Christopher000 wrote: .. Why does the life of an animal hold so much more weight over a little human life? Why do animals have lawful rights to life, while a little, helpless human baby, has no rights? Wicked lunatics. ..
Your last two words answers the questions perfectly, Christopher. These lunatics look like humans, but have given up their humanity for mindless barbarism. Picture them dragging their knuckles along the ground, followed by their pit bulls, looking for tiny humans to kill. That is what they are, regardless of the nice suits they wear.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Adriel, don't ignore what the White Nationalists around the world say excerpt from, "How Far-Right Extremists Abroad Have Adopted Trumpâs Symbols As Their Own" https://tinyurl.com/y424p6v
If we are perceived to be a laughing stock, maybe there is too much concern for what the world thinks. When others lead the way in taking the high road, only then they can lead, or laugh, as they see fit.
Atanael wrote: I'm a conservative Evangelical Christian, and my view is many Evangelical Christians are endorsing Donald Trump without questioning his morals and behavious attitudes, they follow him blindly, even fanatically and therefore, the liberals are counter attacking and Satan is just adding fuel to the fire. Brothers and sisters the best way to counter fight the advancement of Liberals ideas is the preaching of the Gospel, keeping a holy life, love the sinners but have their sons.
You may have to specify what bad moral and behavioral attitude he has displayed as president. One does not have to follow him blindly or fanatically to support some of the things he's trying to do. Frankly, from what I've seen, it's those who oppose anything and everything he does, (and everything they have manufactured that he does) that are the blind fanatics. And no, they aren't counter attacking anything, since from day 1 they have initiated and have been on the attack aggressively.
Progressive causes are named as progressive by liberals because the "liberal" designation lost respect, having been found wanting of any spiritual, social, or physical progress. The question for my brothers and sisters is why do we go along in calling retrograde reactionaries, "progressive"? In what way are they? Way back when, they appropriated "liberal" when "modern" was found wanting. They are good at capturing language, while continuing the same old lust for power and corruption. We should be good at least in denying them command over our language.
Jim Lincoln wrote: excerpt from, "As Donald Trump faces rising dangers, 12 religion questions for understudy Mike Pence" https://tinyurl.com/yyln5tw2 Considering people such as Joe Biden have a much better chance of being the Democratic candidate for president, CBN has put up a straw horse. Mike Pence strikes me as being a Dominionist. đ I really have no use for people who are not-- https://tinyurl.com/hbtgek (Politically Incorrect?)
What do you think of the gay mayor's comments about Pence? Or his reference to "Trump's past sexual scandals" in light of His calling Pence a hypocrite?
Jim Lincoln wrote: 'According to Jerry Falwell Jr., evangelicals have âfound their dream president,â which says something about the current quality of evangelical dreams.'---Michael Gerson https://tinyurl.com/ybhph2tz (The Last Temptation) For what is considered to be a strong Christian group, it certainly deteriorated in the last presidential election
Indeed, they could have voted for H. Clinton. Who did you vote for?
If you're going to eat chicken at all, might as well eat the better tasting chicken served by Chick-fil-A. Jim can petition the government to post guards at the door to keep folks from eating where they wish. That freedom with personal responsibility stuff has to go.
Christopher000 wrote: For purely informational purposes, I was listening to a Roman Catholic radio station yesterday, Relevant Radio, which I'll do from time to time to gather more information on what they believe and teach, that isn't spoken of much. A caller called in and had some question about homosexuality, and a couple of things struck me. One thing the Priest said was that having homosexual desires wasn't a sin, and only the act itself is. The other thing he said was that a sodomite who is in a homosexual relationship, like all in, is still expected, by God, to remain faithful to his partner, and if not, then he would be in sin. The point was that sodomy itself is a sin, but unfaithfulness to a sodomite partner is a sin, as well, that God will frown upon. Roman Catholicism sure is a diabolical system of comprimise, and lies.
If those in a homosexual relationship are to remain faithful to each other, else it be sin, and no homosexual acts within that homosexual relationship, else that be sin, what contradictory, twisted thinking it is.
"A recent PRRI poll found that 62 percent of Americans â and 68 percent of white mainline Protestants â say gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry legally. Thatâs a 10 percentage point increase from three years ago."
PRRI poll October 2016 "With only three weeks remaining in the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton maintains a double-digit lead over Donald Trump among likely voters (51% vs. 36%, respectively)."
When a contrary-to-reality illusion is desired, present a poll that says so.
Jim Lincoln wrote: While old rich white guys dominate the theology of evangelical churches, it appears that rich white queers, are also heard too loudly in mainline churches when it comes to theology What is surprising is the number of Western and Southern American Methodist churches that support this obscenity â excerpt from, "US Methodists plot ways to resist new LGBT rules" https://tinyurl.com/y2q9o6ug James 2 5Â Listen, my beloved brothers. Didnât God choose those who are poor in this world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the Kingdom which he promised to those who love him? 6Â But you have dishonored the poor man. Donât the rich oppress you, and personally drag you before the courts?
What does either group's color have to do with anything? Are you a liberal?
We hear a lot about angry white men, don't we? Still, has anyone ever met a happy liberal? No matter their irrelevant color, are they not always fuming about something or other? They project their own issues onto "angry white men" and then find fault. I suppose if their own lives are miserable, and they lack self-awareness, they might feel better pointing at others.
Jim's methodology appears to be the same as that of the Democrat party. Throw a bag of um... stuff against the wall hoping something will stick. If it doesn't, never admit error, just pick up another bag and throw it against the wall and keep going. That way no defense of a poor position has to be made.