Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Cancelled Membership

Texas Judge: Morality Clause Prohibits Lesbians From Cohabitating

Recommended Posts

According to Fox News, a Texas judge ruled that  two Texas lesbians cannot

live together because of a morality clause in one of the womens' divorce

papers. The clause is common in divorce cases in Texas and other states.

It prevents a divorced parent from having a romantic partner spend the night

while children are in the home.

 

If the two women "marry" they can get out from underneath it.

 

But...it is not an option since Texas does not recognize same-sex marriages.

 

By the way, using the term "gay" to describe homosexuality is, of course,

bad english. There is nothing gay about being "gay".

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

"Everybody wants to be the tough guy, but no one wants to pay the price."

 

Actor (and real life Reserve Sheriff's Deputy) Steven Seagal

Edited by Tech45ACP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The much larger issue here is that it appears that mom and dad are fighting and using whatever they can to get custody, prohibit visitation, as often happens in divorce.  I don't really care if the mother has married another woman.  That is her business now that she is legally divorced from her husband.  I think it is pathetic and sad that the husband is using this to get custody or try to prevent visitation between the children and their mother.  If the mother is not caring for the children or is physically abusive, different story.  But using a committed relationship against her is nothing but hurtful to all involved.

 

I suspect the father is dong this out of spite as i have often seen in divorce cases, and garbage like this hurts the children, and hurts the ability of mom and dad to make amends and be able to get along.

Edited by kindofblue1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The much larger issue here is that it appears that mom and dad are fighting and using whatever they can to get custody, prohibit visitation, as often happens in divorce.  I don't really care if the mother has married another woman.  That is her business now that she is legally divorced from her husband.  I think it is pathetic and sad that the husband is using this to get custody or try to prevent visitation between the children and their mother.  If the mother is not caring for the children or is physically abusive, different story.  But using a committed relationship against her is nothing but hurtful to all involved.

 

I suspect the father is dong this out of spite as i have often seen in divorce cases, and garbage like this hurts the children, and hurts the ability of mom and dad to make amends and be able to get along.

Wow. You don't care that the mother wants to take his child and bring him/her into an immoral and disgusting environment with her marrying another woman yet you have a problem with the dad who wants to stop it on the grounds of immoral behavior.

 

You see, that there is why America is finished. So much for the family structure that God ordained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The much larger issue here is that it appears that mom and dad are fighting and using whatever they can to get custody, prohibit visitation, as often happens in divorce.  I don't really care if the mother has married another woman.  That is her business now that she is legally divorced from her husband.  I think it is pathetic and sad that the husband is using this to get custody or try to prevent visitation between the children and their mother.  If the mother is not caring for the children or is physically abusive, different story.  But using a committed relationship against her is nothing but hurtful to all involved.

 

I suspect the father is dong this out of spite as i have often seen in divorce cases, and garbage like this hurts the children, and hurts the ability of mom and dad to make amends and be able to get along.

 

KindofBlue77 you seem to have some pretty liberal thinking that as long (as you see it) as no one's getting hurt, no harm, no foul.

But despite current culture there are the Laws of God, homosexuality is wrong, children exposed to it as normal is wrong. If the father is against the children being exposed to it because of morality he has every right to oppose his children going there just as much if it were another man she wasn't married to. How about mental/ emotional abuse? These children have lived with one mother and one father, divorce is hard enough on kids in EVERY aspect let alone trying to immediately accept a new lover! And a woman at that! You want to talk about screwing up a kids head for a long time... :thumbdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking from a Christian perspective, the judge ruled correctly and there should be more laws (as there once was) which are in place to stem the tide of evil.

 

However, in a secular nation that is increasingly unchristian or even anti-christian, such laws will eventually find themselves ruled to be unconstitutional. Virtually any discrimination against anyone due to their lifestyle, sexual preferences or any such things will be found to violate the equal protection clause.

 

The fruits of choosing secularism have been nipping at the heels of America for generations and now has the power to take real bites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That morality clause is a great thing, just think of the damage it can do to a young child living in the environment of its mother shacking up with a woman & or it father shacking up with a man. No child should have to endure such a thing.

 

​Of course some will say it has no harmful impact on the child, yet they must not care for God's way & understand how such a thing will influence a young child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. You don't care that the mother wants to take his child and bring him/her into an immoral and disgusting environment with her marrying another woman yet you have a problem with the dad who wants to stop it on the grounds of immoral behavior.

 

You see, that there is why America is finished. So much for the family structure that God ordained.

 

Well, the dad seemingly has sin issues with anger, revenge, spite, etc.  So I guess we should take his rights away as well.

 

This morning, I lost my patience and had to apologize to my wife.  I sinned.  So I guess someone should take my kids away from me.

 

Unless a child is being harmed, the best place for that child is with his or her parents.  If a parent is loving and supportive of that child, that is by far the best place.  

 

I see in this case a dad who has been injured by the divorce, and he is looking for any way he can to hurt the mother.  And what better way than to attack her relationship and take her children away.  

 

And I will add that cases such as this is one of the precise reasons that I fully support civil unions or the rights of gay people to get married.  Gay marriage is no threat to my marriage.  Selfishness, pride, laziness, greed, envy, etc. in my own life are threats to my marriage.

 

I have some good friends and clients who are lesbians.  They have two awesome sons, the same age as my kids.  One is the biological mother. They had the children by artifical insemination, and the non-biological mother wants desperately to adopt.  If the biological mother dies, her family will likely cause a stink to get custody of these children, even though the surviving mother will have been their mother for 6 years.  It is appalling to me that some want to take children away from someone on the basis that that person is gay.  I have drawn their documents so health care decisions, finances, etc. are all like they are married, but I can do nothing about the adoption until the laws change.  

Edited by kindofblue1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gay marriage may not be a threat to your marriage, but it does stand in direct disobedience to the clear commands of God. Which is more important, blue, God's commands or our preferences?

 

The OP is really more about a judge upholding a clause which is apparently common in divorce agreements. That's actually pretty cool - both the morality clause (not the divorce) and that the judge is actually upholding it. And kudos to Texas for their stand on ss-marriage!  I think this woman picked the wrong state to get divorced in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gay marriage may not be a threat to your marriage, but it does stand in direct disobedience to the clear commands of God. Which is more important, blue, God's commands or our preferences?

 

The OP is really more about a judge upholding a clause which is apparently common in divorce agreements. That's actually pretty cool - both the morality clause (not the divorce) and that the judge is actually upholding it. And kudos to Texas for their stand on ss-marriage!  I think this woman picked the wrong state to get divorced in.

 

This has to do with the children.  My problem is the father is trying to end custody and/or visitation with his ex-wife.  Being in a gay relationship does not harm the children. It simply doesn't.  Divorce does.  Divorce separates children from their parents, causing a great deal of pain.  And when parents fight and use the children as weapons against each other, that is even more harmful to the children.  The father here appears to be using the gay relationship as a weapon to get the children away from the mother and hurt the mother.

Children are not tools to be used to hurt people or get revenge.  What the father is doing (unless there is more to the case, but what I read indicates he was kind of an absentee father) is much more harmful to the children, than this mother's relationship.  

 

If my wife were to divorce me and then marry a woman, I would be extremely hurt.  But I would still want my daughters to have their mother.  I would do everything in my power to help them maintain a good relationship with her.  I would never use them to try to hurt her. 

Edited by kindofblue1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has to do with the children.  My problem is the father is trying to end custody and/or visitation with his ex-wife.  Being in a gay relationship does not harm the children. It simply doesn't.  Divorce does.  Divorce separates children from their parents, causing a great deal of pain.  And when parents fight and use the children as weapons against each other, that is even more harmful to the children.  The father here appears to be using the gay relationship as a weapon to get the children away from the mother and hurt the mother.

Children are not tools to be used to hurt people or get revenge.  What the father is doing (unless there is more to the case, but what I read indicates he was kind of an absentee father) is much more harmful to the children, than this mother's relationship.  

 

If my wife were to divorce me and then marry a woman, I would be extremely hurt.  But I would still want my daughters to have their mother.  I would do everything in my power to help them maintain a good relationship with her.  I would never use them to try to hurt her. 

You might want to do some research on this. Some rather recent research has proven the harm in children being raised by homosexuals.

 

The mother has put her selfish sexual perversions ahead of her children so there is more than enough fault to go around.

 

Studies have also proven children are most often best with their dad, even in cases where he's not the best of dads, whether it's in an intact marriage or singlely.

 

Divorce is horrible and when there are complications involved such as in this case, it only gets worse, especially for any children involved. Either way this case turns out, the children will suffer, but likely they will suffer more if they are raised in a homosexual relationship household.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the dad seemingly has sin issues with anger, revenge, spite, etc.  So I guess we should take his rights away as well.

 

This morning, I lost my patience and had to apologize to my wife.  I sinned.  So I guess someone should take my kids away from me.

 

Unless a child is being harmed, the best place for that child is with his or her parents.  If a parent is loving and supportive of that child, that is by far the best place.  

 

I see in this case a dad who has been injured by the divorce, and he is looking for any way he can to hurt the mother.  And what better way than to attack her relationship and take her children away.  

 

And I will add that cases such as this is one of the precise reasons that I fully support civil unions or the rights of gay people to get married.  Gay marriage is no threat to my marriage.  Selfishness, pride, laziness, greed, envy, etc. in my own life are threats to my marriage.

 

I have some good friends and clients who are lesbians.  They have two awesome sons, the same age as my kids.  One is the biological mother. They had the children by artifical insemination, and the non-biological mother wants desperately to adopt.  If the biological mother dies, her family will likely cause a stink to get custody of these children, even though the surviving mother will have been their mother for 6 years.  It is appalling to me that some want to take children away from someone on the basis that that person is gay.  I have drawn their documents so health care decisions, finances, etc. are all like they are married, but I can do nothing about the adoption until the laws change.  

Pablum puke! If you don't think a child isn't being harmed living in that kind of situation then you better check up on your Christianity. You seem to be leaving out God in this equation. You think two women shacked up together are going to encourage the child to live for God in a biblical way (emphasis on biblical) or that it will produce a conducive environment for the child to follow God?

 

Also, the father should be angry at the situation. Anger is warranted in many situations.

 

Homosexuality is an abominable sin in the eyes of God and he doesn't care how supportive the gay couple might be.

 

Proverbs 11:21- Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.

 

 

Again, you don't seem to have any care for the father and the mental and emotional abuse this is causing him. It's all about the rights of the mother or the gay couple and not the rights of the father or of God himself.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

However, in a secular nation that is increasingly unchristian or even anti-christian, such laws will eventually find themselves ruled to be unconstitutional. Virtually any discrimination against anyone due to their lifestyle, sexual preferences or any such things will be found to violate the equal protection clause.

 

 

When did America actually become a secular nation? I know there's no such thing as a Christian nation but America was founded upon the Judaeo-Christian ethic all the way back as far as the first Great Awakening. It seems now we have all just given in to this notion that we are suppose to be a godless secular nation and never question or resist it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pablum puke! If you don't think a child isn't being harmed living in that kind of situation then you better check up on your Christianity. You seem to be leaving out God in this equation. You think two women shacked up together are going to encourage the child to live for God in a biblical way (emphasis on biblical) or that it will produce a conducive environment for the child to follow God?

 

Also, the father should be angry at the situation. Anger is warranted in many situations.

 

Homosexuality is an abominable sin in the eyes of God and he doesn't care how supportive the gay couple might be.

 

Proverbs 11:21- Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.

 

 

Again, you don't seem to have any care for the father and the mental and emotional abuse this is causing him. It's all about the rights of the mother or the gay couple and not the rights of the father or of God himself.

 

So custody rights should boil down to the parent who will raise the child in accordance with the Bible?  That would displace probably over 50% of the children from their homes.  

 

Many have a problem with materialism, and are raising children as such.  Yet, no one would say that child should be taken from that home.  Many have a problem with pornography.  Yet as long as they keep it private, no one argues the child should be removed from that home.  Many are gluttons and yet we do not argue that those children should be removed from their home.  Many parents are lazy sloths, yet we do not try to remove the child from that home as long as the child is well cared for.

 

My gay friends are raising great kids.  I've seen it with my own eyes.  They want the same thing for their children that many of us want for ours.  We may differ on spiritual issues, but that is ok.  

 

The father has a right to be angry and hurt, sure.  But he is acting terribly by using the children as a weapon against the mother.  So should we put them in foster care since he is teaching the children to be spiteful and seek revenge on others for hurting us?

 

By the way, no gay person I know is raising their child to be gay.  My friends are raising their sons, and love it when their sons have a crush on a girl.  They will be supportive of whoever their sons are.  Another couple I know, that are older, just married off their daughter to a wonderful young man.  Gay people will tell you they did not choose to be gay, but have always been that way.  They do not expect their children to be any different.  If they are gay, that is who they are, if they are straight, then that is who they are.

 

Edit:  I'm sure many of you are wondering why I am here and am interested in Baptists.  I've said it before, but I grew up Baptist and went to a very conservative church.  As I grew I began to question many things being taught, and ultimately departed.  I still hold to the Christian faith and values, but have a very different interpretation of Scripture.  However, I am still interested in the point of view of Baptists and try hard to understand these points of view, though many times I may disagree.  So here I am.  :-)   Not trying to cause trouble or debate, just being honest in my thoughts and beliefs, which some may say I should have my children taken away because of these.  ;-)  joking.

Edited by kindofblue1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So custody rights should boil down to the parent who will raise the child in accordance with the Bible? 

Yes. I know this comes as a shock today but this should be consider at the most and at the least which home offers a better moral upbringing. Unfortunately good and evil have been switched these days.

 

Again, you keep blaming the father without any proof while you have no problem with the mother's filthy lifestyle. Maybe she's using all this as a weapon against him.

 

I find it ironic that you also were the person that defended Muslims and how they are A-OK people when over in their lands the sodomites would be put to the ax over this.

 

You motive for visiting this forums aren't very pure IMO. 

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I know this comes as a shock today but this should be consider at the most and at the least which home offers a better moral upbringing. Unfortunately good and evil have been switched these days.

 

Again, you keep blaming the father without any proof while you have no problem with the mother's filthy lifestyle. Maybe she's using all this as a weapon against him.

 

I find it ironic that you also were the person that defended Muslims and how they are A-OK people when over in their lands the sodomites would be put to the ax over this.

 

You motive for visiting this forums aren't very pure IMO. 

 

I just do not understand this.  If that is the standard as to who is fit to raise children, there would be millions more children in foster care...wait....foster parents must measure up as well, so millions of orphans.

 

Really, I defend the right of people to live their lives the way they see fit.  I have no right to tell someone else what they must believe or how they must live.  What I do have a right to do (and we all do) is to come along side of our fellow human and help them become better people.  We are to help the widow and the orphans. We are to serve our community.  We are to work to eliminate poverty and hunger.  We are to help this world become a better place. 

 

When it comes to spirituality, I am a follower of Christ.  But I have no reason to go out and convince someone of a different faith that I am right and they are wrong.  I can share what I believe and listen to what they believe and have a good dialogue.  I should not try to change their minds.  God can do that if he wishes.  

 

As far as motives, there is nothing impure.  I simply seek to learn about what other believe, challenge them in a positive way that is not argumentative, and evaluate it.  I can take away what is beneficial and leave behind what I disagree with.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You defend the rights of people to live life as they see fit, but you criticize the father for not wanting to have his children raised by lesbians - even if one of those is his former wife.  See, that's inconsistent, kob.  The father has a right to live his life the way he wants, and if he wants to keep his children away from an immoral home, that's his choice...

 

And, yes, homosexuality is immoral.  Because God says its an abomination.  We can know as many nice homosexuals as we want...it's still an abomination to God.  And as such, should be to us.  We can try to obfuscate by throwing in "other sins," but the fact remains that there are not a great number of sins God labels as abomination.  

 

The woman agreed to the clause forbidding her to have a sexual partner spend the night while children are home.  She needs to choose: her children or her sin. She cannot have both, according to Texas law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did America actually become a secular nation? I know there's no such thing as a Christian nation but America was founded upon the Judaeo-Christian ethic all the way back as far as the first Great Awakening. It seems now we have all just given in to this notion that we are suppose to be a godless secular nation and never question or resist it. 

The Founders specifically formed America as a secular nation. No doubt there was much Christian influence where laws and morality were concerned in early America, yet they also tapped into the enlightenment and other humanist ideas as well. The Founders were very careful to remove and change wording in the Constitution and Bill of Rights so as to make it clear America was a secular, not a Christian nation.

 

Due to the fact that most in America considered themselves to be Christian during most of the first couple hundred years of America and that most were taught from the Bible and believed in at least some of the Bible, Christianity (or aspects of or from Christianity) held much sway during that time. Once the Bible stopped being used as a primary teaching tool and more Americans began to adopt humanist ideologies, things started shifting away from Christian dominance to the secular way which was already written into the Constitution.

 

The Constitution and the other laws are written in such ways as to favor the expansion of secularism at the continued expense of Christianity. Given there are fewer and fewer real Christians as well as fewer and fewer worldly Christians who hold to biblical values it's likely that Christianity will continue to shrink in influence. At the same time, Mormons, Muslims and secular humanists are gaining ground, and with it influence. Joining with them in some areas are the worldly Christians who don't hold to biblical values. Not meaning to single out anyone for targeting (so please don't turn this into a thread about him) but KOB is a good example of a professing Christian who sometimes sides with the unchristian groups and ways.

 

Our duty, as Christians, is the same today as it ever has been. We should be living so others see Christ in us, we should be spreading the Gospel, making disciples, and being about the Father's business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You defend the rights of people to live life as they see fit, but you criticize the father for not wanting to have his children raised by lesbians - even if one of those is his former wife.  See, that's inconsistent, kob.  The father has a right to live his life the way he wants, and if he wants to keep his children away from an immoral home, that's his choice...

 

And, yes, homosexuality is immoral.  Because God says its an abomination.  We can know as many nice homosexuals as we want...it's still an abomination to God.  And as such, should be to us.  We can try to obfuscate by throwing in "other sins," but the fact remains that there are not a great number of sins God labels as abomination.  

 

The woman agreed to the clause forbidding her to have a sexual partner spend the night while children are home.  She needs to choose: her children or her sin. She cannot have both, according to Texas law.

 

I believe most lawyers will look at this different than most other people, its probably because of that very secular lawyer education.

 

We've got a church member that's married to a lawyer, & that lawyer thinks much like this one, & usually sides against God on moral issues such as divorces, abortion & homosexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Founders specifically formed America as a secular nation. No doubt there was much Christian influence where laws and morality were concerned in early America, yet they also tapped into the enlightenment and other humanist ideas as well. The Founders were very careful to remove and change wording in the Constitution and Bill of Rights so as to make it clear America was a secular, not a Christian nation.

 

 

John, where did the founders say that they specifically formed America to be a secular nation? Where in the Constitution does it say this. They formulated the Constitution not to favor one religion over another but that's not secularism.

 

Again, America's culture was not secular (i.e. godless and immoral) at it's beginning. I don't see why we have to believe that was what it was intended to be. Also, the Constitution did not establish American culture. It was a result of it. The Constitution/Bill of Rights just lays down certain rights for citizens and powers of the government but it doesn't establish culture. IMO, the Judaeo-Christian ethic was already established before the Constitution.

 

I  think we have swallow a lie hook, line and sinker. I'm trouble by how believers just lay down without any fight because they insist we are a secular nation. 

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, where did the founders say that they specifically formed America to be a secular nation? Where in the Constitution does it say this. They formulated the Constitution not to favor one religion over another but that's not secularism.

 

Again, America's culture was not secular (i.e. godless and immoral) at it's beginning. I don't see why we have to believe that was what it was intended to be. Also, the Constitution did not establish American culture. It was a result of it. The Constitution/Bill of Rights just lays down certain rights for citizens and powers of the government but it doesn't establish culture. IMO, the Judaeo-Christian ethic was already established before the Constitution.

 

I  think we have swallow a lie hook, line and sinker. I'm trouble by how believers just lay down without any fight because they insist we are a secular nation. 

If you read about the deliberations and rewritings that went on at that time you learn the Founders were careful to eliminate wording that seemed Christian and they specifically chose to establish a government and laws which was secular, not Christian. This is part of the reason they made all religions to have equal standing and protection rather than limiting such to Christianity.

 

The culture of the time was heavily influenced by Christianity and most folks considered themselves to be Christian, but only a tiny percentage were actually born again Christians. I don't recall the exact date, but sometime around the time of the Revolution less than a third of the population in the American colonies attended church.

 

As I've pointed out previously, Christian influence once dominated in America, but that wasn't because the country was established as such. It's little wonder that over the course of time Christian influence became less since most in America were worldly Christian, not biblical Christian. We see this even today with, depending upon the survey or poll, something like 70% of Americans call themselves Christians. Most of these "Christians" are made up of Catholics, Mormons, and those who are a part of the variety of worldly Christians filling many of the "Protestant" churches. Many worldly Christians have embraced aspects of liberalism, feminism, homosexual "rights", and such.

 

Today, as previously, the actual percentage of true Christians in America is small, their influence is limited, and worldly Christians have far more influence.

 

Due to all of this, the fact the American Constitution is secular, we now have non-Christians and worldly Christians using the law of the land to have their way. This is why, due to all religions being viewed as equal and due to equal protection, it's ruled that if the Gideons are allowed to put Bibles in a hotel, then Mormons must be allowed to put their book there, Muslims too, and even atheist material.

 

Laws based upon Scripture, which one can't get the public to support outside of that, have been and are being cast down because they favor one religion over another. That's the secular nature of the law of the land.

 

We are also faced with a nearly all-intrusive federal government that early America didn't have to contend with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You defend the rights of people to live life as they see fit, but you criticize the father for not wanting to have his children raised by lesbians - even if one of those is his former wife.  See, that's inconsistent, kob.  The father has a right to live his life the way he wants, and if he wants to keep his children away from an immoral home, that's his choice...

 

And, yes, homosexuality is immoral.  Because God says its an abomination.  We can know as many nice homosexuals as we want...it's still an abomination to God.  And as such, should be to us.  We can try to obfuscate by throwing in "other sins," but the fact remains that there are not a great number of sins God labels as abomination.  

 

The woman agreed to the clause forbidding her to have a sexual partner spend the night while children are home.  She needs to choose: her children or her sin. She cannot have both, according to Texas law.

 

I will modify my statement to make it more clear.  Others have a right to believe and live life as they see fit as long as it does not impose on the rights of others to do the same, and as long as it does not harm others.  

 

I strongly believe that children are best with their mother and father.  IN the event of divorce, I strongly believe it is best for mom and dad to share custody.   It is harmful to children for one parent to be absent.  Yes, divorce is harmful to them, but trying to eliminate custody or visitation is even more harmful, unless that parent is physically abusive, mean, unloving, and uncaring for the child.  

 

A gay couple can be loving, caring and supportive.  I believe that it is harmful for a child to be in a home where mom or dad brings in numerous sex partners.  However, that is not the situation here.  A woman has a stable, committed relationship with another person, and they would like to get married but cannot under the law.  If this were a casual partner, that is one thing. But here we have a committed relationship.  If the facts are different than that, then my thoughts will be different.  

 

I fail to see the harm in the mother sharing custody or having visitation with her children.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first wife left me, and like you, I thought, how important it was for them to have a good, constant relationship with their mother. So, mom has gotten into multiple partners, bondage, and other weird things, as well as a touch of recreational bisexuality.

 

So, she has pictures of both my daughters nude on her living room wall, while pregnant. HUGE pictures, not little 5x7's. One is a meth addict and has left her husband and kids, and spent time as a lesbian. The other has had one child out of wedlock, dumped that guy, (actually a good idea), and is now living with another guy for over a year, but 'isn't ready for marriage'. Both are tattooed and the addict is pierced, as well. All over. Now she's coming close-by to start her court-mandated rehab.

 

While they were lving with their mother, I was attending Bible institute, and preparing to become a pastor. I wonder if things might have been different had their primary influence been of my life, rather than their mother's?

 

With this, please pray for my daughter, Ariel, as she begins soon rehab. Pray I can have some positive influence on her. She has admnitted she doesn't want to quit-which in a way is good, that she is being honest about that-I have no delusions about her attitude, at least, and it will help me as I pray for her.

Edited by Ukulelemike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read about the deliberations and rewritings that went on at that time you learn the Founders were careful to eliminate wording that seemed Christian and they specifically chose to establish a government and laws which was secular, not Christian. This is part of the reason they made all religions to have equal standing and protection rather than limiting such to Christianity.

 

The culture of the time was heavily influenced by Christianity and most folks considered themselves to be Christian, but only a tiny percentage were actually born again Christians. I don't recall the exact date, but sometime around the time of the Revolution less than a third of the population in the American colonies attended church.

 

As I've pointed out previously, Christian influence once dominated in America, but that wasn't because the country was established as such. It's little wonder that over the course of time Christian influence became less since most in America were worldly Christian, not biblical Christian. We see this even today with, depending upon the survey or poll, something like 70% of Americans call themselves Christians. Most of these "Christians" are made up of Catholics, Mormons, and those who are a part of the variety of worldly Christians filling many of the "Protestant" churches. Many worldly Christians have embraced aspects of liberalism, feminism, homosexual "rights", and such.

 

Today, as previously, the actual percentage of true Christians in America is small, their influence is limited, and worldly Christians have far more influence.

 

Due to all of this, the fact the American Constitution is secular, we now have non-Christians and worldly Christians using the law of the land to have their way. This is why, due to all religions being viewed as equal and due to equal protection, it's ruled that if the Gideons are allowed to put Bibles in a hotel, then Mormons must be allowed to put their book there, Muslims too, and even atheist material.

 

Laws based upon Scripture, which one can't get the public to support outside of that, have been and are being cast down because they favor one religion over another. That's the secular nature of the law of the land.

 

We are also faced with a nearly all-intrusive federal government that early America didn't have to contend with.

Actually, the constitution is far from a purely secular document, because the very fundation of it, which are the rights of the people, absolutely relies upon the FACT of a divine God who has granted said rights to the people as a natural course. This makes it far from secular, as God must be its very foundation. Thus, all government is then resposible to this God to properly govern, because if it is not the central fact, if it is based secularly, then there are no rights, just privileges granted by the government, to be given or removed at will. So long as the government recognizes the reality of God and the rights He has granted, they are controlled in what they do-when they rejct that God, as we are seeing today, then rights are no longer solid, but in danger of being denied for any little excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...