nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

I know. I was wondering what made you think Peter needed God more than most.

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

He sensed it had something to do with his father.
He was correct.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Didnt he say he didnt know his father?

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

Exactly my point.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

A spiritual Father as opposed to a biological father, perhaps, Ntwk2007.

Bdamage?

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

Possibly both....but one Father is willing to listen where the other may not.

larry

Only the first one that was made under the covenant framework. Everything else is adultery.

larry

The problem with cartoons like this, is that they tend to brainwash the individuals watching them unless they are aware of the false morals being taught. All of these type of cartoons should be written,filmed, to emphasize good moral behavior. We adults should ensure that our children as well as ourselves do not ignore the thrust of these entertainment foibles. We are always going to have this kind of comedy leading us into what we call group think, making it seem good, when it is detrimental to relationships.

larry

If you are married and recognize the purpose of marriage then even by your joining in a secular arrangement is as honorable as a religious one, but if you do not recognize that marriage was established by God for completion of His design, Then none of the constraints of a religious union are imposed, You can make your own rules on your behavior. Unfortunately most secular marriages are the ones falling apart.

I am not saying yours will, but those that do not feel an obligation to the Holy purpose and complexity of marriage may and usually do.
A religious marriage is a covenant between the partners and the creator. Without God in the process, it is not a religious covenant, but may well be a Secular one, Supposedly a promise based on the character and integrity of the individuals. Secular laws regarding all unions of this kind, treat it like a legal contract, ignoring the religious implications, which must be dealt with individually and separately. Such as child care, and spousal care if necessary. Whether secular of religious, it normally carries with it responsibility for the welfare of the two who have combined and any offspring. Causing a life long obligation to the fruit of the union.

Mutually consent of divorce in a secular arrangement does not carry with it the same obligations as religious, because it is just between the two individuals and the state. A religious arrangement carries with it the constraints of God regarding it.
They are a little different since freedom from marriage vows in the religious case only occurs on the death of one of the partners.

larry

Yes, but if you believe in God as the creator, Nature is a product of that creation. It must follow the rules of it's creation. It cannot make up new rules by itself.

larry

Homosexuality is a one way street. You are giving up any chance of extending yourself through your progeny. If you are determined to end your character with yourself, then you are denying the design of your nature, which is to procreate and extend your characteristics into society. It is your choice, but not one that 'nature' or God designed. We are designed to perpetuate the human race. If we don't, what is our purpose?

larry

No, you are not missing something, you are catching the thrust of the Anti-Christ in manipulating the morals of the country so that you begin to doubt the sense of God's society. Since people are not willing to adopt the idea of a GOOD God, they are willing to adopt the idea of an EVIL god. Because it relieves them of the notion of guilt and sin.

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

All you need to do is watch just one episode of "The View" for those to understand what is so true about what you just posted.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

That sounds like a collective. But today, resistance is not futile.

PeterS

Actually he was incorrect. The point I was originally making was that in the "good ole days" it was common for men to be tyrants at home and it was accepted and condoned by society. If you beat your wife to a pulp then she just put on more makeup, some sunglasses, and all was okay. This was generally passed father to son so in a sense I was "saved" when my mother broke the cycle before my father could influence me. I have no "rage" for my father because you can't have anger for someone you never knew. It's a common myth amongst CC's that the past was better than the present but only because they don't really examine what the past consisted of. We lived in a world where we either ignored or hid the ugliness so often the reality was more grotesque than exists today. The same horrors of today existed in the past we simply pretended not to notice. Women had a******ns, men beat wives, spouses c***ted on each other, r****m was rampant, and gays existed at the same rate they do today. It wasn't a beautiful world simply a world where we pretended the ugliness didn't exist. If any rage existed in my post its at the ignorance that wants to go back to a social construct that was worse than we have today...