November 10, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, toolg said: Warnock dedicated his life to serving the church and yet... So...religious people didn't vote in a political election based on religion but instead for political policy... ...isn't that what you wanted? (I get if you're just saying they're hypocrites).
November 11, 20223 yr On 11/9/2022 at 4:29 PM, downundermike said: Heck, I would pay for two of them. As long as she didn’t talk, hell yes.
November 11, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, NOTW said: So...religious people didn't vote in a political election based on religion but instead for political policy... ...isn't that what you wanted? (I get if you're just saying they're hypocrites). I think he’s saying the Evangelical Church is a political organization, not a religious one.
November 11, 20223 yr 10 hours ago, VanHammersly said: I think he’s saying the Evangelical Church is a political organization, not a religious one. Which is, of course, a mind numbingly stupid point. It’s a church. Church goers have beliefs, same as anyone else. You aren’t going to get sincere Christians to vote for pro abortion candidates anymore than you will get sincere Muslims to vote for feminist candidates or sincere Jews to vote for candidates who would ban circumcision.
November 11, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, TEW said: Which is, of course, a mind numbingly stupid point. It’s a church. Church goers have beliefs, same as anyone else. You aren’t going to get sincere Christians to vote for pro abortion candidates anymore than you will get sincere Muslims to vote for feminist candidates or sincere Jews to vote for candidates who would ban circumcision. Oh but they did though. Not only did they line up and vote for someone who is pro-abortion, but also pro-mental illness, pro-domestic violence, and pro-homicidal tendencies. You know, just like Jesus wanted!
November 11, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, TEW said: Which is, of course, a mind numbingly stupid point. It’s a church. Church goers have beliefs, same as anyone else. You aren’t going to get sincere Christians to vote for pro abortion candidates anymore than you will get sincere Muslims to vote for feminist candidates or sincere Jews to vote for candidates who would ban circumcision. That assumes that their holy book explicitly forbids abortion, which of course it doesn’t. It does very clearly forbid usury though, and considers greed one of the gravest of sins.
November 11, 20223 yr 5 hours ago, VanHammersly said: That assumes that their holy book explicitly forbids abortion, which of course it doesn’t. It does very clearly forbid usury though, and considers greed one of the gravest of sins. Thou shalt not kill is as explicit as it gets.
November 11, 20223 yr 7 minutes ago, TEW said: Thou shalt not kill is as explicit as it gets. Except that's using a modern interpretation of a fetus being a life, not a biblical one. The bible clearly doesn't consider an unborn baby a human life. "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ." Ex. 21:22-25 Death for ending the life of a mother, but not for ending the life of a fetus.
November 11, 20223 yr 4 hours ago, Boogyman said: Someone on my Facebook shared this last night Was it CIndy that shared it?
November 11, 20223 yr 30 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Except that's using a modern interpretation of a fetus being a life, not a biblical one. The bible clearly doesn't consider an unborn baby a human life. "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ." Ex. 21:22-25 Death for ending the life of a mother, but not for ending the life of a fetus. The "mischief” described is the death of the child dude, not the wife. In other words, if the child is born prematurely but survives, then you have to compensate the husband. And if the child dies, then you are put to death. The context here is biblical times when children were valuable financial assets for the family. Kids used to do a LOT of labor. So if the child is born prematurely, the expectation is that the child might not be fit for such work, and so you have to pay up compensation. And if the child dies, then you’ve committed murder. Thanks for proving that the Christians should be voting for the death penalty for abortion doctors though.
November 11, 20223 yr 7 minutes ago, paco said: Was it CIndy that shared it? No I think whoever that is made it. An old coworker shared it. "Road Kill Bill", an old guy who works like 90 hours a week for no reason.
November 11, 20223 yr 45 minutes ago, TEW said: Thou shalt not kill is as explicit as it gets. Unlike your wife makes you angry, in which case, it's okay to threaten to kill her.
November 11, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, TEW said: The "mischief” described is the death of the child dude, not the wife. In other words, if the child is born prematurely but survives, then you have to compensate the husband. And if the child dies, then you are put to death. The context here is biblical times when children were valuable financial assets for the family. Kids used to do a LOT of labor. So if the child is born prematurely, the expectation is that the child might not be fit for such work, and so you have to pay up compensation. And if the child dies, then you’ve committed murder. Thanks for proving that the Christians should be voting for the death penalty for abortion doctors though. Read it again. Your interpretation makes absolutely no sense. If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follows That's the context of the first paragraph. The "fruit depart from her" IS the death of the child. but the punishment is determined by the husband and the judge. The second paragraph mentions the mischief, which is punishable by death. That can't be the death of the child, since the punishment for the death of the child was already laid out in the first paragraph, without the mischief. Clearly the death of the mother is the mischief.
November 11, 20223 yr 6 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: Oh but they did though. Not only did they line up and vote for someone who is pro-abortion, but also pro-mental illness, pro-domestic violence, and pro-homicidal tendencies. You know, just like Jesus wanted! Most voters "go with their gut" and rationalize that choice after the fact however they need to to avoid cognitive dissonance. A twice divorced alpha male "Christian" MAGA type in my office was recently complaining loudly about a friend of his and his wife was saying she was voting for Fetterman. He took great issue with this because she's "Christian" yet is voting for someone who "supports abortion up to the moment of birth". He couldn't believe the hypocrisy of someone who claims to be Christian but would support Fetterman. Like, bro, you loudly and proudly support a guy who has almost certainly paid for multiple abortions, has committed adultery with a porn star while his wife was home with his newborn son, and who broadly speaking is about as far from living his life as Christ exemplified as one can get without being a violent criminal. I don't think you're in any position to lecture on hypocrisy.
November 11, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, TEW said: Thou shalt not kill is as explicit as it gets. Unless they're a slave or non-virgin woman who "rebelled against God"..
Create an account or sign in to comment