It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Joe Biden Just Inadvertently Deny God?

page: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2020 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: incoserv




What else would you call that being?


Natural law.

Who called it a being? Not the Declaration of Independence.


www.archives.gov...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Funny word to capitalize if they were just referring to a thing, especially as they mentioned "Nature's God" in the preamble after "Nature's law."




posted on Mar, 3 2020 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Why's that?

If he or she is otherwise qualified, why in that world not?? It's going to happen. ...and I'd be surprised if all our Presidents were "believers".



posted on Mar, 3 2020 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: carewemust

Why's that?

If he or she is otherwise qualified, why in that world not?? It's going to happen. ...and I'd be surprised if all our Presidents were "believers".


I dunno at present, but historically speaking, that position isn't wrong. Up until very recently, the majority of Americans were Christians... I mean holy hell, I've read that a lot of folks didn't think JFK could get elected because Catholics aren't seen as Christian enough by the Protestants who made up the majority in the 60s.

I would vote for a Christian or Jewish president, not sure on an agnostic, absolutely would not consider voting for a Muslim, Hindu, or heathen regardless of any other alleged "qualifications". Just the way it is.



posted on Mar, 3 2020 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You're not alone in that. That does seem to be the majority opinion.

Not one I share, but that's OK. It'd be boring if we all agreed, all the time.


Ones religion, or lack of same, is way, way down the list of things I consider when voting, or not voting, for a candidate.

Because in my experience, all too often it's mere lip service to get your vote.



posted on Mar, 3 2020 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I don't disagree with your last sentence and it is why I'd entertain voting for an agnostic. I'd not vote for the others because, being honest, I find the values of those religions to be in direct conflict with America's founding values. Not to say there aren't some elements of Christianity and Judaism which the same could be said about, but we've got hundreds of years of proven historical record demonstrating the nation operates fine with individuals of those faiths at the helm or in high level advisory positions, the rest... not so much.



posted on Mar, 3 2020 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucky109
a reply to: incoserv There has never been and never will be proof of a god. It's entirely based on faith. Nobody you know has ever spoken to god and you will not either. Nobody has seen or heard a god as well.

FYI EVERY single word you just wrote is entirely based on faith, never mind the fact that you are 100% out of touch with reality... I would be an Atheist too if I had that much faith...



Ironically, most atheists are disgusted with Christianity because atheists claim Christianity requires “blind faith” or “blind trust.” But by the very definition of the name they carry, atheists in fact are the ones who have based their beliefs on the absence of evidence.

Atheists are a people “without a belief in theism” not because they have disproved the existence of God with evidence, but rather because they claim there is an absence of evidence for God. They believe there is no God because they cannot see any evidence of God. Atheists trust there is no God not because of what they see, but because of what they cannot see. Their conviction stems from things not seen.

The Blind Faith of Atheism



posted on Mar, 3 2020 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: incoserv




What else would you call that being?


Natural law.

Who called it a being? Not the Declaration of Independence.


www.archives.gov...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Funny word to capitalize if they were just referring to a thing, especially as they mentioned "Nature's God" in the preamble after "Nature's law."


They also capitalized "Life, Liberty and Happiness", genius! Last time I looked, those were things too.

Nature's God is not the biblical God. The biblical God defies nature and intervenes in natural law, time and time again. And, the biblical God does not see people are "equal".
edit on 3-3-2020 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2020 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Is this really the most important detail we need to consider for determining presidential candidates? Seriously?



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
He said? How do you know it's a he?


Cuz Mariah Carey said so!


"And if you get down on your knees at night
And pray to the Lord
He's gonna make it happen, make it happen"


edit on 3/4/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
I mean holy hell, I've read that a lot of folks didn't think JFK could get elected because Catholics aren't seen as Christian enough by the Protestants who made up the majority in the 60s.


It wasn't that he was seen as being "not Christian enough". It was a concern that "the Pope would be President". Catholics answer to the Pope, so people were concerned that the Vatican would essentially be running DC from abroad.

He addressed it many times, but most notably in his Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960 stating, "I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, I will make my decision in accordance with what my conscious tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates."
edit on 3/4/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join