First of all, it seems that Farker above has made the comments I was about to post with respect to the original submitted post redundant. I hope that this is indeed the case, and that the original poster was indeed being sarcastic. I would find stupidity on that scale being emitted for real worthy of immolation by flame thrower.
Also, before moving on, I'd like to offer a particular hat tip to Mister Spak, Raven Blackhawk, Heathen Angel and DoctorFunkopolis.
Now, turning to this:
I weep for you that do not believe because of hardness. The truth is, is Jesus loves you more than you could ever know. You can mock me and reject me, but know it is the precious savior you reject. He wants to save you from your sins,a nd as long as you continue to blindly follow science, you will be lost.
Excuse me?
The whole point of ascribing veracity to the claims of science is that those claims have been tested rigorously with respect to their correspondence with observational reality. Said rigorous testing is noticeably absent from your doctrine. Once again we see smug, self-satisfied, self-righteous, sanctimonious proselytising from someone who is so addled by the doctrine centred world view that he or shie is physically incapable of conceiving of the existence of a world view that is NOT centred upon a doctrine. Well, allow me to educate you.
Doctrines all have specific features in common. The principal one being that they are founded upon one or more unsupported assertions, said assertions being presented as axioms to would be adherents. These assertions are intended to be swallowed uncritically. All corollaries following therefrom, no matter how absurd or how wildly at variance with observational reality those corollaries happen to be, are also intended to be swallowed uncritically. The entire exercise of supporting the doctrine consists of convoluted semantic and conceptual gymnastics whose purpose is finding means by which the initial assertions and subsequent corollary theses can be declared 'true' - in other words, apologetics, an endeavour notorious for its inherent lack of rigour.
The reality based world view, on the other hand, begins with data obtained from observational reality, and then asks questions about that data, formulates hypotheses about that data, then subjects those hypotheses to critical test, consisting of seeking to find reasons why those hypotheses could be false in order to winnow out the erroneous hypotheses from the much more robust ones. It should be manifestly obvious to anyone with functioning brain cells which is the superior procedure for determining robust knowledge about the world.
Furthermore, the good folks here resent being ordered how to think. Myself included. The commenter who styles himself "Washed in the Blood" should consider him/herself fortunate that I am not able to reach through the monitor screen and deliver my verdict with respect to exactly what I think of this individual, as this would involve the gratuitous use of a 14 lb lump hammer and a set of 7ft jump leads.