Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

The President's 'Other Gospel'

EffectChange Wrote: May 18, 2012 11:55 AM
This all powerful god could have outlawed slavery, but he didn't. Is he impotent or just ineffective?
In response to:

The President's 'Other Gospel'

EffectChange Wrote: May 18, 2012 11:54 AM
Based on Christian principles does not mean they were trying to establish a Christian Nation. Keep your religion out of my politics. The bible is not the infallible word of god and treating it as such is not going to improve the situation.
In response to:

The President's 'Other Gospel'

EffectChange Wrote: May 17, 2012 11:02 PM
I feel that this is a pertinent topic on an editorial that encourages theocracy. I don't think it should matter if a religion thinks something is "immoral" when an elected official is trying to do his work. Unfortunately, I'm in the minority. Saying you're an atheist is almost certain not to get you elected.
In response to:

The President's 'Other Gospel'

EffectChange Wrote: May 17, 2012 10:31 PM
Yeah, I think it's a banned word (you mentioned problems in a previous post) That's such an obscure banned word, not even a godless heathen like me knows why it's offensive.
In response to:

The President's 'Other Gospel'

EffectChange Wrote: May 17, 2012 10:28 PM
And this new convenant approves of slavery and disempowers women? And that's OK?
In response to:

The President's 'Other Gospel'

EffectChange Wrote: May 17, 2012 10:27 PM
So micro-evolution is acceptable? Macro-evolution can be see in dog breeds. The french pit bull, for example, has evolved to the point where it is no longer capable of natural reproduction. The babies need to be born via c-section. Granted, they haven't created a new species yet, but I think Darwin's finches have that covered.
In response to:

The President's 'Other Gospel'

EffectChange Wrote: May 17, 2012 10:20 PM
"Not opposed to the freedom of slaves" (not even Jesus!) is very different from being anti-slavery, which I think we can all agree is the moral truth here. With the bible being wrong in this instance, how can anything think it's not wrong in others?
In response to:

The President's 'Other Gospel'

EffectChange Wrote: May 17, 2012 10:18 PM
Another 10/10. This forum could work better.
In response to:

The President's 'Other Gospel'

EffectChange Wrote: May 17, 2012 10:17 PM
The Immaculate Conception doesn't refer to the birth of Mary, but I appear to have confused original sin with committed sins. I guess Mary sinned like everyone else? Except Jesus obviously.
In response to:

The President's 'Other Gospel'

EffectChange Wrote: May 17, 2012 10:12 PM
There have already been two examples provided. Mine, 1 Timothy 2:12, and AmyDB's: Romans 1:26-27.
In response to:

The President's 'Other Gospel'

EffectChange Wrote: May 17, 2012 10:09 PM
But it's obviously not true today. How can anyone say the same isn't true of homosexuality?
Previous 11 - 20 Next