The Battle Between Faith And Reason

[night_son]

You are really sick.

I'm sorry if reality does not conform to your ideology.

My 'ideology' is based on truth and knowledge.

And, yes....you should be sorry.

Ideology is NEVER based on truth and knowledge, it is based on values. Claiming truth and knowledge is a dishonest distortion, like a lot of your claims.

OK.....once again.....and, you should start taking notes.


i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun

1. 1.
   a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

"This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience."
David Mamet

1. The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.

1. What you’re really suggesting is that “compared to the left, we hyper- religious aren’t quite as bad”. Well, yes you are. While the hyper-religious tend to want to lecture others on morality, the horrendous acts of cruelty inflicted on humanity by the angry xtians is no different than what the political ideologies of the left have done.

Ultimately, You don’t understand that morality involves decision making (or making a choice), where decision making is accomplished with a cognizant awareness of consequences. The mammalian sense of nurturing the young is not morality, it’s a function of evolution that seeks to preserve the species.

What defines morality is our expectations and choices as to how we extend such gestures as compassion, empathy, fairness, etc. Taking a historical view, angry xtians have a long, lurid history of extending gestures contrary to compassion, empathy, fairness, etc.

You confuse religious government policy or totalitarian theocracy or forced adherence to a given sect with the base philosophy or wellspring of the Logos as it is derived from eons of individual faith and faith's gift to species. Mankind specializes in 'killing itself in the name of ______.' Why not lump all strains of political ideology under the same umbrella of historical misfortune to include government or imperial religious enforcement on a given population? Further, as is a common symptomatic cop-out of so many atheist thinkers, you're attempting (from within a body and mind dependent on emotion, empathy, sympathy and compassion) to desensitize the human existence of these immutable characteristics of the human experience by attributing them to primeval species survival characteristics or defensive mechanisms, thus academically only taking God out of the species DNA package by removing all vestiges of innate morality and then proceeding forward with a purely emotionless proposition and objective, clinical and in your mind it would seem, perfect human automaton.

Trouble is, no human being can be free of feeling, namely feeling guilt, for committing vile acts against fellow members of his species. In other words, every last human being knows the difference between Right acts and Wrong acts every time he or she commits any act at all. Enter moral relativism, a sour dour anti-human philosophy which depends wholly on purely self-destructive species behaviors to justify and prove itself, let alone implement through government power on a given population. You and I would not exist here, now today without our ancestors' belief in the primordial Logos. No, our DNA would be stacked in a pile of bones somewhere long buried after our purely atheist forbears' ran wild with global genocide because human life was to them the cheapest of all life on the planet.

 

[Hollie]

I'm sorry if reality does not conform to your ideology.

My 'ideology' is based on truth and knowledge.

And, yes....you should be sorry.

Ideology is NEVER based on truth and knowledge, it is based on values. Claiming truth and knowledge is a dishonest distortion, like a lot of your claims.

OK.....once again.....and, you should start taking notes.


i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun

1. 1.
   a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

"This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience."
David Mamet

1. The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.

1. What you’re really suggesting is that “compared to the left, we hyper- religious aren’t quite as bad”. Well, yes you are. While the hyper-religious tend to want to lecture others on morality, the horrendous acts of cruelty inflicted on humanity by the angry xtians is no different than what the political ideologies of the left have done.

Ultimately, You don’t understand that morality involves decision making (or making a choice), where decision making is accomplished with a cognizant awareness of consequences. The mammalian sense of nurturing the young is not morality, it’s a function of evolution that seeks to preserve the species.

What defines morality is our expectations and choices as to how we extend such gestures as compassion, empathy, fairness, etc. Taking a historical view, angry xtians have a long, lurid history of extending gestures contrary to compassion, empathy, fairness, etc.

You confuse religious government policy or totalitarian theocracy or forced adherence to a given sect with the base philosophy or wellspring of the Logos as it is derived from eons of individual faith and faith's gift to species. Mankind specializes in 'killing itself in the name of ______.' Why not lump all strains of political ideology under the same umbrella of historical misfortune to include government or imperial religious enforcement on a given population? Further, as is a common symptomatic cop-out of so many atheist thinkers, you're attempting (from within a body and mind dependent on emotion, empathy, sympathy and compassion) to desensitize the human existence of these immutable characteristics of the human experience by attributing them to primeval species survival characteristics or defensive mechanisms, thus academically only taking God out of the species DNA package by removing all vestiges of innate morality and then proceeding forward with a purely emotionless proposition and objective, clinical and in your mind it would seem, perfect human automaton.

Trouble is, no human being can be free of feeling, namely feeling guilt, for committing vile acts against fellow members of his species. In other words, every last human being knows the difference between Right acts and Wrong acts every time he or she commits any act at all. Enter moral relativism, a sour dour anti-human philosophy which depends wholly on purely self-destructive species behaviors to justify and prove itself, let alone implement through government power on a given population. You and I would not exist here, now today without our ancestors' belief in the primordial Logos. No, our DNA would be stacked in a pile of bones somewhere long buried after our purely atheist forbears' ran wild with global genocide because human life was to them the cheapest of all life on the planet.

Actually, you confuse the partisan version of gods you inherited via your place of birth with the gods inherited by others via their place of birth.

As a religious thinker, you’re limited in your perceptions of various gods to the particular gods you were given.

“Primordial logos”? Did you read that on the internet and decide it was a cool slogan?

 

[night_son]

My 'ideology' is based on truth and knowledge.

And, yes....you should be sorry.

Ideology is NEVER based on truth and knowledge, it is based on values. Claiming truth and knowledge is a dishonest distortion, like a lot of your claims.

OK.....once again.....and, you should start taking notes.


i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun

1. 1.
   a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

"This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience."
David Mamet

1. The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.

1. What you’re really suggesting is that “compared to the left, we hyper- religious aren’t quite as bad”. Well, yes you are. While the hyper-religious tend to want to lecture others on morality, the horrendous acts of cruelty inflicted on humanity by the angry xtians is no different than what the political ideologies of the left have done.

Ultimately, You don’t understand that morality involves decision making (or making a choice), where decision making is accomplished with a cognizant awareness of consequences. The mammalian sense of nurturing the young is not morality, it’s a function of evolution that seeks to preserve the species.

What defines morality is our expectations and choices as to how we extend such gestures as compassion, empathy, fairness, etc. Taking a historical view, angry xtians have a long, lurid history of extending gestures contrary to compassion, empathy, fairness, etc.

You confuse religious government policy or totalitarian theocracy or forced adherence to a given sect with the base philosophy or wellspring of the Logos as it is derived from eons of individual faith and faith's gift to species. Mankind specializes in 'killing itself in the name of ______.' Why not lump all strains of political ideology under the same umbrella of historical misfortune to include government or imperial religious enforcement on a given population? Further, as is a common symptomatic cop-out of so many atheist thinkers, you're attempting (from within a body and mind dependent on emotion, empathy, sympathy and compassion) to desensitize the human existence of these immutable characteristics of the human experience by attributing them to primeval species survival characteristics or defensive mechanisms, thus academically only taking God out of the species DNA package by removing all vestiges of innate morality and then proceeding forward with a purely emotionless proposition and objective, clinical and in your mind it would seem, perfect human automaton.

Trouble is, no human being can be free of feeling, namely feeling guilt, for committing vile acts against fellow members of his species. In other words, every last human being knows the difference between Right acts and Wrong acts every time he or she commits any act at all. Enter moral relativism, a sour dour anti-human philosophy which depends wholly on purely self-destructive species behaviors to justify and prove itself, let alone implement through government power on a given population. You and I would not exist here, now today without our ancestors' belief in the primordial Logos. No, our DNA would be stacked in a pile of bones somewhere long buried after our purely atheist forbears' ran wild with global genocide because human life was to them the cheapest of all life on the planet.

Actually, you confuse the partisan version of gods you inherited via your place of birth with the gods inherited by others via their place of birth.

As a religious thinker, you’re limited in your perceptions of various gods to the particular gods you were given.

“Primordial logos”? Did you read that on the internet and decidedit was a cool slogan?

No. I coined the phrase myself. That happens sometimes. Perhaps you're mistaken in your assessment of limitations of capacity for free thought. Religion appears to be a skeleton key which unlocks some trigger inside of those like you. Some fervor to attack the perspicacity of those who can greet it, devour its teachings and emerge on the other side intact and still human and wholly aware of the difference between right and wrong. Atheism on the other hand is both a crutch of epochal dismissal of the human condition and denial of innermost feelings you wish did not possess you, same as that set of morals we're all born with possesses everyone. Interesting you're chosen tactic. I am as comfortable with sight of Lord Ganesh's tusked, smiling face as I am reading Zarathustra's prophetic writings, as I am with attempting to understand Assyrian proselytization by the sword. Nevertheless I exist in the sometimes protean but eternally undeniable truth of Logos . . . as does every human being. In trying to deny our species programming, you attempt to live outside of irresistible moral and biological truths. The only way to succeed in this, ultimately, is to murder everyone who doesn't want to go along with you, against human nature.

 

[Hollie]

Ideology is NEVER based on truth and knowledge, it is based on values. Claiming truth and knowledge is a dishonest distortion, like a lot of your claims.

OK.....once again.....and, you should start taking notes.


i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun

1. 1.
   a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

"This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience."
David Mamet

1. The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.

1. What you’re really suggesting is that “compared to the left, we hyper- religious aren’t quite as bad”. Well, yes you are. While the hyper-religious tend to want to lecture others on morality, the horrendous acts of cruelty inflicted on humanity by the angry xtians is no different than what the political ideologies of the left have done.

Ultimately, You don’t understand that morality involves decision making (or making a choice), where decision making is accomplished with a cognizant awareness of consequences. The mammalian sense of nurturing the young is not morality, it’s a function of evolution that seeks to preserve the species.

What defines morality is our expectations and choices as to how we extend such gestures as compassion, empathy, fairness, etc. Taking a historical view, angry xtians have a long, lurid history of extending gestures contrary to compassion, empathy, fairness, etc.

You confuse religious government policy or totalitarian theocracy or forced adherence to a given sect with the base philosophy or wellspring of the Logos as it is derived from eons of individual faith and faith's gift to species. Mankind specializes in 'killing itself in the name of ______.' Why not lump all strains of political ideology under the same umbrella of historical misfortune to include government or imperial religious enforcement on a given population? Further, as is a common symptomatic cop-out of so many atheist thinkers, you're attempting (from within a body and mind dependent on emotion, empathy, sympathy and compassion) to desensitize the human existence of these immutable characteristics of the human experience by attributing them to primeval species survival characteristics or defensive mechanisms, thus academically only taking God out of the species DNA package by removing all vestiges of innate morality and then proceeding forward with a purely emotionless proposition and objective, clinical and in your mind it would seem, perfect human automaton.

Trouble is, no human being can be free of feeling, namely feeling guilt, for committing vile acts against fellow members of his species. In other words, every last human being knows the difference between Right acts and Wrong acts every time he or she commits any act at all. Enter moral relativism, a sour dour anti-human philosophy which depends wholly on purely self-destructive species behaviors to justify and prove itself, let alone implement through government power on a given population. You and I would not exist here, now today without our ancestors' belief in the primordial Logos. No, our DNA would be stacked in a pile of bones somewhere long buried after our purely atheist forbears' ran wild with global genocide because human life was to them the cheapest of all life on the planet.

Actually, you confuse the partisan version of gods you inherited via your place of birth with the gods inherited by others via their place of birth.

As a religious thinker, you’re limited in your perceptions of various gods to the particular gods you were given.

“Primordial logos”? Did you read that on the internet and decidedit was a cool slogan?

No. I coined the phrase myself. That happens sometimes. Perhaps you're mistaken in your assessment of limitations of capacity for free thought. Religion appears to be a skeleton key which unlocks some trigger inside of those like you. Some fervor to attack the perspicacity of those who can greet it, devour its teachings and emerge on the other side intact and still human and wholly aware of the difference between right and wrong. Atheism on the other hand is both a crutch of epochal dismissal of the human condition and denial of innermost feelings you wish did not possess you, same as that set of morals we're all born with possesses everyone. Interesting you're chosen tactic. I am as comfortable with sight of Lord Ganesh's tusked, smiling face as I am reading Zarathustra's prophetic writings, as I am with attempting to understand Assyrian proselytization by the sword. Nevertheless I exist in the sometimes protean but eternally undeniable truth of Logos . . . as does every human being. In trying to deny our species programming, you attempt to live outside of irresistible moral and biological truths. The only way to succeed in this, ultimately, is to murder everyone who doesn't want to go along with you, against human nature.

I’m suggesting you need to define the “irresistible moral and biological truths”. I’m suggesting that such simplistic “..... because I say so”, admonitions are weak.

Similarly, the sweepingly silly “....eternally undeniable truth of Logos . . . as does every human being”, suggests you’re a self-assigned spokes-fuhrer “for every human being” and I have to ask when you were assigned to be the spokes-fuhrer for every human being. Is this a salary position or per diem?

Such a weighty burden you bear.

 

[night_son]

OK.....once again.....and, you should start taking notes.


i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun

1. 1.
   a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

"This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience."
David Mamet

1. The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.

1. What you’re really suggesting is that “compared to the left, we hyper- religious aren’t quite as bad”. Well, yes you are. While the hyper-religious tend to want to lecture others on morality, the horrendous acts of cruelty inflicted on humanity by the angry xtians is no different than what the political ideologies of the left have done.

Ultimately, You don’t understand that morality involves decision making (or making a choice), where decision making is accomplished with a cognizant awareness of consequences. The mammalian sense of nurturing the young is not morality, it’s a function of evolution that seeks to preserve the species.

What defines morality is our expectations and choices as to how we extend such gestures as compassion, empathy, fairness, etc. Taking a historical view, angry xtians have a long, lurid history of extending gestures contrary to compassion, empathy, fairness, etc.

You confuse religious government policy or totalitarian theocracy or forced adherence to a given sect with the base philosophy or wellspring of the Logos as it is derived from eons of individual faith and faith's gift to species. Mankind specializes in 'killing itself in the name of ______.' Why not lump all strains of political ideology under the same umbrella of historical misfortune to include government or imperial religious enforcement on a given population? Further, as is a common symptomatic cop-out of so many atheist thinkers, you're attempting (from within a body and mind dependent on emotion, empathy, sympathy and compassion) to desensitize the human existence of these immutable characteristics of the human experience by attributing them to primeval species survival characteristics or defensive mechanisms, thus academically only taking God out of the species DNA package by removing all vestiges of innate morality and then proceeding forward with a purely emotionless proposition and objective, clinical and in your mind it would seem, perfect human automaton.

Trouble is, no human being can be free of feeling, namely feeling guilt, for committing vile acts against fellow members of his species. In other words, every last human being knows the difference between Right acts and Wrong acts every time he or she commits any act at all. Enter moral relativism, a sour dour anti-human philosophy which depends wholly on purely self-destructive species behaviors to justify and prove itself, let alone implement through government power on a given population. You and I would not exist here, now today without our ancestors' belief in the primordial Logos. No, our DNA would be stacked in a pile of bones somewhere long buried after our purely atheist forbears' ran wild with global genocide because human life was to them the cheapest of all life on the planet.

Actually, you confuse the partisan version of gods you inherited via your place of birth with the gods inherited by others via their place of birth.

As a religious thinker, you’re limited in your perceptions of various gods to the particular gods you were given.

“Primordial logos”? Did you read that on the internet and decidedit was a cool slogan?

No. I coined the phrase myself. That happens sometimes. Perhaps you're mistaken in your assessment of limitations of capacity for free thought. Religion appears to be a skeleton key which unlocks some trigger inside of those like you. Some fervor to attack the perspicacity of those who can greet it, devour its teachings and emerge on the other side intact and still human and wholly aware of the difference between right and wrong. Atheism on the other hand is both a crutch of epochal dismissal of the human condition and denial of innermost feelings you wish did not possess you, same as that set of morals we're all born with possesses everyone. Interesting you're chosen tactic. I am as comfortable with sight of Lord Ganesh's tusked, smiling face as I am reading Zarathustra's prophetic writings, as I am with attempting to understand Assyrian proselytization by the sword. Nevertheless I exist in the sometimes protean but eternally undeniable truth of Logos . . . as does every human being. In trying to deny our species programming, you attempt to live outside of irresistible moral and biological truths. The only way to succeed in this, ultimately, is to murder everyone who doesn't want to go along with you, against human nature.

I’m suggesting you need to define the “irresistible moral and biological truths”. I’m suggesting that such simplistic “..... because I say so”, admonitions are weak.

Similarly, the sweepingly silly “....eternally undeniable truth of Logos . . . as does every human being”, suggests you’re a self-assigned spokes-fuhrer “for every human being” and I have to ask when you were assigned to be the spokes-fuhrer for every human being. Is this a salary position or per diem?

Such a weighty burden you bear.

Catchy phrase spokes-führer. Way some see it your ethos cum religion of moral relativism amounts to an entire social sciences philosophical echo chamber of kids sitting around telling themselves no one has the right to define what is always Right and always Wrong. In the fervor of this circle jerk is lost the known since ancient time moral tools to make civilization function, specifically our brand of Western Civilization, American Style wherein historically unprecedented individual rights and freedoms are the name of the game, even if it doesn't always work out as such universally. But I'm here to tell you basic, primordial, foundational Right and Wrong does exist and we as a society had better damn well start teaching our kids about them again. See, on an individual basis society ought to be able to trust us to do the right thing, however, some folk don't seem to want their freedom restricted to any degree. They just want to hear, "do as thou wilt and don't worry about any consequences for bad behavior." Like it or not, God or innate sense of moral right and wrong is born into each of us. Remove God from the man and that man will be capable of any act without much remorse. Such has been proven again and again historically by the democide carried out under atheist regimes.

 

[Hollie]

1. What you’re really suggesting is that “compared to the left, we hyper- religious aren’t quite as bad”. Well, yes you are. While the hyper-religious tend to want to lecture others on morality, the horrendous acts of cruelty inflicted on humanity by the angry xtians is no different than what the political ideologies of the left have done.

Ultimately, You don’t understand that morality involves decision making (or making a choice), where decision making is accomplished with a cognizant awareness of consequences. The mammalian sense of nurturing the young is not morality, it’s a function of evolution that seeks to preserve the species.

What defines morality is our expectations and choices as to how we extend such gestures as compassion, empathy, fairness, etc. Taking a historical view, angry xtians have a long, lurid history of extending gestures contrary to compassion, empathy, fairness, etc.

You confuse religious government policy or totalitarian theocracy or forced adherence to a given sect with the base philosophy or wellspring of the Logos as it is derived from eons of individual faith and faith's gift to species. Mankind specializes in 'killing itself in the name of ______.' Why not lump all strains of political ideology under the same umbrella of historical misfortune to include government or imperial religious enforcement on a given population? Further, as is a common symptomatic cop-out of so many atheist thinkers, you're attempting (from within a body and mind dependent on emotion, empathy, sympathy and compassion) to desensitize the human existence of these immutable characteristics of the human experience by attributing them to primeval species survival characteristics or defensive mechanisms, thus academically only taking God out of the species DNA package by removing all vestiges of innate morality and then proceeding forward with a purely emotionless proposition and objective, clinical and in your mind it would seem, perfect human automaton.

Trouble is, no human being can be free of feeling, namely feeling guilt, for committing vile acts against fellow members of his species. In other words, every last human being knows the difference between Right acts and Wrong acts every time he or she commits any act at all. Enter moral relativism, a sour dour anti-human philosophy which depends wholly on purely self-destructive species behaviors to justify and prove itself, let alone implement through government power on a given population. You and I would not exist here, now today without our ancestors' belief in the primordial Logos. No, our DNA would be stacked in a pile of bones somewhere long buried after our purely atheist forbears' ran wild with global genocide because human life was to them the cheapest of all life on the planet.

Actually, you confuse the partisan version of gods you inherited via your place of birth with the gods inherited by others via their place of birth.

As a religious thinker, you’re limited in your perceptions of various gods to the particular gods you were given.

“Primordial logos”? Did you read that on the internet and decidedit was a cool slogan?

No. I coined the phrase myself. That happens sometimes. Perhaps you're mistaken in your assessment of limitations of capacity for free thought. Religion appears to be a skeleton key which unlocks some trigger inside of those like you. Some fervor to attack the perspicacity of those who can greet it, devour its teachings and emerge on the other side intact and still human and wholly aware of the difference between right and wrong. Atheism on the other hand is both a crutch of epochal dismissal of the human condition and denial of innermost feelings you wish did not possess you, same as that set of morals we're all born with possesses everyone. Interesting you're chosen tactic. I am as comfortable with sight of Lord Ganesh's tusked, smiling face as I am reading Zarathustra's prophetic writings, as I am with attempting to understand Assyrian proselytization by the sword. Nevertheless I exist in the sometimes protean but eternally undeniable truth of Logos . . . as does every human being. In trying to deny our species programming, you attempt to live outside of irresistible moral and biological truths. The only way to succeed in this, ultimately, is to murder everyone who doesn't want to go along with you, against human nature.

I’m suggesting you need to define the “irresistible moral and biological truths”. I’m suggesting that such simplistic “..... because I say so”, admonitions are weak.

Similarly, the sweepingly silly “....eternally undeniable truth of Logos . . . as does every human being”, suggests you’re a self-assigned spokes-fuhrer “for every human being” and I have to ask when you were assigned to be the spokes-fuhrer for every human being. Is this a salary position or per diem?

Such a weighty burden you bear.

Catchy phrase spokes-führer. Way some see it your ethos cum religion of moral relativism amounts to an entire social sciences philosophical echo chamber of kids sitting around telling themselves no one has the right to define what is always Right and always Wrong. In the fervor of this circle jerk is lost the known since ancient time moral tools to make civilization function, specifically our brand of Western Civilization, American Style wherein historically unprecedented individual rights and freedoms are the name of the game, even if it doesn't always work out as such universally. But I'm here to tell you basic, primordial, foundational Right and Wrong does exist and we as a society had better damn well start teaching our kids about them again. See, on an individual basis society ought to be able to trust us to do the right thing, however, some folk don't seem to want their freedom restricted to any degree. They just want to hear, "do as thou wilt and don't worry about any consequences for bad behavior." Like it or not, God or innate sense of moral right and wrong is born into each of us. Remove God from the man and that man will be capable of any act without much remorse. Such has been proven again and again historically by the democide carried out under atheist regimes.

I'm afraid your rants are just stereotypical canards of thumpers.

Firstly, Stalin was a Communist as well as a psychopath. You’re not understanding that Stalin used his political ideology in furtherance of his mass murders. I will note that Marxist-Leninist systems are also political Ideologies. As far as true godless atheism is concerned, no one can deny the excesses of the communistic regimes but atheism was not a motivating factor in their atrocities. Atheism is not a moral system or philosophy; in fact, it doesn't address issues of good or bad in and of itself.

Religious ideology, on the other hand, has been the motivating factor for so many of the atrocities meted out to humanity. How nice that the christian conquistadors used to baptize the indian babies before smashing their heads on the rocks to send them to a better place.

The fact is, look around the planet today and it is you lovely religious folks who are slaughtering people. Morals and ethics are claimed by the hyper-religious to be the result of the inerrancy of religion (an utterly untrue assertion with reams of evidence against it), which is then touted as the wondrous panacea that solves all the world's ills and makes all those who believe people deserving of eternal paradise.

However, read through these threads and it's the hyper-religious who are the angry, reactive, self-haters.

 

[alang1216]

Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos.

I really believe you're living in a fantasy world. Can you provide examples of these virtuous and non-virtuous societies? I'd bet I could provide an equal number that prove this false.

 

[alang1216]

Liberals stand for the very same things that Marx did.

And Bernie Sanders is proof.

Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.

Change the subject?
An admission of my expertise on the fossil record and that Darwin was wrong? Excellent.

So I win again, huh?


How many times a day must I put you in your place?

You must have missed it when I said: "I find it ludicrous that to refute Darwin you use quotes by Darwin, Niles, and Gould, all firm believers in evolution" because you just repeated the same silliness. If you have something to show your fossil expertise that is not a cut & paste of someone else, I would love to see it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals stand for the very same things that Marx did.

And Bernie Sanders is proof.

Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.

Change the subject?
An admission of my expertise on the fossil record and that Darwin was wrong? Excellent.

So I win again, huh?


How many times a day must I put you in your place?

You must have missed it when I said: "I find it ludicrous that to refute Darwin you use quotes by Darwin, Niles, and Gould, all firm believers in evolution" because you just repeated the same silliness. If you have something to show your fossil expertise that is not a cut & paste of someone else, I would love to see it.

Actually, any such claim is a requirement for those admitted to be atheist Marxists.



So we agree that everything I posted about the fossil record prove

a. that what Darwin promoted was the very contrary of what happens.

and

b. I have documented my expertise on the subject.



Your attempt to cloud the issue notwithstanding.

 

[alang1216]

That’s where you and I disagree. I say it is universal and exists independent of man. I say this based upon reason and not faith.

Universal morality is a myth, it is determined by your culture. That is why the various cultures of man of man are so different. All men have eyes though they may look very different. Eyes may be universal, their shape and color are not. There may be some basic cultural similarities, like don't murder, but the definition of murder is very different in different culture.

This is why two men may be moral and still want to kill each other.

Slight differences. There has never been anything which amounted to diametrical opposition. In other words, you are making a fringe argument at the same time you cling to your belief that you are a moral being and somehow believe you are different.

Are you saying it is rare that "two men may be moral and still want to kill each other"? It is the same argument you made about wolves and sheep. Both are equally moral but would prefer to see the other dead. If there is an absolute moral code given us by a creator it is that: survive.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Just kiddin’….there is no such battle. The two, working in concert, have produced the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. But, I will provide an illustration of what happens when only one of the two is in force.


Let’s start from this conclusion: God created man with forethought and purpose, and invested his major creation with a thinking ability and with the free will to use that ability as man chooses.




1. We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively. Those who put those two ideas to judicious use, that life is more than materialism, pleasure and avoiding pain, then you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.




2. Thomas Aquinas saw that faith and reason need be melded. “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.” "Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians,” Thomas P. Rausch, p.12

Aquinas, Maimonides, or Al-Farabi…..men of faith used reason to prove God’s existence.

Jerusalem and Athens.




3. Now, here comes that fork in the road, the wrong choice which has led us to current conditions. In the 18th century, possibly to end the abuses of an aristocracy, or to follow decrees of a very different entity from God, individuals in France authored a revolution far different from that which took place in America.

In France, the revolution abolished religion and faith, and made reason and science the only basis for society. America had a revolution, too, but didn’t make that mistake, which is why the former produced a slaughter house, and ours didn’t.


“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror





4. Certainly it is self-congratulatory to claim one’s society is based on science and reason alone, and not that silly superstition, religion. But the result is fearful: In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


6. And, it went further: over 100 million men, women and children slaughtered as Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920





Bet they didn’t teach you that in secular government schools.

ya can't force rational people to believe in a non existent god.


or can you?


I won't be forced to believe

and I refuse to accept laws based on silly religious nonsense.

The problem with morons like you is that you automatically assume that if someone doesn't believe in YOUR god then they must be communist atheists who want to slaughter people.

Must I remind you that the muslims think the same thing?

Laws and Government should be based on logic and reason and NOT ANYONE's superstitious religious beliefs.


BTW....if you had your way and YOUR religion ruled the country how many gays and atheists would you kill?

 

[alang1216]

Liberals stand for the very same things that Marx did.

And Bernie Sanders is proof.

Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.

Change the subject?
An admission of my expertise on the fossil record and that Darwin was wrong? Excellent.

So I win again, huh?


How many times a day must I put you in your place?

You must have missed it when I said: "I find it ludicrous that to refute Darwin you use quotes by Darwin, Niles, and Gould, all firm believers in evolution" because you just repeated the same silliness. If you have something to show your fossil expertise that is not a cut & paste of someone else, I would love to see it.

Actually, any such claim is a requirement for those admitted to be atheist Marxists.



So we agree that everything I posted about the fossil record prove

a. that what Darwin promoted was the very contrary of what happens.

and

b. I have documented my expertise on the subject.



Your attempt to cloud the issue notwithstanding.

a. Like everyone, Darwin was right about some things and wrong about others. His being wrong does not negate his being right.

b. You have plagiarized the work of others. I fail to see how that demonstrates expertise.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Liberals stand for the very same things that Marx did.

And Bernie Sanders is proof.

Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.

Change the subject?
An admission of my expertise on the fossil record and that Darwin was wrong? Excellent.

So I win again, huh?


How many times a day must I put you in your place?

You must have missed it when I said: "I find it ludicrous that to refute Darwin you use quotes by Darwin, Niles, and Gould, all firm believers in evolution" because you just repeated the same silliness. If you have something to show your fossil expertise that is not a cut & paste of someone else, I would love to see it.

Actually, any such claim is a requirement for those admitted to be atheist Marxists.



So we agree that everything I posted about the fossil record prove

a. that what Darwin promoted was the very contrary of what happens.

and

b. I have documented my expertise on the subject.



Your attempt to cloud the issue notwithstanding.

a. Like everyone, Darwin was right about some things and wrong about others. His being wrong does not negate his being right.

b. You have plagiarized the work of others. I fail to see how that demonstrates expertise.

"I fail to see how that demonstrates expertise."


Like so many people with smaller brains she actually thinks she is SMART!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just kiddin’….there is no such battle. The two, working in concert, have produced the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. But, I will provide an illustration of what happens when only one of the two is in force.


Let’s start from this conclusion: God created man with forethought and purpose, and invested his major creation with a thinking ability and with the free will to use that ability as man chooses.




1. We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively. Those who put those two ideas to judicious use, that life is more than materialism, pleasure and avoiding pain, then you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.




2. Thomas Aquinas saw that faith and reason need be melded. “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.” "Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians,” Thomas P. Rausch, p.12

Aquinas, Maimonides, or Al-Farabi…..men of faith used reason to prove God’s existence.

Jerusalem and Athens.




3. Now, here comes that fork in the road, the wrong choice which has led us to current conditions. In the 18th century, possibly to end the abuses of an aristocracy, or to follow decrees of a very different entity from God, individuals in France authored a revolution far different from that which took place in America.

In France, the revolution abolished religion and faith, and made reason and science the only basis for society. America had a revolution, too, but didn’t make that mistake, which is why the former produced a slaughter house, and ours didn’t.


“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror





4. Certainly it is self-congratulatory to claim one’s society is based on science and reason alone, and not that silly superstition, religion. But the result is fearful: In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


6. And, it went further: over 100 million men, women and children slaughtered as Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920





Bet they didn’t teach you that in secular government schools.

ya can't force rational people to believe in a non existent god.


or can you?


I won't be forced to believe

and I refuse to accept laws based on silly religious nonsense.

The problem with morons like you is that you automatically assume that if someone doesn't believe in YOUR god then they must be communist atheists who want to slaughter people.

Must I remind you that the muslims think the same thing?

Laws and Government should be based on logic and reason and NOT ANYONE's superstitious religious beliefs.


BTW....if you had your way and YOUR religion ruled the country how many gays and atheists would you kill?

"...laws based on silly religious nonsense."

1. This nation was founded based on the Judeo-Christian faith.

2. Which of the Ten Commandments are 'silly religious nonsense'?

3. The Judeo-Christian faith makes no demands per the way the nation is run.
I know you don't read, but this is what Toqueville said:
Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.

Only one as ignorant as you are could make such clearly erroneous statements. Bet everyone tells you that, huh?

4. "how many gays and atheists would you kill?"
None....I'm neither Liberal nor Muslim.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals stand for the very same things that Marx did.

And Bernie Sanders is proof.

Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.

Change the subject?
An admission of my expertise on the fossil record and that Darwin was wrong? Excellent.

So I win again, huh?


How many times a day must I put you in your place?

You must have missed it when I said: "I find it ludicrous that to refute Darwin you use quotes by Darwin, Niles, and Gould, all firm believers in evolution" because you just repeated the same silliness. If you have something to show your fossil expertise that is not a cut & paste of someone else, I would love to see it.

Actually, any such claim is a requirement for those admitted to be atheist Marxists.



So we agree that everything I posted about the fossil record prove

a. that what Darwin promoted was the very contrary of what happens.

and

b. I have documented my expertise on the subject.



Your attempt to cloud the issue notwithstanding.

a. Like everyone, Darwin was right about some things and wrong about others. His being wrong does not negate his being right.

b. You have plagiarized the work of others. I fail to see how that demonstrates expertise.

Darwin was wrong about Darwinism, you dunce.
His value is to Marxist atheism, not science.
"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."

Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


Smashed another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?







I never plagiarize.
Try to use words you can define.


Seems my thrashing you the way I do brings out the worst in you, doesn't it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.

Change the subject?
An admission of my expertise on the fossil record and that Darwin was wrong? Excellent.

So I win again, huh?


How many times a day must I put you in your place?

You must have missed it when I said: "I find it ludicrous that to refute Darwin you use quotes by Darwin, Niles, and Gould, all firm believers in evolution" because you just repeated the same silliness. If you have something to show your fossil expertise that is not a cut & paste of someone else, I would love to see it.

Actually, any such claim is a requirement for those admitted to be atheist Marxists.



So we agree that everything I posted about the fossil record prove

a. that what Darwin promoted was the very contrary of what happens.

and

b. I have documented my expertise on the subject.



Your attempt to cloud the issue notwithstanding.

a. Like everyone, Darwin was right about some things and wrong about others. His being wrong does not negate his being right.

b. You have plagiarized the work of others. I fail to see how that demonstrates expertise.

"I fail to see how that demonstrates expertise."


Like so many people with smaller brains she actually thinks she is SMART!

How about we leave the determination to readers of our our individual posts.

M'kay?

 

[Hollie]

Just kiddin’….there is no such battle. The two, working in concert, have produced the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. But, I will provide an illustration of what happens when only one of the two is in force.


Let’s start from this conclusion: God created man with forethought and purpose, and invested his major creation with a thinking ability and with the free will to use that ability as man chooses.




1. We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively. Those who put those two ideas to judicious use, that life is more than materialism, pleasure and avoiding pain, then you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.




2. Thomas Aquinas saw that faith and reason need be melded. “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.” "Reconciling Faith and Reason: Apologists, Evangelists, and Theologians,” Thomas P. Rausch, p.12

Aquinas, Maimonides, or Al-Farabi…..men of faith used reason to prove God’s existence.

Jerusalem and Athens.




3. Now, here comes that fork in the road, the wrong choice which has led us to current conditions. In the 18th century, possibly to end the abuses of an aristocracy, or to follow decrees of a very different entity from God, individuals in France authored a revolution far different from that which took place in America.

In France, the revolution abolished religion and faith, and made reason and science the only basis for society. America had a revolution, too, but didn’t make that mistake, which is why the former produced a slaughter house, and ours didn’t.


“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror





4. Certainly it is self-congratulatory to claim one’s society is based on science and reason alone, and not that silly superstition, religion. But the result is fearful: In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.
Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


6. And, it went further: over 100 million men, women and children slaughtered as Bolsheviks claimed descent: “Historians of the French Revolution, which the Russians saw as a model for their own…” Bolshevik Festivals, 1917–1920





Bet they didn’t teach you that in secular government schools.

ya can't force rational people to believe in a non existent god.


or can you?


I won't be forced to believe

and I refuse to accept laws based on silly religious nonsense.

The problem with morons like you is that you automatically assume that if someone doesn't believe in YOUR god then they must be communist atheists who want to slaughter people.

Must I remind you that the muslims think the same thing?

Laws and Government should be based on logic and reason and NOT ANYONE's superstitious religious beliefs.


BTW....if you had your way and YOUR religion ruled the country how many gays and atheists would you kill?

"...laws based on silly religious nonsense."

1. This nation was founded based on the Judeo-Christian faith.

2. Which of the Ten Commandments are 'silly religious nonsense'?

3. The Judeo-Christian faith makes no demands per the way the nation is run.
I know you don't read, but this is what Toqueville said:
Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.

Only one as ignorant as you are could make such clearly erroneous statements. Bet everyone tells you that, huh?

4. "how many gays and atheists would you kill?"
None....I'm neither Liberal nor Muslim.

"Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America."

We are protected from you more excitable fundie cranks by the Constitution.

Thank the gawds.

 

[alang1216]

You are really sick.

I'm sorry if reality does not conform to your ideology.

My 'ideology' is based on truth and knowledge.

And, yes....you should be sorry.

Ideology is NEVER based on truth and knowledge, it is based on values. Claiming truth and knowledge is a dishonest distortion, like a lot of your claims.

OK.....once again.....and, you should start taking notes.


i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun

1. 1.
   a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

"This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience."
David Mamet

1. The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.

I'm glad you agree with me that ideology has nothing to do with facts and knowledge.

 

[Hollie]

Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.

Change the subject?
An admission of my expertise on the fossil record and that Darwin was wrong? Excellent.

So I win again, huh?


How many times a day must I put you in your place?

You must have missed it when I said: "I find it ludicrous that to refute Darwin you use quotes by Darwin, Niles, and Gould, all firm believers in evolution" because you just repeated the same silliness. If you have something to show your fossil expertise that is not a cut & paste of someone else, I would love to see it.

Actually, any such claim is a requirement for those admitted to be atheist Marxists.



So we agree that everything I posted about the fossil record prove

a. that what Darwin promoted was the very contrary of what happens.

and

b. I have documented my expertise on the subject.



Your attempt to cloud the issue notwithstanding.

a. Like everyone, Darwin was right about some things and wrong about others. His being wrong does not negate his being right.

b. You have plagiarized the work of others. I fail to see how that demonstrates expertise.

Darwin was wrong about Darwinism, you dunce.
His value is to Marxist atheism, not science.
"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."

Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


Smashed another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?







I never plagiarize.
Try to use words you can define.


Seems my thrashing you the way I do brings out the worst in you, doesn't it.

Ahh, your silly Dean Kenyon cut and paste.


Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Dean Kenyon

 

[alang1216]

I do believe there is right and wrong.

You simply have on {no?} concept of right and wrong.

Reading is not your strong suit is it? We agree there is right and wrong we just don't agree where it comes from.