If you say so, it must be true, given the fact that you don't believe yourself




Nope, no need to call Harley. He has stated that if his wife ever cheated on him he would go directly to divorce and would not try to recover his marriage.

But, yes, your wife (as a Christian as you indicated she was before you were married), SHOULD have listened to Christ and NOT been unequally yoked.

For what it's worth, I was not a believer when I met my wife and she was a Christian. Her father's advice to her was to NOT be unequally yoked to an unbeliever. When I learned of that advice, I agreed and told my wife that we would NOT get married if I could not find the answers regarding Christ that would allow me to accept Him as my Lord and Savior.

I don't speak this way from ignorance, Krazy, but from personal experience and a respect for the wisdom of the Word of God to all of us.




Is that anything like we are all "typical" sinners in one way or another?




No, it's possible to remain faithful without God. It's a matter of the culture you were raised in and what you accepted as the "norm" for marriage, irrespective of what God has had to say about marriage. But like all of us, there are other areas of your life where you were likely NOT "perfect" according to God's standards (called sin by believers).




That's right, Krazy, I am a former BS. And no, it was not "completely ignorant" as I faced that very issue when I was in my 20's.

Krazy, term limits came as a result of a Democrat President (FDR) and were imposed by Congress.

Now if we could just get Term Limits on Senators, Representatives, and Supreme Court Justices we might actually get a government that returns to SERVING the people instead of becoming self-indulgent cushy lifetime jobs where their FOCUS is in getting their butts reelected or (in the case of the Supremes) far outliving their mental capacity.




I totally disagree. Why not just take the children from their parents and plop them in government communes and indoctrinate them according to what the State wants?




Biologically speaking, Krazy, you are wrong. What "defines" a human being (a full-fledged human in the womb) is the genetic code, made up of a double helix. It received one-half of that helix from the mother and the other half from the father, and in the egg, upon fertilization, they combine to form that one new unique individual human being, genetically different and distinct from the mother's DNA.

But I'll grant you way more credit that I grant someone like Barak Obama, who would not support legislation to even help a baby that survived an abortion attempt. Obama believes that baby should be left to die. Barak voted AGAINST a bill that would have granted protection to babies who survived an attempted abortion. Infanticide is running rampant in this country and we might just elect the biggest proponent of infanticide to be President. With such little value on human life, that is a very scary belief system to have as the President.

The film will have to stand or fall on its own merits. If I concluded after viewing, it that he mocked or disrespected those entitled to better treatment than I would disagree with the film's POV. If it's funny and thought provoking without devolving into abject mean-spiritedness than perhaps it works. As for the weight to afford Maher, I don't think too many run the risk of confusing him with Richard Dawkins.

We finally agree on something. I'm for two term limits all around, including and especially Supreme Court justices. No one person should have that much power without being directly elected.


There is only one correct way to teach sex ed. It is either factual or it is not. I'm not talking about "How To Give a Better BJ", just the mechanics of it all, diseases, etc.

Plopping a kid into a commune and indoctrinating them is what I see when I look at Sunday School. Those little buggers can be made to believe anything if you get 'em young enough.


I understand that even a newly-fertilized egg has its own unique DNA, but I also understand that it is not a complete human, either. It will be, eventually, but not immediately. Since nobody knows when that is, exactly, I chose the 1st trimester. There is little excuse for not knowing you're pregnant for 3 months, especially if such a law were in place.


You've got to be wary when someone votes for or against a bill. Without reading the entire bill, you have no idea what sort of crappy legislation was written into it besides abortion-related stuff.

Let's say you are a congressman & you are presented with a bill that provides funding for breast cancer research, but also called for every kitten in the country to be exterminated. You vote against it, so your opponents claim that you don't care about women because you refuse to support breast cancer research. How cruel of you! You are in favor of women dying from breast cancer!

The difference that seems to be apparent here, Krazy, is your answer seems to focus on the physical to the exclusion of the ethical, moral, and or religious aspects of sex. In short, it gives a one-sided approach to it as being "merely" a biological function, devoid of purpose and/or intent and really gives the children no basis in determining values.

It also usurps the parental role and responsibility, replacing it with the "wisdom" of schools that are heavily dominated by far-left liberal teachers in many, if not most, cases. It PROHIBITS any mention of God or His purpose for sex and marriage, especially that sex is intended to take place ONLY within the bonds of marriage between a husband and wife.

What it would do is to "plop a kid into a State mandated commune and indoctrinate" them. That's not much different than the "Hitler Youth" program of Nazi Germany. However, to the point of your contention that Sunday School is somehow "bad" and "indoctrinating" children against what YOU might think is best, or your way of believing, that is the POINT of the Constitutional point that Congress shall make no law ESTABLISHING a STATE religion (which it is, imho, with evolution and secular humanism as the only approved teaching) AND Congress shall pass no law restricting the free exercise of religion by the citizens of the country.

It is NOT up to the State to determine what IS and what is NOT taught to children. That RIGHT is reserved for the parents as citizens of this country.




Your answer here begs for clarification of the terms used. In much the same way that no one is "a little bit pregnant," you either ARE pregnant or you are not, and you are either a complete human being or you are not, as determined by the genetic code of a given organism.

Trying to "parse" the concept of what a "complete human" is simply begs the issue. Once the egg is fertilized, it IS complete, with the entire genetic code that will "unfold" into a growing, developing, eventually adult, human being. It will not unfold into any other sort of living organism but a human being being, because that is what it is from the moment the genetic code is established. One could, by using your appeal to being a "complete human" argue, for example, that a new born baby is NOT a "complete human" because it does not have teeth, cannot crawl or walk, and cannot survive without assistance because it cannot even feed itself, let alone "forage" for food and water/milk. Arguments have been made that a baby is not "human" until it draws its first breath, but that begs the issue of WHY it even breathes. It breathes to provide the body with oxygen. While in the womb, the placenta provides both the oxygen and the nutrients needed to survive and to continue growing.

Choosing the first trimester is, at best, an arbitrary choice of when killing a developing human being is "okay" and when it would not be "okay." But on what basis is the first trimester "okay" and anything later is not "okay," given that the baby is developing according to the genetic information from the moment of conception?

When you say that "nobody knows" when a baby becomes a "complete human," you are incorrect. I, and many others, know when that happens. It happens at conception when the complete genetic code of a unique new person is formed. Others "refuse" to see or agree with that, but I would submit that their "confusion" and inability to recognize the real formation of a complete human being at conception is grounded NOT on science, but on convenience and personal wants and desires to be able to DO anything they want to do without consequence. The VAST majority of abortions are preformed for just that reason, for the convenience of the mother who does not want the "inconvenience" of one of the consequences of sex.

There ARE other consequences that you touched on, such as STD's. Some of those consequences the mother can also rid herself of with antibiotics, but others like HIV are a death sentence and cannot be undone. All of which is predicated on the concept that "if it feels good and you want it, do it" as the "guiding light" for sex education. Physical consequences are addressed to some extent with contraceptives, which are ignored by a large number of people anyway. But the moral, ethical and religious issues are either NOT addressed or mimimized as some "kook" ideas. VALUES are not taught, only methods are taught.



When it comes to THIS bill that Obama voted against, I do know what the bill contained. He still voted against it, refusing to place ANY restrictions of any kind on abortion. Not all that surprising given his statements about being in favor of abortion for his own daughters should they become pregnant.

The specifics are readily available, but if you'd prefer to not look it up for yourself, I could provide it if you'd like the details.

I've learned a really neat term lately - fatwa envy:

http://forknowledge.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/fatwa-envy/

NMDreams - very interesting and very revealing. You quote from a decidely anti-Christian site, using a pejoritive term coined by them, which is based on a false premise that they concocted, and you think it's "neat?"

The reference to the fatwa has nothing to do with envy or any belief that athiests would "prefer" Islam.

It has to do with control of free speech, wherein the "control" is DEATH if they don't like what you said.

If you "blaspheme" Mohammed or Allah, they can, and most often will, issue a general death sentence on you and encourage any Muslim anywhere to carry it out.

Here you sit in the comfort of a free country and think you can just be blatantly disrespectful to anything Christian, because you KNOW that Christians WILL NOT try to kill you for it. You take advantage of the Christian idea of "turn the other cheek" and say things that you would never say about Islam if you were living in an Islamic country. You MIGHT say something once in a while about Islam while you are sitting in a free country, but you also know that fatwas have no territorial boundaries and are "good" worldwide. You just hope you can "hide" and be kept safe by the actions of others (i.e. police, etc.) to keep you safe.

Sorry, not buying into your attempt to marginalize Christianity yet again.

FH, I agree with you.

I am learning one very valuable lesson on these boards...consider the source.

ForeverHers,

A fetus in the 1st trimester cannot live outside the womb, because they don't have developed lungs.

Incomplete lungs = incomplete human. It doesn't matter that the genetic code is there, or that there will be complete lungs in the future.



The building isn't complete just because you have finished architectural drawings.

Without the drawings and the first brick, there is no building.

Life begets life. if the fetus is not alive then neither is the mother.

It can be alive and incomplete.

If it's complete, it should be able to live outside the mother immediately after conception.

Well of course, if it wasn't alive inside then it would be dead inside. So which is it?

Can you survive without food and oxygen?

Uh, it's alive and incomplete.

Of course not.

I have complete respiratory and digestive systems to help with that.

Tst...consider the source.

What about it?

A fish would say you're incomplete because you can't breath underwater like they can. A dog would say a fish is incomplete because it cannot survive on land. So what?
I don't get your point about being incomplete the entire genome is complete the moment the sperm met the egg. Hence complete and alive.

Either something is dead or you have life.

It takes more than genetic code for an organism to be complete, and just because it's alive doesn't mean it's fully developed.

Krazy, using your logic ~ a newborn baby is incomplete because they are not able to feed themselves or eat or clean themselves.

A child is incomplete because they are not yet an adult.

A 30 year old man is incomplete because he has not matured into an old man with gray hair.

A 90 year old man is incomplete because he has not yet died.

Reality is: Nothing has fully developed until the moment it dies.
Said another way: Everything is continuing to develope until the moment it dies.




Like what?

It is a scientific fact that the human genome IS COMPLETE at the moment of conception.