Technically, shouldn’t the left accept her with open arms, since she adopted 2 black kids from Haiti? That alone proves she’s not racist, and unless she took those kids, and forces them into child labor, she can’t be that bad of a person.
Plus her youngest has Down syndrome.
Then again, maybe this is all part of her master plan, adopt black kids, because she knew Trump would chose her, so now those who hates her can’t call her racist.
Goddamn! The crazy witch is a ****ing genius.
Originally posted by SquallX
Technically, shouldn’t the left accept her with open arms, since she adopted 2 black kids from Haiti? That alone proves she’s not racist, and unless she took those kids, and forces them into child labor, she can’t be that bad of a person.Plus her youngest has Down syndrome.
Then again, maybe this is all part of her master plan, adopt black kids, because she knew Trump would chose her, so now those who hates her can’t call her racist.
Goddamn! The crazy witch is a ****ing genius.
Lol dude they legit said she adopted them to use them as props.
ACB playing the long game, I guess?
Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, while I find worship disturbing, people should be able to worship these things if they want.I am the same way with facial tattoo's. They are awful, but people should be free to get them.
You find it disturbing that people believe in God when there is no real scientific explanation for the universe existing? The big bang theory, abiogenesis, and Darwinian macroevolution all violate known laws of science especially the first two laws of Thermodynamics.
Which means that the only logical explanation for the existence of the universe and life itself is that they were created supernaturally.
Personally, I find it much more disturbing that people think the universe just created itself from nothing and then still act like they understand science; and when we see the evidence of intelligent design all around us in nature and living things they still insist on saying people who believe in God are "uneducated" and "don't know science" lol.
I'm sorry but I think that is some major level projection there.
I don’t really think believe in God solves the conundrum of where things come from. It just kicks the can down the road.
Neither of the theories you mentioned violate the Laws of Thermodynamics btw, I suppose the Big Bang could potentially, as one way to think about it is that the laws of thermodynamics are a feature of the universe created by the Big Bang.
Nah, it solves it. There are only two explanations for the existence of the universe: either God created it, or it created itself. There are no other options. Period.
And God creating it is a heck of a lot more logical. I know you atheists are loathe to admit it but it's the truth regardless of what you say.
That’s a weird stipulation, I’m not sure that’s really true. I mean there’s also ideas of an eternally existing something that then spontaneously erupted into what we call the universe. And as for what kind of God might have created it, that’s very broad too, you could consider it a very minimalist god whose only ability is the creation of this universe without any real agency, for example, or one of the many different personal Ideas of God or Gods throughout human history. So I think you are really oversimplifying here.
I understand if you feel that way, I don’t have a strong opinion on the creation of the universe as it just seems like mostly supposition, and you can always say that what we see as relatively likely, and scientifically supported like the age of the universe or earth are just the mechanism that God used to create the earth, though of course young earth creationists, which I guess you are, do not approve of that POV either.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
You are welcome to keep denying the obvious all you like, bud, but just don't accuse everyone who believes in God of not understanding or believing in science.
I don’t think I did that, I know there are a lot of people who understand science or are scientists that also believe in God.
Originally posted by NibedicusSorry Nib I was very busy but I did want to get around to replying to this.
The question then becomes on whether ACB’s intent was clearly to portray the word “preference” within that context.What do you think?:
I think intent is such a hard thing to know sometimes especially in such an open ended context.
She may not have known and by some reports it looked like she was genuine in her not knowing. That could have been an act.
Maybe it was just a subconscious bias instilled in her from her Christian upbringing. Or it's just a façade and she very adheres to Homosexual relationships are sinful ones and therefore should not be allowed to be legal.
Those all could be her intent and could all be credible. The context here is she is a conservative Christian and that group has traditionally and even modernly homosexual relationships in general. It wasn't that long ago Kim Davis was celebrated for not doing her job and standing up to what they dub the "homosexual scourge".
You just can't remove that history and what she represents from this discussion entirely. She maybe the general exception but you can't just ignore it either because it's convenient or try to point hypocrisy without context.
An example, while extreme, would be a white citizen describing a person of color by the N word. Then defending them by saying someone else of color used the N word and saying if you don't denounce all uses of the N word by everyone then you're being hypocrites.
That logically doesn't make sense because ultimately one group using it has a context that is tied to the use of the word. In the case of conservative Christians in the U.S. sexual preference carries a history of trying be used to undermine Homosexuality in the U.S. both socially and legally.