President Obama

[R. Smith]

is for Abortion & Gay rights... He is for change, but the wrong kind of change

[Jesuslove]

is for Abortion & Gay rights... He is for change, but the wrong kind of change

Canada's government is pro-abortion and pro-gay rights. So?

[R. Smith]

Canada is pro-gay and pro-abortion. But, I didn't vote for the people who are for these changes. I vote, Christian Heritage Party.

If believers choose to over look that President Obama is for gays and abortion, then you deserve him. Oh and by the way, Obama isn't for bringing your troops home...

[onesawthelight]

Not sure Obama knows what he is for at all times.
I didn't vote for him....But he is the Pres. like it or not
It would be great if God would get a hold of him...

[Jesuslove]

Not sure Obama knows what he is for at all times.
I didn't vote for him....But he is the Pres. like it or not

Amen.. Obama is President because it's God's will Why are there so many haters out there?

[onesawthelight]

Amen.. Obama is President because it's God's will Why are there so many haters out there?

Please don't misunderstand me....I'm none to fond of Obama. I dislike a lot of what he has done. He is however the Pres. And....I do not hate the guy. That is uncalled for if anyone does. He may very well be a part of God's plan....I don't know.

[VerbumReale]

Amen.. Obama is President because it's God's will Why are there so many haters out there?


Since when is disagreeing with the Presidential policies equivalent to hate?? If so, then you must have really hated Pres Bush.

I don't agree with him on abortion but I don't hate him. It upsets me that when he visited overseas he didn't take the time to visit the graves of American servicemen in many countries, but I don't hate him. And no I don't think he deserved the nobel prize, but I don't hate him. And yet, on another thread, you essentially accused me of hate-speech simply because I said that I don't think he deserved the nobel prize, while acknowledging it was definitely possible that he may earn it in the future.

[Pouye]

Please don't misunderstand me....I'm none to fond of Obama. I dislike a lot of what he has done. He is however the Pres. And....I do not hate the guy. That is uncalled for if anyone does. He may very well be a part of God's plan....I don't know.

It is okay to disagree with your leaders. Caesar fed Christians to the lions and demanded to be worshiped. But Paul said to do your best to obey the laws of the land and pray for him. A person need not agree with someone to love them. I loved my dad very much, but we didn't agree on everything.

As far as leaders being part of God's plan, I believe everything is part of God's plan in a mysterious way that we cannot comprehend. Judas Iscariot was part of God's plan (we know his acts were prophesied and fulfilled Scripture), but just because someone is part of God's plan doesn't mean God approves of their actions or even them personally. Obama is certainly a part of God's plan. Even Satan is a part of God's plan. Bush was a part of God's plan. The wicked kings of Israel were all a part of God's plan. The question is, what part will they end up playing? Will it be for good or evil? Hitler was a part of God's plan -- but it was for an evil part. What part will Obama play? Will it be for good or evil? How will his name go down in the modern book of kings?

Some kings had both good and evil parts in the Bible. Solomon is one example, and so was Saul. Samson (although not a king, but a judge) also played parts with a mixture of good and evil. Some kings started out serving God but later turned away from Him. Some kings in the Bible started out on the wrong track and actually turned around to give glory to God. So it isn't simply black and white, either.

Rock

[Evanescence]

No one here is for gay rights? You'd like to see bias and hatred toward others Americans? Violence?

I'm for gay rights...but not ghay marriage.

Abortion is not a black and white issue...

[Musicdude]

No one here is for gay rights? You'd like to see bias and hatred toward others Americans? Violence?

I'm for gay rights...but not ghay marriage.

Abortion is not a black and white issue...

What rights are homosexuals seeking other than marriage?

Abortion is a black and white issue. You don't murder babies, period.

You just had a new baby recently. In your opinion was it not a living creature with a personality (with a right to live) before it exited the womb?

[middletree]

Abortion is not a black and white issue...

Is is as black and white as any other form of killing is.

[Evanescence]

I disagree..and used to think of it like that until I educated myself.

There's a big difference between a mercy killing and murder.

Killing for convenience or a selfish reason, is murder or homicide.

Killing when someone/something is sure to die after suffering, is a mercy killing.

Yes, both are killing...

But a mother who terminates her pregancy at 20 weeks becuase her child is 100% confirmed to have Zelwegger's syndrome or Potter's syndrome, Anasephali (sp)...or several of the other terrible defects...that will KILL the baby in a matter of hours or days, is not...it is a mercy killing.

If the baby is trapped in the Phelopian tube....BOTH will die....unless the baby is removed.

It is not a black and white issue. Nor is it a religious issue...as our laws should not be based on religion.

I do not support abortions on convenience...but in these rare instances-- sure death for the baby...ONLY when carefully checked with clear, non-biased, medical opinions from experts.

Abortions for convenience -- 97%, should be punishable by life in prison. That would slow/stop that....

Mercy killing is different....

[Evanescence]

Gays dont want discrimination, intimidation and violence against them....

With liberty and justice for some?

[middletree]

I disagree. If God allows a child to be born with a physical problem, who are we to decide they shouldn't live based on our view of quality of life?

Besides, less than 2 percent of abortions are performed in such circumstances. You are buying into the strawman arguments that the abortion industry (and yes it is an industry) use in order to keep their business a legal one.

[Howlin' Wolf]

I am not a citizen of this world.

[middletree]

I am not a citizen of this world.

Well, you're in Florida, so we understand. ;)

On Planet Texas, we do make laws about killing people who have been born, so I suspect there's no conflict with the idea that we can consider laws against the unborn, yes?

[Howlin' Wolf]

Well, you're in Florida, so we understand. ;)

On Planet Texas, we do make laws about killing people who have been born, so I suspect there's no conflict with the idea that we can consider laws against the unborn, yes?


jesus nor the apostles were advocates for social change.

[Musicdude]

Gays dont want discrimination, intimidation and violence against them....

With liberty and justice for some?

Well laws won't keep that from happening.

[Evanescence]

Well laws won't keep that from happening.

So, we should just ignore it? How about the blacks and Jews too?

[Evanescence]

I disagree. If God allows a child to be born with a physical problem, who are we to decide they shouldn't live based on our view of quality of life?

Besides, less than 2 percent of abortions are performed in such circumstances. You are buying into the strawman arguments that the abortion industry (and yes it is an industry) use in order to keep their business a legal one.

If you read my post again...you'll see my stance...that these rare cases-- less than 2% are of this issue....severe deformitites and illness.

How is this different from turning off a ventilator for an older person who is virtually dead?

I do not think i would terminate my/our pregancy in one of these instances...and in MANY cases...a woman's life is in danger. So what then?

[Evanescence]

I disagree. If God allows a child to be born with a physical problem, who are we to decide they shouldn't live based on our view of quality of life?

Besides, less than 2 percent of abortions are performed in such circumstances. You are buying into the strawman arguments that the abortion industry (and yes it is an industry) use in order to keep their business a legal one.

Here's what i said:

I do not support abortions on convenience...but in these rare instances-- sure death for the baby...ONLY when carefully checked with clear, non-biased, medical opinions from experts.

Abortions for convenience -- 97%, should be punishable by life in prison. That would slow/stop that....

Most of these rare, but devastating illnesses can be easily diagnosed during the pregnancy...at as early as 3 months. These are VERY serious syndroms-- genetic in origin. The baby either dies in the mother or is born and SUFFERS immensly for days or if its unlucky....weeks.

Exteme cases can kill both mom and baby...

Examples:

Lesch-nyhan syn
Dandy-walker syn
Potters syn
Zelwigger syn
Epidermolysis bullosa syn
Tay-sachs disease

There are literally dozens of these extreme illnesses a baby can be born with. If I had the last two...i would DEMAND you kill em....look up that one and see if you'd want to keep a person alive like that.

By the way...Downs or retardation isnt an excuse for abortion...

[cheewiee]

No one here is for gay rights? You'd like to see bias and hatred toward others Americans? Violence?

I'm for gay rights...but not ghay marriage.

Abortion is not a black and white issue...

Define for me please gay rights?

[Evanescence]

It depends on whose definition we go by....

But the basics are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

[cheewiee]

It depends on whose definition we go by....

But the basics are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

So why do the laws that give me the rights to live liberty and the pursuit of happiness not sufficient for them?

[Evanescence]

Becasue the state laws often trump constitutional ones...

Ex:

Two men are partners....both are estrnged from their family. One gets sick...is in the hospital. The family comes...and forces the partner out of the room...and doesnt allow him the right to visit or be with his partner....

then, the guy dies..and his will secifically states all his money and belonings go to his partner...but the family hires a high dollar lawyer who has the will overturned..and the partner gets nothing.

This scenario happens a lot....

It should not be....for ANYONE....black/hite, gay/straight

[cheewiee]

Becasue the state laws often trump constitutional ones...

Ex:

Two men are partners....both are estrnged from their family. One gets sick...is in the hospital. The family comes...and forces the partner out of the room...and doesnt allow him the right to visit or be with his partner....

then, the guy dies..and his will secifically states all his money and belonings go to his partner...but the family hires a high dollar lawyer who has the will overturned..and the partner gets nothing.

This scenario happens a lot....

It should not be....for ANYONE....black/hite, gay/straight

If a Guy's will is being overturned, then there has to be some serious reasons why. Courts don't willy nilly throw out Final Will's and Testaments because of Gay Bias....

[middletree]

Here's what i said:
.


I read what you said, but my comment was that the examples you brought up are so rare, but used deceptively by the abortion lobbyists to rationalize abortions for the 98% of abortions which don't fall into those categories.

[Evanescence]

If a Guy's will is being overturned, then there has to be some serious reasons why. Courts don't willy nilly throw out Final Will's and Testaments because of Gay Bias....


A good lawyer can get ANYTHING overturned...

I think some of the time there was no will...or it wasnt "official"...and the partner gets nothing. Also, many times, they are barred from the funeral and service...

All of this is from irrational hatred and bias....

Look at how many people disown their kids becuase they are gay....

But the dad doesnt mind watch lesbo porn when mom isnt around...

Absurd....

[cheewiee]

A good lawyer can get ANYTHING overturned...

I think some of the time there was no will...or it wasnt "official"...and the partner gets nothing. Also, many times, they are barred from the funeral and service...

All of this is from irrational hatred and bias....

Look at how many people disown their kids becuase they are gay....

But the dad doesnt mind watch lesbo porn when mom isnt around...

Absurd....

Oh yea, also there is a legal procedure in which you can make personal property jointly owned, and that supercedes a will, similar to martial rights. I don't remember what its called off hand, but there are ways to ensure that survivors of gay partners get "their share" of the community property...

Also, what does dad watching lesbo porn have to do with the cost in tea of China, we are talking about Gay rights are we not? Please stop clouding the waters... What rights do I have, that a gay man does not?

[Evanescence]

Because thats how it works....

I have seen good sunday Christians advocate killing gays by dragging them beind cars or public execution....

Rights:

Health Insurance benefits
Right to visit in hospital, where only immediate family is allowed
Child custody- adoption
Wills
Making decisions on what do do with the sick person in the hospital- DNR etc etc
Prejudice in general

[cheewiee]

Because thats how it works....

I have seen good sunday Christians advocate killing gays by dragging them beind cars or public execution....

Rights:

Health Insurance benefits

Not a right... It is up to the Employer to determine who is an eligible dependent and who is not. Many already allow for Same Sex Domestic Partners to be covered. In this case, homosexuals enjoy something that many straight people do not. Many companies offer benefits to same sex domestic partners, but do not hetero domestic partners.


Right to visit in hospital, where only immediate family is allowed
This is a smokescreen argument raised by gay rights activists... It is the Hosptial who sets policy (and more often the Patient and Doctor can override the Hospital's policy)

Child custody- adoptionSo if a Gay person wished that their child go to their same sex domestic partner to raise, that is a conversation they need to have prior to death with the other biological parent of the child, their own parents, and possibly the parents of the other biological parent.

Again, this is simply a smokescreen, because these are the same issues unwed parents (and sometimes wed parents) face when losing a loved one.

Wills
Making decisions on what do do with the sick person in the hospital- DNR etc etc

Again a smokescreen... See Teri Schaivo with regards to a spouses rights over DNR and so forth...

Its all about preperation. Many people do not consider the consequenses for what happens to them if they are not able to make certain discisions. It is the same issue for Straight people as well. many times, Children are sent places where the Biological Parent' wouldn't have necessary wanted, and they coul dhave prevented it had they taken the legal steps necessary prior to death to ensure their wishes were made known.

Prejudice in general
We all face prejudice... man up and get over it!

[Evanescence]

Dude, I am not saying they deserve SPECIAL treatment....but in some cases it isnt fair.

...yet, I do not support gay marriage....

[cheewiee]

Dude, I am not saying they deserve SPECIAL treatment....but in some cases it isnt fair.

...yet, I do not support gay marriage....

You are... anytime you say, you should pass a bill to ensure a "groups" rights your giving them special rights...

A right should be able to be applied to everyone, or it shoulnd't be considered a right...

[onesawthelight]

It is okay to disagree with your leaders. Caesar fed Christians to the lions and demanded to be worshiped. But Paul said to do your best to obey the laws of the land and pray for him. A person need not agree with someone to love them. I loved my dad very much, but we didn't agree on everything.

As far as leaders being part of God's plan, I believe everything is part of God's plan in a mysterious way that we cannot comprehend. Judas Iscariot was part of God's plan (we know his acts were prophesied and fulfilled Scripture), but just because someone is part of God's plan doesn't mean God approves of their actions or even them personally. Obama is certainly a part of God's plan. Even Satan is a part of God's plan. Bush was a part of God's plan. The wicked kings of Israel were all a part of God's plan. The question is, what part will they end up playing? Will it be for good or evil? Hitler was a part of God's plan -- but it was for an evil part. What part will Obama play? Will it be for good or evil? How will his name go down in the modern book of kings?

Some kings had both good and evil parts in the Bible. Solomon is one example, and so was Saul. Samson (although not a king, but a judge) also played parts with a mixture of good and evil. Some kings started out serving God but later turned away from Him. Some kings in the Bible started out on the wrong track and actually turned around to give glory to God. So it isn't simply black and white, either.

Rock

True...

[onesawthelight]

jesus nor the apostles were advocates for social change.

Really?

So Jesus would be ok with abortion? Abortion has nothing to do with *social change*

[ausgirl]

Please don't misunderstand me....I'm none to fond of Obama. I dislike a lot of what he has done. He is however the Pres. And....I do not hate the guy. That is uncalled for if anyone does. He may very well be a part of God's plan....I don't know.

The bible instructs us to pray for our leaders - there is no sub-clause that says only if they are the ones we wanted in place. So if we are hating out leaders, we are not following Gods instruction that's for sure.

[Jesuslove]

Not a right... It is up to the Employer to determine who is an eligible dependent and who is not. Many already allow for Same Sex Domestic Partners to be covered. In this case, homosexuals enjoy something that many straight people do not. Many companies offer benefits to same sex domestic partners, but do not hetero domestic partners.
My employer offers domestic partner benefits to both homosexuals and heterosexuals; equal rights. Although those who get medical benefits, have the portion my employer provides taxed. So domestic partnerships do not equal marriage.



This is a smokescreen argument raised by gay rights activists... It is the Hosptial who sets policy (and more often the Patient and Doctor can override the Hospital's policy)
This should be a non-issue, but it's important because a family can force a hospital to block out a partner, even if their legal documents spell out the partner has the right to make that decision.

So if a Gay person wished that their child go to their same sex domestic partner to raise, that is a conversation they need to have prior to death with the other biological parent of the child, their own parents, and possibly the parents of the other biological parent.
Again, not that simple. Some states will not recognize birth certificates with same sex partners names on them. OK is one I'm aware of. The child then becomes a ward of the state.

Again, this is simply a smokescreen, because these are the same issues unwed parents (and sometimes wed parents) face when losing a loved one.
Often people guess, or don't fully appreciate the significance of ciivil rights. Yet many who vote on these rights have never met a gay family let alone sat and really gotten to know one. Knowing a few families that go to my church, I have a different perspective on the issue. Even some Christian denominations are changing their attitudes toward gays. I think this whole debate will be a non-issue in America in 20 years.


We all face prejudice... man up and get over it!
Why not "man up" and treat everyone like we would want ourselves treated.

[Jesuslove]

You are... anytime you say, you should pass a bill to ensure a "groups" rights your giving them special rights...

A right should be able to be applied to everyone, or it shoulnd't be considered a right...

So you would consider in Iran, for example, permission for women to get an education, a "special right"?

[Musicdude]

So, we should just ignore it? How about the blacks and Jews too?

I don't ignore it. I do what I can. And I can honestly say that me and my family are not racists. Now if everyone else would do that the problem would be solved.

[Musicdude]

Really?

So Jesus would be ok with abortion? Abortion has nothing to do with *social change*

I think what he was saying, is as long as your government isn't mandating that you do something you know is sinful, you should submit to them.

When abortions are mandatory then you can rebel against government.

Until then, your vote is about the most you can do to prevent stuff like this.


Like when Nebuchanezzar (probably didn't spell that correctly) demanded that the nation bow before him and worship him as a god. Daniel's friends (can't spell their names either) knew that what the king was asking directly broke one of God's commandments. And so they had to choose at that moment, do they obey the king, or God? They chose God. And God had their back in that situation.
But when there is a legality that you don't agree with like gay marriage or whatever. It's not your

[Musicdude]

My employer offers domestic partner benefits to both homosexuals and heterosexuals; equal rights. Although those who get medical benefits, have the portion my employer provides taxed. So domestic partnerships do not equal marriage.
Nor should they. A domestic partnership is not a marriage.

This should be a non-issue, but it's important because a family can force a hospital to block out a partner, even if their legal documents spell out the partner has the right to make that decision.
I would think in any case, the patient has the final say as to who can visit and who can't. The family's wishes don't overrule the patient's, ever that I've seen. Unless the patient is unconscious and hasn't made prior arrangements. And if so, that is unfortunate, but it's the patient's fault for not doing so.

Again, not that simple. Some states will not recognize birth certificates with same sex partners names on them. OK is one I'm aware of. The child then becomes a ward of the state.
His point was an unwed hetero coulple would have the same problems to deal with.

Often people guess, or don't fully appreciate the significance of ciivil rights. Yet many who vote on these rights have never met a gay family let alone sat and really gotten to know one. Knowing a few families that go to my church, I have a different perspective on the issue. Even some Christian denominations are changing their attitudes toward gays. I think this whole debate will be a non-issue in America in 20 years.
It has nothing to do with getting to know a gay family, or changing our attitude about them. They are people and people are people. I have no bad attitude toward gay people just because they are gay. I do have a bad attitude about an action that I believe the bible makes very clear is sinful.

It would be no different than you telling me, if I just took time to get to know the car-theif I would understand that he's really a cool guy, and very likeable. That isn't the point. He's breaking the law, and there are consequences for that. I have known more than a few gay men and women in my life. I am even related to one. And they were all very nice people, and friends of mine. You can be a very nice person and still be a sinner.

Why not "man up" and treat everyone like we would want ourselves treated.

I say (and I think Cheewiee would say the same) that I do.
I've never discriminated or treated a person differently just because I knew they were gay.

[cheewiee]

My employer offers domestic partner benefits to both homosexuals and heterosexuals; equal rights. Although those who get medical benefits, have the portion my employer provides taxed. So domestic partnerships do not equal marriage.

Here you go, instead of giving tax benefits for Employers to cover Domestic partners, lets just get rid of the tax benefits for covered dependents?

This should be a non-issue, but it's important because a family can force a hospital to block out a partner, even if their legal documents spell out the partner has the right to make that decision.
No they can't not if the Hospitalized partner makes their wishes clear to the hospital...

Again, not that simple. Some states will not recognize birth certificates with same sex partners names on them. OK is one I'm aware of. The child then becomes a ward of the state. It isn't a matter of a birth certificate... Its a matter of making the proper legal arrangements prior to such event...


Often people guess, or don't fully appreciate the significance of ciivil rights. Yet many who vote on these rights have never met a gay family let alone sat and really gotten to know one. Knowing a few families that go to my church, I have a different perspective on the issue. Even some Christian denominations are changing their attitudes toward gays. I think this whole debate will be a non-issue in America in 20 years.
I disagree...



Why not "man up" and treat everyone like we would want ourselves treated.

I do.. your the one who want some to be treated better than you are treated...

[cheewiee]

So you would consider in Iran, for example, permission for women to get an education, a "special right"?

The right should be for everyone to get an education... not for "women" to get an education.

Otherwise you build a protected class... But that is always the liberal answer, instead of enforcing equal rights for everyone, we pass legislation to "protect" certain minorities and individuals... Affirmative action, hate crimes legislation...

[Jesuslove]

I would think in any case, the patient has the final say as to who can visit and who can't. The family's wishes don't overrule the patient's, ever that I've seen. Unless the patient is unconscious and hasn't made prior arrangements. And if so, that is unfortunate, but it's the patient's fault for not doing so.
I am aware of cases where hospitals will not even let the partner in the room because legally, the partner is not considered a relative.

It would be no different than you telling me, if I just took time to get to know the car-theif I would understand that he's really a cool guy, and very likeable. That isn't the point. He's breaking the law, and there are consequences for that. I have known more than a few gay men and women in my life. I am even related to one. And they were all very nice people, and friends of mine. You can be a very nice person and still be a sinner.
A car thief is a criminal. A gay person, by the fact they are gay, are not criminal. Do you, as a sinner, think you can better raise children than all other sinners? Not all Christian denominations hold the same beliefs toward homosexuals


I say (and I think Cheewiee would say the same) that I do.
I've never discriminated or treated a person differently just because I knew they were gay.
I agree. But thinking one group of people should have different rights than another group isn't treating someone equally. I think all people (non-incarcerated prisoners and certain former prisoners) deserve the same rights period.

[Jesuslove]

No they can't not if the Hospitalized partner makes their wishes clear to the hospital...
I am aware of cases where families have forced out partners. Partners are not considered relatives in the majority of US states.

I do.. your the one who want some to be treated better than you are treated...

I want all to be treated the same.

[Jesuslove]

The right should be for everyone to get an education... not for "women" to get an education.

Otherwise you build a protected class... But that is always the liberal answer, instead of enforcing equal rights for everyone, we pass legislation to "protect" certain minorities and individuals... Affirmative action, hate crimes legislation...

That's exactly my point. Denying someone a right, whether it makes sense or not (such as educating women), is simply wrong. What is wrong with gay people wanting to protect their families? What's wrong with gay people wanting to pass property to partners at the time of death, without penalties because they are not married?

[Howlin' Wolf]

Really?

So Jesus would be ok with abortion? Abortion has nothing to do with *social change*

In Jesus and Paul's time, there were no abortions. Instead, unwanted babies were left in the wilderness for the wolves to eat.

As far as abortion in America, it most certainly has to do with social change, because you are trying to overturn a law. Jesus would have spent time at the abortion clinics teaching these women instead of doing whatever the church is doing to overturn the law.

Jesus nor any of the disciples were never concerned about the law of the land, no matter how vile, nor their "rights" as citizens.

[cheewiee]

That's exactly my point. Denying someone a right, whether it makes sense or not (such as educating women), is simply wrong. What is wrong with gay people wanting to protect their families? What's wrong with gay people wanting to pass property to partners at the time of death, without penalties because they are not married?

Again, what rights are being denied to gay people?

You say Families can bar Gay Loved ones from the hospital, but we see that happen in straight relationships as well as blood relationships.

Look at Terri Schaivo. In the Terri Schaivo. Michael, Terri's husband, had Terri's Parents barred from coming to her Long term facility...

[cheewiee]

In Jesus and Paul's time, there were no abortions. Instead, unwanted babies were left in the wilderness for the wolves to eat.

As far as abortion in America, it most certainly has to do with social change, because you are trying to overturn a law. Jesus would have spent time at the abortion clinics teaching these women instead of doing whatever the church is doing to overturn the law.

Jesus nor any of the disciples were never concerned about the law of the land, no matter how vile, nor their "rights" as citizens.

it isn't about overturning a law... its about overturning a rulling, OR passing a law, that you think addresses the issues contained in the Rulling...

For example, instead of making it illegal to have an abortion, which was rulled unconstitutional in Roe. V. Wade, make it illegal to perform an abortion... Which is what states like South Dakota and others are working to enact.

[Jesuslove]

I think we need to fight to protect marriage. After all, it's a right (for some).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LnIDwx9M_s

[cheewiee]

I think we need to fight to protect marriage. After all, it's a right (for some).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LnIDwx9M_s

Can you show me, somewhere in the constitution where a person is granted the right to marriage?

IT ISN'T A RIGHT....

No where is the right to marriage codefied...

[Jesuslove]

Can you show me, somewhere in the constitution where a person is granted the right to marriage?

IT ISN'T A RIGHT....

No where is the right to marriage codefied...


Then why keep it. Why not get rid of it all together. Make marriage a religious ceremony that conveys no civil rights. Wouldn't you agree?

[cheewiee]

Then why keep it. Why not get rid of it all together. Make marriage a religious ceremony that conveys no civil rights. Wouldn't you agree?

Yup I would! Get the state out of Marriage all together...

[onesawthelight]

The bible instructs us to pray for our leaders - there is no sub-clause that says only if they are the ones we wanted in place. So if we are hating out leaders, we are not following Gods instruction that's for sure.


True...

[onesawthelight]

In Jesus and Paul's time, there were no abortions. Instead, unwanted babies were left in the wilderness for the wolves to eat.

As far as abortion in America, it most certainly has to do with social change, because you are trying to overturn a law. Jesus would have spent time at the abortion clinics teaching these women instead of doing whatever the church is doing to overturn the law.

Jesus nor any of the disciples were never concerned about the law of the land, no matter how vile, nor their "rights" as citizens.


Wolves...nice.

Ok....maybe you are right about the social thing. I would agree with cheewiee's post on this though.

If Jesus nor any desciple cared about the law of the land...explain this
Romans 13:1-2

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.


Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

[Musicdude]

I am aware of cases where hospitals will not even let the partner in the room because legally, the partner is not considered a relative.
I'll take your word for it, because you've probably looked into it more than I have. But with what little hospital experience I've been involved in, it has always been the patient's decision.

A car thief is a criminal. A gay person, by the fact they are gay, are not criminal.
They are both law-breakers in God's eyes.

Do you, as a sinner, think you can better raise children than all other sinners? Not all Christian denominations hold the same beliefs toward homosexuals
I think God gave men and women the ability to reproduce (and the command) for a reason. He wants children to have a mother and a father. So to say that God's way is the best way, is what I'm saying. So as a general rule I think heterosexual parents can do a better job than homosexual, assuming that we are comparing apples to apples, and both sets of parents are happy and well-adjusted people. It wouldn't be fair for example to compare a very happy homosexual couple to a heterosexual couple on the virge of divorce.

I agree. But thinking one group of people should have different rights than another group isn't treating someone equally. I think all people (non-incarcerated prisoners and certain former prisoners) deserve the same rights period.
Ok.

[Musicdude]

Wolves...nice.

Ok....maybe you are right about the social thing. I would agree with cheewiee's post on this though.

If Jesus nor any desciple cared about the law of the land...explain this
Romans 13:1-2

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.


Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

He didn't mean that Jesus didn't submit to the law of the land. He meant, He didn't care about changing it to fit with God's laws.

[Jesuslove]

They are both law-breakers in God's eyes.
So are many who divorce law breakers in God's eyes, yet we don't seem to have any interest in legislating (banning) divorce.


I think God gave men and women the ability to reproduce (and the command) for a reason. He wants children to have a mother and a father. So to say that God's way is the best way, is what I'm saying. So as a general rule I think heterosexual parents can do a better job than homosexual, assuming that we are comparing apples to apples, and both sets of parents are happy and well-adjusted people. It wouldn't be fair for example to compare a very happy homosexual couple to a heterosexual couple on the virge of divorce.
There is no exact comparison. Each year, thousands of children are removed from heterosexual (often two parent) households. Why is that if a mother and a father is God's way (or as you say, the best way). Humans are imperfect. There are good people, good parents, and bad people and bad parents. There are no absolutes. In some cases there are even advantages to single parenthood. Often times, couples get in nasty fights in front of kids, which breeds household dysfunction. When there is only one parent, there is no one to fight with.

[cheewiee]

So are many who divorce law breakers in God's eyes, yet we don't seem to have any interest in legislating (banning) divorce.


Divorce used to be banned actually, with the exception for Adultry, abuse or abandonment. And you had to prove one of those had happened, then liberals roled out the no fault divorce....

[HumanityisSaved]

Do the laws in America allow to consenting adults marry? Not necessarily- you have to be a male-female pair that are not directly related. So why would "equal protection under the law" not apply to two consenting adults that happen to be of the same gender?

[Jesuslove]

Divorce used to be banned actually, with the exception for Adultry, abuse or abandonment. And you had to prove one of those had happened, then liberals roled out the no fault divorce....

Well Republicans have had control of Congress and the Presidency, but did nothing over the GWB years to overturn it.

[Jesuslove]

Do the laws in America allow to consenting adults marry? Not necessarily- you have to be a male-female pair that are not directly related. So why would "equal protection under the law" not apply to two consenting adults that happen to be of the same gender?

It doesn't. I think it all comes down to the definition of "family". As I said yesterday, maybe marriage would be better left to churches. And civil unions be granted by the state for anyone who wants a recognized relationship.

I personally have no problem with a brother and sister being domestic partners. Under my employer's definitions of domestic partnership, a brother and sister would qualify for medical coverage. And I don't have a problem with that.

[cheewiee]

Do the laws in America allow to consenting adults marry? Not necessarily- you have to be a male-female pair that are not directly related. So why would "equal protection under the law" not apply to two consenting adults that happen to be of the same gender?

Marriage is, and has traditionally ALWAYS been a state issue.

With regards to consenting adults, each state has their own laws saying what a consenting adult is. In some states you can be as young as 14 with parental conscent and get married, in some states you can get married as young as 16 with out parental consent, and in some states you have to be atleast 18, with or without parental conscent...

Equal Protection of the law was intended to ensure that everyone had the same rights as provided by the Constitution.

[cheewiee]

Well Republicans have had control of Congress and the Presidency, but did nothing over the GWB years to overturn it.

Because issues of marriage and divorce are a State matter, not a national matter.

[Jesuslove]

Because issues of marriage and divorce are a State matter, not a national matter.

I am not aware of any states with any pending divorce legislation.

[cheewiee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_Marriage

There is Covenant Marriage Legislation that has been passed and being lobbied to pass in a number of states.

[Musicdude]

So are many who divorce law breakers in God's eyes, yet we don't seem to have any interest in legislating (banning) divorce.
Our laws (in America) are not established to enforce the bible on everyone. You know that.

There is no exact comparison. Each year, thousands of children are removed from heterosexual (often two parent) households. Why is that if a mother and a father is God's way (or as you say, the best way). Humans are imperfect. There are good people, good parents, and bad people and bad parents. There are no absolutes. In some cases there are even advantages to single parenthood. Often times, couples get in nasty fights in front of kids, which breeds household dysfunction. When there is only one parent, there is no one to fight with.

If the number of houses with children with homosexual parents were the same as the number of houses with children with heterosexual parents, then we could see which ones needed to have their children taken away more often. But since the heterosexual parents outnumbers the homosexual parents about 1000 to 1, of course more children will be taken from hetero parents. But that doesn't prove that heterosexuals make worse parents than homosexuals as you are implying.

This is a Christian forum, so don't be surprised if people look at issues from a Christian perspective. I don't care personally what the law says about homosexual couples adopting. I base whether it is right or wrong on God's word, not American (or any other nation's) laws.

If the laws of a country line up with the bible, it is a good sign that the majority of the nation are Christians and following God. If the laws contradict God's word, then it's a good sign that there is a decline in Christians in that nation, and that they are not following God. But what is right is always right, and what's wrong is always wrong, whether anyone adhere's to God's law or not.


You said in this post. "There are no absolutes."
God is absolute, and His laws are absolute. If you do not believe at least this basic biblical doctrine, then we will probably agree on nothing that we discuss with regard to what's right and wrong.

[Musicdude]

Do the laws in America allow to consenting adults marry? Not necessarily- you have to be a male-female pair that are not directly related. So why would "equal protection under the law" not apply to two consenting adults that happen to be of the same gender?

That is discriminating against people who want to marry their immediate family. I am outraged!!!!! :rolleyes:

[Jesuslove]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_Marriage

There is Covenant Marriage Legislation that has been passed and being lobbied to pass in a number of states.

And what are the consequences of someone who has a convenant marriage requesting a divorce?

[cheewiee]

And what are the consequences of someone who has a convenant marriage requesting a divorce?

They can't have a divorce, unless they can prove, abandonment, Abuse, adultry, or spouse is a felon.

[Jesuslove]

Our laws (in America) are not established to enforce the bible on everyone. You know that.
Exactly, just some.. often the minority.



If the number of houses with children with homosexual parents were the same as the number of houses with children with heterosexual parents, then we could see which ones needed to have their children taken away more often. But since the heterosexual parents outnumbers the homosexual parents about 1000 to 1, of course more children will be taken from hetero parents. But that doesn't prove that heterosexuals make worse parents than homosexuals as you are implying.
Not implying anything.. Just giving you facts. I have a friend who works for social services in NJ and another in PA. Children are removed in America every day from abusive heterosexual families. If this is our best option for raising children, why is the state taking children away from the ideal?

This is a Christian forum, so don't be surprised if people look at issues from a Christian perspective. I don't care personally what the law says about homosexual couples adopting. I base whether it is right or wrong on God's word, not American (or any other nation's) laws.
If you look at it from God's word, let's start taking kids away from divorced couples. After all those couples are living in sin. Right? Makes sense? Let's become the social police and grow the social welfare state.

If the laws of a country line up with the bible, it is a good sign that the majority of the nation are Christians and following God. If the laws contradict God's word, then it's a good sign that there is a decline in Christians in that nation, and that they are not following God. But what is right is always right, and what's wrong is always wrong, whether anyone adhere's to God's law or not.

We are not a Christian nation. We do live in a theocracy, and I don't want to live in one. Homosexuality is not illegal.

You said in this post. "There are no absolutes."
God is absolute, and His laws are absolute. If you do not believe at least this basic biblical doctrine, then we will probably agree on nothing that we discuss with regard to what's right and wrong.

If God's laws are absolute, then why are there over 1,000 variations of Christianity. Many denominations view different things as sinful behavior. For example, some faiths believe dancing is sinful. Most others do not. Much is open to interpretation. There are a lot of things in the Bible that are not absolute.

[Jesuslove]

They can't have a divorce, unless they can prove, abandonment, Abuse, adultry, or spouse is a felon.

Yes, but Jesus only said a divorce was acceptable in case of adultery, right? Divorce of a covenant marriage would still be inconsistent with Biblical principles.

[cheewiee]

Your right Jesuslove, Jesus said that if your husband beat you you best submit better....

[HumanityisSaved]

Because issues of marriage and divorce are a State matter, not a national matter.

Agreed thanks for pointing that out. I must have been dozing off... I am a 10th ammendment guy so again thanks.

[cheewiee]

Agreed thanks for pointing that out. I must have been dozing off... I am a 10th ammendment guy so again thanks.

Things would be so much easier if our nation took the 10th Amendment seriously!

[Jesuslove]

They can't have a divorce, unless they can prove, abandonment, Abuse, adultry, or spouse is a felon.

You keep saying marriage is a state issue and not a federal issue, yet there are many federal rights (that supercede states' rights) that come along with marriage.

[Musicdude]

Exactly, just some.. often the minority.
Not anyone. America isn't a Christian nation. Obama said so himself.

Not implying anything.. Just giving you facts. I have a friend who works for social services in NJ and another in PA. Children are removed in America every day from abusive heterosexual families. If this is our best option for raising children, why is the state taking children away from the ideal?
Facts can sometimes be decieving when taken out of context.

If you look at it from God's word, let's start taking kids away from divorced couples. After all those couples are living in sin. Right? Makes sense? Let's become the social police and grow the social welfare state.
There is nothing in the bible that says sinners should have their children taken away. You are just being arbitrary now. The fact that heterosexuals still have the ability to procreate would imply that God is ok with them having children in spite of the fact that they sin. But with homosexuals, He didn't give them this ability. I wonder why?

We are not a Christian nation. We do live in a theocracy, and I don't want to live in one. Homosexuality is not illegal.
Those two statements completely contradict each other. We cannot be a theocracy and not a Christian nation. We are both or neither.
Did it ever occur to you that aside from the bible there may be people who have a problem with homosexuality just because it is unnatural? You don't have to be a Christian to see that. The people who make the laws in this nation are not predominately Christian.

If God's laws are absolute, then why are there over 1,000 variations of Christianity.
Because people muck it all up. They read into it whatever they want, which is idolatry if you think about it. Making God in your own image. It doesn't matter what you want God to be. He is what He is. You can take it or leave it. It doesn't matter what you want the bible to say. It says what it says. Take it or leave it.

Many denominations view different things as sinful behavior. For example, some faiths believe dancing is sinful. Most others do not. Much is open to interpretation. There are a lot of things in the Bible that are not absolute.
No, there are a lot of people who read the bible as if it were not absolute, so they make rules that go alone with their way of thinking, not God's. Take dancing for example. I just watched Footloose for the first time the other day, so this is fresh on my mind. A whole community had banned dancing of any kind, and had done so because the church in town had deemed it sinful.

But much to Kevin Bacon's surprise, when he read the bible for himself, it actually had nothing but good things to say about dancing, and never once did it condemn it.

What people say often differs from what God says. Even people of influence in the religious community get it wrong many times. If you will let the bible be your standard and not people, you will see that God is absolute even if people aren't.

I know it's just a movie, but that stuff really happens.

[Musicdude]

Yes, but Jesus only said a divorce was acceptable in case of adultery, right? Divorce of a covenant marriage would still be inconsistent with Biblical principles.

Jesus also said that looking at a member of the opposite sex with lust is the same as adultery. So I would think just about any couple would have grounds for divorce if they chose to.

He also advocated forgiveness. Even when divorce is permitted by God, it's not mandated.

[cheewiee]

You keep saying marriage is a state issue and not a federal issue, yet there are many federal rights (that supercede states' rights) that come along with marriage.

So that is a perfect example of Federal Encroachment on States rights in violation of the 10th Amendment, and its the liberal whackjob justices that have continued to support this blaten assault on the 10th amendment. Yet you seem content with that!

[HumanityisSaved]

Things would be so much easier if our nation took the 10th Amendment seriously!

AMEN! I mean the senate finance committe jsut approved a bill that is not yet written that tramples on the 10th ammendment.

[Jesuslove]

Facts can sometimes be decieving when taken out of context.
The facts are the facts. Nothing is being taken out of context.

There is nothing in the bible that says sinners should have their children taken away. You are just being arbitrary now. The fact that heterosexuals still have the ability to procreate would imply that God is ok with them having children in spite of the fact that they sin. But with homosexuals, He didn't give them this ability. I wonder why?
That's a very naive view. Just because someone is able to procreate, doesn't mean they can parent. Children taken away from parents are largely heterosexual.

You are right, homosexuals are unable to procreate, but many still have children. Yet many husbands and wives can't have kids. Is that's God's punishment on those heterosexual couples? No. Handicapped indivicuals can have sex and make babies. Would it be a good idea for those who can't take care of kids to have babies? No. Being able to have kids and being able to parent kids are two different things.


Those two statements completely contradict each other. We cannot be a theocracy and not a Christian nation. We are both or neither.
Did it ever occur to you that aside from the bible there may be people who have a problem with homosexuality just because it is unnatural? You don't have to be a Christian to see that. The people who make the laws in this nation are not predominately Christian.
1. Anyone can believe whatever they want. In my opinion, it's wrong to deny tax paying, non-criminal citizens equal rights under the law.
2. We are a nation comprised largely of Christian people, yet our nation isn't defined by our Christianity. We are not a theocracy.
3. Most lawmakers in America ARE in fact Christian.


Because people muck it all up. They read into it whatever they want, which is idolatry if you think about it. Making God in your own image. It doesn't matter what you want God to be. He is what He is. You can take it or leave it. It doesn't matter what you want the bible to say. It says what it says. Take it or leave it.
And you interpret scripture the way you want. Everyone does it. None of us can read Aramaic, and none of us were around when the Bible was written, so it's natural for people to read and interpret things in the Bible various ways. Again, that's why there are over 1,000 Christian denominations; not just one.

[Jesuslove]

Jesus also said that looking at a member of the opposite sex with lust is the same as adultery. So I would think just about any couple would have grounds for divorce if they chose to.

He also advocated forgiveness. Even when divorce is permitted by God, it's not mandated.

Well you think homosexual behavior should be a crime, why not criminalize all sinful behaviors??

[cheewiee]

And you interpret scripture the way you want. Everyone does it. None of us can read Aramaic, and none of us were around when the Bible was written, so it's natural for people to read and interpret things in the Bible various ways. Again, that's why there are over 1,000 Christian denominations; not just one.

The bible wasn't written in Aramaic, it was written in Hebrew and Greek, and I beg to differ... some here can read Hebrew and Greek...

[Evanescence]

Who said homosexuality should be a crime? LOL....

There used to be adultery laws...what a joke. And sodomy laws as well...

Again, Jesus freaks in office making laws....that should not be.

[middletree]

The bible wasn't written in Aramaic

Part of Daniel was.

Just sayin'.

[Musicdude]

The facts are the facts. Nothing is being taken out of context.
Yes it is, and I've already explained how. You chose not to comment on it.
I am not saying the facts are not true. I am saying they are misleading if you don't give the whole context.

That's a very naive view. Just because someone is able to procreate, doesn't mean they can parent. Children taken away from parents are largely heterosexual.
No, it is not naive to think that God gave men and women the ability and command to procreate for a specific reason. And I didn't say that anyone who has the ability to have kids will automatically be good at parenting. You are putting words into my mouth.

You are right, homosexuals are unable to procreate, but many still have children.
The only reason they are able to have children is because some hetero couples aren't doing their jobs as parents.

Yet many husbands and wives can't have kids.
They can adopt just like homosexuals can. So this statement isn't true.

Is that's God's punishment on those heterosexual couples? No. Handicapped indivicuals can have sex and make babies. Would it be a good idea for those who can't take care of kids to have babies? No. Being able to have kids and being able to parent kids are two different things.
Show me where I said that and I'll defend it. I didn't say anything of the sort.

1. Anyone can believe whatever they want. In my opinion, it's wrong to deny tax paying, non-criminal citizens equal rights under the law.
Yes, you can believe whatever you want. But the truth doesn't ever change.
2. We are a nation comprised largely of Christian people, yet our nation isn't defined by our Christianity. We are not a theocracy.
We'd be better off if we were.
3. Most lawmakers in America ARE in fact Christian.
Proof?

And you interpret scripture the way you want. Everyone does it. None of us can read Aramaic, and none of us were around when the Bible was written, so it's natural for people to read and interpret things in the Bible various ways. Again, that's why there are over 1,000 Christian denominations; not just one.
I don't interpret the bible. I just read it. Very seldom is it complicated enough that it takes a Phd in theology to understand it. God is not the author of confusion, satan is. God's word is very straight-forward.

[Grank]

Part of Daniel was.

Just sayin'.

and ezra???

btw, <3 10th amendment

[Jason]

Part of Daniel was.

Just sayin'.

and ezra???



"A few chapters of the books Ezra (ch. 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (ch. 2:4 to 7:28), one verse in Jeremiah (ch. 10:11, and a word in Genesis (ch. 31:47) are written, not in ancient Hebrew, but in Aramaic."
-http://www.bibleinfo.com

But as most of us know, the Bible was mostly written in Hebrew and Greek, not Aramaic. And yes some people who participate in these discussions can read those languages.

[Musicdude]

Well you think homosexual behavior should be a crime, why not criminalize all sinful behaviors??

Because it's a dumb idea. How about people just stop this nonsense because it's wrong, not because it's illegal? Making something illegal doesn't keep it from happening anyway.

[Jesuslove]

Because it's a dumb idea. How about people just stop this nonsense because it's wrong, not because it's illegal? Making something illegal doesn't keep it from happening anyway.

Why then selectively criminalize some activities and not others?

[Musicdude]

Why then selectively criminalize some activities and not others?

So in your opinion our laws are built on biblical standards, and not just standards that everyone agreed upon originally?

Would you not think murdering were wrong and probably needs to be discouraged in some way by our government even if God hadn't said it?

[cheewiee]

So in your opinion our laws are built on biblical standards, and not just standards that everyone agreed upon originally?

Would you not think murdering were wrong and probably needs to be discouraged in some way by our government even if God hadn't said it?

[tongueincheek] no... I believe in the right to choose... [/toungincheek]

[Evanescence]

I loved this: "Some people dont like homosexuality becuase it is unnatural.."

Unnatural to who? The person saying IT IS unnatural, or the homosexual?

Who/what defines what is natural or unnatural.....wrong or right?

The Bible? Yes...in many cases....but again, do we want the Bible to be the code for laws in this country?

The Bible is VERY vague about a lot of things...it NEEDS interpretation and thought. Otherwise, we will burn people at the stake for soemthing thats just not up our alley...

[ausgirl]

I loved this: "Some people dont like homosexuality becuase it is unnatural.."

Unnatural to who? The person saying IT IS unnatural, or the homosexual?

Who/what defines what is natural or unnatural.....wrong or right?

The Bible? Yes...in many cases....but again, do we want the Bible to be the code for laws in this country?

The Bible is VERY vague about a lot of things...it NEEDS interpretation and thought. Otherwise, we will burn people at the stake for soemthing thats just not up our alley...

I do believe it was God himself who first said it was unnatural - you over ruling him now?

[middletree]

I wish people wouldn't use the "unnatural" point, because it's irrelevant. It's a way to draw the opposition offsides.

What matters is that it's sin, and those who practice it are keeping themselves from true joy, and are robbing themselves.

[Jesuslove]

I wish people wouldn't use the "unnatural" point, because it's irrelevant. It's a way to draw the opposition offsides.

What matters is that it's sin, and those who practice it are keeping themselves from true joy, and are robbing themselves.


That's a value judgment. Not being homosexual, how can one know if they have true joy?

[middletree]

That's a value judgment. Not being homosexual, how can one know if they have true joy?

Because I have a bible, and understand it's principle. I know that when I am in sin, joy isn't there. Joy comes from God, not our circumstances. When we sin, we separate ourselves, to varying degrees, from God, our only source of true joy

And for the record, the term "value judgment" doesn't have a negative meaning, in my book.

[Jesuslove]

Because I have a bible, and understand it's principle. I know that when I am in sin, joy isn't there. Joy comes from God, not our circumstances. When we sin, we separate ourselves, to varying degrees, from God, our only source of true joy

And for the record, the term "value judgment" doesn't have a negative meaning, in my book.

Never suggested "value judgment" was a negative. I know some gay Christians. They seem to enjoy the same joy of God that I, and others share.

[Pouye]

Never suggested "value judgment" was a negative. I know some gay Christians. They seem to enjoy the same joy of God that I, and others share.

And I know Christians who live together as a couple as non-married partners. they seem to enjoy the same joy of God that I, and others share. They also seem to enjoy each other in their relationships, too -- even though it is sinful in God's eyes. Many people enjoy living sinfully. Living hedonistic lives of decadence, luxury and selfishness is often touted as the "good life" and/or "the American Dream". Some people who are not Christians live content lives and die very happy, and some Christians live discontented lives and die depressed.

Rock

[Jesuslove]

And I know Christians who live together as a couple as non-married partners. they seem to enjoy the same joy of God that I, and others share. They also seem to enjoy each other in their relationships, too -- even though it is sinful in God's eyes. Many people enjoy living sinfully. Living hedonistic lives of decadence, luxury and selfishness is often touted as the "good life" and/or "the American Dream". Some people who are not Christians live content lives and die very happy, and some Christians live discontented lives and die depressed.

Rock

I don't think there is an absolute when it comes to this issue. I am aware of older people who need the social security benefits of their widow, and live together for companionship. I wouldln't call that living in sin. If they were to marry, they could lose their only source of income. I don't think God judges couples like this the same way he'd judge a 20-something couple who just wanted to shack up.

[middletree]

And I know Christians who live together as a couple as non-married partners. they seem to enjoy the same joy of God that I, and others share. They also seem to enjoy each other in their relationships, too -- even though it is sinful in God's eyes. Many people enjoy living sinfully. Living hedonistic lives of decadence, luxury and selfishness is often touted as the "good life" and/or "the American Dream". Some people who are not Christians live content lives and die very happy, and some Christians live discontented lives and die depressed.

Rock

I think you are confusing joy with contentment or happiness.

[Evanescence]

I do believe it was God himself who first said it was unnatural - you over ruling him now?

When it comes to laws in this country, the bible should have no say.

I am not gay...so I will not say what is natural or unnatarual for some.

As for sin..that shall be determiend by God not me. I believe that some people are exempt from judgement based on circumstances that may have overwhelming power of them to sin. We all have our vices and addictions...

[Jesuslove]

I think you are confusing joy with contentment or happiness.
I guess we can only each know for ourselves. We really have no idea if someone is truly happy.

When it comes to laws in this country, the bible should have no say.

I am not gay...so I will not say what is natural or unnatarual for some.

As for sin..that shall be determiend by God not me. I believe that some people are exempt from judgement based on circumstances that may have overwhelming power of them to sin. We all have our vices and addictions...

I agree. We should not have laws making any group of people second class citizens. If sin is to be judged, let God do it.

[Evanescence]

One of my best friends is a Sunday, twice on Sunday church going baptist...

Here's what he said...

In regards to gays:

ME: "I don't know what to do with the situation. I dont understand homosexuality..."

HIM: "I know what to do...kill them all. Every one."

In regards to the 40th anniversity of Woodstock:

ME: "I wish I would have been there. What a great time despite the drugs and nudity at times..."

HIM: "They should have dropped a bomb on that place and ended it all. nothing but druggies..."

------------------------------

...but we should have religion as part of our govts law making process...:rolleyes:

[VerbumReale]

. I believe that some people are exempt from judgement based on circumstances that may have overwhelming power of them to sin. We all have our vices and addictions...


The only reason any of us are exepmt from any judgment is because of the blood of Christ.

As far as this notion that somehow people aren't going to be culpable because "We all have our vices and addictions.." Let me get this straight.

God can..

Create the world

Part the red sea

Make it so a man and woman over 90 years old, of whom the woman has been barren her enitire life, can have children

Send a global flood that wipes all of the earth's inhabitants away, except one man and his family and two of every species of animal which were on an ark, and then re-inhabit the planet from them

Appear among us in the incarnate form of His Son as a baby born in a manger

Perform many miracles including exorcisms, healing the blind, and feed thousands of people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish

Take upon Himself the punishment for the sins of all humanity on the Cross

Rise from the dead three days later

Ascend to to sit at the right hand of the Father

Still appear to us in Word and sacrament; creating, nurturing and sustaining faith in His people

One day return and make all things new


He can do all that but people's addictions and vices are just too much for Him so He gives them a pass and doesn't call them to repent??


Well I guess I can call up my uncle who is a recovering alcoholic and has been sober for 28 years and tell him that he can start drinking again.

[VerbumReale]

One of my best friends is a Sunday, twice on Sunday church going baptist...

Here's what he said...

In regards to gays:

ME: "I don't know what to do with the situation. I dont understand homosexuality..."

HIM: "I know what to do...kill them all. Every one."

In regards to the 40th anniversity of Woodstock:

ME: "I wish I would have been there. What a great time despite the drugs and nudity at times..."

HIM: "They should have dropped a bomb on that place and ended it all. nothing but druggies..."

------------------------------

...but we should have religion as part of our govts law making process...:rolleyes:

Who said that religion should have a role in government's law-making process??

And what is the point in pointing out this conversation?? Are you generalizing again?? There is nobody on these boards who would say anything even remotely as absurd as what this person you were talking to said.

[Pouye]

Who said that religion should have a role in government's law-making process??

And what is the point in pointing out this conversation?? Are you generalizing again?? There is nobody on these boards who would say anything even remotely as absurd as what this person you were talking to said.

I think his point is that there are people like this with this sort of mentality. Now whether or not such a person would actually do those things that they say is another story. Some people talk big like that but if they truly could drop a bomb on a crowd, or truly could round up people and gas them in gas chambers or something, I doubt they would. The few people that I've met that talk like this are really just mouthing off their frustrations are aren't really serious. I've heard people say things like, "Just kill'em all and let God sort'em out!" referring to some group they dislike or they feel are troublesome (like illegal immigrants). Most of the time these expressions (although alarming and uncalled for) are simply ways some people (usually not believers in Christ) express their feelings. If you placed an automatic weapon in their hand and lined up said group in front of them (Men, women, children and infants) I highly doubt they would start shooting. Talk is just that; even if it is rude, appalling or exaggerated. It does show the frustration in the heart, but talk is cheap.

Rock

[middletree]

For the record, E, my cousin moved from a small West Texas town to Minnesota a few yeas ago. Stayed there for 3 years before moving back. He heard more N-words, more flat-out hatred (i.e. not just racist jokes, but mean, venomous stuff), more racism in general, in that 3 years than he has in his entire 43-years-old life in Texas.

Now, i don't say this to say that all Minnesotans are racist. An absurd statement like that would put me in the same category as you and Jimmy Carter. But I say it to point out the absurdity of your statement about the South.

[Pouye]

I think I'm beginning to understand Evanescence's Modus Operandi.

He is simply trying uncover the covers on everyone. Expose. Show that there are problems on every side, and nobody can simply justify themselves. There are "lizards" everywhere, trying to vie for power and trying to persuade and use people for their own purposes (usually to line their own pockets and further their own agendas). Church leaders, pastors, lay people... they all have, within their ranks, many who have secrets and they all hide behind their establishments when they are cornered.

While there is truth in the idea that nobody is perfect and everyone has personal failings, this doesn't mean that all people's thoughts/agendas are equal. There really are very good people who are excellent servants to others. There really are responsible people who care deeply about others and are not corrupt. There really are people with a heart for others and who make real sacrifices in service for others. Of course nobody is perfect. of course everyone has done things that they are ashamed of doing. Of course nobody is justified before God by their own merits. Of course some people are more easily manipulated than others or are more gullible. Of course there are "wolves" among the sheep. But I'm convinced that there are genuine people who really do want to serve the Lord with all of their heart and have made the effort to reconcile with others who they have hurt and forgive the wrongs done to them, too.

Sometimes generalising is a tool that is used to justify wrong behavior. I'm not saying E is doing this, but it is sometimes used in this way. I've used it this way, in fact. I used to think, "Well, everyone I know badmouths so-and-so, so I can do it, too." But even if everyone I know does something, it doesn't mean I should do it. It is easy to fall into poor influences and start acting like everyone else. It is much harder to allow God to hold you accountable (maybe along with some other Christians, too). To use a generalisation here, we are all good at trying to justifying our own behavior sometimes.

Although there is a need for "whistle-blowing", uncovering and exposing things, using generalisations based on such "blow-outs" to cast criticisms on a group as a whole is not very ethical. Not to pick old scabs, but when the
Catholic Priest thing came out in the news (regard molestations) all of the sudden the church as a whole was branded, and all Priests were branded unfairly. Sure things were going on and needed to be dealt with appropriately by the law. But those kinds of things are not unique to only the Catholic church. They happen in many institutions. There are reasons that it might have been more prevalent in the RCC, and those need to be addressed, but taking things to the extreme that paints a whole group as evil based on some findings is not right, nor fair for those who were not participating in that sort of evil and were equally appalled.

The difference between someone like Rush Limbaugh and Evanescence is that Rush is older and makes more money... ummm -- I mean, Rush starts from a different viewpoint and blows his whistle from there. Rush has written a book (which is actually quite good, by the way) called "The Way Things Aught To Be". If you want to know Rush's starting point, or context, that is where it is. He believes in certain principals and has certain ideals that he believes are superior to other principals and ideals out there. To show this, he blows the whistle on those who follow other ideals and principals and the fruits of doing so.

Obama also has a starting point. It is rooted deeply in Socialism. When people blow the whistle on Obama's policies, they (those who do not agree that Socialism is good for America) do so because they believe his principals and ideals are flawed and unhealthy for our country. Some might be racist bigots, too -- but those are in the minority. Some African Americans that criticised Bush also might have done so because they were bigoted racists -- but they would also be in the minority. Many African Americans criticised him not because of his skin color but because of his policies.

So is their room for exposing? Sure. But remember that exposing someone and using that in a way to discredit the person's other ideas can be used as a fallacious Ad hominem attack.
An example is that person A says they agree with Bill Clinton's stance on foreign policy because it addressed all sides well and was still strong.
Then I say (because Bill was exposed in a scandal),
"Well, Bill was an adulterer, so I anything he said on marriage, foreign policy, or anything for that matter is most likely flawed!"
That is simply an Ad hominem attack, and doesn't actually address the foreign policy issue person A is talking about. Instead I'm simply attacking Bill's credibility who person A appealed to. In other words, I didn't address Person A's argument, but I attacked the person that Person A used to make his/her argument instead.

Rambling,

Rock

[Grank]

i know people who really do believe in "kill'em all and let God sort them out"

but they're usually talking about people trying to kill them... not that you'd know anything about that...

George Orwell - "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

rock, i liked bill's policies cuz he was white...

[HumanityisSaved]

Saw this and thought it was great

[Evanescence]

Saw this and thought it was great

I like the new Viagra commercial. Anhyone see it yet? the man talkin g to himself in the mirror? Hilarious!

..and has nothing to do with Obama... :P

[Jesuslove]

Saw this and thought it was great

I'm just glad he wasn't painting an image of GWB.

[Musicdude]

I'm just glad he wasn't painting an image of GWB.

Cause then it would be a picture of satan right? :rolleyes:

Why don't you criticize Ronald Regan anytime someone says something bad about Obama? At least that way it would really be a liberal versus a conservative, not a liberal versus a liberal.

[HumanityisSaved]

Cause then it would be a picture of satan right? :rolleyes:

Why don't you criticize Ronald Regan anytime someone says something bad about Obama? At least that way it would really be a liberal versus a conservative, not a liberal versus a liberal.

:D True so true the libbies hate it when you point out that GWB is one of them not a conservative. Obama is so much like GWB its hilarious.

[Evanescence]

I think they're all from the same spawn...

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c97/scooterl/lizards_02-1.jpg