Evidence for God from Science

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2019 7:31 am

My whole point with the hypothetical of voting being mandatory by law, was to show that Jesus would obey the law of the land, not break the law.

How much information would Jesus have upon his arrival? Does he have perfect knowledge, being that he's God and all, or is he coming here straight from the cross with no knowledge of anything that's happened since?

It seems to me that if Jesus arrived here and learned, for example, that it in some places it's illegal for citizens to feed refugees? Would he be like "Well, duh! Their suffering is a deterrent to them coming here!" or would he go and do something Christlike?

I guess me question is whether Jesus would suck up to the oligarchs and help them maintain the current social order, or would he value human life over the status quo?

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 4:09 pmThat's an interesting point. Hypothetically, if Jesus were here in the US today, instead of in the Middle East 2000 years ago, he would be paying taxes that support abortion.
And if the US made it mandatory to vote, he may well have voted for Trump!
Wrap your head around that!

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:47 am Um...

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 4:09 pmThat's an interesting point. Hypothetically, if Jesus were here in the US today, instead of in the Middle East 2000 years ago, he would be paying taxes that support abortion.
And if the US made it mandatory to vote, he may well have voted for Trump!
Wrap your head around that!

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:43 pm Can we get a Q sub forum so anyone interested in obsessing about Q can do it there, safe from being distracted by the rest of us?

ACB: You're going to eventually see evidence that Obama was born in Kenya,not the US.Mark this down.Because Obama's parents were apart of the CIA and learned to speak Russian,so Obama is a CIA product who was not born in the US.We have seen a video Q reminded us about where Obama is in Kenya and admits it.It is on video and we have seen the video.Yet became the President,anyway which is against the law and Constitution.Remember why Arnold Schwarzenegger could not run for President?Remember Hillary revealed it in 08 election running against Obama and Trump repeated it during the election and was lambasted for doing it?Well Trump is going to be proven correct.Kooky conspiracy theory? No!

Ablecainsbrother wrote:
We have seen a video Q reminded us about where Obama is in Kenya and admits it.

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:09 am

ACB: You're going to eventually see evidence that Obama was born in Kenya,not the US.Mark this down.Because Obama's parents were apart of the CIA and learned to speak Russian,so Obama is a CIA product who was not born in the US.We have seen a video Q reminded us about where Obama is in Kenya and admits it.It is on video and we have seen the video.Yet became the President,anyway which is against the law and Constitution.Remember why Arnold Schwarzenegger could not run for President?Remember Hillary revealed it in 08 election running against Obama and Trump repeated it during the election and was lambasted for doing it?Well Trump is going to be proven correct.Kooky conspiracy theory? No!

And one day YOU will hopefully realize that this forum is all about encouraging people to recognize and follow the Lord, and yet here you are constantly railing about politics, AS IF we just got our politics correct, that the world would just be a wonderful place "again." And that's delusional. Politics often obsesses the minds of Christians to their own harm and alienates those they should desire to share Christ with. Meaning, with one's constant focus on mostly politics, they will ruin any hope they have of reaching people for Christ. Don't seem to see Jesus and His Apostles going on about political answers too much, DO you???!!! Now why just that might be?

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 8:14 pm

Stu wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:17 pmWhat's this "we" business. You always say not all leftists are the same and so I can't take the actions of one person and point fingers at them as a group. Yet here you are speaking for all leftists.... Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways.

First off, you calling me a "leftist" is the same as me calling you a "fascist." Leftists are people like Lenin, Mao, and Che Guevara - communist revolutionaries, anarchists, and the like. Referring to all politically liberal people as leftists is a deliberate pejorative aimed at connecting us with totalitarian communists and Marxist guerillas. It's [nonsense]. Cut it out.

Second, when I talk about the left versus the right, or social policy, or economics, or what all ever, I'm talking about those things as they exist in the United States of America, where I live and know what's going on. Just so we're clear.

Back on topic...

I'm not trying to have it both ways. When we talk about political beliefs we're talking about a spectrum. "Left" versus "Right" is an approximation of where an individual's beliefs fall on that spectrum. Acceptance of consensual but non traditional relationships is a socially liberal position. So is support of single payer healthcare, stronger consumer protections, and regulation of Wall Street and the banks. Some people support all of those things. Others support some of them, but are skeptical of others. Most of us have nuanced positions on most things. All that said, the terms left and right have no meaning if we don't generally accept that a certain set of beliefs can be used to place a person somewhere on the political spectrum. Liberals believe certain things, and if you don't believe at least some of those things then you're not a liberal. It has to be that way, or we'll have no frame of reference to even discuss anything.

For example, I grudgingly support marriage equality but I don't love it. The issues isn't that I don't think that homosexual couples should be able to marry, it's that marriage is a religious thing that has nothing to do with the government. When we discuss marriage we're really talking about two things - a religious union and a civil union. In my opinion the religious union is none of the government's business and shouldn't be regulated in any way, but the civil union is a completely secular one, should be open to any interested party, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anybody's religion. My position is based on a blend of my utter indifference to religion and my passionate belief in equality under the law, and my rdging acceptance of marriage equality is based on my understanding that you schlubs will never let us do it properly.

What I criticize about your arguments is your tendency to take examples of extreme, obnoxious, dumbass, or criminal behavior by some politically liberal individual and present them as typical liberal activity or as evidence that "the left" has lost its mind. I have two objections to your methodology.

The first is that it's just a pathetic excuse for thinking. It's completely intellectually bankrupt. It doesn't hold up to a second of scrutiny. And no, you're not arguing that some on the left are crazy. That's a new development. For the last year you've consistently pushed the narrative that "the left" is bonkers and supported it with stories about trivial nonsense, many of which aren't even true. You never support any of it. You never reply when I fact check it and show that it's garbage. You just ignore me and do it again. And again. And again. And it's just...so...stupid.

The second is that you make no effort to apply that ****ty excuse for a metric to your own beliefs. A couple of weeks ago a self identified member of the alt-right posted a racist, anti-immigrant maniphesto warning that white people were being replaced by foreigners then drove 10 hours to El Paso and murdered a bunch of people at a WalMart. That should have shattered your entire worldview. Here you are throwing out weak ass garbage like this and BOOM, a certified right wing populist - one of the good ones, one of your people - does something stupefyingly horrible and overtly racist in explicit support of the alt-right agenda. Consistent application of your methodology would completely discredit the alt-right, so you should be devastated. But no, not a peep. No soul searching. No questioning. Nothing.

So again, cut it out. It's dumb, and what's more, you don't even believe it.

Stu wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:17 pmBesides from what I've seen on this forum you seem like a conservative liberal compared to others out there, so you hardly represent the whole.

I'm just more pragmatic than idealistic.

Stu wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:23 amI called you a conservative liberal. Strangely though you seem to support leftists - what did you call AOC, the future of the Democratic party. If you think that then you have quite a bit more in common with leftists than you think.

Stu wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:23 amWhat never seems to penetrate that thick skull of yours is that leftism/Trump derangement syndrome is alarmingly on the rise in the US. Of course there are idiots on both sides but leftists and liberals are getting more and more extreme by the day in the US. THAT is the point I am trying to make.

Stu wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:23 amSocialism is the new democracy in the Democratic party. How's that for irony.

Stu: Seriously? Then why do you have a sub-forum called Politics and World Events?

Stu: After all it's politics/law that led to abortion being made legal in the US and the resultant 45,000,000 babies being murdered. Something Jesus might care about?

Stu: No, there is no political solution to a spiritual problem (as in America and many other countries), but politics (and the people in power) can and do play an important role. Perhaps if the right people where elected in something could be done to not fix but alleviate the situation.

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:29 am

Stu: Seriously? Then why do you have a sub-forum called Politics and World Events?

Yes, we do have such a forum. But when you see a person who mostly and constantly frequents it, constantly seeming to assert political figures as the solution to what is mostly a spiritual problem,then I'd say they are on the wrong and a mostly pointless track. You simply aren't going to substantially change hearts and minds by railing on and on about what ticks you off politicallly, or by asserting political solutions for lasting change.

Stu: After all it's politics/law that led to abortion being made legal in the US and the resultant 45,000,000 babies being murdered. Something Jesus might care about?

And so, the legality of abortion is a political matter - but it's DRIVEN by a spiritual problem. And so while having political viewpoints is just fine, it's not going to change the hearts of the huge numbers of people that need changing before their political views on the issue follow likewise. It's getting the cart before the horse!

Stu: No, there is no political solution to a spiritual problem (as in America and many other countries), but politics (and the people in power) can and do play an important role. Perhaps if the right people where elected in something could be done to not fix but alleviate the situation.

But that's a matter of numbers of voters - in countries that still have a vote - is it not? So, if there aren't enough people of Godly sensibilities voting, then the numbers of those without such values will still push for politicians that promote abortions and other evils flourishing. Politics will ALWAYS, at best, only bring about temporary change!