Jump to content

Kay Ivey's take on the unborn


creed

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

You ever read the Bible, the divinely inspired word of God? Or do you think it is just a “ fairy tale “?

I think that it is the work of a great number of people, who may or may not have been inspired by Divine influence, but people nonetheless, and therefore subject to their own faults and biases. I also believe that it was written a very long time ago. It is static, and is not updated as humanity changes. For instance, you point out that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination, but the same passage says those people will be put to death and their blood is on their own hands (we were just following orders!). I think you would agree that homosexuals should not be put to death, but please correct me if I’m wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

I think that it is the work of a great number of people, who may or may not have been inspired by Divine influence, but people nonetheless, and therefore subject to their own faults and biases. I also believe that it was written a very long time ago. It is static, and is not updated as humanity changes. For instance, you point out that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination, but the same passage says those people will be put to death and their blood is on their own hands (we were just following orders!). I think you would agree that homosexuals should not be put to death, but please correct me if I’m wrong.

No, I don’t believe they should be put to death.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

He and a couple of Taliban had a seance session. ;)

And the Baptist, too! Don’t leave them out!😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

He and a couple of Taliban had a seance session. ;)

And the Baptist, too! Don’t leave them out!😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PUB78 said:

No, desertion is another Biblical reason for divorce.

On your 2nd question, no. Although a sin it is not an abomination as is homosexuality to God.

It was called an abomination in Leviticus (which listed a lot of Abominations....essentially every sin was called an Abomination in Leviticus) of the old testament law. It is not referred to in such a way in the New Testament and is mostly mentioned among "regular" sins in the New Testament. 

speaking of Leviticus: “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.Leviticus 20:10 

So homosexuality may be an abomination, but cheating on your wife is an automatic death sentence. 

Or are we only following a few highly selective passages of Leviticus? 

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.1 Corinthians 6:9-10 

Seems to me that homosexuality is on the same level as drunkenness', robbers, cheats, and other heterosexual sins.  

 

As for Divorce:

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adulteryMatthew 5:32

“Everyone who divorc es his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.Luke 16:18 

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.1 Corinthians 7:10-11

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”Matthew 19:9

And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Mark 10:12

 

Do you have any passages or research to share that supports your view that God deems homosexuality to be a worse sin than other sexual sins and divorce or adultry? Or do we only deem it worse so as not to upset the millions of Christians who actively live in sexual sin and unbiblical marriages to make them feel better about their own sins and to more harshly judge others they don't like? 

Edited by CoffeeTiger
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

It was called an abomination in Leviticus (which listed a lot of Abominations....essentially every sin was called an Abomination in Leviticus) of the old testament law. It is not referred to in such a way in the New Testament and is mostly mentioned among "regular" sins in the New Testament. 

speaking of Leviticus: “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.Leviticus 20:10 

So homosexuality may be an abomination, but cheating on your wife is an automatic death sentence. 

Or are we only following a few highly selective passages of Leviticus? 

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.1 Corinthians 6:9-10 

Seems to me that homosexuality is on the same level as drunkenness', robbers, cheats, and other heterosexual sins.  

 

As for Divorce:

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adulteryMatthew 5:32

“Everyone who divorc es his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.Luke 16:18 

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.1 Corinthians 7:10-11

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”Matthew 19:9

And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Mark 10:12

 

Do you have any passages or research to share that supports your view that God deems homosexuality to be a worse sin than other sexual sins and divorce or adultry? Or do we only deem it worse so as not to upset the millions of Christians who actively live in sexual sin and unbiblical marriages to make them feel better about their own sins and to more harshly judge others they don't like? 

Try:

Romans 1:26-27

I Corinthians 6: 9-11

I Timothy 1:8-11

Do you have any scripture in mind that supports homosexuality?

  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Try:

Romans 1:26-27

I Corinthians 6: 9-11

I Timothy 1:8-11

Do you have any scripture in mind that supports homosexuality?

 I never claimed that homosexuality isn't considered a sin by the Bible. I fully agree that it is. 

My post was in relation to your assertion that Homosexuality is considered a worse sin by God than other sins. In your post that I quoted above, you responded to me saying that normal divorce/adultery/hertosexual sins aren't considered as bad as homosexuality because the Bible called homosexuality an "abomination" 

My responding quote was showing that many times in the Bible that homosexuality is lumped in with more "mundane" sins such as lieing, stealing, adultry, etc. And that the 'abomination' reference in Leviticus is meaningless for modern day. 

 

I find it hypocritical for Christians to focus so much anger, and righteous indignation on homosexuality when many of them sin in similar ways through adultery, sinful divorce, and un-biblical marriages.  

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 I never claimed that homosexuality isn't considered a sin by the Bible. I fully agree that it is. 

My post was in relation to your assertion that Homosexuality is considered a worse sin by God than other sins. In your post that I quoted above, you responded to me saying that normal divorce/adultery/hertosexual sins aren't considered as bad as homosexuality because the Bible called homosexuality an "abomination" 

My responding quote was showing that many times in the Bible that homosexuality is lumped in with more "mundane" sins such as lieing, stealing, adultry, etc. And that the 'abomination' reference in Leviticus is meaningless for modern day. 

 

I find it hypocritical for Christians to focus so much anger, and righteous indignation on homosexuality when many of them sin in similar ways through adultery, sinful divorce, and un-biblical marriages.  

The difference and the similarities are there. Jesus can forgive any sin. If the sinner asks for forgiveness, repents (turns away) from their sinful life, then their sin will be atoned by Jesus death on the cross.  An adulterer therefore would have to refrain from the adulterous activity.
 

It would seem that if a person was invited loved in an unbiblical marriage or divorce, they can be forgiven for that sin.  It would not make any sense to annul that marriage and create another divorce.  So yeah those types of heterosexual relationship sins can be complicated to figure out but not to absolve.  That result should be a permanent marriage that would not dissolve into sin again. 
 

Homosexual relationships among professing Christians are somewhat flaunting the sin in front of family church and God. Yes it can be forgiven but the perpetrators would have to repent, turn away, from their homosexual ways and not return to them. Do they have to marry hetero? No. They could choose to be single if they are not attracted to the opposite sex.  As long as they did not act on their homosexual desires then they would not be committing that sin. 
 

I am Not a pastor or trained in any formal fashion. Just a Christian attempting to explain the difference to you as I understand it.  That doesn’t mean that heterosexuals are off the hook any more than homosexuals. If they are continuing their sin then their salvation could be in jeopardy.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

The difference and the similarities are there. Jesus can forgive any sin. If the sinner asks for forgiveness, repents (turns away) from their sinful life, then their sin will be atoned by Jesus death on the cross.  An adulterer therefore would have to refrain from the adulterous activity.
 

It would seem that if a person was invited loved in an unbiblical marriage or divorce, they can be forgiven for that sin.  It would not make any sense to annul that marriage and create another divorce.  So yeah those types of heterosexual relationship sins can be complicated to figure out but not to absolve.  That result should be a permanent marriage that would not dissolve into sin again. 
 

Homosexual relationships among professing Christians are somewhat flaunting the sin in front of family church and God. Yes it can be forgiven but the perpetrators would have to repent, turn away, from their homosexual ways and not return to them. Do they have to marry hetero? No. They could choose to be single if they are not attracted to the opposite sex.  As long as they did not act on their homosexual desires then they would not be committing that sin. 
 

I am Not a pastor or trained in any formal fashion. Just a Christian attempting to explain the difference to you as I understand it.  That doesn’t mean that heterosexuals are off the hook any more than homosexuals. If they are continuing their sin then their salvation could be in jeopardy.

I appreciate this thought out reply and explanation.

I agree these things can be complicated, and unfortunately the Bible isn't very clear on what God's will is in these specifically, but unfortunately very common situations . 

you say:

"they can be forgiven for that sin.  It would not make any sense to annul that marriage and create another divorce."

I see what you are saying, but I think it's just as easy to come to the interpretation that a unbiblical marriage is continuing adultery and If one has an unbiblical divorce then the bible stipulates that you are not to remarry. You can certainly be forgiven for the original adultery, or divorce, but then why would God be perfectly fine then with you continuing the marriage that resulted from the adultery? 

Matthew 19:9 ESV / 214 helpful votes 

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

 

So you're saying you believe that as long as there is love in the new adulteries marriage that God will then be fine with it continuing as long as you ask forgiveness for it happening in the first place? Divorce would make perfect sense because the marriage was sinful to begin with. 

I just see it as an  interpretation of Biblical teaching on marriage that coincidently heavily favors straight/hetrosexual couples and allows them an easy way to get the multiple marriages/partners they may desire and then have an easy 'out' with God by just asking for forgiveness without having to give up the unbiblical or adulterous relationship they are in, while Gay people are forced to live their life being single and without romancing anyone they were born attracted to because that would be a continuing/forever sin that God wouldn't forgive? 

 

I realize that Biblical teaching and Christianity in general isn't supposed to be completely "fair" by earthly standards, but I don't see why many Christian sects believe that sinful heterosexual relationship are so easy to be forgiven and can continue, while it's Gay people who have to be very strictly governed and accountable for their relationships.....other than it steps on A LOT of toes for Christians when you start suggesting that their 2nd or 3rd marriage isn't Biblical and they are living...similar to a same sex marriage.... in sin because of it.  

 

 

 

Edited by CoffeeTiger
  • Thanks 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 3:25 PM, PUB78 said:

And the Baptist, too! Don’t leave them out!😉

I figured the Talibaptists were a given. (You may be one.)

Otherwise, I see no need to sully specific denominations by associating them with you unless I know otherwise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bible thumpers who are constantly quoting scripture as justification for persecuting homosexuals are hypocrites by definition. 

But what bothers me more is their desire to use our civil government in their theocratic pursuit.  Actually, there's something in our constitution about that:

 

  • Like 2
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I appreciate this thought out reply and explanation.

I agree these things can be complicated, and unfortunately the Bible isn't very clear on what God's will is in these specifically, but unfortunately very common situations . 

you say:

"they can be forgiven for that sin.  It would not make any sense to annul that marriage and create another divorce."

I see what you are saying, but I think it's just as easy to come to the interpretation that a unbiblical marriage is continuing adultery and If one has an unbiblical divorce then the bible stipulates that you are not to remarry. You can certainly be forgiven for the original adultery, or divorce, but then why would God be perfectly fine then with you continuing the marriage that resulted from the adultery? 

Matthew 19:9 ESV / 214 helpful votes 

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

 

So you're saying you believe that as long as there is love in the new adulteries marriage that God will then be fine with it continuing as long as you ask forgiveness for it happening in the first place? Divorce would make perfect sense because the marriage was sinful to begin with. 

I just see it as an  interpretation of Biblical teaching on marriage that coincidently heavily favors straight/hetrosexual couples and allows them an easy way to get the multiple marriages/partners they may desire and then have an easy 'out' with God by just asking for forgiveness without having to give up the unbiblical or adulterous relationship they are in, while Gay people are forced to live their life being single and without romancing anyone they were born attracted to because that would be a continuing/forever sin that God wouldn't forgive? 

 

I realize that Biblical teaching and Christianity in general isn't supposed to be completely "fair" by earthly standards, but I don't see why many Christian sects believe that sinful heterosexual relationship are so easy to be forgiven and can continue, while it's Gay people who have to be very strictly governed and accountable for their relationships.....other than it steps on A LOT of toes for Christians when you start suggesting that their 2nd or 3rd marriage isn't Biblical and they are living...similar to a same sex marriage.... in sin because of it.  

 

 

 

I suppose a distinction should be drawn between a pre-salvation marriage and a post salvation marriage.  In the first case the participants (gay or straight) would not have the knowledge of their sin but once saved, all their previous sin would be forgiven. A clean slate so to speak to begin anew, born again, now in a forgiven biblical marriage which we all hope will last. Two gay marriage participants pre salvation are in equal sin with the heterosexual couple. Upon being saved, the gay people would be required to address their homosexual behavior and would have to discontinue their marriage/relationship if they are going to continue to grow in their faith. Now they are different than the hetero couple and cannot continue as a gay couple.

Should a post salvation couple re-enter the realm of divorce/remarriage for reasons other than stated then they are deviating from their righteous relationship.  Forgiveness of sin can only be given by Jesus. Not me or a priest or a pastor. All this stuff I am trying to explain is my own interpretation of the situation you have presented.  Nobody is perfect and no one is sinless or will not sin in the future. We are all faulted by sin but we can try to personally avoid sin we are cognizant of so that our heart is not rebellious to God.

 

  • Like 2
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Bible thumpers who are constantly quoting scripture as justification for persecuting homosexuals are hypocrites by definition. 

But what bothers me more is their desire to use our civil government in their theocratic pursuit.  Actually, there's something in our constitution about that:

 

Bible thumpers are not the ones to worry about.

  • Like 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 I never claimed that homosexuality isn't considered a sin by the Bible. I fully agree that it is. 

My post was in relation to your assertion that Homosexuality is considered a worse sin by God than other sins. In your post that I quoted above, you responded to me saying that normal divorce/adultery/hertosexual sins aren't considered as bad as homosexuality because the Bible called homosexuality an "abomination" 

My responding quote was showing that many times in the Bible that homosexuality is lumped in with more "mundane" sins such as lieing, stealing, adultry, etc. And that the 'abomination' reference in Leviticus is meaningless for modern day. 

 

I find it hypocritical for Christians to focus so much anger, and righteous indignation on homosexuality when many of them sin in similar ways through adultery, sinful divorce, and un-biblical marriages.  

You make a good point,  but same sex relations and marriage are not  natural according to Gods creation and plans for man.

  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

I figured the Talibaptists were a given. (You may be one.)

Otherwise, I see no need to sully specific denominations by associating them with you unless I know otherwise.

 

Actually a former Baptist, longtime PCA member since the 1980’s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yep. Just as I assumed. 

 

7DE4D476-7C6B-4F4E-854E-24F64CDBCC8E.jpeg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/13/2021 at 10:24 AM, AU9377 said:

Unless that life is a 15 year old running across the border with Mexico.  The majority would place sharp shooters in towers to mow those precious sacred gifts from God down like kudzu.  I'm in no way advocating for an open border of some kind, but am I right or am I right?

No.  I've never seen anyone advocate for shooting a 15 year old running across the Mexican border.  I find it next to impossible to believe that you have, either.  So no, you're not right.  But hey, hyperbolic straw men play well in today's society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How DeSantis and his GOP allies reveal their antiabortion hypocrisy

Opinion by

To the surprise of no one in Florida, a Texas-style antiabortion bill landed in the Florida state legislature last week. The bill, like the Texas version, is designed to ban most abortions by inviting citizen-filed lawsuits against anyone who helps a woman undergo the procedure.

Florida joins at least a half-dozen other Republican-led states now considering their own versions of the law, which bars abortions around six weeks of pregnancy — before many women are aware that they’re pregnant.

What is striking about the Florida GOP’s latest attack on abortion rights — “fetal heartbeat” bills have been tried before — is how little interest these Republicans take in trying to prevent the unplanned pregnancies that lead to abortions.

Adoption, Republicans’ long-preferred solution, is wonderful. But relying on adoption is also profoundly unrealistic. Given the choice between terminating a pregnancy or going through almost 10 months of pregnancy and then giving up the child, women will typically choose the former. And, in any case, not enough people want to adopt. Florida is no exception.

Women could be spared the painful choice between terminating an unwanted pregnancy or surrendering their babies by making birth control more accessible and affordable, and by ensuring that young people are better-educated about sex and its possible repercussions.

So I was puzzled this summer when Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, chose not to reduce abortions by making contraception more readily available in the state. DeSantis vetoed a bipartisan bill in June that would have provided $2 million to help low-income women gain access to long-acting reversible contraception, such as IUDs and hormonal implants. Those forms of contraception are considered especially effective because they are less vulnerable to human error.

The bill wasn’t much, but it was a start. The fact that it even reached DeSantis’s desk was a marvel, considering the conservative tilt of the state’s legislature.

DeSantis, who is staunchly pro-life, vetoed the bill weeks after receiving a letter from the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops. The bishops object to the use of long-acting contraception, particularly hormonal IUDs, because they can prevent an embryo from implanting into a woman’s uterus so they deem them “abortifacients.”

Data shows that lower-income women and young women face more barriers to birth-control access. Low-income women also account for a larger share of abortions. Without insurance, some women can’t afford contraception or don’t have the money to visit doctors who must prescribe it or, in some cases, insert the device. Medicaid covers contraception, but not all low-income women are eligible. Florida, for example, chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

Even the president of the state Senate, Wilton Simpson, an ardent right-to-lifer who championed the contraception bill — but also called the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to block the Texas law “encouraging” — seemed surprised by the veto.

“I thought that would solve a lot of the abortion issues, probably eliminate thousands of abortions,” Simpson told WFLA. He blamed himself for not persuading DeSantis.

When urging his colleagues to support the bill, Simpson cited a well-known Colorado program funded through private donations that offered low-income women IUDs and implants. The initiative’s results were impressive: Between 2009 and 2014, teen births and abortions both declined by nearly half. Despite the program’s success, securing Colorado funding has been a struggle.

DeSantis also worked against reducing abortions in Florida this year by signing into law a bill that weakened an increasingly anemic sex education program in schools. Local school boards in Florida already have almost full control over how sex ed is taught in districts. The only state requirement is instruction on the benefits of abstinence. Now, under the new law, parents can choose to opt out of having their children receive any sex education at all.

Opponents to sex education argue that it is the job of parents to talk to their children about sex. But many don’t, or they do it reluctantly or sparingly, maybe even clumsily or misleadingly. (I know many mothers who have yet to talk to their children about online pornography, which is ubiquitous and has warped the sexual expectations of mostly young men and boys but also young women.)

But it is access to contraception that remains the simplest, most direct way of stopping unwanted pregnancies and reducing the abortion rate. Some Republicans recognize that more needs to be done, and a few have acted: 17 states, including Republican-led states such as Arizona and Arkansas, allow pharmacists to prescribe contraceptives.

As Simpson said about contraception, “it just gives these young women an opportunity to live a life that otherwise is not available to them.”

At least Simpson, unlike DeSantis and many of his Republican allies, is not a hypocrite. He understands that a crucial piece of the puzzle is not getting pregnant in the first place.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/28/ron-desantis-florida-gop-pro-life-hypocrisy/

 

I know, let's make this pandering fool president. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...