Poll: If you are a Trump supporter, do you consider him to be a “good Christian?”

[Septic]

Well thanks buddy! You ever heard of Hustler mags? Go check em out, some of my personal favs!

I prefer Juggs.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

I prefer Juggs.

We already know that Stedman!

 

[Septic]

I personally believe alot of the miracles were actually something that can be explained off in Science. There is a real life, Scientific explanation for how the Red Sea Parting could have really happened for example. I also tend to believe that a lot of myths are somewhat engrained in truth. I think the Trojan War happened for example. We long thought Troy was a Myth until someone discovered it.

Edit: another example would be Dragons. Every culture in the globe seems to have a version of one. Could dinosaurs or their bones be the origin?

I tend to believe the Earth is older and somewhat in Evolution. Carbon Dating is problematic and a lot of Scientists have pointed it out so I am not sure about all of the dating. However, I do think Dinosaurs (or some of them) walked the Earth with humans at some point. That is where I disagree with Science. Their is just a lot of historical concepts and ancient cultures across the globe that point to this idea IMO.

The scientific consensus between when humans showed up and when the last dino's roamed is so broad that it's completely inconceivable for us to comprehend, some 65 million years. Can you elaborate on what you believe is evidence that humans and dinosaurs crossed paths?

 

[WoodsmanVol]

I think the concept of gods arose like many things. a way to explain the unexplainable (at the time). and I think it was that acceptance of beings like gods, made it possible for our understanding of God to evolve. and I think our understanding of God has been wrong in the past, and is definitely not perfect today. going back to science it is still the "theory" of God (really our understanding of him), but it started with several wrong hypotheses, the various gods. and as our collective but undefined knowledge became more refined we began the "theory" of God, again as we understand him. and it has gone thru several paradigm shifts. the jewish faith has changed over time, eventually to a point where another new "theory" was proposed: the christian God (old vs new testament God).

I agree. The Bible itself in multiple areas say we can't comprehend God. As for the other gods, not to say the same isn't true for ours, cultures came up with legends and myths to explain the natural world, and various abstract concepts including from whence and how they originated, and so on. I do think the Hebrew God is unique because non-Hebrew history mentions, and archaeology seems to back up accounts of His acts.

for me the distinction was that Christianity arose with the best proof/understanding of God, and while that proof (Jesus) was perfect, our understanding remains imperfect, and will likely remain.

Well, like I said, even the Bible says we can't understand Him. Paul did a fine job of clarifying the object of faith, God's intention via Jesus, but even he struggled with the understanding of God part. Plus, he repeated that understanding God was beyond human ability. I don't think we're meant to understand everything about God, therefore why faith comes in. Just at us throughout history and even now in our time, what happens when we presume to know everything about ANYTHING. Perhaps then, faith is also about learning to be humble.

I think a lot of what drives humanity stems from there being God, and our lack of understanding of him. to me science is just a way to understand part of what God did for us, not some evil that explains away God or pokes holes, it just changes our understanding/view of God. those who question the faith understand that our current understanding of God, or at least how they were taught, is imperfect and leaves enough room to question the narrative (religion) while maybe not the theory (God/creator being) itself. and as was said ITT there is a major difference between the two that get conflated way too much. often as a direct result of the religion claiming things it shouldn't.

Here's what conservative Christians, probably a majority of the rest as well, REFUSE to understand. God encourages the study of science to help us realize, what did he say to Moses at the fiery bush? 'When they ask you who sent you, tell them that I AM sent you.' Now, look at Job:

“But ask the animals, and they will teach you. Or ask the birds of the air, and they will tell you. Speak to the earth, and it will teach you.
Or let the fish of the sea tell you. Every one of these knows that the hand of the Lord has done this.The life of every creature
and the breath of all people are in God’s hand.

“There are four things on earth that are small. But they are very wise: Ants are not very strong.
But they store up food in the summer. Rock badgers are not powerful animals.
But they can live among the rocks. Locusts have no king. But they all go out in formation. And lizards can be caught in the hand.
But they are found even in kings’ palaces.

Becoming a bit lazy, I offer this site: 4 Ways Science Proves the Bible to Be True

I like putting a twist on the Mark Twain: I never let my schooling get in the way of my education.
I never let my religion get in the way of my faith.

That's common sense. Even the Bible says those who presume to put their knowledge above the wisdom of God are foolish. Just the same, your comments serve to validate my attitude of reading the Bible the way I would any other book, instead of lifting out and pasting verses here and there, just to make the jigsaw puzzle say, "I'm right, and you're wrong." Which is all the verse duels are about. They go nothing to do with what the Bible is teaching, and everything to do with personal and denominational pride.

 

[whodeycin85]

I wonder if those that are wanting proof of God got the COVID vaccine and boosters...seems that there was some with faith in something that hadn't been proven either.

 

[creekdipper]

The concept of sin and atonement is objectively to avoid eternal damnation, is it not?

If one does not believe in sin, one does not worry about the punishment of hell. You can dress up your argument any way you choose but the underlying premise for a failure to "believe" is damnation. I don't need that hanging over me in order to not commit immoral acts. Hopefully fear of eternal damnation is not the only thing keeping you from murdering your neighbor.

Non-believers can choose to behave in a way you/we describe as moral as a way to innately further the propagation of our species. A god isn't required to be the arbiter of morality as Dr. Lane claims.

A different perspective:

While the prospect of spending an eternity in Hell rightly ought to scare people, "fear of punishment" has not been the motivating factor for refraining from immoral acts in my observations. Rather, it has been the desire to please God. And/or simply the lack of attraction to those immoral acts or even repulsion to them. It's not like true converts are sitting around wishing they could commit those acts but now afraid to do so. That wouldn't be evidence of a new nature, now would it? As you have said several times, you can't "fake it" with God, who always knows the heart

That doesn't mean that those who are saved won't still face temptations and still sin and need to repent, even with assurance of salvation. But Christians need not fear Hell. That death sentence has been removed. Repentance is motivated by gratitude, guilty, shame, a desire to please God, a yearning to be obedient. To think otherwise is to imagine that the only reason children (of any age) obey their parents is due to fear of punishment. Many can affirm that the harshest punishment can be knowing that one has disappointed people who love them and have done so much for them. The believer's relationship with God is frequently described as a child-parent relationship. Is it so hard to imagine children wanting to please their parents out of love for their loving parents?

 

[Septic]

A different perspective:

While the prospect of spending an eternity in Hell rightly ought to scare people, "fear of punishment" has not been the motivating factor for refraining from immoral acts in my observations. Rather, it has been the desire to please God. And/or simply the lack of attraction to those immoral acts or even repulsion to them. It's not like true converts are sitting around wishing they could commit those acts but now afraid to do so. That wouldn't be evidence of a new nature, now would it? As you have said several times, you can't "fake it" with God, who always knows the heart

That doesn't mean that those who are saved won't still face temptations and still sin and need to repent, even with assurance of salvation. But Christians need not fear Hell. That death sentence has been removed. Repentance is motivated by gratitude, guilty, shame, a desire to please God, a yearning to be obedient. To think otherwise is to imagine that the only reason children (of any age) obey their parents is due to fear of punishment. Many can affirm that the harshest punishment can be knowing that one has disappointed people who love them and have done so much for them. The believer's relationship with God is frequently described as a child-parent relationship. Is it so hard to imagine children wanting to please their parents out of love for their loving parents?

You clearly did not grow up in the same SBC churches I did, either that - or you weren't paying attention.

Between you and me, I feel no need to "please" any unseen, unheard, supernatural, sky dwelling omnipotent, omniscient "loving" creator that gave me free will and would then punish me for unconsciously exercising it - even if it was as of a result of not being able to force myself to believe in something. Just as I'm sure you couldn't possibly force your way into believing in Zues.

 

[creekdipper]

It's always been interesting to hear "moral acts" described as "acts that help propagate the species." That reduces morality to reactions to biological impulses/stimuli. With that perspective, if slavery, cannibalism, elimination of the weak, population control through genocide, etc. served to "propagate the species," then those acts would become "moral." It's a very utilitarian approach. Sociologists can argue that traits such as compassion and sharing are essential to the survival of cultures, but that still removes the connotations of "good" and "evil" in a larger, philosophical sense. Some people would refuse to kill and eat other people in order to survive...because they consider that to be wrong.

 

[creekdipper]

You clearly did not grow up in the same SBC churches I did, either that - or you weren't paying attention.

Between you and me, I feel no need to "please" any unseen, unheard, supernatural, sky dwelling omnipotent, omniscient "loving" creator that gave me free will and would then punish me for unconsciously exercising it - even if it was as of a result of not being able to force myself to believe in something. Just as I'm sure you couldn't possibly force your way into believing in Zues.

The entirety of the Bible is about the loss of "free will" when Adam exercised his and made the wrong choice and how God restored the covenant that Adam broke through a divine sacrifice. All of us here had only one option...to follow our nature and select self over God. It's not like examining a business proposition and then accepting or rejecting the offer. We don't have the desire to accept the offer. God has to open eyes, minds, and hearts, which glorifies Himself. That's why it's called "amazing grace" and not "amazing works."

Reformed theology is so liberating.

 

[Septic]

It's always been interesting to hear "moral acts" described as "acts that help propagate the species." That reduces morality to reactions to biological impulses/stimuli. With that perspective, if slavery, cannibalism, elimination of the weak, population control through genocide, etc. served to "propagate the species," then those acts would become "moral." It's a very utilitarian approach. Sociologists can argue that traits such as compassion and sharing are essential to the survival of cultures, but that still removes the connotations of "good" and "evil" in a larger, philosophical sense. Some people would refuse to kill and eat other people in order to survive...because they consider that to be wrong.

It's a more logical approach than to see morality of Christians change over time and/or when it becomes otherwise expediant to the survival of the religion. You know, given it was Christians that introduced things like slavery into the fabric of the American society. Great stuff then, not so much now. Was gods edict on "right" wrong then or wrong now?

Is conduct right because a god commands it, or does a god command it because it's right?

I get that it is inconvenient to Dr. Lanes argument, but it doesn't invalidate the premise that morality is the subject of reason and conscience and not faith.

If you don't buy that moral behavior is an innate response to preservation perhaps arguments like this will help you understand why the argument for god being the prime mover for morality isn't the trump card you believe it to be.

 

[Delmar]

I'm completely at ease not voting in the Presidential election.

Absolutely agree. Unless one of the parties gains some sanity (not likely) and comes up with a suitable moderate that’s half way competent and reasonable with at least a modicum of ethics, I’ll be sitting this one out as I have since 2012. Of course I may have just described a unicorn.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

You clearly did not grow up in the same SBC churches I did, either that - or you weren't paying attention.

Between you and me, I feel no need to "please" any unseen, unheard, supernatural, sky dwelling omnipotent, omniscient "loving" creator that gave me free will and would then punish me for unconsciously exercising it - even if it was as of a result of not being able to force myself to believe in something. Just as I'm sure you couldn't possibly force your way into believing in Zues.

I'm sure the incentive of spending eternity in paradise isn't a factor.

It's all to please a loving God.

It's hard to buy that from a group of people who love to ostracize.

 

[Septic]

I'm sure the incentive of spending eternity in paradise isn't a factor.

It's all to please a loving God.

It's hard to buy that from a group of people who love to ostracize.

Sometimes you just have to fleece it out.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I'm sure the incentive of spending eternity in paradise isn't a factor.

It's all to please a loving God.

It's hard to buy that from a group of people who love to ostracize.

Tell me about the drink.

 

[creekdipper]

It's a more logical approach than to see morality of Christians change over time and/or when it becomes otherwise expediant to the survival of the religion. You know, given it was Christians that introduced things like slavery into the fabric of the American society. Great stuff then, not so much now. Was gods edict on "right" wrong then or wrong now?

Is conduct right because a god commands it, or does a god command it because it's right?

I get that it is inconvenient to Dr. Lanes argument, but it doesn't invalidate the premise that morality is the subject of reason and conscience and not faith.

If you don't buy that moral behavior is an innate response to preservation perhaps arguments like this will help you understand why the argument for god being the prime mover for morality isn't the trump card you believe it to be.

Not to belabor the point, but the link you provided is interesting but intellectually and factually flawed.

The question of whether something is right because God commands it or God commands it because it because it is right is a non-starter right out the gate. Why are the questions mutually exclusive? Why can't they simultaneously be true?

Then the author makes several glaring assertions about Scripture. The New Testament does not condemn or forbid being rich. And the Exodus 21 reference to "abortion" is a misapplication of the text, substituting fatal miscarriage for premature birth.

It's kinda hard to take the author any more seriously than the arguments laid out in works such as The Moral Animal. Just sloppy argumentation.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

I am wondering if any of the 7 posters who voted for Trump being a good Christian would admit it openly and tell us why Trump is a good Christian. It's an anonymous board

 

[Septic]

Not to belabor the point, but the link you provided is interesting but intellectually and factually flawed.

The question of whether something is right because God commands it or God commands it because it because it is right is a non-starter right out the gate. Why are the questions mutually exclusive? Why can't they simultaneously be true?

Then the author makes several glaring assertions about Scripture. The New Testament does not condemn or forbid being rich. And the Exodus 21 reference to "abortion" is a misapplication of the text, substituting fatal miscarriage for premature birth.

It's kinda hard to take the author any more seriously than the arguments laid out in works such as The Moral Animal. Just sloppy argumentation.

LOL, that "question" is called the Euthyphro dilemma, presented by Plato as a question asked by Socrates to Euthyphyro and is still the subject of philosophical and theological discussion.

Fascinating to watch you dismiss it so cavalierly.

Out of all the things to poop on from that post - you chose one that is the hardest to defeat.

I'll ask you again since you brought it up. Christians were all in on slavery being moral when it was convenient. Was gods edict on moral "right" wrong then or is it wrong now? If you Christians are going to gate keep morality, there should be some consistency in its application, no?

 

[volbound1700]

The scientific consensus between when humans showed up and when the last dino's roamed is so broad that it's completely inconceivable for us to comprehend, some 65 million years. Can you elaborate on what you believe is evidence that humans and dinosaurs crossed paths?

It is based on Carbon Dating. There are countless art from ancient cultures, cave art, etc. referencing dinosaurs:

cave paintings of dinosaurs - Google Search

www.google.com

Some of these may have been debunked but a lot haven't.

Keep in mind that most Scientists in the early part of the 20th Century (and media) had Dinosaurs with humans.

If you assume Carbon Dating isn't correct or a Great Flood happened that would cause so much chaos that it would mess up rock records, etc. It is understandable to believe it.

Greek Mythology, European Mythology, Viking Lore, Chinese Mythology, Mesoamerican cultures, Indian culture, Mesopotamian Cultures, and even the Bible hint at Dinosaur-like creatures. Kind of coincidence it is so wide spread, isn't it? Why are dragons so prevalent across human cultures separate by vast distances and times?

I know specific Scientists that question Carbon Dating as unreliable. (ironically had a Geology Professor at the University of Tennessee that held this view). If it is unreliable, all the nonsense about Millions of years is in question.

Read articles about Carbon Dating, there are many peer reviewed Scientific Articles questioning it:

issues with carbon dating - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[volbound1700]

Scientists have reported eras in the past were it rained for millions of years and water even covered the earth:

the time when the earth rained for millions of years - Google Search

www.google.com

I literally went to the Scientific sources here to get by any religious views/religious science and even these facts purport to a flooded Earth and it being feasible.

My apologies for posting Google Searches as I have received this information from other sources (videos, written articles, etc.). However, these Google searches (which are easy to do) pull up tons of resources on the topic that match what I have read/explored.

 

[MercyPercy]

I personally believe alot of the miracles were actually something that can be explained off in Science. There is a real life, Scientific explanation for how the Red Sea Parting could have really happened for example. I also tend to believe that a lot of myths are somewhat engrained in truth. I think the Trojan War happened for example. We long thought Troy was a Myth until someone discovered it.

Edit: another example would be Dragons. Every culture in the globe seems to have a version of one. Could dinosaurs or their bones be the origin?

I tend to believe the Earth is older and somewhat in Evolution. Carbon Dating is problematic and a lot of Scientists have pointed it out so I am not sure about all of the dating. However, I do think Dinosaurs (or some of them) walked the Earth with humans at some point. That is where I disagree with Science. Their is just a lot of historical concepts and ancient cultures across the globe that point to this idea IMO.

You're right that humans walked (and still do) the earth with dinosaurs but for the wrong reasons. I'm sure you see avian dinosaurs daily. Birds are derived dinosaurs that survived the late cretaceous extinction.

If you're talking about the dinosaurs that died out 66 million years ago.. there is simply no scientific basis whatsoever that supports this, unless you've been watching Ken Ham videos.

 

[MercyPercy]

It is based on Carbon Dating. There are countless art from ancient cultures, cave art, etc. referencing dinosaurs:

cave paintings of dinosaurs - Google Search

www.google.com

Some of these may have been debunked but a lot haven't.

Keep in mind that most Scientists in the early part of the 20th Century (and media) had Dinosaurs with humans.

If you assume Carbon Dating isn't correct or a Great Flood happened that would cause so much chaos that it would mess up rock records, etc. It is understandable to believe it.

Greek Mythology, European Mythology, Viking Lore, Chinese Mythology, Mesoamerican cultures, Indian culture, Mesopotamian Cultures, and even the Bible hint at Dinosaur-like creatures. Kind of coincidence it is so wide spread, isn't it? Why are dragons so prevalent across human cultures separate by vast distances and times?

I know specific Scientists that question Carbon Dating as unreliable. (ironically had a Geology Professor at the University of Tennessee that held this view). If it is unreliable, all the nonsense about Millions of years is in question.

Read articles about Carbon Dating, there are many peer reviewed Scientific Articles questioning it:

issues with carbon dating - Google Search

www.google.com

Radiometric dating is not in any way a controversial subject amongst the actual scientific community. Radiometric dating is also only one singular and often not even primary method in many circumstances used to identify the general age of fossils/bones/artifacts.

 

[Septic]

It is based on Carbon Dating. There are countless art from ancient cultures, cave art, etc. referencing dinosaurs:

cave paintings of dinosaurs - Google Search

www.google.com

Some of these may have been debunked but a lot haven't.

Keep in mind that most Scientists in the early part of the 20th Century (and media) had Dinosaurs with humans.

If you assume Carbon Dating isn't correct or a Great Flood happened that would cause so much chaos that it would mess up rock records, etc. It is understandable to believe it.

Greek Mythology, European Mythology, Viking Lore, Chinese Mythology, Mesoamerican cultures, Indian culture, Mesopotamian Cultures, and even the Bible hint at Dinosaur-like creatures. Kind of coincidence it is so wide spread, isn't it? Why are dragons so prevalent across human cultures separate by vast distances and times?

I know specific Scientists that question Carbon Dating as unreliable. (ironically had a Geology Professor at the University of Tennessee that held this view). If it is unreliable, all the nonsense about Millions of years is in question.

Read articles about Carbon Dating, there are many peer reviewed Scientific Articles questioning it:

issues with carbon dating - Google Search

www.google.com

Are you a YEC?

 

[jvol1]

Are you familiar why Pascal's wager is such a terrible argument?

Do you think "faith" is a switch a skeptic can flip to fool an omniscient creator? Wouldn't that god easily sniff out whether a person is true believer or just one who is hedging?

I'll tell you what - I have the power to send you to hell unless you send me $5k (no proof required). Hold on now, before you laugh and mock my ability to send you to hell, just remember - you can't be sure that I can't, wouldn't it be in your best interest to go ahead and send me the $5k? Run this up your flagpole and let me know when I should send you my address for the check.

5k isn't that much in comparison to the infinite upside of belief in God, but this is more a debate for you to have with yourself if you're open to there being a higher good. With the prospect of trump being our last president under our current form of government and all the horrible things that will happen when our democracy falls, I'd say it's more worth thinking about now than ever.

 

[turbovol]

5k isn't that much in comparison to the infinite upside of belief in God, but this is more a debate for you to have with yourself if you're open to there being a higher good. With the prospect of trump being our last president under our current form of government and all the horrible things that will happen when our democracy falls, I'd say it's more worth thinking about now than ever.

Let me see if I understand you correctly: You are worried about democracy but support the gangster? Apparently "god" imbues some people with
a lot of irrational faith but very few rational marbles. Did you miss Jan. 6 and the Trump-led effort to overturn the election? Did you miss him describing Putin the War Criminal as a "genuis" and "savvy," and praising other dictators or strongmen? Time to crawl out of that hole....

 

[Sgt_Nick_Fury]

man you are hitting the copium hard today.

I hope whatever has you down in life passes quickly.

As soon as communism, and the criminals in power pass from office I am sure to chipper up. Truthfully, I am very happy all in all lately. Enjoying summer, and summer ball. If there were just fewer irrational sheep like yourself out there and more people who used reason it would certainly brighten my mood. Keep pushing your Godless agenda and see how it works out for you.