How? Show me something quantifiable and that can be proven.
Is how or where the more relevant question right now?
Please take this to a new thread, or (if you guys prefer) to the atheism thread JSBP linked to. Thanks!
Done. I will say that if God already knows who will be the next POTUS, should we even bother to vote? What does it say if one candidate gets elected over the other? Are we being damned if Romney/Obama are elected or are we being blessed? Will those who vote Bible be disappointed if who they voted Bible for doesn't win? And if so, are they going to blame *God*? So many questions.
Cappster wrote:I will say that if God already knows who will be the next POTUS, should we even bother to vote? What does it say if one candidate gets elected over the other? Are we being damned if Romney/Obama are elected or are we being blessed?
Why is it either/or? Those aren't mutually exclusive choices.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Cappster wrote:I will say that if God already knows who will be the next POTUS, should we even bother to vote? What does it say if one candidate gets elected over the other? Are we being damned if Romney/Obama are elected or are we being blessed?
Why is it either/or? Those aren't mutually exclusive choices.
My point was pertaining to how an individual may see the victory or defeat of either candidate. And that brings me to another point in that there are church goers who believe in this thing called the "Rapture" and that all nations would fall under this entity known as the anti-christ. Well, if Heaven isn't far away and the fall of the US is dependent on putting in motion a one way trip to paradise, wouldn't a person want to vote for the one who they feel like will bring down the country? So if a Bible thumper believes that Obama is bad for the country, why wouldn't they vote for him to help fulfill Biblical prophecy?
I would think, being a false prophet, the anti-Christ would fool people into thinking he was doing God's work. Therefore they would vote for him thinking they were doing good, while actually fulling said prophecy.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Deadskins wrote:I would think, being a false prophet, the anti-Christ would fool people into thinking he was doing God's work. Therefore they would vote for him thinking they were doing good, while actually fulling said prophecy.
The anti-christ, if I am not mistaken, is supposed to rise when all of the nations are in peril and need a savior. If this is the case and those already saved would evaporate into thin air and ascend to heaven, why wouldn't someone want to help make that happen? Of course, someone like me doesn't believe in prophecy so I vote on the issues and not on party lines. And being non-religious, I can objectively look at the issues without referring to ancient text to influence my decisions.
UK Skins Fan wrote:To be fair, I didn't see the antic christ coming. Things are worse than I thought.
Well, we did over here. The problem is we're seeing it different. Half think Obama's the anti-Christ and the other half think it's Romney. When we figure it out, we'll let you know...
Hail to the Redskins!
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
WHO took "God" and "Jerusalem" out of the Dems platform? Someone did and the POTUS ordered that they be put back.
Trying to pull a fast one - deleting God?
Quickly putting God back once it was discovered omitted?
Signs of slowly moving to socialist views?
REMEMBER JONESTOWN, and the now infamous Jim Jones....? It all began with God and ended with......well, you know.
Tony Villar (Los Angeles mayor) faces a difficult Yea/Nay vote. I'm in Socal and this guy is not what he's cracked up to be.
If Antonio Villaraigosa was going to get booed and jeered at the biggest moment of his political career – chairing the Democratic National Convention – he can console himself in his mind that he had good company.
God was also the target. Or was he?
The booing, jeering and fist-shaking took place when Villaraigosa announced that an amendment to the party’s platform that added a mention of God had been adopted.
Delegates protested so long that it took the visibly shaken mayor times before he could officially declare that in his opinion, the ayes made up two-thirds of the vote.
At on point Villaraigosa looked offstage for assistance, and a convention aide came up to him and reportedly said, “Let them do what they’re going to do.”
“In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative,” Antonio Villaraigosa said. “The motion is adopted and the platform has been amended.”
When Villaraigosa announced passage, delegates erupted ino boos and jeers.
The amendment, which also recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, added that Americans were encouraged to reach their “God-given potential.”
At issue, though, is whether delegates were booing God – or booing Villaraigosa, as chair, for the process: Claiming there had been two-thirds support, when it apparently didn’t appear that way.
But, after all, they say that powerful politicians sometimes think they are God.
It's not that I disagree with the reference . . . I just honestly don't understand it. Like, I saw where you were going with the whole God --> no God --> God thing. OK, that's cool.
But then all of the suddent it's "REMEMBER JONESTOWN"?! And I just had to a bit. I mean, I get that it was a tragedy that came out of a charlatan invoking God's will and all that, but it just seems really random to me. Is there a connection that I'm missing? It wouldn't be the first time; I can be very slow on the uptake.
tribeofjudah wrote:REMEMBER JONESTOWN, and the now infamous Jim Jones....? It all began with God and ended with......well, you know.
That's the most random reference to Jonestown I've ever heard. Where did that come from?
He's trying to make the weak argument that you can blame everyone who believes in God for the actions of anyone who uses God for their own selfish ends in any way. Maybe "weak" is giving the argument too much credit...
OK, I read it again and it wasn't that either, I'm as lost as you are.
Hail to the Redskins!
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
God is speaking to tribe and telling him what to write. It's okay if we don't understand it, because God's ways are higher than ours and we have to have blind trust that tribe and God know what they both are doing. Bahahaha On another note, I would rather God be left out of politics as it seems he is no better at guiding us in the right direction of equality and prosperity than anyone else. In fact, I would say invoking the God platform seems to hinder progress...especially social progress.
Jim Jones was a preacher - God was his platform and he had many supporters. The Bible, which helped to gain supporters - was used as "toilet paper".......as reported by some survivors. Over 900 people died by his insidious deception.
Take God out; banned the 10 Commandments; not recognize Israel and Jerusalem............this is all a wave into secularism.
If we are not careful, the Bible could once again be "in the toilet" (some of you may like that thought)
What happened to "In God we Trust"....?
What happened to the tenants of our Founding Fathers who all evoked the name of God....?
Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.
tribeofjudah wrote:Jim Jones was a preacher - God was his platform and he had many supporters. The Bible, which helped to gain supporters - was used as "toilet paper".......as reported by some survivors. Over 900 people died by his insidious deception.
OK, I think I might be seeing where you are going with this. You are saying, Jim Jones got a bunch of followers because "God was his platform" and he did something that "recognized Israel and Jerusalem." But, you're saying, then after everyone moved to that compound in South America, Jones somehow took God out of it all. And then there was a mass murder.
So the analogy is . . . Democrats, whose official platform had mentioned God in the past, are part of some movement to secularize and "not recognize Israel or Jersusalem," just like Jim Jones did?
tribeofjudah wrote:Why take out God and Jerusalem.....when it was there previously?
Who's great idea was that? and then to have a vote to reinstate them...?
Why should God be in a political platform anyway? I think the point should be to get government out of the way to allow people to pursue their own God, not bring God into government.
I do disagree with Democrats on Jerusalem, I leave it to Israel to pick their own capitol. But I'm not sure why that one is a Democratic Party platform issue.
Hail to the Redskins!
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
Well, I may never know what about all of this made you instantly think "Jonestown," but at least I can see the connection you are trying to draw. I guess I will be satisfied with that.
tribeofjudah wrote:Why take out God and Jerusalem.....when it was there previously?
Who's great idea was that? and then to have a vote to reinstate them...?
Why should God be in a political platform anyway? I think the point should be to get government out of the way to allow people to pursue their own God, not bring God into government.
I do disagree with Democrats on Jerusalem, I leave it to Israel to pick their own capitol. But I'm not sure why that one is a Democratic Party platform issue.
Correcto, Kaz. I am all in favor taking God off of the political stage. The only reason he/she/it is on it is to garner support for a particular political platform.
