Posted on 05/04/2009 10:27:57 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day
He isn’t interested in the Bible this is just the guys schtick, it enables him to destroy any Palin thread under the guise of doing God’s work.
Think about it, you could sit hidden behind your computer with a bible and do this to anyone alive and keep any discussion about that individual from ever taking place here at FR, when the farmer shows up on a Palin thread, then the thread becomes all him, all the time.
The moderators should put a stop to his technique.
PROVE IT!
Abstinence isn’t realistic when one is speaking personally as she was or as one familiar with history. It’s realistic for many, as it was for me, but our current times aren’t much different than 50 or 100, etc. years ago. Premarital sex isn’t anything new.
Read Matthew 18? Okey dokey?
21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
I guess we should ignore it, because the thread has really gotten hijacked by this nonsense.
I disagree with your interpretation. And your entire post. I’m going to bed so will reply more later.
As for now, all I’ll say is we don’t banish people from our lives, especially our children, for mistakes they make.
I meant the whole chapter. You’re pulling a Keith Olbermann on the Bible. I hope you’re proud.
It is you who is lacking common sense depth. If you would have read scripture, you would know that we ALL sin. Every kid and teenager makes mistakes. It is up to us to forgive them and help them to the right track.
You're vicious bashing of Bristol and even more her mother cannot be justified by the Bible.
Oh, shut up. You started all this nonsense, and you’re the one who “pulled a Keith Oberman” by only quoting 1 Cor 5:11, and completely misconstruing Paul’s meaning. You aren’t even worth debating. I will no longer respond to your asinine attempts to hijack this thread.
You ain’t paying for Bristol’s sex life.
She ain’t setting an example for my daughters. We don’t live our lives according to what anyone else does. My daughters don’t look to her or anyone else as a role model.
My historical data is accurate but of course we weren’t discussing that data.
I do think there is a cost associated with unwed motherhood and absent fathers, but we weren’t discussing that now were we?
I don’t give a damn what anyone does in their bedroom.
So you call me a fool? Nice. And here I thought we were having a discussion.
Bristol ain’t one of my own so no idea where you got that one from. The only people who are “my own” are my family.
Forget it. My mistake thinking we could have a discussion. Guess I was really a fool trying to converse with you.
I agree, she has to get out there now, even if she has to carpool with the “dark side” of the party.
I have no question or qualm that Sarah does not believe Bristol’s conduct was wrong, either the original sexual sin or whatever Bristol told People. What they have spoken about to each other or to God is not possible to discern at our distance. I believe Sarah has chosen to keep the disgrace from being furthered in the tabloids, knowing that the media is simply spoiling to portray a cat fight between them. It might be a good idea for Bristol to marry to create a more traditional family, but again do we want a cat fight portrayed between daughter and mother.
At best: we know too little to condemn Sarah now with any confidence. Hopefully she will clarify in appropriate circumstances.
The thread is over, when farmer shows up and starts his routine then it stops whatever discussion was taking place and draws every one's attention to him, he does love the limelight and will keep it up endlessly and make it as inflammatory as possible to make sure that he can't be ignored.
There are enough “Bristol threads” on this subject.
Can we agree to stop the hijacking of this thread and relegate this stuff to where it belongs?
There would be no need for public “blasting” of Sarah or her daughter if a serious man of God, or even a student of history, had been somewhere remotely close to their lives and counsels as a family. This is a family parading itself before the public as an Assembly of God, “got-baptised,” born again band of believers, but their self-government response to their own problem doesn’t seem anything like the sort of Christianity John Adams declared was essential to the preservation of the republic. When Bristol declared abstinence as “not realistic,” she might as well have been saying righteousness itself was a farce. She was overtly declaring the need for a welfare state, for federallly funded planned parenthood. You really want THAT as your limited-government banner??
Thanks. I didn’t know. I’m going to bed.
Right, right, Ansel. Let’s go back to taking solace in the fact that Sarah is chumming it up with Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. Very, very exciting news and a fruitful thread indeed.
It seems that maybe Bristol herself is being misconscrewed.
Whether her comments about abstinence not being realistic are descriptive or prescriptive are, at the very worst, not clear. We know they are descriptive. God sometimes described His people in an analogous unflattering manner. For that to be prescriptive would have been a grave wrong. But it is not clear that is what Bristol meant.
Bristol did express her wish that none others follow in her footsteps. With a modicum of charity, this can be taken as the definitive statement on the matter.
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.