Bible Forum

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

It is currently Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:45 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Forum rules


There has been a large increase in political threads in this forum as of late and along with that comes discussions that get quite heated. For the time being this section of the forums are locked so that the staff may do a more complete review as we consider the purpose and the direction that we would like to see the current events section go.

While this process is being carried out, please DO NOT begin or continue any discussions of a political nature elsewhere on these boards.

We appreciate you patience and understanding as this process make take up to a month to complete. Please do not be discouraged by this decision, take this time to check out all the wonderful rooms we have here.



Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 188 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 13  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:38 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:34 pm
Posts: 5534
Location: Northern California
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Pentecostal
Name of your church: The Rivers Foursquare Church
iluvatar wrote:
Whose morality? Which virtues? As a policy maker, how do you decide?
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.

iluvatar wrote:
The article to which Serendipity linked. (2nd page, 3rd paragraph) ... According to the article, "50 years ago," and "as many as a third."
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.

iluvatar wrote:
Define "doing the right thing."
Doing the right thing when it came to children meant doing what was best for the children, of course.

I wrote:
Dan, do you doubt the destructive effects of sin? Don't you agree that both scripture and experience tell us that sexual sin is especially destructive? And don't you agree that it's especially destructive to the family?
iluvatar wrote:
Nice little bat & switch you tried there. Is sexual sin destructive? Sure. But to whom? Your cheating on your wife or getting married is not destructive to my marriage. You marrying your gay lover does not erode my family in any way.
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.

iluvatar wrote:
Has the behavior changed or are people just more open about it now?
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:59 pm
Posts: 2817
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: OBC
iluvatar wrote:
Jesus wouldn't be running a secular government, would he? I fail to see how the two are remotely comparable. Care to explain?
you spoke of what to do for effective public policy so i cited 1 that you may agree will work

iluvatar wrote:
Your cheating on your wife or getting married is not destructive to my marriage. You marrying your gay lover does not erode my family in any way
in this & other comments (e.g., Obamacare isn't dangerous) you fail to discount the effect sin has on society
iluvatar wrote:
Has the behavior changed or are people just more open about it now?
ain'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:
Gideon wrote:
You are a Christian aren't you, Dan?
-- maybe you think it more relevant or cool, dunno

Gideon wrote:
If homosexual marriage is normalized here, the next step will be to criminalize any speech against that lifestyle
yep -- another reason the libs/progressives gotta go


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:38 pm
Posts: 791
Location: USA
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: Not sure if you're going to publish it
Quote:
Gideon:

iluvatar wrote:
Has the behavior changed or are people just more open about it now?
If you doubt me, just ask some of the people you know who remember the 1950s or earlier years.
[/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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:38 pm
Posts: 791
Location: USA
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: Not sure if you're going to publish it
Gideon wrote:
When you say "this issue," what specifically are you referring to?


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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:38 pm
Posts: 791
Location: USA
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: Not sure if you're going to publish it
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:38 pm
Posts: 791
Location: USA
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: Not sure if you're going to publish it
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:38 pm
Posts: 791
Location: USA
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: Not sure if you're going to publish it
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:38 pm
Posts: 791
Location: USA
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: Not sure if you're going to publish it
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:02 pm
Posts: 354
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Baptist
Name of your church: If you want personally identifiable info, you'll have to work for it.
Gideon wrote:
iluvatar wrote:
Whose morality? Which virtues? As a policy maker, how do you decide?
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.
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?

Quote:
iluvatar wrote:
Define "doing the right thing."
Doing the right thing when it came to children meant doing what was best for the children, of course.
Which would be what?

Quote:
I wrote:
Dan, do you doubt the destructive effects of sin? Don't you agree that both scripture and experience tell us that sexual sin is especially destructive? And don't you agree that it's especially destructive to the family?
iluvatar wrote:
Nice little bat & switch you tried there. Is sexual sin destructive? Sure. But to whom? Your cheating on your wife or getting married is not destructive to my marriage. You marrying your gay lover does not erode my family in any way.
I see your point, though I do hope you meant "you" in a strictly rhetorical sense.
Yes, of course.

Quote:
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?
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.

Quote:
Need I state the obvious?
I question the validity of what I think you think is "obvious."

Quote:
If homosexual marriage is normalized here, the next step will be to criminalize any speech against that lifestyle.
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.

Quote:
iluvatar wrote:
Has the behavior changed or are people just more open about it now?
If you doubt me, just ask some of the people you know who remember the 1950s or earlier years.
Most of the people I've known who could remember back that far are dead.

Quote:
ain'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
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.

Quote:
yet you routinely appear to come @ these discussions from a secular viewpoint:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:37 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:34 pm
Posts: 5534
Location: Northern California
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Pentecostal
Name of your church: The Rivers Foursquare Church
Assured wrote:
Gideon wrote:
iluvatar wrote:
Has the behavior changed or are people just more open about it now?
If you doubt me, just ask some of the people you know who remember the 1950s or earlier years.
I have. My mom told me there were a LOT of (illegal) abortions before hormonal birth control became available. A lot!!!!
"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.

Assured wrote:
Gideon wrote:
When you say "this issue," what specifically are you referring to?
The contraception coverage mandate.
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:02 pm
Posts: 354
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Baptist
Name of your church: If you want personally identifiable info, you'll have to work for it.
Gideon wrote:
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.


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

-Dan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:01 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:34 pm
Posts: 5534
Location: Northern California
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Pentecostal
Name of your church: The Rivers Foursquare Church
iluvatar wrote:
Now, as policymaker in a secular, pluralistic government, how to you decide which God to honor and which set of morals to follow?
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.

iluvatar wrote:
Which would be what?
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.

iluvatar wrote:
I don't know, has it? I suppose it probably has, but I question whether it's gotten worse, rather than just changed shape.
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.

iluvatar wrote:
I question the validity of what I think you think is "obvious."
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".]

iluvatar wrote:
Paranoid nonsense.
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.

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:54 am
Posts: 1433
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Evangelical Free Church
Name of your church: Agape
Most of the people I spend time with remember the 50s.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:02 pm
Posts: 354
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Baptist
Name of your church: If you want personally identifiable info, you'll have to work for it.
Strider33 wrote:
Most of the people I spend time with remember the 50s.


How old are you?

-Dan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:26 pm
Posts: 83
Location: ...the beautiful Sonoran Desert
Faith: Christian
Ecclesiology/Denomination: Non-denominational
Name of your church: church
As a matter of health policy, how is mandating equal access to contraception an attack on religious liberty?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 188 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group