You dont have to show me anything again.  You nailed a man for specious reasons.  you want to argue with Pat Robertson?  Then  dont do a hen peck article.  I dont need to see that Ervin is a religous zealot.  But even religious Zealots dont always speak in tongues.

you did.  And did very poorly.  Now, why dont you read this article, and debate my points.  kingbee cant. he insists upon bringing things into it that was not part of the debate.  As you are now.

I dont cotton to Robertson.  But I am not afraid of him either.  Nor do I misquote him.  If you read me, you know that.  But I refuse to jump on a bandwagon with a trip switch.  And that was what your article was.

Just because I am a man of faith does not make me blind or in agreement with all others who say they are.

Just because you are an Atheist/agnostic does not mean you are in agreement with all other atheists or agnostics does it?  or does it?

here is your article:

Now find your quote.

Dont blame me for your poor writing. I attacked what you wrote, not what you might have read beforehand.

I am referring to your lack of documentation skills.  I read your article.  And commented and then quoted it.  If you did not express yourself well, or screwed up, then do a mia culpa.  But your article was wrong. period.

Here it is in simple language.

R E A D  M Y  R E B U T T A L.   A S  W E L L  A S  H O W  Y O U  W R O T E  Y O U R S.

Then rebut me. Forget outside sources, I was rebutting you, not them.

Dont even bother with that one.  just defend your statements in light of what you wrote.  Bring in the rest of the stuff after you defend your statements.  Then we can debate them on a level plane.

You see that is the problem right there.  2 people reading the exact same thing can have different interpretations.  And you know what?  Neither of us is right.  But the words in and of themselves are not radical, or intolerant.  They are a statement of belief, something that both of us do.  You beleive there is no God, I beleive there is.  And you know what?  neither of us knows the answer, now do we?

He may very well be a whacko (Ervin), but the evidence is not in either article.  Indeed, what was quoted that he said I could have easily have said myself.  And except for the loony left, no one here beleives I am a radical right wing christian zealot.

You are always welcome on my blog.  I have found you to be deeply religious, but not preachy.  And with a very level head on your shoulders!