[Evolution may not be confirmed to a point, but creationism is impossible, thinking that the earth is less than 6000 years old and the sun and all planets revolve around it.]
Creationism and evolution cane be reconciled to each other, to a point. Who knows, the 7 days may have been actually 7 billion years, lol
And the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 meters a day, if its a billion years it would be a white dwarf by now
Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are scientific laws. They both wield their own conflicting evidence, and from a purely scientific view, neither are purely scientific. A theory/hypothesis can only be accepted as a scientific law when all conflicting evidence have been refuted. And even a scientific law's position can be challenged when there is a new discovery. Believing in one of the two is an act of faith. Both have flaws, and both cannot explain one thing or another:
Flaws of evolution -
Cannot explain the origin of matter
Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from
Creation's flaw(s) -
Cannot explain where God came from.
The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.
10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and not compatible with Christianity.
1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.
Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."
10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.
Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).
Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)
[Thankfully most sane countries do not consider what the Bible says to be important when making the law.
and by doing so embraces moral degeneration and leftist secular agenda
no
the end goal of homosexuality is pedophilia so they'll end up sodomizing their child. Not all of them of course, but a lot of them will so to be on the safe side.
This Trudeau guy seems to have the right idea, given how it's single young men who usually become a problem. Considering how the majority of the migrants are single young men, barring them from entering Europe and deporting the ones already here would also solve the uncontrolled immigration problem to a large degree and restrict immigration to fathers with families, women and children, who are more likely to be in legitimate need for asylum and less likely to cause trouble.
---
Interestingly, there seems to be a co-relation between an excessive population of young men and civil wars, political instability and general violence and lawlesness. Considering how these places also tend to have a sexually-repressive religion, cultural norms that forbid sex outside marriage, condemn prostitution and other forms of sexual release, have high unemployment and low education levels, require men to pay a large bride-price in order to get married (which many cannot afford for the aforementioned reasons of unemployment and poor literacy), and there's a general shortage of females of marriable age anyway, no wonder there's a plentitude of sexually-frustrated horny young men with raging hormones looking for ways to vent their frustration.
Unsurprisingly, many of them who come to Europe with it's population of spineless emasculated men who are too accustomed to rely on authorities for justice and too pussy-whipped and beaten down to defend their women find Europeans and especially their womenfolk easy prey for their destructive urges, which is further aggravated by the inaction of authorities.
One of my friends came forward and told me he was an atheist. I asked him why he was an atheist and he said, "I prayed to God for help, but he never helped me." That's no reason to disbelieve in God. Do you atheists seriously think he will help you with everything. Creator put you on earth to fix your mistakes. He won't solve the problems you caused. And stop blaming him for taking away people you care about. It's not his fault you failed or lost someone.
Those who disbelieve in God are what I call 'clouded minds'. You don't realise you are one until you are freed from corruption. I know from experience. I was once a disbeliever and then came to realise that people are not educated on who God actually is and how religion and science can coexist.
Atheism should be banned because it is very wrong. I seriously think these atheists should read the Bible! I hate it when some kids these days say that they are atheist, it is absolutely WRONG.
Every Christian knows Atheists have no morals because they think they can ignore God’s Holy Bible. Some of them even deny the existence of Hell! They murder, steal and rape all the time as if there is no tomorrow. It is no coincidence that most criminals are Atheists. It is time to stop all this! It is a known fact that Atheists like nothing more but killing unborn children (abortion) and defenseless elders (euthanasia).
Christians know that life begins BEFORE conception: Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”
Only Christians realize that murder is bad: Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill.”
There can be only one conclusion! Atheism has to be outlawed, just like the Bible tells us: 2nd Chronicles 15:13 “That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman”.
No one should have the right to do anything, only to pray to God.
[:rofl: :rofl:
Seriously though, this is a serious thread, not the place for sarcasm.]
No I am serious.
I oppose LGBT rights and lgbt "marriage" because 1) it's a threat to western culture and tradition and 2) it's not marriage
[Since when is tradition good? There used to be a tradition of having soldiers scorch the earth or people burning witches. We don't do those things anymore.]
Thanks to socialism and "progressivism".
Why do you guys support homosexualism???
[Homosexualism? What are you selling? The term is homosexuality. And to answer your question, it's because it's bigoted, silly and utterly backwards to say that two people of same gender who love each other can't get married the same way a straight couple can.]
Are you saying that submitting to the will of God is backwards? Sorry, but people of the same gender can't ever have a real marriage or love.
(the topic is a non-religious woman wants to get a different councilor because the one the court ordered her to go to decided to open every session with a prayer)
Right, the fucking line has been crossed. This woman disobeyed a court order, she can rot in a cell for all I care. All you have served to do is reinforced the fact that atheists are evil, untrustworthy and unable to change. Fuck atheists and fuck the U.S Constitution. Go ahead and make your disparaging comments about me, because I'm not going to look at them. Australia for life!
Just because Wikipedia says it does not mean it is so. If you look at other Wikipedia pages, such as the timeline starting several billion years ago, you will see that it is partial towards the unscientific theories known as the Big Bang and neo-Darwinism.
[I am sure yu can show how it is unscientific. What is neo-Darwinism, is it like neo-Eisteinism? I am also sure you can show evidence beyond the bible that those scientific theories are indeed not true.]
Neo-Darwinism is another term for macro-evolution, a theory that claims that dinosaurs, humans, eggplants, and bacteria all share a common ancestor.
Also, how can the entire mass of the universe fit into a volume the size of a speck of dust on my keyboard?
Light was created on the first day, but its source was not the Sun. It can be assumed that the light in existence on day three was conductive to the process of photosynthesis begun on day 3, when the plants first came to be. The Sun was created on day 4.
[And yet we know for a fact that the sun existed long before earth came into being, let alone before plants evolved.]
Can I ask why evolutionists believe that the planets existed before the Sun? I am genuinely interested, no one has ever actually given me evidence to support this viewpoint.
The only thing I'm personally picking up from this debacle is that now, one cannot be a devout Christian and hold a government position any longer. Because its absolute folly to think that someone who is devoutly religious is going to just drop their beliefs on a whim to do something that they find morally abhorrent and disgusting. For example, were I in an elected position as well, I would also be unable/unwilling to violate my deeply-held beliefs that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman, and would not accept or recognize any variation on that God-given sacrament.
It is rather despicable that people that hold such convictions are essentially being bullied into either resigning from public office or forsaking their beliefs...sort of reminds me of the Persecutions of Decius, in a way. You either show your commitment to the pagan gods and the government, or else you face scorn, contempt, and (back then...and possibly in the near-future) martyrdom.
[Translation: Stop telling me I have to be equal to everyone else! Oppression!]
Christians (including myself) generally believe that they are ordained for better in the first place, the ones that will be accepted into Heaven while the heretic, heathen, and morally bankrupt rot in a hot place.
Atheism is inherently evil.
[Why?]
It promotes non-conformity, incest, bestiality and paedophilia, amongst other things.
(thread topic: is morality possible without god?)
The answer is NO if you believe the traditions an dogma of the Church. On the other hand if you believe 'god' is any power and/or authority that a person submits to, then yes, morality IS possible without 'God'. This is why Atheists who are NOT sociopaths are just cowards.
For a long time...I too used to have sinful thoughts about other men. I even was involved in a relationship with another man. I thought I loved. We kissed. We laughed. We held hands. We thought we loved each other. When my mother found out, she was outraged by this sin. So, because she loved and respected me so much, she decided to get me help so I could be cured of my sin. Now I am good in the eyes of God. Sure, I still have some sinful thoughts about other men. I'll never act on my sinful urges ever again. I made a promise to mother.
You made a promise to your mother to hide your sexual orientation and be something that you're not. Why do you think that this is a good thing?
Well, I always think of it this way: a prisoner goes to prison to be reformed. The justice system sends people to jail so they can learn a lesson. After the lesson is learned, and the prisoner is reformed...he may be released so he may spread the words of good and righteousness.
Whelp... What's next on the list? Let me look... Ah, here it is!
Gay "marriage" - check
Polygamy - next
Incest - getting there
Pedophilia - not yet but it's gonna happen sometime in the near future
Bestiality - long ways off but it'll happen
Un-Supreme Court is not final authority on marriage. God Almighty is. He clearly defined marriage as an institution between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Satan and his minions have their victory for now. But the Kingdom is not theirs. The Lake of Fire is where they'll be residing for the rest of eternity.
I pray for this country. I pray for the religious that will inevitably be persecuted as result of this unholy decision. I pray for our children. I pray for the supporters of this decision. I pray for all "gays". I pray for ALL mankind. Lord Jesus come soon! We are ready! Save us from our sins!
Amen
[Pffftt.
I'm sorry, let me just- I need a second.
This is a fucking hilarious piece of satire, good sir. You've created the perfect stereotype of your typical, bigoted, god-fearing idiot.
At least, I dearly hope you're joking.]
Everything is satire with you people. You can't wrap your mind around the fact that SOMEONE might just happen to disagree with you. That's what all you liberals are like. I will be praying for you sir.
There is. Everyone who is intelligent believes in the one true Lord.
[I'm intelligent and I'm an atheist. What now?]
No, you're just smart. You can't be intelligent and not a christian.
(on removing the Confederate battle flag from in front of the SC capitol)
[And hence, free speech is not being infringed upon. The Swastika is heritage. It would be disgusting if it were flown over the German capitol.]
Of course it would. The Swastika is as symbol used in false religions in Asia. It was also used by a movement claiming to be Christian, but they killed innocents...
[False religions... heh... gonna file that under 'no room to talk'[
The word of Christ is known by over a 7th of the world's population as the only truth.
But the underlining cause is homosexuality itself homosexuality is not a permanent state were thos who are homosexuals are born that way no it mainly stems for the persons upbringing such as sexual abuse as a child etc can lead to homosexuality we must not treat homosexuality as a ethnic grouping it must be handled as a disorder not a state of being we must cure not ignore.
evendence.
Richard P. Fitzgibbons, MD, Director of Comprehensive Counseling Services at a sate psychiatric research center, wrote in a Jan. 24, 2014 letter to the World heath organization:
"There is substantial evidence based on years of clinical experience that homosexuality is a developmental disorder.
Every child has a healthy need to identify positively with the parent of the same sex, have same-sex friendships, a positive body image and a confident sexual identity. Homosexual feelings can occur when these needs are not met appropriately.
The adolescent's unmet needs become entangled with emerging sexual feelings and produce same-sex attraction.
Therapy consists in helping male clients to understand the emotional causes of their attraction and to strengthen their masculine identity. It has been our clinical experience that as these men become more conformable and confident with their manhood, same-sex attractions resolve or decrease significantly in many patients."
Yes, women should be submissive. God made Adam to tend to His garden and the beasts, and He created Eve from Adam to tend to Adam. Eve, through her treachery, caused them both to be expelled from the garden, and it is her punishment to be subservient to Adam.
{title of post: women should be subservient]
because Christ is the head of the church and the bride is the body of the church. It says so in the New Testament. I don't know how it works but it is known to me that it says about this subject in this way in the New Testament. One can't have the head without the body . Onec One can't have the body without the head. Decapitation, the guillotine.
(on whether priests should legally have to report crimes they were told about in confessionals. Emphasis mine)
If you make priests mandated reporters like that, you'll ensure that, on the same day, everyone stops confessing their crimes to priests. And we lose one of the only forces in our entire society capable of pulling some people back from committing future crimes. I know I used to cut myself for years, and because mandated reporter laws meant that I would literally be arrested, forced to go to a mental hospital, or forced to take psychoactive drugs against my will, (all of which have happened to my friends), if I told my guidance counselor, any of my teachers, a therapist, or pretty much any trustworthy adult or authority figure about it, I just didn't talk to anybody who might have actually been helpful during that whole time period. You know who I did talk to? Lots of people on omegle. Because they couldn't track me down and literally ruin my life. People on omegle didn't have a lot of helpful things to say. I stitched my own leg closed once rather than go to the hospital. That shit hurts. I also could easily have died, because I don't know what the fuck I'm doing when it comes to stitching flesh.
[In a "heterosexual rights" thread where most disagreed with the OP. Emphasis his]
The way that people reacted to this thread being posted is evidence in and of itself that heterosexuals are discriminated against.
Everyone is discriminated against by someone. Everyone. And by saying that heterosexuals aren't discriminated against, proves that they are. Because face it, denying that someone is discriminated against, when in fact, they are clearly discriminated against, IS DISCRIMINATION.
[on the declining numbers of Christians in America.]
I'm atheist myself but I don't know if this is a good or bad thing for America.
It depends would you like America to be an Islamic State with Sharia?
It's really sort of a mixed bag for me. On the one hand, any sort of decline in Christianity is inherently a bad thing, but on the other hand, the decline of mainline Protestantism is to be expected (this has been happening for decades). I think that American Christianity has been more American than Christian for quite some time. I mean, the fact that so many people are more concerned with so-called "marriage equality" than religious freedom is telling.
So the main question is, what's the best scenario for the re-evangelization of America? Is it better to let Atheism take over, then swoop in once people have realized they made the wrong choice, or is it more important to let the majority of American Christians think of themselves as Christians despite their beliefs being closer to moral therapeutic Deism? Personally, I think it'd be healthier to start with square one, than to have to re-educate people who already think of themselves as Christian. It boils down to what's easier: converting a Pagan to Christianity, or convincing a heretical Christian that his views are contrary to orthodox Christianity?
Either way, Christianity has survived as a persecuted minority religion before, so it's safe to assume that it'll survive in the future as well.
P.S. I'm not necessarily saying that Christianity is currently being persecuted in the US (it'd be foolish to claim that it isn't happening elsewhere, given how many Christians have died at the hands of ISIS). If I were trying to say that Christians were currently being persecuted, I'd have said something like "Just like in the past, Christianity has survived persecution, thus it will endure this current persecution as well". Though, like many traditionalist religious people, I'm concerned that when it comes to gay rights versus religious rights, the religious are going to lose. You might say that's a good thing, but I clearly disagree. While you're probably going to think I'm wrong to be against gay marriage, I at least think I'm consistent in that I also criticize American Christianity for allowing no-fault divorce and contraception. I think it's silly that many conservatives are claiming to defend traditional marriage by opposing same-sex marriage, but are totally fine with divorce (which also goes against traditional marriage).
Concerning future persecution of Christianity, it only seems natural. As Western society continues to distance itself from its Christian roots, Christian values will become more out of sync with secular values. Eventually, the religious will be forced to suffer quietly, while "enlightened" Progressivists have their say as to the future of the human race. Have you heard of those Atheist folks that want to make passing your religion onto your children illegal? For many Atheists they dream of a future where religion is either non-existent, or neutered. Would they go so far as to ban religion? Probably not. But things like making proselytizing illegal aren't that far-fetched. Am I wrong to feel concerned when society is moving in a direction I think is wrong? Wouldn't you be concerned too if, say, America were instead in another religious revival?
(during a tangent about genocide of native Americans in the 1800s, unrelated to the main discussion)
We taught the Native Americans Christian values and saved them from their separation from God. We also gave them vast tracts of free land where they could govern themselves. How is that "genocide"?
[...]same sex marriage won't affect you at all. I wish it would, you might learn something.
It may affect my mental state.
It might improve it.
Why do you really care this much?
I am a devout Christian who loves America and traditional values.
Liberty is not good when it is the liberty to defy God.
Also, the Nazis were not Christians they were Nordic pagans.
(On the Canadian supreme court ruling that catholic prayer in city council meetings is unconstitutional)
I agree with this, the Prayer should be Christian, not Catholic.
There is nothing wrong with religious government, what is bad is a government that is particularly supportive of a certain denomination of Christianity. :P
Uh. Plenty wrong with it in a secular nation.
Who said we need secular nations?
Saying that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is no different than saying that the word wood is "the hard fibrous material that forms the main substance of the trunk or branches of a tree or shrub." Are we shaming rocks because we won't call them wood?
A pathetic attempt at false equivalence, not only trying to anthromorphize non-sapient objects but implying that the only allowed marriages are between man and woman is a scientific fact.
Christians have a definition of what marriage is. There is no shaming involved when we point out that a relationship between a man and another man does not meet that definition. Ala rock is not wood.
(on Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, widely seen as anti-gay)
I think it's unfortunate that the radical left has painted this law as an "anti-gay" act. RFRAs used to be bipartisan -- noncontroversial acts to prohibit government agencies from infringing on people's right to adhere to their religious beliefs.
The future belongs to whoever pops out the most children. It's simple as that. It's not a matter of values, cultures or politics, or of complicated theological debate. This is a matter of having kids. And if you look at the United States, the conservatives are winning. People who belong to relatively conservative faiths (like conservative Christians, Mormons, Muslims and Orthodox Jews) are popping out between two and four children per woman in the United States. People who are atheist or belong to a progressive religion have ceased to hit the 1.5 mark now.
The future, boys and girls, is conservative, in religion as in society.
***
It seems to have been established that there is a strong correlation between the political views of parents and the political views of their children. This is not believed to be fully genetic, although genetic predisposition has been shown in recent years to have a significant though not decisive effect on the general political direction that a person will take. Instead, it is believed to be mainly cultural, and to have to do with the process of socialization. This counts even more if you take the stereotypical view of religious American parents being very vocal and strong about their political beliefs.
And in any case, consider the state of the world, because in a 'globalized' world whatever trend is set in the world in general will affect every individual nation. In the last twenty years, the percentage of atheists or agnostics in the world has decreased. More people, relatively speaking, are now religious. This effect is especially common among African Christians, Asian Christians, more conservative Hindus, American Mormons, and nearly all Muslim groups in the world. These are the people you'll see more and more in corporations, in diplomacy, in politics and in trade. Twenty years down the line, they will decide - much more than they do now - on matters of life and death, war and peace, poverty and prosperity. They are your future and mine.
It is very unfortunate that Christianity is declining in America. Young people are being indoctrinated in anti-Christian views. If this trend doesn't stop, America may become like the USSR. I am glad to be Christian. Young white people appear to be the most affected by this indoctrination.
(Discussion on how many jews the holocaust killed)
The majority of Jews in prewar Europe resided in eastern Europe. The largest Jewish communities in this area were in Poland, with about 3,000,000 Jews (9.5%); the European part of the Soviet Union, with 2,525,000 (3.4%); and Romania, with 756,000 (4.2%). The Jewish population in the three Baltic states totaled 255,000: 95,600 in Latvia, 155,000 in Lithuania, and 4,560 in Estonia. Here, Jews comprised 4.9%, 7.6%, and 0.4% of each country's population, respectively, and 5% of the region's total population.
In prewar central Europe, the largest Jewish community was in Germany, with about 500,000 members (0.75% of the total German population). This was followed by Hungary with 445,000 (5.1%), Czechoslovakia with 357,000 (2.4%), and Austria with 191,000, most of whom resided in the capital city of Vienna (2.8%).
In western Europe the largest Jewish communities were in Great Britain, with 300,000 Jews (0.65%); France, with 250,000 (0.6%); and the Netherlands, with 156,000 (1.8%). Additionally, 60,000 Jews (0.7%) lived in Belgium, 4,000 (0.02%) in Spain, and 1,200 (0.02%) in Portugal. Close to 16,000 Jews lived in Scandinavia, including 6,700 (0.11%) in Sweden, 5,700 (0.15%) in Denmark, 1,800 (0.05%) in Finland, and 1,400 (0.05%) in Norway. In southern Europe, Greece had the largest Jewish population, with about 73,000 Jews (1.2%).
There were also significant Jewish communities in Yugoslavia (68,000, or 0.49%), Italy (48,000, or 0.11%), and Bulgaria (48,500, or 0.8%). 200 Jews (0.02%) lived in Albania.
Do the math. Even if Hitler killed every single one of these Jewish people. It would barely be over 6.5 million. Also you act like the Nazi's killed every single Jewish person in the USSR. We are talking about 2.5 million people. It wasn't like the soviets paused the war and said "Here take all these people because Uncle Joe is anti-Semitic." Fun fact Stalin wasn't even anti Semitic until the late 40s. There was never one pogrom or purge targeting the Jews during his reign.
Submitter's note: add them up, like he didn't
The United States is not at all right-wing on the world stage. The United States is, by now, idealistic and centre-left on the world stage, sending massive amounts of foreign aid (money, food, hospitals, schools, vehicles, vaccines) all over the world and being susceptible to calls for help from rebels that American politicians naively think want to remove dictators from power. If you want right-wing countries on the world stage, try India (which constantly threatens Pakistan with war over the border situation and Pakistani-funded terrorism), China (which is holding on rather bitterly to its western reaches, especially the lands of the Tibetans and the Uyghurs), Russia (which makes no secret of standing for the interests of ethnic Russians first and foremost) or Brazil (which, also, stands for its own interests).
What we see happening in the world today is a shift in power from the centre-left idealists who want to meddle with the idea that it'll make the world a better place (Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada) to the nations that think the world would be a better place if every nation looked out primarily for its own interests (China, Russia, Brazil, India).
in response to a poster saying that The Holocaust was ideologically driven, not economical, and borne out of German racialism.
That's too simplistic. It fits in with the narrative we're taught at school - that Hitler and his ilk were the Great Satan of the twentieth century. Actually, the story is a bit more nuanced. Hitler believed that almost every race in the world could and should improve itself to the best of its abilities. In fact, he supposedly remarked that China's history was more dignified and deserving of respect than Europe's. At first, the Nazis did not seek to exterminate the Jews - instead, they sought an orderly expulsion. But as the war started sucking up too many resources and stories came out about high-ranking Jews in Allied nations stirring up hatred of Germany and aiding the Communists, the authorities decided that they needed a brutal, quick final solution.
In fact, the Nazis were not the only ones who believed in such theories. In the last months of the war, General Patton grew convinced that the Germans were respectable people and not the true enemy, and that a lot of people in Washington (most notably Morgenthau, a Jew who tried to push for effective democide against millions of Germans) were preventing him from taking Berlin and large parts of Eastern Europe because they wanted Germany to suffer. At the end of his life, Patton seems to have hated the Jews as much as Hitler did before the start of World War II. And then there's Churchill, who believed that a specific but powerful group of Jews had orchestrated the Bolshevik revolutions in Russia in a frontal attack on civilization.
There are a lot of things wrong with what the Nazis did, and the world would have been better off without them. But don't get too simplistic about them.
(Gay rights discussion)
There is a right way to fit lego pieces. One can fight for the right to join two pieces from the back or from the front and it may seem like the politically correct thing to say or fight. We can even pass laws to say we recognize that lego bricks can be joined front to front and back to back, and that everyone who says no are bigots who have a narrow view of how lego pieces should be stuck. We can even hide behind free speech, by arguing for lego pieces to be joined however they like, and saying that pro-conventional lego builders are silencing the voice of liberal lego builders and that they should shut up (denying pro-conventional lego builders the right of free speech in the process).
But the reality is that there is only one way to naturally put lego pieces together. Sure, pass your laws, silence the naysayers, tell tales of happiness, and all that... but lego pieces were never made that way.
The US is a christian nation, therefore the definition of marriage should be defined by the christian church.
[[...]
The United States can't use the Christian definition because that would require respecting an establishment of religion, which is banned by the First Amendment.]
The 1st amendment is freedom to religion, not freedom from religion.
Of course it's not. Freedom and Liberty is literally at stake here! the POTUS Obama has hijacked this great country to turn us into an islamic hellhole. Just wait until the ISIS hoards illegally immigrate into the country and start putting sharia law all over the place. Obama is gonna allow this to happen. But he will be subtle about it.
[Well aren't you a credit to the American education system.
Just one problem Sherlock: Obama's a Christian. Fairly devout too.]
Christian in name, but Muslim in secret. If you wanna be a politician in America, you got to be Christian or else. But it depends whether one is faithful to Christ or not. Obama is different. He's a Kenyan Muslim. Not a Christianized African American.
As you all know, I believe this to be an invasion. The Africans and Middle Easterners who come to Europe through the Meditteranean - most are uneducated, young men of the Sunni faith - have nothing to offer us and serve only to destabilize Europe.
Now, if I am to believe people here I'm just a conspiracy theorist, but today I learned that the Islamic State (which now controls several coastal towns in Libya) has actually been making plans to send 500,000 migrants to Europe at once and to hide among them large numbers of fighters who, in the ensuing chaos, would be able to escape the authorities and wreak havoc in major Italian cities. The Italian government is now putting even more paramilitary police and soldiers in the big cities and near major tourist sites. So, evidently there is a big problem here, and there are relatively strong militant groups conspiring to use these migrants as a means to destabilize Europe and smuggle in hundreds or even thousands of fighters who aim to kill an awful lot of people.
Therefore, I will repeat what I have been saying for years: this is an invasion, and we should treat it like one. Deport the migrants back to Africa immediately and shoot any and all human traffickers you find. That is the only way to avoid the full economic, political, cultural and military collapse of Europe.
[Ah strict interpretive fundamentalism. It ruins all.]
It doesn't ruin anything. Fundamentalism means just that - the fundamentals of the religion. It's the religion, but without the human arrogance. It's the religion as it is, not as individual people want it to be. Fundamentalist Islam is the real Islam, and all moderation in Islam - or any religion, for that matter - comes at the expense of the theology of the religion itself. Moderation always means you ignore the fundamentals of the religion, which is why I do not understand how anyone who adheres to any religion can be 'moderate' and still claim to adhere to the original religion whose rules they violate. I know Christians who watch pornography, and that's just as strange as Muslim men who take Jews or Christians for friends or refuse to spend money or risk their lives fighting for Allah.
[Um, how is having to allow gay marriages tyranny? Because it sounds like you have a very warped view of what tyranny is...]
First of all its not marriage, the definition of marriage is one man, one woman. Secondly, forcing these state judges to do something that's not right is a form of tyranny, which is something gays are getting used to doing. It's absurd that 1 percent of the population is getting so much attention and making such a mess out of society, but it is appropriate for these government officials to be standing up to it
[Your definitions are all fucked up.
Secondly, the state can do what it wants; religion doesn't have any play in how different communities that are non-religious have equal rights as the religious.
The State can "force" these judges to do it because these judges are not the fucking law, the Federal Government is.
Are we done with this strawman argument or are you going to keep pumping up misinformed bullshit?]
It's unconstitutional to change marriage definitions, as it fringes on the rights of actual married people, religious institutions, and already exists precedents. When the supreme Court rules against fake marriages, read what they write and perhaps you'll understand. And if they don't rule against them, the resulting protest of millions of people will teach THEM how America feels.
(abortion debate. long story)
[I assume you think that you should also be forced to watch a slaughterhouse video before eating meat? Or a video of child slavery before buying chocolate or coffee? Or a video of war conflict before buying a diamond?]
I don't mind those videos of slaughterhouses, they don't really bother me.
Child slavery....meh....they're not usually white so it doesn't bother me.
Also those wars and conflicts are usually in Africa.....doesn't bother me either.
I love how evolutionists never, ever look at their theories flaws, and ruthlessly attack all alternate viewpoints. Intelligent design is a reality, in my opinion, and it is backed by a substantial amount of proof.
I'd check out the book "Evolutions Achilles heels", so that you can at least grasp where I'm coming from.
[and i love how god intelligently designed a bug specifically to eat human brains and how sometimes babies are born without brains. actually, the abortion debate would probably be a lot easier for you if god didn't make it so that there are so many dead at birth babies. maybe he should have designed them better? i dunno. i guess he works in mysterious ways, and the mysterious way just so happens to be brainless babies. bit of an own goal there for team god.]
These things are caused by the fall of man. Originally, all was perfect. These things entered the world though sin.
Okay reading the ballots there are a lot of idiots here
Same sex marriage= Same sex Intercourse and that (BLEH) = No reproduction rate = DEATH OF HUMANITY
Lord save me and the 14 people that actually have common sense
this is what i feel the people who passed this law keep doing:
I support freedom to be Christian. I never claimed to like the idea of having freedom to be a non-Christian.
The fact that atheism exists offends me.
[Get over it. Are we to start limiting rights to Atheists now?]
I would support that.
[Law, journalism, psychology, communications, etc. are not useless.]
I'd argue that journalism (the best journalists are those not trained academically), psychology (if you want to make an actual difference in the world, you need psychiatry) and communications (like journalism, it's a field of doubtful practical advantage) are fairly useless, along with sociology (social and economic Marxism), cultural anthropology (cultural relativism studies), philosophy (Neo-Marxist studies), free time management (it's an actual field of study here, but the people who study it are typically unemployable), history (it's a hobby, not a profession, unless it's combined with archaeology), modern second languages (hardly useful to study a language that tens of millions of people in the world already speak), European Studies (although I will say that it's a good way to get into the right parasitic networks in Brussels) and criminology (a field of study that manages to present itself as being practical, but turns out to be even more ivory-tower-theoretical than sociology).
