Door to Door Religion Pushers

Yesterday, as I was getting ready to leave the house for work, three women came to my door trying to talk to me about a church in the area. I started out by telling them I'm not interested, to which they asked me if I have ever done bible studies. I then told them "I'm an atheist, I'm not interested". They still continued to try talking to me about church and that they are spreading the word about women in church. I cut them off again to tell them that I was heading out the door to go to work, and I didn't have any time to talk, then walked away from them.



Why didn't they just leave me alone the first or second time I said I'm not interested!?

viperman viperman 31-35, M 42 Responses Jun 17, 2008

Your Response


Vewndetta, in response to your last comment:

I love how creationists say the earth was created, what, six thousand years ago? Especially when there has been lots of scientific evidence that fossils dug up out of the ground, and radiation(?) dating have proved objects on earth, mostly rock, to be millions and even billions of years old.

It takes way more than just a decade or two for creatures to evolve, it takes millions of years.

Every fossil is transitional, since life is always evolving. It's obvious to anyone that accepts the reality of the length of time we're dealing with. If the universe were only a few thousand years old, then yes, you religious nutters would have a point, for it would be too miraculous for any changes to occur. But you don't truly grasp what a million years is, much less a hundred million or a billion...


You wrote:

"...if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes..."

Not only is there plenty of this (see above) in the fossil record, there's plenty of it in living animals that are still in transition.

If you'd done a little investigating before your cut-and-paste tirade, you would know that living whales sometimes have vestigial legs--so do snakes sometimes (and there have been pelvises found in snakes too). Occasionally dolphins have legs too.

That's waaaay better than a fossil (though those also exist) because they are living and can be studied. Yes, modern living whales of many different species have little legs tucked up inside them. Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.

Google whales+legs and check it out--it's pretty sweet!

We humans also have vestigial organs. Ever wonder why your hair stands on end when you get the goosebumps? For the same reason any other scared animal's hair puffs up--to make themselves look bigger. We just aren't so hairy anymore (at least most of us...). The human appendix, wisdom teeth, and an untold number of genes (including multiple odorant receptor genes), the rare "true human tail" (aka "coccygeal projection", "caudal appendage" and "vestigial tail") are all vestiges; several human tails have also been found with cartilage and up to five, well-developed, articulating vertebrae. We still carry one of the genes that are necessary for the synthesis of vitamin C (our ancestors made it in their bodies, much like we make vit D now).

The eyes of the Mexican tetra have a lens, a degenerate retina, a degenerate optic nerve, and a sclera-- even though the tetra cannot see. Several species of salamander and fish have vestigial eyes as well.

Notice I'm using only living examples--I haven't even delved into the fossil record yet! That would take forever; perhaps I'll do this in another post if you wish.

No organism can have a vestigial structure that was not previously functional in one of its ancestors. Hence, transition.

Vendetta, its ridiculous! They expected us to dish out $520 for my family (my wife, our two boys and myself), "only" $260 from my wife's cousin (who just recently graduated high school, started working full time, and doesn't make much money), plus fees for this, that and the other. What really gets me though, is that all the sheeple are willing to pay out such sums of money, and for what!?

TS...because you have more than half a brain, as opposed to the sheep in those flocks.

Viper...Isn't it sad how painfully obvious the scam is to all of us, while they are blind to it?

Vendetta, that sounds similar to the church my mother-in-law attends, but its Greek Orthodox. My wife, this past saturday, had our 2nd son craptized there. Before they would even allow us (her) to, we (actually my mother-in-law) had to dish out HUNDREDS of dollars so that we would be in good standing with the church, my wife's cousin (again, actually my mother-in-law) had to pay a lot of money so she would be too. On top of that, since we didn't get married in the church, my wife can not be officially listed as a godmother to anyone with that church. There was a whole lot of other bs with it too. I kept trying to talk her out of it, but she wouldn't listen

My wife didn't have a birthday or Christmas until the age of 6, which is when her parents divorced. Her dad belonged to the JW cult, and thankfully once her mom divorced him she was allowed to live a better life.

Of course, for this sin of divorce, my wife and her mom ceased to exist to those good JW folks who still go to church 2 or 3 times a week. Such a great crowd.

F'ing morons.

@Vendetta:I love Project Steve!


Your argument is based in fallacy:

Precambrian fossil record is seemingly incomplete, therefore Genesis is true.

WTF? That's a completely invalid argument. It's as valid as if I were to say "I can't find my keys, therefore demonic flying monkeys have made off with them".

The only thing you've proven here is your ability to cut-and-paste, which make you no better than a common plagiarist. If you're gonna plagiarize, at least steal from a reputable source.

When attempting to speak about a subject on which you are so pitifully uninformed, perhaps you should consider your audience. This group is called "I am an Atheist". Your breath is wasted here. Your lack of education is apparent, your arguments invalid, and your efforts futile.

For the record, Jehovah's Witnesses belong to a cult. Yes, I said it: JW=CULT. Your particular brand of religion is no better than FLDS or branch Davidians. I have, unfortunately, lots of personal experience with y'all JWs.

Any religion that would place the belief system and the elders above the rule of law and above the family unit is disgusting.

I encourage readers to read about what happens when a member is disfellowshipped from this revolting cult.


Hmmmm, listening to pro would cause an uninformed person to pause and think maybe this evolution "theory" is pretty shaky. I mean, he even quotes evolutionary scientists (oh my)

The ironic part is when he quoted evolutionist Steven Stanley. For anyone that thinks evolution is on shaky ground in the scientific community, I ask you to google Project Steve. You might find an occasional kook creationist scientist that denies evolution, but the sheer number of scientists named "Steve" that do believe in evolution tramples the puny numbers of the silly creationists. Check out this page here:

I'll let you get back to your copy and paste action, which probably comes from Dr. Dino's website or something equally lame.

Life Appears Suddenly

Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states: “Sometime in the first billion years, life appeared on the earth’s surface. Slowly, the fossil record indicates, living organisms climbed the ladder from simple to more advanced forms.” From this description, one would expect that the fossil record has verified a slow evolution from the first “simple” life forms to complex ones. Yet, the same book says: “The critical first billion years, during which life began, are blank pages in the earth’s history.”

Also, can those first types of life truly be described as “simple”? “Going back in time to the age of the oldest rocks,” says Evolution From Space, “fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed.”

From this beginning, can any evidence at all be found to verify that one-celled organisms evolved into many-celled ones? “The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms,” says Jastrow.

Instead, he states: “The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”

Thus, at the start of what is called the Cambrian period, the fossil record takes an unexplained dramatic turn. A great variety of fully developed, complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells, appear so suddenly that this time is often called an “explosion” of living things. A View of Life describes it: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.” Snails, sponges, starfish, lobsterlike animals called trilobites, and many other complex sea creatures appeared. Interestingly, the same book observes: “Some extinct trilobites, in fact, developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living arthropod possesses.”

Are there fossil links between this outburst of life and what went before it? In Darwin’s time such links did not exist. He admitted: “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer noted Darwin’s statement about “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” and wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.

‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,’ said Darwin, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer.

Some argue that Precambrian rocks were too altered by heat and pressure to retain fossil links, or that no rocks were deposited in shallow seas for fossils to be retained. “Neither of these arguments has held up,” say evolutionists Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer. They add: “Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and they contain no fossils of complex organisms.”

These facts prompted biochemist D. B. Gower to comment, as related in England’s Kentish Times: “The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.”

Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”

How Complete Is the Record?

However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the transitional links required to support his theory. This situation caused him to say: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

The fossil record in Darwin’s day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.” He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”

Darwin attempted to explain these huge problems by attacking the fossil record. He said: “I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, . . . imperfect to an extreme degree.”

It was assumed by him and others that as time passed the missing fossil links surely would be found.

Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils.”

And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.”

Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”

After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.”

The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.”

What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”?

What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.

Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”

Facts my friend

One of the main reasons I know what I say is true is the hostility in MOST (not all) of this comments. Inherently good people can differ without hostility. Anyway…

Evolution facts:

Letting the Fossil Record Speak

FOSSILS are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the earth’s crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth or shells. A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was once alive, such as an imprint or trail. Many fossils no longer contain their original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have infiltrated them and have taken on their shape.

Why are fossils important to evolution? Geneticist G. L. Stebbins noted a major reason: “No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms.”1 So, living things on earth today are not seen to be evolving into something else. Instead, they are all complete in form and distinct from other types. As geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed: “The living world is not a single array . . . connected by unbroken series of intergrades.”2 And Charles Darwin conceded that “the distinctness of specific [living] forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.”

Thus, the distinct varieties of things now alive offer no support to the theory of evolution. That is why the fossil record became so important. It was felt that at least fossils would provide the confirmation that the theory of evolution needed.

What to Look For

If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.

Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.

In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory: “It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” As Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous.”

On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different type of living thing would reproduce only “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.

In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly admitted: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”

Nice definition of theory. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with our discussion here of scientific theories. How about this?

"Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs."

Hello VendettA12,

We can talk for hours on the world’s religions. However, to keep it brief, I have studied the world’s religions for many years. If you do your homework, most of the bloodshed in the world has/is caused by “Religion”. You spoke for an ignorant position because you “assumed” I have “happily ignored” the facts about other religions. I will give you some actual accounts later.

The hostility tone is such a distinct pattern of some…it is still amazing to me that they don’t see it!

Chat soon,

Howdy Troubleshooter,

My friend, "virtual particles" has not been proven!

Second my friend, you do not deal in facts. Look it up…the definition of a “Theory” is:

“A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact, contemplation or speculation, guess or conjecture”.

Look it up. Try flying the Space Shuttle on that!

Science and everyday life HAS proved that life comes from life, and that every object you see was made by someone. (Show me different).

Hello TeFron58,


What conflict at Antioch?


I am very familiar with the word “TETELESTAI”…it meant that Jesus work was finished; Not his followers.

Jesus own words:

(Matthew 28:19-20) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

(Matthew 24:14) 14 And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.

This command appears in many other places as well.


The burnings of the Bible and its adherents’ was and is to be expected…1 John 5:19


Truly loving you neighbor means you will warn them of any perceived danger.


I don’t think understand your main point.

Peace my friend!

Sounds a lot like a guy I used to know.

If pro can provide a single good reason to believe in his particular chosen mythology instead of all the other thousands of made up religions, then I'll happily convert to his cult. If he is like most other religious folk, he happily ignores every other religion as being obviously incorrect while his religion is obviously correct.

It's quite funny.

How about this:

“It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” (Gerd L¸demann, "What Really Happened to Jesus?", trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.

British scholar N. T. Wright states, "As a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.” (N. T. Wright, “The New Unimproved Jesus,” Christianity Today (September 13, 1993)), p. 26.

Even Gert L¸demann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”(Gerd L¸demann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.)

In his book Justifying Historical Descriptions, historian C. B. McCullagh lists six tests which historians use in determining what is the best explanation for given historical facts. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” passes all these tests:

1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being.

2. It has great explanatory power: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution, and so forth.

3. It is plausible: given the historical context of Jesus’ own unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection serves as divine confirmation of those radical claims.

4. It is not ad hoc or contrived: it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists. And even that needn’t be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exists.

5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis: “God raised Jesus from the dead” doesn’t in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don’t rise naturally from the dead. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.

6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypotheses in meeting conditions (1)-(5). Down through history various alternative explanations of the facts have been offered, for example, the conspiracy hypothesis, the apparent death hypothesis, the hallucination hypothesis, and so forth. Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. None of these naturalistic hypotheses succeeds in meeting the conditions as well as the resurrection hypothesis.

We can talk about what type of slavery the Bible was talking about later…and the Pig. (lol)

Hello my friend,

I don’t have any negative feeling about you or anyone else because you believe what you do.

If we are good humans, we should be able to have discussion without hostilities. (Speaking of lower life forms)

To the contrary; there is no evidence that something can come from nothing, something nonliving can produce something living. Forget religion; with EVERYTHING we have in nature/science, intelligent design is seen. Nothing good has ever come from a chaotic explosion.

At best, your Theory is just that…Theory. Please explain the Cambrian Period were life Started to be seen on earth. Where was the evolution of life prior to that? The Bible name Cyrus by name 200 years before he was born as the one that would conquer Babylon. That’s one of many things.

Chat later

Where did God come from if not nothing? Also, life is considered to have been started by lighting, which created the first amino acids.

This will be my last comment on this subject. Look at the hostility toward me…however, not by all here. The mean spirited nature of Godfree110158 tell me that religious or not, not good people.

I know others that feel as you do and we still have civil conversation. I was speaking symbolically about “Your house on fire” referring to the time when the Creator steps in to rid the world of wickedness.



When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. John 19:30

TETELESTAI. Greek: it is the passive perfect tense of the verb: ΤΕΛΩ = to finish something, in the sense of bringing it to a state of perfect completion; to achieve; to accomplish.

It may be of interest for some to know that the verb in question (tetelestai) was commonly used on financial receipts in the first century A.D. to indicate that a thing was "fully paid."

It was also posted on the prison door of a debtor to indicate that their debt had been "fully paid".

Imagine if Christ’s last statement, words, were taken literally.

If the emphasis was not on missionary work or on proselytizing but instead on how Jesus indicates how to obey God.

One of the Pharisees tested Jesus with a question, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" (Matthew 22:36 NIV). Jesus replied, " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV).

“If all Christians acted like Christ, the whole world would be Christian.” Gandhi

“When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said “Let us pray.” We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.” Desmond Tutu

Proselyization worked out very well (in the short term) for some countries and for the institution of the “Church"... extremely well. Others countries and cultures, not so well. Church institutions need people to be saved.

Not my writing below, all verifiable though.

The missionary works are not new. According to the documents of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, the Biblical authority for missions begins quite early in Genesis 12:1-3, in which Abraham is blessed so that through him and his descendants, all the peoples of the world would be blessed. Others point to Gods wish, often expressed in the Bible, that all peoples of the earth would worship Him. Therefore, Christian missions go where worship is not, in order to bring worship to God.3 In the 16th century the proselyization of Asia was linked to the Portuguese colonial policy. As soon as Christianity came into power, heathen temples were defaced and closed and their revenues transferred to the Church. We command that all their (heathens) fanes, temples, shrines, if even now any remain entire shall be destroyed by the command of the magistrates was the order of the day. (Theodosius Code, 380 A.D.). In Great Britain and Germany, priests and monks moved about destroying the groves and shrines of the people. The last regions to lose their religions in Europe were Prussia and the Baltic states.

Varying attempts to stamp out infidels and heretics often proved to be inadequate, so the Holy Inquisition was formed by Pope Gregory IX in 1231 to make the efforts more organized and efficient. Burning was quickly decided upon as the official punishment. In 1245, the Pope gave Inquisitors the right to absolve their assistants of any acts of violence which they might commit in the fulfillment of their duties. Torture of suspects was authorized by Pope Innocent IV in 1252. The Inquisition was not limited to Europe, as Spaniards brought it to the Americas and used it to punish the native inhabitants. Through the 1500s, 879 heresy trials were recorded in Mexico alone.4 The historian Hernando del Pulgar estimated that the Spanish Inquisition had burned at the stake 2,000 people and reconciled another 15,000 by 1490 just one decade after the Inquisition began.( Cited in Kamen op. cit., p. 62.). Juan de Zumarrage, first Bishop of Mexico, writing in 1531, claimed that he personally destroyed over 500 temples and 20,000 idols of the heathens.5 The Goa inquisition which lasted from 1560 to 1812 is considered as the most violent inquisition ever executed by the Portuguese Catholic Church. Inquisition proceedings were always conducted behind closed shutters and closed doors. Hindus were brutally interrogated, flogged, and slowly dismembered in front of their relatives. Eyelids were sliced off and extremities were amputated carefully6. Viceroy D Constantine de Braganca issued an order on April 2, 1560, instructing that Brahmins should be thrown out of Goa and other areas under Portuguese.

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[95]

He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.

His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[96]

Tomb of Galileo Galilei, Santa CroceAccording to popular legend, after recanting his theory that the Earth moved around the Sun, Galileo allegedly muttered the rebellious phrase And yet it moves,

Religious people tell me I must be saved. I believe that the whole world had to be reconciled to God,and it was. Over 2000 years ago.

TETELESTAI! "It is finished." "Paid in Full"

" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments"

For those that believe the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible and every word is God's word. Explain to me the conflict at Antioch.

Hehe, now there's a good reason to live in Texas!

rotflmao trouble

Hey, I didn't say I believe that ****, just that they do. And if there's no after life I don't think anyone's going to be disappointed... after all, the alternative is oblivion.

Phage, you could be right, but you could also be in for the biggest let-down ever...finding out there is nothing after death, there is no god. Would you rather be in for this big disappointment, or find out you were wrong that there is something?

Viperman, you don't understand. It's not dying that's the problem, it's what happens after you die. See, if you don't get saved you'll spend an eternity suffering. Eternal suffering trumps anything that could be done to you while you're alive, so ANYTHING done to convert you could be justified as doing you a favor. Just be happy we live in an age where torturing someone until they find Jesus isn't socially acceptable.

My house being on fire and me not going to church are COMPLETELY different. Not going to church won't kill me, trust me, I've never been to one service in my life, and what do you know? I'm still here!

Christ on a crutch, this jerk off is doing door to door on EP. Listen pro.....SLAM, the door is closed.

I do have to say that the source of the world’s problem can mostly be linked to Religion.

The world’s religions have failed greatly in bringing peace and LOVE to the world…really just the opposite.

The Bible also said this would be so.

That is another discussion for later.