POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Not that I agree with your premises but you mean that someone else in the world might have to start taking some of the responsibility for policing the world? WTF is wrong with that? I'm all for telling the rest of the world that we've spent most of the last 70 years being their daddy and paying to protect the western world's interest.
Haha I disagree. Saying that Christians are Christians because they are afraid of the dark or that atheists are afraid of the light are over simplified assertions. Christians are Christians for countless reasons. The same thing with atheists. Saying that there may or may not be a creator can't be proven false. You can't prove nor disprove the existence of a creator.
@daboss. Obviously, this started as a response to trying to rid politics and/or society of religion all together. The quotes I shared are mainly a tongue in cheek response to what 'some' scientific atheist types say about Christians. A pet peeve of mine. Not really directed at you.
Faith is required. Pretty clear in the Bible. Not blind faith mind you, but faith. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence and desire leads you to take the leap. For me, 35 years of experience becomes more proof as time goes by. It's clear to me that God is both creator, and personal to an individual at the same time.
Faith is required. Pretty clear in the Bible. Not blind faith mind you, but faith. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence and desire leads you to take the leap. For me, 35 years of experience becomes more proof as time goes by. It's clear to me that God is both creator, and personal to an individual at the same time.
It takes a certain, special kind to get wood over the prospect of their own nation experiencing a significant economic downturn.
Luckily, it's just not in the fundamentals : Slower Job Growth Doesn't Mean We're Heading for a Recession
I got you. I disagree with you, but I understand where you are coming from.
Complete nonsense.
"For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable"
I'll explain to you what the bold part of that quote from Romans means, because you've never read it or you've never really tried to understand it: Perceive unimaginable order and precision in the natural world around us - such order never results from chaos and never results from chance. Life only comes from preexisting life. It never results from non-living matter. That is what actual, testable science proves to us. To conclude otherwise is inexcusable.
Atheists are atheists because they abhor the concept of accountability and despise the thought of sovereignty. I have very little patience for atheism, maybe even less for agnostics - I mean, shit or get off the pot dude - at least atheists have made a decision.
You clearly don't understand agnosticism. It's not about shitting or getting off the pot. The decision is that there is no way of knowing. I actually tend to lean toward a creator; deism if you will. I just don't believe in the made up one in the bible. Your bible verse, lol excuse me, doesn't prove my statement false. My statement is that there might be a creator and there might not be. There isn't a verse in your bible or any other book that can prove that statement false.
"Nihilists! F&*^ me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
There isn't? Are you sure?
Then you've already made up your mind, and there is nothing left for you to learn.
![[thumb2]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1684387.png "Thumbs Up 2 [thumb2]")
Dude, reading and understanding a book doesn't prove anything to those looking for proof. It requires one have faith and accept the book as truth. There is plenty in the world that gives those who don't believe, reasons not to do so. There are 1000+ questions to which you can never give a satisfactory answer other than to suggest "free will". It is pretty difficult to reconcile a caring and merciful God and the existence of evil, tragedy and disease that is pretty well distributed among the believers and non-believers. The innocent and not-so-innocent.
Even the creation doesn't prove that God exists within the context to which we worship.
There is plenty left for me to learn. I've made up my mind that the bible is not the word of God. The evidence will point you in that direction when you really start to dig. I've made up my mind that science doesn't not prove we came from nothing. There might be a creator and if there is we have never been in contact with him/her/it. We may have came from nothing but as of right now it's all theoretical. I'll just enjoy my life and keep my options open.
Last edited:
Fair enough - thanks for sharing - you certainly don't owe me any explanation so thanks for taking the time. I do very much disagree with your conclusion about the bible, and I've done an obscene amount of digging.
I do, of course agree with you about science/life - if we are truthful, what science repeatedly demonstrates is life only comes from preexisting life and has never once demonstrated the opposite - not in nature itself or even in carefully controlled lab experiments. You might be surprised to find out I also agree we have never been in contact with our creator (I mean direct contact).
![[banana]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1682178.gif "banana [banana]")
Personally, I do believe in the God of the Bible and that He is caring, Holy and merciful. I believe He is the Creator and that His creation was initially without evil, tragedy , death, etc... That stuff was brought in via free-will at the encouragement of the evil one (Yes, I also believe in satan). I also believe He is merciful in that he made a way for us to be reconciled. It's up to us. Why does God let crap happen? I don't know, other than to believe we all are faced with the same kind of crap. It's how we deal with life in the face of it. We can choose to accept the opportunity He gives us for fellowship with Him via Jesus, or we can reject it. We then reap the fruits of the seeds we sow. Ultimately we get what we want. If during life, we choose not to have a relationship with Him, the consequence is a logical one...no relationship with Him after life.
Bottom line, it's all a matter of faith. Faith is a choice.
If God is the all powerful being you suggest, that he can create life and everything in it by just willing it into existence, couldn't he have prevented the fall of man? He allowed it to happen for what? Is this all entertainment for him/her? If you know the future and you know that billions are going suffer with disease, hunger, etc, wouldn't you prevent it if you had the capability to do so? What is gained from it?
He gave us the will to chose what we do. Man has allowed everything to happen not God.
If you really start to dig, you will find out that God exist. Also, much of the Bible is misinterpreted and misquoted. However, this is the political forum and I will leave this for another thread. Apologies for the highjack. Back to trying to figure out who is the least worst candidate for going forward. I still want my flat tax candidate. I wish that more could come on board with that because it seems as if the establishment it hard set against it.
So he gave us the will to choose knowing that it would lead to, suffering, pain, death, atrocities we can't even imagine and he allowed it to still happen? Why?
Like everyone else, I have an opinion. He could have prevented the fall, but I believe the issue is free will; that He wants us to have a choice of a relationship with Him or not.
From a human perspective, life with crap doesn't sound good. From the human with faith perspective, it's nothing compared to an eternity of nothing but joy and goodness.
I'm glad we have free will. It makes our relationships much more meaningful. If I could make my wife love me, it wouldn't be nearly as good as her choosing to love me.
Does not matter what he says or you. Opinions just like any other. Once again, political forum. Stay with the program.
Except those aren't his opinions. I agree though. This is not politics. I'll stop. Carry on.
Speaking of politics....this is the first and last time I'm likely to agree with both h clinton and b sanders. I agree when each says the other is not a good candidate for potus.
Unfortunately, since neither is fit, one of them will win. Most unfortunate is that I anticipate the winner to be hc.
Unfortunately, since neither is fit, one of them will win. Most unfortunate is that I anticipate the winner to be hc.
No, a weak jobs report was the last 6 months of Bush's presidency, not gaining 150,000 jobs, unemployment at 4.9% and another rise in hourly wages. All while the rest of the World is nearing recession.
While 94 million have been put on medicaid, SS disability, food stamps, free housing, free money for sitting on their ass. They don't want a damn job, they will lose money.
Well, with a liberal bias that sounds like Candyland. In reality, that 4.9% is not indication of the true unemployment rate.
The problem isn't the poor people. It's the people that want to keep them poor.
Go Bernie!
Seriously, I hope he whoops up on Hillary in NH and other primaries. No doubt Sanders' prospects outside New England aren't the greatest, but a fella can dream, can't he?
Seriously, I hope he whoops up on Hillary in NH and other primaries. No doubt Sanders' prospects outside New England aren't the greatest, but a fella can dream, can't he?
Go Bernie!
Seriously, I hope he whoops up on Hillary in NH and other primaries. No doubt Sanders' prospects outside New England aren't the greatest, but a fella can dream, can't he?
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
You mean like the Democratic Party who needs them to stay complacent, stupid and poor to make them feel like they're oppressed and owed something so they can exchange some handouts in favor of voting at the polls?
No. I mean the handful of billionaires that control all the wealth in this country. The ones who truly benefit from the policies in place. The only ones who have any influence on the policy. The ones who have created this oligarchy we live in.You mean like the Democratic Party who needs them to stay complacent, stupid and poor to make them feel like they're oppressed and owed something so they can exchange some handouts in favor of voting at the polls?
When it comes to politics, I'm a novice...and to be honest, not really interested as I've learned over the years you can never take anything a politician says or any issue at face value. That said, it finally occurred to me what very likely some of you have already proposed.
There are things my darker side likes about Trump. Giving the "bird" to the rest of the world is one of them. On the other hand, I don't believe him to have the moral fiber that makes him fit to be a leader. That said, I'd only vote for him if he was the Repub nominee. IMO, that won't happen.
What I think will happen, again likely what those of you much more knowledgeable than I have already speculated, is that Trump does not get the nomination. He chooses to run as an independent thus taking a ton of Repub votes with him, leaving the door open for hc, who IMO, is no less than evil.
Like I said, when it comes to this stuff, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I hope I'm wrong.
Just ruined my Saturday.
There are things my darker side likes about Trump. Giving the "bird" to the rest of the world is one of them. On the other hand, I don't believe him to have the moral fiber that makes him fit to be a leader. That said, I'd only vote for him if he was the Repub nominee. IMO, that won't happen.
What I think will happen, again likely what those of you much more knowledgeable than I have already speculated, is that Trump does not get the nomination. He chooses to run as an independent thus taking a ton of Repub votes with him, leaving the door open for hc, who IMO, is no less than evil.
Like I said, when it comes to this stuff, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I hope I'm wrong.
Just ruined my Saturday.
Sore loser laws.
He'd never win as a third party bc of his ineligibility in multiple red states (most importantly Texas).
He'd most likely act as a spoiler for the GOP in multiple states. If he could somehow win a swing or blue state, though, he'd prob prevent both of the major candidates from getting 270, which would almost assuredly give the GOP the White House
Similar threads
