Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

no name joe

Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


no name joe last won the day on July 22 2011

no name joe had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:

Recent Profile Visitors

8,317 profile views

no name joe's Achievements

  1. I'm truly confused by this statement. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government. The US has never had such. We elect a President and members of Congress. When the term is over or when they are elected out of office, they exit peacefully and the new elected official. How do you think a coup has taken place? I understand that the wealthy control things. It is the wealthy donors who fund campaigns. I know wealthy hire lobbyists to write and change laws. That has always been the case. Yes there are some ills in our system, but nothing like other countries, especially in developing countries. I'm really scratching my head here.
  2. You would be right pre-Civil War. However, after the Civil War the 14th Amendment was adopted: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." No state may make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US. Under the 14th Amendment, a State may not pass a law that violates the federal constitutional rights of a citizen of the US. This means that the Bill of Rights now extends to the states as well. A state cannot pass a law that violates a citizens rights under the Bill of Rights. Post Civil War, the states had to abide by the Bill of Rights as well.
  3. But a State cannot violate the constitutional rights of its citizens. A state cannot pass a law making it illegal to go to church. Or marry someone from a different race. Or fine people for exercising free speech. If that were the case, the Bill of Rights would be useless. I'm not saying it same sex marriage is a constitutional right. But if the Supreme Court of the US says it is, it is the law of the land. States cannot reject that. Just like states could not lawfully segregate their schools when the US Supreme Court found doing so was unconstitutional. Just like states cannot restrict abortions before the first trimester. That is why overturning Roe v. Wade is so important. How the Supreme Court interprets that constitution is the law of the land.
  4. There won't be a "last." The US Supreme Court will declare bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, so all states will have to recognize the marriages.
  5. I understand what you are saying, and agree to a large extent. However, I do not see a particular hairstyle as either Biblical or unbiblical. Hair is something that can grow out, or be cut. It is not permanent. Hairstyles go in and out of style and change over time. What is in style for a child today will not be in style 5 years from now. What I work on with my children is not their outward appearance, but their heart. I work with them to love God with all of their heart, soul and mind and to love their neighbor as their self. I teach them to have love, joy, peace patience, etc. Harping on what type of hairstyle one can and cannot have seems to me to be making rules that are simply not there. It seems to me that it adds to Scripture that which is not there, as I read it.
  6. I don't think any hairstyle is a "sin." Kids like to do unique things at times, and he will grow out of it. It looks ridiculous, in my opinion, but if they want a mohawk, it doesn't bother me. Kids like to experiment. I tried some crazy things when I was a kid. I had a "Skater's cut" which I hated, then I grew it out into a pony tail, which I liked at the time, then I got a buzz cut. I then bleached it blonde. It is all a phase. The great thing about being a kid is that they can do things and no one thinks twice about it. Hair is temporary. You can do things to it and it will grow out and can be changed. Unlike tattoos that are permanent. So for a kid, my rule is that if it isn't permanent, and if it causes no harm or potential harm, why not let them do it? They are learning and experimenting.. My 4 year old cut her long, beautiful hair because she wanted it shorter. I did not like that. But we took her to a hair stylist, who made it look good, and told her that if she wants to do something to her hair, let us know and we will take her to the hairstylist. She then grew bangs. Now she is growing all of her hair out long again. A friend of mine put dreadlocks in her 4 year old's hair because he asked for it. And they turned out adorable. He is now 6 and has chopped them off and has a short hair cut. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
  7. I'm just saying, pedophilia and homosexuality are two entirely different things. Just because a person is one does not make him the other. To compare the two is not right, and is quite offensive. One is legal, one is illegal. One is between two consenting adults, one is between one adult with power of a young person. Two entirely different things. I do not see how the two can be compared.
  8. Homosexual is being sexually attracted to the same gender. Pedophilia is an adult being sexually attracted to and preying upon children. The two things cannot be compared.
  9. The US Constitution requires one to be a "natural born citizen." It does not say "a citizen born on US soil." A natural born citizen means one who is a US citizen by virtue of his or her birth. A person born to someone who is a US citizen, is a US citizen by virtue of his or her birth, it does not matter where the birth took place. The Constitution does not require one to be born on US soil or within the borders of the United States. It is simply not there. A naturalized citizen is one who is not a US citizen when he or she is born, but becomes a citizen under the immigration laws. A natural born citizen is one who obtains US citizenship by virtue of their birth. Under what authority do you say one has to be born on US soil? This has perplexed me since this controversy was first stirred up.
  10. First, he was born in Hawaii. That fact is documented. He produced the document, and even it is questioned. Second, even if he was born in Kenya, his mother is a US citizen, unquestionably, making him a U.S. Citizen and eligible to be President. The Constitution is followed. Nowhere does it demand that you be born on US soil. You must be a natural born citizen. Obama was born to a mother who was a US citizen, making him clearly a natural born citizen.
  11. Their only agenda is to protect their family, something I am sure you would do as well if your family were under assault. And yes, I believe strongly that these children are right where they need to be. Do you propose we rip these children away from their parents? Parents who provide well for them physically and emotionally? One of which gave birth to the children? The only parents these children have ever know. Yeah...that is a Christian attitude. If the law required a sinless life to raise children, I guess none of us would be fit parents, now would we.
  12. They are actually paying me to make good arrangments for their children after they die. If they both die, the children will go live with another couple (who happen to be heterosexual and married). If one dies, the other will continue to raise them. They have no sick agenda. They are two people who have made a commitment to one another to share their lives together and raise their children together. What we are protecting against is a rogue family member trying to take their children away from them just because this family member may not agree with their sexual orientation. I fully support their right, and my only regret really is that they cannot adopt the children together. And yes, they are absolutely looking out for their children first. They love their children the same way I love my children. Their life does not look much different from my life. They go to work to provide for their children, they work hard caring for their children, they go to dinner together, have fun on the weekends, take their children to parks, the zoo, go visit grandma and grandpa, etc. They want nothing other than to protect their family. So we are setting up wills, making sure there is life insurance in place to provide for the children if one or both of them die, etc. No different from any other family, except that the law does not recognize their life long commitment.
  13. Whether you like it or not, there are "families" that do not look like the "traditional" family. My clients and friends are one of many, many examples. My daughter's friend at preschool is another example. I raise a very, very legitimate question. You will encounter same sex couples, who are in monogomous relationships that have children. People in these type family situations are a reality of life, like it or not. So the question of how we as Christians relate to these people is very important, as Chirst loves them like he love you and me. So do you propose that in that situation it is right to tell the couple to split? If so, who gets the children? Who has the legal rights to the children? Even though not legally married, they will have assets owned jointly, joint bank accounts. Who has rights to raise the children? How are they to divide property? As a Christian, should I tell them to split up, or stay together for the children? I have come down on the side to stay together and raise the children they decided to have together. Religious marraige, and marriage for legal purposes, though often combined, are two very different things. I am not saying churches should marry same sex couples in a religious ceremony. I am saying that same sex couples are a part of our life. They have legal issues. A secular recognition of that, whether you call it marriage or civil union, in my mind, is important to deal with these issues from a legal standpoint. But even moreso, from a religious standpoint, I cannot for the life of me see how God would want a gay couple who has children who know them both as mommy would want them to separate. God hates division of families and divorce, after all. If a mother and father have a child, and are not married, many Christians would tell them to get married and raise the child, rightfully so. Why should it be different for a gay couple who have children? I am not even speaking of the morality of same sex relationships. I am just speaking in the interest of children and dealing with legal issues that come up. But I am interested when you have two moral issues in conflict, like we have here. Perhaps the best answer for a same sex couple with chilren who come to Christ is to say live together as a couple, raise the child, but abstain from sex. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
  14. So I have an honest questions for you all. I am helping a lesbian couple with their estate plan, and am having some difficulty because they are not "married" per se. For all intents and purposes they are. They have are in a long term, monogamous reltionship, and they have two beautiful children, and would marry if the law would allow it. Unfortunately, it will not, and that makes planning their estate rather difficult for various reasons. Anyway, so to my question, we all know or will know same sex couples, and will know same sex couples with children. My daughter goes to school with a girl who has two moms. My clients are a committed couple with two children. So, From a Biblical perspective, what would you say a couple in this situation should do? Should they "divorce" and seaprate? That is wrong, in my mind because they have chilren who know and love them both as parents. In my mind it is right for them to stay together to raise the children they decided to have. It would be wrong to tear this family apart.
  • Create New...