More Christians are conservative meanwhile Christ was liberal...

[S.J.]

Not that one should try to categorize Jesus politically but he was not a liberal. For starters, He believed in free will, liberals don't.

Explain free will. The biggest thing about Jesus was love, helping your neighbor and people in need. Conservatives don't care about people in need, they're more concerned about costs than they are about all Americans receiving quality health care. Conservatives think all liberals are lazy and that they depend on the government for help and they're judged as being a drag on society. The fact that southern states take in more federal welfare dollars than other states is proof that conservatives depend on government assistance more than liberals do. I'm not saying that there aren't any liberals dependant on the government, I'm saying that when conservatives claim all liberals live off the government that its a big lie. Another huge factor that says liberals are more Jesus like than conservatives is that liberals care about God's green earth whereas conservatives don't. They want to do away with the EPA so there are less regulations so corporations can increase their earnings at the expense of our environment. Jesus would be a tree hugger, and who knows, he could also be an environmental terrorist to save our planet from those who are ruining it. [URL="http://[URL]"][URL][/URL][/URL]

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

Drone alert.

 

[there4eyeM]

Christians follow Christs example. Those who do not are not Christians.
If a person says, "I am a Martian", does that make it true?

 

[Taz]

---
Then how do you explain your disbelief in the Eve-from-rib story, yet your selected beliefs in other stories?

????......you DO understand how faith works right?......a person makes choices........so yes......selected......

If you don't believe that a woman was made from a man's rib, then your not a christian .

lol.....and if you think that abiogenesis qualifies as a theory you're not a real rationalist.......

I don't care about that, but you just admitted that you're not a real Christian. Now you know.

as far as I can see I have only admitted you don't have a real argument......

You know deep down that you don't believe ALL the bible stories. Like making a woman out of a man's rib, even YOU don't believe that.

 

[Taz]

It's the leading theory. I never claimed otherwise.

not a theory....a theory needs to be testable.....its a statement of your faith, unproven.....by your standard, that makes it a fantasy......

No, it's being tested these days in labs.

lol.....you simple minded twit.......its not being tested anywhere by anyone......

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about playing god - Telegraph
First Life with Alien DNA Created in Lab - Scientific American
Formation of life s building blocks recreated in lab - New Scientist
Use google to find more links... You ******* retard.

lol.....you call me a ******* retard, yet you fell for this guys claim he created life?.....from your first link...
"Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code."

if they hadn't started with existing living cells they would not have succeeded.......they didn't "create" anything.....they changed the nature of an already living cell......

and you were stupid enough to fall for a headline......rofl......

"and inserted the whole thing into E. coli cells. With the diatom protein supplying a diet of foreign nucleotides, the plasmid was copied and passed on to dividing E. coli cells for nearly a week. When the supply of foreign nucleotides ran out, the bacteria replaced the foreign bases with natural ones."
from your second link...this life they "created" couldn't even reproduce itself......

What I'm saying is that there are plenty of instances where scientists are trying things to figure out how life started. You claimed there were none. I win AGAIN.

 

[Taz]

Right now your God is a fantasy until you can prove otherwise. Pretty simple really.

We don't have to prove anything. He'll do that on His own. Let's also establish some things.

1. What's your level of proof? Some people set ridiculous standards, then move the goal posts when those standards are met. Basically, they're not going to believe, no matter what.
2. What difference would it make to you if you were forced to acknowledge God's existence?

1. I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for or against the possibility of a god. I'd need solid, TANGIBLE proof. Irrefutable proof proven by science.
2. The only way I'd be forced to accept god is with what I wrote for proof that I'd need. In that case, I'd have no problem acknowledging that god exists. In front of irrefutable scientific proof, I'd have no problem at all.

it's going to be odd and quite sad to watch you when you stand before the Lord and explain to Him that you won't believe He is there without irrefutable proof proven by science.

Your "Lord" is a myth with no proof whatsoever.

I see evidence all around me of the Lord. You can shove your head in the sand and declare all the evidence you want invalid but it doesn't change the fact that He lives and loves you. Nor does it change the fact that He does reveal Himself to those who seek Him.

I hope someday when you have been humbled by life that you will remember that He loves you and that when you seek Him, you will find Him.

I should have specified SCIENTIFIC PROOF. There is none of your god. Geez, even the Hubble telescope can't find Kolob, but it can see back as far as the Big Bang.

 

[Taz]

1. I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for or against the possibility of a god. I'd need solid, TANGIBLE proof. Irrefutable proof proven by science.
2. The only way I'd be forced to accept god is with what I wrote for proof that I'd need. In that case, I'd have no problem acknowledging that god exists. In front of irrefutable scientific proof, I'd have no problem at all.

What do you mean by scientific proof?

That science can prove. Right now, science can't prove that an invisible being that made the universe in 6 days and then needed a day off even exists.

Is that God's fault or science's limitation? IOW, why would you expect science to attempt to prove God's existence when it appears that most scientists would much rather prove the opposite? And, why do you think a being so superior to human science would allow Himself to be so limited that science could prove HIs existence? Science requires replicability. A given set of inputs generates a given set of outputs. Why would God limit Himself like that? He shows up at the Super Bowl half time show, does irrefutable miracles. Thousands believe, millions believe they're seeing special effects. 20 years later, science writes the whole thing off as a hoax, because it can't replicate anything that happened. See how that works? "Do a trick" is not a good way for God to demonstrate Himself, because there would be a never ending demand for more tricks to convince more unbelievers.

Why would your god hide its existence on purpose? Isn't the point of the bible to get people to believe in that god? So if your god does exist, why would I need to follow a book to find it?

God shows up to you personally, demonstrates his existence to your total satisfaction, yet you refuse to believe because no scientist is able to replicate what happened in the lab? You're putting an awful lot of faith in something that is proven wrong repeatedly.

God has never demonstrated his existence to my total satisfaction. Or at all for that matter.

 

[Taz]

If you don't believe that a woman was made from a man's rib, then your not a christian. Pretty simple really, you either obey the whole book or you're a faker.

Its really not that simple. Jesus told Peter, "If you love me, feed my sheep.".

How many people who profess a love for Jesus and claim to be christian do not feed sheep?

Are they all simply fakers or was the command to feed sheep never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people??

In the same way the story of Adam and Eve was never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people.

The story of Adam and Eve may not be history and it may contradict well know facts about reality, talking serpent, etc., but it conveys truth nevertheless, like the hidden moral of a fable, to all those with the intelligence to perceive it.

How many that claim to be christians have a full table and don't feed the poor?

how many who claim to be atheists have a full table and don't feed the poor?.....

That's not in the atheist handbook, it's in yours.

 

[PostmodernProph]

If you don't believe that a woman was made from a man's rib, then your not a christian. Pretty simple really, you either obey the whole book or you're a faker.

Its really not that simple. Jesus told Peter, "If you love me, feed my sheep.".

How many people who profess a love for Jesus and claim to be christian do not feed sheep?

Are they all simply fakers or was the command to feed sheep never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people??

In the same way the story of Adam and Eve was never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people.

The story of Adam and Eve may not be history and it may contradict well know facts about reality, talking serpent, etc., but it conveys truth nevertheless, like the hidden moral of a fable, to all those with the intelligence to perceive it.

How many that claim to be christians have a full table and don't feed the poor?

how many who claim to be atheists have a full table and don't feed the poor?.....

It is not in their bible or church teachings.

so you are arguing that atheists are supposed to be immoral, so its okay?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

????......you DO understand how faith works right?......a person makes choices........so yes......selected......

If you don't believe that a woman was made from a man's rib, then your not a christian .

lol.....and if you think that abiogenesis qualifies as a theory you're not a real rationalist.......

I don't care about that, but you just admitted that you're not a real Christian. Now you know.

as far as I can see I have only admitted you don't have a real argument......

You know deep down that you don't believe ALL the bible stories. Like making a woman out of a man's rib, even YOU don't believe that.

so in your mind one has to believe that everything in the Bible is literal or you are not a Christian?.......or to be more literal, should I have said in your lack of a mind you believe that?.......

 

[Taz]

If you don't believe that a woman was made from a man's rib, then your not a christian .

lol.....and if you think that abiogenesis qualifies as a theory you're not a real rationalist.......

I don't care about that, but you just admitted that you're not a real Christian. Now you know.

as far as I can see I have only admitted you don't have a real argument......

You know deep down that you don't believe ALL the bible stories. Like making a woman out of a man's rib, even YOU don't believe that.

so in your mind one has to believe that everything in the Bible is literal or you are not a Christian?.......or to be more literal, should I have said in your lack of a mind you believe that?.......

It's not a pick and choose menu. You either believe and follow everything, or you're basically saying that you don't believe some of the stuff in the bible. That's heresy. You're not a real gang member.

 

[PostmodernProph]

What I'm saying is that there are plenty of instances where scientists are trying things to figure out how life started. You claimed there were none. I win AGAIN.

now lets be literal......that is nothing even remotely like what you posted.....and I claimed there were none because there are none......life, mud puddles, lightning?......sound familiar now?......if you keep arguing with me, you will never win again.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

It's not a pick and choose menu. You either believe and follow everything, or you're basically saying that you don't believe some of the stuff in the bible. That's heresy. You're not a real gang member.

luckily for me it was you that said that, not God.......I am curious......have you ever heard of parables?......

 

[Taz]

What I'm saying is that there are plenty of instances where scientists are trying things to figure out how life started. You claimed there were none. I win AGAIN.

now lets be literal......that is nothing even remotely like what you posted.....and I claimed there were none because there are none......life, mud puddles, lightning?......sound familiar now?......if you keep arguing with me, you will never win again.....

Well, if you're stuck on a mud puddle, ok, no, I don't think that they're using that.

 

[Taz]

It's not a pick and choose menu. You either believe and follow everything, or you're basically saying that you don't believe some of the stuff in the bible. That's heresy. You're not a real gang member.

luckily for me it was you that said that, not God.......I am curious......have you ever heard of parables?......

You can rationalize it all you want but if you don't think that Noah got 2 of EVERY animal on earth on his raft (and all the other kooky tales), then you're not a christian. You're a christian sympathizer, maybe.

 

[hadit]

What do you mean by scientific proof?

That science can prove. Right now, science can't prove that an invisible being that made the universe in 6 days and then needed a day off even exists.

Is that God's fault or science's limitation? IOW, why would you expect science to attempt to prove God's existence when it appears that most scientists would much rather prove the opposite? And, why do you think a being so superior to human science would allow Himself to be so limited that science could prove HIs existence? Science requires replicability. A given set of inputs generates a given set of outputs. Why would God limit Himself like that? He shows up at the Super Bowl half time show, does irrefutable miracles. Thousands believe, millions believe they're seeing special effects. 20 years later, science writes the whole thing off as a hoax, because it can't replicate anything that happened. See how that works? "Do a trick" is not a good way for God to demonstrate Himself, because there would be a never ending demand for more tricks to convince more unbelievers.

Why would your god hide its existence on purpose? Isn't the point of the bible to get people to believe in that god? So if your god does exist, why would I need to follow a book to find it?

God shows up to you personally, demonstrates his existence to your total satisfaction, yet you refuse to believe because no scientist is able to replicate what happened in the lab? You're putting an awful lot of faith in something that is proven wrong repeatedly.

God has never demonstrated his existence to my total satisfaction. Or at all for that matter.

And when He does, do you believe it or do you deny it ever happened because it can't be replicated in a lab?

 

[Taz]

That science can prove. Right now, science can't prove that an invisible being that made the universe in 6 days and then needed a day off even exists.

Is that God's fault or science's limitation? IOW, why would you expect science to attempt to prove God's existence when it appears that most scientists would much rather prove the opposite? And, why do you think a being so superior to human science would allow Himself to be so limited that science could prove HIs existence? Science requires replicability. A given set of inputs generates a given set of outputs. Why would God limit Himself like that? He shows up at the Super Bowl half time show, does irrefutable miracles. Thousands believe, millions believe they're seeing special effects. 20 years later, science writes the whole thing off as a hoax, because it can't replicate anything that happened. See how that works? "Do a trick" is not a good way for God to demonstrate Himself, because there would be a never ending demand for more tricks to convince more unbelievers.

Why would your god hide its existence on purpose? Isn't the point of the bible to get people to believe in that god? So if your god does exist, why would I need to follow a book to find it?

God shows up to you personally, demonstrates his existence to your total satisfaction, yet you refuse to believe because no scientist is able to replicate what happened in the lab? You're putting an awful lot of faith in something that is proven wrong repeatedly.

God has never demonstrated his existence to my total satisfaction. Or at all for that matter.

And when He does, do you believe it or do you deny it ever happened because it can't be replicated in a lab?

As long as it's a real event and I'm not suffering from delusions like is happening so often when people think that they meet god or his gofer, Jesus.

 

[Avatar4321]

We don't have to prove anything. He'll do that on His own. Let's also establish some things.

1. What's your level of proof? Some people set ridiculous standards, then move the goal posts when those standards are met. Basically, they're not going to believe, no matter what.
2. What difference would it make to you if you were forced to acknowledge God's existence?

1. I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for or against the possibility of a god. I'd need solid, TANGIBLE proof. Irrefutable proof proven by science.
2. The only way I'd be forced to accept god is with what I wrote for proof that I'd need. In that case, I'd have no problem acknowledging that god exists. In front of irrefutable scientific proof, I'd have no problem at all.

it's going to be odd and quite sad to watch you when you stand before the Lord and explain to Him that you won't believe He is there without irrefutable proof proven by science.

Your "Lord" is a myth with no proof whatsoever.

I see evidence all around me of the Lord. You can shove your head in the sand and declare all the evidence you want invalid but it doesn't change the fact that He lives and loves you. Nor does it change the fact that He does reveal Himself to those who seek Him.

I hope someday when you have been humbled by life that you will remember that He loves you and that when you seek Him, you will find Him.

I should have specified SCIENTIFIC PROOF. There is none of your god. Geez, even the Hubble telescope can't find Kolob, but it can see back as far as the Big Bang.

The Hubble telescope can see through time? Seriously?

 

[Avatar4321]

And it's completely irrational to exclude all evidence that you don't like and focus on just one type.

 

[hadit]

Is that God's fault or science's limitation? IOW, why would you expect science to attempt to prove God's existence when it appears that most scientists would much rather prove the opposite? And, why do you think a being so superior to human science would allow Himself to be so limited that science could prove HIs existence? Science requires replicability. A given set of inputs generates a given set of outputs. Why would God limit Himself like that? He shows up at the Super Bowl half time show, does irrefutable miracles. Thousands believe, millions believe they're seeing special effects. 20 years later, science writes the whole thing off as a hoax, because it can't replicate anything that happened. See how that works? "Do a trick" is not a good way for God to demonstrate Himself, because there would be a never ending demand for more tricks to convince more unbelievers.

Why would your god hide its existence on purpose? Isn't the point of the bible to get people to believe in that god? So if your god does exist, why would I need to follow a book to find it?

God shows up to you personally, demonstrates his existence to your total satisfaction, yet you refuse to believe because no scientist is able to replicate what happened in the lab? You're putting an awful lot of faith in something that is proven wrong repeatedly.

God has never demonstrated his existence to my total satisfaction. Or at all for that matter.

And when He does, do you believe it or do you deny it ever happened because it can't be replicated in a lab?

As long as it's a real event and I'm not suffering from delusions like is happening so often when people think that they meet god or his gofer, Jesus.

That's my point. You would doubt your own experience, so why would God bother to do tricks for you?

 

[hadit]

1. I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for or against the possibility of a god. I'd need solid, TANGIBLE proof. Irrefutable proof proven by science.
2. The only way I'd be forced to accept god is with what I wrote for proof that I'd need. In that case, I'd have no problem acknowledging that god exists. In front of irrefutable scientific proof, I'd have no problem at all.

it's going to be odd and quite sad to watch you when you stand before the Lord and explain to Him that you won't believe He is there without irrefutable proof proven by science.

Your "Lord" is a myth with no proof whatsoever.

I see evidence all around me of the Lord. You can shove your head in the sand and declare all the evidence you want invalid but it doesn't change the fact that He lives and loves you. Nor does it change the fact that He does reveal Himself to those who seek Him.

I hope someday when you have been humbled by life that you will remember that He loves you and that when you seek Him, you will find Him.

I should have specified SCIENTIFIC PROOF. There is none of your god. Geez, even the Hubble telescope can't find Kolob, but it can see back as far as the Big Bang.

The Hubble telescope can see through time? Seriously?

Light has a finite speed. Therefore, the farther away something is, the further back in time light coming from it originated. When we look at a star, for example, that is so far away that its light takes 1,000 years to reach the earth, we see it as it was 1,000 years ago, not like it is today. The entire universe, therefore, outside our solar system could cease to exist in an instant and we would see the stars closest to us go out, then those further away, then further away, etc. We experience the same thing with sound when we see a lightning bolt and some time later hear the thunder it created. And no, the Hubble most certainly cannot see back to the Big Bang.