Democrats are wrong to think the Bible teaches rich politicians to steal money from hardworking taxpayers to give to the lazy, the insane, the incompetent, the criminal, the addict, the thief, the adulterer, the pervert, the illegal, and so forth, as though they have an obligation to rob from the 'rich' to give to the 'poor.' If they want to be compassionate let them put up more of their own money as Good Samitarians to help the poor. Let them take illegal alien families into their own homes to care for so taxpayers will not have to fork over their earnings to do so. Let the rich democrats pay for the increased costs they imagine need to be spent on global warming nonsense if that is what they want money to be spent on.
Clarence Page: Who’s afraid of critical race theory? Those who don’t know what it is
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
The present 'emperor' in the WH has no robes of righteousness, honesty, integrity, morality or good judgment.I will do because there was nothing there, like the 'emperor's new clothes' if you will...
BLM leaders and assorted democrats embrace Marxism and atheism because they are stupid and wicked and do not know how horribly destructive those satanic deceptions are to innocent people everywhere.
False religions are wicked, no matter what deceived heathen think to the contrary.
Evolution theory is not real science, it is fiction science believed by people with very bad discernments and understandings.
What is the solution to poverty caused by drug addiction, crime, sexual perversions, laziness, incompetence, rebellion, and other assorted root issues? Democrats think legalizing drugs, alcohol, sex, illegal immigration, crime, and so forth and robbing law-abiding taxpayers to give to the non-working is the answer. It is never a democrat policy to give of their own ill-gotten gains to care for the poor.
What evidence do we have that unsaved Americans give sacrificially of their own wealth to care for the poor, instead of advocating increasing the tax burdens on others in order to pay the costs of sin in those with very expensive sin debts?
Evolution not only contradicts the Bible but also contradicts the laws of science and scientific evidence in the world.
Marxism, communism, hedonism, atheism, and other assorted political movements are wicked and deadly. Millions of innocent people have been murdered by wicked rulers after nations have been overrun with those wicked political movements. Marxism and atheism must be stopped in America or else America will be destroyed by the evils associated with those wicked philosophies.
Leftists do not give sacrificially of their own hoarded wealth to care for those in need, but they are always willing to sacrifice the wealth of others to give to the poor as though that makes the tax-collecting agents and promoters great examples of compassion.
What can be done to solve poverty in the world? Democrats and leftists are not interested in the poor of the world and offer no remedy whatsoever. What can be done to solve the problems of poverty caused in America by illegal drug use, illegal immigration, sexual perversions and crimes, laziness, incompetence, insanity, crime, and so forth? Selfish, greedy leftists do not give of their own amassed wealth to deal with these issues, but they are more than willing to give of other people's wealth to try to deal with poverty.
Lon
Well-known member
Still the chart? I believe it is theology-ideology driven so subjective and differs from other charts and observations regarding faith, government, and politics.
One example in my observation: Communism would work if Jesus was in charge of it, thus it'd be a theocracy at such a point. Democracy would work very well under His guidance as well. I'd literally bow to any form of government (will bow) He wanted to rule by and be happy. I find politics have little to do with theology as much as they have to do with power and governance (remembering God sets up kings and rulers of course).
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Matthew 26:11
Matthew 26:11 in the New Critical Race Theory Bible: 'There will always be poor people in America as long as there are white people around to oppress the blacks.'
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Hmm, well, for starters scientific theories come into being because of the evidence that supports them, not a lack thereof and certainly not actual evidence that contradicts postulations. That's how science works. The reason why the theory of evolution is established is because of the plethora of data that's been collated and subject to continual and ongoing testing. If the evidence didn't hold up it would be discarded or modified depending. Science doesn't care about religious beliefs, biases, prejudices or anything else. It's as much a 'fairy tale' as the law of thermodynamics.
They are your ideals, based on what you think that a supposedly Godly government should comprise of but that doesn't make it so. That there are many conservative Christians who disagree with your posit isn't a 'silly appeal to popularity' but simply a statement of fact.
Where it comes to 'the madness of crowds' then I've seen that often enough at Trump rallies. Still, could be worth a read.
Where it comes to homeless people then you've already set your stall out and I've read how those who dismiss those in such dire straits are regarded in the Bible and you're the one who should have pause for thought instead of classifying your neighbours as 'failures'.
By your very own standards as outlined by you, Lazarus was just such a 'failure'. Just a 'bum'. Heck, why didn't the guy just get his act together and find a job instead of laying around the streets and begging for scraps of food? What a pathetic excuse for a man, right? The rich man did the right thing didn't he? Why on earth should he waste even scraps of sustenance on a person who 'refused to better himself'?
FTR, I have helped out a few times. Wasn't that much but I have put people in my home a coupla times, free of charge and it was short term before they moved on and when I was still living in the city I befriended a young, homeless couple and bought them a few burgers and coffees from Macdonalds when I saw they were sleeping rough on the way to work. I tried to give them some advice on where they could get some more concrete help to get out of their predicament and hopefully they did. Not a great deal but I sure didn't look down my nose at them and consider them 'bums' or 'failures' or the like.
Do you have experience of PTSD or come from a broken home or an abusive background? If not then who are you to snootily judge those who have been through such? I don't have experience of either, personally, but I do have an understanding of them and if you think that such can be 'moved on from' as if flicking a light switch on or off then that's only ignorance on your part. You don't exhibit 'love' of any kind JR, not the tough sort or otherwise. Judgement? Oh, sure, you've got that in spades.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Somewhat. There are in-house challenges on data. The $ is where any of those challenges pay off. $ is the driving force of much science.
In the U.S.? It is true in my city. We've managed to house EVERY homeless that would give up drugs. We've managed to house in Rescue missions, those who are mentally unstable too. Only those who are drug addicts are left and those have plenty of money, despite the illegality of street begging. I watched three of these 1) kick in a door because they weren't given cigarettes, 2) abuse verbally any who wouldn't give 3) them tossing needles (along with 3 feet of garbage) in the children's park, as well as destroying property and living in 3 feet of filth despite the city providing dumpsters 2 feet from their tents. So, yes these are 'failures' on everyone's part. The government for deference (and providing needles no less
); the taxpayer for not demonstrating more and calling senators and mayors; the one's who though well-meaning, enable these horrible conditions including drug houses, and of course these who choose not to be helped despite efforts to do so, responsibly.In Seattle, there is a $2000 stimulus for anyone that will take a job they are qualified for. Did you ever see "Seattle is Dying?"
I've done this too. Begging for drug money is a different story and is illegal in most states.Yes.
We cannot let such dictate a pass. We can help, and do tough interventions, but the majority of homeless these days are drug addicts because programs really do help those who want out, get out.
Hard one to tell. I share a desire to even help those who are killing themselves. They are, for sure (family members who work with them) abusive and hard people. They are mean and determined to live their drug life, pollute and destroy the city, and be 'left alone' despite such abuse of resources. They are endangering children's lives with crime violence, illnesses related to drug addiction (include body pests, and remember, by choice), and tossed hazardous wastes. At some point, a reasonable and responsible government will step in and say "No more! You are done, one way or another!"
I think you're forgetting something, Lon.
Communism is the product of someone who hated God, who ripped an idea out of context from the Bible and said, "let's do this!"
The problem is that what communism is ripped off of ONLY WORKS in a short term setting, and that being communal living, selling all one owns and giving it away, either to those in need or to the church, in the hopes that Christ would return soon and establish His Kingdom, where you wouldn't NEED worldly possessions, because He would literally provide you what you needed to live.
If you pay attention post-Paul's conversion, you'll see him asking his converts to pass around the collection plate (so to speak) to support the Jews who, by that point in his ministry, were living in poverty. Yes, POVERTY! Why? Because Christ hasn't returned yet, which was the entire reason for them to give up their earthly possessions.
If Christ returned, they would not have continued in "communism."
"Who gave you permission to vote on My laws?"
Is what I imagine Christ will say to those (especially the Southern Baptists) who advocate voting over laws.
God gave His laws, which are just. He gave us a good model to use for governments, and from one perspective, the Bible is the ultimate criminal justice textbook! There's no need to try to think up new moral laws (not including laws concerning things that have no moral value, such as how far apart studs need to be in walls or how wide the roads need to be, etc), because HE is the standard for morality, and there's nothing new under that Son....
I'm sorry, I had to, haha.
But in all seriousness, God gave us a perfect law for a moral and just society. There's no need to change or "improve" any of them, because to do so is sinning!
Again, I point to Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16 as evidence that God doesn't like "rule by the people," even acknowledging, even making it my point, that Moses and Aaron were the designated leaders of Israel, and God had already planned to give Israel a king (and eventually, a King), by including laws concerning kings when He gave Moses the laws for Israel, and that such was a rebellion against them (Moses and Aaron), and that while it was within the context of Israel's laws, Jesus Himself made the point that democracy is a bad idea because, in His words:
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. - Matthew 7:13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew7:13&version=NKJV
Jesus tells us how He will rule during the Millennial Kingdom. With an iron rod, sitting upon His throne.
Aka, a King with His sceptre.
Aka, a monarchy.
One's theology affects his politics a great deal!
If he believes in God, and believes that His word is true and accurate, he will promote Biblical ideas, such as do not murder, commit adultery, steal, etc.
If he rejects God's existence, then he will promote leftist ideas, such as homosexuality, socialism, legalization of drugs, etc.
Which simply means that He set up those roles. (Not that He gave the individual kings their power and chose which people would run the governments.)
It means that He established a proper flow of authority on which the above chart is based on.
Authority flows downhill, from God, to governments, to man, to his wife, to her children, and as Bob says, "Even the kid can kick the cat off the couch." anything that goes against that natural flow is, by definition, unnatural, and is unjust, because it goes against the God of justice.
Democracy does that, because its authority flow is circular, as Bob says (or something along these lines...) just like circular reasoning is fallacious, so too an authority flow that's circular doesn't work. You can't have the government ruling over the people ruling over the government ruling over the people ruling over...
It doesn't work simply because there's no actual "final" authority.
That's why it's doesn't work, and why it shouldn't be used, and why Christ won't use it.
Lon
Well-known member
In 1 John 3:2, 'We'll be like Him, because we'll see Him as He is.' All government forms then would work theoretically, because it literally wouldn't matter which if we are like Him to that degree, thus 'one with the Father.' Someone might call it 'communism' but such doesn't describe clearly enough: We'll literally have all we need already. One might say 'democracy' but we all are instilled perfectly at that point with His will and desire (if you follow).
Yet, after the judgement, the need for an iron rule is taken care of by seeing clearly 1 Corinthians 13:12
It does to the point where we participate in it and pray for the leaders, but politics do not inform our theology. Jesus said His kingdom wasn't of this earth, and he was talking of spiritual matters. At the point where political machinations are concerned with temporal living, there is a disconnect. I wasn't meaning to completely separate the two, but rather was saying politicians and political conversations have very little informing our theology. Vice versa? Sure.
Again, that is theology informing politics, not politics informing theology. I'd think we are clear and agreed at this point, but let me know.
It worked as long as God was seen as that authority. As soon as courts started ruling in favor of secular humanism, they became exactly as you describe. There is nothing in the wake and so not only is it circular, it spirals downward. I was listening to Newsboys today:
Was talking specifically about when we are perfected, however, it worked as long as God was centered in it. As soon as government took separation of church and state too far, and took 'created equal' to mean communism, we were doing well. Sad we didn't make this grand experiment much further past 200 years. Perhaps we aren't done yet: He is unwilling that any should perish. -Lon
And due to the lack of evidence for evolution, when comparing evolution"ism" to Creationism, it's clear that evolution cannot be truth.
... people who reject God need an alternate explanation for the universe we see today.
The problem is that there is NO data that supports evolution, only interpretations of data.
Belief in evolution IS a religious belief. It biases people against the Creator, and instills prejudice against those who teach the fundamentals of the Bible.
Well, no, the laws of thermodynamics establish that the earth, nay, the universe COULD NOT have come about by naturalistic means.
Evolution is a fairy tale which tries to provide an alternate explanation for reality.
Neither my ideals nor what I think has anything to do with this. I'm simply telling you what the Bible says.
Which is defined by the Bible, not by me.
Which is why what my ideals nor what I think has any bearing on what I'm saying.
The way you're using it is, in fact, an appeal to authority.
And? So what? What they think has no bearing on whether something is correct or not.
And you think I haven't done similar?
Who's looking down his nose at other people, again?
You sure do look down your nose at people who do in fact love their neighbors.
You can assert that as much as you want, it's just your opinion and nothing more, it sure ain't fact and it sure ain't objective.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
The best data that would support the theory of evolution would be reproducibility in a lab.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
There is no "lack of evidence" for evolution. Do you understand how the scientific method actually works? If the evidence didn't support it it wouldn't be a theory, it's as simple as that. The reason why it's established is because of the evidence. Like anything else in science, if it doesn't hold up then postulations are either discarded or modified and evolution is not going away. Creationism is not science. You don't start with a foregone conclusion in science and then try to shoehorn data to fit in with it while disregarding anything that doesn't. As explained before, evolution is not an 'alternate reason for the universe' as underscored by the amount of people who accept it and have faith. It no more biases people away from God than the invention of the internal combustion engine.
Of course it's your ideal, based on what you perceive the Bible supports. All sorts of people have differing takes and views where it comes to the Bible and you're no exception so your telling me that you're simply 'telling me what the Bible says" means nothing in itself.
Once again, there's no appeal to either popularity or authority going on so you really should drop that by now. I'm simply pointing out a fact.
If you have done similar then hey, good for you. Why call these people 'failures' and 'bums' if you've actually helped them out on occasion? I don't look down my nose at people who care for others and love their neighbour at all. I will call out callous and disparaging attitudes but that's a different thing altogether.
I don't actually need to assert anything about PTSD, it's readily available to read about yourself.
Lon
Well-known member
Some theories are established, like the melting point of iron. We generally don't call it a 'theory' at that point, just state iron melts at 2795° F.
What wiped out the dinosaurs is unknown, so theories are 'best guesses.' We have seen subtle changes in animals and humans. My legs are short, not so great for running, but fairly decent for swimming with a long body. Did 'evolution' just do it? Not really. There were factors involved and actually I am the product of deliberate choices. It means 'evolved' isn't the best word for what happened to me. Upon the premise that God purposed the directions His creation changes, we'd not call that 'evolution.' Evolution is a 'God with His hands off" concept that Darwin guessed was done by a harsh survival of the fittest struggle. His finches likely just dieted on what suited them best, rather than the environment 'changing them' with no structure or plan. The finches that could crack nuts stayed. The ones that didn't would have either died, or more likely would have flown where Darwin observed different beaks. It wasn't 'evolution did it' as much as simply finches eating what their bodies and beaks were best suited for. "Selection" (by bird choice), not 'evolution.' It is a poor word and conveys much less than even this short paragraph that I wrote, that actually conveys incredibly better science information than "evolution did it." Some scientists are stuck on that word, and because of it, JR and others are right: It indoctrinates and is actually a lazy word that amounts to "Evolution-did-it."
As demonstrated, it more likely should, because specifically, Darwin's answer isn't actually the correct term for birds just being birds and having other birds that look like them in any given area. "Evolution of finch beaks" is actually sloppy, a bit of guesswork, and contrived rather than explaining that 'birds of a feather, flock (and produce) together.'
ANYTHING that tries to grasp the way things work and are made is science. The question: Do physical objects have beauty, form, purpose, and some sense of logic? "Yes." Then "Creator" hence 'Creation' is science whenever you observe such. Romans 1 says it this way:
Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
It means, necessarily, that observation (science) reveals God clearly and plainly. Why? Because there is reason, purpose, beauty, structure; thus a fingerprint that is clearly of Design, in all of creation. Romans says it very plainly: God has shown it to them. And. No man has any kind of rationale or excuse. It means you have to be a creationist. It means there is no such thing as looking at creation and not seeing God behind it. It literally means that 'cannot' happen except by purposeful delusion, arrogance, and a desire to not see Him.
Like finches that don't 'evolve' but the ones eating nuts procreate and their offspring eat nuts carrying that characteristic? That isn't 'evolution-did-it.'
As you can see above, from God, He says it does. It is actually a denial of what one actually does, in fact, see, He says.
Unless it is right in Romans 1, and correct: That men CANNOT look at creation and not see God. In addition, if 'evolution-did-it' is a worse explanation for finches with tough beaks, than what I described, then 'evolution' is just a bin word, a lazy word, and not accurate.
True enough. It is only fair to have to show our work.
I don't see that as quite true. Finches with hard beaks stayed on an island with nuts and procreated finches like themselves. The ones that ate berries, eating berries, because they weren't as capable of eating nuts, procreated other berry eating finches.
You MIGHT say 'evolution' but if Romans 1 is correct, we'd rather say 'designed in such a way.' It is the same observations, different word. "Evolution-did-it" doesn't answer a question much worse than "God-did-it." Science is trying to observe 'how' such could be accomplished, but assumptions indeed drive our words at that point: Same observation, different summations, either from our heads, or God's. Such are up for scrutiny all the time and 'evolution' is rightly a scrutinized word. It doesn't convey as well as description and observation.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Lon, I'm not going to go into this point by point as there's enough already and anna's probably fed up of the tangents that this thread has gone in as it is. Evolution does not mean that there isn't a creator so it's moot. Remember Alate One & Barbarian?Some theories are established, like the melting point of iron. We generally don't call it a 'theory' at that point, just state iron melts at 2795° F.
What wiped out the dinosaurs is unknown, so theories are 'best guesses.' We have seen subtle changes in animals and humans. My legs are short, not so great for running, but fairly decent for swimming with a long body. Did 'evolution' just do it? Not really. There were factors involved and actually I am the product of deliberate choices. It means 'evolved' isn't the best word for what happened to me. Upon the premise that God purposed the directions His creation changes, we'd not call that 'evolution.' Evolution is a 'God with His hands off" concept that Darwin guessed was done by a harsh survival of the fittest struggle. His finches likely just dieted on what suited them best, rather than the environment 'changing them' with no structure or plan. The finches that could crack nuts stayed. The ones that didn't would have either died, or more likely would have flown where Darwin observed different beaks. It wasn't 'evolution did it' as much as simply finches eating what their bodies and beaks were best suited for. "Selection" (by bird choice), not 'evolution.' It is a poor word and conveys much less than even this short paragraph that I wrote, that actually conveys incredibly better science information than "evolution did it." Some scientists are stuck on that word, and because of it, JR and others are right: It indoctrinates and is actually a lazy word that amounts to "Evolution-did-it."
As demonstrated, it more likely should, because specifically, Darwin's answer isn't actually the correct term for birds just being birds and having other birds that look like them in any given area. "Evolution of finch beaks" is actually sloppy, a bit of guesswork, and contrived rather than explaining that 'birds of a feather, flock (and produce) together.'
ANYTHING that tries to grasp the way things work and are made is science. The question: Do physical objects have beauty, form, purpose, and some sense of logic? "Yes." Then "Creator" hence 'Creation' is science whenever you observe such. Romans 1 says it this way:
Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
It means, necessarily, that observation (science) reveals God clearly and plainly. Why? Because there is reason, purpose, beauty, structure; thus a fingerprint that is clearly of Design, in all of creation. Romans says it very plainly: God has shown it to them. And. No man has any kind of rationale or excuse. It means you have to be a creationist. It means there is no such thing as looking at creation and not seeing God behind it. It literally means that 'cannot' happen except by purposeful delusion, arrogance, and a desire to not see Him.
Like finches that don't 'evolve' but the ones eating nuts procreate and their offspring eat nuts carrying that characteristic? That isn't 'evolution-did-it.'
As you can see above, from God, He says it does. It is actually a denial of what one actually does, in fact, see, He says.
Unless it is right in Romans 1, and correct: That men CANNOT look at creation and not see God. In addition, if 'evolution-did-it' is a worse explanation for finches with tough beaks, than what I described, then 'evolution' is just a bin word, a lazy word, and not accurate.
True enough. It is only fair to have to show our work.
I don't see that as quite true. Finches with hard beaks stayed on an island with nuts and procreated finches like themselves. The ones that ate berries, eating berries, because they weren't as capable of eating nuts, procreated other berry eating finches.
You MIGHT say 'evolution' but if Romans 1 is correct, we'd rather say 'designed in such a way.' It is the same observations, different word. "Evolution-did-it" doesn't answer a question much worse than "God-did-it." Science is trying to observe 'how' such could be accomplished, but assumptions indeed drive our words at that point: Same observation, different summations, either from our heads, or God's. Such are up for scrutiny all the time and 'evolution' is rightly a scrutinized word. It doesn't convey as well as description and observation.
Lon
Well-known member
Yes, but those two didn't look at the term as critically as one who wants to get beyond 'God-did-it' or "evolution-did-it." Description and observation are needed in science, if the information is for something meaningful, the better the description, the better the help to science.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Sorry Lon but that isn't true:
I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution
Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to...
theologyonline.com
It's not that there's a lack of evidence, Arty. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL for it. Only interpretations of evidence in favor of evolution. Big difference.
Except that it is.
There's that nasty appeal to authority again.
You really need to just stop making that fallacy.
Except that it does bias people away from God, because evolution is inconsistent with God's word.
Which has no bearing on this subject whatsoever.
What I'm saying, even if I didn't exist, would still be true.
Is exactly true.
Because what I'm telling you IS, in fact, what the Bible says.
Don't believe me, just go buy a Bible and read it.
You can assert that as much as you want, it's just your opinion and nothing more, it sure ain't fact and it sure ain't objective.
You keep pointing it out as if it makes a difference. Get a hint: IT DOESN'T.
Still waiting for you to realize that there are those who have failed and gotten back up, and there are those who have failed and refused to get up, and that those two groups are completely different from each other, AND that I'm referring to the latter, while you seem to completely ignore the latter in favor of the former, and argue as if I'm talking about the former, rather than the latter.
That wasn't what I was responding to.
You REALLY SHOULD pay attention.
Of course you won't.
Evolution tries to take the place of the Creator. That there are people who (wrongly) try to fit evolution into the Bible doesn't change that.