My thoughts on just.. whatever.. regarding Christianity in this icky world

[junobet]

Asking a young man of age 15 -21 to obstain from sex is asking alot! Every guy here knows that an no woman here can fully comphrend it from a male's point of view!

Yet I know no young girls that age have that problem.... Heck, they easily said no to me many times!

Ok. Joking aside... I want to hear from some women because as far as Im concerned abstinence before marriage is the only answer.

[SIZE=13.5pt]As a woman and as somebody who has worked with girls aged 15-21, I can assure you they are no more angelic than boys are. Asking them to abstain from pre-marital sex is also asking a lot. Most girls will engage in pre-marital sex, and the less they know about it the more likely it is that an unwanted-pregnancy is the result. So alas, this comes as no surprise: http://www.livescience.com/5728-teen-birth-rates-higher-highly-religious-states.html[/SIZE]
​

Yet, i live in a pretty poor neighborhood. Gals are going to have a hard time getting out of here without being pregnet before 20 and guys are going to have a hard time not having 3 wives (biblically) before 22!

No job. No hope. No dad. No solid education. Nothing constructive to do. Jakked up on sugar, drugs and alcohol. Even if you escape all that, you are around those who aren't.

[SIZE=13.5pt]Yes, we’d all like the world to be solely filled with nice clean-living people who marry their high-school-sweetheart, get a bunch of kids, have enough income to allow one of the partners to be a full-time parent and live happily ever after in nice white-picket fence houses. But we’ve got to deal with the fact that the world we live in just isn’t like that. [/SIZE]

And our government gives more welfare bucks to those who have more children!

[SIZE=13.5pt]Please don’t take this personally, but I never quite got why it is that so many Christians in the US have a problem with welfare. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.5pt]So what would you rather? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]Look after the needs of the poor just like the first believers did (Acts 2:44-45)? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]Or let children go hungry, cold and unsupervised because their broken family single mother earns less than childcare would cost? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]Or else not have these children being born in the first place, because their mothers are so socially destitute that they see abortion as the only possible way?[/SIZE]

 

[River Jordan]

It seems to me that before the PILL women's sexuality was held in check by the lack of abortion. Today most all women have had sex outside of marriage by the time they reach 21. The god of sex is running wild and it has as it's place of sacrifice; the abortion clinics.

Got news for ya.....women have been aborting their babies for thousands of years.

 

[River Jordan]

Yes, we’d all like the world to be solely filled with nice clean-living people who marry their high-school-sweetheart, get a bunch of kids, have enough income to allow one of the partners to be a full-time parent and live happily ever after in nice white-picket fence houses. But we’ve got to deal with the fact that the world we live in just isn’t like that.

An important consideration too is that for most young people today it just isn't realistic to get married right out of high school. In today's economy you need a bachelor's degree and in many fields a master's degree, which means you'll be in school and in debt until your mid to late 20's. So this whole "just wait until you're married at age 18" thing is a relic of the past for most kids.

I never quite got why it is that so many Christians in the US have a problem with welfare.

The American conservative mindset is that a woman who has a baby out of wedlock has done something wrong and therefore needs to be punished rather than rewarded. Unfortunately, the babies end up getting caught up in all that, which only continues the cycle that led to the problem in the first place.

We've had enough time and tried enough things now to understand what does and doesn't work. We know abstinence-only education doesn't work, and we know comprehensive sex ed and access to contraception is by far the most effective means to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (and thereby abortions). But conservatives/fundamentalists don't want that because it allows for premarital sex. So I guess they'd rather live in their fantasy land where just telling kids to wait until they're married is good enough. But then conservative Christians have been on the wrong side of science issues so often before, what's one more?

 

[H. Richard]

Got news for ya.....women have been aborting their babies for thousands of years.

Yes they have but it was in secrete not openly as it is today.

 

[ScaliaFan]

[SIZE=13.5pt]Please don’t take this personally, but I never quite got why it is that so many Christians in the US have a problem with welfare. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.5pt]So what would you rather? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]Look after the needs of the poor just like the first believers did (Acts 2:44-45)? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]Or let children go hungry, cold and unsupervised because their broken family single mother earns less than childcare would cost? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]Or else not have these children being born in the first place, because their mothers are so socially destitute that they see abortion as the only possible way?[/SIZE]

the thing is, if women had MORALS against having sex b4 (without) marriage, there would be no need, to speak of , for welfare. And it is immoral for a woman to have a baby just to get a bigger welfare check. Maybe there aren't many who do that but there are a few.

I also get tired of some conservatives who act like receiving welfare is the unforgivable sin! I have heard comments on O'Reilly that make me think he absolutely HATES people dependent on gov. I know he probably doesnt but he SOUNDS like it w/ some of his odd comments... Some of these people act like people on welfare dont work... but you know.. it is a lot of work raising children.. and it is the most important job in the world. I wish TV commentators would talk more about irresponsible MEN who make these babies and then ditch the mothers.. .even act like its some kind of macho badge of honor to do that... go from one woman to the next... THAT is truly amoral and disgusting

 

[FHII]

the thing is, if women had MORALS against having sex b4 (without) marriage, there would be no need, to speak of , for welfare. And it is immoral for a woman to have a baby just to get a bigger welfare check. Maybe there aren't many who do that but there are a few.

I also get tired of some conservatives who act like receiving welfare is the unforgivable sin! I have heard comments on O'Reilly that make me think he absolutely HATES people dependent on gov. I know he probably doesnt but he SOUNDS like it w/ some of his odd comments... Some of these people act like people on welfare dont work... but you know.. it is a lot of work raising children.. and it is the most important job in the world. I wish TV commentators would talk more about irresponsible MEN who make these babies and then ditch the mothers.. .even act like its some kind of macho badge of honor to do that... go from one woman to the next... THAT is truly amoral and disgusting

Sciafan.....

You are one in a million, dude!

 

[junobet]

Yes they have but it was in secrete not openly as it is today.

[SIZE=13.5pt]1)[/SIZE] [SIZE=13.5pt]If abortions had been that secret, we would not know that they were already practised thousands of years ago. Here’s a little overview: [/SIZE]http://thoughtcatalog.com/daniel-hayes/2015/08/abortion-facts/

[SIZE=13.5pt]2)[/SIZE] [SIZE=13.5pt]That none of us wants abortions to happen goes without saying. But let’s face it: they will happen, whatever. So as a compassionate Christian what would you rather: that desperate women secretly go to quack-doctors or self-medicate with potentially deadly results not just for the fetus but also for themselves, or that they can seek out professional medical help that is also connected with counselling that might persuade them to get the baby? [/SIZE]
​

 

[junobet]

An important consideration too is that for most young people today it just isn't realistic to get married right out of high school. In today's economy you need a bachelor's degree and in many fields a master's degree, which means you'll be in school and in debt until your mid to late 20's. So this whole "just wait until you're married at age 18" thing is a relic of the past for most kids.


The American conservative mindset is that a woman who has a baby out of wedlock has done something wrong and therefore needs to be punished rather than rewarded. Unfortunately, the babies end up getting caught up in all that, which only continues the cycle that led to the problem in the first place.

We've had enough time and tried enough things now to understand what does and doesn't work. We know abstinence-only education doesn't work, and we know comprehensive sex ed and access to contraception is by far the most effective means to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (and thereby abortions). But conservatives/fundamentalists don't want that because it allows for premarital sex. So I guess they'd rather live in their fantasy land where just telling kids to wait until they're married is good enough. But then conservative Christians have been on the wrong side of science issues so often before, what's one more?

[SIZE=13.5pt]Well some conservative Christians’ anti-intellectual stance is extremely worrisome, too, especially when that anti-intellectual stance helps Exxon and Co. getting them to deny climate change. But what bugs me about their stance on social justice is not that it is on the wrong side of science, it is that it is on the wrong side of the Bible.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.5pt]I mean: While my hermeneutics lead me to different conclusions, I can get how somebody reading the Bible can get the idea that pre-marital sex is per se immoral. I can also get how one can get the idea that homosexuality is bad and how the Bible can make one feel entitled to apply different moral standards to men and women. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.5pt]But a thing I will never get is how any Christian can think that it’s ok with God to have disdain for the poor. The Bible - from the Old Testament to the New - just screams at us that God wants us to take care of the poor! It’s impossible to ignore that. And yet so many Christians in the US go and complain about the welfare state whilst happily serving the interests of global predator-capitalism, the war-mongering embodiment of Mammon? How did that happen?[/SIZE]
​

 

[H. Richard]

[SIZE=13.5pt]Well some conservative Christians’ anti-intellectual stance is extremely worrisome, too, especially when that anti-intellectual stance helps Exxon and Co. getting them to deny climate change. But what bugs me about their stance on social justice is not that it is on the wrong side of science, it is that it is on the wrong side of the Bible.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.5pt]I mean: While my hermeneutics lead me to different conclusions, I can get how somebody reading the Bible can get the idea that pre-marital sex is per se immoral. I can also get how one can get the idea that homosexuality is bad and how the Bible can make one feel entitled to apply different moral standards to men and women. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.5pt]But a thing I will never get is how any Christian can think that it’s ok with God to have disdain for the poor. The Bible - from the Old Testament to the New - just screams at us that God wants us to take care of the poor! It’s impossible to ignore that. And yet so many Christians in the US go and complain about the welfare state whilst happily serving the interests of global predator-capitalism, the war-mongering embodiment of Mammon? How did that happen?[/SIZE]
​

So if a person is not proclaiming good works they have a "distain for the poor." How do you came up with that conclusion?

In the days of Jesus most all people worked at something if they were not totally disabled. But that is not true today. There are so many that make their living out of being poor and are doing it at the cost to those that are working.

In a Sunday School class we tried to help the poor but it didn't work out. We were gathering food items and giving them to a woman that had three children. Her social worker told us not to do it because she was taking the money the state gave her and buying drugs since she did not have to buy the food items. We decided that if we wanted to do something it most likely would have the wrong outcome so we must wait to be led by the Spirit. Perhaps the best work is to help our neighbors when the need is indicated.

 

[junobet]

So if a person is not proclaiming good works they have a "distain for the poor." How do you came up with that conclusion?

In the days of Jesus most all people worked at something if they were not totally disabled. But that is not true today. There are so many that make their living out of being poor and are doing it at the cost to those that are working.

In a Sunday School class we tried to help the poor but it didn't work out. We were gathering food items and giving them to a woman that had three children. Her social worker told us not to do it because she was taking the money the state gave her and buying drugs since she did not have to buy the food items. We decided that if we wanted to do something it most likely would have the wrong outcome so we must wait to be led by the Spirit. Perhaps the best work is to help our neighbors when the need is indicated.

[SIZE=medium]Yes, I’ve noticed by now that you think saying “Lord, Lord” is enough, and there is no need to actually also do what the Lord wants. And thus any suggestion that Christians may be called to do something to make the world a better place sets you off on a rant. However, read back and you’ll see how I came to the conclusion that some Christians have disdain for the poor.[/SIZE]

In the days of Jesus most all people worked at something if they were not totally disabled. But that is not true today. There are so many that make their living out of being poor and are doing it at the cost to those that are working.

[SIZE=medium] Well, the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard strongly suggests that unemployment wasn’t unheard of in Jesus’ day, don’t you think?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]That said: the frequent insinuation that the poor are just lazy is absolutely outrageous! How self-righteous and willfully blind does one have to be, to not see that the world is full of people who work from dawn till dusk and who still don't make enough money to sustain themselves. You don’t even have to look as far as Bangladesh for that. [/SIZE]

​

In a Sunday School class we tried to help the poor but it didn't work out. We were gathering food items and giving them to a woman that had three children. Her social worker told us not to do it because she was taking the money the state gave her and buying drugs since she did not have to buy the food items. We decided that if we wanted to do something it most likely would have the wrong outcome so we must wait to be led by the Spirit. Perhaps the best work is to help our neighbors when the need is indicated.

Must have been a weird social worker: Every drug addict I know would always buy drugs before food. Sadly, that’s what addiction does to people. But, yes, there are more effective ways of helping drug addicts than what a Sunday school class could accomplish. The question is why so many Conservative Christians in the US support policies that would have most social workers sacked and have all programs they run closed down, for the sake of granting lower taxes to people who already have more money than they could possibly spend in a lifetime, luxurious stays in the Betty Ford Clinic included.

 

[ScaliaFan]

So if a person is not proclaiming good works they have a "distain for the poor." How do you came up with that conclusion?

In the days of Jesus most all people worked at something if they were not totally disabled. But that is not true today. There are so many that make their living out of being poor and are doing it at the cost to those that are working.

In a Sunday School class we tried to help the poor but it didn't work out. We were gathering food items and giving them to a woman that had three children. Her social worker told us not to do it because she was taking the money the state gave her and buying drugs since she did not have to buy the food items. We decided that if we wanted to do something it most likely would have the wrong outcome so we must wait to be led by the Spirit. Perhaps the best work is to help our neighbors when the need is indicated.

the poor are in need of far more than food or $$. In fact, w/ the way the system is, there is virtually no need for that (physical.. monetary) kind of assistance. I believe it isthe CAUSE of poverty that needs to be addressed, not poverty itself. The causes are many, i suppose but one big one is disintegration of the family. Many poor people, homeless... etc.. are where they are due to hideous family circumstances. I knew this one homeless person once who, as a child saw her father murder her mother. Obviously this person had ptsd and had a hard time functioning in society. I never got to know more about her story but since i have had many traumas in life myself, i know (also have studied these effects on my psyche).. i know how dysfunctional a person can be when life is abnormal... etc... Often victims of child abuse get involved with sick people... it's all they know... and so their ptsd just gets worse and worse...

 

[FHII]

Please don’t take this personally, but I never quite got why it is that so many Christians in the US have a problem with welfare.

So what would you rather?
Look after the needs of the poor just like the first believers did (Acts 2:44-45)?
Or let children go hungry, cold and unsupervised because their broken family single mother earns less than childcare would cost?
Or else not have these children being born in the first place, because their mothers are so socially destitute that they see abortion as the only possible way?

Well, first of all, Acts 2:44 has nothing to do with the question. It wasn't noted as a welfare situation.

Second, I am not against welfare or social programs. Plenty of verses support it. I will be happy to list them, but I will also note that a man who doesn't provide for his house denies the faith and is worse than an infidel.

That being said, the reason I brought it up is because having babies in some areas is looked on as a "pay raise". Folks even borrow children when they know a welfare official is coming.

So yea.... I have a problem with that. I have a problem with generational welfare too. Not so much as a problem with folks not knowing how to get out, but none of them seeking to get out.

In short, welfare shouldn't be a career.

 

[junobet]

Well, first of all, Acts 2:44 has nothing to do with the question. It wasn't noted as a welfare situation.

Second, I am not against welfare or social programs. Plenty of verses support it. I will be happy to list them, but I will also note that a man who doesn't provide for his house denies the faith and is worse than an infidel.

That being said, the reason I brought it up is because having babies in some areas is looked on as a "pay raise". Folks even borrow children when they know a welfare official is coming.

So yea.... I have a problem with that. I have a problem with generational welfare too. Not so much as a problem with folks not knowing how to get out, but none of them seeking to get out.

In short, welfare shouldn't be a career.

[SIZE=medium]So you can look into people’s hearts?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]No idea how royal child benefits are in the US, but over here you’re lucky when they cover the cost for diapers. For the sake of experience, I once tried to live on what people on benefits have to live on for a while, and I can assure you it wasn’t an enviable life-style.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]However, what is your solution to the problem you perceive? You can’t realistically expect that the irresponsible neighbours you dislike so much will stop having sex. I take it that free contraception, let alone abortion, isn’t on your menu. Forced sterilization? No? What then?[/SIZE]

 

[FHII]

So you can look into people’s hearts?
No idea how royal child benefits are in the US, but over here you’re lucky when they cover the cost for diapers. For the sake of experience, I once tried to live on what people on benefits have to live on for a while, and I can assure you it wasn’t an enviable life-style.
However, what is your solution to the problem you perceive? You can’t realistically expect that the irresponsible neighbours you dislike so much will stop having sex. I take it that free contraception, let alone abortion, isn’t on your menu. Forced sterilization? No? What then?

I have no idea what a royal child is, or where "over here" is. I don't have children so I don't even know how much diapers cost.

I don't have to try to live on such or such salarly.... While I haven't been on welfare i have been on unemployment.

I never said i have a solution to the problem. Though my neighbors may be irresponsible, i don't disslike them. The whole point was that I understand them. Heck, I am in this neighborood so I am one of them.

Contraception isnt free around here. Maybe "over there" it is...

As for abortion.... Im on the fence. Don't like it, but never really took a stance. My rant was just reality.

Normally this is the portion where i say, "thanks for your opinion, but no thanks.....

 

[junobet]

I have no idea what a royal child is, or where "over here" is. I don't have children so I don't even know how much diapers cost.

I don't have to try to live on such or such salarly.... While I haven't been on welfare i have been on unemployment.

I never said i have a solution to the problem. Though my neighbors may be irresponsible, i don't disslike them. The whole point was that I understand them. Heck, I am in this neighborood so I am one of them.

Contraception isnt free around here. Maybe "over there" it is...

As for abortion.... Im on the fence. Don't like it, but never really took a stance. My rant was just reality.

Normally this is the portion where i say, "thanks for your opinion, but no thanks.....

I know, I can get very passionate about these issues. So I’m sorry if I offended you.
,​

 

[FHII]

I know, I can get very passionate about these issues. So I’m sorry if I offended you.
,​

Its alright. I get passionate as well.

 

[River Jordan]

[SIZE=13.5pt]Well some conservative Christians’ anti-intellectual stance is extremely worrisome, too, especially when that anti-intellectual stance helps Exxon and Co. getting them to deny climate change. But what bugs me about their stance on social justice is not that it is on the wrong side of science, it is that it is on the wrong side of the Bible.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.5pt]I mean: While my hermeneutics lead me to different conclusions, I can get how somebody reading the Bible can get the idea that pre-marital sex is per se immoral. I can also get how one can get the idea that homosexuality is bad and how the Bible can make one feel entitled to apply different moral standards to men and women. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.5pt]But a thing I will never get is how any Christian can think that it’s ok with God to have disdain for the poor. The Bible - from the Old Testament to the New - just screams at us that God wants us to take care of the poor! It’s impossible to ignore that. And yet so many Christians in the US go and complain about the welfare state whilst happily serving the interests of global predator-capitalism, the war-mongering embodiment of Mammon? How did that happen?[/SIZE]
​

IMO it's the result of the marriage between conservative Christianity and the Republican party. The Republican party for the last few decades has been an alliance between the corporate, wealthy elite and religious conservatives, and one result of that alliance has been those corporate folks convincing religious conservatives that it's in their best interest to cut and deny social services to the poor. It's obvious why the wealthy favor such policies, but why so many non-wealthy Christians have bought into that, I can't really say. The only thing I can figure is it's a combination of loyalty to the party and a moral sense that is limited to punishment-reward.

 

[FHII]

Well, let me break it down for you. The democratic party is about communism and socialism. The rebublican party is about freedom of trade and liberty.

Oh sure. It goes deeper than that. Peter actually instigated a communist chutch. And it worked well on a small scale. Oh wait... It didn't. Oh well.


Look. I'm done playing around. If you base Christianity on tbe issue of abortion alone you are an idiot. And there are a few folks here that will say they don't, but they do. There are people here that hate abortion so much that theh will claim that anyone who disagrees with them is going to hell.

Tick.


Tock.

 

[junobet]

Well, let me break it down for you. The democratic party is about communism and socialism. The rebublican party is about freedom of trade and liberty.

Oh sure. It goes deeper than that. Peter actually instigated a communist chutch. And it worked well on a small scale. Oh wait... It didn't. Oh well.

.

If you think the Democratic party is about communism and socialism, you’ve never met a communist or socialist. Have a look at who's funding them and you'll see that Democrats are as much in bed with Capitalism as their Republican counterparts. (To appear slightly saner is no feat when you compete with Donald. ;-) )
Now, my Granddad was a proper socialist, and even he was at odds with the GDR and its Stasi, the modern equivalent of which is the NSA. So much for liberty.
Given my mother’s family history it is of course possible that she infiltrated my brain with nasty socialist ideas when reading my children’s Bible with me, but I doubt it. And had you asked little me at age 4 - when I hadn’t got the slightest idea about politics - what Jesus would have thought about “redistribution of wealth”, I would have said that of course Jesus wants us to share. That’s what the story with the bread and the fish is all about, isn’t it?
Contrary to what you think this sentiment was never fully dead in the church, even in its darkest times when it got entangled with worldly power and wealth. Conservative Christians in the US seem to be fine with the fact that - thanks to 'free trade' - people die of starvation while 1 % of the world’s population own half of the world’s wealth and the poorest half of the world’s Population owns just 1%. But most Christians in Europe, South America and elsewhere certainly are not. They want the fish to be shared.

 

[River Jordan]

Well, let me break it down for you. The democratic party is about communism and socialism.

They are? Can you be more specific, as in naming a specific policy item they advocate that falls under the category of communism?