What newly-leaked DNC emails reveal should TERRIFY Christians!!!

[HUGGY]

In what way, Kat? Sorry, but I just don't buy that kind of assessment unless you can be at least a little specific.

Okay. You are talking typical lib talking points. I have heard it a trillion times. You guys enjoy, this bores me.

Why do atheists have to be liberals? From my standpoint it is just being honest and practical.

 

[Alexandra]

Why do atheists have to be liberals? From my standpoint it is just being honest and practical.

Bite your tongue! Don't you know that people have to be put into nice, tidy little boxes so you never have to think about what they actually say?

 

[HUGGY]

Why do atheists have to be liberals? From my standpoint it is just being honest and practical.

Bite your tongue! Don't you know that people have to be put into nice, tidy little boxes so you never have to think about they actually say?

Please! Don't say "put people into boxes" to someone my age.

 

[Alexandra]

Please! Don't say "put people into boxes" to someone my age.

Okay, fine. Ceramic jars it is.

 

[HUGGY]

Please! Don't say "put people into boxes" to someone my age.

Okay, fine. Ceramic jars it is.

Somehow being burnt to cinders has little more appeal.

 

[Alexandra]

Somehow being burnt to cinders has little more appeal.

Okay, I started three different replies, and all of them were complete downers, so I'm thinkin' it's time to call it a night. **chuckle** Sweet dreams, Huggy.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Excuse me for throwing a monkey in your wrench...

*****CHUCKLE*****

...Do you have those moral convictions?

*****SMILE*****

Well, that was derp- um, I mean, deep. Fire up another one, dude.

You didn't answer the question... Unless your youtube is a clue to the answer.

*****SMILE*****





Bad romance?

 

[Clementine]

Hillary made the comment that Christians will have to give up some beliefs. They will be forced to go against them and it would just be easier if they'd stop believing certain things.

They must cater gay weddings or attend them as photographers or face heavy fines and likely losing their businesses. Muslims have denied service to gays without an ounce of criticism over it.

The left does not fear Christians no matter how terrible they treat them while they understand fully that even a minor offense against Muslims ends in bloodshed.

1) When did she say Christians have to give up on some beliefs? Please provide a quote. (Please note that this is in no way a defense of Clinton. I just like sources when talking about this stuff in earnest).

2) As for catering gay weddings, etc., I'm not aware of any legislation or pending legislation that results in fines for refusing to make cakes or take photos at gay weddings. Please provide evidence. As far as I know, there's public condemnation, sure. But that's a far cry from legislation, and it certainly doesn't entail anyone being forced to stop believing in anything. It just means their business will suffer, possibly to the point of failure, because customers are aware of the photographer/bakers' discriminatory beliefs, and will choose to buy elsewhere. If the resulting pressure is too much for someone to take, as far as their religious convictions vs. their business interests are concerned... well, that's their own personal dilemma to hash out.

3) Again, as far as Muslims go, there has been one - and only one- news piece, etc., that I'm aware of that tried to draw a parallel to Muslim establishments, but it's received virtually no attention in the press. So you'll get no argument from me there.

For your first question, see video on post #36. Yes, Hillary thinks Christians need to change to suit the liberal agenda. The left will never ask the same of Muslims.

Second, when was the last time you watched the news? How are you not aware that the Christian couple that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding were given a heavy fine and will go out of business because they are ruined financially?
There is also a video in this forum where a couple posing as gay went into Muslim bakeries to ask about having them bake a cake. They were refused each time. While the Christian couple were bashed endlessly, the media yawned when Muslims did the same.

It makes no sense that the Dems are so hard on Christians for not supporting gay marriage or abortion yet defend Islam even after harsh opinions of gays are known. And in Muslim countries, gays are killed because it's a crime to be gay. Of course, Muslims would approve of abortions for infidels because it saves them the trouble.

Here's another view widely held by "moderate" Muslims that the left will probably defend. The war on women and children continues among Muslims. Women and children have no rights and exist for the sole purpose of serving Muslim men in any way the men wish. Denying service to them generally results in beating or even death.

"Keep in mind, this disturbing reasoning didn’t come from a "radicalized Muslim." Naddzy is not a terrorist; she is what the left would call a "moderate." She follows the teachings of the Qu’ran, including Sharia Law, but she isn’t actively out there killing people. Nice compromise, right?

This clearly demonstrates that even "moderate" Islam is a danger to Western society. There are 3.3 million Muslims living in the United States. In other words, there are 3.3 million people living their lives in accordance with the Qu’ran, who believe that it is not only okay to have sex with 9-year-olds, but that their bodies are "designed" for it.

Of course, Naddzy failed to account for the emotional and hormonal consequences that inevitably come along with sexual activity. She also forgot to mention that while some girls may have a period at age 9, having a child can be life-threatening, and if it doesn’t kill them, it can cause life-long health issues.

Oh, and then there’s the matter of actually raising a child when you’re still a child yourself; when you aren’t even old enough to go to the movies alone, never mind hold a job or drive a car.

No, those things Naddzy conveniently ignored in her Twitter argument.

Islam is toxic – especially for women – and you would think that such views would be abhorrent to the left. Just take a look at First Lady Michelle Obama, who has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to jet-set around the world preaching about education for girls. But nothing throws a wrench in a girl’s potential to be educated like a pregnancy before they even graduate the fifth grade.

You would think prominent leftists, like Michelle Obama, would be admonishing a religion which condones practices that are so harmful to girls, but they are not. Instead, they make every concession for Islam and incessantly pander to its followers, effectively giving pedophilia, rape, underage sex, and a plethora of other crimes, a big thumbs up.

You just can’t have it both ways, and it’s time for the left to wake up and smell the bacon. Islam has no place in Western society. You cannot be a proponent of women’s rights and a proponent of Islam. In no way, shape or form, is a 9-year-old girl "designed" for sexual intercourse."

http://thepatriotnation.net/2016/08/07/muslim-condones-underage-sex/#

 

[JBond]

Look at all the bigots tripping over themselves to trash the 1st Amendment. Good stuff.

 

[norwegen]

What if the Roman Emperor had lost the battle where the very survival of the Christian religion hung in the balance? He would have blamed the Christians of course and wiped them off the face of the map. If that happened these stupid people today would probably still be praying to the dozens of gods and idols the Romans were praying to back then and trying to convince each other in the wisdom of THAT religion.

Christianity didn't hang in the balance in the Roman Empire. It canvassed the empire despite the martyrdom. And believe me, the martyrdom was voacious; emperors did try to wipe Christians off the map.

They lost that battle.

 

[HUGGY]

What if the Roman Emperor had lost the battle where the very survival of the Christian religion hung in the balance? He would have blamed the Christians of course and wiped them off the face of the map. If that happened these stupid people today would probably still be praying to the dozens of gods and idols the Romans were praying to back then and trying to convince each other in the wisdom of THAT religion.

Christianity didn't hang in the balance in the Roman Empire. It canvassed the empire despite the martyrdom. And believe me, the martyrdom was voacious; emperors did try to wipe Christians off the map.

They lost that battle.

What are you talking about? All I ever read is that the Roman leader won the battle and believed that the Christian god favored him so he made Christianity the official Roman religion.

 

[norwegen]

What if the Roman Emperor had lost the battle where the very survival of the Christian religion hung in the balance? He would have blamed the Christians of course and wiped them off the face of the map. If that happened these stupid people today would probably still be praying to the dozens of gods and idols the Romans were praying to back then and trying to convince each other in the wisdom of THAT religion.

Christianity didn't hang in the balance in the Roman Empire. It canvassed the empire despite the martyrdom. And believe me, the martyrdom was voacious; emperors did try to wipe Christians off the map.

They lost that battle.

What are you talking about? All I ever read is that the Roman leader won the battle and believed that the Christian god favored him so he made Christianity the official Roman religion.

The Edict of Milan didn't proclaim an official religion, I don't believe.

At any rate, Christianity never hung in the balance in the Roman Empire. It spread like wildfire.

It spread like wildfire in America, too, setting precedent for American social compact theory (church covenants in little New England towns were only one small way in which Puritan social and political theory prevailed upon American jurisprudence).

When Democrats assault Christianity, they assault America. They assault the "wisdom of THAT" society.

 

[Uncensored2008]

AllenBWest.com ^ | July 30, 2016 | Michael Cantrell
More disturbing revelations about the DNC continue to come to light as hacked emails continue to be published online, exposing the radical left for who they really are for the whole world to see. One of the latest developments to surface are emails that show the Democratic Party was working with anti-religious freedom groups to get around religious liberty laws that protect our First Amendment right to believe what we want, worship where we want, and live out our beliefs both publicly and privately. This is truly atrocious.....

Just part of the democrats war on civil rights.

 

[Picaro]

What if the Roman Emperor had lost the battle where the very survival of the Christian religion hung in the balance? He would have blamed the Christians of course and wiped them off the face of the map. If that happened these stupid people today would probably still be praying to the dozens of gods and idols the Romans were praying to back then and trying to convince each other in the wisdom of THAT religion.

Christianity didn't hang in the balance in the Roman Empire. It canvassed the empire despite the martyrdom. And believe me, the martyrdom was voacious; emperors did try to wipe Christians off the map.

They lost that battle.

Indeed, and also Persians, Arabs, Africans, and everybody else, not just Rome and western countries. Three of the Emperors in the Four Emperors period conducted the worst massacres ever on them, and all they succeeded in doing was massively increasing the numbers of converts. A truly amazing and tenacious sect. Pagan brutalism lost in the end, to the great benefit of the West. Paganism was a particularly vile belief system, and so is the Islam that models itself after paganism.

 

[HUGGY]

What if the Roman Emperor had lost the battle where the very survival of the Christian religion hung in the balance? He would have blamed the Christians of course and wiped them off the face of the map. If that happened these stupid people today would probably still be praying to the dozens of gods and idols the Romans were praying to back then and trying to convince each other in the wisdom of THAT religion.

Christianity didn't hang in the balance in the Roman Empire. It canvassed the empire despite the martyrdom. And believe me, the martyrdom was voacious; emperors did try to wipe Christians off the map.

They lost that battle.

What are you talking about? All I ever read is that the Roman leader won the battle and believed that the Christian god favored him so he made Christianity the official Roman religion.

The Edict of Milan didn't proclaim an official religion, I don't believe.

At any rate, Christianity never hung in the balance in the Roman Empire. It spread like wildfire.

It spread like wildfire in America, too, setting precedent for American social compact theory (church covenants in little New England towns were only one small way in which Puritan social and political theory prevailed upon American jurisprudence).

When Democrats assault Christianity, they assault America. They assault the "wisdom of THAT" society.

"
Battle of Milvian Bridge
Eusebius of Caesarea and other Christian sources record that Constantine experienced a dramatic event in 312 at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, after which Constantine claimed the emperorship in the West. According to these sources, Constantine looked up to the sun before the battle and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "Ἐν Τούτῳ Νίκα" (~in this sign, conquer!), often rendered in a Latin version, "in hoc signo vinces"(–in this sign, you will conquer). Constantine commanded his troops to adorn their shields with a Christian symbol (the Chi-Rho), and thereafter they were victorious.[2][12]

Following the battle, the new emperor ignored the altars to the gods prepared on the Capitoline and did not carry out the customary sacrifices to celebrate a general's victorious entry into Rome, instead heading directly to the imperial palace.[11] Most influential people in the empire, however, especially high military officials, had not been converted to Christianity and still participated in the traditional religions of Rome; Constantine's rule exhibited at least a willingness to appease these factions. The Roman coins minted up to eight years after the battle still bore the images of Roman gods.[2] The monuments he first commissioned, such as the Arch of Constantine, contained no reference to Christianity.[11][13]"

I don't care if democrats attack religion. That's between you and them.

 

[HUGGY]

Constantine converted because he was a mommy's boy.

 

[norwegen]

What if the Roman Emperor had lost the battle where the very survival of the Christian religion hung in the balance? He would have blamed the Christians of course and wiped them off the face of the map. If that happened these stupid people today would probably still be praying to the dozens of gods and idols the Romans were praying to back then and trying to convince each other in the wisdom of THAT religion.

Christianity didn't hang in the balance in the Roman Empire. It canvassed the empire despite the martyrdom. And believe me, the martyrdom was voacious; emperors did try to wipe Christians off the map.

They lost that battle.

What are you talking about? All I ever read is that the Roman leader won the battle and believed that the Christian god favored him so he made Christianity the official Roman religion.

The Edict of Milan didn't proclaim an official religion, I don't believe.

At any rate, Christianity never hung in the balance in the Roman Empire. It spread like wildfire.

It spread like wildfire in America, too, setting precedent for American social compact theory (church covenants in little New England towns were only one small way in which Puritan social and political theory prevailed upon American jurisprudence).

When Democrats assault Christianity, they assault America. They assault the "wisdom of THAT" society.

"
Battle of Milvian Bridge
Eusebius of Caesarea and other Christian sources record that Constantine experienced a dramatic event in 312 at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, after which Constantine claimed the emperorship in the West. According to these sources, Constantine looked up to the sun before the battle and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "Ἐν Τούτῳ Νίκα" (~in this sign, conquer!), often rendered in a Latin version, "in hoc signo vinces"(–in this sign, you will conquer). Constantine commanded his troops to adorn their shields with a Christian symbol (the Chi-Rho), and thereafter they were victorious.[2][12]

Following the battle, the new emperor ignored the altars to the gods prepared on the Capitoline and did not carry out the customary sacrifices to celebrate a general's victorious entry into Rome, instead heading directly to the imperial palace.[11] Most influential people in the empire, however, especially high military officials, had not been converted to Christianity and still participated in the traditional religions of Rome; Constantine's rule exhibited at least a willingness to appease these factions. The Roman coins minted up to eight years after the battle still bore the images of Roman gods.[2] The monuments he first commissioned, such as the Arch of Constantine, contained no reference to Christianity.[11][13]"

I don't care if democrats attack religion. That's between you and them.

History lessons copied and pasted are history lessons I don't read.

Just so you know.

They're sometimes off topic and almost always boring.

 

[HUGGY]

What if the Roman Emperor had lost the battle where the very survival of the Christian religion hung in the balance? He would have blamed the Christians of course and wiped them off the face of the map. If that happened these stupid people today would probably still be praying to the dozens of gods and idols the Romans were praying to back then and trying to convince each other in the wisdom of THAT religion.

Christianity didn't hang in the balance in the Roman Empire. It canvassed the empire despite the martyrdom. And believe me, the martyrdom was voacious; emperors did try to wipe Christians off the map.

They lost that battle.

What are you talking about? All I ever read is that the Roman leader won the battle and believed that the Christian god favored him so he made Christianity the official Roman religion.

The Edict of Milan didn't proclaim an official religion, I don't believe.

At any rate, Christianity never hung in the balance in the Roman Empire. It spread like wildfire.

It spread like wildfire in America, too, setting precedent for American social compact theory (church covenants in little New England towns were only one small way in which Puritan social and political theory prevailed upon American jurisprudence).

When Democrats assault Christianity, they assault America. They assault the "wisdom of THAT" society.

"
Battle of Milvian Bridge
Eusebius of Caesarea and other Christian sources record that Constantine experienced a dramatic event in 312 at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, after which Constantine claimed the emperorship in the West. According to these sources, Constantine looked up to the sun before the battle and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "Ἐν Τούτῳ Νίκα" (~in this sign, conquer!), often rendered in a Latin version, "in hoc signo vinces"(–in this sign, you will conquer). Constantine commanded his troops to adorn their shields with a Christian symbol (the Chi-Rho), and thereafter they were victorious.[2][12]

Following the battle, the new emperor ignored the altars to the gods prepared on the Capitoline and did not carry out the customary sacrifices to celebrate a general's victorious entry into Rome, instead heading directly to the imperial palace.[11] Most influential people in the empire, however, especially high military officials, had not been converted to Christianity and still participated in the traditional religions of Rome; Constantine's rule exhibited at least a willingness to appease these factions. The Roman coins minted up to eight years after the battle still bore the images of Roman gods.[2] The monuments he first commissioned, such as the Arch of Constantine, contained no reference to Christianity.[11][13]"

I don't care if democrats attack religion. That's between you and them.

History lessons copied and pasted are history lessons I don't read.

Just so you know.

They're sometimes off topic and almost always boring.

Good to know. ...and... I don't debate willfully ignorant people..almost always boring.

 

[Picaro]

Constantine 'converted' because of political reasons mostly; he was also superstitious, and it was clear the pagan priests were either failures or political supporters of his rivals. He didn't know much about theology, which is why, despite all the nonsense to the contrary, he did not determine what books and theological premises were acceptable and which weren't. The orthodoxy was already well established at the very beginning of Christianity, not later. It was left entirely to the Christian scholars and teachers to determine a common core of texts. The Christian's big plus from a governmental standpoint was their excellent administrations of their social and economic programs for themselves, something the pagans tried to emulate in competition with them under Lucinius and failed miserably, which led Constantine to assign them the job of administering those kinds of services for the parts of the empire under his control. Their success was almost immediate.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Why would Christians need to be scared, isn't death just a magical doorway to being with the lord for all eternity. I've never understood this, why do they view this as the worst of things. If you really believe this you would not fear death as 'the next life' is so much bliss.

Telling though, how conservatives and their lapdog operatives, use fear against Christians almost exclusively. Everything is couched as 'a war on' something. 'They hate you'. 'Christians you should be terrified!'

Ignore these creeps. Human being that use fear to manipulate others are just cowards.