Turner writes: "In my opinion, the good Rev. has a point. What we need is: a better definition of the god-concept."
Morgan, you respond, "He may well have a point about that."
Morgan, thank you for conceding this point.
By the way, I am in my forties. And I am one of those many post-readers--how do you describe them, lurkers?--who has held back because I don't like being jumped on by, what I have heard referred to as "verbal bullies".
Mr. Morgan, keep; this in mind, will you, please?
You write: "But this is a science forum and he (the Rev) should stop being a rude troll and go to theologyagogo.com and ask the question."
May I be so bold as to suggest: You are wrong! This thread is not about hard science; it is about...well,ask Kate what she has already said it is.
Further, The Rev is not...how do you say it...prosletyzing and being a parasite on the gullible...
Give us ONE example where The Rev says: You must believe ME and follow what I tell you to follow.
Careful when you write:
"The phony reverend doesn't know a single thing that my cat doesn't know. The difference is that my cat has the good manners to not pretend otherwise."
Would you be prepared, in a court of law, to defend such libelous slander?
I await your answer, please.
