05 Aug 12
Originally posted by ChessPraxisParagraph 3:
Many "normal" couples are horrible parents also. Good and bad come in assorted faces. 🙂
"Yes, throw back at me the unsuitability of some 'normal' (inverted commas) parents and we then have a concept that in normal circumstances I would agree with."
I still disagree with the psychology of it all. But then again, I'm straight! 😛
-m. 😉
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by JS357Its was an archetype, and although it has been annulled in practice, the principles
I'm trying to find an answer to my specific question about Mosaic law in what you say here, but I can't find it. My question was, is Mosaic Law Biblical, that is, is it God-given moral law that is fully applicable today?
remain.
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by divegeesterI answered your question.
It wasn't me. Let me ask you the same question Suzianne chose to sidestep:
Are you suggesting that God (Bible God) approves of same sex relationships and marriages?
It's not my problem if you don't like my answer.
I could have succinctly answered your question with a simple "No." but I tried to enlighten you as to what I WAS doing. I wasn't suggesting a damn thing in my OP. All I wanted to know was where is this "biblical definition" they keep referring to? If there is no "biblical definition", then I'd appreciate it if they'd stop referring to one.
THAT'S ALL.
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe principles for who Robbie? The archetypal? Don't they live in the past with dreams of tomorrow, forgetting the now?
Its was an archetype, and although it has been annulled in practice, the principles
remain.
Do they know there are 3 tenses of time?
-m. 😉
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by divegeesterFirstly, I was talking about people living within the borders of your country.
How on earth can restricting access to your the border of your own country be a "violation of rights"?
Secondly, I do not believe that countries can be owned - even collectively. I believe it is a violation of rights to selectively restrict some peoples movement to some parts of the world. I also believe that the rich lucky ones maintain the status quo (border restrictions) for purely selfish reasons and that doing so is morally wrong.
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI guess you leave your house unlocked when you go out too? and probably welcome in whatever vagrant happens by?
Firstly, I was talking about people living within the borders of your country.
Secondly, I do not believe that countries can be owned - even collectively. I believe it is a violation of rights to selectively restrict some peoples movement to some parts of the world. I also believe that the rich lucky ones maintain the status quo (border restrictions) for purely selfish reasons and that doing so is morally wrong.
And you think theists live in a dream world.
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by SuzianneThe Holy Bible is not a dictionary that defines words. Perhaps those speaking of a Biblical definition of Family and Marrige were looking at a Bible Dictionary.
I answered your question.
It's not my problem if you don't like my answer.
I could have succinctly answered your question with a simple "No." but I tried to enlighten you as to what I WAS doing. I wasn't suggesting a damn thing in my OP. All I wanted to know was where is this "biblical definition" they keep referring to? If there is no "biblical definition", then I'd appreciate it if they'd stop referring to one.
THAT'S ALL.
However, there are certain things written in the Holy Bible that help us to understand how words are used by the Biblical writers and therefore how they defined some words.
The following link I believe covers most of your concerns about what the Holy Bible says about marriage, the family, homosexual relations, and divorce.
http://www.frc.org/brochure/the-bibles-teaching-on-marriage-and-family
05 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe in home ownership because I am a homeowner. I believe a government has the right to reasonably tax the homeowners because the govrnment provides services as a community that benefits everyone in the community. I therefore, believe in the right to restrict others from violating my property rights of ownership by tresspassing on my property. The government also needs to have property rights to establish locations for the government to provide the necessary services needed by the community it serves.
Firstly, I was talking about people living within the borders of your country.
Secondly, I do not believe that countries can be owned - even collectively. I believe it is a violation of rights to selectively restrict some peoples movement to some parts of the world. I also believe that the rich lucky ones maintain the status quo (border restrictions) for purely selfish reasons and that doing so is morally wrong.
It is true that some people may become rich by luck or by dishonest ways. However, many become rich by hard work and should not be punished because of it. Whatever reason the people use for maintining the status quo is up to them; and most goverments provide ways to change things, if there is enough support.
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have to say here, as I did in your 'Immigration' thread in Debates that I totally agree with your point 2. The resources of the world are collectively owned by ALL of the worlds peoples and they should rightly be shared equally.
Firstly, I was talking about people living within the borders of your country.
Secondly, I do not believe that countries can be owned - even collectively. I believe it is a violation of rights to selectively restrict some peoples movement to some parts of the world. I also believe that the rich lucky ones maintain the status quo (border restrictions) for purely selfish reasons and that doing so is morally wrong.
In the current selfish thinking, people [including Christians] cannot see how that makes sense. Nationalism should be the enemy of Christianity but because the bulk of Christians live the 'haves' world they really dont care about the 'have nots'.
In the world to come Christ will take care of that.
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by Rajk999I think many people that "have not" is because they want everything given to them; they are not willing to put in the necessary work it takes to have something.
I have to say here, as I did in your 'Immigration' thread in Debates that I totally agree with your point 2. The resources of the world are collectively owned by ALL of the worlds peoples and they should rightly be shared equally.
In the current selfish thinking, people [including Christians] cannot see how that makes sense. Nationalism should be the en ...[text shortened]... ly dont care about the 'have nots'.
In the world to come Christ will take care of that.
05 Aug 12
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsPeople like that exist in all societies. What is your point?
I think many people that "have not" is because they want everything given to them; they are not willing to put in the necessary work it takes to have something.
What is the role of the Christian when it comes to the poor?
I will tell you, it is NOT to say .. "I have worked harder then you therefore I deserve to have more and enjoy more."
Is it to say .. " God has blessed me with more than my fair share of worldly goods so I will be generous and share with those less fortunate than myself" .. that is the Christian attitude.
The discussion about why peoples or nations are poor is a long and complicated one and really belongs in debates, not Spirituality. It is not simply about hard work.
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by divegeesterNo, nor do I think it is in any way relevant. I also think that you are deliberately deflecting because you know perfectly well that I am correct.
I guess you leave your house unlocked when you go out too? and probably welcome in whatever vagrant happens by?
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd I disagree totally. I think you have what you have largely because you were born lucky.
I think many people that "have not" is because they want everything given to them; they are not willing to put in the necessary work it takes to have something.
If you were right and I am wrong, then for some very odd reason, Americans and other first world citizens must be much less likely than the rest of us to 'want everything given to them'. Are you really so sure that us Africans are a lazy bunch compared to you Americans and that is why you are richer?
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe have may poor people here too. That is why the Churches collect donations of food, etc, and have soup kitchens available to provide hot meals for them. I do not know how lazy you Africans are; but I see how lazy some Americans are.
And I disagree totally. I think you have what you have largely because you were born lucky.
If you were right and I am wrong, then for some very odd reason, Americans and other first world citizens must be much less likely than the rest of us to 'want everything given to them'. Are you really so sure that us Africans are a lazy bunch compared to you Americans and that is why you are richer?