Impossible To Simultaneously Be A Democrat And A Christian. The Democratic Party Is Anti-Christian

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Wrong again, Grafix!

First off, the GOP is not centuries old, they were founded in 1854, so in a month they will celebrate their 166th birthday. The DNC is the older party. Let that sink in.

Second, the GOP has changed over time. The general trend is that policies supported by Democrats today will be policies of Republicans tomorrow.

Climate change has not been an issue until recently. Similarly, the GOP has made dramatic changes even in recent decades, becoming much more conservative and of course they were weak in the south until more recently.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-republican-party-has-changed-dramatically-since-george-h-w-bush-ran-it/

Climate change is a huge issue, and if you care about future generation, then you should care for the planet. How would you feel if after you died, your descendants came to heaven and told you that everything you did in life made their lives a living hell? That is the track we are on right now.

I could even make a very legitimate and sound criticism of the left .. No ... make that an accusation directly levelled at "establishment" science from the leftosphere.  The gold standard for scientific methodology is not to PROVE any theory, but rather to DISPROVE  it and if a theory cannot be disproved, then it is accepted as viable, as credible, believable, probable and as accepted scientific fact, until  it is disproved.  That's the rule of scientific conclusion, for the very simple reason that much of what science researches is not readily observable, having already become history in the past before our time.

Now, let's apply that to climate change.  Instead of applying the gold standard of making every endeavour to DISPROVE the climate change hypothesis, what do we see coming from the scientific community?  A multi, multi trillion-dollar campaign of propaganda to PERSUADE us to accept the hypothesis.  That is not applying the gold standard.  That is an aberration of the gold standard of rigorous science.  But wait for it .... it is gets worse.  Instead, we see these same propagandists, who call themselves "scientists" ATTACKING those who actually DO apply the gold standard, the very scientists who DO present arguments to disprove climate change science. 

This is only a partial explanation of how science works, you forget that observation is a key element, and we can directly observe the earth getting warmer, thus disproving the theory that temperatures are staying constant. You not understanding how science works is not evidence that it is not useful. This is also your logical fallacy for this post:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

Is it any wonder that conservatives have lost all faith in the credibility of science, then?  Add insult to injury, these same scientists are still pushing the theory of Evolution, which was DISPROVED nearly a decade ago by Dr. James Tour, the world's leading molecular and nano-technology scientist.  It beggars belief that you people can peddle so many lies with a straight face.  It really does.  It also beggars belief that there is not a well-funded A G E N D A which has caused this dishonest hiatus in science, in that some are so rabidly ready to abandon all scientific principles to push a propagandist and deceitful campaign, we having now witnssed the Climate Change authority caught more than once with its pants on fire for "doctoring" climatic records, to favor the climate change narrative, yet you still believe all of these obviously compromised and dishonest individuals.  We know who are the dummies here.

Dunning-Kruger effect much? I'm not sure if you are touting this as some kind of virtue or you are even more ignorant than I thought. Either way, everything you say here is a misrepresentation of science and is just flat out wrong. Evolution has not been disproved, only specifics of the theory.

Logic and reasoning consider you a failure.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

there is no "discomfit".  There is a derision for those who just love to spend their every waking minute knocking Christianity and our Constitution, when they know absolutely zilch about the former, yet presume with the most abject arrogance that they know more about it than anyone else, even more than theologians and scholars. 

But I still know more about the bible and Christianity than you do, a practicing Catholic (not a Christian according to some)

 I confront the army of ignorance represented by GungHO atheists, by willingly leaping into the battle for souls, brandishing the sword of knowledge, God's sword given to us, to smite their insolent and arrogant ignorance.

You are the army of ignorance, religion is made up for money and power.

Yeah right.  I don't think so.  , it's not possible.  You are just making an utter fool of yourself.  It's embarrassing.  As Christians rely on the opinion of scholars and theologians to interpret our Holy Books and as we do a great deal of reading ourselves, while spending too, a lot of time listening to authoritative voices defining the meaning of Christianity every Sunday and other days, then behove you to prove that you UNDERSTAND Christianity better than Christians themselves do.  We also pray to God for better understanding of His Word.  He does answer with an ability to obtain greater knowledge.  To self-righteously and pompously believe you are better, does not correlate to a fact that you actually ARE, now does it?

Yet it is reality. Statistically speaking, if we choose one random person who is an atheist or agnostic and one random person who is a Christian, the atheist or agnostic is more likely to know more about religion than the Christian. It is truth, unless you just want to deny science some more because all your arguments have crumbled to dust. You pray to god to give you better understanding, but that prayer will never be answered, because if it was you would cease to be its follower. You not wanting it to be true or not believing it doesn't make it any less true.

As mentioned many times, the practice of "proof texting" verses from the Bible to support an argument without any understanding of or having read the WHOLE Book is abhorred, scorned and derided by scholars, but yet you still lob your little proof texts, trotting them out in ignorance every time and shown your folly, because you have no  U N D E R S T A N D I N G of what to be a Christian even M E A N S - an obstacle for every atheist.

What you need to realize is that at one point, I was a Christian just like you, trying to make all the illogical and deeply fallacious arguments you are making now. I grew out of that travesty that is religion, and looking back I can't believe that I, or anyone actually takes any religion seriously.

You criticizing me is not an argument, and it is also your latest fallacy:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Grafix

@piloteer - You wrote ...

If there is any text in the scriptures that proves our personal relationship with God can ever be severed, it would be of much importance to your claims. In fact, without that, your arguments are unfounded altogether.   .... There is nothing in the scriptures that says we can somehow lose our personal relationship with God. 

There is a plethora of evidence of God's wrath, cutting off those who will not acknowledge Him and accept his teachings.  Look at Satan?  Whilst ever he denies God and is unrepentant, he is condemned by God, as we all are.  Satan's "pride before a fall" is the most strident example as follows ....

Isaiah - 4:12   "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations? 13.  And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. 14.  I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High. 15 - But yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, into the depth of the pit."

Then in St. John's Book of Revelation, the same thing, concerning the wickedness of nations, of their people, collectively ....

2  And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3  For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4  And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5  For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
8  Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
20  Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
21  And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

Then in Hosea, we see how God repays the unrepentant, with their own devices - they will fall on their own swords ... 

Hosea Chapter 14
[6] My people have been silent, because they had no knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me: and thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children. [7] According to the multitude of them so have they sinned against me: I will change their glory into shame. [8] They shall eat the sins of my people, and shall lift up their souls to their iniquity. [9] And there shall be like people like priest: and I will visit their ways upon them, and I will repay them their devices.

Then you write ...

God has patience, and will always be willing to hear us if we speak to him.

I agree.  God is patient and will always wait, but whilst ever we are unrepentant, we shall be punished as per the above.  The Biblical texts are also clear that we cannot assume a dupe either, i.e. live a life of self-gratifying abominations with the intent of repenting in the last hour to make everything OK with God.  That is a disingenuous and duplicitous approach. God will not hear our cries for redemption at the last hour under such a dupe.  Once we have knowledge of God's Word there is no going back.  We must at some point strive to understand it, seek repentance and endeavour to gather increased understanding and knowledge of God's Will.  He begs us to do so and not for His sake, but for our own sakes.  You then write ...

Even radical atheists have this personal relationship with God. No human on this earth does not have a direct link to God through Jesus. Voting for, and campaigning for any political party cannot be considered a severed link with God, and scripture in the bible will demonstrate that it cannot be considered such.

I agree. It is up to us to reach out to God.  How we do that and with what intent, is up to Him to judge whether we be worthy of Him of not.  It is not up to us to judge.  The topic does not go there, though.  The topic dos not presume a "spiritual" judgement.  It is an empirical observation, based on the platform of the Democratic Party and the obvious doctrines of Christianity, that God condemns gay marriage and abortion, yet these are policies of this political Party.
.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You deal in deceit and duplicitous baiting Killjoy, first with your declaration I am a Catholic, then with the declaration that Catholics are not Christians.  Right.  Got it.  I have never told you or anyone on this forum what denomination I am and will deny none and claim none, for it is your ardent wish to ridicule the person by ridiculing his or her denomination if ever revealed to you.  So shove off with your subterfuge and petty barbs.

Apart from making that point patently clear I have nothing more to add in reply to your latest post above.  It is a duplication of the previous and I have no desire to re-prosecute the same drivel all over again, brimming with a bagful of bigotry and hubris, the same as before. 

Common sense dictates your claims are preposterous and risible.  It is like saying a coal miner knows more about navigating the high seas than a sailor does.   Yeah right.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote .....

First off, the GOP is not centuries old, they were founded in 1854, so in a month they will celebrate their 166th birthday. The DNC is the older party. Let that sink in.

Sigh, how you do duck, dive and weave to do anything but debate the point.  So now we're gonna waste yet another page on the inconsequentials of the Liberal mindset. Where do I claim either Party was older than the other?  Irrelevant.  Don't care.  Don't care that I described each as "centuries" old for the simple reason it was a figure of speech to highlight that BOTH have on the record over a long period of time their well-understood general policy direction, that both have adhered to these generally, and that both precede the Koch Bros. history. That served as a backdrop to the fact that the Democrats have abandoned their voter base.  L E T   T H A T   S I N K   I N.  What do you think the #Walkaway Movement is, ? https://www.walkawaycampaign.com/

Climate change has not been an issue until recently. Similarly, the GOP has made dramatic changes even in recent decades, becoming much more conservative and of course they were weak in the south until more recently.

I really feel sorry for you.  Everything you post to support your arguments is just O P I N I O N.  Read my lips:  The opinion of others is N O T evidence.  It merely is what it says - someone else's gum bumps.  Evidence is looking back at the Party's policies in the past.  The actual fact is that the Republican Party was becoming too L I B E R A L in its move towards the centre, so its voter base SOUNDLY rejected everyone of its chosen delegates in 2016.  Read my lips = every solitary one of them  and instead said, "Up Yours RNC", we want Donald Trump.  Trump is Reaganesque in his worldview.  Trump even borrowed his campaign slogan from Reagan. 

Oh No!  Can't allow these facts.  They get in the way of the Liberal narrative!  Instead, we're subjected to pages and pages, news casts after news cast spewing Liberal drivel on it and you believe it because you "read it somewhere".  Got it.  The Republicans have simply reclaimed  their voter base, which they had all but lost because they had  moved too far to the left.  Only in your little short, inconsequential, uninformed, heartbeat of a lifetime does it seem the opposite to you, because you don't look at things in the context of history.  Young Liberals are taught not to.  Any history the establishment can't hide unfavorable to the Liberal speak, it bastardizes.  If only you knew the ignorance spawned by this deceit, now a scourge - a global factoid belief system.

The Climate Change narrative fits solidly and squarely into the fake religion box.  It is an Agenda which fits the description you cast upon religion.  The Agenda is to scare the jeebies out of the populace so that they will surrender their rights and freedoms in exchange for State Security and protections - meaning in exchange for increased State control - Socialist Police State crap, which is firmly on the crony-capitalist DNC donor class' Plutocratic Agenda.  Change your news sources instead of relying on political opinion from Mother Jones web sites, never checking the history, the facts, the evidence or the bleedin' obvious.  
.

Grafix

@piloteer - I answered your first para and then was called away and forgot about the rest of your post, intending to reply in a separate post.  (Killbot is a prolific poster and yours just got lost as we went over the page.)  Starting with your second para, you wrote ...

... provide evidence that the bible says that we are committing a sin for espousing the ideals of individual freedom and individual free will. 

No one is claiming that those ideals are sinful, not even the topic title or text.

Even if those freedoms may be considered a sin, it is not a sin- in and of itself, to espouse the ideals of free will which God has granted each human being. Nowhere does the bible say we must only campaign for political parties that outlaw sin, and nowhere does the bible say that God does not grant each and every individual free will, and within that free will, we are not allotted the freedom to commit sin.       

The title of the topic does not address these matters, but am happy to respond.  Agreed, the Bible tells us not how to vote, nor how to choose to use our free will.  It merely discusses the consequences of our choices.  We're free to risk God's damnation, even disbelieve in Him and His damnation.  

Next we must consider your claim that committing the sin of homosexuality, or abortion, are actually unforgivable sins that warrant the label of being anti-Christian. Without any evidence provided by you that those things will end our personal relationship with God, it can certainly be argued that they are not unforgivable sins. It can also be argued that there are no unforgivable sins. According to the bible, a sin is a sin is a sin. No one sin is considered more abhorrent than any other sins in Gods eyes, and if we're guilty of any, we're guilty of them all. Before anybody tries to claim they are free of sin, let me squelch that claim before it even gets off the ground. We are ALL guilty of sin. We are born of sin, and we will die of sin.

Agreed we are all sinners.  Let no man judge another.  That is reserved for God.  I cannot see the words "unforgiveable sin" anywhere in the title or the text of the topic.  The topic makes no spiritual judgements.  It addresses neither concept, but I'll respond anyway, with what it does address.  It merely observes the action and identifies it.  The topic makes the empirical observation of the Democratic Party's political platform and then compares that with Christianity's moral platform, as per God's law, which Christians strive to live by.  For as long as the candidate or the Party voted for enacts, aids and abets policies which repudiate God's law, then the Party, the candidate and the voter are demonstrating an anti-Christian platform.

Your last para is full of mere projections.  You know nothing about me and is not worthy of a response.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

I have never told you or anyone on this forum what denomination I am and will deny none and claim none

"I will neither confirm nor deny"

Most people wrongly think that this means the person saying it is trying to hide something. I know that this actually means that the person saying it doesn't know what they are talking about and just wants to save face.

Aplied to your situation, it means you either don't have a denomination or you don't know which you have.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Sigh, how you do duck, dive and weave to do anything but debate the point.  So now we're gonna waste yet another page on the inconsequentials of the Liberal mindset. Where do I claim either Party was older than the other?  Irrelevant.  Don't care.  Don't care that I described each as "centuries" old for the simple reason it was a figure of speech to highlight that BOTH have on the record over a long period of time their well-understood general policy direction, that both have adhered to these generally, and that both precede the Koch Bros. history. That served as a backdrop to the fact that the Democrats have abandoned their voter base.  L E T   T H A T   S I N K   I N.  What do you think the #Walkaway Movement is, ? https://www.walkawaycampaign.com/

You are so disingenuous it hurts to talk to you. Just accept you are wrong for once.

I really feel sorry for you.  Everything you post to support your arguments is just O P I N I O N.  Read my lips:  The opinion of others is N O T evidence.  It merely is what it says - someone else's gum bumps.  Evidence is looking back at the Party's policies in the past.  The actual fact is that the Republican Party was becoming too L I B E R A L in its move towards the centre, so its voter base SOUNDLY rejected everyone of its chosen delegates in 2016.  Read my lips = every solitary one of them  and instead said, "Up Yours RNC", we want Donald Trump.  Trump is Reaganesque in his worldview.  Trump even borrowed his campaign slogan from Reagan. 

Oh No!  Can't allow these facts.  They get in the way of the Liberal narrative!  Instead, we're subjected to pages and pages, news casts after news cast spewing Liberal drivel on it and you believe it because you "read it somewhere".  Got it.  The Republicans have simply reclaimed  their voter base, which they had all but lost because they had  moved too far to the left.  Only in your little short, inconsequential, uninformed, heartbeat of a lifetime does it seem the opposite to you, because you don't look at things in the context of history.  Young Liberals are taught not to.  Any history the establishment can't hide unfavorable to the Liberal speak, it bastardizes.  If only you knew the ignorance spawned by this deceit, now a scourge - a global factoid belief system.

The Climate Change narrative fits solidly and squarely into the fake religion box.  It is an Agenda which fits the description you cast upon religion.  The Agenda is to scare the jeebies out of the populace so that they will surrender their rights and freedoms in exchange for State Security and protections - meaning in exchange for increased State control - Socialist Police State crap, which is firmly on the crony-capitalist DNC donor class' Plutocratic Agenda.  Change your news sources instead of relying on political opinion from Mother Jones web sites, never checking the history, the facts, the evidence or the bleedin' obvious.  

 Climate change is not opinion, I will discuss this no further. It is scientific fact. I proved you wrong again, and again, and again but you will not except it, because you are living in another reality, where religion is true and the republican party was more extreme in the past than it is now, when the fact is that the republican party was more centrist than it is today.


See, you wrongly believe that the party shifted too far left, but the reality is that the republican party shifted to the right.

Please try to use logic an reasoning.

Your argument, said in simple terms: 

"You can not be a Democrat and a Christian because the Democratic party is anti Christian"

Is weak and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. A better argument and one I would agree with would be :

"The Republican party gains the support of Evangelical voters by incorporating the majority Christian religion into politics."

/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\
That should be your argument, not the gibberish conspiracy nonsense you vomit all over this website.

It is silly anyways for Christians to support Republicans, and pseudo-republicans like Trump, because they are the least Christ like figures in politics today. Consider how sinful Trump is:


When asked what his favorite verse from the bible was, he couldn't respond (0:44):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERUngQUCsyE

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot

 Climate change is not opinion, I will discuss this no further. It is scientific fact. I proved you wrong again, and again, and again but you will not except it,

The same way you just proved me wrong on climate change?  That's how you did it? By typing the boast? Because you say so?  LOL!  It really is a tragic travesty what they've done to you.  Completely addled your brain.  Where's the scientifically supported evidence?  There isn't any, only a blizzard of explanations in a snow job, to hide the truth and confuse you.  Hot air rises and keeps on rising, whilst ever it has heat molecules in it, these heat molecules rise and rise and keep on rising right up through the Ionosphere and escape into space.  Given the amount of solar radiation shone onto the earth's surface D A I L Y,  if this natural balancing of thermal energy did not occur, you and I and the billions of years of generations before us would never have been born.  The earth would have been fried to a crisp in its first week.  You are all so gullible, it is a travesty that people can do this to you.  It's a crime, in fact.  

The below shows WHY you are poorly informed .... just take a look, a good look, I mean an intelligent good look, not a Liberal Look, a REAL look, note each heading and its source page URL.  Then go to my explanation below.



That's a Google search engine results page (SERP) in response to my key search terms on Trump's voter base.  Look at the ridiculous results returned.  To start with they don't directly answer the search query's terms.  Secondly, they all wax lyrical on THEIR opinion of the Trump voter base and thirdly, they are ALL, yes ALL, left-wing propaganda web sites and oh! just lookee there now, how the George Soros site is in the number one slot at the top of the page.  Funny that, but typical. We can count on it, every time, if our query is a political, religious, historical or science-based query.  How extraordinary. 

You tell me would a bunch of Marxist propagandist dip-schit-tits know about Trump supporters? Are they the logical go-to for factual data on Trump? Google thinks they are, as it always does.  No, it's not because Google is dumb.  It's because Google is a controlled dipshit-tit. Everything you read and hear is controlled, from Facebook, Instagram, Yahoo, YouTube, Netflix, to your mainstream media like NYT - owned by a Mexican drug lord, one of DNC's largest donors - to CNN, MSNCBC, NPR, CBS, ABC, WashPo, HuffPo, The Guardian, LA Times, Atlantic, etc.  Same story with all of the corporate news media, all owned by the same 6 companies. There are no REAL search engine results, anymore.  If you want REAL data, REAL info', you have to know where to get it and type in the name in the address bar, then book mark it.

How do I know this?  Part of what I do is build techie web sites for customers. The ultimate goal of any website is to get as much public exposure in search engine results as possible. That's the nuts and bolts of what the client is really paying for plus good site architecture, great graphic design and eye candy.  All of these are my expertise. If I build a website for a Liberal dickwit-tit, which gives the Liberal worldview a good rap, I know I can get off lightly by doing virtually zero work in the back office of the web site to promote the site and keep it high in search engine results, (SERPS), because Google will automatically do so, anyway, with little to no effort from me. 

Conversely,  if I build a Christian or a conservative website which gives the Liberal Loon's Looney worldview a regular serve it becomes a really hard slog and a continual battle with the Google algorithms EVERY MONTH, year in year out and these groups have to pay me for that, for their site to stay on the front page of the search results to keep one step ahead of the "bury forever" algorithm assigned to the website by Google.  If I don't slave relentlessly in the website's back office and SEO, (Search Engine Optimization) pages, Google will slowly push it down in the results and bury it within its first six months.   This is not a problem isolated to Google.  It is the same with bing, Yahoo, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, AOL instagram, wherever we can make an online search for anything.  It's unadulterated Communist Censorship by stealth, hidden, sneaking around the corridors, rather than on the streets with a gun, but it's the same thing.  This is the true face of the leftist politic.  Your leftie, dipschit-witted politic, mate, and Liberal voters are the-end product, the ultimate dickwit-tits.  So you think I should pay attention to your big pretty graphs and eye candy?  Yeah right.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

The same way you just proved me wrong on climate change?  That's how you did it? By typing the boast? Because you say so?  LOL!  It really is a tragic travesty what they've done to you.  Completely addled your brain.  Where's the scientifically supported evidence?  There isn't any, only a blizzard of explanations in a snow job, to hide the truth and confuse you.  Hot air rises and keeps on rising, whilst ever it has heat molecules in it, these heat molecules rise and rise and keep on rising right up through the Ionosphere and escape into space.  Given the amount of solar radiation shone onto the earth's surface D A I L Y,  if this natural balancing of thermal energy did not occur, you and I and the billions of years of generations before us would never have been born.  The earth would have been fried to a crisp in its first week.  You are all so gullible, it is a travesty that people can do this to you.  It's a crime, in fact.  

Here is a list of all the scientific absurdities of your worldview from just this paragraph and why they are wrong:

• "Heat rises" - This is technically true, but a more accurate statement would be that hot things are less dense (they expand) and cold things are more dense (they contract), and gravity pulls more dense objects with more force that less dense ones. hot air doesn't rise- density sinks
• "there is such thing as a heat molecule" - heat is energy in the electromagnetic spectrum emitted by objects. It is the same thing as light, but with a longer wavelength.
  
• "They rise and rise and go into space" - Not exactly. Heat escapes into space as infrared radiation, but the earth is not constantly losing it's atmosphere in any meaningful way to space. Greenhouse gases trap the heat in, like a blanket. Think about it like a one way mirror, light can pass in, but infrared can not pass out.
• "solar radiation is balanced with thermal energy" - This is wrong because it doesn't account for how much energy is retained by the earth. If you heat up a rock it will stay hot for less time than if you heat up water, because water is not a very good thermal conductor.
• "The earth would have been fried to a crisp" - This is wrong because that did happen. At one point the earth had a weak atmosphere and its surface was all just blasted rock. This is exactly what happens on the planet mercury today.
• "happy_k is gullible" - you're funny, I'm not the one who believes that science is a lie.

That's a Google search engine results page (SERP) in response to my key search terms on Trump's voter base.  Look at the ridiculous results returned.  To start with they don't directly answer the search query's terms.  Secondly, they all wax lyrical on THEIR opinion of the Trump voter base and thirdly, they are ALL, yes ALL, left-wing propaganda web sites and oh! just lookee there now, how the George Soros site is in the number one slot at the top of the page.  Funny that, but typical. We can count on it if our query is a political, religious, historical or science-based query.  How extraordinary. 

I think you are seeing a problem where none exists. I never use google specifically because they don't return non-market based answers, instead I use https://duckduckgo.com/ because I care about my privacy and prefer relevancy over sales. The reason google lists what it does isn't some "liberal conspiracy" it is just business not directly associated with politics. Turns out, progressive news makes more money that conservative news outlets.

you tell me would a bunch of Marxist propagandist dip-schittits know about Trump supporters? Are they the logical go-to for factual data on Trump? Google thinks they are, as it always does.  No, it's not because Google is dumb.  It's because Google is a controlled dip-. Everything you read and hear is controlled, from Facebook, Instagram, Yahoo, YouTube, Netflix, to you mainstream media like NYT owned by a Mexican drug lord, one of DNC largest donors.  Same story with all of the corporate mainstream news outlet all owned by the same 6 companies. There are no REAL search engine results, anymore.

I think I have already demonstrated above how this is anything but Marxist, it is in fact very capitalist. Everyone knows about Trump supporters, and we have data to back it up.

Please provide your evidence that a "Mexican drug lord" owns Facebook, Instagram, Yahoo, YouTube, Netflix NYT and this person supports the DNC. This sounds like the conspiracy nonsense your entire world is built around. 

How do I know this?  Part of what I do is build techie web sites for customers. The ultimate goal of any website is as much public exposure in search engine results as possible. That's the nuts and bolts of what the client is really paying for plus good site architecture, great graphic design and eye candy.  All of these are my expertise. If I build a website for a Liberal -wit, which gives the Liberal worldview a good rap, I know I can get off lightly by doing virtually zero work in the back office of the web site to promote the site and keep it high in search engine results, (SERPS), because Google will automatically do so, anyway. 

Here is your Fallacy:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove that there is some grand conspiracy, suppose liberals use the internet more, and conservative watch TV more. 

It's the truth! More liberals go online to get their news, conservatives watch TV. Problem solved!

Conversely,  if I build a Christian website it is a really hard slog and a continual battle with the Google algorithms EVERY MONTH year in year out and these groups have to pay me for that, for their site to  stay on the front page of the search results and defeat the forever "bury forever" algorithm assigned to it by Google.  If I don't slave relentlessly in the website's back office and SEO, (Search Engine Optimization) pages Google will slowly push it down in the results and bury it within its first six months.   This is not a problem isolated to Google.  It is the same with bing, Yahoo, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, AOL instagram, wherever we can make an online search for anything.  It's unadulterated Communist Censorship by stealth, hidden, sneaking around the corridors, rather than on the streets with a gun, but it's the same thing.  This is the true face of the leftist politic.  Your leftie, -witted politic, mate, and Liberal voters are the end product, the ultimate dickwits.  So you think I should pay attention to your big pretty graph?  Yeah right.
.

Maybe that is because people are becoming less religious over time, attending church less and in general caring less about religion, and by virtue of that not visiting Christian websites:

It's the truth! Atheists, agnostics, and religious "none" are the single largest religious category in the US today!  L E T  T H A T  S I N K  I N !

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - LOL!  So you just come back with excerpts faithfully and dutifully plucked from the snow job's blizzard page, like the good little foot soldier that you are.

Mate, although I gave you a very simplified, but nevertheless very accurate, condensed summation of the REALITY, without all of the clap trap WHICH CONFUSES everyone, the skeleton of the facts - that brief summation - is in no way any less factual on account of its brevity.  That summation is indeed the factual reality and any denial of it is simply fake science.  It has been a long-understood fact since the 19th century, that the perentile of each atmospheric gas in the whole of the atmosphere is A CONSTANT.  That includes CO2.  It's percentile representation in the atmosphere has not changed since climate-change chicanery began bleating its refrain forty years ago.  Huh? how can that be?  Isn't it an increase in CO2 that they declare in their hysterics is climbing yearly and will end up causing the globe to warm beyond habitable levels and destroy us all?  ... but it's representation as a mere 0.04% of total atmospheric gases in that 40 years has never changed?  Huh?  So, no.  I don't think we are gonna fry at all, while CO2 remains at a 0.04% constant of total atmospheric gases.

Therefore the balance is sustained, as I have already said, in spite of your oh-so-superior-sounding fake science garbage.
.

ZeusAres42

After some contemplation, I am going to have to agree with @Happy_Killbot about the No True Scotsman now. For some reason, my brain seemed to have god fixated on that lol.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - CAW!  You didn't understand a thing I said, did you, about SEO - search engine optimization.  SEO is the very business of keeping on top of the algorithms which control search results.  Algorithms which favor leftie garbage over conservative and Christian factual data and websites.  So ..... with diligent, steady and relentless good work, the reward is that a website can stay a step ahead of the algorithms, by altering its content regularly and revising its back-office meta data, key words, long-tail search phrases etc.  If you don't understand this jargon, no matter, with regular maintenance we keep our clients' web pages in the search results on the first page.  With no work, they die and are buried by the algorithms built into the Google search engine to bury them.  Google employees watch the computer returned search results and target these sites and assign to them a "bury forever" algorithm, meaning without our diligent maintenance, conservative and Christian web sites will surely be buried by Google within six months.  

It has nought to do with your dumb musings, namely ....

Maybe that is because people are becoming less religious over time, attending church less and in general caring less about religion, and by virtue of that not visiting Christian websites:

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix ;

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - LOL!  So you just come back with excerpts faithfully and dutifully plucked from the snow job's blizzard page, like the good little foot soldier that you are.

Mate, although I gave you a very simplified, but nevertheless very accurate, condensed summation of the REALITY, without all of the clap trap WHICH CONFUSES everyone, the skeleton of the facts - that brief summation - is in no way any less factual on account of its brevity.  That summation is indeed the factual reality and any denial of it is simply fake science.  It has been a long-understood fact since the 19th century, that the perentile of each atmospheric gas in the whole of the atmosphere is A CONSTANT.  That includes CO2.  It's percentile representation in the atmosphere has not changed since climate-change chicanery began bleating its refrain forty years ago.  Huh? how can that be?  Isn't it an increase in CO2 that they declare in their hysterics is climbing yearly and will end up causing the globe to warm beyond habitable levels and destroy us all?  ... but it's representation as a mere 0.04% of total atmospheric gases in that 40 years has never changed?  Huh?  So, no.  I don't think we are gonna fry at all, while CO2 remains at a 0.04% constant of total atmospheric gases.

Therefore the balance is sustained, as I have already said, in spite of your oh-so-superior-sounding fake science garbage.
.

I think I'm going to make you a poster child for climate change and science denial. Everything I said I can back up with hard science, but that would be a waste of time because you will deny the reality in front of your eyes.

It's all very simple, if you burn enough fossil fuels, the atmosphere will fill up with CO2. That is the reality, and CO2 levels do not stay constant.


We know CO2 levels change by analysis of ice cores.

You talk about google but you don't use it. Your disregard for the truth and denial of reality disgusts me.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix I understand how SEO works. Do you understand that people are leaving religion because they want to be as far away from people who deny reality and live in delusion as possible?

Every time you wright something dumb that denies science or basic accepted fact, another person leaves religion. I keep putting you in your place because you keep talking, and hopefully people besides us will read it, those who are actually curious and want to know the actual truth, not just who has their feelings hurt the easiest.

You will do more to get people to leave religion than I ever could.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - I apologise.  I also am speaking about conservative websites, conservative and Christian YouTube videos.  It's not only Christian websites and videos which are targeted in this way.  Conservative sites are also, any site which promotes Trump and gives the Liberal Looneybin a thorough bollocking.  So are you now gonna tell me that Conservatives are a dying race too?  Sheesh.  Strawman.  Why don't you go buy yourself a scarecrow stick and stand in the middle of a wheat field.  You would fit in well with all of the other strawmen.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix ;

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - I apologise.  I also am speaking about conservative websites, conservative and Christian YouTube videos.  It's not only Christian websites and videos which are targeted in this way.  Conservative sites are also, any site which promotes Trump and gives the Liberal Looneybin a thorough bollocking.  So are you now gonna tell me that Conservatives are a dying race too?  Sheesh.  Strawman.  Why don't you go buy yourself a scarecrow stick and stand in the middle of a wheat field.  You would fit in well with all of the other strawmen.

It's a little more complex than that, but in the general public people do tend to lean Liberal
https://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/

And this should be expected since all of the 2020 candidates are biased to the right.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020



But the US electorate looks like this:



Do you see a problem here? The major candidates are all much further right than the general population are. That indicates that when you claim about everyone being "too far left" you are complaining about a non issue.

Why don't you go ahead and take that test from the second link, and show me where you land, I will do the same.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Now you write ...

It's all very simple, if you burn enough fossil fuels, the atmosphere will fill up with CO2. That is the reality, and CO2 levels do not stay constant.

Sure, there are fluctuations, but the fluctuations are still minimal in terms of scale, staying within the 0.04% statistic, continually being "levelled" back to the "constant" average of 0.04% parts per billion of CO2 in the atmosphere.  If these fluctuations were allowed to remain and were being continually increased again and again into an upward spiral over time, with no natural correction, then the climate change hypothesis would be accurate, but that is not what is occurring.  For it to be possible now, it would have been possible since the beginning of time and already destroyed the globe yonks ago.  The fluctuations are being continually corrected back to the required sustainable constant.  That is why scientists know that the percentage of each gas in the overall whole of the atmosphere is a constant, but you are now gonna argue with them.  Good luck.

If what you claim were true, then explain to me how, in spite of these fluctuations - minimal on the grand scale of things - have never given readings of CO2 in the atmosphere ever being more than 0.04% of the total? That's because it is a constant. That statistic has been constant for the very same 40 years that the fake science circus has been wringing its hands, attempting to scare the bejeeebies out of us all in order to persuade us to relinquish our freedoms and liberty, so terrified are we expected to be, that we will give up anything in exchange for their Big Brother, Nanny State solution in the name of "protecting" us and making us safe.  

Yeah right.  Your knowledge is so limited.  Ever heard of the Marxist axiom :  "Create the crisis, foment chaos, manipulate the reaction and offer the solution."  That's what we are witnessing here.  

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Before the industrial revolution, CO2 levels were less than 280 ppm. This equates to 0.028%. Get your units right before you try to sound like you know what you are talking about.

Climate change is real, and no amount of denial is going to change that.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - LOL!  So you pluck even more eye candy from the bottomless pit of the Ministry of Propaganda and think it is accredited data, is actually REAL info'?  Yeah right. 

What part of the Google algorithm don't you understand?  Did any of those facts resonate in the muscle we call a brain?  What part of "accredited sources" don't you understand?  What part of #Walkaway don't you understand?  I have already given you the link.  Maybe you should listen to Brandon Straka, a lifelong Liberal.  Once you "get it", it will save you a lot of wasted time and energy searching for pretty pictures.



This next video below was his very first and is what made him famous and launched his career as a public speaker and activist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51UGcghHZsk&feature=youtu.be

The following is a link to his YouTube Channel with videos from others who've joined with him.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDb4InP9mRZR9oogD1b2dOQ
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix I'm not going to watch any of your alt-right propaganda.

Did you take the political compass quiz yet?

I'm legitimately curious to see where you fall.

Grafix

I see.  So I am supposed to read all your links, digest all your guff and puff cakes, but you won't return the same courtesy?  That's how you became such an "expert" on everything?  Your great open and widely expansive intellect, ready to countenance and tolerate all other possible angles in discussing a problem?  That's how you became the quintessential "expert" you keep telling us that you are, you know, the expert on Christianity, the expert on the Torah, The Bible and the Q'uran, the expert on Sumerian archaeology, the expert on Climate Change, the expert on Conservatism and Trump, the expert on the media.  Did I leave anything out?

Alt-right?  The guy was a life-long Liberal.  It would be hard to believe he would ever vote for Trump.  Probably will vote for an independent.  Trump is a Conservative, as I am, a Reaganesque Conservative.  You have no idea what the definition of "alt right" is.  You take your definitions from your very own Bible, the Gospels of the Marxist Liberal Looneybin and the mafioso's Ministry of Propaganda.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Did you take the test or not?

Trump is not a conservative, he is authoritarian. The conservative movement is about small government with limited power. Trump is about giving himself as much power as possible. He has switched parties 5 times in the past 10 years.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/donald-trump-changed-political-parties-at-least-fi/

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Then you write:

Before the industrial revolution, CO2 levels were less than 280 ppm. This equates to 0.028%. Get your units right before you try to sound like you know what you are talking about.

Another piece of pixie dust you dug out of the fake science's scintillating tale by a bunch of sycophants.  What part of this don't you understand about the 0.04% parts per billion statistic .....

That statistic has been constant for the very same 40 years that the fake science circus has been wringing its hands, attempting to scare the bejeeebies out of us 

Are you now going to deny that your mates in the fake Climategate chicanery haven't made the very lynch pin of their bogey man argument the very fact that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere to lethal proportions?   Yet, to those of us who remain sane, we observe that that statistic has remained constant, for the whole time they have claimed this is a problem.  Someone must be lying here and it sure ain't us.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix ;

This debate is not about climate change, let's get back on topic.

Have you taken the test yet?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - LOL!  Because your fake Gospel from the Politburo, the Washington Post - owned by crony-capitalist Jeff Bezos - says Trump is "authoritarian" you believe it?  Just like that.  Do you know the definition of "authoritarian"?  In similar vein the very same Loons from the Liberal Tunes also branded Trump as a fascist, an autocrat, a dictator.  Did you believe them then?  What are the definitions of these?  

Did you bother to think it through?  There is no possible means or mechanical manner in which a U.S. President can become remotely any of those, for the simple reason the structure of Congress PREVENTS it.  There is an opposition, which filters EVERYTHING and then there is a House of Review as well, commonly know as the Senate.  Any so-called "authoritarian diktat" has to pass through those filters, before it can become law.  Then we have the definitive impossibility of Trump coming close to these descriptors because he doesn't hold a majority in the House, yet somehow he is all of those?  And you believe them?  When is your brain going to really start working?  All you are admitting to is naked imbecility. 

You also don't understand that the "switched parties ten times" story is yet another of their preposterous fabrications, but still you hark to the bottomless pit of propaganda for your "knowledge".  Where's the source, face?  Remember?  We had this discussion before about sources.  That just slid off your back like water, too?  Slid past your brain, the brain of the quintessential "expert", which retains zero.  There are videos of Trump saying exactly what he is saying today when he was only in his forties.  He has clearly held the same views throughout, if you listen to all of the media interviews made all those years ago through to now.  That's what you call an accredited source.  He just "couched" it in a way that the dumbos in the media could not "brand" it as a politic or align it with any particular Party.  He is very street wise and has always been a Conservative.

What you fail to understand is that when in big business, especially development, political prowess affects your profit margin considerably, due to Regulations, public sentiment, permissible by-laws, building codes, etc.  A smart operator donates to all sides in politics, during an election year, unsure of who may win government.  That's all he did.  Played both sides all the way. but because he was the darling of the media, the media just couldn't help themselves and had to "claim" him for their own, so shallow are they, seeking to bask in reflected glory.  They can win none for themselves.  Then what happened?

On the day to the minute, to the second, they dumped him upon his announcement that he would run as a Republican.  You like these people?  You respect these people? The very same who lauded, applauded, made him their poster boy, but then dumped him all because of his politic, just like that?  Where's this Oh! So tolerant Liberal left?  Where's this Oh! So great Liberal conscience with its SJWs running all about bossing us around?  Where's this Oh! so humanitarian Liberal left that we keep hearing about which loves to claim the moral high ground?  You know, the one which loves to virtue signal?  You T R U S T what these people write?
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Ummm... Trump is very authoritarian... He calls the media "fake news" at every opportunity...  That is basically the definition of authoritarian theory.

Control the media, control the people. That is what authoritarian theory is all about.

The people should not be in charge, but rather the ruler. Yes, Trump is authoritarian and he did switch parties 5 times (not ten) that is objective truth. He is not as committed to the republican party as you think, which is why I call him a Pseudo- conservative.

If you are just going to deny the evidence I provide because it doesn't fit with your world view I'm not going to bother talking to you anymore, you will get the John_C treatment. 

BTW, Did you take the test yet?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - LOL!  The WashPo Ho Chi Min is evidence with not a single source cited?  Right.  You'll need to prove that first.

Calling out charlatans for their duplicity, dogged defamation, slander, libel and corrupt bought-and-paid for narrative is now authoritarian?  Gee.  You not only have your own little self-made Bible, with its self-made Gospels, you now have your very own private Lexicon with its self-made definitions.  Mate, in a phrase, you proved nothing and are a joke.  GO   T O   T H E   S O U R C E.  Always go to the original source.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Did you take the test or not?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ....

This debate is not about climate change, let's get back on topic.
Have you taken the test yet?

I fully understand why you want to dump the climategate discussion, but I just can't help this parting shot.  Einstein said it all that when it comes to the science of physics "... if there is no equation to define the science then it is not science."  The Climate Change narrative has never produced an equation to prove itself as a viable hypothesis, let alone a valid theory of science.

What test?  I have not the slightest inkling of what you are referencing and I don't take dolthard online "tests", for they are sure to be manipulated and controlled by vested interests to inculcate wee bods like you, run by an algorithm to do precisely that.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Well, since you aren't reading what I wrote, this test:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

You can see above for my results.

And for the record, there are thousands of equations for climate change. Meteorology is a multi-discipline science because of the complexity involved. Consider that there are something around 3,000 different factors just to calculate expected change in sea level. The expected rise is not the same everywhere, for example New York city sees a much greater rise from glacier melting than Greenland, which will actually see a decrease because the land will expand like a sponge without all this heavy ice on top of it.
https://sealevelrise.org/states/new-york/
https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/curve.html

This is all just to calculate Sea level. For other things like atmospheric pressure, we need multiple super computers to even get a rough approximation. It's just really complex.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - I thought you didn't want to discuss climate change, which statement you've now made twice, but nevertheless you persist, now writing ....

for the record, there are thousands of equations for climate change. Meteorology is a multi-discipline science because of the complexity involved. Consider that there are something around 3,000 different factors just to calculate expected change in sea level. The expected rise is not the same everywhere, for example New York city sees a much greater rise from glacier melting than Greenland, which will actually see a decrease because the land will expand like a sponge without all this heavy ice on top of it.
This is all just to calculate Sea level. For other things like atmospheric pressure, we need multiple super computers to even get a rough approximation. It's just really complex.

Sure there are thousands of equations to define the different physics of weather and climatic conditions, causes and effect at a "local" and "regional" level, even proving a global weather map and that's my point.  We know that the science for each of these contributing factors is  genuine because each is  supported by a scientific equation, but these are not THE  equation that is required to give Climategate scientific respectability.  As I said, Einstein said it all that to prove a theory there must be an equation to support it.  Where's the single defining scientific equation which supports the Climate Change hypothesis?  There isn't one.  It doesn't exist.  If that doesn't tell you anything, then you are dumber than I thought.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You are so smart aren't you?

"we know that the science for each of these contributing factors is  genuine because each is  supported by a scientific equation, but these are not THE  equation that is required to give Climategate scientific respectability."

You don't have a point here, just a lot of ignorance. As an American citizen, you maintain the right to be ignorant about climate change.

"As I said, Einstein said it all that to prove a theory there must be an equation to support it. "

And there are equations. Lots of them in fact. Your ignorance is yet again, not an argument.

"Where's the single defining scientific equation which supports the Climate Change hypothesis?"

Because if there isn't just one, then it isn't true in your mind. Climate change deniers are on the same level as flat earth, anti-vaxxers, and creationists. Please tell me you are not more than one of these now?

"There isn't one.  It doesn't exist.  If that doesn't tell you anything, then you are dumber than I thought."

Yeah, why don't you go read a book or something? Might serve you good you know.

Grafix

LOL!  I think I'll stick with Einstein and you can stick with Killstein.  See you around, Pal.  LOL!

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix I'll just invite all my friends to read this and see who is was the better debater... This was a cake-walk.

piloteer

@Grafix

Your argument to me fails to take in account of two key factors. First, you've not been able to properly establish that our personal relationship with God is cut if we vote for, or campaign for Democratic candidates and agendas. Second, you've also disregarded the fact that no person on earth can actually be any sort of authority on what Gods plan is. You argued as if you somehow know with certainty that the Democratic party will be punished for their "anti-Christian" agendas like Babylon was.

Let us first take a look at the sins of Babylon. It is said in the bible that Babylon had quite the prostitution problem. It also had a king who erected a 90 foot golden statue of himself and demanded that everyone worship it. It's also said that there were sex cults and men were marrying several women at a time. There is actually archeological evidence that points to thousands of Hebrews being held captive in Babylon for 50 years, and that is mentioned in the bible. Now, lets compare that decadence to the modern agendas of the American Democratic party. They do not campaign on the promise of legalizing prostitution. They do not want to build a 90 foot golden statue of JFK and demand that everybody worship it. They most certainly aren't calling for us to take Jews hostage. The Democratic party is calling for healthcare for everybody and to disallow the government to get involved with individuals decisions regarding marriage and abortion. The Democratic party will not be doing the abortions themselves, or serving as the justice of the peace at gay weddings. There are no correlations between Babylon and the modern American Democratic party.

We both agree that the bible says God grants us all free will. It seems to me that the Democratic party ideals go along perfectly with the ideals of our free will that was granted to us by God. The Democratic party platform allows people to make their own decisions regarding their own ideals. They stand by a precedent of letting people live a life of morality in accordance with God  of their own free will instead of morality because of fear of retribution of the law. If a government kills people who are not morally just according to the bible and everybody stops being immoral because they are scared, are they really being moral? If we make all sins illegal and kill sinners, does that really make all of society saints? I think you and I would both agree that it would not, because we should live moral lives out of reverence to God, not out of fear of the law.    

You have totally disregarded the point about how nobody on earth can truly know of Gods plan, yet it seems to me as if you think you do know what Gods reaction would be to the agendas of the Democratic party. I'm not to sure God is going to rain volcanic rock on the Democratic convention because they are campaigning for healthcare for all. Without having real authoritative knowledge of Gods feelings toward the Democratic party, or just plain people who vote for, and campaign for Democratic candidates, it's impossible to prove that you know for certain what Gods true feelings are about them. Not even just Gods feelings of the Democratic party as an institution, but Gods feelings of normal citizens who vote Democrat. 

Since we are discussing anybody and everybody who votes Democrat, it's obvious you are not talking about the Democratic party apparatus, you are talking about individuals. When it comes to those individuals, the bible says they do indeed have a direct link to God like we all do. It also says nothing about things that can break that link. We will be judged by God, that's a given, but if we are not forgiven amd thus we aren't welcomed into the kingdom of heaven, that is the only time our link to God is broken. In the bible passage I linked, it speaks of Gods patience, but it also suggests a kind of patience that no person on earth can know of. It is only a patience that God himself can possess, and it also says that his patience is not the kind that man can know of. It is only a patience befitting of God. To argue that we cannot "dupe" God and repent at the last moment of our life, is not only arguing that you know what God intends for us, it suggests that you know of what God will and will not forgive. It's also an argument that disregards God capability of a patience that you or I cannot fathom, because it is a patience that only he possesses. 

You would also need to somwhow establish that what the Democratic party stands for is actually sinful. Where in the bible does it say that the ideals of liberty is sinful? I'm also pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to find evidence of Gods distaste for healthcare for all.                              

RickeyD

It is not possible to serve Satan and Jesus Christ simultaneously. It is not possible for one who loves Jesus Christ and possesses the indwelling Holy Spirit to support a political party that boos God, seeks to remove God from the public discourse; mutilates babies in the womb with passion and frivolity; engages in and supports unashamedly all forms of unconscionable sexual perversion and seeks to impose this demonic LGBTQ perversion on our posterity; supports and fights for socialism that is responsible for the death of 100-million people in the last century; a political party that is inundated with the mentally and spiritually ill i.e. the Progressive-Socialist-Democrat Party of the United States...the Party of Satan. If you "claim" to be a Christ follower and support Progressive-Socialism, you're either deceived or you're simply a .

Grafix

@piloteer - You wrote ....

You argued as if you somehow know with certainty that the Democratic party will be punished for their "anti-Christian" agendas like Babylon was.

I did?  Quote back to me my words which give rise to that perception.  I believe I wrote let no man judge another man, that God has reserved that for Himself and that this topic invokes no spiritual judgement.  Then, after writing at moderate length on the sins of Babylon and falsely accusing me of drawing an analogy between it and the Democratic Party, which I have never done, you wrote ...

The Democratic party is calling for healthcare for everybody and to disallow the government to get involved with individuals decisions regarding marriage and abortion. The Democratic party will not be doing the abortions themselves, or serving as the justice of the peace at gay weddings. There are no correlations between Babylon and the modern American Democratic party.

How very adroitly you omit the two areas of law which are an affront to the majority population - gay marriage and abortion with funding by the State of abortion clinics.  But hey lets dance right around the very nuts and bolts of the topic.  Then you seem to be saying and correct me if I am wrong, that you're happy for the government to legislate on matters of marriage and abortion, as long as government employees don't practise or carry it out?  Really?  That's not what the Constitution says.  It clearly says government shall make no law which abridges the rights of the religious.  It violated the First Amendment with gay marriage.  What it should have done to serve the interests of gays, is provide a separate Union Act, instead of bastardising the long-standing moral values of the majority by bastardising the Marriage Act we had. Divorce law was the first slide down the slippery slope.

You then ask ...

 If a government kills people who are not morally just according to the bible and everybody stops being immoral because they are scared, are they really being moral?  ....  I think you and I would both agree that it would not, because we should live moral lives out of reverence to God, not out of fear of the law.  

Unfortunately, it's the nature of man to be morally unjust, the sole reason we need Policing and Courts.  If the Utopian lifestyle you propose were at all possible, then neither would be required.  We'd have no rapists, no assassins, no thieves, no swindlers, nor extortionists, no frame-ups of innocents, liars and cheats, no trespassers, damage to property or torching of cars, etc.  Sadly, we do and so government must most strenuously legislate that they live in fear of the law, should they break it.  I am arguing that the Democrat Party violates the First Amendment by sticking its nose into our personal belief system where it has no business being.

I agree, that the ideal is that we live moral lives out of reverence for God, rather than out of fear of the law.  Fear of the law is not a moral fear.  It is a self-preservation fear.  Nevertheless, without fear of the law we would be living in chaos and a barbaric society with no protection from the barbarous, the very reason we need Police and Courts.  That does not then correlate to mean that the Police, Government and Courts should have unlimited powers, which is what you are trying to twist into this, as though that is somehow my argument.  It is not.  It is the V E R Y   O P P O S I T E.  So on what do your base your fake claims against me?

Then you wax lyrical about accusing me of passing judgement on the Democrat Party and what God's Judgement might be.  I merely said I can only suspect what God's attitude towards those who break His laws might be, at the same time making it clear  that we can judge no man, including the Democrats spiritually. I pointed out this topic makes no spiritual judgement, that it merely makes an objective observation, comparing Democrat Policy with Biblical teachings and concludes that the Democrat Policy is anti-Christian.  It supports laws which are in direct conflict with Christian teachings.  That's ALL  I am saying, so quit harping like a drunken parrot squawk on what is not stated at all.  The same answer applies to your "severing of a spiritual link" diversion.  Can it.  That's not my job and nor does the topic mention it.  Next time try launching an on-topic argument.

.

Dee

@Grafix

Your beliefs are childish according to Einstein maybe you need a new revised appeal to authority?

Grafix

Doesn't detract one bit from what he later said, though does it?  That is, of course, if he ever said it at all.  I don't think so.  Look at your source then compare it with mine below.  Wisdom comes with age.  There is no evidence Einstein said such a thing.  It would've been very out of character for the era and for him.  In his day society was extremely polite, not full of the narcissistic ratbags that run rampant all over the internet today.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix ;

How very adroitly you omit the two areas of law which are an affront to the majority population - gay marriage and abortion with funding by the State of abortion clinics.  But hey lets dance right around the very nuts and bolts of the topic.  Then you seem to be saying and correct me if I am wrong, that you're happy for the government to legislate on matters of marriage and abortion, as long as government employees don't practise or carry it out?  Really?  That's not what the Constitution says.  It clearly says government shall make no law which abridges the rights of the religious.  It violated the First Amendment with gay marriage.  What it should have done to serve the interests of gays, is provide a separate Union Act, instead of bastardising the long-standing moral values of the majority by bastardising the Marriage Act we had. Divorce was the first slide down the slippery slope.

This just shows the most blatant lack of understanding of the US constitution and an incredibly anti-American interpretation of what the first amendment actually means. The US CAN make laws that restricts religious right, because being religious doesn't give you free reign to do as you please, for example if you are in a satanic cult you can not sacrifice someone.

Christian nationalists are a threat to our democracy!

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...

This just shows the most blatant lack of understanding of the US constitution and an incredibly anti-American interpretation of what the first amendment actually means. The US CAN make laws that restricts religious right, because being religious doesn't give you free reign to do as you please, for example if you are in a satanic cult you can not sacrifice someone.

Since when has a cult been defined as a religion in the sense that a God is worshipped?  It hasn't.  If cults were religions, then they would be called religions and not cults.  There is a difference.  As for who has a "blatant lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution", I think you had better go back to civics class.




Then you wrote your be all and end all expression of intolerance, bigotry, and hatred revealing an ideology of totalitarian Satanic Communism, which oozes from your opinions ...

Christian nationalists are a threat to our democracy!

You and the likes of people with similar opinions to your own, together with an ignorance of what it means to be "American" are the threats to our democracy.  They are patently anti-American and a cancer on its soil.  The Founding Fathers made the protection of religious belief systems the very First Amendment because they saw that Christianity was necessary to sustain a moral and just society, to protect those very values.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Ok, so then Scientologists, Jehovah witness, Mormons, and Westboro Baptists are not protected by the first amendment because they are all cults... Oh wait they totally are, sorry your view is wrong one more time.

kenpage

Your question is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve to be addressed in a serious manner. Are you the last remaining member of the Christian right delusional crackpot division of the John Burch Society? The nonsense level in the question is staggering. The xenophobic racist current is offensive. You start with some crackpot theory from some unnamed source about 2, possibly 3 completely fictional characters, the Christian God, Satan and Jesus, evil world-wide plots, and go, who knows where from there. In a sane rational world, the fact that there is 0 evidence for the existence of the first two, and insufficient evidence for the last should end any serious discussion. 

In the spirit of openness perhaps Debateisland should allow these questions. But personally, I'm only interested in debating questions that have some basis in factual reality and that are not glimpses into the paranoid delusional world of the far-right fringe. For me, this is a waste of time. 

Happy_Killbot

@kenpage Oh, but don't you see? Everything this guy writes is based on actual truth, we know it is true because it came from random back pages of the internet, spoon feed to him in his daily life, random internet videos with under 1,000 subscribers, and the such. These are credible sources, we know because they are all the original source, and the corrupt mainstream media won't report on it, which means there is a grand conspiracy to keep the truth down. Obviously it is all true, because a few archaeological finds from individuals who have been wrongly accused of planting evidence and making things up have proved it all. Then of course there is the problem of the constitution, it clearly makes the US a Christian nation, and if even just one person isn't a Christian then our nation is under attack. That is what the first amendment means, you are free to be a Christian and nothing else. That is what freedom of religion is really about. Because Democrats don't pander to Evangelicals, they are evil and against the constitution. It is so obvious, right there in front of your eyes! Why don't you open them up and see! [/end sarcasm]

P.S. This guy told a story about finding Jesus's blood and it being alive after thousands of years, and when I showed him all the science saying that is impossible and someone else showed how the story came from an bad source, he still clings to it.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...

Ok, so then Scientologists, Jehovah witness, Mormons, and Westboro Baptists are not protected by the first amendment because they are all cults... Oh wait they totally are, sorry your view is wrong one more time.

WOW!  I'm sure the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons and the Westboro Baptists would love to learn they are not a religious sect, but are cults and worship no God.  What a silly weebles you are.  Just look at their namesakes.  Jehovah means "Jesus".  Baptist pertains to John The Baptist, of Christian historical fame.  He baptized Christ.  The Mormons also worship the Christian God, but Hey, don't let these facts stand in the way of your false narrative.

As for scientology, I know too little about it to comment.  Nevertheless, if it fits into worshipping an established deity then it is a religion and its members would be protected by the First Amendment.  If it doesn't fit that description, then No, they would not be classed as a religion and very likely not be protected by The First Amendment, just as Satanic cults are not, because they don't worship any established deity.

Grafix

@kenpage - You wrote ....

Your question is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve to be addressed in a serious manner....You start with some crackpot theory from some unnamed source about 2, possibly 3 completely fictional characters, the Christian God, Satan and Jesus, evil world-wide plots, and go, who knows where from there. In a sane rational world, the fact that there is 0 evidence for the existence of the first two, and insufficient evidence for the last should end any serious discussion.
 
In the spirit of openness perhaps Debateisland should allow these questions. But personally, I'm only interested in debating questions that have some basis in factual reality and that are not glimpses into the paranoid delusional world of the far-right fringe. For me, this is a waste of time. 

LOL!  So this claimed "waste of time" nevertheless was worthy of your time to write a response to it.  LOL!  And what is your response, a pointless litany of verbal abuse and narcissistic denigration, denouncing all, without a single attempt to justify those slurs and narcissistic denigrations, yet we're supposed to accept   Y O U R   mere   O P I N I O N,   because you say so?  LOL! Arrogance?  Hubris?  Pompous and domineering self-righteousness? Right.  Go back to your pigeon hole.

The most highly regarded, most highly esteemed expert in his field, Dr. James Tour, even agrees with me.  He goes one step further.  He calls the establishment scientists a bunch of liars.  Note how he says their science is mere extrapolations, upon which they have built theories and brainwashed the public to believe these theories.  Note how he then calls these theories, just that - mere theories - not facts.  He calls them out for peddling these theories as factual and says it's a lie.  Here's just one of his many videos where he endorses every word I say. Pick it up from around the 8 minute mark, then jump to the 36.40 minute mark to hear what he says about establishment science.  He absolutely shreds it to pieces.  People need to understand this.  I suggest you later sit down and watch all of it.  (Prebiotic means before the formation of a molecule) .....



In other words, he debunks not only their theories but yet another lie persistently peddled by atheism, namely that in science a "theory" is more than a theory, that it is evidenced by facts, that the word "theory" carries a different connotation in science, yet Dr. Tour very explicitly says it does not, that its original definition stands, is merely a theory, as we usually understand it to mean.  So another fake atheist argument bites the dust.  Go on now.  Refute him, the most celebrated scientist in his field. Are the Big Bang Theory and Evolution merely unproven theories with no more weight than a notion and should never be presented as factual?  His credentials ...

Dee

@Grafix

***** The most highly regarded, most highly esteemed expert in his field, Dr. James Tour, even agrees with me.  

BTW he’s a chemist I’ve told you this before , Tour agrees with you interesting? Do you mean you agree with him?

****He goes one step further.  He calls the establishment scientists a bunch of liars.

Of course he does as he’s a biblical literalist and a member of several creationist boards who wish to push the Creationist agenda in American academia , your appeals to “authority “ are tiring and boring your infatuation with Tour and his inane “rantings” I have previously dismantled but don’t let that stop you repeating the same worn out  

Grafix

@Dee - Just watch the video, Dee, instead of jumping from the fat into the fire.  He gives pure unadulterated scientific fact, with no God story in any of it.  Got that?  Pure science.

If your only defence is to shoot the author, then you are demonstrating that you have no defence against the science, otherwise you would argue it. You will also have the entire science community going after you.  Are they all bible thumpers too, all sycophants, all God bods too?  I don't think so.  Who gave him his credentials?  The very science community whose altar you worship at.  You are basically claiming they are all wrong.

Has it occurred to you that the only reason Dr. Tour can  get away with calling them out for their chicanery, without losing his job, is because he is so highly respected.  If he were not, the establishment would have pulled his pay check years ago, would have made sure he was blackballed and unemployable.  That is what the lying turds in the establishment do to scientists who speak out, with insufficient recognition to make them "untouchable".  Unfortunately for them, they can't touch Dr. Tour, because his credentials are so highly regarded.  He is the top-rated scientist in his specialist field.  His credentials speak for him.  Here's what he says in the same video above, on this very problem, calling it "anti-scientific" ...

Then you blabber on about "I told you before" that he's a chemist.  LOL!  Clinging to the now solidly debunked Evolution theory?  Claiming it is the sole domain of biology?  Science long ago recognized the limitations of biology to explain the origins of life and abandoned that discipline as capable, realizing that life begins with .... wait for it ....  C  H  E  M  I  C  A  L  S.    Got that?  But Dr. Tour is much more than a chemist.  He's a    M O L E C U L A R  chemist and also a bio-chemist, which puts him at the forefront of analyzing the very beginnings of how molecules are constructed, of how living cells are constructed. 

He makes it very clear that the necessary ingredient for any living mechanism to work is   I N F O R M A T I O N   first and foremost.  He says it as plain as day, that information is primary and matter is secondary.  Without the information the matter, (chemicals which are the building blocks of matter) are secondary, for without the information they can only build blobs, because they have no mind, no intellect and need an instruction manual in how to order themselves to create a specific entity.  He's actually referencing DNA, which is information and that without DNA information all that has ever been made in a lab are blobs, junk and garbage, that scientists are lying when they claim they have built a cell, as too do a couple of other scientists whom he quotes from peer-reviewed Journals also say and he shows us their text stating it. 

Are you going to argue with all of these experts, who recognize the importance of his work? Should we close our eyes and ears to them too, like you do and walk around with our heads stuck up our arses, like you do and arrogantly think that we know better?  Oh, sure. 
.

Dee

@Grafix

Oh dear yet again you post a novel as a response to the destruction of your object of adulation as in James Tour,  he is indeed a respected chemist , on Evolutionary matters not so , he also nails his colours firmly to the mast of the notorious organization of assorted quacks and loonies that make up The Discovery Institute . When people like Tour stick to Chemistry that’s ok but on Evolution he should keep his cake hole firmly shut and maybe you would to but I doubt that


Last week you claimed notorious crook and con man was also an authority on such matters who's next Foghorn Leghorn?

The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative non-profitthink tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudoscientificconcept of intelligent design (ID). Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to permit the teaching of anti-evolution, intelligent-design beliefs in United States public high school science courses in place of accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects when in fact there is none