Of course it's bigotry. Dawkins has made if very clear elsewhere that he thinks someone's membership in the LDS church is grounds for not voting for them. How does this not amount to a religious test for public office?
I have no problem understanding it. I have a problem accepting it. Where did you get this definition from? Why will you accept no other definitions?
You can't just pull a definition out of thin air and hold someone to it.
Of course. The problem is that by your definitions, "subjective truth" is a contradiction in terms. You say all truth is empirical, therefore there can be no such thing as subjective truth.
It requires us to cater to your arbitrary definition. You say any church that's "true" must spoon-feed every person that comes to them like a magi 8-ball. Then when object to doing that, you say we're not "true."
Bottom line, where are you getting your definition of a "true church"...
Perhaps YOU misunderstood your "yes." You said you'd pay the kid on the head and say "that's okay." At least that's what you were agreeing to.
Geez, are you trying to display your ignorance of psychology as well? Freud had nothing to do with parenting styles, and little to contribute to...
You've got a lot of guts arguing for a holistic view of parenting, insofar that you ignore 90% of scripture to make your argument. When you explain how to reconcile all the scriptures that say God loves us with the few that imply God doesn't, I'll start taking your evaluation seriously.
I'm sorry, I can't post very often. That darn real life keeps getting in the way of my fun. Is there a statute of limitations on responding to your posts?:rolleyes:
I'm not defending the concept of a burning hell. I'm defending the idea that the God LDS worship is a good parent. Lumping LDS in with other types of Christianity who believe in crap like a perpetually blazing volcano made just for sinners will not frame a counterargument. It will just make...