Right to LifeBoard

Thanks. Leaving the working class behind. Could an example of that be when democrats claim the economy is ok, but then republicans clarify that eggs and gas cost too much and its not okay? More recently, and I mean exactly after the election the republicans I know say the economy is already better. Perhaps the win calmed some peoples neurosis? I will just relay one direct story. Names changed. Suzy (republican) on Nov. 1: Everything is so expensive its crazy and I do not know where I will get the money for all the bills. Suzy on Nov. 8: I just paid $94 for an oil change, that seemed kinda high but I just gave them my credit card.

Roborian wrote:

While I dislike Matt Gaetz as wrong self-styled social 'progressivism' who has been politically pushing for compromises on sexual morality, substance use, and family structure, seems to only take conservative stances for political reasons, and seems to be under allegation trouble for applying loose morality to his personal life as well. Another case where, in a better society that had not stripped down its sense of sexual morality, we could see public shame at his not-really-denied philandering rather than having to couch it in the location-dependent guise of '17 (which he denies) is a travesty but 18 (which he tacitly admits) is fine' when in fact both are plainly immoral.

I think he's a total self-serving jerk and I'm hoping his resignation from Congress remains despite pulling his name from consideration for AG. He genuinely might be my least favorite member of Congress and I hate how partisan republicans fawn over him even though it is so obvious he is a CINO (Conservative in Name Only) with deep character issues. The way he interrupted McCarthy at the RNC this year purely out of spite speaks for itself, for example.

Money bagz wrote:

Suzy on Nov. 8: I just paid $94 for an oil change, that seemed kinda high but I just gave them my credit card.

That doesn't exactly sound like about-face positivism to me. Seem rather cynical if anything. Also $94 is way too high, I wouldn't pay more than $50 and try to get it done for $30.

I fear we have been had.

For sure he never read 1 Corinthians. He did not realize there were two testaments.

https://www.facebook.com/bloombergbusiness/videos/we-asked-donald-j-trump-about-his-favorite-bible-verse-heres-what-he-said-httpbl/10153577166571880/

Think of a kingdom.

In this kingdom, the drinking well is poisoned by a wizard, such that a person drinking from the well is driven insane. Everyone in the kingdom drank from the well, except the king and queen, who had a separate well for their use. Alarmed by the madness of the people, the king tried to issue edicts to control their behavior. To the insane populace, these edicts sounded like nonsense. The king’s problem was this: If he refused to drink from the poisoned well, which would make him insane, the people, believing he was insane, would dethrone him.

Questions for Discussion:

Is it possible that, now, we each have our own customized, algorithm-enforced poisoned well? And that certain “wizards” have learned that lies are an especially potent form of poison? And that, therefore, the wells to which those “wizards” have access are more full of lies than others? And that even the wells that are full of truths aren’t great, since the method of delivery tends to enlarge one truth (one way of seeing) at the expense of others, thereby making it difficult to sustain such fragile things as ambiguity, doubt, sympathy, complexity, or genuine curiosity?

Might we then consider ourselves a culture being actively poisoned, a poisoning to which we are enthusiastically consenting?

What might we do about this?

As we are all vegan. We have chosen this as we are despised of death.
Then, we should lobby to make meat eating illegal. No more death. No more killing.

Nishima wrote:

As we are all vegan. We have chosen this as we are despised of death.
Then, we should lobby to make meat eating illegal. No more death. No more killing.

Who's we?

Nishima wrote:

As we are all vegan. We have chosen this as we are despised of death.
Then, we should lobby to make meat eating illegal. No more death. No more killing.

I eat Arby's.  They have the meat.  Which makes me a meat eater.

Nishima wrote:

As we are all vegan. We have chosen this as we are despised of death.
Then, we should lobby to make meat eating illegal. No more death. No more killing.

I have no idea why people think being vegan is good. But it wouldn't change much because animals eat each other. My best counter is if an animal is not meant to be eaten why is it made of food?

Also if I and my neighbors don't hunt the deer in my area they'd basically eat our garden up or start getting diseases like CWD. There's also coyotes in my area too which if the deer population goes up they go up.

Nishima The best way to describe death unless they're unborn is the ultimate resource distributor.

E jean carroll wrote:

I fear we have been had.

For sure he never read 1 Corinthians. He did not realize there were two testaments.

https://www.facebook.com/bloombergbusiness/videos/we-asked-donald-j-trump-about-his-favorite-bible-verse-heres-what-he-said-httpbl/10153577166571880/

I tried to paste this link into my browser and only ended up on FB's home page. But I agree that Trump, for all his words, shows no signs of being a true Christian.

“When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God. But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5‬:‭19‬-‭23‬ (NLT‬‬)

Two lists: the fruit of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit. Which one describes Trump's behavior better?

Phydios wrote:

I tried to paste this link into my browser and only ended up on FB's home page. But I agree that Trump, for all his words, shows no signs of being a true Christian.

“When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God. But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5‬:‭19‬-‭23‬ (NLT‬‬)

Two lists: the fruit of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit. Which one describes Trump's behavior better?

You probably don't hear his stance on Christianity because the liberal media is not including it.  Have you seen the 700 club news to see if they have anything about Trump's stance on Christianity?

Teresar wrote:

You probably don't hear his stance on Christianity because the liberal media is not including it.  Have you seen the 700 club news to see if they have anything about Trump's stance on Christianity?

I'm not talking about Trump's stance on Christianity. I'm measuring his public behavior against the words of Scripture to see how it lines up with the behavior of a follower of Christ.

Money bagz wrote:

Thanks. Leaving the working class behind. Could an example of that be when democrats claim the economy is ok, but then republicans clarify that eggs and gas cost too much and its not okay? More recently, and I mean exactly after the election the republicans I know say the economy is already better. Perhaps the win calmed some peoples neurosis? I will just relay one direct story. Names changed. Suzy (republican) on Nov. 1: Everything is so expensive its crazy and I do not know where I will get the money for all the bills. Suzy on Nov. 8: I just paid $94 for an oil change, that seemed kinda high but I just gave them my credit card.

People absolutely filter things through their own lenses. One can frequently find polls showing people's not only perceptions of things, but opinions of things change depending on who they were told was the one supporting it/in office.

It can very well be a sort of 'plank in the eye'. We, broadly speaking, identify with politicians as 'our guy' or parties as 'our team', and so are more likely to disregard or not notice issues or failures while hyperfixating on the problems of opponents, in the same way that we as humans can often blindly complain about someone else engaging in the same kind of behavior that we ourselves may be guilty of.

Nishima wrote:

Might we then consider ourselves a culture being actively poisoned, a poisoning to which we are enthusiastically consenting?

What might we do about this?

I think the answer is yes, but I also think that we may overestimate the extent to which this is a unique and new thing. We make much of people having their own 'bubbles' or 'silos' of information on the internet, but we're also a country where it used to be standard practice for daily newspapers, one's primary source of information, to explicitly identify with a political party. There's a case to be made that the ostensible neutrality of the big news networks in the TV era was the odd aberration rather than an expected norm, and that algorithmic partisanship, whether low-tech or high-tech, is more normal.

I will admit, though, that I am coming at this from the outside perspective of someone who does not use or scroll social media and actively tries to avoid sharing personal/advertising/algorithmic data as much as possible (e.g., I have no idea what the YouTube algorithm thinks of me, I do not have an account and purge the history whenever I finish watching.) So, there may be something to it being worse than I think, but I would frame that, especially for younger people, as less a problem of partisanship, and more a problem of ever-present technology causing harm.

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:

I think he's a total self-serving jerk and I'm hoping his resignation from Congress remains despite pulling his name from consideration for AG. He genuinely might be my least favorite member of Congress and I hate how partisan republicans fawn over him even though it is so obvious he is a CINO (Conservative in Name Only) with deep character issues. The way he interrupted McCarthy at the RNC this year purely out of spite speaks for itself, for example.

His entire role in the revolt against McCarthy appears to be, by all external appearances, motivated primarily or entirely in the interest of self-serving image-burnishing, regardless of political consequence and unconcerned with making any actual accomplishments. There are apparently online pushes to get him appointed to Rubio's Senate seat, I think well enough of DeSantis to doubt that that would happen, but it would be highly unpleasant if it did.

I am glad that Gaetz's nomination is out, but I'm unpleasantly becoming aware of the state of another. I had never heard the name of 'Pete Hegseth' until his appointment, but while there's probably pretty decent odds that in purely policy terms some positive things may come of it, I'm really just aggravated by who he apparently is relative to what he stands for. He reportedly has tattoos of a Jerusalem Cross and Deus Vult, that doesn't really concern me, though I'm sure it freaks some people out. What gets at me is the activity-he has been married three times, two divorces, both because of infidelity on his part. He wrote a 2016 book in which he stated that conservatives should 'prevent divorces of parents with children' and a revised copy of that book subsequently changed that to 'prevent wanton divorces', as in that year he not only divorced from his wife with whom he had three children, after he fathered a child in an adulterous relationship with a reportedly married woman (and was accused of sexual assault, in what he defined as a 'consensual', read, 'adulterous' sexual encounter.), he would then marry that woman after she, who also had children, divorced her husband.

https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/03/27/pete-hegseth-potential-cabinet-appointment

Carnal Christianity, this idea that's not new, especially not in politics, but is, unsurprisingly, gaining steam in the Trump era, is a grievous spiritual threat, having supposed standard-bearers of the faith, not hiding private sin, itself a problem, but seeming to considers themselves unfettered by the morals they are supposedly preaching. I, and I think some in the region would disagree with me here, actually don't have any problem with at least the part of quote-unquote 'Christian Nationalism' that thinks our country ought to elect Christians to office and govern on Christian principles, but actually running and governing on Christian principles means, or even moreso, requires active rebuke of people doing the sort of publicly unbiblical things that Hegseth has.

Phydios wrote:

I tried to paste this link into my browser and only ended up on FB's home page. But I agree that Trump, for all his words, shows no signs of being a true Christian.

“When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God. But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5‬:‭19‬-‭23‬ (NLT‬‬)

Two lists: the fruit of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit. Which one describes Trump's behavior better?

I have, obviously, been plenty critical of Trump's immoralities, but I've recently been finding myself feeling more sorry for him, because I think there is a very real chance that he's never really been personally ministered to. So many of his comments on Christianity, some are just blasé, maybe stone-eared, but others just seem ignorant, not in the 'ha, you're dumb' sense, but the 'no one has ever explained this to me.' His comments on forgiveness in 2015 certainly made the rounds, his earlier statements this year on religion in the general 'do good, go to heaven' sense, I don't know if he has really heard the Gospel.

In some ways that seems unlikely, he's had plenty of opportunity to interact with people of faith, but he grew up a billionaire's kid, then a billionaire himself, then the President of the United States. I could really easily see a case where no-one ever really felt up to getting personal with the guy, the bigshot, about his sin and separation from God.

I have recently been trying to do a better job at being conscious of the humanity, and thus both the inherent brokeness and inherent worth, of people, try harder to sympathize and empathize, and while none of this provides an excuse for the sin he has lived in and not repented from, there's a real scenario where he's lost because he is lost, has never had someone to help open his eyes.

Of course this is just speculation, it's entirely possible that Trump has seen, and chose to reject, choosing self and pride, but I would pray that he gets someone who is willing to speak to him, personally and openly, about just who God is and what that means.

Roborian wrote:

I am glad that Gaetz's nomination is out, but I'm unpleasantly becoming aware of the state of another. I had never heard the name of 'Pete Hegseth' until his appointment, but while there's probably pretty decent odds that in purely policy terms some positive things may come of it, I'm really just aggravated by who he apparently is relative to what he stands for. He reportedly has tattoos of a Jerusalem Cross and Deus Vult, that doesn't really concern me, though I'm sure it freaks some people out. What gets at me is the activity-he has been married three times, two divorces, both because of infidelity on his part. He wrote a 2016 book in which he stated that conservatives should 'prevent divorces of parents with children' and a revised copy of that book subsequently changed that to 'prevent wanton divorces', as in that year he not only divorced from his wife with whom he had three children, after he fathered a child in an adulterous relationship with a reportedly married woman (and was accused of sexual assault, in what he defined as a 'consensual', read, 'adulterous' sexual encounter.), he would then marry that woman after she, who also had children, divorced her husband.

https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/03/27/pete-hegseth-potential-cabinet-appointment

And now Gaetz is saying he won't take his seat in January, so this is all a win in my book. Out of congress, out of the administration. Hopefully no real political future.

I also had never heard of Hegseth. I didn't know about the book and some of the other things you mention, but I can't say his lawyer's response to the rape allegation actually cleared his character even if it is true: it was consensual adultery with a woman whose husband and children were staying at the same hotel while I was semi-drunk after a Republican Women's Convention and started swearing like a sailor so that management had to intervene. Oh, is that all?

Alright so we're all (presumably) pro-life here. My question is what are your opinions on contraceptives? Obviously aborticides are a huge no, but what about other methods? Personally, although I am a Lutheran, I take the Roman Catholic position that contraceptives shouldn't be used, and I am a huge proponent of Natural Family Planning

Vendellamoore wrote:

Alright so we're all (presumably) pro-life here. My question is what are your opinions on contraceptives? Obviously aborticides are a huge no, but what about other methods? Personally, although I am a Lutheran, I take the Roman Catholic position that contraceptives shouldn't be used, and I am a huge proponent of Natural Family Planning

I see nothing wrong with contraceptives, and in fact by reducing the rate of unexpected pregnancies they can reduce the rate of abortions.

New Dolgaria wrote:

I see nothing wrong with contraceptives, and in fact by reducing the rate of unexpected pregnancies they can reduce the rate of abortions.

My reasons are more theological and natural than practical I must admit. While it is practically good, I find that the most natural of methods, ie NFP, is just as, if not more effective at preventing unexpected pregnancies.

Theologically I consider that contraceptives work against the natural design of procreation and should not be used. I recall I saw somewhere a chart which showed couples who used contraceptives vs those who didn't experienced more problems in their relationship, and it often led to feelings of being used and contributed to higher divorce rates. I think for that and many more reasons that NFP is to be preferred. It's basically tracking fertility cycles and abstaining during those days.

https://www.archindy.org/criterion/files/2021/07-23/s-nfp-graphic-large.jpg

Vendellamoore wrote:

Alright so we're all (presumably) pro-life here. My question is what are your opinions on contraceptives? Obviously aborticides are a huge no, but what about other methods? Personally, although I am a Lutheran, I take the Roman Catholic position that contraceptives shouldn't be used, and I am a huge proponent of Natural Family Planning

So long as the contraceptive acts before fertilization, rather than by preventing an embryo from implanting in the uterus, I have no issue with the practice. However, no contraceptive is perfect, so they do not provide consequence-free intercourse. I do believe that the reckless use of them has had an effect on the number of abortions, and I certainly oppose that.

Vendellamoore wrote:

Alright so we're all (presumably) pro-life here. My question is what are your opinions on contraceptives? Obviously aborticides are a huge no, but what about other methods? Personally, although I am a Lutheran, I take the Roman Catholic position that contraceptives shouldn't be used, and I am a huge proponent of Natural Family Planning

I am mixed on the issue. It was never something that I gave much thought, knew that Catholics did not like them, thought that a little strange, but just a shrug, and 'sure, legal, why not.' I have since been exposed to a lot more discussions/arguments/reasonings, in-person or online, opposing their permissibility, theology of the body, etc....and I still probably still fall on the side of their being generally legal/tolerable (obviously not referring to abortifacients).

I see the case against them, and I think there is something to the societal sort of case that their prevalence is detrimental to our cultural perspective on intimacy (which frankly probably applies to my below comment), but at an atomized level I am not yet fully convinced that it is individually impermissible, even if I probably see it as something probably best avoided generally speaking at this point. I probably could be convinced over to the other side with enough of a push, as my general perspective on governance has been growing substantially less libertarian in character. As a matter of Christian liberty, there is a fairly large gap between seeing as 'inadvisable' and seeing as 'unacceptable' in my current perspective. I certainly, at a minimum, think that any teaching, formal or otherwise, that frames them as any kind of sure bet against conception is something that is actively harmful.

New Dolgaria wrote:

I see nothing wrong with contraceptives, and in fact by reducing the rate of unexpected pregnancies they can reduce the rate of abortions.

This is a hobbyhorse of mine, but I really strongly dislike the term 'unexpected pregnancies'. It gives such a perspective of an 'oops, look what happened!' mindset that's just part of a really just silly societal mindset on sex that I think young people absorb uncritically through culture and it does them real significant harm.

There is exactly one natural thing that humans can do that can create a baby, the specific baby-making thing, and you made a deliberate, intentional decision to do the specific baby-making thing. If choosing, knowingly and on purpose, to do the specific baby-making thing makes a baby, that is not 'unexpected.'

Vendellamoore wrote:

Alright so we're all (presumably) pro-life here. My question is what are your opinions on contraceptives? Obviously aborticides are a huge no, but what about other methods? Personally, although I am a Lutheran, I take the Roman Catholic position that contraceptives shouldn't be used, and I am a huge proponent of Natural Family Planning

I think they're fine to stay legal. Some women need their birth control pills to keep their menstrual cycle consistent. I really think we need to educate people more about stuff like family planning and abstinence or safe sex. Best thing is to just teach people how to prevent a pregnancy than to kill it.

Hedonismia wrote:

I think they're fine to stay legal. Some women need their birth control pills to keep their menstrual cycle consistent. I really think we need to educate people more about stuff like family planning and abstinence or safe sex. Best thing is to just teach people how to prevent a pregnancy than to kill it.

It seems contraception responsibility is really weighted heavily on women. Men would not care in many cases and just complete the task.

Money bagz wrote:

It seems contraception responsibility is really weighted heavily on women. Men would not care in many cases and just complete the task.

There isn't many for men other than just blocking the stuff.