• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cruz: I’m a Christian first, American second

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
buckshot24 said:
200_s.gif
Click to expand...

The word knowledge implies observable reality, not bronze age stories mommy told you were true because Santa Claus, or someone, is able to see you when you're sleeping, knows when you're awake, and knows when you've been bad or good.
 
IronWing said:
Never met anyone in real life that called it the authorized version.
Click to expand...

A fair number of that 28% of Christians that are biblical literalists (y'know the ones buckwheat pretends do not exist) affirm quite explicitly that only the King James Version is the literal word of God. Jack Chick is a notable example (except for the fact that he doesn't exist according to buckwheat).
 
Last edited:
nickqt said:
The word knowledge implies observable reality, not bronze age stories mommy told you were true because Santa Claus, or someone, is able to see you when you're sleeping, knows when you're awake, and knows when you've been bad or good.
Click to expand...
What are you rambling on about? What you quoted had nothing to do with anything you wrote.

How many false assumptions can you throw my way?

My parents never took me to church, I was an atheist up until my mid 20s.

To the list.
 
buckshot24 said:
What are you rambling on about? What you quoted had nothing to do with anything you wrote.

How many false assumptions can you throw my way?

My parents never took me to church, I was an atheist up until my mid 20s.

To the list.
Click to expand...
You posted a picture with the word "know" in it, in an attempt to provide "knowledge" to someone else.

I simply pointed out that knowledge implies observable reality, not bronze age stories about various superhuman beings who can see you without you being able to see them back.

A juxtaposition of what know[ledge] actually is, compared with stories you believe in because in your 20s you went and talked to people who believed in a superhuman being that can see you without you being able to see them back.

That's all. I don't want you to stress out too much about it. Just an observation. You're free to believe in whatever superhuman stories you want.
 
Cerpin Taxt said:
A fair number of that 28% of Christians that are biblical literalists (y'know the ones buckwheat pretends do not exist) affirm quite explicitly that only the King James Version is the literal word of God. Jack Chick is a notable example (except for the fact that he doesn't exist according to buckwheat).
Click to expand...
I did not know that the non-existence of Jack Chick is a thing. How can a non-existent being leave tracks everywhere? Checkmate, Nonchickians.


That was a joke there son, don't be so literal.
 
A fair number of that 28% of Christians that are biblical literalists (y'know the ones buckwheat pretends do not exist) affirm quite explicitly that only the King James Version is the literal word of God. Jack Chick is a notable example (except for the fact that he doesn't exist according to buckwheat).
Click to expand...
There are KJVOnlyists but none of them take the bible 100% literally, none of them. Your continual lying about this doesn't change this fact.

Jack Chick existed and he didn't take the bible 100% literally.

edit: I guess he's still alive...

He still doesn't take the bible 100% literally.
 
zinfamous said:
No, that certainly never happened here, nor was it ever proposed to happen. Further, it's strange that you recall this being an issue with such certainty.
Click to expand...
Churches losing tax exempt status because they won't marry gays....it looks like its still an ongoing issue. dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/roberts-warns-churches-could-lose-tax-exempt-status-for-opposing-gay-marriage
 
elitejp said:
Churches losing tax exempt status because they won't marry gays....it looks like its still an ongoing issue. dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/roberts-warns-churches-could-lose-tax-exempt-status-for-opposing-gay-marriage
Click to expand...
The story you linked says no such thing.
 
buckshot24 said:
There are KJVOnlyists but none of them take the bible 100% literally, none of them. Your continual lying about this doesn't change this fact.

Jack Chick existed and he didn't take the bible 100% literally.

edit: I guess he's still alive...

He still doesn't take the bible 100% literally.
Click to expand...

There's no point in arguing with them. Seriously the question was worded terrible. Im sure you could interview those same people and begin asking them if they think such and such should be taken literally, just like the sun and shield verse and they would say no. But they being of honest heart do believe that the Bible should be taken literally when possible. Thou shall not kill would be a great example.
 
IronWing said:
The story you linked says no such thing.
Click to expand...

It says what I said at the beginning it is an issue that churches will lose tax exempt status because they are now infringing on a constitutional right for gays to get married. I thought that this was already the case but it seems that it hasn't been put into full effect yet. But the possibility is now very real reality.
 
elitejp said:
It says what I said at the beginning it is an issue that churches will lose tax exempt status because they are now infringing on a constitutional right for gays to get married. I thought that this was already the case but it seems that it hasn't been put into full effect yet. But the possibility is now very real reality.
Click to expand...
Your specific claim was that churches will lose tax exempt status for refusing to marry gays. The story you linked in no way supports this claim. "The possibility is now very real reality" is a nonsensical assertion.
 
HomerJS said:
Just so I understand Rafael has admitted if he has to make a decision where there is a conflict between the constitution and the bible he will side with the bible?

The head of the Christian Taliban is running for POTUS?
Click to expand...

Well we just had 8 years of potus siding in with Islam
 
IronWing said:
It provides nothing to support your claim.
Click to expand...
www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/04/30/not-news-obama-admin-admits-tax-exempt-status-non-complying-churches
You seriously dont see it!
I my original claim was that this happened but I later said I will need to recheck. So I admitted that I may be wrong.
But what I have linked to has the Obama administration saying that this will be an issue.
And all faith based institutions will be in jeopardy.
 
elitejp said:
There's no point in arguing with them. Seriously the question was worded terrible. Im sure you could interview those same people and begin asking them if they think such and such should be taken literally, just like the sun and shield verse and they would say no. But they being of honest heart do believe that the Bible should be taken literally when possible. Thou shall not kill would be a great example.
Click to expand...

Unless of course you are at war with another country, or the state is executing a man, or in defense of your home, etc....

That admonition is so vague as to be utterly and completely useless. You believe it has any meaning? Really? That it somehow separates Christianity from other religions? Christianity was the only religion to come up with the absolutely novel idea that killing other people wasn't a good thing?

The American legal system has vast amount of laws about what constitutes justifiable homicide. It varies from state to state. If legislators consulted the Bible when crafting the laws pertaining to this complex topic, you sincerely believe that "thou shalt not kill" would be in the least bit helpful?

PRO-TIP - The Code of Ur-Nammu which was written more than 500 years before the oldest book in the Bible (Job) had this to say about murder:

1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
Click to expand...

Actually you should take a good long look at it. There are some similarities there with the Bible. These people did not follow the God of the Isrealis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
 
Last edited:
IronWing said:
Only when they have oil, and that's been going on since WWI.
Click to expand...

I wish that was all there was to it. www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106938
this link is a Christian based organizations however it gives the links to where these claims can be found.
 
elitejp said:
www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/04/30/not-news-obama-admin-admits-tax-exempt-status-non-complying-churches
You seriously dont see it!
I my original claim was that this happened but I later said I will need to recheck. So I admitted that I may be wrong.
But what I have linked to has the Obama administration saying that this will be an issue.
And all faith based institutions will be in jeopardy.
Click to expand...
A blog post does not a fact make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top