Christians Have an Obligation to Support the President

[Lakhota]

 

[sealybobo]

Just goes to show you what phonies religious folk are . Following a godless , man whore , womanizing , greedy , lying , boorish , con man like Trump is God’s will?!

They follow that guy from the 700 club why not trump?

Religion makes people dumb and controllable of course trumps tapping into that.

Ahhhhhh, shut up, you atheist squint, you leftist, statist bootlick of a socialist nitwit of a baby-murdering monster of a pathological liar. You know very well why Christians support Trump and that it has nothing to do with his personal foibles or hypocrisy. They are quite rightly, quite intelligently, voting their best interests.

Christians do not support Trump. Dumb people being deceived by satan do.

I know Christians who are pro choice. But right wing Christians would say they aren’t real Christians

 

[SweetSue92]

It's very difficult to be Christian and lend your support to ongoing sin. You would recognize this easily if a person said, "I am a Christian and I endorse adultery, embezzlement, and theft."

But you're brainwashed, so you can't see it with gay marriage and abortion

I'm not "brainwashed" as there is no one here who would do it. According to the Christian narrative, anyone who "sins" is accountable as an individual at his or her judgment for being LGBT, having an abortion, committing adultery, embezzlement, theft, bearing false witness, etc. There is no one specific "sin" that selectively merits a public battle. In any event, by your standards, your comment, coupled with your support of trump, indicates that you do lend y
your support to "ongoing sin."

Moreover, you are not just involving Christians of any and every stripe in this, you are also involving people outside of Christianity, those who adhere to other faiths, and those who choose atheism or agnosticism, to which Christian rules do not apply.

Yes, sins that society calls "Good" merit a public battle. No one calls adultery "good". No one calls theft "good". But we are absolutely supposed to celebrate homosexual marriage AND abortion, a "woman's right to choose". THAT is why Christians seem to "pick on" those sins. Not that they are worse than others, but that they are supposed to be celebrated. They're not worth celebrating. They are sins.

Your concept of celebration is flawed. What in society is called "Good" rather than something that is acceptable in keeping with the principle that, as individuals, we have the freedom to decide for ourselves. I would, and have, celebrated same-sex marriage so that the people who enter into them are granted the same legal rights and responsibilities as anyone else and may be happy with the person of their choosing. A person may choose to have an abortion or not, depending on her faith and philosophical choices, granting her full freedom of conscience, without the interference of government/politicians who may have made other religious and philosophical choices that suit them.

An abortion strips away, FOREVER, the "rights and responsibilities" of the life in the womb. So that's a non-starter. You cannot grant "rights" to one while forever stripping rights from another. This is nonsensical.

As to rights and responsibilities for gay marriage: when you're in one of you DIFFERENT sorts of moods (or off your meds maybe) you rail on and on about people thinking homosexuality is a sin. So guess what: I have a right, in America, to believe homosexuality is a sin. And I do not believe the SC was justified in redefining marriage, and I look forward to the time when marriage will be a son and father, or a mother and son, or five people. Because why not? It will have to be.

Also, I agree with you on LEGAL rights, and that is why I was in favor of civil partnerships. But not marriage. But that's water under the bridge now.

You are assuming that a fertilized egg or a fetus has full rights and responsibilities, even if it lacks any of the structures and organs necessary for independent existence on even the most rudimentary level. It is not a human being yet. It may still be aborted by nature or human intervention. The SC only "redefined marriage" with respect to marriage under civil law, consistent with the 14th Amendment. Religious marriage is separate from civil law. However, the term "marriage" has been applied to both civil law and religious marriage. Why is a different terminology required? Are you saying that everyone who is married only in a courthouse has a "civil partnership" and anyone married in a religious ceremony has a marriage?

This has nothing to do with what you do or don't do in your faith group. For example, a Catholic can get a divorce from the courts, but is banned from remarrying in the Catholic Church and receiving Catholic sacraments. Do what you will that complies with your faith law, canon law, sharia, whatever. But it only applies to you, not anyone outside your faith group.

A human baby cannot live independently either, Hysteria. Not for a long time--maybe years. And yet we give this baby full "rights and responsibilities". So you fail there. You're just going to fail all the way around and only support the killing of babies because they're housed inside women.

A civil partnership would have given any two people the same rights as two married in terms of wills, hospital visitation rights, next of kin and etc. But would not have redefined what marriage has been for thousands of years.

 

[SweetSue92]

It's God's will.

<< American evangelicals “have a moral obligation to enthusiastically back” the president. >>

‘Render to God and Trump’: Ralph Reed calls for 2020 obedience to Trump

I'm so glad I left the christian religion in the 80s.

Go ahead and support trump. That's what freedom is all about. Everyone is free to make their own choices and live their lives.

I just wish you far right radical conservative extremists believed the same. Unfortunately you believe you have the right to use your religion as a weapon against anyone you don't like and want to force your religion on our nation. Even though that's illegal and unconstitutional.

Me, I'll go with the constitution and law.

So if you want to enthusiastically support trump, have at it.

Everyone that politically organizes for any political cause, is forcing their beliefs on the rest of the nation, that might not share those beliefs.


That you single out conservative Christians, and have a hissy fit when THEY do it, while supporting everyone else's right to do so,


is you being an anti-Christian bigot.

Not "anti-Christian." Most likely anti-fundie-rightwinger. The people you call "conservative Christians" have not organized to do any good in society, they have organized to attack their fellow human beings and fellow Americans, both those within Christianity and others outside Christianity, and they have wanted special rights for themselves only. They made their own bad reputation.

Nah. You're just a bigot, that's all.

 

[Correll]

"In his book, Reed will “persuasively” argue evangelicals have a duty to defend the incumbent Republican leader against “the stridently anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and pro-abortion agenda of the progressive left,” according to the description."



Sounds like he is attempting to make the case for his opinion.


Nothing unreasonable about that. I don't see where you get off calling it a lie.


It is funny, that you attack the very idea of religion, putting down religious people in the process, and then assume that the only reason that religious people could oppose you, is because they are lied to.

Are you saying republicans want to ban abortion?

Then you are pro choice too.

I said nothing about abortion.


Like most liberals, you have nothing but contempt for white religious Christians. And you oppose them all nearly ever political issue.


Yet, you have to imagine self serving reasons why the people you denigrate and oppose, would organize against you and yours.



How can you be so narrow minded, that you have attack people who disagree with you, for opposing you politically?

What a dumb comment. There are many people whom you define as "liberals," whatever this actually means, who are themselves white religious Christians who have different political views. BTW: why the mention of race? Christians come in many colors. What's your racial angle?

1. THe hypocrisy of liberals, saying the most contempt filled hate filled things about Christians one day, and then next embracing other Christians is a very point. But one that does not challenge my statement about the shit you libs say and do about Christians.


2. It is not "my racial angle". lt is merely me observing that liberals treat black Christians differently than they treat white Christians. Again, if you read the hate filled contempt that liberals express about Christians, and then see them embrace black Christians, it is quite obvious that liberals are complete hypocrites, if not soulless monsters.

We would mock black Christians too.

But that’s not important to black liberals. They don’t care if I am going to heaven. They keep that shit to themselves.

I still believe they’re worshipping a fairytale

My only point, in mentioning race was to note the difference in the way you treat them, ie black Christians as opposed to white Christians.


Thank you for honestly agreeing that indeed, you do treat them differently.


Considering the way you treat the white Christians, and the way you mock them, and look down on them and their beliefs,


are you surprised that they do not support your and your side, politically?

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

It's God's will.

<< American evangelicals “have a moral obligation to enthusiastically back” the president. >>

‘Render to God and Trump’: Ralph Reed calls for 2020 obedience to Trump

You would have thought they would have rescinded their support once the Stormy Daniels story broke.
But evangelicals are the worst fucking hypocrites on the planet.
All about money and power under the guise of piety.

 

[initforme]

As a Christian my only obligation is to follow Jesus and help the least fortunate. Those are my Christian obligations.

 

[Correll]

It's God's will.

<< American evangelicals “have a moral obligation to enthusiastically back” the president. >>

‘Render to God and Trump’: Ralph Reed calls for 2020 obedience to Trump

This is what’s wrong with religion. If you’ll believe the unbelievable then you clearly can be lied to.

Blind loyalty

"In his book, Reed will “persuasively” argue evangelicals have a duty to defend the incumbent Republican leader against “the stridently anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and pro-abortion agenda of the progressive left,” according to the description."



Sounds like he is attempting to make the case for his opinion.


Nothing unreasonable about that. I don't see where you get off calling it a lie.


It is funny, that you attack the very idea of religion, putting down religious people in the process, and then assume that the only reason that religious people could oppose you, is because they are lied to.

Democrats are not anti-christian or anti-Semitic, brainwashed functional morons. They do believe in separation of church and state and not in blind allegiance to right-wing a****** Israelis like netanyahu and Sharon.

Sealy already admitted to being anti-Christianity.


SO, you lose.

The same way you are anti atheists

You think it’s bad for us. You think it makes us immoral and hypocrites. You think it makes us stupid. You think it is somehow connected to socialism. And you think it’s a lie.

So we’re even.

I am not anti-atheists. I have no opinion on the morals of atheists as a group, nor on their sincerity, or level of hypocrisy. I doubt any relation between iq and atheism. I know that communism has traditionally been anti-religion.


IF, or when I have/develop negative views on atheists, I will be happy to admit them, and discuss and/or defend them, and my reasons for having them.


What I will not do, is have negative opinions on them, ridicule them, and mock them, and organize to oppose them politically,

and then whine that they do not support ME, politically.


Because that would be delusional, to expect support in return for opposition and mockery.

 

[sealybobo]

Are you saying republicans want to ban abortion?

Then you are pro choice too.

I said nothing about abortion.


Like most liberals, you have nothing but contempt for white religious Christians. And you oppose them all nearly ever political issue.


Yet, you have to imagine self serving reasons why the people you denigrate and oppose, would organize against you and yours.



How can you be so narrow minded, that you have attack people who disagree with you, for opposing you politically?

What a dumb comment. There are many people whom you define as "liberals," whatever this actually means, who are themselves white religious Christians who have different political views. BTW: why the mention of race? Christians come in many colors. What's your racial angle?

1. THe hypocrisy of liberals, saying the most contempt filled hate filled things about Christians one day, and then next embracing other Christians is a very point. But one that does not challenge my statement about the shit you libs say and do about Christians.


2. It is not "my racial angle". lt is merely me observing that liberals treat black Christians differently than they treat white Christians. Again, if you read the hate filled contempt that liberals express about Christians, and then see them embrace black Christians, it is quite obvious that liberals are complete hypocrites, if not soulless monsters.

We would mock black Christians too.

But that’s not important to black liberals. They don’t care if I am going to heaven. They keep that shit to themselves.

I still believe they’re worshipping a fairytale

My only point, in mentioning race was to note the difference in the way you treat them, ie black Christians as opposed to white Christians.


Thank you for honestly agreeing that indeed, you do treat them differently.


Considering the way you treat the white Christians, and the way you mock them, and look down on them and their beliefs,


are you surprised that they do not support your and your side, politically?

I mock all theists equally. If they belong to an organized religion.

What you want is for black people who are middle class to vote gop over abortion.

They aren’t that dumb. White Christians feel like this land is their land. They have jobs. They can afford to vote on social wedge issues.

Or they think they can afford to. Look how they’re doing. Horribly.

 

[sealybobo]

This is what’s wrong with religion. If you’ll believe the unbelievable then you clearly can be lied to.

Blind loyalty

"In his book, Reed will “persuasively” argue evangelicals have a duty to defend the incumbent Republican leader against “the stridently anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and pro-abortion agenda of the progressive left,” according to the description."



Sounds like he is attempting to make the case for his opinion.


Nothing unreasonable about that. I don't see where you get off calling it a lie.


It is funny, that you attack the very idea of religion, putting down religious people in the process, and then assume that the only reason that religious people could oppose you, is because they are lied to.

Democrats are not anti-christian or anti-Semitic, brainwashed functional morons. They do believe in separation of church and state and not in blind allegiance to right-wing a****** Israelis like netanyahu and Sharon.

Sealy already admitted to being anti-Christianity.


SO, you lose.

The same way you are anti atheists

You think it’s bad for us. You think it makes us immoral and hypocrites. You think it makes us stupid. You think it is somehow connected to socialism. And you think it’s a lie.

So we’re even.

I am not anti-atheists. I have no opinion on the morals of atheists as a group, nor on their sincerity, or level of hypocrisy. I doubt any relation between iq and atheism. I know that communism has traditionally been anti-religion.


IF, or when I have/develop negative views on atheists, I will be happy to admit them, and discuss and/or defend them, and my reasons for having them.


What I will not do, is have negative opinions on them, ridicule them, and mock them, and organize to oppose them politically,

and then whine that they do not support ME, politically.


Because that would be delusional, to expect support in return for opposition and mockery.

There’s room for theists and atheists in the democratic tent. Don’t want an abortion don’t get one

 

[Correll]

It's God's will.

<< American evangelicals “have a moral obligation to enthusiastically back” the president. >>

‘Render to God and Trump’: Ralph Reed calls for 2020 obedience to Trump

I'm so glad I left the christian religion in the 80s.

Go ahead and support trump. That's what freedom is all about. Everyone is free to make their own choices and live their lives.

I just wish you far right radical conservative extremists believed the same. Unfortunately you believe you have the right to use your religion as a weapon against anyone you don't like and want to force your religion on our nation. Even though that's illegal and unconstitutional.

Me, I'll go with the constitution and law.

So if you want to enthusiastically support trump, have at it.

Everyone that politically organizes for any political cause, is forcing their beliefs on the rest of the nation, that might not share those beliefs.


That you single out conservative Christians, and have a hissy fit when THEY do it, while supporting everyone else's right to do so,


is you being an anti-Christian bigot.

Not "anti-Christian." Most likely anti-fundie-rightwinger. The people you call "conservative Christians" have not organized to do any good in society, they have organized to attack their fellow human beings and fellow Americans, both those within Christianity and others outside Christianity, and they have wanted special rights for themselves only. They made their own bad reputation.

1. Except that the various slurs and reasons that you lefties use in your attacks on those "fundies" are quite often not limited to just the "fundies". Sealy just referred to Christianity, as "worshipping a fairytale".


2. Except that you ignored my point, that all people that organize and pursue political polices, are in effect, forcing their beliefs on the portions of the population that do not share their beliefs.


3. YOu claim of special rights is bullshit, to justify your bigotry. Note the way you are attacking them in this thread, for organizing politically. You respect everyone else's right to organize politically, but you single out these conservative Christians for doing the same. That is not them demanding special rights, that is you trying to discriminate against them.

 

[sealybobo]

This is what’s wrong with religion. If you’ll believe the unbelievable then you clearly can be lied to.

Blind loyalty

"In his book, Reed will “persuasively” argue evangelicals have a duty to defend the incumbent Republican leader against “the stridently anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and pro-abortion agenda of the progressive left,” according to the description."



Sounds like he is attempting to make the case for his opinion.


Nothing unreasonable about that. I don't see where you get off calling it a lie.


It is funny, that you attack the very idea of religion, putting down religious people in the process, and then assume that the only reason that religious people could oppose you, is because they are lied to.

Democrats are not anti-christian or anti-Semitic, brainwashed functional morons. They do believe in separation of church and state and not in blind allegiance to right-wing a****** Israelis like netanyahu and Sharon.

Sealy already admitted to being anti-Christianity.


SO, you lose.

The same way you are anti atheists

You think it’s bad for us. You think it makes us immoral and hypocrites. You think it makes us stupid. You think it is somehow connected to socialism. And you think it’s a lie.

So we’re even.

I am not anti-atheists. I have no opinion on the morals of atheists as a group, nor on their sincerity, or level of hypocrisy. I doubt any relation between iq and atheism. I know that communism has traditionally been anti-religion.


IF, or when I have/develop negative views on atheists, I will be happy to admit them, and discuss and/or defend them, and my reasons for having them.


What I will not do, is have negative opinions on them, ridicule them, and mock them, and organize to oppose them politically,

and then whine that they do not support ME, politically.


Because that would be delusional, to expect support in return for opposition and mockery.

Bullshit. They polled Christians and Christians would prefer to vote for a philandering pot smoker before they would vote for a atheist

I however vote for theists all the time

 

[Correll]

I said nothing about abortion.


Like most liberals, you have nothing but contempt for white religious Christians. And you oppose them all nearly ever political issue.


Yet, you have to imagine self serving reasons why the people you denigrate and oppose, would organize against you and yours.



How can you be so narrow minded, that you have attack people who disagree with you, for opposing you politically?

What a dumb comment. There are many people whom you define as "liberals," whatever this actually means, who are themselves white religious Christians who have different political views. BTW: why the mention of race? Christians come in many colors. What's your racial angle?

1. THe hypocrisy of liberals, saying the most contempt filled hate filled things about Christians one day, and then next embracing other Christians is a very point. But one that does not challenge my statement about the shit you libs say and do about Christians.


2. It is not "my racial angle". lt is merely me observing that liberals treat black Christians differently than they treat white Christians. Again, if you read the hate filled contempt that liberals express about Christians, and then see them embrace black Christians, it is quite obvious that liberals are complete hypocrites, if not soulless monsters.

We would mock black Christians too.

But that’s not important to black liberals. They don’t care if I am going to heaven. They keep that shit to themselves.

I still believe they’re worshipping a fairytale

My only point, in mentioning race was to note the difference in the way you treat them, ie black Christians as opposed to white Christians.


Thank you for honestly agreeing that indeed, you do treat them differently.


Considering the way you treat the white Christians, and the way you mock them, and look down on them and their beliefs,


are you surprised that they do not support your and your side, politically?

I mock all theists equally. If they belong to an organized religion.

What you want is for black people who are middle class to vote gop over abortion.

They aren’t that dumb. White Christians feel like this land is their land. They have jobs. They can afford to vote on social wedge issues.

Or they think they can afford to. Look how they’re doing. Horribly.

1. Your words, " it is not important to mock black liberals..they keep that shit to themselves". You treat them differently because they support you politically. But you do not respect them.

2. And that is my point. YOu look down on them, you oppose them politically, and you openly mock them.


Are you really surprised that they don't support you politically?

 

[Correll]

"In his book, Reed will “persuasively” argue evangelicals have a duty to defend the incumbent Republican leader against “the stridently anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and pro-abortion agenda of the progressive left,” according to the description."



Sounds like he is attempting to make the case for his opinion.


Nothing unreasonable about that. I don't see where you get off calling it a lie.


It is funny, that you attack the very idea of religion, putting down religious people in the process, and then assume that the only reason that religious people could oppose you, is because they are lied to.

Democrats are not anti-christian or anti-Semitic, brainwashed functional morons. They do believe in separation of church and state and not in blind allegiance to right-wing a****** Israelis like netanyahu and Sharon.

Sealy already admitted to being anti-Christianity.


SO, you lose.

The same way you are anti atheists

You think it’s bad for us. You think it makes us immoral and hypocrites. You think it makes us stupid. You think it is somehow connected to socialism. And you think it’s a lie.

So we’re even.

I am not anti-atheists. I have no opinion on the morals of atheists as a group, nor on their sincerity, or level of hypocrisy. I doubt any relation between iq and atheism. I know that communism has traditionally been anti-religion.


IF, or when I have/develop negative views on atheists, I will be happy to admit them, and discuss and/or defend them, and my reasons for having them.


What I will not do, is have negative opinions on them, ridicule them, and mock them, and organize to oppose them politically,

and then whine that they do not support ME, politically.


Because that would be delusional, to expect support in return for opposition and mockery.

Bullshit. They polled Christians and Christians would prefer to vote for a philandering pot smoker before they would vote for a atheist

I however vote for theists all the time

I was speaking of my self personally.


My point stands.

It is insane to have a negative opinion on a group, ridicule and mock them openly, organize politically to oppose them on nearly ever issue, to the point of attacking the idea of them engaging in the political process at all,


and then complain that they do not support you, politically.

 

[Lysistrata]

I'm not "brainwashed" as there is no one here who would do it. According to the Christian narrative, anyone who "sins" is accountable as an individual at his or her judgment for being LGBT, having an abortion, committing adultery, embezzlement, theft, bearing false witness, etc. There is no one specific "sin" that selectively merits a public battle. In any event, by your standards, your comment, coupled with your support of trump, indicates that you do lend y
your support to "ongoing sin."

Moreover, you are not just involving Christians of any and every stripe in this, you are also involving people outside of Christianity, those who adhere to other faiths, and those who choose atheism or agnosticism, to which Christian rules do not apply.

Yes, sins that society calls "Good" merit a public battle. No one calls adultery "good". No one calls theft "good". But we are absolutely supposed to celebrate homosexual marriage AND abortion, a "woman's right to choose". THAT is why Christians seem to "pick on" those sins. Not that they are worse than others, but that they are supposed to be celebrated. They're not worth celebrating. They are sins.

Your concept of celebration is flawed. What in society is called "Good" rather than something that is acceptable in keeping with the principle that, as individuals, we have the freedom to decide for ourselves. I would, and have, celebrated same-sex marriage so that the people who enter into them are granted the same legal rights and responsibilities as anyone else and may be happy with the person of their choosing. A person may choose to have an abortion or not, depending on her faith and philosophical choices, granting her full freedom of conscience, without the interference of government/politicians who may have made other religious and philosophical choices that suit them.

An abortion strips away, FOREVER, the "rights and responsibilities" of the life in the womb. So that's a non-starter. You cannot grant "rights" to one while forever stripping rights from another. This is nonsensical.

As to rights and responsibilities for gay marriage: when you're in one of you DIFFERENT sorts of moods (or off your meds maybe) you rail on and on about people thinking homosexuality is a sin. So guess what: I have a right, in America, to believe homosexuality is a sin. And I do not believe the SC was justified in redefining marriage, and I look forward to the time when marriage will be a son and father, or a mother and son, or five people. Because why not? It will have to be.

Also, I agree with you on LEGAL rights, and that is why I was in favor of civil partnerships. But not marriage. But that's water under the bridge now.

You are assuming that a fertilized egg or a fetus has full rights and responsibilities, even if it lacks any of the structures and organs necessary for independent existence on even the most rudimentary level. It is not a human being yet. It may still be aborted by nature or human intervention. The SC only "redefined marriage" with respect to marriage under civil law, consistent with the 14th Amendment. Religious marriage is separate from civil law. However, the term "marriage" has been applied to both civil law and religious marriage. Why is a different terminology required? Are you saying that everyone who is married only in a courthouse has a "civil partnership" and anyone married in a religious ceremony has a marriage?

This has nothing to do with what you do or don't do in your faith group. For example, a Catholic can get a divorce from the courts, but is banned from remarrying in the Catholic Church and receiving Catholic sacraments. Do what you will that complies with your faith law, canon law, sharia, whatever. But it only applies to you, not anyone outside your faith group.

A human baby cannot live independently either, Hysteria. Not for a long time--maybe years. And yet we give this baby full "rights and responsibilities". So you fail there. You're just going to fail all the way around and only support the killing of babies because they're housed inside women.

A civil partnership would have given any two people the same rights as two married in terms of wills, hospital visitation rights, next of kin and etc. But would not have redefined what marriage has been for thousands of years.

So you are saying that a 10-week fetus can breathe and digest on its own. A fetus is a potential human. Why are you so sore about what other people call their marriages? Poor you. Sis you know that some LGBTs have religious marriages, rather than having a civil ceremony at a courthouse?

 

[SweetSue92]

Yes, sins that society calls "Good" merit a public battle. No one calls adultery "good". No one calls theft "good". But we are absolutely supposed to celebrate homosexual marriage AND abortion, a "woman's right to choose". THAT is why Christians seem to "pick on" those sins. Not that they are worse than others, but that they are supposed to be celebrated. They're not worth celebrating. They are sins.

Your concept of celebration is flawed. What in society is called "Good" rather than something that is acceptable in keeping with the principle that, as individuals, we have the freedom to decide for ourselves. I would, and have, celebrated same-sex marriage so that the people who enter into them are granted the same legal rights and responsibilities as anyone else and may be happy with the person of their choosing. A person may choose to have an abortion or not, depending on her faith and philosophical choices, granting her full freedom of conscience, without the interference of government/politicians who may have made other religious and philosophical choices that suit them.

An abortion strips away, FOREVER, the "rights and responsibilities" of the life in the womb. So that's a non-starter. You cannot grant "rights" to one while forever stripping rights from another. This is nonsensical.

As to rights and responsibilities for gay marriage: when you're in one of you DIFFERENT sorts of moods (or off your meds maybe) you rail on and on about people thinking homosexuality is a sin. So guess what: I have a right, in America, to believe homosexuality is a sin. And I do not believe the SC was justified in redefining marriage, and I look forward to the time when marriage will be a son and father, or a mother and son, or five people. Because why not? It will have to be.

Also, I agree with you on LEGAL rights, and that is why I was in favor of civil partnerships. But not marriage. But that's water under the bridge now.

You are assuming that a fertilized egg or a fetus has full rights and responsibilities, even if it lacks any of the structures and organs necessary for independent existence on even the most rudimentary level. It is not a human being yet. It may still be aborted by nature or human intervention. The SC only "redefined marriage" with respect to marriage under civil law, consistent with the 14th Amendment. Religious marriage is separate from civil law. However, the term "marriage" has been applied to both civil law and religious marriage. Why is a different terminology required? Are you saying that everyone who is married only in a courthouse has a "civil partnership" and anyone married in a religious ceremony has a marriage?

This has nothing to do with what you do or don't do in your faith group. For example, a Catholic can get a divorce from the courts, but is banned from remarrying in the Catholic Church and receiving Catholic sacraments. Do what you will that complies with your faith law, canon law, sharia, whatever. But it only applies to you, not anyone outside your faith group.

A human baby cannot live independently either, Hysteria. Not for a long time--maybe years. And yet we give this baby full "rights and responsibilities". So you fail there. You're just going to fail all the way around and only support the killing of babies because they're housed inside women.

A civil partnership would have given any two people the same rights as two married in terms of wills, hospital visitation rights, next of kin and etc. But would not have redefined what marriage has been for thousands of years.

So you are saying that a 10-week fetus can breathe and digest on its own. A fetus is a potential human. Why are you so sore about what other people call their marriages? Poor you. Sis you know that some LGBTs have religious marriages, rather than having a civil ceremony at a courthouse?

Some humans on ventilators on the hospital cannot breathe on their own. So is this your definition of who deserves to live?

Think better

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, sins that society calls "Good" merit a public battle. No one calls adultery "good". No one calls theft "good". But we are absolutely supposed to celebrate homosexual marriage AND abortion, a "woman's right to choose". THAT is why Christians seem to "pick on" those sins. Not that they are worse than others, but that they are supposed to be celebrated. They're not worth celebrating. They are sins.

Your concept of celebration is flawed. What in society is called "Good" rather than something that is acceptable in keeping with the principle that, as individuals, we have the freedom to decide for ourselves. I would, and have, celebrated same-sex marriage so that the people who enter into them are granted the same legal rights and responsibilities as anyone else and may be happy with the person of their choosing. A person may choose to have an abortion or not, depending on her faith and philosophical choices, granting her full freedom of conscience, without the interference of government/politicians who may have made other religious and philosophical choices that suit them.

An abortion strips away, FOREVER, the "rights and responsibilities" of the life in the womb. So that's a non-starter. You cannot grant "rights" to one while forever stripping rights from another. This is nonsensical.

As to rights and responsibilities for gay marriage: when you're in one of you DIFFERENT sorts of moods (or off your meds maybe) you rail on and on about people thinking homosexuality is a sin. So guess what: I have a right, in America, to believe homosexuality is a sin. And I do not believe the SC was justified in redefining marriage, and I look forward to the time when marriage will be a son and father, or a mother and son, or five people. Because why not? It will have to be.

Also, I agree with you on LEGAL rights, and that is why I was in favor of civil partnerships. But not marriage. But that's water under the bridge now.

You are assuming that a fertilized egg or a fetus has full rights and responsibilities, even if it lacks any of the structures and organs necessary for independent existence on even the most rudimentary level. It is not a human being yet. It may still be aborted by nature or human intervention. The SC only "redefined marriage" with respect to marriage under civil law, consistent with the 14th Amendment. Religious marriage is separate from civil law. However, the term "marriage" has been applied to both civil law and religious marriage. Why is a different terminology required? Are you saying that everyone who is married only in a courthouse has a "civil partnership" and anyone married in a religious ceremony has a marriage?

This has nothing to do with what you do or don't do in your faith group. For example, a Catholic can get a divorce from the courts, but is banned from remarrying in the Catholic Church and receiving Catholic sacraments. Do what you will that complies with your faith law, canon law, sharia, whatever. But it only applies to you, not anyone outside your faith group.

A human baby cannot live independently either, Hysteria. Not for a long time--maybe years. And yet we give this baby full "rights and responsibilities". So you fail there. You're just going to fail all the way around and only support the killing of babies because they're housed inside women.

A civil partnership would have given any two people the same rights as two married in terms of wills, hospital visitation rights, next of kin and etc. But would not have redefined what marriage has been for thousands of years.

So you are saying that a 10-week fetus can breathe and digest on its own. A fetus is a potential human. Why are you so sore about what other people call their marriages? Poor you. Sis you know that some LGBTs have religious marriages, rather than having a civil ceremony at a courthouse?

No one needs a church to get a divorce so no one should need a church to get married

 

[lennypartiv]

It's God's will.
<< American evangelicals “have a moral obligation to enthusiastically back” the president. >>
‘Render to God and Trump’: Ralph Reed calls for 2020 obedience to Trump

You would have thought they would have rescinded their support once the Stormy Daniels story broke.
But evangelicals are the worst fucking hypocrites on the planet.
All about money and power under the guise of piety.

Forgiving sinners is part of the Bible.

 

[Street Juice]

Just goes to show you what phonies religious folk are . Following a godless , man whore , womanizing , greedy , lying , boorish , con man like Trump is God’s will?!

They follow that guy from the 700 club why not trump?

Religion makes people dumb and controllable of course trumps tapping into that.

Exactly. Like when in 2016 the Jerusalem Post editorialized that "no Jew in good conscience " could support Trump.

It is hard for Jews to see Trump alienate one group of people and then support him. They remember that's what Hitler did to them. He convinced the German people that the Jews were to blame. Sound familiar? Trump said muslims and mexicans are bad and I'm sure he thinks blacks are bad too.

No, the reason cited was that Trump supported an immigration policy that wasn't crafted for the benefit of the Jews. By the way, as you well know, it is a lie to say Trump said Muslims and Mexicans are bad. What is it about Jews and lying? And you have no idea whether Trump thinks blacks are bad. What is it about Jews and projecting?

Assuming that you identify yourself as a Christian, why are you so anti-semitic? This is the opposite of what Jesus taught. In history, the Jews never did anything, as a group, to anyone. Really, whom did they attack? Whom did they wipe out? All they have done is to stick with their own religion, which pre-dates Christianity and Islam, both of which are still angry that the Jews did not jump on their respective bandwagons.
Your orange whore actually did say that Muslims and Mexicans are bad, and his fast-friend graham-cracker-the-ass-kisser actually said that Islam is not a religion.

What is it with you people and lying?

When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

 

[BlindBoo]

They follow that guy from the 700 club why not trump?

Religion makes people dumb and controllable of course trumps tapping into that.

Exactly. Like when in 2016 the Jerusalem Post editorialized that "no Jew in good conscience " could support Trump.

It is hard for Jews to see Trump alienate one group of people and then support him. They remember that's what Hitler did to them. He convinced the German people that the Jews were to blame. Sound familiar? Trump said muslims and mexicans are bad and I'm sure he thinks blacks are bad too.

No, the reason cited was that Trump supported an immigration policy that wasn't crafted for the benefit of the Jews. By the way, as you well know, it is a lie to say Trump said Muslims and Mexicans are bad. What is it about Jews and lying? And you have no idea whether Trump thinks blacks are bad. What is it about Jews and projecting?

Assuming that you identify yourself as a Christian, why are you so anti-semitic? This is the opposite of what Jesus taught. In history, the Jews never did anything, as a group, to anyone. Really, whom did they attack? Whom did they wipe out? All they have done is to stick with their own religion, which pre-dates Christianity and Islam, both of which are still angry that the Jews did not jump on their respective bandwagons.
Your orange whore actually did say that Muslims and Mexicans are bad, and his fast-friend graham-cracker-the-ass-kisser actually said that Islam is not a religion.

What is it with you people and lying?

When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

Hmm, sound like it was a Very Angry Lord Thy God back then. Did it ever say why it killed off it's dinosaurs 65 million years ago?