By John Blake, CNN
(CNN) – Here's a presidential election prediction you can bet on.
Right after the winner is announced, somebody somewhere in America will fall on their knees and pray, "Thank you Jesus."
And somebody somewhere else will moan, "Help us Jesus."
But what Jesus will they be praying to: a red state Jesus or a blue state Jesus?
If elections are about choices, so is faith. And in Christianity, liberals and conservatives choose to see Jesus in different ways. Some liberals see Jesus as a champion of the poor who would support raising taxes on the wealthy, while some conservatives think Jesus would be more concerned with opposing abortion and same-sex marriage.
Good luck to anyone who tries reconciling their Jesus with the biblical accounts of his life. Even Jesus' earliest followers clashed over who he was and what he meant.
"Jesus didn't leave clear instructions," says Molly Worthern, a history professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who specializes in religious history.
"He was a man who said many things that were quite cryptic. All Christians tend to pick or chose to emphasize some of his teachings over the other."
Perhaps most Christians follow not one Jesus, but many - including a bit of a red state Jesus and a bit of a blue state Jesus. We consulted several pastors and religion professors to come up with this voter's guide to Jesus. Answer these questions, click "Submit" and see where you fall on the red state-blue state Jesus scale:
Take the quiz here.
"In Greed We Trust"
In 1994, Bain invested $27 million as part of a deal with other firms to acquire Dade International, a medical-diagnostics-equipment firm, from its parent company, Baxter International. Bain ultimately made nearly 10 times its money, getting back $230 million. But Dade wound up laying off more than 1,600 people and filed for bankruptcy protection in 2002, amid crushing debt and rising interest rates. The company, with Bain in charge, had borrowed heavily to do acquisitions, accumulating $1.6 billion in debt by 2000. The company cut benefits for some workers at the acquired firms and laid off others. When it merged with Behring Diagnostics, a German company, Dade shut down three U.S. plants. At the same time, Dade paid out $421 million to Bain Capital’s investors and investing partners.
For 15 years, Romney had been in the business of creative destruction and wealth creation. But what about his claims of job creation? Though Bain Capital surely helped expand some companies that had created jobs, the layoffs and closures at other firms would lead Romney’s political opponents to say that he had amassed a fortune in part by putting people out of work. The lucrative deals that made Romney wealthy could exact a cost. Maximizing financial return to investors could mean slashing jobs, closing plants, and moving production overseas. It could also mean clashing with union workers, serving on the board of a company that ran afoul of federal laws, and loading up already struggling companies with debt.
Marc Wolpow, a former Bain partner who worked with Romney on many deals, said the discussion at buyout companies typically does not focus on whether jobs will be created. “It’s the opposite—what jobs we can cut,” Wolpow said. “Because you had to document how you were going to create value. Eliminating redundancy, or the elimination of people, is a very valid way."
A couple of examples (it's pretty easy to find more):
Bain closed GST Steel plant in 2001 laying off 750 workers.
Controlling share owner Bain Capital closes BRP plant (Southern Illinois) so the 340 jobs there could be outsourced to Mexico.
Also, this is disconcerting:
I dont care they just need to get rid of those mexicanos that take our jobs!!!
Dak dur jay!!!
Jesus was a liberal d.ouchebag. Blue all day long.
By all valid accounts Jesus taught us to love each other. You appear to have the opposite view. Hmmm, who should I listen to?
I choose Him, you lose.
By all accounts, Jesus is a myth.
I choose anybody who doesn't capitalize the word him for no justifiable reason. I win!
Religion has made me MAAAD
Who cares? They'll both be talking to thin air and acting out their psychotic delusions.
Remember Matthew 4:8-9 Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence, and he said to him, “All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me.”
Those who propose an alternative system of power always attempt to invoke religion and redirect you away from Christ and toward their own selfish pursuits. Hence, avowed secularists, whom otherwise claim religion should have no business in guiding public policy, will cite Christ's support for the poor to encourage good-hearted people to increase governmental aid programs.
However, these programs have shown no results in reducing poverty. Instead, these governmental aid programs have increased social ills (drugs, broken families, life-long dependency). These governmental aid programs expand with numerous regulations that leverage the very needs of the people for the selfish benefit of other liberal political caucuses (i.e, fighting charters and school vouchers upon teacher union insistence or forcing aid partners to adopt liberal positions on contraceptives or family definitions). These governmental aid programs expand and with it – through forced unionization of public workers – the very campaign funds of a certain political party.
Remember that when a Democrat says 'protect [this governmental aid program]', they don't mean to help others, they only mean helping themselves. They want the power to make a dependency bloc. They want the power to redirect funding and rewrite regulations for partisan and fundraising interests. They want the power to expand their union friends' political contributions accounts.
Jesus serves God, not Satan.
Blah blah blah, the Democrats are Satan. Got it. Thanks for the long winded analogy. Jesus serves God? I thought Jesus was God. God made a human version of himself to serve himself? So why does he need us? He can serve himself. He sure is one high-maintenance son of a b.
Democrats are not Satan in my example. Nor would I claim they consciously serve Satan. However, when Democrats propose acts of kindness which in reality are only power grabs and degradation of human dignity, they are not living up to Christ's model.
Christ serves and He has the wounds to prove it. He hungered in the desert, but refused to perform miracles for His benefit. He sought to make known God's plan, but refused to do so by such a spectacular as falling out of the air and being saved by angels. He didn't choose for selfish benefit. He didn't attempt to create an temporary, alternative seat of power. He served His Father wholly.
"God made a human version of himself to serve himself?"
Wouldn't put exactly that way, but yes. Also to incarnate himself in humanity and to role model for humanity allegiance to God.
"So why does he need us?"
Again, wouldn't say 'need' is the right word. Why does any parent or spouse need their loved ones to remain safe, mentally well and helpful to others?
A difference in perspective doesn't have to equate to division. Red & Blue are still part of one whole.
This is an easy one. If Jesus actually did exist, he died hundreds of years before "red" and "blue" states were even catch phrases. If he did exist, he was simply jewish Jesus.
" If he did exist, he was simply *jewish Jesus*. " LOL ! :D
Don't know why, but that made me chuckle.
@therealpeace2all...I'm a huge fan. Been quietly watching and following your responses and respectful comments for some time. Your presence is appreciated.
"I'm a huge fan. Been quietly watching and following your responses and respectful comments for some time. Your presence is appreciated."
Agree 100%. therealpeace2all is a role model.
P.S. See you soon ;)
Some information on the real Jesus:
Only for the new members of this blog:
JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.")
Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694.
Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.
Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Many contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.
Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!
So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher/magic man would do or say?
Ditto for the "believers" no matter what state they reside in !!!
"Magic" aside, there are no reports of Him changing wine into water, killing or maiming anyone when it was commonplace, never making anyone blind, starving anyone or stealing their possessions. He tried to improve people's lives and give them hope for the future. That is a rare talent, even today. If he didn't resurrect, then where is his body/skeleton, or that of His Mother?
The proof is there if you have an open mind. If not, I'm sorry.
Saving Christians from the Infamous Resurrection Con/
From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15 St. Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."
Even now Catholic/Christian professors of theology are questioning the bodily resurrection of the simple, preacher man aka Jesus.
From a major Catholic university's theology professor’s grad school white-board notes:
"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly – earth bound distractions.
Jesus and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven.
Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.
Again, the physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.
The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.
Only Luke records it. (Luke mentions it in his gospel and Acts, i.e. a single attestation and therefore historically untenable). The Ascension ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers.
The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies." "
"In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."
The Vatican quickly embellished this story with a lot CYAP.
With respect to rising from the dead, we also have this account:
An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,
"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
p.168. by Ted Peters:
Even so, asking historical questions is our responsibility. Did Jesus really rise from the tomb? Is it necessary to have been raised from the tomb and to appear to his disciples in order to explain the rise of early church and the transcription of the bible? Crossan answers no, Wright answers, yes. "
So where are the bones"? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.
Total bogus. The only real conclusion to be draw from this questionnaire is whether one is an evangelical christian or not, definitely does not distinguish between liberal christian and conservative Christian. I scored "leaning red" and nothing is further from the truth. I'm 100% evangelical Christian and 100% liberal. It is possible.
"Jesus didn't leave clear instructions" says Molly Worthern of UNC...
Wow. Even cynics cite Christianity as the most influential movement in history.
In all 4 Gospels & the beginning of Acts, Jesus' final instructions were: "go make disciples."
2000 years later & 2 billion claim to follow Christ...
If that can't be labeled as a "win" on the "clear instructions" list, what can?
Yup, and right before that in Acts it say the Apostles asked him when he was going to restore the kingdom to Israel, proving that they thought he was a political figure, at the very end. The was no "great commission" in Mark, proving the earliest communities did not believe in it, or even the resurrection, as the earliest versions of Mark had no resurrection. mark actually forgot THE most important thing ? In Luke it says nothing about a commission, so why did he not think it was important ? In Matthew 28, it says even seeing him at the END, "they worshiped, but they doubted", so OBVIOUSLY, they did not know what they were looking at, thus disproving the resurrection accounts. They DID NOT KNOW what they saw, even at the VERY end.
Funny how actually reading the crap, can enlighten one.
The world's biggest pyramid scheme.
@ buckyball: funny that you read the ending of Mark that way. even if Mark 16 ends at v.8 (which almost all scholars agree it does), what does the mere existence of the book mean? do you really think the intent was to say "see, no resurrection"? why write the book if that was actually the case? why have demons (who clearly "knew better" than the confused disciples) calling him the "Son of God"? And then of course, there's Mark 1:1...
just from a literary perspective, the case that Mark didn't believe in the resurrection doesn't hold up under *basic* scrutiny. there is a difference between noting that the disciples were confused after the cross (but then Christianity for some inexplicable reason exploded) and then the obvious reality that the communities in which these accounts were read (again, from *early* dates – Paul is writing w/in 15 years in some cases & he is inviting eyewitness corroboration) were drawing increasing numbers of people to faith in Jesus.
the classic liberal objection here that "those people back then were so naive and needed to believe in a resurrection" is not only ethnocentric but simply historically inaccurate. as another scholar has said, "these people may not have been as well read as you, but they're IQ wasn't 2." Paul, Peter, & virtually all the NT writers consistently invite fact-checking. And they are writing while many of the eyewitnesses are still alive – in an Empire where travel & correspondence were regular practices.
per your other objections...
Luke 24:46-49 – re-read that. what are "witnesses"? what do you assume "wait until... stay until..." means?
Mt.28:17 – if anything, their doubt being mentioned directly should resonate with what you'd expect (and what you are personally experiencing). And John 20 (Doubting Thomas) corroborates & further explores that event. But keep reading... the very next verse (Mt.28:18) "But Jesus came to them..." – the resurrection solidifies their faith.
And why do you think Jesus was with them for 40 days *after* being risen? for those very kinds of things. not just a singular appearance, but consistently showing himself & teaching them. if they were so discombobulated as you are proposing, how did Christianity even get off the ground – much less, exponentially permeate the Roman Empire within the next century?
Yes, as you said: funny how actually reading can enlighten one. Keep reading.
For an exhaustive, scholarly take on the historical reality of the resurrection:
read NT Wright's comprehensive "The Resurrection of the Son of God"
The bible has talking snakes, talking donkeys, zombies, and impossible physics. If that doesn't stop you, then you'll find a way to believe anything in it in whatever way it suits you to believe it. What kind of moron god thinks it's a grand idea to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself by exploiting a loophole in a plan he made himself? A retarded four year old could come up with a better plan.
@ Moby Schtick: unless of course that plan was primarily to show us who He is and what we need most (Him).
As Jesus made clear, the Bible is not a bunch of rules or ethics to follow (unlike virtually every other religion), but the Bible is all about him (Lk.24:27,44)...
Jesus (or his disciples, at the very least) should have Tebow'd the cruicifix, trademarking himself on the cross...Constantine's and Luther's Church would still be counting their denarii to this today (their Caymen, Belize and Singapore accounts would be overflowing)...
Russ, reread the thread carefully. Note the part about religion being insane but if you're the kind of idiot that can't see it then you will believe anything and devise the most complex machinations to see "truth" in the insanity. And then you added more complex machinations to further your point. Earth to Russ, come in, Russ...
@ End Religion: you're actually illustrating my point.
It's not complex. The entire debate is about the true nature of reality (ontology).
The question is: who is actually in touch with objective reality?
That – and that alone – decides who is delusional.
You think I'm out of touch. I think you are. But simply labeling someone as "insane" does not make it so. The deciding factor is objective truth. I hope you can see that much. Otherwise, you won't realize the futility of your logic – that the insane man is the most likely to regard everyone else as insane, and the last to realize his actual predicament. And that's an argument that plays both ways.
As Jesus said of the prodigal son: "when he came to his senses..." he went home to his Father (Lk.15:17).
The clear implication: sin is insanity. Saying "I can do life without the Author of life" is the definition of being out of touch with reality. And that is the foundational divide in the debate we are having here.
Or as I've put it many times on this blog:
Jane & Jack walk into a room.
Jane sees 50 people. Jack only sees 25.
Jack thinks Jane is crazy.
Jane thinks Jack is blind.
But the labels do nothing. The question remains: who is actually right?
So it comes down to the foundation: On what basis do you claim you are right?
What is underneath your claim to exclusive truth?
How do you know you are not the one out of touch with reality?
The Jack and Jane analogy seems more stupid every time I read it. Care to explain just what you're trying to get at with it?
@ schtick: if your best argument is "you're insane", it's not actually furthering the conversation.
pejorative labels are not a substi.tute for an argument.
bottom line: the Jack & Jane argument can only be decided by the (objective) truth.
but that's the very thing they are debating! it's a self-fufilling prophecy.
so instead of just throwing around labels, let's get down to *why* we are claiming what we are claiming.
this discussion is about metaphysical foundations. it's epistemology, not politics.
power positioning ("you're just insane!" why? because you disagree?) doesn't go anywhere.
the whole point of the illustration is to get both parties to go deeper than surface analysis.
are you willing? or shall we be 5th graders & just call each other stupid?
as I asked "End Religion": on what basis do you claim to know the truth, objective reality, etc. (which for you appears to be that there is no God)?
What happens when the limitations of "both" are removed? Will we all stop seeing associations as a representation of the whole? Will we instead see the representation as partial and reflective on an individual level?
Can we move beyond the labels as you say? It will require a suspension of judgment Judgment interferes with each individual's ability to determine what is true. Does it not? Doesn't judgment also preclude the validation of the other person's truth? Within each group, divisions are being created by this judgment. Between groups, divisions are being created by this same judgment.
Would rainbow Jesus be for same se x marriage?
If rainbow jesus were president, america would have same sex marriage and be forced to wear rainbow afro wigs. Sweet!
Jesus lived perfectly under the Mosaic Law, which considered "gay marriage" a sin. There is no mention of Him changing that law. Why would you even question it?
i apologize for my insane vitriol. i haven't been well recently, and i forgot to take my meds.
Nice try, troll.
i know I've been a troll, and that's why i'm apologizing.
If stealing someone's screen name is the best you have, you've already lost. Next.
I equate "red state" christianity with evangelical chrisitianity which is a fake form of christianity. The true teachings of Jesus have been distorted and mporphed by this fake christianity over the centuries to justify kings, dictators, slavery and now corporate greed and corruption. It is a childish believe in a "jesus-god" idol that supposedly intervenes to make us wealthy or to score touchdowns in a football game. There is more obsession with the accuracy and preciseness of words in a book than there is about true morality.
Well said Amigo.
God's Oldest Dreamer can post all the gibberish he wishes but it won't make anyone stand up and salute. It certainly won't have that effect when people learn what GOD believes about pedophilia.
God's Oldest Dirtbag is nothing but a delusional troll who posts nothing but non-sequiturs posing as deep thought. Unfortunately, God's Oldest Dirtbag is hardly a humanoid to be emulated, and his florid prose is to be scorned as the garbage it is.
Avoid the sh!twith at all costs. He's a fraud.
Jesus was a social progressive WHILE being a staunch theological conservative.
Not the "either/or" this article promotes.
Think MLK or William Wilberforce.
Real social change BY appealing to theological roots – not jettisoning them.
Can it be said and also inferred that all of Life here upon these celestial shorelines of life-forms resonate from a single celled life-form all the ways to massive cellularized life formations? Is it 'not' written within the Gospels that mankind is but buildings that are husbanded by the Godly? Do we not labour together with God in our tasks? Who among us can deny our psychic Being as being un/just and un/righteous God-Heads?
Nothing is a Foreverness and Matter, in its' infinitesimally established finiteness, is a materialized foreverness unobtainable by us, human-like megaliths called mankind. We are all giants too huge and too vast for us to ever re-enter in wholeness back into the Kingdoms of God which are inside or within our bodies. So many damningly dumb buildings of evolution's ascension into the spatial voids of outward motions sanctioned by the Godly! Too little are our intellectual abaters
1Corinthians 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Ergo. does that mean dumbness is genetical or is it many societal hierarchies being the dumbness from which socialisms are currently adorned with and/or auspisciously bequeathed?
Translation of G.O.D.'s post into intelligible human language: GOD has nothing of interest or intelligence to offer, so it vomits up nonsense, made-up words, and gibberish, and then attempts to engage others in some sort of dialogue
It is a sad little sack.
@ Old Dreamer:
it has been said: "any idiot can use a thesaurus, but the sign of real genius is making complex ideas simple."
Nonetheless, if your words were actually cogent, we might still be able to have a conversation.
I'll be glad to dignify any remarks that actually engage the topic. Otherwise, I tend to ignore trolls.
1. Could a single cell be but a Kingdom of God?
2. Can a complexity of cells be still yet Kingdoms of God?
3. Is Fractal Cosmology an actuality as science seems to suggest?
I could go on with many questions but I will stop here.
I had to look up the word "thesaurus". I have not ever used one Russ, Honestly I haven't
Abraham Kuyper said: there’s not one square inch of all creation over which Jesus Christ does not declare “this is mine, this belongs to me!”
And yet look at how he reclaims his territory.
Not with a sword, but with nails and thorns and a bloody chunk of wood.
Can you Russ deny there to be but 2 kinds of relative space? InnerSpace and OutSpace? Thus InnerSpace places are God's place while OuterSpace places are for the human race.
Consider the above thoughts,,,,,
@ Dreamer: re-read the Kuyper quote. not one square inch. all of it. His.
or as Gregory of Nazianzus put it: "Whatever wasn't assumed, wasn't healed."
or to ask the question bluntly: if God's space in only "inner", why did Jesus come in the flesh (or as you seem to want to put it "outspace")?
I believe what the KJVB has written within it these 2 verses,
These two verses taken literally and with much deep thoughts regarding current science's inward looking into our bodies has shown us that there are immeasurable amounts of submicroscopic machines doing all manner of things. In our world machines need operators so it would also be with these very small machines inside our bodies.
I will stop now and await a reply after you consider these words.
This whole spatial theme of yours seems to assume a 'god within creation' instead of the transcendent God of the Bible who made all of creation. Might be better for you to think of the distinction as more like an Author's relationship to a character in the play he wrote – a play into which he writes himself so his creation can know him.
The idea that God is so tiny he can drive subatomic particles like a car still makes God just *part* of creation. It fails to see what Kierkegaard noted: that there is "an infinite, qualitative difference between God and humanity." Infinite & qualitative. A different category entirely. Not just infinitesimally small. Transcendent. "Totally Other." not contingent on physics, but the maker of physics (Col.1:17).
again, like Shakespeare writing himself into one of his plays – a universe he dreamt up. Entirely dependent on his imagination. not just a place where Shakespeare is really tiny & inside everything – but where everything bears the mark of the Author who imagined it into existence.
your view of God just sounds like a knockoff of the last scene from Men in Black...
Russ and G.O.D. arguing over which one of their delusions is real? Priceless.
As Paul said in 1 Cor.15, if there is no resurrection, then we Christians are to be pitied above all men.
But the inverse is true as well.
Or to put it more directly: being deluded – by definition – means you are not aware of reality.
and that's the entirety of the debate here, isn't it?
does the skeptic turn that skepticism equally upon him/herself?
"Life" seems to be a convoluted trajectory declaring (in either one's cases) random essentialisms upon becoming the other's differing relativism. The swinging of the pit's pendulum needs only a leveraging undulation to be a mimicry.
I believe in the infinitesimally finite values and accords while others believe in the grandest of hugeness being the better of the two. We, as it now is, are caught between such an envisioning resoluteness of relational differences. I live for the smallest while others live for the huge. Inner-Space or Outer-Space can only maintain divisional accords thru gravimetric variations of quantum physicalities.
It is best for mankind to simmer in their juvenile pottages never rationalizingly 'a.s.saying' one's diffuse detriments the grains. As smitten breeds, our splendors reveal one's characters to be traitorous to one's analogous fold. Where then does Life end and living begin?
Let Us Love
I pray to the still wearing diapers infant Jesus.
You are a fool and will suffer the fate of a fool.
Well, dearie, you'd be the one to explain the fate of a fool, wouldn't you?
I pray to the wearing-a-dirty-diaper-Jesus, I figure he's got the most to lose.
Prayer changes things .
Changes of things come without one needing prayer. Be a goodly worker and learn to toil one's trade(s) unto the expansiveness to be renditioned toward non-contrary conclusive euphemisms.
husssen the life-fromis due the mores fostered by the comer bundtcake remus. Ne'er do noel hollybush follicle brush front morons fusty becomsta. JQR! Jper dyer tie muptisidker! Fidder viperstup, foulduppersite pup? Omneristatic putzwaller! <pjgpm Bppr/e
I believe in a black jesus as in no jesus, 'cause unless someone has some independent, verifiable, object and factual evidence, the supernatural jesus is just a myth.
Can it be said and also inferred that all of Life here upon these celestial shorelines of life-forms resonate from a single celled life-form all the ways to massive cellularized life formations? Is it 'not' written within the Gospels that mankind is but buildings that are husbanded by the Godly? Do we not labour together with God in our tasks? Who among us can deny our Being as being just and righteous God-Heads?
Ergo. does that mean dumbness is genetical or is it societal hierarchies being the dumbness from which socialisms are currently adorned and auspisciously bequeathed?
@ god's oldest dreamer who's still asleep
In short : No
Please kind buck do not be so shortsighted and show me some length if you do not mind?
Sleep? That's for those who seek out the darkness.
"Can it be said and also inferred that all of Life here upon these celestial shorelines of life-forms resonate ......blah, blah, blah, more nonsense, blah, y blah, blah, bloviate more nonsense, blah, blah, blah, y blah, mumble, bumble, jumble, crumble, yada, yada, yada, blurt, blurt vomit yukkkblah, blah, blah, more nonsense, blah, y blah, blah, bloviate more nonsense, blah, blah, blah, y blah, mumble, bumble, jumble, crumble, yada, yada, yada, blurt, blurt vomit yukkkblah, blah, blah, more nonsense, blah, y blah, blah, bloviate more nonsense, blah, blah, blah, y blah, mumble, bumble, jumble, crumble, yada, yada, yada, blurt, blurt vomit yukkkblah, blah, blah, more nonsense, blah, y blah, blah, bloviate more nonsense, blah, blah, blah, y blah, mumble, bumble, jumble, crumble, yada, yada, yada, blurt, blurt vomit yukkkblurt, blurt vomit yukkkblah, blah, blah, more nonsense, blah, y blah, blah, bloviate more nonsense, blah, blah, blah, y blah, mumble, bumble, jumble, crumble, yada, yada, yada, blurt, blurt vomit yukkkblah, blah, blah, more nonsense, blah, y blah, blah, bloviate more nonsense, blah, blah, blah, y blah, mumble, bumble, jumble, crumble, yada, yada, yada, blurt, blurt vomit yukkkblah, blah, blah, more nonsense, blah, y blah, blah, bloviate more nonsense, blah, blah, blah, y blah, mumble, bumble, jumble, crumble, yada, yada, yada, blurt, blurt vomit yukkkblurt, blurt vomit yukkkblah, blah, blah, more nonsense, blah, y blah, blah, bloviate more nonsense, blah, blah, blah, y blah, mumble, bumble, jumble, crumble, yada, yada, yada, blurt, blurt vomit yukkkblah, blah, blah, more nonsense, blah, y blah, blah, bloviate more nonsense, blah, blah, blah, y blah, mumble, bumble, jumble, crumble, yada, yada, yada, blurt, blurt vomit yukkkblah, blah, blah, more nonsense, blah, y blah, blah, bloviate more nonsense, blah, blah, blah, y blah, mumble, bumble, jumble, crumble, yada, yada, yada, blurt, blurt vomit yukkkblurt, blurt vomit yukkkblah, blah, blah, more nonsense, blah, y blah, blah, bloviate more nonsense, blah, blah, blah, y blah, mumble, bumble, jumble, crumble, yada, yada, yada, blurt, blurt vomit yukkkblah, blah, blah, more nonsense, blah, y blah, blah, bloviate more nonsense, blah, blah, blah, y blah, mumble, bumble, jumble, crumble, yada, yada, yada, blurt, blurt vomit yukkkblah, blah, blah, more nonsense, blah, y blah, blah, bloviate more nonsense, blah, blah, blah, y blah, mumble, bumble, jumble, crumble, yada, yada, yada, blurt, blurt vomit yukkk!
If anyone finds a single thing G. O . D. has posted that is even remotely more enlightening that the above, do speak up.
God personally wrote and posted the law, giving the law to Moses on Mount Sinai.
"God personally "
Haha. Funny shiat.
It's not my fault that you are still yet a dummie of the damnations in a society of sensualisms' misfits.
There is no absolute boundary between life and non-life.
There's not a thing I could add that would render God's Oddest Dirtbag any more silly than he's already made himself.
Then,,, could life be forever boundless and all ponderances entailed as 'non-life' truly be life?
Gee, G.O. D. Who cares? If you abuse your brother and get away with it, does that mean you're innocent?
Go play with someone else's tallywhacker TT and leave mine alone! :-)
Shut your pie-hole, pack up your azz-hole, and leave, you lousy pedophile, and I'll be happy to wave good-bye.
Pig stealing Gogle-mogle,,,
What's the matter, God's Oldest D-bag? Can't manage to defend your abuse?
G.O.D., if you think your actions were innocent, then publish your e-mail address here and let the cops sort it out.
"We don't know." is at least as good an answer, much better in my opinion, than "Some god did it." Unless, again, if someone has some real evidence that any god exists. And without such evidence, quoting The Babble is not evidence!
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.