It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Democratic Party politicians really feel about Christians and Christianity

page: 3
26
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2020 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

on the other hand, how many are currently in prison due to adultery? things like killing or abusing a spouse that has, or is suspected of adultery? or those who in the end turn to crime or otherwise end up in jail due to broken homes due to the over easily available divorce, or just plain not getting married leaving a single parent to try to raise them? often times ending up neglecting the child's needs, because they have to try to provide for them, instead of taking care of them. or kids growing up missing one parent for most of their lives, while that parent is living happily with their "new family". which also likely mean that parent is not properly supporting their first children, because they are also supporting their "new children" and family. not to mention the mental issues these things cause in both spouses and children. i even know personally in one case where the parent had a new family, AND got custody of their original kids. and making for a nasty situation the "new kids" got everything, lots of toys fancy clothes, etc. while the "old kids" got practically nothing. think of Cinderella without the happy ending. and then on top of all that how much tax money is spent because of helping out broken families through welfare? it's really no better a situation than the other.




posted on Oct, 16 2020 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: The2Billies
I actually believe that the Mayor of Flemington was expressing the deeply held convictions and beliefs of the Democratic Party elite politicians who actually make policy and govern.

So you are now putting one person's words in the mouths of everyone else in their political party? That's kinda messed up.



posted on Oct, 16 2020 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: The2Billies


...owner of the uterus...


That would be a woman. An adult human female. Only females have a uterus. Not all females have a uterus, but only females have a uterus. And the uterus is just one part of a reproductive system and process that makes reproduction possible. It is degrading and demoralizing to reduce people to body parts.


...(since men are having babies these days)...


No, they are not.

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a "leg"? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.


In liberal and Democratic Party circles and to be politically correct MEN or MALES can and do have babies. I was being politically correct and using the new morality of the left. Therefore, it is the owner of the uterus be they male or female, mother or father to the human baby in their uterus. That is the new morality, to say mother or females can only have babies is gauche, mean and transphobic according to the new il-liberal morality.




posted on Oct, 16 2020 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies


In liberal and Democratic Party circles and to be politically correct MEN or MALES can and do have babies. I was being politically correct and using the new morality of the left.


I would say in "woke" and Trans Activist circles rather than "liberal and Democratic Party" circles. There is a large segment of the left known as Gender Critical (including Radical Feminists, as opposed to Liberal Feminists) which is very much opposed to re-defining "woman" to mean gender identity rather than biological sex. And much effort has been put into silencing this faction -- from "cancelling" to outright bullying, intimidation and harassment. Consequently, many do not speak out in fear of losing their jobs, their friends, their safety, etc. But they are out there!!!


Therefore, it is the owner of the uterus be they male or female, mother or father to the human baby in their uterus. That is the new morality, to say mother or females can only have babies is gauche, mean and transphobic according to the new il-liberal morality.


Yeah, so I've been told ad nauseum. And I refuse to play their game.



posted on Oct, 16 2020 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: generik
a reply to: pthena

on the other hand, how many are currently in prison due to adultery? things like killing or abusing a spouse that has, or is suspected of adultery? or those who in the end turn to crime or otherwise end up in jail due to broken homes due to the over easily available divorce, or just plain not getting married leaving a single parent to try to raise them? often times ending up neglecting the child's needs, because they have to try to provide for them, instead of taking care of them. or kids growing up missing one parent for most of their lives, while that parent is living happily with their "new family". which also likely mean that parent is not properly supporting their first children, because they are also supporting their "new children" and family. not to mention the mental issues these things cause in both spouses and children. i even know personally in one case where the parent had a new family, AND got custody of their original kids. and making for a nasty situation the "new kids" got everything, lots of toys fancy clothes, etc. while the "old kids" got practically nothing. think of Cinderella without the happy ending. and then on top of all that how much tax money is spent because of helping out broken families through welfare? it's really no better a situation than the other.


So your solution is to kill viable infants who can survive outside the womb because their parents can't support them and they are too selfish to put them up for adoption or use birth control or and this is a viable option even if you don't believe it - stop having sex if you can't afford children and don't use birth control. Even OTC birth control combined "rubber" and "spermicide" every single time add the rhythm method to that and voila, birth control as good as the pill.

So your theory is, if a child is viable and healthy (can live outside the womb, can feel pain, can hear, can suck their thumb, reacts to light) but the parents are poor, the sentient conscious human in the womb should be killed by being torn apart limb by limb until they die while in great pain and be removed from the womb, (that is the standard way to abort a viable sentient human in the uterus). Because the owner of the uterus is too selfish to put the sentient conscious human up for adoption. Well, that is certainly the stance of Biden, Harris, Pelosi and they have made it quite clear, and the Democratic Party supports this action and stand with you that these humans should be murdered because they might (maybe) have a less than optimal childhood.

A friend of mine who is a black man, who is child #6, who was raised in great poverty in a poor area in Houston should have been torn limb from limb without anesthesia in the womb, if what you say was best was done to him.

Instead he is now an MD, he got a full scholarship to medical school after working and paying his own way through a top tier University.

He did so well in medical school he is now on the admissions board, went on to become a child psychiatrist, and practices back in his old ghetto neighborhood.

Of course, according to your theory he would have been better of dead and society better off dead than him to have had the poverty stricken childhood he did.

This is an absolutely true story, I was his advisor in University and knew his childhood story quite well. But you and the liberal Democrats think the world would have been better off if he had been torn limb from limb without painkillers alive in the womb because his mother was poor and had 5 other kids. Well, that is definitely the compassionate, caring loving liberal philosophy and ideology these days for sure.






edit on 10/16/20 by The2Billies because: format



posted on Oct, 16 2020 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: The2Billies
I actually believe that the Mayor of Flemington was expressing the deeply held convictions and beliefs of the Democratic Party elite politicians who actually make policy and govern.

So you are now putting one person's words in the mouths of everyone else in their political party? That's kinda messed up.


I believe Democrats do it all the time.

According to the Democratic Party, every single person who voted for Trump in 2016 is a racist and sexist. Democratic Politicians have been making this claim for the past 4 years ad nauseum about over 60 million american citizens.



posted on Oct, 16 2020 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies


So your solution is to kill viable infants who can survive outside the womb because their parents can't support them and they are too selfish to put them up for adoption or use birth control or and this is a viable option even if you don't believe it - stop having sex if you can't afford children and don't use birth control. Even OTC birth control combined "rubber" and "spermicide" every single time add the rhythm method to that and voila, birth control as good as the pill.

So your theory is, if a child is viable and healthy (can live outside the womb, can feel pain, can hear, can suck their thumb, reacts to light) but the parents are poor, the sentient conscious human in the womb should be killed by being torn apart limb by limb until they die while in great pain and be removed from the womb, (that is the standard way to abort a viable sentient human in the uterus). Because the owner of the uterus is too selfish to put the sentient conscious human up for adoption. Well, that is certainly the stance of Biden, Harris, Pelosi and they have made it quite clear, and the Democratic Party supports this action and stand with you that these humans should be murdered because they might (maybe) have a less than optimal childhood.

A friend of mine who is a black man, who is child #6, who was raised in great poverty in a poor area in Houston should have been torn limb from limb without anesthesia in the womb, if what you say was best was done to him.

Instead he is now an MD, he got a full scholarship to medical school after working and paying his own way through a top tier University.

He did so well in medical school he is now on the admissions board, went on to become a child psychiatrist, and practices back in his old ghetto neighborhood.

Of course, according to your theory he would have been better of dead and society better off dead than him to have had the poverty stricken childhood he did.

This is an absolutely true story, I was his advisor in University and knew his childhood story quite well. But you and the liberal Democrats think the world would have been better off if he had been torn limb from limb without painkillers alive in the womb because his mother was poor and had 5 other kids. Well, that is definitely the compassionate, caring loving liberal philosophy and ideology these days for sure.



wow, just WOW.

how on earth did you manage to read into that, that i want to kill anyone off. or for that matter how abortion is even being discussed? i was offering a counterpoint to what someone had posted.

you know what they say about those who ASSume. well you have certainly made not just some astoundingly wrong, blind leaps of logic, but also a whole lot of assumptions that are just as wrong. a whole seven paragraphs of a lunatic rant that has absolutely nothing to do with what i was saying, or was even being discussed for that matter. which of course makes you what?



posted on Oct, 16 2020 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: generik



on the other hand,
...
it's really no better a situation than the other.

All that you have written is true. These things happen in human society. There is pain, suffering, abuse, and neglect.

An ethical/moral person is left with a serious problem in a democratic republic: how best to alleviate and mitigate human suffering. There are differing proposals offered by different political parties.

Personally, I can't see one party as "the moral party" and the other as "the wicked party". It's just people.



posted on Oct, 16 2020 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: carewemust
The Catholic Church said two weeks ago that Joe Biden is not in good standing and should not take communion.


The Church did not say that, a Cardinal that was removed by the Pope for his own malfeasance said that.





You really need to stop spreading the truth, spreading the manure is easier and it draws flies and the lord of flies!


Also Conservatives are not real Christians anymore anyway.



posted on Oct, 16 2020 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: abeverage

I'm wondering if I'd look more Satanic like Pence did if a fly landed on my head too.



posted on Oct, 16 2020 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: The2Billies
I believe Democrats do it all the time.

Them also doing it doesn't make it less crappy when you do it.

You pretty much just shot down your OP.



posted on Oct, 17 2020 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Covid has become everyone’s excuse to do what they want without saying it openly, but this mayor dropped the ball. The TDS crap at the end was their resignation letter.

More to OP religion has been a target of dems for a long time and they would love to rip it from you. Except Islam, that would be intolerant.
a reply to: The2Billies


edit on 17-10-2020 by Rob808 because: Ma thumb!



posted on Oct, 17 2020 @ 08:03 AM
link   


In 2015, Pelosi celebrated the Dalai Lama's birthday by "meditating with him"...hardly a Christian Fundamentalist activity. The article linked below also mentions that a White Tara Buddhist empowerment was given at the event...an esoteric ritual which is most certainly not Christian.

While the article is cagey about whether or not Pelosi received the Empowerment herself or just observed, the photo from the event shows her bowing formally and receiving a white scarf, which is something that happens after some esoteric Buddhist rituals.

I don't really care if Pelosi is a Buddhist or a Christian or an atheist. But I will say this and other interactions I have read about between her and the Dalai Lama suggest more than a casual interest in Buddhism. Again, fine by me personally, but it makes her a hypocrite when she tries to fall back on "her Christian faith" as a rhetorical device, which I have seen her do as well.

Link:


www.upi.com...
edit on 17-10-2020 by Never Despise because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2020 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Whether you consider him Jesus Christ son of God, God himself, or merely a tall tale spun off of Joshua Bin Pantera, Jesus was born September 11th says the bible quite clearly. You can look astronomically for 50 years befor and after year 1AD to be sure the years arent slightly off and in those 100 years, the only astronomical phenomenon which match the star seen by the world appearing the night Jesus was born occurred in year 1 AD the night of September 11th.
and it can be cross verified with Indian records, Chinese records, all givi jn g the same date and describing the same phenomenon as the bible.

edit on 10/17/2020 by AlexandrosTheGreat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2020 @ 10:20 AM
link   
In historical sense though, the irony is strong here, since really the only thing that separates Christianity from the beasts is that their proclamation that Jesus is king, where as who doesn't is a follower of Satan or an Anti-Christ.

It roots are very liberal compared to it tory like predcessor Judaism. Some how along the lines, it ended up being the very thing it supposed to despise, where an elective liberal, democratic beast ended up claiming that Jesus is his king, an everyone must worship it image. All the while Judaism should have none, but I think they got tired off the semantics on that one.


Islam another story, where if you read one, you pretty much read them all.
edit on 17-10-2020 by Specimen88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2020 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat
a reply to: rickymouse

Whether you consider him Jesus Christ son of God, God himself, or merely a tall tale spun off of Joshua Bin Pantera, Jesus was born September 11th says the bible quite clearly. You can look astronomically for 50 years befor and after year 1AD to be sure the years arent slightly off and in those 100 years, the only astronomical phenomenon which match the star seen by the world appearing the night Jesus was born occurred in year 1 AD the night of September 11th.
and it can be cross verified with Indian records, Chinese records, all givi jn g the same date and describing the same phenomenon as the bible.


Jesus was considered a Messiah, a person who was in direct communication with god and could steer the power of god to do things. I don't understand why they started calling him the son of god, but that was a creation of man after the fact. A messiah is a very good thing but I guess that over a thousand years ago they figured that was not good enough. I did read that September 11th thing in some of my reading, but I chose to say the middle of September to the latter part of October to mention because there were some conflicting things in other stuff I read and it is better to only narrow it down to that point of time than to alienate a bunch of people who have read much of what I have read. It was definitely not on Christmas Day is what I was trying to establish and lots of evidence points to that. I mentioned that timeframe in a response to someone else's reply on this thread I think....but I may have edited it out before posting too.

That was years ago that I did that research, maybe now they have gotten more evidence accepted that it is September 11th. But remember, there is also the leapyear to consider which in two thousand years possibly makes it different.



posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Joneselius

So how do you feel about kids in cages and separating them from their parents?



posted on Oct, 18 2020 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Ya'll need to actually read your Bibles. God actually gives Moses instructions on how a priest is to perform an abortion on a cheating wife by making her drink water that he puts a curse on.


Numbers 5

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join