Jesus “tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”

[PratchettFan]

I find it so odd that people want to pretend they have no choice on who they have sex with. It's not like one can just trip by accident and start having sex with someone.

And these are often the same people who claim they take responsibility for their actions and claim Christians don't. How do you take responsibility for your actions by denying you control them?

And you can also tell they don't understand the message of the gospel. The good news of the gospel is that because of Jesus Christ we have the power to change our lives and become new people. That Jesus can give us power over our fallen nature. He literally changes our nature.

And I know from experience that He does.

Irrelevant.

 

[haissem123]

“It is possible to have deep and passionately-held convictions without seeking to have those convictions imposed by the State on fellow citizens who do not share them”.

Fr Iggy O Donovan calls for Yes vote in marriage referendum

is the environment Ceasar's? is all the oil, gas, water, air, food, justice, etc... all Ceasar's to personally tax us all on and with hold to us at any time? We are to determine what any individual deserves to call his/her own among us. We have once again given all us Ceasars too much personally, Time for the collective to take some back from him. don 't you peons agree?

 

[Avatar4321]

Many would say deluding yourself into thinking a same sex relationship is a marriage is a stupid belief.

It's not marriage any more than a cat becomes a dog if you call it a dog.

Christianity didn't invent the concept of marriage. So their definition of it is merely their personal opinion. As is their dispute over what constitutes a marriage.

No one claimed we did. God did. He married Adam and eve in the garden prior to the fall. And their union wasn't until death because there was no death.

A man and a woman unites by God's authority become one in marriage for all eternity.

Did he? Gotta chapter and verse showing the marriage God performed?

Genesis 1-3

So no then.

If you think that you clearly didn't read the chapters I mentioned

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

I'm not following your point. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it? And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

Forcing to recognize a redefinition of marriage is imposing it. Especially when the state's have recognized they would not.

There were no laws preventing two people from creating whatever type of relationship they wanted in the first place.

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

 

[Avatar4321]

No one claimed we did. God did. He married Adam and eve in the garden prior to the fall. And their union wasn't until death because there was no death.

A man and a woman unites by God's authority become one in marriage for all eternity.

Did he? Gotta chapter and verse showing the marriage God performed?

Genesis 1-3

So no then.

So you discount the source because you disagree with it? Interesting.

Pay attention Nimrod. I asked for chapter and verse where God marries Adam and Eve. There isn't one (being a Jew I already knew that.)

And yet here it is:

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, andflesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall beone flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

We have Adams marriage vows and a teaching on marriage in the garden before the fall.

I'm confident if you ask any rabbi they will agreen that this is a reference to Adam and eves marriage.

You should study the scriptures sometime if you've missed this in the very first chapters

 

[BluePhantom]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

I'm not following your point. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it? And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

Forcing to recognize a redefinition of marriage is imposing it. Especially when the state's have recognized they would not.

There were no laws preventing two people from creating whatever type of relationship they wanted in the first place.

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

Not necessarily. I support gay rights and I am a Republican. I don't think the government has any business defining marriage at all. Marriage is between the individuals involved and their God, or lack thereof.

 

[Conservative65]

Did he? Gotta chapter and verse showing the marriage God performed?

Genesis 1-3

So no then.

So you discount the source because you disagree with it? Interesting.

Pay attention Nimrod. I asked for chapter and verse where God marries Adam and Eve. There isn't one (being a Jew I already knew that.)

And yet here it is:

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, andflesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall beone flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

We have Adams marriage vows and a teaching on marriage in the garden before the fall.

I'm confident if you ask any rabbi they will agreen that this is a reference to Adam and eves marriage.

You should study the scriptures sometime if you've missed this in the very first chapters

It isn't a matter of the evidence your provide. It's that Delta4 chooses not to accept it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

I'm not following your point. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it? And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

Forcing to recognize a redefinition of marriage is imposing it. Especially when the state's have recognized they would not.

There were no laws preventing two people from creating whatever type of relationship they wanted in the first place.

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

Not necessarily. I support gay rights and I am a Republican. I don't think the government has any business defining marriage at all. Marriage is between the individuals involved and their God, or lack thereof.

So you support government intervention in gay relationships but you oppose government intervention in relationships. Seems inconsistent to me

 

[Avatar4321]

Genesis 1-3

So no then.

So you discount the source because you disagree with it? Interesting.

Pay attention Nimrod. I asked for chapter and verse where God marries Adam and Eve. There isn't one (being a Jew I already knew that.)

And yet here it is:

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, andflesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall beone flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

We have Adams marriage vows and a teaching on marriage in the garden before the fall.

I'm confident if you ask any rabbi they will agreen that this is a reference to Adam and eves marriage.

You should study the scriptures sometime if you've missed this in the very first chapters

It isn't a matter of the evidence your provide. It's that Delta4 chooses not to accept it.

He doesn't accept the scriptures and hasn't studied them. I hope someday he will study them

 

[Conservative65]

So no then.

So you discount the source because you disagree with it? Interesting.

Pay attention Nimrod. I asked for chapter and verse where God marries Adam and Eve. There isn't one (being a Jew I already knew that.)

And yet here it is:

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, andflesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall beone flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

We have Adams marriage vows and a teaching on marriage in the garden before the fall.

I'm confident if you ask any rabbi they will agreen that this is a reference to Adam and eves marriage.

You should study the scriptures sometime if you've missed this in the very first chapters

It isn't a matter of the evidence your provide. It's that Delta4 chooses not to accept it.

He doesn't accept the scriptures and hasn't studied them. I hope someday he will study them

He's the kind that calls something stupid not on it's merit, or lack thereof, but on whether or not he agrees with it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

So no then.

So you discount the source because you disagree with it? Interesting.

Pay attention Nimrod. I asked for chapter and verse where God marries Adam and Eve. There isn't one (being a Jew I already knew that.)

And yet here it is:

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, andflesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall beone flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

We have Adams marriage vows and a teaching on marriage in the garden before the fall.

I'm confident if you ask any rabbi they will agreen that this is a reference to Adam and eves marriage.

You should study the scriptures sometime if you've missed this in the very first chapters

It isn't a matter of the evidence your provide. It's that Delta4 chooses not to accept it.

He doesn't accept the scriptures and hasn't studied them. I hope someday he will study them

(glances over his shoulder checking to see if Avatar's there)

Nope.

I actually have studied the Scriptures. It's why I don't believe them. If I hadn't actually studied them I might be more inclined to believe them, but once you read them, read other faiths' texts you begin to notice how your's isn't exactly original or unique.

 

[BluePhantom]

I'm not following your point. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it? And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

Forcing to recognize a redefinition of marriage is imposing it. Especially when the state's have recognized they would not.

There were no laws preventing two people from creating whatever type of relationship they wanted in the first place.

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

Not necessarily. I support gay rights and I am a Republican. I don't think the government has any business defining marriage at all. Marriage is between the individuals involved and their God, or lack thereof.

So you support government intervention in gay relationships but you oppose government intervention in relationships. Seems inconsistent to me

No I oppose government intervention in any relationships

 

[Delta4Embassy]

So you discount the source because you disagree with it? Interesting.

Pay attention Nimrod. I asked for chapter and verse where God marries Adam and Eve. There isn't one (being a Jew I already knew that.)

And yet here it is:

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, andflesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall beone flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

We have Adams marriage vows and a teaching on marriage in the garden before the fall.

I'm confident if you ask any rabbi they will agreen that this is a reference to Adam and eves marriage.

You should study the scriptures sometime if you've missed this in the very first chapters

It isn't a matter of the evidence your provide. It's that Delta4 chooses not to accept it.

He doesn't accept the scriptures and hasn't studied them. I hope someday he will study them

He's the kind that calls something stupid not on it's merit, or lack thereof, but on whether or not he agrees with it.

All religions are stupid because all religions refuse to even try and offer up proof of their claims. If the only evidence you'd offer is your own religion's holy text, how is that reliable if I can show you other religious texts making similar claims post before and after your's? Why is your's suddenly the truth, but something odler isn't, or something newer isn't?

You guys resort to these petty insults because you know I'm right. And further you realize you don't have anything solid to stand on but a book. Well books say many things, not all of them are true. If we're supposed to accept the claims of a Bible about God, then why shouldn't we accept the claims of the Book of Mormon, Dianetics (or whatever Scientologists use,) or Qur'an?

Why is your book true, but no one else's is? Where's your proof?

 

[featherlite]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

So, if a Christian stands for their belief/Faith concerning same sex marriage, they are a bigot, but those who label Christians a bigot for the Christians standing for their beliefs/Faith are not? Odd.

Can believe anything. Should we respect the beliefs of people who think Bigfoot's real and create wilderness areas where Bigfoot can thrive? Of course not.

Just because a stupid belief has been institutionalized doesn't mean it ceases to be a stupid belief.

>>>>
Think Bigfoot is real? lol let me take a wild guess who you are refering to.
Respect for the individual ( regardless of belief or non belief) should always be attempted. Its kind of funny for me to say this because I use to love arguing...I would oppose amost anything becuase I thought chaos would get to the truth. Of course it didnt, but it never stopped me from trying.

Ive heard that was used to trick Jesus (not sure if thats true or not) Ive always thought it meant... live according to the laws of the land but give your soul to God.
Mans laws are always changing and sometimes in line with God, sometimes not.

 

[Conservative65]

Pay attention Nimrod. I asked for chapter and verse where God marries Adam and Eve. There isn't one (being a Jew I already knew that.)

And yet here it is:

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, andflesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall beone flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

We have Adams marriage vows and a teaching on marriage in the garden before the fall.

I'm confident if you ask any rabbi they will agreen that this is a reference to Adam and eves marriage.

You should study the scriptures sometime if you've missed this in the very first chapters

It isn't a matter of the evidence your provide. It's that Delta4 chooses not to accept it.

He doesn't accept the scriptures and hasn't studied them. I hope someday he will study them

He's the kind that calls something stupid not on it's merit, or lack thereof, but on whether or not he agrees with it.

All religions are stupid because all religions refuse to even try and offer up proof of their claims. If the only evidence you'd offer is your own religion's holy text, how is that reliable if I can show you other religious texts making similar claims post before and after your's? Why is your's suddenly the truth, but something odler isn't, or something newer isn't?

You guys resort to these petty insults because you know I'm right. And further you realize you don't have anything solid to stand on but a book. Well books say many things, not all of them are true. If we're supposed to accept the claims of a Bible about God, then why shouldn't we accept the claims of the Book of Mormon, Dianetics (or whatever Scientologists use,) or Qur'an?

Why is your book true, but no one else's is? Where's your proof?

Once again, you determine stupid because you disagree.

I would say evolution is stupid because it can't provide the type proof I need to believe it.

You insult yourself by claiming something is stupid because you disagree with it rather than by refuting it.

 

[Conservative65]

So you discount the source because you disagree with it? Interesting.

Pay attention Nimrod. I asked for chapter and verse where God marries Adam and Eve. There isn't one (being a Jew I already knew that.)

And yet here it is:

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, andflesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall beone flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

We have Adams marriage vows and a teaching on marriage in the garden before the fall.

I'm confident if you ask any rabbi they will agreen that this is a reference to Adam and eves marriage.

You should study the scriptures sometime if you've missed this in the very first chapters

It isn't a matter of the evidence your provide. It's that Delta4 chooses not to accept it.

He doesn't accept the scriptures and hasn't studied them. I hope someday he will study them

(glances over his shoulder checking to see if Avatar's there)

Nope.

I actually have studied the Scriptures. It's why I don't believe them. If I hadn't actually studied them I might be more inclined to believe them, but once you read them, read other faiths' texts you begin to notice how your's isn't exactly original or unique.

It's have and that's why I do believe them. Your problem is that you make your claim based on your opinion then define it as stupid because you disagree with them. If you want to think your disagreement makes it stupid, go ahead. You have the right to be wrong.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

And yet here it is:

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, andflesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall beone flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

We have Adams marriage vows and a teaching on marriage in the garden before the fall.

I'm confident if you ask any rabbi they will agreen that this is a reference to Adam and eves marriage.

You should study the scriptures sometime if you've missed this in the very first chapters

It isn't a matter of the evidence your provide. It's that Delta4 chooses not to accept it.

He doesn't accept the scriptures and hasn't studied them. I hope someday he will study them

He's the kind that calls something stupid not on it's merit, or lack thereof, but on whether or not he agrees with it.

All religions are stupid because all religions refuse to even try and offer up proof of their claims. If the only evidence you'd offer is your own religion's holy text, how is that reliable if I can show you other religious texts making similar claims post before and after your's? Why is your's suddenly the truth, but something odler isn't, or something newer isn't?

You guys resort to these petty insults because you know I'm right. And further you realize you don't have anything solid to stand on but a book. Well books say many things, not all of them are true. If we're supposed to accept the claims of a Bible about God, then why shouldn't we accept the claims of the Book of Mormon, Dianetics (or whatever Scientologists use,) or Qur'an?

Why is your book true, but no one else's is? Where's your proof?

Once again, you determine stupid because you disagree.

I would say evolution is stupid because it can't provide the type proof I need to believe it.

You insult yourself by claiming something is stupid because you disagree with it rather than by refuting it.

Notice you avoided the point for another silly insult.

 

[Conservative65]

It isn't a matter of the evidence your provide. It's that Delta4 chooses not to accept it.

He doesn't accept the scriptures and hasn't studied them. I hope someday he will study them

He's the kind that calls something stupid not on it's merit, or lack thereof, but on whether or not he agrees with it.

All religions are stupid because all religions refuse to even try and offer up proof of their claims. If the only evidence you'd offer is your own religion's holy text, how is that reliable if I can show you other religious texts making similar claims post before and after your's? Why is your's suddenly the truth, but something odler isn't, or something newer isn't?

You guys resort to these petty insults because you know I'm right. And further you realize you don't have anything solid to stand on but a book. Well books say many things, not all of them are true. If we're supposed to accept the claims of a Bible about God, then why shouldn't we accept the claims of the Book of Mormon, Dianetics (or whatever Scientologists use,) or Qur'an?

Why is your book true, but no one else's is? Where's your proof?

Once again, you determine stupid because you disagree.

I would say evolution is stupid because it can't provide the type proof I need to believe it.

You insult yourself by claiming something is stupid because you disagree with it rather than by refuting it.

Notice you avoided the point for another silly insult.

I addressed your point. Your point is that you think religion is stupid because it doesn't provide proof to the level you need. I say evolution is stupid because it can't provide proof to the level I need. Difference between us is you think it's OK for you to do so then say I missed the point when I do exactly what you did.

Provide proof of evolution to my acceptance or it's stupid because it has none.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

He doesn't accept the scriptures and hasn't studied them. I hope someday he will study them

He's the kind that calls something stupid not on it's merit, or lack thereof, but on whether or not he agrees with it.

All religions are stupid because all religions refuse to even try and offer up proof of their claims. If the only evidence you'd offer is your own religion's holy text, how is that reliable if I can show you other religious texts making similar claims post before and after your's? Why is your's suddenly the truth, but something odler isn't, or something newer isn't?

You guys resort to these petty insults because you know I'm right. And further you realize you don't have anything solid to stand on but a book. Well books say many things, not all of them are true. If we're supposed to accept the claims of a Bible about God, then why shouldn't we accept the claims of the Book of Mormon, Dianetics (or whatever Scientologists use,) or Qur'an?

Why is your book true, but no one else's is? Where's your proof?

Once again, you determine stupid because you disagree.

I would say evolution is stupid because it can't provide the type proof I need to believe it.

You insult yourself by claiming something is stupid because you disagree with it rather than by refuting it.

Notice you avoided the point for another silly insult.

I addressed your point. Your point is that you think religion is stupid because it doesn't provide proof to the level you need. I say evolution is stupid because it can't provide proof to the level I need. Difference between us is you think it's OK for you to do so then say I missed the point when I do exactly what you did.

Provide proof of evolution to my acceptance or it's stupid because it has none.

Religion doesn't offer proof to any level. None. And you don't deflect this reality by insisting I provide you with proof of evolution. When did this become about evolution? This is about religion's utter lack of evidence a non-believer would be forced to conceed has merit. If you can't prove reliigous assertions are true you lose, I win, twas ever thus.

 

[Conservative65]

He's the kind that calls something stupid not on it's merit, or lack thereof, but on whether or not he agrees with it.

All religions are stupid because all religions refuse to even try and offer up proof of their claims. If the only evidence you'd offer is your own religion's holy text, how is that reliable if I can show you other religious texts making similar claims post before and after your's? Why is your's suddenly the truth, but something odler isn't, or something newer isn't?

You guys resort to these petty insults because you know I'm right. And further you realize you don't have anything solid to stand on but a book. Well books say many things, not all of them are true. If we're supposed to accept the claims of a Bible about God, then why shouldn't we accept the claims of the Book of Mormon, Dianetics (or whatever Scientologists use,) or Qur'an?

Why is your book true, but no one else's is? Where's your proof?

Once again, you determine stupid because you disagree.

I would say evolution is stupid because it can't provide the type proof I need to believe it.

You insult yourself by claiming something is stupid because you disagree with it rather than by refuting it.

Notice you avoided the point for another silly insult.

I addressed your point. Your point is that you think religion is stupid because it doesn't provide proof to the level you need. I say evolution is stupid because it can't provide proof to the level I need. Difference between us is you think it's OK for you to do so then say I missed the point when I do exactly what you did.

Provide proof of evolution to my acceptance or it's stupid because it has none.

Religion doesn't offer proof to any level. None. And you don't deflect this reality by insisting I provide you with proof of evolution. When did this become about evolution? This is about religion's utter lack of evidence a non-believer would be forced to conceed has merit. If you can't prove reliigous assertions are true you lose, I win, twas ever thus.

You say religion provides no proof. I asked for proof of what you believe yet you won't provide it. Are you afraid you can't so you deflect? I'll be glad to provide proof of my religion to whatever level you want when you can provide proof of yours to the level I want.