A Not So Subtle Message For Those Of The Christian Faith?
Look 'real close' at certain parallels (the name on the school bus, their leader, etc.) and tell me what you think?
shareIn which episode?
shareA New Life is the episode.
The message of it was, well, I'll let The Controller answer that:
Beginning: Religious devotion can lead people away from temptation and evil, but is the path as clear if that devotion is blind?
Ending: When you blindly give up your free will to a higher authority, be sure you are not also giving up control of your ultimate destiny.
Ade due damballa, GIVE ME THE POWER I BEG OF YOU!
[deleted]
Ending: When you blindly give up your free will to a higher authority, be sure you are not also giving up control of your ultimate destiny.
and you can also put the blind followers of obama in there buddha. im sure you just forgot.
Your confusing religion and politics. I know this happens more often than it should in the US nowadays. Wonderful couple of line in the Constitution were put there in an attempt to keep them separate.
shareActually, no such "separation" can be found or correctly implied. As is clear from the texts themselves, the arguments and discussions collected in the Federalist Papers, and subsequent historical events and texts, the Constitution was written to prevent interference with any speech or activity that was religious, and emphatically says so in the First Amendment. The nation's founding document, in fact, gives a theological justification for the nation: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS..." Underscoring that NO "separation" was intended was Jefferson's second inaugural address, as well as other historical occurrences, speeches, and texts.
shareAnother tiresome evangelical trying to read Jesus into a deist document? In any case the declaration is not the constitution, and its author, Jefferson, was no born again zealot. The first amendment and the sixth article taken together are sufficient even without the word "separation". I wish these back door theocrats could get it through their heads that the constitution was not written to protect the U.S. from the larger churches of that day in order to put it in trust for the evangelicals of this day. The erosion represented by the chaplains in congress and the military (both opposed by Madison), the motto, the 1954 rape of the pledge, and the real low tide, G.W. Bush giving executive orders allowing billions to be funneled into "faith based" programs (so long as they are Christian that is, although that could not be explicit) without accountability or the usual anti-discrimination rules with regard to employees and recipients of services (check that sixth article again), has been quite bad enough.
In 1797 Adams and a unanimous senate of founding fathers endorsed a document that states that the U.S. is NOT a Christian nation(1). That should be the end of it.
CB
"Good times, noodle salad"
(1) "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, ..." from the Treaty of Tripoli 1797
[Can you imagine such language even being drafted today in an official document?]
The usual tiresome, clever, but willfully ignorant, fascist antiChristian bigotry rewriting history with bogus, tiny, selective, anachronistic quotes easily refuted by the few today, surrounded by a sea of illiterates, who know true history (His story) versus the popular mode of reducing everything to the pursuit of deviant orgasm, like Darwinist Huxley, hating the true science like pious genius Sir Isaac Newton's and NASA's great Von Braun for today's fascist "global warming" delusion that's destroying true science for the sake of blind antiChristian bigotry. We've made up our minds; don't confuse us with the facts.
The typical, laughable "deism" canard is of course unsustainable when one actually studies the period and considers the various voluminous conflicts of the day, e.g. the pamphlet wars, when such alleged "deists" were often more devoutly "Christian" than many if not most of today's professing "Christians" and carefully avoids the reality of how many clergymen were involved in the establishment of the nation, including our state churches, where, unlike the jszigeti fraud, their concern in their establishing of a Christian nation was that it not be sectarian (e.g. Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.), and nothing in the jszigeti citations legitimately refutes that, unable to give substantiated historical citations proving otherwise that can't be easily refuted, only impressing the usual ignorant and the gullible, i.e. most today, more interested in laziness of mind and body, booze & the idiot/devil's box & per vert orgasm than reality. As Chesterton once said, Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting, it has been left untried, clearly the case with jszigeti in view of his blind and groundless clever but easily refuted assertions.
The true Presidents and Congresses and Supreme Courts (e.g. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States - 143 U.S. 457 (1892)) of course didn't buy this irrational antiChristian nonsense but of course, as in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union we're now following, when one's deluded fascist "mind" is made up it doesn't want to be confused with the facts. Ironically it's only safe for those devoted to antiChristian bigotry to live in a Christian nation since elsewhere there would be no compunctions about putting those like jszigeti to death, even if a fellow antitheist, having no "thou shalt not murder" about which to worry. God have mercy on his poor soul & ours.
Judging by the language you use, you are exactly the kind of person you are condemming. The phrase "true Presidents and Congresses Supreme Courts" implies a type of tunnel vision that only accepts opinions that agree with yours and automatically rejects any contradictory information. By resorting to comparisons to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Empire you're using useless rhetoric to inspire fear. It's comparable to claiming your goals are similar to Radical Islam or any other philosophy that supports a theocracy. It may not be valid but it inspires fear in a certain portion of the population. In short you babble in catch phrases but don't say much of value.
share"The usual tiresome, clever, but willfully ignorant, fascist antiChristian bigotry rewriting history with bogus, tiny, selective, anachronistic quotes easily refuted by the few today, surrounded by a sea of illiterates, who know true history (His story) versus the popular mode of reducing everything to the pursuit of deviant orgasm".
Obviously russeday doesn't read the bible often. Apparently he forgot that "thou/thy should not judge", which he just did. And what about "loving thy neighbor"? it doesn't sound like your so loving....you sound kind of spiteful to me. bitter even,
but hey i guess you could just blame the internet for that. your people are good blaming other people/things for your actions, aren't you?
Calling peopel delusional or Facists isnt an arugment, its a ploy. Atheists do it too, I know, but tis still a ploy.
You also calld gim wrong but didnt explain why. Granted, I didnt cie myself, btu this post is five years odl and I will if needed. Jist sayign he;s wrong though isnt a real argument.
RE: "...In 1797 Adams and a unanimous senate of founding fathers endorsed a document that states that the U.S. is NOT a Christian nation(1). That should be the end of it. ..."
Couldn't stop laughing when I read this,....
As the text preceding this statement shows, you clearly lack a sound grasp of western history. The thread of philosophical and theological thought that leads to John Locke's treatises, adopted by the Founding Fathers, was that our rights and freedom inhere as a grant from God, and may not be violated by governments. It was a development of thought originating in the Old Testament, expanded on by St. Augustine, and then through thinkers through to John Locke. As such, it is unique to Christian theology, thought, sensibilities and culture.
Your reliance on the sentence in the Treaty of Tripoli confirms your ignorance of history, and serves as a loud and emphatic exclamation point -- The phrase was penciled in the Arab version of the treaty so that Arab acquiescence could be obtained, and was NOT in the English language text the American signers signed off on. As anyone familiar with history knows, Muslims were an intolerant lot then, in their beginning, and now ...
ObscureAuteur »-
Another tiresome evangelical trying to read Jesus into a deist document?
Well, I'm not an Evangelical, though I'll no doubt be branded as one, or at leats osme form of Christian nationalist. This is odd becaue I'm oftne brnded as a God and Christian hatign Liberal when I contradict Historica yths told by the other side such as on the less-than-credible Wallbuilders.
Still, Myths exist on both sides.
The Declaration Of Independance is not a Deist Document.
Also, even if it wre, that alone woudl not make it non-Christian. There's this odd myth that peopel seem to clign to nowadays that many of America's Foudners wee Deists instead of Christians as if being a Deist mean syou could't have been a Christian. Deism is not an alternate Relgiion to Christianity, Though, its a Theolpgical position, and oen that many Christians adhered to in the 17th and 18th Centiry, It actulaly got started with a set of Calvinist Theologians. The idea that Deism is somehow incompatibel with Christianity is in itself absurd.
With that said, there is no hint in the Declaration that it was intended as a Deist Document at all.
In any case the declaration is not the constitution, and its author, Jefferson, was no born again zealot.
But he did say he was a Christian. His beleifs may have appauled many modern day Christian Natonalists who nonetheless use his name to advance their own causes, but that;s no excuse to allow others ot say he didn't se ehimself as a Christian to back their own political or social Ideals, either.
Jefferson wudl toay be branded a Liberal Christian, and woudk fit in with Borg, Crossin, and Spong.
Also, do you tink beig :Born Agaib" means "Zeaot"? Dn;'t you think our beign a bit condecnding?
The first amendment and the sixth article taken together are sufficient even without the word "separation". I wish these back door theocrats could get it through their heads that the constitution was not written to protect the U.S. from the larger churches of that day in order to put it in trust for the evangelicals of this day.
Actually, the Constitution wasn't written to protect the U. S. Government fromt he Churches at all.
Not only were the Amendments added laer owing to pressure from men liek Jefferson, who actually opposed the Constitution to begin with, but the First Amendment was not based on the idea that the Goverbment was threatened by beign taken over by CHurches. The idea that Govenrments were corrupted and conriled by Relgiion and had ot be sheilded form it came way later in American Thought.
In Reality, the provisions were there to protect the Churches from Government Interferance. i fyou read what America's Founes actually beleived, youd' see they feared the Government controling Relgiion, as well as the Press and Private Business, they di dnot ear those thigns controlign the Govenbrment, and certianlyd id not seek to protect the Govenrment frmt he larger Chruches of thier day.
The erosion represented by the chaplains in congress and the military (both opposed by Madison),
No, they were't opposed by Madison.
Congressional Chaplain were opposed, but nly because he did not wish a National Religion established. He did not, however, oppose Chaplains for the Military.
Also, Madison was not the only Fudner, and since Chaplains were oted into existence, tis a silly aruent unles syou go with the equally silly myth that all of America' Foudnes agees on everything.
the motto, the 1954 rape of the pledge,
Oh come on, "Rape"? Adding a fw words doenst constitute Rape and the Supreme Court ruled that God doenst belogn to a single Relgiion. our beign barmy here, and complainign about nothing.
The Motto is also a bit of fluffy nonsense. if America'ss own Foudners invoked God in public speeches, then its ridiculosu to asusme they wanted all mention fo God removed, as if Relgiion=God.
and the real low tide, G.W. Bush giving executive orders allowing billions to be funneled into "faith based" programs (so long as they are Christian that is, although that could not be explicit)
Actually the Faith Based Initiatives gave money to Charities and orinisatiosn run by Muslims, Jews, and even Buddhists. The figures ar foudn on Govenrment sies, and even date back to the Bush oresidency.
So no, it wa snot given exclusively to Christian orginisations.
without accountability or the usual anti-discrimination rules with regard to employees and recipients of services (check that sixth article again), has been quite bad enough.
Anti-Discimination Policies didnt exist in the 18th century, so invkign the 6th amendment is nonsensical.
Unless ou think SLavery was abolished in the Revolution and women coudl vote.
Oh and dont forgt the Irish beign msitreated, the Chinese msitreated ( and eventually barred form citzenship in the Chinese Exclusion Acts) and the Anti-Catholci hatred thats even in the Declaration of Indepndance itself.
Now comes the shoddy proof texts. This is exaclty what David Barton does. ots just as bad when his opponents do it, though.
In 1797 Adams and a unanimous senate of founding fathers
HAHAHAHAHA
Do you really think the Senate was composed of The FOundign Fathers? or was exclusively seated by them?
Also, the Traty was not exactly unanymous, bu thtats for another Time.
endorsed a document that states that the U.S. is NOT a Christian nation(1). That should be the end of it.
Actually, this isn't True.
Alledgeldy it says "Not in any sense foudned on the Christian Relgiion", but not even the copies used to make htis argument say America is not a Christian Nation, which itself begs the quesiton fo hat thy mean. Given the majority were Christian in 1776,and remain so today, tis safe to say America is a Christian Nation. Also, given the Biel is cited often and Christianity permated the culture and inform the ideals of pretty well everyone, its an absurd claim to make that it wasn't a Christian Nation.
Also, the Treaty Of Tripoli didn't aculaly contain the "Not fonded on the Christian Relgiion" clause in the drat ratified by the senate. It looks liek it was apended to the text thst was signed in Tripoli itself, probably s part of a Politival conveneince.
CB
"Good times, noodle salad"
(1) "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, ..." from the Treaty of Tripoli 1797
[Can you imagine such language even being drafted today in an official document?]
Yes.
But tht snot the point, it wasnt the way it was drafted in 1797's treaty.
share
President John Adams and a Senate full of founding fathers signed and ratified the Treaty of Tripoli (1) which states explicitly "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ...". Such text could not possibly pass a vote in today's Idiocracy. That it did then I think clarifies the founders intentions as to the concept of "Christian Nation" quite clearly. There is no such thing. The "creator" usage is deistic in nature not explicitly Christian, again this is deliberate. The Declaration would even meet with the approval of Tom Paine along the lines of his Age of Reason. Between non-establishment (1st Amendment) and no religious test for office (Art 6) there is little legitimate room for church within the state. Jefferson actually used the words "separation of church and state" although that does not have the force of a constitutional amendment by any means, but perhaps it is not so incorrect to imply it. The founders set us off on a the right course and it has been compromised bit by bit ever since despite a few bright spots like limitation on school prayer and so far keeping creation "science" out of the science class. First the introduction of Chaplains in the Congress and Armed Forces (the latter with curious rationalization that it is necessary to insure the 1st Amendment rights of soldiers!), something that was explicitly opposed by James Madison. Then adoption of a national motto "In God we Trust" (with the clear implication that "God" is Jehovah) in 1864 (although not officially until 1956 in the heat of Cold War rhetoric about "Godless Communism"). The revision of the Pledge of Allegiance, first published in 1892, in 1954 to shoehorn in "under God" using a thin rationale based on Lincoln having used it as a rhetorical flourish in a late draft of the Gettysburg Address, a another bit of Cold War mischief.
I am sick and tired of our American Taliban in Waiting telling fantasy stories of American history(2) as if the real purpose of the first amendment was to protect Evangelicals from the dominant churches of the day in order to put the nation in trust for the day that Evangelicals could take over the theocracy that was clearly intended from the start. There is a reason that nowhere in any of the chief documents we see the name of God, Jesus, or a final flourish like "This we do in Jesus' name, Amen".
CB
There is no great oxymoron in the English language than "Gospel Truth".
(1)
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
(2) For example, Lincoln calling for all to kneel in prayer upon hearing the news from Appomattox in 1865. Pure fiction disclaimed by a person present at the time.
RE: “…President John Adams and a Senate full of founding fathers signed and ratified the Treaty of Tripoli (1) which states explicitly "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ...". …”
Again, I have to repeat myself, the English text, the version read by the signers, and signed by them DID NOT HAVE THAT PHRASE. The Arab text did, and again, it was to legitimize their negotiations with the Christian nation, the USA (If the notion in the negative had to be inserted, clearly there was that perception that the USA WAS, and is, a Christian nation).
RE: “… That it did then I think clarifies the founders intentions as to the concept of "Christian Nation" quite clearly. …”
Which, again, since it never happened as you keep insisting, (1) shows the secularist left to be desperately grasping at the merest hint that legitimizes their view; and, (2) relies for its transmission on the actual ignorance of history – students at unionized public schools? Leftists whose entire academic exposure is google searches?
RE: “…The founders set us off on a the right course and it has been compromised bit by bit ever since … “
Up to this point, this sentence is correct:
As the actual history of our nation shows, the 1st Amendment limited the national, i.e., the federal government from instituting a NATIONAL CHURCH, much as the colonists had experienced under the English monarchs, which meant that the citizenry had to bend to, and observe the religious dictates given from above, and not what they themselves felt or believed (much like what the Bolsheviks, the Soviet, the PRC aspired to, and now the Obama Administration, as their pleadings before the US Supreme Court clearly state).
The actual totality of all the documents, including the Federalist Papers and the philosophical and theological context of Western civilization at the time, completely contradict your position.
As Thomas Jefferson made clear in his second inaugural address, the design of the Constitution was to prevent the national government from affecting or legislating religious concerns and organization, BUT NOT THE STATES, which would be free to regulate WITH the religious authorities within the states’ borders. And, in fact, that is how our nation proceeded with exactly the enacting at the state level of various religious tests and requirements.
This was in fact one of Jefferson’s proudest accomplishments (read his biographies).
Or, as written by Adams in some correspondence with Jefferson: “… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other….”
If you want avoid actually reading history, and take shortcuts by accepting snippets from here and there, consider the treaty that actually gave birth to the nation, as a separate entity from the English crown,
The Treaty of Paris:
"...In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America …
Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. ...
This is Ironic.
I am sick and tired of our American Taliban in Waiting telling fantasy stories of American history(2) as if the real purpose of the first amendment was to protect Evangelicals from the dominant churches of the day in order to put the nation in trust for the day that Evangelicals could take over the theocracy that was clearly intended from the start. There is a reason that nowhere in any of the chief documents we see the name of God, Jesus, or a final flourish like "This we do in Jesus' name, Amen".
Actually both sides do this. our doign it now. Your version of Hisotry is that theCOnstitution was written to protect the Government from interferance from the Chruches, which sint True, an dyou think "The Foundign Fathers" had a Senate once...
You know, the Historical revisionism isnot just in the Evangelical side. share
Bellamy salute to you!
shareTry You're as the correct spelling. This is sadly absurd popular modern historical illiteracy since many of the nation's Founders were clergymen. See this popular falsehood exploded at www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm
Also see creation.com for extensive refutation of modern evolutionary nonsense mindlessly technobabbling about pretending to be science (e.g. The Outer Limits:S3E12 Double Helix (3-28-1997)) and successfully fooling Lenin's gullible "useful idiots" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Useful%20idiot) versus the true creationism science of legions like the greats Galileo & Newton & Pasteur et al that built the foundation which evolutionist frauds try both to sit on and destroy. Ironically when creationists were in power evolutionists hypocritically first whined about and demanded equal time for their fraud and then shut creationists up after they took over the levers of power because they (the ringleaders, not the gullible majority) knew they couldn't defend their fraud successfully. They hypocritically love both to pretend that because they hold the microphone/printers and prevent creationists from being heard/printed, that creationists aren't true scientists because they're not heard/printed!
SCOTUS's Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/330/1/case.html) error misinterprets the separation of church and state, especially in its absurd misapplication of the incorporation principle to aid antiChristian bigotry, now the imagined law of the land as lawless fascist judges impose their false views on the people and pretend their deranged tyranny is consistent with a democratic republic (e.g. even Roe v Wade's supporters admit it has no rational basis in law).
You really just like to hear yourself talk eh?
shareOnly to those who don't know what the Constitution actually says. Only ignorant bigots fail to know America was founded as a Christian nation "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." Anyone who denies this (e.g. 0bamamaniacs enslaved to our first atheist Muslim white house occupant, not legally elected president) is himself enslaved and only points one ignorant finger at Christians to have three pointing back at himself, 3x guiltier, proving by his accusations that he knows nothing whatsoever about the faith he attacks, like anything about the Bible he mindlessly attacks, enslaved to the antiscience trash of bogus plagiarist misotheist clergyman Darwin contrary to the true science of greats like creationists Galileo, Pasteur & Von Braun and countless others. True science, like America, was founded by creationist Christians; the little we have today is being destroyed by evolutionists devoted to shredding what little's left of that Christian foundation as civilization crumbles around us in the mad rush of 0bamanation and others to return to the evil, vile barbarism whence the true Christian faith (vs bogus caricatures) rescued us. See creation.com for the few who can handle the truth that evolution is garbage by useful idiots for useful idiots, something I researched independently for myself in 1975 in college unlike today where the gullible think what they're told to think. The internet has been the glorious death knell for evolution now that its priests and media no longer control the microphone to keep creationists from speaking as they once did as deluded falsely-so-called "liberal" fascists like the evolutionists that opposed creationist Galileo, trying to prevent his geokinetic truth from hindering their geocentric system. If evolutionists had controlled science from then until now we'd still be told to believe the sun revolved around the earth thanks to their "consensus" "science" like today's "anthropocentric global warming" fraud exposed by publicizing the lies of the East Anglia crowd that "cooked the books" to make $ off gullible tree huggers vainlly pretending to know anything about science or reality or the Christian faith, but whose true knowledge about any of it is zero, zero, and zero, only what they're told to think, like on "Outer Limits" where the show itself tells us that everything we see and hear is CONTROLLED by the Controller. Outer Limits watchers who attack the Christian faith are blind hypocrites utterly blind to what they're attacking. In addition to www.creation.com, see www.desiringGod.org and www.hopeinGod.org if you dare try to handle the truth that will set you free.
sharerussedav » -
Only to those who don't know what the Constitution actually says.
Oh, I know what it says...and about the men who wrote it.
Only ignorant bigots fail to know America was founded as a Christian nation
Well, the Constitution is nt what America was fouded on, It wasn;'t even the original Document America was governed under.
Its taken on that sort of central role, but its not the original foundation.
And the original Foundation of Americ was open rebellion againt a Christian Government and Christian King.
Which violates Romans 13, by the way.
And do you know much aout King George as a man? He wasn't the Tyrant he was depicted as by Americas less than Honest Foudners.
"endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." Anyone who denies this (e.g. 0bamamaniacs enslaved to our first atheist Muslim white house occupant, not legally elected president)
Obama does not deny this. Nor is he an Atheist, and certiahly not an Atheist Muslim.
In Reality he is a Christian.
Also, he was legally elected.
is himself enslaved and only points one ignorant finger at Christians to have three pointing back at himself,
Obama doe snot condemn Christians in general, so your entire point is invalid.
3x guiltier, proving by his accusations that he knows nothing whatsoever about the faith he attacks, like anything about the Bible he mindlessly attacks, enslaved to the antiscience trash of bogus plagiarist misotheist clergyman Darwin contrary to the true science of greats like creationists Galileo, Pasteur & Von Braun and countless others.
Galileo wa born before Darwin, and may not have been a Creationist. Pasteur was also arond before Darwin but did live in his lifetime, but guess what? He accepted Evolution. So did Von Braun. He was a Lutheran, and tyically Lutherans are not Creatioists.
True science, like America, was founded by creationist Christians;
Actually the idea of gradual Creation and more allegorical readings of Scripture were common int he Middle Ages and even in the Early Modern Period, even amongst Protestants.
Creatioism is a fairly new innovation.
the little we have today is being destroyed by evolutionists devoted to shredding what little's left of that Christian foundation as civilization crumbles around us in the mad rush of 0bamanation and others to return to the evil, vile barbarism whence the true Christian faith (vs bogus caricatures) rescued us.
You do know that many Christias accept Evolutin, Right? And beleiving in volution doesnt mean oen is an Atheist? Or immoral?
See creation.com for the few who can handle the truth that evolution is garbage by useful idiots for useful idiots, something I researched independently for myself in 1975 in college unlike today where the gullible think what they're told to think.
Then present a Reasoned arguent, nt just cheap insult.
The internet has been the glorious death knell for evolution now that its priests and media no longer control the microphone to keep creationists from speaking as they once did as deluded falsely-so-called "liberal" fascists like the evolutionists that opposed creationist Galileo, trying to prevent his geokinetic truth from hindering their geocentric system. If evolutionists had controlled science from then until now we'd still be told to believe the sun revolved around the earth thanks to their "consensus" "science" like today's "anthropocentric global warming" fraud exposed by publicizing the lies of the East Anglia crowd that "cooked the books" to make $ off gullible tree huggers vainlly pretending to know anything about science or reality or the Christian faith, but whose true knowledge about any of it is zero, zero, and zero, only what they're told to think, like on "Outer Limits" where the show itself tells us that everything we see and hear is CONTROLLED by the Controller.
OK, Heliocentrism is not related to Evolution so there's no Reaos tot hink Evolutionists woudl still have us ebelifve it. This is liek when Atheits argue the Bible is a Flat Earht book, tis stupidity.
And many Christians accept Global Warming, which is not a Theological topic at all.
And plenty of peopel disagree wiht you and still hink for themselves.
Outer Limits watchers who attack the Christian faith are blind hypocrites utterly blind to what they're attacking. In addition to www.creation.com, see www.desiringGod.org and www.hopeinGod.org if you dare try to handle the truth that will set you free.
You gave them no Reason to, as you basically insulted them, which makes them defensive. share
Hardly surprising. Conservatives tend to go through life in a permanent state of confusion.
sharejbaker1-2 » -
Hardly surprising. Conservatives tend to go through life in a permanent state of confusion.
It's sayign things liek this that reinforces the Reality that peopel tend to be tribalist, nd tend to see peopel of ricval Tribes not as simply diffeent, but somehwo inferior or Evil.
Conservatives, of coruse, arent really going through Life perpetually confused, you just rpefer this caricature as it invalidates them as people.
share
That is, at best, a gross over simplification and, at worst, yet another shining example of the inadequacies of the public education system and the mass non-education/indoctrination it commits. The First Amendment was written to prevent a FEDERALLY Sponsored Church, not to completely separate politics and religion. In fact, many US states had state religions or required their citizens to be a member of a church. This ended around 1833 when Taxachussetts shut down their established church. The "wall of separation" was an invention pulled out of the butt of the lunatic Earl Warren; his penumbra of pabulum. But, pretending for a moment that anything he said made sense and jelled with a sane person's logic, there is no prohibition what so ever against a person mixing religion and politics. Members of the Church of Hypocritical Left Wing Frakking Nut Cases do it every time they vote.
House and Gibbs are my role models!!!
There is no difference between Religion and Politics. Both are ways to create groupings of people and influence followers to gain material benefit for top layer.
shareand you can also put the blind followers of obama in there buddha. im sure you just forgot.
That's just stupid. share
Oh really... you must be calling yourself stupid as well-- Too bad most of you won't ever get it, until its too late...
shareDrSamba » -
and you can also put the blind followers of obama in there buddha. im sure you just forgot.
That's just stupid.
Why? He has a valid pointt. But I think you just want to bash Relgiion and use this as soem fault nly Relgiion has, when in Reality its a fault we ee in other areas. share
Doesnt' your question assume that beigb a Christain requies blind Devotion? That's ot really True.
share