G'day Alex, who is Richard Green? There was one who played in 'the adventures of Robin Hood', though I think he was 'Greene', there is a current day Richard Green; a golfer, but which one do you mean?
I tend to agree with you in some ways, however it might be helpfull for people to confine discussion to the topic area, and that is what I see is being asked for. The 'Pandora's box' of faith versus faith has been opened several posts ago and a good deal of care needs to be taken to avoid WW3. Faith versus Science is one thing and it is a good healthy thought provoking topic. Faith versus Faith is not part of the same discussion, but when it is injected in, it is not unreasonable to expect an inrush of antibodies. Best thing would be if people were to remain on topic, me thinks.(myself included)
You have expressed some misgivings about a certain book (probably the Bible), accepting your concerns as well founded, that has nothing to do with 'Faith versus Science' that would be 'the Bible versus science' would it not?
The Bible is just a collection of 66 books from which a multitude of various faiths have come into being. Even the Koran has spawned more than one faith, (sunni, shee-ite (sp) and maybe others, the book of Morman at least 2 sects, but not one is definitive of 'Faith' IMHO.
I don't personally see that wanting to remain on topic is gagging debate, just keeping on topic. If someone wants to start another thread, (eg. Religion versus Faith versus Christianity)that would be another thing, and people who can't weather the storm could choose to stay out of it.
Couse it would be a moderators worst nightmare, so better not.
Sadly I can't imagine that anything new and on topic remains to be said, but I can live in hope.
BTW I can tolerate your Gravity rain idea FWIW.
cheers,
Doug