Don't try to be a Christian theologian when you're an anti-christian bigot, there is a difference- Old Testament=you still go to hell New Testament=You're saved and forgiven for your crimes (such as adultery)
I have no problem with stoning the guy, not to death of course but it would be fine to stone him.
Don't try to define rational disdain for religion as "bigotry."
And don't be so unhappy at those of us who grasp the internal contradictions of your religion and can quote evidence to prove such contradictions.
Either this stuff is the word of "God" or it is not. One would think a smarter "God" would be a little more consistent over the course of millenia, but then, this stuff is obviously not the word of "God."
It's not rational disdain, it's pure raw unapologetic bigotry.
Once again if you understood Christianity then it would make sense to you. But seeing as you're a bigot, and I'd probably have a better chance of convincing Hitler (the odds are that he'd be less bigoted than you) that Jews are good people.
Spare me the Hitler and Goebbels comparisons--you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
You define "laws" as "Communism," you put every sexual act under the sun in the "adultery" category, and you attempt, laughably, to equate Darwinism with religion.
Christianity, like Judiasm and Islam, is myth-based. The New Testament was obviously written by flawed men looking to fulfill the conditions of a previously mentioned "Messiah."
And once again, you haven't provided a source for your accusation that Christianity supports the stoning of adulterous women, because it's a lie. Mathew 5:19:
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. In other words, the ten commandments, along with loving your neighbor still count.
Give me the verse, if it exists the in the bible then give me the verse number or page or whatever.
You never claimed he loved rape. When you're told not to lust other women it would include raping them, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife). You don't really understand Christianity do you? We are all given inalienable rights, and of those is the right to control your body (not an excuse for murder of your children though). Matthew 5:27-30 will refute what you said.
You might think that about him but you have more than on person that thinks badly about you. You have crappy politics and you are a terrible person so chances are you won't go heaven. But that sucks for you not me.
There is no such thing as heaven, my dear little imbecile. And those who think badly about me are of course free to do so, as long as they, unlike you, don't use fairy tales by which to do so.
If over 2.1 billion people believe in something it's not a fairy tale. Besides your make-believe religion of darwinism has a lot more against it in fact vs fiction than ours (or about anyone else's). Darwinism can be used to defend genocide (survival of the fittest, right?), beastiality (we're all related right?), collectivism (aka communism and fascism), and incest can't even be rationally argued against using your religion. But with Christ, they all are considered evil and sins.
If 2.1 billion people believe something that isn't verifiable, that doesn't make it true.
Those who try to use Darwinism--a scientific theory, not a religion; you might want to learn what words actually MEAN--for justifications of genocide, etc. are misusing it.
The difference is that the Bible actually SAYS it's okay to kill a heretic. Darwin doesn't say it's okay to commit genocide.
How is it misusing it? If we're all genetically related what's the difference with sleeping with animals? I mean because we humans are all genetically different so why not animals? And if in the world of Darwin incest and homosexuality still exist what's wrong with it? IT should have been weeded out by "survival of the fittest" right?
I don't remember any verse saying to kill "heretics". Darwinism should be for genocide, I mean it speeds up "survival of the fittest" right?
You clearly haven't even read any Darwin. Maybe put down the Bible and pick up "Origin of Species."
"Survival of the fittest" neither approves nor disapproves morality. It is part of the gradual process of natural selection, in which certain traits survive and others don't.
As for genocide, I'd say killing the first-born son in every household qualifies as that. But it's all right, because God approves...
I could keep on debating the morality points, but in a darwinist world there aren't morals so of course he doesn't put up an argument for or against morals and good-vs-evil, he leaves plenty of room for people Stalin and Hitler to.
haha pick up the bible, you're either talking about when God took away the life HE GAVE them or when the jewish boys were slaughtered.
Interesting...the killing of Jews is okay by you, unless you put it badly (which is probable).
And it's okay for your god to violate his own commandments. Why is that?
Furthermore, taking one's morality from an old book written by ignorant men (and translated by other ignorant men) seems rather limited. Especially when that book recommends, for example, stoning a man's daughter to death by his front door if she's not a virgin.
It doesn't matter whether it's Old or New Testament; you'll find out why in the Book of Matthew.
Either that shit is the word of "God" or it isn't--most rational people would say it isn't.
As for morals, those come about when people learn what is best for a society. We have rarely needed the crutch of a dim old book to tell us that murder, rape, and so forth are counterproductive. (Interestingly, there is no "thou shalt not rape" commandment, so it must be okay by your dim god.)
You're obviously not a Christian or Jew if you don't understand or appreciate the difference between the Old and the New Testament.
Can you give me a citation? like what verse or page or whatever? So I know it's not just from one of your liberal bigoted hate-blogs spewing Anti-Christian propaganda, the likes of which now would make Goebbels envious.
So you believe you have the right to judge what's best for the collective society, where have I heard that before... Nazis, Communists, etc.. etc.
So liberals agree w/ socialism to the point they've killed 50 million pep b/c of it, they want to socialize anything they can get away w/, they want to take away constitutional rights, they fascistly teach kids their liberal version of history, their 2000 candidate is now a propagandist, they try to steal elections, the DNC wants to ban guns, liberals attack religion unless if it's islam.
I can back up that claim, but I only have like 50 characters left so I can't on this comment section.
So fascism believes in Socialism, the fascists like Mussoulini were originally members of a socialist party but to your liberal mind (which evidently likes to deny anything unpleasant) socialists if they're patriotic must be conservative? Last time I checked conservatism believed in capitalism.
Liberals want to gun bans (Hitleresque anyone?). Liberals want to ban religion from the public square (Fascist?... not to you) They're racist (Nazi's), 90% of blacks voted 4 Obama over Hillary.
The difference between Fascism and communism is that Fascism is socialist (AKA American Liberalism), communism on the other hand is just communism.
Get some glasses, or go to a private school and learn how to read. I never mixed up fascism and communism, I never called anyone but hitler and Mussolini fascists and never mentioned anything about Communism except for Stalin and Truman and Hiss who were all sypathsizers or communists.
hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Fidel, Hugo, most criminals are liberals.
Try to deny it all you want, but Mussolini was a member of the socialist party, he got sick of its lack of patriotism and became a fascist, hitler was amember of a socialist party which once again was just patriotic. Stalin even received the defense of liberals, and his soviet spies were liberals such as Alger Hiss. and of course Truman was willing to defend them against HUAC.
Yo, JWilliamson1987 ofcourse 9/11 proves that liberal ideology creates sin. He was most likely a liberal and he killed millions of people. Do you have any way to prove. No. Is that what I hear. Ofcourse not because you are just a big retarded stupid liberal. Who needs to get a life. By the way you might want to repeat a lot grades. Bye Loser. Conservatism Rules and liberalism drools.
You my guess are a liberal. By the way you are the most ignorent person youtube could probably get. Do you even go to school because you are not only ignorent but you are extremely stupid. Consevatives rock. Bye the way JWilliamson1987 is about the most retarded name you could get. Bye Loser.
So your telling me, that because I'm a liberal, I'm more of a threat to your country than rival, malevolent, nuclear armed countries? If thats true why are we in Iraq, by your logic, we should be invading the west coast...of America! Also, what is a terrorist, the british called our soldiers terrorists in the American Revolution, its all a matter of perspective. I'm sure we're some other countries terrorists.
See that's what's wrong w/ liberals (I mean 1 of the multitude of things)- You can't discriminate. Terrorists kill innocent people, Revolution soldiers killed the oppressing soldiers sent there to kill them, American Patriots aren't equivilant to children killers.
Yes I realize what it means none-politically. Progressivism in politics in the pc way for saying socialist.
The USA was never founded on a basis of secularism. We've always had judeo-christian values governing us. We don't want a theocracy controlling what we can practice (as a religion).
Almost all of the founding fathers were extremely religious. In the constitution it says that we're founded under a creator.
We were founded "under God w/ Liberty & Justice for all"
Yes I realize that, but as we know from history people need to be educated otherwise the civilization/country fails & falls in a dictatorship. The more competitive the better, people would stilll be able to spend some of their own money if they wanted to go to the better schools so it would still remain competitive. You'd also have a large portion of your property tax back since private schools cost 1/2 as much so people could still afford to send their kids to the better schools even if ---->
so then you'dslowly privatize the market, and sell the school w/ an agreed contract that they'd be used for education. There's definitely ways of stopping from flooding the market.
The vouchers would be worth money, and of course the government would pay the money. The schools would still set the tuition price.
Bureaucracy is never as effective as free market perfect competition.
Yeah that's what I say! Liberal ideas don't even make sense, and the people they try to "help" they end up hurting in the end. Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, and secularism shouldn't be even accepted in the USA or EU
No it wouldn't, maybe temporarily but not long term. The schools would feel pressure to hire better teachers so that the students would want to go there more.
There's plenty of proof, just look @ 9/11, Bush had only been in office for 7 months. Liberals blocked agencies from communicating. IT does encourage it.
#2 It's not a contradiction, only for poor & middle class should the gov even do that. It creates competition, and everyone knows that competition increases efficiency overall.
#2 All bureaucracy should be ended so we shouldn't be spending any on health care or education (except for school vouchers). The gov's purpose is to protect the people, their rights, and their views... or at least that's what its only purpose should be.
Don't try to be a Christian theologian when you're an anti-christian bigot, there is a difference- Old Testament=you still go to hell New Testament=You're saved and forgiven for your crimes (such as adultery)
I have no problem with stoning the guy, not to death of course but it would be fine to stone him.
TheProudConservative 2 years ago
Don't try to define rational disdain for religion as "bigotry."
And don't be so unhappy at those of us who grasp the internal contradictions of your religion and can quote evidence to prove such contradictions.
Either this stuff is the word of "God" or it is not. One would think a smarter "God" would be a little more consistent over the course of millenia, but then, this stuff is obviously not the word of "God."
JonMGilbertson 2 years ago
It's not rational disdain, it's pure raw unapologetic bigotry.
Once again if you understood Christianity then it would make sense to you. But seeing as you're a bigot, and I'd probably have a better chance of convincing Hitler (the odds are that he'd be less bigoted than you) that Jews are good people.
TheProudConservative 2 years ago
Spare me the Hitler and Goebbels comparisons--you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
You define "laws" as "Communism," you put every sexual act under the sun in the "adultery" category, and you attempt, laughably, to equate Darwinism with religion.
Christianity, like Judiasm and Islam, is myth-based. The New Testament was obviously written by flawed men looking to fulfill the conditions of a previously mentioned "Messiah."
You simply have no evidence.
JonMGilbertson 2 years ago
And once again, you haven't provided a source for your accusation that Christianity supports the stoning of adulterous women, because it's a lie. Mathew 5:19:
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. In other words, the ten commandments, along with loving your neighbor still count.
TheProudConservative 2 years ago
Give me the verse, if it exists the in the bible then give me the verse number or page or whatever.
You never claimed he loved rape. When you're told not to lust other women it would include raping them, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife). You don't really understand Christianity do you? We are all given inalienable rights, and of those is the right to control your body (not an excuse for murder of your children though). Matthew 5:27-30 will refute what you said.
TheProudConservative 2 years ago
You positive-minded person, you...only half? Well, you could be right.
Funny thing is, the kid's not only got lousy taste in politics; he's also got terrible taste in music.
JonMGilbertson 3 years ago
Hey JonMGilbertson,
You might think that about him but you have more than on person that thinks badly about you. You have crappy politics and you are a terrible person so chances are you won't go heaven. But that sucks for you not me.
DaFunnyBunny97 2 years ago
There is no such thing as heaven, my dear little imbecile. And those who think badly about me are of course free to do so, as long as they, unlike you, don't use fairy tales by which to do so.
JonMGilbertson 2 years ago
If over 2.1 billion people believe in something it's not a fairy tale. Besides your make-believe religion of darwinism has a lot more against it in fact vs fiction than ours (or about anyone else's). Darwinism can be used to defend genocide (survival of the fittest, right?), beastiality (we're all related right?), collectivism (aka communism and fascism), and incest can't even be rationally argued against using your religion. But with Christ, they all are considered evil and sins.
TheProudConservative 2 years ago
If 2.1 billion people believe something that isn't verifiable, that doesn't make it true.
Those who try to use Darwinism--a scientific theory, not a religion; you might want to learn what words actually MEAN--for justifications of genocide, etc. are misusing it.
The difference is that the Bible actually SAYS it's okay to kill a heretic. Darwin doesn't say it's okay to commit genocide.
JonMGilbertson 2 years ago
How is it misusing it? If we're all genetically related what's the difference with sleeping with animals? I mean because we humans are all genetically different so why not animals? And if in the world of Darwin incest and homosexuality still exist what's wrong with it? IT should have been weeded out by "survival of the fittest" right?
I don't remember any verse saying to kill "heretics". Darwinism should be for genocide, I mean it speeds up "survival of the fittest" right?
TheProudConservative 2 years ago
You clearly haven't even read any Darwin. Maybe put down the Bible and pick up "Origin of Species."
"Survival of the fittest" neither approves nor disapproves morality. It is part of the gradual process of natural selection, in which certain traits survive and others don't.
As for genocide, I'd say killing the first-born son in every household qualifies as that. But it's all right, because God approves...
JonMGilbertson 2 years ago
I could keep on debating the morality points, but in a darwinist world there aren't morals so of course he doesn't put up an argument for or against morals and good-vs-evil, he leaves plenty of room for people Stalin and Hitler to.
haha pick up the bible, you're either talking about when God took away the life HE GAVE them or when the jewish boys were slaughtered.
TheProudConservative 2 years ago
Interesting...the killing of Jews is okay by you, unless you put it badly (which is probable).
And it's okay for your god to violate his own commandments. Why is that?
Furthermore, taking one's morality from an old book written by ignorant men (and translated by other ignorant men) seems rather limited. Especially when that book recommends, for example, stoning a man's daughter to death by his front door if she's not a virgin.
JonMGilbertson 2 years ago
No genocide is okay by Darwin, I'm against murder of the innocent.
He gives and takes away life from everyone, it's not murder its his job.
Is that old or new testament?
It's a lot better to have no morals, right? or to get them from a guy whose ideas serve as justification for genocide and deviant sexualities.
TheProudConservative 2 years ago
It doesn't matter whether it's Old or New Testament; you'll find out why in the Book of Matthew.
Either that shit is the word of "God" or it isn't--most rational people would say it isn't.
As for morals, those come about when people learn what is best for a society. We have rarely needed the crutch of a dim old book to tell us that murder, rape, and so forth are counterproductive. (Interestingly, there is no "thou shalt not rape" commandment, so it must be okay by your dim god.)
JonMGilbertson 2 years ago
You're obviously not a Christian or Jew if you don't understand or appreciate the difference between the Old and the New Testament.
Can you give me a citation? like what verse or page or whatever? So I know it's not just from one of your liberal bigoted hate-blogs spewing Anti-Christian propaganda, the likes of which now would make Goebbels envious.
So you believe you have the right to judge what's best for the collective society, where have I heard that before... Nazis, Communists, etc.. etc.
TheProudConservative 2 years ago
Yep, I was right you ARE stupid.
What countries have actually USED nuclear weapons....
Here's one, the United States....
The real question here is.... Why is everything that is other or different wrong to you?
callsignHUSKER 3 years ago 2
What is wrong with your schooling? why is everything that is other wrong to you? Man public schooling.
TheProudConservative 2 years ago
So liberals agree w/ socialism to the point they've killed 50 million pep b/c of it, they want to socialize anything they can get away w/, they want to take away constitutional rights, they fascistly teach kids their liberal version of history, their 2000 candidate is now a propagandist, they try to steal elections, the DNC wants to ban guns, liberals attack religion unless if it's islam.
I can back up that claim, but I only have like 50 characters left so I can't on this comment section.
TheProudConservative 3 years ago
So fascism believes in Socialism, the fascists like Mussoulini were originally members of a socialist party but to your liberal mind (which evidently likes to deny anything unpleasant) socialists if they're patriotic must be conservative? Last time I checked conservatism believed in capitalism.
Liberals want to gun bans (Hitleresque anyone?). Liberals want to ban religion from the public square (Fascist?... not to you) They're racist (Nazi's), 90% of blacks voted 4 Obama over Hillary.
TheProudConservative 3 years ago
The difference between Fascism and communism is that Fascism is socialist (AKA American Liberalism), communism on the other hand is just communism.
Get some glasses, or go to a private school and learn how to read. I never mixed up fascism and communism, I never called anyone but hitler and Mussolini fascists and never mentioned anything about Communism except for Stalin and Truman and Hiss who were all sypathsizers or communists.
TheProudConservative 3 years ago
Liberals who have killd large masses of people;
hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Fidel, Hugo, most criminals are liberals.
Try to deny it all you want, but Mussolini was a member of the socialist party, he got sick of its lack of patriotism and became a fascist, hitler was amember of a socialist party which once again was just patriotic. Stalin even received the defense of liberals, and his soviet spies were liberals such as Alger Hiss. and of course Truman was willing to defend them against HUAC.
TheProudConservative 3 years ago
Yo, JWilliamson1987 ofcourse 9/11 proves that liberal ideology creates sin. He was most likely a liberal and he killed millions of people. Do you have any way to prove. No. Is that what I hear. Ofcourse not because you are just a big retarded stupid liberal. Who needs to get a life. By the way you might want to repeat a lot grades. Bye Loser. Conservatism Rules and liberalism drools.
DaFunnyBunny97 3 years ago
You my guess are a liberal. By the way you are the most ignorent person youtube could probably get. Do you even go to school because you are not only ignorent but you are extremely stupid. Consevatives rock. Bye the way JWilliamson1987 is about the most retarded name you could get. Bye Loser.
DaFunnyBunny97 3 years ago
Stop that, your making me lol.
So your telling me, that because I'm a liberal, I'm more of a threat to your country than rival, malevolent, nuclear armed countries? If thats true why are we in Iraq, by your logic, we should be invading the west coast...of America! Also, what is a terrorist, the british called our soldiers terrorists in the American Revolution, its all a matter of perspective. I'm sure we're some other countries terrorists.
wammerjammer17 3 years ago
See that's what's wrong w/ liberals (I mean 1 of the multitude of things)- You can't discriminate. Terrorists kill innocent people, Revolution soldiers killed the oppressing soldiers sent there to kill them, American Patriots aren't equivilant to children killers.
TheProudConservative 3 years ago
Yes I realize what it means none-politically. Progressivism in politics in the pc way for saying socialist.
The USA was never founded on a basis of secularism. We've always had judeo-christian values governing us. We don't want a theocracy controlling what we can practice (as a religion).
Almost all of the founding fathers were extremely religious. In the constitution it says that we're founded under a creator.
We were founded "under God w/ Liberty & Justice for all"
TheProudConservative 3 years ago
they aren't rich.
TheProudConservative 3 years ago
Yes I realize that, but as we know from history people need to be educated otherwise the civilization/country fails & falls in a dictatorship. The more competitive the better, people would stilll be able to spend some of their own money if they wanted to go to the better schools so it would still remain competitive. You'd also have a large portion of your property tax back since private schools cost 1/2 as much so people could still afford to send their kids to the better schools even if ---->
TheProudConservative 3 years ago
so then you'dslowly privatize the market, and sell the school w/ an agreed contract that they'd be used for education. There's definitely ways of stopping from flooding the market.
The vouchers would be worth money, and of course the government would pay the money. The schools would still set the tuition price.
Bureaucracy is never as effective as free market perfect competition.
TheProudConservative 3 years ago
right on
-Conservitism is opinion based on facts and common sense. Liberalism is opinion based on opinion and emotions.-
schatzi321 3 years ago
Yeah that's what I say! Liberal ideas don't even make sense, and the people they try to "help" they end up hurting in the end. Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, and secularism shouldn't be even accepted in the USA or EU
TheProudConservative 3 years ago
No it wouldn't, maybe temporarily but not long term. The schools would feel pressure to hire better teachers so that the students would want to go there more.
TheProudConservative 3 years ago
There's plenty of proof, just look @ 9/11, Bush had only been in office for 7 months. Liberals blocked agencies from communicating. IT does encourage it.
#2 It's not a contradiction, only for poor & middle class should the gov even do that. It creates competition, and everyone knows that competition increases efficiency overall.
TheProudConservative 3 years ago
You do know that the wall that you refer to was implemented in 1982 by the excutive order of President Reagan.(Executive Order 12333)
ImWilson1 3 years ago
#1 They do, at least all of their policies do
#2 All bureaucracy should be ended so we shouldn't be spending any on health care or education (except for school vouchers). The gov's purpose is to protect the people, their rights, and their views... or at least that's what its only purpose should be.
TheProudConservative 3 years ago