beowulf

Science isn't a religion and doesn't compare very well to religions.

Just be happy that he made a decision and is sticking to it. It's better then doing nothing.

Would you feel better if it were a Muslim based 12 step program?

The Soviet Union wasn't necessarily a country based on science. Stalin killed a lot of scientists.

Yeah I could support a guy like that. He is doing the right thing. I can relate to him. I have 6 siblings also. I happen to be the oldest. I grew up wearing garage sale clothes and the cheapest shoes available.

Considering Iran's history, why would you think they are the good guy?

These same questions could be asked of you. How are you so sure that they WERE in Iran’s waters? How are you so sure that they the sailors WERE spies? Do you have inside information or just following your gut? I never said they were. All i said was what if they were. I am not rulling out the If just because the UK said so. read my posts youll see. I sure seems as though you are assuming the Iranians are justified and everyone else is wrong.

Hmm maybe Darius is an Iranian spy paid to keep track of skydiving americans. Those evil skydiving americans.

These same questions could be asked of you. How are you so sure that they WERE in Iran’s waters? How are you so sure that they the sailors WERE spies? Do you have inside information or just following your gut?

They had a reason? Now that's funny. WMDs What about all the other places they invaded over the years?

They had a reason? Now that's funny.

Women are 'protected' in Texas ...meaning that they are not allowed the full rights, privledges and respect that men receive. Texas is not a place where a woman should do anything outside what other Texans consider appropriate without fear of severe repurcussions. Have you ever been to Texas?? This is nothing but bullshit.

Here is a picture from Sat. taken by Nick Mendez.

Thanks I feel much better now.

You sound like an over amped teenager. Talking shit about what you would have done and second guessing what someone actually did.

This is a really silly argument. You don't know anymore about this then I do. You weren't there yet you think they should have resisted. You advocate this?? I can't think of any reason why you would think that would be a good idea. That would create an even bigger incident then what is currently happening.

If they felt the need to surrender I am sure it was because of overwhelming odds right?? So then the choice would be die fighting or surrender? right? Why else would anyone surrender?

neither do you and that is my point. I am not the one questioning why they didn't fight to the death instead of surrendering.

What I know is that I don't know what their situation was so I am not going to question what they did. I have had a gun pointed at me, but never multiple guns.

Are you arguing my point for me?? Point being you don't know the exact circumstances so you can't really say what you would or wouldn't do in their situation.

That's easy to say without any guns being pointed at you.

Take a course in Systematic Theology, (or read a good book on it). While it cannot be easily summed up in a paragraph for forum, it will show Theology does have a method. Method? everyone has a method. That doesn't equate to rules. There are rules that must be followed in science for other scientists to take your work seriously. What universal rules are there in Theology? There appear to be none.

As far as I can tell there is no way for you or any religious person to know if you interpretation of the bible is correct or not. Each person that I have talked to about religion seems to have their own seperate set of beliefs and while they do have many similiaritys with others they are still unique. That leads me to think that spirtuality is nothing but imaginative conjecture based on the bible.

Apart from a vague comparison to psychology, you haven't posted the rules theology should come under. How do you measure your performance in the field of theology? The distribution of Theology into didactic, polemic, and practical, is sufficiently known. Now, all didactic inculcation of truth is indirect refutation of the opposite error. Polemic Theology has been defined as direct refutation of error. The advantage of this has been supposed to be, that the way for easiest and most thorough refutation is to systematize the error, with reference to its first principle, or prwton yeudo". But the attempt to form a science of polemics, different from Didactic Theology fails; because error never has true method. Confusion is its characteristic. The system of discussion, formed on its false method, cannot be scientific. Hence, separate treatises on polemics have usually slidden into the methods of didactics; or they have been confused. Again: Indirect refutation is more effectual than direct. There is therefore, in this course, no separate polemic; but what is said against errors is divided between the historical and didactic I read through that carefully and I found no tangible rules there at all. Didactic refers to moral instruction and Polemic refers to contreversial arguement. It appears to me that all you are saying is that there is no rules and Theology can not be made into a science.

Yeah sure will. That's what commercial DVD's are written on. BTW standard DVD burners will generally write DL DVD's.