1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why can't Chritians have free speech?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by graceb2u, Nov 8, 2004.

  1. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist

    OTOH, is not individual liberty a cherished right for us?</font>[/QUOTE]
    Yes.
    Yes. And so long as it doesn't require extension of benefits nor sanction from government.
    No. But that does not require government to support nor sanction the behavior.

    I never said that homosexual behavior should be illegal- neither should it enjoy any type of official sanction nor protection above that common to any unmarried person.

    Why should heterosexual behavior enjoy such sanction while homosexual behavior should not?

    Reproduction. Heterosexual intimacy has a purpose beyond the fulfillment of our sexual cravings. It perpetuates the race and most of us who are parents have probably had sex with that specific purpose in mind.

    There is a general welfare interest in procreation and the security of children.

    BTW, if we were willing to scrap the tax code in favor of indirect taxation (sales tax maybe), I would prefer to let marriage be a religion sanctioned relationship only. New laws would be required to handle custody but that could be based on the parent names on birth certificates.
     
  2. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nope. And I didn't refer to red states. I referred to red counties.

    According to USA Today, just of 150 million of us live in red counties. About 100 million live in blue counties.

    BTW, the murder statistics I cited were per capita... which makes allowance for population density.
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How exactly does the "liberal media" interfere with your saying what you want? Do you think it knows who you are and what you say?
    </font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't. OTOH, the mass media is a very powerful, proprietary, multi-billion dollar institution that is very liberal by any scale.

    They can't keep ideas from being expressed... but they have a great deal of control over who gets to hear those ideas as well as whether they are presented in a neutral, positive, or negative light.

    Conservative ideas do not get equal play in the mass media compared with liberal ideas. Even a Newsweek writer acknowledged that media reporting would be worth 5%-15% to John Kerry.
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is no distinct line between someone and their sexual orientation; to hate and fear homosexuality is to a great degree hating and fearing them.</font>[/QUOTE] That is ridiculous. We are not wholly defined by our sexual appetites. You are simply wrong.

    There is most certainly a distinct line between someone and their sexual behavior. No one... absolutely no one is naturally compelled to have sex of any kind. It is a strong natural urge but it is not required for personal survival and is completely subject to personal will.

    Finally, God loves sinners. God hates sin... which includes the sexual sins. The only sex that has been endorsed by God is that between a man and woman bound by marriage. We either conform to God's standard or we reject it.

    If there were no direct commands against homosexuality (which there are), the Bible still establishes marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Sex is only allowable by God within marriage.

    'Unto yourself'... a purity crime, much like eating shellfish or touching pork.</font>[/QUOTE] See above plus Romans 1. God ordained sex between a man and his wife only.

    How exactly is it destructive? Be specific and referenced.</font>[/QUOTE] Overwhelmingly sexual child abuse occurs between men and boys. Some try to contend that these aren't homosexuals but rather perverted heterosexuals- this is a denial of the evidence. It is not heterosexual cravings that cause men to want sex with other males.

    NAMBLA does not have a "mainstreamed" counterpart for heterosexuals.

    Homosexual behavior is not the only cause for the spread of STD's. However, it is a disproportionate factor. Couple this with the fact (acknowledged by gay rights organizations) that homosexuals are far more promiscuous than the population at large. Infidelity among "committed relationships" was also higher than that within hetero relationships. The effect is that homosexuality shortens a man's life span to the 40's.

    In my experience 20-25 years ago, our female gym teacher was lesbian. She did not concentrate on a monogomous relationship... she recruited high school girls by throwing girls only parties at her house. I knew several girls who were heterosexual but were seduced by the teacher or her adult friends.

    My cousin was the last of 5 Navy "buddies" to die. He survived for over 10 years. Greg died of complications due to a stroke this January that may have been a side effect of his medication. He was 44 years old and HIV positive. His friends all died of AIDS.

    As amazing as it might sound, due to Clinton Administration policies, he drew medical benefits and disability from the Navy due to his HIV. He was also drawing Social Security.

    When he died I was broken hearted. I didn't hold him in contempt because his behavior had eventually destroyed him... I feared for his soul. I remember the little boy I used to play with and walk to school with.

    One of the physical therapists testified that he had repented and gotten things settled with God. I hope so... but what a waste of life. So much talent, so much potential usefulness to God- squandered.

    Regardless of what you think of the way the wealthy choose to spend their money, there is nothing morally superior about the use of government to confiscate wealth from one individual in order to provide a benefit for another.

    The best economic underpinning the government can do is to provide an environment where businesses can create jobs and economic activity. As JFK said, I rising tide lifts all boats... when he was criticized for giving across the board tax cuts as a remedy to recession.

    BTW, the Bush tax cuts dropped millions from the tax roll and benefited every middle class family with children.

    I think you need to review what God feels is more important. </font>[/QUOTE]First and foremost, God thinks His glory is important. God thinks holiness and morality are important. They aren't the only important things but if you think that God does not consider these things important then please provide your scripture.

    God gave commands. It glorifies Him when we submit to those commands. It offends Him when we don't.

    Homosexuality is not the only sin. All sin is offensive to God. However, homosexuality is unique to the extent that people try to define themselves by something that God calls a sin.

    I know no one who says "I am a liar" then contends that lying is moral since it is who they are.
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find myself leaning towards agreement with Scott in much of what he says here, but, just for the record, most male pedophiles are heterosexual, typically having female partners. A good portion of them are married. Most have never had an adult sexual encounter with another male, though some were molested themselves as children.

    As a father of children myself, and in the interest of parental protection of children, we should not make the false presumption that a homosexual male is more likely to be a child predator than a heterosexul male.
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not in the "red" counties.
    The statistics show that guns prevent far more crimes than they cause.

    Well, as conservatives have rolled back community programs for years, how are we to know what our ideals would have done?
    </font>[/QUOTE]That is false. Conservatives have only had control of Congress since 1994 and have yet to unfund all of these community programs.

    Those programs had 30 years to prove their worth. During that time, the plight of these communities steadily worsened across the board.

    The crime statistics quoted earlier (that crime has been falling for 10 years) indicate that the GOP policies have been more beneficial in ten years than the Great Society was in 30.


    What economic legislation are you talking about? Bush inherited an economy in decline toward recession partly due to the Y2K scare.

    Companies hired millions and bought billions of dollars worth of technology to overcome this problem- they had to tighten the belt after nothing came of it. Which means that computer techs that graduated college in a job market that said they were worth $80K per year were suddenly brought back to the reality of their market worth- about $40K.

    Bush rightly cut taxes to encourage both investment and spending. It worked. Far from being a benefit exclusively directed to "big business", it has disproportionately helped small and medium sized companies. That's why "big business" and even Wall Street were pretty evenly divided between Bush and Kerry while small businesses supported Bush.

    Economic liberalism is not a moral value... nor is it a practical solution for helping anyone, poor or rich. At its core, it is stealing from one person to buy the votes of others. No where in scripture is there a principle that teaches that the job of a Christian is to vote in a government that will re-distribute wealth to care for the poor under a secular banner.

    It teaches that we have a responsibility to care for the poor giving credit to God and to evangelize them as well. Liberalism gives credit to the human institution of government and forbids evangelism by those who extend the benefits.

    Economic liberalism stifles business activity, innovation, and invention. It thwarts upward mobility. It locks people into classes by punishing achievement and rewarding mediocrity or failure. If you want to see the ultimate model of economic liberalism, look at the failed USSR. They had a large "working class" who owed their jobs and fortunes to government... they were "equal" but equally poor. The ruling class that insured that everyone was treated "fairly".

    American liberals think the problem was with those who ruled that system rather than the system itself. Liberals think the government has a responsibility to insure the "fairness" of the results. Conservatives think that government has a responsibility to insure the fairness of the system and equality of opportunity to succeed.

    It is a classic "big lie" that says business is the enemy but big government is a friend.
     
  7. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes... and no. Its a spectrum rather than two categories. For the most part, the "elite" would include the bulk of mainstream media, most academics, politicians, and various special interest groups.

    I am frankly not convinced there are a great number of liberal "regulars".

    I have had the privilege of knowing and working with many black people. In conversation, they often reveal a deep conservative bias on both social and economic issues... but dutifully go out and vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    That's hardly surprising that over-crowded, poor areas have more crime.</font>[/QUOTE] Not all impoverished people resort to crime, much less violent crime.

    I would contend that there is more evidence that in America crime and immorality are a cause of poverty rather than poverty being a cause for crime and immorality.

    For instance, the rise of illegitimacy within the black urban communities since the 1950's leads a parallel trend of increasing crime and violence.

    The Great Society seems to have hurt rather than helped. You cannot teach a person that they are entitled to the wealth of someone else and that those who have more should be held in contempt if they refuse to share without impacting individual behavior.
    Agreed. However unless the trends in black two parent families reverses, no amount of protection will work.
    What is the solution? The main problem with local gun control laws is that it is too easy to buy a gun elsewhere and bring it into the city.</font>[/QUOTE] I am not suggesting local gun control laws. DC has demonstrated the utter failure of this idea.

    I am saying that the availability of guns does not cause crime. Immoral attitudes cause crime. We need to deal with the real cause. The black church would do this more effectively if the were even as non-political as the Christian Right.

    Beyond that, perhaps reasonable censorship of media is needed to lessen the negative effects on these most vulnerable groups. No one questions the constitutionality of forbidding "Fire!" in a crowded theatre... Why are rap lyrics that promote crime and immorality any different? I am not talking about political statements. I am talking about lyrics that directly incite violent rape et al.

    So why did they vote 12 to 1 for Kerry? Why does most of the Washington press corps identify themselves as liberals? Why did a non-partisan media watch group record that Bush received more than twice the negative press as Kerry during the last two months of the campaign? What did Mark Halperin mean when he said that bias was OK if it achieved his idea of fairness? Why did the media never do an expose on Soros and his billionaire friends who tried to buy the presidency? Why was the 527 loophole in the campaign finance law not decried except when the Swiftboat guys came on the scene? Why did CBS jump on the forged documents? Why didn't the media ever cajole Kerry into releasing all of his military records via a Form 180 after forcing Bush to do so (even considering that Kerry made his military record central to his campaign)? Why are quotes from Dems and liberals far more numerous in "objective" political stories from the AP, Reuters, NYT, etc? Why has there been no emphasis on positive rebuilding efforts in Iraq? Why won't the media write stories giving the raw facts about abortion and fetal development? What have they to fear from pointing out that an unborn has a heart beat in about 3 weeks?
    Gun ownership is specifically Christian? Tell that to the guys in Pakistan. </font>[/QUOTE]Whether a Christian owns a gun or not, the matter should be decided in submission to God.

    Perhaps you missed my point.

    Our founders believed that an armed citizenry served as a check against an oppressive government. I agree still. Anyone really concerned about the Patriot Act should arm themselves.
     
  8. graceb2u

    graceb2u New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Messages:
    683
    Likes Received:
    0
    O.K. Here is what I meant when I started this question. I don't believe anyone should put labels on a whole group of people. I have very firm beliefs in my Lord. Everything I am and have is because of him. Not because of anyone else. The point is that no one should label. I don't label people of different origins, or of different sexual nature, or who choose to own or not own a gun. Christians need to speak out more. Especially when dealing with the media.
    For example remember our former First Lady Hillary Clinton. When her husband was accused of the immoral things he was doing with Monica Lewinsky, she gets on the Today show and says that her husband never did these things and blames it on the right wing. But when the truth finally comes out does she get on the Today show and apologize to the right wing people for accusing them? No. She goes on with her life. This is how inaccurate the media is. Especially against Christians and the right wing people.
     
  9. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Some folks apparently think that they don't have free speech to criticize others, unless they can do so without being criticized.

    Important fact to remember:

    You are not being oppressed just because some people disagree with you.
     
  10. JesusandGeorge04

    JesusandGeorge04 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never said we were wholly defined by them, but they are an integral part of our identity... or God would never had mentioned it!

    Being in a high school classroom teaching, as well as being a student at one time myself, I can tell you without a doubt how wrong you are here. Psychologists know it, parents know it... and again, the biblical writers would not have put so much time into the subject if it were that cut and dry.

    I disagree with your understanding of God's law with the second part... but the problem with the first part is compelling. Although god may make such a distinction between sin and sinner, that does NOT mean we do!!! Humans are baselessly judgemental about practically everything, including this subject.

    The last part is more true than the first in regards to scripture, I'm afraid... and I'm not sure I would judge a God of mercy to be that exclusionary.

    The prohibition against premarital sex is quite clear... defining the structure of marriage is not so clear, and subject to contextual considerations, such as Paul's problem with sex and marriage period.

    This runs counter to what the psychological community has determined concerning sexual abuse of the young, which is indeed done mostly by heterosexual members of the family of the victim who themselves have been subject to abuse themselves. Homosexuality is a completely different subject, and adoptions by such couples actually show less abuse than with hetero couples, although I think this is a cultural variation more than anything. As for root causes... failures of flesh and spirit methinks.

    Actually, they do unfortunately... ever hear of "Barely Legal" and other schoolgirl fantasy pornography? Quite disgusting in their treatment of young women, and it is quite mainstreamed!

    Actually, the rates for infection for gay men have gone down in the last decade, and lesbians hardly contract STD's at all.

    Well, prevent them from marrying and being accepted as couples in our communities, and what should one expect? Marginalize them, and they will sink further into the depths of despair... they need our mercy, not our exclusion!

    Sounds like what happens when people are driven underground and form unhealthy or dangerous relationships and practices. Bring people into the light of support and love, and these sorts of depraved behaviors will not occur regardless of sexual orientation.

    I'm sorry... it's tragic what happened to the gay community; they need our love and help more than ever, and many of us have not given them that support. I hope you did, though.

    That's probably why he was able to live so long! Not everyone is so fortunate to have such benefits...

    Says who??? You? Who are you to judge one of God's children, to hold them in contempt of standards that are yours and not God's?

    It is not confiscation, but alms to the society that requires support, the very one in which they made their money based upon the benefits they have utilized... ones in which others in need have not and cannot. By your logic, we shouldn't even have any society whatsoever... cooperative action appears impossible with you... why?

    And it wasn't, hence the Great Society that came later. Tax cuts at the top only help the wealthy expropriate capital elsewhere, whereas benefits that go to the bottom of the economic ladder help rebuild the foundation of our economy by increasing production through better health and opportunities, and consumption by putting money into the hands of the domestic spenders!

    Proof? Disproportionately, the cuts went to the upper 1%, who are in no need of assistance. As for dropping others... they weren't at the bottom, I can tell you that. Instead, the poor are getting auditted more than ever before.

    Then you understand how I feel in regards to the president's treatment of the poor and powerless?

    You are focusing on the tribalistic aspects of God and not the main themes... probably because you have made 'glory' your personal theme, as many Americans have done.

    Sigh.

    Then don't abandon the poor anmd powerless with your rhetoric.

    What??? The subject is a minor one at best in the Word, much less a unique one. Am I to label you the same because of your reverance of conservative capitalism?

    Too bad you have done little to make this connection... and that doing so is unauthoritatively judgemental anyway.

    Sigh again.
     
  11. JesusandGeorge04

    JesusandGeorge04 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stats? The CDC disagrees.

    You seem to forget the Reagan years in which he enjoyed both houses being Republican, and the others in which he and Bush Sr. had a fun time with the veto, in which most of these programs and their reissues were shut down.

    Such as? As the gap between the poor and wealthy is wider than ever, and more are under the poverty line than ever, with little to no safety netas in place... I have no idea what you're referring to.

    This is based off an economy boom that conservatives usually peg on Bush Sr. deregulation policies that were continued by the 94' Republican Rev... so I wonder, why the hypocracy and shifting of blame for bad economic policies, whether it be Clinton or Y2K?

    Unshown, especially because the tax cuts targetted the wealthy... which typically are not owners of small businesses, which are floundering under larger ones who get tax breaks galore from Bush, which then shipped this capital out to third world nations.

    We're just going to have to disagree on this point, methinks...

    And appealing to wedge issues is not another form of this, except without the benefits? Families are in need, and liberals are for helping them; if lower and middle-class families were willing to listen to real issues rather than wedges...

    But nothing says it cannot be done... and these principle's importance is in that these people in need get helped, not on how its done.

    No one says you cannot evangelize; you simply cannot use common resources for that specific purpose, given the different faiths and beliefs that put into this common goal of social justice!

    This is filled to the brim with fallacies; innovation and invention are stifled by fostering a corporate aristrocracy which disdains the lower classes entry into civic life, denying them the opportunities and tools necessary to take advantage of the American dream and become everything they can be. Why do you believe it to be communist to give somebody a fair chance at success by ensuring they have the education, health care, day care, employment opportunity, etc. necesseary to become more productive people? I would think that strengthening the foundation of America would be important to you, important to the health of our market system to have healthy producers and consumers, adept and motivated to succeed!


    Which is not being done under conservatives who weight the system to benefit their interests... which are not people like you and me, unless of course you are very wealthy...

    Listen closely:

    Every American ideally has an equal share in their government's running; only a few Americans have an unequal share in corporations. They are monoliths out of the public's control, living for the sake of themselves and NOT OUR NATION.
     
  12. JesusandGeorge04

    JesusandGeorge04 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry for the long posts, folks... just speaking freely from my heart and head.
     
  13. Mike McK

    Mike McK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not really sure what these things have to do with Christianity, since they're not defining doctrines of Christianity and there are plenty of non-Christians who hold these views but so what? Who has tried to stifle your free speech?

    Again, who has tried to stop you? You just created a thread to tell us what you believe.

    Do you not like gays because they're gay or do you simply disagree with homosexuality?

    If it's the former, why not?

    Doesn't #1 demonstrate that your prejudiced?

    4. If I tell people my husband hunts: They say we are animal killers.

    5. If I say that people should be able to own guns: I get told I am adding to the violence in America.

    6. If I say that there is to much violence on TV, in the movies and the music: I get told I am trying to censor.

    Is your point that you don't have free speech or that people are labeled (often unfairly) for the speech that they excersize?

    If it's the former, you've just demonstrated with this thread that that's not true.

    If it's the latter, then you're right but you should be fair and acknowledge that that's not the left's persecution against Christians, but a symptom of a problem in our society at large.

    Pagans label Christians, Christian label pagans. Left labels right, right labels left.

    Perhaps you only notice some labeling and not all because it's your ox being gored but there is much more labeling going on than you want to admit.
     
  14. acts17_11

    acts17_11 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was hearing of an underground Church in China that met in various members' houses. They always placed a sign by the door which read, "if you are not willing to die for what you say, don't say it." Interesting sign; are we free Americans willing to die for our speech?

    Freedom of speech means we don't have to worry about life or limb. But if we stand on the word of God we will suffer for it regardless of where we live. So instead of wondering why we are attacked for our speech lets ensure our speech is Biblical and therefore worthy of attack, however it may come.

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    By His Grace Alone,
    Michael
    http://www.friendship-piqua.org
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Speak all you want - but always be ready to have your speech challanged. Challenging your free speech is also free speech.
     
  16. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I never said we were wholly defined by them, but they are an integral part of our identity... or God would never had mentioned it!

    Being in a high school classroom teaching, as well as being a student at one time myself, I can tell you without a doubt how wrong you are here. Psychologists know it, parents know it... and again, the biblical writers would not have put so much time into the subject if it were that cut and dry.</font>[/QUOTE]
    You have not demonstrated that anything I posted was wrong. Just because you say so doesn't make it true. Re-read what I said. Either you didn't understand or else the two responses you give above are contradictory.

    I said that no one is defined by their sexual appetites and you appear to agree. I said that no one was compelled to have sex and you appear to disagree.

    God gave us a will- making us responsible for the choices we make... not the temptations we suffer but the choices.

    I am a parent. And frankly, I am alot more concerned about what God says about human nature than what psychologists, students, or teachers have to say. The behavior you are apparently attempting to rationalize or possibly justify has not always been the norm. It wasn't even the norm for most of the 20th century. This fact is verified by both the testimonies of those who were teens prior to the sexual revolution as well as by the illegitimacy rates from that period. BTW, illegitimacy would be even higher today if it weren't for abortion.

    The point is I am not wrong. People can control their sexual urges and it is healthier to do so than to give in to them. This fact is borne out by both scripture and historical evidence.

    As for the biblical writers, they testify to what I am contending. God established one structure in which sex is morally allowable- the marriage between a man and a woman. It really doesn't matter what you, academia, psychology, or pop culture have to say to the contrary.

    I disagree with your understanding of God's law with the second part</font>[/QUOTE] Then please cite your scriptural proof. God has spoken. If I am wrong about what He has said then I am willing to let you show me.
    You have a misunderstanding of judgment. We are to distinguish between the sin and the sinner. There is nothing unloving or unkind about telling someone that what they are doing has been forbidden by a God that will some day judge them according to their choices. If someone is very happily walking into the path of a speeding bus, the most hateful thing you can do is let them go... or even cheer them on. God has promised to judge sin... and those who commit it without receiving Christ's redeeming grace.

    The Bible provides the standard by which to make judgments concerning behavior... but at the same time, commands that we compassionately share the gospel of hope and redemption to those who are in bondage to sin. We have no right to excuse what God condemns.

    The last part is more true than the first in regards to scripture, I'm afraid... and I'm not sure I would judge a God of mercy to be that exclusionary.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. The scripture is as specific as it can possibly be. In fact, Romans 1 describes homosexuality as the end of a decadent decline of denying God and His authority after which God turns a people over to being reprobates.

    The prohibition against premarital sex is quite clear... defining the structure of marriage is not so clear, and subject to contextual considerations, such as Paul's problem with sex and marriage period.
    </font>[/QUOTE]
    No. It isn't. You cannot cite a single passage where God affirms marriage as anything but a relationship between a man and a woman. The "contextual considerations" are nothing more than arguments of convenience by those who would rather not submit to what the scripture clearly says.
    Actually, they do unfortunately... ever hear of "Barely Legal" and other schoolgirl fantasy pornography? Quite disgusting in their treatment of young women, and it is quite mainstreamed! </font>[/QUOTE] When did they march in NY? When have they been accepted as a legitimate political force?

    Actually, the rates for infection for gay men have gone down in the last decade, </font>[/QUOTE] ... and are still many times greater than the population at large.
    Well, prevent them from marrying and being accepted as couples in our communities, and what should one expect? Marginalize them, and they will sink further into the depths of despair... they need our mercy, not our exclusion!</font>[/QUOTE] Acceptance isn't their problem... their appetite for sexual sins which God condemns is their problem. It is never loving nor helpful to enable deviant behavior. God is willing to forgive the repentant... but you aren't suggesting that they repent. You are suggesting that we contradict God and declare evil, good and good, evil.

    This much is true. However, there is an even greater tragedy for these people if we stop declaring God's truth for both moral standards and redemption. They must repent or the sufferings of this life will be a piece of cake.

    Says who??? You? Who are you to judge one of God's children, to hold them in contempt of standards that are yours and not God's?</font>[/QUOTE] I am only acknowledging God's standard and applying it to the things I knew about his life. God has condemned both homosexual behavior and sex outside of marriage. Beyond that, my cousin never sought to serve God before or after HIV. He didn't warn those headed down the same path... in fact, for much of his extended life he attempted many of the same rationalizations you propose.
     
  17. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Stats? The CDC disagrees.</font>[/QUOTE] Please cite the study in which the CDC attempted to account for every instance in which a gun was used to foil a crime.

    The info I referred to comes from an article I read a few years back. It used FBI/DOJ stats... which were acknowledged as low.

    They didn't even attempt to account for the lower crime due to concealed carry laws. These laws have uniformly lowered crime whereever they have been enacted.
     
  18. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Listen closely:

    Every American ideally has an equal share in their government's running; only a few Americans have an unequal share in corporations. They are monoliths out of the public's control, living for the sake of themselves and NOT OUR NATION.
    </font>[/QUOTE]You are not only wrong... you are frighteningly wrong. Corporations have far more limits even today than gov't bureaucracies. Further, big gov't and big business share a mutual interest- control. That's why just as many corp execs support Dems as Republicans and why small businesses overwhelmingly support Republicans.

    Big business sometimes complains about the shape of corp law or environmental policy... but they want it in place anyway. Why? Because it creates barriers to smaller companies that might compete with them.

    The biggest danger corporations pose is their coalition with big government and big labor to the harm of the rest of us.
     
  19. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Some years ago, the National Safety Council did a study of the hazards vs. benefits of having a gun handy.

    Taking NRA stats on the number of people who prevented a crime by shooting or scaring off a criminal, and the homicides and injuries caused by guns, along with crime rates, they concluded that about 20% of us live in areas so dangerous that it's safer to have a gun than not have one.

    Of course, if one uses proper precautions, those odds get better. Thing is, most people don't use proper precautions.

    And unless you very carefully secure and hide your guns, a burglar may very well be the entry for those guns to increase the crime rate. Happened to my boss, who was a hunter and a very safety-minded person.

    This is, of course, entirely separate from the fact that we have a Constitutional right to bear arms. It's just that some things we have a right to do, may not always be the wisest thing to do.
     
  20. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    The topic of the OP is a perceived threat to free speech. Please try to keep this thread on that topic.

    Roger
    C4K
    Moderator
     
Loading...