SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California's high court on Monday barred doctors from withholding medical care to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.
The ruling was unanimous, a contrast to the state Supreme Court's 4-3 schism in May legalizing gay marriage.
Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."
In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from assisting her further.
The case drew numerous friends of the court briefs from a wide variety of religious organizations, medical groups and gay civil rights organizations.
The American Civil Rights Union supported the Christian doctors, siding with the Islamic Medical Association of North America, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations and anti-abortion groups.
The California Medical Association reversed its early support of the Christian doctors after receiving a barrage of criticism from the gay rights community, joining health care provider Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose the Christian doctors.
The American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the National Health Law Program and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association filed papers backing Benitez.
RSS
I'm just trying to figure out how you claim that I know nothing about the scriptures? You've told me that twice, but yet offer no reason.
Prophet - I said I wouldn't discuss George any more. I wasn't talking about George in my comment to you. I was making reference to how little you understandknow what I was trying to say and how little you know/understand the Word of God.
....
I do know that you lied when you said you weren't going to discuss this anymore though.
....
LOL. How little you know of me and what I do know.
Prophet - How little you know.
song,
I know. I know the whole story of Job, and how he was tested because God "bragged" on him. I know he remained faithful inspite of all that happened. And I know that God blessed him beyond what he originally had because of that.
My point was to ... who insists that the only reason bad things happen to Christians is because they have sinned.
Job ended up more wealthy in the end than the beginning.
Job was a very righteous man before God. Why did he lose everything, and end up homeless and sick?
....
Who says you have to hang around? Or respond to us? If you don't want to continue, then don't. It has nothing to do with whether we comment or not.
matthewr1 - Hear me well, I said that I will no longer discuss this issue with you. Why keep bring it up?
Perhaps you'd do better defending your own position, than simply chuckling things away.
"If you really believe that God intends to hurt you when you seek Him for His direction in life in a secular situation then go ahead and believe that. Just remember though that everytime you pray seeking God's direction as to what decision to make regarding a secular situation that God just might lead you to do something He knows will destroy or severely harm you and/or your family."
Where can you find this principle in the Scriptures?
Prophet, matthewr1 - LOL
Prophet. Job is a most excellent and fitting example here. Good observation.
There's another sign of a weak argument.
It appears he assumes that when you become a Christian that everything is roses. That when if you follow the Spirit 100% of the time that nothing bad will ever happen to you. Unfortunately, many Christians backslide over such views. Because when something bad does happen, they blame God and become defensive and angry.
I've read the Bible, and understand a lot (not nearly everything though), but I have yet to see where it tells me that when I give my heart to God, nothing bad will ever happen again.
God may not "make" things happen to us, but He may "allow" it to happen. The story of Job is a good example. I wonder if ..... would be one of those who was trying to convice Job of some sin he may have commited to merit such tragedy in his life.
Without difficulties, one never learns to rise above.
I'm not so concerned with those posts right now.
You made a wildly incorrect statement, so both Prophet and I are calling you on it. My last post was quoting you word for word on your Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:09 am to Prophet.
So rather than using rhetoric (such as calling people foolish and the like) to gloss over my response (to a quote ripped word for word from you) - instead why don't you try and prove my claim is fallicious.
matthewr1 - Have you read my 3 part post starting on Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:33 am? Any comments?
matthewr1 - You are foolish in your example. It is most clear that you do not know what I am talking about. I will not discuss this with you any longer. I should have listened to God and not even brought up George like God told me not to.
"If you really believe that God intends to hurt you when you seek Him for His direction in life in a secular situation then go ahead and believe that."
Well, what if a Christian man who follows the Lord (is not carnal) say has been working at a steel plant for 20 years and gets seriously injured such that he can no longer work. Is God somehow less good then? Was it the man's fault, such that he should have sought the Lord with his career 20 years earlier?
Prophet - I am not going to discuss George anymore. God told me in the beginning no to mention him but I didn't listen to Him. I see now that I should have.
If you really believe that God intends to hurt you when you seek Him for His direction in life in a secular situation then go ahead and believe that. Just remember though that everytime you pray seeking God's direction as to what decision to make regarding a secular situation that God just might lead you to do something He knows will destroy or severely harm you and/or your family.
Prophet
"Flinging insults is usually a sign of a weak argument."
That is you most of the time Prophet.
Flinging insults is usually a sign of a weak argument.
....
You said "I personally don't believe that it would have been God's will to lead him in a direction that would result in him not being able to fulfill his God given desire as a married man to provide for his family."
If you're going to make such a general statement, be prepared for the rebuttal that you've gotten. God directed the disciples to leave their family. They not only quit their responsibility of being some kind of financial supporter, but they physically left which didn't allow them to spiritually lead their family either. So please explain to me how they supported their family?
matthewr1 - You do not understand what I mean by what I say. God told me not to bring up George; I should have listened to Him. I won't discuss this issue anymore with you or anyone else.
You are so foolishb Prophet. Like most of your comments about what I say, you misunderstand what I mean by what I say. I suspect you do that with the Word of God as well.
dongard,
"topic will ultimately come down to your insistence that you alone know what is right. this is flat out domestic terrorism..."
Sounds like you think you know what's right for everyone. What's your point? Other than fishing for an argument. Try harder.
dongard,
I would like to know how you figure that my wife is my servant, when we share the chores? As usual, you make no sense.
....
So I suppose the disciples were less then men for leaving their wives?
My post was a response to one of your comments (which for some reason is now missing), here's the quote again:
"Be that as it may, I really don't believe that God is into leading a believer in a direction where he/she is going to experience some kind of life long disability that prevents him from fulfilling a God given desire to be the financial provider of his family. If you serve that kind of God, then I am glad I don't know your God."
Now if we examine the logical structure of this argument, we'll find it goes something like this: If you're a believer who is following the Lord, then you will not get seriously injured.
My objection was with the conclusion to your argument 'then you will not seriously get injured'.
The problem I have with this statement, is it is not a promise that is made anywhere in the New Testament (if it is, then cite the chapter and verse please). Without going into too much detail, it appears that quite the contrary is true ('for in this world you will have trials and tribulations').
Breifly, if you'll take me for my word (because I'm not sure where exactly I found this, except that it is in Eusebius' Church History), There is, a bishop who had both his eyes gouged out (a 'confessor').
Take this response with a grain of salt, but it appears the conclusion to your argument is lacking. What if a man dies, for confessing the Faith (surely he is unable to provide for his family after he dies)?
matthewr1 - where did I say that God punished him? Accidents happen all the time. God knew it was going to happen. I believe that God would have directed him to take the city job or neither one of them had he sought God in what God wanted for him.
The man's hand was not severed. It was severly injured to the point it could no longer be used inspite of several surgeries and rehabilitation.
Your most recent post has little to do with the situation with this man. Did God cause good to come from the situation? I don't know. The last I saw of him in the early 2000's I didn't see any improvement in his walk with God. Still very carnal. But I didn't live with him and I can't say entirely.
I just believe things wouyld have been different if he had first sought God's will for his life instead of putting money and his will first in his life.
We all make bad decisions in life. We all suffer for it. I think we would have less problems in our life if we sought God's will for us instead of operating in the flesh and deciding for ourselves.
*sorry, to be more precise with my language - there is no logical necessity that the necessary conclusion is that God punished him as a result of his disobedience.
It may be, but it is not 'necessarily' true.
Perhaps it was the result of disobedience. I'm not claiming that it isn't. But neither am I claiming that it was too. Perhaps God did that, so that he might wake up from his carnal ways and cling to He Who Is. But I'm not about to make the claim that God did it for that specific purpose.
With regard to theology, you'll have to rebutt my last post in order to cast doubt on my understanding of Scripture.
wbmoore, Prophet, Daniel Paul, matthewr1
I know more about the man than you all do. At the time he was a carnal and nominal Christian. He would put money and his will above God's will for his life.
I personally don't believe that it would have been God's will to lead him in a direction that would result in him not being able to fulfill his God given desire as a married man to provide for his family. If you all do, then that is fine. We will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
In regard to your position of some issues I have seen you all post from time to time I think you all are moderate at best in terms of your interpretation of the Word of God.
Daniel Paul, your walk with God can make one l----t. You fill in the blanks.
Daniel Paul
I know that you want to serve God and you have various ways in which you do that. But how do you know that it isn't God's will that you be the one to work if you don't ask Him? How do you know that God wouldn't be able to bring more glory to Himself if you were the one who provided financially for your family instead of your wife?
You and your wife would grow more in the Lord if you would surrender this issue to God in prayer and walk in obedience to what He would have you two do about the issue.
"Be that as it may, I really don't believe that God is into leading a believer in a direction where he/she is going to experience some kind of life long disability that prevents him from fulfilling a God given desire to be the financial provider of his family. If you serve that kind of God, then I am glad I don't know your God."
What leads you to this conclusion? Doesn't Romans say 'all things work to the good of those who love him' without any conditional clauses added (it says 'all', not 'most', 'mostly', etc.)?
What about those males, who say are even born in a Christian home, born permanantly crippled or mentally retarded? Is God somehow less good then, because they won't be able to grow up and earn their keep?
The truth is, God can use anything, even evil, to accomplish His own righteous ends. Don't believe me? Look no further than the Crucifixion of our Lord. The very righteousness of God, was given into the hands of evil men, demoniacs who had nothing other than evil intentions for the Christ, to put an end to his life (later to rise from the death in victory) for God's own righteous ends. A purely evil act (crucifying the righteousness of God), God used to accomplish his own righteous ends.
The truth is, neither you, nor I know why God had that man's hand severed. It may be from disobedience (even this God will work to his own righteous ends, if the man continues in belief), or it may be that God used this act to accomplish some righteous purpose of God's own choosing.
I hope you don't get defensive over this post, I wrote this so some misconceptions may be cleared.
...,
There seems to be an assumption in your description of the man who lost his hand. That assumption is that had he asked God, and obeyed, he would still have his hand. But you do not know what God would have said, nor do you know what would have happened if he had taken the other job. He may have lost his life.
... From your posts I'd say you're one of the people who puts the fun in fundamental!
Dongard, you're a complete liberal wingnut. Gobbling every word the culture gives you. You're neither a Christian, nor a Heathen, but some sort of monstrous hybrid.
prophet
so stripped down to the core, your wife is your servant, you alone have reserved the right to set the standards, and any discussion on any topic will ultimately come down to your insistence that you alone know what is right. this is flat out domestic terrorism. and moreover your whole reply reeks of male dominance (terrorism) had a visit from CPS yet?
The point is this. My wife and I work together (Just as Adam and Eve did). She is my helper. She helps. We share in most of the responsibilities. Cleaning house, laundry, dishes, mowing the lawn, raising the kids, income, etc, etc. I have no conviction in my heart against it.
And personally I don't have a problem with a man staying home while the wife works. My wife and I had tossed that around a little, because I am so much better with the kids than she is.
But there is one area that I am adamant about that the man take responsibility: The spirituality of his family. It is his responsibility to make sure that his family is spiritually fed and strong. Devotions and prayer time. It is his responsibility alone to make sure that those needs are met.
....
"Had he consulted God about what job he should have taken the outcome would have been a lot different. For sure, he would have never injuried his hand where he could never work again or use it."
Thanks for telling God what He wanted for this man, and what God would do. I'm sure you have the inside scoop on everyone.
How do you know whether it was God's will which job he took? Maybe he took the job that God wanted for him anyway. Who says his accident was because of disobedience? That is the fatalistic Christian view, that everything bad that happens to us is because of sin or disobedience. Well, then Paul must have been one horrendous sinner!
I think you take too much responsibility upon yourself, and are too judgemental. You do not know the will of God for this man. Neither do I. But then....I'm not the one pious enough to pretend that I do....
Daniel Paul
The description of a virtous woman in Proverbs 31 was given by a mother to her son who was a King. I am sure the the virtous woman in Prov 31 had a husband who worked outside the home.
Many married women today are not virtous. They are lazy and waste their time watching soap operas on TV. They won't keep house, there is a back log of clothes that need to be washed, they don't pay much attention to the needs of the children and just give them a video to watch to entertain them instead of spending time with them, and when the husband comes home from work supper isn't ready. Many women are not careful in how they spend the hard earned money their husbands make. They won't shop the grocery and clothing sales and they waste it on stuff that they don't need. They maliciously gossip about their husband's weaknesses behind his back to their friends. They do nothing to think about the needs of others. They are only concerned about their own needs. They sleep in late and send the kids off to school without breakfast and expect the kids to either eat breakfast at school or go to the store and get something to snack on before school starts. Many married women today are failing to be the kind of woman that does good to her husband and her children.
What man would want a wife like that? I think he would be very frustrated and disappointed with her if he had one and probably would want to go to divorce court to get rid of her.
Surely, the price of a virtous woman is far above rubies (Prov 31:10).
Daniel Paul - Part 1
I believe scripture teaches that it is a man's responsibility to meet the financial needs of his family. There is no specific scripture that states that but there are examples that point one in that direction.
1) When God created humans He first created Adam then Eve. Genesis 2 gives details on what went on between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve.
After Adam was created God planted a garden and put Adam in it. God gave Adam a job; it was to dress (to work/till) the garden and keep it (guard/protect) the garden. God made the animals, and brought them to Adam to name. God said that it was not good for Adam to be alone. God made a help meet (aid/helper) that was suitable for him. He created Eve from the rib of Adam. When God gave Eve to Adam, Adam named her 'woman' because she was taken from man. Notice that Eve was created to be a helper; her responsibility in life was to help or aid Adam in his life.
It was Adam's job not Eve's to dress and keep the garden. It was Eve's job to help him in life. God never intended for Eve to take over Adam's responsibilities; He intended for her to help or aid Adam in his life.
Daniel Paul - Part 2
2) One can deduce that it is the male who was created to work in the world because it is the male who has the ability to provide for the technological advances that improves our society's living conditions. It is not the female. No where in history will you find that a new branch of science, a new economic doctrine, or new technological advances that were authored by a woman. You will always hear that so and so, a male, was the father of such and such.
Our earliest record of this is in Genesis 4. Jabal was the father of such that dwells in tents and of such that have cattle. Jubal was the father of musical instruments and how to play them. Tubal-cain was an instructor of every artificer of brass and iron. He was a person who was skillful or clever in devising ways of making things; he was an inventor.
In today's society Jabal would be the one who had the technical know how of building houses, and developing the science of husbandry and horticulture.
Jubal would be the one who deveolped musical instruments, how to play them, developed music theory and compostition. Tubal-cain would be the one who would develop all different kinds of tools, make vehicles, develop washing machines, sewing machines, stoves, refrigerators, and etc.
If our society depended on women only to do these things then we would still be living in caves because women just don't have the skill or know how in developing and doing these kind of things.
3) One can deduce that the woman was created to take care of the home, and raise the children. God created the woman to bring the children into the world. He also created the woman with the ability to feed her new born child until the child can eat solid food. God created the woman with special skill in nurturing relationships that is so critical to the development of a child.
Listen to what the Word of God says in Titus about what women should be like in order for the Word of God not to be blasphemed.
Titus 2:3-5
3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
We see here that the wife was to live a godly life and her job was to take care of the house, raise the children, love her husband, and love her children.
Daniel Paul - Part 3
4) The Word of God does not say that a woman can't have her own business in the world. There were women in the Bible who had their own businesses but these businesses were centered in things that pertained to issues of women. They were not centered in the things that involved work that men were more skilled in doing like building houses, working the land for food, raising livestock for food, and etc. though women in the Bible were helpers in that area.
5) God created men and women differently. They each have their own role in the society. Women were to take care of the home, have children, and raise them. Men were given the skill and know how to provide food for the family, build houses for them to live in, and invent things that made life for his wife and family or society easier.
6) One can deduce that it is the male's responsibility to protect his family and his nation. Only men 20 yrs old and older were selected for military duty. The purpose of the military was to protect the nation and eliminate the enemy. This principle can be applied to the male protecting his wife and children from those who wish to do his family harm.
7) Women can do many things a man can do but they are not as good at doing it as a man. Women don't have the strength that a man has and men are not as skilled in nurturing relationship as a woman.
8) Based on all the above, I believe that God created the husband to be the provider, the leader, and the protector of his family. I believe that God created the woman to help her husband in life, to bear and raise his children, and to take care of the house.
matthewr1
"If a woman does what is traditionally a man is supposed to do (e.g. win the bread for the household), and the man does the what is traditionally the more womanly things (e.g. cook, clean, see the kids off to school, etc.) is this not tantamount (or at least very much in resemblance) to a man wearing a woman's clothing?"
Yes, I would agree with you that in principle role switching would be similar to wearing the 'clothes' of the opposite sex.
Daniel Paul
""But I don't believe that it is scriptural for the wife alone to provide for the financial needs of the family "
Chapter and verse please."
I'll comment on this later.
Paul Daniel (and/or anyone who can respond to this question),
First, I just want to let you know, I'm not trying to hound you - I simply want to get to the bottom of the issue. Whoever is biblically right I will side with. So without further adu, here's the question.
If a woman does what is traditionally a man is supposed to do (e.g. win the bread for the household), and the man does the what is traditionally the more womanly things (e.g. cook, clean, see the kids off to school, etc.) is this not tantamount (or at least very much in resemblance) to a man wearing a woman's clothing?
Deuteronomy 22:5 says, "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this."
How are we to judge what a woman/man wears? There is no way by divine decree - but we all know what a woman wears and what a man wears.
I'm curious, any thoughts?
Matt
"But the man, in the old school used to take care of the farm,"
Now, having spent some of my growing up years in the country in MN I do know something about farms. Women did milk the cows and have outside farm chores and men did help with the dishes. They did it together. All too often today married couples act more like roommates instead of being that single unit God created husband and wife to be.
Also, I am a master gardener with a garden about the size of a basketball court. Do pray for us as we are in a really bad drought. I also don't have to pay people to fix things. I rewired my house, fix all the appliances and the cars. My wife and I guestimate that we break even with me staying at home! Plus, we have no childcare bill.
Still, it makes a good point. In a quite a bit of the Bible...neither worked outside the home.
"I am talking about the male ego that needs to feel or be superior to a woman."
Yeah, I don't know any mature men like that. Only the not saved or immature in Christ.
"Did you ask God what you two should do in regard to who should be the bread winner and who should stay home with your son? Or was the decision made just between the two of you? "
God plays a pivital and daily role in what we do as a couple. God really isn't as interested in money as we think He is. He's interested in stewardship.
In our case, it was good stewardship in many ways. My main background is in the printing industry. It doesn't pay as well as her job. She loves what she does. So, I could have earned half what she makes in twice the hours and come home to a wife with cabin fever just so I could say "I'm the man". This is simply a sinful position. It is poor stewardship of my wife and her talents for her not to do the job she feels called to. She works in a private church based hospital.
We each have ministries we are called to do. We each have talents we are to be stewards of.
Also, you'll find in Proverbs 31 where it talks about the wife looking to the needs of her household. "She considers a field and buys it. From her earnings she plants a vineyard." There sure is a lot of talk about what she does and the only thing the husband does is sit among the elders of the land.
Now, with that said I'm not recommending every man send his wife out to work and he stay home. What I am saying is the Bible speaks of the responsibility of the man to look after the needs of his wife.
Read Genesis 1 and 2. You'll find something interesting. In 1 it talks about the creation of man as it is talking about the 7 days of creation. Then in chapter 2 it goes into detail about he creation of man and woman. Still, in chapter 1:26-27 "The God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of teh sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creaping thing that creaps on the earth.' and god created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
Please note it says "let them rule". Man and woman were created on the same day. It wasn't like Adam was created and then a year later God said...hey let's make a woman!
Here's one better. It also says "He created him; male and female He created them." Please note the change from 'him' to 'them'. In the eyes of the creator they were one unit made up of one male and one female. They were man.
At no point does it say man worked the garden and Eve helped him. She was a help-mate suitable for him. She was a co-worker. Interesting in the NT it talks about the wife being a co-heir in Christ. The concept has never changed.
I realize that, I'm not dense - the comment was slightly uncouth in nature. Anyways, it's forgotten about.
matthewr1
The phrase "bring the bacon home" means to provide for the material needs; earn a living according to www.dictionary.com
"But I don't believe that it is scriptural for the wife alone to provide for the financial needs of the family "
Chapter and verse please.
...,
Nothing overtly. But it sounds like you were just taking a couple of shots at (I can't remember) something with the 'bacon', which can be a little over the top (not very gentle) considering the person you were talking to wasn't a heretic. Again, I only said, a little.
Daniel Paul
Did you ask God what you two should do in regard to who should be the bread winner and who should stay home with your son? Or was the decision made just between the two of you?
Hey, Prophet maybe a little peek at leviticus 18:22 would'nt hurt too much either, waddayathink??....too "old school", I'm sure....
....
Surrender. Complete surrender of every part of your life to Him. Dreams, ambitions, fears, sins, addictions, will. Only then will He be Lord. No. I am not successful at it. I have yet to attain, but I still strive daily to attain.
matthewr1
"Although she is being a bit carnal in some of her remarks..."
What remarks are you referring to?
wbmoore - "if it is the wife's job to help her husband by taking care of the family, why should she work out of the home. By your logic, they should reduce their outlay and live on less, so he can work and provide."
I agree that that is what they should do especially if there are young children in the home.
God created the man with the need or desire to provide for and to protect his family and He created the woman with the desire to be provided for and to be protected. If it isn't that way then there is something wrong; those innate desires have been contaminetated by sin.
My brother has three daughters. All are college educated and are capabale of supporting themselves. Two of them are married. The young man of each daughter asked my brother for his daughter's hand in marriage. One of the questions my brother asked of the young man was "Are you able to financially support my daughter should you have children and she decides to stay home and raise the children?" My brother wanted his daughters to be taken care of financially. It was important to him and gave him a sense of security to know that his daughter would and could be taken care of financially by their respective husbands.
My brother is not a believer. He is of the old school though he was not raised that way. My brother was raised by our father and I was raised by our mother. Our father's wife, not our mother since our parents were divorced, required that his wife work the business my father owned along with him. So my brother didn't get his beliefs from the way his father handled things but got it from the innate desires God placed in him as a man; that is, to provide for and to protect his family.
Prophet - I would like for you to respond to my Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:50 am post. Thank you.
Daniel Paul
RE: 1 Timothy 5:3-8
The Church was to take care of widows who had no family. Taking care of them means to meet their material needs. The widows had material needs because their husband, who was the financial provider of his wife, was now dead.
However, Paul said that if the widow had children or nephews then it was their responsibility not the Church's to care for their widowed mother or Aunt. Paul further says that if any Christian does not provide for his family and requite (repay) his parents then he is worse than an infidel. I presume that Paul was refering to mostly the male Christian since the female normally didn't work but was provided for by her husband.
Now to provide for your family: the greek word for provide means to consider in advance or look out before hand. The husband/father is to consider in advance what the needs are for his family. Those needs may be material, emotional, health, spirutal, or a child's future spouse. Some of those needs will require money, like if a family member may get sick and need to go to a doctor, or a child wants to go to college when he/she is old enough, or a duaghter may want to get married (in our society the father of the bride pays for the wedding). Other needs that a father looks out for in advance may not require money. The father should be praying for whatever those needs are as well as the finances for whatever he may need to have to meet the needs of his family.
Now the children should requite (repay) their parents. The parents provided for your needs when you were growing up and you should provide for them when they are in need. If the parents are sick then the children should take care of them and not put them away in a nursing home, for example. If the parents need financial help, like a new roof on the house and they can't afford to have it done, then the son or the daughter's husband should take care of it for them since he generally is the bread winner. If the parents don't drive any longer then the children should be stepping forward to take them to the doctor, the store, or where ever they need to go. If something bad has happened and the parents are upset emotionally then the children ought to repay their parents by being there emotionally for them and encouraging them that every thing will work out OK just like they did for you when you were growing up. The parents may just need the children to take an interest in what is going on in their life just like the parents did for the kids when they were growing up. You get the picture about repaying your parents for what they did for you when you were growing up.
Providing for your family whether it be your immediate family or your parents does include money but is not limited to it.
You cannot escape the fact that the husband/father has the responsiblity to provide financially for his family.
wbmoore - I am not taslking about an ego that is fed by the work that he does. I am talking about the male ego that needs to feel or be superior to a woman.
wbmoore - I am not trolling. I asked Daniel Paul about his statement that his household was a one income household and that he drives his wife to work. Please read the discussion between him and myself.
I maintain that God gave the man not the woman the responsiblilty to provide for the financial needs of his family. Of course, if the man does not make enough then the wife needs to help out by going to work as well. But I don't believe that it is scriptural for the wife alone to provide for the financial needs of the family so that her husband and children can have a roof over their head, food to eat, and clothes to wear.
Prophet - "Then why did you ask if it bothered me that my wife made more than me?"
I asked because I know of Christian men who have a problem with their wives making the living or making more money than them. I though that perhaps you were like them. Also, every man I know, Christian or not, have this ego that requires that they be superior to the woman. They just can't stand it if a woman is better than them. I thought you were counted among them. If not, then forgive me for thinking such.
matthewr1 - I agree 100% with your Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:27 pm post.
I dont like "cooking" but I do love to bake. I make a mean cinnamon roll.
I myself enjoy the more feminent task of cooking stuff.
Lol. Ya I mean a rule of thumb, not exactly in all circumstances.
matthew,
I have to laugh at your post. Not in a bad way, but because it is me. LOL. I do the laundry in our house (just separate, put into washer and dryer to be exact). My wife does most of the folding, though I help out from time to time. I wash the bathtubs in our house too. She cleans the toilet. She just can't get the tubs as sparkling white as I can. LOL. And I won't go near a toilet except for it's intended use. But she does none of the manly chores. We are getting ready to do some remodel in our house. We are (actually I am) tearing out a wall, moving some oulets, and am going to tear up the carpet in a number of rooms and put in wood floor. I will do most of it myself. My wife will settle for clean up and painting. I don't trust her near any type of power tool! LOL. She got a hold of a skill saw once and was going to try and cut some 2x4's. When I say how she was planning on doing it I took it from her and forbid her from every picking up another power tool again. LOL.
It seems to me that if both are working, one in the house and one out of it, or both out of it and also helping out in the home, and neither is being lazy, then the providing is occurring.
** I meant to say when a man dresses up like a woman
It seems to me, now this might not be the most solid biblical position (if it isn't someone correct me). But the man, in the old school used to take care of the farm, do the hard work (e.g. split wood, fix the roof of the cottage, etc.), while the woman did the more womanly things (e.g. sewing, scrubbing floors, helping milk cows, etc.). Both of these tasks were I imagine difficult, but in different respects.
Now it kind of irks me, no matter which way you slice the cake - a man folding laundry and doing wife chores. Of course we are both to share in duties and responsiblities, but when the woman is doing the manlier things and the man is doing the more womanly things. It just seems tantamount to when a woman dresses up as a man.
Now I don't want to offend anyone by this post, and disagree with me if you like, but these are just some thoughts.
And the only people I know whose ego is fed by working either are not saved or do not have a decent understanding of their standing in Christ.
..., if it is the wife's job to help her husband by taking care of the family, why should she work out of the home. By your logic, they should reduce their outlay and live on less, so he can work and provide.
I think the issue is whether someone is providing for their family. What does provide mean? If my wife can make more money than I, or if my wife prefers to work out of the home and I prefer to work in the home, is that not providing? I am taking care of my family's needs, she is helping to do so. If my wife gets stir crazy while cleaning house and taking care of our children, what difference does it make if she chooses to work out of the home and I in the home? What difference does it make whether the income come from her or me, as long as neither of us are being lazy and neglectful?
I should say "she" rather than "he"
wbmoore, ... is a woman. Although she is being a bit carnal in some of her remarks, she also does have some good points.
"I have no problem with a wife working along with her husband in order for there to be enough funds to meet the financial needs..."
Then why did you ask if it bothered me that my wife made more than me? I know you didn't ask that out of curiosity. Who cares who makes more? I do what it takes to get it done. I have worked three jobs at once in order to make sure bills were paid. My wife had a job at the time, but there was no way I was going to make her have to work two or three jobs. That was my responsibility. That was 15 years ago. Today, God has blessed us both with decent paying jobs, though she makes more than me. I only work three days a week, and still get 40+ hours in.
It SEEMS to me that ... is trolling. He's trying to start fights with Daniel Paul and Prophet at the very least.
Very interesting, thought prevoking discussion.
I have no problem with a wife working along with her husband in order for there to be enough funds to meet the financial needs and obligations of the family. But for the woman to be the sole provider for the family I believe is unscriptural and against the created order established by God in the Garden of Eden.
I still maintain that God ordained it for the man to be the financial provider for the family not the wife. Sometimes the husband can't make enough money to support his family and the wife has to work too in order for them to meet their material needs and obligations.
No you did not hit a nerve with me Prophet. You lack understanding of the dialog I was having with Daniel Paul.
Well Prophet by your interpretation of Prov 31 you have justification to quit your job and stay at home pleasuring yourself with what suits your fancy while your wiffe goes out and works.
I think I hit a nerve. But you need to try harder at getting me riled up. I know where I stand in my relationship with God, my wife, and my children. And that place is right where God wants me.
"That is not what I said nor what I meant."
Really? You sure are bent out of shape over who makes more money....
Prophet - Why don't you just quit your job and let your wife bring home the 'bacon' so you and your family can have a roof over your heads, food to eat, and clothes to wear. Then you can spend all your time on CP. It is better than what the stay at home moms watch on TV, you know, the soap operas.
In DP's case, his wife is the one who goes to work to provide a roof over his head, food to eat, and clothes to wear. He stays home and takes care of the young son they have, does charitable work and does some child advocacy work. These are the activites a stay at home mom should be doing.
I still maintain that God ordained it for the man to be the financial provider for the family not the wife. Sometimes the husband can't make enough money to support his family and the wife has to work too in order for them to meet their material needs and obligations.
I like Proverbs 31 myself. It talks about a Godly woman. Verses 15 and 16: "She gets up while it is still dark;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her servant girls.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard."
She provides food for her family. Hmmm. She plants a vineyard with her earnings. Interesting. Lets read down and see what the husband is doing...
"Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land"
Why isn't he working? Why is he just sitting around gabbing?
Prophet
"Because marriage isn't about love, it's about who makes more money."
That is not what I said nor what I meant.
Nope. Because we're more mature than to get upset over who makes more money. I've known couples that that was a touchy subject for them. I knew them well. They were very immature. They didn't stay married long.
I thank God that he gave us the maturity to understand what marriage really is about. I pray that you will get to that place as well.
The male's ego is such that he needs to feel superior to the female. Doesn't it bother you Prophet that your wife makes more money than you? Doesn't it bother you Daniel Paul that your wife brings home the "bacon" so you and your son can have a roof over your head, food to eat, and clothes to wear?
Prophet, I don't think that's exactly what she means.
My wife makes more money than I do. I guess I shouldn't have married her, huh? I thought I married her for love. That was a stupid move, eh? I should have married someone who makes less than I do, even if I don't love her. Because marriage isn't about love, it's about who makes more money.
"you do not wear the pants when it comes to providing financially for the family"
Define providing...my wife is horrible with money! She ran out of money before she ran out of month. We don't have a problem now.
You seem to have the whole "man's man" thing going on.
In English the word provide can be an noun or a verb. It has several meanings in both areas. The "man's man" views it as providing money. This is a shallow view which is not supported by the Bible.
The word in 1 Tim for 'provide' is Strongs Greek Dictionary word #4306...'pronoeo' which means "to consider in advance, i.e. look out for beforehand (act. by way of maintenance of others; mid. by way of circumspection for onself): provide"
As you can see the verse has absolutely nothing to do with earning money. Even a fool can earn money. That doesn't mean he is providing financially for his household. A man can work 40 hrs per week and drink it all away. He's not providing financially for his family even if he's the only one working.
I understand your confusion though since English is such a lousy language where the same word can mean 12 different things. In the case of provide you will find the greek def in the list at www.dictionary.com as:
"6. to take measures with due foresight (usually fol. by for or against)." Greek is a much more specific language. As I've posted before, English has one word for 'go' and Greek has 23.
Daniel Paul - Your wife is probably an RN and works three 12 hr shifts per week.
If you worked as a child advocate making $150/hr for 20 hrs per week you would make $3000 gross per week.
Does your wife make more than $3000 gross per week working those three 12 hr shifts?
Daniel Paul - You may wear the pants in making decisions for the family but you do not wear the pants when it comes to providing financially for the family.
Daniel Paul - If you would read more carefully what I said you would not have made the statements you made.
DP said:" Do missionaries violate what you say since they both earn the income? What about a wife that goes to a missionary school to be a teacher and her husband helps out around the school?"
... said:"I see nowhere in scripture where the wife alone provided for an able bodied husband and the children." Please note the word ALONE.
Scripture does give support for a woman working but not being the sole provider for the family.
DP said:"So, what was she there for ... just to watch? No, it was to help Adam."
Eve was there to help Adam not do his job for him.
DP said: "So many men do not hold their houses together in the name of 'providing' for their families. God isn't interested in all the stuff. He's invests in what is eternal and not what will be left behind. Maybe if more men were interested in leading their family instead of just paying for it the divorce rate would go down."
I will repeat what I said:"Fathers are falling down on their responsibility to their wife and children if they don't spend time with them. It takes sacrifice. They need to know that when they come home from work that they have another job to do and that job is to meet the spiritual, and emotional needs of their wife and children. Tired they will be when they come home from work but they have to die to their desire to rest and spend time with their family."
DP said:"Also, you assume I have no source of income."
You are right, that was my assumption.
DP said:"You seem to be a person who gets their self esteam from their job."
No, I do not derive my self-esteem from my job. If I have any self-esteem at all it comes from God because I have a very low self-esteem. Actually, I am female and when I work I see my self as a helper even though I was a senior systems engineer and had work responsibilities that included training new engineers to do their jobs.
The man is to the wife what Jesus is to the Church. For a woman to be the sole financial provider for her husband and children would be the same as the Church to take over God's responsibility to provide for His bride the Church. For the Church to do that is for the Church to operate in the flesh. For a wife to assume the husband's responsibility is for the wife to operate in the flesh.
DP said:"She gets cabin fever staying at home all day everyday."
If your wife was a stay at home mom and was busy about serving the Lord she wouldn't have cabin fever.
The part you are missing is my wife and I are one unit. We work, we raise children, we cook, we do laundry. Before we met I was a single parent raising 4 children by myself and working full time. I do know a thing or two about being the head of the house. I am truely blessed with a wife who views herself as an example of how the church should treat Christ and enjoys my example of how Christ leads the church.
Jesus provides all our needs...right? If he does, why do we have to work? I guess providing is way more than a paycheck, eh?
My wife says I wear the pants...she wears the scrubs!
You seem to be a person who gets their self esteam from their job. American men especally have difficulty with this issue.
What about a pastor who makes almost nothing and whose wife is a nurse? That happens quite a bit. He does NOT provide the income for his household. His wife needs to work to make up the shortfall. Yet, the man is employed in the ministry! Is he in sin?
If you are in grass roots ministry for the money...your going to be disappointed! Also, you assume I have no source of income.
Daniel Paul - If you want to wear the skirt in the family while your wife wears the pants then go ahead. You and your wife are accountable to God alone for your decisions and it is for God to deal with if He doesn't like the decisions you two make.
"God created Adam first and gave him a job of keeping the garden and naming the animals before He gave him a wife. It was Eve's job to help her husband not take over his responsibilities."
Actually, she was a helpmate suitable. It never says she didn't work in the garden. It does say it was not good for him to be alone. It wasn't until the fall that Adam ruled over Eve. So, what was she there for ... just to watch? No, it was to help Adam. Was it as an equal? The concept of equality as we know it came into play with sin entering the world.
Before the fall, man and woman were one unit. Christ entering into the world allows for husband and wife to be one unit again. My wife makes it quite clear to all that I am the head of the house and I lead the home.
Another aspect is the work that is done. I would make up to $150/hr for advocacy work. I work about 10-20 hours per week "in the city gates". Do missionaries violate what you say since they both earn the income? What about a wife that goes to a missionary school to be a teacher and her husband helps out around the school?
Sometimes I think I need to get a full time job so I'll have more free time!
Mr Mom - Your pride, arrogance, and lack of proper interpretation and understanding of God's Word knows no bound here in regard to this issue.
U of Dallas is a Catholic school (www.udallas.edu/)
As for ... you don't have to look further than Proverbs 31 for your answer. The wife had the business and even was a land owner. Right smack in the passage was a verse that says "and her husband is known in the city gates." This was the seat of power for the city.
It is interesting that so many people think providing for their household is about earning money and getting 'stuff' which the Bible calls 'chaff'. Part of providing for my family is sacrifice for the best interst of my bride. This is what Jesus did. She loves her work and only has to work 3 nights per week. She gets cabin fever staying at home all day everyday.
The word husband is an English word. It comes from a building method where the walls are raised and a band of some type is put around the top of the walls (on the outside) to hold the house together. It is the band around the house or houseband from which we get husband. So many men do not hold their houses together in the name of 'providing' for their families. God isn't interested in all the stuff. He's invests in what is eternal and not what will be left behind. Maybe if more men were interested in leading their family instead of just paying for it the divorce rate would go down.
Now, with that said, if my wife wanted to stay at home then it would be my responsibility to go get a paying job.
chicago, I found out that UD is a catholic school which explains why they would use the RSV since it is one of if not the only non-catholic version catholics approve of. Plus you can get the RSV with the Apocrypha which is accepted as canon by the catholic church.
Mr. Mom (Daniel Paul)
"The Bible speaks about a man that does not provide for his household. Interesting that the word means to look ahead and clear the path. In short, a man can work 16 hrs a day 6 days a week and still not be providing for his household. Too many men hide behind being the 'provider' but don't even know what their kid's favorite color is."
Are you referring to 1 Timothy 5:8? If so, it is talking about male Christians taking care of the needs of their widowed mother or aunt, and giving back to their parents, assuming they have a need, and to provide for their immediate family. Providing for the family and extended family can take on many different forms of which one of them is material need. Other needs may be helping them to see what is coming their way down the road, and etc. It can mean a lot of things but material needs would be one of them. Again, Paul was talking to Timothy about male Christians not female Christians.
God created Adam first and gave him a job of keeping the garden and naming the animals before He gave him a wife. It was Eve's job to help her husband not take over his responsibilities.
After God dealt with Adam and Eve about their sin, He punished them by making it harder for Adam to do his work, and for Eve, making child birth more painful plus having a desire to rule over her husband but her husband would rule over her.
I see in scripture that it is the male that is to be the head of the household and it is his job to provide and protect his family. I see in scripture that the female is to submit to her husband, and to take care of the children.
I see nowhere in scripture where the wife alone provided for an able bodied husband and the children. If you do then please provide the scripture references that say or show that.
Fathers are falling down on their responsibility to their wife and children if they don't spend time with them. It takes sacrifice. They need to know that when they come home from work that they have another job to do and that job is to meet the spiritual, and emotional needs of their wife and children. Tired they will be when they come home from work but they have to die to their desire to rest and spend time with their family.
It SEEMS to me that you and your wife are not following scriptural mandates. You say your wife can make more money than you and loves her job but I don't see scripture that supports her to be the provider for the family, I see it being your responsibility. Sometimes you will have less in life in order to do God's will. It SEEMS to me that money has blinded you two to the will of God. I am not judging you two. I just don't think that scripture supports a wife alone supporting financially her husband and children. God is your judge though, not me.
chicago, I've honestly never heard ot the University of Dallas, but I'm sure there are a lot of schools I've never heard of. Is it a Christian or secular school and if it is a Christian school are they associated with any specific denomination?
Perhaps the obvious is being missed. Sin is very bad stuff. It kills our relationship with God. Some sin is against others. Homosexuality, adultery and fornication is sin against oneself. It destroys oneself.
If I saw someone doing something that was going to destroy them...if I loved that person I would do everything to warn them about the danger. That's what love does. If we didn't love you donard we would even give you the time of day. (2:00 pm my time)
Your extrapolation of my words from me saying that 'I hate sin, because God hates sin' to 'I hate people, because they sin' is erroneous, and I personally would have expected higher intellectual integrity of someone who claims to be a 'historian'.
Believer: Thanks for clarifying. It was University of Dallas in the late 90s for my M.A in theology and then University of Toronto for the MDiv.
Dongard, quit trying to put words into my mouth. You're intentionally trying to misrepresent what I'm saying.
If a Christian sins, it is his duty to repent and turn his back on that sin. A Christian hates sin, he doesn't coddle sin for the sake of not being judgemental (or perhaps vis versa - he doesn't remain silent on sin so he can coddle sin).
It is God who condemns sin, of course. We Christians hate what God hates, and love what God loves.
matthewr1
according to your own standard, and not god's you will condemn sin and turn your back not just on it but the sinner. according to god's standard you cannot turn your back on the sinner. you stand condemned in your own judgment and gods. you have failed.
Feet, okay, at least we've established that God views homosexuality as an abomination (cf. e.g. Lev. 18:22).
Now, as for other sins: yes we Christians still sin, but we do not 'indulge' in sin. What the Bible says is sin, we view as sin, if we then sin, we repent and turn our backs on that sin.
Name any sin in the Scripture, I will by the grace of God condemn it. If I commit that sin, by God's grace, I will repent and turn my back on it. By the grace of Christ, I do not turn a blind eye to certain portions of Scripture - and thus call certain things 'white' that are in reality 'black'.
chicago, most people consider Southern Seminary to be a conservative seminary and at this point in time it is, however back in the 70s and early 80s it was not. So I wondered both what seminary you attended and when did you attend in order for me to see what you considered to be a conservative seminary. Plus when you say RSV do you mean the Oxford translation?
Believer: Why would you want to know when I attended a particular university?
reedit
god said something was disgusting. even though he said other things were disgusting. things today that i might indulge in. this statement embraces my own personnal culturally induced disgust. therefore i will wrap my theology around it.
no wonder no one is capable of objective reason about this issue.
no wonder the" god says" or the" bible says ""word of the lord"....................."end of story" responses.
...
Thank you for your questions.
"Just how does one make Jesus the Lord of their life?"
I was saved at a young age. I was 8 yrs old. Later in life I was having trouble and was worried about many things. I was reading Matt 6:25-33 and God spoke to me about putting His will first in my life. I surrendered to Him in prayer and everything in my life changed. God became very active in my life. He reveals His will to me continually. He lets me know what He wants me to do to serve Him.
"How would you counsel them?"
I would tell them that lordship is required for salvation.
Also, I would tell them that it is easier to live for God and do what He wants you to do if you, a believer, commits to God in prayer to do what God wants you to do. God will hear your prayer, will give you grace to live for Him, will become active in your life by revealing to you His will.
"Assuming you all are, how successful are you in it?"
Sometimes I am successful but not always. I find it hard to die to my flesh to do what God wants me to do.
"Are there times when you rebel against what God wants you to do?"
Yes, there are many times I rebel against God's revealed will for me.
"Are you still saved if you rebel?"
Yes, I am still saved. He still works in my life. Even though He chastizes me He is still present with me seeing me thru it. I have His assurance that one day I will repent.
"Does God ever deal with your flesh?"
Yes, He does.
It is not easy for me to die to what I want to do to do what God wants me to do so that others can experience the love of God.
My flesh likes to eat, likes sweats, and likes to sleep.
God deals a lot with me about fasting and prayer, staying up all night to do what He wants me to do, and surrendering to His revealed will that I give up eating sweats. I am sure in the future there will be other areas of my life that He will deal with me about but the three I mentioned are mainly what He has been dealing with me about for a long time. I have not been very successful in obedience and/or my attitude towards what He wants me to do is not good. I am stubborn, some would call it strong-willed.
"If you rebel does that cause you to die some in your relationship with God?"
Yes, for me it does. Persistent rebellion has caused me at times to die in my heart towards the things of God. The more I rebel it seems the harder it becomes to do God's will.
I am sure I am not alone in my struggles with dying to my flesh. I need prayer in this area as many Christians I am sure do.
chicago, I need to correct my other post to say several versions as opposed to many versions.
chicago, what and when did you attend this "conservative" seminary in Texas?
The word of Feet said about the Christian view of homosexuality, "this statement embraces my own personnal culturally induced disgust."
The Word of the Lord, says however, Leviticus 18:22, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Nice try, though Feet.
god said something was disgusting. even though he said other things were disgusting. things today that i might indulge in. this statement embraces my own personnal culturally induced disgust. therefore i will wrap my theology around it.
no wonder no one is capable of objective reason about this issue.
no wonder the" god says" or the" bible says "....................."end of story" responses.
Believer: I attended a very conservative university in Texas to obtain my MDiv (Master of Divinity). I also attended a more progressive university in Canada for post-graduate work. Both theology departments used the RSV because it provided the most detailed and accurate translation. I still fail to understand what is "liberal" about that.
... the Truth shall set you free. I firmly believe that. Walk in the Light as Children of God. Be Righteous as God is Righteous.
Counseling those who dont know Jesus takes times and good works! Speaking the Truth and Following the Truth, Which is God. Seeds are planted, others water those seeds, and then God brings them to him. An Awakening you might say from the darkness, they no longer slumber but there eyes are opened. Might take months , years , decades. We are called to be patient and Fruit shall be born of this Patient work. Here on CP, we debate, discuss and witness. This is Righteous works, seed planting , some day or year , many will indeed see the goodness of God and deny this evil world and Accept with all there Heart Jesus as there Loving Lord and Saviour. Amen.
Remember the Words we speak come from God. This Doctrine is not ours, to the Glory of God! Amen.
Yes God deals with the flesh, to long for the things that are of him , that are really important. Loving others above our own selves is how. Takes alot of lessons i admit, but im learning. Love will set you free. Mega AMEN.
chicago, no there are many scholarly versions of the Bible, but the RSV is probably the more widely used version of the Bible by liberals who call themselves Christians.
... said:
Prophet, believer, Daniel Paul, star2, igh, matthewr1, drillman - Just how does one make Jesus the Lord of their life? How would you counsel them? Assuming you all are, how successful are you in it? Are there times when you rebel against what God wants you to do? Are you still saved if you rebel? If you rebel does that cause you to die some in your relationship with God? Does God ever deal with your flesh?
Lots of Questions. Well Jesus is always Lord (even over non-believers) we just have to accept that. The Father draws us:
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
John 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Jesus is such a wonderful person i absolutely adore him, i put my Trust in him completely even to the Saving of my Soul. I Surrender to Jesus to be the Lord Over my life, to serve and bring his name Glory and Through him our Father. Amen.
I believe in the Teachings of Christ Jesus, that they came from his Father, i embrace the Truth with all my heart, loving the Things of God and Hating the things of this world. Love, Hope, Faith! Justice and Mercy, Good Government, Integrity and Self Sacrifice. These are of God. These are Revealed by the Father:
Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Mat 11:26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
I firmly believe Jesus Reveals who the Father is, and what a wonderful person he is.
All good things come from God, and he wants us to have them too.
And yes i mess up all the time, and you cant sin and be a witness for God, God makes that clear with the heaviness of your heart, your concience is not clean, and you repent making yourself Right with God. Now you cant lose your Salvation by making a mistake or sin, this takes willfull turning away from God. Complete Rebellion in your heart.
I will say more in next post.
"I wasn't aware that anyone thought there were "liberal" versions of the Bible."
Yep. There are 'religions' who have their own translation of the Bible to match up with what they believe. One example is the Jehovah Witness who moved from their 'Blue Book' of selected vs to what I believe is called the 'New World Translation'. Many people rely on the old King James even though much of the English it is written in is way different than what we use today. It's almost a forign language and results in quite a bit of misapplication.
To some degree all translations have a liberal angle as English is such a poor language. We have the word 'go' in English. Greek has 23 words for 'go' and that doesn't include going or gone. Our English is not specific enough to represent the Greek. Therefore, I tend to rely on the Greek for what the words mean.
Some versions, like the Living Bible, are paraphrases ment to make the Bible easier to read for children. Some call that liberal.
"Are you still saved if you rebel?"
Paul wrote the things he wanted to do he did not do and the things he didn't want to do...he did. "Wretched man that I am!" Rebelion is an issue of the heart. In the case of many of the pro-gay camp here their heart says it's OK. They are in rebelion against God.
To move from Jesus being savior to being Lord begins with changing the basic operating software in your life. You cannot trust the 'old self' to tell you what is Christ-like. You, therefore, put the Bible ahead of your own ideas of right and wrong. It becomes the standard. What you feel, want or what is going on in your life around you can no longer be a factor in how you think. As a man thinks...so is he. Romans 12 says to be transformed by the renewing of your mind. It is a renewed mind that brings the Lordship of Christ.
"Daniel Paul - You say that you are a single income family, and that you drive your wife to work. Don't you work? Just curious."
You're new! I worked with multi-million dollar output equipment in the printing industry...my wife works with open heart surgery. My job sounds way more impressive than it paid. She LOVES what she does. When our son was born we wanted one of us to stay home with the children. We both won!
Now I stay home with the children, I am a lay advocate for children with special needs within the areas of 504 and IDEA (education), I volunteer at the church and other community areas as they come up.
The Bible speaks about a man that does not provide for his household. Interesting that the word means to look ahead and clear the path. In short, a man can work 16 hrs a day 6 days a week and still not be providing for his household. Too many men hide behind being the 'provider' but don't even know what their kid's favorite color is.
Believer: I wasn't aware that anyone thought there were "liberal" versions of the Bible. The only thing I can suspect is that so often, people equate "scholarly" with "liberal."
Believer: Just two different angles, my friend.
chicago, the RSV may be the most accurate liberal version of the Bible, but it is certainly not the most accurate version of the Bible.
matthew, please know I made the assumption that ... was a believer already, because I totally agree before Christ can be Lord of my life He must be my Savior.
Actually, the Revised Standard Version supplies the most accurate translation to English and it's also the version used in theology schools. It can be a bit wordy because many nuances don't translate well into English from the Hebrew and Greek.
The International version is pretty bland, sort of a stripped-down version of the texts.
If you want something that sounds appealing without going to the King James, (which is very inaccurate since it was translated into English from the Latin Vulgate, not the original Hebrew and Greek texts) I highly recommend the Jerusalem Bible.
...,
Well, let me say that a for a person to have Christ as Lord of their life - one must first pray a prayer to Christ, first asking Him for forgiveness of your sins (for your sins are like the sands on a seashore), then ask Him to be Lord of your life, and to ask for the free gift of His Holy Spirit to dwell in you (now this prayer doesn't have to be fancy, simply pray and forget eloquence).
You must also read the Scriptures - for there is no better way to know who Christ is, the character of Christ, His relationship to God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit. As you read the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit will teach you (in ways beyond my explanation, or even understanding), and he will give you conviction for your sin.
I want to say that the gift of life is free, though. You must pray to the Lord for him to be Lord of your life. You must believe that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead for the forgiveness of your sin. This is eternal life. A Christian's life is relationship to Jesus Christ - this is eternal life.
Now in selecting a bible. I will suggest three translations: King James Version, New International Version, New Living Translation (there are other english translations). King James Version uses a lot of middle english, so it may be hard to understand at times - but some people like it. New International Version is the version I read the most - it's a readable, accurate translation of the Bible. New Living Translation was the translation I read when I first became a Christian - it uses contemporary language, it's highly readable, and accurate.
As you become more aquainted with Scriptures, you will know the character of Christ more (who He is, what He loves, hates, etc.). And thus your relationship with Jesus Christ will be closer (just as two friends know one another better over time).
I hope this helps, I realize I glossed over some huge principles in one little post. Big thing, eternal life is relationship with Jesus Christ - you'll understand better as you go along.
Matthew
..., there are still areas in my life where I struggle with surrender, but God is helping me to have victory in those areas. But even though I'm saved I'm still a sinner and when I do God as my heavenly Father loves me enough to discipline me in order to get me to repent and come back to him. I think the story of the prodigal son is a great example of what happens when a child of God rebels, even though we're not as close to our heavenly Father as we could or should be He none the less is still our heavenly Father and never stops loving us and when we repent and turn back to Him, He like the prodigal son's father rejoices with us and welcomes us back. But the reality is he never left us in the first place and unlike the prodigal son who had to journey home, all we have to do is spiritually turn around and God is right there and He's been there the whole time just waiting for us to turn back to Him. Now if one rebels against God and never experiences the discipline of God, then it could very well mean that they have never had a genuine conversion experience, because God says He'll discipline His children and if He doesn't discipline a person then that person may very well not be a child of God.
..., no one can make Christ the Lord of their life, the only thing we can do is allow Him to be the Lord of our life. And that is the essence of allowing Him to be Lord. Romans 12:1 challenges us to make ourselves a living sacrifice, to daily put ourselves on the altar of God and allow Him to use us in any way He sees fit for both His glory and His will. I believe it's in Jeremiah where he talks about the Potter and the clay, we're to daily put ourselves on the Potter's wheel and allow Him to mold us and shape us into the Christlike vessel He wants us to be so He can effectively use us and allow us to join Him in fulfilling His Great Commission. I have personally discovered that surrendering to the Lordship of Christ and the control of the Holy Spirit is not just a daily decision, but a moment by moment and choice by choice decision, every time I make a decision or choice I must determine what would God have me to do in this matter and then choose to do it. The closer I draw to God and the closer He draws to me will help me to better know the choice or decision God would have me to make and the ability to not only make it but the ability to follow through with it as well.
I agree with star that homosexuals are bad role models for children.
Daniel Paul - You say that you are a single income family, and that you drive your wife to work. Don't you work? Just curious.
Prophet, believer, Daniel Paul, star2, igh, matthewr1, drillman - Just how does one make Jesus the Lord of their life? How would you counsel them? Assuming you all are, how successful are you in it? Are there times when you rebel against what God wants you to do? Are you still saved if you rebel? If you rebel does that cause you to die some in your relationship with God? Does God ever deal with your flesh?
"homosexuality is the mark of a people who have rejected the revelation of God that is seen all around them."
In the computer world we call it a worm. It invades the system and then just works it's way through until nothing works right anymore. This is why homosexuals have such a difficult time seeing what is plainly written in the Bible. This includes several places in the new covenant. Eventually, the system no longer recognizes the rules by which it operates and then does what it wants. When unchecked a really bad worm will leave the computer completely unable to function until it is wiped clean and a new OS is installed. However, ALL traces of what was on the drive and in the CMOS (PRAM) have to be completely wiped. No trace can remain or it will just grow back. Not even a question of if any part was OK can remain. Everything has to go and be reinstalled or it just won't work.
This is the real need of the lost. First, they have to accept the Bible when it says something is wrong. Otherwise, it's like talking to a very confused machine that keeps giving the same obviously non sequitur answer.
"you will recognize them by their fruit"
Absolutely! Ever heard of something called 'jackfruit'? It's so...nasty...that it's not allowed in hotels in Maylaysia! Still, it is quite popular. Just because something is popular with some folks doesn't make it any less pleasing to God. God said homosexuality was 'disgusting'. Do you think it's stopped being disgusting to Him? This is completely different from just saying something is sin.
Here's the bottom line. You want to be homosexual even if the Bible says it's wrong because...after all...you're under grace so you can do what you want and Jesus will forgive you for it.
Truth--If you love God you will not do what He calls disgusting. Is there something that just disgusts your 'partner'? I bet you do it every chance you get just to make him disgusted...of course not. That isn't loving. Neither is your abuse of the blood of Christ saying it forgives and you don't have to repent. The Bible is clear that repentance is a work of faith. No repentance...no faith.
Believe what you want. It won't make the earth flat.
This ruling is so hypocritical. These same judges scream “separation of church and state†when we insist on “one woman/one man†as a standard for marriage, but when they impose their “religion of homosexuality and abortion†on us, we’re supposed to accept their demented religion? Why is their religion acceptable and the true religion of Jesus Christ isn’t?
Hebrews is highly recommended read on this. let it sink down deep into your hearts.
feetxxxl said:
"daniel
with your apparent background you should easily understand the different relationship to the law of the old covenant in contrast to the new.
"obey my regulations or else" in contrast to "dying to the law", "test everything, keep the good." "you will recognize them by their fruit" "
How little you understand feetxxxl, we follow the old in the Holy Spirit, not the Ordinances that could not make a person cleansed of sin. You are not Righteous with the offerings of animals and the old Purifications.
Jesus is the final Sacrifice to God , he alone purifies us, Sanctifies us and Justifies us to God the Father. The Just shall live by Faith! Faith Faith Faith!
Heb 7:19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
Heb 7:20 And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath,
Heb 7:21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever.'"
Heb 7:22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.
Heb 7:23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office,
Heb 7:24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.
Heb 7:25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
Heb 7:26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.
Heb 7:27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.
Heb 7:28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.
You have said in the past that we have no witness. We have the witness of Scripture, therefore the witness of Christ.
You, my friend have the witness of your own feelings, and what you feel and think to be good and right. So when Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians "test everything. hold to the good" He doesn't mean what you think, inasmuch as you test everything according to your own right hand.
We on the other hand test everything not according to our right hand, rather, we Christians test everything in accordance with Scripture. So when we come upon a multitude of Scripture passages condemning homosexuality, we don't say "Oh well, the Spirit of Christ glosses over such passages". Son, that is the spirit of the devil (for the Spirit of Christ testifies to the holiness of His Word, not the evilness of your own thoughts, feelings and opinions).
Feet, errrrrr wrong!
Another highly glossed over sprinkle of Scripture verses to suit your lifestyle.
drillman, two biblically excellent posts on a very difficult issue, be blessed as you serve Him, believer
daniel
with your apparent background you should easily understand the different relationship to the law of the old covenant in contrast to the new.
"obey my regulations or else" in contrast to "dying to the law", "test everything, keep the good." "you will recognize them by their fruit"
Even though not germane to the topic of the article, the subject of whether a gay couple can raise a child is interesting.
Can a gay couple provide the physical requirements for a child to grow? Yes.
Can a gay couple be kind to a child (in other words, be nice, not abusive)? Yes.
Can a gay couple teach a child to be a responsible citizen? Yes, but with an exception seen below.
Can a gay couple model a godly example to a child? No.
1) The bible says that man was created male and female in the image of God. Two males and two females do not model the image of God. Genesis explicitly states that he created them this way SO THAT a man would leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two would become one flesh. We may go back and forth all day long about what the image of God means, but it apparently has something to do with us being male and female.
2) Homosexuality is a violation of creation order and the law of God (sorry feet, old and new testaments). Being that homosexuals have made a conscious decision to embrace a lifestyle that God has declared to be an 'abomination', 'shameful' and unnatural, they are living in open rebellion against God and therefore cannot provide a godly example to a child. Complain all you want, but it would be the moral equivalent to someone who embraced bestiality or pedophilia raising a child. Sure they can be nice and talk about following rules, but can they provide a godly example?
Of course, you may retort that we don't object to unbelievers adopting. They don't provide a godly example, right?
Well, Romans 1 doesn't just say that homosexuality is wrong (which it does). It says that homosexuality is the mark of a people who have rejected the revelation of God that is seen all around them. In fact, some theologians (whom I agree with) would say that homosexuality does not just promise the judgment of God, it IS the judgment of God. It is God giving us over to our own depravity because we have rejected Him. And it seems our society as a whole just can't rush down the path of rejecting God wholeheartedly, silencing those who believ ein His law and removing any reminders of His holiness fast enough.
That is the point. The government is saying that God says is wrong is right (or morally neutral). It says that what God says is an abomination is commendable. It goes even further to say that those who take a stand for righteousness are wrong. They say that black is white and white is black. Evil is good and good is evil. This case is one more example of where we are going as a society. That is why we should be concerned. And yes, we bear responsibility for it, too.
Feet
I find your posts very confusing. You do not provide any sort of epistemological grounds to support your assertions. It seems you ground your ethics in pragmatism more than biblical revelation. This might be fine (as far as consistency goes) for an agnostic or atheist, but not for a professing Christian.
Furthermore, you pit the 'ethic of love' against the 'old covenant'. But you are ignoring a few things. First, the ethic of love you cite is a quotation from Dueteronomy as a summation of the whole law. This idea is nothing new or peculiar to the new covenant (in other words, the implicit assumption that the old covenant was all about 'law-keeping' and the new covenant is all about 'love' is completely false...both encompass love and law-keeping, the latter flowing out of the former). Jesus Himself said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." Striving to obey the law, not to gain merit with God or try to earn His favor, but because we love Him is one of the marks of a true Christian. A person who refuses to be subject to God and His law is said to be a false Christian. "Hereby we know we are in Him, if we keep His commands. He that say 'i know Him' and keeps not His commands is a liar and the truth is not in him (1 John 2:3-6)." The ethic of love is lived out in obedience to God. This is what 'loving the Lord your God with all you heart soul, mind and strength' is all about, which according to Jesus is the greatest commandment.
Third, the article is definitely NOT about whether a homosexual couple can provide a loving home (read the title). It is about whether the state or federal government has the right to demand that health care workers provide non-lifesaving medical procedures that violate their religious beliefs and conscience. THAT is the point. Even if you support gay 'marriage' (which is inconsistent with Scripture and almost 2000 years of Christian teaching on that subject), you should still be against this legislation. Think about it, the government has just said that it can require you to do something you truly believe to be a terrible sin. Is that the society you want to live in? What else can the government demand? This gives the government a frightening amount of power and sets a very bad precedent. It would be nice is they extended the same right of conscience to these docs that they have extended to those who object to abortion.
feetxxxl - Why don't you deal with the role model issue that I brought up. Gays are incompetent when coming to providing a godly role model for the children that are given to them to either be foster parents or adoptive parents or even, if they pro-create, biological parents.
it is a sin against children to be raised by gay parents or even a single gay parent. There is potential for destroying the sexual identity of the child making a child who was born hetrosexual a homosexual.
Homosexuals are no good as role models for children!
"I think that many Christians have no clue how to allow Christ to be Lord of their life."
It's a post-modern mindset. We are a 'be served' society vs a serving society. Our Churches has bought that bagel with their coffee. God does not give us all that he does for us to spend it on ourselves.
My wife and I have a goal of having a third of our income fluid for ministry. Right now we average about 20% and we are a one income household with a mortgage! There is so much fluff. Take your monthly expense sheet (bank statement, check book, credit card bill) and break it down into where you spend your money. I'm embarrased to say far too much of it is eating out. We don't live at the edge of the earth but we've got a good view of it from the back porch! So, when we go into town for something (take the wife to work, go to meetings, go to the church, visit friends and such) we tend to just eat on the way since it's 45 min back to the house. Still, I'd like to see more money able to help people.
Could you imagine if people actually tried to live like Christ? We would have no welfare, hunger, poverty....
This is why the pro-gay camp here is often apples & oranges when we are discussing it. I don't put homosexuals in a special group off to itself like some kind of homophob. They are just people like so many others who want to have Burger King for a savior...they want to have it there way. Jesus isn't Burger King...He's King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He says...we do. He says marriage is to be between one man and one woman...we do. He says love your neighbor as yourself...we do. He says to look out for the poor...we do.
Those who play the victim often think they are in a specially abused catagory. They think they are singled out for their issue (like homosexuality). That way anyone who says anything against what they are doing is 'the bad guy'. "You're just a homophobic hypocrite."
It's a very common trait among the codependent.
prophet, although I agree that many don't want to allow Christ to be Lord of their life, I think that many Christians have no clue how to allow Christ to be Lord of their life. I truly believe the Church as a whole has dropped the ball on that one. Plus if a person willfully refuses to allow Christ to be Lord of their life then I wonder if that person has had a genuine conversion experience at all.
Everyone wants a savior...no one wants a Lord.
Daniel,
Very true and very interesting. So many Christians have no problem refering to Jesus as their Savior. But they balk at calling Him Lord.
Romans 10 says "If you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ, and believe in your hear that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
Hmmm...."...confess with your mouth the LORD Jesus Christ...." Interesting..
". maybe that's because a majority of christendom appears to yet fully embrace the new covenant of christ but still has one foot firmly planted inthe old covenant."
The new covenant of Christ says die to self and live for Christ as a witness of what He says. He said marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is wrong. Sex outside of these prams is wrong. The reason gays want to marry is so they can say "our sex is inside of marriage so it's OK". Still, you'll never get that one man and one woman part so no it's not OK.
There are indeed many people who go to church every Sunday who are going to be quite surprised on judgement day. They never died to self. They still want Jesus to be 'part of their life' or 'savior'. The Bible says He is to be LORD and MASTER. That means you don't get to chose any more for yourself. He does the chosing. He says being gay is a sin...then it is!
Homosexuality is NOT part of the model given by Jesus. There is no scripture to prove other wise. Paul said, anyone who preaches any other Gospel then what he had preached, let him be accursed! So, unless you want to throw out the Epistles all together.... It really doesn't matter.
You can argue til your blue but the Bible won't change for you!
"are you confidently stating a fact about all of them. have you no concern for false witness?"
I believe the Bible. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Romans discribes it as their lusts burning in one another. Sin (in this greek tense) is an action. If people were born homosexual then it would be in the 'trait' sense but it's not.
Unless you're saying the Bible is a lie then no ... we are not in any danger of bearing false witness.
"they are not less a father , friend, doctor, lawyer, neighbor, brother, pastor, admistrator, counselor etc. this being true why would rearing children be any different."
Simple. It's not any different. All of them are living in sin if they are homosexual. God is not please. God is disgusted (that's the word the Bible uses). The standard it what God says is the standard. God says it's wrong so it's wrong.
Drunks are capable of being good parents but that doesn't mean they can adopt. There's rules against letting drunks and drug addicts adopt. Why? These are even accepted in our society as handicaps and illnesses. Still, nope...can't adopt.
I Corinthians 13;6
"[Love] does not rejoice in sin, but rejoices in truth."
That is the testimony of what love is. Homosexuality is a sin. Love does not involve itself in sin.
first of all the article, is not about the source of homosexuality. but whether a married homosexual couple can provide a loving nurturing home equal to a heterosexual married couple. 1cor 13 says yes..........."the love of god never fails" as believers that is what we know to be true.
is there testimony that says that homosexuals, not like heterosexuals, cannot embrace the love of god.
if you are putting on a secular hat in your discussion then there are a multitude of other issues that rely on institutional knowledge. there are a whole lotof theories that are biased and without scientific method.
but one i have never heard challenged is that homosexuals compared to heterosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society they are not less a father , friend, doctor, lawyer, neighbor, brother, pastor, admistrator, counselor etc. this being true why would rearing children be any different.
feetxxxl - People are born hetrosexual not homosexual.
there are 12million in this country and 320 million worldwide. are you confidently stating a fact about all of them. have you no concern for false witness?
why do you state that as fact, when your comment is without witness. you are discounting thousands of testimonies saying that from early childhood memories individuals were attracted to the same sex. they had no genital curiosity about the opposite sex, boys wanted to dress up and play with barbie, girls wanted to play territorial games and express themselves thru aggressive play.
i can never understand believers concern about the source of homosexuality. because scripture has always emphasized spirit.......... being of the spirit of christ,. loving thru the love of god, which is also spirit
. maybe that's because a majority of christendom appears to yet fully embrace the new covenant of christ but still has one foot firmly planted inthe old covenant.
in spite of all the accusations about homosexuals no one .......no one has ever said thru witness," yes i have walked in his shoes, carried his burdens, and broken bread with him, and having done so have witnessed a "________" spirit from the essence of being homosexual..............a spirit that obviously comes against(paul said that things of the sin nature were obvious because by their very essence it was self explanatory.....................) the fruit of the spirit, and the spirit of christ
ignore my last three posts, my apologies i posted the in the wrong place..............sorry
ifeelfine, I wasn't referring to the definition of co-dependency, but rather how the behaviors and attitudes of co-dependency are manifested in the lives of homosexuals. Co-dependency can manifest itself in many ways in the lives of people and I wanted to know how DP saw that in the lives of homosexuals. My post to you was that you may need to know that as well before you can give an appropriate response to DP.
why did the holy spirit lead john to use witness to prove jesus was the son of god. he could have easily proved it thru christ's fulfillment of the prophets.
because knowing the spirit of christ was necessary for knowing christ and what was of christ.
christ, who has been put in authority over all things, and has been given the judgement of all things.
christ gave three commands (1) love god(2) love neighbor as oneself(3)love one another as i have loved you
the standard is love
1cor13 says anything without love is nothing and gains nothing
if king david had loved his neighbor as himself, he would never have stepped into what he did.
to say that we are not to do something simply because of regulation...............period, is the old covenant relationship to the law.
1thess5:20 directs..........."test everything, keep the good.
paul in romans says we no longer have the old relationship to the law, but instead we are led by and serve of the spirit. that the law now is for helping us be conscious..........conscious of loving our neighbor as ourselves, which paul also says is the summation of all the law. the fulfillment of the law being love,
hebrews8 says
7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c]
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
CONTINUE
I've always found in interesting that secular psycology says that children are not born with instincts. They say a child even has to learn to eat from momma. Yet, when it comes to homosexuality, this same group says it's instinct...they're born that way. Either they don't know anything at birth and have to be taught or they don't.
The least they could do is make up their minds. No wait...truth is relative so they don't have to be consistant...that's right.... Kool-aid anyone?
ifeelfine72-- I said all the gay people I knew were codependent.
Also, there is a 'trap' in getting out of codependency. One of the first things a codependent has to face is that 'normal' to a codependent is abnormal by non-codependent standards. Thus, codependents look at everyone who is not codependent as the ones with the problem.
In short, it would be very difficult for a gay person to objectively say another gay person is not codependent as their behavior would be 'normal' to them. Overcoming codependency is primarily based on the ability to trust a standard outside of what they accept (such as the Bible).
As for 'my definition'...you must have missed the part where I said I was quoting out of a book. It's called '12 Steps to Overcoming Codependency' by RAPHA Press.
The basis is simple. We were created by God to be dependent on Him. When Adam and Eve sinned they put up a wall that kept us from being dependent on Him called sin. We have been trying to find things to replace that void ever since. We become dependent on drugs, sex, alchohol and even relationships (ever met someone who can't be alone for 10 seconds without going bonkers?).
It is trying to replace the dependency on God with other things that creates many problems. When the effect (parent to child) becomes the cause (in the child) then it is called 'codependency'. The child's thinking is based on 'wrong thinking' which leads to all kinds of things. This is why children of drunks tend to be drunks themselves -or- they trade on bad thing for another. Worse off...they think it's better because they're not a 'drunk' or whatever the problem of the parent was.
The parent say's 'yes I drink but I'm not a drunk (denial) so that's OK and how dare anyone tell me otherwise'. The child says "I'm gay but it's OK and how dare anyone tell me otherwise".
feetxxxl - People are born hetrosexual not homosexual. Boys learn how to be a man from his father. He learns how to love,respect, and treat a woman from his father. How can he learn that when his parents are men who are confused about their sexual identity, don't know how to act right around a woman, and certaintly doesn't know how to love, respect, and treat a woman?
The same goes for gay women raising a girl. How can the female child learn what it means to be a woman? How can she learn to respect men? How can she learn to value the role God has established for her in life?
A male (female) is not fulfilled in life until he (she) is living his (her) life in the God ordained role for males (females). A child of gay parents cannot learn that.
It is a sin against a child when the state or adoption agency gives a child to be raised by gay parents.
im still waiting to hear how the parents of the same gender provide a less nurturing less ;loving environmemnt for raising children.
history is filled with people wjho excelled in my body and spirit who were raised by a single relative.......grandmother, aunt, father, concerned neighbor,etc. where is the indication they were limited by being raised by a single gender.
there was none, because caregiver having received the love of god in his heart( he loved us believers first) in the SPIRIT of that love, loved themselves and those they were parenting.
how is it that a believer could possibly put such limitations on that love that is credited with everything, and when 1cor13 says that anything without love is nothing and gains nothing.
1cor13:4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8LOVE...........NEVER FAILS.
where in scripture does it put limitations on the agape love that is god?
where does it say, that even if a child is raised in the love that is god, there is something else that is required to be god's best
star: I pray for you, I really do.
I don't recall ever making the statement "you don't give to the poor" but rather asked "what are you doing for the poor?" Its a big difference (the difference between accusation and asking a question).
ifeelfine72 - I've been reading everyday the posts on this article and others as well.
I am doing OK I guess. Same ole stuff with me, nothing ever seems to change in some areas of my life. Thanks for hoping all is well with me.
ifeelfine72
"It also looks like folks here are more interested in cutting down than building up."
You are not one to speak here. You, in the past, were forever calling Christians that you knew nothing about a hypocrite because they didn't give to poor and etc.. then when you were corrected you didn't even apologize for falsely accusing them. I haven't noticed, though, you doing that any more which is good.
DP, muggleborn, star, et al: I commented on DP's post painting all gay people as co-dependent. believer pipes in and says don't you think I should know what he means by co-dependent? Well, I thought his definition was the same as everyone elses but believer apperently didn't think so. dp says the definition. What's so different about that definition than the textbook definition? I can't see as there is too much of a difference except colloquial differences.
Folks here need to read through the thread before they start piling on someone. It also looks like folks here are more interested in cutting down than building up.
As for your comment star, what language(s) was the Bible written in? It certainly wasn't English, it was translated to that language, so cool your jets women . . . nice to see you back and I hope all is well with you! :)
Yes MuggleBorn I got your email. It was good hearing from you. I'll write you later.
star2,
Hey! How are you. Did you get my message?
ifeelfine72
"I'm sorry believer and DP, I forgot that you make up your own definitions to words and don't use the commonly accepted ones."
This is what you do all the time ifeelfine72 when you want to justify as rigtheous what God plainly calls sin!
DP,
BTW ...
>> It is my prayer that God will see fit to allow those in denial of their codependency to get pulled out of the mud by the grace of God. <<
That's a good prayer. I will pray for that, too.
Daniel Paul,
:^) That's pretty cool, DP. But I was actually asking ifeelfine72, kind of going under the assumption that journalists needed to know some basic investigation skills or methodoligies. I thought I had read in some past post that that's what he did, and it surprised me that he made such confident statements without corroborating what he was saying. Maybe "I" shouldn't have blasted that out so quickly ;^)
"I thought you had some kind of Journalism degree or something?"
I learned journalism from a fellow named Rob Gregory. Some of you may remember the name from family news in focus. Also, my dad taught 'marriage and family life', counseling and 'human sexuality' on the college level.
The problem comes in that people who are codependent don't want to accept what is really going on with them. It's called 'denial'. It is the starting point in the recovory process. It is my prayer that God will see fit to allow those in denial of their codependency to get pulled out of the mud by the grace of God.
ifeelfine said,
>> I forgot that you make up your own definitions to words and don't use the commonly accepted ones. <<
Wikipedia says,
"Codependence (or codependency) is a popular psychology concept popularized by Twelve-Step program advocates. A "codependent" is loosely defined as someone who exhibits too much, and often inappropriate, caring for persons who depend on him or her. A "codependent" is one side of a relationship between mutually needy people. The dependent, or obviously needy party(s) may have emotional, physical, financial difficulties, or addictions they seemingly are unable to surmount. The "codependent" party exhibits behaviour which controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party's condition, because of their desire to be needed and fear of doing anything that would change the relationship.
Codependence can also be a set of maladaptive, compulsive behaviors learned by family members in order to survive in a family which is experiencing great emotional pain and stress caused, for example, by a family member's alcoholism or other addiction, sexual or other abuse within the family, a family member's chronic illness, or forces external to the family, such as poverty."
Daniel Paul said,
>> The Bible says a man who decides a matter without first hearing it is a fool. <<
ifeelfine,
Daniel Paul's definition is right on the money. I thought you had some kind of Journalism degree or something?
I'm sorry believer and DP, I forgot that you make up your own definitions to words and don't use the commonly accepted ones. How silly of me. But even with your definition, the gay people I know don't seem co-dependent.
Exactly...acceptance is used as a form of control. This is also the case in gangs (two completely different things).
The desire to love and be loved to an unhealthy extreme.
DP, although I do agree with Ifeelfine that this is an issue not only among homosexuals, I also tend to see it in the lives of many of the homosexuals who I know. And it goes back to something I've sensed all along and that is that I believe many are drawn into the homosexual lifestyle not as a result of desiring sex as much as acceptance as well as approval and it appears that initially the homosexual community is more accepting of others than the heterosexual community.
Please note how many pro-gay people have posted about "love" with no real definition. They post how their love is genuine because they 'feel' it is with no foundation in the word of God as written. When Christians discuss Biblical love from a Biblical context it gets all warped by the time the discussion comes back from the pro-gay camp.
This is classic symptoms of codependency manifesting itself in homosexual behavior.
Now, the term was originally coined to explain the effects of drunks on the rest of their family. As behavior has been studied with those who are effected by drugs and other behaviors the term has expanded.
One other application of the term is in 'good' homes (even preachers homes) where control of ones children is 'expected'. These children can also become codependent. A child of a disabled person can become codependent. The term has quite a broad reach now-a-days.
Thanks believer. The Bible says a man who decides a matter without first hearing it is a fool. Sorry for the delay in posting. My boy started Virtual Charter School through the state today and we are the "educational coaches".
There is a group called RAPHA Treatment Centers. Blue Cross even paid for stays for someone I knew. I have their book called "Overcoming Codependency". When it comes to psyc there are several variations on the definition since it was originally coined. RAPHA has had a much higher success rate so I defer to them.
“Codependency is a compulsion to control and rescue people by fixing their problems. It occurs when a person's God-given needs for love and security have been blocked in a relationship with a dysfunctional person, resulting in a lack of objectivity, a warped sense of responsibility, being controlled and controlling others (three primary characteristics); and in hurt and anger, guilt, and loneliness (three corollary characteristics). These characteristics affect the codependent's every relationship and desire. His goal in life is to avoid the pain of being unloved and to find ways to prove that he is lovable."
ifeelfine, before you respond to DP don't you think you might want to know what he means by them being co-dependent as compared to what you mean by co-dependent? It just may impact how you respond to what he is saying.
LOL. Token,
I get the feeling that your comment was in reference to me and others. But I will say this. It is better than being so open minded that your brain fell out.
believer & DP: I know lots of gay people as well and only a couple of them strike me as the least bit co-dependent. Certainly they are no more co-dependent than heterosexuals. But if by acceptance you mean to be in a loving relationship just like you or I, right.
=]. Nice to see that youre still fighting to open the eyes of some of our more close minded Americans ifeelfine =].
DP, by co-dependent, I think I know what you mean, but could you give some examples of how they act out their co-dependency. Plus, one thing I hear from many homosexuals I know personally is that the sex has little to do with them being homosexual, but rather the need for affection and acceptance seems to be the driving force in their life. If that's true then it would make perfect sense that many homosexuals would lean toward being co-dependent.
OK...this is for Mike, ifeelfine72 and the rest of the pro-gay camp. Just so you understand a bit more. I had two sister-in-laws that were gay. I have known quite a few gay folks. Here is the common thread I have seen with my own eys and so have many of my gay friends....
Every gay person I know (or they knew) had some deep codependent issues. It didn't matter what walk of life they came from of the 'family' they grew up in. Pastors families can be just a codependent as the next (sometimes even more so). Deep codependency has been the common factor in ALL gay people I know.
ifeelfine72,
>> I used to be fine with the death penalty and abortion too and was wrong on both counts - I have no problem admitting when I am wrong; now is just not one of those times. <<
I'll accept that you "believe" that you're right. But I can't seem to dispel the nagging inclination that your belief is precariously thin and that you struggle to maintain it because of something more personal at stake. Maybe something related to what Grace2 is asking? People you love that you see first hand looking to reconcile this condition with God, because they believe they are unchangable? I would at least understand your point of view better.
Understand that I poke and prod because the only thing I HATE is the notion that I might not get to meet you in Heaven, someday. Take it from an experienced sinner.
Try to also understand that your credibility is lost, via some of the wild posts I've seen; i.e. connection between bestiality and Lot's house guests? I don't know if angels can actually be insulted, but if I meet one "before" I die, I wouldn't imply that notion to his face :^)
As for:
>> It seems to me as if many folks on this site are more interested in protecting their bigoted, non-inclusive interpretation of the Bible <<
Consider that it's written in Matthew 7:13-14,
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Only "a few". That's from our very gracious Lord and Savior, himself. Any issues with inclusiveness should be vigorously prayed about. We don't know what "a few" means after all. Who is really doing God's will; the same number of people that Gallup Polls report as Christian? Or is it something smaller than that? Maybe only 1/100, 1/1000 ... 1/10000? It's scary to think about. And I'm guessing that the more pluralistic someone is, the less they think about it.
Non-Christians, you should keep this in mind, too. Not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian. Not exactly analogous to Kleenex or Pop-Tarts, but you should get the basic idea.
ifeelfine72 - How do I inject my own bigotry into the Word of God? I don't ignore scripture, I stand behind it. You do not. I don't try to explain away what is obvious. You do. So, it is you who is injecting your own bigotry into the Word of God.
ifeelfine72 - Come on, you know that your opinion of what you think the Bible says about homosexuality is influenced by the number of family memebers you have that are gay. There was an evolution to your beliefs about homosexuality, was there not?
Come clean and give us the evolution of your beliefs about homosexuality.
muggleborn: I would happily admit if I thought I was wrong on this but I don't. It seems to me as if many folks on this site are more interested in protecting their bigoted, non-inclusive interpretation of the Bible.
I used to be fine with the death penalty and abortion too and was wrong on both counts - I have no problem admitting when I am wrong; now is just not one of those times.
Grace2: Why do you choose to inject your own bigotry in God's word where there is none?
DP, bpnews.org, I believe, remember you're working with a functionally illiterate computer guy here!!
"Baptist Press News had a report "
link please!
Homosexuality is a sin. Sodom and Gommorha were destroyed because of that plus a number of other sins. Much like the direction our fine country is headed....
For anyone who is interested Baptist Press News had a report on this in their 08/19 bpnews report. I found it very insightful with regards to some of the specifics we've been wondering about.
"And Lot offering up his daughters is somehow a lesser problem here? "
Absolutely not. Sin is sin. There isn't a greater or lesser sin from what I've read in the Bible! Like I pointed out in my post a ways back...that was messed up too!
One of the main reasons for the Bible is to show us that mankind as a whole is messed up from Adam and Eve and we need a Savior to get straightened out. No arguement whatsoever that Lot was making a 'lesser of two evils' here.
"You're basically saying that men can't be raped "
Nope...not at all. I'm saying the men of Sodom wanted sex with men and not women. They wanted homosexual sex (rape or not). They want sex with the men and not the women (not even virgins).
"suggesting that they didn't ever have sex before"
Where did you get that from? I didn't make reference one way or the other. The men wanted sex with the men (rape or not).
No straws here. Only kool-aid! (...and it ain't mine.)
Not at all, Muggleborn. I have a pretty thick skin, and take any criticism in the spirit of picking apart an idea or argument, never personally.
wiccan, you're right it wasn't a good idea either. It would have been better if he would have called out to God or turn the matter over to the two visitors. And in fact they did intervene by blinding the men who came against them. It's amazing how many of our problems could be resolved if not prevented in the first place if we took them to God first.
WiccanTexas,
BTW, my last post to you wasn't meant to sound condescending. I apologize ahead of time if it reads that way.
WiccanTexas,
>> And Lot offering up his daughters is somehow a lesser problem here? <<
Probably any Christian bible scholar you ask will tell you that Lot was not thinking things through, but acting out of desparation to protect God's messengers.
We all know that ... so it's really kind of incidental to the point of the account.
ifeelfine72,
Once again you are trying to argue the point into circles until everyone just gets tired. You can't even seem to clearly grasp what DP said, so instead you claim he's trying to defend bigotry.
You're ridiculous, man. You've twisted your bible so much you have to spin it around as you read it.
Why can't you just accept the fact that you're wrong on this? Do you have something personal at stake preventing you from just admitting that homosexuality ... or at least just the acts themselves are sinful?
Or is it your pride? You've basically committed yourself to a worldly point of view, and if you back out now, you'll have to admit that YOU WERE WRONG. Is that it?
ifeelfine72 - Why do you reject God's Word?
And Lot offering up his daughters is somehow a lesser problem here?
ifeelfine, if a man is raped by another man it is considered homosexual rape. Lot told the men who came to his house that he had two daughters who were virgins and these men could have them instead of the two visitors and the men refused his offer. That's how we know his two daughters were virgins and these men were only interested in having homosexual relations with the two visitors.
DP: You're taking an awful lot for granted. You're basically saying that men can't be raped and you're also suggesting that they didn't ever have sex before. It sounds like YOU'RE the one grasping at straws to defend your bigotry.
ifeelfine, you're absolutely right about Isaiah 1, it doesn't mention homosexuality. But that does not mean that homosexuality was not one of the reasons why God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah. Isaiah 1 speaks to the fact that Judah had become like Sodom and Gomorrah with regards to their relationship and worship of God.
ifeelfine, Genesis 19:5 says, "They called out to Lot and said, "where are the MEN who came to see you tonight? Send them out so we can have sex with them!" (HCSB)
And how, exactly, does this pertain to the legal rights of gay patients to expect their doctors to not cop out of health and medical care?
>> "They were rapists!"
Then why didn't they come after the daughters and how is it that they had lived there for so long and never been with a man? Sound like they just didn't want to 'rape' women.... <<
DP, +5 Insightful. Praise the Lord for that brain of yours!
"They were rapists!"
Then why didn't they come after the daughters and how is it that they had lived there for so long and never been with a man? Sound like they just didn't want to 'rape' women....
Again, Sodom's reputation was quite clear both in the Bible and secular texts. They even have a word in our language named after them for their behavior 'sodomy' meaning homosexuality.
You are running out of things to ignore in your effort to defend homosexuality....
ifeelfine72
>> The passage in Jude is obviously referring to bestiality. Angels were considered another species so it would be the equivalent of bestiality. <<
From what I know, the reference in Jude 1:7 to "strange flesh" has been interpreted to mean anything (or everything) from adultery bestiality to homosexuality to rape. But the idea that the citizens of Sodom KNEW??? that Lot was harboring angelic beings in his house is QUITE A STRETCH.
thisguy74 provided the Gen 19:4-5 quote earlier. They asked for "MEN". "Men men men men manly men men men" ... so that they could have sex with them. They didn't say "Where are those angels? Bring them out so we can have sex with them ... but don't bother if they're just men."
The passage in Jude is obviously referring to bestiality. Angels were considered another species so it would be the equivalent of bestiality.
They were rapists! Did you ever consider that their wickedness stemmed from their ability to rape anything, angels included apparently?
Read all of Isaiah 1. There are a whole bunch of references to the "sins of Sodom." Not a single mention of homosexuality in any of it. Clearly you're interpreting the Bible to support your own bigotry.
ifeelfine, are you saying if these doctors had a written policy saying they refuse to provide services to people that by doing so would violate their spiritual beliefs that it would have been legal for them not to provide her services? Since you stated that in states where there is no legal requirement to cut off selling alcohol to a person who appears to be intoxicated a bar can write-up its' own policy in this matter.
ifeelfine, we are that's why we realize the detestable acts were the ones referred to in Genesis and as grace2 pointed out Jude 1:7.
ifeelfine72
Jude 1:7 - "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
My wife just made a good point. OB-GYNs have to perform DNCs after a miscarriage. So, since DNC is part of an abortion...would a OB-GYN doctor have to perform an abortion if one of their patients wanted it?
"So, apparently, homosexuality was considered wickedness even then."
Intersting that the men of the city didn't contest their behavior being called wicked. At least they admitted it.
"But I'm sure they're still taking taxpayer-funded insurance."
Medicare/Medicaid is a Federal program and would be governed by Federal law. The state reg would not apply. In fact, the state could loose all that funding if they didn't abide by the federal rules.
I am not aware of any other 'public insurance'. Still, the situation would only apply if the woman was paying for it with medicare/medicaid. The doctor is being paid on behalf of the patient. The patient is the client of the public insurance and not the doctor.
Nice try though. :-)
ifeelfine72...I have friends who are/were bartenders. My info is first hand. Let me guess...the one state you haven't been in is SC! Everyone thinks it stands for South Carolina...actually I think it stands for 'State of Confusion'. :-)
ifeelfine,
You also know that in verse 50 of that scripture it talks about "abominations" that were committed. Homosexuality could be counted in that catagory (as I spoke of in my previous post).
ifeelfine,
You said "The reason God destroyed Sodom is right here in Ezekeiel 16:49-50." That may be only part of the reason that God destroyed Sodom. Homosexuality was a part of it too as described in Genesis 19:4-7:
"4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly."
The men of Sodam saw Lot take in some men (which were actually angels). They came to the door asking Lot if they could have sex with the men. Lot told them not to act wickedly. So, apparently, homosexuality was considered wickedness even then.
I Corinthians 6:9
"9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..."
I would say that homosexuality is an effeminate quality.
Romans says
"26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Nope...nothing about lust there. It does talk about vile affections though.
Vile: "atima": disgraceful, shameful, vile
affection: "pathos": passion, affection, lust
So it's clear that anything other than the affection between a man and a woman is shameful.
DP and believer: I really thought the two of you were smarter than that. You both try to make the same point by completely making something up. It's pretty obvious the detestable things were their treatment of the poor and needy. Nowhere in the passage or surrounding passages does it mention homosexuality at all.
DP: The bartenders are doing their jobs. I've been to 49 of the 50 states and while I don't drink much, I've been to bars in many states and they all have those laws or the bars themselves have those policies.
For those who are receiving messages from the Lord regarding what to do, Haldol is a pretty common medication for schizophrenia. I'm just saying. . .
blacksho, like you I sometimes tend to make my own decisions or plans and then ask God to put His blessing on it. And many times I think He says, you've got to be kidding! But I hope I'm getting better at consulting with Him first, it sure makes life a whole lot easier. But you may be right on target with this matter as well.
I can think of several instances where I have agreed to do something, and only afterward consulted the Lord. When He has then told me that my plans are NOT according to His will, I must then regretfully stop what I am doing. This teaches me to consult Him before starting something.
It is unknown if this is what happened to this doctors, I admit. But it is certainly possible as a part of spiritual growth.
wiccan, we don't know specifically what they addressed, but we do know what they ruled and what they ruled had nothing to do with the protocol followed by the doctors only that they would no longer be allowed to not provide services to someone simply because it would cause them to violate their spiritual beliefs.
Thank you, MuggleBorn.
"We're essentially talking about needing a sperm donor. Right?" Yes, just like any number of straight couples who are unable to conceive for whatever reason. A responsible, professional doctor would have closely counseled both potential parents from the start.
WiccanTexas,
>> Talking with both potential parents about a complex medical procedure to conceive children is "small talk?" I would not consider that to be non-relevant. <<
:^) I would agree ... so putting it in that light, I didn't really mean it in that context. It wouldn't be unusual for a woman to come in alone. It wouldn't be unusual for a woman to be accompanied to a doctor by a sister | mother | other relative | friend, without the doctor asking "Who's this?"
I'm not going to speculate on every scenario, but I could see situations where those questions "just weren't asked". We're essentially talking about needing a sperm donor. Right? The doctor probably wouldn't need to guess it was the phantom husband's problem.
"I'd venture a guess that those doctors may be in the habit of keeping small talk to a minimum."
Talking with both potential parents about a complex medical procedure to conceive children is "small talk?" I would not consider that to be non-relevant.
believer, we don't know WHAT the court addressed unless we were in court. It's speculative on our part. We only know the outcome. So, my questions are merely common sense in relation to medical care.
wiccan, but apparently the court did not address those issues. The only issue they chose to address was to say that these doctors have no right to withhold services from a person even if it causes them to willfully violate their own spiritual beliefs.
WiccanTexas,
>> I'm sorry, I can't swallow the idea that they went through this complicated set of procedures without talking to the presumed husband <<
My wife, nor I have ever visited a fertility clinic, but I'd venture a guess that those doctors may be in the habit of keeping small talk to a minimum. If some of their patients are widows, single ... what-have-you, they may be sensitive to any non-relevant discussion.
If they started the process, and went that far, they should be morally bound to complete it, regardless of when they found out sexual orientation. When exactly did they plan to verify there was a father who would be involved in the pregnancy and upbringing of said child? Was counseling not done before the procedures began? Sorry, the doctors dropped the ball on this, and they should be held legally responsible for the mental, physicla and emotional harm they've done.
wiccan, once again we can only speculate on the timing issue, but the court's decision is point blank saying these doctors have no alternative but to provide services to her regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It does not speak to when they became aware of her sexual persuasion or because they had started the process already.
ifeelfine, they did not stop doing their job they simply refused to provide their services to this person because it would have conflicted with their spiritual beliefs and it was not a life threatening situation and they referred her to a place that would provide those same services. The same way some Pastors I know will not marry a person who has been divorced and refer them to a Pastor who will marry divorced people. And I do know cases when the Pastor did not find that out until he had met with the couple on several occasions
I'm sorry, I can't swallow the idea that they went through this complicated set of procedures without talking to the presumed husband, and found out at the last minute that it was a lesbian couple.
"Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from assisting her further."
This tells me that they were aware ahead of time. And if they were truly concerned on a moral basis, they had no obligation to refer her to another physician, IMO.
believer,
No problem. I've read many of your posts, and believe that we are very much on the same page (correctly interpreted :^)
WiccanTexas,
>> Why couldn''t this have been done at the start, rather than put a person through the mental cruelty of the denial after all the emotional, physical and mental challenges she''d been through to get to that point?<<
The doctor may have only started the consultation with one of the two women, and was only made aware that this was for a lesbian couple after a treatment appointment began.
I would agree with you on your point, if the doctor tossed it around for a while, said nothing, and finally said "Nah. Not gonna do it."
wiccan, could it be that the doctors did not know about her sexual persuasion up until that time? And when they found out that's when they referred her to another agency.
ifeelfine, "and did detestable things before Me". Any guess on what those detestable things were they were doing, could it be of all things acts of sexual perversion. Plus just because this single passage does not specifically mention homosexual behavior does not negate the several other passages in Genesis that do, nor are we saying that the homosexuality issue is the only reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
daniel and muggleborn, thanks for backing me up with regards to some of these posts.
From the CBS article: "One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections"
Why couldn''t this have been done at the start, rather than put a person through the mental cruelty of the denial after all the emotional, physical and mental challenges she''d been through to get to that point?
From the CBS article: "One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections"
Why couldn''t this have been done at the start, rather than put a person through the mental cruelty of the denial after all the emotional, physical and mental challenges she''d been through to get to that point?
christians routinely use slippery slope logic to maintain the marriage benefits should only apply to man/women marriage because any increase in that would "open the door to everything." how then are we to support this statement.
Dr. Stevens (of the Cal Christian Med Assoc) noted, "When faced with the decision to choose between conscience and providing a medical service, physicians of conscience are most likely to stop providing this service rather than violate their conscience. "
consider this position the next time you walk into an ER. and if you think that this all about the the right to withhold elective treatments, then i say to you by whose judgment is that treatment elective or ethical? these doctors now want to withhold any treatment that offends their beliefs. and consider this also, this idea will not just apply to "good moral" christians but to all doctors whatever their faith or lack of it. christians want the right to deny service to others, are you really prepared to face the same treatment rules?
ifeelfine72,
>> The doctor chose to be a fertility doctor and chose to take on these patients, do your job. <<
Fertility treatment is not a necessary medical procedure. If this were cancer treatment, I'd stake my life that everyone here would agree with you.
However, it's not cancer treatment. It's the government forcing doctors to administer unnecessary (optional) treatments to support what God tells us is an abomination.
There's always the option for these women to marry men ... I know, it's a bold concept, but hey! It's worked in the past.
In this case, there is a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation, including private businesses (just read that elsewhere). But I'm sure they're still taking taxpayer-funded insurance.
"as refusing to serve a drunk person is doing their job."
Actually, no it's not. It is protecting themselves from legal action if something happens. Some places do have laws and some don't about serving someone who is drunk. Still, it is not 'doing their job' unless there is a law which states so.
Many of those court cases are civil cases for damages.
"Or, start a private practice where you can dictate your own terms"
I thought they were in private practice. The judge wrote:
"imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations." It was a business establishment and not a public run establishment. They were in private practice.
Even in private practice the judge has now stated Christians must leave what they believe at the door.
So... now what'cha think? The next step will be to say you can't have the Ten Commandments hanging in your own private practice.
"and did detestable things before me."
Yep...disgusting things...like homosexuality. Make no mistake...it was part of the reason. What could be more arrogant than telling God he doesn't have the right to say sex should be between one man and one woman! It took quite a bit of arrogance to show up at Lot's door and demand he send out his guest so they can have sex with them.
Homosexual behavior was only one of the major issues and was quite common in their society.
So, the verse you site doesn't support your position. Try again.
This is the bottom line for me. If you work for a secular organization, you cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs. If you have moral objections, go work for a religious organization where this would be supported; plenty of them out there. Or, start a private practice where you can dictate your own terms, and don't accept any insurance funded by taxpayer dollars.
Those doctors better start withholding fertility treatments from straight couples also, because that's where all the gay people are coming from. *sigh*
believer and daniel paul: God back and read your Bible. The reason God destroyed Sodom is right here in Ezekeiel 16:49-50. "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." DP, it sounds like YOU have your own translation of the Bible.
As for your bartender analogy, it doesn't hold water as refusing to serve a drunk person is doing their job. Your job isn't where you work, its what you do. If you don't want to do it, find a different job.
chk55: you're making my point for me. Someone couldn't join the army and then say they didn't want to serve. It doesn't work that way, its only being forced during times of the draft, etc. The doctor chose to be a fertility doctor and chose to take on these patients, do your job.
If it was such a moral issue, why did the doctors assist her all the way up to the actual procedure? Why even get involved, and then drop the morality bomb on her? Hypocritical. Either state your stance at the beginning, or follow through as your Hippocratic oath compells you.
These biased answers just go to show how discriminating people can be..
"and I wonder if ministers will have a choice when it comes to..."
The Bible says that eventually the choice will be between living the way man wants or being killed for being a Christian. This is the beginning of the slippery slope....
Genesis 19:5 "and they (the men of the city) called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may have relations with them."
Lot (wrongfully) offered his daughters to them saying they had never been with any man so his wrong action towards his daughters verifies the men wanted to have sex.
When the men forced their way into the house to get the men they were struck with blindness.
Now, in all fairness, homosexuality was only a part of the wickedness for which Sodom was destroyed. Still, it is a matter of record that this was part of the wickedness for which they were destroyed. In fact, it was a focal issue in the passage.
Still, to this day Sodom is the root associated with homosexual behavior thus we have the words sodomite and sodomy. So, you would have to be absolutely blind to Biblical and secular truth to say Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexual behavior.
Plus, Genesis 19:24-25 "The the Lord Rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and He overthrew those citie, and al the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground."
Sounds to me like God did it!
I don't know. I'm starting to think some of the gay folks here have their own translation of the Bible....
Another ridiculous ruling from California, why am I not surprised.
viking, and I wonder if ministers will have a choice when it comes to performing marriages for same-sex couples or will they like these doctors be forced to violate the spiritual beliefs they hold on this matter.
dongard, the issue here is not that they refused to provide these services but the reason they felt compelled to not provide them. Your scenario is without merit as you state it because you did not give a reason for why you were refused service in these places.
If a soldier's conscience will not allow him to serve in the Army (for whatever reason) then he/she is allowed to object and then is excused from service. Our nation allows that no one is to be forced to serve in violation of their conscience.
Why shouldn’t doctors be given the same privilege? Would the outcome of this trial been the same, say, if the doctors refused to give physicals to young men applying to the military because doing so would support the war?
The left calls people on the right intolerant, but here you see the lefts true position. For the left, it is their way, or the highway.
Believer,
Hi cross referencing the other thread re you question re churches obligated to allow gay marriages in them that I suggested would be very unlikely. Well I would have thought this scenario unlikely as well. Apparently the CA law does not have an adequate religious exemption clause. This is less surprising (in CA) but no less distressing. The rationale extension of this is that Christian counselors would be required to provide counseling supportive of homosexuality even if their professional training as well as religious beliefs were counter to this. I can see that your scenario on the other thread was not so unlikely as it seemed at least in CA. I guess the churches there need to carefully think about the policy of non members using the church for weddings.
You might read Genesis 19:4-5, "all the men from every part of the city of Sodomâ€â€both young and oldâ€â€surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
to see that homosexual behaviour was just one of the reasons for the destruction of Sodom. In the previous chapter it is noted that the sins of the cities were horrendous.
In the new testament it is referred to in 2 Peter 2:7 and Jude 7 as being wrong.
I think the language being used in this pro-homosexual arrgument also tries to play on emotions. The fertility doctors aren't treating illness or life-threatening injury such as an emergency room doctor would be doing. This is a procedure which costs a lot for the patient and is completely done with consent of the patient knowing what is going on. It is more like getting braces for somewhat crooked teeth (although not a perfect example) rather than treating a person for collapsed lungs. I don't see why the lady didn't research her physician better to alleviate the possiblilty of this sort of thing happening.
I always get a laugh whenever I here any gay person tell me that being able to live their lifestyle has no direct impact on others! This article is just another example of yet another case of how the gay agenda has pervaded our society. Not only do I feel for these children being brought up in perverse and godless environments, but the rest of us have to endure the consequences as well. When will we begin to stand up and stop this insanity.
believer
They did not refuse to do their job, but they believed providing services to this person would be in direct violation of their Christian beliefs. Plus why didn't the person seek out services at another agency.
so i walk down the street to another restaurant or barber or store, or another and then another and another how far do i have to walk before i can sit at the same table that you claim that you and the real americans sit at?
As a law-abiding, taxpaying, Christian, gay Californian, I fully support our Supreme Court's ruling. Religious beliefs should not be used as a smokescreen for bigotry, hatred and sin. Homophobia is a sin, because it violates Christ's commandment to treat others as we want to be treated. Denying medical care to others is not treating them as we want to be treated. If homophobia can be masked as a "religious belief" so can racism and other sins. If a special right is given for homophobia to be allowed as a religious belief, what is next? What group of citizens will be discriminated against next under the guise of religious belief?
There is NOTHING that indicates God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality. Take a look, folks. You won't find it in there.
ifeelfine, there is a huge difference between refusing to do your job and refusing to provide service to a person because of your spiritual beliefs. If a bartender sees a person is drunk and refuses to serve him, that is not the same as a bartender who refuses to serve anyone. Plus, could you please enlighten us as to why God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah?
john: go back and read your Bible, you know that's not why they destroyed Sodom and Gammorah.
chicago24--
What God calls abomination is still abomination, that's why he destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah. And we don't need to look to the Old Testament for what the condemnation of homosexuality. It is condemned in the New Testament in at least three different books.
believer: It's an exact correlation - someone decides not to do their job because of religious belief. If you were trying to make a distiction you'll have to try again.
And no, it doesn't smell of a political agenda, although everything with the Bush administration is so I can see why you would think that: they do it so everyone else must as well.
phat: No, Peter's vision has NOTHING to do with not stoning sodomites (or heterosexual adulterers).
That is the Good News of the cross, of our Saviour's victory over sin and death! That He died as the Lamb, to free us of the death that is the wages of sin!
Praise Him, for He lives!
phat, if you choose not to adhere to the teachings found in God's Word that is your choice, but why should those of us who adhere to those teachings be forced to violate them and especially when there are other agencies who do not adhere to Christian principles who are more than willing to provide those services? But I also find it interesting that you and others are moving away from the issue at hand and talking more about levitical laws as opposed to the civil rights of these doctors being violated.
chicago24, the only problem is that the sexual practices of homosexuality are condemned in both the Old and New Testament alike.
"The American Civil Rights Union supported the Christian doctors, siding with the Islamic Medical Association of North America, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations and anti-abortion groups."
When the ACLU is siding with religion it's time to listen!
As for Chicago24's comment about Red Lobster. If you are going to site Lev. then you wouldn't be working at Red Lobster....
One of our pediatricians years ago was a 'guest' of the Nazi's during WWII. He was Austrian. The Nazi's had values that either you followed or you ended up in a prison camp. So, now we have proof there is no difference between the CA high court and the Nazi mentality....
John 14-6 writes: "Nice try, but Christians don't believe the Levitical laws regarding diet and culture apply."
That is - - until they WANT to use pull some obscure text from Leviticus to condemn gays.
This is so typical of many Christianists; wanting it both ways, selectively using texts, and interpreting Biblical texts to suit their agenda.
With tactics like these, it's no wonder society is viewing Christianity more and more repugnant. And then they whine and wonder why.
Believer writes, "In the Book of Acts in a dream He allows Peter to know that those levitical laws no longer apply."
OH! In a DREAM! I see. So God told Peter "in a dream" that He's changed his mind about old Levitical laws. Maybe that means we don't have to stone Gay people to death anymore either, right? Or is that a matter of "interpretation?" So many different interpretations! No wonder we have such a plethora of Christian denominations.
God really need to hold a nice long press conference one of these days to give us the lowdown on all these dogmatic details. Otherwise I won't know WHOM to believe.
Ifeelfine72 asks, "If someone becomes a Hindu while working at a slaughter house, should they be allowed to keep their job and not slaughter animals?"
I doubt a Hindu convert would WANT to keep such a job. Even so, what would the person do, sit around being paid for doing nothing? I don't think any court could justify that.
phat, we don't need to call God just read His Word, in the Book of Acts in a dream He allows Peter to know that those levitical laws no longer apply and Jews are now free to consume them since they are no longer considered dirty.
chicago and ifeelfine, you're both talking apples and oranges. They did not refuse to do their job, but they believed providing services to this person would be in direct violation of their Christian beliefs. Plus why didn't the person seek out services at another agency. This sure smells of a political agenda wouldn't you say?
If Levitical law no longer has to be followed, can we assume that God does indeed change His mind about certain things? Someone please give me God's phone number (a 1-800 number would be preferable), because I have a lot of questions on a wide variety of OTHER subjects I'd like to ask Him.
chicago24--
Nice try, but Christians don't believe the Levitical laws regarding diet and culture apply. See the Book of Acts and Paul's Epistles. That was a comment made in ignorance.
Hear that sound my Christian brothers and sisters?
Drip...drip...drip...
Likewise, someone could become a Christian while working at Red Lobster and demand to keep their job as a cook but refuse to cook lobster while citing Leviticus as their justification.
Like I say, one should always got to be careful of which precedents you want set.
If someone becomes a Hindu while working at a slaughter house, should they be allowed to keep their job and not slaughter animals?
I wonder which Christian professionals will be next in being forced to violate their Christian beliefs?