Oct 17
This blog is an opportunity to express your point of view and ideally why you believe what you believe. The attitude here reflects and should continue to reflect a humble and respectful tone.
Whether you trust Jesus as your savior or don’t believe in God. Whether you believe 911 was an inside job or if you believe that the Bilderberg group is pulling the strings.
Just come with and open mind ready for a humble debate.
So pick a post and submit your comments. You can also subscribe to comments so you can respond to other peoples comments.
There are already debates in the works so join the conversation.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 am
I am muslim
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
My name is Muita Wangoko (muitawangoko@gmail.com). I am a gay (homosexual) guy living in Kenya and I strongly feel that the Kenyan society should lessen the strict rules about openly gay people. Its so hard for me and others like me to openly declare our status. Normally am forced to hide under the guise of a successful programmer while in the real sense am an average citizen with a different sexual orientation from the rest (most) of my country men. I feel terrible about this. I think this is a grave matter and it should be legalized. afterall its my want!
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I believe that homosexuality is a sin as written in the Bible. That being said I don’t think it should be illegal or suppressed by any government.
Laws should not be designed to require personal morality.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
That depends on what you consider personal morality. You make a good point as adultery is not illegal than why should homosexuality on a moral basis. However is murder, rape, and theft not illegal and also an aspect of personal morality? I don’t agree that being homosexual should be illegal but it has led to the proposal of legalizing gay marriage which I strongly disagree with. Making laws based on morality will always conflict with those who share different morals.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:20 am
There is a line though. Whatever you do that infringes on another persons personal liberty could be illegal.
Murder infringes on a person’s right to life. Rape would be the right to govern ones own body. Theft would be an infringement on personal property rights.
I believe a person should have the right to do whatever they want to their own body. Including killing themselves, all drugs and anything else that is immoral and confined to your own body. I believe people own their own body and that the government shouldn’t dictate what you do with it. I should also mention I am against abortion and think that should be illegal. The reason for that is I see the baby inside as another person and therefore having right. Including the right to life.
Legalizing gay marriage does not make it right in God’s eyes but I also don’t have a problem with that being legal because it doesn’t cross the line as it doesn’t infringe on my personal liberties.
If you are not free to make bad choices then you are not truly free.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
@Dave @Kate
Well, I partially agree with Dave regarding personal liberties. But, it would be chaos if were to simply legalize everything (e.g. cocaine). However, I do think the US spends too much time and money dealing with a lot of lightweight substances (e.g. marijuana) that should be legal.
As I mentioned before on this site, abortion needs to be legal. Here are the best reasons: (1) pregnant women will often have illegal abortions, that usually kill both lives, (2) pregnant women will be healthier than if they choose to have an illegal abortion, (3) making abortions illegal favors rich pregnant women, because they can afford to travel somewhere to have it legally, (4) making abortions illegal encourages teenage parenting.
Some more reasons : http://www.livestrong.com/article/13934-nine-reasons-why-abortions-are-legal/
That said, I think we need to provide free unbiased counseling for those in tough situations so that they can make informed choices.
Regarding gay marriage… religion should not interfere with law. If you take religion out of the equation, there is only one very weak argument left: marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Well, definitions change, and the definition of marriage has been changed in most modern dictionaries. Just as there is not one holy book in the world, there is not one dictionary. The definition of words is decided by a bunch of people at a corporation.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
@Andrew
How many people do you know that would do cocaine if only it were legal? If they are willing to do the substance I think they are willing to break the law. I believe in freedom.
Your abortion argument focuses on the practical implications whereas mine focuses on the baby’s right to life.
One could argue that old people put a financial burden on the working class and in a practical sense we the working class would be better off if they were not around. But for some reason it is more obvious that old people have a right to life and it wouldn’t be right to kill them.
Also for teenage pregnancies adoption is still a valid option.
I agree that the meaning of words to change over time. I still believe it is wrong for two people of the same sex to marry or be in an intimate relationship whatever you call it.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:50 am
Well, There is nothing too difficult for God. I have learnt. Whatever it is you are going through….. abortion, stealing, abortion. When you go to Him… He does not discriminate in any way. He accepts you as you are. And he loves you so much to leave you that way. He works with till He gets you where He intended you to be before you even were born.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
@Dave
That is true. I do take a practical approach to a lot of things.
I should clarify, that above all, I believe in education first. We need REAL sex education classes in all schools starting around middle school (7th-8th grade). We also need pregnancy counseling, publicity of public health services, etc.
Most abortions in the 2nd trimester are medically necessary. Early abortions, I hope, is where the debate is. With education, hopefully we can eliminate those. But, for the reasons I discussed above, I do not favor banning them. While, I like the adoption option, most mothers will choose to keep the child, since it is there own. And, in most cases, it will have a horrible life.
But that conclusion was determined by your faith. The words “wedding” and “marriage”, by modern definition (I’m not sure about previous definitions, but today most dictionaries do not have a religious constraint on these words), are not tied to faith. Therefore, two people of the same sex should be allowed to be married. Just as people following different religions than you don’t cause you any personal harm, gay marriages do not cause you any personal harm.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Adding on to my gay marriage paragraph…
Because that is your belief, I believe it is ok for you to believe that those following your specific denomination should not have same-sex relations. But, you are a hypocrite if you are applying your belief to all religions since you believe in freedom of religion as defined by the Constitution.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
I do believe in freedom of religion. But I believe the Bible is true so there is nothing wrong with me objectively saying that same sex relations are wrong since it is a Biblical position. I didn’t say it should be banned.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Change of gay subject:”An Army psychiatrist was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder in the Fort Hood massacre as he lay in a hospital bed Thursday, while President Barack Obama ordered a review to determine if the government fumbled warning signs of the man’s contacts with a radical Islamic cleric.” I am a strong supporter of the death penalty. I do not apology for this. With this in mind, I don’t get why did someone not shoot, stab, set on fire,etc. anything…this monster? Does he have rights? Well, yes he does. But, I do not want/need to spend major amounts of money trying to “understand” his cry for help plus lawyer fees etc. Kill him now, no trial, no waste of money. This is outrageous. Please, does anyone agree, or at least see were I am coming from?
November 13th, 2009 at 12:49 am
@Dave
Ok, I understand
@Billie
I identify myself as “liberal” though I am not against the death penalty.
I understand where you are coming from, but I do disagree because studying brains has made huge contributions to the field of psychology. We have actually learned quite a bit from studying the brains of murderers. For example, wrestler Chris Benoit’s brain was studied and it was found that he had brain damage, including damage to the part of his brain associated with decision making (the prefrontal cortex).
http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/PSY307-Left_hemisphere_dysfunction
There are still many mysteries about the brain left to discover. For a fascinating book on the subject of decision making in particular, read How We Decide.
I know that understanding why crimes are committed may not prevent them all. But, it is still important research and could save lives and also have other applications.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:41 am
@Billie
I don’t have a strong opinion either way when it comes to the death penalty.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
@Dave @Billie
After we have learned as much as we can, psychologically, from criminals, I also don’t have a strong opinion either way regarding the death penalty.
The death penalty does not deter crime. Also, our system has a history of convicting innocent people. However, I also do not think it makes much sense spending money keeping some crazy criminals in prison (e.g. Charlie Manson). From what I’ve read, Manson enjoys being in prison.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Hi guys,
was a long break but something snapped. i see we’ve been progressing, nice topic too.
I like to remember the state of sin, as we grow more engrosed in it, we will do crazy things like, take a mans life. its the nature of sin to destroy.
The distance from God is critical to understand these things, in so much the same way being close to Him brings change.
Our inner most aim is always to bring a peaceful being. America in its self was formed as the setting of a peaceful nations where people were free to serve God.
but independence for all, brought independence from God, where we can saftly say the state of mind to be free will only bring destruction, for its when we surrender, and surrender to God that we truly live.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:20 am
Sorry I left the conversation for so long…midterms. Back to the first topic for a second, I just don’t think people will ever agree. You have the people who define based on religious definitions that do not change and those that define based on legal definitions that change. Marriage was NOT defined by man, but GOD. Therefore those that are religious and hold that first and authorized definition that marriage is between one man and one woman will always disagree with the legitimate legal argument that religion and state should be separated. Even further Andrew is that this new definition of marriage does and will continue to infringe on other people’s rights. Any non-profit religious organization that may refuse to marry gay couples or adopt to such couples would lose funding with the government and be forced to go private which is extremely expensive. I disagree with Dave about legalizing things as long as they harm no one but ourselves. Suicide is an act of violent murder, taking a life, even if it is one’s own. If you take out religion than where to people get their morals? If you don’t think that religion has any sway in our legal system than what defines right from wrong. Who says murder or rape is wrong? Who made that rule up? What cognizant part of man allows him or her to be conscious that one thing is not right over another thing. Please explain this to me. Where did these laws come from if not from God?
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:39 am
We’re carrying this conversation on in: http://www.truthmission.org/2009/11/07/more-about-jesus/#comment-904
I won’t comment on that here, so we can keep that topic contained.
What rights, specifically?
Watch this video regarding the changing definition of marriage. Dan Savage raises some good points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tM0Pg_KKV8
Too bad, that’s the free market at work. Right, Dave?
Any churches engaging in political action should not be tax-exempt. Churches should be allowed to turn down marrying couples not in their denomination. That’s their right. I don’t think gay couples would want to get married in a church that has different beliefs anyway.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
@Andrew
“Any non-profit religious organization that may refuse to marry gay couples or adopt to such couples would lose funding with the government and be forced to go private which is extremely expensive.
Too bad, that’s the free market at work. Right, Dave?
”
Perhaps you mean they would no longer have tax exemption. I am not aware of churches that receive federal funding but I could be wrong.
Get rid of the income tax all together and that would fix that problem.
Churches should have the right to turn down marring anyone for any reason. They should not be forced to marry anyone. Especially when doing so would be a sin.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
@Dave
We agree! Just add on “in their denomination” to the end of that.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:43 am
But anyone can say they are part of the denomination. It doesn’t really mean anything. People call themselves Christians even when what they really believe and do is anything but Christian.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Good point.
What I want to convey is if it is a sin according to their church’s beliefs.