Gay scientists isolate 'Christian Gene'
-
Ilíon wrote:
If you kiddies would ever take a moment to think two steps ahead, you wouldn't constantly find yourselves in predicaments like this.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
Eyiyiyi wanna cum too mey 20 storee uh uhuhpartment sow i can hayng yoo frum muh balkanee buy yor leg mikel dgaksun stiyal? EYEYEYE WOOOOOP UH NIGGUHZ ASS!!!!
-
We all know it's not about truth, nobody has claimed that it is. It's the never ending pursuit of understanding. Nobody will ever know the truth about anything (Heisenberg). Only a fool would try to discount science on those grounds. And only a fool would continually assume that our view of science is as simplistic and rudimentary as yours.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
We all know it's not about truth, nobody has claimed that it is. It's the never ending pursuit of understanding. Nobody will ever know the truth about anything (Heisenberg). Only a fool would try to discount science on those grounds. And only a fool would continually assume that our view of science is as simplistic and rudimentary as yours.
What a fool you continuously insist upon acting! "We all know it's not about truth, nobody has claimed that it is." You acknowledge that 'science' isn't about truth -- while falsely claiming that "we all know" this and that no one has claimed otherwise. You all continuously claim otherwise ... even as you deny you are doing so. You (singular and plural) have your panties in a twist precisely because I am "insulting" ( :rolleyes: ) this "science" thingie. THEN: "It's the never ending pursuit of understanding." Then you demonstrate your inability to even think ratinally. Apparently, for you scientistes "understanding" is a wholly meaningless term. Apparently, you scientistes imagine that one can have "understanding" without actually having knowledge. THEN: "Nobody will ever know the truth about anything (Heisenberg)." Then, using a very faulty "argument-by-authority," you make a self-refuting assertion. The very claim is a truth-and-knowledge-claim. It happens to be false, but it is, nonetheless, the claim to know some truth -- in fact, and even more damning, it is the claim to know a universal truth. What absolute *fools* humans make of themselves when they refuse to reason! "Only a fool would try to discount science on those grounds." Only a fool would imagine that *your* "science" even matters at all -- "understanding" without knowledge. Of what use is that to anyone? This "science" thingie sounds just like something 13-year-olds arguing about different versions of the "Superman universe" might care about; certainly like nothing an adult would care about. But then, I do frequenly say that "Science is a toy for little boys." LASTLY: "And only a fool would continually assume that our view of science is as simplistic and rudimentary as yours." You (singular and plural) continuously demonstrate that your view of "science" is one that only a fool could entertain.
-
John Carson wrote:
The parallel is that it is basically the same movement at different stages. Over several centuries, Western secularists have de-fanged Christianity, so that it is now relatively harmless. That task has yet to be accomplished for Islam.
No, modern scular humanism is an example of civilization coming full circle. Government is about control, those who control it control civilization and are empowered to define the rules and standards of conduct which define a civilization. Separation of church and state created an impediment to those who wish to control civilization and bend it to their own will. Humanism represents an end run around that impediment. It is free to use the state to promote its agenda by simply disassociating itself from the traditional definitions of religion while essentially trying to achieve precisely the same goals.
John Carson wrote:
Nevertheless, if one is living in the United States and cares about abortion rights or gay rights (I know you don't) or about the provision of effective sex education as a means of combating teenage pregnancies and the spread of AIDS
I don't think either side really cares about them. I think they merely represent weak points that can be exploited to gain control of society. They are a way of creating a conflict within a society between people and traditional moral standards. That weakens the hold those traditions have upon a people and allows the competition to deprive it of any sort of social power. But any conflict will do, they just happen to be the most convenient because of humanity's inherent appitite for sex. Redfining liberty as being somehow about sexuality and you have a very powerful tool for the manipulation of public attitudes.
John Carson wrote:
or about a Middle East policy not dominated by concern for the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy,
Thats is a good example of how the process works. Use any false claim to demonzie the opposition, to make it appear that normal, traditional appeals to a creator are examples of an aberation of our culture in order to legitimize their own desire to control the agenda. The truth is that there is nothing in our current foreign policy that can be even remotely associated with biblical prophesy aside from a few out of context quotes. You might as well say we fought WWII in order to fulfill biblical prop
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't think either side really cares about them. I think they merely represent weak points that can be exploited to gain control of society.
Certainly, the secularists don't care about "gay rights" (whatever that vacuuous phrase means at any particular usage of it), except as one tool in their attempts to demolish traditional society. More importantly, secularists do not respect "gays" as persons. Just look at how quickly they *always* play the "faggot card" when opposed by someone who may be (or whom they think they can portray as being) "gay" or as in some way associated with "gays."
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. What the hell would we do with truth? Put it on a shelf and admire it?
Truer words were never spoken. I suspect his reply would be something along the lines of "You don't see how stupid you are", however. Blah. What a waste of space.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick Sears wrote:
Truer words were never spoken.
And you can't even see what you've just done.
Patrick Sears wrote:
I suspect his reply would be something along the lines of "You don't see how stupid you are", however.
You think this only because you, yourself, are so described. My response to Stan will be that he isn't thinking deeply enough about what he's saying. That is quite a different thing from calling someone stupid. You people are simply amazing! You (singular and collective) want to call me stupid -- the only proof needed being that I disagree with your silly ideas. And then you want to bitch if I return the favor (though, with evidence). Is that what you're bitching about? That I don't merely *call* you stupid, but rather help you demonstrate it?
Patrick Sears wrote:
Blah. What a waste of space.
Is that like being a "waste of protoplasm?"
modified on Sunday, December 23, 2007 1:56:16 AM
-
Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. What the hell would we do with truth? Put it on a shelf and admire it?
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. What the hell would we do with truth? Put it on a shelf and admire it?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? What good are these "questions?" What in the hell use are they? What can we do with them? We can't even put them on a shelf to admire them, as they are literally immaterial. ;P
-
Eyiyiyi wanna cum too mey 20 storee uh uhuhpartment sow i can hayng yoo frum muh balkanee buy yor leg mikel dgaksun stiyal? EYEYEYE WOOOOOP UH NIGGUHZ ASS!!!!
Phhh....like you could.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't think either side really cares about them. I think they merely represent weak points that can be exploited to gain control of society.
Certainly, the secularists don't care about "gay rights" (whatever that vacuuous phrase means at any particular usage of it), except as one tool in their attempts to demolish traditional society. More importantly, secularists do not respect "gays" as persons. Just look at how quickly they *always* play the "faggot card" when opposed by someone who may be (or whom they think they can portray as being) "gay" or as in some way associated with "gays."
Ilíon wrote:
Certainly, the secularists don't care about "gay rights" (whatever that vacuuous phrase means at any particular usage of it), except as one tool in their attempts to demolish traditional society.
I wonder what you think motivates this desire to "demolish traditional society". If not a concern for gay rights and other standard items on the liberal agenda, what then?
Ilíon wrote:
More importantly, secularists do not respect "gays" as persons. Just look at how quickly they *always* play the "faggot card" when opposed by someone who may be (or whom they think they can portray as being) "gay" or as in some way associated with "gays."
Name me one out of the closet gay person of whom that has been true.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't think either side really cares about them. I think they merely represent weak points that can be exploited to gain control of society.
Certainly, the secularists don't care about "gay rights" (whatever that vacuuous phrase means at any particular usage of it), except as one tool in their attempts to demolish traditional society. More importantly, secularists do not respect "gays" as persons. Just look at how quickly they *always* play the "faggot card" when opposed by someone who may be (or whom they think they can portray as being) "gay" or as in some way associated with "gays."
Ilíon, do you actually have friends?
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. What the hell would we do with truth? Put it on a shelf and admire it?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? What good are these "questions?" What in the hell use are they? What can we do with them? We can't even put them on a shelf to admire them, as they are literally immaterial. ;P
Are you stealing someone else's thoughts again? Basically you repeated the post, only you made it a lot crappier by it having 'Ilíon' next to it.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. What the hell would we do with truth? Put it on a shelf and admire it?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? What good are these "questions?" What in the hell use are they? What can we do with them? We can't even put them on a shelf to admire them, as they are literally immaterial. ;P
Ilíon wrote:
What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth?
Because it gives us something interesting to do. Have you ever solved a Rubics cube? The fun part is the solving - not the little cube with the sides all the same color. I could have just gone to the store and bought one that looked like that.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
Ilíon wrote:
What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth?
Because it gives us something interesting to do. Have you ever solved a Rubics cube? The fun part is the solving - not the little cube with the sides all the same color. I could have just gone to the store and bought one that looked like that.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because it gives us something interesting to do.
Stan, I understood, from the start, that this where you must end up. Why do you think I kept questioning you?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fun part is the solving ...
In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" It is, of course, "getting truth." So, once again: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? Seemingly, the only answer is: "It alleviates our boredom." It would seem that "discovery" doesn't really mean 'discovery,' but rather, 'activity.'
-
I think you have a paranoia about secularists that is immune to reason. You seem to have trouble distinguishing liberty from oppression.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats is a good example of how the process works. Use any false claim to demonzie the opposition, to make it appear that normal, traditional appeals to a creator are examples of an aberation of our culture in order to legitimize their own desire to control the agenda. The truth is that there is nothing in our current foreign policy that can be even remotely associated with biblical prophesy aside from a few out of context quotes.
You don't seem to keep up with many of the developments on the religious right. Much of the support for Israel on the religious right is because of a belief that the restoration of Jewish control of Palestine is a necessary precondition for the second coming. Historically, Christians have been hostile to the Jews. The love affair they currently have is for reasons of prophesy. http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/10336.htm[^]
The Christian right is also solidly behind Israel. White evangelicals are significantly more pro-Israeli than Americans in general; more than half of them say they strongly sympathise with Israel. (A third of the Americans who claim sympathy with Israel say that this stems from their religious beliefs.) Two in five Americans believe that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, and one in three say that the creation of the state of Israel was a step towards the Second Coming.
http://sparkfactory.com.au/nfn/?page_id=103[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I think you have a paranoia about secularists that is immune to reason. You seem to have trouble distinguishing liberty from oppression.
No trouble at all. Civilization IS oppression, and it cannot be avoided. Liberty is not being free to stick your penis wherever you please, it is being free to participate in how tyranny ultimately becomes defined. Secular humanist are the very same class of humanity who, a thousand years ago, would have been using the church to rationalize their control of society, to set its rules and standards. The goal is the control. The agenda is merely a means to achieve it. It is a process that has happened in every single human civilization and it is now happening in ours despite all the safeguards against it. Am I paranoid about that? You're goddamned right I am.
John Carson wrote:
You don't seem to keep up with many of the developments on the religious right.
I don't need to keep up with it, I live right in the middle of it. I was born and raised in the middle of it. I live in the very heart of the evangelical fervor you are so afraid of. And I'm telling you, it ain't there. The only radicals I know, the only people who really feel like their beliefs should be promoted and protected by the state are secularists, not religious people. I grew up hearing people discuss Israel and the last days and Armegeddon and all the rest of that revalations stuff. Many people I know do feel that Israel is part of biblical predictions. But that isn't why they vote the way the do and that isn't why our foreign policy is what it is. In fact, many if not most people I know who talk about that stuff are old school FDR democrats. Israel is one of our allies. They are as free and democratic a society as they could possibly be given the circumstances. You do not abandon such a relationship under threat. You just don't. And that is the basis for American support of Israel, and has nothing to do with the bible. In fact, if you wish to come and look for yourself, I will give you a hundred dollars for every church you can find that is actively promoting any such agenda. (That is, trying to influence US foreign policy via the political system in order to help Israel win Armegeddon or whatever)
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out a
-
Ilíon wrote:
Certainly, the secularists don't care about "gay rights" (whatever that vacuuous phrase means at any particular usage of it), except as one tool in their attempts to demolish traditional society.
I wonder what you think motivates this desire to "demolish traditional society". If not a concern for gay rights and other standard items on the liberal agenda, what then?
Ilíon wrote:
More importantly, secularists do not respect "gays" as persons. Just look at how quickly they *always* play the "faggot card" when opposed by someone who may be (or whom they think they can portray as being) "gay" or as in some way associated with "gays."
Name me one out of the closet gay person of whom that has been true.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I wonder what you think motivates this desire to "demolish traditional society".
In order to rebuild it with themselves as the sole authority.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
John Carson wrote:
I wonder what you think motivates this desire to "demolish traditional society".
In order to rebuild it with themselves as the sole authority.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In order to rebuild it with themselves as the sole authority.
To what end?
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
In order to rebuild it with themselves as the sole authority.
To what end?
John Carson
The same end as always - to have exclusive control of how oppression is defined.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because it gives us something interesting to do.
Stan, I understood, from the start, that this where you must end up. Why do you think I kept questioning you?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fun part is the solving ...
In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" It is, of course, "getting truth." So, once again: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? Seemingly, the only answer is: "It alleviates our boredom." It would seem that "discovery" doesn't really mean 'discovery,' but rather, 'activity.'
Actually, I think you need to get some sleep, dude.
Ilíon wrote:
I understood, from the start, that this where you must end up. ?
Than all you had to do is ask. My personnal view of the universe is that it is kind of a game. Our goal is to seek the truth. Once someone actually discovers the truth, the game is over. The winner gets to be God in the next round. Knowing that probably means I'm the winner this round.
Ilíon wrote:
In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" It is, of course, "getting truth."
I'm not sure I agree with that. I always have more fun trying to solve a problem than I do having the solution. My motivation is the fun of being mentally engaged. Once I have the solution, I'll probably just go watch Oprah or something. Thats probably why I enjoy arguing with all the rest of you morons so much. ;)
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
The same end as always - to have exclusive control of how oppression is defined.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The same end as always - to have exclusive control of how oppression is defined.
Putting to one side the nonsensical terms in which your frame your answer, people don't campaign against those who currently hold power unless the two groups have different agendas in some respect. If gay rights is not a real point of difference, what is?
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
I think you have a paranoia about secularists that is immune to reason. You seem to have trouble distinguishing liberty from oppression.
No trouble at all. Civilization IS oppression, and it cannot be avoided. Liberty is not being free to stick your penis wherever you please, it is being free to participate in how tyranny ultimately becomes defined. Secular humanist are the very same class of humanity who, a thousand years ago, would have been using the church to rationalize their control of society, to set its rules and standards. The goal is the control. The agenda is merely a means to achieve it. It is a process that has happened in every single human civilization and it is now happening in ours despite all the safeguards against it. Am I paranoid about that? You're goddamned right I am.
John Carson wrote:
You don't seem to keep up with many of the developments on the religious right.
I don't need to keep up with it, I live right in the middle of it. I was born and raised in the middle of it. I live in the very heart of the evangelical fervor you are so afraid of. And I'm telling you, it ain't there. The only radicals I know, the only people who really feel like their beliefs should be promoted and protected by the state are secularists, not religious people. I grew up hearing people discuss Israel and the last days and Armegeddon and all the rest of that revalations stuff. Many people I know do feel that Israel is part of biblical predictions. But that isn't why they vote the way the do and that isn't why our foreign policy is what it is. In fact, many if not most people I know who talk about that stuff are old school FDR democrats. Israel is one of our allies. They are as free and democratic a society as they could possibly be given the circumstances. You do not abandon such a relationship under threat. You just don't. And that is the basis for American support of Israel, and has nothing to do with the bible. In fact, if you wish to come and look for yourself, I will give you a hundred dollars for every church you can find that is actively promoting any such agenda. (That is, trying to influence US foreign policy via the political system in order to help Israel win Armegeddon or whatever)
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out a
Stan Shannon wrote:
No trouble at all. Civilization IS oppression, and it cannot be avoided. Liberty is not being free to stick your penis wherever you please, it is being free to participate in how tyranny ultimately becomes defined.
I regard this as utter nonsense, but it is a view that you have expressed many times before and I can see no reason to believe that I can persuade you of its error when all previous attempts (by myself and others) have failed.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't need to keep up with it, I live right in the middle of it.
No you don't. You live in a specific geographical region and what happens in your neighbourhood does not define what happens in the evangelical movement as a whole.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Many people I know do feel that Israel is part of biblical predictions. But that isn't why they vote the way the do and that isn't why our foreign policy is what it is.
There are reasons for supporting Israel that have nothing to do with prophecy and many people support Israel on those non-prophetic grounds. However, many others do support Israel on prophetic grounds. This is plain from the statements of various evangelical leaders. The fact that it may not be happening in your home town is beside the point.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, if you wish to come and look for yourself, I will give you a hundred dollars for every church you can find that is actively promoting any such agenda. (That is, trying to influence US foreign policy via the political system in order to help Israel win Armegeddon or whatever)
What will you accept as evidence?
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The same end as always - to have exclusive control of how oppression is defined.
Putting to one side the nonsensical terms in which your frame your answer, people don't campaign against those who currently hold power unless the two groups have different agendas in some respect. If gay rights is not a real point of difference, what is?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
people don't campaign against those who currently hold power unless the two groups have different agendas in some respect. If gay rights is not a real point of difference, what is?
The only true campaign is between those who wish the power to define oppression to be centralized in the hands of an elite, and those who wish it to be distributed thinly into the ranks of the public at large. Forcing a change in public attitudes and legal definitions towards sodomy, for example, would merely be a demonstration of power, not a goal in and of itself. If you can achieve that, you can achieve anything you please. My suspicion is that the real goal ultimately is the entrenchment of overall Marxist ideals. That is, centralized economic control, a thorough desconstruction of western traditions and the construction of a shiny new civilization with no borders, no races, no cultural distinctions of any kind. But I certainly don't think it will end there. The end will be the enslavement of the entire human race to the will of a tiny elite minority.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No trouble at all. Civilization IS oppression, and it cannot be avoided. Liberty is not being free to stick your penis wherever you please, it is being free to participate in how tyranny ultimately becomes defined.
I regard this as utter nonsense, but it is a view that you have expressed many times before and I can see no reason to believe that I can persuade you of its error when all previous attempts (by myself and others) have failed.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't need to keep up with it, I live right in the middle of it.
No you don't. You live in a specific geographical region and what happens in your neighbourhood does not define what happens in the evangelical movement as a whole.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Many people I know do feel that Israel is part of biblical predictions. But that isn't why they vote the way the do and that isn't why our foreign policy is what it is.
There are reasons for supporting Israel that have nothing to do with prophecy and many people support Israel on those non-prophetic grounds. However, many others do support Israel on prophetic grounds. This is plain from the statements of various evangelical leaders. The fact that it may not be happening in your home town is beside the point.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, if you wish to come and look for yourself, I will give you a hundred dollars for every church you can find that is actively promoting any such agenda. (That is, trying to influence US foreign policy via the political system in order to help Israel win Armegeddon or whatever)
What will you accept as evidence?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I regard this as utter nonsense, but it is a view that you have expressed many times before and I can see no reason to believe that I can persuade you of its error when all previous attempts (by myself and others) have failed.
I know you do. And I consider it a fundamental truth. A basic, undeniable fact of human societies. Every single political principle I embrace proceeds from that singular fact. It was ultimately the very basis for the American Revolution and the rationale for our form of government.
John Carson wrote:
No you don't. You live in a specific geographical region and what happens in your neighbourhood does not define what happens in the evangelical movement as a whole.
I have lived in virtually every part of the American heartland, Oklahoma, Alabama, Utah and Indiana. I have done business in virtually every place in between. I know the hearts and minds of the American people about as well as any one possibly could. Oh, and I also have a very large extended family representing virtually every religious point of view imaginable.
John Carson wrote:
However, many others do support Israel on prophetic grounds.
Of course there are. And there always has been. I found a Zionist phamplett published in the early 20th century among other religious papers of one of my wife's grandparent's. It is clear that even than the Zionist movement recognized that American christians might be friendly towards their goals. But it is ridiculous to believe that the creation of Israel was for anything other than strategic cold war purposes. Is it possible that the American public might have been comfortable with it due to underlieing evangelical zeal? Well, perhaps, but that is not why any one was voting the way they were or why the government did what it did. Then or now.
John Carson wrote:
What will you accept as evidence?
A recording or video of an identifiable preacher actually saying from the pulpit that his congregation should vote for candidate X because candidate X will send AMerican forces into help Israel fight the battle of Armegeddon (or some other similar prophecy), and a confirmation from candidate X that he actually supports that policy for that reason.
The only conspiracies that concern me