Something I want answered once and for all

Originally posted by divegeester
Apparently you do this; I stand in respect of your generosity and commitment to your values.

I made a mistake there. I was answering the first part of your question ie yes, I do control my border, and not share my home and my possessions with the less well off beyond paying tax and some minor charity.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm not looking for your works. I'm exploring the link (often posted by rwingett) between "socialist" political values of sharing wealth through open immigration on a country level, with that of actually doing it every day with personal borders i.e. sharing your home. It is one thing to hold to the former, but completely another to live it yourself by exercising the latter.

I disagree that the two are equivalent. I dispute your claim that sharing your home is 'living it yourself'.

Let me ask you this: would you support restricting movement of people based on race, for example would it be OK by you if no black people were allowed in London? (I am thinking of the apartheid system).
If you would object to apartheid, does that mean that you let any black person who wants to enter your home come in? Do you live it personally?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
why not forget about the bible for five minutes and just go with what you think rather than what you are told to think, do you always follow authority?

Do you stop at stop signs when you drive or you just do what you want when
you want?
Kelly

Originally posted by Rajk999
People like that exist in all societies. What is your point?

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 s ...[text shortened]... ated one and really belongs in debates, not Spirituality. It is not simply about hard work.

Well, it does not help the poor to become poor ourselves. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree that the two are equivalent. I dispute your claim that sharing your home is 'living it yourself'.

Let me ask you this: would you support restricting movement of people based on race, for example would it be OK by you if no black people were allowed in London? (I am thinking of the apartheid system).
If you would object to apartheid, does th ...[text shortened]... that you let any black person who wants to enter your home come in? Do you live it personally?

I disagree that the two are equivalent. I dispute your claim that sharing your home is 'living it yourself'.

On what grounds; controlling a nation's border is expedient from both security and fiscal standpoints - same with your home.

Let me ask you this: would you support restricting movement of people based on race, for example would it be OK by you if no black people were allowed in London? (I am thinking of the apartheid system). If you would object to apartheid, does that mean that you let any black person who wants to enter your home come in? Do you live it personally?

This is not about race whatsoever. But to answer your question directly; anyone of any race, colour or creed can equally enter my house if they are invited - same principle with immigration.
The invitation criteria would be based on what relationship they are to me personally (equates to holding a passport perhaps) or whether they will bring some benefit to the home e.g. they are a paying tennant (equates to immigration based on qualification). Neither example considers race.

There is comparison to be made between these examples when considering claims that democratic immigration control is a violation of human rights.

Originally posted by divegeester
On what grounds; controlling a nation's border is expedient from both security and fiscal standpoints - same with your home.

And the sea is grey on a stormy day just like an elephant. That doesn't make them the same thing.

This is not about race whatsoever.
But it is about selectively controlling peoples movement in a discriminatory fashion based almost solely on who their parents were.

There is comparison to be made between these examples when considering claims that democratic immigration control is a violation of human rights.
You may make comparisons, but that does not make them equivalent. Agreeing to one does not make agreeing to the other a given. Equally, a comparison may be made when it comes to country borders and the apartheid system. Skin colour just makes it so much easier to identify who your parents were.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you stop at stop signs when you drive or you just do what you want when
you want?
Kelly

i only stop when i want to!!............okay i stop at the lights, whats that got to do with anything? are you suggesting traffic lights represent authority? you may have a point, maybe i should throw my watch in the bin, from now on i decide what time it is or maybe put my trash out on tuesday when its good for me screw the government telling me to put it out on monday b***ards!!!!

i think its important to keep a sense of perspective about the different levels of authority in our lives. also you follow a religion that demands you submit 100% to its authority (god's law) i have made no such commitment and am free to respect which ever authorities i choose and if somebody wants to enforce a law which i disagree with im free to say i disagree with it without having to check what somebody else thinks (god) first and then being forced with having to change my opinions to fit with his/hers/its.

id be interested to know where you stand on homosexuality, you seem to be of the opinion gay marriage is okay so does that mean you also think gay sex is okay? what about homosexual couples adopting?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i only stop when i want to!!............okay i stop at the lights, whats that got to do with anything? are you suggesting traffic lights represent authority? you may have a point, maybe i should throw my watch in the bin, from now on i decide what time it is or maybe put my trash out on tuesday when its good for me screw the government telling me to put ...[text shortened]... okay so does that mean you also think gay sex is okay? what about homosexual couples adopting?

You are free to disagree with any laws you choose as long as you obey them. Your freedom may not last too long, otherwise.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are free to disagree with any laws you choose as long as you obey them. Your freedom may not last too long, otherwise.

yes sir, officer hinds.

Originally posted by mikelom
It's interesting that everybody looks at this from the 'adult' point of view.
A large portion of same-sex marriages eventually adopt children.
What about those children's rights, and the suitability of 'ALL' same-sex marriages to become suitable, unbiased parents?

I am saying some same-sex parents, as they become (whether thru adoption or artificial ins ...[text shortened]... ted commas, again) in a same-sex marriage, psychologically speaking that is?

-m. 😉

I had that come up here where my kids friends mum wanted to have a mum and mum relationship/family to bring up the little girl in.
I am supportive of people's right to choose their own sexuality,etc. but I dont know if I'd be so out about it if I were in a society (like mine) where there are no other known mum and mum (or dad and dad) families to speak of. To be the only one out about it in public would be something that I would leave to some other same sex couple to initiate.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you stop at stop signs when you drive or you just do what you want when
you want?
Kelly

Thats common sense, not authority

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Thats common sense, not authority

It should also be considered common sense to obey authority. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
It should also be considered common sense to obey authority. 😏

depends on the authority and what the want you to do.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
depends on the authority and what the want you to do.

The authority wants you to stop sticking your penis where it does not belong.

Originally posted by jaywill
Solomon's 600 wives and 300 girfriends is just mentioned as what Solomon [b]did. It is not what the Law of God prescribed or taught.

In fact the warning against having a greedy king was that he would multiply wives - "You must set a king over you whom Jehovah your God will choose ... And he shall not amass wives to himself, so that his heart does ...[text shortened]... as having happened is not always what the Bible teaches in terms of how one ought to behave.

Good post.... And in fact he eventually was swayed to leave Jehovah and his worship to him.