Of course the idea of evolution is intelligent to us. That doesnt however lead me to believe someone created it.
Lets say we were created intelligently by a god, that basically disqualifies the Bible and especially genesis. Then to think Christianity is the one, because the 30,000 other religions are wrong... is pure nonsense.
Lets say we were created intelligently by a god, that basically disqualifies the Bible and especially genesis. Then to think Christianity is the one, because the 30,000 other religions are wrong... is pure nonsense.
How do you define "religous nuts"?
Because someone believes in God and holds themselves accountable to His standards of decency, and asks Him for guidance, does not make him (her) a nut.
I really think that the nonreligous amongst us should stop hating on those of us who believe. We are, as a whole, not intolerant to your nonbelief. So why the intolerance for us believers?
To disqualify a candidate because he answers to his (her) God is absurd.
Because someone believes in God and holds themselves accountable to His standards of decency, and asks Him for guidance, does not make him (her) a nut.
I really think that the nonreligous amongst us should stop hating on those of us who believe. We are, as a whole, not intolerant to your nonbelief. So why the intolerance for us believers?
To disqualify a candidate because he answers to his (her) God is absurd.
No, nutterdom isnt regulated to bible thumpers, no argument there. However, when someone is making their case of allowing gays to marry or abortion its because they are on the defensive, its the social conservatives that want to keep them from doing so, that puts progressives on the defense. Conservation is conservatism, they want to conserve the fabric of society. Its not a chicken or egg theory either. The conservatives dont want others doing these things because it infringes upon their religious beliefs... curious isnt it? You dont want someone to do something because your faith says it shouldnt be that way. And you use a nations laws to hold that purpose up... that is the definition of a nutjob. The idea that our forefathers came here in a large part to free themselves from religious persecution, here we are 250 years later trying to put us back into the 1300's forcing laws upon those that dont hold the majority's religious beliefs. Thats another part in why we have a Democratic Republic instead of a pure democracy ... to keep the minority from constantly getting toppled. Boy, i bet they would be proud? You dont like to suck cock? You dont have to. But if Dave007 likes to, then let him.
Pretty sure ur a religious nut if ur not talking about the economy, jobs or security but talk about praying away the gay, calling homos the equivalent of man on dog and talking about taking condoms off cocks - if those r ur focal points then u r a religious loon with zero chance of winning the White House - u might win this dog and pony show the primary has turned into
Here ya go
Bryan Fischer: Women ‘Are Not Prepared By DNA’ To Serve In Combat
Last week, Rick Santorum had to walk back his comment that he opposes women serving in combat because “of emotions that are involved” by saying it’s not that he’s against women serving in combat, he’s just concerned that men are emotionally unfit to serve alongside women.
Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association — an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated a hate group — picked up the ball for Santorum, saying outright that women aren’t capable of serving in combat:
FISCHER: If our national security is on the line, the defense of your children, your family, when that’s on the line, who do you want manning the Howitzers? Who do you want manning the M-16s. Who do you want manning the fighter planes? Do you want somebody who is characterized by sensitivity, warmth and apprehension? That is somebody who is sensitive, who is warm and who is easily spooked? Is that who you want defending your national security?
Or do you want somebody who is characterized by emotional stability, dominance, rule, consciousness and vigilance? Well if your answer is B, which I think any objective, logical, right thinking, clear-headed, non politically correct corrupted thinking person would think, clearly you have just said we ought to have men in combat. … Women are not wired, either by evolution or by God, whoever is responsible for this difference, they are not prepared by DNA and innate personality characteristics to be in those positions.
Right Wing Watch adds that Fischer said in a column today that “the average female soldier does not even have the arm strength to throw a grenade far enough to keep herself from getting blown up.”Or do you want somebody who is characterized by emotional stability, dominance, rule, consciousness and vigilance? Well if your answer is B, which I think any objective, logical, right thinking, clear-headed, non politically correct corrupted thinking person would think, clearly you have just said we ought to have men in combat. … Women are not wired, either by evolution or by God, whoever is responsible for this difference, they are not prepared by DNA and innate personality characteristics to be in those positions.
