Via Alice Smith @TheAliceSmith:
I think it is a rhetorical question.
To me, the answer is obvious. Those pushing the “war on women” cannot tolerate being in agreement with their political opponents no matter how clear the truth is. Yet, they are willing to distort the truth to whatever extreme they can get away with to harm their political opponents.
And, clearly, in the lower image they’re dressed in blue so they’re good Democrats and can’t be criticized…
A good heuristic for what policies the leftist leadership in the west will support is “does it result in more dead or not-born white people, greater societal distrust and fragmentation, and increase family dysfunction?”
Drug legalization policy, promoting the radical gay agenda, divorce laws, abortion laws, anti-self-defense laws, exporting jobs, silencing criticism of the actions of any “protected groups,” importing huge numbers of foreign workers / voters with no expectation of integration, high taxes, hyper regulation of daily life, making energy more expensive, suppressing some free speech while promoting violence as being “free expression by marginalized groups,” etc., etc., etc., ALL have one or more of those effects, while having a plausible “helping reason” but actually imposing perverse incentives.
Claiming there is a “war on women” the way they have done had accomplished all of these things. You keep saying “they want you dead, act accordingly.” Why do you think that is limited only in one aspect of your life (guns)?
What makes you think I believe it is limited to one aspect of my life?
I think it’s deeper than that.
Wondering why all politicians of the west are doing things that are obviously hypocritical to their stated position and propose?
Maybe they’re owned outright by satanic forces and do whatever their told no matter what it is?
Osama bin Laden said it 25 years ago for all to hear.
“It’s not a war against America. It’s a war against Christianity.”
And islame is satan’s political system.
That’s why Christians all over the world are being murdered at rates far above other groups or races.
When examined in that light many things become very clear.
And St. Paul’s teaching of us “fighting against principalities and powers of the air”, is more spot on than we would like to think about.
Because in the U.S. it’s Christians passing laws to force women back into the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, not Muslims. Pete Hegseth has been pretty vocal about it lately. But for additional context….
Copilot says:
“Several Christian nationalist figures and affiliated politicians in the U.S. have publicly supported policies or rhetoric that aim to restrict women’s rights, especially around voting, bodily autonomy, and family roles.
Here are some detailed examples of individuals and movements advocating such positions:
– Pastor Joel Webbon and Christian Nationalist Rhetoric
Webbon, president of Right Response Ministries, has argued for repealing the 19th Amendment, which guarantees women the right to vote.
He claims that voting should be a “family vote” led by the husband, citing biblical authority for male headship
On his podcast Theology Applied, he framed this as a Christian position, saying that allowing women to vote undermines the Christian nation ideal
– Doug Wilson and the CREC network
Wilson, founder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), has written extensively on patriarchal family structures, including blog posts like “The Lost Virtues of Sexism.”
He has publicly stated that women should not vote and has used derogatory language to describe women, including terms like “small-breasted biddies” and “lumberjack dykes”
His church promotes the idea that women should submit to male authority, and he has gained influence among Republican figures like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
– John McEntee, former Trump aide
Co-founder of the conservative dating app The Right Stuff, McEntee joked that “mail-only voting” should mean “male-only voting,” implying that women should be excluded from the electoral process
He’s part of a broader Christian nationalist push to reshape voting and family policy in line with biblical literalism.
– Policy trends among Christian Nationalists
Many Christian nationalist-aligned politicians and influencers support rolling back no-fault divorce laws, which would make it harder for women to leave abusive or unhappy marriages
They also advocate for restricting reproductive rights, including bans on abortion and contraception access, often justified through religious doctrine
A 2024 Pew study found that 51% of Christian nationalism sympathizers believe “the husband is the head of the household, and his wife submits to his leadership”
– These examples reflect a broader movement that blends Christian theology with political power to enforce patriarchal norms. While not all Christian politicians support these views, the rise of Christian nationalism has made such rhetoric more visible and influential in U.S. politics.
I sort of know Wilson. He is a rather controversial person in Moscow Idaho and the surrounding area. About 50 of his followers had a private Boomershoot a couple of years ago. They seemed to have a good time. They paid their bill promptly and were quite friendly to me even after their verbal “testing” of my faith probably didn’t meet their expectations.
The rest of them I have never heard of. And what percentage of the nation subscribes to the beliefs of Christian Nationalism? And what percentage of the Republicans in national office subscribe to those beliefs? Compare that to the percentage of Democrats in national office that subscribe to Marxist/socialist/communistic ideals?
My guess is that Marxism/socialism/communism is MUCH closer to realization than Christian Nationalism.
Nah. See, in Seattle we get the socialist dipshits on a regular basis…looks like Wilson’s gonna be the new mayor so oh goodie, we get to run that stupid experiment again. (Mind you, Harrell’s a moron, so many folks were, and I’ve heard this explicitly stated more than a few times, voting against him, not for Wilson.)
But every time, they elect one of these people and we get 4 years of incompetence, and then the pendulum swings back. It did after the Sawant years, it will after the Wilson years. We’re in no more danger of becoming a socialist hellscape than Omaha.
The bummer is that because people have unbelievably short memories, they keep trying it out like somehow it’ll be different this time. And it never is, and then they go “huh, that sucked. Guess we’ll vote for the centrist who can come in and clean up the mess.” And around and around we go.
Once again you are all over Christianity that somehow managed to let woman have all those things you say Christian are trying to take away.
But ignore the facts that every communist country has controlled everything everyone does no matter what it is.
China forced “womans health” (abortion) for years. Where was their choices?
Every country islame even visits both rape and sex crimes go up dramatically.
Where’s the poor womens chioce in all that?
And what women voted for Kamala Harris in the primary races for candidate?
And why didn’t she win? If women in this country are in such danger of Christian men taking over?
And just so you all know.
Christians and Christian preachers may take certain positions toward women. ((Good or bad, many are just natural observations of the world.)
But Christ never said anything that wasn’t meant for all to heed and follow.
Men, women, race, color, creed, or intelligence level.
Now apply, “Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.”
Maybe the women should even think of that toward the child in her womb?
And maybe that’s why under Christianity women have gained more freedom than under any system that ever existed.
Try observable facts over copilot and bias for once John.
I enjoy that you want me to favor “observable facts” while discussing religion. I assume these are the same observable facts accessible to Hindus, and Muslims, and Scientologists, and Vikings, and Greeks, and Egyptians, and Sumerians, and Aztecs, and…every other culture that’s made up a creation story to try and explain existence.
But I’m sure *your* tribe has the *right* story, and everybody else is wrong. Aren’t you glad you were born in just the right country (bummer to be born in India or China or the Congo or Syria or…) at just the right time (would suck to be born 3000 years ago…you’d totally miss it!) to just the right parents (so glad their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents and so on came from the tribe that told that particular story and not a different one)?
Nevermind…rhetorical question.
“I enjoy that you want me to favor “observable facts” while discussing religion.”
OK, but you forgot to name the absolute worst religion, that being atheism.
But alas, common ground!
I put less stock in “religion” than you probably do.
Christ made it clear that you can’t throw widows and orphans out of their home so you can make a profit. Then sacrifice a goat and be all straight with God.
Christianity is at its heart a relationship. (I am truly sorry if you don’t understand that.)
Born lucky? It ain’t over yet.
And I became a Christian by watching my father and mother live Christianity. (After which I wandered my own personal wilderness for 40+ years or better.)
They tried to live as Christ taught. That jumping up and down on one leg for ten minutes every sunday to please a preacher was man’s idea, not Gods.
That there is no power structure on earth that will not be in some way corrupted by evil over time.
Just as I would be also. (even though they prayed I would be spared that humiliation. To no avail.)
But that redemption was of Christ’s sacrifice, and the mercy of God.
Say what you like.
But you live in the highest, most comfortable society the world has ever witnessed because of Christianity.
And that is the fact.
As God’s grace and mercy is extended to the most ungrateful and merciless generation to ever walk the face of the earth.
Want to know how it works?
Right now you have almost the entire human history at your fingertips.
When you stand before your maker what excuse will you have for not knowing him?
Hell and satan are real. Better figure it out before you get to meet them both, up close and personal.
You can mock God. Just not for very long.
It might surprise you to discover most of the U.S. founding fathers were not Christians. Deism was the most common belief.
In particular, you might want to start reading up on Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and then others.
Well ya.
If you had just got finished fighting the largest, most professional army that was backed by a churched based government? And winning. (Which they contributed to divine providence.)
I don’t think you would be in a big hurry to start another one either.
And calling yourself this or that religion as a founding father was going to be that very thing. Having lived under and watched, and fought. (and all the loss that incurred). What humanity does with power, any power, would be quite an eye opener, I would think.
Interesting to note they knew they were created though.
And they didn’t call themselves atheists did they?
Deism is as close as they wanted to get for good reasons.
That doesn’t mean they didn’t believe.
It just means they weren’t willing to codify in government exactly what they believed.
I’ve been mocking the Christian god, the Muslim god, the Hindu gods, and every other god I can for a solid 50 years now. I have yet to be struck down by lightning, pummeled with frogs, smothered by locusts, or any afflicted with any other divine instrument of wrath. I have, however, noted the existence of pediatric oncology as a medical specialty, which if there were a god in charge wouldn’t be thing.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh wow.
What a ground breaking argument!!!!
But it ain’t over yet is it?
The nature of prey is to never understand or be able to observe the trap. Till it’s to late anyway.
Mock all you want. What is your time on earth in the measurement of what we have aged the earth and known universe at today? You got the watch, God has the time.
You can mock God, just not for very long.
Were ALL Gods bitch. Just ask satan.
And enjoy it while you can.
Just so we know that we are talking about the same thing… please share your definitions of God and Satan.
See below.
Worse than that. Atwood got the idea for the costumes in Afghanistan.
The answer is simple. Ms. Atwood wouldn’t risk her sorry hide by placing her story in a Muslim setting. Christians don’t kill people who criticize them. Therefore “Handmaid’s Tale” was set in a fictional Christian patriarchy.
Soi-disant liberals reject Christianity. So the simpletons never really read the story. What happens when Muslims finally realize the story is about them and that the liberals have really been mocking them?
Given that she is a generic lefty, I suspect she was sincere if deluded about the threat from Christians.
God.
The creator of all we know and have yet to discover.
Both good and evil.
In simple math terms. Start an equation with 0. Add anything to it. You only have what you added.
Math is the language of the universe. It can’t be started with 0. And just as universe itself. couldn’t start itself. Something had to start it.
God.
Satan.
A force (for lack of a better term, spirit if you will) that acts on humanity.
Think of it like this.
Is boredom real? No, not as something you can touch or feel.
But look at what humans do to avoid it. How much of your life is affected by it? All the evil crap that goes on because of it.
Now is boredom real? No, but for something unreal, it sure kicks a lot of ass.
Just like 1+1=2 anywhere in the known universe. Did we create that equation? Or did we just discover what was always there?
The real question that has puzzled humanity forever is why?
Well, God only knows.
Because the odds that God didn’t create us is well over 1 in 10 to the 263 rd. power. (At less than 20 0’s. It did happen.)
All things are created. The numbers prove it.
Spirit rules matter. Just like boredom.
God is the creator spirit. (As best I can tell.)
Satan is a created spirit to effect God’s proposes.
I think I have a handle on it. As Jesus explained it as best he could to us.
But once again, only God knows truly why.
I truly hope that helps.
If this is true (hint: it isn’t. Read up on Hawking Radiation to get you started down the correct path) then something must have created God. What is it that created God?
“All things are created. The numbers prove it.”
“then something must have created God. What is it that created God?”
Excellent question.
And shows the upper limit of human cognition. Think of it as looking through the Jame Webb telescope at the outer reaches of the universe. It’s not that there is no boundary, we just can’t see that far.
So, God answered that question in Exodus 3.14. in the only way our limited intellect could understand.
“Tell them I am, that I am.”
We can’t truly understand from our prospective something that always existed.
We try, me with God, you with super-charged particles that somehow managed to escape something powerful enough to contain light.
Which in the light of mathematics and what we know of DNA replication could not have created the most energy efficient analog computer millions of years ago. (That being the human brain.) On top of all the other parts of the human body, a lined in the solar system we find ourselves.
But both are faith positions in origins.
Yours in what appears to being much greater amount than mine, mathematically speaking.
It takes a lot more faith to believe in some all-powerful being that you cannot see, touch, or perform experiments on than it does to believe the physical world which we can do those things to. It is far easier to defend the perpetual existence of the physical universe than the perpetual existence of what you call God.
And you definition of faith may be enlightening as well. I have heard it defined as “belief in something without, and/or in spite of, evidence.” Is that in alignment with your definition?
To the complete contrary.
Just because you can’t measure or test the thing that made you in no way proves it doesn’t exist.
When Adam ate the apple God no longer show his form to man.
Why?
You thinking the guy that made us didn’t know what a pain-in-the-ass bunch of whiny bitches we were about to become?
He put both the tree of life and the tree of good and evil in the same garden.
Then gave his creation a warning and a choice.
The path was chose.
Jesus made it very clear God only shows himself now to those he chooses since that time till today.
As for those things you can touch, feel, and do experiments on.
First you have to find truth. Math is always true. And the math says that to bet on the 1, when the odd’s against you are 10 to the 263 power. Is defined as what? That, that math isn’t real?
You being a farmer know that dirt is just a place to grow something.
It’s the planted seed that grows.
And then only when all the right conditions are present. Water, light, heat. At just the right time.
You helped create the Iphone.
What would you say to someone that found one in a field, picked up, showed it to you and said. Look what just grew here.
You, as a human are infinitely more complicated than an Iphone.
And just because we both consist/are made up of, of the same three particles of matter.
Doesn’t mean we weren’t designed and shaped in such a fashion for no reason.
Or that were all just a big comic coincidence. Or in your estimation a very great number of them.
Can your Iphone touch, feel, or experiment on you without someone having programmed it to do those things?
Would your Iphone know who Joe Huffman was if you didn’t tell it?
No, it would not.
Would that make you and your iphone any less real?
Just big accidents magically manifested from unknowing chaos?
No, you are wonderfully designed. Elegant.
Beautiful, thoughtful, useful, noble, strong, honorable.
Able to act, think, run, build, test manufacture, love, cry, hope, work.
Rocks are just rocks.
Till you build something with them. Like a home.
We were built. Just because we can’t see how or why doesn’t mean we weren’t.
And we have tested it. DNA cannot replicate itself. It needs a replicator.
The case you make applies to any ultimate creator even more than the items listed.
Correct.
And we have no way of proving your or my theories as to origins.
It’s all a faith position.
So who has the greater faith?
Betting on the 1 (evolution and dirt),against 263 zero’s, (God’s hand)?
God reveals himself to his creation. But you have to want him to reveal himself.
You have to seek him out. It’s all about faith.
And the numbers prove you have that in spades. So It won’t be a problem once you start seeing it.
Please define “faith.” And a citation for the 263 zeros.
Easy, believing in something that isn’t proven can happen.
Odds against, a number that have a hundred zero behind it. Means it didn’t happen.
263 zeros means it has to be faith that believes in the 1.
No one has proven evolution. And a lot of people have proven it couldn’t happen.
Your definition of faith is quite novel.
In my world evolution, with some tweaks along the way, has stood up to 150 years of evidence gathering and testing.
If you have proof it is false, you will get a Nobel prize for it.
James Web may not be able to see the boundary, but we can detect the background microwave energy of the Big Bang.
It appears your numbers (0 + 1 = 1) presume the universe was created by something from nothing. Yet, you have not presented evidence that there was a time when there was nothing.
My point exactly.
Everything has to start with a 1. We can’t start with zero. (As far as we can tell from our limited position.)
You’re starting with something that always existed, as I’m I.
OK. So the big bang happened. What now?
All this extremely complicated life just happened from super-charged particles?
At 1 in 10 to the 263 power? That takes the “magic dirt” to a whole new level.
And it’s still just a theory that the microwaves were reading, are from the theory that all the mass in the known universe was compressed into the head of a pin. (Take it from someone that spent a major portion of his life reducing rock and stone. That can’t happen.)
Sciences position would have to be that electrons, neutrons, and protons somehow carry the theory of evolution coded in them in order to be plausible.
And life can occur anytime they find a stable place.
As opposed to the understanding of genetics and life that we manipulate today?
We prove intelligent design with every gene splice. On top of the math.
People who use the phrase “just a theory” don’t have a clue what a theory really is in the scientific world. Look up the definitions of theory and hypothesis to get a clue.
You mean like this?
Theory
“a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:”
“Darwin’s theory of evolution”
Hypothesis;
“a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation:”
“his ‘steady state’ hypothesis of the origin of the universe”
Notice how both of those definitions start with “a supposition”
Which is something unproven.
But your right about my understanding of science today.
The only thing I can make sense of about it is the money that gets thrown around and at it.
That is the everyday definition of theory. The one used by the scientific community when referring to evolution, physics, chemistry, etc. theories is MUCH different.
Being a believer in Christ, I’m pretty sure I understand the true meaning of “faith” as well as any lingual expert walking.
As for theory and hypothesis? All I got is the dictionary.
“In my world evolution, with some tweaks along the way, has stood up to 150 years of evidence gathering and testing.”
OK.
If one of those tweaks is how a DNA replicator started from lighting striking the primordial soup.
Your the one up for the Nobel. (Which since they gave one to Obama for being black, I haven’t put much stock in.) But I would sure like to read it.
I myself only know what I can read.
And no one with a degree will even go near Vox Day’s timelines for genetic mutation fixation math. (He even made AI admit he was correct.)
I did listen to the woman that was editor for JAMA for 20 years say that over 50% of the peer-reviewed articles published were pretty much all garbage.
I watched all the experts tell us that the planet was about to die from climate change. Oh, oops, we were wrong. (Which I pointed to the math of 20 years ago.)
I listen to doctors tell us that the new pandemic virus was going to wipe us out if we didn’t all get vaccinated. By a vaccine they had a patent on for 10 years,
Need I go on? Because I can.
And so excuse me if I don’t except what science tells me is proven.
It’s not like they wouldn’t lie for money or anything.
Because that’s the most proven thing about them in this day and age.
Having never been in a traditional (I grew up in a Christian Science family) Christian environment for any length of time I was not aware that your definition was common. After some research I see that I was wrong to claim your definition was novel. It is not.
My definition of faith in this sort of context is belief without or in spite of evidence. The context which I was familiar with Christian faith was much more assertive, than “can happen”. It was more like, “I know for certain something exists or will happen.” And to me that is crazy talk. I can believe that on this day next year it can rain in Seattle. It is not proven that it will happen, but I have a lot of evidence that it “can happen”. And hence, I don’t see that as “faith.”
Where I get really annoyed is when people claim to have absolute convection of having knowledge based on faith without any evidence. To them “faith” is just another way to know things. They “just know” that true socialism will work to make the world a better place for everyone. And to that, my assertion is that they don’t know what knowledge is.
My push on this topic was to lead up to something I have been planning for a long time. I just haven’t had the time to do it properly yet. I want to write up, with tables and examples a middle school child could understand, on how to determine if something is true or not. When I was on the cyber threat intelligence team at work, we got a lot of training in how to determine if something was true or no. It is not easy to do without a good process. Reality is hard! I’m still going to do it. But I don’t have any hope that many people will take advantage of it. It is very powerful stuff, but most people have no interest in discarding their long-held beliefs even when they are wrong.
All good.
I’m also someone that lives life as best I can through evidence.
I admit I’m a different duck when it comes to my Christianity. And luckily my life was one that made me examine cause and effect long and hard before I did something. As life, limb, and property are at stake when building large structures.
And science is a subject I love, though I don’t have the ability to study as much as I would like.
So let me say, I didn’t come to my faith through un-proven circumstances.
I came to faith as the most proven model that explains the world we see in the most scientific manner I can find.
Truth may be hard to find and distinguish. But the hardest part is letting go of what we believed in the past.
I’m all ears.
But I got some hard questions that to date that have only been answered by God and my lord Jesus Christ.
Thus, my faith.
I am speaking of evolutionary changes resulting in the creation of eyes, ears, limbs, greater intelligence, coloration for camouflage, etc. This is obvious with fossil records filling in many of the gaps. The origin of life? That is actually a different problem. Here are the differences:
It’s wise to separate the two for study purposes. That’s not the problem.
The problem stems from minor examples of one prove fact being extrapolated into the other as also being proven.
Such as seeing evolutionary changes like the bug that looks like a thorn not getting eaten because the birds didn’t see it. And more of them got to breed that caricature into more surviving bugs.
But that doesn’t explain how the bugs got there in the first place.
Biology poo-poos your faith. Because they have faith that origins will be proven just as their minor facts have found.
That’s a giant mistake in logic.
But that ego is what has driven evolution by natural selection into cult status at this point in time.
“Origin of life research (abiogenesis): Seeks to explain how chemistry on the early Earth produced the first self-replicating, metabolizing entities. This is a pre-evolutionary problem — how biology emerges from chemistry.”
Once again, all good.
“Seek, and you shall find.”
But don’t be surprised to find out it ain’t what you think it is.
Because the real problem starts at an electro-chemical level then progresses into a biological one.
Once again, two separate fields of study. And almost no one is that good at both.
By I digress.
So how does one get the same electron, protons, and neutrons that seemingly, randomly arrange themselves in stable forms to all of a sudden become these monstrously complex biological systems?
In perfectly arranged design and detail?
In a perfectly arranged place.
On a short timeline.
For no propose one can discern from the same psychical plane their being arranged on, and for?
And I’m sorry, but someone reproducing minor results with complicated equipment in a controlled environment…..Or discovering that something seemingly happens on its own. (Because they can’t meet and greet the design-builder.)
Only proves the premise that we are designed and built. And not happenstance as it were.
Science, as with most humans, has a giant problem of jumping to conclusions.
Which is fine in general. It’s the claim that is made to everyone else that you live on proven facts.
When the facts are not all in evidence.
And not even close.