dominigan on June 4, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Well yes, I agree, but it is. So I was more asking the question to regular citizens and what they used as the basis for their argument against it, if they are against it.
As a conservative, I base my arguments on the Constitution, and I have yet to come up with Constitution-based reason to be against the right of citizens to enter into a mutually-agreed-upon contract, which is what “marriage” is to the secular world.
“Marriage” to a Christian is something far different, and apples-to-pickup trucks comparison, so to me I can’t understand why Christians are fighting to protect the sanctity of secular “marriage”.

If Republicans actually believed in self reliance they would vote for higher minimum wages so people could actually be self reliant.

That is a stupid statement. “Self reliance” means that you take the initiative to increase your value to your employer so that he (or someone else) will be willing to pay you more, not because of a government mandate, but because you are actually worth it.

For now those making minimum wage or close only survive by “stealing” from others that pay taxes and getting food stamps and subsidized housing and many other benefits.

Steveangell on June 3, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Is it also “stealing” when an employer is forced to pay someone more than they are worth?

You are just a MOBY!

Can anyone provide a Constitution-based reason to be against gay marriage?

jwally on June 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

It is not a defined right in the Constitution. Thus, it should not be addressed by the Federal Government in any way, shape or form.

A campus ministry I was a part of fell apart for similar reasons, they replaced the homegroup/smallgroup model with outreach groups without a real biblical focus. People became so lost in those things they left for other ministries. A ‘homegroup in exile’ was formed to provide fellowship and bible studies to concerned members, it was meant to be informal and outside the organization but when the ministry’s leadership found out many were incensed. Others, however, sympathised with them and when the smoke cleared there was an official division within the ministry. During that brief time 50% of the membership left, including some staff. Finally the umbrella organization that the ministry belonged to got involved and sent the original leadership packing. It was a real shame and caused a lot of bitter attitudes that the ministry has never really recovered from (though it still exists, much smaller now, and under new leadership).

As soon as churches begin focusing on the counsel of the wicked (being a part of the world, instead of the world) it’s time to speak up or leave, it’s not worth your soul.

Social justice is nothing more or less than the mission to which Jesus Christ called his church — the care of the poor, the infirm, the imprisoned, and the hopeless.

This is bilge. The real mission Christ left the Church is found in Matthew 28:19,

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

There was never a command to commit social justice.

Hot gas, indeed.

ZippyZ on June 4, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Them’s fightin words ’round these parts, ZippyZ.

;D

The Book of Mormon has many truths about charity. If you are only reading the Bible, you are missing out on some of the true teachings of Christ.

Logus on June 4, 2012 at 12:51 AM

I listen to some of those you listed on this program. You can find the stations here: http://www.ttb.org/ and their schedule.

One of my favorite Teachers is Dr. J. Vernon McGee. He is on that station also and has his own website: http://www.ttb.org/

You may want to give them a listen when you can’t find them on TV.

Not so sure about that.

I have read that those that preach the real gospel are black listed. They can not get televised no matter how popular they are or how much they pay except in the local market.

Steveangell on June 3, 2012 at 10:00 PM

I can’t speak from too much experience – specifically over the last five plus years – because we don’t watch tv – but it seems that most of the “televangelist” types are on the cable/satellite stations. I don’t know who – if any – get national coverage on the big three, fox or the other second tier companies such as WB.

Most of those who I see as televangelists typically fall into the Emergent, Health/Wealth/Wellness doctrine and Charismatics. They’re either loud and sweating, or spewing sugar.

Conversely, I used to watch plenty of preachers on tv, some who still are, who’re quite Biblically sound. Chuck Swindoll, John MacArthur, David Jeremiah come to mind, as does Charles Stanley. Two sound preachers I used to like to listen to/watch who’ve since passed on are D James Kennedy and Adrian Rogers.

Sound Biblical preachers with a national tv prescence are there. You just have to pay attention to the station’s line-up and what that preacher’s teaching.

Self-reliability and self-responsibility have seemingly become anacrhonisms. We must rollback government’s involvement in social justice and return to a day where churches and private charities carry out this mission and narrow it to those who really do need it.

Bitter Clinger on June 3, 2012 at 4:03 PM

As church members, we (and I’m definitely NOT excluding myself) also have to practice self-reliability and self-responsibility with respect to performing our charitable duties for our brothers. I believe this has a great part to do with the mess we’re in. For this reason I also agree with

Ed, I would very much like you or anyone else to point out the Scripture where Christ tells us that His definition of charity and how it should be performed involved sending out the legions to extract alms at spearpoint so that various politicians can hand them out in as public a fashion as possible.

I, OTOH, can cite numerous verses where He commands each of us to provide charity as an individual expression of faith to be performed as privately and secretly as possible. Incidentally, my wife is Jewish and tells me that Judaism recommends the same thing.

SDN on June 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

As one who’s own acts of charity have been primarily monetary donations, I ask myself, “Suppose you die, and Christ led you into a room full of people and asked you to identify those who were the objects of your charity.” What would I be able to say to Him? How many of us need to ask ourselves that question?

bluefox on June 3, 2012 at 11:24 PM
I am tired and don’t want to reply to the substance of what you say. Obviously, I disagree. But I deeply admire how you argue against what I said with bitterness or hatred. You are rational in what you say above. You make me regret my last sentence in my own post. Thank you for the tone of how you disagree with me.
The tone issue is subtle with me as I do want Romney to keep to his current path about Obama and not follow McCain’s misguided niceness towards Obama. bluefox, I don’t want you to concede to me anything because of misguided niceness like McCain did.

thuja on June 3, 2012 at 11:38 PM

I try to keep a level head about me, especially about subjects that are very personal to each side of the issue. Looking at both sides is helpful, I believe. Thanks for being able to understand what I was saying even tho you may disagree.

Oh, I want Romney to continue to be agressive in this campaign and not passive as McCain was. We must win this battle.

No, I won’t concede to you as McCain. I re-read some of the lady’s reasoning and it is strange that she had stayed in the Dem party that long. But perhaps because this issue came against her Catholic Faith is what was the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak. For other people it might be some other issue? I have to chuckle when I sometimes have trouble explaining to someone what I think about an issue and why and here I am trying to explain this lady’s, LOL

Have a good night.

I can’t even state how utterly contemptible it is to give simple-minded gay-hatred as the reason for becoming a Republican. There are many positive aspects of the GOP agenda like limited government, balanced budgets, and personal responsibility. Jo Ann Nardelli is a revolting excuse for a human being.
thuja on June 3, 2012 at 11:11 PM

There’s a subtle truth in what you say but too bad you have to distort it with your insistence that the only motivation for disagreeing with gay marriage is due to senseless bigotry.

“with bitterness or hatred” should read “without bitterness or hatred”

I should avoid posting after 10:00pm. Sorry.

thuja on June 3, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Glad I read this before answering your first reply:-)

I know I can’t hold my thoughts together very well when I’m tired either, LOL Now I’ll read again your first reply. If you don’t get to it, don’t be concerned. This subject is difficult but no reason not to be civil. I try to ignore hateful comments anyway.

bluefox on June 3, 2012 at 11:16 PM

That should be “from” all unrighteousness. Sorry.

I should avoid posting after 10:00pm. Sorry.

I don’t think she indicated any hatred at all. My understanding from what was posted is that the mandate from HHS and other issues was against her Catholic Faith. That doesn’t mean she hates anyone; just that her belief won’t allow her to accept these things.

Maybe you misunderstood what she based her decision on.

bluefox on June 3, 2012 at 11:24 PM

I am tired and don’t want to reply to the substance of what you say. Obviously, I disagree. But I deeply admire how you argue against what I said with bitterness or hatred. You are rational in what you say above. You make me regret my last sentence in my own post. Thank you for the tone of how you disagree with me.
The tone issue is subtle with me as I do want Romney to keep to his current path about Obama and not follow McCain’s misguided niceness towards Obama. bluefox, I don’t want you to concede to me anything because of misguided niceness like McCain did.

Steveangell on June 3, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Interesting that you are assuming that I did not have a child. No one is forced to have children before they can afford to. And if the only job one can get is minimum wage than they shouldn’t be having children, yet. I will agree with you that it isn’t easy to get a job right now.

I never said I think it’s fine to starve employees-a rather ridiculous statement. I just don’t think it’s the employers responsiblity to pay an employee what they want to live on. An employer offers a job and states a salary. Don’t like the salary, don’t take the job. It’s not an employer’s responsibility to make sure an employee has all they need. And how exactly are others taxed more to make up for someone else’s low wages?

As I said, if your daughter is in such dire straights, why don’t YOU help her out???