Captain Picard Facepalm

I agree I think that's terrible. Don't you guys call it abortion? Separating a child from its mother.

..of an embryo.

Slippery slope. Embryos today....(normalize) dead 3 year olds tomorrow

"Slippery slopes" is how they got preggers in the first place. ;P
naw but um... Ya I'm gonna say not everything is a slippery slope.

See my new meme. So as long as the head is still in the va**na it is still not a human being but a clump of cells.

Slip 'n slide memes in January?
Baby it's cold outside.
:P

That one hurt!

Nice one SydneyB just got roasted and toasted

You need to double-check the thread's reply-chain before you post your own reply.

Ummm k?

I mean SydneyB isn't even part of the thread you replied to.

I don’t really care man, you didn’t really need to tell me that

i should start using this against pro choice people; do you mind if i do so?

You do realize that there are human traffickers that send kids across the border with people they aren't related to, right?

Which is clearly stated in the main meme, syd ya dummy

Lmfao! I cant stop laughing. Good work! Lol

thx!

That's actually the same party. Trump didn't create this policy, Obama did.

not close to the same way https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/

One day you're going to grow up and realize you were a child.

what?! pushing for islam? how?

Liberals support Islam, yet Islam is extremely homophobic and liberals always turn their heads to that fact. Now you're probably thinking that Christianity is also pretty homophobic, so it's the same thing except for the fact that Christianity has gotten reformed and now most Christians are accepting of homosexuals.

"Some Christians are accepting of gays" Most in North America and Europe are accepting of gays. "And it's not Christianity that got reformed, it's the people." The people were followers of Christianity and those same followers were the ones who passed the pro-LGBTQ laws in the first place, so they did reform it.

This is true, but the church itself has been reformed by many modern day Christians and the church has become basically the only way to reform a book you can't change.

they kinda reformed it, but not to the extent you are taking it

How so?

from what i gather, you're saying that we reformed by accepting active homosexual participation as being in alignment with Gods standards. It was reformed from shunning out gays, but now we minister to them because God has stated that if a person wants to follow him, social status doesn't affect this. So it doesn't matter if they are gay, it just makes it harder to life a life in dedication to God if they are actively gay.

But wasn't it evil Obama and his nefarious Islamic Commie takeover plan that forced most Americans to begrudgingly accept the gays and their insideous lifestyle that will corrupt us all?

And isn't that credited with being a major reason for the reactionary alt right ultra conservative groundswell of Trumpites who will banish the gays to the other side of Trump Wall Mexico so the Bible humping South can enjoy the Rapture in peace yadda yadda ban the trans from the military executive order no more same sex marriage raa raa they forgot?

Upvotes.

oct, the books are just books. the religion is the people

it doesn't keep society in the past. Name one area in our lives where the Bible isn't applicable.

what endorsement? just because the bible said that slaves should serve their masters diligently doesnt mean that God endorses slavery. It is good for a slave to suffer in God's name, for that commitment pleases God greatly. so no. no God doesnt endorse slavery

God regulated slavery, but he never said that he condoned it. Just because he allowed it to happen doesnt mean it pleased him. For example, he allowed murder to happen even thought he explicitly said that he hated it. He told them how to go about it because he did not want abuse to occur, so having a HEBREW slave was permitted by law, but was not a morally correct thing to do, which they should have seen. And remember we are talking about the Israelites here, the complete failures of the old testament, who took practices from the pagans (like slavery) and who flagrantly disregarded Gods laws. We are no longer that people (to an extent). We do sin, but we don't enslave people. also i realize that the applicable part of your answer isnt applicable today; it seems that you were just trying to make a jab at Christianity

not to mention that the hebrew equivalent for the word slave is ebed, which can also mean servant, so just putting that out there

islam is definitely in a dark period. how do liberals support it?

They often defended it and turn their heads to the dark stuff going on with it.

they dont defend radical Islam. Obama continued the war on terror and actively fought it. they fight against Muslims getting discriminated against because of terrorists

I never said they defend radical Islam, but I did say many of them ignore it or will just point to radical hateful Christians to try to ignore the topic. They also like to say that any critics of Islam are islamaphobic.

the peaceful Muslims living in America are called "hypocrites" by their own religious orthodoxy.

The statement that Christianity has been "reformed" is heretical and wholly wrong. The "Reformation" was a schism from an already schismatic Church.
Early Christianity is still there, and it goes as Orthodoxy nowadays

Most Christians today are more accepting of LGBTQ citizens, but if you were to go back about fifty years ago it would be different. Christianity has had several reformations and this latest one was just unspoken.

This isn't a good thing. Any "reformation" that involves changing of doctrine is technically a schism, and should not be praised. The Church doesn't even preach that homosexuals are bad, just that it's an added burden on their cross. Heck, there's even a Saint (Saint Seraphim) that was gay.
Any reforms to Orthodoxy were merely technical (calendars, etc.), and not an official change of Church doctrine

It doesn't matter if it is a good or bad thing because that doesn't change the fact that it did reform. "The Church doesn't even preach that homosexuals are bad, just that it's an added burden on their cross." I never said that it did or didn't, so I don't know why you brought this up.

Because you mentioned that Christians are more accepting
And the very definition of reform implies a positive change

I said the following "Most Christians today are more accepting of LGBTQ citizens, but if you were to go back about fifty years ago it would be different." It wasn't the church that said was wrong, but it was many people who were Christian.

you're confusing "accepting them because they're right" and "accepting them because they are people". We only accepted them because its wrong (and prejudiced) not to as well as the fact that accepting them opens up a whole other avenue for spreading the Word. The only exception is the adding of gays to our ranks. Not that we drive them away, but the toiling of their hearts between being actively gay and fail or following God is a question that will decide whether they stay in our order.

And my point was many years ago they wouldn't have accepted them at all.

which i agree with

That's good.

We do accept homosexuals, but only because we only see humans. HOWEVER i dont believe that homosexuals can stay good christians, because active homosexuality is a sin and fails to follow Gods law. I believe this to be true because death is the absence of life, and having a homosexual relationship prohibits life from occuring, which means death (in the sense that i have explained) is abundant in that relationship. LET ME REITERATE i do accept homosexuals into the church, but they will have to decide between their desires and Gods

So you're basically saying it's bad because it's not natural? Because if so that is an example of a appeal to nature fallacy. https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=fARGXOW2FcXYtAW49YKACg&q=appeal+to+nature+fallacy&oq=appeal+to+na&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l10.3269.7543..8970...0.0..0.1455.6547.1j2j2j2j1j0j1j3......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131.oE6GKm1aKLQ . I also would like to say that homosexuality is indeed natural.

im calling fallacy fallacy because it still isn't a natural human process. For instance, can you without augmentation or genetic modification create a baby from two men? Also im not claiming that being gay is bad, im claiming that actively participating in a homosexual relationship prohibits life where it could exist. Can we say that being homosexual is beneficial in any way over being straight? Of course not. So that arguement doesn't have any place here, therefore, the fallacy fallacy call

Research has shown that homosexuality evens out the mating process by giving people who aren't homosexuals more time to mate with other straight people, so it evens it all out in the long run. In the end the same amount of life would be created and the only difference would be who gives birth.

so you're saying that we need to keep birth control in check? Which does make sense, but you're still proving my point of it not being natural

"you were saying that instead of people having less sex, we should have people oriented to people in such a way so that sex cannot physically occur. That isnt natural, nor is it the easiest and most responsible way of going about it." I was saying how through biology we have a understanding that homosexuality leaves more straight people to have sex with each other through a natural progress. I wasn't saying any of what you think I said.

"so you're saying that we need to keep birth control in check?" No. "Which does make sense, but you're still proving my point of it not being natural" I literally just explained why it's natural.

you were saying that instead of people having less sex, we should have people oriented to people in such a way so that sex cannot physically occur. That isnt natural, nor is it the easiest and most responsible way of going about it.