Since we both agree it isn't relevant, then I guess we can agree to disagree. It is bit ironic though that we would need to do so on a fact that is historically verifiable.
It makes no sense anymore. We have entered a cycle where I say yes and you say no(talking about freemasons). And yes, it is not relevant, you know exactly how we arrived here so I wont write it again.
So lets get back to the nub of the matter then.
"Why don't you just give a me a quote? If it is so clear, don't fight me on this simple point. Just give me the quote in the bible that you base that assessment on."
I still assert that you are basing your faith in fables instead of knowledge. You have not given me any indication of having anything to say that counters that assessment. The fact that you manage to base your view of religion on a single concept in the new testament and manage to completely ignore the rest of this quite lengthy book, is quite surprising in itself. The fact that you then don't even manage to specify which piece of the bible you DO accept as the sole base of your belief, reaffirms _my_ "belief" that you haven't read any of it and are relying totally on hearsay. Tell me, where is the thinking in that?
P.S.: I was not just saying yes/no, I was giving historic arguments and facts... but whatever...
Edited by HardBall, 15 April 2011 - 04:59 PM.