I like to pop in here sometimes, in my drunken stupor, to gauge the temperature of the "outrage" of supposed Christians about the direction of the modern Republican party. Right now, seems about absolute zero.

Notwithstanding the obvious Trump and white nationalism **** that is going right now, I mean, a couple of months back, there were bills floated in the house in a couple of states to make abortion a crime punishable by anything from 10 years to death. I know, it's just legal wrangling, but I'm not convinced Jesus would approve.

Neither would Jesus approve of AK47s, I imagine, if he ever knew what they were. Or ignorance of science. Or a lot of things that modern "Christians" do in his name.

When are you people who call yourselves "Christians" going start adopting the values of Christ?

You're probably not really paying that much attention, then. Christianity in general has been facing a large split of both political and theological perspectives over the last two years.

It's hard to know what framework you bring to the table about what Jesus would and would not do, as it's far from clear what your depth of Biblical knowledge is. Is there any chance that you can elaborate meaningfully on the question of why you think Jesus would or would not approve of things?

Who are the "you people" that you think you're talking to? And what are the "values of Christ" that you think you're referring to?

Aaron,

The argument "I am the one Christian who is not an idiot, hence none of the others are" is not really going to fly.

It's something you are. Own it. Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Either you're with them. or against them, right? I seem to recall some refrain like that.

Leo

ETA: To answer your questions, I hear all the time on Fox News, that this is what Jesus would have wanted.
I'm being facetious, but you know exactly what I mean.

ETA2: Just lol. You think I am going to engage in intellectual masturbation with you about what the bible says? No, buddy, that is not gonna happen - if you want to jack off over bible verses, you can do it with your buddy lagtight. I believe the common refrain is "Do unto others as you would like done to you"? Is that right?

And as for climate change, well - "god sent you scientists, you ignorant c/unts"

I'm sure you know the joke to which I am paraphrasing the punchline.

Why do you keep doing it?

Mr. Gambini, that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection. Overruled.

Why don't you try to respond? Hey, it might be a fun journey of self-discovery for you.

Dude, I know you think you are hot **** on the intwerwebs, but this is ****ing comical.

I said "When are you people who call yourselves "Christians" going start adopting the values of Christ?"

And your reply, directly below it, after you literally quoted it was:

Who are the "you people" that you think you're talking to?


You tilted, bro? Not up to parsing sentences today? Maybe you should just not reply for a little while and chill out.

Pro tip: what you meant, was, I think: "Who are the Christians you think you are talking to?"

Also, I would have phrased it as "To whom are the Ch..."

Joking brah. Try and manage a smile. It'll add years to your life.

If you're wondering why I have such disdain for you: it is because you are part of a sect which actively promotes misogyny, xenophobia, scientific ignorance and fact denial, and batshit crazy conspiracy theories; and you actively propagandize for this sect.

You may deny that, but you are the company you keep.

If you're truly interested in a serious conversation, I would love to engage you about the issues you raised.

On the other hand, if you just want to rant and act stupid (which you've done in every post in this thread), I would prefer to not waste your time or my time.

Let me know what you'd like to do, my friend.

Peace.

Public Service Announcement:

Please respect this forum by refraining from posting while intoxicated.

Thanking everyone in advance.

I did respond. I discovered nothing new about myself, but I continue to learn plenty about you.

Do you think Jesus would approve of the killing of children in the womb? If you are willing to accept that abortion is the killing of a child in the womb I think it follows that it should be punishible in the same way the killing of a child outside of the womb is punishible.

Not addressing your comment on AK47s because I might not be knowledgable enough to do so. Ignorance of science, I think having the notion that Jesus would not want us willfully ignorant of something if it was shown to be true to us is reasonable. But now we are getting into what is true and what is not true and to know this with some things with an absolute certainty might be beyond us in some cases. It seems obvious to me I guess that philosophies world views enters into this discussion. By ignorance of science do you mean a willful ignorance of the theory of evolution (if I am using the term theory of evolution correct)? I would say in the case of the theory of evolution, for a Christian, it is not the willful ignorance of it but a rejection of it. A Christian would reject it because a Christian would not believe we are evolved from something else, but created by God as described in Scripture. I guess it's obvious that there are also philosophies, maybe a lot of philosophies, that are not tenable with what Scripture says (although I suppose I'm not really learned when it comes to philosophy). I will point out now that I am a new Christian and still learning what Scripture says, and suppose that this will be a lifelong endeavor.

Many Christians read scripture differently. Francis Collins (former NIH director) is a Christian that founded an organization called BioLogos, which explicitly accepts the Theory of Evolution:

https://biologos.org/about-us#our-mission

Be cautious when reading to Bible to not read beyond it. That is, don't read it for purposes that it wasn't intended for.

I daresay that you should follow your own advice.

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church would agree with the BioLogos position.

As a YEC, I, of course, would not.

I should probably add that Christians can agree to disagree on the matter. It is not a salvation issue, in that it's not like one isn't a "real Christian" if one believes in evolution and "billions and billions" of years. Certainly not an issue to break fellowship over.

Feel free to elaborate.

Well, does it say anywhere in the Bible that we evolved from an earlier form of life?

How is this a meaningful response to

?

Edit: Slightly more substantively, what does the Bible say about superconductors? Or cell phones? Or 15th century England?

Andre Previn was one of my favorite superconductors.

So, is Genesis a text book on astrophysics, or biology? No. It's largely a religious text. So what are the days of creation? "Everything that was made was made by God[singular]. It is an assertion of monotheism to a polytheistic world. The polytheist had a God for everything and, I think, a concept of God as more like a superhuman; thus, to him, no single God has time to do everything but, on day one... and on day two, etc, and everything after it's kind.

Are you not reading into the Bible that it somehow supports the idea that we evolved from an earlier form of life?

I suspect he's not saying that. I can't speak for Aaron (obviously), but the point can be made that the Holy Bible is silent on the issue of evolution. For example, the folks at BioLogos apparently believe in the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible, yet they also believe in evolution.

Some would say that God has given us two books: the Holy Bible and Nature.

Each book reveals the glory of God in different ways.

Yet, all truth is God's truth, and God cannot lie, hence, the two books cannot contradict each other.

If science and the Bible appear to contradict each other, either our understanding of the scientific evidence is mistaken, or our understanding of Scripture is mistaken.

The folks at BioLogos might argue that since science argues heavily in favor of evolution, and since the Bible seems silent on the matter, it is rational to conclude that evolution is true.

As a YEC, I believe that macro evolution is not supported by the scientific evidence, and is inconsistent with a exegetically responsible reading of Genesis.

Genesis 1:24-31 (King James Version)

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Considering this all happened on the sixth day the theory of evolution becomes untenable because it proposes that life arose billions of years ago (please correct me if I'm wrong about how long ago it proposes life arose).

What I wrote here might be poorly written and incorrect. Harmonizing the theory of evolution with what is written in the Scripture I posted is untenable because the theory of evolution proposes mankind arose earlier than Scripture says mankind was created (unless I'm mistaken about this).

Had to delete stuff and change what I was writing, might have been making a faulty argument or point due to error on my part. Sorry about that.

Will try to continue in my next post.

Nevermind about making another post, it might just help to read what happened on the third and fifth day in Genesis 1.