BROOKLYN, N.Y. (PIX11) — In response to the growing migrant crisis, the City of New York is officially commandeering popular park recreation centers. At least two have been partially taken ov…
The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
Neither of these definitions mention god, sin, or serving god though.
That’s the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy.
A republic is a type of democracy.
Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture.
I don’t seek to prevent anybody from practicing their religion, nor do I vote to do so. I do however vote to maintain the separation between church and state which is something else entirely.
Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that’s a very good thing.
The 1st amedment explicitly states otherwise, that our government shall not enforce religion.
Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem.
There effectively is no such tyranny in a majority, and effectively by definition. And to the degree that there occasionally is, it is far better to have a government with a tendency towards tyranny of the majority than towards tyranny of the majority.
I’m telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
And a light bulb doesn’t serve anybody which makes it a bad comparison.
so I’m not going to get into it here.
I am aware, so I will also not get into it here. Just know going forward I don’t really see free will as something that makes sense.
I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods
You advocate for school prayer
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that’s true are funded by the government.
That’s because nearly all of the research done on the climate is funded by the government. This is kind of like being surprised that the water in a puddle is shaped exactly to fit the hole that the puddle is in.
There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding.
They get kicked out because they make shit up and mislead the public, not because they’re going against “established dogma”.
The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people.
Not really. National security is the excuse the government uses for this purpose, not the environment.
There’s nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions.
Just because something isn’t in the bible doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
We cannot “fix” a “problem” that God wants.
Did you ever think that maybe god wants us to fix the problem? Have you considered that you might be going against god’s will when you say we should do nothing to prevent further damage to the environment/god’s creation? It seems pretty straightforward to me that if god exists and created us and this planet, that such a god would want us to take good care of the planet.
The 1st amedment explicitly states otherwise, that our government shall not enforce religion.
I don’t want the Senate to declare that the Pope has legal authority over Americans any more than you do.
But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. In America, we have the former. Not the latter.
You are either with God or against God. The US is one nation under God.
And a light bulb doesn’t serve anybody which makes it a bad comparison.
It’s a good comparison because I’m trying to make a point about possible states. When you reject God, you embrace Satan, because there are only two possible states. Just like a light-bulb.
Just know going forward I don’t really see free will as something that makes sense.
You don’t need to understand something in order to accept that it’s true, or that it exists.
Did you ever think that maybe god wants us to fix the problem? Have you considered that you might be going against god’s will when you say we should do nothing to prevent further damage to the environment/god’s creation? It seems pretty straightforward to me that if god exists and created us and this planet, that such a god would want us to take good care of the planet.
Once you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and you live in a state of perpetual prayer, you will know what God wants from you personally. You will learn that His will often goes against your own, and that it sometimes makes no sense to you.
But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.
You can’t have one without the other.
It’s a good comparison because I’m trying to make a point about possible states.
And the states you are comparing are inherently a bad comparison because the state of a light bulb is in no way representative of serving, which is an active action.
You don’t need to understand something in order to accept that it’s true, or that it exists.
You know what I meant. The evidence for free will is lacking, therefore I do not believe it exists.
Once you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and you live in a state of perpetual prayer, you will know what God wants from you personally. You will learn that His will often goes against your own, and that it sometimes makes no sense to you.
That doesn’t answer my question. How do you know that god doesn’t want humans to solve climate change on our own? “Just pray for an answer” doesn’t tell me anything about the methodology of how you came to your current conclusion of “no”.
Did god personally tell you that the answer was no? Is it just a feeling you have? Was it some “sign”?
[Re: “But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.”] You can’t have one without the other.
Then how did we always have one without the other until recent times? You’re free to join any church you’d like, regardless of affiliation, provided that you worship the Lord our God. That’s our freedom of religion. If you deny God, you embrace Satan, and until fairly recently that would have meant you’d be locked away in a mental asylum.
And the states you are comparing are inherently a bad comparison because the state of a light bulb is in no way representative of serving, which is an active action.
You’re so fixated on this. If you insist, yes, a light-bulb “serves” its master, where its master is its owner who flips the light-switch on and off. But you’re really missing the point here.
We have two possible states, in which we cling to God or Satan. There is no third option. Satan will insist that neither he nor God exists, and you can choose to believe that lie at your eternal peril.
You know what I meant. The evidence for free will is lacking, therefore I do not believe it exists.
The evidence is within you every time you choose to reject God. Indeed every time you type a character in reply to me, you evidence free will.
That doesn’t answer my question. How do you know that god doesn’t want humans to solve climate change on our own? “Just pray for an answer” doesn’t tell me anything about the methodology of how you came to your current conclusion of “no”.
Did god personally tell you that the answer was no? Is it just a feeling you have? Was it some “sign”?
The entire premise requires us to arrogantly suppose we could possibly control the whole planet, which is contrary to everything God tells us.
Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
Those aren’t just a bunch of archaic random words; they’re instructions for how we are to live. And they are entirely applicable to the climate agenda. When we are humble, we put our trust in God, not ourselves.
Then how did we always have one without the other until recent times?
We haven’t. We have always had both. It has always been the law that you are allowed to practice whatever religion you want, or no religion at all. And it has always been the law that there is a separation between church and state, a prohibition on government to be religious.
If you deny God, you embrace Satan, and until fairly recently that would have meant you’d be locked away in a mental asylum.
Our country has a history of poorly following the constitution, but the law is the law, and the law says we have the freedom to believe or disbelieve.
You’re so fixated on this.
As are you it seems.
If you insist, yes, a light-bulb “serves” its master
A light bulb has no agency to server anything.
We have two possible states, in which we cling to God or Satan.
It’s not just the states I take issue with though. And the states you list are a false dichotomy as evidence by the sports analogy from earlier.
The evidence is within you every time you choose to reject God. Indeed every time you type a character in reply to me, you evidence free will.
Just saying something is evidence doesn’t make it evidence.
“The complete lack of life in the universe outside of our planet is evidence that god doesn’t exist!”
One can say that and be entirely wrong.
The entire premise requires us to arrogantly suppose we could possibly control the whole planet, which is contrary to everything God tells us.
God gave us dominion, what is dominion if not complete control? And again, we definitely have the power to do so because there is mountains of scientific evidence showing that humans are responsible for climate change.
And they are entirely applicable to the climate agenda. When we are humble, we put our trust in God, not ourselves.
That’s all assuming you know god’s plan which is heretical. Unless you know his plans (you don’t) then you should assume the worst case, that god intends for us to deal with the problem on our own.
Responsibility for our own actions should be the default. I don’t mean to be glib but of all people I would have hoped a conservative would understand that.
God gave us dominion, what is dominion if not complete control?
We find the answer is in Scripture. Let’s review Genesis 1:26-28:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
That is the specific nature of our dominion.
And again, we definitely have the power to do so because there is mountains of scientific evidence showing that humans are responsible for climate change.
That’s agenda-driven nonsense. There can be no evidence showing cause-and-effect for something that we didn’t cause in the first place. Show me one Christian scientist who believes people caused climate change.
That’s all assuming you know god’s plan which is heretical.
So now all prophets are heretics? Are you joking?
Responsibility for our own actions should be the default. I don’t mean to be glib but of all people I would have hoped a conservative would understand that.
I fully agree, 100%. We’re not responsible for climate change because it’s not the result of our own actions. We are each individually responsible for our own individual actions, though, yes.
There can be no evidence showing cause-and-effect for something that we didn’t cause in the first place.
And so when we have evidence it shows we did cause it. It seems you are starting your argument with the premise that we aren’t responsible, and then concluding that we aren’t responsible. You cannot have your conclusion as one of your premises, because that’s just a circular argument.
So now all prophets are heretics? Are you joking?
That’s not what I said.
You != all prophets
Show me one Christian scientist who believes people caused climate change.
So there are a number of problems with this question. Number one, somebody doesn’t need to be christian to hold true beliefs or have valid arguments, so this is a question with a really useless/mislead goal. Second, it’s an argument from authority. Third, it’s a setup for a no true scottsman fallacy, because no matter who I bring up you’ll call them a false christian because you’ve already defined a christian to be somebody who holds your own views exactly.
This question is a ridiculous goal post that quite clearly on wheels, able to move the moment I name a name.
We’re not responsible for climate change because it’s not the result of our own actions.
It objectively is, the evidence is overwhelming. And we’ve known this for over a century at this point:
It seems you are starting your argument with the premise that we aren’t responsible, and then concluding that we aren’t responsible.
My starting premise is God, and with penitent humility, God is my foregone conclusion.
You cannot have your conclusion as one of your premises, because that’s just a circular argument.
It’s not an argument of any type. It’s a humble acknowledgment of He who is in control.
That’s not what I said [that “all prophets are heretics”].
What you said, specifically, was, “That’s all assuming you know god’s plan which is heretical.” A prophet is someone who knows God’s plan as it applies to many people. So yes, you claimed that prophets are heretics. Now I’m no prophet, but like any Christian, I maintain a relationship with God and I read Scripture, so I know God’s plan to the limited extent He reveals it to me. That’s not heresy.
somebody doesn’t need to be christian to hold true beliefs or have valid arguments
You’re either with God or you’re against God. Anyone who sides with Satan cannot be trusted. They might indeed make true statements or valid arguments now and then, but they can only do so in service of the Beast, attempting to lead others down the road to Hell.
Second, it’s an argument from authority.
Nothing wrong with respecting authorities, and trusting their assessments. God is, after all, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
Third, it’s a setup for a no true scottsman fallacy, because no matter who I bring up you’ll call them a false christian because you’ve already defined a christian to be somebody who holds your own views exactly.
I don’t deny there’s a non-zero chance of the discussion playing out that way, but in practice I think there are just about zero climate scientists who call themselves Christians yet also think human beings could have caused climate change. If you find any examples, I’ll be rather curious what denominations they affiliate with. There are certainly a few crazy leftist denominations out there that seem to have fully rejected God, so it’s possible a few such climate scientists exist. If they do, and you were to find them, of course you’re right that I’d have to question their church’s Statement of Faith. But that’s no fallacy; it’s just recognizing that Christianity is incompatible with the premise that humans could possibly cause climate change.
This question is a ridiculous goal post that quite clearly on wheels, able to move the moment I name a name.
My starting premise is God, and with penitent humility, God is my foregone conclusion.
You have no method to reach truth then, because you’ve shut out the possibility of anybody other than you being correct. That is incredibly vain.
It’s not an argument of any type.
It’s not a formal argument, but you know what I meant.
A prophet is someone who knows God’s plan as it applies to many people. So yes, you claimed that prophets are heretics.
That’s not what I said though. I never even used the word in the first place.
They might indeed make true statements or valid arguments now and then, but they can only do so in service of the Beast, attempting to lead others down the road to Hell.
And as a result you cannot dismiss evidence based on who is presenting it.
Nothing wrong with respecting authorities, and trusting their assessments. God is, after all, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
Neither of these definitions mention god, sin, or serving god though.
A republic is a type of democracy.
I don’t seek to prevent anybody from practicing their religion, nor do I vote to do so. I do however vote to maintain the separation between church and state which is something else entirely.
The 1st amedment explicitly states otherwise, that our government shall not enforce religion.
There effectively is no such tyranny in a majority, and effectively by definition. And to the degree that there occasionally is, it is far better to have a government with a tendency towards tyranny of the majority than towards tyranny of the majority.
And a light bulb doesn’t serve anybody which makes it a bad comparison.
I am aware, so I will also not get into it here. Just know going forward I don’t really see free will as something that makes sense.
You advocate for school prayer
That’s because nearly all of the research done on the climate is funded by the government. This is kind of like being surprised that the water in a puddle is shaped exactly to fit the hole that the puddle is in.
They get kicked out because they make shit up and mislead the public, not because they’re going against “established dogma”.
Not really. National security is the excuse the government uses for this purpose, not the environment.
Just because something isn’t in the bible doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Did you ever think that maybe god wants us to fix the problem? Have you considered that you might be going against god’s will when you say we should do nothing to prevent further damage to the environment/god’s creation? It seems pretty straightforward to me that if god exists and created us and this planet, that such a god would want us to take good care of the planet.
I don’t want the Senate to declare that the Pope has legal authority over Americans any more than you do.
But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. In America, we have the former. Not the latter.
You are either with God or against God. The US is one nation under God.
It’s a good comparison because I’m trying to make a point about possible states. When you reject God, you embrace Satan, because there are only two possible states. Just like a light-bulb.
You don’t need to understand something in order to accept that it’s true, or that it exists.
Once you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and you live in a state of perpetual prayer, you will know what God wants from you personally. You will learn that His will often goes against your own, and that it sometimes makes no sense to you.
You can’t have one without the other.
And the states you are comparing are inherently a bad comparison because the state of a light bulb is in no way representative of serving, which is an active action.
You know what I meant. The evidence for free will is lacking, therefore I do not believe it exists.
That doesn’t answer my question. How do you know that god doesn’t want humans to solve climate change on our own? “Just pray for an answer” doesn’t tell me anything about the methodology of how you came to your current conclusion of “no”.
Did god personally tell you that the answer was no? Is it just a feeling you have? Was it some “sign”?
Then how did we always have one without the other until recent times? You’re free to join any church you’d like, regardless of affiliation, provided that you worship the Lord our God. That’s our freedom of religion. If you deny God, you embrace Satan, and until fairly recently that would have meant you’d be locked away in a mental asylum.
You’re so fixated on this. If you insist, yes, a light-bulb “serves” its master, where its master is its owner who flips the light-switch on and off. But you’re really missing the point here.
We have two possible states, in which we cling to God or Satan. There is no third option. Satan will insist that neither he nor God exists, and you can choose to believe that lie at your eternal peril.
The evidence is within you every time you choose to reject God. Indeed every time you type a character in reply to me, you evidence free will.
The entire premise requires us to arrogantly suppose we could possibly control the whole planet, which is contrary to everything God tells us.
James 4:10
Those aren’t just a bunch of archaic random words; they’re instructions for how we are to live. And they are entirely applicable to the climate agenda. When we are humble, we put our trust in God, not ourselves.
We haven’t. We have always had both. It has always been the law that you are allowed to practice whatever religion you want, or no religion at all. And it has always been the law that there is a separation between church and state, a prohibition on government to be religious.
Our country has a history of poorly following the constitution, but the law is the law, and the law says we have the freedom to believe or disbelieve.
As are you it seems.
A light bulb has no agency to server anything.
It’s not just the states I take issue with though. And the states you list are a false dichotomy as evidence by the sports analogy from earlier.
Just saying something is evidence doesn’t make it evidence.
“The complete lack of life in the universe outside of our planet is evidence that god doesn’t exist!”
One can say that and be entirely wrong.
God gave us dominion, what is dominion if not complete control? And again, we definitely have the power to do so because there is mountains of scientific evidence showing that humans are responsible for climate change.
That’s all assuming you know god’s plan which is heretical. Unless you know his plans (you don’t) then you should assume the worst case, that god intends for us to deal with the problem on our own.
Responsibility for our own actions should be the default. I don’t mean to be glib but of all people I would have hoped a conservative would understand that.
We find the answer is in Scripture. Let’s review Genesis 1:26-28:
That is the specific nature of our dominion.
That’s agenda-driven nonsense. There can be no evidence showing cause-and-effect for something that we didn’t cause in the first place. Show me one Christian scientist who believes people caused climate change.
So now all prophets are heretics? Are you joking?
I fully agree, 100%. We’re not responsible for climate change because it’s not the result of our own actions. We are each individually responsible for our own individual actions, though, yes.
Yeah, that aligns with what I say.
And so when we have evidence it shows we did cause it. It seems you are starting your argument with the premise that we aren’t responsible, and then concluding that we aren’t responsible. You cannot have your conclusion as one of your premises, because that’s just a circular argument.
That’s not what I said.
You != all prophets
So there are a number of problems with this question. Number one, somebody doesn’t need to be christian to hold true beliefs or have valid arguments, so this is a question with a really useless/mislead goal. Second, it’s an argument from authority. Third, it’s a setup for a no true scottsman fallacy, because no matter who I bring up you’ll call them a false christian because you’ve already defined a christian to be somebody who holds your own views exactly.
This question is a ridiculous goal post that quite clearly on wheels, able to move the moment I name a name.
It objectively is, the evidence is overwhelming. And we’ve known this for over a century at this point:
https://www.livescience.com/humans-first-warned-about-climate-change
My starting premise is God, and with penitent humility, God is my foregone conclusion.
It’s not an argument of any type. It’s a humble acknowledgment of He who is in control.
What you said, specifically, was, “That’s all assuming you know god’s plan which is heretical.” A prophet is someone who knows God’s plan as it applies to many people. So yes, you claimed that prophets are heretics. Now I’m no prophet, but like any Christian, I maintain a relationship with God and I read Scripture, so I know God’s plan to the limited extent He reveals it to me. That’s not heresy.
You’re either with God or you’re against God. Anyone who sides with Satan cannot be trusted. They might indeed make true statements or valid arguments now and then, but they can only do so in service of the Beast, attempting to lead others down the road to Hell.
Nothing wrong with respecting authorities, and trusting their assessments. God is, after all, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
I don’t deny there’s a non-zero chance of the discussion playing out that way, but in practice I think there are just about zero climate scientists who call themselves Christians yet also think human beings could have caused climate change. If you find any examples, I’ll be rather curious what denominations they affiliate with. There are certainly a few crazy leftist denominations out there that seem to have fully rejected God, so it’s possible a few such climate scientists exist. If they do, and you were to find them, of course you’re right that I’d have to question their church’s Statement of Faith. But that’s no fallacy; it’s just recognizing that Christianity is incompatible with the premise that humans could possibly cause climate change.
My only goal post is your acceptance of Christ.
You have no method to reach truth then, because you’ve shut out the possibility of anybody other than you being correct. That is incredibly vain.
It’s not a formal argument, but you know what I meant.
That’s not what I said though. I never even used the word in the first place.
And as a result you cannot dismiss evidence based on who is presenting it.
You’ve completely missed my point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
It’s a true scottsman fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Then I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with how logical fallacies work, because you’ve been using so many of them.