The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

You are a Christian aren't you, Dan? I should think the answer to your question would be obvious. There is but one God, and he rules over the affairs of men. He shows his favor to nations that honor him, and he punishes those who do not. Therefore the wise will honor God and be blessed; the foolish will despise him and suffer for it.

Thanks, Dan. That would have been the early sixties, when the sexual revolution was already underway. Even so, I frankly doubt the authors' numbers and would like to view the research, but they cited no source.

Doing the right thing when it came to children meant doing what was best for the children, of course.

I see your point, though I do hope you meant "you" in a strictly rhetorical sense. But how about your children's families? Or their children's families? There has for decades been a concerted effort to destroy biblical morality in America. (Interestingly, that was a stated Communist objective back in the 50s.) Question: How has the decline in sexual morality already affected families in America? Need I state the obvious? When the fabric of society changes, the change inevitably affects individuals and individual families. That much should be obvious. Every person, and the family of every person, who is seduced by sexual immorality or victimized by it is harmed. We see that destruction multiplying and spreading across the land like a cancer. Even the church is ravaged by it. Doesn't Christ's command that we love one another as he has loved us demand that we oppose such evil, if only for the sake of our brothers and sisters? But know this. If homosexual marriage is normalized here, the next step will be to criminalize any speech against that lifestyle. Then we will have a government dictating what we can preach and teach from the Bible. It has already happened in some European countries where pastors have been jailed for saying that homosexual behavior is sinful.

If you doubt me, just ask some of the people you know who remember the 1950s or earlier years.

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

you spoke of what to do for effective public policy so i cited 1 that you may agree will work

in this & other comments (e.g., Obamacare isn't dangerous) you fail to discount the effect sin has on societyain't old enough to know how things were prior to the 60s but in my short life i've noticed more tolerance of sin -- this should trouble you yet you routinely appear to come @ these discussions from a secular viewpoint: -- maybe you think it more relevant or cool, dunno

yep -- another reason the libs/progressives gotta go

[/quote]

I have. My mom told me there were a LOT of (illegal) abortions before hormonal birth control became available. A lot!!!!

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

The contraception coverage mandate.

Oh, and let me look up who initiated that mandate here in California, because we are one of the 28 states that require this coverage. It'll be in another post.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

I'm still looking, but here is some interesting reading about how the mandate is working in Southern California:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/11/local/la-me-0211-church-mandate-20120211

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

OK everybody, no one is willing to stick their necks out on the Internet - LOL!

But quoting from this link:

http://www.nwlc.org/resource/guaranteeing-coverage-contraceptives-past-and-present

■1994: California became the first state to introduce legislation requiring insurance plans that cover other prescription drugs to cover contraceptives.
■Spring 1997: The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage (EPICC) Act was introduced with bipartisan support in the House and Senate. EPICC would have required insurance plans that cover other prescription drugs, devices, and services to provide the same level of coverage for contraceptive drugs, devices, and services.

Bipartisan support. I'm going to assume that means both some Democrats and some Republicans. So the GOP appears to have changed its mind, for some mysterious reason.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

It would've been nice to know WHICH Republicans though. Was this scrubbed? Who knows...

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

Dang it! This site has a time limit on editing.

I'm going to have to give up on trying to figure out WHICH California legislators voted in favor of AB39, but it passed with a comfortable margin in both the CA State Senate and State Assembly:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_39_cfa_19990908_073937_asm_floor.html

But I'm going to find out. And if the people responsible are still in office and won't stand up and defend President Obama, we will know them for the unsavory turncoats they are.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

Yep, that's what I believe. And that's what the Jews believe. And that's what the Muslims believe. And that's what the Jehova's Witnesses believe. And that's what the Mormons believe.

Now, as policymaker in a secular, pluralistic government, how to you decide which God to honor and which set of morals to follow?

Which would be what?

Yes, of course.

I don't know, has it? I suppose it probably has, but I question whether it's gotten worse, rather than just changed shape. Sure, maybe marriage rates were higher 50 years ago, but why? What it because people were really committed to each other or was it because of social stigma and lack of economic mobility on the part of women? IMO, staying together because of social stigma or economic dependency is not a moral decision, it's a practical one - one that ought be praised no more highly than picking up milk on the way home from work.

I question the validity of what I think you think is "obvious."

Paranoid nonsense. There are any number of sins that are completely normalized in our society against which it is perfectly 100% ok to speak out. The problem is not speaking out; the problem is harassment and inciting violence. Unfortunately, some Christians like to pretend that attempts to curb the latter are infringements upon the former. Case in point: conservative Christian resistance to anti-bullying measures in schools out of fear that they're actually part of a plan to promote the "radical homosexual agenda" to our impressionable youth.

Most of the people I've known who could remember back that far are dead.

It does not trouble me, because I don't accept it as true. I do not believe there is more tolerance of sin. I believe there is a roughly equivalent tolerance for sin, but what has changed is the mixture of which things are found acceptable and which things are not found acceptable by society. Yes, loose sexual morals are more socially acceptable these days. But what is less socially acceptable is mistreatment of the weak and minorities, or demonizing of outside groups, or launching wars for ego and/or profit.

Yes, 50 years ago, a person may have kept his sexual interests private, but we also had governors using their executive powers to stop black students from attending schools with white - the Gov of Arkansas even tried to use the National Guard to force the issue.

Which sin do you think is more destructive to a society? Fornication or the abuse of an entire segment of the population? I think anyone with half a brain and an ounce of honesty can look at the effects of institutionalized racism and see that it has clearly been more detrimental.

I don't come at these discussions from a secular viewpoint; I come at them (or at least try to) from a viewpoint not deceived by the liars and charlatans in the conservative Christian media machine who are more interested in selling books and radio ads and lining their own pockets than they are with actually improving our society.

-Dan.

"A lot" is a relative term, so I don't know what she means by that. Maybe she could tell you what percentage of her friends had abortions in the 50s. During my high school years I knew of only one girl in a school of about 2,000 who had an abortion.

I don't have statistics for illegal abortions in the 1950s, but the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) estimates maternal deaths from illegal abortions, which might give us some idea. Illegal abortions were claimed to be risky, resulting in a high percentage of maternal deaths. Of course that's a relative measurement and the hazard was probably overstated. Nonetheless, I think the maternal death statistics can give us at least some idea of illegal abortion frequency at that time.

NCHS estimates annual maternal deaths ensuing from illegal abortions as follows:
1950 -- 246 deaths
1951 -- 226
1952 -- 249
1953 -- 230
1954 -- 223
1955 -- 211
1956 -- 174
1957 -- 209
1958 -- 215
1959 -- 235

The yearly average is 222 deaths. If we assume a 5% mortality rate, illegal abortions would average 4,440 per year. Maybe the number of deaths are underestimated. And maybe I've overestimated the mortality rate. If we doubled that number, we'd have 8,880 illegal abortions per year. Of course the population was smaller in the 50s, during which years the U.S. population averaged 148,740,199. Probably about half of the population was female and half of them were capable of conceiving children. That would leave us with about 37,185,000 women and girls capable of getting pregnant. And about 0.024% of them had illegal abortions -- less than one-tenth of one percent.

My statement was that people's behavior has dramatically changed since the 1950s. That's not to say immorality was nonexistent back then. It existed alright, but the extent of immorality in today's culture far exceeds what existed then.

OK, I see that your talking about something that state legislatures have done. Constitutionally, that may be an entirely different matter. Did any states mandate that churches or religious organizations provide contraceptives?

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

That's only true if you limit your definition of morality to sins related to sex.

-Dan.

As a man, I would obey God and not worry about other gods. As a policymaker, I would still be a man and I would still obey God. All men owe all honor to him regardless of the number who may despise him. And I reject the notion of a secular, pluralistic government. That's not what our founding fathers intended, and such a government will never secure God's blessings.

Well, Dan, most Americans in those days believed the best thing for children was to rear them in a family with a father and a mother.

I can only try to offer you the perspective of a Christian who has lived through those years and witnessed the changes. You don't have to believe me. But I think that if you will examine some of the relevant data you'll find they support what I'm saying. And I encourage you to discuss these questions with older godly men and women for some additional perspective.

Maybe I assumed too much. I didn't realize that younger people today might be so oblivious to how our culture has changed in the last 50-60 years. But then, why would they be otherwise if they haven't actually studied the matter? I suppose your experience doesn't give you anything close to the perspective gained from my own experience. Maybe I can come up with some suggested reading for you. If you're interested. [Added: An article you might find helpful is Christian historian David Barton's "Deconstructionism and the Left".]

It's kind of cute the way you throw that word around. But as I've said before, in order for my observation to be paranoid it would have to be baseless. It's not baseless because there is precedent for what I'm saying, it is part of the militant homosexual agenda, and the spiritual trajectory of our nation is pointing sharply downward. I know, I know. You don't see it. I have a broader perspective and I do.

Then you should work on it. There is much that can be learned from older people, especially if they are godly. I'm still learning from my elders.

How would you know? I'm teasing. But you're wrong, Dan. Substance abuse is way up. Violence is way up—child abuse, abortion (the ultimate child abuse), spousal abuse, peer violence in the schools. The practices of spiritualism, witchcraft, and Satan worship have grown rapidly. Human trafficking has increased greatly. Greed is on the rise—in the corporate boardrooms, in the halls of Congress, and on the streets. We have become the most materialistic generation in history, mortgaging our futures and our children's futures so that we can have what we want today. Off the top of my head, those are just a few "nonsexual" ways in which immorality has increased.

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Most of the people I spend time with remember the 50s.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

How old are you?

-Dan.

As a matter of health policy, how is mandating equal access to contraception an attack on religious liberty?