User Profile: TeresaJ


Member Since: June 27, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [10] May 27, 2015 at 6:19pm

    Who is condemning their right to free speech?

    I’ll be more to the point. If the President of the United States got up on the podium to speak, and a group of protesters stood up in front of him with vulgar signs and drowned him out, do you honestly not believe they wouldn’t be arrested? Not for exercising free speech, but for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and possibly endangering the president. We are all equal here, yes? How is it you can remember free speech, but conveniently forget all other laws?

    Why do those students act like they were raised in a barn? Why is the far left becoming a mob of lawless individuals. It is because that is what happens when you “liberate” people from morality.

  • [4] May 22, 2015 at 9:26pm

    I’d like to add… my interracial teenage niece visited me sometime back. She was a little bit taken aback by my saddlepad, and walked around in the stores acting like she thought the walls would jump out at her. She was visibly more relaxed by the time she left back for home. Little wonder she was nervous about coming here (a deep southern state) having grown up in FLORIDA. /sarcasm

    If anyone had made her feel bad about herself, I would have pounded them into horse manure. But no one did, and no one would. There ARE some very racist people here. I never deny that. But I can tell you that most of it stems from rudeness and cultural misperception. If you are polite, just about everyone here will treat you with the courtesy southerners are known for. For that matter, most people here will treat you with courtesy FIRST. In Florida, everyone walks around like they have the happy sucked out of them. Maybe because everyone there is old ;) (Retirement capital of the world).

    In case anyone wonders, I’m a Confederate child on my mother’s side who grew up in Florida. I moved to my heritage state by choice, and I’d never go back. I am also full-blooded American. I have never seen the two as conflicting. The War, in my mind, did as much damage for freedom as it did aid.

  • [11] May 22, 2015 at 8:43pm

    “The flag is almost too toxic to handle, and for those who do, I’m suspicious of their engagement: Are you in denial?”

    Suspicious away. Are you in denial of painting over an entire subset of people based on your narrow view of history? People are called bigots for less. I guess it makes you a Southaphobe?

    Yes, I’m being a little bit smart aleck. In a day and age when we are supposedly leaving bigotry behind us, it is being heralded by those who claim to be champions of “diversity.” The Rebel Flag represents the South (not KKK, not Jim Crow). You can’t call it racist unless you want to try and tack on that all Southerners, each and every one, are racist (which, by the way, there really are efforts to do so).

    So, I’ll keep my Rebel Flag (I truthfully only own a saddle pad with it, but maybe I’ll go find one) and my General Lee. For that matter, I’ll keep my hoop skirts too. Go ahead and call me racist. I will just smile at you. The word has lost all meaning at this point.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] May 22, 2015 at 3:11pm

    Hmm. :) It’s true, I did miss your sarcasm. And if you say you were a virgin, I cannot but believe you. Your character, however, I still question. Yes, we must not sit in judgment, but I think you are mixing up judgment with both Law and morality. To say that denying homosexuality is like denying blindness… well first you would have to believe that God is the Author of both of them. I believe neither. God is the Author of Law. His character is that of Law and Order. That doesn’t mean He is without mercy, but do not confuse that with what is moral. People who are afflicted with the results of Man’s Fall do have to make decisions for themselves in regards to those afflictions. I have never, once, sat in judgment over the decisions homosexually inclined people might make about their personal lives. That is still however a far cry from making public policies or calling it moral.

    Second, given the statement about “rights” and “injustices,” I again question. No rights have been denied to homosexuals. Injustices have surely been done to the black community, but the matters concerning the riots were not among them. Calling my “assumption” (that one wasn’t an assumption, it is front page news) racist is almost amusing. I suppose it is racist for a majority of a group of color to think they are above the law just because the color of the one enforcing it in that instance was white… but I digress. Just as brain scans have nothing to do with it, neither does color.

  • [2] May 22, 2015 at 1:57pm

    I had an additional thought. According to what you describe, Josh Duggar was not immoral, because he was just acting according to how he felt. Of course, you and I both know that is not true. Morality is far more than feelings. It is a molding of behavior to desirable outcomes.

    Dismissing homosexuality, transgender and other sexual inclinations as moral simply because of a brain scan or other study does not make sense. Morality is derived from the affects ones actions has on the world around you, not on how someone feels, regardless of physical birth. The problem for the homosexual lobby is that they expect to be dismissed from any such arguments simply by being what they claim, similar to how the Black community expects to be free of the laws of their cities by pure virtue of being black (I am referring to the riots).

  • May 22, 2015 at 1:47pm

    Children, or adults even, experimenting in sexuality before marriage is immoral, now, 100 years before, and 100 years from now. It is immoral for public reasons, both for diseases, and because the groundwork for children to come needs to be laid before they are conceived. Can a stable household be built after children have been conceived? Yes. So can a house be built by making the walls first, but any good construction worker will tell you putting in the foundation first is a lot more effective and cost-saving. The foundation I am talking about is moral values, and moral values do not happen without discipline. You could say, getting out of your comfort zone.

    Until you understand these basics, discussing homosexuality is moot.

  • May 22, 2015 at 1:34pm

    “it works really well at spreading diseases and stigmatizing sex but it doesn’t stop kids from experimenting it just makes them unsafe while doing it”

    You just contradicted yourself. Either it works well and prevents diseases, or it doesn’t work and kids are “unsafe.” Seems to me you reach the forgone conclusion that kids “will do it,” which leads me to the assumption that you yourself are someone who “will do it,” making you hardly the person of character to be making judgment calls on such things. Feel free to correct me if I have come to the wrong conclusion. The fact of the matter is, no one has ever said that children won’t be drawn to knowledge on the subject. That is natural. What is different between now and history is the adult’s response to it, which is today nothing short of irresponsible.

    “If the children are accepted and loved for themselves, their being well-adjusted and comfortable with themselves is far more likely. Trying to force someone to be different often makes for very unhappy, maladjusted people” You see, what you are describing here is at the very heart of what morality and discipline means. Learning morality is a process of NOT being comfortable with who you are, and attempting to mold yourself to something better. Morality and Law are blind to individual inclinations. What is moral is moral, what isn’t, isn’t. What Josh Duggar did at 14 was immoral. No matter what era it might have happened in, it is still immoral.

    To be continued:

  • [4] May 22, 2015 at 1:01pm

    I never said to ignore what he did.
    Critical thinking classes come up short for this generation.

  • [1] May 22, 2015 at 12:57pm

    I never said to tell them not to think about it. However, given your past record of comments, I don’t really see you as the critical thinking type, and therefore I am wasting my breath replying.

    As for your other question, I’ve answered that before in this forum. You, like others, ignore it.

  • [4] May 22, 2015 at 12:26pm

    Everything you just said is irrelevant. Slavery was a worldwide phenomena that started due to a combination of poverty and power, the same as the rest of the classes. Anyone who brings that up like some kind of comparison is just as ignorant. The rest, outside of perhaps women voting, was never considered to be *moral,* just because it happened. There is a world of difference between turning a blind eye to immorality and calling what is immoral as moral.

  • [7] May 22, 2015 at 12:18pm

    Morality = self-gratification like same sex = marriage. Right is the same as left, too.

    In case some of you out there did not understand him, he just said that selfishness is moral… the “new” moral, to be exact. Immoral selfishness isn’t even a concept tied to Christianity. Go ahead and look across the cultures… you won’t find that as a desirable trait.

    Government and media, at least, is in a downward moral spiral, and Ed Rubin just became the poster child.

  • [1] May 22, 2015 at 11:52am

    Boy do you miss the point, Montel Williams. Those who work with children have repeatedly said that adolescents are prone to sexual confusion while they are going through puberty. Josh Duggar just brought that to light yet again.

    You really want to make any kind of difference? Start advocating for sexually-related activities to culturally be an adult-ONLY action. Teenagers don’t have any business engaging in sexual activity any more… no, more so, than they do alcohol.

    And, I will be frank, you do so, and you will see homosexual activity decline. Not saying it will disappear, just decline. Why? Because such things are NOT set in stone at birth as race is. Josh Duggar isn’t a bigot, Mr. Williams. You are just blind.

    Responses (5) +
  • [26] May 18, 2015 at 4:22pm

    Science is just the exploration and discovery of the Laws God wrote into the Universe.

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] May 16, 2015 at 6:51pm

    Very awesome! ^^

  • [1] May 16, 2015 at 10:01am

    Aced it.

  • [2] May 15, 2015 at 2:24pm

    I think that while there is a general norm, people are different, and if that works for your cousin’s family, then good for them. I do, however, think that as a culture we need to stop thinking about our own selfish desires and think about what our families need as a whole. Kids need their parents to raise them, not T.V., not strangers at school. Hopefully, right or left, we can agree on that.

  • [10] May 15, 2015 at 2:01pm

    I don’t know about whether Miss Holder would be happier, but he is 100% correct on the rest of it. What is the most insulting is how feminists act as if they speak for women when they do not.

    When I was growing up, feminism had reached such a point in our culture, that even in the Christian school I went to, no one presented the idea that the simple ambition of having a happy home and kids was a viable plan for life. It was expected that I would choose a career, and as such, it did not occur to me that it was ok that I had no such career ambitions. I felt useless and “wrong.”

    It took time for me, and my husband who was tainted to think the same way, to realize that being home was a needed, thankless, job of high honor. Just because mama is here in the kitchen, my family’s world is a peaceful haven of security. If other women do not choose this path, I think they have a right. I don’t think, however, that they are really considering what means more to their family: a career woman, or a mom making a comfortable home.

    At the very least, let’s stop with this farce that feminism is what most women would choose baring outside pressures.

  • [6] May 7, 2015 at 1:24pm

    Feminists are offensive to women.

  • May 1, 2015 at 8:15pm

    @ Jim S

    Crime and Sin as per the Bible mean exactly the same thing.

    If you infer from that that I, or that pastor, or anyone pointing this out mean that we should hunt down and kill gays, adulteresses, or anyone else… as with the statement regarding crime and sin, I don’t think you have studied the Scriptures very well.

    It is not my place to murder anyone, or sentence them beyond what our American law allows. For me to do so outside of a court of law would be murder first of all. Beyond that, as this Biblical story indicates, I cannot Judge in such a fashion, as I am certainly not a person without sin (crime). God is the Supreme Judge, and He doesn’t need my help, nor am I worthy, to carry out His Judgment. Instead, I am at this moment, bound by United States Law, until at what time it causes me to be unable to follow God’s law in whatever manner that should take place.

  • [4] May 1, 2015 at 12:27pm

    Christ did not correct the Jews in that manner. He never once said that the woman didn’t deserve exactly as the Law dictated. What He essentially asked was if anyone in the crowd that didn’t deserve exactly the same punishment as the woman. No one could condemn her, knowing they held just as punishable of sins.

    After the crowd left, Jesus then turned to her and asked where her accusers, that is, those who held testimony against her were, to which she replied there were none. He then said, “Neither do I accuse you,” meaning He had the full right to carry out her punishment if He wished. He then said, “Go and sin no more.” The woman knew she had received mercy, knew she had been given another chance. The Bible does not make clear whether she squandered it, but I can’t imagine she did.

    This pastor is not saying gays should be murdered. He is saying homosexuality is a crime punishable by death, and as such should never be accepted by a civil society. Our laws allow privacy in one’s own home, and thus, sexual immorality of all kinds has been found to be protected by the Constitution. That doesn’t mean the public should be forced to call it “good” or “acceptable,” though, especially once the public has to start dealing with the consequences of those “private actions.”

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love