Missouri mulls law to require parents to be notified before their kids are taught evolution

First topic message reminder :

Reeks of insecurity in one's beliefs to me:

In what may be the first of its kind, a proposed bill in Missouri would require that parents be notified when evolution is being taught to their children at school. They could then pull them from the class. Critics say the bill would "eviscerate" the teaching of biology.

The bill is being sponsored by State Rep. Rick Brattin (R), and it had its first public hearing on February 13th, 2014. Though many anti-evolution proposals are currently being considered across the United States, this one appears to be the only bill — and perhaps the first — that actually mandates parental notification when evolution is being taught to their children.

http://io9.com/missouri-bill-would-have-parents-alerted-when-evolution-1526816104

Maine coon lover wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

that's the point though isn't it??

you NEVER make the point to your beloved Muslims because you see them as your allies against the RW

two peas in the same pod of RW persecution    

you never hold Islam up to criticism and scrutiny, you will spend pages and pages having a go at Christianity but where Islam is concerned??

not a peep

hey i don't care how much you bash Christianity,if you want to be a hypocrite that's fine by me.

you're waging war against the ghost of Christianity's past whilst ignoring the fact that the very much alive and kicking Islam is looking to turn you and all you love into ghosts of the past  

well said , the reason christianity is always being bashed is because it is the truth , why would the devil want islam being disproved he has all those muslims he wants more .

its also a safe target

these anti religion champions know that they can do and say anything they want in regards to Christianity and Christians and they will be safe

its the same reason why they never attack Islam - because they know that there are Muslims ready and waiting to massacre them if they do

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Has to be the funniest thing I have ever read and indeed yet again hypocritical when you do nothing in regards to the Jewsih faith let alone your own, being as all 3 follow the same deities, which 3 major exceptions that stand , a son who is also meant to be God and an extra prophet and different books all claiming to be the word of God.

My views as is no doubt Eilzel the same on religion, I see good in all 3 faiths and I also see the jealousies and emotions of humans in the works not what you would class as all knowing and intelligent deity, what need would there be for them to be jealous after all.
The point is smelly I also correct errors made by some atheist on Christianity, something you have missed as I correct mistakes, which you often make with your claims on Islam. There is one thing being critical like most people have, but you have an obsessional hate  of which such views lead to further hate, a vicious circle that has gone on for centuries

So do not get me wrong there is plenty wrong I see within Islam, but when you argue of claims of hate and killing it is a tad moot and very hypocritical coming from Christians who follow the bible, of which the laws of Moses are the first 5 books of the Old testament, which Jesus backs also Where vast amounts of murder,  genocide, baby killing, near extinction goes on etc. So why is it we never see you condemn these parts of the Torah and bible, or does your hypocrisy only work one way?

how many times do yu have to be shown they are not the same deities..

he has already admitted that they are not the same

he is just using this argument because he has nothing else to say

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Has to be the funniest thing I have ever read and indeed yet again hypocritical when you do nothing in regards to the Jewsih faith let alone your own, being as all 3 follow the same deities, which 3 major exceptions that stand , a son who is also meant to be God and an extra prophet and different books all claiming to be the word of God.

My views as is no doubt Eilzel the same on religion, I see good in all 3 faiths and I also see the jealousies and emotions of humans in the works not what you would class as all knowing and intelligent deity, what need would there be for them to be jealous after all.
The point is smelly I also correct errors made by some atheist on Christianity, something you have missed as I correct mistakes, which you often make with your claims on Islam. There is one thing being critical like most people have, but you have an obsessional hate  of which such views lead to further hate, a vicious circle that has gone on for centuries

So do not get me wrong there is plenty wrong I see within Islam, but when you argue of claims of hate and killing it is a tad moot and very hypocritical coming from Christians who follow the bible, of which the laws of Moses are the first 5 books of the Old testament, which Jesus backs also Where vast amounts of murder,  genocide, baby killing, near extinction goes on etc. So why is it we never see you condemn these parts of the Torah and bible, or does your hypocrisy only work one way?

how many times do yu have to be shown they are not the same deities..

Eh, according to the 3 works they are seen by the Muslims as the same deity in all 3 faiths, the others will say others of which all is based upon faith when none of these deities exist, they are the concepts of humans, nothing more and show the emotions of humans in the works, not something with supreme intelligence.

muslims have to accept part of the bible as the koran has no support of its own, Christianity has its roots in judaism, so the connection there is not surprising..

heavenly father wrote:muslims have to accept part of the bible as the koran has no support of its own, Christianity has its roots in judaism, so the connection there is not surprising..

he misses the fact that its only Muslims who think the three deities of the three faiths are the same

which is hardly surprising since as you have pointed out, Islam exists only because of the previous scriptures which it has plagiarized, so it is obliged to claim ownership of the other deities simply to survive

smelly_bandit wrote:

heavenly father wrote:muslims have to accept part of the bible as the koran has no support of its own, Christianity has its roots in judaism, so the connection there is not surprising..

he misses the fact that its only Muslims who think the three deities of the three faiths are the same

which is hardly surprising since as you have pointed out, Islam exists only because of the previous scriptures which it has plagiarized, so it is obliged to claim ownership of the other deities simply to survive  

i'm not sure if it's ignorance or stupidity with didge it could be both..lol

Actually smelly part of the reason I seem more aggressive here toward Christianity is because the open Christians on here are generally nasty, vindictive, bigoted posters- while the Muslims, Sexy, Zack and prinze, are among the nicest and more thoughtful posters.

Eilzel wrote:Actually smelly part of the reason I seem more aggressive here toward Christianity is because the open Christians on here are generally nasty, vindictive, bigoted posters- while the Muslims, Sexy, Zack and prinze, are among the nicest and more thoughtful posters.

short sighted did they mention by sharia law they would hang you... :D 

smelly_bandit wrote:

heavenly father wrote:muslims have to accept part of the bible as the koran has no support of its own, Christianity has its roots in judaism, so the connection there is not surprising..

he misses the fact that its only Muslims who think the three deities of the three faiths are the same

which is hardly surprising since as you have pointed out, Islam exists only because of the previous scriptures which it has plagiarized, so it is obliged to claim ownership of the other deities simply to survive  

Actually already stated that it was Muslims who would claim this and of course as seen many atheists also see this claim to deities to be all the same mythical deity, so again how poorly you are wrong again

The fact is none of these deities exist and thus those not believing can look at and see the similarities to the mythical deities and all follow on from the other. Thus these same 3 myths talk of the same deity being involved

You though are arguing as if your deity exists and now Allah is a separate Deity also, which would contradict your own faith

Eilzel wrote:Actually smelly part of the reason I seem more aggressive here toward Christianity is because the open Christians on here are generally nasty, vindictive, bigoted posters- while the Muslims, Sexy, Zack and prinze, are among the nicest and more thoughtful posters.

Hi Eilzel

The point is he does not condemn other faiths himself, thus making his own point moot

As to them being followers of Christ, they clearly ignore parts of his teaching and seem to have formed something that stems more from the old testament parts of the bible. Which is not suprising when you look back to for example the crusades and the justification for the slaughter in Jerusalem, it was off the back of the old testament.

As sen people use religion for justifications of acts, which as seen these two do the same and are less in line with the teachings of Jesus but more old testament prophet with vengeance, hate etc

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

he misses the fact that its only Muslims who think the three deities of the three faiths are the same

which is hardly surprising since as you have pointed out, Islam exists only because of the previous scriptures which it has plagiarized, so it is obliged to claim ownership of the other deities simply to survive  

Actually already stated that it was Muslims who would claim this and of course as seen many atheists also see this claim to deities to be all the same mythical deity, so again how poorly you are wrong again

The fact is none of these deities exist and thus those not believing can look at and see the similarities to the mythical deities and all follow on from the other. Thus these same 3 myths talk of the same deity being involved

You though are arguing as if your deity exists and now Allah is a separate Deity also, which would contradict your own faith  

again does allah have a son... :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Actually already stated that it was Muslims who would claim this and of course as seen many atheists also see this claim to deities to be all the same mythical deity, so again how poorly you are wrong again

The fact is none of these deities exist and thus those not believing can look at and see the similarities to the mythical deities and all follow on from the other. Thus these same 3 myths talk of the same deity being involved

You though are arguing as if your deity exists and now Allah is a separate Deity also, which would contradict your own faith  

again does allah have a son... :D 

Does Yahweh have a son to Jews?

See how as always your own logic comes back to bite you, as using their beliefs no son of god exists and that Christianity is believing in a false prophet and not their deity, because their deity has no son. and Christians do not observe all Jewish laws now do they?


Thus where does that leave your point again?

Down the toilet

 :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:


again does allah have a son... :D 

Does Yahweh have a son to Jews?

See how as always your own logic comes back to bite you, as using their beliefs no son of god exists and that Christianity is believing in a false prophet and not their deity, because their deity has no son. and Christians do not observe all Jewish laws now do they?


Thus where does that leave your point again?

Down the toilet

 :D 

first things first, does allah have a son...?? :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Does Yahweh have a son to Jews?

See how as always your own logic comes back to bite you, as using their beliefs no son of god exists and that Christianity is believing in a false prophet and not their deity, because their deity has no son. and Christians do not observe all Jewish laws now do they?


Thus where does that leave your point again?

Down the toilet

 :D 

first things first, does allah have a son...?? :D 

In the Torah and Quran, Yahweh/Allah has no sons


Are you going to now trying supersede Jewish scripture with New testament scripture, which then Muslims could trump yours with their later scripture using that logic. Is that the logic you are about to present?


Hilarious and as seen of the 3 Abraham faiths, 2 do not believe he had a son and neither did any of the early Jewish Christians, he was only a messiah, it took for them to wiped out and Paul to have his views on Jesus immortalized in the bible.

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

first things first, does allah have a son...?? :D 

In the Torah and Quran, Yahweh/Allah has no sons


Are you going to now trying supersede Jewish scripture with New testament scripture, which then Muslims could trump yours with their later scripture using that logic. Is that the logic you are about to present?


Hilarious and as seen of the 3 Abraham faiths, 2 do not believe he had a son and neither did any of the early Jewish Christians,  he was only a messiah, it took for them to wiped out and Paul to have his views on Jesus immortalized in the bible.

excellent so all 3 faiths cannot be the same God can they, so your original idea immediately falls apart... :D 

thats easy... :D 

Good point about other faiths didge. Earlier HF claimed people of faith are not responsible for the bad things they do in the name of faith when referring to the wrongdoings in the name of Christianity- but he is quick to cite Islam as the motivation for the wrong doings of Muslims.

The mature reality of course is a mixture if factors, but is hypocrisy is astounding.

Eilzel wrote:Good point about other faiths didge. Earlier HF claimed people of faith are not responsible for the bad things they do in the name of faith when referring to the wrongdoings in the name of Christianity- but he is quick to cite Islam as the motivation for the wrong doings of Muslims.

The mature reality of course is a mixture if factors, but is hypocrisy is astounding.

islam incites them to do it, you've seen all the banners, kill those who are against islam, you can't miss the banners, in the same way sharia law would hang you for being gay.. :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


In the Torah and Quran, Yahweh/Allah has no sons


Are you going to now trying supersede Jewish scripture with New testament scripture, which then Muslims could trump yours with their later scripture using that logic. Is that the logic you are about to present?


Hilarious and as seen of the 3 Abraham faiths, 2 do not believe he had a son and neither did any of the early Jewish Christians,  he was only a messiah, it took for them to wiped out and Paul to have his views on Jesus immortalized in the bible.

excellent so all 3 faiths cannot be the same God can they, so your original idea immediately falls apart... :D 

thats easy... :D 

Well I will leave you to work out why that would be flawed being as the Christians see the Jewish deity as the same as theirs, just like Muslims see their deity the same as the Jewish and Christian one, so now you are saying thus also Jesus is not the son of God because it is a different deity to the Jewish one, as to the Jews he has no son


Oh dear

 :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

excellent so all 3 faiths cannot be the same God can they, so your original idea immediately falls apart... :D 

thats easy... :D 

Well I will leave you to work out why that would be flawed being as the Christians see the Jewish deity as the same as theirs, just like Muslims see their deity the same as the Jewish and Christian one, so now you are saying thus also Jesus is not the son of God because it is a different deity to the Jewish one, as to the Jews he has no son


Oh dear

 :D     

here's the support for the talking of the old testament concerning the son of God..

you might like this..

https://www.icr.org/article/6648/

see even jews do find jesus as the son of God as their messiah so the son of God applies to both Christians and Jews and even OT scripture speaks of the son of God coming..

and clearly allah has no son so your constant run of epic failure continues...

  :/pwn://: 

Eilzel wrote:Good point about other faiths didge. Earlier HF claimed people of faith are not responsible for the bad things they do in the name of faith when referring to the wrongdoings in the name of Christianity- but he is quick to cite Islam as the motivation for the wrong doings of Muslims.

The mature reality of course is a mixture if factors, but is hypocrisy is astounding.

That is the point Eilzel, people have always used religion as justification for their actions and have always done so and thus all hold that danger where they do. Thus again the same problem can occur in any of them, again all 3 have violence, as well as good, but this is the most absurd part

HF will excuse the murder of the innocent children of Egypt by claiming God was justified because of one Egyptian refusing him and thus murdering many innocent children is just cause so that this deity can prove a point, when again he can do anything yet decides to murder innocent children. Or the countless other times this deity has ordered genocide. Yet in the same breath he is not condemning his deity for violene and wrongs but then blaming the Islam deity, seen by Muslims as the same.deity, thus showing how similar the deities both are. So he uses faith and copouts to defend his own deity from violence, but condemns another for doing similar to his.


And they claim the devil is evil?

Really?

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Well I will leave you to work out why that would be flawed being as the Christians see the Jewish deity as the same as theirs, just like Muslims see their deity the same as the Jewish and Christian one, so now you are saying thus also Jesus is not the son of God because it is a different deity to the Jewish one, as to the Jews he has no son


Oh dear

 :D     

here's the support for the talking of the old testament concerning the son of God..

you might like this..

https://www.icr.org/article/6648/

HIlarious, so your evidence is one palsm and some verse on David, when all humans would be the seeds of the creator, that is not a prophecy or taken as a view there will be a son


Oh my, you see how Born again like to interpret to fit their faith?

So do Jews have a belief in a son of god or one to come?

No

Oh my

HF my point was if you can blame Islam for the bad things done by Muslims (and I agree that you often can) then you must acknowledge the same of true of bad things done by Christians. Othetwise you are just a biased hypcrite.

Eilzel wrote:HF my point was if you can blame Islam for the bad things done by Muslims (and I agree that you often can) then you must acknowledge the same of true of bad things done by Christians. Othetwise you are just a biased hypcrite.

i'll make this simple...for obvious reasons...  

the bible says do not kill, love thy neighbour etc so anyone killing is not following what God wants..

the koran says kill those who do not accept the koran, kill the infidels, non believers., if you kill infidels you will go to heaven..

so the koran instructs it's followers to kill..

it is by sharia law that muslims hang gays...

you see the koran condones and encourages violence from their own teachings..

heavenly father wrote:

Eilzel wrote:HF my point was if you can blame Islam for the bad things done by Muslims (and I agree that you often can) then you must acknowledge the same of true of bad things done by Christians. Othetwise you are just a biased hypcrite.

i'll make this simple...for obvious reasons...  

the bible says do not kill, love thy neighbour etc so anyone killing is not following what God wants..

the koran says kill those who do not accept the koran, kill the infidels, non believers., if you kill infidels you will go to heaven..

so the koran instructs it's followers to kill..

it is by sharia law that muslims hang gays...

you see the koran condones and encourages violence from their own teachings..

Dear me, I rest my case on religious idiocy

So cutting aside the fact the first 5 books of the bible are the law of Moses and thus cannot be put aisde, many commands in there are exactly the same to commit punishment for acts.

Even worse the biblical deity on many occasions called upon his followers to commit genocide, the conquests by Joshua for example, thus your same deity has commanded to kill the same you claim of the Islamic one, that means using your logic both would be wrong

Both have commands on many of the same aspects, so you condemn one mythical God for laws and commands which your own one has done the same (if you claim that God has changed his mind on this claims, he is thus not infallible either?) well actually far worse and you try to justify the violence from yours whilst condemning Islam, for the exact same thing both are guilty of


DOH

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

i'll make this simple...for obvious reasons...  

the bible says do not kill, love thy neighbour etc so anyone killing is not following what God wants..

the koran says kill those who do not accept the koran, kill the infidels, non believers., if you kill infidels you will go to heaven..

so the koran instructs it's followers to kill..

it is by sharia law that muslims hang gays...

you see the koran condones and encourages violence from their own teachings..

Dear me, I rest my case on religious idiocy

So cutting aside the fact the first 5 books of the bible are the law of Moses and thus cannot be put aisde, many commands in there are exactly the same to commit punishment for acts.

Even worse the biblical deity on many occasions called upon his followers to commit genocide, the conquests by Joshua for example, thus your same deity has commanded to kill the same you claim of the Islamic one, that means using your logic both would be wrong

Both have commands on many of the same aspects, so you condemn one mythical God for laws and commands which your own one has done the same (if you claim that God has changed his mind on this claims, he is thus not infallible either?) well actually far worse and you try to justify the violence from yours whilst condemning Islam, for the exact same thing both are guilty of


DOH

lol and not forgetting the NT under Jesus says turn the other cheek...lol

has the koran changed its stance, nope just look at the banners... :D 

not defending islam are you didge..lol strange atheist.. :D 

But God did not turn the other cheek, he commanded people like Joshua and Moses to wipe out people and cities, with even invented the ark as some fearsome weapon of mass destruction. That though to you is okay, even though the situation is the same in both faiths, well not quite, Muhammad only executed those who betrayed him if we go by the traditions, he spared all the rest when he took Mecca, where as Joshua has to take out the animals as well.


So you are condemning one faith for reasons found the same in your faith and in times back in history

Do ou see how flawed your logic is yet

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Dear me, I rest my case on religious idiocy

So cutting aside the fact the first 5 books of the bible are the law of Moses and thus cannot be put aisde, many commands in there are exactly the same to commit punishment for acts.

Even worse the biblical deity on many occasions called upon his followers to commit genocide, the conquests by Joshua for example, thus your same deity has commanded to kill the same you claim of the Islamic one, that means using your logic both would be wrong

Both have commands on many of the same aspects, so you condemn one mythical God for laws and commands which your own one has done the same (if you claim that God has changed his mind on this claims, he is thus not infallible either?) well actually far worse and you try to justify the violence from yours whilst condemning Islam, for the exact same thing both are guilty of


DOH

lol and not forgetting the NT under Jesus says turn the other cheek...lol

has the koran changed its stance, nope just look at the banners... :D 

not defending islam are you didge..lol strange atheist.. :D 

What you are doing is highlighting contradictions, which exist in both. Both the Bible and Koran instruct not to murder and that murder is a serious crime in the eyes of God- both also command to kill certain people; that certain people are condemned as sinners etc- you argue one but not the other; so you are a hypocrite.

Eilzel wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

lol and not forgetting the NT under Jesus says turn the other cheek...lol

has the koran changed its stance, nope just look at the banners... :D 

not defending islam are you didge..lol strange atheist.. :D 

What you are doing is highlighting contradictions, which exist in both. Both the Bible and Koran instruct not to murder and that murder is a serious crime in the eyes of God- both also command to kill certain people; that certain people are condemned as sinners etc- you argue one but not the other; so you are a hypocrite.

i am not talking about contradiction, muslims do as their religious writings tell them, kill the infidels, the non believers, terrorise them, blow them up and you will be rewarded in paradise, hang gays...they are doing what the koran tells them to do.

the bible does not, the OT was for it's time the NT is the new covenant, turn the other cheek, love they neighbour..

heavenly father wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

What you are doing is highlighting contradictions, which exist in both. Both the Bible and Koran instruct not to murder and that murder is a serious crime in the eyes of God- both also command to kill certain people; that certain people are condemned as sinners etc- you argue one but not the other; so you are a hypocrite.

i am not talking about contradiction, muslims do as their religious writings tell them, kill the infidels, the non believers, terrorise them, blow them up and you will be rewarded in paradise, hang gays...they are doing what the koran tells them to do.

the bible does not, the OT was for it's time the NT is the new covenant, turn the other cheek, love they neighbour..

The Koran also says not to kill- it is contradictions; your just to blinded to by bias to see it.

heavenly father wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

lol and not forgetting the NT under Jesus says turn the other cheek...lol

has the koran changed its stance, nope just look at the banners... :D 

not defending islam are you didge..lol strange atheist.. :D 

What you are doing is highlighting contradictions, which exist in both. Both the Bible and Koran instruct not to murder and that murder is a serious crime in the eyes of God- both also command to kill certain people; that certain people are condemned as sinners etc- you argue one but not the other; so you are a hypocrite.

i am not talking about contradiction, muslims do as their religious writings tell them, kill the infidels, the non believers, terrorise them, blow them up and you will be rewarded in paradise, hang gays...they are doing what the koran tells them to do.

the bible does not, the OT was for it's time the NT is the new covenant, turn the other cheek, love they neighbour..

So if the OT isn't relevant to Christianity, why are so many other teachings from it so important to you -- the Creation story, Noah's flood, the 10 Commandments, the passages where it says 'don't be gay,' etc.? Why don't you just go by the New Testament?

If your answer is that the stuff in the New Testament is a "fulfillment" of the Old, and that it's the same God in both, then you do have to admit to things like God ordering the Jews to kill all non-Jews in the OT at the very least. (Not to mention wrestling with the idea of a God that has supposedly always been perfect, yet decided at some point to become pacifist rather than genocidal, which I don't know how you do.)

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

i am not talking about contradiction, muslims do as their religious writings tell them, kill the infidels, the non believers, terrorise them, blow them up and you will be rewarded in paradise, hang gays...they are doing what the koran tells them to do.

the bible does not, the OT was for it's time the NT is the new covenant, turn the other cheek, love they neighbour..

So if the OT isn't relevant to Christianity, why are so many other teachings from it so important to you -- the Creation story, Noah's flood, the 10 Commandments, the passages where it says 'don't be gay,' etc.? Why don't you just go by the New Testament?

If your answer is that the stuff in the New Testament is a "fulfillment" of the Old, and that it's the same God in both, then you do have to admit to things like God ordering the Jews to kill all non-Jews in the OT at the very least. (Not to mention wrestling with the idea of a God that has supposedly always been perfect, yet decided at some point to become pacifist rather than genocidal, which I don't know how you do.)

it is still relevant as it foretells the coming messiah but lots of what was written was for that time..
the jews were going to a place where God wanted them, they fought those who stopped them getting there...that was then..

the NT brings the new covenant of grace...

islam just has the koran it cannot change, it demands killing, terrorism..

anyway i think having to inform parents if evolution is being taught is a great idea, as is the chance to opt out of the lesson. :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Actually already stated that it was Muslims who would claim this and of course as seen many atheists also see this claim to deities to be all the same mythical deity, so again how poorly you are wrong again

The fact is none of these deities exist and thus those not believing can look at and see the similarities to the mythical deities and all follow on from the other. Thus these same 3 myths talk of the same deity being involved

You though are arguing as if your deity exists and now Allah is a separate Deity also, which would contradict your own faith  

again does allah have a son... :D 

no sons but he does have three daughters

heavenly father wrote:anyway i think having to inform parents if evolution is being taught is a great idea, as is the chance to opt out of the lesson. :D 

But doesn't that go back to what I was saying before, about being insecure about your beliefs? If you really have faith that Creation is true and not evolution, why are you threatened by being exposed to instruction about evolution?

Edit -- sorry, left this out  :D 

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:anyway i think having to inform parents if evolution is being taught is a great idea, as is the chance to opt out of the lesson. :D 

But doesn't that go back to what I was saying before, about being insecure about your beliefs? If you really have faith that Creation is true and not evolution, why are you threatened by being exposed to instruction about evolution?

not threatened at all by why waste time on teaching kids lies... :D 

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:anyway i think having to inform parents if evolution is being taught is a great idea, as is the chance to opt out of the lesson. :D 

But doesn't that go back to what I was saying before, about being insecure about your beliefs? If you really have faith that Creation is true and not evolution, why are you threatened by being exposed to instruction about evolution?

not threatened at all by why waste time on teaching kids lies... :D 

Sorry, Sporty handsome African guy crouching on floor isolated over white background, but evolution has been proven  :D :D :D :D :D 

Here are a few of my buddies, they're transitional fossils  :D :D :D :D :D 







Learn some facts  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D 

Mammals, including us

It is now clear that the evolutionary tree for early and modern humans looks more like a bush than the line represented in cartoons. All the hominid fossils found to date form a complex nexus of specimens, Prothero says, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in 2001 and 2002, threw everyone for a loop because it walked upright 7 million years ago on two feet but is quite chimp-like in its skull size, teeth, brow ridges and face. It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but many paleoanthropologists will remain unsure until more fossils are found. Previously, the earliest ancestor of our Homo genus found in the fossil record dated back 6 million years.
-Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.
Manatees, also called sea cows, are marine mammals that have flippers and a down-turned snout for grazing in warm shallow waters. In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica. Along with skull features like manatees (such as horizontal tooth replacement, like a conveyor belt), it also had heavy ribs for ballast, showing that it also had an aquatic lifestyle, like hippos.
Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.
The Dimetrodon was a big predatory reptile with a tail and a large sail or fin-back. It is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but it's actually part of our mammalian lineage and more closely related to mammals than reptiles, which is seen in its specialized teeth for stabbing meat and skull features that only mammals and their ancestors had. It probably moved around like a lizard and had a jawbone made of multiple bones, like a reptile.
Dinosaurs and birds

The classic fossil of Archaeopteryx, sometimes called the first bird, has a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) which is only found in modern birds and some dinosaurs. But it also shows impressions from feathers on its body, as seen on many of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. Its body, capable of flight or gliding, also had many of dinosaur features — teeth (no birds alive today have teeth), a long bony tail (tails on modern birds are entirely feathers, not bony), long hind legs and toes, and a specialized hand with long bony fingers (unlike modern bird wings in which the fingers are fused into a single element), Prothero said.
Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.
Yinlong is a small bipedal dinosaur which shares features with two groups of dinosaurs known to many kids — ceratopsians, the beaked dinosaurs like Triceratops, and pachycephalosaurs, known for having a thick dome of bone in their skulls protecting their brains. Yinlong has the thick rostral bone that is otherwise unique to ceratopsians dinosaurs, and the thick skull roof found in the pachycephalosaurs.
Anchisaurus is a primitive sauropod dinosaur that has a lot of lizard-like features. It was only 8 feet long (the classic sauropods later on could be more than 100-feet long), had a short neck (sauropods are known for their long necks, while lizards are not), and delicate limbs and feet, unlike dinosaurs. Its spine was like that of a sauropod. The early sauropods were bipedal, while the latter were stood on all fours. Anchisaurus was probably capable of both stances, Prothero wrote.
Fish, frogs, turtles

Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.
Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus hottorni, aka the frogamander. Technically, it's a toothed amphibian, but it shows the common origins of frogs and salamanders, scientists say, with a wide skull and large ear drum (like frogs) and two fused ankle bones as seen in salamanders.
A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts. In addition, the roof of its mouth, along with the upper and lower jaws, was equipped with teeth, which the researchers said is a primitive feature for turtles whose mugs are now tipped with beaks but contain no teeth.

Eilzel wrote:Actually smelly part of the reason I seem more aggressive here toward Christianity is because the open Christians on here are generally nasty, vindictive, bigoted posters- while the Muslims, Sexy, Zack and prinze, are among the nicest and more thoughtful posters.

you don't seem more aggressive you ARE more aggressive

and sexy zack and prince are simply more deceptive

SM once believed that people should be given 100 lashes for adultery a few short years ago, do you think that she would dismiss other parts of her religion like the rampant homophobia

you are aware that you would be executed , EXECUTED, simply for being gay in a country governed by the islamic laws taken from the same book SM,fuzzmuck and prince worship??

you're too weak in your own person to endure what is open and honest criticism of things you hold dear, and because of your own weakness you classify any Christian as nasty, vindictive, bigoted whilst ignoring your own hypocrisy and bigotry

you LIVE in a christian based country, you would be murdered within days in an islamic one

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:anyway i think having to inform parents if evolution is being taught is a great idea, as is the chance to opt out of the lesson. :D 

But doesn't that go back to what I was saying before, about being insecure about your beliefs? If you really have faith that Creation is true and not evolution, why are you threatened by being exposed to instruction about evolution?

Edit -- sorry, left this out  :D 

creation is true

as is evolution

however evolution without creation is a lie

smelly_bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Actually smelly part of the reason I seem more aggressive here toward Christianity is because the open Christians on here are generally nasty, vindictive, bigoted posters- while the Muslims, Sexy, Zack and prinze, are among the nicest and more thoughtful posters.

you don't seem more aggressive you ARE more aggressive

and sexy zack and prince are simply more deceptive

SM once believed that people should be given 100 lashes for adultery a few short years ago, do you think that she would dismiss other parts of her religion like the rampant homophobia

you are aware that you would be executed , EXECUTED, simply for being gay in a country governed by the islamic laws taken from the same book SM,fuzzmuck and prince worship??  

you're too weak in your own person to endure what is open and honest criticism of things you hold dear, and because of your own weakness you classify any Christian as nasty, vindictive, bigoted whilst ignoring your own hypocrisy and bigotry  

you LIVE in a christian based country, you would be murdered within days in an islamic one

Yes I am aware of all that. In the past I could have been executed in the UK as well but we have moved on from that. I wouldn't be executed in most Muslim countries or even arrested in Turkey- though I am aware I would in some; in Uganda they debated it but international pressure prevented it.

And I don't believe those 3 are being deceptive, I think you just will them to be- it must drive you mad that they are not   

I also don't class 'any' Christian as nasty. Most are lovely people including the many I know- just on this forum they are utter tossers- I have debated my view of Islamic faith as nonsensical here and elsewhere and the only reason it doesn't get nasty is because is because they can debate like grown ups- if you were a little more civil yourself we could have a cordial debate too- but you choose to be an oaf so I'll respond accordingly.

Eilzel wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

you don't seem more aggressive you ARE more aggressive

and sexy zack and prince are simply more deceptive

SM once believed that people should be given 100 lashes for adultery a few short years ago, do you think that she would dismiss other parts of her religion like the rampant homophobia

you are aware that you would be executed , EXECUTED, simply for being gay in a country governed by the islamic laws taken from the same book SM,fuzzmuck and prince worship??  

you're too weak in your own person to endure what is open and honest criticism of things you hold dear, and because of your own weakness you classify any Christian as nasty, vindictive, bigoted whilst ignoring your own hypocrisy and bigotry  

you LIVE in a christian based country, you would be murdered within days in an islamic one

Yes I am aware of all that. In the past I could have been executed in the UK as well but we have moved on from that. I wouldn't be executed in most Muslim countries or even arrested in Turkey- though I am aware I would in some; in Uganda they debated it but international pressure prevented it.

And I don't believe those 3 are being deceptive, I think you just will them to be- it must drive you mad that they are not   

I also don't class 'any' Christian as nasty. Most are lovely people including the many I know- just on this forum they are utter tossers- I have debated my view of Islamic faith as nonsensical here and elsewhere and the only reason it doesn't get nasty is because is because they can debate like grown ups- if you were a little more civil yourself we could have a cordial debate too- but you choose to be an oaf so I'll respond accordingly.

you have to go back a long way to be hung as a gay in this country, it still happens in muslim countries though and if we get sharia law here, you might find just how intolerant islam is.

Eilzel wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

you don't seem more aggressive you ARE more aggressive

and sexy zack and prince are simply more deceptive

SM once believed that people should be given 100 lashes for adultery a few short years ago, do you think that she would dismiss other parts of her religion like the rampant homophobia

you are aware that you would be executed , EXECUTED, simply for being gay in a country governed by the islamic laws taken from the same book SM,fuzzmuck and prince worship??  

you're too weak in your own person to endure what is open and honest criticism of things you hold dear, and because of your own weakness you classify any Christian as nasty, vindictive, bigoted whilst ignoring your own hypocrisy and bigotry  

you LIVE in a christian based country, you would be murdered within days in an islamic one

Yes I am aware of all that. In the past I could have been executed in the UK as well but we have moved on from that. I wouldn't be executed in most Muslim countries or even arrested in Turkey- though I am aware I would in some; in Uganda they debated it but international pressure prevented it.

And I don't believe those 3 are being deceptive, I think you just will them to be- it must drive you mad that they are not   

I also don't class 'any' Christian as nasty. Most are lovely people including the many I know- just on this forum they are utter tossers- I have debated my view of Islamic faith as nonsensical here and elsewhere and the only reason it doesn't get nasty is because is because they can debate like grown ups- if you were a little more civil yourself we could have a cordial debate too- but you choose to be an oaf so I'll respond accordingly.

absolutely astounding

do you ever stop to think that the ones on here come across as utter tossers because of the way you come across, and the viciousness in which you attack something very close and dear to them?

of course not, you lack even the most basic empathy towards other humans who don't share your world view

you believe that you have the right to smash abuse and trampled anyone else views that YOU don't agree with (especially religious views) and then have the neck to take offense when these people you're trashing start to push back

being a tosser cuts both ways, you arrogant prick

as of debating with your beloved Muslims, the hardest debate Ive ever seen you have with them is about how lovely the sunshine is

they are so lovely because you never take them to task over their religion,all Muslims are lovely until you mention Islam in a less than satisfactory way try it once and lets see how lovely they are

pedo pete found out that hard way about how quickly Muslims will turn when it suits them didn't he??

you can stick your self righteous attitude up your arse and stop pretending that you're any less of a tosser than anyone else

smelly_bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Yes I am aware of all that. In the past I could have been executed in the UK as well but we have moved on from that. I wouldn't be executed in most Muslim countries or even arrested in Turkey- though I am aware I would in some; in Uganda they debated it but international pressure prevented it.

And I don't believe those 3 are being deceptive, I think you just will them to be- it must drive you mad that they are not   

I also don't class 'any' Christian as nasty. Most are lovely people including the many I know- just on this forum they are utter tossers- I have debated my view of Islamic faith as nonsensical here and elsewhere and the only reason it doesn't get nasty is because is because they can debate like grown ups- if you were a little more civil yourself we could have a cordial debate too- but you choose to be an oaf so I'll respond accordingly.

absolutely astounding

do you ever stop to think that the ones on here come across as utter tossers because of the way you come across, and the viciousness in which you attack something very close and dear to them?

of course not, you lack even the most basic empathy towards other humans who don't share your world view

you believe that you have the right to smash abuse and trampled anyone else views that YOU don't agree with (especially religious views) and then have the neck to take offense when these people you're trashing start to push back

being a tosser cuts both ways, you arrogant prick

as of debating with your beloved Muslims, the hardest debate Ive ever seen you have with them is about how lovely the sunshine is

they are so lovely because you never take them to task over their religion,all Muslims are lovely until you mention Islam in a less than satisfactory way  try it once and lets see how lovely they are  

pedo pete  found out that hard way about how quickly Muslims will turn when it suits them didn't he??

you can stick your self righteous attitude up your arse and stop pretending that you're any less of a tosser than anyone else

1. YOU smelly are nasty with everyone. The moment you arrived here you unleashed your typical insults on Ben; who had done nothing to provoke them other than disagree with you. Just as you were with myself and Sexy when we first arrived on Sky. Do not play the innocent little smelly; it is as clear to anyone how easy it is to take a disliking to someone as foul mouthed as you.

2. You don't look around for debates though do you- you see what you want to see. This week I debated the incredulity of belief in God with Zack; he never got aggressive and neither did I- that's how mature people debate.

I certainly admit I can be a bit of an immature c**t myself when it suits- but only with those who behave in such a way with me first. Hence I don't respond as such with people like Dean, Zack, Sexy, sphinx, Lord Ed etc- who I regularly disagree with on many issues. You however have PROVEN your form here by attacking LWers off the mark- JUST as you did with me and have continued to do so for years.

So yes I can be a tosser; but then hate breeds hate right smelly  

So hilarious again all 3 faiths claim to have many of the same individuals their stories and all claim to have the same Jewish God.
So using HF's ill-fated logic then Jesus cannot be the son of Yahweh the Jewish God, as the Jews reject out right any other gods, thus why there is no such prediction in the old testament just as bad as he looks at Quranic verses as bad the Born again way, make up loads of waffle to make something fit absurd claims
So are you so sure on your claim now if the Jews disagree because basically your whole faith stems off Jesus being his son in flesh

So this is all about myths really as there is no evidence of a deity, but clearly all 3 works stem off the same sources and yet the Quran is less violent than the other two. Now I condemn any of the violence in the 3 as do all atheists which includes Eilzel. Just the topic of Christianity comes up more here and the fact is the ones really being hypocritical are the ones with Christianity, because Jesus stated the Moses laws should not change, if you dismiss that from the New testament, you might as well dismiss all of it. This Jesus backed all the barbaric commands and genocides claimed to have took place:



Given this violent legacy, religion historian Philip Jenkins decided to compare the brutality quotient of the Quran and the Bible.

Defense Vs. Total Annihilation

"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says. Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy. Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."t is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not."

Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem. During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the Catholic popes declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th, 17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed.


So all have violence in them and commands to kill and have seen centuries of religious groups when in power try to justify this with religious Text and yet still we have smelly claiming Islam is violent, even though the bible is far worse. We have claims to events in history in both, but warfare in the bible is genocide.


Yet no condemnation of this, Jesus is meant to the son of god and God himself, though some see different.
The point is smelly you are in no position to condemn one faith when you fail to condemn all 3, that shows what your obsession is now religious zealotry against Muslims. You ignore all the bad and hateful things there burying your head in the sand, ias clearly this deity order many mass murders


So on all fronts your hypocritical nature to religious debate is comical to say the least until you do start condemning the Bible and the Torah as well

smelly_bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Actually smelly part of the reason I seem more aggressive here toward Christianity is because the open Christians on here are generally nasty, vindictive, bigoted posters- while the Muslims, Sexy, Zack and prinze, are among the nicest and more thoughtful posters.

you don't seem more aggressive you ARE more aggressive

and sexy zack and prince are simply more deceptive

SM once believed that people should be given 100 lashes for adultery a few short years ago, do you think that she would dismiss other parts of her religion like the rampant homophobia

you are aware that you would be executed , EXECUTED, simply for being gay in a country governed by the islamic laws taken from the same book SM,fuzzmuck and prince worship??  

you're too weak in your own person to endure what is open and honest criticism of things you hold dear, and because of your own weakness you classify any Christian as nasty, vindictive, bigoted whilst ignoring your own hypocrisy and bigotry  

you LIVE in a christian based country, you would be murdered within days in an islamic one

Deceptive pray tell how?

I have been posting on forums since August 2010 from Sky days and i have always remained the same, always on the defence of my religion.
I have said live and let live and i have NEVER attacked anyones faith/belief.

Also i have always defended gays because its not fair them being attacked by Rws or extremist muslims on the whole.

Les knows my stance on this so i really dont understand why you would say im deceptive.

PhilDidge wrote:So hilarious again all 3 faiths claim to have many of the same individuals their stories and all claim to have the same Jewish God.
So using HF's ill-fated logic then Jesus cannot be the son of Yahweh the Jewish God, as the Jews reject out right any other gods, thus why there is no such prediction in the old testament just as bad as he looks at Quranic verses as bad the Born again way, make up loads of waffle to make something fit absurd claims
So are you so sure on your claim now if the Jews disagree because basically your whole faith stems off Jesus being his son in flesh

So this is all about myths really as there is no evidence of a deity, but clearly all 3 works stem off the same sources and yet the Quran is less violent than the other two. Now I condemn any of the violence in the 3 as do all atheists which includes Eilzel. Just the topic of Christianity comes up more here and the fact is the ones really being hypocritical are the ones with Christianity, because Jesus stated the Moses laws should not change, if you dismiss that from the New testament, you might as well dismiss all of it. This Jesus backed all the barbaric commands and genocides claimed to have took place:



Given this violent legacy, religion historian Philip Jenkins decided to compare the brutality quotient of the Quran and the Bible.

Defense Vs. Total Annihilation

"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says. Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy. Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."t is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not."

Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem. During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the Catholic popes declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th, 17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed.


So all have violence in them and commands to kill and have seen centuries of religious groups when in power try to justify this with religious Text and yet still we have smelly claiming Islam is violent, even though the bible is far worse. We have claims to events in history in both, but warfare in the bible is genocide.


Yet no condemnation of this, Jesus is meant to the son of god and God himself, though some see different.
The point is smelly you are in no position to condemn one faith when you fail to condemn all 3, that shows what your obsession is now religious zealotry against Muslims. You ignore all the bad and hateful things there burying your head in the sand, ias clearly this deity order many mass murders

.


So on all fronts your hypocritical nature to religious debate is comical to say the least until you do start condemning the Bible and the Torah as well

you must stop answering without actually checking what people are saying, the clear difference between allah having no son separates, Christianity from islam, the same can be said for the God of the jews as many scriptures from the OT mention the son of God.

always up your ridiculous statement of all 3 having the same God is blown.... :/pwn://: 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:So hilarious again all 3 faiths claim to have many of the same individuals their stories and all claim to have the same Jewish God.
So using HF's ill-fated logic then Jesus cannot be the son of Yahweh the Jewish God, as the Jews reject out right any other gods, thus why there is no such prediction in the old testament just as bad as he looks at Quranic verses as bad the Born again way, make up loads of waffle to make something fit absurd claims
So are you so sure on your claim now if the Jews disagree because basically your whole faith stems off Jesus being his son in flesh

So this is all about myths really as there is no evidence of a deity, but clearly all 3 works stem off the same sources and yet the Quran is less violent than the other two. Now I condemn any of the violence in the 3 as do all atheists which includes Eilzel. Just the topic of Christianity comes up more here and the fact is the ones really being hypocritical are the ones with Christianity, because Jesus stated the Moses laws should not change, if you dismiss that from the New testament, you might as well dismiss all of it. This Jesus backed all the barbaric commands and genocides claimed to have took place:



Given this violent legacy, religion historian Philip Jenkins decided to compare the brutality quotient of the Quran and the Bible.

Defense Vs. Total Annihilation

"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says. Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy. Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."t is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not."

Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem. During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the Catholic popes declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th, 17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed.


So all have violence in them and commands to kill and have seen centuries of religious groups when in power try to justify this with religious Text and yet still we have smelly claiming Islam is violent, even though the bible is far worse. We have claims to events in history in both, but warfare in the bible is genocide.


Yet no condemnation of this, Jesus is meant to the son of god and God himself, though some see different.
The point is smelly you are in no position to condemn one faith when you fail to condemn all 3, that shows what your obsession is now religious zealotry against Muslims. You ignore all the bad and hateful things there burying your head in the sand, ias clearly this deity order many mass murders

.


So on all fronts your hypocritical nature to religious debate is comical to say the least until you do start condemning the Bible and the Torah as well

you must stop answering without actually checking what people are saying, the clear difference between allah having no son separates, Christianity from islam, the same can be said for the God of the jews as many scriptures from the OT mention the son of God.

always up your ridiculous statement of all 3 having the same God is blown.... :/pwn://: 

It makes Christianity separate from Judaism also with your ill founded logic
Oh its crystal clear your argument that because the Muslims do not believe Jesus is the son of Allah/Yahweh, then you claimed they were not the same deities, thus by the same logic the Jews have no such concept of any son of a monotheist deity, because that would mean two.
It matters little to me the myths of these stories, but all stem from Judaism, and Judaism. Thus being as the Christian deity is meant to be the Jewish one, then if no such claim of a son of a deity is on the Torah, which there is not means Jesus is a just a man using your logic

The reality is 3 religions stem around one deity, with one have some weird concept of God made flesh and then is 3 things into one. That means when all 3 conflict, either all works are lying or at least 2 are if we take the concept a deity existed.

So well done you should disproved the divinity of Jesus using your methodology

Eilzel wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

absolutely astounding

do you ever stop to think that the ones on here come across as utter tossers because of the way you come across, and the viciousness in which you attack something very close and dear to them?

of course not, you lack even the most basic empathy towards other humans who don't share your world view

you believe that you have the right to smash abuse and trampled anyone else views that YOU don't agree with (especially religious views) and then have the neck to take offense when these people you're trashing start to push back

being a tosser cuts both ways, you arrogant prick

as of debating with your beloved Muslims, the hardest debate Ive ever seen you have with them is about how lovely the sunshine is

they are so lovely because you never take them to task over their religion,all Muslims are lovely until you mention Islam in a less than satisfactory way  try it once and lets see how lovely they are  

pedo pete  found out that hard way about how quickly Muslims will turn when it suits them didn't he??

you can stick your self righteous attitude up your arse and stop pretending that you're any less of a tosser than anyone else

1. YOU smelly are nasty with everyone. The moment you arrived here you unleashed your typical insults on Ben; who had done nothing to provoke them other than disagree with you. Just as you were with myself and Sexy when we first arrived on Sky. Do not play the innocent little smelly; it is as clear to anyone how easy it is to take a disliking to someone as foul mouthed as you.

2. You don't look around for debates though do you- you see what you want to see. This week I debated the incredulity of belief in God with Zack; he never got aggressive and neither did I- that's how mature people debate.

I certainly admit I can be a bit of an immature c**t myself when it suits- but only  with those who behave in such a way with me first. Hence I don't respond as such with people like Dean, Zack, Sexy, sphinx, Lord Ed etc- who I regularly disagree with on many issues. You however have PROVEN your form here by attacking LWers off the mark- JUST as you did with me and have continued to do so for years.

So yes I can be a tosser; but then hate breeds hate right smelly  

correct

hate breed hate

SEXY MAMA wrote:Also i have always defended gays because its not fair them being attacked by Rws or extremist muslims on the whole.

Les knows my stance on this so i really dont understand why you would say im deceptive.

1. Vindictiveness.

2. To fit his view of Muslims; if you aren't being deceptive you are just being nice- and that doesn't fit his jigsaw puzzle image of the world (an 8-12 year age range jigsaw at that)