|
listcrawler appIf you are in your 50s and hunting to have some entertaining, this website is excellent for you. vero beach singles mingle You are excited, nervous, and asking, what subsequent? Although you may have met the individual on line and will communicate digitally at initially, that does not imply that the foundation for a healthier relationship doesn t apply. Sooner or later he was the cute guy I ate breakfast with on Thursdays before class, and ultimately, he was my boyfriend. fetish dating london Percentage of adults in the United States who have made use of a dating website or app as of April 2020. bay area hookup siteThey had been at the stage of phoning each and every other sometimes. richmond bc dating The following numbers guarantee to spice factors up. I let cash and the honest conversations about it turn out to be a wedge in my partnership. site like sniffies The website has zero tolerance towards harassment, wrote Alice Goguen Hunsberger, OkCupid s director of consumer expertise. Home Sign In Search Date Ideas Join Forums Singles Groups - 100% FREE Online Dating, Join Now!
5/2/2017 6:07:15 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
False. When politics gets in the way of science, we suffer the consequences. The FDA and pharmaceutical industry are to blame for what you are talking about. Their scientists have been very successful in coming up with synthetic versions of naturally occurring substances. They may not work as well but that was never the intent. The intent was to make money. And if you gauge their success based in profits, there's no doubt they are successful.
They are imitating chemistry formulas with substitutes? I realize you work off "grants," but are there no moral aspects to not bringing the "truth" to the light? I have heard about many cures never becoming available. It would appear some how we are being systematically euthanized. Which gives the body upon the cold slab, being removed from life support, a whole new outlook!!
Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
|
5/2/2017 6:11:55 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
muldoon1959
Vallejo, CA
58, joined Feb. 2008
|
I always get a kick out of people that have no clue
about science pretending they know about science.
It reminds me of people that think they can speak Spanish
by adding "o" after a few words with a couple of "el"
tossed in for good measure.
"El entrance-o es closed-o. Uso el doro
over there-o"
|
5/2/2017 6:31:03 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
masterweber
Baton Rouge, LA
35, joined May. 2013
|
Epistemology
|
5/2/2017 6:42:26 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
I always get a kick out of people that have no clue
about science pretending they know about science.
It reminds me of people that think they can speak Spanish
by adding "o" after a few words with a couple of "el"
tossed in for good measure.
"El entrance-o es closed-o. Uso el doro
over there-o"
Look at your home environment from the home, utensils, furniture, accessories, tools, equipment, the vehicles you drive are "all" due to math engineering and a machinist/carpenter/mechanic making/assembling it. Much of what we do is outside the environment and realms that "do not" require the need for science.
|
5/2/2017 6:45:29 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
sdgncalix3
Palm Bay, FL
44, joined Dec. 2012
|
Cars run on gasoline. Science
How we grow or produce some of our food. Science
How we predict weather patterns. Science
[Edited 5/2/2017 6:45:50 PM ]
|
5/2/2017 6:48:43 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
I said much. But I do follow the weather patterns myself being on a farm environment. We can make whiskey that could be used for gasoline. That is "simple" chemistry (math).
Now that most farmers are organic, there is not much need for science. Only the need to keep your soil clean and plenty of water.
|
5/2/2017 6:49:03 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
muldoon1959
Vallejo, CA
58, joined Feb. 2008
|
Look at your home environment from the home, utensils, furniture, accessories, tools, equipment, the vehicles you drive are "all" due to math engineering and a machinist/carpenter/mechanic making/assembling it. Much of what we do is outside the environment and realms that "do not" require the need for science.
I can't help noticing how you're trying to change
the subject and distancing yourself from your
original premise that science is a philosophy.
So did it dawn on you that you're full of shit
and now you're trying to change the subject you think
you can be right about?
|
5/2/2017 6:52:50 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
I can't help noticing how you're trying to change
the subject and distancing yourself from your
original premise that science is a philosophy.
So did it dawn on you that you're full of shit
and now you're trying to change the subject you think
you can be right about?
No, because until math was included to help scientific method. It simply was opinion only (word of mouth). Which leads to, since math is so vital to defining methods. How come when math cannot define a method, those methods are not removed?
|
5/2/2017 6:53:55 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
I could easily make fuel out of pine nuts from pine trees and use them to feed turkeys, chickens, ducks, etc.
Simple math
|
5/2/2017 7:00:24 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
muldoon1959
Vallejo, CA
58, joined Feb. 2008
|
No, because until math was included to help scientific method. It simply was opinion only (word of mouth). Which leads to, since math is so vital to defining methods. How come when math cannot define a method, those methods are not removed?
You're just a clueless buffoon trying to argue shit you
obviously know nothing about.
Math is not science
No different than a hammer is not carpentry.
It may be a tool that is used but it is not
the basic premise.
So quit fooling yourself into think you know
something you obviously don't.
|
5/2/2017 7:00:37 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
sdgncalix3
Palm Bay, FL
44, joined Dec. 2012
|
Never in my life have I heard someone say we dont need science.
Math isnt curing diseases. It may play a part. But its not curing diseases.
Science is.
Testing and experiments.
Chemistry is science.
|
5/2/2017 7:02:10 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
Did I not state that math and science are 2 separate thoughts?
I am explaining why science needed math to prove its theories based upon trial methods.
|
5/2/2017 7:04:12 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
muldoon1959
Vallejo, CA
58, joined Feb. 2008
|
Did I not state that math and science are 2 separate thoughts?
I am explaining why science needed math to prove its theories based upon trial methods.
Actually what you stated was that science was a philosophy.
Then somewhere along the way you must have figured
out you're full of shit and started trying to change the
subject to math.
|
5/2/2017 7:04:46 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
sdgncalix3
Palm Bay, FL
44, joined Dec. 2012
|
So now they are thoughts?
Mathematics is the science that deals with the logic of shape, quantity and arrangement. Math is all around us, in everything we do. It is the building block for everything in our daily lives, including mobile devices, architecture (ancient and modern), art, money, engineering, and even sports.
|
5/2/2017 7:06:37 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
sdgncalix3
Palm Bay, FL
44, joined Dec. 2012
|
Two plus two equals four may not be rocket science, but is it science? Math is frequently associated with science and is certainly relied upon by scientists — the pages of any modern biology, chemistry, physics, geology, or psychology journal are peppered with calculations, statistics, graphs, and mathematical models — but how much like science is math itself?
|
5/2/2017 7:08:54 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
Science once was defined as a philosophy about searching for truth. But many of those truths were not accepted by word of mouth or someone's opinion. Adding math to science and it becoming a "scientific method," changed science from being a philosophy to a "host" needing help from "math."
|
5/2/2017 7:14:46 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
muldoon1959
Vallejo, CA
58, joined Feb. 2008
|
Science once was defined as a philosophy about searching for truth. But many of those truths were not accepted by word of mouth or someone's opinion. Adding math to science and it becoming a "scientific method," changed science from being a philosophy to a "host" needing help from "math."
Rationalizing your bullshit doesn't make your bullshit
any less bullshit.
It's still bullshit.
|
5/2/2017 7:21:49 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
You do realize that before the 18th Century they did not use fictitious domain methods?
Which leads us to modern day physics!!
|
5/2/2017 7:35:04 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
muldoon1959
Vallejo, CA
58, joined Feb. 2008
|
You do realize that before the 18th Century they did not use fictitious domain methods?
Which leads us to modern day physics!!
I couldn't help noticing you haven't tried pulling
out the old Websters to support your argument.
By any chance could that be that Websters supports
my position not yours?
Yeah.
You can chase your own tail around with your
circular logic if you want.
Don't expect me to join in.
I actually know better.
|
5/2/2017 7:40:21 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
How am I trying to deceive you?
What is the proper math being generally used in science outside trig based and chemical compounds? (physics)
All I pointed out was how I see science (prior) to "math" only being a philosophy?
Clearly without physics we would not understand how stars relate to nuclear reactors. Just an object of energy consuming matter.
So if science was not using the proper methods prior to math. It was a philosophy!!
[Edited 5/2/2017 7:40:44 PM ]
|
5/2/2017 7:52:48 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
muldoon1959
Vallejo, CA
58, joined Feb. 2008
|
Yeah sorry.
I'm not as easily confused and distracted as your average
bible thumping numnutz.
Science is a philosophy after all. A philosophy defined that "actually and factually" begins with ((It is Made Up of)) beliefs!! So, it never was a "fact" to begin with!!
Science is a philosophy after all. A philosophy defined that "actually and factually" begins with ((It is Made Up of)) beliefs!! So, it never was a "fact" to begin with!!
|
5/2/2017 8:08:31 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
muldoon1959
Vallejo, CA
58, joined Feb. 2008
|
How am I trying to deceive you?
!
Oh yeah,
You're trying to deceive me by pretending you know
what science is.
You don't.
|
5/2/2017 8:23:28 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
That is the correct definition to philosophies that they are "made up of" beliefs!!
|
5/2/2017 8:25:06 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
Tell me, why do you think science finally adapted and began applying fictitious domain methods to their theories?
|
5/2/2017 8:32:32 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
muldoon1959
Vallejo, CA
58, joined Feb. 2008
|
That is the correct definition to philosophies that they are "made up of" beliefs!!
Yeah except science isn't a philosophy.
So again you're arguing shit you know know.
|
5/2/2017 9:05:22 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
progrocknic
Mount Arlington, NJ
33, joined Dec. 2012
|
Just an object of energy consuming matter.
Wow. Doesn't get any more scientific than that.
|
5/2/2017 9:41:31 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
Wow. Doesn't get any more scientific than that.
That is the bottom line basics to a star. There was really never a true need for 20 paragraphs to explain that a star equals nuclear reactor.
|
5/2/2017 9:43:11 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
progrocknic
Mount Arlington, NJ
33, joined Dec. 2012
|
That is the bottom line basics to a star. There was really never a true need for 20 paragraphs to explain that a star equals nuclear reactor.
I do believe you missed my sarcasm, perhaps intentionally.
That sentence didn't even make sense let alone have any scientific merit. I'd suggest going back to school.
[Edited 5/2/2017 9:43:37 PM ]
|
5/2/2017 9:47:54 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
Yeah except science isn't a philosophy.
So again you're arguing shit you know know.
Now that depends on which side of science you are. To some it is a philosophy. To others it is the basic principle explaining life much like a tool.
Now according to which side you are on, you either are touching items (tangible) or they are a mere illusion creating the sense of touch.
To some, 2 weeks past means 50 light years in time travel.
Ultimately though when concerning the BBT, it is nothing but a philosophy since nothing but "hope" makes it an actual "fact."
|
5/2/2017 10:58:05 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
muldoon1959
Vallejo, CA
58, joined Feb. 2008
|
Now that depends on which side of science you are.
To some it is a philosophy. To others it is the basic principle explaining life much like a tool.
Those that don't know what science is might think it's a philosophy.
Either that or they've been fooled into believing a logical fallacy.
"It has a philosophy therefore it is a philosophy"
Those that do know what science is know and understand that it's a method or process.
This nonsense about "which side you're on" is pure ludicrissy.
There are no sides to a debate.
Science is what it is.
Now according to which side you are on, you either are touching items (tangible) or they are a mere illusion creating the sense of touch.
Still nothing more than trying to base an arguement on a false premise and trying to back it up with logical fallacies.
To some, 2 weeks past means 50 light years in time travel.
This issue isn't debateable either. Anyone that might think 2 weeks means 50 light years hasn't the slightest
clue about what light year actually means.
Ultimately though when concerning the BBT, it is nothing but a philosophy since nothing but "hope" makes it an actual "fact."
Again, this is just pure gibberish trying to base an arguement on a false premise and trying
to back it up with logical fallacies.
|
5/3/2017 6:31:54 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
duchessa
Yonkers, NY
63, joined Aug. 2008
|
It reminds me of people that think they can speak Spanish
by adding "o" after a few words with a couple of "el"
tossed in for good measure.
"El entrance-o es closed-o. Uso el doro
over there-o"
And the funniest side of what you stated is "everybody who speaks Spanish is a Mexican / don't understand English."
Ignorance is very bold.
|
5/3/2017 7:44:48 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
yo hablo espano...chinge tu' madre punta!!
Entiendo escrito mejor que verbales Español!!
But, I can read their beady little eyes and can get the gest easily from their intentions.
I have a ton of em who help me on the farm
Hard workers and great peeps
[Edited 5/3/2017 7:46:33 AM ]
|
5/3/2017 7:54:10 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
And the funniest side of what you stated is "everybody who speaks Spanish is a Mexican / don't understand English."
Ignorance is very bold.
My mother owned a pawn shop before finally retiring, and she told me, that Hispanics buy second hand stuff all the time and it's how they keep much of their cash to themselves. She went on to say that even when they are speaking in fluent espano at the register. That all you need to do is short them one copper Lincoln and their "English" suddenly becomes rather distinguished
|
5/3/2017 8:17:58 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
The only reason my explanation of science is not being bought by atheist is that you cannot feel the emotions where I am buffoon(ed) like you over it. If you know math and you look at many things in science then you know it is bullsh*t.
Like not having physics, which is the ONLY method, that could ever explain the BBT and give it value (truth). Instead, physics "proves," the BBT is 100% pure bullsh*t!! Just like there are no chemical formations that explain, the chemical breakdown between a homosexual and straight individuals.
To make a statement that "one" is born that way, you would like to "believe" that science can offer, the reaction responses to match some chemical format to determine first "the difference" between a homo and straight" biochemically. This is "impossible!!" So for science to conclude, queers are born like that is just another bullsh*t cover up lie.
How many lies does "science" need to be caught in before you understand the concept of science is correct, but today's science, is just flat out ignorantly biased to accept any answer but the one they desire.
Kind of like setting a hard standard for variable conditions. What is the "intent" of that? From word go you already understand everything is "compromised." And yet, you still document answers formatted from faulty scores?
It would appear that science is "hiding" more than they are actually confirming.
How come you don't accept Galileo, Spinoza, and Einstein's views of there being a "Higher Reasoning-Thought-Extension?
|
5/3/2017 8:23:26 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
Galileo, Spinoza, and Einstein
These 3 men make Hawking and you morons and rest of today's science look like fools!!
Hell, Tesla makes Hawking look like a fool and Tesla only just bested Einstein!!
[Edited 5/3/2017 8:25:40 AM ]
|
5/3/2017 10:07:22 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
muldoon1959
Vallejo, CA
58, joined Feb. 2008
|
The only reason my explanation of science is not being bought by atheist is that you cannot feel the emotions where I am buffoon(ed) like you over it. If you know math and you look at many things in science then you know it is bullsh*t.
Wrong.
The only reason I don't buy your explanation of
science is because it's bull shit.
But I understand what you're trying to do.
If you can talk yourself into thinking science
is a philosophy then you can feel comfortable in
the lie that science, like philosophy is this
esoteric, vague and truly unknowable thing.
And if that's the case, you can feel comfortable
in the lie that there's no such thing as evolution
in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
|
5/3/2017 10:26:15 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
lordclarence
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
59, joined Mar. 2013
|
.
The only reason my explanation of science is not being bought by atheist is that you cannot feel the emotions where I am buffoon(ed) like you over it. If you know math and you look at many things in science then you know it is bullsh*t.
Like not having physics, which is the ONLY method, that could ever explain the BBT and give it value (truth). Instead, physics "proves," the BBT is 100% pure bullsh*t!! Just like there are no chemical formations that explain, the chemical breakdown between a homosexual and straight individuals.
What do you have against the Big Bang? George Lemartre, a Catholic priest, was the first to posit an expanding universe that began at a single originating point. Edwin Hubble measured galactic redshift and confirmed Lemartre's hypothesis. Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang", although the expansion of the universe isn't really analogous to an explosion of fissile material. The BB expansion is that of space itself, more analogous to the inflating of a balloon, if you imagine galaxies as like dots drawn on the balloon's surface.
To make a statement that "one" is born that way, you would like to "believe" that science can offer, the reaction responses to match some chemical format to determine first "the difference" between a homo and straight" biochemically. This is "impossible!!" So for science to conclude, queers are born like that is just another bullsh*t cover up lie.
Your discursion into the causes of homosexuality is baffling and weird. Why do you feel impelled to share such thoughts? No one knows precisely why some people are homosexual. Biology is complex. Are you some kind of religiously motivated homophobe? If so, that's sad. Is it nature or nurture that makes people homophobic, do you think?
How come you don't accept Galileo, Spinoza, and Einstein's views of there being a "Higher Reasoning-Thought-Extension?
I'm not sure about Galileo. Some think he was a closet atheist. Certainly, his maverick faith in reason and rationality, thinking outside the box and proposing a (correct) heliocentric solar system brought him into conflict with Catholic orthodoxy, which threatened to execute him and forced him to recant.
Spinoza's God was a pantheistic one that envisaged God as part and parcel of nature and represented in its fixed laws - which is dramatically different and opposed to the cardboardy biblical literalist God embraced by America's Christian fundamentalist science denialists.
Einstein too was deep as hell, and rejected the concept of a petty personal God. This is one of numerous quotes on the subject of God/religion:
Einstein had explored the idea that humans could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in George Sylvester Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great (1930), Einstein responded to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist. He explained:
Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Pantheism_and_Spinoza.27s_God
[Edited 5/3/2017 10:27:35 AM ]
|
5/3/2017 10:33:24 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
duchessa
Yonkers, NY
63, joined Aug. 2008
|
iam_resurrected
""yo hablo espano...chinge tu' madre punta!!""
More like YO HABLO ESPAÑOL...CHINGA A TU MADRE PUTA (of course you are referring to your mother)
""Entiendo escrito mejor que verbales Español!!""
Entiendo mejor el español escrito que el hablado.
""But, I can read their beady little eyes and can get the gest easily from their intentions.""
Darling, it seems you never saw a Spanish speaking person who is blond, white and with huge blue eyes....Do yourself a favor and look at my pics...you will see there are all colors and nationalities among the Spanish speaking people.
Hard workers ""
Something I agree with you.
|
5/3/2017 10:37:17 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
duchessa
Yonkers, NY
63, joined Aug. 2008
|
1. Is not Hispanic but Latinos.
2. If you are going to short me one penny / dollar you bet I wilL make sure you understand what I think of you.
3. The fact a person may be talking in LOTE (Language Other Than English), my dear, it doesn't mean that person is not a polyglot.
¿Comorendes, pedazo de gran pelotudo?
|
5/3/2017 7:00:10 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
louie6332
Falkville, AL
75, joined Nov. 2011
|
Sir Isaac Newton referred to physics as “natural philosophy”, the philosophy of nature.
Galileo was not an Atheist. He was a faithful Catholic who believed in God and practiced his Catholic faith. The motion of the heavens was never a part of the Catholic faith, that is, was never a doctrine of the faith. The three popes who condemned Galileo for contradicting the majority opinion of the Church’s revered philosophers, justified it with Biblical passages that describe the heavenly bodies as orbiting around a stationary Earth. In these passages God is describing the motion of the heavens from the point of view (that is, in the frame of reference) of a man standing upon the Earth. And his description is correct, that IS what a man on Earth sees (it was natural for God to use the frame of reference of men on Earth since he was speaking to men on Earth, if he had used any other frame of reference, it would have confused those to whom he was speaking, for that would not be what men on earth see).
What the popes failed to realize is that motion is relative to the observer and that observers positioned elsewhere in the Universe would see something different. The popes, not understanding the relativity of motion and position, simply assumed that all observers would see what the man on Earth sees, in other words, that the motion of the Earth and heavens are absolute. This, of course, was a misinterpretation of the Bible on the part of the Popes. Galileo had gotten into trouble with the religious authorities because he offered an interpretation of the Bible’s statements on the motion of the heavens that was consist with his own observations, and the Pope, acting out of damnable pride, thought that since Galileo was a mere layman, it was not his place to even offer an interpretation of these Biblical passages. This pope considered Galileo to have transgressed upon his own authority. The interpretation suggested by Galileo, however, turned out to be correct, and the Pope’s, wrong (proving that popes are not infallible).
Spinoza was a Masonic philosopher who did not believe in the God of the Bible, the Judeo-Christian God. Spinoza, as already pointed out, believed in a pantheistic god, or at least suggested this as the nature of God.
Einstein was not an Atheist. He believed in God. He was a Jew by birth but did not practice his faith.
Stephen Hawking, the quadriplegic physicist, sadly, is an Atheist.
Louie
|
5/4/2017 8:33:23 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
clarity101
Aurora, CO
66, joined Oct. 2008
|
Franklin Graham
Last night I was at the White House for dinner with other pastors and Christian leaders from across the country. I thank God that we have a president who seeks the counsel of men and women of God. He is set to sign an executive order today that helps protect churches and Christian organizations.
Today is the National Day of Prayer. I hope you will pray for our country today—pray for President Donald J. Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and all in leadership, that God would give them wisdom. As a nation we need to ask for God’s forgiveness, direction, and blessing.
“O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and act! Do not delay for Your own sake, my God…” (Daniel 9:19).
|
5/4/2017 9:39:39 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
Spinoza was a Masonic philosopher who did not believe in the God of the Bible, the Judeo-Christian God. Spinoza, as already pointed out, believed in a pantheistic god, or at least suggested this as the nature of God.
Louie
Martial Guéroult (1891–1976) suggested the term "panentheism", rather than "pantheism" to describe Spinoza's view of the relation between God and the world. The world is not God, but it is, in a strong sense, "in" God. Not only do finite things have God as their cause; they cannot be conceived without God.[100]
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spinoza's God is an “infinite intellect” (Ethics 2p11c) — all knowing (2p3), and capable of loving both himself—and us, insofar as we are part of his perfection (5p35c). And if the mark of a personal being is that it is one towards which we can entertain personal attitudes, then we should note too that Spinoza recommends amor intellectualis dei (the intellectual love of God) as the supreme good for man (5p33).
Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or Nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God.
Spinoza's God was that of THOUGHT-EXTENSION, and Einstein added "Higher Reasoning."
***a "letter" from Spinoza explaining his views***
In a letter to Henry Oldenburg Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".[1] Our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.
Louie,
I am going back to my original post with Spinoza not being an atheist and believed in God!!
|
5/4/2017 9:41:27 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
mz_jeannie_baby
Rochester, MI
57, joined Sep. 2012
|
|
5/4/2017 10:17:42 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
What do you have against the Big Bang? George Lemartre, a Catholic priest, was the first to posit an expanding universe that began at a single originating point. Edwin Hubble measured galactic redshift and confirmed Lemartre's hypothesis. Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang", although the expansion of the universe isn't really analogous to an explosion of fissile material. The BB expansion is that of space itself, more analogous to the inflating of a balloon, if you imagine galaxies as like dots drawn on the balloon's surface.
The Roman pagan Cathlicks are also the ones who bastardized the "original" biblical manuscripts by adding "Christ" was from a "virgin birth" myth!!
And the BBT idea seems more to incline that both "God and science" are correct (which could be or at least would be nice).
Pertaining towards the Cathlicks however, I am a big fan of "Gregor Mendel." He took math from the man "Christian Doppler" (whom our Doppler system for weather is known), he also studied botany under Franz Unger, who had begun using a microscope in his studies, and who was a proponent of a pre-Darwinian version of evolutionary theory. I believe his "inherited genes" explains "natural selection" the best!!
Your discursion into the causes of homosexuality is baffling and weird. Why do you feel impelled to share such thoughts? No one knows precisely why some people are homosexual. Biology is complex. Are you some kind of religiously motivated homophobe? If so, that's sad. Is it nature or nurture that makes people homophobic, do you think?
I could care less who is homosexual or not (my brother is one/whom shares my same sentiments).
If science is all about "factual proofs" they clearly messed up with "claiming" you are born gay when it is "impossible" to determine that from chemistry and biology. Therefore like the BBT, with no math to give "factual proof," the theory on "being born queer" is opinion at "best!!"
Too bad however, they had spread a lie to which morons believe (like the BBT).
But I would assume, a queer feels so much better believing they are born that way rather than falling under the "factual terminology" of being "insane" for wanting be a woman whom "bleeds" out their ass!!
Spinoza's God was a pantheistic one that envisaged God as part and parcel of nature and represented in its fixed laws - which is dramatically different and opposed to the cardboardy biblical literalist God embraced by America's Christian fundamentalist science denialists.
Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or Nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God.
Spinoza's God was that of THOUGHT-EXTENSION, and Einstein added "Higher Reasoning."
***a "letter" from Spinoza explaining his views***
In a letter to Henry Oldenburg Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".[1] Our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.
Einstein too was deep as hell, and rejected the concept of a petty personal God. This is one of numerous quotes on the subject of God/religion:
:These are all direct quotes made by Einstein that would go against what you think of him:
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.
I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?
We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never.
In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views.
When the answer is simple, God is speaking. (Albert Einstein)
Albert Einstein – “There Is Neither Evolution Nor Destiny; Only Being.”
[Edited 5/4/2017 10:19:30 AM ]
|
5/4/2017 5:20:22 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
louie6332
Falkville, AL
75, joined Nov. 2011
|
Iam, by calling yourself “Iam”, you are mocking God (and I think you are doing it intentionally). If that was not your intention, then you should change your handle. And you slander the Church established by Jesus Christ by referring to it as “Pagan”. Just so you'll know, "Paganism", fundamentally and by definition, is the worship of creatures such as sun, moon, Earth, fire, water, themselves, dead relatives, angels, demons, and Idols, rather than the Creator.
And concerning Mary, do you honestly think that blaspheming, Mary, the Mother of Jesus, whom Our Lord loves dearly, is going to put you on the good side of Jesus? How would you feel if someone badmouthed your mother by telling lies about her? Think about that.
Iam, you are of the opinion that God can be known only through philosophers. But nothing could be further from the truth. God has revealed himself to men, through his prophets. God the Father, and his Only Begotten Son have revealed themselves through the prophets since the beginning. In these revelations, the divine revelations, he reveals himself to us, gives us his laws, admonishes us, forewarns us of dangers to come, revealed his plans for the future, and so on. Those who study his revelations, acquire the mind of God, so to speak, knowing what he loves and what he detests and so on. So you are looking in the wrong place for God. You are actually rejecting his revelations, the divine revelations and prophecies. He is not hard to find. You do not have to be a rocket scientist or a physicist or a philosopher to find him. In fact, he has said that those who seek him, and truth, with a sincere heart and honest mind will find them—that’s a divine promise. And you do not have to wonder aimlessly through the universe to find him. For the tenets of true religion are revealed by God through his servants the prophets: true religion is REVEALED religion, revealed by God through his servants the prophets. It does NOT come from the theories, speculations, and assumptions of philosophers. It is not man made; it is GOD GIVEN, revealed by God himself through his servants the prophets, the very ones you reject and badmouth. You are, wittingly or unwittingly, waging war against his prophets and against those who follow him.
Iam, if you are going to criticize the Church of Jesus Christ, and there are many valid criticisms that can be made against it, especially against the modern Church, for it is deviating from the path set out for it, be honest, don’t make up or repeat lies against the Church. Be honest. I don’t mind anyone honestly criticizing the Church, it’s the lies I despise. And God also despises such lies, for he has commanded: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”. When you have to resort to lies, you have lost whatever argument you are making.
In summary, God is not hard to find, for he has revealed himself to us. You do not have to travel to the featheriest galaxy to find him.
Louie
|
5/4/2017 6:31:16 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
iam_resurrected
Reno, NV
46, joined Jul. 2014
|
Iam, by calling yourself “Iam”, you are mocking God (and I think you are doing it intentionally). If that was not your intention, then you should change your handle. And you slander the Church established by Jesus Christ by referring to it as “Pagan”. Just so you'll know, "Paganism", fundamentally and by definition, is the worship of creatures such as sun, moon, Earth, fire, water, themselves, dead relatives, angels, demons, and Idols, rather than the Creator.
My name is in reference to being a previous poster deleted during the moronic phase of DH, hence being "resurrected."
I will not change it because the version of "I Am" is incorrect. At the burning bush, (yah) called Himself "I AM TO BE!!" Meaning (YAH) would become (YAH)shua the Christ (WORD became "flesh"). And when you go to Mary, the disciples, or anyone who "cannot" "resurrect" themselves is a form of paganism. You are praying to someone in the ground to get to someone who is "Alive!!"
And concerning Mary, do you honestly think that blaspheming, Mary, the Mother of Jesus, whom Our Lord loves dearly, is going to put you on the good side of Jesus? How would you feel if someone badmouthed your mother by telling lies about her? Think about that.
Yahshua called her "woman" (which is an extreme disrespectful term for woman back then, let alone it being his mother)!!
I am not disrespecting her by not classifying her as a "mythical virgin." She is innocent concerning what Constantine done.
Iam, you are of the opinion that God can be known only through philosophers. But nothing could be further from the truth. God has revealed himself to men, through his prophets. God the Father, and his Only Begotten Son have revealed themselves through the prophets since the beginning. In these revelations, the divine revelations, he reveals himself to us, gives us his laws, admonishes us, forewarns us of dangers to come, revealed his plans for the future, and so on. Those who study his revelations, acquire the mind of God, so to speak, knowing what he loves and what he detests and so on. So you are looking in the wrong place for God. You are actually rejecting his revelations, the divine revelations and prophecies. He is not hard to find. You do not have to be a rocket scientist or a physicist or a philosopher to find him. In fact, he has said that those who seek him, and truth, with a sincere heart and honest mind will find them—that’s a divine promise. And you do not have to wonder aimlessly through the universe to find him. For the tenets of true religion are revealed by God through his servants the prophets: true religion is REVEALED religion, revealed by God through his servants the prophets. It does NOT come from the theories, speculations, and assumptions of philosophers. It is not man made; it is GOD GIVEN, revealed by God himself through his servants the prophets, the very ones you reject and badmouth. You are, wittingly or unwittingly, waging war against his prophets and against those who follow him.
I am not sure why you are bringing up the example I used about the Greeks. I specifically used them on the account, it does give proof of "documentation" about Yahshua before the 4th century pagan bible. And before, the 1st century writers (4 Gospels)(Paul)(disciples)(brothers of Christ).
It gives proof he was a hominid, like us, and walked and talked with a full cognitive fully functional brain. Then it gives more proof he was thought of as God!! If you love Yahweh, then more proof from any source is a good thing especially those who had no reason to write about Him!!
Iam, if you are going to criticize the Church of Jesus Christ, and there are many valid criticisms that can be made against it, especially against the modern Church, for it is deviating from the path set out for it, be honest, don’t make up or repeat lies against the Church. Be honest. I don’t mind anyone honestly criticizing the Church, it’s the lies I despise. And God also despises such lies, for he has commanded: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”. When you have to resort to lies, you have lost whatever argument you are making.
How am I lying? I am reporting the facts that the "biblical manuscripts" (prior) to being "bastardized" (did not) include the mythical "virgin birth!!" Also where is the Book of Jasher that is instructed in both 2nd Samuel and Ezra that all followers of (YAH) should read the "Book of Jasher."
I see no "Book of Jasher" within the 66 Books of the Bible, although, 2 of those 66 "demand" us to read it!!"
In summary, God is not hard to find, for he has revealed himself to us. You do not have to travel to the featheriest galaxy to find him.
I agree with you on that 100%
|
5/5/2017 6:43:43 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
drwookie
Reading, PA
63, joined May. 2013
|
Iam, by calling yourself
In summary, God is not hard to find, for he has revealed himself to us. You do not have to travel to the featheriest galaxy to find him.
Louie
When your schizophrenia is untreated it is not difficult to to see god and a host of other hallucinations that make you think you're superior to others. You're not!
When your a slimy salesman you learn how to talk up the good stuff and distract from the bad stuff to make a sale.
When the bible is used like a sales manual and you're trying to sell the idea of donating to a religion so a few get to decide where it's spent It's a cult!
Louie, your trying to be a cult leader but it's not working! Cults need to have someone with a charismatic personality. You lack charisma and have such a dull personality that everyone thinks your a joke until they realize you might believe a portion of what you say.
You'd be a hoot with Bill Maher and could probably get a contract to to play the wacko zealot and make a few bucks.
Just don't tell them your serious and everyone will think everything you say is a joke!
|
5/5/2017 6:53:31 AM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
duchessa
Yonkers, NY
63, joined Aug. 2008
|
Quote from louie6332:
Iam, by calling yourself “Iam”, you are mocking God (and I think you are doing it intentionally...
=================
If nothing else he is mocking you for believing in an imaginary entity.
|
5/5/2017 9:23:11 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
louie6332
Falkville, AL
75, joined Nov. 2011
|
Iam, there was no official Christian Bible until the Catholic Church compiled it around the beginning of the fourth century. When they compiled it, they went through all the writings to discern which were authentic, and they only included ones that everyone agreed on were authentic. There were several texts that were authentic that were not included, but not everyone agreed that they were authentic at the time. Many of those not included were known to be fraudulent, or known to have been falsified. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Catholic Church for having compiled the official Christian Bible and protecting and preserving it all these years.
Protestantism, which, following its founder Father Martin Luther, proclaims the Bible as its sole authority. But since there was no Christian Bible for the first three hundred years of Christianity, Protestantism would not have been possible during those first three hundred years. In fact, since it depends on the mass production of inexpensive printed Bibles it would not have been possible for the first fifteen hundred years of Christianity till the printing press was invented.
Let me emphasize that, there was no official Christian Bible till it was complied around the beginning of the fourth century. You imply that you have read copies of original texts of the Bible, or at least copies of the original books that were included in the Bible, but you do realize, don’t you, that the originals are no longer extant?
Iam, you are on record as saying Jesus Christ was a fraud (which is exactly what those who will be following the antichrist will be saying at the time). And you pretend to be a Christian? And it was Mary herself, Mother of Jesus Christ, (not Constantine) who appeared to Catholics of these last centuries to confirm that she was ever virgin. And if Mary does not know, who does? Remember, the only way you can know this is if it is revealed to you, and it has been revealed.
And Doctor Wookie, I understand that everything about God and Christianity is a joke to you. You just categorically dismiss it all as a joke. But the joke will be on you when you appear before the throne of God for judgment. You have made war against God and his Church the principal of all your actions. I don’t know why you are angry with God, but you need to get that straightened out before it is too late. And time is running out you know. This is your life, and it is ending, one second at a time.
Louie
|
5/5/2017 9:49:12 PM |
Mixing Religion and Politics | Page 5 |
|
louie6332
Falkville, AL
75, joined Nov. 2011
|
Oh, and concerning “mixing religion and politics”, the Federal Government for a long time now has persecuted Christians by forbidding preachers in churches from endorsing political candidates, threatening their tax exemption if they did. Of course, Black churches did this frequently, but nothing was ever said about that. But White Christian churches were threatened.
President Trump has now signed an executive order removing this threat from Churches.
The Federal Government was violating the Constitution by telling Christian preachers what they could or couldn’t preach. And Obama was taking that to a higher level by preparing to put into place prohibitions against Christian preachers preaching against abortion, the practice of homosexuality, homosexual marriages, and man-made global warming. In other words, the Federal Government was exceeding its authority by effectively establishing a religion in defiance of the Constitution. Thank the Good Lord President Trump is stopping that Federal Government persecution of Christians.
Christians must always practice their religion, not just on Sundays, and not just in their private lives.And the Constitution guarantees them the right to publicly practice their religion, and without Government interfer4ence.
Louie
|
|
|