Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

GOP Going Against Biblical Principle

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 08:19 PM
Original message
GOP Going Against Biblical Principle
Edited on Sun Mar-20-05 08:31 PM by journalist3072
Well, for them to be the God-fearing and Bible-loving party that they claim to be, it appears to me that the GOP is going against biblical principle in the Terry Schiavo case.

Genesis 2:24 says “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.”

It’s an absolutely beautiful scripture; one of my favorite in the Bible.

What that scripture says to me is that once a man and woman are married, they become one. Yet, Republicans don’t want Michael Schiavo to help carry out what he says his wife’s wishes were: not to be kept alive using extraordinary measures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
vademocrat Donating Member (962 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Forget us gays-Congress is the real threat to the sanctity of marriage!
They're doing more damage this weekend than any gay person I've ever heard of!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Well.....
I'm not a proponent of the gay lifestyle. I don't agree with it.

But I wholeheartedly agree with you that the Republicans are the biggest threat to the institution of marriage. They don't want a husband to carry out what he says his wife's wishes are.

Every time I think about that, I'm just amazed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. There is no "gay lifestyle".
Thought you should know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Sorry, but I believe it is
That is the way a person chooses to live their life; just as those of us who are heterosexual have chosen to live our lives the opposite way. They are both lifestyles, as far as I'm concerned.

However, I don't want to detract here from the main point of this thread.

My main point in starting this thread was to say that any Republican injecting him or herself into the Schiavo case is, in my opinion, going against the Biblical principle of a man and woman becoming one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Please tell me about your choice to be attracted to a particular gender
And there is no LIFESTYLE, just lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitka Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Then you shouldn't have even mentioned it.
It really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevCheesehead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. Their hypocrisy lies in their selective understanding of marriage.
But I would hasten to add, that the understanding is based, in part, on the notion that a woman was PROPERTY, passed from father to husband. There was/is no such notion, of a woman as an individual, in fundamentalist thought.

I think the fundamental question is: Who is Terri's legal guardian? It seems the answer is clear - her husband.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Legal guardian
I think you're right. My understanding was that the court had appointed her husband as her guardian.

If that is indeed the case, then he has been empowered to make decisions on her behalf, since she is unable to make them for herself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. I talked and debated about this
on a Christian board. Some said that the husband went against marriage when he moved on with his life. Maybe in the eyes of God but not in the eyes of the law. According to the law he's still her husband and makes the decision of what to do. Nobody else but him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. That doesn't surprise me
That they would say he should not have moved on with his life.

You have some Christians who believe that once you are married, you are always married. So they don't believe in 2nd marriages.

I had 2 aunts who refused to come to my Uncle's second wedding; because obviously he had been married before, and so had his new wife.

I thought that was just wrong.

There are many scriptures on marriage. And I think you have to read them all in their totality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevCheesehead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. That's why we have Methodist Pastors.
We are in high demand to perform Second Marriages for Baptists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
8. Yep
Quite pathetic really. This show it's just political issue, them and the Bible and religion, because they aren't using it for this situation. They are using it for their own will and to gain ratings and votes. If they cared at all about what the Bible teaches they will honor this. It is from God.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Totally agree with you!
They are not respecting the institution of marriage here. They are not giving Michael Schiavo the repsect he deserves as the husband, to make these decisions on his wife's behalf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevCheesehead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. and, I might add,
that by so doing, they are incurring the wrath of God.

You know - THEIR God. The God who gets pissed off when people try to take over and move in on his territory.

They should be :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
14. "... PVS patients no longer bear the image of God and ..."
"... therefore need not be fed or hydrated." This is the position of Dr. Robert Rakesstraw, Professor of Theology at Bethel Theological Seminary in Minnesota.

I can't believe I find myself agreeing with a Baptist on something. Okay, well, it is an Independent Baptist.

...If the PVS condition can be shown to be total and irreversible, and if the loss of personhood can be considered death in a theological sense, there appears to be strong support for disconnecting artificial feeding. Those who intend to keep their PVS loved ones sustained by mechanical means are making one choice, and it should be respected.{62} Similarly those who, after prayerful and careful reflection upon the issues in the light of Scripture, in keeping with the law, decide to withdraw nutrition and hydration are making another choice. This, too, should be respected.{63}

http://www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/PVS.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC