get to go railing against believers. As I personally don't care what Dawkins or Harris thinks atheism is or isn't I see this as a shot to distract people from the real issue. The real issue being that god belief is fantasy based delusion. I never read Harris or Dawkins or any other atheist author in my quest of understanding that lead me to disbelief. Instead, I read history and the holy books and tried to grapple the contradictions with my science and engineering education and my religious upbringing.

In contrast to her earlier appeal that Jesus said clearly why he was here she hypocritically asserts that a moratorium should be in place on Jesus said it comments, that ends it she says .She seemed to go to that well herself. She agrees that most American Christians know diddy about the basic tenets of their own faith and even less about other religions. I too have seen this evident both online and in discussions with believers. She admits that she is not a leading knowledgeable expert but suggests other modern thinkers like Brian McLaren would be better suited to triumph over the dead delusionals advocating new atheism. My view on believers in America is the majority makes the claims and knows very little. That which they do know is based on the KJV, non-Catholics anyway. They have no idea about the history of the church, the origins of their sacred book, its inaccuracies, and the events of the reformation, the early church fathers, or the early beliefs of the 1st century. They will cling to literal concepts until you hand them a fossil you just removed from a rock formation. Then they begin to wriggle and squirm. You soon learn they only profess belief because mommy and daddy were Christian.

In her chapter called Does God Matter she begins by questioning the why of atheists even bothering with beliefs they consider absurd nonsense. She understands that we demand concrete proof of the God but is dismissive of it. She thinks from her reading that ‘new atheists’ generally come from a non-religious environment. As I indicated in my case that is not so. This she thinks causes atheists to question or buck authority. This leads into her satire about Stenger wanting concrete proof Jesus was a real man and if so his bones need to be produced. She proceeds to explain how that would not be so as in his tomb was found empty. So far I don’t see where she answers the question of providing proof.

She continues in her explanation of events after the resurrection by selecting parts of Luke describing the encounter on the road to Emmaus and adding Matthew’s tomb sealing with Roman guards. This is a technique of Hollywood such as Mel Gibson when he tossed all of the Gospels into a blender to create Passion. She asserts the claim that being a Christian was a risky thing to do so if it was mythical why do it. She ends the discussion saying “using empirical data to describe a transcendent God that defies human descriptions doesn’t work. ‘Nuf said.” This makes it clear she relies on faith and sees a demand for proof as unneeded. In her words, ‘nuf said. Cap, you know how atheists view this evasion by now.

Garrison next discusses Dawkins idea called memes. She discredits it by arguing most scientists don’t concur or even grasp what he is talking about. I don’t see the idea of memes as essential to the discussion at hand. She goes on to discuss ungodly standards where she continues to justify the lack of real world evidence regarding god as he /she/it transcends time, space and matter. Therefore you can't lay the god out on a lab table. So instead of proof she suggests beating the ‘new atheists’ over the head literally with the writing of Phyllis Tickle.

She then claims the NAS, National Academy of Science can make no claim regarding the supernatural & whether god exists or not. That diversion burned up a few pages of content for her. On she moves to the discussion by Stenger & Dawkins about soul existence. She says Stenger suggests if it exists we should be able to measure it’s life forces such as chi (qi) and ESP & use psychics & mediums to communicate with the dead. She then satirizes this pointless discussion until she burns another page off. As this subject is in the thread on supernatural and seems to be well discussed I won’t dwell on it here. IMO, if you can’t see, measure, feel, touch, describe, or test it’s on you to prove it’s in the real world and not part of the fantasy dimension.

She discusses the Christian community’s lukewarm ludicrous at times portrayal of the Jesus teachings. This is a major way that atheists get ammo to blast away. This includes the ridiculous efforts to equate men and monkeys in the past as well as televangelists that solicit cash to pay your way to god. She cites also that those who blame God for all the evils and actions of the Church over the years to realize it’s not the faith but those that deceive that are the problem. She suggests it’s up to Christians to stand up collectively and kick these charlatans to the curb. If Christians seek to be like Jesus then they must seek a life of faith that governs all of their actions. Here I always have agreed with the statement that generally one would never know what a Christian believed by the actions one sees them do. I would guess this is part of what you say makes a Christian a true believer instead of those that profess belief and burn heretics at the stake.
Again this is quite enough for this post.

I do believe you can see the effects in the real world of spirits, though I also believe most will work harder at trying to explain it away than to surrender to the idea that it could have been a spirit.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 Cap.

This is my 2nd installment of comments on the book.

Garrison next launched into a criticism of Dawkins and others stating they brought nothing new to the fray that one had not encountered in their freshman year in college. She satirizes that at best they were sophomoric and even that is unfair to college sophomores. She suggests many of her philosophy discussions were under the influence of illegal substances. This comment makes me wonder about her foundation in basic understanding. If her grandiose ideas and concepts especially conjecture in areas of philosophy have a basis in drug use it casts serious doubt on her eventual conclusions. Drugs play havoc with one's brain and mental processes for years after their use. Anyway, back to my comments. She likens them to be stuck in freshman mode from a theological point of view. Clear she wouldn't’t appreciate that my opinion of her is she is stuck in fantasyland, and she’s not even at Disney. She continues to not grasp the FSM idea especially the demand it be also taught in the event ID would be done in Kansas. In other words, it's just as ridiculous of an idea and has no basis in the real world. In my opinion, elective classes in college could be offered in virtually any subject including these. She goes on to insult Marilyn Manson by comparing him to Coulter at least in methods to generate revenue.

You can question her conclusions by her claim of a drug haze, but how much water do they hold...  Her point was obvious I'm sure and doesn't need further explanation. 

I get her point though.  Not you necessarily, but many atheists use the excuse that there are 5000 different ways of "knowing God" in just the United States.  I accept that as true.  They go on to say that because of that, God can't be true.  Her point was she can make the same claim about atheists.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She then suggests that no serious theologian has been refuted by Harris or Dawkins or any other new atheist. They she says, use material from Thomas Aquinas, Anselm or Voltaire. She also claims they disagree on what an atheist is. She of course uses this to suggest if they can't get it together on atheism where do they get to go railing against believers. As I personally don't care what Dawkins or Harris thinks atheism is or isn't I see this as a shot to distract people from the real issue. The real issue being that god belief is fantasy based delusion. I never read Harris or Dawkins or any other atheist author in my quest of understanding that lead me to disbelief. Instead, I read history and the holy books and tried to grapple the contradictions with my science and engineering education and my religious upbringing.

that would mean this would not apply to you.  It seems you've taken a smart approach to your current following.  Have you considered comparing your science and engineering education to God with religion out of the picture?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In contrast to her earlier appeal that Jesus said clearly why he was here she hypocritically asserts that a moratorium should be in place on Jesus said it comments, that ends it she says .She seemed to go to that well herself. She agrees that most American Christians know diddy about the basic tenets of their own faith and even less about other religions. I too have seen this evident both online and in discussions with believers. She admits that she is not a leading knowledgeable expert but suggests other modern thinkers like Brian McLaren would be better suited to triumph over the dead delusionals advocating new atheism. My view on believers in America is the majority makes the claims and knows very little. That which they do know is based on the KJV, non-Catholics anyway. They have no idea about the history of the church, the origins of their sacred book, its inaccuracies, and the events of the reformation, the early church fathers, or the early beliefs of the 1st century. They will cling to literal concepts until you hand them a fossil you just removed from a rock formation. Then they begin to wriggle and squirm. You soon learn they only profess belief because mommy and daddy were Christian.

precisely.  So then what's my excuse?  There are many believers out there that acutally know a thing or two about things of relevence.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In her chapter called Does God Matter she begins by questioning the why of atheists even bothering with beliefs they consider absurd nonsense. She understands that we demand concrete proof of the God but is dismissive of it. She thinks from her reading that ‘new atheists’ generally come from a non-religious environment. As I indicated in my case that is not so. This she thinks causes atheists to question or buck authority. This leads into her satire about Stenger wanting concrete proof Jesus was a real man and if so his bones need to be produced. She proceeds to explain how that would not be so as in his tomb was found empty. So far I don’t see where she answers the question of providing proof.

She was only clarifying the source for proofs from what I understand.  You can't ask for certain proofs because the Bible makes it clear that they wouldn't be there.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She continues in her explanation of events after the resurrection by selecting parts of Luke describing the encounter on the road to Emmaus and adding Matthew’s tomb sealing with Roman guards. This is a technique of Hollywood such as Mel Gibson when he tossed all of the Gospels into a blender to create Passion. She asserts the claim that being a Christian was a risky thing to do so if it was mythical why do it. She ends the discussion saying “using empirical data to describe a transcendent God that defies human descriptions doesn’t work. ‘Nuf said.” This makes it clear she relies on faith and sees a demand for proof as unneeded. In her words, ‘nuf said. Cap, you know how atheists view this evasion by now.

absolutely.  Which is why I take the approach I do.  Her book was more trying to discredit the ideas many atheists have brought up rather than provide tangible evidences for God.

The reason I brought it up is because I've repeatedly seen many feeble approaches that she (in my understanding) clearly shows couldn't possibly hold water on either side.

as I've tried to explain a few times.  You can't rely on the physical alone for "proof" of God.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She then claims the NAS, National Academy of Science can make no claim regarding the supernatural & whether god exists or not. That diversion burned up a few pages of content for her. On she moves to the discussion by Stenger & Dawkins about soul existence. She says Stenger suggests if it exists we should be able to measure it’s life forces such as chi (qi) and ESP & use psychics & mediums to communicate with the dead. She then satirizes this pointless discussion until she burns another page off. As this subject is in the thread on supernatural and seems to be well discussed I won’t dwell on it here. IMO, if you can’t see, measure, feel, touch, describe, or test it’s on you to prove it’s in the real world and not part of the fantasy dimension.

99% of atheists wouldn't even consider the use of the suggested approaches Stenger offered.  Therefore, what other proof would there be?  I do believe you can see the effects in the real world of spirits, though I also believe most will work harder at trying to explain it away than to surrender to the idea that it could have been a spirit.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She discusses the Christian community’s lukewarm ludicrous at times portrayal of the Jesus teachings. This is a major way that atheists get ammo to blast away. This includes the ridiculous efforts to equate men and monkeys in the past as well as televangelists that solicit cash to pay your way to god. She cites also that those who blame God for all the evils and actions of the Church over the years to realize it’s not the faith but those that deceive that are the problem. She suggests it’s up to Christians to stand up collectively and kick these charlatans to the curb. If Christians seek to be like Jesus then they must seek a life of faith that governs all of their actions. Here I always have agreed with the statement that generally one would never know what a Christian believed by the actions one sees them do. I would guess this is part of what you say makes a Christian a true believer instead of those that profess belief and burn heretics at the stake.
Again this is quite enough for this post.

yes, this is the main reason why I suggested this book.  It seemed that she better explained... and more thoroughly for that matter, explained what it is to be a true Christian as I have worded it. 

The question is, does this better clarify where I'm coming from now? 

From here we can try to weed out the false understandings from (what I understand to be) true understandings.  Though my understandings could be false ones as well, there's only one way to find out. 

Quote:

Which is why Brian asks for god sperm or the ability to fart a car. It's a blatant way of saying your belief is based on nothing substantial. The Bible has no more validity than other mythical accounts when considered in the harsh world of observation.

It's "Fart a full sized Lamborginni out of my ass". "Car" geeze, if one is going to blaspheme, do it with class.

Brian37 wrote:

Oh, and did I mention he can fart a Lamborginni out of his ass?

Right, but the question is do you know he exists?  If he's your brother and you seem to know him personally by your description so I have no reason to not believe you though I have questions.

Though if you were so inclined to bring it this far, I'm sure you're going to try to convince me that your brother actually exists.  Be it that he's your brother, maybe you can give me his story... ya know, if he's willing to tell it. 

I guess the bigger question is, does your brother want to get to know me?  Is it important for me to get to know your brother?  If so, I want to know more.

Just because you tell me something that I don't believe in doesn't give me any right to express my doubt to you.

I've already mentioned too that my belief could be wrong.  I'm willing to accept that, but we first have to get over the hurtle of a spiritual existance or not.

but we first have to get over the hurtle of a spiritual existance or not.

So it'll have to be calculation based, I guess. Show me where God fits into the equation.

I'll give you the same challenge I give on the claim of "spirits" as I do your claim of your deity, "poney up with some spirit sperm, or spirit DNA", then you'll have something.

It is all in your head, nothing more.

Cap, you wrote:

"yes, this is the main reason why I suggested this book.  It seemed that she better explained... and more thoroughly for that matter, explained what it is to be a true Christian as I have worded it. 

The question is, does this better clarify where I'm coming from now? 

From here we can try to weed out the false understandings from (what I understand to be) true understandings.  Though my understandings could be false ones as well, there's only one way to find out."

So, if you and the author are correct that a Christian life is one where faith in Christ permeates all actions, you have a life that is fun to talk about but is unlivable.

For a life to be totally dependent on faith would be a life of inaction. Any action you take to assist yourself would negate the faith you have.

Or do you mean that you tkae all your actions while looking over your spiritual shoulder to make sure that Christ would approve? That seems too much like the paranoia that Ilived through as a Christian - not sure if I want to go back to that again.

Then again, it could just mean that you are so secure that your actions fit Christ's pattern that you are your own Christ...

Just musing, don't mind me.

Only 5000 ways of knowing god? I thought it was over 270 million just in the US. One doesn't need to use the multitude of how believers perceive god to show it's not true. That shows something else. It shows the basis of the belief is based on complications and misunderstandings not that the basis is imaginary. The imaginary part comes from the acceptance of concepts in general that have no basis in reality. This is what you call faith. You are basing your faith on written words from 2000 years ago which cannot be shown to have occurred in our time space dimension. It gets even worse when you realize that the writers 2000 years ago did the same using oral tradition and written words from either further ancient times. In the end, the beliefs comes out of the time of mists and myths which are very clearly shown in the Bible as such. It's here where you overlook what has occurred and accept the written words of unknown writers that interpreted their world in light of the available knowledge. That you choose to accept the words of these people over that which you actually see and observe is the major difference between you as a believer and those of us that question all of it.

I try to be objective as I can in analyzing the god question in light of my engineering & science education. The belief of any religion was not of ultimate concern when I began my search for understanding.  In fairness I start with the ancients and compared beliefs between cultures. There are similarities where their lack of knowledge inserts "a god did it". This goes back to early recorded histories of Sumer, the Mitani, the Hittites and of course the Egyptians. This is also true in the Western Hemisphere with the Incas, Mayans and the Aztecs. It seems to be man's need to ask why along with the knowledge that life will end. The god beliefs derived from the Abraham god are no exception to this and one can see how they do the same thing if you choose to objectively look at the whole picture with all religious beliefs held out. One uses the techniques of science to exam what has been handed down as true in the Bible just as one should do with the stories of Sumer. None should be given status of validity without proof. And you know where that ultimately goes. I looked long and hard and still find nothing to back the religious beliefs that can't be explained by knowledge and education. Knowledge is power. I always say, read more, kill less.

I don't know why you believe. You see the same stories that I do which I consider myths. Even if considered as allegories, then you have to explain why. As I told you, the beliefs fail from the beginning of Gen 1:1 and only get more tipsy as more is built on top. If the foundation is poor the whole structure fails. The God of Abe foundation isn't even on a good sand foundation.

Which is why Brian asks for god sperm or the ability to fart a car. It's a blatant way of saying your belief is based on nothing substantial. The Bible has no more validity than other mythical accounts when considered in the harsh world of observation.

I understand that many play feeble games to discredit views. I don't see where that is needed at all. My problem with believers, especially Christians and Muslims is they don't feel they need to provide the original basis for the god belief. Islam jumps straight into the Koran and the prophet and Christianity goes to Jesus died for you and me. The problem with both is they depend on the original belief in Yahweh being in the real world and not another fantasy delusional myth. When in fact many myths are in the Hebrew version of the holy book and can be shown to derive from other cultures which were religiously based and now are discredited by all 3 belief systems. 

One does not suddenly began explaining Laplace transforms to 1st year engineering students until they know the difference between AC and DC circuits. One does not expect a 1st year engineering student to design a switch mode power supply. One would start with doing simple voltage divider networks using DC circuits and proceed down a path showing them a logical way to proceed.

Yet, Christians slam Jesus out as a true concept with little thought or understanding of where the original basis started. Most don't even care at all and can't be bothered beyond the Bible says this and that if they even have read it.

I know you say that. Those of us that have no perception in the world of the supernatural and consider it to be not in the real world just don't get this. As far as I can tell its self generated. I remember the feelings I had as a believer and consider them to have originated within my own creative nature based on stimulation to the environment I was constantly enveloped (religious schools, churches, constant study of the Bible).

I don't see any effects from spirits and see no need to work at discrediting them. Many things have become obvious to us in the 20th and 21st centuries that our ancestors had no clue regarding. Flight, space travel, knowledge of bacteria, viruses, machines, and electronics to mention a few. Can you picture how a person from 2000 years ago would be shocked at our world if they suddenly found themselves here? Your idea of spirits easily could have an explainable cause that just has not been completely understood, no need to attribute it to gods or supernatural origins. I maintain that one needs to be patient and more will be known, maybe not every little thing but man is very persistent in his quest for understanding. 

I have told you before that I understand what a believer that is per se a true Christian would be according to the doctrine embedded in the NT. It clarifies why you don't accept the doctrines of organized beliefs as these religions do not follow that which appears to be the doctrine from my interpretation. Everyone's interpretation of the ancient writings could be false as meanings have altered through time and detail has been lost. As I indicated earlier, understanding what a Jesus believer should be according to the NT, does not make it true. It indicates only that based on the written words of unknown writers that it is what they thought and no more. The ideas again have to hold up to reality and have a solid foundation, IMO, they don't.

He did a great job watching out for Calely Anthony, didn't he? I'm sure Molly Klass didn't mind being butchered so that she could be in the company of God.

If that is what you call a parent or baby sitter, I wouldn't dare leaving a innocent child in such care.

Your use of logic sucks, there is no way around it.

No way... Are you really that stupid? I kind of half suspect you're an atheist just pulling our collective leg, but I know people can be down right retarded...

Alright, let's take this approach and see.  Ask a mathemetician about DNA and their numerical values and odds.

Brian37 wrote:

He did a great job watching out for Calely Anthony, didn't he? I'm sure Molly Klass didn't mind being butchered so that she could be in the company of God.

If that is what you call a parent or baby sitter, I wouldn't dare leaving a innocent child in such care.

Your use of logic sucks, there is no way around it.

yea, I saw that one coming. 

By the way, don't mock my logic until you can do better yourself.

Anyway, I"m guessing you'd raise your child in a bubble right?

No, you wouldn't let them kill themselves or get themselves in deadly situations, but that's a physical daddy's job, to protect their child physically.  God's job would be to protect you spiritually now wouldn't it.  Death isn't the end.

I"m guessing you'd raise your child in a bubble right?

it's very apparent you wouldn't believe it if you saw it anyway.

spike.barnett wrote:

No way... Are you really that stupid? I kind of half suspect you're an atheist just pulling our collective leg, but I know people can be down right retarded...

oh calm down.  Here I was just merely playing to the crowd.