Evangelicals and Trump

[G.T.]

I've found over the years that many Religious folks don't act from their first Principles. That's just been my observation. Cherry-picked Biblical ethics to comport with the Day's mores...rinse/repeat. Imagine a World with Leviticus as a Lead Ethical System...it would be Bananas

This is typical of every religious forums I've been to (3). Second, religious folks include atheists. It takes faith for what they believe. As for principles, people violate them all the time. All you are doing is spouting generalizations.

That's correct, I was speaking Generally of Theists, not about a specific one. Atheism taking faith depends on your working definition of Atheism. According to Stanford, in the SEP there are different working definitions of the word and it depends on each interlocutor's usage.

 

[james bond]

I agree with Sen. Goldwater here. The Religious Left, through characters like Jim Wallis and Lou Farrakhan have tried to impose their religious ideals into the government and condemned those who refuse it as "satanic" or "homophobic" if they don't like Gay Marriage.

>>Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise.<<

This is more politics than R&E, but one could say the same arguments against the left over gay marriage, AGW, socialism, having a right majority Supreme Court and more.

Let's compromise:
Gay marriage in certain states.
AGW - ditto.
Socialism - ditto
Having a right majority Supreme Court - DJT's female nominee gets in before he's re-elected
Abortion in certain states - ditto.

 

[james bond]

According to Stanford, in the SEP there are different working definitions of the word and it depends on each interlocutor's usage.

What definitions do not require faith upon the individual?

 

[G.T.]

According to Stanford, in the SEP there are different working definitions of the word and it depends on each interlocutor's usage.

What definitions do not require faith upon the individual?

The one that describes Atheism as more akin to agnosticism. Not a belief in a God, and not a belief that one doesn't exist. A non-belief.

 

[james bond]

According to Stanford, in the SEP there are different working definitions of the word and it depends on each interlocutor's usage.

What definitions do not require faith upon the individual?

The one that describes Atheism as more akin to agnosticism. Not a belief in a God, and not a belief that one doesn't exist. A non-belief.

Then why does this non-belief (agnosticism) apply to science? Christians should be allowed to teach creation science in schools then and creation scientists be allowed to participate in scientific peer reviews.

 

[G.T.]

According to Stanford, in the SEP there are different working definitions of the word and it depends on each interlocutor's usage.

What definitions do not require faith upon the individual?

The one that describes Atheism as more akin to agnosticism. Not a belief in a God, and not a belief that one doesn't exist. A non-belief.

Then why does this non-belief (agnosticism) apply to science? Christians should be allowed to teach creation science in schools then and creation scientists be allowed to participate in scientific peer reviews.

If creation science is able to pass rigorous peer-review, I'd love for it to be taught everywhere. But until that point occurs, I also have no problem with it being taught in the private schools that specifically ascribe to said Religions.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

WHEN YOU HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED THAT YOU AGREE WITH ME, AND DISAGREE WITH THE OP ON THE TOPIC.

What is it exactly that you think I agree with you?

 

[Correll]

WHEN YOU HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED THAT YOU AGREE WITH ME, AND DISAGREE WITH THE OP ON THE TOPIC.

What is it exactly that you think I agree with you?

As I said, and as you said, the topic. Are you high right now?

 

[Taz]

I'm not religious, where did you get that? But speaking in those kinds of terms so that you may understand my position, I don't think that the soul enters the body at conception, nor hangs around the womb. That comes into play when born, maybe a little later. Otherwise people would remember being in the womb...

>>I'm not religious, where did you get that?<<

You are in the R&E forum and you've been a participant here for a long time. You have the religion of atheism. You have faith in no God/gods. You are plenty religious.

The other thing that irritates me is that you discuss things such as soul and are mistaken. A spirit is formed during conception -- What Does the Bible Say About When Life Begins?. Life begins at conception because you are in the womb. A spirit doesn't enter the egg. That only happened at the creation of Adam. God breathed life into Adam. The spirit is what is supernatural. Nature cannot create it.

As to your position, you take so many and have so many opinions that it's hard to keep track, i.e. your faith isn't strong nor convincing. I don't even want to get into discuss remembering being in the womb or as an infant. What's important is being born again.

I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.

 

[james bond]

If creation science is able to pass rigorous peer-review, I'd love for it to be taught everywhere. But until that point occurs, I also have no problem with it being taught in the private schools that specifically ascribe to said Religions.

That's a good answer. You seem fair. The problem is peer review is biased today and that's why we get fake science. This peer review would have to involve creation scientists being let back into the science process and be able to publish their articles in Science and Nature magazines just to make their arguments and get their papers published.

 

[G.T.]

If creation science is able to pass rigorous peer-review, I'd love for it to be taught everywhere. But until that point occurs, I also have no problem with it being taught in the private schools that specifically ascribe to said Religions.

That's a good answer. You seem fair. The problem is peer review is biased today and that's why we get fake science. This peer review would have to involve creation scientists being let back into the science process and be able to publish their articles in Science and Nature magazines just to make their arguments and get their papers published.

If that's the case and it's important to you, then become an advocate on the issue in real life and forget this messageboard... its outreach is not a very practical way to 'debunk' Evolution in any scalable way.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

As I said, and as you said, the topic

Which one if the many things you’ve said?

 

[james bond]

I'm not religious, where did you get that? But speaking in those kinds of terms so that you may understand my position, I don't think that the soul enters the body at conception, nor hangs around the womb. That comes into play when born, maybe a little later. Otherwise people would remember being in the womb...

>>I'm not religious, where did you get that?<<

You are in the R&E forum and you've been a participant here for a long time. You have the religion of atheism. You have faith in no God/gods. You are plenty religious.

The other thing that irritates me is that you discuss things such as soul and are mistaken. A spirit is formed during conception -- What Does the Bible Say About When Life Begins?. Life begins at conception because you are in the womb. A spirit doesn't enter the egg. That only happened at the creation of Adam. God breathed life into Adam. The spirit is what is supernatural. Nature cannot create it.

As to your position, you take so many and have so many opinions that it's hard to keep track, i.e. your faith isn't strong nor convincing. I don't even want to get into discuss remembering being in the womb or as an infant. What's important is being born again.

I'm agnostic and see no proof either for or against the existence of a god. But leave the door open if anyone comes up with real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.

I doubt people would think you're agnostic. You make assumptions and have opinions that favor atheism. Maybe your faith in no God/gods is not strong. Your heart shows you favor atheism.

 

[james bond]

If creation science is able to pass rigorous peer-review, I'd love for it to be taught everywhere. But until that point occurs, I also have no problem with it being taught in the private schools that specifically ascribe to said Religions.

That's a good answer. You seem fair. The problem is peer review is biased today and that's why we get fake science. This peer review would have to involve creation scientists being let back into the science process and be able to publish their articles in Science and Nature magazines just to make their arguments and get their papers published.

If that's the case and it's important to you, then become an advocate on the issue in real life and forget this messageboard... its outreach is not a very practical way to 'debunk' Evolution in any scalable way.

What makes you think I'm not an advocate? It starts with getting the right people elected to political office. It starts with the states gaining more power.

As for education, the only way to change people's minds today is through these forums. It's the only way to discuss what I am talking about. The creation science or even ID opposition have no voice in Nature and Science. Nor can they submit papers. All they can do is self-publish themselves, but they have no vote. Today, it science by consensus which is wrong. Prior to the 1850s, creation scientists dominated. People believed in a 6,000 years old Earth. That was what was being taught. I would say people born in the 50s and 60s would know. Thus, the findings of the opposition are only disseminated through these forums. Enough questions have been brought up against evolution that the evolutionists themselves doubt it.

 

[G.T.]

If creation science is able to pass rigorous peer-review, I'd love for it to be taught everywhere. But until that point occurs, I also have no problem with it being taught in the private schools that specifically ascribe to said Religions.

That's a good answer. You seem fair. The problem is peer review is biased today and that's why we get fake science. This peer review would have to involve creation scientists being let back into the science process and be able to publish their articles in Science and Nature magazines just to make their arguments and get their papers published.

If that's the case and it's important to you, then become an advocate on the issue in real life and forget this messageboard... its outreach is not a very practical way to 'debunk' Evolution in any scalable way.

What makes you think I'm not an advocate? It starts with getting the right people elected to political office. It starts with the states gaining more power.

As for education, the only way to change people's minds today is through these forums. It's the only way to discuss what I am talking about. The creation science or even ID opposition have no voice in Nature and Science. Nor can they submit papers. All they can do is self-publish themselves, but they have no vote. Today, it science by consensus which is wrong. Prior to the 1850s, creation scientists dominated. People believed in a 6,000 years old Earth. That was what was being taught. Thus, the findings of the opposition are only disseminated through these forums. Enough questions have been brought up against evolution that the evolutionists themselves doubt it.

if you say so!

 

[Correll]

As I said, and as you said, the topic

Which one if the many things you’ve said?

The topic....

Are you ok? Do you know what we are even talking about in this thread? Do you know how to find the OP? Do you know where you are right now?

 

[Votto]

I think the problem that you have, midcan, is that you have theological differences with evangelicals.

I know you libs believe that Abortion is blessed, taking it in the ass is a sacrament and Almighty God put Adam and Steve (not Eve) into the Garden.

But evangelicals, and President Trump disagree.

Donald J. Trump isn't a perfect man, but neither is Sleepy Joe. This is just a theological dispute. Remember how Biden was ******* Jill when Jill was married to some other horse's ass who just wrote a book about it? He's a home wrecker

Why do libs portray Biden as such a paragon of virtue?

Every election cycle, those of faith are made to feel less than Christian voting for fundamentally flawed human beings.

In other words, Christians should never vote I reckon, and if they don't, then the atheistic hate filled Leftists run wild like they are doing in democrat held cities.

Christians are the only thing holding the US back from a fate like Venezuela.

 

[ding]

The legal system recognizes individuals. Genetically distinct individuals are created at conception.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

S.158 - 97th Congress (1981-1982): A bill to provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

Summary of S.158 - 97th Congress (1981-1982): A bill to provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

www.congress.gov

Now where is YOUR link that says otherwise, dummy?

First of all, your quote by the doctor is irrelevant to a legal question, and secondly, the bill you linked to never passed!!!!!
Got anything else?

I got tons.

"….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/matthews-roth_testimony_03_19_03.pdf

So where are your links, dummy?

That's not a link to something legal, just to a doctor's opinion. Please try again.

Isn't that what slave owners said about slaves and the Nazi's said about the Jews?

 

[Likkmee]

I really miss this guy.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Christians are the only thing holding the US back from a fate like Venezuela.

Bullshit. Religion has little to do with America’s economic well being. Anyway, there are more Democrat Christians than Republican.

Religious Landscape Study (RLS) | Pew Research Center

The Religious Landscape Study is a comprehensive survey of more than 35,000 Americans’ religious identities, beliefs and practices that’s been conducted in 2007, 2014 and 2023-24. Pew Research Center.

www.pewforum.org

In other words, Christians should never vote I reckon, and if they don't, then the atheistic hate filled Leftists run wild like they are doing in democrat held cities.

Christians better vote. We cannot be rid of ***** Grabber Christian Trump if millions of Christians don’t vote for Catholic Christian Biden and Black Baptist Christian HARTUS.