Jump to content

Same Sex Marraige Breakdown Chart


Recommended Posts

This thread is worthless, let's change the subject.I heard about a study on families.If the mom is a church goer, but the dad never goes to church, only 1 in 50 children will be regular church goers when they are adults.If the dad is a church goer, but the mom never goes to church, 66% - 75% of the children will be regular church goers when they are adults.Why do you think this is? That is a massive massive difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is worthless, let's change the subject.I heard about a study on families.If the mom is a church goer, but the dad never goes to church, only 1 in 50 children will be regular church goers when they are adults.If the dad is a church goer, but the mom never goes to church, 66% - 75% of the children will be regular church goers when they are adults.Why do you think this is? That is a massive massive difference.
Everybody hates their mothers, obviously.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Women don't really count,,,,,,,, obviously.
If a child goes to church and learns that women shouldn't even speak, and he learns this lesson well, how important will he hold his mother's opinion about anything?
Link to post
Share on other sites
People are always trying to make dad proud of them. And they know mom will be more understanding if they don't follow in her footsteps.
I agree with this.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If a child goes to church and learns that women shouldn't even speak, and he learns this lesson well, how important will he hold his mother's opinion about anything?
+1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Because people who go to church are on a quest to find their fathers.
Let's leave Obama and Clinton out of this discussion.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If a child goes to church and learns that women shouldn't even speak, and he learns this lesson well, how important will he hold his mother's opinion about anything?
Well hopefully he will go beyond the shallow understanding of your average atheist and see what the Bible actually teaches.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If a child goes to church and learns that women shouldn't even speak, and he learns this lesson well, how important will he hold his mother's opinion about anything?
If the child goes to church and learns that the father is the head of the family then he will want to follow him, but then the father doesn't go to church, so the child follows his lead, which leads him to believe that the Bible isn't right about everything, so he stops blindly following the father, which leads him to listen to his mother who is going to church, so he starts going again, but then he remembers that the father is the head of the family...
Link to post
Share on other sites
If the child goes to church and learns that the father is the head of the family then he will want to follow him, but then the father doesn't go to church, so the child follows his lead, which leads him to believe that the Bible isn't right about everything, so he stops blindly following the father, which leads him to listen to his mother who is going to church, so he starts going again, but then he remembers that the father is the head of the family...
You're from Australia, which is full of criminals, so I can't possibly drink from the cup in front of me. But, you'd know that I'd be aware of your history, so I can't possibly drink from the cup in front of you...
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well hopefully he will go beyond the shallow understanding of your average atheist and see what the Bible actually teaches.
Does what the bible "actually" teaches have anything to do with the words actually written in it? What sort of deep understanding makes this verse support the idea that a woman's opinion has the same value as a man's?
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Because people who go to church are on a quest to find their fathers.
Let's leave Obama and Clinton out of this discussion.
Hahaha, it's funny because Bill Clinton's biological father tragically died before his son was even born! Hahaha! A real knee-slapper!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hahaha, it's funny because Bill Clinton's biological father tragically died before his son was even born! Hahaha! A real knee-slapper!
Thought he was just one of many guys his mother slept with. Like Obama's father was.You sure about that? For Bill I mean, we all know it was true of Stanley.Edit: Nope you were right...kind of:
He was born as one of nine children to William Jefferson Blythe, Sr. (1884-1935), a poor farmer in Sherman, Texas, and his wife Lou Birchie Ayers (1893–1946).[2]. In December 1935, shortly before his eighteenth birthday, he married Virginia Adele Gash. They divorced within 13 months. They had one son, Henry Leon Blythe, on January 17, 1938, who was conceived after their divorce. Henry later took the surname of his stepfather, Charles Ritzenthaler, after Gash and Blythe divorced.On December 29, 1940, Blythe married his first wife's sister, Fannie Maye Gash. This short lived marriage produced Sharon Lee Blythe (later Pettijohn), who was born on May 11, 1941.On May 3, 1941, he married for a third time in Jackson County, Missouri, to Wanetta Ellen Alexander of Kansas City. Their divorce became final on April 13, 1944.Blythe's fourth marriage took place on September 3, 1943, to Virginia Dell Cassidy. She became pregnant in late 1945, eventually giving birth to William Jefferson Blythe, later William Jefferson Clinton. Blythe died in a car crash before Bill was born, and Bill was raised by Roger Clinton, Sr.. Virginia did not learn of her husband's previous marriages until 50 years later
Link to post
Share on other sites
Does what the bible "actually" teaches have anything to do with the words actually written in it? What sort of deep understanding makes this verse support the idea that a woman's opinion has the same value as a man's?
That verse has contextual meaning which clarifies it. Corinthians is a book written for instruction to pastors for their churches, and addresses specific problems some churches were having. They asked specific questions, and got specific answers. For instance one of teh questions they answered was regarding a man who was having an affair with his step mother. the answer is not to be applied to all relationships between men and women, to do so would be silly.Being so fresh from the Jewish faith, the Early Christians adopted many of the same traditions, one of which was separate sitting areas for men and women. Women would ask their husband questions about the service, and were disruptive, so they were commanded to shut their filthy mouths. In context, this verse completely has a different meaning than you are ascribing to it.But I understand why you guys like to pull it out of context. It fits your pre-conceived notions of what you already know to be true.That's why verses like this:
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
are consistent with the message of the New Testament. One that was radically pro-women when the culture literally had women one step above property.But again, just focus on the worst possible explanation, it will be repeated over and over again by many web sites filled with all the 'proof' that the Bible is racist, sexist and supports slavery. It will be wrong, but it will give you support for your pre-conceived notions of reality.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That verse has contextual meaning which clarifies it. Corinthians is a book written for instruction to pastors for their churches, and addresses specific problems some churches were having. They asked specific questions, and got specific answers. For instance one of teh questions they answered was regarding a man who was having an affair with his step mother. the answer is not to be applied to all relationships between men and women, to do so would be silly.Being so fresh from the Jewish faith, the Early Christians adopted many of the same traditions, one of which was separate sitting areas for men and women. Women would ask their husband questions about the service, and were disruptive, so they were commanded to shut their filthy mouths. In context, this verse completely has a different meaning than you are ascribing to it.But I understand why you guys like to pull it out of context. It fits your pre-conceived notions of what you already know to be true.That's why verses like this:are consistent with the message of the New Testament. One that was radically pro-women when the culture literally had women one step above property.But again, just focus on the worst possible explanation, it will be repeated over and over again by many web sites filled with all the 'proof' that the Bible is racist, sexist and supports slavery. It will be wrong, but it will give you support for your pre-conceived notions of reality.
Thanks for clarifying....
Link to post
Share on other sites
Edit: Nope you were right...kind of:
I don't see how any of what you quoted (regarding Clinton's father) is relevant or how it makes me anything less than completely right. There certainly wasn't a question of who his biological parents were.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...