Who are the real snowfalkes here?

So all this talk of "The War On Christmas" and "The War On Christianity" isn't you guys being snowflakes?

 

"A theater" ... just one?

Did thousands of Alabama residents march through the streets chanting "not my Disney."
Did the conservatives in Alabama claim Russia is behind the Disney movies? Are those people in Alabama trying to bring down Disney?

So what exactly are those "snowflakes" in Alabama doing to show their opinion about that movie? They're not going to play the movie on their screen. That's it. Oh the horror of it all. Yea, I can see how that compares to the hateful intolerance displayed by the left.

The left is trying to bring down the American president because he's not the guy they wanted. They are showing how truly hateful they are.

 

Did You vote for Obama in 08 when he specifically stated marriage should ONLY be between a man and woman?

 

I've got one name for you that disproves your opinion... Milo Yianopolis (SP?) a gay New with conservative views who also has a black partner is not allowed to speak because his views are different than yours.

 

It's very obvious that being labeled a snowflake really bothers you, truth hurts I guess.

 

No. Your statement -is- false. Neither of Trumps EOs were bans on Muslims entering this country.
It does not matter how many times you call it a Muslim ban, your statement will remain false.

 

You'll have to ask someone that has taken these positions.
Of course, you'll only do that from a safe space, and then only if you still have a nice set of crayons.

 

You know the information that led to catching Bin Laden in Pakistan was discovered in 2007, right?

Watch "The Hunt for Bin Laden" on Netflix. Every FBI and CIA director since 1993 discuss how he was caught. The information received on his location in 2007 was received under Bush. It was the courier network that led to his discovery. It was the biggest break in the Bin Laden case that gave the next President the information to take him out. The CIA discusses the LIE that Bush "gave up on Bin Laden". The documentary shows the break down in Clinton, Bush, and Obama's presidencies that led to many attacks from Bin Laden. Mainly, you can thank Clinton for Bin Laden's "success". After the embassy attacks, Black Hawk Down, and the USS Cole, instead of declaring him a war criminal, they filed US criminal suits and PULLED TROOPS OUT of those areas. Clinton basically said to UBL "Blow us up and we'll leave town". The CIA goes into great detail about how Clinton created that monster that Bush and Obama had to deal with.

Give it a watch

 

Which side needs safe spaces?

 

Don't be so naive or act so surprised.
It is obvious that you have no common ground with Christianity as to what is our purpose in life.
So why do you think we would agree with your totally misguided reasons for right and wrong?
Once one is convinced (and the evidence is all around) that God is real and that the One and Only God is the God of the Bible, then we understand the importance of obedience and the purpose of existence. Then we seek heaven not the pleasures of earth.
Nor, if we are wise, do we see ego as a positive but a detriment to our quest. What you said above is simply inane, IMO.

 

I believe Jesus exists because we have archeological evidence of such. The problem s the logic behind much of the old parts of the Bible, like creationism. Man does not just pop out of the sky like, "Hello, here I am!" And then for there to be this line that God took the rib of man, and made woman. Yeah, that can't happen either, because you need two ribs to properly operate. Not only that, but unless God cut off Adam's dick, and removed his Adam's Apple, and basically performed the first ever sex-change surgery, it's not feasible to magically create another human being. When you think about it, evolution makes the most sense logically as to how man got here. It's like how the story of Cain and Abel I don't believe actually happened, rather is a story of morality.
You want to talk about how Islam treats women as second-class citizens, and kills gays, but yet you have Christianity that says marriage can only be between man and a woman, and lists lust over seeing a woman, other known as adultery, as a deadly sin. I mean, both of those regulations by both of those religions are equally as obscene.

 

Well I do have to give you credit for taking the time to assemble a reasoned out answer, albeit not reasonable to me. (thanks)
And I would like to think you are not one to get all perturbed if someone insults your points of view – that, too, is a plus.

But, really, is this your defense against the reality of Christianty? Not only is it weak, IMO, but it is like highly tangential. Plus you leave the idea --- if not God then what’s all about? --- totally unanswered.

IMO, you are too hung up on the literal interpretation of Genesis and other parts of the Old Testament. Who said this had to be literal? Did God tell you that? The Catholic Church surely did not because they teach allegory, poetry, history, parables, etc. all make up the books of the Bible. Follow them and you will not have your argument to wage.

Secondly, the argument between Christianity and secular humanism has never been creationism vs. evolution. The real argument and main argument allows for evolution as a premise. The argument is that evolution could never have taken place without and intelligent designer, a supreme being if you will. Never. So for science to pretend it could have is both highly insulting and agenda driven.

Once those who oppose God (for multiple reasons and designs) finally humble themselves and admit that logic, reason and evidence demands there is a God then at least we have a starting point. Then we can argue from the evidence why there is only one God and it is the God of the Bible.

 

What was wrong with Pepe Le Pew?

He courted a female cat.

What was wrong with anything he ever did?

 

You think a lot of Americans want to burn down the White House? Really?

 

Wrong, you introduced a fallacious keystone of LW race-baiting politics that is entirely false and debunked over and over here. You compound it with the "conservative = bad, because conservative = bad" circular fallacy I've also dedicated countless posts to here where LW try to deflect the bloody, racist history of the Democratic Party in the US via misuse of the term "conservative." "Conservative" is not a political theory or party, but a convenient shorthand term applied to elections and political platforms in the present that rapidly loses usefulness over a few decades. As a matter of fact and not opinion for example, almost all of the population of the US were "conservative" by today's standards just 50 years ago, let alone 80 or 100. No, all the racists in the Democratic Party were not "conservatives" who instantly switched parties... and there was no instant switch either.

There are real, documented reasons that the South, for example, changed to the GOP over a 40-50 year period (not "instantly" as Democrats still controlled a majority of the Southern statehouses up into the 90s...in no particular order). 1. Increasing economic wealth in the South and so sensitivity to large government and high taxes 2. Abortion. 3. Being the butt of scorn and inaccurate, unwarranted bigotry from the LW and Democrats that goes on near daily right here on these forums (Trump's "uneducated, rural, racist base"... when Trump won white college grads and every single higher income quintile). 4. Gun Control. 5. The 60s Youth Movement and spoiled excesses on campus that go on today. 6. The loss of the US mfg base and unions' role in that. 7. Decadent garbage pop culture in movies, TV, music 8. Scorn of the military and veterans which doesn't play well in what is still the cradle of the country's military.

Racism was on the list in the 60s, began to fade rapidly in the 70s, and wasn't even on the list in the 80s and after, yet this lie narrative continues here and elsewhere to date in the LW's demented resentment identity politics. Thank goodness for the net that has allowed a more balanced view, as recent elections prove the loser race-baiting strategy of the LW is and will continue to be a loser. So keep peddling that lie narrative, I guess, and keep losing.

 

This is actually rather on the funny side. It is like saying, "If you agree with with my lunacy, everything will be all right". The problem with your god theory is that, as Darwin put it, "I don't disprove the bible, nature does."

 

I stopped reading when you made the false claim that I used circular reasoning. I never claimed that conservativism equals racism. I merely stated that conservatives have a long history of racism. Neither liberal nor conservative views are inherently racist.

 

Let’s agree to disagree on this matter shall we?
Because if nature proves anything it proves there has to be a God.

https://x-evolutionist.com/charles-...ith-his-theory-in-his-book-origin-of-species/

Darwin was concerned that the lack of transitional fossils disproved the theory. He hoped that in the years to come there would be more fossil finds that would prove the theory as he stated it.
It has been about 150 years since he wrote that book, and countless more fossils have been found as people search for missing links, but the innumerable transitional forms have not been found.

Charles Darwin Proposed a Theory, and Listed What Evidence was Necessary to Prove it

The Evidence Darwin Says is Necessary to Prove the Theory is Does not Exist

Darwin Admitted it is Absurd to Believe that the Eye Could have been Formed by Natural Selection:

Darwin Expected Innumerable Transitional Forms, but they Do not Exist

Darwin Admitted that Events like The Cambrian Explosion would be Fatal to the Theory:

Darwin Admitted what Necessary Evidence is Missing, so There is no Proof for the Theory

 

What? Crayons and safe spaces? Kinda like churches and crackers and grape juice?