I am a Christian and also able to look at the evidence, in fact the very evidence presented to you in this very thread by not one but a succession of contributors. The evidence, ALL of the evidence says that Global Warming is the result of humans increasingly releasing Carbon Dioxide into the environment.
It is people like you, willfully ignorant at best and quite often simply liars which are typical of the Christian Cult of Ignorance that I am addressing.
Learn to read the Bible as well. The Goats in Matthew 25 were all the followers of Jesus.
That's right, and there has never been a posting made against it.
Huh? Are you mental? I've called you out on it several times, and maybe others have, too. Are you arguing that we should be mixing science and religion?
"It was you who made a number of very specific accusations that those committed to protecting the environment were abandoning God. You're right that Christianity can't be used as an argument in favor of destroying the planet's environment, but it was you who first introduced that argument."
No, these comments are just silly now. Go back and read the postings again; You won't find anything here against preserving the environment.
You've been arguing against protecting the environment from the very outset. You even said we don't need the EPA, here you are saying exactly that:
Are you mental? I've called you out on it several times, and maybe others have, too. Are you arguing that we should be mixing science and religion?
I might say that we shouldn't be mixing politics with religion, but both parties do it.
Science will never fully defeat belief. Science has every right to challenge religion but should *never* be used to mock it.
The biggest challenge for organized religion is to appear more rational and less emotional. (I am preaching to myself! )
As far as science being any sort of religion, I disagree but I might suggest that far-left politics are a spirit if not a religion, and that spirit sure isn't Holy!
The reality is that you and others have not demonstrated any valid evidence that man is responsible for "global warming", because there is none. Concocted evidence has been used in defense of this movements narrative since its inception, and computer generated models have been used for that purpose since their introduction in 1985 by Wolfgang Seidler. The fact that this "evidence" is not accepted does not make one ignorant, belonging to a cult, or unable to read or think.
Predictable. Just bury your head in the sand and pretend the evidence doesn't exist.
Your inability to address any of the evidence that has been supplied to you demonstrates our point. If the evidence were on your side then you wouldn't have to claim it is concocted.
The fact that this "evidence" is not accepted does not make one ignorant, belonging to a cult, or unable to read or think.
Actually, yes, yes it does make one ignorant, possible belong to a cult if they can find one that takes idiots and does show that the have never learned how to read or think.
Your inability to address any of the evidence that has been supplied to you demonstrates our point.
There's a new voice on YouTube in the creation/evolution debates and discussions: Mr. Anderson. As a lawyer, he brings lawyerly techniques to the table.
For example:
According to this video, when your opponent persistently refuses to answer your simple direct pertinent and easy-to-answer questions, even after you break it down into a series of much shorter and easier questions, then you can draw negative inferences based on their refusal to answer your simple direct pertinent and easy-to-answer questions. Furthermore, according to Mr. Anderson, drawing negative inferences in this manner is permissible in court.
That's what we're seeing "USA 1776" (obvious Newspeak self misidentification) doing here, so we can draw negative inferences.
PS
Watching that video again, at 7:40 he introduces the legal term as "drawing an adverse inference" and then goes on to discuss its use in court (eg, can be used against a witness, but not against the defendant because of the presumption of innocence).
Edited by Admin, : Embed YouTube video (replaced "&" with ",")
The Goats in Matthew 25 were all the followers of Jesus.
That's nothing more than an opinion from a critical thinker rather than a believer.
No Phat, it is what is actually written in Matthew 25.
Why do you keep lying when everyone can actually read Matthew 25 and see that it was the followers of Jesus that were the goats while it was the folk not following Jesus that were the sheep.
Why do you keep lying when everyone can actually read Matthew 25 and see that it was the followers of Jesus that were the goats while it was the folk not following Jesus that were the sheep.
quote:Jesus is the Shepherd, and in this verse, He said that He will separate sheep (believers) from goats (unbelievers) when He returns. The sheep represent those who have accepted salvation and the goats represent those who have rejected salvation.
To be fair it needs to be read in parallel with Matthew 7:
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you who behave lawlessly.’
Are these people not believers? Are they not among the goats?
31 “When the Son of Man shall come in His glory and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory.
32 And before Him shall be gathered all nations, and He shall separate them one from another as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.
33 And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand, ‘Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I hungered, and ye gave Me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took Me in;
36 naked, and ye clothed Me; I was sick, and ye visited Me; I was in prison, and ye came unto Me.’
37 Then shall the righteous answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when saw we Thee hungering and fed Thee, or thirsty and gave Thee drink?
38 When saw we Thee a stranger and took Thee in, or naked and clothed Thee?
39 Or when saw we Thee sick, or in prison, and came unto Thee?’
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, ‘Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me.’
41 “Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I hungered, and ye gave Me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me no drink;
43 I was a stranger, and ye took Me not in; naked, and ye clothed Me not; sick and in prison, and ye visited Me not.’
44 Then shall they also answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when saw we Thee hungering or athirst or a stranger, or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister unto Thee?’
45 Then shall He answer them, saying, ‘Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to Me.’
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.”
Notice in the first part the people designated as sheep said they never did anything for Jesus while in the second group, the goats that say 'wait a minute, when didn't we do for you?'
It's the folk that 'do for Jesus', the folk like Phat and USA 1776 and so many we have seen here at EvC that will be the goats.
)
™ Version 4.2
(1)
