God is neither Republican nor Democrat
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Republicans aren't always right and neither are the Democrats - nor are the Independents and the Libertarians. Only God is always right, and we must align ourselves with Him.
There's a fascinating account in the biblical book of Joshua that is quite relevant to people of faith as we approach the midterm elections. It also ties in with a famous Civil War account involving Abraham Lincoln. As we'll see, the lesson from both is the same.
Looking first at the book of Joshua, the children of Israel were about to fight against the city of Jericho. This was going to be the first battle in their conquest of Canaan, and it was the first major battle that would be led by Joshua.
The text states: "When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, 'Are you for us, or for our adversaries?'" (Josh 5:13).
This was a logical question to ask. An imposing warrior stood before Joshua, and he wanted to know whose side this warrior was on. "Are you for us or against us?"
The man, who was a divine messenger, answered with one word: No!
That was not the answer Joshua was expecting!
He was saying, "I'm not for you or for your adversaries. Rather, 'I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come.'" (Josh 5:14)
When Joshua realized who was standing before him, he fell to the ground and worshiped. This warrior carried the very presence of God.
And Joshua understood the message. This warrior was there to lead God's army into war. Would Joshua join with him? Would Joshua follow God's orders? It was a matter of Joshua aligning with the Lord rather than the Lord aligning with Joshua.
There is a similar account regarding President Lincoln.
As the tradition goes, during the Civil War, he was asked if God was on his side. He replied , "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."
When it comes to the political scene today, the Republicans are not always right and the Democrats are not always right. The same goes for the Independents and the Libertarians.
Only God is always right, and we must align ourselves with Him, which means aligning ourselves with what is important to Him.
That's why I prefer to pray, "Lord, Your kingdom come to America" more than, "God bless America."
The latter can mean, "God, make our nation bigger and better and stronger!"
The former can mean, "God, come to our nation and change us so we can be truly and fully blessed."
There's quite a difference between the two.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the political divide, we tend to view things in black and white terms. (If you don't believe me, just compare headlines on the Huffington Post to those on Breitbart News , or watch CNN and Fox News report on the exact same things. My sentiments lean far more right than left, but I don't take either side as gospel.)
Trump is saving America ... or Trump is destroying America.
Obama is the greatest president in American history ... or Obama is the worst president in American history.
If you're a Christian who votes Republican you're a hypocrite. If you're a Christian who votes Democrat you're a hypocrite.
Need I say more?
To be candid, I have a really hard time understanding how any follower of Jesus can vote for a pro-abortion candidate like Obama or Hillary Clinton. To me, that is a line drawn in the sand that I cannot cross.
But the reason I normally vote Republican is not because I have a loyalty to the party. Not in the least.
Rather, my loyalty is to the Lord, and I vote for whichever party or individual lines up more with the things I believe are important in His sight. The life of the unborn is high on that list of my moral priorities, based on my understanding of Scripture.
So, to the extent a party or a politician lines with godly values, to that extent that group or individual gets my vote.
At the close of my new book on President Trump, I lay out seven principles that will help us stay involved politically without getting caught up in partisan politics. The second principle is this: Regardless of party affiliation, we must remain independent.
As stated in the book, some of my friends are registered Republicans; others (far less in number) are registered Democrats; still others Libertarian or simply Independent.
What matters, though, is that we identify more with God's cause than with a political party, since: 1) every party is mixed, and: 2) no party, in itself, can bring about national transformation. In that sense, we stand as God's holy, alternative party, offering our votes and support to those who stand for what is right.
I wrote on January 30, 2017, "Let's put our faith before our politics, lest we make the mistake the religious right made in generations before and become an appendage of the Republican Party."
To the extent we become an appendage to a party, to that extent we sell ourselves short, and to that extent we lose our ability to bring about change. Let the political parties come to us rather than us going to them. No one should be able to bribe us or gain our votes by offering us a seat at the table.
And that's why I refuse to be buttonholed into being pro-Trump or anti-Trump (although I voted for him and support him). That's why an article one day will praise him and an article the next day will express concern.
My first allegiance – our first allegiance – is higher.
Dr. Michael Brown is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book - from which some of the material for this article was excerpted and adapted - is " Donald Trump Is Not My Savior: An Evangelical Leader Speaks His Mind About the Man He Supports As President ."
Tags
Who is online
413 visitors
“What matters, though, is that we identify more with God's cause than with a political party, since: 1) every party is mixed, and: 2) no party, in itself, can bring about national transformation. In that sense, we stand as God's holy, alternative party, offering our votes and support to those who stand for what is right.
I wrote on January 30, 2017, "Let's put our faith before our politics, lest we make the mistake the religious right made in generations before and become an appendage of the Republican Party."
To the extent we become an appendage to a party, to that extent we sell ourselves short, and to that extent we lose our ability to bring about change. Let the political parties come to us rather than us going to them. No one should be able to bribe us or gain our votes by offering us a seat at the table.”
In all likelihood, he is non-existent too.
From what I understand, the Easter Bunny is neither Republican or Democrat too.
But as we all know Santa is a democrat.
Everybody knows that Republicans and Democrats actually exist.
If Jesus rowed up on the shores of the gop's and Donald J. Trump's small a america of today begging for asylum in order avoid certain crucifixion the damn gop and the small c christian goppers would without a doubt send him back to the Romans in Palestine and certain death. No quarter would be given Him. He would be forsaken. So can the crap and admit it. Today's gop and Trump's america are Anti-Christians...
It is ironic that these people have literally NONE of the qualities that Christ promoted. None.
“To be candid, I have a really hard time understanding how any follower of Jesus can vote for a pro-abortion candidate like Obama or Hillary Clinton. To me, that is a line drawn in the sand that I cannot cross.
But the reason I normally vote Republican is not because I have a loyalty to the party. Not in the least.
Rather, my loyalty is to the Lord, and I vote for whichever party or individual lines up more with the things I believe are important in His sight. The life of the unborn is high on that list of my moral priorities, based on my understanding of Scripture.
So, to the extent a party or a politician lines with godly values, to that extent that group or individual gets my vote.”
more like a lack of understanding scripture and spoken like a true unamerican theocrat.
False grace is less than no grace at all and your own up vote is evidence...
XX,
No one is pro-abortion. They are pro-choice. That means that you as a Christain who believes that abortion is a sin, doesn't chose that option, while people with other beliefs can, if they want to.
Perrie,
What is abortion? It is killing a unborn life whom HAD NO CHOICE in being created and HAD NO CHOICE in being aborted. A pro-choicer is actually ANTI-CHOICE, because they remove all choices of the unborn whom NEVER HAD A CHOICE.
Tom,
Does a women's body commit murder when it miscarries? Is a person who is brain dead but has a beating heart a person anymore.
Of course not.
I don't believe that a mass of cells constitutes a baby. It might not be your belief, and I am fine with that. But as a person who taught biology and carried a set of twins through some very rough times, I do not believe that a mass of cells is a baby. Of course, at some threshold I do, and I don't advocate for abortion after that. But your beliefs should not be forced on me, as my beliefs should not be forced on you.
Being pro-choice allows you to live by your beliefs and others to live by theirs. it is NOT pro-abortion either. I am pro-choice, but I never had an abortion.
pro-choice will always trump religious dogma in America. don't like it? then leave. it ain't changing.
pro-choice = individual freedom.
So, is it a mass of just cells at the 6 week mark?
EDIT: A miscarriage is a natural process, an abortion is an unnatural process. Is it murder when someone loses their balance and dies from the fall because they hit their head on the concrete? It is murder if someone pushes them and they die from hitting their head on the concrete. The first is a natural death, the second is an unnatural death.
Religious dogma? You do realize that a fetus has a heartbeat at 6 weeks and that abortion is an artificial killing of that fetus, correct? Perrie used a false equivalence to support abortion by equating it to a miscarriage. It is like saying someone died of natural causes when they were pushed off a building, instead of calling what it actual is...murder. When you artificially eliminate a life for no other purpose than on a whim, you are committing murder and abortion is the artificial elimination of life on a whim.
If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. You have zero right to tell someone else what they can do with their own bodies. The right claims to be all for more individual freedom but apparently just for males. Seriously, you want a smaller less intrusive government then turn around and say you want the government to regulate women's vaginas? Really?
Please tell us what makes you think you should be able to tell others what they can do with their own bodies?
Why should a fetus have MORE rights than the woman carrying it?
Do tell.
Until you grow a vagina, you have no say in the matter. Removing an established 50 year old individual right from half the voting block will never happen in this country without bloodshed. Any reason to abolish abortion is a thinly veiled attempt to create a second class group of citizens under dominion by others. That was tried in the past and it didn't work out too well for those that tried it. What is best for any woman in the US is between her and her doctor, from the moment of conception throughout gestation. Her body, her choice. The only positive aspect of repealing Roe v Wade would be the ultimate elimination of the republican party from American government, one way or another.
Not sure I would go THAT far, but I would bet the farm that if it did happen, republicans would lose the house, the senate and the WH for a VERY long time....decades.
So is cancer. Are you suggesting we should not treat cancer?
At 6 weeks, can a fetus survive on it's own? No. So it's essentially a parasite, just like a tape worm or cancerous growth, (etc.).
Ever try telling somebody with a vagina and a gun what to do with their own body? /s
Why should a woman have MORE rights than the fetus she is carrying? She made the choice to have sex and she needs to live with the consequences of that choice.
Want to try that again without a false equivalence? A fetus is not a parasite, it is a symbiote. It is not causing harm to the mother.
A medical procedure.
Emotional rhetoric. A tumor had no choice in being created or being removed. No one goes on about saving tumors.
Nice attempt at disingenuous logic twisting. A pro-choicer allows just that: a woman's right to choose abortion or not. The unborn do not have a choice. So why should the unborn get a choice over the woman in question. It's funny how you go on about "choice" for a fetus, but don't seem to care about the woman's CHOICE!
pretty much, yeah. it sort of resembles a piece of uncooked shrimp at that point.
So what? What difference does it make? The end result is the same.
Abortion isn't murder so your analogy fails!
Wrong! A fetal heartbeat cannot be heard with a fetal doppler until about 9-10 weeks.
So? An appendectomy is the artificial killing of an appendix. A tumor resection is the artificial killing of a tumor. What difference does it make if it's natural or artificial?
You're the one using false equivalencies by comparing abortion to pushing someone off a cliff or equating abortion to murder!
Except abortion is neither legally or scientifically murder.
Wrong again! Learn the definition of murder before you spew such emotional nonsense. Are you committing "murder" every time you take antibiotics for an infection? After all, that infection is a "life."
Because she's the one with established legal rights and autonomy. And a fetus has no rights to begin with.
Such a misogynistic statement-blame or punish the woman for having sex by forcing her to carry a pregnancy against her will. Choosing to have sex is not the same as choosing to get, much less remain pregnant. And choosing to have an abortion is a consequence of sexual activity.
You first!
Wrong! A fetus feeds off the woman and contributes nothing back. Are you also aware of all the possible health complications associated with pregnancy? It's downright ignorant to claim the fetus doesn't cause harm to the woman when it's medically proven that it can, and sometimes does.
So menstruation is a sin? So all women sin once a month? So vaginal sex is also a sin if it doesn't end up in pregnancy for married couples? Where does that place anal and oral sex? Far right wingers have some very strange ideas about sex.
Whenever someone equates pro-choice as "pro-abortion," you know they are being willfully disingenuous at best, or willfully dishonest at worst. But you also know their argument is going to be quite weak and/or full of emotional appeals and rhetoric.
I'm sure there are those that actually believe that.
Some would claim that's a sin because it's sodomy.
Or some strange fears or hang-ups about it.
To me, yes it is. It has no brain, little nervous system, feels no pain, can't think. It is fundamentally not a person in any way shape or form. In fact, it remains pretty much that way until sometime after the 12th week. I only support abortion in the first trimester, unless the mother's health is at risk, since somewhere between the 12 and 16th week the nervous system comes together and then the fetus can feel.
so you love trump? and you love the gop also?
if so? your a good man
I beg to differ... a future court might find...
the ( it's my body ) arguments stop once there is another body in the discussion. aka: vagina
perhaps a future father will assert half ownership of the zygot.
or joint custody of the "body inside that vagina.
never say never
The above is the authors quoted opinion and I agree with it. I will never vote for a candidate that suppprts abortion for other than life of the mother, the child having no potential at all for life after birth due to severe defect, rape, or incest. That is my position and I vote that way. The odds are almost 100% that the candidate supporting that position will be in agreement with me on most other issues as well.
Human life begins at conception . We are all human from that point on in our human life development. For that life to end by other than natural causes or accidental cause at any point from conception to death bed or genuine accident is the taking of a real human life.
That's pre-dating scripture by 9 months.
Making terminations illegal does not one thing to decrease the demand for abortions. We tried that and all it did was make criminals of women and those who helped them pushing terminations into back alleys and resulting in the death and sterility of countless women. Three things are proven to dramatically reduce demand for termination services...
1. Require comprehensive sex education for all children prior to puberty.
2. Provided easy affordable sccess to all forms of birth control for all sexually active persons of reproductive age.
3. Provide easy access to women's health services such as those provided by Planned Parenthood.
Contrary to all logic and experience those like yourself who violently oppose reproductive choice are also violently opposed to the very things which are proven to eliminate demand for termination services. Why? Please answer honestly because it is beyond my comprehension how some can be so ignorant and obtuse to these facts...
A zygote is not yet a human. It's illogical and ridiculous to equate a cell to an actual born individual.
No, we are just a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, ect. Not yet an actual human.
The law disagrees with you.
There’s demand for all sorts of sin. That doesn’t mean that we should make them legal. Elective Abortion and gay marriage are two that come to mind that should not have ever been made legal.
Um, because she is a living breathing and self aware human and the fetus....isn't?
So you want her to have the kid as a punishment for making a mistake? Sounds about right....punish the woman for getting pregnant, then a few things happen.
1) She has the kid and when she tries to get help from the government, (the same government that forced her to have the kid), "NO!!!!!!!!!!!!".
2) The kid dies because the mother couldn't afford to get it to a doctor.
3) The kid ends up in one foster family after another.
The argument from the right on this is literally no argument at all. They want to force the woman to have the kid, then the second it's born??? Walk away, and make sure to cut any kind of help this woman may need.
I would but it depends on how dramatically and immediately a re-banning of abortion occurred. If it took place as it seems to be doing in the red states by limiting access to a single clinic in the state then I doubt there'd be violence in reaction to that, but I sure hope that the GOP would lose control at all levels of government in response.
It amazes me that there are any women at all who vote for those misogynistic morons, just like it amazes me that there are any racial minorities, non-Christians, LGBT folks or poor folks who vote Republican. Granted that only a few do but it still begs the question of why they do it.
I don't believe that, why should yours take precedence over everybody personal beliefs? I can give you my own spiritual reasons why you are wrong, but it really doesn't matter because you should not be able to force others to live under yours.
Then there is that problem of other areas the christian right doesn't deem as important spiritually important but is the main message Jesus spread. So best to mind your own belief system and let others do the same.
So, just exactly what do you propose be the legal penalties and punishments for having an abortion, for performing a gay marriage ceremony, for terminating a pregnancy or for engaging in homosexual acts? Should they be mere terms of imprisonment or the biblical proscription of death?
Then you care not one bit for actually reducing the incidence of abortions and care only desire to punish those yummy ou deem sinners because abortions and gay sex will happen regardless of your misbegotten beliefs...
I guesd mr craig is incapable of responding for himself...
Excellent questions for sure and i have wondered the same thing's for a long time.
Sin is a silly religious concept. it is also irrelevant to our secular laws.
Why not? Give a logical, legal reason! Just remember, religious basis have no say or place in our secular laws. So invoking any religious reasoning is by default without merit, irrelevant, and summarily dismissed. I suppose that's why arguments against SSM and abortion (which happen to be based mostly on religion) have always failed so spectacularly in the courts.
Considering how easily his entire argument was blown out of the water, I'm not surprised.
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and to god, the things that are gods.
That is to say just like sporting events, god does not take sides and if he or she did it would be doubtful that it would be with the side that strips babies from their Mothers regardless of the reason.
foster care -vs- death by abortion, which is better?
I am a bit curious here.
if foster care is worse than death by abortion...
is it better for "them to just kill them??
or is it better for "us to just kill them??
or maybe... is foster care better than death by abortion? (my pick)
Please cite one foster kid who entered the foster program as a blastocyst.
for obvious reasons, that is not the question at hand.
name one foster kid who would have been better off killed by abortion.
If anyone is killing a foster kid you must report it to police immediately. If though you are talking about women having legal medical procedures and you report those as murders to your local police then they will put YOU into jail or into the crazy farm and so you had better think that all over, again...
Most prolifers are probirth. Once the baby leaves the birth canal, all bets are off. No financial aid because that would mean they're a leech on society. Here are the stats on unwanted children by people who feel forced to give birth. Btw, I think if men got pregnant, there would be an abortion clinic in every QuikTrip, every Pep Boys, every Hooters, etc.
National Child Abuse Statistics
Cite .
Spare me your rhetoric bullshit.
name one dead kid who had been tortured, starved, neglected, and/or sexually abused who wouldn't have rather been done away with as a zygote before their mother's second trimester.
Cite .
I don't think that is what the bible says,( I don't remember the exact passage)
Life begins with the first breath, and ends with the last breath.
Many people often quote various dates when the zygotes heartbeat starts, but the heart starts out as two tubes, not yet connected to anything but "pulsing" - eventually they will become a beating heart.
When a mammal is birthed, the first breath in the lungs causes several shunts to close automatically in and around the heart. One closes the hole between the ventricles
to increase blood pressure and force blood through the lungs while another closes off the umbilical cord.
Doncha know? Radical small c christian fundamentalists demand an exact literal interpretation of scripture until the truth of what the Bible actually says contradicts their lame brained political dogma. When what the Bible actually says is the exact opposite of what the damn goppers pretend then all bets are off, as we see right above here. Always remember that false grace is less than no grace at all. According to the Bible, life explicitly begins with a newborn's first breath no matter what the radical fundies falsely pretend. Odd, isn't it?
Tell that to Jeremy Stodghill.
Read the entire thing.
Faith was never a requirement to be an American, and it never will be. It's an elective and irrelevant to American government.
It's an elective and irrelevant to American government
... not to mention a detrimental aspect of being human.
those that claim to be on the side of less government regulation and more individual freedom seem to have a lot of caveats attached to the ideals.
our bill of rights is funny like that.
cheers
The really funny part is that bible-babblers and other conservative extremists never read the very first clause of the very first amendment. They literally have no clue why we have a secular government which can't enforce the sharia laws of their favorite superstition.
The absence of God on ones life is very detrimental to being human.
Tell that to all the people who have been murdered inside a church or synagogue.
I'd say that the presence of God in ones life is very detrimental to being human - when it comes to the extremists and fundamentalists and evangelicals.
" They found that men reported significantly greater inclination to speed than women and that more years of riding were linked to a greater tendency for riding fast. These results are in accordance with the results by Styles et al. who found that more driving years increased drivers’ confidence and thus increased their risk taking while driving."
I submit, that the imagined "presence of God in ones life" can be "very detrimental to being human". Much like they found with drivers, those with increased confidence actually took more risks. Those who imagine themselves protected by, and with a direct line to, an all powerful being that can simply forgive when mistakes are made, I believe, gives the religious unwarranted confidence which leads them to taking greater risks potentially being very detrimental for they and their families.
In what way? I have seen no ill effects from not believing in Allah.
Speak for yourself. I've been doing just fine without a god. If you need a god to be a decent human being, then that sounds like a character flaw on your part.
If God is always right, where does that place the 'gawd people' such as Dobson and the rest of 'that klan'?
If they had true faith they wouldn't need to vote.
Uh, Dobson and the rest of 'the klan' possess neither truth or faith.
rule 1 god helps those who help themselves.
but then again? maybe "Cain was not an "Able pick... LOL
Cheers
Ridiculous. Render unto God that which is His and unto Caesar that which is its. We believers are allowed to pay taxes and obey the laws of the land as long as they don’t conflict with Gods law and are permitted to vote and even participate in government as individuals.
The bible is not the basis of law in the US for Americans, the Constitution is. The Constitution supersedes religious edicts or dogma in America. The US is not a xtian nation, it's secular by design, with religious beliefs equal to each other, and all equal to none. Religionists are free to believe what they want to, but they're prohibited from imposing unwanted belief systems on others.
God's law does not make or trump our secular laws.
Sure, just as long as you don't try to impose religious beliefs or "god's law" into our system of law and government.
Religionists are free to lobby government to make laws just like anyone else can. Religionists are free to vote and vote based on their beliefs. Religionists are free to run for and hold office and vote their conscience on any given issue like everyone else can.
Not if those laws are based on religion. 1st Amendment.
Bummer that the 1st Amendment prohibits them from using our secular government to enforce the sharia laws of their nutty superstition. eh?
No wonder your anti-LGBT sharia laws keep getting struck down just like your racist and misogynistic laws got struck down decades ago.
If God is always right and God is all powerful and he doesn't want people to have abortions then nobody would have abortions. God isn't always right so people do.
Whatever. Not everyone needs or wants kids.
god gave people the choice to follow him or not follow him.
your assuming god was an authoritarian... when actually, not so much.
everyone has the choice to follow any law or not follow any law made by god or man.
if they choose not? they will face consequences when they get to "judgment day" ( aka court )
cheers
Great post!
God created us perfectly in His image. He gave us and all His prior living creation free will. God wants us to love Him of our own free will. He didn’t create us to be automatons to live him because we could do no other or create a coercive means to compel our love and worship. There is nothing genuine in that.
Love me or burn in hell for all eternity.
Far right wing fascists gave us the option. I rejected your fascism.
I would refuse any heaven full of self righteous fundies...
I do hope Jesus returns if just to slap the fundies' faces.
Those who choose not to love God of their own free will do not burn forever. They are simply consumed and cease to exist. They are then separated from the God they chose to hate or deny exists for the rest of eternity. Why would those who spend the lives they do get hating God for whatever reason or deny He even exists want to live forever among believers they dislike or hate and worshipping a God they hate or deny exists? What would be the point of such an existence? We have our lifetime now to choose between living with God and those who by faith follow him or to be eternally separated from him. There is no eternal life for those who reject Him, neither in bliss or in torture. Just eternal separation. Those who deny the afterlife will have a very short one and then get what they say it will be for all.
That's nice. prove it!
if there was a god, there would be no such thing as free will.
Or else burn in hell for eternity.
That's what he clearly expected from Adam & Eve (if you actually believe that silly myth).
There's no eternal life, period. That's just theistic nonsense presented in an emotionally appealing way.
Those who believe that there is no eternal life and no God to provide one or be around won’t be disappointed. They will get exactly what they wish for.
Atheism is not a wish nor is it a desire. It is simply not being convinced that a god exists. And for good reason, the claim of the grandest possible entity has zero supporting evidence. Add to that the fact that human beings (for at least all of recorded history) are quite good at inventing gods. None, by the way, have any supporting evidence.
By today's standards, he would be a flaming far left wing liberal socialist.
At least we know that he/she/it is a white supremacist, a homophobe, an Islamophobe and a misogynist, at least based on the claims made by right-wing bible-babblers.
Not being convinced if God exists or not is being an agnostic not an atheist. Atheists outright deny the very existence of any God.
But kids have a right to life, to continue to exist from their conception to adulthood.
Do just a tiny bit of research. This stuff is all over the web. Here is one of many explanations :
I even wrote an article on this available here on NT: Presuming Certainty
Bottom line: most every atheist is an agnostic atheist. Most every atheist is simply not convinced there is a god.
Why? Who cares? Not everybody wants kids. Just what it is.
'Conception to adulthood?' Then once they're adults throw them down the hole?
You don't seem to get it: Some people do not have such beliefs, period. Some prefer facts and evidence over mere belief. A lack of belief is not a belief in itself.
Do tell, what exactly are they "wishing for?" That's sounds like an absurd statement, as non believers are not wishing for anything.
Clearly you do not understand the difference between agnostics and atheists. Some atheists may outright deny the existence of a god/s (i.e. "there is no god!"). That makes them strong atheists, which is a logically indefensible position. The same is true of strong theists. But most atheists will "deny" claims for a god (or are not convinced there is a god) without supporting empirical evidence. But they will consider any evidence presented to support the existence of a god. As it stands, there is none.
Kids have that right once they're born. There is no such right before birth!
Remember whom you're speaking to. His idea of "research" is presenting something with a religious basis and/or bias. Never anything that resembles actual scientific, independent, peer-reviewed research, much less anything credible or which can't be easily refuted, discredited, or dismissed.
Yeah, and I am talking about the most basic, simple research. Just looking up the meaning of the term 'agnostic atheist'. Cannot get any more basic than that.
I guess even that is too complicated for some. Especially if they don't want to hear it.
LOL... I chose to believe I dont know, therefore IF there is eternal life, I believe it's there.
I call whatever arranged the atoms to be all that is ...GOD as well.
Other that that, I'm good.
.
What would kinda suck is if eternally was only IF the individual believed it was possible and they would have it. Kinda an spooky altered reality thing. Mind over matter.
.
Time will tell, OR maybe not
Either way I know I dont know and I dont believe any other living human does either.
So, I'm Good with what I have.
I think that some stubbornly hold their positions and refuse to consider any information to the contrary.
That's one of your more idiotic and ignorant comments.
Apparently religion exists solely to suck all the education out of people.
Actually they want to force women who clearly have no means to support a child to have babies and then throw the babies down the hole.
Very true, which only shows intellectual dishonesty and/or laziness on their part.
Now that's saying something. Lol
Or exists to discourage people from being educated.
And why, if these religious zealots think their god has a plan for each one them, do they look both ways before they cross the street?
Anyone who is at all familiar with what Jesus (PBUH) taught knows that its obvious that he (PBUH) was a Socialist!
Maybe this?
No kidding, in fact, Jesus was far more of a socialist than Bernie Sanders will ever be. Jesus wanted the rich to give up EVERYTHING.
In fact Jesus said this,
5Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Many scholars have questioned this but, I think that the answer is in the way certain gateways were built back in his day.
There was a gate in the original wall at Jerusalem that was called "the Eye of the Needle" and, caravan's had to pass through it when they came to the city, the purpose was to make the people in the caravan unload their camels before passing them through the gate so that the guards could search their packs.
did jesus try to use the power of govt to take away their riches?
so.... show me the text where jesus tells the govt to make the rich give up EVERYTHING by use of govt power/force..... (as any socialist today would do.)
when you find that? then JC becomes a socialist.
btw... just an interesting tid bit...
do socialists support poll taxes? jesus aparantly did... LOL
also, just to finsh the quote:
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".
some who hate god like to leave the ending of that quote off.... LOL
cheers
in fact Jesus asked for no such thing. He asks for all of us to give up everything we have that would come between a relationship that we would share with him. If a rich man puts his money between him and a relationship with Jesus, yes then he should give up all of his wealth. Many rich will sadly do that. Jesus had followers who were rich and still followed him and He did not ask them to give up theirs to follow him because they were already following him.
Didn't your buddy Jesus say that refugees should be denied entry or at least be shot if they try to enter the country? And if that doesn't work the refugee children should be ripped from the arms of their refugee parents. If that still doesn't work I wonder if your buddy Jesus would recommend the use of pipe bombs?
"I was a foreigner in your land and you welcomed me".
"Verily, what you did for the least of us you did for me".
Red Letter Stuff That Is...
"we stand as God's holy, alternative party, offering our votes and support to those who stand for what is right."
Translation: "we stand as God's holy, alternative party, offering our votes and support to those who are willing to inject OUR brand of religion into government, public schools and our courthouses contrary to the constitution."
"I refuse to be buttonholed into being pro-Trump or anti-Trump (although I voted for him and support him)"
Translation: "I refuse to accept any responsibility for electing a lying sexual predator as President (although without support from evangelicals like me he would never have become President)".
Whatever ones religious convictions suggest they should vote accordingly. Regardless, God is not a Democrat or a Republican. Nothing you said above is an accurate representation of what he said. That Trump is President because of people like me who actually voted for him, is gravy.
Let’s try to get back on the tracks here. God is neither Republican or Democrat. His purposes for us have very little to do with the day to day political maneuvering in this great exceptional country and are far more important . People who believe in God are free to live by their conscience and support whatever party they feel best so long as that party doesn’t take priority over the relationship with God one has and one doesn’t allow a party to manipulate their or their chilurched divine mission. The article is one mans opinion on the matter that I largely agree with.
I thought that your "god" was a straight white guy with a beard who thinks that blacks, immigrants and LGBT folks are subhuman and undeserving of equal civil rights, and that women are subordinate to men and should shut up already about the rape thing. Are you saying that your "god" isn't a conservative Republican despite sharing their values? If not then why does the GOP always credit him for their vile and bigoted policies?
[deleted]
The ultimate irony with this seed was that I had to wait a couple of days to seed it. It was first posted by its author to a site we can’t use here and then a couple days later a site that is nearly identical in beliefs that we can use here seeded it verbatim the same as the original site.
You might want to check with Perrie on this but I think you're free to seed articles published by your favorite hate groups in the "Superstition" forum. The real problem comes when you try to pawn that crap off as news.