-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Do you follow a religion
- Thread starter Robboe
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
Originally posted by Prince
Heaven and Hell! LMFAO!
that is one of the biggest crocks of shit that Christians perpetuate. (no offense)
Why would we be offended by you mocking the Bible that we believe dearly?
Y'know, to say that one knows anything with absolute certainty is the epitome of arrogance. Whether it be the issue of God's existence, Evolution, our lone existence in this universe, or the best recipe for pancakes.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
Originally posted by Prince
you shouldn't be, it's my opinion and I am entitled to it.
You are always entitled to your opinion. That is even more true here of all places.
So, no one should ever be offended by someone else's opinion?
Sorry, calling the Bible "crock" is going to offend Christians.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2001
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 59
Well then tell those that follow those faiths to speak up. Christians are going to address Christian beliefs. That's where people look stupid is when they address beliefs they have only read about or heard about from some knowitall freshmen prof.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2001
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 59
It's not always about being right...as much as that may hurt.
I guess the point pepper is trying to make here is maybe a little tact is in order here. Especially as someone that would like to see their own board carry on somewhat civil conversations.
It's kinda like me saying "Your mom is a bitch...no offense".
Just like Dave Dramain said in one of his songs to God....
"You've made me turn away"
That's my relationship with God....
"You've made me turn away"
That's my relationship with God....
If someone's feelings get hurt that easily then they should avoid reading or participating in a thread like this. They may even want to reconsider being on the internet at all.
I do not think that expressing my opinion about Christianity is uncivil, I did not personally attack anyone. Had I said "Pepper you're a fool for believing in Christianity" well that would be offensive and maybe uncivil.
Actually that would not offend me at all, you do not know my mother.It's kinda like me saying "Your mom is a bitch...no offense".
Originally posted by tidalwaverus
I don't think anyone here ever said that to you?
Correct me if I'm wrong
I do not believe that anyone here said that, but my mother has said it to me.
*jumping the fence again*....I wonder how many others have chosen not to practice 'religion', whether Christianity or otherwise, because they had it shoved down their throat?
There's that pesky human nature thing again!
There's that pesky human nature thing again!
Life started out simple and became more complex over time. Its pretty much that cut and dry.
If you can't get that from the fossil record, then as I said you're either not understanding what's going on or are refusing to accept the facts. Mankind is not an aberration in the records we have; instead, our development is a logical progression give the ancestor species.
The creationist stance that evolution isn't proven is really grasping at straws. Its like standing in clearing and saying that you're not in the woods because there's no trees. It's a really weak argument.
I also see that you chose not to address my points about the God of the Bible being a sadist at worst, or at the very least FAR from all-powerful in the best case.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
Give me a break, Darwin himself said the fossil record did not support him. What is funny to me is that you insist on belittling those who oppose evolution as simpletons, yet you cling to a theory that has NO PROOF. Who has their eyes closed?
I am not refusing to accept the facts. I have read book after book on this subject and even the evolutions will concede the fossil record is NOT supporting their position.
Christians are not the enemy of evolution, paleontology is. Link me to a report of a fossil finding that supports evolution. Show me the facts that I refuse to accept.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
That is because this is a matter of faith. I do not want to engage on this type if issue with someone I do not know. I will tell what I believe (that your comments are in total contradiction to the Bible) but what good would it do? Your comments are so off-base and offensive, that there really is no point.
What I will engage on is the theory of evolution. A theory under massive attack lately. I think there are many scientists who would be relieved if you delivered these facts that I refuse to accept.
This is why I call evolution a religion, in invokes the same reactions as a religion. Arguements that contain unsupportable statements of facts and "feelings" but no scientific proof.
So there's nothing in the fossil record showing a progression from simplicity towards complexity, then.
If you're limiting your scope to Darwin then you're vastly missing the point and sweep of the theory.
Since you ask for evidence, feel free to look up any of the following:
The dawn of Homo sapiens. Randerson, James. New Scientist, 2003, Vol. 178 Issue 2399
Charting the Evolutionary History of Life. Sugden, Andrew M.; Jasny, Barbara R.; Culotta, Elizabeth; Pennisi, Elizabeth. Science, 2003, Vol. 300 Issue 5626
Palaeontology: Combing the primate record. Martin, Robert D.. Nature, 2003, Vol. 422 Issue 6930
Magnetostratigraphy of Late Cenozoic fossil mammals in the northeastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau. Song Chunhui; Fang Xiaomin; Gao Junping; Nie Junsheng; Yan Maodu; Xu Xinhai; Sun Dong. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2003, Vol. 48 Issue 1
Out of Africa with regional interbreeding? Modern human origins. Satta, Yoko; Takahata, Naoyuki. BioEssays, Oct2002, Vol. 24 Issue 10
Using the fossil record to estimate the age of the last common ancestor of extant primates. Tavaré, Simon; Marshall, Charles R.; Will, Oliver; Soligo, Christophe; Martin, Robert D.. Nature, 4/18/2002, Vol. 416 Issue 6882
Determinants of extinction in the fossil record. Peters, Shanan E.; Foote, Michael. Nature, 3/28/2002, Vol. 416 Issue 6879
The genetical history of humans and the great apes. KAESSMANN, H.; P????BO, S.. Journal of Internal Medicine, Jan2002, Vol. 251 Issue 1
That's just back over the past year and a half. I can go back further if you'd like. Curiously none of them are stating that the fossil record does not support them; in fact, several of those involve finds that make the picture more complete. Additionally, new genomic and proteomic applications are making it more and more possible to trace genetic linkages. Its no mistake that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of our DNA.
Its also not valid reasoning to call a point false when its true depth is unknown. The fossil record might be incomplete for now, but that most assuredly doesn't render it meaningless or unsupportive of evolutionary theory.
However, I doubt any of this will serve as proper evidence. The argument style presented here seems to place high value on emotive showboating and name-calling as opposed to presentation of facts and logical thinking.
I again reiterate my point that you do not have a clear grasp of the topic at hand to be arguing in such a manner. That's not meant as an insult. Its simply meant that quite frankly, you aren't informed on the topic.
To compare evolution to religion is ludicrous. Being a scientific theory, evolution relies upon physical evidence to make its assumptions. Religion does not, regardless of the fervor either generates. At the end of the day, evolutionary theory can be codified and reliably, repeatably tested. Religion cannot.
My comments are off base and offensive? How is asking you to clarify a quite relevant and relatively indisputable point offensive to you? If you get angry from such questions, perhaps you should re-evaluate your devotion to your faith....which is supposedly a system of tolerance, love, and forgiveness. I find it exceptionally funny how the most "devout" of the Christian faith are always the first to begin the name-calling and aggressive behavior.
Now if you'd care to refute any of the points I made above, or any of the literature I quoted a sample of, feel free. I will gladly debate you on any of those points. However I won't play into emotive diatribe the basis of which is biased facts and outright falsehoods you've seen fit to display so far.
If you're limiting your scope to Darwin then you're vastly missing the point and sweep of the theory.
Since you ask for evidence, feel free to look up any of the following:
The dawn of Homo sapiens. Randerson, James. New Scientist, 2003, Vol. 178 Issue 2399
Charting the Evolutionary History of Life. Sugden, Andrew M.; Jasny, Barbara R.; Culotta, Elizabeth; Pennisi, Elizabeth. Science, 2003, Vol. 300 Issue 5626
Palaeontology: Combing the primate record. Martin, Robert D.. Nature, 2003, Vol. 422 Issue 6930
Magnetostratigraphy of Late Cenozoic fossil mammals in the northeastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau. Song Chunhui; Fang Xiaomin; Gao Junping; Nie Junsheng; Yan Maodu; Xu Xinhai; Sun Dong. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2003, Vol. 48 Issue 1
Out of Africa with regional interbreeding? Modern human origins. Satta, Yoko; Takahata, Naoyuki. BioEssays, Oct2002, Vol. 24 Issue 10
Using the fossil record to estimate the age of the last common ancestor of extant primates. Tavaré, Simon; Marshall, Charles R.; Will, Oliver; Soligo, Christophe; Martin, Robert D.. Nature, 4/18/2002, Vol. 416 Issue 6882
Determinants of extinction in the fossil record. Peters, Shanan E.; Foote, Michael. Nature, 3/28/2002, Vol. 416 Issue 6879
The genetical history of humans and the great apes. KAESSMANN, H.; P????BO, S.. Journal of Internal Medicine, Jan2002, Vol. 251 Issue 1
That's just back over the past year and a half. I can go back further if you'd like. Curiously none of them are stating that the fossil record does not support them; in fact, several of those involve finds that make the picture more complete. Additionally, new genomic and proteomic applications are making it more and more possible to trace genetic linkages. Its no mistake that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of our DNA.
Its also not valid reasoning to call a point false when its true depth is unknown. The fossil record might be incomplete for now, but that most assuredly doesn't render it meaningless or unsupportive of evolutionary theory.
However, I doubt any of this will serve as proper evidence. The argument style presented here seems to place high value on emotive showboating and name-calling as opposed to presentation of facts and logical thinking.
I again reiterate my point that you do not have a clear grasp of the topic at hand to be arguing in such a manner. That's not meant as an insult. Its simply meant that quite frankly, you aren't informed on the topic.
To compare evolution to religion is ludicrous. Being a scientific theory, evolution relies upon physical evidence to make its assumptions. Religion does not, regardless of the fervor either generates. At the end of the day, evolutionary theory can be codified and reliably, repeatably tested. Religion cannot.
My comments are off base and offensive? How is asking you to clarify a quite relevant and relatively indisputable point offensive to you? If you get angry from such questions, perhaps you should re-evaluate your devotion to your faith....which is supposedly a system of tolerance, love, and forgiveness. I find it exceptionally funny how the most "devout" of the Christian faith are always the first to begin the name-calling and aggressive behavior.
Now if you'd care to refute any of the points I made above, or any of the literature I quoted a sample of, feel free. I will gladly debate you on any of those points. However I won't play into emotive diatribe the basis of which is biased facts and outright falsehoods you've seen fit to display so far.
Here is a one truth - archeologist's have in large numbers evolved into plausable liers.
There are many liars and egomaniacs in their ranks. There are countless episodes of them lying to their own community or committing incredible fraudulent ???new??? discoveries over the last 100 years.
Last edited:
Firstly Pepper, s I am certain you know the Bible should not be viewed as a ???recipe book??? for every single incident in life. In fact Jesus was very much against the Pharisees and Sadducees for turning Judaism into an impossible tangle of rules and regulations that tripped up and made the kingdom of God impossible for any man to attain unless he was a legal and religious scholar. Recall the complaint Jesus received about doing good works and healing on the Sabbath and how he warned them that they would be better that they were not born in the final judgment for making it so hard on the simple ones. This is why in the new testament he basically tore the old covenant in two in much the same way as the curtain was torn in the temple at the instant of his death (thus completing the imagery of the sacrificial lamb replacing the sacrifical offering of Abraham in the old covenant) and formed a new covenant based on jsut two fundamentl principals: 1) Love of God and 2) Love of fellow man (neighbor). He basically said that we made it all too complicated and it was not pleasing to God in the way that man had let the law evolve (there is the evolution word) and become perverted and unmerciful in the old form.
But, Indeed there are many examples Pepper. The Wedding Of Cana. The bridal party told Mary of the situation where they ere about to run out of wine. Mary then asked her son to assist in helping the bridal party's family to save them from humiliation or embarassment. When he replied "it is not yet my time" she lovingly re-petitioned for his assistance and he finally enjoined her request. There are other example s too that specifically invite God???s people to join in prayer together and to promote a "community" of prayer rather than just always use solely a personal prayer or petition: Such as when Jesus asked his disciples to pray with him in the garden at Gethsemane and when Jesus declared ???when two or more of you gather in my name rest assured it shall be granted onto you. So you see we have both a personal as well as a community relationship to God. In fact we are all united as family in this regard. Just because the Bible does not specifically state that Pepper and OceanDude can pray together does not mean that OceanDude can not ask for one of my Family to join with him in prayer. Fundamentally this would not be consistent with the great command ???to love one another???.
Originally posted by Prince
you shouldn't be, it's my opinion and I am entitled to it.
As Lucifer, Cain, Judas, Hitler & Sadam were entitled to theirs .
Last edited:
Why are you surprised? Where you attempting to provoke a heated response? Some may be praying for you rather than trying to return the hatred.
By the way, it's interesting that you would embrace a Gnostic position here. Do you expect people to ???buy??? this (your words). Somehow I do not think a person who spews so much hate for other???s beliefs is going to make any points here. You present for consideration a religion that asserts that God (or ???one??? of the gods) became ???jealous??? of man???s creation and that man???s partaking of the forbidden fruit made him equal to God and this is the reason for all the evil ??? God???s jealousy of man. Basically you have espoused a religion from the perspective of the snake in the Garden of Eden. Gnosticism, also focus on how it???s all a big lie and conspiracy committed by men which in my opinion is all designed to cause a conflict between the sexes (an attack on Love) and focusing on power in religion rather than on spiritual dimensions. Gnostics believe that the part about Eve persuading Adam to eat the fruit is a lie propagated by jealous men (jealousy is a recurring theme in gnostic doctrine). They assert that ???Adam??? was inferior to Eve and was destined to be the superior of the two. Ultimately Gnostics focus on Eve evolving to the supreme power and men were to be lesser in stature. No Snake_Eyes, with your bombastic entrance I don???t think you have much credibility here with most. But hey, what ever blows "your" skirt up. Bottom line ??? no matter what anyone believes or does not believe it will not change what really is; whether you "buy" it or not.
Last edited:
Pepper, the whole idea of evolution is that it's happend over millions of years. You're not going to find one fossil that directly proves it. Basing your decision whether to believe it on something like that is just dumb.
You don't know for sure that any of this actually happend. You've just read an age-old book that describes it. People have the ability to write fiction, you know.
Harry Potter is a book, does that make him real?
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2003
- Messages
- 279
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 70
- Location
- Yateley, Hants, United Kingdom
Why does everything have to be "truth" or "lies"? If someone says something that you believe to be incorrect, do you call them a liar, or do you state that you believe them to be incorrect?
I believe that some of the facts stated in the bible are correct.
1) Are you saying that everything in the bible is correct?
2) How many times has the bible been translated and re-translated?
3) Is it possible that there may be mis-interpretation of words in the bible?
4) Is it possible that the people who created revision 1.0 of the bible got some facts wrong?
I believe that some of the facts stated in the bible are correct.
1) Are you saying that everything in the bible is correct?
2) How many times has the bible been translated and re-translated?
3) Is it possible that there may be mis-interpretation of words in the bible?
4) Is it possible that the people who created revision 1.0 of the bible got some facts wrong?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
Snake Eyes,
What the heck are you talking about? Where have I called anyone names? It is like we are in two different discussions.
All I have said is that evolution is far from proven and is a matter of faith for its "believers."
If you want to debate the evidence for evolution, I'll be glad too. You have been far, far more insulting than ANYONE in this thread and I am really not wanting to continue.
Ignorant, uninformed, emotional, simpleton
Pepper
What the heck are you talking about? Where have I called anyone names? It is like we are in two different discussions.
All I have said is that evolution is far from proven and is a matter of faith for its "believers."
If you want to debate the evidence for evolution, I'll be glad too. You have been far, far more insulting than ANYONE in this thread and I am really not wanting to continue.
Ignorant, uninformed, emotional, simpleton
Pepper
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
This is a good point. One that Darwin made in his own defense to the lack of a fossil record. I am obviously too dense to understand the articles you provided, but I will do my best.
What's interesting about your posts is that they are clearly crafted to irritate and, in a way, insult in order to elicit an emotional response. I am somewhat embarrassed that I fell into that trap last night. However, I did not get angry, I simple stated that it was not worthwhile to engage on that topic.
I LOVE debate. Always have. But I will not debate someone who so intent on being insulting.
Originally posted by OceanDude
Why are you surprised? Where you attempting to provoke a heated response? Some may be praying for you rather than trying to return the hatred.
Perhaps you misunderstand. There's no hatred in my tone. Simple inquisitiveness. And what I'm encountering in return is more emotional showboating without the point being addressed.
Which is leading me to believe you don't have an answer.
By the way, it's interesting that you would embrace a Gnostic position here. Do you expect people to ???buy??? this (your words). Somehow I do not think a person who spews so much hate for other???s beliefs is going to make any points here. You present for consideration a religion that asserts that God (or ???one??? of the gods) became ???jealous??? of man???s creation and that man???s partaking of the forbidden fruit made him equal to God and this is the reason for all the evil ??? God???s jealousy of man. Basically you have espoused a religion from the perspective of the snake in the Garden of Eden. Gnosticism, also focus on how it???s all a big lie and conspiracy committed by men which in my opinion is all designed to cause a conflict between the sexes (an attack on Love) and focusing on power in religion rather than on spiritual dimensions. Gnostics believe that the part about Eve persuading Adam to eat the fruit is a lie propagated by jealous men (jealousy is a recurring theme in gnostic doctrine). They assert that ???Adam??? was inferior to Eve and was destined to be the superior of the two. Ultimately Gnostics focus on Eve evolving to the supreme power and men were to be lesser in stature. No Snake_Eyes, with your bombastic entrance I don???t think you have much credibility here with most. But hey, what ever blows "your" skirt up. Bottom line ??? no matter what anyone believes or does not believe it will not change what really is; whether you "buy" it or not.
You're rapidly showing the limits of your thought processes. Confining one's self to any limited viewpoint is a pre-requisite for ignorance.
That's only half of the gnostic viewpoint, and in typical narrow-minded pseudo-Christian fashion, you're throwing out the baby with the bath water. The essence of gnostic thought is that there IS no external God, and yes, the God of the Bible is a liar and a sadist, which follows *exactly* with the behavior that being laid out.
Also if you follow the story more you'll realize that Christ himself was a gnostic; he espoused no old man in the sky. Only the link between the soul of man and the soul of the universe, the internal spark of consciousness that was God. This is dated from gospels that predate those included in the Bible. But as per the ignorance of those unable to comprehend anything but a vengeful God in the sky, that knowledge was suppressed.
And even then, you're still trying to pin me as being "bad" for espousing "a religion from the perspective of the snake in the Garden of Eden." To you, I'm sure that carries quite the negative connotation. To me, it means I don't agree with something written in a book. There's no connotation of good and evil other than the actions performed by the players. So if it means I agree with the snake/Lucifer, then so be it. Right is right, regardless of brainwashing.
Frankly the idea is a lot more reasonable and acceptable to me than a judgmental asshole that wants to sit in the sky and tell me how bad I am when he created billions of people to suffer for eternity. You want to start comparing people to Hitler and Saddam? How's that for a mass murderer?
But my point is not to attack. My point is to clarify. I don't have to get defensive about the topic because frankly I'm sure in my position. I don't have "faith;" I've experienced my connection personally. It seems by the very fact of arguing and becoming upset, you're showing your own insecurity. If you believe as strongly as you say, it shouldn't be an issue to address this calmly and with rational answers. Yet none have been forthcoming.
I've learned to accept such behavior from the followers of theistic religions. There's no rational basis for that belief, other than the rampant socialization involved....in other words, do what you're told and don't think outside of that context. There's most certainly more to the universe than what we see in this world....but things are not so poorly designed that a sadistic madman is at the wheel. So essentially, there are no rational reasons, no coherent explanations for the behavior of the God you follow....and you're showing the fallacy of your belief by getting angry at someone asking questions.
Its not because I'm spreading hate...its because you're not used to anything outside the context of your belief system. Especially one that challenges that belief system, and does so in a way you can't counter. So you react with anger. And the flaws of the ideology become clear as day.
Why are you surprised? Where you attempting to provoke a heated response? Some may be praying for you rather than trying to return the hatred.
Perhaps you misunderstand. There's no hatred in my tone. Simple inquisitiveness. And what I'm encountering in return is more emotional showboating without the point being addressed.
Which is leading me to believe you don't have an answer.
By the way, it's interesting that you would embrace a Gnostic position here. Do you expect people to ???buy??? this (your words). Somehow I do not think a person who spews so much hate for other???s beliefs is going to make any points here. You present for consideration a religion that asserts that God (or ???one??? of the gods) became ???jealous??? of man???s creation and that man???s partaking of the forbidden fruit made him equal to God and this is the reason for all the evil ??? God???s jealousy of man. Basically you have espoused a religion from the perspective of the snake in the Garden of Eden. Gnosticism, also focus on how it???s all a big lie and conspiracy committed by men which in my opinion is all designed to cause a conflict between the sexes (an attack on Love) and focusing on power in religion rather than on spiritual dimensions. Gnostics believe that the part about Eve persuading Adam to eat the fruit is a lie propagated by jealous men (jealousy is a recurring theme in gnostic doctrine). They assert that ???Adam??? was inferior to Eve and was destined to be the superior of the two. Ultimately Gnostics focus on Eve evolving to the supreme power and men were to be lesser in stature. No Snake_Eyes, with your bombastic entrance I don???t think you have much credibility here with most. But hey, what ever blows "your" skirt up. Bottom line ??? no matter what anyone believes or does not believe it will not change what really is; whether you "buy" it or not.
You're rapidly showing the limits of your thought processes. Confining one's self to any limited viewpoint is a pre-requisite for ignorance.
That's only half of the gnostic viewpoint, and in typical narrow-minded pseudo-Christian fashion, you're throwing out the baby with the bath water. The essence of gnostic thought is that there IS no external God, and yes, the God of the Bible is a liar and a sadist, which follows *exactly* with the behavior that being laid out.
Also if you follow the story more you'll realize that Christ himself was a gnostic; he espoused no old man in the sky. Only the link between the soul of man and the soul of the universe, the internal spark of consciousness that was God. This is dated from gospels that predate those included in the Bible. But as per the ignorance of those unable to comprehend anything but a vengeful God in the sky, that knowledge was suppressed.
And even then, you're still trying to pin me as being "bad" for espousing "a religion from the perspective of the snake in the Garden of Eden." To you, I'm sure that carries quite the negative connotation. To me, it means I don't agree with something written in a book. There's no connotation of good and evil other than the actions performed by the players. So if it means I agree with the snake/Lucifer, then so be it. Right is right, regardless of brainwashing.
Frankly the idea is a lot more reasonable and acceptable to me than a judgmental asshole that wants to sit in the sky and tell me how bad I am when he created billions of people to suffer for eternity. You want to start comparing people to Hitler and Saddam? How's that for a mass murderer?
But my point is not to attack. My point is to clarify. I don't have to get defensive about the topic because frankly I'm sure in my position. I don't have "faith;" I've experienced my connection personally. It seems by the very fact of arguing and becoming upset, you're showing your own insecurity. If you believe as strongly as you say, it shouldn't be an issue to address this calmly and with rational answers. Yet none have been forthcoming.
I've learned to accept such behavior from the followers of theistic religions. There's no rational basis for that belief, other than the rampant socialization involved....in other words, do what you're told and don't think outside of that context. There's most certainly more to the universe than what we see in this world....but things are not so poorly designed that a sadistic madman is at the wheel. So essentially, there are no rational reasons, no coherent explanations for the behavior of the God you follow....and you're showing the fallacy of your belief by getting angry at someone asking questions.
Its not because I'm spreading hate...its because you're not used to anything outside the context of your belief system. Especially one that challenges that belief system, and does so in a way you can't counter. So you react with anger. And the flaws of the ideology become clear as day.
www.gnosis.org
And that wasn't name-calling towards anyone here. It was a reference to those original members of the forming Church that couldn't grasp the concepts being espoused, and thus chose to suppress the knowledge.
And that wasn't name-calling towards anyone here. It was a reference to those original members of the forming Church that couldn't grasp the concepts being espoused, and thus chose to suppress the knowledge.
Oh no Prince. I would never make a judgment such as that about a person I know nothing about. I was simply agreeing with you that there are many excellent cases in history that reinforce the generally held belief that a person is entitled to his opinion. But I also implied with the example that opinions often have consequences that affect more than just the ???individual???. There was also a secondary implication that we should be careful then how we form our opinions and express them. By the way, some people admire those people I listed but I see you judged them to be "evil" yourself. I tend to agree with your opinion on this.
