Here is a nice, clean, clickable version:
Posted on 08/17/2014 7:30:28 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
AMEN!
.....For the short term that is, but not the long term.
True, because there are situations in which, one has no control of that may cause one to become a single parent. But having sex outside of the marriage bond, that is sinful.
Yeah....but you did not have a the ability to wear a 3k dollar outfit which you csn writenoff on your taxes as a business expense and aprofessional photographer with a soft focus lens to hide the stretch marks and redness caused by babies nursing.
Or you would totally have had your baby naked in the breakfast diner chowing down..../s
We are a cult of suicidal sacrifice to appease a bunch of wolves wearing high heels, men or women.
it never stops there. Obviously the elite is too cowardly so the elite will lose it all.
There is nothing fostering any kind of sustainability. Global Warming is a cover up.
The war was won on a hillside outside Jerusalem one afternoon about 2000 years ago.
This is just some ankle biting pot shots by the loser.
Only acts that are under our control, our choices, can be sinful. We choose whether we have sex (most of the time); depending on the circumstances, that chosen action is either a sin or not a sin. We don’t choose whether a child is conceived ... and once one is, being an “unwed mother” is the only moral choice.
I look but try not to READ fashion magazines. She was featured in Elle magazine, where she described her very liberal upbringing. Her parents were friends with the left hoi polloi.
S he has this big. bulgy forehead that she does not cover up, and her baby daddy is Jason Sudeikis from Saturday Night Live.
Here is a nice, clean, clickable version:
Gee, another selfish, narcissistic, "who needs men" liberal for Hollyweird.
You nailed it: just another Hollywood idiot.
PUT THAT TO MUSIC ♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫ !!
Heh, everybody polka! But seriously, Christians shouldn't fall for the idea that the birth of a child can be a bad thing. The actions of the parents can be wrong, accidental circumstances can be suboptimal ... but the child is always a good thing.
...but the child is always a good thing.
AMEN!
God wins. I read the end of the book.
We are to win as many as we can over to Him before it’s too late while this world perishes. We are not of this world, and probably won’t “win” the American culture back to Christianity, but one at a time we can help rescue hell bound people.
THAT is what Jesus charged us with before his ascension.
OK, I get what you're saying here, but I want to look at it fom a different angle.
Let's say Olivia conceived the child by artificial insemination: no nonmarital intrcourse, but there's still at least one, maybe two things here that really ain't right: first the child is being intentionally deprived of half of his most fundmental birthright: his father. It's as bad as intentionally depriving him of half of his heart or half of his brain. To have his whole birthrigtht, he needs to be able to derive his identity, kinship and provision from his father as well.
I emphasize the word "intentionally" because this somtimes happens through death or happenstance or tragic alienation, and that's sad: but when it happens intentionally, it's not just sad, it's unacknowledged bereavement and robbery.
Second, a child, being a human and not a pedigreed dog or a thoroughbred horse, has a right to be procreated in the way good for humans and not just adequate for animals: not by veterinary methods. When mom and dad's honest covenanting, deep embracing, myseriously uniting love, brings him into being --- a child gradually understands this is sacred, and it tells him the same message about God, goodness and Genesis one might get in the first chapter of the Bible: good, good, good.
To dewliberately set it up so a random horny man, a stranger to the child, paid and porn-aroused, masturbates into a speciment-collection baggie, and his mom pays for his 5 ml of ejaculate and has it put in her by the equivalent of a lab tech.... Hm. Son, or science project? Where's the love and wonder and sacredness?
It's a devaluing of the good, good, good.
Does that make sense? But say she's not doing that, she's Intending to bring a child into existence deprived of a na
I see what you’re saying, up to the last line. However, it seems to me that we’re in the same situation as if the child were conceived by fornication. The child’s existence - and therefore, the condition of “parenthood” - is good. The actions of the parents in conceiving him were sinful.
The meaning of the word "parenthood" needs more thought. Parenting is "good" like, existence is "good": "Esse qua esse bonum est," Augustine. But parenting this way, that way and the other way is not good.
Not that you should kill the baby!!! -- one shouldn't have to add. But if you respected the baby, you would have conceived him in a fitting way.
Somebody remarked to me, years ago, that sexual intercourse is the only act with sufficient dignity to procreate a human being. It startled me. Really. Shocked me a little. I had to ponder that for a couple of years before I got it.
Yes, you’re right. It occurred to me, as I wandered off to the next thing, that “parenthood,” philosophically, is a bit different from affirming the existence of a child.
Nonetheless, back to my previous point, only thoughts, words, actions, and omissions can be either sinful or virtuous. The condition of “motherhood” or “fatherhood” per se has to be morally neutral.
Add “choice of” and it’s a whole new ballgame.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.