Family of slain teen seeks posthumous name change
“This is who she was. She’s transgender and she’s Gwen.”
Transgender/Transsexuality is a myth. Gender is something you are born with, and no amount of cosmetic enhancement or mutilation will change that. (more…)
In two national surveys conducted by Barna Research, one among adults and one among teenagers, people were asked if they believe that there are moral absolutes that are unchanging or that moral truth is relative to the circumstances. By a 3-to-1 margin (64% vs. 22%) adults said truth is always relative to the person and their situation. The perspective was even more lopsided among teenagers, 83% of whom said moral truth depends on the circumstances, and only 6% of whom said moral truth is absolute.
What if other professions started embracing a ‘relative’ world view?
Silly, isn’t it?
We are quickly becoming the most moral generation - but one that doesn’t even know the word of it.
Barna survey on absolute truth: Americans are most likely to base truth on feelings
Thank you for your patience over the last couple weeks as we have been in the process of upgrading to a new server. Plenty of changes are still forthcoming, but we are excited about the new functionality of our site and wanted to roll it out as soon as possible. If you have comments, questions… or snide remarks, please send them to:
feedback@thoughtquotient.com
Mass. Senate Repeals Gay Marriage Barrier
What’s going on in Massachusetts will eventually impact the whole country. This sets a legal precedent which will go all the way to the supreme court and they have shown in the past a tendency to rule liberally on these cases. What will the impact be? Sure there will be financial, political ramifications from sanctioning homosexual marriage, but the most impacting change will be cultural. Will society allow pastors to preach the Bible passages that speak of this kind of behavior as a sin? I find it hard to believe that if homosexuality is seen as a civil right in marriage legislation, that the gospel of Christ (that clearly teaches something contrary to that) will be allowed to be freely preached. Will society be tolerant of a church that teaches something contrary to what ‘the state’ or ‘the courts’ have legislated as a civil right? Common sense tells us that it will not. We can look to recent history in Canada and other countries to see what is in store for us.
At the heart of this issue is who God is, and who we are. Does God give us instruction in His word to make us miserable, to rob us of any joy and fun in life? Why are the verses about homosexuality in the Bible? Sin is sin and when we stray from the life that God has called us to and created us for, we are unsatisfied no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise. Sharing God’s word on this subject is not intolerant or hateful, just as warning a child not to eat candy for three meals a day is not intolerant or hateful. What we didn’t want to hear at one time, only served to protect us from dreadful consequences later (unless going to the dentist to fill cavities or pull teeth sounds like fun to you). Unfortunately, the consequences of rejecting Christ and His word are far greater. So the loving thing is to share God’s word knowing that some will come to a personal relationship with Jesus than to not share and have none come to a relationship with Jesus. Do we give people what they want to hear because it’s easy …which will lead to tragedy? Or do we give people what they need to hear which will not be without resistance…but will lead to life?
Max Lucado can say it better than I…
Many don’t understand God’s anger because they confuse the wrath of God with the wrath of man. The two have little in common. Human anger is typically self-driven and prone to explosions of temper and violent deeds. We get ticked off because we’ve been overlooked, neglected, or cheated. This is the anger of man. It is not, however, the anger of God.
God doesn’t get angry because he doesn’t get his way. He gets angry because disobedience always results in self-destruction. What kind of father sits by and watches his child hurt himself?
9/11 Panel Scolds Ex-Police, Fire Chiefs
Who is the 9/11 panel not scolding these days? Oh yeah, that’s right…celebrities and ex-politicians that have poll ratings high enough for them to get flak if they give them a hard time. It seems like more and more of what goes on in Congress (especially the Senate) is done knowing that the cameras are on and it is being broadcast. I want to see if they do all of this grand-standing and posturing behind closed doors where there are no cameras.
It looks like Congress has some sort of ’superhero complex’ where they love to swoop down and save the public from some mess that ‘another group’ has gotten us into. They love to investigate/dictate/criticize those things which they have no ties to. What’s frustrating about this 9/11 panel is that they are not any less responsible than the folks they march in before the committee and cameras. Who questions Congress? Who asks them the tough questions? Who are they accountable to?
Marriage Mayhem
CNN: As same-sex couples celebrate, opponents plan counterattack
Geez, you gotta love unbiased meda! “Gay couples celebrate” (absolutely gushing with positivity) “, opponents” (read “negative people”) “plan counterattack” (war terminology to portray all people of conservative and/or judeo-christian morals as war-mongering, vengeful, aggressors against the peaceful gay community).
I need to put on my hip-waders.
Before I begin, let us dispense with all the assumptions, accusations, and absurdity hurled in the general direction of “the religious right”. I am, however, a Christian. And that belief does define my worldview and morality. I admit it. However, those who are not of a Judeo-Christian morality must admit that their beliefs also define their worldview and morality. And according to their own laws of tolerance, their beliefs are no better than mine.
But, of course, they don’t. Instead, they portray their own beliefs and morals as superior and far more “civilized” because they are not condemning anyone. Ahem… well, except those who disagree with them. And those people are uncultured, brutish, neanderthals who really deserve to be condemned.
Why? Simply because we disagree with them. That’s the only excuse they need.
You see, it really is all about morality. They condemn the “moral regulations” being imposed on them and demand that they be removed because, they say, those regulations don’t apply to them. However, at the same time, they are insisting on imposing a completely different set of moral values on the rest of us: “tolerance”, “sexual freedom”, “abortion rights”, “materialism”, “humanism”, “atheism”.
As articles like the one above prove, it’s all about the packaging. Portray someone as a hero, fighting for truth and goodness - and people will buy into it. It doesn’really matter whether it’s true or not… just make sure the marketing campaign is good.
There is no inherent goodness in this. These are no fighters for freedom and truth. They are merely another group of people who want to force their morals off on someone else. Take a good look at reality and decide which set of morals you would rather have. Ultimately, I guess it’s up to you to decide.
It’s a lot like when you were a kid and you bought that cereal you didn’t like just for the prize inside the cereal box. I mean, it looked really attractive on the outside of the box. But once you payed for it, brought it home, and took it out of the box… it was almost always a lot less than you expected. And on top of that… you had to eat that nasty cereal anyway.
I’v got a hunch that the prize at the bottom of this box of cereal isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. And I’m afraid the cereal itself might be poisonous.
