The Godless left showing their tolerance!

UM no Jesus was not a socialist as socialists are covetous!

Socialism requires the government to use a coercive force to redistribute the wealth among everybody even if the majority of the people did nothing to deserve that money
Socialism is predicated on systematic disobedience to two of God’s Ten Commandments. It first of all violates the 10th commandment, which prohibits coveting of any kind. Socialism is rooted in the grasping, greedy, trembling hunger of progressives for other people’s money.

And socialism violates the 8th commandment, which prohibits theft. For under socialism, the resources of some are taken from them against their will only to be transferred to the wallets of others.

Socialism is based on the involuntary transfer of wealth from some citizens to others, which is nothing but theft. Just because it is done under color of law, and done by the government rather than a guy with a gun in an alley, does not make it right.

venezuela-braz-did-you-know-that-60-years-ago-venezuela-37818817.png
 
Arguing his morality is only possible if you believe he gave his life to Christ and has changed!

I would never question a president's morality, just based on how religious, or non-religious, he/she was.

I will only judge a president by the actions I have seen or read about that can be substantiated with true facts.

I would never judge anyone personally just based on their sheer religious beliefs.

In other words, I don't judge Donald Trump based on him being a Christian or not.
 
“The Bible is the word of God"
"How can you be sure it's the word of God?"
"Because the Bible tells us so"
"Why believe the Bible?
"The Bible is infallible"
"How do you know it's infallible?"...

(Return to top)

Any ultimate claim about reality begins with a faith commitment. Some skeptics are willing to admit this point (not many, mind you). Take Crispin Sartwell for example, who explains in his Atlantic article how he has taken an "atheist leap of faith." He concedes that religious folk and non-religious folk all have a faith commitment to how they understand the world (which means all folk are religious, by the way!).

Whether we admit it or not, we all build our view of the world on an assumption, a big picture about what's really real, that we cannot prove. That's okay. It's unavoidable. The main question is which starting point, which assumption, what presupposition, is the right one? Which one is true?

The Christian begins with a belief that God exists and that he has revealed himself. That is no more or less religious than Carl Sagan's famous quote, "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." The question for thinking people is which one is true: either a world that began in chance, is governed by nothing, and is heading nowhere, or one that filled with purpose and meaning because there is a Creator, an intelligence, behind it all.
 
Yean.. the idea seems to be to punish Eve.

Really? Men are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for her, in other words men are to sacrifice for their wives, you people who refuse to read the Bible are always confused.
 
Poor incel homophobes. :(

What a stupid comment, you continue to lose, what makes me homophobic, I do not fear homosexuals, on the contrary I want them to see their lives for what they are, sinful, and turn from that sin. I am married 25 years so your incel comment is imbecilic.
 
If you do believe in god, you should back gays for being true to themselves as god made them. God would not want them to lead a false life. Why do you religious people question what god has made? Oh yeah, an obscure line is a stone age book.

Wrong God did not make them homosexuals they gave in to sinful perverted desires.
 
Any ultimate claim about reality begins with a faith commitment. Some skeptics are willing to admit this point (not many, mind you). Take Crispin Sartwell for example, who explains in his Atlantic article how he has taken an "atheist leap of faith." He concedes that religious folk and non-religious folk all have a faith commitment to how they understand the world (which means all folk are religious, by the way!).

Whether we admit it or not, we all build our view of the world on an assumption, a big picture about what's really real, that we cannot prove. That's okay. It's unavoidable. The main question is which starting point, which assumption, what presupposition, is the right one? Which one is true?

The Christian begins with a belief that God exists and that he has revealed himself. That is no more or less religious than Carl Sagan's famous quote, "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." The question for thinking people is which one is true: either a world that began in chance, is governed by nothing, and is heading nowhere, or one that filled with purpose and meaning because there is a Creator, an intelligence, behind it all.

The universe is governed by nothing? Obviously, you are ignorant of the laws of phyics.

No surprises there.
 
What a stupid comment, you continue to lose, what makes me homophobic, I do not fear homosexuals, on the contrary I want them to see their lives for what they are, sinful, and turn from that sin. I am married 25 years so your incel comment is imbecilic.

Homosexuality isn't a sin.

No one chooses to be gay or straight.

But you do choose to be a Christian.

So discriminating against Christians is OK because Christianity is a choice.
 
Um God does, and homosexuality is evil, as it is sin, and spelled out as such in the old, and new testament pally


Obviously, this little example of your continual circular arguments is beyond your ability to grasp it.

“The Bible is the word of God"
"How can you be sure it's the word of God?"
"Because the Bible tells us so"
"Why believe the Bible?
"The Bible is infallible"
"How do you know it's infallible?"...

(Return to top)
 
Um God does, and homosexuality is evil, as it is sin, and spelled out as such in the old, and new testament pally

Actually, it isn’t, please supply the original language and show me the actual word, sin, or even towebhah, which is the word for abomination. Thanks
 
Hello Wolverine,



Quite the assumption there. I disagree, naturally. I think taxes on the middle class are about right. I think taxes on the ultra rich should be raised significantly. I think we could raise taxes on the rich and the big corporations and pay for everything liberals and conservatives want, and also have enough to balance the budget. Yes, the rich are THAT rich.

I don't recall that happening. But it did happen to Kansas, under a conservative governor.



Are you saying the church fired to preacher who put that hateful sign up? If so, it was the correct thing to do. No part of worship includes hating on others who do not choose to worship in that church. If people want to worship, they will come freely on their own. No religion should attempt to force itself upon those who do not wish it.

Naturally I disagree, i do not think being successful should be punished. A rich man who started his business in his garage, and turned the company into about a 30 million dollar a year company, gave me my job! It has been wonderful to work here thirty years, they gave every employee bonuses at Christmas, gave presents to your kids at Christmas, and brought things when they were born. How about we just make the people who make laws live under them, have term limits, and decrease their pay, and take away their right to insider trade. Also no lifetime benefits, cut their pay to be commensurate with the job, and if you take money from lobbyists, and screw the people for gain you are hung that makes much more sense.
 
Really? Men are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for her, in other words men are to sacrifice for their wives, you people who refuse to read the Bible are always confused.

To be true to that teaching, you could not view women as inferiors or second class citizens.
 
Back
Top