Evidence for God from Science

Interesting Christianity Today article on John Kasich and his faith - which he refused to use to buy votes: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201 ... ndrum.html

Philip wrote:Interesting Christianity Today article on John Kasich and his faith - which he refused to use to buy votes: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201 ... ndrum.html

Interesting article, but I disagree with your assessment. It didn't say Kasich was hurt by his faith, it said that he was hurt by his disinclination to roll around in the mud screaming about petty nonsense and predicting the imminent collapse of our nation.

What I actually find interesting is that there are so many influential Christians seem to believe that denying rights to homosexuals is more important than helping the poor, and the implication that Kasich lost because the disagreed.

Anyway, it's a shame that the Republicans opted to back that pumpkin-faced buffoon instead. Kasich might have made a decent president.

edwardmurphy wrote:
What I actually find interesting is that there are so many influential Christians seem to believe that denying rights to homosexuals is more important than helping the poor, and the implication that Kasich lost because the disagreed.

Please share with us the names of influential Christians that believe that. And don't forget links to show why your assertion is true.

edward wrote:
It didn't say Kasich was hurt by his faith,

Yes it did. Here:

His faith hurt him more than it helped.

Ed: Interesting article, but I disagree with your assessment. It didn't say Kasich was hurt by his faith

I didn't say that EITHER! I said he refused to use it to sell himself politically - like Cruz did.

Ignoring the obvious troll attempt, I feel like Kasich's faith angle as a presidential contender was overshadowed by all the other buffoonery along the trail.

Interesting bit of news you found, Phillip. I wasn't aware of many of the faith outreaches Kasich had made. Kind of makes me wish I gave him a closer look.

But now, people like Beck are smearing Kasich at every angle because he dropped out...seems like John just can't get a break. I probably would have done the same thing in a hopeless fight as well; he just didn't have the name recognition or political warchest that the other three candidates have.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Philip wrote:Interesting Christianity Today article on John Kasich and his faith - which he refused to use to buy votes: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201 ... ndrum.html

Interesting article, but I disagree with your assessment. It didn't say Kasich was hurt by his faith, it said that he was hurt by his disinclination to roll around in the mud screaming about petty nonsense and predicting the imminent collapse of our nation.

What I actually find interesting is that there are so many influential Christians seem to believe that denying rights to homosexuals is more important than helping the poor, and the implication that Kasich lost because the disagreed.

Anyway, it's a shame that the Republicans opted to back that pumpkin-faced buffoon instead. Kasich might have made a decent president.

Tell me what you would do or how you would feel it was put to a vote in several states and even very liberal states that only Christians can own businesses in the US and in every state the people voted NO and rejected it even in the most liberal of states and one day the US supreme court just wrote new law shredding the US Constitution and said only Christians can own a business and it applied to all states whether you agreed with it or not. Tell us if you would feel offended and hurt by the ruling.

You guys just don't get it. GOD TOLD TED CRUZ's FATHER THAT TED WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT. All this talk about anyone else is meaningless.

Edit--in case you aren't familiar with God saying Ted will be the next president, here it is in black and white from fruitcake news:
http://www.charismanews.com/politics/pr ... t-ted-cruz

RickD wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:
What I actually find interesting is that there are so many influential Christians seem to believe that denying rights to homosexuals is more important than helping the poor, and the implication that Kasich lost because the disagreed.

Please share with us the names of influential Christians that believe that. And don't forget links to show why your assertion is true.

I said "seem to believe." As in "This is the impression that I get..."

I'm not going to bother with a list, but I think we all know that opposition to raising taxes on the rich, opposition to raising the minimum wage, opposition to the ACA in general and Medicaid expansion in particular, opposition to marriage equality, opposition to gay adoption, and opposition to protecting LGBT people from discrimination are all positions held by influential conservative politicians. I also think we all know that the vast majority of conservative politicians are, or at least claim to be, Christians. In my view, when you add all that up it looks to me like "many influential Christians seem to believe that denying rights to homosexuals is more important than helping the poor."

abelcainsbrother wrote: Tell me what you would do or how you would feel it was put to a vote in several states and even very liberal states that only Christians can own businesses in the US and in every state the people voted NO and rejected it even in the most liberal of states and one day the US supreme court just wrote new law shredding the US Constitution and said only Christians can own a business and it applied to all states whether you agreed with it or not. Tell us if you would feel offended and hurt by the ruling.

Well, it's a fact that legality is the best rule of thumb for morality.

edwardmurphy wrote:

RickD wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:
What I actually find interesting is that there are so many influential Christians seem to believe that denying rights to homosexuals is more important than helping the poor, and the implication that Kasich lost because the disagreed.

Please share with us the names of influential Christians that believe that. And don't forget links to show why your assertion is true.

I said "seem to believe." As in "This is the impression that I get..."

I'm not going to bother with a list, but I think we all know that opposition to raising taxes on the rich, opposition to raising the minimum wage, opposition to the ACA in general and Medicaid expansion in particular, opposition to marriage equality, opposition to gay adoption, and opposition to protecting LGBT people from discrimination are all positions held by influential conservative politicians. I also think we all know that the vast majority of conservative politicians are, or at least claim to be, Christians. In my view, when you add all that up it looks to me like "many influential Christians seem to believe that denying rights to homosexuals is more important than helping the poor."

Of course it looks like that to you, because you have no idea what you're talking about. Many Christians believe it's the duty of individual people, to help the poor. And not the duty of the government. Have you looked into these people to see how much of their income goes to charity, and helping others? No. Because it doesn't fit your left-wing narrative.

And I know you're smart enough to know that many people believe that the free market and companies themselves should set wages, not the federal government.

You're just spouting off liberal rhetoric. You have no idea about what others believe, let alone why they believe it.

It's extremely dishonest Ed.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Tell me what you would do or how you would feel it was put to a vote in several states and even very liberal states that only Christians can own businesses in the US and in every state the people voted NO and rejected it even in the most liberal of states and one day the US supreme court just wrote new law shredding the US Constitution and said only Christians can own a business and it applied to all states whether you agreed with it or not. Tell us if you would feel offended and hurt by the ruling.

1) At the time of the Supreme Court decision the majority on the American people were in favor of marriage equality. I've already given you links to that info so I'm not going to do it again.

2) Your example is spurious. Nobody took anything away from Christians.

3) Your complete ignorance of how our government works is shameful. I'm embarrassed both by and for you.

RickD wrote:You're just spouting off liberal rhetoric. You have no idea about what others believe, let alone why they believe it.

I should probably have clarified that I'm talking about politicians and pundits, whose opinions I do know because they share them all the time. You're correct that I have no idea how the wealthiest, most influential members of the Oxnard Episcopalian Church feel about anything.

Also, the thing about relying on individuals to care for the poor is like abstinence-only education - a nice idea that falls short in practice.

edwardmurphy wrote: Also, the thing about relying on individuals to care for the poor is like abstinence-only education - a nice idea that falls short in practice.

You're right, the only person you can rely on is yourself. Responsibility, self-empowerment, self-reliance, individualism, and autonomous, independent self-governance are the true tools to lift somebody up from poverty.

Thank you for showing us the way, Ed

edwardmurphy wrote:

RickD wrote:You're just spouting off liberal rhetoric. You have no idea about what others believe, let alone why they believe it.

I should probably have clarified that I'm talking about politicians and pundits, whose opinions I do know because they share them all the time. You're correct that I have no idea how the wealthiest, most influential members of the Oxnard Episcopalian Church feel about anything.

Also, the thing about relying on individuals to care for the poor is like abstinence-only education - a nice idea that falls short in practice.

Ed,

You still don't get it. Just because a politician believes the government shouldn't be in the business of stealing from the taxpayer to give to the poor, that doesn't mean that politician believes people shouldn't give to the poor freely, and as they feel they should. So, your assertion or what you think "seems" a certain way, isn't taking in the whole picture.

Do you have any data to back up your assertion that relying on individuals to give to the poor, instead of the Robin Hood mentality, doesn't work? Or does that just seem that way too?

Just Google and see which country is the most giving. Bet you already know the answer. And it's by a wide margin.