AlAyeti wrote:
There is no compatibilty between our ideas of being a Christian.
I'm not giving up hope on this yet.
Faith is the evidence of things unseen.
Quote:
Family IS a father and a mother raising their own children. That that has now found any form any kind of peopel want to redefine it, cannot find a validating voice from the Bible.
Certainly the father, mother, children model of the family is the prevalent one, both within the Bible and in history overall. However, even in the Bible, families sometimes meant extended family and sometimes did not include both parents. Certainly the families David and Solomon were not in this mold, including multiple wives. Also, there were many widows in the Bible who were essentially single mothers. ONe example is the woman whom Elijah helped with the 'miracle of the oil.' The Bible also allowed for divorce, at least at the option of the husband. Obviously this meant there were single mothers and perhaps single fathers.
A MAJOR theme of the Bible if not THE major theme, is helping the poor and needy, widow and the orphan. Obviously there were single parents.
I agree, all things being equal, children are better off with two parents than one.
It's nice to agree with God.
Whether both these caregivers need to be of the same gender, I think is open to debate. Consider Naomi and Ruth. Now, RUth did not have any children when she left the land of her deceased husband to return to Israel with Ruth, but imagine she did, and that Ruth and Naomi shared the care of this child. Should we condemn this situation? Should we make the assumption, without evidence, that this situation would be harmful to the child?
I would like to see some actual scientifically done studies cited on this, and not just assertions one way or the other.
I believe, where this is heading, if not blasphemous, it is in extremely bad taste. Uggh. I can't even respond the way I want to.
Quote:
They know all too well that abortion is murder. They will not even show a real abortion in the senate chambers. Why not?
FOr the same reason they would probably not show someone getting blown up by an IED or getting blown apart by a suicide bomb. I have said that I consider abortion violence. It is a decency issue, not necessarily an issue of judging the morality of doing an abortion. Do you think they would show a circumcision in the Capitol?
Circumcision? It is for religious and health reasons. The issue of abortion would change overnight if the networks would show the incredibly pitiless horror of what the child goes through. As a Christian I know who and what closes the eyes of an abortion proponent.
I don't see that it does. Again, if you feel sexual promiscuity and licentiousness are unGodly, say why, and then provide evidence of actual policies the demonstrably promote it.
The United States has a task force on children sex slaves.
Trafficking in Persons Report -Report Home Page
Released by the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
June 3, 2005
VII. United States Government Efforts
The U.S. Government condemns trafficking in persons and remains firmly committed to fighting this scourge and protecting victims who fall prey to traffickers. Our commitment to eradicate trafficking includes:
Vigorously enforcing U.S. laws against those who traffic in persons;
Raising awareness about human trafficking and how it can be eradicated;
Identifying, protecting, and assisting victims exploited by traffickers;
Reducing the vulnerability of individuals to trafficking through increased education, economic opportunity, and protection and promotion of human rights; and
Employing diplomatic and foreign policy tools to encourage other nations, the UN, and other multilateral institutions to work with us to combat this crime, draft and enforce laws against trafficking, and hold traffickers accountable.
A compendium of these actions is compiled each year in the Assessment of U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons, which can be found online at
www.usdoj.gov/trafficking.htm. This assessment highlights executive branch efforts to end modern-day slavery and makes recommendations for improvements in our efforts over the next year.
The PROTECT Act
An important aspect of the U.S. effort is to strengthen law enforcements ability to investigate, prosecute, and punish violent crimes committed against children, including child sex tourism and the commercial sexual exploitation of children. The PROTECT Act (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003) was passed by the Congress in April 2003 and signed into law by President Bush. The act serves as a historic milestone for protecting children while severely punishing those who victimize young people. Of particular note, the PROTECT Act allows law enforcement officers to prosecute American citizens and legal permanent residents who travel abroad and commercially sexually abuse minors without having to prove prior intent to commit this crime. The law also strengthens the punishment of these child sex tourists. If convicted, child sex tourists now face up to 30 years imprisonment, an increase from the previous maximum of 15 years.
The PROTECT Act made several other changes to the law with a focus on protecting children from sexual predators, including: extending the statute of limitations for federal crimes involving the abduction or physical or sexual abuse of a child for the lifetime of the child; expanding the potential reach of federal sex trafficking prosecutions by extending federal jurisdiction to crimes committed in foreign commerce; establishing parallel penalty enhancements for the production of child pornography overseas; and, criminalizing actions to arrange or facilitate the travel of child sex tourists.
Liberalism is a fuzzy term, so we may want to try to agree on exactly what we're talking about.
The movement embraced and changed by free-love "hippies" from the sixties. I doubt that conservative would apply to the people that have come to embody the Liberal movement of today that virtually revolves around sex. The Birkenstock wearing radical is nothing more than hedonist of "anything goes."
Jesus was clear on this. In fact He was extremely conservative about what promiscuity was and what to call it. No Liberal even agrees that adultery is a classifying behavior, let alone justing thinking about as being wrong.
I agree. Jesus promoted responsible sexual behavior and spoke against lust and promiscuity.
Your comment on liberals is off the mark. Many liberals certainly do consider adultery wrong.
And at the same time celebates sodomy?
Quote:
The OT was clear on this. Liberal is a term for people that do not believe in morality as a set of decent behavior guideleines.
??? DOes the word liberal in its modern sense even appear in the Bible? This is more than a stretch. You are simply equating liberal with immoral, and claiming biblical justification without showing how the connection is made.
Yes that is accurate to the way I apply Liberal. I am an empiricist.
Jesus, in a political sense, was arguably very liberal, in the sense that he was against much of what the established political and religious authorities promoted and stood for, in the sense that he was for change and against tradition, in the sense that he was a champion for the common person.
I doubt that would entail killing your unborn children, legalizing hard core drug use, and of course other pet civil rights.
Democrats legalize non-parental notification laws. I know that cannot be OK with the God of the Bible.
I would agree with you that a complete negation of parental notification laws is not a good thing. It undermines the authority of the parent. I do think there needs to be some room for children to escape abusive parental relatioships. However, I do not think we should let the accomodations for these exceptions become the rule so that parental notification never occurs.
In California the Liberals are very licentious. Parents beware. And children.
Quote:
Liberalism does mean sexual promiscuity by the very way they want it taught.
Sorry, this is baloney. What do you mean by 'the way they want it taught?' I don't see liberals promoting sexual promiscuity at all. Specifically, what are they doing to encourage people to be promiscuous?
P--s poor role models. I think you can get the picture. Pick up a People Magazine or watch MTV.
Quote:
The prevalence of abortion only speaks badly on Liberals and Democrats that know what they did. The percentages of abortions done for critical life-threatening reasons? 45-million abortions? And counting? I ONLY know people that have had abortions for birth control reasons. I hope the repent.
The wholesale slaughter of human babies is a fact of the Democrat platform. That is the truth. Certainly there is no Biblical support for a womans right to choose to kill her unborn child unless there are garve reasons to do so. Kathy being dumped by Johnny is not a reason to kill an unborn human being. Or, Kathy not knowing who the real father is.
The ONLY "choice" is good moral behavior being championed by anyone in public office. Or hold people responsible for their actions and not their children born or unborn.
While I would like to see more evidence about what the Demos do or don't do to actually reduce the number of abortions, I partially agree with the notion that they don't do enough. However, I would say the same is true for the Republicans.
They have tried to get people to see the truth of abortion. It is hard to take an abomination away from a bloodthirtsy mob.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that in OT times, a woman had a child out of wedlock would be stoned. What would have happend to the unborn child? If a woman who was pregnant was given a certificate of divorce, what would have happened to her and her child?
AIDS kills more people than stoning did. But it seems that the point of teaching people a lesson from licentiousness is ignored. If aborting the woman wanting to get away with whoring around was to pay the ultimate price (and her lover) morality would be far more prevalent. That's the Biblical perspective I think. The children of Israel were taken care of by their fathers. We have no evidence to the contrary.
The family is not open for redefintion Biblically.
Quote of micatala:
Sorry. If you are referring to gay marriage, this is baloney in my book. I have seen no credible evidence that areas where gay marriage exists have seen the death of family and marriage.
A bomb is harmless even while the fuse is burning. We have yet to see what the fallout will be as it is still not commonplace numbers-wise. But death of both family and marriage as defined the only way it has ever been is being killed. Now, anything goes. When will the family dog be sporting a diamond? Plus children are being forgotten. They deserve two seperate sex parents. Indeed "parents" can only be defined as opposite sexes. That is scientific.
Al:
I'm sorry that a person feels they are homosexual. This defintion that they apply to themselves, negates their position as mother and father. Children are the result of male/female sexual interactions. "Family" is immutable. But not to a Liberal. Legalizing same-sex marriage does indeed alter the definition of family until society rights the wrong. Which it will in time if and when the unthinkable becomes a sad fact.
Altering the defintion of family is not the same as the death of the family and marriage. If we alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage, it does nothing to keep those who wish to follow more traditional familial models from doing so. THeir families will not die. There marriages will not be annulled. You haven't shown what you have claimed.
You have chosen one side and I have chosen the Bible. I don't hide that. But I do know what lascivious licentiousness does do. It kills adults and children.
Democrats want high taxation and they will decide what and who gets the money. Some communities that are heavily Democrat, are the most violent and indecent in the US.
That's debatable?
Republicans also want to decide what and who gets the money. The only difference is who and what they give it to. As far as the level of taxation, I don't see that higher automatically means less moral. It does depend on what you do with the money, and if you are collecting it in a fair and equitable way. With regards to the latter, my opinion is the Republicans are much worse in this area than the Democrats.
I judge using the Bible. So, you appear to have a good opinion.
The Bible allowed for a complete forgiveness of debt periodically. Is this not a more liberal notion? Can you imagine the Republicans supporting this Biblical idea?
OK. Keep the Biblical theme and use it for adultery, fornication and same-sex sex acts. I am suppotive of the tax break. But then again, I don't disagree with the Bible.
Quote:
Republicans need a little soul searching too, but, Democrats do not want to hold people accountable for their behavior. Republicans have this as a mantra that they live by.
The Bible agrees with this point of view totally.
Au contraire my dear Al. The Bible clearly leaves to GOd the judgment of moral issues. Even in the OT, the religious laws that the Hebrews were commanded to live by were not necessarily applied to the non-Hebrews living in the land. In the NT, I don't think you will find ANY justification for the idea that civil laws should be enacted to force those who are not Christians or believers in Jesus to follow Christian beliefs or practices.
THe Biblical precedent I think is more in line with the liberal notion that it is up to each individual to follow his conscience. As it says in Romans 14, "Who are you to judge another man's servant. It is to his own master that he stands or falls." The Bible does not give us the right to hold other people accountable for their moral shortcomings.
In addition, the BIble provides ample justification that people can, in good conscience, disagree on what is moral and what is not. Again, see Romans chapter 14. In Paul's day, many considered eating certain meats immoral. Paul said that nothing is unclean to eat, in and of itself. As long as the person eating was eating in good faith, clear in his own mind that what he was justified before God in what he was doing, than his practice was OK, whether it was eating meat or not eating meat.
In my view, if you are saying that we should hold all homosexuals 'accountable' for their actions, you are attempting to void their right to pursue their faith in their own conscience. You are suggesting that government usurp God's role in forming a relationship with each individual and in judging that relationship. THis is highly UNBIBLICAL.
TO the extent that some Republicans would agree with this idea, they are also promoting an unbiblical idea.
