Hillary Makes Up a New Term: 'Easter Worshippers'

Well known influential politicians like Obama and Hillary should choose their words carefully. They know how important it is to convey the right message. The question is not what you or other Christian think of the term "Easter worshipper", but what do Obama and Hillary see as "the right message".

 

And Trump uses "Mosque" worshippers

 

Links please.

 

I think they did.

 

Old and common term.

April 6, 2010 at 11:01 am

ANAHEIM – Comparing life to baseball, Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren preached of hope and miracles during an Easter service at Angel Stadium Sunday.

...

Easter worshippers stood and applauded in song and praise as Warren took the pitcher’s mound to lead the nearly two-hour service. His sermon was accompanied by songs from Saddleback’s worship leader Rick Muchow and the 2010 Dove Award nominated New Artist of the Year, Kari Jobe.​

https://www.ocregister.com/2010/04/06/jonas-bros-rick-warren-give-hope-on-easter/

Shallowford invites friends, family, neighbors and all Easter worshippers to join us for a delectable Easter morning breakfast, 7:30 am to 10:30 am. Remember to bring a fresh flower to add to the cross outside as a symbol of the resurrection!
​

https://www.shallowford.org/event/easter-morning-breakfast/

 

Oh please. Guess who tweets are scrutinized the most? His name starts with a T. You can't even compare in any logical manner the hate spewed. The sheer volume from the Left is simply not comparable. I avoid twitter simply due to how vile the Left has become towards ANYONE who doesn't agree lockstep in their thinking.

I never heard anyone refer to people in a church as Easter Worshipers... NEVER in 45+ yrs. Church goers, Christians, Catholics, ect. Might as well call people in a Synagogue, Passover Worshipers. The entire civilized world knows they're Jews. Some random non-Jew who happens to be there is inconsequential.

The tone of the tweets regarding these two attacks are plain as day. Once is casting blame on en entire race and the other is trying to hide it. Its transparent and obvious and quite dangerous knowing these people held so much power, bending over for a particular religion or race.

 

Here is some background = https://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/female

 

I've never heard the term Easter Worshiper either.

And the predictable MSM/Democrat party response is sickening.

 

What's it got to do with karma?

 

What do you mean, "they are here?"

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/03/trumps-comments-new-zealand-attacks-disturbing/

Note: I don't think this criticism is any more valid than is yours regarding Hillary and Obama referring to "Easter worshippers"

 

It would be strange for people as intelligent as Obama and Clinton to not include Catholics as Christians, but perhaps they didn't want people to think that they weren't including Catholics, people who think they aren't Christians.

 

Christians are the enemies of Democrats, the party of hate and intolerance cannot abide by a faith that has a moral basis, it interferes with their ideology of theft and oppression of the masses...

 

Absolutely.

Leftism is essentially based out of Marxism.

Religion, Nationalism, decentralized power, and the nuclear family are direct competitors with leftism.

 

The Koran says Jesus will be the massiah who will return again to lead God's army against evil.

 

I'm guessing here that you have never been a scientist, never worked with scientists, never talked with a scientist, never hung out with a scientist. Probably know about little more about science than what you remember from your 9th grade mandatory science class.
Yet you are here pretending to be the expert on what scientists think.

It is kind of like when conservatives pretend they know what liberals think.

In any case you are not supporting your side of the argument. Agnostic people are not religious. I'm sure your agnostic analysis came from a Christian apologist. They are not known for their truthfulness.

A decade ago or so, Nature, one of the premiere science journals, published an article on religion and top scientists. It said that somewhere around 90 percent of the scientist had no religious beliefs. Mathematicians were more slightly more likely to be religious, physicists and biologists less so. Yet the religious media reported it as being the opposite, that 90% were religious.

Physics and biology have the characteristics, that they describe the world around us, what it is made of and how it works. All without the need for a god.

Being a scientist means being an empiricist, relying on evidence. There is no evidence for a god, or anything supernatural.

When you can produce a god, I'll take you serious. Until then, you are just talking about an imaginary character.

 

So it isn't an issue of conservatives not being completely liteattac It is about not getting to play the victim, of the savage Muslims. Oh the outrage.

The news says Muslim terrorists attacked Easter worshippers in churches and hotels. How is that offensive to you? Other than the fact that there was a terrorists attack.

 

What a bunch of incorrect assumptions, presumptuous comments, and worthless tripe.

I have likely been working with scientists (over 5 decades) for longer that you have been alive.

You are confusing religion with spirituality. They are two different thing. While an agnostic might not be religious, they can be spiritual (and often are, or else the would be atheists). Meaning that they can believe in a "higher power", but they have not reached a decision on which religion that worships their own "higher power" is correct.

You are also incorrect with your claim that Scientist only work with empirical information. Many scientific theories are derived based on information that is not derived from senses only. For instance, far away planets are discovered by means that do not involve actually seeing the planet itself. Good Scientists also do not discount possibilities just because they can not be proven.

Anybody that discounts the possibility of a god or a possible "intelligent design" is an unobservant fool and is certainly not a true scientist. All it takes is for one to look around. There are too many coincidences on this planet that can not be explained by some gas explosion putting all the pieces into place. I am not saying that there is a god that watches us, judges us, or discretely interacts with us. I am saying that it is very, very, unlikely that we happen to exist on a planet with all the resource we may need (though some in limited supply), with literally thousand of animal species, and another thousands of plant species....and where almost all of them serving some useful purpose....was a random act.

 

I keep forgetting that one of the core characteristics of Christianity is that it always has to play the victim. Oh poor us, the world is out to get us. I grew up with that. I used to think how funny it was. On one side they'd be saying 98% of the people are Christians, and then go on about how the outside world was trying to divert them from their faith. You may not notice the obvious contradiction, but there it is.

In any case, it was clear to me that Muslim terrorist had attacked a Christian church. This seems to be just another of those instances where conservatives go koo-koo.

 

Again, when you can produce evidence of a god, until then you are just blowing smoke.

 

I guess Hawkins didn't agree with you either.

 

Hiding in a hole wearing sunglasses probably isn't the most effective way to argue your case... Just sayin..

 

Attached is a piece from the Pew Center that shows that over 50% of scientist DO believe in a God or "Higher Power".

https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

However, the poll is based on the wrong question. The question should be "Is the fact of life on Earth an act of randomness". I would be very surprised if even 10% of scientists would say "YES".

DeGrasse and Hawking even supports my stance. As Hawking said, "The simplistic answer is....". However, the question of God or Intelligent Design is not simplistic.

I agree to some extent on what you are saying. Without proof of God, it is irrelevant on whether one exists and it should not be assumed that one does exist. However, lack of proof is not proof of nonexistence.....or better stated, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump...umps-comments-new-zealand-attacks-disturbing/

Try again...

Hint.. Rawstory is god awful

 

The more we know the less we know.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hidden-ocean-earth-core-underground-video_n_5491692