In a typically bizarre statement from Trump, he has told Republicans NOT to donate money to the Republican Party. Instead, send that money to Trump !!

Since Trump is not subject to PAC rules, he will use that money to pay off his debts, pay his lawyers as he faces criminal charges in several states, and even pay himself and his family salaries if he wants to (he probably will want to). Just thought the Trumpists here should be aware of this.

In other news, while landmark legislation is being passed that will bring millions out of poverty, allow more millions to afford health insurance, help local municipalities survive, and kick start the economy, Republicans have voted 100% AGAINST it.

They are busy discussing Mr. Potato Head.

In other news, while landmark legislation is being passed that will bring millions out of poverty, allow more millions to afford health insurance, help local municipalities survive, and kick start the economy, Republicans have voted 100% AGAINST it.

They are busy discussing Mr. Potato Head.

The Republicans know they won't benefit from it, they will just inherit the debt. The millions can't afford health insurance because the demonrats did a deal that made health insurance too expensive. The dizzens of this board tell us that there is nothing wrong with the economy, and I ask you how can a $1400 handout bring millions out of poverty for more than a few days. Spare the rhetoric and call it what it is, B/S

Trump has a rent free dwelling in your head. The truth is that there is a much less division between Trump and the GOP than there is between traditional liberal Democrats and the becoming dominant "progressive " socialist wing of the Dems .
Most of the GOP campaigns for 2022 have been invoking the name of Trump and presumably supporting Trumpism . Trump does have a PAC called 'Save America PAC ' so saying he is not subject to PAC rules is incorrect .

His statement....."No more money for RINOS," ... "They do nothing but hurt the Republican Party and our great voting base--they will never lead us to Greatness. Send your donation to Save America PAC at DonaldJTrump.com. We will bring it all back stronger than ever before!"

It is correct to say that he is urging his supporters to NOT fund the traditional GOP PACs .

"I fully support the Republican Party and important GOP Committees, but I do not support RINOs and fools, and it is not their right to use my likeness or image to raise funds," "So much money is being raised and completely wasted by people that do not have the GOP's best interests in mind."

What he doesn't want is Trump supporter $$ going to NeverTrumpers like Lisa Murkowski .What the GOP wants is Trump's influence without Trumps perceived baggage . They will not be able to have it both ways .

he has told Republicans NOT to donate money to the Republican Party. Instead, send that money to Trump !!That is not true. Even CNBC knows that.


“We look forward to working with President Trump to retake our Congressional majorities and deliver results for the American people,” said the joint statement from Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Rick Scott and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Emmer.
“The RNC, NRSC and NRCC are grateful for President Trump’s support, both past and future,” the statement said. “Through his powerful agenda, we were able to break fundraising records and elect Republicans up and down the ballot.”
Trump, who commands overwhelming support among GOP voters even after losing his reelection bid, is discouraging Republicans from sending money to “people that do not have the GOP’s best interests in mind.”
Those people, according to Trump, comprise a yet-unspecified group of “fools” and “RINOs” — a derogatory term that stands for “Republicans in name only.”
Trump is instead directing people toward his own political action committee, Save America.

Trump has a rent free dwelling in your head. ......and the becoming dominant "progressive " socialist wing of the Dems

You have a rent-free dwelling in your head for the Democrats being socialists. When asked to lay out your ideas of socialist Democratic programs, you failed miserably. MY Trump rent free dwelling is a GOOD thing. YOUR rent free dwelling is FALSE.

What could be more socialist than a $2 Billion spend on social welfare? Of course the Demonrats are socialist; at the very least buying votes..I don't know whether that space in your head is rented out, you live in a low rent district

yes and the Child Credit checks will be sent out monthly to reinforce that sense of dependency on the government . The Dems want to make it permanent ..... then will come the debate about universal basic income . The gimmee comes 1st . Then they hit you with how it gets paid for .

Then they hit you with how it gets paid for .There is no conceivable level of taxation to raise that kind of revenue.

yup but they think taxing the rich will foot the bill .

There is another agenda at work. The lib dems who have thought about it (a distinct minority) know it can't be done, so they are after something else.

There is no conceivable level of taxation to raise that kind of revenue. Oh there is but you wouldn't like it, refer Sweden

This scene in the Netflix show 'Money Heist ' explains what the Dems have done in a decade of liquidity injections .

Money Heist: The Professor gets the inspector to switch sides (ENGLISH) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59xjFfSFYZw)

Oh there is but you wouldn't like it, refer SwedenMy goodness. You hit the nail on the head with that one. "Sweden is a nation with extraordinary high tax rates. The average worker not only pays 30 percent of her or his income in visible taxes, but, additionally, close to 30 percent in hidden taxes. The defenders of the punishing tax burden argue that it is needed to maintain Sweden's generous welfare system."

In addition, the sales tax there is very high. It's what happens when freedom is lost.

it is needed to maintain Sweden's generous welfare system." It's what happens when freedom is lost.

It's what happens when societies adhere to the principles of Judeo-Christianity.

It's what happens when societies adhere to the principles of Judeo-Christianity.So you're giving sixty percent of your income to help the poor? Pretty sure I know the answer to that one. And given your checkered history of answering questions, I doubt an answer will be forthcoming.

So you're giving sixty percent of your income to help the poor? Pretty sure I know the answer to that one.
Please read Luke 6:37.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Then why are you judging me? And why are you engaging in cherry-picking texts? (I don't think you are, but that's how you always reply when I point to a scripture.)

Please read Matthew 7:5

go back to your Bible class and leave the quotes there, that way we can move from a religious discussion to a political one

So you're giving sixty percent of your income to help the poor?

You avoided my comment. As usual, you see helping the poor as a matter of taxation - and a bad use of it.

Paul wrote:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.

Psalm 72:
Endow the king with your justice, O God, For he will deliver the needy who cry out.

Jesus Said:
Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

and your point is?

He is all in favor of forcing other people to give to the poor.

No, wrong attitude, he is in favour of helping out those less fortunate, afterall isn't the government there for the common good?

Has nothing to do with an "attitude". I'm talking about what the guy is advocating for. He is all for getting the government to take even more money from others to support his charitable inclinations. You will never see him issue a call to raise HIS taxes.

Saying the government is here for the "common good" is a far cry from saying we should take money from some people to give to others, and especially when those others are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. The "common good" in America was historically defined as projects such as roads and schools which benefit everyone. That is not the same at all as taking money from one person to give to another. And even worse, to do what we are doing now which is to borrow money to give to another.

If he is really in favor of helping out the less fortunate, then I feel certain he has significant resources of his own to use to do so. It's what my wife and I do. I imagine it's what you do, it is certainly what many others do, and it's what he could do if he chose to. Charity is not when A and B force C to take care of D.

nope . The Constitution was established to protect individual rights primarily .Government has to balance those rights and the common good . But the individual rights are precedent

And it's hard to imagine a more fundamental individual right than the right to one's own property.

If I have extra wealth, I, through the government and my church and on my own, help those less fortunate. If circumstances put me in the less-fortunate category, I, in turn, will be helped by my governmrnt, my church, and others more fortunate.

If I have extra wealth, I, through the government and my church and on my own, help those less fortunate. If circumstances put me in the less-fortunate category, I, in turn, will be helped by my governmrnt, my church, and others more fortunate.That's fine if that's what you choose, but when you attempt by force of law to compel others to do likewise, then you are wrong.

To be clear, I'm all for helping others. It's one reason why I preach the Gospel, for when a person accepts Christ, then that person will be led to love his neighbor as himself. But I will not be a part of forcing others to do. The former is charity. The latter is tyranny.

That's fine if that's what you choose, but when you attempt by force of law to compel others to do likewise, then you are wrong.
We, the people, in this country together make laws. The majority rules. Sometimes I am not happy with a law, but it's a law so I roll with it and do my best to obey and cooperate in order to obey that law. I know that someday I and/or my loved ones/my friends/my neighbors may very likely benefit because of that law.

The majority rules.The Constitution rules. But even if you are right, are you saying that we should just roll over and accept whatever the majority mandates? The majority elected Trump. Did you just "roll with it" on that occasion? Hint: We both know the answer to that one.

Why are you spelling "government" as "governmrnt"? Freudian slip? There is no "me" in your governmnt. 8D

The Constitution rules. But even if you are right, are you saying that we should just roll over and accept whatever the majority mandates? The majority elected Trump. Did you just "roll with it" on that occasion? Hint: We both know the answer to that one.
Did you see me leading a revolution to have him assassinated? No. Did I go along with decisions he and the Republican Party made? Yes. P.S. Government consists of the majority.

Why are you spelling "government" as "governmrnt"? Freudian slip?
I'n tping this without one finger on my candle while lying sideways in bed in a dark boardroom.

Interesting how he employs the Bible when it's convenient.

Acts 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan(C (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205&version=NIV#cen-NIV-27063C)) has so filled your heart(D (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205&version=NIV#cen-NIV-27063D)) that you have lied to the Holy Spirit(E (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205&version=NIV#cen-NIV-27063E)) and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?(F (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205&version=NIV#cen-NIV-27063F)) 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?

Notice that Peter asserts that Ananias' land belonged to him and it was at his disposal. It was not his handling of his money that was the problem; it was his lying about it.

Interesting how he employs the Bible when it's convenient.

If this refers to my post above, I posted it for you. Since you believe everything in the Bible, this shows Paul saying government is from God, the King (the government) helps the needy, and Jesus who would have known about Paul and the Psalm, blesses the poor.

This is how the Bible treats taxation helping the poor. Your way puts roadblocks in the way of the word of God.

If this refers to my post above, I posted it for you. Since you believe everything in the Bible, this shows Paul saying government is from God, the King (the government) helps the needy, and Jesus who would have known about Paul and the Psalm, blesses the poor.Why is it that liberal dems are so good in giving advice for OTHERS to take? At any rate, your argument falls rather flat. The injunction to obey the government is plainly limited. For instance, the Romans were against the Christian faith, made it illegal, and persecuted its followers, but Christians did not obey the government in that regard. But even at that, we're not talking about obeying government; we're talking about what government policy should be. And you have not posted a single scripture to the effect that government should take money from one citizen to give to another. Your assertion that, "This is how the Bible treats taxation helping the poor," is ridiculous. You did not post a single scripture that referred to the government using tax money to help the poor. Not one. Now there actually is some Bible support for that, but you seem not to know it. I will be happy to provide if you would like.

BTW, Jesus is likely not speaking of the materially poor. If He was, then one could argue that our goal should be to have MORE poor people, and not fewer. His reference was more likely to the spiritually poor, which is to say to those who realize their own personal poverty in matters concerning God, and thus their great need for Jesus.

Why is it that liberal dems are so good in giving advice for OTHERS to take?

Because they think you are dumb, recalcitrant, stuck in the past, and Trump's attitudes certainly typified that. You dislike the idea of taxation as a means of redistributing income, but how else is income to be redistributed when the poor have no power, even their power at the ballot box was stripped away. The rich rule your country, whether demonrat or Republictant

The dufus is a capitalist in need of money to pay his lawyers so of course he needs a super pac. Who gives a flying fig what the Swedes do?

Well Tal you may be surprised to learn the Swedes do, they do surprisingly well for a small country. As to Trump, yesterday's man, he has more trouble than a swamp full of leftist alligators, but there are deluded individuals who cling to him

Well Tal you may be surprised to learn the Swedes do, they do surprisingly well for a small country.

With their defense budget how could they not do well?


As to Trump, yesterday's man, he has more trouble than a swamp full of leftist alligators, but there are deluded individuals who cling to him

Watch their heads explode...especially the ones shoulder deep up his arse. I know I need a hobby, but it's fascinating watching a major party floundering over itself.

. I know I need a hobby, but it's fascinating watching a major party floundering over itself.

What you get if you don't have a viable opposition is bad government

Repubs have been reduced to talking about old children's books and toys and saying NO to liberals. Dems invited them to the party but the dufus and his loony cabal won't allow it.

You dislike the idea of taxation as a means of redistributing income, but how else is income to be redistributed when the poor have no power, even their power at the ballot box was stripped away. The rich rule your country, whether demonrat or RepublictantYou know nothing about America. It is well established that Americans move up and down the rungs of the income ladder frequently in both directions. The poor have certainly not lost the ability to vote, and the rich do not rule the country. If they did, then they would not be paying more than 85% of income taxes and practically all of inheritance taxes.

As to using taxation to "redistribute" income, that would be easy to solve. All of the liberal dems who claim to believe in that could start tomorrow. They could downsize their houses and give the money away. They could give away one car and make the remaining car do double duty. They could cash in a 401K and give the money away. They don't do that because they really don't believe in it. For that matter Clete, you could start giving away a significant portion of your retirement income. It might mean having to live more frugally, but you could do it. You don't because you see the folly in the whole thing. Unsurprisingly, it's always someone else's income that needs to be redistributed.

You know nothing about America. It is well established that Americans move up and down the rungs of the income ladder frequently in both directions. The poor have certainly not lost the ability to vote, and the rich do not rule the country. If they did, then they would not be paying more than 85% of income taxes and practically all of inheritance taxes.

As to using taxation to "redistribute" income, that would be easy to solve. All of the liberal dems who claim to believe in that could start tomorrow. They could downsize their houses and give the money away. They could give away one car and make the remaining car do double duty. They could cash in a 401K and give the money away. They don't do that because they really don't believe in it. For that matter Clete, you could start giving away a significant portion of your retirement income. It might mean having to live more frugally, but you could do it. You don't because you see the folly in the whole thing. Unsurprisingly, it's always someone else's income that needs to be redistributed.

Jl I have already given away a large proportion of my retirement income due to the debacles started by, or in, your country. So the only ones I support these days are my own family who haven't done well in the new economy, inflicted upon us by your ideas of fair trade. If I didn't live in a place where fairness exists and the government looks after its citizen I would be one of the poor. As to knowing nothing I know enough to know your beggar my neighbour policies make you rich and other poor

You need to make up your mind. When it suits you, you want to brag about how great the Australian economy is. But at other times you speak out of the other side of you mouth about how bad things are there. Your problems are due to your policies. Stop whining about us.

I'll say it again. If you or anyone else really believes in the idea of redistribution of income, then start with yourself. Until that happens, it's just so much hot air.


As to knowing nothing I know enough to know your beggar my neighbour policies make you rich and other poorSitting ten thousand miles away, you know very little about our country, and you seem to know nothing of the root causes of poverty here.

Jesus is likely not speaking of the materially poor. If He was, then one could argue that our goal should be to have MORE poor people, and not fewer. His reference was more likely to the spiritually poor, which is to say to those who realize their own personal poverty in matters concerning God, and thus their great need for Jesus.

Thank you for posting this. It is good for all to see that your defense of the Bible is second to your love of Mammon. Like the Pharisees, you challenge the words of Jesus. You spin his words to mean something never intended. That is your nasty habit of twisting words rising again.

Paul said the love of money is the root of all evil. You should ponder that the next time you whine about government helping the needy. The society you live in determined long ago that the poor are best helped through government. Relying on individual charity, as you propose, is a recipe for disaster.

and you seem to know nothing of the root causes of poverty here.

The root cause of poverty there is capitalism and cronyism. Your minimum wage is laughable it maintains poverty and who benefits? Capitalists, because the people who work for minimum wage don't benefit

Thank you for posting this. It is good for all to see that your defense of the Bible is second to your love of Mammon. Like the Pharisees, you challenge the words of Jesus. You spin his words to mean something never intended. That is your nasty habit of twisting words rising again.Oh stop with the drama queen routine. All you have to do is actually read Matthew 5:3 to see what Jesus meant. Try thinking a little bit.


Paul said the love of money is the root of all evil. You should ponder that the next time you whine about government helping the needy. The society you live in determined long ago that the poor are best helped through government. Relying on individual charity, as you propose, is a recipe for disaster.Not relying on charity gets people like you off the hook. I'm speaking of the ones who have no interest in doing anything to help the poor, but rather want to brag about forcing others to do so.


The root cause of poverty there is capitalism and cronyism. Your minimum wage is laughable it maintains poverty and who benefits? Capitalists, because the people who work for minimum wage don't benefitLike I said, you have no idea what you're talking about. 2% of workers earn minimum wage and even then it's typically short term. The greatest contributors to poverty here are drug addiction, out of wedlock births and unproductive inner city schools.

Hello, fringers! I respect your views, but you were outvoted. Better luck next time.

The root cause of poverty there is capitalism and cronyism.

There was poverty all over the world long before there was capitalism .In fact before capitalism poverty was the norm ,with few living lives above the poverty level . Capitalism has done more to empower people and raise living standards than any other force in history. Not only does it reduce poverty ;it creates opportunity . Before capitalism wealth was determined by one's position in life . In a capitalist system it is the people who best provide the services people want who achieve. 80% of the millionaires in America are 1st generation of their family achieving any wealth . The rags to riches stories are too numerous to recount. Mark Cuban was eating condiment sandwiches to survive. He is now a billionaire who owns the 'Dallas Mavericks ' .

Joy Gendusa revolutionized direct mailing .

How She Built a $50 Million Postcard Empire (entrepreneur.com) (https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/291045)

Elon Musk was not born rich . But today he is the richest person in the world .

It has been that way since capitalism became a dominant economic system. Andrew Carnage a so called 'robber baron ' spent countless millions of his own money in charitable pursuits ;and the Carnage Foundation today continues that legacy.

Oprah Winfrey came from humble beginnings; rural poverty . She built an empire in the media .

Chris Gardner was a troubled youth who's early life was dominated by a violent culture. At times he was homeless. He wrote a book called "The Pursuit of Happyness," Will Smith played him in the movie of the same name. He rose to the top of his profession as a stock broker .He founded Gardner Rich & Company. Now he travels making money as a motivational speaker .

Larry Ellison was a school failure . He ended up creating Oracle and is worth billions.

Ray Kroc was a high school drop out. He turned McDonalds into the world wide success story it is today.

Like I said ....,more stories than can be told in this type of forum.

The people I mention have hired hundreds of thousands of people who also have been lifted out of poverty .

Despite America's past history of race ;the capitalist system in the US has produced 1.5 million Black millionaires . It isn't capitalist who want to keep the African American down. The more money the African American has ,the more they will spend. It is the Democrats who want to keep the Blacks on the government dependency plantation,

It is the Democrats who want to keep the Blacks on the government dependency plantation,Just about right. It's why they never propose any real solutions to the "problems" they complain about such as white privilege and systemic racism. It just gets talked about endlessly so the liberal news media can have something to report.

Yes many rags to riches stories that inspire but reality is the majority of us work hard to live ordinary lives. I often wish I was born rich instead of handsome. I'll take lucky over good though since I could have been poor AND UHGLY! 8D

PS

Capitalists have to keep everybody on the dependence plantation be it big biz or government since they own them both.

read Matthew 5:3 to see what Jesus meant.

Read the entire Bible to see what Jesus meant. Not cherry-pick a verse to incorrectly support a mean-spirited reading. Your Bible Bingo has been exposed by others here.

Soon you will claim Jesus, in addition to approving mass murder, saw condemning non-believers to eternal punishment in hell, was an act of perfect love. Your beliefs are on these pages for all to see.

Read the entire Bible to see what Jesus meant. Not cherry-pick a verse to incorrectly support a mean-spirited reading. Your Bible Bingo has been exposed by others here.

Soon you will claim Jesus, in addition to approving mass murder, saw condemning non-believers to eternal punishment in hell, was an act of perfect love. Your beliefs are on these pages for all to see.It is just amazing to me to see how fearful you are of even the most simple discussion of a Bible text. You always drop back into drama queen mode. At any rate, since you are afraid to, I'll quote what Jesus actually said in Matthew 5 with confidence that others reading this will have the courage to simply address it. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

You might also want to consider this from 2 Peter. It's interesting that someone who spent three years with Jesus has a completely different take on the topic than you do. No doubt Peter cherry-picked verses to incorrectly support a mean-spirited reading. Thanks to Athos, I guess his Bible Bingo has now been exposed.

"4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then (S (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202&version=ESV#cen-ESV-30493S))the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials,[d (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202&version=ESV#fen-ESV-30493d)] and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10 and especially (T (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202&version=ESV#cen-ESV-30494T))those who indulge[e (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202&version=ESV#fen-ESV-30494e)] in the lust of defiling passion and (U (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202&version=ESV#cen-ESV-30494U))despise authority."

Now before you start shrieking again, why not just simply engage the text with serious discussion?

Welcome! It's time for Dueling Bible Verses!

Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Matthew 19:21

But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? I John 3:17

“If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Matthew 19:21Have you done this? Bear in mind that Jesus actually told this one individual (and no others) to sell ALL he had. So have you done that? Have you even come close? What possessions of yours have you sold and given the proceeds to the poor?


But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? I John 3:17Where in that text does it say that the government should make sure this gets done?

The fact that we, as individuals, should support the poor is not in question here. I think we all agree on that, though I doubt that we are all actually DOING it. The actual question involves whether you and Athos should receive any pats on the back for forcing OTHERS to do so.

What did you think of the Matthew and 2 Peter passages? Why is it that neither you nor Athos is willing to address those two?

Why is it that neither you nor Athos is willing to address those two?

Why is it that you ignore the clear meaning of the entire Bible, while replacing that meaning with your Bible Ping-Pong?

In any series of books written over a thousand years by different authors and containing almost a million words can be used as a source for just about any position under the sun if verses are taken in isolation - even your incredibly bizarre position of Jesus approving mass murder.

This is the prime fault of fundamentalists/literalists like yourself.

Why is it that you ignore the clear meaning of the entire Bible,I don't. I just don't pay attention to your view of it. Come to think of it, I don't think you have ever posted it. Why don't you try telling us your view of the "clear meaning of the Bible"? I would hope you would provide justification for that position rather than expecting us to accept it just because.

It would also be good for you discuss the Matthew 5:3 passage which clearly disagrees with your view of what Jesus said, and the 2 Peter passage where it would seem that Peter held a position completely opposite of yours.

For the record, I expect no direct response to any of those requests. Experience is a good teacher.

reality is the majority of us work hard to live ordinary lives. I yes it is . What system guarantees anything more than that?

In Venezuela the government blames bakers for bread shortages . This is when government takes over production .
Venezuelans line up to buy food in crisis-hit capital - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naNqf-m5nQ8)

Eastern bloc countries that have moved away from communism have consistently moved up the economic ladder and their people are better off for it . Average incomes have increased 250 percent in Russia since 1995. In more economically free Latvia and Estonia, incomes are up 487 percent and 461 percent, respectively. And it’s not just the rich getting richer. The percent of the population living on less than $5.50 per day has dropped 23 percent in Russia, 19 percent in Latvia, and 22 percent in Estonia.

Why don't you try telling us your view of the "clear meaning of the Bible"?

In relation to your oft-presented position re taxation and the poor, the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it. For government/taxation, refer to Paul's admonition and the Psalmist previously quoted. You disagree with that based on your right-wing ideology which trumps your Biblical beliefs apparently.

Name calling and nasty insults don't improve your arguments. In fact, they demean your Christianity. Is that how you understand what it means to preach the Gospel and be a light to the world? I'm sure that sends people away from faith rather than attracts them.

It's really hard to understand why people are so opposed to capitalism. Considering that what you are talking about is free enterprise and the opportunity for practically anyone to accumulate wealth and better his/her life, then it's just a mystery to me. I think they must not understand what the term refers to.

It is the Democrats who want to keep the Blacks on the government dependency plantation,

Tom, really! That's a dopey statement.

I agree with you re capitalism - a REGULATED capitalism, never a free-for-all system. The success of this country is due to many factors including a Capitalism modified by Socialism. The two work well together and put heart into the program.

To say Democrats want to keep the Black community dependent on government is hardly the truth. Dems want to insure they are not Jim Crow'd out of voting. Reps want to suppress the Black vote. Dems want to help all groups get a fair piece of the pie. Reps seem to want a return to a feudalism - sometimes benevolent, sometimes not. Yes, that's hyperbolic but the truth isn't too far from that.

The incredible lying and dissembling of elected Republicans in the recent months is still mind-boggling, especially when they deny facts which are crystal-clear in videos and recorded quotes. It's one thing to promote a political position, it's quite another thing to create fantasies about important events.

As an Independent, I long for the day to return when Republicans were honorable men and women. It will never happen until they repudiate once and for all that proto-Fascist who tells then what to do.

In relation to your oft-presented position re taxation and the poor, the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it.And, as I predicted, no support at all from the Bible for your position.


For government/taxation, refer to Paul's admonition and the Psalmist previously quoted. You disagree with that based on your right-wing ideology which trumps your Biblical beliefs apparently.Paul did not call for government taxation, nor did the Psalms. Also, you did not comment on Mt. 5 or the 2 Peter passage. So yet again my prediction was correct. You have really become predictable.


Name calling and nasty insults don't improve your arguments.I have called you no names and have not insulted you. But to be clear, do you mean insults like this one? "Tom, really! That's a dopey statement."

And, as I predicted, no support at all from the Bible for your position.

Unlike you, I don't require support from the Bible to think or live my life.


Paul did not call for government taxation, nor did the Psalms.

Connect the dots from post #19 - previously referenced. OR, if you prefer, point out where the Bible does NOT call for government taxation to help the needy.


Also, you did not comment on Mt. 5 or the 2 Peter passage.

I, nor anyone else here, is under no compulsion to get into Bible Bingo with you. Dueling verses, we have learned, goes nowhere with you. It's the basic fundamentalist strategy. If you wish to offer your own thoughts, not just regurgitate Bible passages, you might get a little more attention.


I have called you no names and have not insulted you.

You've been free with the insults and names to me and others. And you know it.


But to be clear, do you mean insults like this one? "Tom, really! That's a dopey statement."

The difference is I am not offering a Bible as justification for asserting the truth of my points of view. Tom and I can cast barbs all day long but the discussion is not usually like that. That is because Tom presents Facts in addition to his points of view.

JL said: But to be clear, do you mean insults like this one? "Tom, really! That's a dopey statement."

Athos called the statement, not Tom, dopey.

As an Independent, I long for the day to return when Republicans were honorable men and women. It will never happen until they repudiate once and for all that proto-Fascist who tells then what to do. lol The establishment Repubs sure knew how to lose gracefully . It used to make me belly laugh to see publications like the Slimes endorse the likes of ,McCain ,and Romney in Republican primaries and then turn on them and mercilessly trash them in the elections ..... Only to them see them return to the darlings of the press after the elections were over . McCain and Romney were vilely accused of racism long before Trump wore the accusation .McCain and Bush were both accused of being mentally deficient . Romney is beloved by the Dems now that he took a lead in the RINO ranks to oppose Trump. Before that ;all the "evils" of Trump and his "greedy capitalism" was used to smear Romney . Before Trump was accused of cheating on his taxes Romney was accused of paying none .Before Trump was called fascist ,Bush was accused of being one . Now he is friends with the emperor and hates Trump ...so he is absolved .

HEY, that's show biz!!

So referring to one’s work as “dopey” is not actually insulting? You do realize what a hilarious statement that is?

I thought it was pretty funny.

So referring to one’s work as “dopey” is not actually insulting? You do realize what a hilarious statement that is?
Nope. The statement was dopey. Tom is very cool and longsuffering and probably handsome.

Unlike you, I don't require support from the Bible to think or live my life.But you should require support from the Bible when you are attempting to describe the primary message of the Bible.


OR, if you prefer, point out where the Bible does NOT call for government taxation to help the needy.Aren't you the same guy who said that such questions amounted to being asked to prove a negative??? At any rate, your attempt to demonstrate Paul calling for govt. taxation to support welfare programs is just laughable. It simply is not there.


I, nor anyone else here, is under no compulsion to get into Bible Bingo with you. Dueling verses, we have learned, goes nowhere with you. It's the basic fundamentalist strategy. If you wish to offer your own thoughts, not just regurgitate Bible passages, you might get a little more attention.Once again, you are afraid (or unable?) to answer.


You've been free with the insults and names to me and others. And you know it.Except, of course, that you can't find any examples. Strange, don't you think?


The difference is I am not offering a Bible as justification for asserting the truth of my points of view.Of course you are. That's exactly what your aforementioned post #19 was trying to do, and what you referred to yet again in post #61 by saying, "Connect the dots from post #19 - previously referenced." Is your memory always this bad???


Nope. The statement was dopey. Tom is very cool and longsuffering and probably handsome.Oh? So it's OK to be insulting so long as your seeming understudy comes along later with pandering comments? Got it! But it is nice to know that I am now free to refer to comments as "dopey" and not be considered to be insulting.

But you should require support from the Bible when you are attempting to describe the primary message of the Bible.

Read my lips. The entire bible is the support. Duh!


Aren't you the same guy who said that such questions amounted to being asked to prove a negative???

Yes, I am. That was to demonstrate to you the foolishness of YOUR original question. I notice you couldn't answer it. Do you get it NOW?


your attempt to demonstrate Paul calling for govt. taxation to support welfare programs is just laughable.

No it's not. Paul would be happy to do exactly that. He certainly does not come across as a mean miser. He supported government as I said, and he surely would want to help the needy. What's laughable?


Once again, you are afraid (or unable?) to answer.

You call my non-Bible replies fear (or inability). This is becoming your constant mantra. I don't need the Bible to reply to you. As for you, your only answer is the Bible. I find that strange, indeed.


Except, of course, that you can't find any examples. Strange, don't you think?

Strange only to you, who needs the Bible for everything.


Of course you are. That's exactly what your famous post #19 was trying to do, and what you referred to yet again in post #61.

Sigh...You missed it again. That issue was about the difference re Tom, NOT the topic with you. Context, context, context. Memorize that word.


Oh? So it's OK to be insulting so long as your understudy comes along later with pandering comments? Got it!

This is too funny for words. You have a bad case of shoots-himself-in-the-foot. Thank you for proving me right.

Read my lips. The entire bible is the support. Duh!Does that include the Matthew and 2 Peter passages you adamantly refuse to comment on? Or the Matthew 25 passage?


Yes, I am. That was to demonstrate to you the foolishness of YOUR original question. I notice you couldn't answer it. Do you get it NOW?I sure do. I imagine everyone here but you gets it as well.


Paul would be happy to do exactly that. He certainly does not come across as a mean miser. He supported government as I said, and he surely would want to help the needy. What's laughable?This is. You know what Paul would say except...he didn't. He did not give an open-ended endorsement to anything and everything government does. Do you think he supported the Romans use of galley slaves?


You call my non-Bible replies fear (or inability). This is becoming your constant mantra.It's because your non-replies are due to your fear. Don't agree? Then man up and answer them.


Sigh...You missed it again. That issue was about the difference re Tom, NOT the topic with you. Context, context, context.Oh? Does that explain why you referred me to them above? Remember? "Connect the dots from post #19 - previously referenced." Your memory is failing for sure.


Thank you for proving me right.Have you no imagination? Come up with your own expressions and stop copying me. Besides, it only works when you actually are...right.

That bible stuff is great, but what relevance to governess of many diverse and varied cultures that make up the USA?

Does that include the Matthew and 2 Peter passages you adamantly refuse to comment on? Or the Matthew 25 passage?

It includes the message found in the ENTIRE Bible. I will not say this again. You refuse to get it.


I sure do.

No, you don't.


I imagine everyone here but you gets it as well.

No again and again. Repeating that you are wrong will NOT make you right.


You know what Paul would say except...he didn't.

I base my belief in Paul in what he has written over his many epistles. You continue to demand specifics that are only understood as part of the whole. I'm trying NOT to be nasty to you, but you are making it very difficult.


He did not give an open-ended endorsement to anything and everything government does.

I didn't say he did. I said he approved of government and would support helping the needy. STOP twisting words!


Do you think he supported the Romans use of galley slaves?

I think he would have thrown you right into the galley to get rid of you.


It's because your non-replies are due to your fear. Don't agree? Then man up and answer them.

Here we go again. You can't understand what I write so, to you, it's non-replies based on fear. You have nothing new - it's all the same old stuff. Time for you to leave us, please.


Does that explain why you referred me to them above? Remember? "Connect the dots from post #19 - previously referenced." Your memory is failing for sure.

Dear God, will you read what I write? And make an effort to understand? That's all I ask of you. You have this Tom/Paul thing all screwed up. It really isn't that difficult.


Have you no imagination? Come up with your own expressions and stop copying me. Besides, it only works when you actually are...right.

Oh, yeah, I copy you. Give it up, you are coming across as a troll. You love a reply since that is your daily bread and you can come back with whatever you have already said.

JL - listen to me. You are fooling NOBODY here. Your replies lack content. You exhibit a clear lack of understanding of your own Bible. Your Christian example is a disgrace. I have no idea why you stay here. You have antagonized every single member except possibly for one. When will you wake up and smell the peanut butter?

This can be easily summed up. You are, for whatever reason, afraid to address specific texts. You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible. You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare. So it's hard to know where to go from here. About the only person who seems to be antagonized is you, and I suppose that is because you think I will not accept your views simply on the basis of your say so. You are entirely correct. But they are your views, and you are welcome to them.

This can be easily summed up. You are, for whatever reason, afraid to address specific texts. You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible. You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare. So it's hard to know where to go from here. About the only person who seems to be antagonized is you, and I suppose that is because think I will not accept your views simply on the basis of your say so. You are entirely correct.

Every single claim you have made here is incorrect. Should I enumerate them? Ok, I will.


You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible.

When I discuss the Bible I refer to the Bible. I don't know where you got that from. That should be obvious even to you. What you are trying to say is that I don't throw out verse after verse like Bible Bingo the way you do. I prefer to discuss the passages in context and for their various meanings. You don't like when I or others do that. The message of the Bible is not difficult to discern. The fact that you cannot is not cause of concern for anyone else.


You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare.

I never claimed any such thing. YOU claimed it. (E.g., that I claimed it). My understanding of Paul comes from his epistles. That's how everyone understands Paul - there's no other way. You apparently are disagreeing that Paul wrote of government in an accepting way, and it is assumed, being a follower of Jesus, he accepted helping the needy. How you twist these plain words is on you, not me.


About the only person who seems to be antagonized is you,

No. Anyone who reads these pages know that you have antagonized every regular member except one (bit I'm not sure even about that one).


I suppose that is because think I will not accept your views simply on the basis of your say so. You are right.

WRONG AGAIN! Geez, you sure make a habit of being wrong. Here's what I believe re my views. You may believe or not believe my views or anyone's views as you see fit. It's very clear to me you don't believe my views. Why you should think I expect you to is another mystery.

You have a few minutes before I leave. Take your best shot.

I have no shot for you. Like I said, it’s hard to know where to go from here. They are your views and as incredible as they are, you are welcome to them. Perhaps it will become clear to you some day. I am happy to stand on what I’ve said before.

That bible stuff is great, but what relevance to governess of many diverse and varied cultures that make up the USA?

Tal, the Bible has relevance to governance in all cultures, the rules found there were meant for all peoples. That many don't want to follow them is a sad reflection on what the human race has become

Tal, the Bible has relevance to governance in all cultures, the rules found there were meant for all peoples. That many don't want to follow them is a sad reflection on what the human race has become.Well said. We'd be much better off if we did.

Tal, the Bible has relevance to governance in all cultures, the rules found there were meant for all peoples. That many don't want to follow them is a sad reflection on what the human race has become

There are many different interpretations of many Bibles in this country so choose one, or is it sour grapes when different choices are made?

I have no shot for you.


Yeah, I know -- that's become obvious.

Yeah, I know -- that's become obvious.You just don't get it, do you? Too bad.

And again. This can be easily summed up. You are, for whatever reason, afraid to address specific texts (unarguable). You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible (unarguable). You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare (unarguable). Those are all hard truths that can easily be documented. So it's hard to know where to go from here. About the only person who seems to be antagonized is you, and I suppose that is because you think I will not accept your strange views simply on the basis of your say so. You are entirely correct about that. Still, they are your strange views, so you are welcome to them.

You just don't get it, do you? Too bad.

Every single claim of yours has been debunked. See Post # 74. As I've told you more than once, repeating the same thing gets you nowhere. In fact, expecting a different result is a sign of insanity.

Nah.

1. You are, for whatever reason, afraid to address specific texts (unarguable).

You have not responded to either the Matthew text or the 2 Peter text. Unarguable.

2. You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible.

You claimed the message of the Bible was a "preferential option for the poor." Your quote is, "the clear meaning of the Bible is a 'preferential option for the poor' as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it," yet you provided no scriptural support at all, instead trying to use the laughable assertion that the entire Bible supported your idea, a proposition that would get you laughed out of many sixth grade classrooms. It is on the absurd level of an attorney saying, "Why your Honor, the entire body of federal law supports my argument." So once again, it is unarguable.

(Might add that the Catholic church has NOT said a "preferential option for the poor" is the primary message of the Bible, so once again you have misapplied a quote.)

3. You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare.

Here is your quote. "Paul would be happy to do exactly that." Again, it is unarguable

As I have said, I will not accept your strange views simply on the basis of your say so.

As to post 74, this assertion is flatly untrue. "That should be obvious even to you. What you are trying to say is that I don't throw out verse after verse like Bible Bingo the way you do. I prefer to discuss the passages in context and for their various meanings. You don't like when I or others do that." You discuss a passage in context? Really? To discuss a passage in context, you would first have to quote the passage. You tried that with the three passages you quoted earlier. They did not at all support your idea, and you did not use them or discuss them in context.

Nah.

See above post #81. You are doing it again. Read what I said about repeating and expecting a different result.

Everything you have repeated here is not true. It has been thoroughly debunked, yet you post the whole thing again. Your basic problem is that you do not believe what I say. As I have said REPEATEDLY that is fine with me. Calling it fear or lies is simply your way to deny what has been said without engaging in discussion - other than throwing out verse after verse to speak for you. Yet you deny me the same privilege. You will not read my links or internet references. This goes way back, but it's always the same with you. You criticize others with the same methodology - refusing to read links, demanding they put long complex answers to fit into the space here for a post. You're not fooling anyone.

Here is a great example of your thought process: When I say Paul accepted government (Paul's words) and he accepted helping the poor (Jesus' words), you charge me with claiming "special knowledge" of Paul. Complete nonsense.

Example #2: You claim I said the Catholic Church declared their "primary mission" to be a "preferential option for the poor". I never said that was their "primary mission", yet you claim I did! More nonsense.

Your posts are filled with inaccuracies (using a nice word), changing words around to give your desired spin (not only me, others also), and repitition ad infinitum (already noted here).

We've all taken the measure of you here, and know you have a deceitful nature. That's not an insult, just the truth. A person who uses the Bible as a weapon to intimidate others with the fear of eternal punishment in hell is simply not to be trusted.

Your basic problem is that you do not believe what I say.You are exactly right, and I would encourage you to do likewise with me. That is why I ask of you, or of anyone for that matter, supporting material.


Here is a great example of your thought process: When I say Paul accepted government (Paul's words) and he accepted helping the poor (Jesus' words), you charge me with claiming "special knowledge" of Paul. Complete nonsense.Nope. It was your statement, as I clearly posted above, that, "Paul would be happy to do exactly that," which illustrated your idea that you knew, not what Paul said, but what he WOULD HAVE said. Even at that, our discussion is not about supporting government. It never has been. The discussion has been about what that government should be doing.


Example #2: You claim I said the Catholic Church declared their "primary mission" to be a "preferential option for the poor". I never said that was their "primary mission", yet you claim I did! More nonsense.I did not say you claimed it was their primary message. I pointed out that you used their quote as support for your assertion that the primary message of the Bible was "a preferential option for the poor." I posted your quote.

You are exactly right, and I would encourage you to do likewise with me. That is why I ask of you, or of anyone for that matter, supporting material.

Nope. It was your statement, as I clearly posted above, that, "Paul would be happy to do exactly that," which illustrated your idea that you knew, not what Paul said, but what he WOULD HAVE said. Even at that, our discussion is not about supporting government. It never has been. The discussion has been about what that government should be doing.

I did not say you claimed it was their primary message. I pointed out that you used their quote as support for your assertion that the primary message of the Bible was "a preferential option for the poor." I posted your quote.


Semantics. It's always semantics with you - never actual content.

I'm considering posting a summary of your message/posts so everybody here can see what kind of a person you are. I'm busy at the moment, so don't lose any sleep over it.

Semantics has nothing to do with it. Supporting your claims is the idea.

Content? Here's your content a second time.

Nope. It was your statement, as I clearly posted above, that, "Paul would be happy to do exactly that," which illustrated your idea that you knew, not what Paul said, but what he WOULD HAVE said. Even at that, our discussion is not about supporting government. It never has been. The discussion has been about what that government should be doing.

I did not say you claimed it was their primary message. I pointed out that you used their quote as support for your assertion that the primary message of the Bible was "a preferential option for the poor." I posted your quote.


I'm considering posting a summary of your message/postsYou mean like you did with Aquinas, or with your most recent post of the Catholic quote? Remember that one? "...the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it." Except, of course, that they did no such thing in relation to, "the clear meaning of the Bible," so I trust you will pardon me if I'm skeptical.

I trust you will pardon me if I'm skeptical.

at last the nub of the problem

Nope. It was your statement, as I clearly posted above, that, "Paul would be happy to do exactly that," which illustrated your idea that you knew, not what Paul said, but what he WOULD HAVE said. Even at that, our discussion is not about supporting government.

Come on, you're obsessing. I stand by the fact that Paul would have supported helping the poor - via government or not. I never said he made a statement in those exact words.

Anyone who has ever read Paul's writings would not find it an impossible thought. If you believe otherwise, fine. Prove that he never believed it. Yeah, yeah, I know - can't prove a negative. More for you to digest.


I did not say you claimed it was their primary message. I pointed out that you used their quote as support for your assertion that the primary message of the Bible was "a preferential option for the poor."

Yes, you did. Go back and look. As is your wont, you took my ACCURATE claim of the position of the Catholic Church which uses those exact words of a preferential option for the poor - you took it out of context. The context was the poor - not the overall mission of the Catholic Church. Yet you persisted in calling it the "primary mission of the Catholic Church".

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT. Not the first time you have been warned about context.


You mean like you did with Aquinas, or with your most recent post of the Catholic quote? Remember that one? "...the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it." Except, of course, that they did no such thing in relation to, "the clear meaning of the Bible," so I trust you will pardon me if I'm skeptical.

Whether Aquinas or the Catholic Church, you manage to get it so wrong so often, that it truly becomes a waste of time replying to you. I understand you thrive on getting replies like any troll, but this is really getting ridiculous.

The best reply to you is simply showing your actual words so all can see how you misconstrue and misquote what was written.

Come on, you're obsessing. I stand by the fact that Paul would have supported helping the poor - via government or not. I never said he made a statement in those exact words.You claimed, and still do claim, to know what Paul would have said about government welfare programs. Saying that Paul said we should obey the gov is useless since no one has questioned that.


Yes, you did. Go back and look. As is your wont, you took my ACCURATE claim of the position of the Catholic Church which uses those exact words of a preferential option for the poor - you took it out of context. The context was the poor - not the overall mission of the Catholic Church. Yet you persisted in calling it the "primary mission of the Catholic Church".The context was the meaning of the Bible. You misapplied that quote and made it appear that the Catholic church agreed with your view of the primary message of the Bible. Your statement was, "In relation to your oft-presented position re taxation and the poor, the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it." You tried to be deceptive and got caught. Get over it.


Whether Aquinas or the Catholic Church, you manage to get it so wrong so often, that it truly becomes a waste of time replying to you. I understand you thrive on getting replies like any troll, but this is really getting ridiculous.In both cases you tried to be deceptive and got caught, and it's made you angry. End of story.


The best reply to you is simply showing your actual words so all can see how you misconstrue and misquote what was written.Well, if you want to try that, then go ahead. So far your only attempt has been to suggest that I, "persisted in calling it (a preferential option for the poor) the 'primary mission of the Catholic Church.'" That's, to put it charitably, mistaken. I never suggested that, so your first attempt failed miserably. But if I did suggest it, I'm sure you'll post the quote. I won't hold my breath.

but this is really getting ridiculous.I agree with that. I'm perfectly happy to just stand on what has already been said and let the few readers left here decide for themselves.

You claimed, and still do claim, to know what Paul would have said about government welfare programs

I never claimed to KNOW what Paul said. How could I possibly know that? I wasn't there. Again, my view of Paul was derived from his writings. Why you cannot understand that is totally beyond me.


The context was the meaning of the Bible.

IN-RELATION-T0-THE-ISSUE-OF-THE-POOR! Holy Cow - how many times does it have to be said????????


You misapplied that quote and made it appear that the Catholic church agreed with your view of the primary message of the Bible.

Only you EVER mentioned the "primary mission" of the Bible. How many times do you have to be called out on this before you finally stop your misquoting?


Your statement was, "In relation to your oft-presented position re taxation and the poor, the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it."

Thank you for my exact words. Read my lips (better, your own quoted words above) - "In relation to your oft-presented position re taxation and the poor...". Do you get it now - finally?


You tried to be deceptive and got caught. Get over it.

The funny thing is - I don't think you actually try to be deceptive - it just comes naturally to you. There's no other explanation for your absolutely false reading of what I said re Paul and the Church.


In both cases you tried to be deceptive and got caught, and it's made you angry. End of story.

I get frustrated, not angry. What frustrates me is having to go back again and again to try to get you to understand the plain meaning of words. Talk about a fool's errand! I can understand your initial misunderstanding, but the same thing over and over and over.... It's truly mind-boggling.



your only attempt has been to suggest that I, "persisted in calling it (a preferential option for the poor) the 'primary mission of the Catholic Church.'" That's, to put it charitably, mistaken.

Good grief. You have it backwards (surprise, surprise) - Let me try once more - I did NOT suggest you called it a primary mission of the Catholic Church. I wrote that you said I said that. Dear God, this is getting impossible. Why can't this guy understand his native language?


I never suggested that,

No one said you did. Read above. I'm now suspecting this is a troll strategy - a strawman argument. Anything to keep it going.


I'm sure you'll post the quote.

What I wrote has been posted by YOU. It's in this very post. Please, READ IT!

Only you EVER mentioned the "primary mission" of the Bible. How many times do you have to be called out on this before you finally stop your misquoting?Your quote. "the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it." The conversation was always about the primary meaning of the Bible. Not sure what significant difference there is between "primary mission" and "primary meaning". At any rate, it certainly seemed that you misused a quote to make it appear the Catholic Church agreed with your conclusion, but since you now are at least seeming to say that the quote you alluded to did not actually support your conclusion, then I'm glad we have cleared that up.


Good grief. You have it backwards (surprise, surprise) - Let me try once more - I did NOT suggest you called it a primary mission of the Catholic Church. I wrote that you said I said that.Again, your very clear quote. "Yet you persisted in calling it the "primary mission of the Catholic Church". But if you are now admitting that I never suggested that, then that's fine with me. I'm glad it's been cleared up. If you can show a quote where I suggested you were claiming that to be true, then we can clear that up as well.

" But if I did suggest it, I'm sure you'll post the quote. I won't hold my breath." Still waiting and not holding my breath.

I'd suggest you take a deep breath and calm down a little.

Your quote. "the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it."Dear God! You omitted the key phrase - "in relation to your oft-repeated position re taxation and the poor". That's the whole point of this ridiculous exchange. You cannot or will not see it.

As for the rest, it is simply more of the same. You want me to reply so you can continue your feeding frenzy.

Dear God! You omitted the key phrase - "in relation to your oft-repeated position re taxation and the poor". That's the whole point of this ridiculous exchange. You cannot or will not see it.Didn't take a deep breath and calm down did you? At any rate, it was about your view of the primary message of the Bible. Very simple.


As for the rest, it is simply more of the same. You want me to reply so you can continue your feeding frenzy.No one has asked you to reply. Strictly up to you. I actually much prefer that you don't since we are completely unable to arrive at any agreement.

it was about your view of the primary message of the Bible. Very simple.

So simple, you can't recognize your own words.


No one has asked you to reply. Strictly up to you.

You'd die without my replies. You need replies - your lifeblood.

You'd die without my replies. If you'll remember, you blocked me for several months. I lived right on, very happy. It's actually a relief to be spared talking with someone so obstinately wrong and unwilling to admit to it. If you really feel I "need" your replies, then stop supplying them and let's see what happens.

If you'll remember, you blocked me for several months.

I still have you on "ignore". Nothing has changed. It's just that I watch your posts on occasion. Time to put you back in your cage.


It's a relief to be spared talking with someone so obstinately wrong

You confuse being wrong with disagreement. It's a common trait of yours.

Shall we begin with Jesus condemning unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment? I didn't think so. Or how about Jesus the same as the OT God who destroys entire tribes and even all mankind in a flood? That's how you started here.

What kind of a sociopath keeps a private torture chamber for its mistakes? That is your God. Welcome to the world of white evangelicals.

You believe in those things. I don't.


If you really feel I "need" your replies, then stop supplying them and let's see what happens.

People like you would die on the vine without replies. Trolls tend to leave when ignored by others. I cannot cause others here to ignore you, even tho I'm not surprised when some do.

I still have you on "ignore". Nothing has changed. It's just that I watch your posts on occasion. Time to put you back in your cage.You must watch my posts a dozen times a day considering how many replies you make. Jump off the train anytime you want.

As to your other suggested topics, I'll be glad to discuss them anytime you want, even the plainly racist one that you love so much.


People like you would die on the vine without replies. Trolls tend to leave when ignored by others. I cannot cause others here to ignore you, even tho I'm not surprised when some do.Replying is your choice as is ignoring. Stop whining about it when you choose not to.

You must watch my posts a dozen times a day considering how many replies you make.

No, more confusion on your part. Several replies by me are part of a SINGLE topic within a thread. One subject and its tangents. Go back and look so you don't make the same mistake twice.


Jump off the train anytime you want.

I am rarely on your train. I will continue to keep you honest when you are at your most egregious.


As to your other suggested topics, I'll be glad to discuss them anytime you want,

No problem. They should be discussed on the Religion board or the Christianity board.


even the plainly racist one that you love so much.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I ask you both to consider this from James 4


What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight.

Nah. For me it's more of a proposition that speaking the truth is important.

I'll use a classic Bible quote "what is truth"

If you can't answer that, then you're in trouble. I say that tongue in cheek since I believe you know the answer, Clete.

Another classic Bible quote is John 17:17.

I'll use a classic Bible quote "what is truth"

Whatever you believe it to be whether true or not.

not so Tal

Of course it's so Clete or why would humans be fighting over the political correctness of one God?

go back to your Bible class and leave the quotes there, that way we can move from a religious discussion to a political one

Sorry, the two go hand in hand.

The State has to be subordinate to the individual. Your job as an individual is to embody the Social structure, but also to serve as it's eyes and its mouth.

Seems as if Politics wants a divorce? It is currently moving in that direction.
It is no longer "don't talk politics or religion"...but rather; "Don't talk religion".

Seems as if Politics wants a divorce? It is currently moving in that direction.
It is no longer "don't talk politics or religion"...but rather; "Don't talk religion".That is certainly a valid observation. One might ask where we get our political ethics from if not from religion.

Of course it's so Clete or why would humans be fighting over the political correctness of one God?

to say there is one God is not a matter of political correctness Tal, it is a matter of truth. There is no evidence to the contrary

to say there is one God is not a matter of political correctness Tal, it is a matter of truth. There is no evidence to the contrary

What is the evidence FOR one God?

(Saying there is no evidence to the contrary - that there is not one God - brings up that pesky proving a negative again. But don't go off on a tanget with that. Just deal with the first question - thank you).

What is the evidence FOR one God?

(Saying there is no evidence to the contrary - that there is not one God - brings up that pesky proving a negative again. But don't go off on a tanget with that. Just deal with the first question - thank you).

I don't see evidence for more than one

There is certainly evidence for the one and only

get down off that high horse before you fall down

I don't see evidence for more than one

There is certainly evidence for the one and only

get down off that high horse before you fall down

You were asked what is your evidence? Your answer is "There is certainly evidence...."

Here's you chance to state the evidence.

Ok Athos, it is all set down in my book, Revival ~ a different perspective. Here's the short version, in 1978 I saw the face of the Lord in the face of another man, since that time I have had many experiences that confirm the existence of God

Ok Athos, it is all set down in my book, Revival ~ a different perspective. Here's the short version, in 1978 I saw the face of the Lord in the face of another man, since that time I have had many experiences that confirm the existence of God

Good for you, but that's not evidence. Experience that can be checked and verified is evidence.

DNA is great scientific evidence for the existence of God.
C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity in the same way that I believe in the rising of the sun, not simply because I can see it, but because by it I can see everything else properly.”

@Athos, What do you hope to gain? The knowledge of the existence of GOD???
Look at the attitude of the first fellow on the Cross (the two men that were crucified with Christ), was essentially akin to many people’s response today: “If you get me out of my dilemma, I’ll believe in you. If you get me off this cross, I’ll become your follower. I have a problem, I have a dilemma, I have a felt need. Deal with my felt need, and I will follow you. Save yourself and save us.” That’s pretty routine. That’s normal. “What’s God ever done for me? He does something for me, I’ll do something for him. Why should I believe in him?

You most likely won't be getting any sign from God. Might try to step out in faith before demanding Evidence.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is God's power to us who are being saved.
It does sound so foolish doesn't it...I know, I know, lets make God into a fetus and we will Crucify him,,,that's Got to be totally believable.

I'm saying that the Bible is totally unbelievable and sounds so foolish, you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried!

Carry on.

DNA is great scientific evidence for the existence of God.
C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity in the same way that I believe in the rising of the sun, not simply because I can see it, but because by it I can see everything else properly.”

@Athos, What do you hope to gain? The knowledge of the existence of GOD???
Look at the attitude of the first fellow on the Cross (the two men that were crucified with Christ), was essentially akin to many people’s response today: “If you get me out of my dilemma, I’ll believe in you. If you get me off this cross, I’ll become your follower. I have a problem, I have a dilemma, I have a felt need. Deal with my felt need, and I will follow you. Save yourself and save us.” That’s pretty routine. That’s normal. “What’s God ever done for me? He does something for me, I’ll do something for him. Why should I believe in him?

You most likely won't be getting any sign from God. Might try to step out in faith before demanding Evidence.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is God's power to us who are being saved.
It does sound so foolish doesn't it...I know, I know, lets make God into a fetus and we will Crucify him,,,that's Got to be totally believable.

I'm saying that the Bible is totally unbelievable and sounds so foolish, you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried!

Carry on.


Apparently, you have failed to read the original post by paraclete - #109. He brought up the question of evidence of God. I responded to it.

However, you rushed in and wrote several paragraphs not one of which provided any legitimate reply to the question being discussed. You certainly have enthusiasm but it goes nowhere when you fail to address the topic at hand.

It's also not helpful when you suggest I should "step out in faith before demanding Evidence". Are you always so quick to criticize? Then there is what appears to be your contradictory first paragraph - offering DNA as evidence (your statement by itself is not evidence) followed by CS Lewis offering the non-evidence of a metaphor.

The rest of your post is not relevant to the discussion of evidence so I will not discuss it further.

I encourage you to read these posts more carefully.

Carry on.

Evidence for God.

1. A universe which came into existence suddenly with no known natural cause.
2. Closely related, the fact that anything at all exists.
3. An instinctive moral code which exists in the mind of man.
4. The astonishingly intricate fine tuning of the universe for both existence and life. (This one by itself is compelling.)
5. The raising of Jesus from the dead.
6. The second law of thermodynamics.
7. The astonishingly intricate nature of even the smallest living organisms. (There are no "simple" life forms.)
8. Related to #4, the very fine tuning of the earth to allow the existence of life.

Dr. Robert Jastrow. “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

Evidence for God.

For someone who thrives on accusing others not knowing what evidence means, your post is remarkable for its glaring LACK of evidence.

None of your reasons are even remotely evidence. Numbers 1,2,4,7, and 8 are essentially the same, variously expressed.

More specifically:


1. A universe which came into existence suddenly with no known natural cause.
The origin of the universe has long been known as resulting from the Big Bang.


2. Closely related, the fact that anything at all exists.
Not even close to evidence.


3. An instinctive moral code which exists in the mind of man.
Besides being untrue (morality is learned), an opinion is not evidence.


4. The astonishingly intricate fine tuning of the universe for both existence and life. (This one by itself is compelling.)
Astonishingly non-evidential. Not a bit compelling for evidence.


5. The raising of Jesus from the dead.
Oh, please. Faith is the literal opposite of evidence.


6. The second law of thermodynamics.
So the universe is slowing down (entropy). Kindly explain how this is evidence for God. I'm listening.


7. The astonishingly intricate nature of even the smallest living organisms. (There are no "simple" life forms.)
Evidence? I don't think so. You make these non-sequiturs and call them evidence.


8. Related to #4, the very fine tuning of the earth to allow the existence of life.
See #4. and #1, 2, and 7.


Dr. Robert Jastrow. “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

Not only is none of this evidence, Dr. Jastrow is wrong and exhibits an odd lack of knowledge for a scientist in his own field. See what I bolded. If ever an oxymoron - spiritual forces described as a scientifically proven fact - this takes the cake.

By the way, his first line is correct and is the opposite of your #1. Which is correct?

Numbers 1,2,4,7, and 8 are essentially the same
Completely absurd comment
The origin of the universe has long been known as resulting from the Big Bang.
For which there is no known natural cause. Absolutely, positively none.

3. An instinctive moral code which exists in the mind of man.
Besides being untrue (morality is learned), an opinion is not evidence.Which is exactly the point. It is taught virtually everywhere with remarkable consistency. It clearly indicates a moral code imprinted on the heart and mind of man.



4. The astonishingly intricate fine tuning of the universe for both existence and life. (This one by itself is compelling.) Astonishingly non-evidential. Not a bit compelling for evidence.That's because you don't know the data. The force of gravity, for instance, is incredibly finely tuned to an astonishing level.

The evidence for the resurrection is amazingly substantial.



6. The second law of thermodynamics.



So the universe is slowing down (entropy). Kindly explain how this is evidence for God. I'm listening.It means the universe had a start, which is to say a cause. As I said earlier, there is no known natural cause. BTW, to say the universe is "slowing down" is not accurate. The rate of expansion for the universe is actually believed to be increasing, not decreasing.



7. The astonishingly intricate nature of even the smallest living organisms. (There are no "simple" life forms.)



Evidence? I don't think so. You make these non-sequiturs and call them evidence.Once again, your lack of knowledge displays itself. No one familiar with the complexity of even the most "simple" living organism would make such an absurd comment.

Your comment about Dr. Jastrow, "exhibits an odd lack of knowledge for a scientist in his own field," is so funny that it's hard to describe it. He had a doctorate in theoretical physics from Columbia, established the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and was the director of the Mt. Wilson Observatory. So for you to question his knowledge is the absolute height of arrogance. I suppose you would say you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night???

"(5) Cosmological constant(which controls the expansion speed of the universe) refers to the balance of the attractive force of gravity with a hypothesized repulsive force of space observable only at very large size scales. It must be very close to zero, that is, these two forces must be nearly perfectly balanced. To get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10120. If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse.As with the cosmological constant, the ratios of the other constants must be fine-tuned relative to each other. Since the logically-possible range of strengths of some forces is potentially infinite, to get a handle on the precision of fine-tuning, theorists often think in terms of the range of force strengths, with gravity the weakest, and the strong nuclear force the strongest. The strong nuclear force is 1040 times stronger than gravity, that is, ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times the strength of gravity. Think of that range as represented by a ruler stretching across the entire observable universe, about 15 billion light years. If we increased the strength of gravity by just 1 part in 1034 of the range of force strengths (the equivalent of moving less than one inch on the universe-long ruler), the universe couldn’t have life sustaining planets."

https://www.discovery.org/a/fine-tuning-parameters/

DNA is great scientific evidence for the existence of God.
https://www.everystudent.com/wires/is-god-real.html
https://notashamedofthegospel.com/apologetics/scientific-evidence-existence-of-god/#:~:text=DNA%20is%20great%20scientific%20evidence% 20for%20the%20existence,recently%20that%20we%20ful ly%20understood%20what%20DNA%20is.
This will change nothing. If God himself was to present you with all the evidence in the world (already in Effect) you still could not accept him....same as if God was to reveal himself to you...you will not accept it, you can not accept it. The evidence you seek is the new Creation that comes with being Born again. Die to self and believe in the living Word. It is the word of GOD that brought all things into being.  

Why so much emphasis on the Word?  
When people talk, they lay lines on each other, do a lot of role playing, sidestep, shilly-shally and engage in all manner of vagueness and innuendo. We do this and expect others to do it, yet at the same time we profess to long for the plain truth, for people to say what they mean, simple as that. Such hypocrisy is a human universal. 
Matthew 12:37 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

Get into the Word of GOD and believe, speak, live...Speak the living word and bring the living God within yourself.
People went around healing others just by speaking the word of God, they didn't believe, or know the name, they simply spoke...Power in the word.

For which there is no known natural cause. Absolutely, positively none.

If you meant to say the Big Bang - not the Universe - it is true there is no known natural cause. That is hardly evidence for God.


Which is exactly the point. (Ed. morality) It is taught everywhere with remarkable consistency. It clearly indicates a moral code imprinted on the heart and mind of man.

No, Jl. It clearly indicates that morality is learned - your own words. There are many things "taught everywhere with remarkable consistency". No one claims them to be evidence for God. As to morality's "remarkable consistency", that surely is debatable. Even if true, that is not EVIDENCE for God. For evidence you need a lot more than that.


That's because you don't know the data. The force of gravity, for instance, is incredibly finely tuned.

I'll pass over the insult. Your conclusion that gravity is evidence for God makes me start to think you don't really understand what evidence is. No insult intended. Simply because a thing may not be understood does not mean it is evidence for God. History is filled with natural events being thought to be evidence for God until science came along and proved the actual causes.


The evidence for the resurrection is amazingly substantial.
I hesitate to challenge this because I don't want to get into Bible Bingo. Tell you what - if you can show evidence for the Resurrection that we can check and verify, I'll consider it. To head you off at the pass, quoting Paul, Luke, Matthew, or your friend at Church or paraclete or the Pope as evidence is simply their belief, what they believe, - not evidence.


It means the universe had a start, (Ed. entropy) which is to say a cause. As I said earlier, there is no known natural cause.

You mean the Big Bang - not the Universe. (Cleared up earlier). That's not what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says. In plain language, it says the Universe has a tendency to disorder (entropy) losing complexity leading ultimately to particles separating. This leads to lack of motion, therefore lack of friction, and therefore lack of heat. A universe without heat or motion is a dead Universe. How you get God from this is a mystery. As to the Universe having a cause, it therefore has a God is speculation, not evidence - and bad logic.


Once again, your lack of knowledge displays itself.

Always the insult.


No one familiar with the complexity of even the most "simple" living organism would make such an absurd comment.

My "absurd" comment was that you make statements and call them evidence even tho you present no evidence. I called such statements non-sequiturs.


Your comment about Dr. Jastrow, "exhibits an odd lack of knowledge for a scientist in his own field," is so funny that it's hard to describe it. He had a doctorate in theoretical physics from Columbia, established the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and was the director of the Mt. Wilson Observatory.

I'm glad you're amused. (Note insult from Jl). I'm aware of his CV - very impressive. He's not infallible.


So for you to question his knowledge is the absolute height of arrogance.

(Another insult). I have every right to question his knowledge when he offers such a non-sensical proposition. To repeat it, " That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” Let me ask you - Does that comment make any sense to you? Do you see the contradiction? At least he qualified it by "I think". At best, he was employing hyperbole. He never offered any evidence for his statement (I looked).

If you reply to this, please hold the insults and address each point.

This will change nothing. If God himself was to present you with all the evidence in the world (already in Effect) you still could not accept him....same as if God was to reveal himself to you...you will not accept it, you can not accept it.

Have we met? How do you know so much about me? What I will accept. What I will not accept.


The evidence you seek is the new Creation that comes with being Born again.

No, I was seeking regular evidence. You know, the generally accepted definition of the term. When you charge into a discussion with weird stuff, no one will believe or respect what you say. That's a fact, Jack.


Die to self and believe in the living Word. It is the word of GOD that brought all things into being.

I think you're on the wrong page.


Why so much emphasis on the Word?

I deleted the rest of your bloviating to save any member who may stumble onto your diatribe. In addition to not being able to have a civil discussion, you are very rude. Honey is always a better attraction than a hammer. Go, and do likewise.

(PS - I noticed you answered none of my comments to you. Tells us a lot about you).

If you meant to say the Big Bang - not the Universe - it is true there is no known natural cause. That is hardly evidence for God.It is presenting God as the best possible explanation, and in fact the only currently plausible explanation,

No, Jl. It clearly indicates that morality is learned - your own words. There are many things "taught everywhere with remarkable consistency". No one claims them to be evidence for God.Actually, it has been used as evidence for God for a long, long time. It's called the moral argument.


I'll pass over the insult. Your conclusion that gravity is evidence for God makes me start to think you don't really understand what evidence is. No insult intended. Simply because a thing may not be understood does not mean it is evidence for God. History is filled with natural events being thought to be evidence for God until science came along and proved the actual causes.It was not an insult but rather an observation. Actually, the data for gravity is very well understood and it is that data that tells us that the fine tuning is incredible as the material I posted at the bottom of the page clearly showed.

I hesitate to challenge this because I don't want to get into Bible Bingo. Tell you what - if you can show evidence for the Resurrection that we can check and verify, I'll consider it. To head you off at the pass, quoting Paul, Luke, Matthew, or your friend at Church or paraclete or the Pope as evidence is simply their belief, what they believe, - not evidence.Well, it does begin with what is historically valid evidence, and that is eye witness testimony from hundreds of individuals. Then there is the willingness of those witnesses to suffer greatly and, in fact, die in defense of it. There is the changing of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday which for Jews would have been unthinkable. The extra-biblical evidence is very strong including Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and others. The incredibly rapid spread of the Christian faith, against great opposition and including great persecution of those who believed, with not one shred of military operations to support it, is great evidence.


You mean the Big Bang - not the Universe. (Cleared up earlier). That's not what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says. In plain language, it says the Universe has a tendency to disorder (entropy) losing complexity leading ultimately to particles separating. This leads to lack of motion, therefore lack of friction, and therefore lack of heat. A universe without heat or motion is a dead Universe. How you get God from this is a mystery. As to the Universe having a cause, it therefore has a God is speculation, not evidence - and bad logic.For something to wind down, it must at first been wound up. That is presently characterized as the Big Bang. The point is that the universe is not a repeating cycle.


Once again, your lack of knowledge displays itself. Always the insult.Again, not an insult so much as an observation.



No one familiar with the complexity of even the most "simple" living organism would make such an absurd comment. My "absurd" comment was that you make statements and call them evidence even tho you present no evidence. I called such statements non-sequiturs.My comment about life was not an observation. It is empirically demonstrable.



Your comment about Dr. Jastrow, "exhibits an odd lack of knowledge for a scientist in his own field," is so funny that it's hard to describe it. He had a doctorate in theoretical physics from Columbia, established the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and was the director of the Mt. Wilson Observatory.


I'm glad you're amused. (Note insult from Jl). I'm aware of his CV - very impressive. He's not infallible.There is no point in your continued whining. You have no substantial science background, and yet you decided that Jastrow had an "odd lack of knowledge". It was, for you, a regrettable statement.



So for you to question his knowledge is the absolute height of arrogance.


(Another insult).If you don't want to wear it, then don't put it on.


I have every right to question his knowledge when he offers such a non-sensical proposition. To repeat it, " That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” Let me ask you - Does that comment make any sense to you? Do you see the contradiction? At least he qualified it by "I think". At best, he was employing hyperbole. He never offered any evidence for his statement (I looked).Semi-fair point except that he was using a great deal of evidence to make his point. Perhaps you should have qualified your statement by "I think".


If you reply to this, please hold the insults and address each point.Like you did when you said, "Wow - Mr. Nasty raises his nasty head?"

Point being, you will not accept evidence, regular or otherwise. Your not open to it.
Not only that you are only into picking it apart...No amount of evidence will prevent you from disbelieving.

Example:
I don't believe there is a God, but what gives you the right to say there is only one true God; I don't believe in God but you are wrong in saying there is only one God. Yah, you got it!

Why do you act as if you would accept any "regular" evidence? Testimony isn't "regular" evidence?

Here, I will post it again just in case you missed it the first time.

https://www.everystudent.com/wires/is-god-real.html
https://notashamedofthegospel.com/ap...hat%20DNA%20is.

DNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program.

You see that a computer program is made up of a series of ones and zeros (called binary code). The sequencing and ordering of these ones and zeros is what makes the computer program work properly.

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."

Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

Point being, you will not accept evidence, regular or otherwise. Your not open to it.
You have not presented any believable evidence, regular or otherwise.

You have not presented any believable evidence, regular or otherwise.

Lol - he is amazing, N'est-ce Pa?

Point being, you will not accept evidence, regular or otherwise. Your not open to it.
Not only that you are only into picking it apart...No amount of evidence will prevent you from disbelieving.

My dear Waltero, You barketh up a tree you knoweth not.

Your powers of perspicacity are truly fathomable.


Example:
I don't believe there is a God, but what gives you the right to say there is only one true God?

Is that addressed to me? Or are you talking to yourself? It's confusing.


Here, I will post it again just in case you missed it the first time.
https://www.everystudent.com/wires/is-god-real.html
Can you put it in your own words? (https://www.everystudent.com/wires/is-god-real.html)


DNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program.

And this is evidence for God how?


You see that a computer program is made up of a series of ones and zeros (called binary code). The sequencing and ordering of these ones and zeros is what makes the computer program work properly.

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."

Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

The argument from design is a very old one. My friend Aquinas, I believe. However, it is closer to an analogy than evidence for God. But keep trying. You're very entertaining.

What use is God to you? I would guess that you feel you have no need for GOD.
You don't need evidence, you have no use for it.

The Carnality of it all!

What use is God to you? I would guess that you feel you have no need for GOD.
You don't need evidence, you have no use for it.

The Carnality of it all!

It's not about me having evidence for God. It's about my challenging another member who claimed there was evidence for God. I asked him to provide the evidence, and he couldn't. Then others jumped in, and here we are.

For the record, I don't believe there is any evidence for God. If there were, why faith?

(PS - You make an awful lot of assumptions).

What use is God to you? I would guess that you feel you have no need for GOD.
You don't need evidence, you have no use for it.

The Carnality of it all!
Saying that is definitely not how to spread God's love and the Gospel message.

Saying that is definitely not how to spread God's love and the Gospel message.

AMEN!

"For the record, I don't believe there is any evidence for God. If there were, why faith?"

That being the case, there can be no evidence provided for "you"...It ceases to exist. "You" don't need it to believe, nor will you accept it...you don't believe in it; how you going to find it?
It doesn't mean that somebody can't come to the faith by what they find as evidence...as in the case of DNA?

Some evidence has shown people that there is a God who created the Universe, they might act as if there's a God, while not believing in God...Jordan Peterson


@Wonder: many people Feel they have no need for Repentance...no need for a Savior/God, no amount of "believable" evidence will change that.

The Carnal mind asks for evidence or a sign.
Worship, seek God in Spirit and in truth.

@Wonder: many people Feel they have no need for Repentance...no need for a Savior/God

The Carnal mind asks for evidence or a sign.
And again, this is NOT how to share God's love and the Gospel message.

If people feel they have no need, then what is our responsibility?

@Wonder: many people Feel they have no need for Repentance...no need for a Savior/GodExactly right, Walter.

"For the record, I don't believe there is any evidence for God. If there were, why faith?"

That being the case, there can be no evidence provided for "you"...It ceases to exist. "You" don't need it to believe, nor will you accept it...you don't believe in it; how you going to find it?

There you go with your assumptions again. If you present evidence (not DNA silliness) I'll be glad to accept it.


Some evidence has shown people that there is a God who created the Universe, they might act as if there's a God, while not believing in God...Jordan Peterson

Evidence, to be evidence, must be based on fact and be verifiable. Anecdotes about someone believing something is not evidence.


The Carnal mind asks for evidence or a sign. Worship, seek God in Spirit and in truth.

Do you ever speak in everyday language? We've had many like you over the years. The guy who absolutely claimed without a doubt that the second coming was going to be in October. October came and went, no second coming. That guy disappeared the next day. He never returned. Couldn't face the music. You remind me of him. No offense. It takes all kinds. Do you have any info re the end times?

If people feel they have no need, then what is our responsibility?

People who feel they have no need for God, will not be searching for God (Evidence).
Even if "Believable" evidence was to fall on there face, they would reject.


For the record, I don't believe there is any evidence for God.
Athos, doesn't believe in Evidence (for God), he will not subject himself to it.

Trying to deny the 'existence' of something you don't believe exist?


I don't believe there is any evidence for God. If there were, why faith?"

Sorry, I took that as "you believe in faith" not evidence. It would be a great substitute

You fail to recognize testimony as evidence.

People who feel they have no need for God, will not be searching for God (Evidence).
Even if "Believable" evidence was to fall on there face, they would reject.

Athos, doesn't believe in Evidence, he will not subject himself to it.

Trying to deny the 'existence' of something you don't believe exist?

Dear God, Do you purposefully try to be wrong? Now you're confusing the search for God with evidence.

"Athos will not subject himself to evidence. He doesn't believe in Evidence".

You're condemning me is so typical of your ilk. You need to strike out and punish. You preach about hell to people. I'm right, aren't I? But it's for their own good because you love them.

Sorry, the first part was directed at WonderGirl.


If people feel they have no need, then what is our responsibility?

I write to fast and forget to categorize my response.

Athos, You stated yourself that you Don't "believe" (oppose to Haven't found) there is Evidence?

So it would appear that you are just trying to deny 'existence' of something that you don't believe even exist??? How ridiculous is that.

A little advice, Walter. My experience has been that Athos believes the parts of the Bible that agree with him.

People who feel they have no need for God, will not be searching for God (Evidence).
Even if "Believable" evidence was to fall on there face, they would reject.
Now, answer the question I asked: What is OUR responsibility?

Athos, You stated yourself that you Don't "believe" (oppose to Haven't found) there is Evidence?

That's correct. I don't believe there is evidence. That doesn't mean I can't be corrected.


So it would appear that you are just trying to deny 'existence' of something that you don't believe even exist???

I am NOT trying to deny existence. I have NEVER denied the existence of God. You are putting words in my mouth. READ-MY-LIPS - I believe the existence of God cannot be proved. That is not denying God's existence. The reading comprehension here is abysmal. It's very frustrating when the simplest concepts have to be repeated and explained over and over again.


How ridiculous is that.

Now you're starting to sound like jl. Please god, not another one.


You fail to recognize testimony as evidence.

Testimony is not evidence of God's existence. It is by definition third-party.

Now you're starting to sound like jl. Please god, not another one.Another one of those insulting comments that WG doesn't see. So much for the civility police.

A little advice, Walter. My experience has been that Athos believes the parts of the Bible that agree with him.
I hear you jlisenbe, I am bored and feel the need to keep him entertained


Testimony is not evidence of God's existence. It is by definition third-party.
Not considered evidence in who's book? Yet it is Considered evidence in every country across the Globe.  

I don't believe there is any evidence for God. "If there were, why faith"?
Because Faith makes it Possible. Possible to "see" the evidence all around us.


I don't believe there is any evidence for God.
Indicates lack (Spiritual at least) in your belief of the existence of God. You are playing the Devil's Advocate. If you believe what the Bible says  then you know there is Plenty of Evidence. Your taking something that is true and reducing it to a level that is Absolutely absurd, whereby you then use it as a mechanism to refute the reality of the Premise.


I don't believe there is any evidence for God
Tell me, is there any Spiritual evidence of God? Or are we just Talking about the Carnality of GOD???

Just another argument for the sake of argument, it is all Jl and Athos do

Just another argument for the sake of argument, it is all Jl and Athos doOne man's argument is another man's discussion. If you don't like it, then go somewhere else, but for crying out loud stop complaining incessantly about it. It gets tiresome.

Just killing time.

I thought that was what this site was all about? Crying, whining Refuting the Truth etc.

It's like saying; I know there's a God and if you can show me Proof that God exists I will believe. But right now I don't "Believe".

Don't wait till the evidence reveals itself...that is all you.

Just killing time.Pretty close to it.

I thought that was what this site was all about? Crying, whining Refuting the Truth etc.

It's like saying; I know there's a God and if you can show me Proof that God exists I will believe. But right now I don't "Believe".

Don't wait till the evidence reveals itself...that is all you.
That's NOT how to do mission work and bring people to Christ!

One man's argument is another man's discussion. If you don't like it, then go somewhere else, but for crying out loud stop complaining incessantly about it. It gets tiresome.

No I won't go somewhere else I have been here just as long as you have and on current events much longer

I hear you jlisenbe, I am bored and feel the need to keep him entertained

Using what I said is not very creative. Also, a self-proclaimed Christian should not make comments like you did. Jl is a bad influence on you.


Not considered evidence in who's book?

Here's part of your problem. The discussion concerns itself with evidence for the existence of God. When you stray from that, you are losing focus. Books are not the topic.


Yet it is Considered evidence in every country across the Globe.

Testimony for the existence of God is "considered evidence in every country across the Globe". That's a pretty wild statement. How do you prove that? How do you know that? That's what I meant by you losing focus.


Because Faith makes it Possible. Possible to "see" the evidence all around us.

That's a statement from faith. If that's what you believe, I have no problem with that. But don't conflate what you believe as evidence for the existence of God. This is becoming repetitive. It usually ends up this way. Are you really trying to understand the point I'm making?


Indicates lack (Spiritual at least) in your belief of the existence of God.

Waltero, you have no idea what I believe. You are saying my belief is lacking - not because of anything I said, but because you don't like what I'm saying. Your need to criticize betrays you.


You are playing the Devil's Advocate.

I don't think you know what the Devil's Advocate means.


If you believe what the Bible says then you know there is Plenty of Evidence.

Now you're putting conditions on HOW to believe. Can't you discuss without bringing in the Bible - just using your own God-given wisdom factory? There is not a scintilla of evidence in the Bible proving the existence of God. There are plenty of stories and history about God and the Hebrews and Jesus and the angels, but none of that is evidence. You cannot prove the Bible by quoting the Bible. You are free to believe it intensely to your dying day, but you are not free to claim it as evidence for the existence of God.

That's like you saying you are the King of Slovakia and for proof you say "I am the King of Slovakia and since I said I am the King of Slovakia, therefore I am the King of Slovakia". Sorry to be so basic, but I don't know how else to get the point across to you." A self-referential "proof" is not a proof. That should be self-evident.


Your taking something that is true and reducing it to a level that is Absolutely absurd, whereby you then use it as a mechanism to refute the reality of the Premise.

If the premise was refuted, how could it have been a reality in the first place? Another way of saying this is, How can a premise be true and not true at the same time? You're getting way over your head, Waltero. I understand you're hurt by all this God talk because it's not the way you normally think about God and you feel threatened. There is nothing to be threatened about. It will deepen your faith and remove the crutch of needing to "prove" the existence of God.


Tell me, is there any Spiritual evidence of God? Or are we just Talking about the Carnality of GOD???

Are you saying God has two aspects - one spiritual and one "carnaL" (I guess you mean by carnal the physical or material). I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm not saying that. I'm saying there is no evidence for the existence of God. Full stop. Period.

Fact is, the Bible knows you better than you know yourself. 

I don't believe there is any evidence for God. If there were, why faith?"
God Calls for faith therefore there can be no evidence, is that right? You are fighting Both sides against the middle.


If the premise was refuted, how could it have been a reality in the first place?
Exactly! Your trying to set up a trap. You put a question out there, a question that you don't believe "In" and try to have us deliver the reality of that same something that you don't even subscribe too. It's like the Sadducees, trying to pose a question to Jesus, using the resurrection...yah, yah, that's it...The Resurrection...You mean the Resurrection that they don't believe in. Luke 20:27-40There is no Evidence in your mind, there can be no evidence. Same As the Sadducees, they were closed minded and would not believe the Evidence (Testimony, Civilization, History, Bible, Visceral, etc.) that stood right in front of them (Jesus, in case you missed it). Doesn't exist in your mind so what are you trying to disprove. You have to wonder why stupid people believe in evidence that doesn't exist???

You asked for Evidence. Testimony is classified as evidence.
I don't get upset about such things. I just speak what I know to be true and leave it at that. As you can see, I entered this Knowing that there is nothing that can be said or proved to those that are not open to receive the Truth. You seek evidence/proof (bold face lie), there will be none given. 


I understand you're hurt by all this God talk because it's not the way you normally think about God and you feel threatened.

OK? I believe in God/Bible. How then can I feel threatened? I know who I live for. It is not I who feels threatened because I am not in the Picture...it's all Jesus baby. Get out of yourself and enter into the life and times of Jesus, the King of Kings.

You should request that they Lock this thread being that you are not getting the Answers you are looking for.


You most likely won't be getting any sign (evidence) from God. Might try to step out in faith before demanding Evidence.
I started off with this. knowing that you pretend to seek something that you have no intention on subscribing too.

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. I have plenty of evidence within me to believe in the one and only living God.
Just as God has Evidence. You might learn that while your standing in the White throne of Judgment ( I truly hope not). How is my Evidence going to help you??? Waist of time seeking evidence. Seek the Cross of Jesus. there you will have all the proof you need. Rest on the Promises of God...believe and you shall be saved. It is as simple as believing, nothing more.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is God's power to us who are being saved.
Seems Foolishness to you don't it.

The fact that you exist is proof, Scripture says God knitted you together in your mother's womb

The wildest statement made so far is that eye witness testimony is not evidence. For historical events, eye witness testimony is regarded as the gold standard of evidence, and especially so when multiple, independent witnesses agree together on an event. It explains why the NT authors were so careful in emphasizing eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. For instance, Luke begins with this. "1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Peter put it this way. "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." Now if these people had been making big bucks off this story, then we could be suspicious, but instead they lived very modestly and in the midst of, not great public acclaim, but great persecution and resistance, and eventually were imprisoned and killed. Yet they did not change their accounts.

The wildest statement made so far is that eye witness testimony is not evidence.
Eye-witness testimony may be evidence but it isn't proof. The witness may have his own agenda and thus be lying.

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
Exactly! And the evidence that brings you to a decision about anything isn't necessarily what I require.

Eye-witness testimony may be evidence but it isn't proof. The witness may have his own agenda and thus be lying.

Convincing enough for those that wanted to believe without challenge, question or scrutiny. The definition of FAITH...belief without evidence.


Exactly! And the evidence that brings you to a decision about anything isn't necessarily what I require.

A fair point, even though you are a Christian too.

Eye-witness testimony may be evidence but it isn't proof. The witness may have his own agenda and thus be lying.Read more carefully. I'll underline the relevant points ths time.

"The wildest statement made so far is that eye witness testimony is not evidence. For historical events, eye witness testimony is regarded as the gold standard of evidence, and especially so when multiple, independent witnesses agree together on an event."

There is no real historical "proof" in the same sense that there can be scientific "proof". It's the same idea that prompts our legal standard of "reasonable doubt". Not a certainty, but assuredness that has no "reasonable doubt".


Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.



Sorry Walter, but that is far from being true. Certainly some evidence is more compelling than others, and perhaps that's what you meant, but the quality of evidence is far from being subject to personal opinions.

If you can't find the Proof/evidence of the existence of God, then your missing something. What I know as Proof/evidence is not capable of Bringing God/Jesus into (your...mine, yes) being. The Evidence you seek is on the Cross. Why can't you receive (Jesus) the evidence that has already presented (Jesus) itself? Could it be Human Nature that repels??? Bring it in through the Spirit.

Can't you discuss without bringing in the BibleIn and of myself - NO. I don't even know how that would be Possible. "Can you show me proof of the existence of God, without the Presence of God...OK God, we must ask you to leave the room. Strike God from the record." Hahaha your a Funny Boy.

There are plenty of stories and history about God and the Hebrews and Jesus and the angels, but none of that is evidence.It's only the living Word...Christ, the Word incarnate.  (John 1:14-18)
Ok, If you can bring me proof of the existence of God then I will believe...believe in what? God or the evidence???Fact of the Matter is the evidence is perfectly clear and yet you still don't believe it exists...that's Human nature. John 20:29 "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Go for the Blessing.

Paul makes two arguments. One is the argument from creation. " 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. "

The other is the moral argument found in chapter two. "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."

Waltero, there's so much here that you're missing. I'll try to be brief. You seem like a nice guy, so all I ask of you is for you to consider with an open mind.


Fact is, the Bible knows you better than you know yourself.

Walter, please see this sentence for what it is - a statement of your faith. Believe what you will, but please don't call it a FACT because you believe in it.


God Calls for faith therefore there can be no evidence, is that right?

That's one way of putting it. You're starting to understand.


You are fighting Both sides against the middle.

Now it's me that doesn't understand. Please explain.


Your trying to set up a trap. You put a question out there, a question that you don't believe "In" and try to have us deliver the reality of that same something that you don't even subscribe too.

You're backsliding now - and so soon. What you see as a trap is simply your fear asserting itself. I know it's hard to face what I'm saying, but to claim what I don't believe in or what I don't subscribe to re the evidence for God as the same as not believing in God (if that's what you're doing) can't be supported by a single thing I've said.


It's like the Sadducees, .................................yah, yah, that's it.....................The Resurrection..
...................... Luke 20:27-40................................................ ........There is no Evidence in your mind, there can be no evidence. Same As the Sadducees, ............................

You're getting WAY off the track here.


You have to wonder why stupid people believe in evidence that doesn't exist???

Waltero, waltero - come on. I never said that, and you know I never said that. Why are you making up stuff like that? People who believe don't need evidence. Paul said what I've been saying, "Faith is the evidence of things unseen".


You asked for Evidence. Testimony is classified as evidence.

First-hand in-person testimony is classified as evidence, but it can be refuted. (I assume you're talking about the legal system). Second- or third-hand testimony is NOT evidence. It is classified as hearsay. The only exception I know of is a death bed statement. If you're referring to Bible passages, all of it is hearsay in legal terms. Yes, the Bible says it itself is truth - but re-read my previous post above on this subject.


I just speak what I know to be true

No, be honest, re the topic being discussed, you speak what you BELIEVE to be true, not what you know to be true.


I entered this Knowing that there is nothing that can be said or proved to those that are not open to receive the Truth.

Then you entered this with bias. If you truly believed that, why are you here?


You seek evidence/proof (bold face lie), there will be none given.

I do not seek evidence/proof of evidence for God. I've made it clear I don't believe there is any. I challenged those who do believe there is evidence - none has been forthcoming. You say, "There will be none given". Agreed, because there is none. I don't know what the "bold face lie" is all about. If you care to explain, I'll listen.


I believe in God/Bible. How then can I feel threatened?

Many Bible believers feel threatened. This is revealed by their insistence on telling others they are going to hell if they do not believe. They make this a major proposition of their Christianity - equal to and sometimes greater than the Christian message of love. It's a "tell".


I know who I live for.

I'm glad for you.


You should request that they Lock this thread being that you are not getting the Answers you are looking for.

If the kitchen is too hot for you, feel free to close it yourself. I am not looking for answers. I am challenging Christians hoping that they will examine their beliefs, and move away from the understanding of a religion that has not grown with them into adulthood.


I started off with this. knowing that you pretend to seek something that you have no intention on subscribing too.

"Knowing"? How could you possibly have known what I was doing? And "pretending"? I hope this post has dissuaded you from that "knowledge".


Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

You couldn't be more wrong. If nothing else, if you realize your error (a really big one, btw), it will have been worth it.


I have plenty of evidence within me to believe in the one and only living God.

I never said you didn't. Are you implying I did?


Just as God has Evidence.................. White throne of Judgment ...................oing to help you???
Seek the Cross of Jesus. there you will have all the proof y.....................on the Promises of God...believe and you shall be saved. It is as ..........he message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.........................

More threats from Revelation, why am I not surprised?

Athos has way too much time on his hands. And that, he said, was brief!

Athos has way too much time on his hands. And that, he said, was brief!

Stalking me again? You'll say anything - no matter how inconsequential - to see your name on these pages.

And you are replying why? For a person who claimed to have me blocked you reply to everything. Troll alert??

God Calls for faith therefore there can be no evidence, is that right? That's one way of putting it. You're starting to understand.
Faith is Evidence. Faith is … the evidence of things not seen.
There is no Evidence without faith.

A thought, as an example:
One might say; It was faith, of the Patriarchs of old that brought about the Messiah.
 
“The greatest proof of Christianity for others is not how far a man can logically analyze his reasons for believing, but how far in practice he will stake his life on his belief.”

T. S. Eliot (1888-1965)

If you guys don't stop fighting, I'm going to tell Mom!

One might say; It was the faith of the Patriarchs of old that brought about the Messiah .
God brought about the Messiah and first promised that Messiah to Adam and Eve. The patriarchs had nothing to do with bringing about the Messiah--

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

And you are replying why? For a person who claimed to have me blocked you reply to everything. Troll alert??

I never claimed to have you blocked. I claimed to ignore you, which I have done for the most part. I do not reply to everything from you. As I have told you, only some things you say do I reply. One of the reasons (among several) is shown right here - the way you twist words to your own advantage, discarding the truth. You have all the characteristics of a troll.

Takes one to know one. Eh? And as I’m sure you know, blocks here are on the “ignore list”.

Faith is Evidence. Faith is … the evidence of things not seen.
There is no Evidence without faith.

I'll assume this is a reply to me.

Yes, you seem to agree with my idea and with the supporting quote from Paul.


One might say; It was faith, of the Patriarchs of old that brought about the Messiah

Yes, you could say that, but then you would be upsetting the Christian apple-cart.


“The greatest proof of Christianity for others is not how far a man can logically analyze his reasons for believing, but how far in practice he will stake his life on his belief.”

Great quote from TS. In the earliest days, it was said that the Christian's actions and behavior were what drew others to them, not their beliefs.


If you guys don't stop fighting, I'm going to tell Mom!

LOL. If that's about Jl and me, be advised that I rarely reply to him, but he invariably has a snarky comment to me even when I ignore him. You could look it up. (I'll admit to my own snarky comments every so often - it's the nature of the beast).

Since you have not challenged the rest of my not-too-brief post, I'll assume you're in general agreement with it. Or at least not against it. The wheels of progress grind exceedingly slow.


as I’m sure you know, blocks here are on the “ignore list”.

I don't know what you mean, so what you're "sure you know" is ..................... (fill in the word).

"(5) Cosmological constant(which controls the expansion speed of the universe) refers to the balance of the attractive force of gravity with a hypothesized repulsive force of space observable only at very large size scales. It must be very close to zero, that is, these two forces must be nearly perfectly balanced. To get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10120. If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse.As with the cosmological constant, the ratios of the other constants must be fine-tuned relative to each other. Since the logically-possible range of strengths of some forces is potentially infinite, to get a handle on the precision of fine-tuning, theorists often think in terms of the range of force strengths, with gravity the weakest, and the strong nuclear force the strongest. The strong nuclear force is 1040 times stronger than gravity, that is, ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times the strength of gravity. Think of that range as represented by a ruler stretching across the entire observable universe, about 15 billion light years. If we increased the strength of gravity by just 1 part in 1034 of the range of force strengths (the equivalent of moving less than one inch on the universe-long ruler), the universe couldn’t have life sustaining planets."


When I first replied to this post, the above hadn't yet been posted. So here I am, catching up.

The rebuttal is simple, but I'm doing it anyway, since some passers-by may be impressed by the big words Jl has copied.

Simply put, none of the above proves the existence of God. That should be obvious to anyone.

It is presenting God as the best possible explanation, and in fact the only currently plausible explanation,

Not definitive.


Actually, it has been used as evidence for God for a long, long time. It's called the moral argument.

Used as an analogy, maybe. Hardly, evidence.


Actually, the data for gravity is very well understood and it is that data that tells us that the fine tuning is incredible as the material I posted at the bottom of the page clearly showed.

The fine tuning is incredible. Not evidence, tho.


it does begin with what is historically valid evidence, and that is eye witness testimony from hundreds of individuals.

"Eye-witness" testimony from a book is, by definition, not eye-witness. It's hearsay.


Then there is the willingness of those witnesses to suffer greatly and, in fact, die in defense of it.

Not evidence for God's existence. People suffer and die willingly for many reasons.


There is the changing of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday which for Jews would have been unthinkable.

Need I say this is not evidence?


The extra-biblical evidence is very strong including Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and others.

None of their writings are evidence of the existence of God (Christian).


The incredibly rapid spread of the Christian faith, against great opposition and including great persecution of those who believed, with not one shred of military operations to support it, is great evidence.

Not only is it not "great" evidence. it is not evidence at all! You really need to understand what evidence is - especially since you made such a point of it previously..


For something to wind down, it must at first been wound up. That is presently characterized as the Big Bang. The point is that the universe is not a repeating cycle.

What is the point of your point? Surely, not that it's evidence?


My comment about life was not an observation. It is empirically demonstrable.

Please demonstrate empirically that it is evidence for the existence of God.


You have no substantial science background,

Did you ever hear of "people in glass house shouldn't throw stones"? That's you to a "T".


and yet you decided that Jastrow had an "odd lack of knowledge"

A lack of knowledge for claiming that the spiritual has been "scientifically proven", etc. That's a nonsense, untrue statement from anybody, let alone a scientist.


It was, for you, a regrettable statement.

I never regret the truth of what I say. Shall I say it again? Jastrow was WRONG!


If you don't want to wear it, then don't put it on.

No idea what this means. Do you know?


Semi-fair point except that he was using a great deal of evidence to make his point.

Did we read the same thing? He was not using a single piece of evidence to demonstrate his point.


Perhaps you should have qualified your statement by "I think"

There was no need to. The truth of my statement is self-evident.

Faith is Evidence. Faith is … the evidence of things not seen.

Are you looking for an Excuse for those without faith...not plainly seeing any evidence of God? We Know that this is true: God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been "clearly seen," being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Anyway you wish to look at it, the evidence is there. Faith applied in your life equals God, Life...Physical Evidence without faith (all other religions) brings Hellfire, Death.

Jesus being the Son of God...Jesus being God, has the same effect and is Equally divisive.

Example: Jesus is the Son of God! Why do most Christian's have a problem with that? The Converse will draw the same reaction; Jesus is God...Jesus is the Son of God, that is not a lie...Jesus is God, that is not a lie...leave it alone.

If you believe in the God of the Bible, why do you ask that question? You know there is evidence what does it matter if ""you"" (or creation) can't prove it...God has already proved it.
Any thought on those who have come to the faith by evidence (or are you thinking that is impossible) aside from faith. I finally Understand what you are talking about. I don't believe it has any relevance to the Christian Community.
It might have some relevance to the Mormon faith...I wouldn't know

Waltero - Have you read a single thing I have written? Much of your replies are far off the discussion.



Are you looking for an Excuse for those without faith?

Where in the world is that coming from? When you can't come up with a reply, just say so, I'll understand. Don't go writing inanities. That doesn't help your case.


Not plainly seeing any evidence of God. But we Know that this is true also: God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been "clearly seen," being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Walter - You're not in a pulpit. You're on a Q&A board. You have a tendency to preach when the time is not ripe - like here and now - and about topics not being discussed. Again, if you feel out of your league, just say so, and I'll understand.


Anyway you wish to look at it, the evidence is there.

That's fine. But it's been two days now, and lots and lots of posts, but you STILL haven't provided evidence. What you may believe is NOT evidence. You need to get that through your head. Otherwise, you're just repeating yourself.


Faith applied in your life equals God, Life...Physical Evidence without faith brings Death, Hell.

*sigh* remember what I told you about Christians and fear - how they show fear by threatening hell? Remember? You're doing it now.


Example: Jesus is the son of God! Why do most Christian's have a problem that?

Most Christians do NOT have a problem with that. That's a major part of their belief. Now I'm forced to ask - what kind of a Christian are you? Can you name a denomination or a movement or anything to help me understand where you're coming from?


The Converse will draw the same reaction; Jesus is God! Jesus is the Son of God, that is not a lie...Jesus is God, that is not a lie...leave it alone.

Walter, you're rambling. Are you OK?


If you believe in the God of the Bible, why do you ask that question? You know there is evidence what does it matter if ""you"" (or creation) can't prove it...God has already proved it.

What matters is when Christians try to insist that there is evidence for the existence of God, they can't prove it. This makes the rest of their message less credible. Soon they are threatening with hell to throw fear - as you are doing right now even tho you have been warned about doing just that.

The worst of the Christians go so far as to threaten even non-believers with hellfire if they don't believe. That, of course, condemns most of God's creation over the millennia to damnation. Is that the kind of God you believe in? He creates people knowing the great majority of them will wind up in a fiery torture chamber for all eternity?

That's part of the reason you want your faith to grow into the adult version. Paul again,"When I was a child, I thought like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." Time for you to dig deeper into your chosen faith.

What matters is when Christians try to insist that there is evidence for the existence of God, they can't prove it

Faith is when; Christians try to insist that there is evidence...because in there mind there is...what don't you get? It's Called faith. It is a fact and a reality even if others can't see it. Faith Speaks.

Proving it is Irrelevant. The proof is in ones life that he lives...even the Life of Christ that is in you.
That's the beauty of it. It is not what you prove (in your actions, life) it's what you Speak.
You bring Jesus into your life/reality by what you speak (the Written, Living Word). Just as God brought all of creation into reality by his Word.


I'll just leave it at that.

I might think of Hell as a man made Construct.  It holds no reality in me. It will be wiped away. No memory of it. Hell might even be the only "evidence" unbelievers believe in, their reality? Fear, the opposite of faith?

Hell is not a man made construct, Jesus spoke of it, a place of eternal torment.

You speak of Faith as if it doesn't exist, perhaps you believe that is a man made construct too but Jesus also spoke of it. I don't think you have faith as big as a mustard seed and so you profane what you don't understand. What did Jesus say to Thomas?

Faith is when; Christians try to insist that there is evidence. Because in there mind there is...what don't you get? It's Called faith. It is a fact and a reality even if others can't see it.

Walter, of course I get it. Do you? A fact is an objective reality that people can see. If it's only in their mind, it may be a reality for them, but it may or may not be a fact. It's best to be careful with words and not just throw out what you feel, no matter how intensely you may feel it.


Proving it is Irrelevant.

For those who have faith, I absolutely agree. However, this topic began as evidence for the existence of God. I don't think we should just throw it away because it disturbs you.


The proof is in ones life that he lives...even the Life of Christ that is in you.

No argument. See my response immediately above.


I'll just leave it at that.

That's always been your privilege. But don't think you've adequately answered the question. There must have been a reason you engaged in the first place. Has something disturbed your way of thinking? That's not always a bad thing.


I might think of Hell as a man made Construct.

That's EXACTLY what hell is. I'm heartened you can make that statement.


It holds no reality to me and it will be wiped away.

That's a major step.


Hell might even be the only evidence unbelievers believe in.

You don't know how true that is! Very good insight. Some people key on hell and little else. They need help.


Fear, the opposite of faith?

Another good insight. In the sense we're discussing, definitely!

Simply put, none of the above proves the existence of God. That should be obvious to anyone.No, but it reduces the possibility of a natural explanation for the universe to a vanishing point. You could say that it proves the universe has significant elements of design.


Hell is not a man made construct, Jesus spoke of it, a place of eternal torment.Exactly correct. Hell and judgment are spoken of in several dozen places in the NT. To reject that is simply to place the opinion of man over the authority of the NT. "I don't like or understand the concept of hell and judgment, so I'll just pretend it is not spoken of in the NT."

A fact is an objective reality that people can see. If it's only in their mind, it may be a reality for them, but it may or may not be a fact.
If you have Faith it is a reality (fact). Faith, It has to present itself as factual. Faith applied, released and activated...not one inkling of doubt should enter your mind...that is the best I can do with faith.


What matters is when Christians try to insist that there is evidence for the existence of God.
What do you expect?  Wouldn't faith dictate "their" evidence as being real?  How are you going to have faith and understand it  any other way? Knowing God I know the Evidence as real, I can not see or even contemplate there being lack of evidence...so I will profess and tell you the Truth, there is evidence! If  I tell you there is no evidence I would be lying. 


"I might think"----- of Hell as a man made Construct....Notice the first three words.
I meant it in the sense that People create their own hell. 
Hell  makes sense, heaven doesn't. hell is reasonable heaven is not.
The Popular conception of hell does not come from the bible to begin with. 
Hell is an Awful reality.


"I don't like or understand the concept of hell and judgment, so I'll just pretend it is not spoken of in the NT."
I'm with you. understanding it as - Man creates his own hell...is that OK?

I have trouble articulating myself, I haven't had much Practice, Pardon.

That's it for me. It's been nice chatting with you.


P.S.
One might say; It was faith of the Patriarchs of old that brought about the Messiah .
Honestly, You can't see the Bigger picture?

I have trouble articulating myself, I haven't had much Practice, Pardon.

That's it for me. It's been nice chatting with you.Don't quit, Walter. Your comments are interesting. Don't let the give and take bother you. Use it as an opportunity to sharpen your arguments.

My comments about hell and judgment were not really directed at you. There are some here who discount the teachings of the NT on those subjects.

Don't quit, Walter. Your comments are interesting. Don't let the give and take bother you. Use it as an opportunity to sharpen your arguments.

My comments about hell and judgment were not really directed at you. There are some here who discount the teachings of the NT on those subjects.

Guilty! I live in the HERE and NOW and let the ancient guys have their own reality no matter the religion or region.

I worry about the after life when it gets here.

too late Tal

Yep. Too late then. Might want to listen to the guy who’s been there.

I'll just live my life the best I can thank you. I'm sure the old dudes way back when did the same.

If you have Faith it is a reality (fact).

In your own world, sure. In the world outside your mind, no. Words have meaning. You can change their meanings all you want, but that doesn't make the changes true.


Faith, It has to present itself as factual.

No, it has to present itself as BELIEVABLE. That's why it's called FAITH.


Faith applied...that is the best I can do with faith.

You can do a lot more if you apply faith. Even move mountains.


Knowing God I know the Evidence as real,

Than why haven't you produced any evidence?


I can not see or even contemplate there being lack of evidence.

That's pre-judging - a factor in closing your mind.


..so I will profess and tell you the Truth, there is evidence!

Fine. Again - then produce that evidence.


If I tell you there is no evidence I would be lying.

No, that's not lying. It's just being confused.


I meant it in the sense that People create their own hell.
Hell makes sense, heaven doesn't. hell is reasonable heaven is not.
The Popular conception of hell does not come from the bible to begin with.
Hell is an Awful reality.

See below re your articulation. Re-writing/re-thinking this would be helpful to understand your meaning.


Man creates his own hell...is that OK?

No, it's not OK - but it is true.


I have trouble articulating myself, I haven't had much Practice, Pardon.

I pardon you.


That's it for me. It's been nice chatting with you.

And you. Some day in the future, you will think about the things discussed here. They're not easily dismissed from your mind - even if you say they are.

If you have Faith it is a reality (fact). 
In your own world, sure. In the world outside your mind, no. 

You are 100% correct.  Jesus was not of this World. Did they not ask Jesus to provide proof? The proof/evidence was standing right smack in front of their face...and they sought proof; It was not proof they were seeking. If you want proof (in the world), become a scientist, or at least listen to them. Human DNA is a "code." Codes don't come from random events, it has to be created (not a made up word...Code = created) Many Scientists understand that the Universe Has order...indicating a creator...Now I digress.


In your own world, sure. In the world outside your mind

You just don't get it. I understand what you are getting at. Maybe you are Operating in the "World," outside your mind (of faith)? Yes, If I was to exit the realm of God and enter the "world"...the "world" in which most everybody operates, I would be in a world that doesn't exist (death) and most likely deny the Existence of God, even though there are facts all around me.
Have you ever wondered why the Disciples (along with everybody else) never understood what Jesus was talking about? We are Dealing with Real History and with Real Geography. Where not delving into the realm of fables, but where dealing with facts. When you turn to the Gospel Writers you will discover that they are not presenting us with Ideas to accept or even with a philosophy to embrace. But they are presenting us with Facts. With Events that took place in real time. "This is of Vital importance". And this distinguishes Christianity from many other Spheres of Philosophy and religions of the world. We are not saved believing a certain point of View. People might say; well that is just your point of view. Well that is our point of view, but we are not "saved" by believing a certain point of View. Our salvation is found in certain things that happened, that Christ was born, that Christ died for Sin, that Christ triumphed over the Grave That Christ ascended into Heaven, that Christ will return.


Words have meaning. You can change their meanings all you want, but that doesn't make the changes true.
That's true. That might be why The Word of God is True, and we "must" live by every Word! The World Dictates words that you can't say and makes up words that you "have" to say.


Some day in the future, you will think about the things discussed here. They're not easily dismissed from your mind - even if you say they are.
You are correct. It wasn't easy to dismiss from my (worldly) mind. Don't rely on your own understanding. The world doesn't know the Truth nor does it seek truth.

I have little experience in writing. Whenever I jump on this site I lose the entire day, sometimes two days. It takes me much too long to express myself.  I hope you have a smidgen of the idea I'm trying to get across. I will hold to what I said earlier; If I told you there was No evidence for the existence of God I would be a Liar, like you...No offence. Get the faith and run with it. BELIEVE!!!  Don't Fall into the subjection of the World

You are ...............(more of the same)............................... If I told you there was No evidence for the existence of God I would be a Liar, like you...No offence.

Walter - I'm not going to repeat all the times I have rebutted what you said so I'll make this short.

The issue is EVIDENCE-FOR-THE-EXISTENCE-OF-GOD. Nothing in your screed addresses this issue. It's deja vu all over again. You seem to lack the capacity to have a dialogue on point.

You may rant and ramble about your faith but no one asked you about your faith. You are very defensive in that area. I wonder why?

Note I have never called you a liar, yet you call me one. What part of your faith does that come from?

I have little experience in writing. Whenever I jump on this site I lose the entire day, sometimes two days. It takes me much too long to express myself.
My strong suggestion to you is to keep your responses very simple. Don't keep reaching for multi-syllabic words and sophisticated-sounding ideas -- and end up confusing your readers. E.g., evidence for the existence of God -- #1, #2, #3 etc.

Evidence of the existence of God .

Creatio ex nihilo (simple enough ?)
Yeah I know it is philosophical but evidence does not have to be scientific . When science can prove something comes from nothing then this evidence will be disproved . The universe had a beginning . The universe is the total of natural things . The beginning of the natural universe must have come from a supernatural presence.

Science tells us that the universe came from a big bang .That is irrelevant . No matter how many hypothesis they concoct ;it always comes back to a beginning... and that beginning has no scientific explanation . The only logical explanation is that there was a supernatural force at play . That supernatural force was God.

Evidence of the existence of God. The only logical explanation is that there was a supernatural force at play . That supernatural force was God.

Tom, if you're going to play the logic card, then be logical. To claim that not knowing the cause of the universe means the only logical explanation is a supernatural force at play is about as non-logical a conclusion as is possible.

Claiming that force is God is just as bad. You have confused your making a statement with logic. Logic requires a step-by-step progression from premise to conclusion to be logic. Your statement fails in that regard.

To repeat what I wrote to Walter many times, faith is not the same as evidence.

I'll just live my life the best I can thank you. I'm sure the old dudes way back when did the same.

I just take the biblical perspective and live a quiet life

Claiming that force is God is just as badThat was not his statement. He referred to a SUPERNATURAL force which, by definition, would be God, or at the very least some force above the natural.


To claim that not knowing the cause of the universe means the only logical explanation is a supernatural force at play is about as non-logical a conclusion as is possible.Not really. The point is that the only currently known possible explanation is God. Process of elimination. It should not be regarded as proof so much as presenting the only currently plausible cause.

“To really make an apple pie from scratch, you must begin by inventing the universe.” (Carl Sagan)


One day a group of scientists got together and decided that humanity had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point where we can clone people, manipulate atoms, build molecules, fly through space, and do many other miraculous things. So why don’t you just go away and mind your own business from now on?”
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well. How about this? Before I go, let’s say we have a human-making contest.” To which the scientist replied, “Okay, we can handle that!”“But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”

The scientist nodded, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and picked up a handful of dirt. God wagged a finger at him and said, “Uh, uh, uh. Put that down. You go find your own dirt.”

The world can not see any evidence of GOD, Because it chooses to be blind.
The Evidence you are looking for is in the Body of Christ (Church).
And you ask why Christians are always acting like they can Prove the existence of God?



You want to be the one to prove the existence of God...where you gonna go???

God is spirit, you cannot see spirits, doesn't mean they don't exist, blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe, SO................

I think Athos was taking a World view argument and trying to make sense of it. Why do Christians keep pretending that there is evidence when "we" (world) can clearly "see" that there is none to be found.

You want to be the one to prove the existence of God...where you gonna go???

There is difference between evidence and proof. The fact that the universe is exquisitely fine tuned for life does not prove the existence of God, but is certainly compelling evidence.

The fact that the universe is exquisitely fine tuned for life does not prove the existence of God,
Yet for many, many scientist...not even looking for God...

We are talking about two separate planes. The Carnal knows only of this world. The Spirit knows of this world and the world to come. We are told not to think as the world thinks.
Need not wonder any longer why Christians are always trying to Prove the existence of God? Was this the Basis (Disparage the Christians) of your Argument?  If not, why would a Christian argue something contrary to his Belief/understanding? 
I can See a carnal being Pose such a question- because their position is non-belief. 
I apologize for Calling you A liar.  I only meant it in the same way Jesus was Speaking to the non-believing "world."
John 8:55 You do not know Him, but I know Him. If I said I ...

I do know what you are Talking about. I believe you are in error, taking on the role (even for a split sec.) of this world view.
Faith can play no part in this kind of representation.

Good Day.

Need not wonder any longer why Christians are always trying to Prove the existence of God? Was this the Basis (Disparage the Christians) of your Argument? If not, why would a Christian argue something contrary to his Belief/understanding? It's typically a bad idea to cut off a quote in mid-sentence. You left off, "...but is certainly compelling evidence." So by no means was I disparaging the Christian faith. I am wholeheartedly a follower of Christ. My point was to illustrate the difference between evidence and proof. Some people disparage evidence because it does not meet their standard of "proof". I think that's a mistake.


I do know what you are Talking about. I believe you are in error, taking on the role (even for a split sec.) of this world view.I took on the exact opposite of this world view. My point was essentially the same argument used by Paul in Romans 1. "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." It is the first of Paul's two arguments for God. The second, in chapter 2, is the fact that there is an innate sense of right/wrong placed by God in every person. Paul referred to it as "conscience".

I think you misread my statement.

There is difference between evidence and proof.
Evidence of pregnancy: I get sick to my stomach when thinking of making supper, I'm tired all the time, and I'm a lot crabbier.
Proof of pregnancy: an ultrasound.

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that humanity had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point where we can clone people, manipulate atoms, build molecules, fly through space, and do many other miraculous things. So why don’t you just go away and mind your own business from now on?”
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well. How about this? Before I go, let’s say we have a human-making contest.” To which the scientist replied, “Okay, we can handle that!”“But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”

The scientist nodded, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and picked up a handful of dirt. God wagged a finger at him and said, “Uh, uh, uh. Put that down. You go find your own dirt.”

Tom, I'm replying to this one because I got such a kick out of your attempt. It gave me a chuckle. Nice to know you're reaching out with stories. Very Biblical.

Add to that your fellow defenders chiming in with Walter's typical incomprehensibility (he didn't take WG's advice), and mistaking Jl for someone else with more of his now familiar rambling, and the argy bargy of Mr. Down Under - well, it's fun to see all you guys bumping into each other.

The fact that the universe is exquisitely fine tuned for life does not prove the existence of God,
Yet for many, many scientists...not even looking for God...


I responded too fast (sorry).
Thinking it was all too obvious what I was saying.
I was referring to those people (Scientists) Who turn to God on the Facts that they find...While not even believing or Searching for God.

@ Athos;
The argument that your using is a reductio ad absurdum, In other words, taking something that is true and reducing it to a level that is absolutely absurd, whereby you then use it as a mechanism to refute the reality of the premise. That’s what your doing. What your saying is, “To believe in the evidence just ridiculous.”
”

@Athos, No worries brother. I know that you will come to believe in the truth sooner or later.
You asked a Question; "Why do Christians think they can Prove the existence of God" (all the Tyyyme). How can Christian's Prove there is a God...Look at their Fruit. Hopefully, someday you will reach the end of Self.


You being a "Christian"- your argument makes no sense. Only a person who belongs to the world would ask such a question with such Confidence. Believing there is no Proof, thereby Not believing. "Believe" in the Spirit. Don't believe as the world believes.

It appears you have no Idea of what I am talking about, And that's Okay. It is God who calls those who he Chooses.
God Bless Brother.

Evidence of pregnancy: I get sick to my stomach when thinking of making supper, I'm tired all the time, and I'm a lot crabbier.
Proof of pregnancy: an ultrasound.

Well said.

@ Athos;
The argument that your using is a reductio ad absurdum, In other words, taking something that is true and reducing it to a level that is absolutely absurd, whereby you then use it as a mechanism to refute the reality of the premise. That’s what your doing. What your saying is, “To believe in the evidence just ridiculous.”

I understand your need to appear savvy in the discussion by googling logical fallacies like reductio ad absurdam, but you're way over your head, Walter. Best to just approach it simply in your own words like WG suggested. Your assertion that I'm saying, "To believe in the evidence is just ridiculous" is a lie Walter, and you know it's a lie. You have now consistently changed my words to suit your claims. Please Walter, where in the Bible does it say to do that? Don't let your frustration lead you down a dark path.


@Athos, You asked a Question; "Why do Christians think they can Prove the existence of God" (all the Tyyyme). How can Christian's Prove there is a God...Look at their Fruit.

By that reasoning, Walter, "Look at their fruit", you are claiming that anyone with good "fruit" is therefore a proof of whatever God they may believe in? Are you ready to acknowledge the many Gods that would represent? All those good Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc., etc. That's a step up for you, Walter, getting out of that prison you have locked yourself into.


You being a "Christian"- your argument makes no sense.

In that case, please make your own argument. You have not done so yet - stating your beliefs is not making an argument.


Only a person who belongs to the world would ask such a question with such Confidence. Believing there is no Proof, thereby Not believing. "Believe" in the Spirit. Don't believe as the world believes.

It's hard to untangle this rant/ramble. The only sentence understandable is, "Believing there is no Proof, thereby Not believing." If you're suggesting this is my position, it is not, and never has been. A cursory reading of what I've written will tell you that. The truth is causing you to write borderline hysterically, the truth will do that. The truth will also set you free.


It appears you have no Idea of what I am talking about,

Sadly, I have a better idea than you yourself about what you are saying.


God Bless Brother.

Walter, under the circumstances I find that hypocritical. After calling me names, saying I'm a liar, denying just about everything I've said, and according to your belief, I'm destined for hell for all eternity (since you claim I'm an unbeliever), you now want God to bless me. I think you evangelicals say things like that to come across as a holy believer - "holier than thou" as the saying goes.

Hang in there Walter. No one distorts someone else’s words more than Athos does.

Hang in there Walter. No one distorts someone else’s words more than Athos does.
Actually, Athos is doing his best to untangle waltero's words and sentences and, by doing so, figure out what he means. I truly wish waltero would state his beliefs very simply, possibly in list form, so there's no confusion or misunderstanding.

Think of John Grisham and all those courtroom dramas you've read. The lawyers presented evidence of innocence or guilt. Did either lawyer's evidence offer sufficient proof for the jury so they would free or convict?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Hang in there Walter. No one distorts someone else’s words more than Athos does.



Actually, Athos is doing his best to untangle waltero's words and sentences and, by doing so, figure out what he means. I truly wish waltero would state his beliefs very simply, possibly in list form, so there's no confusion or misunderstanding.

Thanks, WG. I didn't know jl was still stalking me. He can't seem to get me out of his head. My posts must really sting him. Hoping Walter follows your advice.

I just take the biblical perspective and live a quiet life

Hmm...we could end up in the same place. What does it matter what you think God is?

It matters a great deal, if I get it wrong, I have not truly believed

Like he did his best to “untangle” the words of Aquinas?


It matters a great deal, if I get it wrong, I have not truly believedSo very true.

It matters a great deal, if I get it wrong, I have not truly believed

Maybe you'll be forgiven for being WRONG.

[Evidence of pregnancy: I get sick to my stomach when thinking of making supper, I'm tired all the time, and I'm a lot crabbier]

Proof of pregnancy: an ultrasound

I like this, Thank you.
Seeing is Proof?

I'll try to keep this shorter than my usual ramblings. There's a lot going on up there (head). nobody knows what's going on up there!?!
I do thank you for all your advice. I hear you and will try to put it into practice.

I might have been picking on Athos.
I am sorry for that. I have much to learn.
People say I have no tact, don't know why.
There is no doubt you guys are much smarter than I. I will try to keep it short and to the point. Most times I might only read a response one time. I find when doing that I usually misinterpret. If I read it again and not respond so quickly!

[Evidence of pregnancy: I get sick to my stomach when thinking of making supper, I'm tired all the time, and I'm a lot crabbier]

Proof of pregnancy: an ultrasound

I like this, Thank you.
Seeing is Proof?
Yes. Seeing is believing, as the saying goes.

From John 20:
11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. 15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her. 19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

I don't believe that is entirely true,

Maybe we can touch on that at a later date. I would like to try and touch base on the first issue at this time?
I get lost all too easily.

I don't believe that is entirely true,

Maybe we can touch on that at a later date. I would like to try and touch base on the first issue at this time?
I get lost all too easily.
Start a new thread! (under Christianity or Social Science [Psychology]?)

What did Jesus tell thomas about “seeing”?

What did Jesus tell thomas about “seeing”?
Now you're talking about FAITH, a whole different ballgame apart from EVIDENCE and PROOF.

Thomas makes his own individual test, his personal direct seeing of the visible marks of the crucifixion and even the touching of these marks, the absolute condition and the non-negotiable term for believing.

Christ addresses him with a remark and a beatitude: Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and (yet) have believed (John 20:29).”

So seeing is really not necessary for believing.

Earlier, in this thread, I was trying to show similarities using the Sadducees, question directed towered Jesus... Similar to the question; "Proving the evidence of God."

If you know anything about the Sadducees you would know that they don't believe in the Resurrection.

Question put to Jesus by the Sadducees;
So here they are saying; - "in the Reserection"- hahahaha, yah - in the Reserection - you mean the Reserection they don't believe.
reductio ad absurdam.

Their question is totally absurd...if you don't agree with this analysis
(You got the short version),
I am able to explain in full, at a later date...I'm on my phone right now and it sucks.

Question; show me the evidence/proof of God?

Here it is; Creation...no, geography...no, science...no, Biology...no, Nation of israel...no, Bible...no, Jesus...No, the Church...no etc...no, no, no, NOOO!

It Doesn't matter. Come what will the world view is always a no in deciding the evidence factor...they don't "Believe" (we want to see) "in" the evidence, therefore the evidence will never exist (putting to death what was seen... Non-existent! Asking to prove the evidence exists. Thinking that there is no evidence outside of sight. Believing that if they were to see, they would then believe.


Most christians will believe/agree in the evidence.
The World will not...they are blind to it.

Many women (with absolute certainty) know they're pregnant. Believing in the "evidence of pregnancy." They don't need to see the proof.
The proof is in them.

Most christians will believe/agree in the evidence.
The World will not...they are blind to it.
For those Christians, they believe because they have FAITH.

Many women (with absolute certainty) know they're pregnant. Believing in the "evidence of pregnancy." They don't need to see the proof.
The proof is in them.
They have FAITH they are pregnant. All the EVIDENCE says they are. The PROOF is an ultrasound -- or a baby delivered after about nine months.

No, she has come to believe based on the evidence which you described. The proof is in the evidence.
Such as a first time pregnancy being declared by a midwife.

Even if you are correct, how is she able to once again disregard the evidence?



I have a question:
How is a Christian able to pose a question like that (poof/God)...and refute all evidence,..
Already believing in the evidence that is all around us? Lacks uderstanding/faith or is it somebody Playing devils advocate???

No, she has come to believe based on the evidence which you described. The proof is in the evidence.
Such as a first time pregnancy being declared by a midwife.

Need I explain?

My question to you;
How is a Christian able to pose a question like that...and refute all evidence,
Knowing the evidence is all around? Playing the devils advocate???
you are playing the devil's advocate and he doesn't need any more advocates.

Consider this please. I believe I have seen Jesus, I absolutely know God exists, I don't need to prove this to anyone. If you want to know more read my book, but stop playing around

This discussion has gone far afield.

No, she has come to believe based on the evidence which you described. The proof is in the evidence.
Yes, I said that. The pregnant woman, based on the EVIDENCE, has FAITH that she's pregnant.
The PROOF is the baby produced. (Women can have physical problems that mimic pregnancy.)

Even if you are correct, how is she able to once again disregard the evidence?
She doesn't, but hopes, then concludes (BELIEVES) after a few months of new symptoms (EVIDENCE) that she's pregnant.

This discussion has gone far afield.
It's what we do!

get your own thread then

[QUOTEYes, I said that. The pregnant woman, based on the EVIDENCE, has FAITH that she's pregnant.
The PROOF is the baby produced. (Women can have physical problems that mimic pregnancy.)[/QUOTE]

Ah, Gotcha.

So we have;
1) Seeing is Believing,

2) believing is seeing but only on a Tuesday while walking against the wind.

2) know God, read clete's book.

3) No fooling around while in Trump topic (serious business ya know).

4)Believe in the evidence only when your faith is on the line.

5) Play nice

6) Athos has left the Bldg...shut err down!

6) Athos has left the Bldg...shut err down!He'll be back.

he's on a Zags high , Since all my teams have tanked ,I may as well route for the Gonzaga Bull Dogs to win it all .

I think that would be a safe bet.

Shame the Texas teams play each other.

he's on a Zags high , Since all my teams have tanked ,I may as well route for the Gonzaga Bull Dogs to win it all .

If Monday is anything like tonight's game, I may have to double my heart medicine. Suugs' shot will go down in NCAA history.

for those who missed it

Watch Jalen Suggs' OT game-winner to beat UCLA in the Final Four | NCAA.com (https://www.ncaa.com/video/basketball-men/2021-04-03/watch-gonzagas-jalen-suggs-ot-game-winner-beat-ucla-final-four)

I hear all the money Trump got from republicans had to be given back because it was obtained illegally, what sort of leader defrauds his supporters

I hear all the money Trump got from republicans had to be given back because it was obtained illegally, what sort of leader defrauds his supporters

Not all of it, just 120M. Same scam he has pulled before he was elected prez. Remember dufus university? Seems he can only scam people who listen to his lies and believe them and that is the kind of leader he is and has been and how he makes his money.

Be a while before the TDS (The Dufus Supporters) accept that reality...if they ever do.

No He is going down under the weight of the legal system, even if he wins he will be tied up for years

Not all of it, just 120M. Same scam he has pulled before he was elected prez. Remember dufus university? Seems he can only scam people who listen to his lies and believe them and that is the kind of leader he is and has been and how he makes his money.
The Trump 2020 campaign (and later pleas for money?) apparently tweaked supporters' bank accounts and credit cards to make recurring donations instead of a one-time contribution.

JL doesn't believe his idol could do wrong

JL doesn't believe his idol could do wrong
Let's hope JL has been keeping an eye on his bank account and his credit cards!

Let's hope JL has been keeping an eye on his bank account!With Biden/Harris at the wheel, you better believe I am. With your wealth, you especially should be careful now.

With Biden/Harris at the wheel, you better believe I am.
At least Biden isn't golfing every weekend!

No. He's just tripping over the stairs as he boards AF One. Can he still play golf? Can he still SPELL golf?

you should be more concerned as to whether he can find the nuclear launch codes

The entire Trump campaign was a scam — and it is not over | Salon.com (https://www.salon.com/2021/04/05/the-entire-trump-campaign-was-a-scam---and-it-is-not-over/)


Trump eventually settled the fraud case for $25 million after the election, successfully shutting it down before it reached a courtroom. In the end, 6,000 customers were eligible for a piece of the $25 million settlement.

Best con man in HISTORY.

No. He's just tripping over the stairs as he boards AF One. Can he still play golf? Can he still SPELL golf?
At least he isn't nearly careening down a ramp while wearing shoes with lifts. Or walking into a plane with tp stuck to his shoe. Oh, have you gotten your $1400 stimulus money yet?

Sorry Zagnuts...Baylor ruined the perfect season.

Best con man in HISTORY.

Yes they breed 'em good over there

At least he isn't nearly careening down a ramp while wearing shoes with lifts. Or walking into a plane with tp stuck to his shoe. Oh, have you gotten your $1400 stimulus money yet?He's all for abortion, so I know you like him. As to the stim check, I'm sorry to say it has arrived. We stuck it in our checking account like we did with the other stupid checks we did not need, you did not need, and no one on this board needed. It's the most blatant vote-buying scheme since the introduction of the Great Society welfare programs.

It's the most blatant vote-buying scheme since the introduction of the Great Society welfare programs.

Except for when Trump had his name blazoned on the stimulus checks his administration sent out.

Nah. It's vote buying for everyone as I have consistently said from the beginning.

Nah. It's vote buying for everyone as I have consistently said from the beginning.

Got to be better than blatant paying the loser dufus who lost the election Republicans Double Down on Trump’s Deceptive Fundraising Trick – Mother Jones (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/04/republicans-double-down-on-trumps-deceptive-fundraising-trick/),

A Disturbing Number of Republicans Still Believe All the Lies Donald Trump Tells Them | Vanity Fair (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/trump-supporters-lies-poll)

Right or wrong though I concede your consistency.