Monk-Man: “Sharpton has no idea what or who God is… but he will one day.”
So is that a threat Monk-Man?
Guess what Monk-Man?
NO ONE will ultimately get the “idea” of what or who god is when such is based on YOUR beliefs of such.
Oh what. That’s right. You don’t believe in belief.
NO ONE will ultimately get the “idea” of what or who god is based on Monk-Man’s personal interpretation of such a supreme being.
Because no two people have ever or will ever hold the same personal interpretation of god.
Monk – and any one for that matter – may THINK everyone else will ultimately ‘come to know’ the god THEY believe in but… Such is but one’s INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of such – and since there is no way to ‘prove’ a personal interpretation of a supposed divine supreme being…
And its all moot anyway.
It matters not what one THINKS WILL HAPPEN in some possible ‘afterlife’ – but rather… What really matters is what ACTUALLY HAPPENS in THIS LIFE!
I would guess without all of that nonsense, they start to lose control. To radicalized christians, science is evil. Facts are evil and the work of the devil. Their god is the only explanation for everything and anything...at least when things go their way. If not, then demonic spirits are at hand. The mantra of these lunatics is always the same.
Zap ---- You are going to get Zapped, Big Time. Don't mention stage preachers like Sharpton & Jackson with Real Ministers of God. Some day , those two are going to pay Big Time.
zapparules, why pose such a query when you already know your answer?
How high is that proverbial tower of scientific power that you dwell in? Taller than an H-bomb mushroom cloud?
How tasty is that bowl of primordial soup, with all of its evolutionary garnishes?
How delicious is that cup of 'dark matter' expresso?
How big, bad and beautiful was that 'Big Bang? I have seen Hubble pictures, no big bang seen, but its out there, right?
How beautiful is that sound coming from the 'string theory' quartet?
Help me out here, kind sir / ma'am / AI. I have a few questions:
Why do 'well intentioned' theorists dream up some seriously crazy theories?
Why do some people witness evidence of something then postulate its coming into existence and assume they are correct in where 'it' came from.
Do atheists need a Will Ferrell Jesus-God to come down here and have you and vaman run some 'tests' on him?
'....these literally crazy ‘theories’ that natural conditions are some sort of ‘act’ supposedly done by some god?'
From an honest, scientific standpoint that includes all known types of evidence, you and no one else can prove that G-d does not exist.
 May 28, 2015 at 11:09am
So who is putting together the Republican Presidential Candidates Program Guide – so that folks on the Right will be able to see who all is running and what their various positions and plans are?
Maybe all these candidates are going to literally morph together into some sort of ‘Super Candidate’ – but sadly… Even that Super Candidate won’t be able to defeat the Godzilla candidate that is Hillary.
[-2] May 28, 2015 at 11:05am
That’s good – good.
The first step towards making yourself better is admitting when you are sick / wrong.
And your example is? Come on mouth breather, quit licking windows and eating paint chips, I’m sure you can make up with something you troll master prog.
Hey ZAP! We don't care what you do, or point out! 90% of us don't read your books! The other 10% are just taking a break from porn!
zippy-Headlines to read the article... not intentionally misrepresenting/misquoting what someone said... to create a false narrative about who said what. Or denying what was said or that the words were twisted out of context and not what they meant to say... The writers here give a pretty full quote and context in interviews and usually don't play gotcha unless the facts and interview flesh out the context. you have articles to exploit from the Blaze to correct my assertions?
My favorite are the PHONY "War on Christians" stories"
They ALL end up to be about insubordination
or jerks who think THEY don't have to follow company rules
doodyhead- you've inarticulated whatever you were trying to say with your usual pinashe.
[-7] May 27, 2015 at 4:12pm
No one should be censored for using certain words. (Or for saying / posting anything for that matter but… There are ‘Rules of Conduct’ associated with the privilege of posting here.)
Would be interested in knowing what context the word was used.
Why would Woodyee feel the need / desire to use the word?
[-2] May 27, 2015 at 4:04pm
I never said anything about those seeking to block the pipeline. My comments have been about the hypocrisy of the right about these matters.
And just WHO IS blocking the pipeline? There are lots of folks against it but… WHO actually has the ability to block it?
Don’t you worry… Capitalism and our global addiction to oil will ASSURE that the pipeline gets built.
I’m NOT arguing that eminent domain is a valid (enough) reason to block the pipeline. Besides… There will ALWAYS be enough people willing to take a payment for allowing such to pass on their property.
I was NOT the one putting forth the ‘for the greater good’ argument. That was courtesy of Shellback. I just applied his logic to the issue. (But there are indeed many things that conservatives support and the argument used is ‘its for the greater good’.)
At least we agree on some things – those being that ‘the state’ doesn’t really care about the individual and that the massive, greedy agribusinesses are a real threat to all of us.
[-2] May 27, 2015 at 3:54pm
Now there’s a reasonable and responsible reply.
 May 27, 2015 at 3:52pm
Hillary IS indeed beatable – with the ‘right’ candidate and enough money…
But, in my opinion, the Right (or Left) has yet to put forth anyone with those ‘qualities’.
May 27, 2015 at 3:51pm
I did not.
 May 27, 2015 at 1:43pm
If you self-admit you don’t read my posts then… There is no way you can legitimately offer that my post has “Nothing said”.
And great… I and everyone else KNOWS your responses can’t offer anything worthwhile since in no way can you effectively respond to my comments if you don’t read them.
 May 27, 2015 at 1:39pm
Oh do give us legitimate details on the supposed Clinton sex-trafficking.
THAT sounds like a good one.
May 27, 2015 at 1:38pm
I’ve said it before…
I would consider voting for Paul over Hillary.
But I doubt he will get the Republican nomination.
 May 27, 2015 at 11:49am
THAT is where / why you are so wrong.
You TRY to make up a narrative about others that is utterly baseless – just to TRY and make them look bad – all while ignoring your own failures / the failures of those you agree with (the Right / conservatives).
Instead of just saying something like: ‘I condemn what this young boy did – forgive him – AND condemn what the father / parents did in response to such.’ … INSTEAD you seek to turn the table against others with but a false narrative.
You offer but another example of the Right’s hypocrisy / double standard.
AK, never. Just a thumbs down and scroll to the next comment.
LOL...same here Gonzo.
I gave up on the essays. More productive to rearrange my sock drawer.
Oh do give us legitimate details on the supposed Clinton sex-trafficking.
THAT sounds like a good one.
AvengerK / Gonzo / SLAP
Bears worth repeating...
Nothing like self censorship / keeping one's self ignorant.
And great... I and everyone else KNOWS your responses can't offer anything worthwhile since in no way can you effectively respond to my comments if you don't read them.
What did you say? I didnt read your post.
 May 27, 2015 at 11:44am
I’m kind of with you. Not sure which is worse. What 14 year old Josh did or… How his parents / hypocritical father handled the matter.
I know that personally for me… I can much more readily forgive Josh but… I have a much harder time trying to forgive the actions of father Jim Bob. And I understand the want of a parent to ‘protect’ their child but… He was just so hypocritical. To get out there and publicly profess: ““Rape and incest represent heinous crimes and as such should be treated as capital crimes,” when HE KNEW of his son’s actions… !!!
And just to note…
If the responses from the majority of the Right were more like yours then… ‘liberals’ (whoever) would have far less “ammo” against you.
Its two-fold though. First the double standard (shown not by you but by the majority of the Right as they remain silent on this) and… Second. So many on the Right SO OFTEN make the argument that its from ‘broken’ homes that ONLY such things happen. That single parent homes, non god-believer/religious homes, etc ‘breed’ such sinners. Yet here is young Josh AND his father showing oh so clearly that… It is not the ‘environment’ that determines / cause such things. AND it’s not the ‘environment’ that ‘allows’ people to ‘properly’ respond to such things.
And then finally… To TRY and ‘hide’ under the cover of… ‘Well now my god faith is ever that much stronger and so that makes up for our past sins’ – THAT as much as anything also bothers me.
[-1] May 27, 2015 at 11:31am
Even if the Right took the ‘best’ (and there is a contradiction ) from each of the SO MANY candidates running for president… That ‘ultimate’ Right candidate still won’t be able to defeat Hillary and all her money.
And all this is doing is causing greater fracturing in the Right. So now you’ll have individuals of the Right saying… ‘Well I like this / these characterisitics of this candidate – and those of this other one.’ — And then someone else says: ‘Well I like so and so for her stance – but then also like him for his position on…’
And in the end… The Right is going to end up with…
The Right will be getting bombarded with so many varying positions… Folks won’t be able to get it straight.
But probably in the end… For the extreme Right… It won’t matter. They’ll vote for whoever goes up against (and loses to) Hillary.
Hillary is very beatable ! People like you are the reason the left puts out misinformation you bite !
I think she’d lose to Rand Paul, but that is the only republican on the list I think would stand a chance.
Thumbs up Zap.
[-5] May 27, 2015 at 11:23am
So what is it about your link that we’re supposed to respond to?
[-2] May 27, 2015 at 11:22am
So are you saying TransCanada should NOT be allowed to forcefully take (with compensation) the private property needed for their pipeline?
[-3] May 27, 2015 at 11:20am
No. I am not equating the two. You are. I simply point out the hypocrisy of many on the right when it comes to VERY SIMILAR situations.
Just because someone is paid for something does that validate the action / make it acceptable? People forced from their homes. Or given some small level of financial compensation – when they perhaps feel there is NO level of compensation enough for the forced taking of their property – ?!?!?
And guess what SocialismSuxEveryday?
Protecting the natural resources ALL OF US SHARE is something I think we all / or even perhaps just some – SHOULD / HAVE TO pay for.
If your farm, business, whatever is doing something that could pollute MY / OUR water source… Then you darn well better be doing EVERYTHING you can to protect OUR water!!!
Do you think your name calling supports your position or does it just make you feel better about yourself?