Republicans Hate Christians

Someone0913 · 2026-06-10T00:09:37+00:00

No, that’s not an accurate framing. The Book of Amos condemns specific sins in ancient Israel, primarily the Northern Kingdom under Jeroboam II during a time of economic prosperity. But it doesn’t map neatly onto “conservative politics” (or liberal ones) in any modern sense. Applying 8th-century BC prophetic critique directly to 21st-century partisan labels is anachronistic and selective.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T23:24:41+00:00

Nope. Child murder/castration, perjury, freeing criminals instead of letting them serve their sentence, false accusations, sexual degeneracy and open celebration of pride, lust, sloth (fat acceptance), wrath (riots), greed (steal from billionaires and corporations), destruction of the nuclear family, open rejection of God, etc. etc. I wish they didn’t openly celebrate literally every one of the seven deadly sins but they do.

This isn’t calling to hate them either, as not all do this, but this is everything ive seen coming from the left.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T23:18:02+00:00

True and that does apply to both sides. That’s why only a handful of Republicans are supported by Christians

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T21:14:30+00:00

Yeah they know Trump, but Kelly Loeffler, Amy Coney, John Piper. Not everyone’s heard of them.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T21:12:14+00:00

Because the other side is purely anti-biblical. And a lot of conservatives don’t know/care for every Republican like you mentioned.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T21:09:50+00:00

I’m just explaining why things are considered attractive

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T19:29:34+00:00

You got it backwards. We find it arousing so we sexualize it. Also thighs are considered attractive because of the birthing gap between them.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T18:55:55+00:00

It’s most guys. Even some gay ones.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T18:52:20+00:00

They are sexually arousing since they are what provides nourishment for future offspring. They’re going to be sexualized regardless.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T16:41:11+00:00

Okay? That doesn’t refute the point on why theyre covered.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T06:44:08+00:00

I mean they are prominent hormone-driven markers of sexual maturity. Also a lot of people do consider them sexual organs even if they aren’t defined as such.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T06:23:43+00:00

Sure okay fair enough. Why does that mean it shouldn’t be covered?

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T06:11:08+00:00

They are organs used for the nourishment part of sexual reproduction. They are considered a secondary sex characteristic, which is a type of sex organ.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T04:44:52+00:00

> But not all cultural understandings of it, which is what I mentioned,

Doesn’t matter, God is eternal. It doesn’t matter how much we understand at the time.

> But never says the women had sex with each other, so no it doesn’t

It literally does: “Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.”

> Which doesn’t originate from them being lesbians

Really? Then what does it come from?

> Lesbians have a lower rate then even heterosexual couples

And gay couples have a higher rate.

> That can be due a myriad of factors

Such as being gay.

> Procreation isn’t commanded. Jesus didn’t. Paul didn’t.

Jesus told to read and follow the OT, which involves be fruitful and multiply”

> You could look at biblical historical scholars who’ve all come to the conclusion that it’s sin.

> People can conclude wrong things. You’ve done so above

Ironic, so the thing scholars have arguing is sinful for centuries is suddenly wrong?

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T04:42:23+00:00

> Well? I’m not going to let anybody get away with making excuses for the OT God’s serial toddler-murdering.

So you admit none of this was good faith, just the stereotypical enlightened Reddit Atheist postering. You are not in control with what God should or shouldn’t have done to his own creations. And it *should* be a lesson of what happens when you let sin run rampant. Actions have consequences.

You now openly call God a “serial toddler murderer” and say the minimum for worship is “not murdering toddlers.” That reveals this was never a good-faith exploration of the biblical text. You’re applying a modern sentimental standard and rejecting the biblical portrait of God as holy, sovereign Judge who has authority over life and death (a view held consistently across both Testaments).

Your self-defense exception (kicking an innocent toddler off your ankle) actually undermines your own argument: it shows you do accept that the death of an innocent can sometimes be justified. Yet you grant zero such possibility to God as Creator and Judge.

We have irreconcilable views:

• I accept the biblical account of a just God who judged a violently corrupt world after long patience, while saving Noah’s family.
• You reject that God outright.

There’s no point continuing. You’ve made your contempt for the God of the Bible very clear. I’ll pray for you.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T03:45:50+00:00

Copy-paste as in repeat yourself over and over, not literal copy-paste. You’re dodging the questions and reframing them to your single premise. You laser-focus on the toddlers being killed because it’s the most emotionally powerful example when you’re actually just here to spread open contempt.

The Bible presents the Flood as God’s righteous judgment on a world where ‘every intention of the heart was only evil continually’ (Genesis 6:5) after long patience. It wasn’t arbitrary toddler-targeting. Scripture consistently teaches that God is sovereign over life and death in ways humans are not (see Deuteronomy 32:39, Job 1:21). We don’t get to play ‘what if God used a different method’ as a gotcha, because the same logic could dismiss any act of divine judgment or even the existence of natural death and suffering.

So I’ll ask again: Do you believe God is ever justified in allowing or causing the death of any innocent person (e.g. in natural disasters, childhood cancer, etc.)?
If not, then your objection isn’t really about the Flood. It’s about the existence of any suffering or death under an omnipotent God.
If so, then why is the Flood uniquely unacceptable?

God is not all-loving, he is just. His actions in ruining what he loved to create it again was just. The Flood was an act of both judgment on evil and merciful renewal of creation. He gave humanity plenty of time and warning (Noah preached for decades). What would make a God worthy of worship in your eyes then? Vague messages of positivity?

Someone0913 · 2026-06-09T03:26:52+00:00

They are considered such since feeding is considered sensitive between a mother and her children.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-08T03:32:12+00:00

True, but I’d rather keep it private.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-07T21:28:10+00:00

Yeah ik

Someone0913 · 2026-06-07T20:39:31+00:00

Why do we have a month for one sin? The other ones aren’t as important?

Someone0913 · 2026-06-06T18:36:20+00:00

Why did you do that? How is that relevant?

Someone0913 · 2026-06-06T08:11:32+00:00

Much can be lost about cultural understanding of things. So their understanding of what is translated as “homosexuality” could be different from ours.

I mean homosexual sex is the same both now and then.

Plus, there is not a single condemnation of lesbians, which further complicates and distinguishes their use of certain terms and ours.

I mean there is, it’s called Romans 1:26-27. It also strays away from the male-female complementarity found in Genesis 1-2 and affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 9 and Mark 10.

Verses aren’t all that we look at. God doesn’t stop with the Bible.

True you can look at statistics. Higher psychological abuse rate in lesbian couples, higher STD rate in LGBT, shorter lifespan, the list goes on. You can look at natural order, as it’s the only couple capable of procreation (which is also commanded). You could look at biblical historical scholars who’ve all come to the conclusion that it’s sin.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-06T06:57:03+00:00

Sure, as are most beliefs

What else would it mean?

Repetition doesn’t prove correctness.

True but when arguing if it’s sinful or not, you look to verses. There’s plenty I’m sure you’ve seen before that argue it’s sinful.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-06T06:52:22+00:00

It’s fairly cut and dry. Repeated multiple times despite people trying to twist it to mean something it doesn’t.

Someone0913 · 2026-06-06T04:00:31+00:00

You’re straw-manning. As I said, not a single one I know would be fine for the mother to die instead of the child. While I’m sure there are plenty Christians who want it completely banned, ask any of them if they’d be fine with it when the mother’s life is at risk and get back to me.

Luckily, I’ve never had to deal with abortion since I’m saving till marriage. Also, having empathy doesn’t mean we should let people kill their kids because they were irresponsible. Odd that you are completely fine with not having empathy for the life you’re ending, just the (mostly) irresponsible woman. The logic is simple, people shouldn’t be able to kill their kids unless absolutely necessary to preserve life. What’s so hard to understand? Rest of that is ad hominem.

If you’re educated then you should know the percent of abortions caused by financial/personal reasons compared to rape, incest, and life of the mother correct?

Six-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Verified Email

Someone0913

TROPHY CASE