Comments by Remnant

Comment #169485 by Remnant on April 26, 2008 at 7:31 am

Comment #169330 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 7:18 pm

"We can prove that the concept of a non-physical, personal god is contradictory, because being a person means being a thinker and potentially an agent, and the concepts necessitate that any potential referent is within time because action and thought is always also a change in state of affairs - which only makes sense in spacetimetime. Our concepts of personhood and agency are inextricably linked to our concept of time.
Therefore, a "personal god outside space and time" is a conceptual impossibility - a category mistake."

1. Oh I see. Your limiting "personhood and agency, inextricably linked to our concept of time", limits your comprehension of things beyond that reference and therefore your understanding, based on those limitations in your finite mind and world, prevents you from comprehending an infinite God. Based on this finite limitation, you proclaim a personal God, outside the finite limits you exist in to declare Him an impossibility.

Thanks for demonstrating the limits of your finite reasoning skills in your self-defeating statement.

"Something non-physical effecting something physical is - aside from being in contradiction with the conservation of energy and momentum - another conceptual impossibility."

2. Oh well there goes emotions like love and hate. There goes reason. There goes intellect. There goes consciousness, all non-physical "somethings" affecting our physical something.

"Furthermore, the concept of intention being fulfilled without a mechanism is incomprehensible in principle. It doesn't make sense. And just saying "well, god can" - won't do."

See response # 1 above.

2. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169477 by Remnant on April 26, 2008 at 7:14 am

Comment #169385 by Quine on April 26, 2008 at 12:17 am

You have got to be kidding. any evolutionists and atheists "declare themselves" the keepers and logic.

Oh by the way. The videos forget to tell us where the first bouncing blocks came from.

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169473 by Remnant on April 26, 2008 at 7:02 am

Two theories of the development of man.

Warning...these are just theories though current and historical observations tend to confirm many salient points.

This warning must be place because atheists and evolutionists are know to take any wild speculation or theory as fact if it supports their world view.

Author unknown....

First theory

"The division of the human family into its two distinct branches occurred some 10,000 years ago, a few hundred years after the flood. Humans coexisted as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers.

In the pivotal event of societal evolution, beer was invented. This epochal innovation was both the foundation of modern civilization and the occasion of the great bifurcation of humanity into its two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle or aluminum can had yet been invented, so it was necessary to stick pretty close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days killing animals to barbecue at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of the conservative movement. Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting, learned how to live off conservatives by showing up for the BBQs every night and doing women's work like sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the liberal movement. Later, some of the liberals actually became women.

Liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, invention of group therapy and democratic voting to see how to divide the beer and meat that the conservatives provided. Women were not interested in democracy at that time because most of them were still women back then, and the conservatives fed them.

Conservatives are symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth.
Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern Liberals like imported beer (they add lime), but most prefer white wine or foreign water in a bottle. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and french food are on liberal menus.

Their women have more testosterone than the men.
Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, and group therapists are Liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule in baseball because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat, and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumber jacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, soldiers, athletes, and generally anyone who works productively outside government. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals do not produce anything. They like to "govern" the producers and decide what is to be done with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals just stayed in Europe when conservatives were coming to America.
Conservatives have principles, believe in a Creator, and the rule of law. They practice charity and give to the poor, normally through their churches. When in doubt on an issue, they check both the Bible and the Constitution, which they use as a constant reference in a changing world. They believe in the concept of truth.

Liberals do not have principles, except for their dedication to stealing productivity of conservatives and undermining principled references such as the Bible and Constitution. They are never in doubt on an issue because they always do whatever is best for them without regard to others. They have no standard of reference. Liberals do not give to charity. They cultivate the poor like a cat cultivates a field of mice. They use the poor as voters and give them a portion of stolen tax money which they vote away from conservatives.

Conservatives believe in self defense, both at home and abroad. They own guns and use them to discourage liberals and other common criminals. They provide guns to the armed forces to discourage foreign liberals and other foreign criminals.

Liberals do not believe in conservative self defense. They disarm conservatives, and then attack them with impunity by liberal armies with guns. King George, Hitler and Stalin were all liberals who abandoned the rule of Law, had no principles except their own self indulgence, and attempted to tax and govern conservatives.

Liberals believe in BIG government. They think the United Nations is the ultimate answer.
Conservatives believe in the rule of law and when sitting on juries, convict common criminals and acquit fellow conservatives who have been charged by liberals. When serving in the armed forces, they shoot liberals from other countries who want to govern our country.

Conservatives know the difference between a common-sense law and a bone-headed statute passed by some liberal from Massachusetts. When sitting on juries, they do not enforce bone-headed statutes, and don't explain their reasons.

Liberals only believe in whatever laws are appealing to them, such as the privilege of making a living by taxing conservatives. When sitting on juries, liberals convict producers and acquit liberals and other common criminals. Modern Judges are all liberals as they do not produce anything except chaos, and are paid with confiscated tax money. They consider it against the law to reference any source of law such as the Bible or Constitution. Like other liberals, they just make it up as they go and do what is best for them. Judge Roy Bean is their model.

The American cowboy, of course, is your basic, full-bore Conservative. A hundred years ago, an Englishman visiting Texas was attempting to find the owner of a huge cattle ranch. He rode up to one of the ranch hands, and inquired, "Pardon me, but could you perhaps tell me where I might locate your master?" To which the cowboy replied, "That boy ain't been born yet"."

Another theory, author unknown...

"History began some 12,000 years ago. Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the winter and would go to the coast to live on fish and lobster in the summer.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundations of modern civilization, and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals & Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as "the Conservative movement."

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting, learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as 'girleymen.'

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years, conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men.

Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists, are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, soldiers, athletes, and generally, anyone who works productively outside government.

Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tame and created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history."

4. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169469 by Remnant on April 26, 2008 at 6:50 am

Comment #169390 by epeeist on April 26, 2008 at 12:43 am

The self-proclaimed keeper of all knowledge and ultimate arbitrator of morality, once again "puts foot in his mouth".

You, "Walls round Jericho, didn't have any."

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/projects/projects97/kingp/jericho.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/jericho.asp

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/thera.html

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html

You, "According to you god is the source of all morality but here we have him murdering, disturbing the scene of a crime and lying. Not exactly what I would call ethical behaviour."

May I ask who appointed you the "moral center of and arbitrator of morality in the universe"?

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
Rom 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?

5. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169229 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 4:25 pm

See you later kids. Got to run before the uncertainty principle makes my cake disappear. Right now I can predict with good probability where it is and where it will be shortly.

I also don't want to risk it evolving into a donut or or worse yet and unfrosted bagel through some random mutation.

tootles till later.

I might tell you later about a new theory of nothing from something or nothing from nothing.

have fun

6. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169225 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 4:20 pm

4620. Comment #169219 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm

So you are now claiming that the God you don't believe exists is speaking to you. Are you hearing voices?

Get checked out quick!

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169221 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 4:17 pm

4609. Comment #169205 by masterbuilder on April 25, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Well said.

Their God is chance. They assign magical creative power to it. I makes no demands on them. It is their friend. it allows them to do whatever they wish.

No other God's are allowed, especially not the God of the Bible or our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169216 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Definitions

Cake is the universe
Baker is the creator of the cake

Science teacher: Today we are going to study this cake.
Student: Who made the cake.
Science teacher: It just happened let's just talk about the cake.
Student: But a cake can't just happen. Someone or something had to make it.
Science teacher: We are here to talk bout the cake.
Student: Yes but cakes can't just happen out of nothing.There must have been a baker.
Science teacher: That's an old myth. Scietific research has shown that a baker is uncessary.
Student: But...
Science teacher: We cannot discuss old myths and
your mis-guided beliefs. Do you want to get me fired?
Student: But there must have been a baker.
Science teacher: You are not being scientific, you believe fables and better get with the program if you want to succeed in life. Progressive people don't believe myths.
Student: But I learned...
Science teacher: You are being disruptive! do you want detention or a referral?
Student: No
Science teacher: Then sit down, be silent, and listen. Now students, let's talk about this cake.

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169202 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Comment #169168 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Why are you referring to the Bible, taken out of context to what the passage reveals by the way, from the God you don't believe in? By doing this, you are pre-supposing that God exists, the Bible is His Word, and it is truth.

Oh yea, and that you understand something that you don't believe it.

You are in essence trying to hold him accountable to what you believe is a lie. If the Bible is a lie and morals are relevant to the individual, you have no grounds to criticize him at all. His morals would be equally valid to yours.

You are just one big contradiction. You are either confirming God and the truth of the Bible or violating the doctrine of your atheistic faith, moral relativism. Which is it? Which do you believe? You can't have it both ways.

You just gotta love it.

I thought atheists claimed the high ground on logic and reason. Sure could have fooled me.

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169185 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Comment #169151 by TheTruthID on April 25, 2008 at 3:15 pm

That's known as a "drive by speculation". the sad thing is that some atheist professor or high school teacher will get a hold of that and then read it to the class without ever mentioning any dissenting opinion. They will appeal to the authority of the drive-by author and lead a discussion weighted to give credibility to that article. The damage is done. The seeds of doubt are planted based on wild speculation. When this is done, over and over, slowly but surely doubt arises and the students faith is eroded, which was the plan all along. I call it the way an ant eats an elephant method. One bite at a time.

The atheists will deny it but it happens every day across America. If a child is so bold as to disagree, they may be ridiculed or embarrassed in front of the class. In some cases, grades can be affected. Secular students that agree with the prof. are praised. Student are conditioned to remain silent out of fear of retribution and slowly but surely the plan to destroy their faith is pursued.

Any teacher that is of faith, does not have the intellectual freedom to question evolution or lead
class discussions about problem with the theory for fear of ridicule or swift retribution from the establishment if they are discovered. the ACLU and the fascists will sweep in and silence them.

11. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169155 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Discovery of something from nothing.

A first principle of knowledge is that from nothing comes nothing. We also know that the Law of Causality confirms that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Scientific discoveries have confirmed that the universe had a beginning. Since the universe had a beginning, it therefore had a cause. This is why the atheist evolutionists are scrambling to find a speculative theory to cast doubt on the implications of a supernatural, first cause, creator of the universe that the so called big bang theory leads to. They are busy speculating about all sorts of things like eternal natural laws that existed prior to the big bang, quantum fluctuations, bubbles, multiple universes, multiple dimensions, etc. Some of these would be defined as supernatural events, outside of our natural world, and some of them would be excluded from consideration by their previous definition of science had as only applicable to testable things in the natural world. If anyone dared to propose a potential grant barring or career ending theory that referenced a supernatural event, they were ridiculed as crazy and in great danger of being blackballed or denied tenure. They had to keep these thought secret. As the big bang theory gained more acceptance, the line between the natural world and supernatural, as defined as outside of the natural world began to be discussed. Why the change? As secular scientists gained control of the academy, they censored supernatural explanations because they wanted to prevent God and the potential for miracles from getting a foot in the door in scientific discussions. Now they don't know what to do so all kind of wacky things are open for discussion as long as you do not associate them in any way with God.
We all know why that is.

Anyway, one of the big sticking points for these secular scientists is the something from nothing thingy. They have to find a way around this at all costs. Anything goes as long as it is not associated with God. They have to find a way for something to begin to exist from nothing.

The answer is right before their eyes. They need look no farther than much of the logic, reasoning, critical thinking, and comments by many of the God denying atheists that post on this forum. As I read the comments, logic, and reason put forth by many of these atheists on this forum, I frequently observe something coming from nothing all the time.

12. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169105 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Comment #169054 by MaxD on April 25, 2008 at 2:28 pm

"Remnant,
As Elli pointed out...
We are animals. We are in the order Primates, family Hominidae. Mammals, vertebrates, chordates. Animals man! or whatever."

I don't disagree that humans are a part of the animal kingdom. Being a part of the animal kingdom does not mean that one must act like one.

I wasn't referring to physical characteristics. I was referring to social behavior.

I am sorry that went over your head.

13. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169084 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Comment #169036 by MaxD on April 25, 2008 at 2:21 pm
avatarTruthID,

"They enable me to break other people's noses with out breaking my hands. They are convenient like that."

Oooooh! sounds like a threat to me.

14. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169072 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Comment #169049 by The Reverend Dark on April 25, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Are you having closet fantasies or just synapse failure.

I was referring to the potential genetic similarity of you to a generic sample, not a individual's specific sample.

You may fancy yourself as a linguist, but I would add a linguist sans comprehension and reason.

Maybe that marker was damaged through a random mutation. Heck, you might even be a living transitional species.

This could be big. Get Richard right on it.

15. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169050 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 2:27 pm

4460. Comment #169025 by al-rawandi on April 25, 2008 at 2:18 pm

So now according to you being patriotic or wearing a flag pin is Fascist. I suspected you were a closet anti-American Cindy Sheehan/Code Pink kind of guy.

16. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169032 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 2:19 pm

4454. Comment #169019 by The Reverend Dark on April 25, 2008 at 2:15 pm

You, "Fear induced urine? You're soaking in it."

And I would propose that you quite possibly are it. Maybe you are the missing link.

17. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169021 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Comment #169014 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 2:11 pm

No, I don't think it wise for children to associate with uncivil, foul mouth people, basically near animals.

18. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169010 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Comment #169001 by Elli on April 25, 2008 at 2:03 pm

"Remnant, you should read those articles you cited more critically. For example, Trevor Loudon of "New Zeal" has a very different definition of "left" and "right" then is traditionally used. He defines the spectrum as being collectivism on one end and individualism on the other, from "left" to "right"."

Thank you for your vacuous response. I realize that leftists and evolutionists are bound to only read, reference, believe, parrot, or discuss the official "approved talking points" but I am not bound by that imposed censorship.

19. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169003 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Comment #168996 by SRWB on April 25, 2008 at 1:58 pm

"This whole "secular left-religious right" is a bit off the mark and not entirely accurate. For example, people can be secular, atheistic and yet still vote for conservatives and republicans. By the same token, liberals don't vote unanimously for the atheists and socialists. Most people just can't be pigonholed like that. Politics is too complicated and many-faceted. Some prefer fiscal conservatism and social liberalism for example Some would like to impose theocratic values."

True but if you look at the left vs the right by numbers, far more leftists are secular.

20. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168998 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Comment #168973 by al-rawandi on April 25, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Oh please, stop with the Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan left wing rants. Aren't you late for a Code Pink rally?

Seen any black helicopters lately?

21. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168984 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Comment #168968 by al-rawandi on April 25, 2008 at 1:38 pm

You, "Actually fascism is largely associate with rightist politics."

The left would like people to believe that lie, along with may others, like throwing pies in conservative speakers faces is acceptable, or restricting free speech is ok.

If anything has destroyed America, it is the secular left.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/01/left_fascists_are_fascists_too.html

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id8.html

http://www.griffnews.com/droleskey/020124.shtml

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-fascists-are-leftists.html

22. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168969 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Comment #168955 by Geodesic17 on April 25, 2008 at 1:32 pm

cite your works. You were the one that made the following baseless inference.

You, "Religious thought crime is superstition, and putting thought crime into practice as a concept by prosecuting it is totalitarian fascist tyranny."

I am not your research assistant or tutor. If you are ignorant on an issue and make an incorrect drive-by association to discredit people of faith as fascist, it is you problem, not mine. Do your own research or stop making unsupported drive-by assertions.

23. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168958 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Comment #168947 by The Reverend Dark on April 25, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Sir, I have asked dozens of questions that are not responded to.

I realize that the secular left is fascist, demanding, and intolerant in beliefs but you do not dictate to me when or what I have to respond to.

24. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168950 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Comment #168847 by Diacanu on April 25, 2008 at 11:54 am

You, "Religious thought crime is superstition, and putting thought crime into practice as a concept by prosecuting it is totalitarian fascist tyranny."

You should do some political research before flapping. If you look at the "thought crime" legislation that has been recently proposed, you will find it coming from the secular left.

25. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168935 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Comment #168862 by The Reverend Dark on April 25, 2008 at 12:10 pm

You, "It is dichotomies such as this that make you such a pusillanimous little airbag."

Is that your pusillanimous ruling?

By the way, those that have avatars like yours sometimes do that to compensate for their emasculated status or other impairment. Sort of like a comb-over or rug. What's your reason?

26. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168838 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 11:45 am

Comment #168821 by Geodesic17 on April 25, 2008 at 11:30 am

I just love how atheists and evolutions latch on to words like surmises, postulates, could have, possibly, theorizes,maybe, hopefully, possibly, as solid evidence.

Too funny. I guess it is just a godless thingy!

27. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168833 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 11:41 am

Comment #168828 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 11:36 am

"Seems a little backwards to me."

I would expect that for atheists often call good evil and evil good.

it's a godless kind of mentality

28. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168832 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 11:38 am

Comment #168829 by MaxD on April 25, 2008 at 11:36 am

"what qualifies as charitable giving is my question."

for conservatives and the religious people, money and time from us.

for libs and secular, extortions through taxes

29. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168813 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 11:23 am

Geodesic17,

Here is another article about that study. I don't have the link so I'll post the article.

Conservatives and Religious People Give More Charity
Feb 29th, 2008
A study by philanthropy expert Arthur C. Brooks, a Syracuse University professor, has found that conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and volunteer time to charity than liberals and non-religious people.

The study shows that conservatives give 30% more money to charity than liberals, even though liberals earn 6% more money. Brooks also found that liberals who are religious give more money to charity than liberals who are not religious.

In fact, religious conservatives give 100 times more money to charity than secular liberals or "progressives." They also volunteer more.

Also, Brooks, author of "Who Really Cares?," found that people in wealthier, more liberal states like California and New York are below average in charitable giving compared to people in poor states like Mississippi and Alabama.

In fact, the working poor in the United States give a larger percentage of their incomes to charity than any other income group, including the middle class and the rich.

Finally, the study shows that Americans are far more charitable than Europeans �" 14 as much as the Italians, seven times as much as the Germans, and three and one-half times more charity than the French.

Annual Donations to Charities
Conservatives, $1,600
Liberals, $1,230

Brooks surmises that Europeans and liberals, especially secular ones, believe the government should take care of people, but Americans and conservatives, especially religious ones, tend to believe in personal charity and individual responsibility.

-- WORLD Magazine, 12/09/06, and Religion News Service, 01/07/07.

30. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168806 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 11:18 am

Comment #168777 by Geodesic17 on April 25, 2008 at 10:48 am

Here is just one. There are others.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html

excerpts from the article…

"The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions."

------------
"Charity differences between religious and secular people persist if we look at the actual amounts of donations and volunteering. Indeed, measures of the dollars given and occasions volunteered per year produce a yawning gap between the groups. The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times. To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered."
-----------
"These differences hardly change when we consider them in isolation from the other demographics, using a statistical technique called tobit regression. Religious practice by itself is associated with $1,388 more given per year than we would expect to see from a secular person (with the same political views, income, education, age, race, and other characteristics), as well as with 6.5 more occasions of volunteering."
-----------
"Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so. In other words, religious conservatives (who give and volunteer at rates of 91 percent and 67 percent) appear to differ from secular liberals (who give and volunteer at rates of 72 percent and 52 percent) more due to religion than to politics. Similarly, giving differences do not disappear when income is neutralized. This should not be particularly surprising, however, because the sccbs data show practically no income differences between the groups. Furthermore, research on philanthropy has consistently shown that the poor tend to give more frequently �" and a higher percentage of their incomes �" than the middle class. For example, economist Charles Clotfelter and others have shown that the poor tend to give a proportion of their income to charity that is comparable to the giving proportion of the very wealthy �" and nearly twice that of the middle class.2 (This seems to be true only for the working poor, however. Welfare support appears to depress giving substantially.3)"

31. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168791 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 11:02 am

Comment #168762 by MaxD on April 25, 2008 at 10:38 am

Your little fantasy attempt at mocking God may make you feel cute but here is all you need to know about Noah, the flood, and the second coming.

Enjoy the truth but be concerned…be very concerned.

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
Ecc 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

32. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168767 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 10:39 am

Comment #168759 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 10:36 am

Re-read what I wrote two or three times. Reading comprehension can be improved with practice.

33. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168761 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 10:37 am

Comment #168754 by Geodesic17 on April 25, 2008 at 10:33 am

"Count how many time Bill Gates talks about Jesus when he gave his speech at Havard about giving away his $$$$$$$$$$."

I did not say that there were not cases of secular people that are charitable. I refuted the bold faced lies that the poster made. If you are not to lazy, do some research and you ill find that people of faith give more in total and as a percentage of their income that secular people do.

Of course you probably will not do the research.

34. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168755 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 10:34 am

Comment #168660 by Bonzai on April 25, 2008 at 9:12 am

I would not want my children exposed to the profanity, hate, anger, and behavior unbecoming to the human race that many on this site are sustained by.

In addition, I have not observed much evidence of intelligence, reason, logic, or creative thinking here either.

The trade off would not be worth it.

They could go to the zoo, out in nature, God's creation, and have a more educational experience as well as observe animals in their own habitat that are much better behaved.

35. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168736 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 10:23 am

Comment #168721 by SRWB on April 25, 2008 at 10:09 am

As you clearly put on display.

36. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168735 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 10:21 am

Comment #168685 by al-rawandi on April 25, 2008 at 9:33 am

Steve,

Ignorance arises from the primordial ooze.

You. "Yet they gleefully bomb countries around the world, carpet bombing villages."

Oh yes,the fundamentalists are carpet bombing villages because you say they are.

Well lost souls are murdering babies because I know they are.

You, "They are also happy to hoard their wealth while people starve to death in Africa."

Check the numbers, studies have shown that religious people give far more to charity than secular people. I have been on many a mission trips and worked in many food lines helping the less fortunate and have yet to run into an atheist group.

You look foolish when you lie like that.

37. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168599 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 8:24 am

Well I have to run for now kids. I have to bake (create)a cake. I tried your theory. I put all of the ingredients in a bowl in the oven a while back and was hoping that a cake would originate and evolve. No such luck. I have to go and create the cake now, I don't have billions of years to wait and hope.

toodles....

38. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168594 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 8:20 am

Comment #168572 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 8:04 am

You lack of reasoning skills never cease to amaze me. I have to make an honest observation. I have been in numerous debates over the years but I have yet to ever encounter a group of people, many claiming to be "brilliant", that have collectively demonstrates such limited reasoning skills and logic. It is truly amazing. Sometimes I think it would be profitable to put glass in front of you and charge admission.

First of all, you are comparing the action of a divine God to human atheists. God as our Creator is supreme and owes us nothing. We are blessed that He even created us and gave us His beautiful creation. Are you saying that human dictators have the right to decide the right to life? That if you don't think right, are the wrong race, wrong political affiliation, or hold different religious beliefs, they can decide to eliminate you? By the way, your theory of the survival of the fittest supports that position and that is why it formed the basis of their philosophy.

Second. Were you there during the flood. Do you have a census of the population that supports your mental speculations on the number of deaths?

Finally, a simple math lesson. John ate three of his ten apples. Sue ate 50 of her 100 apples. Who ate the greatest percentage of their apples? Who ate the most apples in real numbers? and, who had the most apples left?

Hope this helps.

Do you know a good glass shop?

39. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168573 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 8:04 am

Comment #168547 by The Reverend Dark on April 25, 2008 at 7:42 am

Learn to read and stop your mental gymnastics. I have never stated "date" for the creation of the earth.

I guess in your faith, intentionally lying is ok.

40. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168569 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 7:58 am

Comment #168503 by Slippy on April 25, 2008 at 7:15 am
Let me begin by saying that you post is insulting and clearly shows how little you know about true Christianity and history. No only is it constructed on the foundation of a straw man, but you then proceed to construct a superstructure based on false speculation.

The is no question that historically, people have done things in the name of religion that were contrary to God's Word. That does not mean that they are truly following Christ. You don't even know what the Bible teaches so you are not even prepared to make a decision on that other than out of ignorance. If you want to compare atrocities between true Christians and atheists like Mao, Stalin, and dozens of other atheists I could name, you will be embarrassed. For you to even suggest that true followers of Christ are running around physically harming people or advocating that reveals the dishonest intent of your post. Christianity was the foundation of all of western civilization and formed the basis of our legal and systems of justice. Most atheists would like to see Christianity and all traces of it eliminated from society. I have news for you friend, if that ever should happen, that will be the end of freedom and justice. It will also lead to immorality. You can deny that but scholars far greater than me have written reams on that issue.

Actually, the length at which you went to construct the superstructure of your straw man revels a lot more about atheism and its intolerance than you think. You will stop at nothing , even creating false innuendos, unsupported by history and reality to discredit Christianity. No my friend. It is not the followers of Christ that are a danger to humanity and society. It is atheists like you that manufacture intentional lies to rally public opinion against Christianity. You have reduced yourself to the level of Hitler, Goebbels, Stalin, and Mao's use of false propaganda with the intent to intentionally spread lies and mislead the populace.

I am inclined to give you a pass, hoping that your insulting post was based on ignorance, and you are just a, as Lenin referred to it, "useful idiot", unknowingly advancing the agenda of your masters, but I will have to think on that one. By the way, your masters have the same destiny planned for you, enslavement on the global plantation, once your work for them is no longer "useful".

In regards to your reference to the Old Testament Law, I ill just chalk that up to intentional deceit or a failure to understand God's dealing with humanity in differing dispensations.

Finally, I spread the Gospel out of love and concern for your eternal destiny and in obedience to our Lord. You may hate God and Christians but we love you, in spite of your hate for us.

If my response offended you, I apologize. Your post offended me deeply. Though I serve Christ, I am still human and said what I felt needed to be said. If you want to discuss religious beliefs in truth and honesty, I will be glad to but I will not stand silently by and let you created a false picture out of innuendo that Christians are borderline violent people. That is a vile lie and you are either intentionally spreading it or just ignorant of the truth.

41. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168512 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 7:17 am

Comment #168494 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 7:09 am

You, "Looks like the last post is verging on threats."

Threats? Speaking of believing in fairy tales. Did my reference to a few of the Bishops of your faith upset you?

If I didn't know better, I could almost believe that aliens are living among us. Were you in men in black by any chance?

42. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168486 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 7:07 am

Comment #168472 by irate_atheist on April 25, 2008 at 6:57 am

"Shut it, Remnant. I want you to stop."

I bet you wish that you had the power of some of the past icons of your faith, like Nero, Decius, Stalin, Mao, etc.

Just think what you could do to those with opposing thoughts and beliefs with that power.

Lick your chops!

43. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168466 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 6:55 am

Comment #168454 by Bonzai on April 25, 2008 at 6:49 am

You, "Enough of lecturing us what "science" is. Answer the flood question!"

Look it up yourself. You are not my boss and I am not your research assistant.

I choose not to waste time preparing food for rude people that do not even have any intention of even tasting it.

That's my free will choice. Deal with it.

44. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168455 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 6:50 am

Comment #168450 by Bonzai on April 25, 2008 at 6:44 am

You, "If Satan has given us science and taught us how to use our brains, he would be Prometheus like figure , much more worthy of worship than your egomaniac and abusive Master whose idea of "love" is that of a S&M relationship.:

False premise, our Creator God gave us the laws of nature, our ability to reason, and the intellect explore His creation, as well as the free will to explore His creation and choose to freely reject Him.

45. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168452 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 6:46 am

Comment #168439 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 6:33 am

Have you been dining on straw again? I realize that corn, whet, and rice, as well as other food products have been going through the roof but its not that bad yet.

No one is "trying to chance the way science is done or halt scientific progress.

True science is a search for causes wherever it may lead, not a search for evidence to support worldview and censorship, as you view it.

As an example I present you statement in a prior post regarding the cause of the big bang. I may have the term you used incorrect, but to my recollection it was something like, the big bang was caused by a set of eternal, pre-existing laws.
By the way, I thought that science is no defined as limited to natural causes. Sounds kind of supernatural to me. Sounds a lot like a supernatural creator as well.

46. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168437 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 6:31 am

Comment #168415 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 6:14 am

You,"You are, I am afraid, a green-ink troll. If you choose to ask questions in a way that accepts your ignorance of subjects, I will be prepared to respond, but until then, the only appropriate response to ignore you, and to mark you as troll if you persist in this."

Typical. You are concerning yourself with temporal and trivial issues like "green ink" when I would suggest that you might want to spend you time pondering the "red ink".

I hope the "red ink" point didn't go over your head.

Finally, you have now slinked to the appeal to intimidation in a final effort to censor free expression of opposing thought.

Maybe you should have had a "bit" part in Ben Stein's movie. Your latest tack tends to confirm his hypothesis.

Mark me as a troll if that makes you feel big. That term seems to have been invented by the "truth voiders" as a way to conveniently avoid discussing issues they are uncomfortable with.

Ps, I never asked you to read or respond to my posts. You used your God's give free will and now you are whining about it.

47. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168421 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 6:18 am

Comment #168408 by Philip1978 on April 25, 2008 at 6:01 am

horse evolution...that's a good one. The only place you will find that discussed regarding macro-evolution is in textbooks used in the indoctrination centers and by atheists that are a little behind the curve on that one.

I'll bet you still pull "Haeckel's embryos" or "Miller-Urey" out of the hat as "evidence" as well.

Do you work in an indoctrination center by any chance?

48. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168413 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 6:09 am

Comment #168399 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 5:42 am

You, "Remnant. Stop acting like you know science. You don't. You are looking foolish. If you don't want to believe science, why not come out and say so? You aren't some new Newton or Einstein who can turn around an entire field of science based on your personal view. Just come out and say "I hate science".

I am so intimidated! I have never claimed to be an "expert" in all disciplines of science. You are creating a straw man and using the fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

I must inform you also, that in midst of all of your self-aggrandizement, you made a another fatal logical error, that being an appeal to authority, self-authority.

See, truth is not relative. Being "educated" in a particular discipline does not prevent one from being an "educated individual" lacking the truth. The truth is what it is. A person can be wrong on virtually every position they hold on various issues, but if on one issue, their beliefs correspond with the truth in reality, then they still hold the truth. In fact, on any given issue, all of the education in the world becomes worthless if that "educated" person hold a belief that does not conform to the truth in reality.

Come on know, this is basic logic and reason. You should know this stuff, after all, don't atheists claim to hold the high ground on logic and reason?

"If you want to start an expert-throwing contest, I can beat you 1000 times over, so that is futile. "

Why do you get so upset when a quote from a scientist that disagrees with your position is posted? Is silencing the opposition a micro-evolutionary trait that mainly atheists and liberals have "evolved"? Or maybe was that trait "seeded by panspermia"?

If you want to start a truth-throwing contest, I can beat you 1,000,000 over, because God's Word is truth. The truth you subscribe to originates with the father of all lies, the god of this world.

49. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168402 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 5:46 am

Comment #168398 by annabanana on April 25, 2008 at 5:41 am

"Remnant,

This is slightly off topic, but I was just wondering what your children plan to study when they go to college and if they intend on going to a religiously influenced school or not."

One of them economics at a secular university. The other one wants to be a writer or lawyer and is undecided regarding the secular or faith based orientation of a university.

50. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168397 by Remnant on April 25, 2008 at 5:41 am

Comment #168394 by alan baylis on April 25, 2008 at 5:37 am

You, "Obviously, they wouldn't be known facts to closed minds such as yours."

Is that the deduction of your closed mind?

You, "You seem like a professional preacher. Are you?"

No.

You seem like a professional macro-evolutionary or atheist evangelist. Are you?

Regards,
Alan.