"Yes, but that doesn't work anymore. That's weak."

[Athetotheist]

What are we to make of this?




Do they not realize that they're making Jesus out to be a liar?

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
(Matthew 24:35)

"He that loveth Me not, keepeth not My sayings. And the Word which you hear is not Mine, but the Fathers who sent Me."
(John 14:24)

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #19]

I suppose some must believe that Jesus was teaching blacks in the US hundreds of years ago and whites who opposed slavery to just shut up and support the government in charge whether it condoned trafficking in slaves or not.

Was Jesus teaching those who support immigrants who are in a country legally to just shut up and support the government in charge even if it threatens those legal immigrants with mass deportation?

Jesus never condemned people for obeying and supporting just laws.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #21]

Jesus never condemned people for obeying and supporting just laws.

Jesus never bore false witness by accusing foreigners of eating other people's pets either, did he?

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #21]

Jesus never condemned people for obeying and supporting just laws.

Jesus never bore false witness by accusing foreigners of eating other people's pets either, did he?

There is incontrovertible evidence that foreigners in the US have a history of eating animals that citizens of the US consider pets.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #23]

There is incontrovertible evidence that foreigners in the US have a history of eating animals that citizens of the US consider pets.

Having a history of eating animals that citizens of the US consider pets is not the same as eating people's pets.

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #23]

There is incontrovertible evidence that foreigners in the US have a history of eating animals that citizens of the US consider pets.

Having a history of eating animals that citizens of the US consider pets is not the same as eating people's pets.

There have been credible reports of Haitian immigrants eating people's pets, and I see no reason to call the eyewitnesses liars.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #25]

There have been credible reports of Haitian immigrants eating people's pets, and I see no reason to call the eyewitnesses liars.

Do you mean those "credible reports" which supposedly came out of Springfield, Ohio? If that's the case, why did the Springfield police themselves say that no credible reports had been filed?
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/misinforma ... rcna170271

And something I've always wondered about----If something was going on locally, why would people run to their senator in Washington instead of filing their "credible" reports with their local police department?

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #25]

There have been credible reports of Haitian immigrants eating people's pets, and I see no reason to call the eyewitnesses liars.

Do you mean those "credible reports" which supposedly came out of Springfield, Ohio? If that's the case, why did the Springfield police themselves say that no credible reports had been filed?
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/misinforma ... rcna170271

And something I've always wondered about----If something was going on locally, why would people run to their senator in Washington instead of filing their "credible" reports with their local police department?

The fact that no report was filed with the police does not mean those who reported the facts to the public were lying. If the reports were untrue then let the doubters disprove them as best as they can.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #27]

The fact that no report was filed with the police does not mean those who reported the facts to the public were lying. If the reports were untrue then let the doubters disprove them as best as they can.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. The US legal system is founded on the principle of presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And when accusers make an accusation during an election year and run to their state's political candidate, having no evidence to take to local police, there's a mountain of reasonable doubt.

Suppose that the wildfires in California were blamed on conservative arsonists. Suppose that the accusers had no evidence of arson, but that they made a beeline to their representatives in Congress, screaming, "Right-wingers are burning down our state!!"

And suppose that my response was, "The fact that no report was filed with the police does not mean those who reported the facts to the public were lying. If the reports were untrue then let the doubters disprove them as best as they can."

How would you respond?

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #27]

The fact that no report was filed with the police does not mean those who reported the facts to the public were lying. If the reports were untrue then let the doubters disprove them as best as they can.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. The US legal system is founded on the principle of presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And when accusers make an accusation during an election year and run to their state's political candidate, having no evidence to take to local police, there's a mountain of reasonable doubt.

Suppose that the wildfires in California were blamed on conservative arsonists. Suppose that the accusers had no evidence of arson, but that they made a beeline to their representatives in Congress, screaming, "Right-wingers are burning down our state!!"

And suppose that my response was, "The fact that no report was filed with the police does not mean those who reported the facts to the public were lying. If the reports were untrue then let the doubters disprove them as best as they can."

How would you respond?

Too much of what we have been told by the media over the last decade or so has been dishonest and should not be blindly believed as though the reporters or promoters do not lie. I generally don't care what people believe and more often than not have no burden to prove anything to anyone.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #29]

Too much of what we have been told by the media over the last decade or so has been dishonest and should not be blindly believed as though the reporters or promoters do not lie. I generally don't care what people believe and more often than not have no burden to prove anything to anyone.

It is indeed crucial that we----left, right or center----don't simply believe the sources we rely on for information as if they couldn't lie.