More politicians like this please
(twitter.com)
Comments (50)
sorted by:
As a Christian I like what she is saying but not everyone she represents is a believer. I want her to win again in November . I’ve learned the hard way that being pushy with the Bible doesn’t work.
Being a bitch and not standing on your beliefs doesn't work either.
I stand for them but I’m just saying I used to be very judgmental and harsh with people and that wasn’t the best way to share the word with ppl.
I know from personal experience that you have to be careful who you're harsh to.
Have you ever seen the ASU video of a psychotic homosexual attacking a peaceful preacher. Quite amusing.
I posted that on KiA, and there was one new user who defended the homosexual. I was so harsh back to him that he actually deleted his account. Though he was objectively wrong, it probably would have been better to have him inside the tent and able to evolve. I sometimes wonder what became of him. Maybe he became a full-on regressive due to my actions.
Wow! yea I've seen similar videos like that. Can't believe that guy deleted his account instead of just ignoring you.
That's the thing. People don't do that. So that's why I always advocate for treating people who are not as based as we are nicely, to at least give them a chance.
This is the video by the way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj4yGGLZkhQ
Yea I’ve thought about that. Sometimes I feel like in my desire not to be over zealous I’ve given up some ground. There has to be a happy medium though. You can turn off ppl by being overly aggressive but you can’t just cede ground
You need a political platform. But if you give ground at every turn so everyone else can have some, there's no platform left.
Because the opposition has a very clear and very established platform: Lysenkoism at any cost! They also have a very good propaganda team to hide the fact that's their platform.
Do not be a Bible-thumper but be a hardcore cultural Christian.
Sort of like I am!
I’m definitely not a Bible thumper but still a Christian. You became a Christian?
No, I'm incapable of religious belief. But I do think a Christian culture is superior to an Islamic one. And with the woke nonsense intruding on everything, I think a Christian culture is superior to an atheist one as well.
Didn't mean that you were a Bible-thumper, by the way. Only meant that I think this is a winning strategy for politicians: to be strongly culturally Christian while not focusing too much on Biblical and theological minutiae.
Gotcha. I’ve been a thumper in the past but I’ve learned the theological discussions are best had with people who want to have them. Or if someone wanted to talk about Jesus
Or if you want to annoy people.
"Jesus loves you" enrages the demons like nothing else.
No thank you. Better Christian evangelists than woke tyrants, but neither would be preferable.
Enjoy your kids being groomed and your nation destroyed enlightened one
By the evangelicals? Yeah, we know. They are also a fraud ring that rapes kids.
What we're saying is that being presented with a false choice is not an actual solution.
I don't think evangelicals are out there grooming the kids of others. Whatever bad stuff they do or don't do, they do it to their own. The woke cult targets everyone's children.
Sometimes one has to choose between imperfections.
They absolutely are, in the form of the Joshua Project.
Additionally, pedos within the Evangelical movement also will sexually assault children when in institutional power.
Again, a false choice isn't necessary.
Evangelicals are any of the protestant denominations that believe strongly in preaching the word of God to unbelievers. They are a diverse group and have no strong correlation with pedophiles. There may be small cults within the evangelical umbrella that are linked to pedophiles.
I think your definition is far too broad, as I've heard Evangelicals describe themselves as a specific religious sect stemming out of the 2nd Great Awakening movement.
Your description would be that basically all protestants are Evangelicals. Because all protestants generally do believe in preaching the word of God to non-believers, as it is a moral and religious imperative to save souls.
I have never once heard your claim so I think you're full of it.
That is literally what an evangelical is and you cannot be a Christian without being an evangelical because if you do not believe th way to salvation is the Gospel of Jesus Christ then you're not a Christian
Sooooo, you're saying Evangelicals are literally interchangeable with Christians. One can't be an Evangelical without being a Christian (makes sense), and one can't be a Christian without being an Evangelical. (Doesn't make sense)
If that were the case, I wouldn't be hearing Christians argue about the role of Evangelicals within Christianity generally, and within politics specifically.
You've broadened the term to meaninglessness.
Average atheist who doesn't know what an evangelical even is.
Wait, you actually think mutilating boys is a Christian practice?
The modern American practice does have its roots in Christianity. The logic goes:
Masturbating is sinful and must be discouraged.
If we remove the foreskins of boys, they won't masturbate.
Ergo, we should remove their foreskins.
This reasoning is no longer applied, of course. Most people don't care if boys masturbate, and those who do realize circumcision won't stop them. It's something done because it's just considered normal, I imagine.
A reasonably balanced view of US circumcision on the Internet? I'm shocked.
That is not correct, Christianity has been around for 20 centuries. So why is it that only that in the 19th century people started doing that? The answer is that Fauci-like 'doctors' started claiming that it is bad for your health to masturbate, and that mutilation is actually good.
Perhaps nobody thought of it before. Perhaps they found the idea their sons might be mistaken for Jews distasteful.
Nobody thought of it before? Really? This barbaric practice is all over the Bible, but it never came to anyone's mind?
And if they did not want their sons mistaken for Jews, that seems to suggest that Christianity was getting it right.
I understand that sentiment, and in fact, I'm an atheist. I do wonder whether the destruction of Christianity has not led to wokeness filling up the vacuum.
There's going to be a state ideology. I'd rather have it be a sane, sensible, cultural Christianity than something far worse. We've learned that the hard way in Europe, where the alternative to Christianity became Islam.
The idea that atheism could fill the moral void of Christianity failed pretty quickly
Atheism is a statement of lacking. It is defined by not having something.
It was never meant to fill a moral void, and is utterly unable to make any morality calls at all. "No one decided things.", "The zero commandments.".
Anyone who thought the idea of NOT thinking of something, could ever have any controlling factor in life, is beyond stupid. I am a-unicornist, it does not impact my moralityview. I am a-leprochaunist, it does not impact my morality view. I am a-theist, it does not impact my morality view. Because you need something there to impact it. A void does not create change or structure.
If I believed in unicorns, I'd likely have some greater valuation to virgin women, since obviously magical beings so clearly favor them. If I believed in leprochauns, then rainbows would take on a very different meaning indeed. These things would impact my life, because they would exist, even if only to me.
For many atheists and "secular-[religion]"ists, they're, honestly, too dumb to hold their own worldview. Because they let something they "know" to not exist, dictate their worldview and life actions. Like a schizophrenic who knows their condition but listens to the voices anyways.
Based.
Christianity is the seed of wokism; the whole slave morality thing where the able are cursed and the weak venerated springs from there.
A Nietzsche fan?
But that was talking about the genuinely oppressed. Not making up phony oppressions for the heck of it.
Unfortunately woke socialists do seem to find a way of infiltrating and subverting atheist spaces in very short order.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
"You lost your morality framework? Here, try OUR morality framework, now with 100% more love-bombing and other indoctrination techniques!"
still a woman
should be taking care of her kids, family and community and supporting her husband, not attention whoring
It has its pros and cons. Christianity can be prone to meekness and slave morality which is self-defeating. Religion in general is also prone to attributing material problems to immaterial origins and thus failing to address them properly and providing cover for grifters. That said, it does tend to retain a more Aristotlean meta-physics that is a viable alternative to shitlibery.
I like the Christianity of 1095.
Cannot say I support this. Separation of church and state is important. Cults need not apply.
I'd love for you to show me separation of church and state in the constitution oh scholar
Religion has no stance in government, fuckface. Respecting in the legal context means acknowledging it exists in any means. It's the original don't ask, don't tell.
That's the establishment cause numbnuts. That's not a separation of church and state that's disallowing an official state religion. The founders meant for no Christian sect to dominate another not for atheist fuckwits to run the country. Currently the law only prohibits excessive entanglement which is the only reasonable interpretation of the establishment clause.
Free exercise means government officials can still have their religious beliefs and act upon them
I seriously doubt it. From her web site: https://www.mayrafloresforcongress.com/issues/
DACA = illegal immigrants being given a stealth amnesty by Barack Obama.
Any link on that? I'm having trouble finding it.