Saturday, November 12, 2016

Liberals Still Asking, "What Happened"? Pastor Marlin Reid Answers.

After listening to the pundits give their spin on why Hillary Clinton and the Democrats lost the 2016 Presidential election I was enamored with a recent Facebook assessment by my friend and fellow pastor from Detroit, Pastor Marlin Reid of New Wine Glory ~ The River Church.

Unlike pundits who contend that the election was a "whitelash" which is the DUMBEST assessment of a serious issue I've ever heard, or that it was the POOR AND UNEDUCATED WHITE-TRASH and racists (which are additional dumbfounded assessments) that put Trump in, Pastor Reid breaks it down giving a TRUE assessment of the real issues that voters across our nation felt as they visited the polls during the recent Presidential election.

In short, the Liberal strategy to rely upon the courts and a sidestep of the will of the people and eject objective moral values, in particularly Christian values upon which our society has long had a history and foundation, failed. At this point, I'll simply allow Pastor Reid to speak because I believe he says it much better and more concisely than I can:

"Everybody is asking What happened! How did this happen!
Simple, the LBGTQ & the Liberal Left overplayed their hand.
They shouted and danced when the Federal Gov. overruled The will of the people and ratified same sex marriage 
Then they praised Bruce Jenner and the mutilation of his body to look like a woman - they even made him woman of the year ! (what a insult to women everywhere)
Then they pushed genderless Bathrooms and it failed to pass.
They tried to pressure a whole state to bend by threatening to pull the All star game and millions of dollars from them.
They constantly push images of weak men and powerful women beating up men & dominating them in all almost every TV show.
They pushed homosexuals in all media as the best & brightest.
They pushed images in the media of Christians as stupid, hypocrites or delusional fools & the church as being a joke.
They tried to brainwash America into the nonsense of political correctness and turn the country Into a bunch of nice talking 2 faced liars.
And America set Back and let them entertain & talk all their liberal junk on every venue of media -music,movies, talk shows (like the View) etc..
Their supposedly "smarter than us" entertainers tried to tell us how to think and what to believe.
They told us we were not a Christian nation any more.. never was
They put everybody else ahead of Americans
They thought America bought into it all!! hook,line & sinker
They thought America was finally ready to be totally sodomized and shifted to their new world order consciousness.
But when it came time to vote!!
The American people said enough .. ! no more !
We Will not give you the power to control the Supreme Court or seats in congress to rewrite the moral compass of this nation.

It's quite simple ..they are totally out of touch with the heart of the common person in this country and they overplayed their hand.

That's all" ~ Pastor Marlin Reid, New Wine Glory ~ The River Southfield, MI 
Thank you Pastor Reid and to that I say a hearty AMEN!!!!

Blessed. 

23 comments:

  1. Howdy again Harvey.I happen to be thinking of the election in the USA, and of you.Wondering what you would be thinking about the situation at hand

    You said

    "But when it came time to vote!!
    The American people said enough .. ! no more !"

    Yeah,and so they chose to vote in someone whom was almost about as brash and as uncouth as anyone can possibly be :)

    Someone even openly sexist.Someone whom more or less publicly stated that he himself at times had already been actively involved in the sexual violation of women's body,doind so without their consent.Someone who like to boast about doing these kind of things.Someone whom pretty much say he isnt even a "practicing" Christian anyway.Someone whom is more or less also even quite happy to publicly state how he never feel that he ever had any need to bother to "ask Jesus" for forgiveness

    To top that all off. This fellow is already starting to show his true color .By " mighty quickly turning tail and is now already vocally backpedaling" on his election campaign promises he made

    To top that, the pope is also worried and is already busily issuing vocal warning.

    Its interesting to me (as a non American)to see how American Christian folk in America are seeing this as being some kind of fix that might be able to help further entrench Christianity into American culture

    I feel i see it another way.I see this (in the long term) as actually working out as being a bit of a real choice bonus for atheists in America. Because im picking that this situation might actually help to "fast-forward" the acceptance of atheists and the acceptance of gay folk

    In fact, i would even hazard to guess that this might be one thing that leads the Pope to feel greatly worried about the situation that has unfolded

    ReplyDelete
  2. That was the best message I've seen regarding the Election. You nailed it brother!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. What's up Gandy? Man I haven't heard from you in ages. Great to see you're still thinking of me and came back here to see some "objective" Christian insights-LOL (I know you're saying there is no such thing as that, but that's why I love you being you-LOL)

    Believe me, I understand and agree with most of what you have said. Trump is certainly not a Christian (or at least in any sense that I am familiar with)however, the "reshaping" of American values and the way our values are contrived was in part what this election was about.

    The shaping of values in America is more complex than, people agreeing and might making right...It has been my experience that we have high and strong considerations for religion and in some cases even more so without the endorsement of any particular denomination. So our laws, though secular, are not solely based on secularism or the secular application of dogma. They are certainly not religious, but they do not stand solely on the foundation of secularism.

    There is truth, right and good that are tied up in law. Some laws are anything but that I will admit, but those are the considerations that representative government brings to the formulation of American law as I see and understand it. Some elected legislators bring their values, which in many cases are rooted in biblical principles, to the table and fashion laws under that consideration.

    Now, under President Obama, and the desire of a proposed Clinton Presidency was more of what I would call an in-line secularism, with religious considerations simply being another part of the pot of issues.

    How do I know this? The footnotes of George Soros. This is his view in particularly. This is his understanding of the relationship with religion and social values and moral ethics he champions his world social values re-engineering plan. Obama and the Democratic party are inline with this agenda.

    The Christian standing up for his right to not embrace the "sin" of homosexuality is not rejection of the homosexual, no more than one could reject a bigamist, polygamist or one caught up in a non-sexual sin such as alcoholism or even atheism. Persons engaged in those ideological beliefs (or lack thereof) are not "rejected". You value proposition is, but you as a person is not.

    Then to equate their choice of sexual behavior with skin color and the resultant attitudes of racism because of it is further insult.

    A person's choice of sin is not equivalent, not the same fight as for the color of my skin!

    So far as the Pope...he has many more problems with his views and positions as I see it...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Haaa , "objective" .Oh dont u get me started now.. "Objective" ? moral.Yeah right.Pffft .Still need to "using a human mind" (every single time) to try to decide what one might consider to be moral. Besides, every single relgious group (Christian.Islam,etc is all claiming that it is infact their set of moral which is the only "objective" one

    Haaaa . Never a totally dull moment in life though huh.Who really even need? a TV comedy show .Hee hee

    Well time will tell how things move for America after this election.

    One thing i think we can pretty much bank on.Is that the gay folk worldwide are likely going to have their groups support "fast tracked".If gay folk in the USA do start getting delivered a rough time.No doubt it will hit the news media everywhere.The reaction could build and soon become kind of akin to what it were like when the world were busy watching clips of Hitlers Nazi party policy.

    Not exactly the same.Never the less, mark my word (here on your blog) i hazard to guess that this might end up becoming the very best thing that could have ever happened for the gay folks struggled against this constant oppression that they face

    Whats more. I can see how this could also have a flow on effect. To help assist atheists too



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gandy,

      You said: "Still need to "using a human mind" (every single time) to try to decide what one might consider to be moral"

      Aahh, what else would you use...a cat mind?-LOL

      That is part of it Gandy. We use our minds BECAUSE we have been illuminated to it, by God being "made in HIS image". That does not guarantee that the decisions will be right, but that we have a decision in it. Now, under materialism, and I am not sure if I remember which class of materialist you are of, but under some constructs, all choices, including morals are no more than a preconditioned biological response to stimulii.

      And the truth or right is NOT just what we "agree" to as humans. Someone along with 20 friends, comes into your home and beats you silly. He and his friends agree to it right? They see no problem with it. Does their agreement make it right? ABSOLUTELY not!!!

      So there are OBJECTIVE values with or without mass agreement. Another example: A 3 year old, playing in his sandbox is beaten and killed by a murder. Is there any doubt about whether that was wrong? Irrationality makes arguments to the contrary.

      If there is objective wrong, as I pointed out and I am SURE you agree, there is objective right as well. Now, how you come to know that is another story. In that we are dealing with moral epistemology rather than moral ontology. So we can move past that one to the greater points that you are making...

      Delete
    2. "That is part of it Gandy. We use our minds BECAUSE we have been illuminated to it, by God being "made in HIS image"."

      Prove this "totally objectively" . Or otherwise you ,just like everyone else is are asking me to believe something of which you have no evidence outside of what you may personally decide you like to to believe

      "That does not guarantee that the decisions will be right, but that we have a decision in it."

      Exactly. I couldn't have said it any better myself.There is no guarantee that anyone decision will be right

      So why? do Christian folk try "pretending" there is

      "Now, under materialism, and I am not sure if I remember which class of materialist you are of, but under some constructs, all choices, including morals are no more than a preconditioned biological response to stimulii. "

      Well with religion. The stimuli ,is religious.

      I suggest to you that moral can been seen to have evolved.Even the bible itself is a written historic record of this phenomena in motion

      "Does their agreement make it right? ABSOLUTELY not!!!"

      No because common sense trumps foolishness.If these idiot thugs were to stop and think about it, they would need to admit that they do honestly have true feeling of love for people close to themselves. Therefore these thugs are possibly putting themselves in a position of loss themselves, should they decide to lead in an example of violence toward others. Simply because we often may also reap of what is been sown

      Simple good common sense.Common sense that can be tested within what we now call social science

      However we humans can still find a certain "degree of objectivity".Like the same way we do devise our road code, building codes and so on

      This is not to say our decision will always be completely right. However, by trial and error, we can still devise a degree of objectivity

      Jesus likely even tried to point this out, to the theists whom in the end felt so angry that they dobbed him in, and had him dealt to

      As you can tell.I still see things a little bit differently to you Harvey

      It is such an interesting subject


      Delete
    3. Gandy said: "Prove this "totally objectively" . Or otherwise you ,just like everyone else is are asking me to believe something of which you have no evidence outside of what you may personally decide you like to to believe"

      Use the illustration I set forth. If someone came into your home and commenced to beating you up, along with 10 of his friends, and they all agree that it is OK, does that make what they are doing right? Is the "wrongness" of their actions based on how many agree, or based on the act itself being objectively wrong? I believe it is the latter. It is wrong and something that you could say that is objectively wrong. I think that process of thought is logical, consistent and proves it.

      Also what I meant about "decisions being right" is that we may not agree on the correct path to correct and or adjust. But there is NO DENIAL of the FACT that something is not right. Let's say this, I'm in Canada, I need to get to Mexico. How many paths can I take to get there? Quite a number right?

      Now, because I take one highway and you take another does not mean that neither of us 1- know that we are in Canada and not Mexico, and 2- know that when we arrive in Mexico that we will no longer be in Canada.

      What you are contending, is that we do not know the difference between Mexico and Canada simply because there are some different highways and roads to take to get there. That is ridiculous. We may not know what to do to get there, but we know there is a difference. Same way we know right and wrong. We may not know what to do or how to solve the problem, but to say that we do not recognize that there is a problem is not a rational statement.

      I may not know how to fix my car, but I know when it's broken!

      Religion and even sometimes different religions recognize sin, though some may not know how to fix it. The knowledge of not knowing how to fix it, does not mean that it is not recognized as a problem.

      "Common sense"? What is "common sense" to one is not necessarily "common sense" to the other. If that can be tested empirically by science, then where is this repository of "common sense" from which to draw from? What this is is moral relativism. Doesn't matter how much "love" in in the equation. The pedophile swears up and down that he "loves" his victims.

      Remember Jerry Sandusky? The former Penn State coach swore up and down that he "loved" kids and young men. His feelings of love were no guide in whether his actions were right or wrong. His acts were wrong, not because people on the outside agreed they were wrong, but because his actions were objectively wrong and immoral.

      Yes, we do see things differently and that is good to the degree that we can discuss this difference thoroughly.

      Thanks again.

      Delete
    4. 1 of 2

      "Is the "wrongness" of their actions based on how many agree, or based on the act itself being objectively wrong? I believe it is the latter."

      I feel it is in fact both.1.Most people think it is wrong.2.And even evidence is available to help suggest its wrong (social science)

      This is a form of objective.However still not "totally" objective,due to the fact human minds are involved

      To have total objective.Human minds would need to not be used or enter into the equation at all.

      When theist claim moral is objective, and of God,they seem to forget (or perhaps choose to turn a blind eye) that human mind are still being used in these decision

      "But there is NO DENIAL of the FACT that something is not right."

      I have no reason to deny this.There is no denial that road codes are right too,or that a "lack of one" is not-right. This still doesnt help further to prove how some supernatural being is involved.For indeed there is no need (Occam's razor)to add more layer of complexity, when something is already easy to explain ,without adding anything more

      Atheists have no need to deny that their is objective wrong and right. We even can "decipher and decide" those things in road code's,building codes and so on

      "What you are contending, is that we do not know the difference between Mexico and Canada simply because there are some different highways and roads to take to get there."

      Please be careful not to poison the well.Let me be clear. My position is that human can decide which is Mexico, or which is Canada.We have methods and way in which to be objective in deciding

      However.There is no good reason, for us to need to go any further, to add any extra complex layer so as to propose that something "outside of ourselves" is involved . We should keep it simple (occam's razor) as possible. Only adding in extra layers of complexity,in situation where it is warranted because it cannot be explained without us first doing so

      "I may not know how to fix my car, but I know when it's broken!"

      Sure.You can find that information out,by "thinking"

      Delete
    5. 2 of 2

      "Religion and even sometimes different religions recognize sin, though some may not know how to fix it. The knowledge of not knowing how to fix it, does not mean that it is not recognized as a problem. "

      Sure humans are able to recognize problems. We even do so within our road codes, our building code and so forth

      There still need not be anything "supernatural" to that.

      ""Common sense"? What is "common sense" to one is not necessarily "common sense" to the other."

      Sure.And this help to explain why diffent religions, may have "some different" cultural beliefs.Some "different ideas" about what is right or wrong

      Even so.They may also come to some "same conclusions" about certain things as well too.

      Just like they do,when they decide to create road codes.Building codes

      With all due respect Harvey.You seem intent on creating mountain's out of mole hills.You are saying ,but hold on here a minute, not everyone can use common sense, to be able to decide the road cose are worthwhile for humans to want to respect

      This fact still does not remove the fact, that humans can use a form of objective decision making, in which to decifer that infact is seem to be common sense, that roads codes are best to be respected. Because we can study the data ,of what happen when a road code is being respected, and what happen when people dont respect it

      Still absolutely no need for us to need to add-in any extra layer of supernatural

      "Remember Jerry Sandusky? The former Penn State coach swore up and down that he "loved" kids and young men. His feelings of love were no guide in whether his actions were right or wrong. "

      We have objective ways in which to decide this mans action is wrong.We can study the social science aspects.For straters,we can even study "health data" of how this man action,end's up detrimentally effect the children's health. We can also even use science data. to help us find out,at what age a human being might be best equipped to start making good decision for themselves, thus giving a somewhat "objective" answer ,so as to help us decide.

      Delete
    6. In your part 1 yo say: "I feel it is in fact both.1.Most people think it is wrong.2.And even evidence is available to help suggest its wrong (social science)"

      This is like saying that something isn't "scientific" until it is discovered by science. Something is scientific even if the discovery does not exist. Like water for instance. Whether the chemical compounds of it are discovered or not, it yet has chemical compounds of hydrogen and oxygen. What you are saying is that something is not wrong until it is agreed upon to be wrong and then is backed by social science evidence which is not a good argument at all.

      There are many things that social science has no clue or decision about as science does not normally suggest what is wrong or right, science only details what is found or discovered. So social science has no moral value proposition. It only would tell what is going on or happening, not delienating right and wrong.


      You also said: This is a form of objective.However still not "totally" objective,due to the fact human minds are involved

      The involvement of human minds has no bearing on the "objectivity" of moral evil, right or wrong. Look, at what point are the actions of Hitler right and or correct? When we discover them? Or when they were done whether we have discovered them or not? The involvement of our "human minds" does not have a bearing on whether his actions were wrong. They were simply wrong whether we know it or not.

      Point I am trying to make is that something is not wrong when we say it's wrong, it is wrong period. That is objective. So your requirement for no "human minds" in the equation is sort of irrelevant.


      You said: My position is that human can decide which is Mexico, or which is Canada.We have methods and way in which to be objective in deciding

      No, Mexico is always Mexico and Canada always Canada (since establishment) so you cannot "decide" which is which. They simply are whether you realize it or not.

      You said: However.There is no good reason, for us to need to go any further, to add any extra complex layer so as to propose that something "outside of ourselves" is involved . We should keep it simple (occam's razor) as possible.

      Well, it's really not quite that simple. See under your paradigm, there is no reason to claim that any action is right or wrong. All actions and behaviors are morally equivalent. A lion does not rape. Humans do. Are you saying that Lions don;t have minds? They do, get in a cage with one and you'll see. For a Lion, killing a Gazelle is not "murder". What I am saying is that there is no mechanism in determining whether any action is right or wrong, moral or amoral if materialism is true.

      Whereas, theism, CHristianity in particular, declares and I believe adequately so, that the ONLY reason we, human beings, within our human minds, know the difference between good and evil is because of God himself and what he has done to us as it pertains to giving us the ability to distinguish what is objectively right or wrong or to attach values to actions.This does not exist under a moral paradigm and attemts to explain it fall far short under materialism. So it is essential to understand this in my opinion. Rocks have no morals, so to say that rocks can agree or not agree and their agreement makes something either wrong or right is certainly not scientific, it is a contention of materialistic faith.

      Delete
    7. So far as Sandusky is concerned you said: We have objective ways in which to decide this mans action is wrong.

      Then you go on to name a few methods

      You said #1:We can study the social science aspects.For straters,we can even study "health data" of how this man action,end's up detrimentally effect the children's health.

      This "data" is only that. It does not determine what is right or wrong. It only compiles information on what is being done. So that is ineffective as a determining actor for what is right or wrong...next:

      You said # 2: We can also even use science data. to help us find out,at what age a human being might be best equipped to start making good decision for themselves, thus giving a somewhat "objective" answer ,so as to help us decide.

      Glad you said "somewhat objective" because what that is is SUBJECTIVE not an objective view or opinion. Science cannot tell us what age a person can make decisions for themselves because every person is different and there is no method under scientific method by which that is adduced. The courts certainly don't recognize it. A child can be tried in adult courts, whereas they are normally restricted to juvenille courts. This process is based on the level of crime, attained age, and the level of perceived understanding. There is no recognized scientific test or methods outside of an evaluation about which subjective opinions are made.

      Could be our definitions of objective are different. Patheos, a Non-Christian web site offers some good information on the subject here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2015/08/03/what-are-objective-moral-values-and-duties-anyway/

      Also there is a Christian centered answer regarding the same questions we've been discussing here by Dr. William L. Craig in addressing how objective moral values exist here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/our-grasp-of-objective-moral-values

      I would contend that both of us recognize the existence of objective moral values, however we rationalize their existence differently. Your's that moral values and duties are a product of culture and evolution falls far short of addressing the issues in an intellectually satisfying manner. Remember, yours is "evolution" and "culture" (society)gave it to me. Whereas we see nothing in evolution and or culture that determines moral duties or what is right or wrong.

      In my view, the Christian world view, God gave us, mankind, the ability to perceive what is right or wrong, as man is not merely a product of evolution, but a product of God! That seems to fit the evidence much better because we know that rocks have no morals. However, IF God exists, he has morals and has communicated them to man and mankind.

      So it's this simply: Evolution and culture along with biological processes gives us morals OR God, who is moral or who has moral ability has communicated the ability to know (epistemologically) what is moral (ontology). Just like I don;t believe that non-life gives rise to life, I cannot believe that anything, without morals can give rise to that which is moral or able to distinguish moral values. If you believe otherwise, THAT is "faith" in materialism.

      Delete
  5. "The Christian standing up for his right to not embrace the "sin" of homosexuality is not rejection of the homosexual, no more than one could reject a bigamist, polygamist"

    I got to thinking more about what you saying here. Harvey you know that soon enough many people outside of America could also just as easily suddenly decide how they dont want to embrace the sin of Christianity anymore.Especially Christianity of the kind that is actively involved in giving gay folk a rough time

    Like i said already. I can see that (in the long run) this election could actually end up with being the very best thing that could ever have happen for freedom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gandy,

      You said: "Especially Christianity of the kind that is actively involved in giving gay folk a rough time"

      How is "Christianity" giving gay folk a "rough time"? I mean that. In what way has Christianity damaged gay people? Are gay people damaged more by Christianity than bigamists or murders or pedophiles?

      If there is a "fast track" it is not because Trump is in office or because of Brexit. It is because people LOVE their sin.

      And explain how Christianity is a "sin" to you...IF that is your position.

      Thanks my friend.

      Delete
    2. "How is "Christianity" giving gay folk a "rough time"? I mean that. "

      I believe you do mean that too.I can tell, there is a whole lot of you Christian folk whom "mean well" . Sadly it seem to me that you folk have lost out on the ability of being able to "think of what like might be like, if you were living the life of someone unlike yourself

      Tell me this Harvey. Lets say that we suddenly have atheist in my country,refusing to serve Christians (in shops), because they say they feel they see Christianity as evil,and as something that should be shunned

      I suggest to you that Christian here,would start to feel persecuted.

      " explain how Christianity is a "sin" to you"

      No.I "personally" dont see Christianity as a sin. I was merely saying that that could be the end result of a phenomena that might arise,depending on what happen from here on out.I'm saying there could be a backlash to this , for Christianity in general,if certain folks might forget to at least be a little bit careful

      I was merely offering a "scenario" to consider

      Anyways.Did you? see the stats,on how the young voters had voted in your election.I saw somewhere (sadly i cant remember quite where i seen it) that the youg-folks vote was with definitely with democratic party.Big time.And im wondering?,will that vote catapult? next time around.

      Who knows huh.Only time will tell.Time ,combined with the equation of whatever is likely to occur from here on out

      This is what is going to make all the difference

      "Thanks my friend."

      No worries.I still see you as a friend.I dont need to always totally agree with everything about people i like. Whether they is gay folk or Christian or anyone else

      Live and let live as much as possible.Lead by good example .Yet still also fail sometimes too

      So.Who? should be "so" keen to throw the first stone

      You take good care friend




      Delete
    3. In response to my question of how do Christians make people feel bad, Gandy said: "Lets say that we suddenly have atheist in my country,refusing to serve Christians (in shops), because they say they feel they see Christianity as evil,and as something that should be shunned"

      OK, I understand but that is somewhat of a false dichotomy. Christians do not refuse to serve homosexuals for being homosexual. There is no Christian owned institution that I am aware of that rejects homosexuals at the door.

      Many Christians refuse to endorse gay marriage through baking cakes for them and servicing their nuptial requests, but that is a far cry from rejecting the homosexual on the basis of his/her homosexuality.

      Do we do that for any other sin or proposition against our fundamental views? What if a bigamist wants a cake and we refuse to serve? Why can't the bigamist, go to the courts and make the Christian serve them? How about someone marrying their pet cow or favorite animal? Why can't they go to the courts and make the Christian serve them?

      What is it about homosexuality, which is simply a sexual choice, that makes people want to treat it so differently?

      As stated, nobody rejects a homosexual because they are homosexual. Christians reject the world view of homosexuality because it is contrary on many different levels, the bible only being one of the many, whereby the value proposition can be rejected.

      Now, the "live and let live" doesn't exactly pan out either. What happens when someone's "living" intersects with your life and living even denying it? That could be a problem if there is no right or wrong...

      Delete
    4. "Many Christians refuse to endorse gay marriage"

      But people may decide they don't want to continue to help endorse Christianity

      Christian may see gay marriage as a sin.While some other folk might see gay marriage as being ok,but may also begin to see Christianity as being very bad because of the way Christians are acting against gay folk

      The Christian shop keeper agree to serve the gay person a cake,so long as the gay person would agree to remove their words on the cake that proclaim themselves to be a gay couple

      And some other folk might agree to serve Christian folk too,so long as the Christian is also willing to first deny being Christian

      What happen if folks here decide they wont help endorse Christianity, by involvement in anything that is "proclaiming Christianity"

      Christians carrying any type of Christian regalia , might be refused seats on bus services, or cease to be offered car rentals, and so forth

      You see? where this scenario may end up Harvey

      Why? not allow people to be who they are. This doesn't mean that i'm helping to endorse their belief. Neither does it force me to need to become either Gay or Christian

      "Christians reject the world view of homosexuality because it is contrary on many different levels, the bible only being one of the many, whereby the value proposition can be rejected. "

      Yes and folk may choose to reject the Christian world view of gay folk. They may also see it as being "contrary to humanism" on many levels

      "Now, the "live and let live" doesn't exactly pan out either. What happens when "

      You'll notice how i did write "as much as possible"

      Anyway it is going to be interesting times ahead.It will be interesting to see how things pan out in America

      Where i live.The fact that there is some folk whom are living gay lives.Is hardly ever even thought about.Very few here even bother to care to making any big deal about it,anymore

      We have unisex toilets.The sky still never fell on our head.Nobody really gets harmed.Most of our children dont tend to see it as being "some big deal" that they might then be "drawn" to feel they need to try themselves

      Most folk dont even bat an eyelid about this stuff anymore.But they my country is so different to yours.Like we even have excellent relation with the Islamic folk here and elsewhere too.Our children are not out bothering to try to gun each other down in schools either.And so on

      Its sad news for us to see our friends in the USA ,constantly dealing with some of these sad things






      Delete
    5. Gandy said: "Why? not allow people to be who they are. This doesn't mean that i'm helping to endorse their belief. Neither does it force me to need to become either Gay or Christian"

      Christianity doesn't disallow people to "be who they are". That's a misdirection and something that cannot be attributed to the Christian worldview. What is happening is that others who endorse certain sins are imposing their belief and lifestyle upon Christians asking them, in fact telling them, they they (Christians) are not free to have and hold their closely held values in public. That is oppression! The homosexual suffers no such oppression. The Christian is entitled to encounter the culture and speak to it with truth.

      Now, use your logic. If all actions or sexual preferences have equal merit, why not allow the pedophile his sexual preference and write that in law for him? In fact that move is underway. It is said that children "should" learn sex from experienced adults and adults should be able to "teach" them by experience, and that is for their own good. So why is homosexuality an "entitled" sexual preference of choice?

      In the worldview of a Christian it is a sin like any other that a person needs to be "saved" from.

      Now, aside from all that, where do you live? What country? It's easy to say all is well, but let us examine the country and the cultural climate by the numbers.

      A "unisex" toilet is not an issue in America. A public restroom where men and women born by gender are allowed to enter and exit simultaneously is. We have had no problems with unisex restrooms.

      Then think of education. We have a regulation called Title IX which was created to facilitate benefits of scholarships and the rewards of higher education towards women because there was disparity and men were getting more attention and opportunities which means more dollars and attention. Now, because of the perversion of an absurd form of gender twisting, men, born men, now are able to remove women from their Title IX benefits because they "feel" like they are a woman or choose to live as a woman. A woman does not have that choice however, no matter how much she looks like a man...she is STILL a woman.

      Now, what's fair? To make a man, born a man, believing that he is a woman, of more worth and value than a woman born a woman? What is discrimination?

      You can't tell me that issues such as that are not a problem in EVERY country that has adopted such policy as America was on their way to being forced to embrace prior to this election. Like Pastor Marlin said, how is it honoring woman to make a man, born by gender, woman of the year? That is RIDICULOUS and the height of lunacy. Like I said, allow us to examine your country and discover the "real deal" Anyone can sell swamp land in Arizona to someone from the Everglades who knows nothing about America. All I can say is I ain't buyin'!


      Delete
    6. Well Harvey,i suppose the same "rule" could be said to also-apply,and atheist could also just as easy try to claim,that "Christians would continue to try to endorse certain sins (Christianity), and are actively imposing their belief and lifestyle upon" atheists, unless the atheist shop keepers as-well would have the right to just refuse to serve any Christian folk whom choose to wear any "Christian T shirt" or choose to bring any type of "Christian regalia" into their shops

      But how?is this good.I cannot see any good coming from it.How is this? the way that grown adults should "lead"



      "The Christian is entitled to encounter the culture and speak to it with truth. "

      And atheist likewise

      "If all actions or sexual preferences have equal merit, why not allow the pedophile his sexual preference and write that in law for him?"

      All actions or sexual preferences do not seem to have equal merit.For one instance, how? can consensual sex between two adults,ever be equally compared to preference and action of a pedophile.Someone whom choose to prey upon mistakes of "undeveloped mind" (not fully developed)of the youth

      Sure there are some idiots,whom say children should also be made fair game.And yet most atheist will still find common ground with Christian folk,by also-disagreeing about that

      "why is homosexuality an "entitled" sexual preference of choice?"

      Well .Same could be asked, why? is heterosexual the entitled preference of choice

      Theist might choose to say it's because that is the only way that humans can reproduce.However, why? does "everyone necessarily" need to reproduce.

      Life can be lived without reproduction.Some heterosexual will even live their lives that way too.They still can still feel "love and comfort" from the relationship they will still build together

      "In the worldview of a Christian it is a sin like any other that a person needs to be "saved" from."

      I understand you do feel that way,and many Christian folk "do mean well" in what they do.Isis also feel this same way too,perhaps some would also feel that they "mean well"

      Soon enough many more atheist may begin think that Christianity is something that the whole world need to be saved from.and especially if gay folk start getting a much harder time "again" in places

      "where do you live?"

      Harvey i live in NZ.Sorry i thought i had already told you.

      "easy to say all is well"

      No i never said that. "All" is not well.I was not interested in pretending we achieved utopia.However,i do think its a good thing that we dont seem to have many children choosing to go and "mass murder" their classmates.Its a good thing? we only "need" to get involved in wars these days, when we are there while trying to "help other folk" within a "peace keeping" type capacity

      This is a great blessing Harvey.And it dont seem to take a "church on every street corner" either,for us to be able? to achieve it

      God? shines on folks with less churches

      "A public restroom where men and women born by gender are allowed to enter and exit simultaneously is."

      I (personally) do tend to agree.For what might be ok "at our home's", is not necessarily so ok within public places outside of our homes.Because we can have some control of who enter our homes

      "Now, what's fair?"

      I agree, there are still these things that are complicated.complicated. Im not arguing that its going to be very simple to fix everything at once.

      "Anyone can sell swamp land in Arizona to someone from the Everglades who knows nothing about America"

      Haaaa. I love it!!.That made me laugh out loud.Harvey thanks for that.I needed a good laugh like that tonight,after work today



      You go right ahead an examine this country (NZ).















      Delete
    7. Gandy You said: Well Harvey,i suppose the same "rule" could be said to also-apply,and atheist could also just as easy try to claim,that "Christians would continue to try to endorse certain sins (Christianity), and are actively imposing their belief and lifestyle upon" atheists, unless the atheist shop keepers as-well would have the right to just refuse to serve any Christian folk whom choose to wear any "Christian T shirt" or choose to bring any type of "Christian regalia" into their shops"

      The problem is that is not the issue. Bringing something into a shop or imposing beliefs is nothing that Christians do. Whereas the homosexual IS imposing their beliefs through law. It has not been don simply to make a "space" or "place" for the homosexual. That is already the case in a free society such as ours. What is and has been done is that the homosexual agenda has sought to reengineer society. This has been done against the will of the people in nearly every case. When placed for referendum, homosexual marriage, for instance, was rejected in nearly every venue. The homosexual advocate agenda was to disregard that and reinterpret law to include homosexuality, such as was done under Obama's Title IX doctrine and reinterpretation. Most legal scholars know that Title IX DID NOT intend or include sexual orientation. However the reinterpretation and then imposition upon education institutions who receive federal dollars has come to be such as it is now.

      Now, that is forcing a view. Where in any society does Christianity do that? In England the church was the state I understand, but we are not talking midevil England. We are talking America today. Yours opinion is not in line with the real issues that we are dealing with and the hypothetical is a straw-man, it's simply not real.

      I understand that you are saying, "what if" but there is and has been no what if. The reality is that the liberal homosexual agenda has done the imposition to reinterpret social moral values and demand that all men becomes subject to it. It is the epitome of freedom to rebel against what is wrong and what is an unfair imposition. That's how America was founded!


      So far as speaking to the culture you agree that the atheist can do so as well by saying, And atheist likewise

      No one and I mean no one has said atheists could not. In fact the tenet of FAITH that we hold that ALL men are free and able to do this. So your right and ability to do this comes directly and expressly from RELIGIOUS values of freedom and how those values intersect publicly. So I contend as many have before me, you as an atheist OWE your right of freedom even to Christianity and Christian beliefs. There is really no way around this

      You said: All actions or sexual preferences do not seem to have equal merit.For one instance, how? can consensual sex between two adults,ever be equally compared to preference and action of a pedophile.Someone whom choose to prey upon mistakes of "undeveloped mind" (not fully developed)of the youth

      That's the problem with your position. That is YOUR opinion of the issue and there are scientific journals and theories beginning to arise that speak totally contrary to your position. So you rationally accept that this activity is harmful, but there are materialists such as yourself that say that your ideas, my ideas, our ideas regarding this is totally off base. So who is right? Us or them? What is the basis for our dissent? Morality of harm? Well some of them contend that it is NOT harmful. Then what do we do? How do we discipher it? This is the conundrum of your position. I have a basis for why pedophilia is wrong. You only have opinion and might makes right at the end of the materialist day.

      Delete
    8. You said: Well .Same could be asked, why? is heterosexual the entitled preference of choice

      Simple, here we revert to natural law. How many humans would be alive today if not for heterosexual sexual activity? That should be obvious. Life can be "lived" without reproduction, but it is difficult if not impossible to exist without a reproductive act. Once again, we are not talking feelings of commitment, fulfillment and love. Those thing are no measure for what is truth, right or wrong. To argue otherwise simply begs the question in my opinion. It is much more easy and natural to argue in favor of heterosexuality

      You said: Isis also feel this same way too,perhaps some would also feel that they "mean well"

      Once again, these two things are not equal or equivalent because they appear to be "religiously" based. ISIS does not have feelings. The people of ISIS have beliefs and those beliefs are rooted in their interpretation of both history, social climate and mandates of the Quran. Those beliefs result in Sharia, which is a imposing theocratic system. Christianity is not nor has even been an imposing theocratic system. Now the atrocities of early Catholicism the exception, but who is to say they were acting on Christian or biblical mandates? It was people giving those directives. I guess the same could be said of ISIS as well, but there is a much better case to be made for Christianity in this regard.

      You said: Soon enough many more atheist may begin think that Christianity is something that the whole world need to be saved from.and especially if gay folk start getting a much harder time "again" in places

      You act as if only religious folk are against the proliferation of the homosexual agenda. There are all kinds of secular cases against homosexuality and homosexual marriage. We really need not invoke religion as the only means to expose the danger and associated problems of the lifestyle. Not to mention the economic effect on societies when these values are carried out. So religion is just one reason to reject homosexuality, not the only reason.

      You said: ...we dont seem to have many children choosing to go and "mass murder" their classmates.

      So you "believe" that the only reason violence is occuring in schools is because the kids are gay and being rejected? Got some swamp land in Arizona for you too...excellent price!!!!...No, that is PROPAGANDA. Very seldom does any school shooting have to do with homosexuality. I know because I was recently a Campus Security Officer in a Highs school and part of our training was to study this issue. Yes, it does occur, but that is not the norm by any means. Some kids kill themselves because of bullying which includes sexual orientation, but that is exacerbated by the internet and facebook, where kids are more open to negative messages consistently. That's the problem. Not that our society is any more "hating" of gays than they have ever been, but that people are exposing themselves to a much more extended stream of negative messaging and don't know how to turn it off.

      You said:God? shines on folks with less churches

      And what's new? If you read Mt. 5:45, Jesus said that a long time before either of us were born or realized it. And thank you for the continued debate and look at these issues. Have a great day!!!

      Delete
  6. Now what effect will this have on future elections? Well, the needs of men are the same in every generation. The millennials will get older, and they will get wiser. David said, "I once was young"...Young people tend to think and prioritize differently at times. I know I did.

    I am one of them that got older and began to view things a little more fully and carefully with age and maturity. This generation will do the same thing.

    As they face what socialism really is, after they have worked hard and someone is lining up to take what they did and give it away...and someone is telling them how lousy they are for being successful, smart and navigating their way through life...they will reconsider what Bernie was taking about....

    As they begin to have children and those children change their lives, they will understand how ALL children should be protected from murder, even the one's in the womb...They will see, just as I did, the total inconsistency of a person that says that they value life, but yet consent to murder the unborn...

    As they begin to plan themselves in communities, they will be particular about the government endorsing schools that do not serve their children, but locks them into failure by rewarding failure by giving under-performing schools and teachers more money...They'll understand and they will LEAVE those ideas...trust me on that one...

    Yes, even though they have gay friends, like we all do, they will understand that being gay is not a reason to be favored in life or not a linchpin to put people in jail simply becuase they are not gay and are not enamored with the lifestyle. They will understand that it's not a matter of hate, but it's a matter of person freedom.

    MAybe that is the difference between us as Americans and those around the world. Our values of FREEDOM and what it means to us to be free. To us, it means that we can follow our conscience and follow our religion, because those things in America have BUILT us up. We have not been destroyed by our conscience. We have been liberated and made better over the years by it and by holding to and seeking greater values through religion.

    We are great because of our religion and theistic beliefs not in spite of them. We live as free people because of theistic values, not materialistic ones. We are not free people who happen to have a belief system. We have a belief system upon which our freedom and understanding of freedom is built.

    Maybe that is what other countries don;t understand about America and being American. I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I am one of them that got older and began to view things a little more fully and carefully with age and maturity. This generation will do the same thing."

      Maybe. Or maybe times are different now.Some things are becoming different now.Little less? tolerance of "aspects" of religion these days, worldwide

      Anyway.Time will tell the answer to this.As tried to say already,i think it may depend somewhat on how the US election-changes pan out

      "As they face what socialism really is, after they have worked hard and someone is lining up to take what they did and give it away"

      You can? escape that

      In my country,some people whom year after year make the most money,are able to pay "little or no tax"

      People here these days are "questioning" the way this is.And even some folks whom are those whom are well-off and legally able to find "tricky" ways to try and evade tax.There are some whom reconsider these issues today,not so-due to Christianity,but more likely due to a constant "growth" of a humanist-type conscience

      "As they" "As they"

      Well Harvey,time will tell

      "Our values of FREEDOM and what it means to us to be free."

      But Harvey.Your children are not even free to live "without fear" of mass murder.Fear of terrorist.Too often,without fear of exiting faith belief (because of possibility for shunning and excommunication and suchlike)

      "We have not been destroyed by our conscience."

      But within the USA a man cannot afford to have a open-conscience,for there is still a-high chance that more than likely you might get shunned and excommunicated.And a man still need to "lie" and be real careful about declaring themselves to be a atheist,as it might be real bad for business

      Harvey its still i a little hard for us to buy into that kind of "freedom".When using "our" conscience

      "We have been liberated and made better over the years by it and by holding to and seeking greater values through religion. "

      Yet you do seem "bound" to continued costly ongoing action in wars. Wars that "we" then are also forced to need to also try to help fix

      Such is this "freedom" of yours that "we" are also being forced to need to share

      "We have a belief system upon which our freedom and understanding of freedom is built.

      Maybe that is what other countries don;t understand about America and being American. I don't know."

      Yes indeed, we do "fail to understand" this freedom you describe

      For it seem to closer resemble a type of bondage. Of which we too then "share" a part of

      With all due respect Harvey.But anyway, we still continue to feel a love for all you folk in the USA

      Even if we may not necessarily love some of the things you folk like to do.

      We share the world Harvey.So therefore it need to concern us all .Anyway nice talking again














      Delete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.