Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
reply
Line 18: Line 18:  
It seems to be a completely different situation from tobacco companies (which I am glad to see you do not support); smoking is obviously harmful, but NOT smoking (with this analogy, following the Bible literally) certainly is not a cause of poor health. Could you then at least modify the page so that it does not seem to be making contradictory claims such as this?
 
It seems to be a completely different situation from tobacco companies (which I am glad to see you do not support); smoking is obviously harmful, but NOT smoking (with this analogy, following the Bible literally) certainly is not a cause of poor health. Could you then at least modify the page so that it does not seem to be making contradictory claims such as this?
 
--Otru 31 Dec. 2007
 
--Otru 31 Dec. 2007
 +
 +
: Where did "following the Bible literally" come from, or your claims that there are "immoral" things in the Bible?  Those arguments are irrelevant to our discussion.  The statement on the content page that "one can be good without attending religious services or reading the Bible" is often made by [[evangelical atheists]], and you do not seem to dispute that.  Case closed. 
 +
 +
: We can discuss why it is misleading, just as tobacco advertisements are.  Check out [[young mass murderers]] to seem some examples, or the psych ward in a hospital.  Lots of people "lose it" when they go years, and decades, without any spiritual nourishment.  It's misleading to pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:09, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,393

edits

Navigation menu