evolution vs. Evolution

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
The end of WWII was well before I was born. I was only speaking to 30 years ago, at which point no liberal Christians were anti-Semitic.

If you were only speaking of your lifetime, you should say so and not make general proclamations that liberals have never been anti-Semitic. Liberalism in Christianity has a much longer history than your lifetime, and while I generally support it, I know it was and is not perfect.

As to the Koran being demonic, you are aware that Mohammed did not write it, he was illiterate? It was dictated to him by an entity that he only saw twice in his life. In modern terms we would call it channeled material. In one of the Hadiths Mohammed is described as going into a trance when hearing the entity, his lips would move but he would say nothing, and he would perspire intensely. That doesn't sound like a contact with an angel.

It may not sound like contact with an angel to you, but how often have you been contacted by an angel? Let's leave aside personal opinion. The facts are pretty much as you state them except that according to Muslim tradition, Muhammad received revelations from the angel Gabriel over a period of 23 years. Not just twice.

The 1st time Mohammed saw the entity he was so convinced it was an evil djinn that he was still shaking with fear when he got home. I think 1st impressions of spirits say a lot, people in the Bible feel fear briefly and then awe, they don't just keep being afraid when it is a real angel. The entity claimed that it was the archangel Gabriel, but it's words sound like an arch-demon rather than an archangel.

Well, it is interesting that pretty well every encounter with an angel recorded in scripture evokes fear and almost every one records the angel as saying "Fear not...". nor does any scripture say that people did not remain afraid. Awe itself is a form of fear. The sort spoken of when it says "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

The Koran briefly covers many stories from the Old Testament in an extremely terse and scrambled manner, not in order to elaborate on OT stories, no Koran analog gives more elaborate information on any OT story, the stories are lobotomized in the Koran. The only reason for their inclusion is not to pay homage to the OT as they falsely claim. The real purpose is to distort the OT in order to claim that the OT was altered by the Jews.

Again you are putting in unsubstantiated personal opinion. What is in the Qur'an, according to Islamic tradition, is what the angel Gabriel revealed to Muhammad. I agree, it is often truncated in comparison to the account in the Old Testament, but that is easily explained in that most of the Qur'anic references are intended simply as reminders of stories well known, not as a first revelation of them. One that is very different is the account of Jesus' birth.

They are so convinced that both the Jews and the Christians willfully distorted God's message to them that they also think that the New Testament was willfully changed with the intentional desire to contradict God.


That's true. They believe that it is only in the Qur'an that the Word of God has been preserved in purity. They see both the older revelations as corrupted.


As to anti-Semitism, I made no connection between Islam and anti-Semitism.

I know. Unfortunately, Iran is currently promoting anti-Semitism. One can understand Muslim (especially Palestinian) opposition to the state of Israel, but it is only in the last few years that this has started to be linked to anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial as well. And just as with Islamic anti-evolution material, they are borrowing from the Christian playbook.


Their religious bigotry has mainly been directed at different factions of Islam. For example, just 200 years after Mohammed there was a bloody coup in which all but one of the surviving descendants of Mohammed were mass murdered.

Yep, that's the origin of the Sunni/Shia hostility.

Whether Islam is good or bad depends on whether particular Muslims are focus on the character of Mohammed and the story of his life (good) or focused on the Koran. The only centrist or liberal traditional faction of Islam are the Sufis, and not surprisingly Sufis seldom quote the Koran.

Well, 95% of Muslims self-identify as Sunni, but there are large differences among them. The current Islamist extremism originated and is still promoted largely through Saudi Arabia. There are many Sunnis who object to it all over the world. I expect most American Muslims repudiate it. My contacts are largely with Canadian Muslims and I know of many who will have nothing to do with that sort of teaching or behaviour. They don't consider it real Islam.
 
Upvote 0

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
If you were only speaking of your lifetime, you should say so and not make general proclamations that liberals have never been anti-Semitic. Liberalism in Christianity has a much longer history than your lifetime, and while I generally support it, I know it was and is not perfect.
The fact is that there is no vestige of that anti-Semitism left in liberal Christianity today, while conservative Christians have only slightly altered their anti-Semitism to a new patronizing form of condescension which is not that different from anti-Semitism.

It may not sound like contact with an angel to you, but how often have you been contacted by an angel? Let's leave aside personal opinion. The facts are pretty much as you state them except that according to Muslim tradition, Muhammad received revelations from the angel Gabriel over a period of 23 years. Not just twice.
I said the entity was only SEEN twice by Mohammed, I did not see he only HEARD the entity twice. He clearly heard the entity a great many more times without ever being able to SEE it on any other occasion. Thus Mohammed was functioning as a medium the vast majority of the time, and you know what the Bible says about mediums.

Well, it is interesting that pretty well every encounter with an angel recorded in scripture evokes fear and almost every one records the angel as saying "Fear not...". nor does any scripture say that people did not remain afraid. Awe itself is a form of fear. The sort spoken of when it says "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
There is no evidence that anyone startled by an angel ever remained fearful to the point of trembling for hours on end like Mohammed did on his initial encounter with the entity. He trembled so much specifically because he thought the encounter was demonic. That is never the case in any angelic encounter in the Bible. No one ever doubts which side the angel is on in the Bible. But the Bible does say that demons can pretend to be angels.

Again you are putting in unsubstantiated personal opinion. What is in the Qur'an, according to Islamic tradition, is what the angel Gabriel revealed to Muhammad. I agree, it is often truncated in comparison to the account in the Old Testament, but that is easily explained in that most of the Qur'anic references are intended simply as reminders of stories well known, not as a first revelation of them. One that is very different is the account of Jesus' birth.
All the stories are very different, but Jesus' story is particularly bizarre and creepy in the Koran. He is said to have spoken from his 1st day of birth. Could you imagine your new born infant talking? I think that in actual practice most people would find this profoundly disturbing and some might well seek an exorcism.


That's true. They believe that it is only in the Qur'an that the Word of God has been preserved in purity. They see both the older revelations as corrupted.
And that is the ONLY point for the demonic entity inventing a new Old Testament, to discredit Christians and Jews.
 
Upvote 0

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Some more demonic indications in the Koran:

Heaven is a male chauvinist paradise in the Koran with absolutely nothing to offer women, but the guys can expect 99 beautiful virgins. And these "virgins" are said to have particularly dark pupils. It is a subtle but universally effective technique in animation to darken and give a sense of depth to the pupils in order to visually transmit a sense of extremely sinister anger. For example, when the evil doll in Toy Story 2 reveals his true nature his eyes change to darken the pupils and give a sense of depth to them. It is so effective they felt no need to change the doll's facial expression in any way.
 
Upvote 0

AceHero

Veteran
Sep 10, 2005
4,469
451
36
✟21,933.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
AceHero said:
Here's his full post:


In other words, if the vastness of the universe points to the amazingness of God, why can't its age do so as well?
Thanks for the rewind. We know part of the vastness of the universe. What would give more glory to God and reinforce His omnioptence more, creating the universe in billion of years or creating it in 6 days?


Creating the universe instantly or quickly is what we'd expect Him to do. As a theist, I think the scientific evidence for evolution shows God to be far more creative than simply creating everything in six days.

You are just biased and maybe the ignorance is on your part for accepting without any evidence what he evolutinist preach.

I always challange the evos to present the evidence for one thing the ToE preaches. So far none have done so. Please feel free to be the first. Just dont quote some evo who says it is true. Present the biologial evidence that makes it true.

Science doesn't preach. It simply tries to find reason to explain.​
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
I have to acknowledge when you make a point that has some validity. I did a search on the word "mind" on biblegateway.com. It is going to depend on which translation you use of course, I used the RSV and came up with 250 hits on the word mind. But I came up with a 1000 hits on the word heart. So while I have to give you some props, I still think the heart is far more important than the intellect in being a proper Christian.

If you will revisit what I said, you will see that I agreed the heart is more important than the mind.

As to knowing you well enough, I have not made any ad hominem argument directed at you personally, much less singled you out as different from other Creationists. I am making generalizations that are true of most Creationists.

I did take it personally but I did not take it as a derrogatgory statement.

Which one of the 1000 references to the word heart in the Bible do you need in order to recognize that the heart is more important than the savage animal intellect in being a proper Christian?

Agreed

Of course I do. :doh:I pray for peace throughout the Islamic world, which suffers so much violence and oppression due to it being a demonic religion that promotes only extremely conservative ideologies, and conservatives tend to be much more bigoted, violent and intolerant of anyone different.

Conservative Christisn are not bigoted, intolerant or violent. We are taught to love our enemies and to overcome evil with good.

Liberal Christians have never been anti-Semitic, so I have no idea where you are coming from here.

Collection Plates for Communism--The National Council of Churches



Only conservative Protestant Christians use to be anti-Semitic. Now they expect that all Jews will convert at the 2nd coming, so their attitude has changed from overtly bigoted to condescendingly patronizing. It is really only a slight improvement.

I doubt if you can validate that statgement.


I googled National Alliance of Churches and came up with two hits, neither of which seem to be what you are talking about. The 1st is the National Alliance of Progressive Churches, which exists only in Florida, and the 2nd is the National Alliance of Covenanting Churches, which exists only in Canada.

Sorry about that. I meant The National Council of Churches.

As to Angela Davis, I never heard of her either, and what I found when I looked her up was a POLITICAL activist. It doesn't say the 1st word about religion in her bio on wikipedea, the closest it comes is when it identifies her as a Communist and thus likely an atheist,

She was more of an an anarchist than a POLOTICAL activist. She did addvocate communism and I think the overthrow of the government(not sure abouat that. Its been a long time). She wa also associated with the Black Panthers which was a very violent group of anarchists.

so I have no idea how this is supposed to apply to the subject of Creationism vs theistic evolution.

I don't either.

kemit
 
Upvote 0

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Conservative Christisn are not bigoted, intolerant or violent. We are taught to love our enemies and to overcome evil with good.
That is simply a denial of the obvious truth. I'll put it a different way, more in your terms and less in my own: would you deny that conservatives of all stripes are more judgmental than liberals? When liberalism is most flawed it is generally a flaw of excessive permissiveness, can we both agree on this? So the natural course of things is that when conservatism is most flawed it is likely to be a flaw of excessive judgment.

Look at other conservatives besides yourself. Do you deny that most Muslims are extremely conservative in their views? If not then name a liberal Muslim group? Sufis are at not that liberal and they are WAY to the left of every other denomination of Islam. So look at the behavior of those conservatives and tell me if you think it is lacking in bigoted hate?


That is an oxymoron, communists are atheists, how can they have a church? That has to be nothing more than a crazy anomaly.


I doubt if you can validate that statgement.
Gladys corrected me, 30 years ago there were no liberal anti-Semitic Christians, but prior to that there were apparently some. But when I think of decidedly liberal Christians of the past they are all distinctly not anti-Semitic. The most liberal I can think of are saint Theresa of Avila and Erasmus. Theresa's father was a Jew converted by force, so you can be sure she was not anti-Semitic. Erasmus similarly displayed not the slightest evidence of being anti-Semitic. So while there may have been a few, who weren't true liberals in my opinion, none of them were prominent names like the those liberals who were clearly not anti-Semitic.

She was more of an an anarchist than a POLOTICAL activist. She did addvocate communism and I think the overthrow of the government(not sure abouat that. Its been a long time). She wa also associated with the Black Panthers which was a very violent group of anarchists.



I don't either.
If you don't know then why did you bring it up? Communists aren't true liberals, the Bolsheviks were and still are profoundly elitist conservatives. The very nature of elitism is by definition conservative. Liberalism is populous and favors the poor, while conservatism always favors the elite. Communism clearly falls into the later category, not the former.
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
Creating the universe instantly or quickly is what we'd expect Him to do. As a theist, I think the scientific evidence for evolution shows God to be far more creative than simply creating everything in six days.

Then present the evidence for one thing the ToE preaches that makes it true. Please dont just post what some evolutionist says as if it is a fact. Provide the biological evidence.

Science doesn't preach. It simply tries to find reason to explain.

Real science doesn't, but evolution is not real science and they do preach their dogma which must be accepted by faith alone.

kermit
 
Upvote 0
K

kellhus

Guest
Then present the evidence for one thing the ToE preaches that makes it true. Please dont just post what some evolutionist says as if it is a fact. Provide the biological evidence.



Real science doesn't, but evolution is not real science and they do preach their dogma which must be accepted by faith alone.

kermit

Experimental evolution of multicellularity
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
That is simply a denial of the obvious truth. I'll put it a different way, more in your terms and less in my own: would you deny that conservatives of all stripes are more judgmental than liberals?

You need to give me an example. I will give you one. If conservatives hate Obama's politics the liberals say we hate him because he is black

When liberalism is most flawed it is generally a flaw of excessive permissiveness, can we both agree on this? So the natural course of things is that when conservatism is most flawed it is likely to be a flaw of excessive judgment.

There is no need to continue this until you give me an example.

Look at other conservatives besides yourself. Do you deny that most Muslims are extremely conservative in their views? If not then name a liberal Muslim group? Sufis are at not that liberal and they are WAY to the left of every other denomination of Islam. So look at the behavior of those conservatives and tell me if you think it is lacking in bigoted hate?

It is not judgmental if you cn point to some Scripture that says a certain conduct is wrong, unless the Scripute is wrong. I can say adultery is wrong because I can point to something outside of myself that says it is.


]That is an oxymoron, communists are atheists, how can they have a church? That has to be nothing more than a crazy anomaly.
.

Okay, what's your point?

Gladys corrected me, 30 years ago there were no liberal anti-Semitic Christians, but prior to that there were apparently some.

Gladys was werong. In the south there are many liberals who hate anything but a WASP. It you are not familiar with the term, it stands for White, Anglo-Saxon. American, Protestant. In the south Jews were dislike for many years and still are by some.

Jimmy Carters church would not allow a black to join the church and I doubt if they woudl have allowed a Jew to join either. Jimmy is about as liberal as you can get.

But when I think of decidedly liberal Christians of the past they are all distinctly not anti-Semitic.

You haved not lived long enough/


]The most liberal I can think of are saint Theresa of Avila and Erasmus. Theresa's father was a Jew converted by force, so you can be sure she was not anti-Semitic. Erasmus similarly displayed not the slightest evidence of being anti-Semitic. So while there may have been a few, who weren't true liberals in my opinion, none of them were prominent names like the those liberals who were clearly not anti-Semitic.

Again you sample is way to small to be statistically relible.

If you don't know then why did you bring it up? Communists aren't true liberals, the Bolsheviks were and still are profoundly elitist conservatives.

IMO comparing political conservatives/liberals is not a valid comparision of religious conservatiaves/liberals.


The very nature of elitism is by definition conservative. Liberalism is populous and favors the poor, while conservatism always favors the elite. Communism clearly falls into the later category, not the former.

That is nonsense. First of all to make and keep the poor dependent on government handouts is not helping them. The LIBERAL government programs do not help the poor get out of poverety. It keeps them in poverty. Conservatives favor having people work for what they get and that is not judgmental.

kermit
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You need to give me an example. I will give you one. If conservatives hate Obama's politics the liberals say we hate him because he is black
So why do conservatives hate Obama's health care reforms so much, yet they nominated Romney who originally came up with the idea?

How does the fury of outrage against Obama over four Americans dead in Benghazi compare with reaction to Bush over the 2977 killed in the original 9/11?
The reaction to Clinton over the 17 sailors killed in the USS Cole attack or when 22 were killed when the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed?
Or the reaction to Reagan when 17 Americans were killed in the Beirut Embassy bombing and then six months later 241 US servicemen killed when the Marine barracks was attacked?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AceHero

Veteran
Sep 10, 2005
4,469
451
36
✟21,933.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
AceHero said:
Then present the evidence for one thing the ToE preaches that makes it true. Please dont just post what some evolutionist says as if it is a fact. Provide the biological evidence.

So scientists don't know anything about the field they work in. Got it.

AceHero said:
Science doesn't preach. It simply tries to find reason to explain.
Real science doesn't, but evolution is not real science and they do preach their dogma which must be accepted by faith alone.

Oh, it's real alright; you're just uncomfortable with reality.
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
So scientists don't know anything about the field they work in. Got it.

That isn't what I said, but you seem to think the scientist who reject evolution don't know anything about their field. It is amusing you tried to be clever but did not answer the question---what has the ToE preached that have ever been proven, scinetifically hat is?

Oh, it's real alright; you're just uncomfortable with reality.

If evolution is your reality, answer the question or we will all know you can't. I know it but others may not be convinced that you cannot.

kermit
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
So why do conservatives hate Obama's health care reforms so much, yet they nominated Romney who originally came up with the idea

It does not matter why they hated it, it does not indicate hated for Obama as the liberals charge.

>>How does the fury of outrage against Obama over four Americans dead in Benghazi compare with reaction to Bush over the 2977 killed in the original 9/11? <<

It does not mater. Our outrage does not indicate we hate him.


The reaction to Clinton over the 17 sailors killed in the USS Cole attack or when 22 were killed when the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed?
Or the reaction to Reagan when 17 Americans were killed in the Beirut Embassy bombing and then six months later 241 US servicemen killed when the Marine barracks was attacked?

None of it is relevant. Please stick to the subject: Our hating of Obama's policies do not indicate our hating him.

kermit
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Actually, it uses "Yom", and that can mean various things, such as "day", "in my time", "ages" and so on. So it doesn't says "literal days." ...

Yikes I just caught this argument. Yom can mean day, but also other things, therefore it cannot mean literal days. Er, huh? I'm always amazed how people continue to make this argument from the hebrew as if yom somehow as a nuanced meaning that is missing in the english word day.

You say yom can mean other things and it can. But it can also mean ordinary day, in fact that's it's primary meaning. It's identical to the english word day which also can mean other things depending on context. There's nothing in the hebrew suggesting yom is any different than its translation "day."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AceHero

Veteran
Sep 10, 2005
4,469
451
36
✟21,933.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
AceHero said:
That isn't what I said, but you seem to think the scientist who reject evolution don't know anything about their field. It is amusing you tried to be clever but did not answer the question---what has the ToE preached that have ever been proven, scinetifically hat is?

That is what you said. if you can't trust an expert in the field, you're not going to believe any evidence that he has. With that reasoning, you deny the veracity of the fossil record and instead lean on the non-evidence of a mythical global flood. I can mention how chimpanzees and humans share 99% of the same DNA but you'd call that a coincidence, just as you would when confronted by the fact that all tetrapods (four-legged vertebrates) have the same basic bone pattern. The evidence is there. You just choose to ignore it.

Science doesn't preach. It simply tries to find reason to explain.
If evolution is your reality, answer the question or we will all know you can't. I know it but others may not be convinced that you cannot.

Why do you consider the theory of evolution to not be real science?
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Typical evo mumbo-jumbo. They said it happened but they did not say how? I am willing to take some things on faith alone but not anthing that evolution preaches.

kermit
This article is honest and says evolution of multicellularity is poorly understood and then mention some step that might be required. This is exactly like stating "beaming people up on the Enterprise" is poorly understood then assume some steps that may be required in order to beam people up. Example of one requirement would be, you'd want people to be alive after being beamed up. There is nothing wrong with making assumptions as long as they are not presented as facts.

Evolution is basically science fiction in reverse.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It does not matter why they hated it, it does not indicate hated for Obama as the liberals charge.

>>How does the fury of outrage against Obama over four Americans dead in Benghazi compare with reaction to Bush over the 2977 killed in the original 9/11? <<

It does not mater. Our outrage does not indicate we hate him.

None of it is relevant. Please stick to the subject: Our hating of Obama's policies do not indicate our hating him.

kermit
They only hated RomneyCare when Obama introduced it. What is the biggest difference between RomneyCar and ObamaCare? It was the same program the difference was when it was Obama introducing it.

What is the difference between Benghazi under Obama and the terrorist attacks under Bush, Clinton and Reagan? Well the biggest difference is the much smaller death toll in Benghazi, but that doesn't explain the fury of outrage towards Obama. It isn't even that 9/11 and Beirut occurred when Republican Presidents were in charge and the faux outrage is partisan, the USS Cole and the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked under a Democrat, Clinton. No the difference again is Obama. Somehow it is much easier to stir up anger and outrage against the black President you have today than any previous white President. Perhaps if you didn't just dismiss these problems with an 'irrelevant' and 'does not matter', you could come up with some other explanation for the puzzling difference in attitudes.
 
Upvote 0

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
This article is honest and says evolution of multicellularity is poorly understood and then mention some step that might be required. This is exactly like stating "beaming people up on the Enterprise" is poorly understood then assume some steps that may be required in order to beam people up. Example of one requirement would be, you'd want people to be alive after being beamed up. There is nothing wrong with making assumptions as long as they are not presented as facts.

Evolution is basically science fiction in reverse.
I think you have watched too much Star Trek. :D

So why is YEC always posed against biology when it is PHYSICS and ASTRONOMY that dictate the ancient age of the universe, not biology? The history of biology that is reasonably well understood is less than one 50th the age of the universe according to astronomy and physics. It is as if someone took out a deck of cards and tried to play cards with just one card.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
You need to give me an example. I will give you one. If conservatives hate Obama's politics the liberals say we hate him because he is black
Well, I have a very conservative aunt and a good friend who is very conservative, both of whom have used the N word with regards to Obama. So I think you are kidding yourself if you think that a significant portion of the unprecedented gridlock in Washington today is not the result of endemic racism among a LARGE percentage of conservatives, especially SOUTHERN conservatives.

There is no need to continue this until you give me an example.
I did give examples, Muslims and Russians in positions of power are all profoundly conservative compared to Americans, much less Europeans.

It is not judgmental if you cn point to some Scripture that says a certain conduct is wrong, unless the Scripute is wrong. I can say adultery is wrong because I can point to something outside of myself that says it is.
Back to Creationism for a brief moment, you folks are so judgmental you don't care if you sabotage the whole educational system, the fate of our kids be damned. They must have the proper ideology! Who cares if they flunk out of college. :doh:

It is the same old story with conservatives willing to sabotage the whole economy and Republic if they can't get their way. For example, the Roman conservatives hated liberal Caesar so much that they were more than willing to murder him and plunge the Republic into a self annihilating civil war, simply because they hated one man so much. You conservatives are really all cut from the same mold.

Gladys was werong. In the south there are many liberals who hate anything but a WASP. It you are not familiar with the term, it stands for White, Anglo-Saxon. American, Protestant. In the south Jews were dislike for many years and still are by some.
Yes, I now what a WASP is.

Jimmy Carters church would not allow a black to join the church and I doubt if they woudl have allowed a Jew to join either. Jimmy is about as liberal as you can get.
Georgia does not, or at least did not in the past like to advertise what a haven of race relations it was in the South. Racism is bad for business and as the "Jewel of the South" Atlanta was all about business. And as the heart of the aristocratic South, Georgians of both races abhorred senseless violence. When MLK tried to have protests and sit-ins in Atlanta, instead of being brutalized by the police they would kill them with kindness. The sheriff would get on the bull-horn and apologize profusely for having to arrest them, explaining that he knew they had a right and just cause, but he had to uphold the law and unblock the street. In more recent times, when J.B. Stoner, former KKK dragon, ran for governor, he could only muster enough funds to advertise on radio with a hideously produced ad full of snaps, crackles and pops. Then, after he lost with less than 1% of the vote, they hunted him down on a 20 year old church bombing charge and sent him to the pen for the rest of his life. Bigotry is not taken lightly in Georgia.

Anyway, Gluadys' and your lack of understanding of regional Southern politics is pretty far off topic.

IMO comparing political conservatives/liberals is not a valid comparision of religious conservatiaves/liberals.
I see little distinction. Orthodox vs heterodox, sure that does not neatly fit into conservative vs liberal labeling, but that is completely different. Now, Catholics straddle the line, extremely conservative on some issues while quite liberal on others, and Methodists are skewed in the sense that the clergy is quite liberal while the laity is quite conservative. But those are the only exceptions I know of, the rest fall in line with their labels like dominos falling in a row.

That is nonsense. First of all to make and keep the poor dependent on government handouts is not helping them. The LIBERAL government programs do not help the poor get out of poverety. It keeps them in poverty. Conservatives favor having people work for what they get and that is not judgmental.
It is not just the poor that conservatives are willing to let slip through the cracks now-a-days, it is also the entire middle class. That is why your numbers are dwindling so fast. One more generation and you will never see power again on the national level.
 
Upvote 0