-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Obama is a Jerk
- Thread starter tinytim
- Start date
Straight from Oz - no one has claimed that it's new, just that it WAS not anywhere near as prevalent as today. Primarily because there was shame, (anybody remember this ole' victorian emotion?), and morals were a little more important than today.
Now that is fact!!!!
StefanM said:
My daughters and I are well aware of that and when they are ready to marry, it should be atleast a few more years of history with this vaccine and we will have better picture of what any issues might be. I think this is a wonderful vaccine and if it's as safe as they say (even though it was fast-tracked through studies, IMO), I will have my children receive it. But for now, they are not having sex, so they cannot get the virus. Of course I'm well aware of rape if anyone has that argument but I also have faith in the God of the universe too and will leave the girls in His hands as far as rape is concerned. They are not in situations where that can happen that we are aware of (they are either at church in a crowd, at school in a crowd or with us).
Here's what Obama said: "When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
The part about abstinence is correct. I think some of the rest is partly correct. I think the part about being "punished with a baby" is partly incorrect.
We should teach our children that sex is for one woman with one man united in marriage for life. This is the only right context for sexual relations. The best place to start the teaching is by our own example and, if we fail in that respect, we should not lower the standard for our own children because of it.
Parents should warn children of the most important consequence of illicit sexual relations which is, first and foremost, sin against God. It is God that is displeased with it and pleasing Him should be our primary concern. We should be bold to proclaim sin as sin and sin as sin against God.
Parents should also warn their children of the possible secondary consequences of this sin including pregnancy outside marriage, sexually transmitted disease, damaged relationships with family and friends, demeaning of the beauty and purity of sex in its proper place, etc. The tone of this warning needs to be one of explaining what can happen because of it but it should not be a lesson on how to get away with the sin by avoiding the consequences.
I'm not certain how Obama meant his statement regarding "punished with a baby" and it may not have been intended the way some have taken it. On the other hand, from other comments it's clear he does support the so called "woman's right to choose" and so this comment raises the concern as to what he may have meant.
Considering a baby to be "punishment" is not an appropriate thing to teach children because it reduces the value of a baby's life to a means by God to inflict punishment. In a twist of humor, I've got to say that I sometimes see parents with children that make me wonder about this but it's difficult to say which of the two might be suffering from the punishment! Regardless, all life is created by God and all babies are conceived by God's will and all life is sacred from the moment of conception.
It is the duty of parents to bring the child to birth and to raise them to be self sufficient adults. It is not a right - neither of the man or woman - to decide. I think the parents of an illegitimate child - both male and female - should accept responsibility for their sin and not put the burden of it upon their child. With God's help it can be done! If they can not raise the child then they should give it up for adoption.
The part about abstinence is correct. I think some of the rest is partly correct. I think the part about being "punished with a baby" is partly incorrect.
We should teach our children that sex is for one woman with one man united in marriage for life. This is the only right context for sexual relations. The best place to start the teaching is by our own example and, if we fail in that respect, we should not lower the standard for our own children because of it.
Parents should warn children of the most important consequence of illicit sexual relations which is, first and foremost, sin against God. It is God that is displeased with it and pleasing Him should be our primary concern. We should be bold to proclaim sin as sin and sin as sin against God.
Parents should also warn their children of the possible secondary consequences of this sin including pregnancy outside marriage, sexually transmitted disease, damaged relationships with family and friends, demeaning of the beauty and purity of sex in its proper place, etc. The tone of this warning needs to be one of explaining what can happen because of it but it should not be a lesson on how to get away with the sin by avoiding the consequences.
I'm not certain how Obama meant his statement regarding "punished with a baby" and it may not have been intended the way some have taken it. On the other hand, from other comments it's clear he does support the so called "woman's right to choose" and so this comment raises the concern as to what he may have meant.
Considering a baby to be "punishment" is not an appropriate thing to teach children because it reduces the value of a baby's life to a means by God to inflict punishment. In a twist of humor, I've got to say that I sometimes see parents with children that make me wonder about this but it's difficult to say which of the two might be suffering from the punishment! Regardless, all life is created by God and all babies are conceived by God's will and all life is sacred from the moment of conception.
It is the duty of parents to bring the child to birth and to raise them to be self sufficient adults. It is not a right - neither of the man or woman - to decide. I think the parents of an illegitimate child - both male and female - should accept responsibility for their sin and not put the burden of it upon their child. With God's help it can be done! If they can not raise the child then they should give it up for adoption.
Looking back, I think Obama was referring to the difficulties of raising babies in this country's current financial context, and, maybe, the social stigma (if it still exists in this increasingly loose society) of having a baby out of wedlock.
If that is what it is, then what he is not saying is equally important.
Since despite the teaching of morals and values a daughter or a son still succumbs to the temptations of sex in this society, and is therefore, "punished" with a baby in the sense I think he means, is what he is not saying going to take us to the "right" to abort the baby ?
In other words, turn the tables and punish the innocent so the erring child gets off the hook of having to raise the baby and go thru the difficulties of parenthood ?
If that is what it is, then what he is not saying is equally important.
Since despite the teaching of morals and values a daughter or a son still succumbs to the temptations of sex in this society, and is therefore, "punished" with a baby in the sense I think he means, is what he is not saying going to take us to the "right" to abort the baby ?
In other words, turn the tables and punish the innocent so the erring child gets off the hook of having to raise the baby and go thru the difficulties of parenthood ?
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
pinoybaptist said:
I believe he is saying that for HIV/AIDS prevention, it is important to teach our children
1) moral and values about the seriousness of sex
2) education about abstinence and contraception should they still desire to have sex
He plans to teach his daughters 1). And in response to those who say you shouldn't have public school education for 2), he doesn't believe his daughters should be ignorant about those issues and be "punished" for ignorance with the difficulties of teenage pregnancy/motherhood and STDs.
If he is saying anything about abortion, I get the impression he is saying that if his daughters got pregnant, he assumes they would have the "baby" and keep it. He doesn't call it the punishment of a fetus or pregnancy.
Last edited by a moderator:
pinoybaptist said:
I think that's the concern a lot of people have with this! There are plenty of people today that support the "right" to abort a baby in order to avoid the "punishment" of being a parent.
I do have the concern that Obama supports such thinking even if this was not his message in this specific incident.
Somewhere in our nation's journey towards "equality" for women we mixed in the concept of a "woman's right to choose" much like many other of man's other attempts to rationalize and justify sinful conduct.
JustChristian
New Member
tinytim said:
Well, we had forgotten 9/11 so much in 2004 that we reelected the man who did absolutely NOTHING on that day to justify his title as commander in chief.
southern_saint
New Member
Obama is simply a godless human secularist. God help us all.
I'm not sure that this nation would survive what would be in essence a third term for George W. Bush's policies.Magnetic Poles
New Member
Is every post you make a racist comment? You sound like a disciple of David Duke.webdog said: