Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:09 pm**

Fliegender wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:52 pm
edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:26 am...

So at least one of those 5 [pedophile] groups exists, but so what? None of them have anything to do with the American political left. The fact that you're trying to make a connection is disturbing.
Agreed. I’d bet a year’s salary that no one on the left supports pedophelia. I’m sure that even the men who practice pedophelia know it’s wrong.

This whole Sex perverts are all Democrats “discussion” is nothing more than mud slinging.

You are retired..not much of a bet

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2019 4:26 am**

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:26 am You rest your case? What does that even mean?

And from your link -

United States

Childhood Sensuality Circle (CSC). Founded in 1971 in San Diego, California, by a student of Wilhelm Reich.[10]
North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). 1978–present. Considered to be largely defunct.[37][38]
Pedophile Information Society.[39]
Project Truth. One of the organizations which was expelled from ILGA in 1994 as a pedophile organization.[3] Defunct.
René Guyon Society. Possibly fictitious. Its slogan was supposedly "sex before eight, or it's too late."[27]

So we've got 5 organizations, of which one is "largely defunct," one is entirely defunct, and one is most likely fictitious. So we've got 2 organizations. I Googled the Pedophile Information Society and came up empty. I followed the link in the endnote and ended up with a study written in Portuguese. My Spanish is decent, but not decent enough to let me read Portuguese, so that's out. And that leaves NAMBLA.

So at least one of those 5 groups exists, but so what? None of them have anything to do with the American political left. The fact that you're trying to make a connection is disturbing.

So, you say there is only ONE group, I use widely accepted information website to show there is far more than just one around the whole world and yet...

You know, it's ok to say that other people are right once and awhile Ed, it won't actually physically hurt.

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:28 am**

I said that there seems to be one group active in the United States of America. We've been consistently talking about the people on the left side of the political spectrum in the United States of America. If you want to broaden the conversation to include the entire world then you have to actually say that. So sure, you're right that there are pedophile rights groups around the world, but the world is not what we've been talking about.

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:53 pm**

Pedophelia is extremely marginal in most nations, even in very liberal places like the Netherlands. Actually, in strictly conservative nations such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, there is a form of socially acceptable pedophelia...another nail in the coffin of the idea that the Left accepts any weird sexuality while the Right is pure lily white...

Posted: **Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:46 am**

Fliegender wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:53 pm Pedophelia is extremely marginal in most nations, even in very liberal places like the Netherlands. Actually, in strictly conservative nations such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, there is a form of socially acceptable pedophelia...another nail in the coffin of the idea that the Left accepts any weird sexuality while the Right is pure lily white...

bacha bazi

Posted: **Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:44 am**

Well that's horrifying.

The thing is, if we don't support the pedophiles that occasionally murder our advisors then the only other option is the Taliban - a bunch of violent, backward extremists who will also kill our troops and are more than likely also into bacha bazi. Unfortunately it's too late to make the smart move and just never have gone in there in the first place. Can we just say "Eff all y'all!" and walk? Maybe, but there are a lot of people counting on us by now, and most of them are neither terrorists nor podophiles. Just bailing on them doesn't seem right, but staying doesn't seem worthwhile. What an ugly, stupid mess.

I hope things go better when we invade Iraq...

Posted: **Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:19 am**

Fliegender wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:53 pm Pedophelia is extremely marginal in most nations, even in very liberal places like the Netherlands. Actually, in strictly conservative nations such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, there is a form of socially acceptable pedophelia...another nail in the coffin of the idea that the Left accepts any weird sexuality while the Right is pure lily white...

There seems to be a fundamental difference in how liberals and conservatives categorize sexual behavior. For example, here's a list of behaviors:

homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, child marriage, polygamy, promiscuous heterosexuality, heterosexual marriage, same sex marriage

For social conservatives the metric seems to be a blend of "What does Jesus (or an OT cherry pick if it's unclear WJWD) say about this behavior?" and "Does this make me feel icky and uncomfortable?"

For most social conservatives homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, child marriage, polygamy, promiscuous heterosexuality, and same sex marriage all fail one of the two tests mentioned above and should therefore be railed against, strongly discouraged, and/or outright banned. The only fully acceptable sexual activity involves a man and a woman who are married to each other.

Since they're using the God says no/I feel icky metric to judge the behaviors many social conservatives lump all of those behaviors into the same category - sexual activity - and then assume that anyone who supports anything other than sex within a heterosexual marriage is looking to push us down the slippery slope and into the pit of depravity and doom. Consequently, comments like "First gay marriage, next bestility" make sense to those people.

For most liberals the metric is consent. If the behaviors are consensual it's all good. If not, it can never be okay. A typical liberal would be fine with homosexuality, polygamy, promiscuity, heterosexual marriage, and same sex marriage, assuming that all of the participants were consenting adults. To be clear, by "fine with" I mean that the typical liberal generally takes a "you be you" approach to other people's' sexuality. That doesn't mean that they enthusiastically support any of those behaviors, that they engage in any or all of them, or that they're fine with their kids being promiscuous. For example, I'm fine with homosexuality, polygamy, promiscuity, heterosexual marriage, and same sex marriage, but I'm in a 100% monogamous, heterosexual relationship with my wife, and I would not be supportive of my daughters being sexually promiscuous. At all.

On the other hand, for the typical liberal bestiality, child marriage, and pedophilia are completely unacceptable because children and animals are incapable of giving informed consent or of being coequals in the relationship. Sex with animals and kids is abusive and will never be okay. Never. Period.

So as you can see, the slippery slope that many social conservatives bring up when discussing things like marriage equality is not real. If you worry that we might be fine with polygamy then your fears are justified - most of us don't much care about that. If you worry that liberals are trying to weaken society so that non consensual behavior becomes legal then you haven't been listening to us. We will never, never, never support pedophilia or bestiality. Therefore, when social conservatives start howling about how "the left" supports bestiality and pedophilia we're shocked and offended.We do not, never have, and never will support those things, and they have absolutely nothing in common with consensual acts like same sex marriage.

Regarding cannibalism, I have no idea how anyone could possibly think that liberals support that, so I assume that's just a mindless smear from an insane person working his way toward a crazy-eyed ragegasm. It's a bizarre accusation. We don't support cannibalism.

PS - Regarding child marriage in the US (from Wikipedia):

Idaho

In February 2019, a bi-partisan anti-child marriage bill was voted down 39-28 by the Idaho House of Representatives. The bill would have made it illegal for anyone under 16 to get married, and for 16-17 year olds it would have required the consent of parents, a judge, and the minor themselves. All those who opposed were Republicans. Idaho has the highest rate of child marriage in the United States.

Utah

On March 25th, 2019, the Governor of Utah, Republican Gary Herbert signed a law which raised the minimum marriage age from 15 to 16, with parental permission. The law also makes it illegal for a 16 or 17-year-old to marry someone who is more than 7 years older than them.[66] The law passed the Utah House of Representatives 55 to 6, with 14 abstentions. It was described as a bipartisan effort, with a majority of Republicans, and all Democrats voting in favour. All abstentions and votes against were Republicans. KSL.com called it a "watered-down" version of a law proposed in 2018 by Democrat representative Angela Romero which would have raised the age from 15 to 18 with no exceptions.

Posted: **Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:57 pm**

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:19 am

There seems to be a fundamental difference in how liberals and conservatives categorize sexual behavior. For example, here's a list of behaviors:

homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, child marriage, polygamy, promiscuous heterosexuality, heterosexual marriage, same sex marriage

For social conservatives the metric seems to be a blend of "What does Jesus (or an OT cherry pick if it's unclear WJWD) say about this behavior?" and "Does this make me feel icky and uncomfortable?"

For most social conservatives homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, child marriage, polygamy, promiscuous heterosexuality, and same sex marriage all fail one of the two tests mentioned above and should therefore be railed against, strongly discouraged, and/or outright banned. The only fully acceptable sexual activity involves a man and a woman who are married to each other.

Since they're using the God says no/I feel icky metric to judge the behaviors many social conservatives lump all of those behaviors into the same category - sexual activity - and then assume that anyone who supports anything other than sex within a heterosexual marriage is looking to push us down the slippery slope and into the pit of depravity and doom. Consequently, comments like "First gay marriage, next bestility" make sense to those people...

yeah...but I'm a social conservative and don't care about people engaging in homosexuality, same sex marriage, promiscuous heterosexuality and abortion. If it's legal and you want to do it, go ahead. It's no skin off my nose, as the saying goes. Polygamy is illegal, as is pedophelia and these are both "ìcky" to use your term. Bestiality is just sick. I'm actually more concerned about a child of mine being taught by a teacher wearing a niqab or a headscarf than by whom a homosexual teacher sleeps with. Anf if young woman teacher quietly gets an abortion, that's none of my business. In short, I want a teacher to be secular - neutral - insofar as his/her faith and morals are concerned. I don't ask my mechanic whom he sleeps with because it's none of my business and his love life won't affect his job.

wrote:...For most liberals the metric is consent. If the behaviors are consensual it's all good. If not, it can never be okay. A typical liberal would be fine with homosexuality, polygamy, promiscuity, heterosexual marriage, and same sex marriage, assuming that all of the participants were consenting adults. To be clear, by "fine with" I mean that the typical liberal generally takes a "you be you" approach to other people's' sexuality. That doesn't mean that they enthusiastically support any of those behaviors, that they engage in any or all of them, or that they're fine with their kids being promiscuous. For example, I'm fine with homosexuality, polygamy, promiscuity, heterosexual marriage, and same sex marriage, but I'm in a 100% monogamous, heterosexual relationship with my wife, and I would not be supportive of my daughters being sexually promiscuous. At all...

yeah...again, I would avoid painting people with a wide brush as in "a typical liberal would be fine with homosexuality, polygamy, promiscuity, hetero- and homosexual marriage..." Until it actually happens to you, as in your daughter comes home and says something like, "I'm getting married to Jennifer!" you won't really know.* I have a friend who is ultra-crazy liberal and he was quite disappointed when his daughter came home with...Jennifer. And if your daughter decided she wanted to become Ahmed's third wife, you probably wouldn't be too pleased either.

wrote:...Regarding cannibalism, I have no idea how anyone could possibly think that liberals support that, so I assume that's just a mindless smear from an insane person working his way toward a crazy-eyed ragegasm. It's a bizarre accusation. We don't support cannibalism.

Anyone in the USA who engages in cannibalism is just sick, period. Republican or Democrat, a cannibal is sick.

*A homosexual friend once told me, ''Until you try it, you won't know if you like it.'' I answered, ''I've never eaten sh!t either but I'm certain I wouldn't like it.''

Posted: **Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:44 pm**

Ya'll do realize it is because of liberal policies that America is in the mess it is in.It was liberalism not conservatism that removed prayer and bible reading from public schools which has led to the rise of atheism some 50 years later like a self fulfilling prophecy.It is directly because of liberal policies the family structure of our society in America has been decimated.You cannot blame conservatives for the way things have turned out for America as liberals have dominated politics for decades and on every major political issue they got their way politically.What you people don't seem to realize is the world is awakening to the devastating effects of liberalism and are now rejecting it.It is not just the US but many other countries too.This is good news for us.Ed and others are just not realizing it yet.So while Ed points to Canada claiming liberalism is good,the people are saying no it is not.

Posted: **Sat Aug 31, 2019 4:10 pm**

As for Jeffrey Epstein,child sex trafficking and pedophilia ya'll are just not fully informed about it like those of us who follow Q, the Q anons, and others in the alt-right media.The Main Stream Media ya'll are relying on including Fox News is not doing the investigative work the alt righters have done and so you are just not informed of just how far it goes and how many people is involved and even those who are covering it up for these sick and evil people.The MSM is still trying to gloss over it and cover it up and are not reporting all of the facts about it.Ya'll just don't understand the depths this stuff goes,and how it is used to control and black male people in our government,etc.What is the most sickening things about this stuff is the child sacrifices to Satan or Molok and how to be apart of this exclusive club the things you must do to prove your loyalty to be apart of it.Also Jeffrey Epstein had cameras all over the island as he filmed these people having sex with children in order to be able to black mail,etc and the Q team have these videos that actually show these people engaging in sex with children. It is sick evil stuff that sounds like a conspiracy theory until you see the facts.Ever heard of selling your soul to the Devil? Well these sick and evil people have in order to be apart of this club for power.But you're going to be just as shocked as we are and you'll understand why many in the alt-right are frustrated at these people out on the street still while these children are being hurt and there is no justice. You will be demanding justice just like we are. We have tried to awaken you people and yet ya'll just will not listen to any news unless it comes from the MSM propaganda machine and so we must wait until you yourself are finally red-pilled.Atleast you now know that we were not crazy conspiracy theorists like was claimed when we first brought this stuff up as we are slowly being proven correct about it.Ya'll just don't have all of the info about it relying on the MSM to tell you about it.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2019 1:36 pm**

Fliegender wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:57 pmyeah...but I'm a social conservative and don't care about people engaging in homosexuality, same sex marriage, promiscuous heterosexuality and abortion. If it's legal and you want to do it, go ahead. It's no skin off my nose, as the saying goes. Polygamy is illegal, as is pedophelia and these are both "ìcky" to use your term. Bestiality is just sick. I'm actually more concerned about a child of mine being taught by a teacher wearing a niqab or a headscarf than by whom a homosexual teacher sleeps with. Anf if young woman teacher quietly gets an abortion, that's none of my business. In short, I want a teacher to be secular - neutral - insofar as his/her faith and morals are concerned. I don't ask my mechanic whom he sleeps with because it's none of my business and his love life won't affect his job.

Obviously I'm painting with a broad brush here. Your views pretty much mirror mine (although I'm completely indifferent to polygamy). That said, I think "social conservative" is a pretty good descriptor for a long line of people who consider their way to be proper and everything else to be deviant, who base their arguments on scripture, and who try to give their beliefs and preferences the force of law. That risks tarring a few who aren't like that (Sorry.) but we have to call them something, and "people who consider their way to be proper and everything else to be deviant, who base their arguments on scripture, and who try to give their beliefs and preferences the force of law" is way too long.

Fliegender wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:57 pmyeah...again, I would avoid painting people with a wide brush as in "a typical liberal would be fine with homosexuality, polygamy, promiscuity, hetero- and homosexual marriage..." Until it actually happens to you, as in your daughter comes home and says something like, "I'm getting married to Jennifer!" you won't really know. I have a friend who is ultra-crazy liberal and he was quite disappointed when his daughter came home with...Jennifer. And if your daughter decided she wanted to become Ahmed's third wife, you probably wouldn't be too pleased either.

That's mostly beside the point, though. The important bit is that my personal feelings about some consensual act will not be used as justification to forbid others, or at least others who aren't my minor children, to engage in said act.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2019 2:31 pm**

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 1:36 pm...
Obviously I'm painting with a broad brush here. Your views pretty much mirror mine (although I'm completely indifferent to polygamy). That said, I think "social conservative" is a pretty good descriptor for a long line of people who consider their way to be proper and everything else to be deviant, who base their arguments on scripture, and who try to give their beliefs and preferences the force of law. That risks tarring a few who aren't like that (Sorry.) but we have to call them something, and "people who consider their way to be proper and everything else to be deviant, who base their arguments on scripture, and who try to give their beliefs and preferences the force of law" is way too long...

Hmmm...forcing an opposing group to do and see things our way isn’t the exclusive purview of the conservative mindset. That’s really a trait of human nature. It may have something to do with power. To wit, the Bolshevik Revolution, Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Pol Pot’s Kampuchea. The point is, none of this has anything to do with Christianity or conservatism influenced by one religion/ideology or another. Does anyone really think that if Jesus came back today he’d become a card carrying member of the GOP? Would he vote for Trump in 2020? The very idea is absurd.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2019 3:09 pm**

Does anyone really think that if Jesus came back today he’d become a card carrying member of the GOP? Would he vote for Trump in 2020? The very idea is absurd.

Correct - God favors NO political party - and he considers one man as any other (Romans 2:11). But He most certainly DOES "elect" our leaders per his purposes for them. He often reflects the sensibilities of a society's majority by giving them the leader(s) they desire or THINK is best for them - but he often appears to do so as a judgment upon that society. An immoral populace elects immoral leaders, but God is the one who actually puts a person in leadership:

Daniel 2:21: "He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings;"

John 19:11: "Jesus answered him (Pilate), “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above."

Exodus 9:16: "God sent Moses to tell Pharaoh, “Indeed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."

Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2019 3:45 pm**

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:19 am
Fliegender wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:53 pm Pedophelia is extremely marginal in most nations, even in very liberal places like the Netherlands. Actually, in strictly conservative nations such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, there is a form of socially acceptable pedophelia...another nail in the coffin of the idea that the Left accepts any weird sexuality while the Right is pure lily white...
There seems to be a fundamental difference in how liberals and conservatives categorize sexual behavior. For example, here's a list of behaviors:

homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, child marriage, polygamy, promiscuous heterosexuality, heterosexual marriage, same sex marriage

For social conservatives the metric seems to be a blend of "What does Jesus (or an OT cherry pick if it's unclear WJWD) say about this behavior?" and "Does this make me feel icky and uncomfortable?"

For most social conservatives homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, child marriage, polygamy, promiscuous heterosexuality, and same sex marriage all fail one of the two tests mentioned above and should therefore be railed against, strongly discouraged, and/or outright banned. The only fully acceptable sexual activity involves a man and a woman who are married to each other.

Since they're using the God says no/I feel icky metric to judge the behaviors many social conservatives lump all of those behaviors into the same category - sexual activity - and then assume that anyone who supports anything other than sex within a heterosexual marriage is looking to push us down the slippery slope and into the pit of depravity and doom. Consequently, comments like "First gay marriage, next bestility" make sense to those people.

For most liberals the metric is consent. If the behaviors are consensual it's all good. If not, it can never be okay. A typical liberal would be fine with homosexuality, polygamy, promiscuity, heterosexual marriage, and same sex marriage, assuming that all of the participants were consenting adults. To be clear, by "fine with" I mean that the typical liberal generally takes a "you be you" approach to other people's' sexuality. That doesn't mean that they enthusiastically support any of those behaviors, that they engage in any or all of them, or that they're fine with their kids being promiscuous. For example, I'm fine with homosexuality, polygamy, promiscuity, heterosexual marriage, and same sex marriage, but I'm in a 100% monogamous, heterosexual relationship with my wife, and I would not be supportive of my daughters being sexually promiscuous. At all.

On the other hand, for the typical liberal bestiality, child marriage, and pedophilia are completely unacceptable because children and animals are incapable of giving informed consent or of being coequals in the relationship. Sex with animals and kids is abusive and will never be okay. Never. Period.

So as you can see, the slippery slope that many social conservatives bring up when discussing things like marriage equality is not real. If you worry that we might be fine with polygamy then your fears are justified - most of us don't much care about that. If you worry that liberals are trying to weaken society so that non consensual behavior becomes legal then you haven't been listening to us. We will never, never, never support pedophilia or bestiality. Therefore, when social conservatives start howling about how "the left" supports bestiality and pedophilia we're shocked and offended.We do not, never have, and never will support those things, and they have absolutely nothing in common with consensual acts like same sex marriage.

Regarding cannibalism, I have no idea how anyone could possibly think that liberals support that, so I assume that's just a mindless smear from an insane person working his way toward a crazy-eyed ragegasm. It's a bizarre accusation. We don't support cannibalism.

PS - Regarding child marriage in the US (from Wikipedia):

Idaho

In February 2019, a bi-partisan anti-child marriage bill was voted down 39-28 by the Idaho House of Representatives. The bill would have made it illegal for anyone under 16 to get married, and for 16-17 year olds it would have required the consent of parents, a judge, and the minor themselves. All those who opposed were Republicans. Idaho has the highest rate of child marriage in the United States.

Utah

On March 25th, 2019, the Governor of Utah, Republican Gary Herbert signed a law which raised the minimum marriage age from 15 to 16, with parental permission. The law also makes it illegal for a 16 or 17-year-old to marry someone who is more than 7 years older than them.[66] The law passed the Utah House of Representatives 55 to 6, with 14 abstentions. It was described as a bipartisan effort, with a majority of Republicans, and all Democrats voting in favour. All abstentions and votes against were Republicans. KSL.com called it a "watered-down" version of a law proposed in 2018 by Democrat representative Angela Romero which would have raised the age from 15 to 18 with no exceptions.

You are afraid Christians want to do the same thing liberals have done and force our views on these issues onto the rest of society like liberals have done,but it is just not the case. It is pointless for you to try to think about why Christians might oppose these issues if you truly understood what the fight hass really always been about.The problem has never been whether or not these issues are right or not in God's eyes but how liberals used the government to force these things onto America against its will by judicial fiat.This is unconstitutional no matter if you agree with abortion,same sex marriages,etc.According to the Constitution the Government cannot make these decisions for the people,the Government cannot force the people to adhere in anyway on these issues.The people through elections in their State get to decide these issues. This never happened in these cases and it was unconstitutional.

Christians and conservatives honor the US Constitution and so there is no way conservatives or Christians could do what liberals did and decide these issues for the people based on our religious beliefs or what the bible says like you imply and this has never been our goal.Our goal is to get back to going by the Constitution which has been ignored for far too long and allow the people to decide these issues.This is our goal and what we desire.it has never been to force our religious views on to the rest of America like liberals did.

No we want the Supreme Court to overturn these rulings on abortion,same sex marriages,transgender bathrooms,etc and send these issues back to the States where the people can decide these issues,instead of the Government for the people. It may be the case that the American people decide they like abortion and want it to remain and they ,may vote for it,but this is the way it is supposed to be done.However the people could very well decide they do not like abortion and vote to reject it.Either decision by the people would be Constitutional but it is unconstitutional when the Government decides any of these issues for the people. It is totally backwards from the way things were set up by the US Constitution.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2019 4:04 pm**

The whole issue really boils down to those on the left somehow believing that Christians or conservatives actually desire to set up a religious government theocracy like in the dark ages when Catholics ruled this way.We would NEVER desire such a thing and we are glad our forefathers who were Christians realized the God of the bible actually gives us freedom to choose for ourselves what is best for us. It is all biblically based which the Catholics ignored when they ruled.God gives us free will to believe in him or not,to do things his way or not.God does not and will not force us to believe or to do things his way and any Christian trying to force people to do things God's way would be wrong also.Our freedom that we were given by our forefathers came from the God of the bible.The whole idea of freedom came from God.

Free
https://youtu.be/V8Ps08vRUw0

Evidence for God from Science

Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?

Re: Have we crossed the line yet?