Is it important for a world leader (U.S. President) to believe in God

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

To be obsessed with that which is true is a virtue not a vice.

The preserved words of God are said to be true all of them, but men will call them lies (fiction), and this is because men have turned their backs on the true and living God for a god that cannot save. The god of secular intellectual covetousness, as well as the general covetous that permeates all from the least to the greatest.

If you truly believe that the Bible is fiction, lies because that is what fiction truly is falsities wrapped in entertaining words. If you believe that, then that secular humanistic intellectualism is the highest form then men have become gods to knowing what is good and evil. Then you must reject the Talmud, The Tanak, Quran, the Veda's, et al all books that relate to religiousness of any kind from the cuneiform writings of Gilgamesh to the the current writing so L Ron Hubbard and Scientology, the JW's, the Mormons, and the Muslim et al. And stick to you pseudo intellectual practices that make you the god of your domain.

Now you see why certain here at ATS never get involved in these types of Threads, except to where it might deal with a scientific error. They are truly believing that the highest is that of secular intellectualism. Been there my self for over twenty years but when The true and living God, by his grace, shined his countenance upon me, my eyes were opened and I saw all that I had learned was folly, and his son Jesus saved my soul and I needed to apply that blood to my life. Once I did I never went back and I never will.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The preserved words of God are said to be true all of them

Genesis says Earth had thriving plant life without a Sun. Yeah, your religion teaches you all the words are true, but evidence shows otherwise.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't really mind what you are, just see clearly your self righteous fundamentalism
Please don't preach your hate at kids, believers or non, there is enough hate in the world, don't need you to continue it anymore

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Raggedyman

when atheism became mainstream

The USA is still majority Christian (like 70%). Once being non-religious actually becomes the norm you might be able to attribute that 'huge dive' to atheism... Although, I think the nation will only improve as a result.

I don't think I will take your or anyone else's word for that statistic
When a trump and Clinton act the way they do and then claim faith, well it's not rocket surgery

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: ChesterJohn

The preserved words of God are said to be true all of them

Genesis says Earth had thriving plant life without a Sun. Yeah, your religion teaches you all the words are true, but evidence shows otherwise.

and the word of God states clearly that Christ is the light of the world
God outshines His creation, it is tricky

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

they couldn't have thrived more than a few days without sunlight that is true. so seeing the were made on day 3 and the sun on day 4. Plants weren't around more than a day before the Sun.

Unless you don't believe the 6 day work of God preparing the earth for mankind to be true. Then stop right because if you don't believe the Bible then you should not try and quote it if it is not true.

The earth is far older than many think it is, but modern humans have been on it only for a short period of time.

And until science can develop a way to measure everlasting (eternity) all current dating equipment will continue to be in error giving millions an billions of years for evidence since all the material comes from an eternal source, God himself.

This is not about the current uranium depletion rate that is observable only in the last 100 years. the depletion rates could have changed over the last four thousand years we have no way of saying they have or haven't seeing we would have had to been there in the past four thousand years ago to test it then and compare it to the current rate.

There was an atmospheric change as a result from the world wide flood (many deny) that also resulted in the changes in the earth.

Until we can measure eternity we cannot say without doubt things are as old as they seem.

a reply to: Raggedyman

and the word of God states clearly that Christ is the light of the world

The sun. You can't look at it without going blind. No man has ever seen it's face closeup. It causes all sorts of haywire electrical impulses. It keeps us alive. THE SUN is what we can't live without. Period.

If you can't see the correlation, then that's because you aren't trying.

a reply to: Raggedyman

sigh

I don't really mind what you are, just see clearly your self righteous fundamentalism
Please don't preach your hate at kids, believers or non, there is enough hate in the world, don't need you to continue it anymore

I'm not self-righteous. I'm not a fundamentalist atheist. I recommend that people be kind.

You are nasty at every moment. You have never made a post that is agreeable, or intelligently spoken. Always just attacks and labels and accusations.

About that, I am right. And I have a right to be confident in that. "Self, you are right," I say to myself. "Religion poisons people. Keep out of the reach of children. Remove from the household as it is toxic to mental health."


You fail at every turn to show decency or understanding of what I am, what I believe, and how I think. I hate that I have to tell you that over and over and over again.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

To be obsessed with that which is true is a virtue not a vice.

The preserved words of God are said to be true all of them, but men will call them lies (fiction), and this is because men have turned their backs on the true and living God for a god that cannot save. The god of secular intellectual covetousness, as well as the general covetous that permeates all from the least to the greatest.

sigh.


Such a shame that you are focused not on the truth, but instead insisting that your book is true, when it is clearly not.

Here is the truth about your book:

It is important as part of our world heritage

it is a work of art and living phenomenon.

It has fantastic power over our civilation.

It contains a conglomeration of allegories, fables, plays, etc.

It is an anthology of our modern culture.

Mkay?

Now, that being said:

Your book is not true.

None of the fanciful stories contained within it are true.

It is not true.

It is not journalism.

NONE OF THAT is debatable. All of those statements, those declarations above, are true.

If you want to be obsessed with the truth, then absorb the second part of the list.

Thanks.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Plants weren't around more than a day before the Sun.

One Day could represent one day as we know it, or 1 million years. It still doesn't work without 'God can do it. He's magic.'

An Earth without a Sun would be a completely frozen rock. Frozen and without sunshine. Trees don't grow to maturity and bear fruit under those conditions. They wouldn't start to grow to begin with.

Also, if it was just one literal day as you said then those fruit trees grew to fruit-bearing age in one day! Here my pear tree is on year 7 and hasn't reached fruit-bearing age yet...

We know Earth didn't come before the Sun. We know the Earth didn't form before all the stars in the Universe. You have to invoke god magic to argue this. Our scientific findings show it's utterly incorrect.

f you don't believe the Bible then you should not try and quote it if it is not true.

You made the claim the entire Bible represents truth. Be prepared for feedback when you say that on a discussion forum.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I don't think I will take your or anyone else's word for that statistic
When a trump and Clinton act the way they do and then claim faith, well it's not rocket surgery

It's very convenient that you get to determine who is and isn't a "true Christian".

I'll take the word of each individual person who says they're Christian, over your word they are not.

Likewise if someone says they're an atheist, and another claimed that person was not an atheist at all but a believer. Well, I'll take the word of that person saying he or she is an atheist.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Plants weren't around more than a day before the Sun.

One Day could represent one day as we know it, or 1 million years. It still doesn't work without 'God can do it. He's magic.'

An Earth without a Sun would be a completely frozen rock. Frozen and without sunshine. Trees don't grow to maturity and bear fruit under those conditions. They wouldn't start to grow to begin with.

Also, if it was just one literal day as you said then those fruit trees grew to fruit-bearing age in one day! Here my pear tree is on year 7 and hasn't reached fruit-bearing age yet...

We know Earth didn't come before the Sun. We know the Earth didn't form before all the stars in the Universe. You have to invoke god magic to argue this. Our scientific findings show it's utterly incorrect.

f you don't believe the Bible then you should not try and quote it if it is not true.

You made the claim the entire Bible represents truth. Be prepared for feedback when you say that on a discussion forum.

I love you.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

a day is a day and evening and a morning are one day. we know a day as 24 hours.

Ge 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

simple if you have faith. The only person that a day is as if a thousand years is the Lord God Almighty.

2Pe 3:8 ¶ But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Ps 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

"Thy" being the Lord God Almighty. No man has ever seen a day and a night as a thousand years. Imagine a 500 year day and 500 year night. nothing biological would live. No is it is roughly 12 hour day and a 12 hour night.

People who have no faith in the word of God should not be quoting it for they do not believe it is true.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You're not understanding. Whether a "Day" is 24 hours or 1 millions years doesn't resolve the issue.

If a 'Day' in Genesis is 24 hours it implies fruit trees sprouted, grew to maturity, and set fruit on a frozen planet void of sunlight... in a single day. Do much gardening yourself?

No matter the time, its a frozen rock without sunlight, because Genesis puts the Sun being made afterwards.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness

That 'light' isn't sunlight during Day's 1-3. Sunlight comes from the Sun. The Sun and all stars were made after Earth had plant life according to scripture. So what you're really saying is that the plants fed off a different kind of light than sunshine. Okay, great. What evidence is there for that? Zero.

You realize this is all predicated on Earth being made before the Sun is true to begin with, right? Which is, of course, not something a single cosmologist will support. Lots (to understate it) of stars were made long before Earth formed. Genesis and evidence don't match up.

People who have no faith in the word of God should not be quoting it

...and people with faith, and zero evidence, shouldn't be telling non-believers that scripture represents total truth (or that they "turned their backs on truth") if they can't back it up

At the end of the day, you have faith it's true, not that you have evidence it's true. I can respect that if only you acknowledged it.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

No you don't understand a day is a 24 hour period of time Period no ifs ands or buts about it. Prove it scientifically that a 24 hour day, that roughly consists of half night and half day, is not one day?

Of course the light isn't sunlight from Genesis 1:3-13 (day1-3), the light is The Word that was with God from the beginning, Jesus Christ read John 1:1-3.

Genesis 1 does not say the trees produced fruit immediately, you just assumed that. He only decreed that each plant/tree/grass and the like should bear fruit/seed after its own kind. And why couldn't God make the earth and mature plants and trees without a sun. But once he did he was sure to make the sun to perpetuate it.

I can quote my preserved word of God even if it goes against your so called evidence. Faith in God and his word trumps faith is science so called. So what if cosmetologist don't agree.

Why couldn't God create the sun a day later then set it in a location to heat a cool the earth to perpetuate the life he puts on the earth on the fourth day?

Science can't prove the sun came first. But I can say this the Sun and the earth and all the stars and all therein came from the same source, God.

The universe we now see is inside the firmament he created on day 2. Our viewable universe has the stars he placed in the firmament and it is expanding because darkness does that . But God and his abode is outside the firmament it is all light and no darkness, for God dwelleth in light.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

oh dear

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The only reason I brought this up is because you claimed non-believers have turned their backs on truth. All you can do, which you just did, is resort to "god can do anything" and "I don't care what science says".

You have to throw out evidence and not care what scientists have shown in order for the Bible to be "truth". This is because you value faith over evidence. So we are at an impasse. This quote sums it up:

“If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” ~Sam Harris

Science can't prove the sun came first.

Lots and lots and lots and lots of stars came before Earth.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

if you believe not in god then you have already won yourself over to science.

But science is not the tell all of truth.

There is no evidence that any stars came before the earth. Only mans misguided measuring stick. When science can measure from everlasting to everlasting then they might see how out of sorts they are when it comes to measuring the age of things. The materials used to create all things comes from a source that man cannot measure, everlasting.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

There is no evidence that any stars came before the earth. Only mans misguided measuring stick.

Like saying that 24 hours is a "day" for "God"?

Stars came before the earth, Chet. They did. They simply did. End of story. Stars. Without stars, there would be no orbiting planets --- nothing to hold them in the orbit. You think the earth was just floating about randomly waiting for a sun to show up, pull it into an orbit, and then provide warmth and light?

You think that once God 'conceived of' the 'light' being necessary, he then devised the sun, and arranged for the Earth to be sucked into the sun's orbit and to 'measure it' in "twenty-four hours" (which, by the way, is an utterly random measuring stick, but works for us because we all use it and it helps coordinate our activities as a society - not much different than birds knowing when to migrate, or salmon going upstream to spawn at a specific time of year...) and then wrote a book using man's "guided" hand to tell the tale?

Even more ridiculous than your last remark which I labelled as ridiculous.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I can quote my preserved word of God even if it goes against your so called evidence. Faith in God and his word trumps faith is science so called. So what if cosmetologist don't agree.

"cosmetologist"? That's a make-up artist. LOL!! Ironic.



ETA: here you go

COSMOLOGY
cos·mol·o·gy
käzˈmäləjē/Submit
noun
the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.
an account or theory of the origin of the universe.
plural noun: cosmologies


So, the person you meant to talk about is a

COSMOLOGIST

huge difference to "Cosmetologist". worlds apart. so to speak. if you will.

....your move......