# Is there a war against God and is prophesy coming true?



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Been watching the news. What do you think?


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

To me it is just same stuff, different day happening again.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Yes I do.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

War on Humanity.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Ok that was cryptic, Prophecy is 1/3 die in war 1/3 by famine and pestilence. We are seeing Ebola worse than its ever been, Pnuemonic Plague, Illegals coming in with all kinds of diseases. Then we have drought, and fungus problems in the orange crop and so on. Then the US trying to pick a fight with the Russians, China and Japan at odds, ISIS going crazy, Israel and Hamas killing each other, and who know how many problems in Africa. Then Europe in financial calamity, The U.S and Japan barely hanging on financially, Argentina about to default, and Venezuela going under. Then there is the loss of freedom here,and war against Christians here and abroad. And this is only the beginning of sorrows.


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

My prophecy-discernment-meter has always been out of calibration, so I don't bother with looking at it anymore. By the time I figure it out, it will already have been obvious to everyone else. 

As the the first part of your question, "yes". One of my favorite thoughts to wrestle with there is the idea that whomever wages that war, most notably Satan, must certainly think it is a winnable war. Then all sorts of other questions rise to the surface from that mental wrestling match (that I'm too tired to bang out on the IPad keyboard). But I definitely enjoy the match and the seeking after the answers.

And supernovae is right, too. But that war is on 2 fronts, not 1!


----------



## FakeMountainMan (Jul 9, 2014)

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (KJV)
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come , *except there come a falling away first*, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Possible that this falling away is going on right now? I know of too many good folk gone bad.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hasn't evil always been at war with God?

Matthew 24:36
&#8220;But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

If you believe in God you are know considered a possible terrorist, but I have no idea what we are terrorizing. A person of faith is constantly mocked and held up to ridicule. Is the moral decay of our society a revolt against the author of our morality? In this Country we have freedom of religion yet we have to constantly go to court to practice it. Being a Christian might put you up for ridicule in this Country but it will get you a death sentence in many others. Is it what we believe or Who we believe in?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I doubt Christians in America would have many problems at all if they'd keep their religion in their own homes, churches and parochial schools, where it belongs, rather than constantly trying to pass laws that affect the rest of us.


----------



## Ardie/WI (May 10, 2002)

BlackFeather said:


> Ok that was cryptic, Prophecy is 1/3 die in war 1/3 by famine and pestilence. We are seeing Ebola worse than its ever been, Pnuemonic Plague, Illegals coming in with all kinds of diseases. Then we have drought, and fungus problems in the orange crop and so on. Then the US trying to pick a fight with the Russians, China and Japan at odds, ISIS going crazy, Israel and Hamas killing each other, and who know how many problems in Africa. Then Europe in financial calamity, The U.S and Japan barely hanging on financially, Argentina about to default, and Venezuela going under. Then there is the loss of freedom here,and war against Christians here and abroad. And this is only the beginning of sorrows.


I'm just using the above post as an example of how the news media has made this all instant!

50 years ago, we wouldn't have heard of most of the news for weeks or even months. Now, it is slammed into our faces constantly! Is it a wonder that ppl get stressed out and look for reasons?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

We can compare the last couple of years to 1967-68, for example. A foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK, Marburg discovered in Africa, a flu pandemic that killed more than a million worldwide, war in Vietnam supported by the USSR and China against the US, the 6 day war in the Middle East, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslavakia, the assassinations of Bobby and Martin and massive civil unrest across the land, kids hiding under desks during drills because nuclear war seemed a true reality, the Nigerian civil war and Biafra, a military coup in Greece, etc, etc........ We do live in interesting times.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

FakeMountainMan said:


> 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (KJV)
> Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come , *except there come a falling away first*, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
> 
> Possible that this falling away is going on right now? I know of too many good folk gone bad.


Yes. The "church" and the "world" are becoming one in the same.


----------



## PrettyPaisley (May 18, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> I doubt Christians in America would have many problems at all if they'd keep their religion in their own homes, churches and parochial schools, where it belongs, rather than constantly trying to pass laws that affect the rest of us.



I totally agree but I believe that goes for ALL religions. Muslims come to my mind before Christians. When Christian laws start requiring raping little girls and chopping of the heads of non believers I think we can start to worry a bit more about their influence.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Yes. Times are winding down. The bible has predicited all the things that we are seeing. A great falling away from the belief, the acceptance of sin as normal, the churches looking like the world, famines and desease running wild. Things are getting very bad all over the world. We really have no clue and do not see wha its really like out there. We think well looks pretty good from where im standing so this is all talk. Well go to 1/2 the countries of the world and its a different picture. People starving to death by the millions, children being used as sex slaves, desease killing off entire villages, billions of people living in cardboard shacks and many of these people are on their knees praying every day for God to return and take all this misery away. Now look at Isreal. The news medias are turning against them and taking the side of the terrorist, US, China and Russia tensions escilating. The bibel says when the nations turn on his people which includes Christians and Isreal that is when his wrath will be poured out. Well almost everyone wants to see Isreal wiped out and almost everyone wants Christianity wiped out. This was unheard of just a few short years ago. The bible says in the last days time will be spead up to times, times and times again. Meaning things will be happening so fast your head will spin. Well we see it every single day with the acceptance of sin on fast mass scale, with more violence against Christians, with more Govt regulations against Christians, with more people acceptance of false religions like islam and buddha whos god was a man and also with more biblical prophecy coming true. God is winding this down. The bible says when my people's nation is restored that is the final generation. well that happened in 1948 when Isreal became a nation again. The bible list a generation as 40, 80 and 120 years. So we know within at least 120 years of 1948 he will return. So it could be anytime now. The bible also says in the last days knowledge will grow greatly among the earth. Well about 100 years ago we still used horse and buggy like they have for thousands and thousands of years. Then all of sudden, bam! A huge explosion of knowledge and look where we are in such a short time. And most of that knowledge and technology pulls us further from God and distracts us from God in our daily lives. So. Read your bible trust the Lord and prepare because a great tribulation of hard times is coming such as the world has never sen or will ever see again.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

PrettyPaisley said:


> I totally agree but I believe that goes for ALL religions. Muslims come to my mind before Christians. When Christian laws start requiring raping little girls and chopping of the heads of non believers I think we can start to worry a bit more about their influence.


I can't stand what some Muslims are doing, just as I can stand what some Christians are doing. By and large, we're all very rational people until you look at the fringes.

People shouldn't have to be a Muslim or a Christian and people shouldn't get killed for believing or not believing. Regardless of their faith or lack of it, they shouldn't get killed just as they shouldn't be doomed to hell.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

supernovae said:


> I can't stand what some Muslims are doing, just as I can stand what some Christians are doing. By and large, we're all very rational people until you look at the fringes.
> 
> People shouldn't have to be a Muslim or a Christian and people shouldn't get killed for believing or not believing. Regardless of their faith or lack of it, they shouldn't get killed just as they shouldn't be doomed to hell.


But, they are.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

supernovae said:


> I can't stand what some Muslims are doing, just as I can stand what some Christians are doing. By and large, we're all very rational people until you look at the fringes.
> 
> People shouldn't have to be a Muslim or a Christian and people shouldn't get killed for believing or not believing. Regardless of their faith or lack of it, they shouldn't get killed just as they shouldn't be doomed to hell.


A bland and mild rationality can not survive against any active philosophy. Believing in nothing in particular but general and vague good will always ends when the vague idea does not act as a shield against the extremist of any stripe.. 
Shouldn't has never stopped must. 
So looking at the actions of others to make choices is not an option. It is required. Having respect and standing on the side of those who allow you to exist with your vague good will is the only way to survive.


----------



## PrettyPaisley (May 18, 2007)

supernovae said:


> I can't stand what some Muslims are doing, just as I can stand what some Christians are doing. By and large, we're all very rational people until you look at the fringes.
> 
> 
> 
> People shouldn't have to be a Muslim or a Christian and people shouldn't get killed for believing or not believing. Regardless of their faith or lack of it, they shouldn't get killed just as they shouldn't be doomed to hell.



I agree. 

However, if rather be surrounded by the fringe who simply feels they won't have to spend eternity with me instead of those who believe it's their calling to cut my head off. In this day - you know, the one we are living in, you can hardly compare born again radical Christians to radical Muslims. Make all the laws you feel you need (tongue in cheek here) and I will find a way to live (and thrive) around them. Rape my daughters and cut our heads off and I'll have a bit tougher time getting past that.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

where I want to said:


> A bland and mild rationality can not survive against any active philosophy. Believing in nothing in particular but general and vague good will always ends when the vague idea does not act as a shield against the extremist of any stripe..


I agree, which is why i don't claim to be of any particular faith. I find them to be bland and extreme at the same time.



> Shouldn't has never stopped must.


In this case, why aren't Christians following their scripture?



> So looking at the actions of others to make choices is not an option. It is required. Having respect and standing on the side of those who allow you to exist with your vague good will is the only way to survive.


wow.. just wow..

Thanks for allowing me to survive. :facepalm:


----------



## PrettyPaisley (May 18, 2007)

supernovae said:


> In this case, why aren't Christians following their scripture?


 
They don't have to. Something about an "it's all forgiven" clause.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

supernovae said:


> Thanks for allowing me to survive. :facepalm:


You're welcome. Unlike Boca Haram, I'm ok with it.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

PrettyPaisley said:


> I agree.
> 
> However, if rather be surrounded by the fringe who simply feels they won't have to spend eternity with me instead of those who believe it's their calling to cut my head off. In this day - you know, the one we are living in, you can hardly compare born again radical Christians to radical Muslims. Make all the laws you feel you need (tongue in cheek here) and I will find a way to live (and thrive) around them. Rape my daughters and cut our heads off and I'll have a bit tougher time getting past that.


believe me, i don't support ANYTHING that is going on. I think "ISIS" is a disgrace to humanity. I don't think Islam or Christianity is wrong in any way, but i do have a sense of irony when i say that because the reality is, the scripture they follow says they should be doing the things that are happening. But there are multiple interpretations. You have wahhabis/sunni, shias and i'm sure others. Some believe Mohammed granted peace Christians since they share a common abrahamic foundation, but other interpretations say anything but observing Allah is bad and worthy of death/hell/punishment and that's the "War" we see waging today.

BUT, at least most people have the sense not to do that.. In modern days, its reformed theology or some variation for a lot of people, but for those beheading and killing each other, its ultra conservative literal bible/scripture/prophecy they're following.

That's scary. The scariest part of all is that its based on interpretation of ones belief in god, not "rational discourse"... and if i understand what the person said above, rational discourse is a weak argument in their minds? What argument is killing or sending people to hell making?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

supernovae said:


> I agree, which is why i don't claim to be of any particular faith. I find them to be bland and extreme at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're welcome.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> I doubt Christians in America would have many problems at all if they'd keep their religion in their own homes, churches and parochial schools, where it belongs, rather than constantly trying to pass laws that affect the rest of us.


Unlike the progressive/liberals that practice the religion of humanism, and never, ever try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.

The bottom line is, the laws of any country will always be based on some belief system. It's impossible not to. The only question is, whose beliefs will they be based on? 

Every time we walk into a voting booth we are attempting to impose our beliefs on everyone else.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

supernovae said:


> .... and if i understand what the person said above, rational discourse is a weak argument in their minds? What argument is killing or sending people to hell making?


It is no argument at all to the people who argue with guns and bombs. And, if you prefer to live with a mild philosophy, then tolerance for those who used words (ie you're going to hell) rather than guns (off with non-believer's heads) is the only choice.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

There are some really smart people on here. Some are hopefully becoming smarter. Thanks for posting and thank you for all your perspectives. That goes for everyone. Everyone.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

where I want to said:


> It is no argument at all to the people who argue with guns and bombs. And, if you prefer to live with a mild philosophy, then tolerance for those who used words (ie you're going to hell) rather than guns (off with non-believer's heads) is the only choice.


Nope, its not the only choice i have, its just the choices you made to support those supposed paradigms.

I love how someone above is blaming liberals.. then you're saying essentially just deal with it.. 

and then we all wonder why we can't get along. I think that is what we should be looking at. The problems we face can usually be solved by looking inside a bit. Isn't that part of what a strong theological philosophy tells us? Heck, the best Christians i know would be "liberal" too, so why do we speak of "liberal" in pejorative sense?

Do we really want to be like the conservative wahhabis killing the half or non believers? Or can we just accept we have "liberal" beliefs and not all "liberal" ideas are bad... just as not all conservative ideas are bad? 

Can we meet there? I love the "spice of life" myself and it would be boring without it.. but sometimes, some people crank up the heat, wayyyyyyy to much. I want to keep my head and i don't think my family and beautiful kids are going to hell because we don't practice your theology.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

JJ Grandits said:


> Been watching the news. What do you think?


Absolutely. You have to get rid of God if you want to take His place. The liberal/progressive agenda is all about replacing God with government. They need people to be totally dependent on them and look to the state for all their needs, not some mythical figure (in their minds). That is why you are seeing what you are seeing. It's also why they are actively looking to destroy traditional marriage and the traditional family structure. It's got nothing to do with "inclusion", or "diversity", nor compassion or kindness. That just a sales tactic.

I also believe that is why we are told that in the end times there will be a great "falling away" of people who previously claimed to be believers. They will go with government over God. Real believers, the truly faithful, will not of course. That's when the major persecution will begin. I think we are seeing the beginning of that with so many in this country forsaking freedom for entitlements.

No God, no church, no family. All that's left is the almighty state. Ask people who have lived under repressive communist regimes how that worked put for them. It's where we're headed if something doesn't change and fast.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

my3boys said:


> Absolutely. You have to get rid of God if you want to take His place. The liberal/progressive agenda is all about replacing God with government..


No it isn't.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

supernovae said:


> Nope, its not the only choice i have, its just the choices you made to support those supposed paradigms.
> 
> I love how someone above is blaming liberals.. then you're saying essentially just deal with it..
> 
> ...


You see liberal versus conservative as some sort of good and evil scenario. I see reality versus fantasy. And the liberals are way short on reality.

So , in reality, if someone comes to impose their religion on you with guns, you find that equally acceptable as someone lecturing you about going to hell?

We are getting along BTW as you and I still can write here. What more do you suggest?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

The war against God has been going on since mankind was put upon the Earth (possibly before?).
There are more people that have turned away from God and it is much better reported these days.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

supernovae said:


> No it isn't.


That is not persuasive. Some details about your alternatives is wanted.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

You know, there have been many times when this scenario has played out on the world stage. 

There have been many "prophets" declaring the world will end on this day too.

What I see through out history is the world comes to the brink, and people turn back to God and he relents. 

One part of the end time has not come yet. That is a leader that all religions support. 

I only know 1 thing, no matter how I end, I will end in Jesus arms and from that point on be forever safe. 

The true Church is NOT becoming one with the world. The fake church, the one that is moving to be popular, is. There are still those of us who follow the Bible, not some leader who thinks full pews = true worship. Those who truly believe the Bible will not surrender so easily the truths there in.

Regardless of the world's pressure to accept what God calls sin and true and right.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

where I want to said:


> You see liberal versus conservative as some sort of good and evil scenario. I see reality versus fantasy. And the liberals are way short on reality.


No i don't. I can't think of anyone who sees it this way until they're pushed to the edge of insanity by the insanity of anyone projecting this to begin with.



> So , in reality, if someone comes to impose their religion on you with guns, you find that equally acceptable as someone lecturing you about going to hell?


Nope, not at all. The way i see it, some people will lecture me about hell as they see it, others will lecture me about politics as they see it, but reality is, they only see what they want to see and don't want to hear what it really is.

So instead of going "hey, that could be a good thing" we pretend to get along and some absurd and very spiteful way. Is that really getting along? We get snarky, we make broad assumptions, we spread false and broad reaching accusations, we politically, socially and economically align ourselves with specific ideas/beliefs. In the end though, we're still just people and we all have the same problems.. we need food, we generally want to live and generally want a shelter and generally want entertainment and generally have things we want out of life. I say generally because after reading and experiencing what the world goes through today, i can't say an "ISIS fighter" fihting in iraq/sham/syria has any reason to live and is seeking to die - but that is NO liberal agenda and it IS through the barrel of a gun AND through the pages of their bible.



> We are getting along BTW as you and I still can write here. What more do you suggest?


I don't expect anything, but i would appreciate a few less assumptions and some respect for differing opinions and in return, i'll respect yours. :buds:


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

MJsLady said:


> You know, there have been many times when this scenario has played out on the world stage.
> 
> There have been many "prophets" declaring the world will end on this day too.
> 
> ...


That leader is in place. And they are putting out the call now to all religions. The papacy is trying to pull all religious leaders back under its wing. The papacy is the head of religion represented at all un meetings to speak for the religious world. Now I'm not saying is the Pope. But that system is going to give power to the figure head or beast add the Bible calls him.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

where I want to said:


> That is not persuasive. Some details about your alternatives is wanted.


The answer is simply no, that is NOT what liberals do, that is NOT their agenda and its no.. no no no. Not true.

Liberals have ideals, as does anyone who aligns with a specific ideology. Those ideals aren't universal, there is "no true Scotsman", anything else is just a logical fallacy and probably a loaded question to boot.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

supernovae said:


> No i don't. I can't think of anyone who sees it this way until they're pushed to the edge of insanity by the insanity of anyone projecting this to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As far as I can read into your post, you have said I'm insane. And snarky, which you equate with not getting along. And making false assumptions, when I can't see I made any assumptions at all.

And, although I can't see that furthers the agenda of tolerance you seem to be advocating, I'm ok with it. I will still accord people with religious beliefs my respect and will still resist people who wish to my freedom to choose to end by use of violence.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Va, I have thought so for a long time. Though I know it upsets many to think so.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

supernovae said:


> The answer is simply no, that is NOT what liberals do, that is NOT their agenda and its no.. no no no. Not true.
> 
> Liberals have ideals, as does anyone who aligns with a specific ideology. Those ideals aren't universal, there is "no true Scotsman", anything else is just a logical fallacy and probably a loaded question to boot.


Ok- what values are you willing to hold, as a liberal, that are so valid that those who don't hold them can not be allowed to continue on their way without harm?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MJsLady said:


> Va, I have thought so for a long time. Though I know it upsets many to think so.


Normally I leave religious argument alone but this one has me confused. Are you saying the Pope is evil or will allow evil to take hold or are you saying he will gather all faiths and become a force for good?


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

where I want to said:


> As far as I can read into your post, you have said I'm insane. And snarky, which you equate with not getting along. And making false assumptions, when I can't see I made any assumptions at all.


I never said anyone is insane.

If you project your unfounded and presumptuous beliefs upon me and all people who don't believe as you, i have a problem with that (And yes, i believe you projected a lot of rather baseless claims against all liberals in your liberal agenda rant and i called that out..) and i will speak up to such. Its called having a little dignity, not just for myself but those who may be different, even if i don't agree with said difference.



> And, although I can't see that furthers the agenda of tolerance you seem to be advocating, I'm ok with it. I will still accord people with religious beliefs my respect and will still resist people who wish to my freedom to choose to end by use of violence.


You're projecting again. I don't support the use of violence, nor do i support condoning people to hell, nor do i generalize particular people and ideas as evil. Chopping peoples heads off is wrong. I don't think we need to beat that dead horse.

I know just as well that there are many good Christians as there are good Muslims and many good Conservatives as there are good Liberals.

That is what I stand for.

I don't even consider myself a liberal in any sense of the word that people seem to think it means around here. Just a nice dad, who works, takes care of his bills, feeds his family, reads a lot, studies a lot and is intrigued by the world around us and thrilled to be alive. I solve complex problems for a living, they're not solved by irrational solutions but lots of cooperation and empathy. Something we adults should get better at!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

supernovae said:


> I never said anyone is insane.
> 
> If you project your unfounded and presumptuous beliefs upon me and all people who don't believe as you, i have a problem with that (And yes, i believe you projected a lot of rather baseless claims against all liberals in your liberal agenda rant and i called that out..) and i will speak up to such. Its called having a little dignity, not just for myself but those who may be different, even if i don't agree with said


What beliefs do you see that I have and what are the baseless claims you see I have made? I mean exactly what have I said that qualifies as these things that have made you so upset?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

where I want to said:


> Normally I leave religious argument alone but this one has me confused. Are you saying the Pope is evil or will allow evil to take hold or are you saying he will gather all faiths and become a force for good?


I'm not saying the Pope is going to do anything but. The papacy system will. What other religion claims to be able to forgive sin through confession? What other accepted religion claims to be God or Christ on earth? Both blasphemy. It was the Roman Catholics that crucified Christ. It wad the Roman Catholics who started the dark ages killing millions for not bending to their belief or will. The create their own Saints. They worship Mary and other Saints despite the Bible says not too. The Bible talks of that great religion and church in the last day's that will deceive the world and jesus begs the people to come out of her. I believe that is the Catholic Church.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

where I want to said:


> What beliefs do you see that I have and what are the baseless claims you see I have made? I mean exactly what have I said that qualifies as these things that have made you so upset?


My apologies, it was actually my3boys who had the misguided rant against liberals that i was actually referring to.

I was more disappointed with your view that i simply am allowed to live under your beliefs as if that's a privilege, which still seems to be a baseless claim that no one else is speaking up and out against because it seems the general consensus here is to cheer lead and champion the bigotry. People who study this type of philosophy and cultural response call it "pluralism".. people just don't bother to question what seems normal when they have simply redefined what they believe to be normal.

I came to homesteadingtoday because i enjoy what homesteading offers. I find it is pervasive across every ideology. Its sustainable and respectful living, being one with nature - very liberal view but at the same time, its very much a personal responsibility promise that is very conservative and as you can see, why pick sides when reality is, we're all of the above? I've just shown how all of us are liberal and conservative at the same time ideologically speaking without having to be pejorative about it.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

OK- and that is why I don't get involved in religious argument. Every question I have will only lead to another. Like how the Roman Catholic Church, a Christian organization, can possible have crucified Christ when Christianity didn't exist until his death.

And to the anti-religionists reading here who will probably take this as an example of the better values they hold, I point out that my disagreeing with this viewpoint will probably not result in antagonism towards me but in a forgiveness of my lack of understanding. For some reason, religious people will argue til the cows come home , quite passionately at times, but will not take such personal offense at differences in the same way that someone expressing secular liberal values do.

I wonder if it has more to do with faith being more secure, if harder to come by, than the values held by personal opinion.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

where I want to said:


> I wonder if it has more to do with faith being more secure, if harder to come by, than the values held by personal opinion.


I don't really buy this.

The problem with debating religion or any belief is the fact there is no debate. We're all sitting here saying we all have the answers in our own subjective minds since what we're talking about clearly isn't objective to begin with.

You can't quantify beliefs.. can't quantify gods.. you HAVE to have faith and in general people project MORE faith when challenged.. I say in general because lets be honest, a lot of people really don't believe what they say they believe but they seek comfort in the thought of belief.

I am very comfortable where I am, i share my comfort with the same passion you share your faith and ironically the more you challenge me, the more comfortable i am. Your faith is still just a personal opinion, even if shared amongst others holding shared opinions.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

supernovae said:


> My apologies, it was actually my3boys who had the misguided rant against liberals that i was actually referring to.
> 
> I was more disappointed with your view that i simply am allowed to live under your beliefs as if that's a privilege, which still seems to be a baseless claim that no one else is speaking up and out against because it seems the general consensus here is to cheer lead and champion the bigotry. People who study this type of philosophy and cultural response call it "pluralism".. people just don't bother to question what seems normal when they have simply redefined what they believe to be normal.
> 
> I came to homesteadingtoday because i enjoy what homesteading offers. I find it is pervasive across every ideology. Its sustainable and respectful living, being one with nature - very liberal view but at the same time, its very much a personal responsibility promise that is very conservative and as you can see, why pick sides when reality is, we're all of the above? I've just shown how all of us are liberal and conservative at the same time ideologically speaking without having to be pejorative about it.


I only agree that, if a person is allowed to live by their own values, and those values provide a good life for those who don't hold them, then it is something that I don't want to change. It's not a privilege, it's just a rational accommodation,

For instance, in the current Ebola outbreak, it is people who have faith and that faith sent them to assist others at their own risk- that a liberal might find appealing. But then that same faith might be objectionable to a liberal when it leads to outspoken behavior about marriage or even dietary issues. But you can't parse out someone else's beliefs. You can't say you must believe this but not that. You must accept that the whole is their belief and take the good with the bad. Because it is not all about any one person.

But, if one religion can accommodate my beliefs that are different, while another won't,then I align myself with them. Because we can make a good life for all.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

where I want to said:


> I only agree that, if a person is allowed to live by their own values, and those values provide a good life for those who don't hold them, then it is something that I don't want to change. It's not a privilege, it's just a rational accommodation,


But its not rational unless these are discussed and shared. It's what leads to government, laws, contracts and agreements when we do discuss and share "values" and "morals" and "natural laws".



> For instance, in the current Ebola outbreak, it is people who have faith and that faith sent them to assist others at their own risk- that a liberal might find appealing.


Not really. Sure, people of faith have responded, but they're responding just as any human being would. You speak as if sacrifice is exclusive to people of faith and healing is exclusive to people of faith, when the irony is Liberals would go in to not only fix the situation but try and create a governance that prevents it from happening again. Teach them clean food, clean waste, clean energy, recycling, germ theory, biology. The solution isn't particular to religion or one belief, but the actions and capabilities of all humans regardless. We all have good and bad ideas how to solve something. A good idea is modern medicine, modern science, modern understanding of health, welfare and well being.



> But then that same faith might be objectionable to a liberal when it leads to outspoken behavior about marriage or even dietary issues. But you can't parse out someone else's beliefs. You can't say you must believe this but not that. You must accept that the whole is their belief and take the good with the bad. Because it is not all about any one person.


EXACTLY! We don't see eye to eye on everything and we create "the ways and means" to live with each other. It absolutely ISN'T about one person. Give and take. Give and take. Sacrifice. EMPATHY. 



> But, if one religion can accommodate my beliefs that are different, while another won't,then I align myself with them. Because we can make a good life for all.


As can anyone with or without religion.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JJ Grandits said:


> Is there a war against God and is prophesy coming true?
> 
> Been watching the news. What do you think?


Nope. Everything is predictably the same as it's always been for many thousands of years. Nothing has changed except new technologies and the weather.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

where I want to said:


> OK- and that is why I don't get involved in religious argument. Every question I have will only lead to another. Like how the Roman Catholic Church, a Christian organization, can possible have crucified Christ when Christianity didn't exist until his death.
> 
> And to the anti-religionists reading here who will probably take this as an example of the better values they hold, I point out that my disagreeing with this viewpoint will probably not result in antagonism towards me but in a forgiveness of my lack of understanding. For some reason, religious people will argue til the cows come home , quite passionately at times, but will not take such personal offense at differences in the same way that someone expressing secular liberal values do.
> 
> I wonder if it has more to do with faith being more secure, if harder to come by, than the values held by personal opinion.


Christianity was around long before Jesus. Father Abraham was a believer in God and Christ who was to come. They were called believers. We created Christianity. Jesus never did. You are a believer or unbeliever. The Roman Catholics were around long before they were called catholics. They formed from the Roman Empire priest the same who called Jesus a blasphemer and took him before Pilot. Every religion has a base starting point. The catholics is started there. Then Constantine decided to name the religion the had long kept, catholocism. Thats why Jesus calls that church the great deciever. They have changed the coarse of time so as to make people forget what they did then and during the dark ages. Heck America was formed because of fleeing the persecution they were facing from the Catholic church which was the church of England.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

I'm pretty sure that God created religion because he likes to watch people fight.

It wasn't until much later that He came up with the idea of professional wrestling.

And, when the masks are removed in both endeavors, the adversaries usually are revealed to be loud, overweight guys.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

God did not make religion. Man is responsible for that mistake.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I'm not saying the Pope is going to do anything but. The papacy system will. What other religion claims to be able to forgive sin through confession? What other accepted religion claims to be God or Christ on earth? Both blasphemy. It was the Roman Catholics that crucified Christ. It wad the Roman Catholics who started the dark ages killing millions for not bending to their belief or will. The create their own Saints. They worship Mary and other Saints despite the Bible says not too. The Bible talks of that great religion and church in the last day's that will deceive the world and jesus begs the people to come out of her. I believe that is the Catholic Church.


What?? Roman Catholics didn't even exist when Christ was on the Earth. The Jews had the Roman Leaders (not Catholic) crucify Jesus. 
Don't know where you learned about Catholicism but you've got most of it wrong (and I am not Catholic) including "claims to be God or Christ on earth"


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> God did not make religion. Man is responsible for that mistake.


That's an interesting concept considering that most monotheistic religions envision one all-powerful god.

Obviously, that god chose not to reveal itself in manner that is well-defined enough that most folks could agree what that god actually is.

So, what we're left with is more than a few meager understandings of that supreme being and the opinions that prevail are largely dependent on the size of the contenders and the quality of their wrestling moves.

And, when the losers feel as though they're being thrown to the mat, they whine, "Help! Help! We're being oppressed!"


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mnn2501 said:


> What?? Roman Catholics didn't even exist when Christ was on the Earth. The Jews had the Roman Leaders (not Catholic) crucify Jesus.
> Don't know where you learned about Catholicism but you've got most of it wrong (and I am not Catholic) including "claims to be God or Christ on earth"


The Jewish priest who took jesus before the Romans were giving their title and status by the Romans. They were head of the land in those days. A true Jewish priest and leader would never bow to Rome or seek is help. Those who turned overt jesus were not true Jewish leaders they were bought and paid for. The religion of Rome in those days is in fact what became Catholic religion. It's very easily traceable. As to his Christy on earth that is what was scribed on the hat of the Pope for hundreds of years. Vicor of Christo or Christ on earth.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> The Jewish priest who took jesus before the Romans were giving their title and status by the Romans. They were head of the land in those days. A true Jewish priest and leader would never bow to Rome or seek is help. Those who turned overt jesus were not true Jewish leaders they were bought and paid for. The religion of Rome in those days is in fact what became Catholic religion. It's very easily traceable. As to his Christy on earth that is what was scribed on the hat of the Pope for hundreds of years. Vicor of Christo or Christ on earth.



they even brag in documents about changing the sabbath day to sunday...sun-day...the day of sun worship...:smack...all people have to do is look up council of nicsea(sp)..


sunday and the sabbath are 2 totally different things....but i am sure you already know that.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

elkhound said:


> they even brag in documents about changing the sabbath day to sunday...sun-day...the day of sun worship...:smack...all people have to do is look up council of nicsea(sp)..
> 
> 
> sunday and the sabbath are 2 totally different things....but i am sure you already know that.


Yes I do. Have a great friend who is a 7th day adventis. Sunday was never the Sabbath day. Now if I could just get him to realize there is no single day of worship anymore we would be fine. Lol things are going to get bad and the Bible says people will turn back to God or of desperation. What religion will it be? The largest of them all. Catholics. They will appoint the Pope or some other papal head as leader for all the nation's to turn to just like the Un does. And the Bible says the wonder after the beast who does things in the name of God.


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Christianity was around long before Jesus. Father Abraham was a believer in God and Christ who was to come. They were called believers. We created Christianity. Jesus never did. You are a believer or unbeliever. The Roman Catholics were around long before they were called catholics. They formed from the Roman Empire priest the same who called Jesus a blasphemer and took him before Pilot. Every religion has a base starting point. The catholics is started there. Then Constantine decided to name the religion the had long kept, catholocism. Thats why Jesus calls that church the great deciever. They have changed the coarse of time so as to make people forget what they did then and during the dark ages. Heck America was formed because of fleeing the persecution they were facing from the Catholic church which was the church of England.


This is the strangest anti-Catholic rant ever on HT, and there have been plenty of them over the years.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

vicki in NW OH said:


> This is the strangest anti-Catholic rant ever on HT, and there have been plenty of them over the years.


Well I'm glad you have finally heard the true version then. God always sends the truth eventually. Lol


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

This does not mean there aren't good Catholics. There are and there will be those who are saved who never see the truth what their leaders are doing and the deception behind the church.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I doubt Christians in America would have many problems at all if they'd keep their religion in their own homes, churches and parochial schools, where it belongs, rather than constantly trying to pass laws that affect the rest of us.


that shoe fits on the other foot, too. 
Whoever can, will. And now the other side of Christianity can. 
and all that anti Christianity thing is not exactly done under a rug either, or provoked. 
think of college. 
It started long ago when DH was a student. Professor asked, who is a Christian in here? Brighteyed, clean scrubbed fella raised his hand. Well, it went from there.....


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Nope. Everything is predictably the same as it's always been for many thousands of years. Nothing has changed except new technologies and the weather.


you got me baffled. everything is the same as it has been for thousands of years? Well, the sun rose and set, the seasons came and went, people were born and died. Don't know if there is anything else I can think of that has been the same.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

Tabitha said:


> It started long ago when DH was a student. Professor asked, who is a Christian in here? Brighteyed, clean scrubbed fella raised his hand. Well, it went from there.....


Where did it go?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> That leader is in place. And they are putting out the call now to all religions. The papacy is trying to pull all religious leaders back under its wing. The papacy is the head of religion represented at all un meetings to speak for the religious world. Now I'm not saying is the Pope. But that system is going to give power to the figure head or beast add the Bible calls him.


I have to differ. I'm not Catholic but they aren't it. It is Islam and the Bible makes it very clear. The 7 mountains mentioned in prophecy are not the 7 hills of Rome. If they are, when did 5 fall? They are 7 kingdoms or Empires. John said 5 are fallen, 1 is, and one is not yet. The Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc. were past history and John was living during the Roman Empire (6th). The one that was yet to come (7th) was the Ottoman Empire. It received a deadly wound when it was defeated in 1924 but that wound is being healed as we speak and was prophesied. The Bible also says the 8th will be of the seven. It's the same group of people. Look at the countries listed by name in prophesy that Christ fights when He returns. Everyone is Muslim today. Use any Bible map and see what countries those are today. Rome is mentioned 16 times in the Bible but not once in destruction. There is no mention of a burden against Rome but the burden against Arabia is all through the OT. Also compare the Muslim Mahdi to the Biblical anti-Christ. They are the same right down the line. The difference is, Muslims believe he is good and Christians believe he is bad. Also, it does not say he rules the whole world. Quite the contrary.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Ya know, I was brought up under the Hal Lindsey prophecy rah, all the basics are still lodged in my brain...good thing I learned the truth about all that since...I digress....the "great falling away", well, in my almost 50 years of at least watching church, I have come to see the great falling away as THE CHURCH itself--all these mega churches, the extremist types that say muslims need to go away and stuff, the God will bless you with a bunch of wealth if you do the right voodoo, televangelists with gold chairs, the pope with the funny disco hat(I like the new pope btw) etc etc. 

Jesus said love your neighbor and feed the poor. Yes, many are leaving the modern church. They are sick of the money grubbing and hell and damnation. They go out into the world, like Jesus, and just love their neighbor and feed the poor. 

And the mega churches etc are dying...all this paranoia and anger and hatred and fear is the last gasp of a corrupted dying organism. Good thing that Jesus stuff is the real deal though, and can never die and is irrepressible. Bad design self destructs. Good design endures.

God is cleaning his temple. Turds gonna be flushed. Don't be a.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> Ya know, I was brought up under the Hal Lindsey prophecy rah, all the basics are still lodged in my brain...good thing I learned the truth about all that since...I digress....the "great falling away", well, in my almost 50 years of at least watching church, I have come to see the great falling away as THE CHURCH itself--all these mega churches, the extremist types that say muslims need to go away and stuff, the God will bless you with a bunch of wealth if you do the right voodoo, televangelists with gold chairs, the pope with the funny disco hat(I like the new pope btw) etc etc.
> 
> Jesus said love your neighbor and feed the poor. Yes, many are leaving the modern church. They are sick of the money grubbing and hell and damnation. They go out into the world, like Jesus, and just love their neighbor and feed the poor.
> 
> ...


the followers of yeshua(jesus) where called heretics....all he said was stop doing traditions of man and follow my torah....real simple...love each other,dont kill,keep sabbath etc.

but i know you know this....


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

poppy said:


> I have to differ. I'm not Catholic but they aren't it. It is Islam and the Bible makes it very clear. The 7 mountains mentioned in prophecy are not the 7 hills of Rome. If they are, when did 5 fall? They are 7 kingdoms or Empires. John said 5 are fallen, 1 is, and one is not yet. The Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc. were past history and John was living during the Roman Empire (6th). The one that was yet to come (7th) was the Ottoman Empire. It received a deadly wound when it was defeated in 1924 but that wound is being healed as we speak and was prophesied. The Bible also says the 8th will be of the seven. It's the same group of people. Look at the countries listed by name in prophesy that Christ fights when He returns. Everyone is Muslim today. Use any Bible map and see what countries those are today. Rome is mentioned 16 times in the Bible but not once in destruction. There is no mention of a burden against Rome but the burden against Arabia is all through the OT. Also compare the Muslim Mahdi to the Biblical anti-Christ. They are the same right down the line. The difference is, Muslims believe he is good and Christians believe he is bad. Also, it does not say he rules the whole world. Quite the contrary.


The deadly wound was already healed. 

11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. 12He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. 14Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

The beast reign from 538 AD to 1798AD OR 1260 years or 42 months or "time, times and half a time"

The beast was wounded when French General Berthier under Napolean abolish Papal goverment, Pope Pius VI taken captive to Valance, France.

The wound was healed completely when Vatican was signed, the Lateran treaties, by which the Italian state was at last recognised by the Roman Catholic Church, and the independence of Vatican City was recognised by the Italian state.

As dictator of Italy, Mussolini's foremost priority was the subjugation of the minds of the Italian people and the use of propaganda to do so; whether at home or abroad, and here his training as a journalist was invaluable. Press, radio, education, filmsâall were carefully supervised to create the illusion that fascism was the doctrine of the twentieth century, replacing liberalism and democracy. The 1929 treaty also included a legal provision whereby the Italian government would protect the honor and dignity of the Pope by prosecuting offenders. In 1927, Mussolini was baptised by a Roman Catholic priest in order to take away certain Catholic opposition, who were still very critical of a regime which had taken away papal property and virtually blackmailed the Vatican. Since 1927, and more even after 1929, Mussolini, with his anti-Communist doctrines, convinced many Catholics to actively support him. In the encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno, Pope Pius XI attacked the Fascist regime for its policy against the Catholic Action and certain tendencies to overrule Catholic education morals.

The bible says all the world will wonder after the beast and Jesus tries to call them out of her. Im sorry but all the world will never follow after Islam. Every celeb, every politition all the heads of state and even the UN is lead by and under the catholic church. It is the largest recognized religion in the world and growing every day. Islam is a large religion but is largly based in one geographical location. The catholic church is in nearly every nation. It will give power to the beast. The nation that rose from the sea who will pave the way or this, is us. Islam will never take the papcy's seat at the UN to lead all nations. The bible saysteh beats will come in peace claiming to be god. Islam will never come in peace. The come only to kill and destroy. It just dont fit.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Check out this link. It explains it better than I can.

http://www.worldslastchance.com/end-time-prophecy/who-is-the-beast.html


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Hasn't evil always been at war with God?
> 
> Matthew 24:36
> âBut concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.



Yes, it has...pretty much!

Just before your verse 36 in Mt 24:

32 âNow learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 *Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.*


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

But we must remember the Bible is an eastern book and must be understood as such. When God says in the OT that He will enter into judgement with these middle eastern countries because they have scattered His people and they have divided up His land, it is clear who He is talking about. When John says he saw the souls who had been beheaded under God's altar should raise a red flag. Who today is beheading who? Does any group besides Muslims behead people for being Christian or Jewish? When Christ returns, where is He going? The OT says He comes riding on a swift cloud and is coming into Egypt. Why? It also says the believers there (Coptic Christians) will cry out for a Savior from their persecution and God says He will send them a Savior, and a mighty One. Christ says he went there to tread the wine press alone. This is the same wine press being treaded spoken of in Revelation. This stuff is written throughout the OT in numerous prophecies. The early church fathers knew Islam was the beast system. People like Martin Luther and John Calvin taught it. When the Ottoman Empire fell, church leaders thought it was dead for good and they sought another possibility which ended up being Rome, but Rome does not fit the prophecies. They forgot about the deadly wound being healed.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Unlike the progressive/liberals that practice the religion of humanism, and never, ever try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
> 
> The bottom line is, the laws of any country will always be based on some belief system. It's impossible not to. The only question is, whose beliefs will they be based on?


How about we go back to the Founders, who believed Americans had the right to pursue happiness, presumably on their own terms?

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


That seems as good a rule of thumb as any. If your neighbor's behavior (religious or otherwise) isn't harming anyone, MYOB. No?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Tabitha said:


> you got me baffled. everything is the same as it has been for thousands of years? Well, the sun rose and set, the seasons came and went, people were born and died. Don't know if there is anything else I can think of that has been the same.


:shrug: Don't be baffled by what I believe. Be content with what you want to believe and don't worry about what other people believe. But it appears you are asking for an explanation so here goes:

The question was "Is there a war against God and is prophesy coming true?" If I was actually concerned about it then first I'd ask whose god and what prophesy? Yours? Mine? Some other guy who lives on a different planet? As far as I can tell there's certainly no war against god - and god is supposedly omnipotent so it's not possible for anybody to go to war against omnipotent god anyway even if they wanted to. 

Now there may be wars going on between various religions but religion is not the same thing as god and people have been fighting religious wars for like forever and probably will continue to fight religious wars forever or as long as humans exist if we don't all off ourselves. It's really stupid and it's boring but it's not war against god, it's wars of people against people. God wouldn't care about any religions - religion is a human invention, a political control thing, not a god thing. If God thinks anything about religions at all then likely God is probably totally bored with all of the various religions and religious wars.

There have been thousands of prophets and some of the prophets have been accurate in their prophecies and some of them have been off the wall fruitcakes that you can only feel sorry for. I see no point in stressing out over the as yet unproven prophecies and the ones that were proven accurate have already happened and the past is past so there's no point in stressing out over them either.

If you want to believe there's a war against whatever is your concept of god and that some obscure prophecy is coming true then it's your right to believe that - fill your boots - and what you want will most likely happen eventually in your own world view.

I see things differently and I'm not open to being persuaded otherwise by people who want to believe something differently from me. For me there is no war against god, there may or may not be hundreds of prophecies coming true but there's nothing I care to do about any of them because they're somebody else's prophecies, not mine, and nothing else in the world has changed. All of history keeps on repeating itself over and over and over again. Nothing is new except new technologies.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

I honestly read the anti catholic posts with my mouth wide open. Are people really teaching this stuff about catholics? Are there really people out there that think the catholics crucified Christ??? 

I am absolutely slack jawed. I have heard anti catholic stuff before, but what's been posted here wins the award for the most ignorant and bigoted...ever.

I'm not even sure I want to associate any longer on a board that allows such nonsense.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

FeralFemale said:


> I honestly read the anti catholic posts with my mouth wide open. Are people really teaching this stuff about catholics? Are there really people out there that think the catholics crucified Christ???
> 
> I am absolutely slack jawed. I have heard anti catholic stuff before, but what's been posted here wins the award for the most ignorant and bigoted...ever.
> 
> I'm not even sure I want to associate any longer on a board that allows such nonsense.


Nobody is bashing catholic believers. Infact I said there are many good catholics. My neighbors who are our dear friends are catholic. Im talking about the papacy. Many people follow leaders, and presidents and whoever else because they dont know the truth of them or behind them. Doesnt mean they are bad. Just means they are misinformed. The bible speaks against worshiping statues and gold and massive buildings just like in babylon. Well what does the papcy do? It builds massive decked out churches with gold and statues and paintings of saints and jewerly with saints on them that become some peoples idols. They tell you do as I say or be excomunicated from the church. Something Jesus never taught. The only way to be turned away is to reject Christ and his salvation. They say you must confess you sin to a man for God to hear you. BIG lie there. God will hear you no matter where you are and who you are. They teach purgatory and that you can pray for a mans soul after he is gone and save him. Also false. The write their own bible and change many wordings of it. God said he created an and woman to be together and blessed marriage yet they refuse to let a priest mary so they molest children. Even the cross symbol they make when they pray is not a cross. Touch your hand to your forhead then center of your chest and straight across to each shoulder. Its actually the symbol of Baal in babylon. It makes a half circle. Mos of the churches teachings go straight to babylon. Sunrise service which most religions recognize was how they worshiped the sun god. They turned their back to the temple and worshiped the sun as it rose. Easter bunnies and Easter name itself comes from Ishtar the fertilty Godess they worshipped in babylon which is why everyone folows the bunny cause they are fertle mertle creatures. The papcy teaches in whearing gold and jewerly and chanting long chants and prayers another thingthe bible forbids. The bible says its just bable to God. The word babble comes from babylon where they prayed and chanted the same sayings over and over again. The list goes on and on. But again it doesnt mean that people who are catholic are bad. Im just talking about the head of the religion which is the papacy and the traditions they have taught and keep that are easily traced back to babylon.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

FeralFemale said:


> I honestly read the anti catholic posts with my mouth wide open. Are people really teaching this stuff about catholics? Are there really people out there that think the catholics crucified Christ???
> 
> I am absolutely slack jawed. I have heard anti catholic stuff before, but what's been posted here wins the award for the most ignorant and bigoted...ever.
> 
> I'm not even sure I want to associate any longer on a board that allows such nonsense.


Don't get upset. Lots of views out there and will come up in such discussions. I have nothing at all against Catholics or their governing body. The Catholics have been a target for some of the prophecy buffs for several years. Perhaps it is because you can stand on any street corner about anyplace in the world holding a big sign saying the Pope is the anti Christ and no one will harm you. Try doing that with a big sign saying Islam is the anti Christ system and you are not likely to live long in much of the world. However, that is what the Bible says.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

poppy said:


> Don't get upset. Lots of views out there and will come up in such discussions. I have nothing at all against Catholics or their governing body. The Catholics have been a target for some of the prophecy buffs for several years. Perhaps it is because you can stand on any street corner about anyplace in the world holding a big sign saying the Pope is the anti Christ and no one will harm you. Try doing that with a big sign saying Islam is the anti Christ system and you are not likely to live long in much of the world. However, that is what the Bible says.


I dont belive the pope is the anitchrist. I believe the papacy will give him his authority though when the world leaders turn to the papcy for direction when all heck breaks loose. They wont turn to the muslims for direction when all heck breaks loose so the muslim theory just dont fit. They dont have the political power as heads of state in the world to lead the world in peace. 

Daniel tells us all about it. In the famous âseventy weeksâ passage of Daniel 9the Old Testament prophet predicts the coming Tribulation as well as the ethnicity of the antichrist. Daniel 9:26b states, ââ¦and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuaryâ¦â
Daniel prophesies that this same âprinceâ in verse 26 will make a treaty with Israel in verse 27. He will then break that treaty and set up the abomination that causes desolation during the middle of the Tribulation. The âpeopleâ of this prince (the antichrist) were predicted to destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary. In 70 AD, almost five hundred years after Danielâs prediction, the Roman Empire annihilated the Jewish people. A culmination of three Jewish uprisings, this last assault on Jerusalem would kill over a million Jews and send millions more into slavery across the Roman world. Jerusalem has only been destroyed one time after Danielâs prophecy and it occurred almost 2,000 years ago at the hands of the Romans. Therefore we can conclude that the antichrist, the prince of the Romans, will be a man of Roman descent -- not Assyrian as so many say to tie him to muslims. Assyrian in the bible was more to his character not his race.

Here is a good read on Islam and why it dont fit. 

Danielâs four world Gentile empires found in chapters 2 and 7 of his book describe four world empires in chronological order. Please look up these passages as you are reading this article.

a. Babylon (lion, head of gold)

b. Persia (bear, silver arms)

c. Greco-Macedonian (leopard, (bronze torso/legs)

d. Roman (iron beast of Rome, two legs (Eastern and Western Rome, and the future ten-toes/feet of antichristâs rule)

It is plain to see in Danielâs visions that neither Islam nor the Ottoman Empire were represented. Chronologically, there are no gaps in Danielâs dreams other than the one separating the iron beast of Rome with its ten-toed counterpart during the Tribulation.

Babylon was quickly replaced by Persia in 538 BC, while Persia was swiftly routed by Alexander in 332 BC. After Alexander died, his generals divided the empires amongst themselves, only to eventually succumb to the power of Rome in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. Rome dominated the world for another seven hundred years until its eventual collapse in 476 AD. The East wouldnât collapse until 1453 AD.

Islam is also a relatively modern phenomenon, arriving in the 6th century AD. Islamic warriors never conquered the globe, nor are they expected to do so. The Islamic world of today is a conglomerate of different cultures, governments, and peoples, not a united Gentile world empire like Babylon, Persia, Greece, or Rome.

The Ottoman Empire is even younger. The Ottoman Turks made their debut in the Middle Ages against the Christian Crusaders, but wouldnât grow to their full height until the 16th and 17th centuries AD.

The Ottoman Empire was impressive during its time, but fell apart after WWI. Scripturally and geopolitically, Turkey is not predicted to conquer the earth any time soon. Yes, Turkey is making a comeback today. Turkey may be involved in the Gog/Magog fiasco of Ezekiel 38 and 39, but Turkey will not spawn the antichrist or conquer the entire earth.

Those who claim the two legs of Danielâs dream represent the two legs of the Ottoman Empire (Shiite and Sunni) have forgotten to account for nearly 1,000 years of Roman domination, the basic chronological outline of Daniel, as well as the nature of Islamic society and culture itself. Ah yes, one more thing â the Ottoman Empire was predominantly Sunni and not Shiite. The vast majority of Muslims practice Sunni and not Shiite Islam. Unless Danielâs end-times beast was hobbling around on one leg, his visions cannot represent Sunni and Shiite Islam. The end-times world government will be a Roman/Western government, not an Eastern/Islamic one.

Imagine a Muslim antichrist blaspheming Allahâ¦ and living to tell about it

The Bible doesnât hold back when describing the personality of the antichrist. He will be the worst human being in world history. Think about that for a moment. Perhaps the most telling indication that the antichrist will not hail from a Muslim land is found in Daniel 11:37,

âHe will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all.â

Could you imagine the response of a devoutly Islamic nation like Egypt or Iran after their leader says, âI am god, there is no other god butâ¦ me! You will now bow down and worshipâ¦ me!â This declaration would be both a direct blasphemy against Allah and a death sentence. Even in secular Turkey a man who claimed to be god would find himself thrown in prison at best.

No, the antichrist will not come from a Muslim land. The biblical, cultural, and historical evidence is too strong against the prospect.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Thank you all for answering the question I proposed in opening this thread. I got the idea from the "Dinosaurs walked the Earth" thread.
Here is a piece of scripture that applies to both threads and I think is pretty prophetic:

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart were darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

And you know what. Im not even sure that the papacy knows they are doing it or are going to do it. They may be just as decieved as anybody else. But when the bible says the world will wonder after the beast who is performing miracles in the name of God, who else fits? When things get so bad people turn back to God, who will they turn to? The ones already representing all of christianity in the UN and the world. When they seek their help and counsil I beleive they will present to the world the antichrist as the man with the solution. Wether they do this knwoingly or not I dont know. But its the only thing thats lines up with scripture.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

PrettyPaisley said:


> I totally agree but I believe that goes for ALL religions. Muslims come to my mind before Christians. When Christian laws start requiring raping little girls and chopping of the heads of non believers I think we can start to worry a bit more about their influence.


Rest assured I would feel the same way about Muslims if I perceived them to be a threat to my way of life in America .However, I have yet to hear of any Muslim groups campaigning to restrict my right to reproductive freedom or my ability to marry the consenting adult of my choice. 

Perhaps politically-active Muslims simply aren't numerous enough here to try to impose their religious views on the population at large? If so, would that it were the same with Christians!


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

You do not have to know you are part of prophesy to follow prophesy.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Rest assured I would feel the same way about Muslims if I perceived them to be a threat to my way of life in America .However, I have yet to hear of any Muslim groups campaigning to restrict my right to reproductive freedom or my ability to marry the consenting adult of my choice.
> 
> Perhaps politically-active Muslims simply aren't numerous enough here to try to impose their religious views on the population at large? If so, would that it were the same with Christians!


And quite too late to do anything about as, being a woman, your opinion would not be worth hearing. And would not be noticed anyway as it's hard to express your opinion without still being attached to your head.

Can you not look around the world and see the Muslim future that is possible?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> And quite too late to do anything about as, being a woman, your opinion would not be worth hearing. And would not be noticed anyway as it's hard to express your opinion without still being attached to your head.
> 
> Can you not look around the world and see the Muslim future that is possible?


Here in America? No, not likely, unless we alter our immigration policy in some way that allows a massive influx from predominately-Muslim countries (as have some European countries). 

The only other option would be military defeat by a Muslim enemy willing and able to impose its religion, but I don't think that will happen in America, at least not in my lifetime. We spend more on weaponry than most of the rest of the world put together, and even if our government fell, an invader still would have to contend with 300 million Americans who are mostly armed to the teeth. 

I suppose it's also possible the religion would make enough converts within our borders to move the needle, but what are the odds of that happening? (I don't know a single person who has converted to Islam. Do you?)

I do think some find it expedient to make people fear a bogeyman ...


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> The religion of Rome in those days is in fact what became Catholic religion. It's very easily traceable. As to his Christy on earth that is what was scribed on the hat of the Pope for hundreds of years. Vicor of Christo or Christ on earth.


No, the religion in Rome during that day was multiple Gods, (Jupiter, Neptune, Apollo, etc)
Catholicism did not become the religion of Rome until Constantine in 300+ AD

The 'Vicar of Christ' means the 'Servant (or representative) of Christ' - not that he is Christ.

You really need to study more before slamming something.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

FeralFemale said:


> I honestly read the anti catholic posts with my mouth wide open. Are people really teaching this stuff about catholics? Are there really people out there that think the catholics crucified Christ???
> 
> I am absolutely slack jawed. I have heard anti catholic stuff before, but what's been posted here wins the award for the most ignorant and bigoted...ever.
> 
> I'm not even sure I want to associate any longer on a board that allows such nonsense.


If you go away, then the uninformed ranters win. We all know the anti-Catholic rant is just that, an uninformed rant by people who don't know any better.

I'm not even Catholic and I know that and am pointing out some of the errors.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Here in America? No, not likely, unless we alter our immigration policy in some way that allows a massive influx from predominately-Muslim countries (as have some European countries).
> 
> The only other option would be military defeat by a Muslim enemy willing and able to impose its religion, but I don't think that will happen in America, at least not in my lifetime. We spend more on weaponry than most of the rest of the world put together, and even if our government fell, an invader still would have to contend with 300 million Americans who are mostly armed to the teeth.
> 
> ...


I, on the other hand, believe that hard won freedoms are not a free ride. Because you have personally lived with the rights that someone has fought and died to establish does not mean that they are just always going to be there. It has not been that long since women were not allowed to even vote. 
And it does not take a huge influx of people with different ideas to cause changes. They just have to be loud, complaining, violent and have good lawyers to effect changes in what you assume will always be there . There have been an unfortunate number of women that assumed that being in the US meant they had the freedom to live how they wanted only to be killed by relatives who didn't agree.
If you think that people raising worries based on clear data fear bogeymen, I fear the convenient denial that there are actually bogeymen out there to be dangerous to everyone else. It's the famous "It can't happen here" fallacy.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

FeralFemale said:


> I honestly read the anti catholic posts with my mouth wide open. Are people really teaching this stuff about catholics? Are there really people out there that think the catholics crucified Christ???
> 
> I am absolutely slack jawed. I have heard anti catholic stuff before, but what's been posted here wins the award for the most ignorant and bigoted...ever.
> 
> *I'm not even sure I want to associate any longer on a board that allows such nonsense.*


Lighten up kiddo. It was just one person expressing an odd opinion about a religion. Now don't you go doing a melodramatic swan song just because one person who's exercising his right to freedom of thought and speech says something odd about your religion that you disagree with. There are many people who believe and teach all kinds of weird things much stranger than that, yourself and myself included. You can't expect the board to protect your individual beliefs and censor that kind of self-expression otherwise the board would have to censor many other opinions about all sorts of subjects that are a lot stranger opinions than that, including some of yours and mine. Then where does one draw the line on what's reasonable and unreasonable censorship and what's the point of having a general discussion board if only certain pre-approved topics or opinions are "allowed"? It wouldn't be a forum anymore.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mnn2501 said:


> No, the religion in Rome during that day was multiple Gods, (Jupiter, Neptune, Apollo, etc)
> Catholicism did not become the religion of Rome until Constantine in 300+ AD
> 
> The 'Vicar of Christ' means the 'Servant (or representative) of Christ' - not that he is Christ.
> ...


Better study back up. Vicar means "Instead of" or "In the place of" And if you take the writtings of at least 4 popes over the years they claim themsleves to be Christ on Earth. Calling the pope the Vicar of Christ puts him at the same power of Christ with the same authority over the church. Jesus said himself the only Vicar to him is the holy spirit. And was Constantine not a Roman leader? Romans had different beliefs and many had a singular God instead of many. Even in the bible God made th Roman Leaders bow before him. So they knew of one singualr God since then.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Paumon said:


> Lighten up kiddo. It was just one person expressing an odd opinion about a religion. Now don't you go doing a melodramatic swan song just because one person who's exercising his right to freedom of thought and speech says something odd about your religion that you disagree with. There are many people who believe and teach all kinds of weird things much stranger than that, yourself and myself included. You can't expect the board to protect your individual beliefs and censor that kind of self-expression otherwise the board would have to censor many other opinions about all sorts of subjects that are a lot stranger opinions than that, including some of yours and mine. Then where does one draw the line on what's reasonable and unreasonable censorship and what's the point of having a general discussion board if only certain pre-approved topics or opinions are "allowed"? It wouldn't be a forum anymore.


Well said. Im not trying to bash anyones belief or them as a person. Im just sharing what I feel about the bible. I know many dont agree with it. I know. I was raised southern pentecostal and got made fun of quite a bit because of their hell fire and brimstone and falling out and dancing in the spirit. But I woke u and realized I was following things they taught me that werent biblical. So today. Im non denominational. I follow Jesus and live under grace. I live simple life and love to farm. And sometimes I do get carried away about thinsg when im passionate about them. And when end times stuff comes up Itry to piont things out n hopes one day if the time comes people will see the signs line up and remember something.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

The great thing about the US, and one of the things that does make us different than most everyone else, is that any number of hostile religions can exist without killing each other off. I am pretty safe in thinking that I can hold what opinion I want and not worry if someone else is offended. Having offended someone's religion will not result in death. 
The only reason that I feel Islam is worrisome is not because of the tenets of that religion except for the one that says an insult to Islam is to be avenged. That is not compatable with the solution to religious violence that was part of our Consitution.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I, on the other hand, believe that hard won freedoms are not a free ride. Because you have personally lived with the rights that someone has fought and died to establish does not mean that they are just always going to be there. It has not been that long since women were not allowed to even vote.
> And it does not take a huge influx of people with different ideas to cause changes.


I do believe that Christian fundamentalists and hardline Muslims are probably pretty close in their views about women and how they should be treated, and if the two factions ever teamed up, we might be in trouble. I don't think that's likely, though, so we're probably gonna be OK.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Better study back up. Vicar means "Instead of" or "In the place of" And if you take the writtings of at least 4 popes over the years they claim themsleves to be Christ on Earth. Calling the pope the Vicar of Christ puts him at the same power of Christ with the same authority over the church. Jesus said himself the only Vicar to him is the holy spirit. And was Constantine not a Roman leader? Romans had different beliefs and many had a singular God instead of many. Even in the bible God made th Roman Leaders bow before him. So they knew of one singualr God since then.





> A vicar (/&#712;v&#618;k&#601;r/; Latin: vicarius) is a representative, deputy or substitute; anyone acting "in the person of" or agent for a superior (compare "vicarious" in the sense of "at second hand"). In this sense, the title is comparable to lieutenant. Linguistically, vicar is cognate with the English prefix "vice", similarly meaning "deputy".


As I said Constantine was a Roman leader in the 300's AD who eventually declared Christianity the official religion of Rome, up until that point Romans worshiped many Gods



> Constantine I or Saint Constantine,[3] was Roman Emperor from 306 to 337. The first Roman emperor to claim conversion to Christianity,[notes 4] Constantine played an influential role in the proclamation of the Edict of Milan, which decreed tolerance for Christianity in the empire. He called the First Council of Nicaea in 325, at which the Nicene Creed was professed by Christians.


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



Vahomesteaders said:


> Even in the bible God made th Roman Leaders bow before him. So they knew of one singualr God since then.





Vahomesteaders said:


> Jesus said himself the only Vicar to him is the holy spirit..


How about a Chapter and verse for your claims.


* * * 
Again, a little study before slamming what you know *very little about* is in order.
<<shakes head and walks away>>


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mnn2501 said:


> As I said Constantine was a Roman leader in the 300's AD who eventually declared Christianity the official religion of Rome, up until that point Romans worshiped many Gods
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Book of John tells us:
But the Helper who comes in my place (Vicar), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. 

And again as you walk away shaking your head I wouldnt shake it to hard. This is from the vaticans own writings:
St. Constantine did not invent Catholicism, he simply recognized it and let people legally be Christian. Christians were having "Catholic" Masses long before this "legalization" of Christianity. Three hundred years before Constantine, the dead sea scrolls show Christians believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, honoured Mary, had elaborate ceremonies, prayed for the dead, respected the Church hierarchy, baptized babies, recognized Peter as the Rock, built the Church upon him with successors and followed a rich tradition of Christianity. That was the Christianity of the early days of Christianity and that is what has become our Catholic Church of today. Catholic means "universal." The early church was called "ekklesia kathholes" meaning the whole church. Early Roman leaders in our history's writings point to it being followed and upheld as early as 4 BC.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I do believe that Christian fundamentalists and hardline Muslims are probably pretty close in their views about women and how they should be treated, and if the two factions ever teamed up, we might be in trouble. I don't think that's likely, though, so we're probably gonna be OK.


But have you ever heard of Christian sects, say for instance, shooting a 14 year old girl in the face because she wrote about going to school?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

elkhound said:


> the followers of yeshua(jesus) where called heretics....all he said was stop doing traditions of man and follow my torah....real simple...love each other,dont kill,keep sabbath etc.
> 
> but i know you know this....


 

what if...feeding the poor, was not so much about the poor eating, but about oneself emptying oneself of illusion by giving it all away (leave everything and follow me, he sez), and then you see and know the truth of all things

and the poor get to eat too

we all find what we're looking for...

re the falling away
http://time.com/3048971/i-want-my-christianity-back/


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

wyld thang said:


> what if...feeding the poor, was not so much about the poor eating, but about oneself emptying oneself of illusion by giving it all away (leave everything and follow me, he sez), and then you see and know the truth of all things
> 
> and the poor get to eat too
> 
> ...


Good post. That is the ltimate goal. Simplify live to have less destractons from God. You help the poor by teaching the poor. Give a man a fish he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he will never go hungry. I know from our situation we simplified life to the best of our ability and man the focus that we came into was awesome. We finaly a couple a weeks ago did away with tv. There isnt anything good on anyway. The few shows we watch we can watch the day after they air on the computer so its no different than dvr. lol It so much more peaceful without so many distractions in our lives.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

where I want to said:


> But have you ever heard of Christian sects, say for instance, shooting a 14 year old girl in the face because she wrote about going to school?


Please give "that girl", who has a name--Malala Yousafzai--credit for what she did. She knew what was at stake, and spoke anyways and has done great good.

The Taliban themselves know what power she passes along and tried to destroy it, only to make it stronger.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24379018

I can name one Christian sect that dictates one path for 14 year old girls...more than one way to shoot a girl in the face.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Lighten up kiddo. It was just one person expressing an odd opinion about a religion. Now don't you go doing a melodramatic swan song just because one person who's exercising his right to freedom of thought and speech says something odd about your religion that you disagree with. There are many people who believe and teach all kinds of weird things much stranger than that, yourself and myself included. You can't expect the board to protect your individual beliefs and censor that kind of self-expression otherwise the board would have to censor many other opinions about all sorts of subjects that are a lot stranger opinions than that, including some of yours and mine. Then where does one draw the line on what's reasonable and unreasonable censorship and what's the point of having a general discussion board if only certain pre-approved topics or opinions are "allowed"? It wouldn't be a forum anymore.


Oh, I've had a day to 'lighten up' (and, btw, my name is not 'kiddo' unless you put Beatrix in front of it...look it up, lol)

I woke up this morning, took a look at HST, and found absolutely ridiculuous and uneducated statements about my Church. I will be the first to admit that I am pretty flipping grumpy in the mornings. I over reacted.

However, I still believe that the poster(s) in question are extremely uneducated and bigoted when it comes to Catholic history, teachings, and dogma.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Not wars against gods, it people believing they can wage war in the name of their god.

My god says thou shalt not kill, which i interprate to kill only in self-defense, of, my self, others, country. Not in offense to get oil etc.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> I do believe that Christian fundamentalists and hardline Muslims are probably pretty close in their views about women and how they should be treated, and if the two factions ever teamed up, we might be in trouble. I don't think that's likely, though, so we're probably gonna be OK.


Ephesians 5:25

King James Bible
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

FeralFemale said:


> However, I still believe that the poster(s) in question are extremely uneducated and bigoted when it comes to Catholic history, teachings, and dogma.


100% correct.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Ephesians 5:25
> 
> King James Bible
> Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;


Unfortunately many people forget he last half of that verse "even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it"


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Ephesians 5:25
> 
> King James Bible
> Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;



1 Corinthians 14
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2
11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> 1 Corinthians 14
> 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
> 
> 1 Timothy 2
> 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.


I often wondered how Gloria Copeland, other female evangelists and various church certified female preachers started getting around those passages as the right side of the feminist movement started gaining speed in the 1980s.

All I know for sure is I know three women who are Christians and they refuse to watch or attend any church event with a female preacher and all three stand firm that female preachers violate the teachings of the bible as they were taught in the 1950s/1960s.

The three of them never discuss religion in depth when around those not family or at the church they attend.

About the most religious thing I have ever heard from any of them is the occasional "have a blessed day" type statement that exhibits the extent of their beliefs.


----------



## PrettyPaisley (May 18, 2007)

Shrek said:


> I often wondered how Gloria Copeland, other female evangelists and various church certified female preachers started getting around those passages as the right side of the feminist movement started gaining speed in the 1980s.
> 
> All I know for sure is I know three women who are Christians and they refuse to watch or attend any church event with a female preacher and all three stand firm that female preachers violate the teachings of the bible as they were taught in the 1950s/1960s.
> 
> ...



Do they belong to the Church of Christ? I was raised in that church and I was also taught this as well as Catholics were damned to hell for many reasons that conflict with the bible. Of course I no longer believe most all I was taught then and thing Catholicism is one of the most interesting religions. 

My great grandmother came to visit us long after we stopped attending church but we found one we had never been to and took her Sunday morning. This was up north-we hadn't lived there long. I'd never seen that 80 some odd year old woman move her walker as fast as she did to leave that service when a woman walked up to the pulpit. This was the early 90's - and I swear she spit the grape juice out in the aisle as she flew out the door.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Shrek said:


> I often wondered how Gloria Copeland, other female evangelists and various church certified female preachers started getting around those passages as the right side of the feminist movement started gaining speed in the 1980s.
> 
> All I know for sure is I know three women who are Christians and they refuse to watch or attend any church event with a female preacher and all three stand firm that female preachers violate the teachings of the bible as they were taught in the 1950s/1960s.
> 
> ...


The try to get around it by having husbands setting behind them while they preach and acting like their husband is the actual head of the church. It just doesnt work that way. BUT! Though woman is not to be head of the church or pulpit, women have some of the hardest and most glorified jobs and responsibilities in the church and in the home. They are called to teach the young women the word of God. They are called to teach the children the word of God. Not only that bu read proverbs chapte 31. Its all about a virtuous woman. It explains how she is a hard worker in the home. It explains how she is proud of her home, children and husband. How she makes her own beautiful clothing and how she makes goods to sell at the market to take care of her family etc... Many of the men who just go UGGG ME MAN, forget those passages. We live as close to the bible as possible. I am head of the house as Christ is head of me. I have the final say on what happes here. But we discuss everything and come to mutual agreement on any project or trip or spending or anything else. If we cant agree then my submits to my decision and trust I make the right one for the family. But thankfully we usually always reach and agreement because we both are focused on the same things.
And again I dont think all catholics are damned to hell. I just have done so much study on their practices and they dont fit the word of God. HEre are just a few examples.

Calling the Priests "Father" is forbidden
"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

Praying repetitive words using Rosary beads is forbidden.

They tell you to hold the Rosary and pray 20 sets of 10 "Hail Marys", Thats 200 times in the Rosary, in total.

"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. Matthew 6:7

Virgin Mary

Catholics are taught the virgin Mary never had sex after Jesus was born and that Jesus had no brothers and sisters. The Pope teaches that Mary is the mediator between God and man. Catholics also engage in more praising of Mary than Jesus Christ himself and actually pray to her to have their prayers answered. Rosary Beads graphically represent how Roman Catholics heap 10 times more praise upon Mary than God himself. Of the 59 total beads of the Rosary, 53 beads are "Hail Marys", but only 6 beads are "Our Father". The Rosary most often ends with a "Hail, Holy Queen" prayer to Mary, not God. But we know Mary did have sex and did have more children. 

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" Matthew 13:55-56


Did Joseph have sex with Mary? Yes after Jesus was born. 
"And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Matthew 1:24-25


The Bible says there is only one mediator between God and man. Is mary that one mediator? Is any man one mediator through confession?

"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5

Catholics engage in endless praise of Mary. When a woman praised Jesus' mother to his face, did Jesus commend or encourage this woman to continue praising Mary? No he didnt.

"While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed." But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."" Luke 11:27-28

The Pope says only very special dead Catholic people qualify to be called "saints". For example, Pope John Paul II could not make Mother Teresa a saint until after she was dead. The average Catholic in the pew is never called a "saint" dead or alive! In fact if a pew dwelling Catholic started calling himself a "saint", he would be rebuked by the parish priest!

Was every living Christian in the church in Corinth called a saint? 

"To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours" 1 Corinthians 1:2

Did Paul write the book of Ephesians to dead saints? 

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus" Ephesians 1:1

Was the average Christian in the church at Philippi called a saint, in distinction to bishops and deacons? 

"Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons" Philippians 1:1

Was every Christian living in Rome called to be a saint? 

"to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 1:7


In 1079 AD celibacy was first enforced for priests and bishops by Pope Gregory VII. Before this time, they were permitted to marry.

Does the Bible teach that a bishop (overseer) must be married AND ALSO have children as one of the conditions of being qualified to be a bishop? 

"A bishop, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)" 1 Timothy 3:2-5

In the very next chapter of the Bible after bishops are told they must be married with children, does the Holy Spirit warn that "forbidding to marry" is a "doctrine of demons"? 

"But the Holy Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth." 1 Timothy 4:1-3

And these are just a couple things I see. Heck they also point to Peter as being the originial pope and say he never married or any apostles for that matter yet the bible says otherwise.

"Now Simon Peters mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever; and immediately they spoke to Jesus about her." Mark 1:30

"Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" 1 Corinthians 9:5

My wife comes from a catholic family. So we have done alot of study on them. They things they teach do not line up with the word of God. And the bible says if they teach just one falsehood then they are not of God and stay away from them. But again that doesnt mean there are no good catholics because there are many. It just means they are following what they have always been taught and God will judge them based on that and based on what they truely believe. But once you know the truth you are held accountable for ignoring it which is why I cannot ignore it based on its teachings not its people who love the Lord and are trying just like the rest of us to please God.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

When we read the bible and ignore the cultural settings and audience relevance, we can end up in a deep hole.

With regard to Willow Girl's quotes from 1 Cor and 1 Timothy, remember this; when Paul wrote those words, people were living in a completely different cultural and ecclesiastical world.

Note that Paul even says in 1 Cor 14:34 "as the LAW says". 

These early Christians were greatly influenced by what they had been taught, or had peripherally heard taught, in the Synagogues. This transition period (if I might call it that) was one of great confusion as folks tried to deal with new paradigms in their faith lives.

For the record, I for years thought that women were similarly forbidden by Paul's words to teach, have authority, etc. I am not so sure anymore, given what I believe I understand regarding culture and audience relevance.

Still trying to figure it all out........


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

tarbe said:


> When we read the bible and ignore the cultural settings and audience relevance, we can end up in a deep hole.
> 
> With regard to Willow Girl's quotes from 1 Cor and 1 Timothy, remember this; when Paul wrote those words, people were living in a completely different cultural and ecclesiastical world.
> 
> ...


I thought the same things as you. But I realized Gods word is all inspired by him. He knew what todays culture was going to be even in that day and he was writing those words for us and our time as well. Thats why so many say times change to justify how they live. We changed and our culture changed but God did not. Nor did the way thinsg were supposed to be done. I know many women dont like to hear it put this way sometimes but the common theme in the bible is woman messed up and then caused man to mess up and so she must live a submissive role. My wife and I struggled with this as well. But once you read the word it comes pretty clear on our roles in life and the natural order God has set upon the earth. BUT. Man has to his part and be the spirityual leader of the house and provide for and care for his family or the bible says he is an infidel.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Vahomesteaders said:


> But I realized Gods word is all inspired by him.


Absolutely true!

However, how we process and understand and apply those words is not necessarily inspired.

Never forget that!


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I thought the same things as you. But I realized Gods word is all inspired by him. He knew what todays culture was going to be even in that day and he was writing those words for us and our time as well. Thats why so many say times change to justify how they live. We changed and our culture changed but God did not. Nor did the way thinsg were supposed to be done. I know many women dont like to hear it put this way sometimes but the common theme in the bible is woman messed up and then caused man to mess up and so she must live a submissive role. My wife and I struggled with this as well. But once you read the word it comes pretty clear on our roles in life and the natural order God has set upon the earth. BUT. Man has to his part and be the spirityual leader of the house and provide for and care for his family or the bible says he is an infidel.


The part about man being the spiritual leader is where quite a few women like myself turn away. My family is a mixture of religions from Catholic, Protestant, Heathen/Pagan to Muslim. And some like me have become more agnostic in out beliefs. I question the man being the spiritual leader in many ways. Why would any woman need a man to interpret spirituality and make the final decision on what her beliefs should be? 

I am single, been in the military 10+ years and deployed to combat zones 4 times. It is not in my nature to in civilian life to be told that I need a man to instruct or lead me. What these passages seem to mean are women are not capable or intelligent enough to understand. 

Just my 2 cents


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

no really said:


> The part about man being the spiritual leader is where quite a few women like myself turn away. My family is a mixture of religions from Catholic, Protestant, Heathen/Pagan to Muslim. And some like me have become more agnostic in out beliefs. I question the man being the spiritual leader in many ways. Why would any woman need a man to interpret spirituality and make the final decision on what her beliefs should be?
> 
> I am single, been in the military 10+ years and deployed to combat zones 4 times. It is not in my nature to in civilian life to be told that I need a man to instruct or lead me. What these passages seem to mean are women are not capable or intelligent enough to understand.
> 
> Just my 2 cents


She doesnt need the man to interpret it for her. She is to learn for herself and pass it on to the children. What it means is that from the spiritual standpoint of what should and should not be allowed or accepted in the house like say types of movies or shows or whas llowed to be done on the internet and even drinking and smoking and language used. Anything that can distract from God or plant seeds that go against God, he needs to determin what those things are and get them out of the house. But its a partnership. Husband and wife should study together and find the best route. Now if your single you need no man to instruct you. You study God word and learn it for yourself. There is nothing against that at all. But in a marriage sutuation the husband needs to know the word and make sure the family does as well. But if the wife is saved and the husband is not, its her job to lead the family and try to open her husbands heart.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

And thank you for your service by the way. You :rock:


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Vahomesteaders said:


> She doesnt need the man to interpret it for her. She is to learn for herself and pass it on to the children. What it means is that from the spiritual standpoint of what should and should not be allowed or accepted in the house like say types of movies or shows or whas llowed to be done on the internet and even drinking and smoking and language used. Anything that can distract from God or plant seeds that go against God, he needs to determin what those things are and get them out of the house. But its a partnership. Husband and wife should study together and find the best route. Now if your single you need no man to instruct you. You study God word and learn it for yourself. There is nothing against that at all. But in a marriage sutuation the husband needs to know the word and make sure the family does as well. But if the wife is saved and the husband is not, its her job to lead the family and try to open her husbands heart.


You said in a previous post that man was the spiritual leader of the house, if both are equal in knowledge should his word be more important?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> For the record, I for years thought that women were similarly forbidden by Paul's words to teach, have authority, etc. I am not so sure anymore, given what I believe I understand regarding culture and audience relevance.


Tarbe, with all due respect to you, you sound a bit like the gay Christians who are trying to make a case that the Bible doesn't hate and condemn them for simply being who they are. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. 

But I'm not sure it works that way. I think it makes more sense to take the Bible at face value. That is, if you're a gay Christian, it doesn't matter what you do or how good you try to be -- the Bible says you're not getting into Heaven. Might as well get used to the idea. If you're a woman, sit down and shut up, and get used to being treated like a second-class citizen, because that's what you are. 

And don't give me any nonsense about how wonderful it is to be a keeper of the home and to teach the young wives to love their husbands, etc. -- if those jobs had any power or prestige, men would be doing them! ound:

So it is what it is ... take it or leave it, AFAIC. There are plenty of other religions in the world to choose from if you don't like Christianity's rules. You can even choose to have ... none at all.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

no really said:


> You said in a previous post that man was the spiritual leader of the house, if both are equal in knowledge should his word be more important?


 A spiritual leader of the house means this. They should both have the same knowledge as they study together. His job as spiritual leader IF he is walking in Gods will and word is to make sure that everyone in the house has the same knowledge. If they all do, he has done his job and the entire family is living in harmony. It is also his job, again IF he is living according to Gods word, to make the final decisions on the faith and direction of the family. My wife and I study the word with our kids. Any decision we have to make no matter wat it is, we talk aout it and talk about how to go about it. If we agree, which most of the time we do, then thats what we do. If we dont agree, she gives me the final say and trust it will be the best for the family. Now if the man is not living according to Gods word, its the wifes job to study it and see he is not and should not follow him if he is leading them astray. She should pray that he may see the truth. The bible says the prayer of a woman of God can cover the family with grace for a time. Meaning God will bless the family because of the prayer of one faithful person but they must try to tur the spouse around to see the truth.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> Tarbe, with all due respect to you, you sound a bit like the gay Christians who are trying to make a case that the Bible doesn't hate and condemn them for simply being who they are. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.
> 
> But I'm not sure it works that way. I think it makes more sense to take the Bible at face value. That is, if you're a gay Christian, it doesn't matter what you do or how good you try to be -- the Bible says you're not getting into Heaven. Might as well get used to the idea. If you're a woman, sit down and shut up, and get used to being treated like a second-class citizen, because that's what you are.
> 
> ...


Being keeper of the home does not mean a woman cant work or anything else. It means she runs a tight ship and keep ALL affairs of the house in order. When women did that there was less divorce, less broken families, less fatherless children and more solid foundation children. Also keep in mind once banks and phone, tv, power companies, car companies etc.. Realized hey these households now have two people working poeple and women are fighting and winning to make as much money as men they can all afford to pay more. So we can jack our rates and prices forcing the cost of living to blow up. When a household makes more everyone else wants to take more. That has been the worst result of going away from biblical living. However I am all for a woman being able to work and help provide for her family as long as she also keeps the house in order. But its also mans job to do his part. The bible says a slothful man is worthless. So a lazy man that cant also take care of his own and help around the house is worthless.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Vahomesteaders said:


> A spiritual leader of the house means this. They should both have the same knowledge as they study together. His job as spiritual leader IF he is walking in Gods will and word is to make sure that everyone in the house has the same knowledge. If they all do, he has done his job and the entire family is living in harmony. It is also his job, again IF he is living according to Gods word, to make the final decisions on the faith and direction of the family. My wife and I study the word with our kids. Any decision we have to make no matter wat it is, we talk aout it and talk about how to go about it. If we agree, which most of the time we do, then thats what we do. If we dont agree, she gives me the final say and trust it will be the best for the family. Now if the man is not living according to Gods word, its the wifes job to study it and see he is not and should not follow him if he is leading them astray. She should pray that he may see the truth. The bible says the prayer of a woman of God can cover the family with grace for a time. Meaning God will bless the family because of the prayer of one faithful person but they must try to tur the spouse around to see the truth.



Understand what you are saying and in a perfect world it could work. But the world is not perfect. If I don't agree with a decision I need some reason to give my approval. Being male IMHO is not a reason. Don't get me wrong I listen to many men in my life, they have earned my respect in numerous areas. If I marry it will be to a man that understands we are partners, equals. At times the partnership will entail one or the other carrying more of the load of course. But religion is personal, open for discussion but not open to edicts.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

A little addition to my post. If a women is comfortable and happy in her situation, I am happy for her.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

no really said:


> Understand what you are saying and in a perfect world it could work. But the world is not perfect. If I don't agree with a decision I need some reason to give my approval. Being male IMHO is not a reason. Don't get me wrong I listen to many men in my life, they have earned my respect in numerous areas. If I marry it will be to a man that understands we are partners, equals. At times the partnership will entail one or the other carrying more of the load of course. But religion is personal, open for discussion but not open to edicts.


I agree. We dont live in a perfect world. We have to create our own. My wife and I use to be so different. We married at 19 and almsot divorced by 21 and again at 24. She did her thing and I did mine. we patched thinsg up and had kids. still doing our own thing. She worked as a financial manager for wells fargo NOVA district and I had my own construction company. We would finaly see each other at night an I spent 30 minutes with the kids before bed. We argued about everything. All our friends were the same way. Most loosing their marriage. Then we started back to church. Things got a little better but we stll couldnt agree on much. Finaly about 4 years ago we moved away from home and to where we are now. We met so many amazing families here and it blew us away hwo they lived. They were biblical following families. Their kids were well behaved and educated and their homes just seemed so complete. So we started trying to figue it out. Once we started living according to Gods design in the bible for the family, everything fell into place. We have been married 15 years and we are more in love and closer now than we have ever been. And I truly believe its because we tore down the walls todays society has built for us and lived according to Gods word instead of according to dear ABBY. lol But it has taken alot of work and sacrifices on both sides to make it.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I am truly glad things worked out so well for you and your family. Everyone needs to work to find that place that is fulfilling.


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

You may be right that all liberals do not have that agenda, but I assure you that the liberal progressives at the top of the food chain are calling the shots right out of the communist/Marxist playbook.

I always hear about these laws that Christians are trying to force on others. What are they? 


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Shrek said:


> I often wondered how Gloria Copeland, other female evangelists and various church certified female preachers started getting around those passages as the right side of the feminist movement started gaining speed in the 1980s.
> 
> All I know for sure is I know three women who are Christians and they refuse to watch or attend any church event with a female preacher and all three stand firm that female preachers violate the teachings of the bible as they were taught in the 1950s/1960s.
> 
> ...


The "women should keep silent in church" thing taught by Paul refers to talking while the Word of God is being taught. Women have always been known for talking and asking your husband a question during a service is disruptive to those sitting near you trying to hear the Word. That's why he told them to wait till they get home to ask their questions. Paul had nothing against women teaching in church. He speaks of a husband and wife he knew (Aquilla and Priscilla) who were both preachers and he praised Priscilla the most. He even gave her the pet name of Prisca. BTW, it is not proper for a man to talk during the service either but we all know women are more likely to talk anytime. Gotta go. I hear my wife saying something in the other room.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I'm not saying the Pope is going to do anything but. The papacy system will. What other religion claims to be able to forgive sin through confession? What other accepted religion claims to be God or Christ on earth? Both blasphemy. It was the Roman Catholics that crucified Christ. It wad the Roman Catholics who started the dark ages killing millions for not bending to their belief or will. The create their own Saints. They worship Mary and other Saints despite the Bible says not too. The Bible talks of that great religion and church in the last day's that will deceive the world and jesus begs the people to come out of her. I believe that is the Catholic Church.


HUH? How do you get it was Catholics who crucified Christ? Pilot was indeed appointed by Rome but he wanted nothing to do with the crucifixion. Those who demanded Christ's death were not Romans. They were local people who Christ said were seeking to kill him.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

poppy said:


> HUH? How do you get it was Catholics who crucified Christ? Pilot was indeed appointed by Rome but he wanted nothing to do with the crucifixion. Those who demanded Christ's death were not Romans. They were local people who Christ said were seeking to kill him.


Yes it was the people calling for him to be crucified. Starting with the priest that the Romans had put in charge. Thats why they took them to pilot. True Jewish priest hated Rome and never saught their council. The Jewish priest of that time were Romans in Jewish clothing. Pilot could have freed Jesus. But instead he crucified him. The Romans carried out the act. Thy laughed and mocked him even as he hung on the cross thirsty. They were all guilty of the act. Something struck me odd this morning as I was thinking of this thread. Have you ever stopped to wonder why the Cathlics put Jesus on a cross crying with his head hung low in defeat everywhere. They wear it around their neck, put in their homes and churches and show Jesus with tears in his eyes defeated. He isnt on the cross anymore. He has the victory and won the battle over death hell and the grave. He was never defeated and shouldnt be made to look so.


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Yes it was the people calling for him to be crucified. Starting with the priest that the Romans had put in charge. Thats why they took them to pilot. True Jewish priest hated Rome and never saught their council. The Jewish priest of that time were Romans in Jewish clothing. Pilot could have freed Jesus. But instead he crucified him. The Romans carried out the act. Thy laughed and mocked him even as he hung on the cross thirsty. They were all guilty of the act. Something struck me odd this morning as I was thinking of this thread. Have you ever stopped to wonder why the Cathlics put Jesus on a cross crying with his head hung low in defeat everywhere. They wear it around their neck, put in their homes and churches and show Jesus with tears in his eyes defeated. He isnt on the cross anymore. He has the victory and won the battle over death hell and the grave. He was never defeated and shouldnt be made to look so.


"We preach Christ crucified..." Does that ring a bell?


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> How about we go back to the Founders, who believed Americans had the right to pursue happiness, presumably on their own terms?
> 
> "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
> 
> ...


Problem is, the other side doesn't mind their own business. Just ask the Christian bakers, florists, and photographers who were sued by gay couples who wouldn't just live and let live. Ask the businesses who had to go to court to protect their right not to have to follow progressive/liberal ideals being forced on them by the government.

Seems like only Christians are expected to keep their opinions and values to themselves and not stand up for what they believe in the voting booth.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

my3boys said:


> Problem is, the other side doesn't mind their own business. Just ask the Christian bakers, florists, and photographers who were sued by gay couples who wouldn't just live and let live. Ask the businesses who had to go to court to protect their right not to have to follow progressive/liberal ideals being forced on them by the government.
> 
> Seems like only Christians are expected to keep their opinions and values to themselves and not stand up for what they believe in the voting booth.


Well said and explains the real problem. It is an example of one group interfering in someone else's beliefs. The answer for them is to open a bakery that caters to gays. Then people can make their own choices on where to go. As a Christian, I would not bash anyone opening a gay bakery nor try to stop them although I probably wouldn't shop there personally.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Being keeper of the home does not mean a woman cant work or anything else. It means she runs a tight ship and keep ALL affairs of the house in order. When women did that there was less divorce, less broken families, less fatherless children and more solid foundation children.


Being old enough (nearly 50) to remember "those days," it seems to me that there were fewer divorces mostly because women usually didn't have the education or job skills to be able to afford to leave their husbands. Employers also were more likely to discriminate against them, especially when it came to the higher-paying traditionally male-dominated professions. 

That was certainly the case for my mother, who suffered _decades_ of abuse, although from the outside, ours looked like your ideal suburban family --immaculate brick bungalow with a perfectly-manicured lawn; working husband/father; stay-at-home wife/mother,;and a daughter who tried to stay out of the way when fists were flyin'! :teehee:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Problem is, the other side doesn't mind their own business. Just ask the Christian bakers, florists, and photographers who were sued by gay couples who wouldn't just live and let live.


For the record, as a member of the LGBT community, I wish we wouldn't do this. I'm all for a trial in the court of public opinion -- for instance, boycotting businesses who refuse to serve us -- but when we turn to the government to fight our battles, we're no better than the Christians who constantly attempt to use the long arm of the law to force their beliefs on others.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

> Question: Does Time Really Exist?
> Sometimes people talk about how Einstein proved that everything is relative. In the bestselling book The Secret, it says "Time is just an illusion." Is this really true? Is time just a figment of our imagination?
> Answer: Time is certainly a very complex topic in physics, but there is no real doubt among physicists that time does really, truly exist ... they're just divided a bit on what causes this existence


.http://physics.about.com/od/timetravel/f/doestimeexist.htm


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

*Is there a war against God and is prophesy coming true?

*two questions and the answer is yes and yes.

I am sorry I have not been able to keep up beyond the first couple of pages. 
No offence meant. 

Short info from my corner. It runs in my family. 
Prophecy has always been in effect. Problem is, folks wanting to twist it to their way of believing. The Bible says nothing happens without warning being given. 
That is the purpose of prophecy. You can change your ways or get out of the way of trouble. 

What is coming up for us? Okay, rotten eggs and tomatoes on the ready. It is getting so obvious that one does not need prophecy anymore. but here goes.

economic collapse, 
Civil War,
WWIII, you will not win. 
sometime before that, an attack on New York, Manhattan gone, the sky seen red in neighboring states from the fire of New York burning. 
All the cities with skyscrapers bombed into oblivion. 
The Chinese invading. 

I have known this for a long time, when I wondered how in blazes could a civil war happen in the US. 

Everything that happened in the twentieth Century that concerns us was predicted long ago and was known before the first WW. When my grandmother was young, it all was future. I look back on it as history. The point is, it all happened, point by point and detail by detail as predicted. Prophecy in hindsight. I see not the slightest reason why I should not believe the rest (see above) will come about, too.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Being old enough (nearly 50) to remember "those days," it seems to me that there were fewer divorces mostly because women usually didn't have the education or job skills to be able to afford to leave their husbands. Employers also were more likely to discriminate against them, especially when it came to the higher-paying traditionally male-dominated professions.
> 
> That was certainly the case for my mother, who suffered _decades_ of abuse, although from the outside, ours looked like your ideal suburban family --immaculate brick bungalow with a perfectly-manicured lawn; working husband/father; stay-at-home wife/mother,;and a daughter who tried to stay out of the way when fists were flyin'! :teehee:



I am sorry you grew up in such environs. I hope you are not attempting to convey that this is/was the christian way? 
My experience was the opposite. 
I lived in a small mountain village, that other folk would look their noses down on. 
My parents were THE team. I am getting old myself now, but I think of them with reverence, gratitude, and love. I think in my village though that was modus operandi. I was surrounded by good families. There were a few drunks and everybody felt sorry for their families.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> And again I dont think all catholics are damned to hell. I just have done so much study on their practices and they dont fit the word of God. HEre are just a few examples.
> 
> Calling the Priests "Father" is forbidden
> "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:9


Obviously Jesus didn't mean it literally. After all, in the New Testament alone there are many references to term "Father", including it being used by the apostles themselves.

Also, if this is literal, then why would Christians allow a child to call them "Father".

You have to read that entire passage, not just one sentence out of context. He was exaggerating the point that no church leaders should set themselves up as the total authoritarian of God's leading. In other words, to inaccurately put someone in total authority above God.

For Catholics, calling the priest "Father" is simply a word of respect. The term is no different that how other denominations use the term "pastor". But for a priest, he has no children, rather his church flock are like his children that he is to care for and protect.




> Praying repetitive words using Rosary beads is forbidden.
> 
> They tell you to hold the Rosary and pray 20 sets of 10 "Hail Marys", Thats 200 times in the Rosary, in total.
> 
> "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. Matthew 6:7


And that would be correct if they were "meaningless repetitions"; however, they are not. Those words mean a great deal when we pray them. We aren't just saying words, we are expressing what is in our heart. It isn't just a bunch of words that we repeat. We _mean_ them and they are prayers, not just words. We are not "required" to say them, we can use our own words if we wish, but most people say those words because it expresses so much better than we could.

And actually you are wrong about the rosary beads. A set of rosary beads has 5 sets of 10 beads that we say The Hail Mary. So it's actually only 50 times. 5 Our Father beads (The Lord's Prayer). You also neglected to mention that after each set of Hail Mary's we also pray two other prayers -- The Glory Be (to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), as well as a prayer to Jesus that is a prayer asking forgiveness and mercy for not only ourselves, but for those that know Christ. Additionally, in The Rosary we also say the Apostles Creed, have 2 other prayers that are basically praying for us to act more like Christ. [/quote]



> Virgin Mary
> 
> Catholics are taught the virgin Mary never had sex after Jesus was born and that Jesus had no brothers and sisters. The Pope teaches that Mary is the mediator between God and man. Catholics also engage in more praising of Mary than Jesus Christ himself and actually pray to her to have their prayers answered. Rosary Beads graphically represent how Roman Catholics heap 10 times more praise upon Mary than God himself. Of the 59 total beads of the Rosary, 53 beads are "Hail Marys", but only 6 beads are "Our Father". The Rosary most often ends with a "Hail, Holy Queen" prayer to Mary, not God. But we know Mary did have sex and did have more children.
> 
> "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" Matthew 13:55-56


First of all, Mary is not a god nor is she equal to either God, Christ nor the Holy Spirit. We do NOT worship Mary. 

What we do is to respect her not only as the Mother of Christ, but as God's most important chosen woman, as a holy woman of God, and for being the first to recognize who Christ really was and his first believer.

The Hail Mary prayer is not elevating Mary to godship. The Hail Mary is not made up words by a priest. It is literally biblical in that _it is the words that Elizabeth said_ when Mary visited her and her own unborn child leaped for joy within her womb, "Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thy amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus". 

The next line is "Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death". It is simply asking for prayer in our times of need.

We believe all the deceased in heaven have the ability to pray for us. No different than when we would ask others to pray for us on earth.

With regards to saints, they also are not gods nor do we worship them. They are simply ordinary people who lead extraordinary lives. People just like us (that we can relate to) but who overcame adversity and/or sin to live a life dedicated to God and Christ. We hold them in such high regards because they are role models of what can happen when you focus on God and make him your total priority, rather than the things of earth. They are faith heros.



> Did Joseph have sex with Mary? Yes after Jesus was born.
> "And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Matthew 1:24-25


Well, we don't really know for certain because the biblical translations of the "until she gave birth" is not in all manuscripts. Furthermore, there are other writings of the time that suggest Mary did in fact remain a virgin in accordance with her wishing to remain "pure". 

The terms "brothers" and "sisters" has several different means in the greek as it's the same word used for physical brothers and sister as it does for non-literal ones. For instance, as Christians refer to each other as brother and sister. In Jesus' time, close friends were given the task of watching over the mother of a household when she had no other family. Most denominations all agree that Mary was a widow at the time of Jesus' death, therefore, from the time Jesus left to go town-to-town teaching, others would have been given the task of carrying for his mother. 



> The Bible says there is only one mediator between God and man. Is mary that one mediator? Is any man one mediator through confession?
> 
> "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5


You're totally mistaken here if your talking about confession. The priest doesn't forgive our sins. The way confession works is that you privately confess your sins to God, repent, make right whatever you are able, and ask his forgiveness --- *prior* to going to confession. Our sins are then forgiven -- through Christ Jesus. This part is no different than what you would do in your faith; we just go one step further.
James 5:16 says: " Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working."​ Therefore, we believe we have a loyal, righteous person we can go to in confidence, in our pastor (our priest). When we confess our sins to him, he does not judge us, nor is he disappointed in us. He offers us counsel on how to avoid falling into those sins again, prays with us and for us, and gives us a "penance" to do. A penance isn't a "repentance", it's not anything to make right the wrong we did. It is some type of act to remind us to avoid sin and that we have help in avoiding temptations. That's why the penance is many times a prayer to say. 



> Catholics engage in endless praise of Mary. When a woman praised Jesus' mother to his face, did Jesus commend or encourage this woman to continue praising Mary? No he didnt.
> 
> "While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed." But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."" Luke 11:27-28


There is where you have been mislead about what you think Catholics believe. We believe there is no other mediator other than Jesus. We don't ask anyone other than Jesus to mediate between us and God. 

As explained above, we do ask for intercession in the form of prayer from Mary, the Saints and believers on earth. It is because we believe all those in heaven have the ability to pray for those yet on earth. 



> The Pope says only very special dead Catholic people qualify to be called "saints". For example, Pope John Paul II could not make Mother Teresa a saint until after she was dead. The average Catholic in the pew is never called a "saint" dead or alive! In fact if a pew dwelling Catholic started calling himself a "saint", he would be rebuked by the parish priest!
> 
> Was every living Christian in the church in Corinth called a saint?
> 
> ...


Again, you have misunderstood what is meant by "saint" in the Catholic Church. We do believe the scripture that says all who are saved through Christ Jesus are saints. What we don't believe is that any of us have ability to judge or presume to know who or who isn't saved. We believe we are responsible for our own salvation and standing with God. Another person has to work his out with God and it's between him and God. Not that we don't tell others about Christ, because we are charged to do so, but rather that we aren't privy to what happens between a person and God in private. It's simply none of our business and would be presumptuous of us to assume we do know.



> In 1079 AD celibacy was first enforced for priests and bishops by Pope Gregory VII. Before this time, they were permitted to marry.
> 
> Does the Bible teach that a bishop (overseer) must be married AND ALSO have children as one of the conditions of being qualified to be a bishop?
> 
> "A bishop, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)" 1 Timothy 3:2-5


 Meaning, as opposed to having plural marriages, which was common at the time.



> In the very next chapter of the Bible after bishops are told they must be married with children, does the Holy Spirit warn that "forbidding to marry" is a "doctrine of demons"?


First of all, I have never been able to understand why this is even an issue with non-catholics. If it isn't an issue with the priests, then why is it an issue for non-catholics? It's one of those issues that only occurs in our particular faith and isn't really anyone else's business, but I will give you an answer anyway.

First, Paul himself said it was better for a man (meaning one who devotes his life to a congregation, traveling preacher, etc.) to remain unmarried. He understood the consequences of splitting yourself between your congregation and a family. 

There is so much more church duties required of a priest than from most typical ministers. A priest believes he is called exclusively for the work of God. A man cannot be both a good and faithful priest and a husband and father. Those who insist otherwise do not understand the Catholic faith and basing their opinion on how they _think_ things should be based on what they know from their own denominations.

Granted some priests and parishioners think that should change but, if a priest conducts himself and does all a priest is suppose to do, then it is physically impossible to have a wife and children. Impossible. 

But even aside from all that, celebacy for a priest is NOT Catholic doctrine -- it is a discipline. All priests know it going in. You devote your life to God exclusively or you can become a deacon instead. Being a priest is a calling. You are either called to be a celebate priest, or you are called to be a husband and father. Every Catholic man has a choice.



> "But the Holy Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth." 1 Timothy 4:1-3


And that is because there were sects that forbid marriage of all people; not just priests. They could propogate, but not marry. This is not at all what the Catholic church has ever done.



> And these are just a couple things I see. Heck they also point to Peter as being the originial pope and say he never married or any apostles for that matter yet the bible says otherwise.
> 
> "Now Simon Peters mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever; and immediately they spoke to Jesus about her." Mark 1:30
> 
> "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" 1 Corinthians 9:5


There are many historical documents of the time, in which most all biblical scholars agree to be authentic and accurate, that does show that Peter was married, however, his wife died shortly after their marriage. Peter remained single.



> My wife comes from a catholic family. So we have done alot of study on them. They things they teach do not line up with the word of God. And the bible says if they teach just one falsehood then they are not of God and stay away from them. But again that doesnt mean there are no good catholics because there are many. It just means they are following what they have always been taught and God will judge them based on that and based on what they truely believe. But once you know the truth you are held accountable for ignoring it which is why I cannot ignore it based on its teachings not its people who love the Lord and are trying just like the rest of us to please God.


Unfortunately, you have shown by what you have posted that you do not know what the Catholic believes or teaches. You have presented a narrow view without taking into account why Catholics believe what they do nor recognizing that there are very biblical, historical and valid reasons why they do. It may not be what you would choose to believe, but our faith came from the same God you have. Our Lord and Savior is the same one you have -- Christ Jesus. Our Holy Spirit is even the same one you have. 

Since the Catholic faith is based solely on our salvation being of and through Jesus Christ, as well as repentance and being filled with as much Christ as we can possibly hold, then I would think Catholics are on the right track and just as anyone who gets closer and closer to God in their daily walk, whatever doctrinal errors there are will come to light to them.

Perhaps instead of tearing down each other's beliefs, we should be holding each other up in prayer and encouragement. It's hard enough to take the tearing down of our faith from non-believers, let alone fellow Christians.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> For the record, as a member of the LGBT community, I wish we wouldn't do this. I'm all for a trial in the court of public opinion -- for instance, boycotting businesses who refuse to serve us -- but when we turn to the government to fight our battles, we're no better than the Christians who constantly attempt to use the long arm of the law to force their beliefs on others.


Please elaborate on how Christians attempt to use the law to force their beliefs on others? I will guess abortion tops your list. For me, abortion is not a religious issue except for the "Thou shall not kill" commandment. It is a common decency issue and many non Christians agree. To support killing an innocent child requires someone without conscience IMO. And most of those people are against killing murderers. It makes no common sense at all.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Have you ever stopped to wonder why the Cathlics put Jesus on a cross crying with his head hung low in defeat everywhere. They wear it around their neck, put in their homes and churches and show Jesus with tears in his eyes defeated. He isnt on the cross anymore. He has the victory and won the battle over death hell and the grave. He was never defeated and shouldnt be made to look so.


I had to laugh at this one. For goodness sakes, do you know that many go to church every single day (not just Sundays) just so they can partake of the Eucharist (what you call communion); which is a celebration of the risen Christ! 

We know He's not on the cross and don't depict him as such because we think he's still there. We have crucifixes with Christ on it to remind us of the torture He endured "for us". What he went through just for us. As a picture is worth a million words, so is a crucifix depicting Christ's suffering. Who can look at it and not grasp a better sense of how it would feel if that were "us" hanging there -- as it should have been us. 

To the Catholic, the cross isn't a joyous thing. It was pain and suffering. The joy isn't the cross - it's the empty tomb!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I am sorry you grew up in such environs. I hope you are not attempting to convey that this is/was the christian way?


My parents were not Christians (in all fairness, perhaps I should have made that clear). My point was that in "the good ol' days," when married couples didn't split up as often as they do now, it was very likely not because they were happier, but because the woman had no money, no power and noplace to go. 

And I think that any other religion that promotes an imbalance in power between the genders is more likely to lead to a bad outcome for at least some women. 


> Please elaborate on how Christians attempt to use the law to force their beliefs on others?


Abortion, birth control (not only stuff like the Hobby Lobby case, but also the attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, which is a MAJOR provider of contraceptives to young and/or poor women), gay marriage, the ol' 'blue laws' which keep certain businesses from opening or alcohol from being served on Sundays. 

I have no problem with Christians enforcing their religious beliefs among their own congregations, and something like 80 percent of the population identifies itself as being Christian, so it seems you'd have lots to go on there. If you want to hate on one of your own for being gay or having an abortion or even something as simple as ordering a Bloody Mary cocktail with Sunday brunch, why, for the love of Pete, can't you just do that and leave the rest of us alone?


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> My parents were not Christians (in all fairness, perhaps I should have made that clear). My point was that in "the good ol' days," when married couples didn't split up as often as they do now, it was very likely not because they were happier, but because the woman had no money, no power and noplace to go.
> 
> And I think that any other religion that promotes an imbalance in power between the genders is more likely to lead to a bad outcome for at least some women.
> 
> ...



I don't think laws against abortion or gay marriage are religious laws. Are murder laws religious laws? No, then why would laws against abortion be? The left has done a good job of convincing people that only the extreme religious right are against abortion. They have also done a good job of changing the word fetus from a stage of LIFE into a cancerous growth. The problem is some of the people in this country still have brains to see through that. 

As far as gay marriage is concerned I don't thing the government has any right in marriage at all. It all started to subsidize family values but that has been broken for some time now with other subsidies paying more to single moms. Personally I don't care if people are gay. It doesn't affect me but what do they think they are missing out on? 


As far as alcohol is concerned those are laws passed on local levels as they should be. Again I don't care about this either way. I have lived in a dry parish my whole life and believe it or not the ones who push the hardest to keep it that way are not religious at all. They base there arguments on crime rates and a accidents of neighboring parishes that sell alcohol. But hey it's only 3 min drive across the bridge to the liquor store. 


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I don't think laws against abortion or gay marriage are religious laws.


The vast majority of people objecting to both are doing it on religious grounds. 



> As far as gay marriage is concerned I don't thing the government has any right in marriage at all.


I tend to agree, but suspect most heterosexuals would feel they were being robbed of their right to marriage if government were to bow out of the issue. 



> As far as alcohol is concerned those are laws passed on local levels as they should be.


Some are local but others are set at the state level and all are a ridiculous pandering to religious groups AFAIC. If the only way to get your congregation in the pews Sunday morning is to limit their opportunity to do something more interesting, well, you've got a problem, and it shouldn't be up to the government to solve if for you in a way that inconveniences the rest of us.

But since you seem to be a Christian, I'll address my earlier question to you: with 80 percent of the population in the Christian camp, why can't you be satisfied with making rules for within your church communities and hating on your own if they break them? Why do you need to make laws that effect the rest of us?


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> The vast majority of people objecting to both are doing it on religious grounds.
> 
> I tend to agree, but suspect most heterosexuals would feel they were being robbed of their right to marriage if government were to bow out of the issue.
> 
> ...



Obviously you didn't comprehend my first post. Like I said me personally as a Christian and a Libertarian have no interest in passing laws that control your personal life. Abortion is the only issue you have mentioned that I feel strongly about. Just like any other law that I support it protects those that can't protect yourself. I say we have more in common that grounds to debate. I think we should both agree that the ACA is unconstitutional forcing individuals to purchase something they don't want or need. Laws that force property owners to get permits to do work on their own property. Laws that control who when and why business owners do what they do or serve who they serve. We have a incomprehensible tax code that is destroying middle class and laws that prevent innovators and entrepreneurs from competing with corporations. Laws that should be enforced being ignored and laws with no clear definition being used to railroad people into prison. 

In the grand scheme of things weather you can purchase alcohol on Sunday morning is kind of minor but I agree why should anyone care.


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Obviously you didn't comprehend my first post. Like I said me personally as a Christian and a Libertarian have no interest in passing laws that control your personal life. Abortion is the only issue you have mentioned that I feel strongly about. Just like any other law that I support it protects those that can't protect yourself.


I think the far Right errs in equating a five-day-old blastocyst with a fully-formed human baby, but the far Left errs in refusing to acknowledge that an eight-month-old fetus is something more than a five-day-old blastocyst. Good policy probably lies somewhere in the middle (it usually does). 



> I say we have more in common that grounds to debate.


Probably. I am an agnostic and Libertarian.



> I think we should both agree that the ACA is unconstitutional forcing individuals to purchase something they don't want or need.


The Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional, but I agree that it's a bad law.



> Laws that force property owners to get permits to do work on their own property.


I haven't given this much thought, but I generally believe that people should be free to do as they wish on their own property, unless it has the potential to affect others. I'm not categorically opposed to zoning, building codes and other restrictions, provided existing operations are grandfathered in, of course.


> Laws that control who when and why business owners do what they do or serve who they serve.


Generally agree, although I have no problem with restricting the sale of alcohol, tobacco and the like to adults. 


> We have a incomprehensible tax code that is destroying middle class and laws that prevent innovators and entrepreneurs from competing with corporations.


Agree. This is perhaps the biggest problem. I'd prefer a flat tax with little to no exemptions. One of the big advantages I see here is that a flat tax wouldn't penalize people for earning more, and would encourage them to reach their full potential. 

I recall my last husband telling me that when his income hit a certain point, around the $100,000 mark, anything he earned beyond that would be taxed very heavily. He wasn't willing to give up more than a third of those earnings in taxes, so he'd simply back off and not work as hard for the rest of the year. 

Among the lower classes, you have a similar problem of people artificially restricting their earnings so they don't lose their eligibility for government benefits. 

I don't think it's wise for the government to encourage people to not work to their full potential.


----------



## SJSFarm (Jun 13, 2012)

Willow Girl, I am confused. What laws are being proposed that will infringe upon your rights? I know of none, but am familiar with the claim Christians wanted to put all gays in inturnment camps and/or execute them - that apparently was what Romney was claimed to be planning if he were elected. This was being told to me in all honesty and belief. This person claimed it was absolute fact. Christian republicans wanted all gays and people of color eliminated.

So if that "proposed law" is what your referring to, or another, I'd like to know.

Jeffersons quote- post 72- is spot on. How is my Christianity harming you? How is a child reading the bible- to herself- in school harming anyone? How is a cross on private property harming you? How is that same cross in a military cemetary harming anyone? How is a valevictorian speaking of the greatest influance on him being his mom and Christ harming anyone? He is not forcing them to convert, simply expressing himself.

What laws are being proposed that will infringe upon you? 

The constitution allows for freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion .


----------



## SJSFarm (Jun 13, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> For the record, as a member of the LGBT community, I wish we wouldn't do this. I'm all for a trial in the court of public opinion -- for instance, boycotting businesses who refuse to serve us -- but when we turn to the government to fight our battles, we're no better than the Christians who constantly attempt to use the long arm of the law to force their beliefs on others.


Totally with you on this. If I don't like what a private company does/dosent do, I am free to boycott or ask others to boycott, but the government forcing a private business to do something against the owners beliefs is wrong.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> Tarbe, with all due respect to you, you sound a bit like the gay Christians who are trying to make a case that the Bible doesn't hate and condemn them for simply being who they are. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.
> 
> But I'm not sure it works that way. I think it makes more sense to take the Bible at face value.


Well, I had to chuckle a bit on this one. 

I don't see the parallel...but I can understand why you want the Bible to be so black and white. Most Christians want it that way, too. It is so much easier.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Karen said:


> Since the Catholic faith is based solely on our salvation being of and through Jesus Christ, as well as repentance and being filled with as much Christ as we can possibly hold, then I would think Catholics are on the right track and just as anyone who gets closer and closer to God in their daily walk, whatever doctrinal errors there are will come to light to them.
> 
> Perhaps instead of tearing down each other's beliefs, we should be holding each other up in prayer and encouragement. It's hard enough to take the tearing down of our faith from non-believers, let alone fellow Christians.


I just want to say I admire your Herculean effort here responding to all of those misconceptions with grace and truth.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

tarbe said:


> Well, I had to chuckle a bit on this one.
> 
> I don't see the parallel...but I can understand why you want the Bible to be so black and white.


Well, it kinda is. 

I chuckle to hear people take a pretty cut-and-dried passage and try to minimize it or make it say something else entirely.

Ha, I just had an argument like that on a liberal forum, where someone was trying to explain away Paul's pronouncement that people who wouldn't work shouldn't eat, either. ound:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> How is my Christianity harming you? How is a child reading the bible- to herself- in school harming anyone? How is a cross on private property harming you? How is that same cross in a military cemetary harming anyone? How is a valevictorian speaking of the greatest influance on him being his mom and Christ harming anyone? He is not forcing them to convert, simply expressing himself.


It is not those things I'm talking about, of course -- that's silly! -- but the way Christians are constantly trying to pass laws to limit reproductive freedom and gay marriage. Being a woman and a member of the LGBT community, those are issues somewhat near and dear to my heart. 

So, once again, why can't Christians who oppose abortion stick to forbidding women in their congregations from having them? And if one breaks the rules, picket HER house -- shower HER with all kinds of hatefulness -- but leave the rest of us alone.

Same goes with gay marriage: forbid it in your own circles until you're blue in the face; I don't care. Excommunicate anyone who is brave enough to admit to having been born gay. Write nasty things on their Facebook page; snub them in the grocery store. Be mean to your heart's content ... just leave the rest of us alone, and let us marry who we will.

Fair enough?


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> So, once again, why can't Christians who oppose abortion stick to forbidding women in their congregations from having them? And if one breaks the rules, picket HER house -- shower HER with all kinds of hatefulness -- but leave the rest of us alone.



Why isn't murder legal for all but Christians how about rape or violent beatings? How about slavery? Why don't each group of people just have their own set of laws and rules? Everyone could just group yourselves into what ever you most identify yourself wether it be Religious, race, sexual orientation, etc etc... 


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

CrawDaddy said:


> Why isn't murder legal for all but Christians how about rape or violent beatings? How about slavery? Why don't each group of people just have their own set of laws and rules? Everyone could just group yourselves into what ever you most identify yourself wether it be Religious, race, sexual orientation, etc etc...


I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here.

Murder, rape, violent beatings and slavery are illegal for everyone in North America no matter what their religion is. Religion, race, sexual orientation are not illegal and most people already do group themselves into which ever of those categories they most identify with.


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

That is my point exactly. Why should Christians and non Christians who believe abortion is murder just enforce it within their own circles? What if people would have done that about slavery?


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Paumon said:


> I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here.
> 
> Murder, rape, violent beatings and slavery are illegal for everyone in North America no matter what their religion is. Religion, race, sexual orientation are not illegal and most people already do group themselves into which ever of those categories they most identify with.


The point is, civilized nations have laws passed by the majority of voters through their lawmakers. Christians are a part of that mixture and have the same right as any other group to make their position known. Why do you think they shouldn't? Are Christians asking that members of the gay community be denied the right to express their opinions? Should anti gunners be the only group allowed to express their views to legislators? The list is long. The gay community is simply another special interest group like all the rest and deserves no special treatment in our laws.Truth is, federal government should be OUT of many things in our country and leave it up to the states. Liberals want a big government but only one that does what they want.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Homosexuality is a sin. So are a bunch of other things. Sorry if someone don't like it. But that's just the way it is. If you don't believe in sin that is your choice. You have a free will. We can debate forever, but I think that say a hundred years from now we will all know who was right and who was wrong.


----------



## SJSFarm (Jun 13, 2012)

Willow Girl, abortion is the murder of an innocent. 
It's not just the woman carrying the baby that has the rights, the father of that baby has the right to raise that child and the child has a right to live. I do believe it is a child from the beginning. 

I watched the heart of my last child slowly beating at under 6 weeks of age. It had just started beating. It was AMAZING! You can argue prior to the heart beat as before life begins, but there is NO argument that intentionally stopping the heartbeat of another person is not killing. My 5 week, 4 day old baby was ALIVE! For anyone wondering, Kathleen is now 9 years old and enjoys playing soccer with her dad and swimming. 

As far as gay marriage. This is NOT a federal issue. It's a state one. Each state may decide what they want to allow. As far as marriage vs unions, a marriage is a religious construct. It is a religious union.

I can't speak for anyone else, but marriage was described by God as between a man and woman because the intent is procreation. Please don't argue sperm donation here, that's not the point. Civil unions, if a state decides to allow them, should allow for all the same protections as a marriage. It's just not marriage. 

Again, this is MY take on unions, and I cannot speak for anyone else


----------



## SJSFarm (Jun 13, 2012)

Also Willow Girl, the bible citations about women in the church. You must read the bible in context. Historical context. At the time, women who were either claiming to be 'seers' or teachers when they actually had no training or education at all in the bible and in some cases were women who were attempting to use the preaching to their own benefit. It is historical context- what was happening at the time those passages were written- that must also be examined. the same goes for the passage about women being forbidden from braiding their hair: this was because women were attempting to take positions of power in the church for their own gain and/or show themselves off for others by adorning their hair with gold. 

Historical context matters! As does language- that's another major issue in misunderstandings.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

SJSFarm said:


> Willow Girl, abortion is the murder of an innocent.
> It's not just the woman carrying the baby that has the rights, the father of that baby has the right to raise that child and the child has a right to live. I do believe it is a child from the beginning.
> 
> I watched the heart of my last child slowly beating at under 6 weeks of age. It had just started beating. It was AMAZING! You can argue prior to the heart beat as before life begins, but there is NO argument that intentionally stopping the heartbeat of another person is not killing. My 5 week, 4 day old baby was ALIVE! For anyone wondering, Kathleen is now 9 years old and enjoys playing soccer with her dad and swimming.
> ...


Good post and I wish you were totally correct. Unfortunately, gay marriage is not a state issue. Look how many federal judges have struck down such laws. The Supreme Court should rule it a state's issue and void any federal court rulings on the issue. Same with many other things. The feds, whether legislative, executive, or judicial branches, cannot seem to keep their hands out of stat's business.


----------



## SJSFarm (Jun 13, 2012)

Poppy, sorry, I phrased it wrong. As the constitution is written, it does not fall under federal control. 
It SHOULD be a state issue. The Feds have NO reason it make it a federal issue. They step in where they are not wanted all the time!


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

One problem I have with gay marriage is the term gay marriage. For myself marriage is a term used by religion and people of faith for a union sactified by God. Gay marriage is an extreme insult against my faith. You can call it a union, a coupling, a lifetime commitment and I have no problem. As I recently posted, homosexuality is a sin. I will not condone or accept your sin. Nor do I expect you to condone or accept mine. The term gay marraige has nothing to do with accepting homosexuality. It is an affront to something sactified by God. It makes it a mockery.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> One problem I have with gay marriage is the term gay marriage. For myself marriage is a term used by religion and people of faith for a union sactified by God. Gay marriage is an extreme insult against my faith. You can call it a union, a coupling, a lifetime commitment and I have no problem. As I recently posted, homosexuality is a sin. I will not condone or accept your sin. Nor do I expect you to condone or accept mine. The term gay marraige has nothing to do with accepting homosexuality. It is an affront to something sactified by God. It makes it a mockery.


It is an affront to me that you think you get to have control of the word marriage because you believe in God. I am not in a same sex marriage but my husband and I are very married and it has nothing to do with religion.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> That is my point exactly. Why should Christians and non Christians who believe abortion is murder just enforce it within their own circles? What if people would have done that about slavery?


Societies generally make laws against things that a broad consensus agrees are detrimental to victims and/or society. Things like murder, stealing, rape, etc. 

It's hard to argue that abortion is detrimental to anyone but the fetus, who has no legal standing. Abortion may even be beneficial to society in that it prevents the birth of unwanted children who are likely to be poorly parented. (The authors of "Freakonomics" make a case that the decline in crime that began in the 1990s was due to fewer unwanted children being born following Roe v. Wade.) I have no inclination to argue with a woman who doesn't believe she should bring a child into this world, although I'd prefer that she terminate it humanely and as early as possible. And an ounce of prevention certainly is worth a pound of cure in this case.

It's even harder to make a case that gay marriage is somehow detrimental. The benefits of marriage to both individuals and society have been widely documented, and why should what is good for the heterosexual goose be bad for the gay gander? 



> The point is, civilized nations have laws passed by the majority of voters through their lawmakers. Christians are a part of that mixture and have the same right as any other group to make their position known. Why do you think they shouldn't?


I acknowledge they have the legal right, but it would be nice if they would voluntarily restrain themselves from trying to pass laws that impose their beliefs on people who don't share them. 

Or, to put it another way, if 80 percent of the population is Christian, could you please satisfy yourselves with preventing abortion and gay marriage among that 80 percent? Shouldn't that be enough to keep you busy? _Why can't you leave the rest of us alone? _


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

SJSFarm said:


> Also Willow Girl, the bible citations about women in the church. You must read the bible in context. Historical context. At the time, women who were either claiming to be 'seers' or teachers when they actually had no training or education at all in the bible and in some cases were women who were attempting to use the preaching to their own benefit. It is historical context- what was happening at the time those passages were written- that must also be examined. the same goes for the passage about women being forbidden from braiding their hair: this was because women were attempting to take positions of power in the church for their own gain and/or show themselves off for others by adorning their hair with gold.
> 
> Historical context matters! As does language- that's another major issue in misunderstandings.


Interesting that it was perceived that only women were the ones doing that. I'm sure there were no men using it for their own gain.:huh:


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

The thing I have never understood is when people put Gods word into biblical context. Do you not think God knew exactly what our society would be doing today when he inspired his word and his lessons for the church? The letters to corinth are just as important to our society as theirs. What God said through Paul was biblical and good then, till stands today. God is never changing. But our siciety and culture is. And thats not always a good thing. To change away from Gods word is not a good thing. And the folks clean on up until about 50-70 years ago knew that. Heck women were wearing bonnets and hats to church for the last 6 thousands years because Gods word said so. But we, as the bible said we would, think have become smarter than God and know better than he does. So we say that was for them, not me. But its not. Which is why God said so few would actually be following his word in the last days. What the bible said makes for a good woman and and good man and also a good house as you can read in proverbs 31 and romans 11 are all still strong and binding for a Godly man and woman today.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> It is not those things I'm talking about, of course -- that's silly! -- but the way Christians are constantly trying to pass laws to limit reproductive freedom and gay marriage. Being a woman and a member of the LGBT community, those are issues somewhat near and dear to my heart.
> 
> So, once again, why can't Christians who oppose abortion stick to forbidding women in their congregations from having them? And if one breaks the rules, picket HER house -- shower HER with all kinds of hatefulness -- but leave the rest of us alone.
> 
> ...


I don't agree with the assumption that because I'm a woman I am pro-infanticide. In fact, I believe the latest polls show the majority of women are pro-life. And while we're on the subject, what about the Sandra Flukes(sp?) of the world who think I should pay for their birth control and their abortions? They don't mind me being involved there. I guess I'm just supposed to shut up and hand over my money?

The beliefs of that author are irrelevant and unproven. Strictly his opinion. Many people have had unplanned pregnancies that resulted in a much-loved family member. There are also many abused children who were planned pregnancies and wanted. There is simply no correlation. In fact, I believe the child-abuse rates have not dropped since R v W.

If you are looking to find a predictor of what children are likely to grow up to be criminals, you need look no further the welfare state. Not those who use the system temporarily like it should be, but those who are generational welfare abusers. Welfare creates more poverty than it prevents, IMO, and poverty breeds crime.

http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/relationship-between-welfare-state-crime-0

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/01/7630/

The drop in crime in the 90s is more likely attributed to the economic boom of that decade.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I probably should add that my views on abortion are informed by biology in the absence of any religious/spiritual beliefs. Religious people seem to put great emphasis on fertilization; I do not. An embryo is a stage in the development of a human infant, but so are the egg and sperm which united to create it.

Every month or so, unless she takes steps to prevent it, a normal woman's body creates an egg which, if fertilized, is capable of developing into an embryo, which then grows into a full-fledged human being. 

A woman can halt this process at various stages. She can decline to allow an egg to develop by taking birth control pills. She can prevent a developed egg from being fertilized, either by refraining from sexual activity or using a barrier method of contraception. She can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting (IUD or morning-after pill). She can even interrupt the development a growing embryo (RU486 or surgical abortion). 

All of these interventions result in the same thing -- No Baby! -- and thus I see them as being morally equivalent.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I probably should add that my views on abortion are informed by biology in the absence of any religious/spiritual beliefs. Religious people seem to put great emphasis on fertilization; I do not. An embryo is a stage in the development of a human infant, but so are the egg and sperm which united to create it.


You're entitled to your views but us who believe the Bible base our beliefs on it. Yes, fertilization matters to us. Neither the egg nor sperm will develop into a child on their own. At fertilization the child is formed to become a human being.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> It is an affront to me that you think you get to have control of the word marriage because you believe in God. I am not in a same sex marriage but my husband and I are very married and it has nothing to do with religion.


So I am to assume that your definition is the only one acceptable? I beg your forgiveness. Maybe I take affront at the affront you're taking. So there.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> So I am to assume that your definition is the only one acceptable? I beg your forgiveness.


Did I say that? I voiced my opinion just as you did. You are the one that took it as I was somehow deciding who got to define it. I have no problem with you having a religious marriage, so you should have no problem with me having a nonreligious one.


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

If not for religion what is the point of getting married? Can't people agree to be monogamous without a contract?


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CrawDaddy said:


> If not for religion what is the point of getting married? Can't people agree to be monogamous without a contract?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


Why do you need religion to get married?

You do understand that marriage started out as a legal relationship not a religious one.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

CrawDaddy said:


> If not for religion what is the point of getting married? Can't people agree to be monogamous without a contract?


Marriage isn't about religion nor about monogamy and no religionists invented marriage. Marriage is a political contract designed to form alliances and to financially protect the marriage partners and any offspring that might result from the marriage. Marriage contracts existed all over the world long before religions were even a concept.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

This might be a bit of education for some.

History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts
http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

Paumon said:


> Marriage isn't about religion nor about monogamy and no religionists invented marriage. Marriage is a political contract designed to form alliances and to financially protect the marriage partners and any offspring that might result from the marriage. Marriage contracts existed all over the world long before religions were even a concept.


Please provide a source older than religious documents that mention marriage.





Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CrawDaddy said:


> Please provide a source older than religious documents that mention marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are not trying to tie the use of the word "marriage" that is used now, to the words that were used before are you? Are you then also going to throw out all of history before the written word as well?

The institution of marriage existed far before the written word and what word was used in different languages. That argument is really grasping at straws.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I probably should add that my views on abortion are informed by biology in the absence of any religious/spiritual beliefs. Religious people seem to put great emphasis on fertilization; I do not. An embryo is a stage in the development of a human infant, but so are the egg and sperm which united to create it.
> 
> Every month or so, unless she takes steps to prevent it, a normal woman's body creates an egg which, if fertilized, is capable of developing into an embryo, which then grows into a full-fledged human being.
> 
> ...


If cell division takes place, there is life. 

an egg by itself, can't live,body will get rid of it. 
a sperm by itself, nothing. 

but put the two together....

I believe you are not obligated to have your eggs fertilized, but once it happens you are dealing with a third person.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

CrawDaddy said:


> Please provide a source older than religious documents that mention marriage.


Whose religious documents and whose marriage contracts and for how far back in time? Yours or mine or his or theirs or the other guys? Do you have any idea how many religions there have been in the world and how many marriages there have been in countless cultures going back for the past 10,000 years of recorded history?


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

Paumon said:


> Whose religious documents and whose marriage contracts and for how far back in time? Yours or mine or his or theirs or the other guys? Do you have any idea how many religions there have been in the world and how many marriages there have been in countless cultures going back for the past 10,000 years of recorded history?



Any record of marriage before religion was conceived as your previous statement suggested.


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CrawDaddy said:


> Any record of marriage before religion was conceived as your previous statement suggested.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


Here you go. http://www.britishmuseum.org/explor...cts/aes/p/papyrus_marriage_contract_betw.aspx


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CrawDaddy said:


> Any record of marriage before religion was conceived as your previous statement suggested.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


Another one. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/10/26/204128.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

It's probably going to be a wasted contest to try to prove that marriage is older than religion, or that religion is older than marriage.

Both go back way, way before recorded history.


----------



## SJSFarm (Jun 13, 2012)

CrawDaddy said:


> If not for religion what is the point of getting married? Can't people agree to be monogamous without a contract?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


Absolutely ! The concept of marriage is a religious issue. The contract comes because the union allows for property inheritance and child custody issues that arise because of government designation of the parties. 

This is why I have no problem with a state - elected legislature - deciding this is fine for their state. Should two women raise a child together and the non-birth mom - or either in the case of adoption - die, the other should be able to take custody the same as a normal mom or dad in the same circumstance. I hate seeing cases where the parents of the deceased gay person take the child away from the only parent she has left!


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> I probably should add that my views on abortion are informed by biology in the absence of any religious/spiritual beliefs. Religious people seem to put great emphasis on fertilization; I do not. An embryo is a stage in the development of a human infant, but so are the egg and sperm which united to create it.
> 
> Every month or so, unless she takes steps to prevent it, a normal woman's body creates an egg which, if fertilized, is capable of developing into an embryo, which then grows into a full-fledged human being.
> 
> ...


So are you in favor of late-term abortions?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Oggie said:


> It's probably going to be a wasted contest to try to prove that marriage is older than religion, or that religion is older than marriage.
> 
> Both go back way, way before recorded history.


Probably thousands of years. Back when there were Dinosaurs.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> Probably thousands of years. Back when there were Dinosaurs.



As far back as there were humans.

Dinosaurs were around long before that. And, dinosaurs are still around today. Last night, we had one for dinner.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Did I say that? I voiced my opinion just as you did. You are the one that took it as I was somehow deciding who got to define it. I have no problem with you having a religious marriage, so you should have no problem with me having a nonreligious one.


I have no problem at all.
If the only difference I have is that you do not use the word marriage for a gay union for no other reason then to respect my religious beliefs, as a form of compromise, is unacceptable, where do we go?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> I have no problem at all.
> If the only difference I have is that you do not use the word marriage for a gay union for no other reason then to respect my religious beliefs, as a form of compromise, is unacceptable, where do we go?


I respect your religious beliefs and your wish to use the word marriage how ever you like. That does not mean that I am disrespecting you by calling other peoples same sex relationships a marriage. That is what they. Religion does not own the word marriage and never has.

Do you where a Yamaka all the time as a token of respect to the Jewish?
Does your wife always where a Hijab as a token of respect for those of the Islam religion?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

The word marriage has only been around since the 1200s or later.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Oggie said:


> The word marriage has only been around since the 1200s or later.


That is true for the word we use now in English but it has been around in many forms and different languages for long before that.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

painterswife said:


> That is true for the word we use now in English but it has been around in many forms and different languages for long before that.


No one is going to win a contest about which concept came first: "marriage" or "religion."


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Oggie said:


> No one is going to win a contest about which concept came first: "marriage" or "religion."


Not arguing it. I am arguing that "marriage" existed before religious marriage. That is proven in the history books.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Not arguing it. I am arguing that "marriage" existed before religious marriage. That is proven in the history books.



Cite your example.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Oggie said:


> Cite your example.


I already did.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I already did.


That blurb from a popular cultures site?

As far back as ancient Mesopotamia religion ruled almost every aspect of people's lives, including the state.

Any action taken by the state was de facto religious because the rulers of their day used religion to justify their reign.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Oggie said:


> That blurb from a popular cultures site?
> 
> As far back as ancient Mesopotamia religion ruled almost every aspect of people's lives, including the state.
> 
> Any action taken by the state was de facto religious because the rulers of their day used religion to justify their reign.


Please cite your sources.

PS, you might know that the only religious marriages by the Mesopotamian were those where women were married to the gods or the representatives of the gods and worked in the temples. Regular marriages were contracts and not sanctioned by any religion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Oggie said:


> That blurb from a popular cultures site?
> 
> As far back as ancient Mesopotamia religion ruled almost every aspect of people's lives, including the state.
> 
> Any action taken by the state was de facto religious because the rulers of their day used religion to justify their reign.


Try this one.

http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/688/

This was, no doubt, the `official&#8217; view of marriage and there is no evidence to suggest that a man and woman decided to simply get married on their own (although there is evidence of a couple living together without marrying). Bertman writes, &#8220;Every marriage began with a legal contract. Indeed, as Mesopotamian law stated, if a man should marry without having first drawn up and executed a marriage contract, the woman he `marries&#8217; would not be his wife&#8230;every marriage began not with a joint decision by two people in love but with a negotiation between representatives of two families&#8221; (276). Once the marriage contract was signed in the presence of witnesses, the ceremony could be planned.

The wedding ceremony had to include a feast in order to be considered legitimate. The course of the marriage process had five stages which needed to be observed in order for the couple to be legally married:

The engagement/marriage contract;
Payment of the families of the bride and groom to each other (the dowry and bride-price);
The ceremony/feast;
The bride moving to her father-in-law&#8217;s home;
Sexual intercourse between the couple with the bride expected to be a virgin on her wedding night and to become pregnant.
If any one of these steps was not performed, or not performed properly (such as the bride not becoming pregnant), the marriage could be invalidated. In the event the bride turned out not to be a virgin, or could not conceive, the groom could return her to her family. He would have to return her dowry to her family but would get back the bride-price his family had paid.


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

So where are the gay marriages in these ancient non religious marriages. I still have not seen one source for marriage before religion. 


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

I don't care which came first, marriage or religion. I don't care when marriage became linked to religion. We are talking about the present, and, at present, marriage in my Church one of the seven religious sacraments necessary for my salvation. IOW, pretty freaking important.

I don't care if gays marry...I don't even care what you call it....if it doesn't affect my marriage, my religion, the way my Church views marriage, and who may get married in my Church. I bet most folks feel the same exact way. 

Me? I support gay marriage. I don't see how you couldn't. But, I have to tell you....all these stories about the Christian cake bakers, photogaphers, heck, even that church that owned a pavillion on the beach....well...let's just say that gays aren't winning any friends with that strategy. 

Unfortunately, the militant faction of the LGBT...Q...I...A...(and whatever other letters to be added in the future) community gets its fits and giggles over forcing other folks with particular religious beliefs and convictions to participate in gay marriage in one way or another. So forgive some folks if they don't believe that that militant faction is going to decide to live and let live regarding whether the gay marriage movement is going to affect them personally.


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

My position on gay marriage is not a religious one. The reason I ask for a source is because every time someone is against gay marriage liberals assume you have religious reasons and start with absurdities such as marriage predates religion and such. Well personally I don't think we should expand marriage subsidies to gays because it contradicts the reason it was started. So if the the gays want equality I say we get rid of subsides for marriage all together and just have the contract portion that can only be issued by the state. The only thoughts on the subject I have as far as religion goes is no lawsuits for religions and religious business owners who don't support it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CrawDaddy said:


> So where are the gay marriages in these ancient non religious marriages. I still have not seen one source for marriage before religion.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


Only because you don't want to that is more than apparent.


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Only because you don't want to that is more than apparent.



Apparently I am not the only one.


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

FeralFemale said:


> We are talking about the present, and, at present, marriage in my Church one of the seven religious sacraments necessary for my salvation. IOW, pretty freaking important.


Religious sacraments in themselves can never bring salvation. Only faith in Christ (See Ephesians 2:8-9)


----------



## SJSFarm (Jun 13, 2012)

Ambereyes said:


> Interesting that it was perceived that only women were the ones doing that. I'm sure there were no men using it for their own gain.:huh:


you are correct, it was not just women. We were discussing the particular passages referring to women at the time. Most certainly men had been doing the same things and were dismissed the same way. The passages referring to women that are often referenced to in an attempt to claim how misogynistic Christians are.

Regarding your following post about God's Word through Paul - referencing the passages about women in the Church - Perhaps I misunderstand you, but, as you noted, Paul wrote it, this was not God's Word. Paul was dealing with issues presented to him by those "on the ground" while he was in prison, and penned his letters to the leaders of those churches. That is what we have in those passages and not God's Words on the issue. 
As always, correct me if I'm wrong. :bowtie: But... present me with detail


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Try this one.
> 
> http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/688/
> 
> ...


Most ancient governments claimed to be sanctioned by pretty specific gods or a god and relied on that as justification to be in power.

Religious practice the worship was incorporated into those governments and their laws. Any marriage would conform to those laws.

And, that is one aspect that makes the United States different.

The U.S. demanded independence at least in pert because the colonists wanted to worship as they wished. A state-enshrined religion was rejected.

In some respects, whether civil or religious marriage came first doesn't really matter all that much in today's America, because our laws are not supposed to be based solely on religious practice or custom.

Religions in the United States are supposed to compete in the marketplace of ideas without unfair advantage. Through our history, that hasn't always been the case.

It is perhaps as free a situation for religion as it has ever been.

Just because religions that have held more favored status now have to stand on their own isn't a "war" against those beliefs.

In a few decades or less, the question of state-recognized gay marriage will be settled; not based on religious beliefs, but on the constitutional basis of equal treatment under the law.


----------



## SJSFarm (Jun 13, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> I probably should add that my views on abortion are informed by biology in the absence of any religious/spiritual beliefs. Religious people seem to put great emphasis on fertilization; I do not. An embryo is a stage in the development of a human infant, but so are the egg and sperm which united to create it.
> 
> Every month or so, unless she takes steps to prevent it, a normal woman's body creates an egg which, if fertilized, is capable of developing into an embryo, which then grows into a full-fledged human being.
> 
> ...


I see a massive difference between the preventing the egg and sperm from combining and stopping the growing of the baby. Preventing pregnancy is stopping the two from combining, murder is killing the baby already started. 

Again, I say, death is determined by the stopping of ones heartbeat. My daughter's heart was beating at under 6 weeks gestation - understand how they calculate gestation; day one is the first day of your last period. So 6 weeks is not actually 6 weeks, since you don't ovulate until 2 weeks later. 

Stopping a heartbeat, intentionally, is murder. That child has a right to exist.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

That does it. You use the word marriage in reference to a homosexual union even though you know that it offends me because of my spiritual beliefs. Your constant seething bias, prejudice and blatant hatred against a person who is morally guided by his faith is beyond understanding. Someone who must bare the vicious jabs and slings for the sake of some political apostasy, and be held forth to ridicule, alone and undefended.

I declare you politically incorrect.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

CrawDaddy said:


> So where are the gay marriages in these ancient non religious marriages. I still have not seen one source for marriage before religion.


Try these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

http://www.geni.com/projects/History-of-Same-Sex-Marriage/3561

This one has some interesting history of marriage contracts, and I learned something I didn't know about, the christian church actually performed same-sex marriages before the 13th century - who'd a thunk it?
http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries



> Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions &#8212; also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" &#8212; included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of _Sex and Punishment_, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.


Then of course there's the good old stand-by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

Do you even read what you post? 


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So are you in favor of late-term abortions?


I have said elsewhere that I think the right errs in considering a blastocyst equivalent to a baby, but the left errs in considering an eight-month-old fetus equal to a blastocyst. The best policy probably lies somewhere in the middle.

But at the same time, in all honesty, I have to admit that my objection to late-term abortion is mostly based on aesthetics, because the result is the same, whether performed early or late: No Baby. 

As I see it, either humans have some sort of obligation (to whom?) to bring all their reproductive/genetic material to fruition (in which case, we can strike up a chorus of "Every Sperm is Sacred!") or they don't. If they don't, the matter in which they control their fecundity seems to be, IMO, nobody's business but their own.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> I have said elsewhere that I think the right errs in considering a blastocyst equivalent to a baby, but the left errs in considering an eight-month-old fetus equal to a blastocyst. The best policy probably lies somewhere in the middle.
> 
> But at the same time, in all honesty, I have to admit that my objection to late-term abortion is mostly based on aesthetics, because the result is the same, whether performed early or late: No Baby.
> 
> As I see it, either humans have some sort of obligation (to whom?) to bring all their reproductive/genetic material to fruition (in which case, we can strike up a chorus of "Every Sperm is Sacred!") or they don't. If they don't, the matter in which they control their fecundity seems to be, IMO, nobody's business but their own.



Gonna stick my nose in here and probably step on some toes. :hrm: 

IMO birth control should be over the counter or even handed out on the street corners. 

As to abortion, early I really don't have a problem with late term needs a good medical reason. 

A few friends and I were discussing this, we varied in religions/lack of and political leanings. Most in the 25 to late thirties. The question of the day is with all the available birth control how in the heck are so many abortions needed. One young lady who by the way is very liberal feels that women are being used for nothing more than money, she was talking about the large amounts of money in the abortion business and the number performed each year. She is totally pro-abortion just feels their is something going on that is going to be detrimental to women as a whole.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> I have said elsewhere that I think the right errs in considering a blastocyst equivalent to a baby, but the left errs in considering an eight-month-old fetus equal to a blastocyst. The best policy probably lies somewhere in the middle.


So at what point does a new life start? If abortions in the first trimester are OK but last trimester are not what has changed between these two points? I can see a definite change when the egg is fertilized and the cell division begins. What is the next change before birth?



willow_girl said:


> But at the same time, in all honesty, I have to admit that my objection to late-term abortion is mostly based on aesthetics, because the result is the same, whether performed early or late: No Baby.


I would argue that prophylactics, which prevent fertilization _prevent_ a baby while abortifacients _remove_ a baby. There is a major distinction there.




willow_girl said:


> As I see it, either humans have some sort of obligation (to whom?) to bring all their reproductive/genetic material to fruition (in which case, we can strike up a chorus of "Every Sperm is Sacred!") or they don't. If they don't, the matter in which they control their fecundity seems to be, IMO, nobody's business but their own.


I don't hold this same tenet. I feel a teenage girl who begins ovulating is under no obligation to begin having children, but the preservation of life, once it has begun, is important.

Personally I have no stake in the matter with how consensual adults practice sex and prevent fertilization. I run into a a dilemma when trying to extend that lack of interest to something that sure seems like another living being. I am probably one of the most "live and let live" people I know, but at some point we do have to stick up for those who cannot protect themselves. The problem comes in where to start this protection. If not at the moment of conception then when? first trimester, birth, before the childs 5 birthday? There has to be some distinguishing event to mark this point. I see nothing other than the moment of fertilization.


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

The lack of personal responsibility in this country is root of the problem. You can't control your sexual desires we need to tax others and supply free birth control because your not responsible enough to get it on your own. If your not responsible enough to find a way to get free and readily available birth control and be responsible enough to use it then we must fund free and readily available abortions. If your not responsible enough to get this done as soon as you know your pregnant then we must have late term abortions. If your not responsible enough of that we must have WIC, SNAP, free child care etc etc etc. All this stuff does is breed more irresponsibility. 


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

Paumon said:


> :hrm:
> 
> I read what I posted and I posted what you asked for. If you can't comprehend it that's not my problem. You'll have to be satisfied with it as I don't do cherry-picking command performances for anyone, especially not strange newbies who suddenly come waltzing in out of the blue pontificating and making demands of everyone like some lord and master.



What demands did I make? The reason I asked if you read what you posted is because the link you posted as proof of early Christian gay marriage says specifically that the union was not meant to be sexual and they only speculated that some were sexually involved. Once the church found out this union was being abused in this way they made it illegal. How does that support your argument. The length of time I have been on this forum does not make my point of view less valid. Your sources that you used to back your claims were biased and speculative at best. It is not my fault you know so much that isn't so. 


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Win07_351 said:


> Religious sacraments in themselves can never bring salvation. Only faith in Christ (See Ephesians 2:8-9)


Duh. Why would you assume that I believe otherwise? 

Oh, yeah. Because I'm Catholic, and we are all heathen idol worshipers


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So at what point does a new life start?


I am happy to share my opinion, but the important thing to keep in mind is that it's just that, _my opinion_. I see "life" as on a continuum that begins with the development of the egg and sperm cells; most of the anti-choice contingent believe it starts at fertilization or implantation; most pro-choice folks and the U.S. government envision it as beginning at birth. All of these are merely opinions, although some have or have had the weight of law. In truth, there is no definitive answer.


> I am probably one of the most "live and let live" people I know, but at some point we do have to stick up for those who cannot protect themselves.


At the risk of sounding unkind, I'm afraid I view these kinds of statements with a bit of skepticism. We live in a world where thousands of children starve to death every day. Our country's southern border is as we speak being flooded by young refugees from Central America. Meanwhile, the rate of violence in some of our inner cities approaches that of the countries the refugees are fleeing! Yet children are living and struggling to grow there.

If, in the face of all of that, your care for children extends no farther than to fetuses in the wombs of strangers, you'll pardon me if I summarily dismiss your concern. (If you are, in fact, devoting significant time and resources to caring for endangered children -- and I don't know you personally, so perhaps you are -- then it's a different story, of course, and I apologize for my presumption.)



> The problem comes in where to start this protection. If not at the moment of conception then when? first trimester, birth, before the childs 5 birthday? There has to be some distinguishing event to mark this point. I see nothing other than the moment of fertilization.


And, as I pointed out earlier, other people see a time point prior to or after fertilization. (Historically, "quickening," or the time that a child's movements in the womb began to be felt, and the point of viability outside the womb, also have been taken into account by some.) 

The great thing about America is that we all get to have our opinions and live by our personal convictions! I see the creation of life as merely a biological process, thus it troubles me not one whit to use a method of birth control (IUD) that might prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. The owners of Hobby Lobby corporation see things differently. Devout Catholics have even stricter requirements, demanding that all sexual activity must include at least the possibility of conception. And our government allows us all to follow the dictates of our consciences and play by our own rules. Isn't that kind of neat?


----------



## PrincessFerf (Apr 25, 2008)

CrawDaddy said:


> The lack of personal responsibility in this country is root of the problem. You can't control your sexual desires we need to tax others and supply free birth control because your not responsible enough to get it on your own. If your not responsible enough to find a way to get free and readily available birth control and be responsible enough to use it then we must fund free and readily available abortions. If your not responsible enough to get this done as soon as you know your pregnant then we must have late term abortions. If your not responsible enough of that we must have WIC, SNAP, free child care etc etc etc. All this stuff does is breed more irresponsibility.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


I wish I could LOVE this post. This is exactly how I feel.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

FeralFemale said:


> Duh. Why would you assume that I believe otherwise?
> 
> Oh, yeah. Because I'm Catholic, and we are all heathen idol worshipers


Maybe because you said "necessary".


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Win07_351 said:


> Maybe because you said "necessary".


No. Only someone who assumes Catholicism is not based on Christ would make that leap. 

But I get where you are coming from. Most Catholics think all the protestant sects are nothing but a bunch of heretics, lol.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

CrawDaddy said:


> Why isn't murder legal for all but Christians how about rape or violent beatings? How about slavery? Why don't each group of people just have their own set of laws and rules? *Everyone could just group yourselves into what ever you most identify yourself whether it be Religious, race, sexual orientation,* etc etc...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


I think that is what Americans ARE doing. More so every day. Freedom of choices and freedom of association breeds division more easily than harmony it seems.

People line up with us or them pretty fast, and it is transitional depending on what issue faces us, or them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SJSFarm said:


> Willow Girl, abortion is the murder of an innocent.
> It's not just the woman carrying the baby that has the rights, the father of that baby has the right to raise that child and the child has a right to live. I do believe it is a child from the beginning.
> 
> I watched the heart of my last child slowly beating at under 6 weeks of age. It had just started beating. It was AMAZING! You can argue prior to the heart beat as before life begins, but there is NO argument that intentionally stopping the heartbeat of another person is not killing. My 5 week, 4 day old baby was ALIVE! For anyone wondering, Kathleen is now 9 years old and enjoys playing soccer with her dad and swimming.
> ...


You speak for a lot of us.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> *Societies generally make laws against things that a broad consensus agrees are detrimental to victims and/or society.* Things like murder, stealing, rape, etc.
> 
> It's hard to argue that abortion is detrimental to anyone but the fetus, who has no legal standing. Abortion may even be beneficial to society in that it prevents the birth of unwanted children who are likely to be poorly parented. (The authors of "Freakonomics" make a case that the decline in crime that began in the 1990s was due to fewer unwanted children being born following Roe v. Wade.) I have no inclination to argue with a woman who doesn't believe she should bring a child into this world, although I'd prefer that she terminate it humanely and as early as possible. And an ounce of prevention certainly is worth a pound of cure in this case.
> 
> ...


Would 80% not constitute a broad consensus?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> I probably should add that my views on abortion are informed by biology in the absence of any religious/spiritual beliefs. Religious people seem to put great emphasis on fertilization; I do not. An embryo is a stage in the development of a human infant, but so are the egg and sperm which united to create it.
> 
> Every month or so, unless she takes steps to prevent it, a normal woman's body creates an egg which, if fertilized, is capable of developing into an embryo, which then grows into a full-fledged human being.
> 
> ...


That truly saddens me.

I have read a lot of your post, and it seems you've had a pretty rough road. I hope you take no offense, but I do pray for you.


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

> All of these interventions result in the same thing -- No Baby! -- and thus I see them as being morally equivalent.


This seems rather like "the end justifies the means." If one murders a one month old child the result would be the same. "No baby." Is it still morally equivalent? How about two months old? Or three? 




> It's hard to argue that abortion is detrimental to anyone but the fetus, who has no legal standing.


"Legal standing" is a poor argument. At one point in this country there were slaves who had no legal standing. Did that mean that slavery was okay? If someone murders a pregnant woman they can be charged with two murders, not just one. But if the woman chooses to kill the baby she can't. But if she harms the unborn child by taking illegal drugs she can be charged with child endangerment. At one point homosexuals had no legal standing against discrimination.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> That truly saddens me.
> 
> I have read a lot of your post, and it seems you've had a pretty rough road. I hope you take no offense, but I do pray for you.


Wha...? 

I'm thinking that maybe you have me mixed up with someone else? Because rest assured I'm probably the happiest person you have encountered all day ... ound:


> This seems rather like "the end justifies the means." If one murders a one month old child the result would be the same. "No baby." Is it still morally equivalent? How about two months old? Or three?


This is kinda beside the point. And ... the whole purpose of abortion is to relieve the unwilling woman of the burden of carrying a pregnancy to term. In the case of a "born" child, there would be no need to terminate its life ... its care could simply be transferred to another individual. That's not possible during pregnancy, although if it was, all the anti-choice women of childbearing years could queue up to serve as gestational carriers for unwanted fetuses. Say, wouldn't that be great?! Although I have a feeling that line would be shorter than the one I stood in at Wal-Mart today ... 

My point was that a mind-boggling number of 'Not Babies' are 'not created' every day, and most of us don't give the issue a second thought (unless, of course, it involves the uterus of a stranger who perhaps was involved in some sort of illicit sexual activity. Then it becomes highly interesting and compels our response!) But ordinarily ... no. Unless they're struggling with infertility, most women do not greet the arrival of Aunt Flo with weeping and gnashing of teeth over yet another expired egg that won't grow into a baby, just as most men don't mourn the passing of the 200 million sperm cells in a normal ejaculation thwarted by a condom. Each of these situations results in a 'Not Baby' just as surely as does an abortion, but they don't merit much attention, do they?

Perhaps because I breed cattle for a living (as recently as just a few hours ago,,,, ha), I find it hard to see conception as anything beyond a biological occurrence, the union of sperm and egg. Period. It has no religious or mystical significance in my books. When, at the farm, we get the results of the monthly preg-check back from the DHI, I don't say, "Oooh ... God made 11 calves this month!" Nope, I attribute it to the fact my boss or I deposited properly-handled semen at the right time and place in a fertile cow. Period. It's humans who attach more significance to this biological process than, IMO, it deserves, and that's just silly.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Would 80% not constitute a broad consensus?


It would if that 80% could reach agreement within itself on issues like this. Various branches of Christianity differ greatly on things like procreation and some even perform and sanction same sex marriages. One of the best things about this great country is how things are set up to protect the rights of everyone, not just the majority.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Perhaps because I breed cattle for a living (as recently as just a few hours ago,,,, ha), I find it hard to see conception as anything beyond a biological occurrence, the union of sperm and egg. Period. It has no religious or mystical significance in my books. When, at the farm, we get the results of the monthly preg-check back from the DHI, I don't say, "Oooh ... God made 11 calves this month!" Nope, I attribute it to the fact my boss or I deposited properly-handled semen at the right time and place in a fertile cow. Period. It's humans who attach more significance to this biological process than, IMO, it deserves, and that's just silly.


 
Are records kept? If so, when do you make note in your records that a cow is pregnant?


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

I think the war against God is foretold in prophecy.
I think it has been begun many times but God's people wake up and come back to him and he withholds his wrath.

We are edging ever nearer to the point of no return though, no one can tell for sure when we will push the envelope that far until it happens.


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

If it is a totally biological process and we are just a clump of cells, then why have laws at all. Wouldn't it be more natural and beneficial to the human race to be lawless and let the strongest survive? Why protect the weak? Why not just cull off the humans like we do cattle and produce a more superior race? 

I'll tell you why. Here in this country we call the The United States of America was founded on the belief that there is a Creator, an Almighty God, and that Creator granted every man certain inalienable rights: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. 

If life begins at conception, then that life must have been created. Then it must have been granted the same rights. To deny those rights without an offense and trial is to deny the Creator. To deny the Creator is to deny the very cornerstone, the foundation this country was built on. 


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

> In the case of a "born" child, there would be no need to terminate its life ... its care could simply be transferred to another individual.


"no need to terminate it's life" to keep it from being a burden. What a sad statement. 

Is the criteria, then, whether or not something is a burden? If a near-term unborn child is nothing other than a clump of cells until it is born - what happens at birth, scientifically, to make it more than a "clump of cells." What makes any of us more than a clump of cells? What makes any harm done to any human at any stage between conception and death morally wrong or right? Is it whether or not, as you said earlier, no harm is done to anyone other than a developing child? If a person has no family, no one depending on them, is violence against them "okay" because no harm is done to anyone other than that one person?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Rest assured I would feel the same way about Muslims if I perceived them to be a threat to my way of life in America .However, I have yet to hear of any Muslim groups campaigning to restrict my right to reproductive freedom or my ability to marry the consenting adult of my choice.
> 
> Perhaps politically-active Muslims simply aren't numerous enough here to try to impose their religious views on the population at large? If so, would that it were the same with Christians!


I have stayed away from this thread as it is a sure irrational chew-off. But this statement is one I can't pass. 

How can you not see that in every corner that Islam has sway, the very things you complain are not embraced here, how ever dubious, are eliminated with violence by some with, and this is the significant part, the rest condoning the violence where Islam is dominate? It should be clear to anyone that is there is not one example of a Muslim dominated culture allowing even the most basic freedoms you don't even notice you have here. And if that religion gains sway here, there is no chance of keeping the ones you do have.

You complain of the pinching shoe here without acknowledging the violent amputation of feet elsewhere.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Are records kept? If so, when do you make note in your records that a cow is pregnant?


Not sure where you're going with this, but we use the DHI method of preg-checking based on milk samples ... it's relatively new, but a lot more reliable and less traumatic than having a vet palpate. We test 30 days after the last breeding. It's not uncommon for cows to spontaneously abort early in a pregnancy, so early that it goes unnoticed, so if we see a supposedly-pregnant cow exhibiting signs of heat, we'll recheck and rebreed if necessary.


> If life begins at conception, then that life must have been created.


"If" is the operative word here. As I already noted, there are varying opinions on this subject -- prior to fertilization; at fertilization; at implantation; at "quickening;" when the fetus is sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb; or at birth. I don't think there is a definitive answer. Our society seems to have settled upon "at birth," and I don't have an argument with that ... it is certainly more clear-cut than some of the others. 



> Is the criteria, then, whether or not something is a burden?


No; that is not the _criteria_, merely the likely motivation for most abortions. And because an embryo has no legal standing, a woman who wishes to be relieved of the burden of pregnancy can exercise her right to do so. 


> If a near-term unborn child is nothing other than a clump of cells until it is born - what happens at birth, scientifically, to make it more than a "clump of cells."


According to law and custom, it begins to be regarded as a person.


> What makes any of us more than a clump of cells?


Law and custom.


> What makes any harm done to any human at any stage between conception and death morally wrong or right?


Law and custom.


> Is it whether or not, as you said earlier, no harm is done to anyone other than a developing child? If a person has no family, no one depending on them, is violence against them "okay" because no harm is done to anyone other than that one person?


I don't have a problem with society considering harm, and the extent of harm, as a factor in deciding whether something is permissible or not. A crime which rends the fabric of society -- think of something like the 9/11 bombings -- should be taken more seriously than one in which there arguably is no victim -- for instance, prostitution. Should the latter be a crime, if it takes place between consenting adults in privacy? I vote "no." But I digress. 

The fact that we punish crimes that hurt many people more harshly than crimes that hurt one doesn't mean we shouldn't address crimes with only a single victim. Of course we should. But, again, according to law and custom, a fetus does not have legal standing and is not a person. (I realize in some places there are laws criminalizing harm to fetuses, but I don't believe they would stand up to a Constitutional challenge.)


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

"According to law and custom" is a very, very poor argument.

At one point, according to law and custom, Blacks had no rights and could be kept as slaves. That did not make it morally right. 

At one point, according to law and custom, women did not have the right to vote and could not open a bank account in their own name. That did not make it morally right. 

At one point, according to law and custom, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Homosexual acts were a criminal offense. They could be fired from their job if their employer found out. By your own logic you would have to agree with that. But I don't think that you do.


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

So your whole argument is based on the fact that a fetus is not recognized as a person under law. 

Well my dear that is exactly what we wish to change. 


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Kasota said:


> "According to law and custom" is a very, very poor argument.
> 
> At one point, according to law and custom, Blacks had no rights and could be kept as slaves. That did not make it morally right.
> 
> ...


Thank you for demonstrating how law and custom work in a free society: they reflect the will of a preponderance of the people, and that may change over time. 

Of course, we also live in a Constitutional republic, which means that some issues have been virtually taken off the table by way of Constitutional protection -- I say "virtually" because even the Constitution is subject to amendment, as we see in the case of slavery eventually being abolished and people of all races being afforded equal protection under the law. Ultimately, everything is up for grabs, although very serious changes (at the Constitutional level) are extremely difficult to bring about, which is as it should be. 


> So your whole argument is based on the fact that a fetus is not recognized as a person under law.
> 
> Well my dear that is exactly what we wish to change.


And I fully support your right to work for change, even if I don't agree with your position. In a free society, every group on every side of every issue should have the right to make its case in the court of public opinion. This is a free country; not a dictatorship, not a theocracy. "We the People" are the ultimate arbiters of law and justice. :thumb:

Now, as to my prediction for the future, it would not surprise me if someday Roe v. Wade were overturned, and the question as to the legality of abortion reverted back to the states to decide individually. It is highly likely some states would outlaw the practice, while others would allow it to remain legal. In practice, women would still be able to get abortions, although for some it would be more difficult and costly if interstate travel were involved. 

That is probably the closest thing to a "victory" that the anti-choice movement can ever achieve, in the legal realm, and if it seems worth the fight to you, I say, "Go for it!" (It's a free country.) If you were truly interested in preventing abortions, though, as opposed to merely scoring a legal victory, I'd think you might accomplish more by supporting efforts to make contraception affordable and widely available (hopefully reducing unintended pregnancies) and providing resources that would encourage pregnant women -- especially poor single mothers, the ones most likely to seek abortions -- to carry to term.

JMO.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Or, to put it another way, and more succinctly: Today's typical abortion-seeker is a single woman of color who is struggling to provide for the child(ren) she already has. If you think it will make the world a better place to compel her to bring an additional child into this world, apparently against her will, that is your prerogative. I happen to disagree, but ... it's a free country.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Think about this.

What if we did allow many of these social issues to be handled more by states? If it ain't a national issue, and many are not, then leave it to the state.

Then Gays could go live in Gay State, and aborters could go live in Abort Sate, and so on. God fearing could go live in God state. Gunners could go live in Gun state.

I like it. I am sure many of you will not and will tell me why.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> Or, to put it another way, and more succinctly: Today's typical abortion-seeker is a *woman of color who is struggling to provide for the child(ren) she already has*. If you think it will make the world a better place to compel her to bring an additional child into this world, apparently against her will, that is your prerogative. I happen to disagree, but ... it's a free country.


Great image, still gruesome but it does further your narrative. Every abortion I have known of personally was nothing more than a extreme use of birth control for convenience.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Think about this.
> 
> What if we did allow many of these social issues to be handled more by states? If it ain't a national issue, and many are not, then leave it to the state.
> 
> ...


Actually, I think this is the direction in which the country is headed. 

Most of us have lived in an America where the federal government has played a more prominent role than it probably did for much of our country's history. I'm not sure that will always be the case, as in the future, tax revenues are likely to shrink and the cost of paying interest on the national debt will rise. Quite simply, the feds may be unable to afford to stick their noses into states' business to the extent they once were able. Look at the way several states have already decriminalized MJ, thumbing their noses at federal laws with nary a peep from the DOJ. I expect we'll see more of that in the future. 

There are some positives to be realized from less federal involvement (legalization of pot is, again, a good example) but it's worrisome, too. What if a state decided to do something really wacky, like reinstitute slavery? What would happen to the Constitutional rights of individuals? Would they be trumped by the state's rights? 

I think it's probably likely that federal laws will remain on the books, but they'll be more or less enforced in various jurisdictions, which will create de facto -- if not de jure -- "gay states," "gun states," etc.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

And ..



> Great image, still gruesome


"Gruesome"? What's up with _that_? 

I am attaching no value judgments to the statistics, which tell us that the majority of abortion-seekers are single (85 percent), women of color (64 percent) and poor (69 percent have incomes less than 200% of the poverty line; 42 percent are below the poverty line). The majority (61 percent) already have at least one child. 

Those statistics are courtesy of the Guttmacher Institute, which also notes,



> The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.


http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

These are the realities of abortion in America. As I said earlier, some apparently think that compelling women in these circumstances to bring a(nother) baby into the world would be a good thing. I'm not sure why.


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> And ..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not that I want to compel women to bring children into these circumstances. I just believe abortion is murder no matter the circumstance. So instead of spending so much energy and money on defending abortion why not try to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. The best way to prevent pregnancy if you know your not able to care for a child is not have sex. The success rate of this method is 99.9999%


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> It's not that I want to compel women to bring children into these circumstances. I just believe abortion is murder no matter the circumstance. So instead of spending so much energy and money on defending abortion why not try to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. The best way to prevent pregnancy if you know your not able to care for a child is not have sex. The success rate of this method is 99.9999%


I think that preventing unwanted pregnancies is a great thing, and I've always been mystified that anti-choice groups perennially seek the defunding of Planned Parenthood, one of the few organizations to provide birth control on a sliding-scale fee system for poor women (especially young women). It seems that making contraceptives harder to obtain would increase the abortion rate, not lower it, but oh well ....:grump:

Now, as to your suggestion that women simply refrain from having sex, I think you might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are many methods of contraception that approach a 100% success rate. For instance (emphasis mine):



> The ParaGard IUD (Copper T 380A) , the Mirena IUD, Implanon, Depo Provera Injections, Tubal Ligation, and Vasectomy tend to be the most highly effective methods of birth control.
> 
> 
> These all have typical user rates of 97 to 99 percent
> ...


http://contraception.about.com/od/birthcontroldecisions/p/effectiveness.htm

I've read that in European countries, the rate of unplanned pregnancies is much lower than it is in the U.S., because women there typically enjoy better health care and can obtain those more-effective methods of birth control for which cost is often a barrier in the U.S.

For instance, when I obtained a Paraguard IUD about two years ago, the cost (from a private physician who accepted by insurance) was nearly $2,000. It is a highly effective form of birth control that lasts for many years, with almost no possibility of user error, but the up-front cost probably would be prohibitive for a woman lacking health insurance. 

So poor women are more likely to use less-reliable methods like condoms, which are subject to user error, failure, or being skipped when one isn't readily available. 

It remains to be seen whether Obamacare, with its universal coverage for birth control, will serve to make reliable contraception more affordable, and will reduce the abortion rate. I think it will, and, while I'm generally opposed to the ACA, I think that would be a good thing.


----------



## CrawDaddy (Jul 30, 2014)

I don't know where you live but free and available healthcare has been around here for many many years without planed parenthood. The reason to defund planed parenthood is that it has little to do with planning parenthood or birth control at all. In most surveys done when young girls who are pregnant walk in the first method offered to "deal" with it is abortion. In a lot of cases there are no talks of how to parent the child or other alternatives. 

How many young mothers have been pushed into abortions by Planed Parenthoods scare tactics. 
"If you go through with this pregnancy it will ruin your life."
"We have all the answers and this is what you should do, terminate this pregnancy." "It's just a fetus."

I know a young and poor mother who went through 1 year of high school pregnant the 2 years with a baby. Today she has a job and putting herself through college. She will be a doctor in a few more years. Did I mention she graduated top of her class. Babies don't ruin lives but planed parenthood has talked young women into ending a lot of them. 



Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

WG - Planned Parenthood's primary objective is to coach girls, many very young girls through an abortion. They fight tooth and nail to keep abortions as available as taking a drink of water. Which you seem to put on the same moral plane. Some of us do not.

They may try to soften their message, but that is still the mission of Planned Parenthood.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I think that preventing unwanted pregnancies is a great thing, and I've always been mystified that anti-choice groups perennially seek the defunding of Planned Parenthood, one of the few organizations to provide birth control on a sliding-scale fee system for poor women (especially young women). It seems that making contraceptives harder to obtain would increase the abortion rate, not lower it, but oh well ....:grump:
> 
> Now, as to your suggestion that women simply refrain from having sex, I think you might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are many methods of contraception that approach a 100% success rate. For instance (emphasis mine):
> 
> ...


Start with who founded Planned Parenthood, and what her motives were. It might shock you, or not! :shrug:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Hmm. I have used Planned Parenthood twice, once as a 16-year-old in need of reliable birth control, and two years ago as a middle-aged woman, seeking the same. In both cases, I received appropriate care, and have nothing but good things to say about the organization. :thumb:

Of course, if the anti-choice contingent doesn't like Planned Parenthood, perhaps they'd care to start a competing nonprofit to supply birth control with the goal of reducing the abortion rate? It seems an ounce of prevention is truly worth a pound of cure ... :angel:

JeffreyD, from what I've read of Margaret Sanger, she grew up in a large family, lost her mother at a young age to complications from incessant pregnancies, then went to work as a nurse on NY's Lower East Side, among poor immigrant women living in deplorable conditions. The child mortality rate and the number of women who died as a result of botched abortions were atrocious. I believe her commitment to women's health and the dissemination of birth control -- which was a crime at the time -- was formed by these experiences. 

Unfortunately, she also was a product of her times, and made a number of statements that today are controversial (as well as many that are deliberately taken out of context by people with an agenda). But her activism, which led to the legalization of contraceptives, has had a profound, positive impact on women's lives. 

It may surprise you to learn that Sanger actually was opposed to abortion, believing that life starts at conception. She viewed birth control as "the only cure for abortions."


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Hmm. I have used Planned Parenthood twice, once as a 16-year-old in need of reliable birth control, and two years ago as a middle-aged woman, seeking the same. In both cases, I received appropriate care, and have nothing but good things to say about the organization. :thumb:
> 
> Of course, if the anti-choice contingent doesn't like Planned Parenthood, perhaps they'd care to start a competing nonprofit to supply birth control with the goal of reducing the abortion rate? It seems an ounce of prevention is truly worth a pound of cure ... :angel:
> 
> ...


You didn't mention eugenics, why not? She didn't just make a few misstatements, eugenics was her sole goal and she exclaimed it with vigor!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You didn't mention eugenics, why not?


Umm, I think I acknowledged that she held some views that were common to her time but have been discredited today. That doesn't change the fact that she was instrumental in making the dissemination of contraceptive information and devices legal in the U.S.

Can you imagine a time when it was against the law for a doctor to tell a female patient how to prevent pregnancy? Even if she were in poor health and yet another pregnancy would kill her? :help:

BTW, it wasn't until 1972 that the SCOTUS finally ruled that all people, even unmarried ones, can legally obtain contraceptives from physicians.

I was 6 years old in 1972, so I grew up in an era where birth control and abortions were freely available, but in my younger years, I heard some older ladies talking about the way things used to be. Suffice to say that women nowadays have no idea just how good we've got it! And I fear that those who forget history will be condemned to repeat it ...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Umm, I think I acknowledged that she held some views that were common to her time but have been discredited today. That doesn't change the fact that she was instrumental in making the dissemination of contraceptive information and devices legal in the U.S.
> 
> Can you imagine a time when it was against the law for a doctor to tell a female patient how to prevent pregnancy? Even if she were in poor health and yet another pregnancy would kill her? :help:
> 
> ...


You acknowledged it, but didn't mention it, or attribute it to her. She was a horrible, horrible person, and you try to explain it away! Can't erase her history or that of Planned Parenthood!


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

The govt own statistics show only 6% of the abortions in this nation are from rape, incest or health reasons. The rest are do to lack of responsibility and self control. Throw puppies in the river because you can't take care of them and go to jail. Fish without a license and you can go to jail. Kill your child and you are cared for and nurtured and called brave. It's sad really.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

And there are hundreds of undercover videos on the workings of planned parenthood. And the first thing they go to is abortion of your already pregnant.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You acknowledged it, but didn't mention it, or attribute it to her. She was a horrible, horrible person, and you try to explain it away! Can't erase her history or that of Planned Parenthood!


In evaluating people, I think you have to consider the world they lived in, their formative experiences, the norms of the time.

I don't think Margaret Sanger was a horrible person. I think she performed an invaluable service to American women (and men, too) in fighting to legalize birth control. Did she have some beliefs that I (from my 21st-century perspective) find objectionable? Sure, but she is hardly alone in that.

If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, and (as a 40-something man) kept a teenaged girl captive and repeatedly impregnated her, we'd call him a monster. But by the standards of his time, having one's way with a comely young slave was a common peccadillo, only mildly scandalous.

Read some history in depth (outside of the sanitized version in high school textbooks) and you'll find that most noteworthy people have been complex, and had good and bad qualities. And so it goes ... :shrug:


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Vahomesteaders said:


> The govt own statistics show only 6% of the abortions in this nation are from rape, incest or health reasons. The rest are do to* lack of responsibility and self control*. ........ Kill your child and you are cared for and nurtured and called brave. It's sad really.


Indeed it is sad. There's something else that's just as sad as a woman getting an abortion because of lack of responsibility and self control. That is the men who get women pregnant because of the men's lack of responsibility and self control. The way I see it, it amounts to more than lack of responsibility and self control in men, it is a deliberate and selfish act on their parts to not use contraceptives because they're only thinking of themselves and their self pleasure.

Why are men still doing this? Why are not more men using contraceptives? Why should women do all the work of preventing conception? Yes, women should be more educated and responsible about using birth control but it takes two to tango and it should be even more so the responsibility of the men to ensure that they are not siring unwanted children.

As long as men are selfishly planting their sperms and siring unwanted children inside women then desperate women will continue to do whatever it takes to eliminate the men's unwanted get that was put there in them.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Thank you, Paumon, for pointing out that men's actions also play a role. :thumb:

Also ... it's easy to say that people who don't want to make babies should simply refrain from having sex. Although, hmm ... I wonder what would happen if all the wives who were content with the size of their family informed their husbands that from now on, there'd be no more nookie? 

Suggesting that abstinence is the answer to unwanted pregnancies is like saying that fat people should simply stop eating so much and smokers should quit smoking. In all cases, that advice makes perfect sense, but isn't likely to be followed very often or successfully. It makes lousy public health policy.

If there's anything we know about human nature, it's the people don't do a very good job of refraining from having sex. Most of us start around age 20, if not earlier, and will be sexually active at least sporadically throughout our adult lives. Hardly anyone who experiences sex says, "Whew! I never want to do _that_ again!"

Ha,,,, right now I'm reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson, which notes that at one point, Jefferson was called home from his political duties because his wife was gravely ill. The biographer notes that the exact nature of her illness went unrecorded, but slightly less than 9 months later, she delivered yet another baby! 

But I digress. Ordinarily, I'm opposed to government subsidies, but when it comes to birth control, I'm willing to make an exception. On a purely practical level, it's a lot cheaper to pay for birth control -- even an expensive form of birth control, such as sterilization -- than it is to provide social support (SNAP, CHIP, public education, etc.) for the children of the poor. We also should take into account the human misery incurred by being born an unwanted child in a poor family where resources (emotional as well as material) often are stretched to the breaking point.

Looking at the European example, it seems one problem here is that women -- especially poor women -- often have been unable to afford the best and most reliable forms of birth control. This means that the very women who probably shouldn't get pregnant -- ones who already are poor single mothers -- are at heightened risk for accidental pregnancies. 

Now, we can say, "Well, they simply shouldn't be having sex, then!" while patting ourselves on the back self-righteously. And we can go on living in a country where three in 10 women will have had an abortion by age 45. Or we can bite the bullet and implement public health policy that will better prevent unwanted pregnancies. It's up to you ... :shrug:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

RubyJane said:


> Have you explained yet how you got a chicken pox vaccine way back when you were a kid but they weren't even available till 1995?


Different thread!

It appears that I never did get one, i was told that i did get one, is that ok with you? So, you support eugenics?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

RubyJane said:


> Yes, different thread but same poster with maybe faulty reasoning.



Wow, did the fact that I was told that i had been vaccinated when I wasn't, make you so mad that you had to follow me to a different thread to make your point!

What faulty reasoning would that be? That Sanger was a proponent of eugenics?


----------



## RubyJane (Apr 23, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> What faulty reasoning would that be? That Sanger was a proponent of eugenics?


That she did a lot more than just sanction eugenics. Good stuff.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Dang, I clicked on "Is there a war against God and is prophesy coming true?" and got an Abortion Thread.


In answer to the ORIGINAL question I believe it is. However, based on many threads on this website, I'm probably a Minority in that thinking. If the OP is still following his/her own thread i think it is headed our way.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

RubyJane said:


> That she did a lot more than just sanction eugenics. Good stuff.


So you agree with her, got it!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

RubyJane said:


> Oh Jeffrey....


"Undeniably feeble minded"...she wanted abortion to eliminate them, so she set up clinics that would help her meet her goals! And she's your idol!


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

rambotex said:


> Dang, I clicked on "Is there a war against God and is prophesy coming true?" and got an Abortion Thread.
> 
> 
> In answer to the ORIGINAL question I believe it is. However, based on many threads on this website, I'm probably a Minority in that thinking. If the OP is still following his/her own thread i think it is headed our way.


Yeah, I check it out from time to time. Quite a bit of thread drift, eh? All you have to do is read the newspaper, especially about the Middle East, and that will take care of the prophesy part. The war against God is so evident That you would have to be blind (or part of it) to miss it.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

I know there are some Christians who believe all prophecy has been fulfilled but I am not of that belief. Seems being there is the result of avoiding some relevant scriptures.

I read Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth back in 1974 as I was being discharged from the Army. I still go to his site because he has been so steady in his convictions over the years.

The birth pangs are increasing in severity and in frequency and I expect we are well into the season of the end.

I have a neighbor girl who is just 23 and she sees it also ... which is encouraging to see a young person with such great perception.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> "Undeniably feeble minded"...she wanted abortion to eliminate them, so she set up clinics that would help her meet her goals! And she's your idol!


Umm, for the record, Sanger was opposed to abortion, believing that life begins at conception. She had hoped that making contraceptives available would eliminate the demand for abortions. 

Maybe we'll get there yet ... someday!


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

rambotex said:


> Dang, I clicked on "Is there a war against God and is prophesy coming true?" and got an Abortion Thread.
> 
> 
> In answer to the ORIGINAL question I believe it is. However, based on many threads on this website, I'm probably a Minority in that thinking. If the OP is still following his/her own thread i think it is headed our way.


 Yeah, I still check it out. It is thread drift, but the way I see it killing babies comes under the "war against God". 

I don't believe in abortions. I know a women who was raped and became pregnant. She had the baby and put it up for adoption. Also knew another woman who had an abortion because they finally rented the beach house on the Jersey shore and she did not want to spend the summer pregnant at the beach. Make your own judgements.

Men who make women pregnant and then refuse their responibilities should be regularly scourged.


----------

