- Thread starter Lucifer
- Start date
Marco Rubio the creationist
- Status
Lucy4 has been banned from the site 10 or more times. He is more interested in snark and cheap wit than accuracy. He's reduced to rattling around in the clown bin, right where he belongs.
He's a genius, though. He told us himself many times.
By even allowing the possibility that the earth was created in 7 days, I stand by the criticism that Marco Rubio is pandering to the morons in the Republican party.
God didn't need 6 days, He deliberately used 6 days and rested on the 7th. And He didn't rest because He needed to rest.
Everything God reveals about Himself has a reason, often to show something about Himself or to set an example. For example, why would God ask from Abraham to bring his only son to a mountain and sacrifice him, not because God wanted Abraham to kill and sacrifice his son, but to show something of what was going to happen 2000 years later.
Why would God allow a nation He chose and loved as the apple of his eye, to become slaves in Egypt for 400 years before being liberated? To show something what was going to happen 1500 years later.
Why would God created the earth in 6 days and rest on the 7th, if He could have done it in a split second, to set the example for us, work 6 days and rest the 7th, that's what God commanded to us, while He made us and knows what our bodies need (it's confirmed by secular science that a 6 day work 1 day rest rhythm is the most adequate for a human). And besides, more importantly, also this points to God's plan with mankind. The book of Hebrews explains how the resting on the seventh day ultimately has one goal: profetize how those who are born again enter into their Rest. God could easily have us made without a need to sleep or eat. The fact that we need to rest is an anology how we need a Rest on a whole other level, Jesus Christ.
In the end: everything points to Christ.
Oh, please.
He did nothing of the sort. He was talking to GQ, not some evangelical magazine.
He specifically used words that said "I don't know, there are many theories, it doesn't matter to me, I'm focused on economic growth."
Yet some interpret that as pandering to the right when it was a huge non-answer?
If the litmus test is a candidate has to come out and claim to be an atheist, otherwise he is a religious radical, just say it.
Amazing...
I stand by my analysis from what you posted regardless of in what magazine it was printed.
Would I take Rubio as the lesser of two evils over a Democrat? Probably.
With all due respect, your analysis doesn't come close to what he actually said within his intended context: We wasn't pandering to anyone. He was avoiding a "gotcha" question...
Isn't that "pandering" again? He knows the answer to the question, he just didn't want to anger his base......
Huh?
He said he didn't know.
He said there are numerous theories, both religious and scientific.
How is that not fact?
How is that pandering?
You must be an atheist. I don't believe there are atheists because they are simply unable to prove that they don't believe in religion.
I've never had an atheist convince me that he is one. Ever.
Yes I am. Never for one second believed in fairy tales. As for proving that I am one, what does it take to prove that something imaginary does not exist? The burden of proof is on the believer, not the non-believer.
Remember, you are the one that believes in an imaginary friend in the heavens, not me.
Last edited:
Since you start out with the premise that there is no possible way to prove a person is an atheist it kinda makes your second sentence pointless. I am telling you I am - prove I am lying.. and prove to me you are not an atheist.. Deep down I think most people (90%) are, otherwise my street would be empty on Sundays and so many religious figures would not give in to to sin.
- Status