MovieChat Forums > Candace Cameron Bure Discussion > Candace Cameron-Bure will only allow her...

Candace Cameron-Bure will only allow her kids to date people who love the Lord

posted 4 years ago by TMC-4 (20493)
76 replies | jump to latest

https://www.today.com/popculture/candace-cameron-bure-reveals-1-rule-her-kids-significant-others-t221894

Candace Cameron Bure has one simple rule when it comes to who gets to date her kids.

The former “Fuller House” star opened up to Us Weekly on Thursday, June 10, about the one trait that she hopes her children’s future significant others have.

“When it comes down to it, I just want (their significant others) to love Jesus the way I love Jesus,” she said. “That’s all I really want. Is that too much to ask for? Yeah. It’s not too much.”

Cameron Bure has three children with her husband, former professional hockey player Valeri Bure: Natasha, 22, Lev, 21, and Maksim, 19, who recently graduated from high school.

In the past, Cameron Bure has expressed her excitement for her children to begin dating and was pretty easygoing about the idea.

“I feel great about them dating in the sense that they have a good head on their shoulders,” she told Us Weekly in 2019. “They’re all looking for good people to hang out with, or date, looking for a wife, looking for a husband and I’m proud of that. … I wish that they would date more in a sense!”

More recently, the actor has said that her oldest is “dating a lot now” despite previously thinking that her daughter wasn’t going on very many dates at all.

“She just wasn’t telling me about all of her dates at the time,” Cameron Bure clarified. “She is dating, and I’m good with that. I’m happy. She has to date the right guys.”

As for Lev, her middle child is currently single. The 21-year-old was briefly engaged for just under eight months to his former fiancée, Taylor Hutchison. Cameron Bure announced his engagement last summer in a now-deleted Instagram post. In April, the mom-of-three broke the news to Us Weekly that her son was no longer engaged.

"Sorry, you didn’t get the memo?" Cameron Bure joked. "We didn’t make an announcement, but yeah, he’s no longer getting married."

Thankfully, the couple was able to split amicably. "It was a mutual decision, so nobody’s upset and heartbroken," she added.

If her kids are struggling in the relationship department in the future, their mom will be there to help, especially with nearly 25 years of marriage under her belt. The 45-year-old actor even admitted that she isn’t above setting up her kids in the future, either, especially if she finds a “potentially good prospect.”

“If you know they’re from a good family and you know they might get along, we’ll do [that.] For sure,” she said.

https://www.datalounge.com/thread/28713248-candace-cameron-bure-will-only-allow-her-kids-to-date-people-who-love-the-lord-

[–] NGMI (1184) 4 years ago

good for her! F degeneracy

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

Yup, she's 100% on the right track.

[–] seagal72 (2017) 3 years ago

Yet no-one bats an eyelid at muslim's only marrying fellow muslims (and in some cases, forced, underage or both)

Good for her.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

^^this 👏🏽👏🏽

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

What a horrible woman. Let's burn her at the liberal stake.

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

Yeah, she racist against non Jesus lovers, She most be flogged immediately! The audacity of some people!

[–] blue1981 (8198) 3 years ago

There’s nothing wrong with a parent wanting their kids to find a partner that’s not only good for them but their family as well.

[–] maximmm (3409) 3 years ago

Sure - as long as she's not mandating it.

[–] blue1981 (8198) 3 years ago

The key to that is you want to instill your kids with the right values that they would choose that kind of partner.

[–] maximmm (3409) 3 years ago

opposites attract
Perhaps you should instill them with bad values then?

[–] Jinx (3877) 3 years ago

That's a good point but taking a hard line on something like this is conveying to her kids that non-Christians are escentually not good people and don't have good morals.

I say that having been raised in the religion and that is the message that I got growing up, Christians good, non-Christians bad.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

"something like this is conveying to her kids that non-Christians are escentually not good people and don't have good morals."

Yes and no. All men are evil and fall short of God´s glory hence the need for the Saviour, Jesus Christ since we cannot earn heaven. Born again believers are made righteous and do not continue to live in sin 1 John 3:4-10. So essentially yes, non-believers are not made righteous in the eyes of the Lord. Isaiah 64:6 says your good deeds are like filthy rags tainted by your sin.

Her preference for her kids to partner with believers come from 2 Corinthians 6:14 "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? "

[–] Jinx (3877) 3 years ago

That is the message that it sends to children. That non-Christians aren't good people.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

That is the point of the gospel. People who think they are good and believe in an afterlife think they can earn it with their "goodness". If people were good enough to earn their salvation there would be no need for repentance.
At some point in a child´s future, when they are old enough to be accountable for their sins, they will have to eventually realise their need for repentance too.
Aren´t you supposed to be a professing Christian?

[–] Jinx (3877) 3 years ago

Dude what? I'm agnostic. I don't believe any of this religious crap, it does nothing but divide people. You are trying to explain away why it's okay to think nonChristians are bad.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

I am explaining why non-Christians don´t get saved from judgment. All people are "bad", until they are declared righteous by God.

[–] Jinx (3877) 3 years ago

Exactly. You believe that unless they have accepted your religious god, they are bad people. That has been my whole point.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

And I never disagreed with said point. I was merely pointing out where in scripture is the justification for Candace´s preference while also stipulating that everyone is "bad" in God´s eyes. She is not forcing her kids to do anything either.

[–] Jinx (3877) 3 years ago

So your religion justifies looking at non-believers as bad people. That's immoral.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

Not really. Your standards as a non-believer for what is good/bad, what is moral/immoral is corrupted by your love for sin.

[–] Jinx (3877) 3 years ago

Thanks for further explaining to me why believers are immoral.

I know it's wrong to teach children that people who don't believe what they do are bad.

If your morals as a believer say that it's okay to teach children that people are bad simply because they do not follow a certain religion, how do you determine who's morals are right?

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

"If your morals as a believer say that it's okay to teach children that people are bad simply because they do not follow a certain religion, how do you determine who's morals are right?"

People are not bad "because they dont follow a certain religion". They are bad ANYWAY. The only way they are saved for their love of sin/wickedness is by becoming genuine believers in Jesus Christ. (Not talking about false converts either)

[–] Jinx (3877) 3 years ago

People are not bad "because they dont follow a certain religion". They are bad ANYWAY. The only way they are saved for their love of sin/wickedness is by becoming genuine believers in Jesus Christ. (Not talking about false converts either)

You are saying that people who believe what you do AREN'T bad, you are 'saved', 'cleansed by the blood of Jesus', "A new creation in Christ."

People who don't believe what you do are lost, sinners, bad people.

You are taught apologetics as a Christian but there is no excusing or apologizing away the fact that you teach children that people who aren't 'saved' are bad.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

"you teach children that people who aren't 'saved' are bad."

Because we are all bad in God´s sight, there is not one righteous and we all fall short of his glory. Romans 3:23, Romans 3:10.

The difference is the Christian recognises they are bad and worthy of hell in God´s sight and so realises the need for repentance.

"You are saying that people who believe what you do AREN'T bad"

Christians are "bad" but we are less bad because God´s righteousness has been imputed in us and God has declared us righteous. Any good in us is from God and any bad is us. Sanctification is also an ongoing process, so we are by no means perfect upon conversion nor will we be until we meet with the Lord in death.

[–] Jinx (3877) 3 years ago

You just repeated my point, AGAIN.

[–] sslssg (35194) 3 years ago

What I find interesting about this debate is that you state that we can only be good if we love, and believe in Jesus. I will ask for what purpose, and I believe, correct me if I am wrong, but it is for what happens to our souls in the afterlife.

So a Christian follows the laws set out by a book that was written by man, (I'm not saying it's not the word of God, I'm just stating the fact that it was written by actual humans) really so that they can get into heaven? Is that simplified but ideally the point? Yet, an atheist or a non believer may behave in the exact same ways as said Christian, only thing different is that they do not attend church or read a holy book, they are just as charitable, they do not break any of the commandments, although let's face it there are very, very few Christians who haven't broken a commandment or two in their lifetime. For this argument though both people have led the same life. Wouldn't the one who is doing it with the goal of getting into heaven and for saving their souls from damnation be more of a sinner than the one who was just doing it because they felt it right?

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

Appreciate the reply.

"So a Christian follows the laws set out by a book that was written by man, (I'm not saying it's not the word of God, I'm just stating the fact that it was written by actual humans) really so that they can get into heaven? Is that simplified but ideally the point? "

No, what you said is "works based salvation", a false gospel. (A common mistake for the non-religious so don´t feel too bad). This is part of what Catholics believe which is how Protestantism was established but we won´t go off on that tangent.

What works-based salvation means is, and what some false converts/religions believe is that they can "earn heaven" by being "good" and obeying the commandments/law. Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace alone, not of works (good deeds). Grace is another way of saying God´s favor. You can´t earn his favor by being "good" since none of us are good, nor can we keep his commandments (on our own). Grace is simply his choice as to who he decided to have mercy on.

In addition, Isaiah 64:6 says our good deeds are like filthy rags in God´s sight because they are tainted by our sins, so none of us can earn heaven. That was the whole point of Jesus´ death, to be the perfect sinless lamb to atone for the sins of those who were chosen by God for salvation.

The born again Christian obeys the commandments not to earn heaven (because on conversion, one is already saved) but because he knows obedience is important to God and knows what is good, moral, right and just in God´s eyes.

Hope that makes sense to you.

[–] sslssg (35194) 3 years ago

The belief itself does not make sense to me, but your explanation does. If that makes sense.

[–] Stratego (31083) 3 years ago

Define "sin".

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

Sin is the transgression of the law as decreed by God in scripture.

[–] Stratego (31083) 3 years ago

Define "transgression of the law".

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

The ten commandments are known as the "moral law". A transgression would be an act that goes against that law. So lying, stealing, idolatry, murder, committing adultery, covetousness, not respecting/honoring parents, blasphemy.

[–] Stratego (31083) 3 years ago

I don't "love" any of those things. So now what, hmm?

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

You don´t necessarily have to love them, just have broken the commandments. Jesus said, if you have looked at a person with lust (who isnt your husband/wife), you have committed adultery with them in your heart. Have you ever looked at someone with lust?
Hating someone is murder in your heart. Have you ever hated someone?

I namely brought up love for sin with Jinx because most men generally love porn. Porn would be considered adultery by Jesus´s standards.

[–] Stratego (31083) 3 years ago

"You don´t necessarily have to love them, just have broken the commandments."

I can guarantee you that most christians have broken at least one of them. Some even love to break them, like Jimmy Swaggart. So using faith as some kind of standard to measure someone's morality is incredibly flawed.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

"I can guarantee you that most christians have broken at least one of them."

You would be correct. Not most, everyone has broken them including Christians which is why we need the Saviour to atone for our sins. The difference is this: born again Christians may sin every now and again but they dont live in unrepentant, habitual sin. Christians undergo a process of sanctification after they are born again. They become holy. Unbelievers do not. 1 John 3:4-10.

"Some even love to break them, like Jimmy Swaggart."

Swaggart was undoubtedly a false convert/teacher. There are countless false converts and teachers professing to be Christians. It doesn´t mean there aren´t genuine converts though. Jesus said you will recognize the wolves in sheep´s clothing by their fruit. If someone´s fruit is adultery then clearly they aren´t genuine converts.

"So using faith as some kind of standard to measure someone's morality is incredibly flawed."

Its only flawed if you take a person´s profession of faith at face value. Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump profess to be Christians but do we really think of either of them as such?

Candace is clearly referring to those with genuine faith.

[–] Stratego (31083) 3 years ago

Point is, you never know for sure if someone is a "genuine" christian. Plenty of folks believed Swaggart was before he was exposed. It could very well be that one of her children could bring home an "unbeliever" with way better morals than any of the christians they know.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

Not possible for an unbeliever to have "better morals" than a born again Christian.

Although very good point about knowing for sure who is genuine and who isn´t. Even Christians get duped quite often!

[–] Stratego (31083) 3 years ago

"Not possible for an unbeliever to have "better morals" than a born again Christian."

It's absolutely possible for an "unbeliever" to break your god's laws less than a born again christian.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

No it isn´t. Most if not all unbelievers typically believe porn, masturbation, sex outside marriage, use of drugs, intoxication, swearing, blasphemy (saying OMG), slander, gossiping are all normal human behaviour.

If a "believer" is engaging/practising any of these behaviours, he/she probably is not saved.

[–] Stratego (31083) 3 years ago

Who cares about being saved, we were discussing moral corruption.

"Most if not all unbelievers typically believe porn, masturbation, sex outside marriage, use of drugs, intoxication, swearing, blasphemy (saying OMG), slander, gossiping are all normal human behaviour."

Thank you for exposing yourself as a prejudiced hypocrite who's full of it. You have no clue whatsoever how people, christian or otherwise, truly think in their heart or act behind your back.

Your god hates his sheep acting sanctimonuous like you do. You should be glad I don't judge other christians by your behavior. Good luck with the rest of your clearly unhappy life.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

"Who cares about being saved, we were discussing moral corruption."

My point is that a "Christian" supposedly engaging in such things would be considered a false convert.

"Thank you for exposing yourself as a prejudiced hypocrite who's full of it. You have no clue whatsoever how people, christian or otherwise, truly think in their heart or act behind your back."

All the sins I listed are considered normal, in today´s society. Swearing and saying OMG are extremely common. Not sure how pointing that out makes me a "hypocrite".

In addition, it isnt what I say it is what God says. The Bible says man´s heart is wicked and at enmity with God. I believe God´s word and his standards over your relatively low standards of what is considered "moral human behaviour".

"Your god hates his sheep acting sanctimonuous like you do"

All I did was point out sin for what it is. Jesus did the same thing I did, and the Pharisees responded in the same manner you are responding in.

You don´t know who my God is. If you did, you would know what righteous judgment is. The irony is you are telling me not to judge but have no problems making judgments about my "unhappy life" because apparently what I said, hit a nerve.

[–] Stratego (31083) 3 years ago

"My point is that a "Christian" supposedly engaging in such things would be considered a false convert."

And that's what makes you a hypocrite. If you judge "unbelievers" based on the actions of some, then all of us can judge all christians based on the actions of many of these so-called "false converts".

"My point is that a "Christian" supposedly engaging in such things would be considered a false convert."

Are you really that dense? You're living proof that some people who call themselves christians are not good people. You could be dealing with someone far more morally corrupt than an "unbeliever". Get it? No, of course, you don't.

"I believe God´s word and his standards over your relatively low standards of what is considered "moral human behaviour"

You know absolutely nothing about me, so you need to shut up about that.

"All I did was point out sin for what it is. Jesus did the same thing I did, and the Pharisees responded in the same manner you are responding in.

Impossible since I'm not a believer like they are. But I'll take it as a compliment since they were one of the few in the bible to actually properly challenge Jesus.

"The irony is you are telling me not to judge but have no problems making judgments about my "unhappy life" because apparently what I said, hit a nerve"

Lol, you really ARE that dense. One, it's YOUR faith that tells you not to judge or you'll be judged. So don't complain. Two, I'm judging YOU on YOUR actions, unlike you I'm not generalizing a whole group of people based on presumptions. You respond the same way as anyone who has a very sad existence.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

If you judge "unbelievers" based on the actions of some, then all of us can judge all christians based on the actions of many of these so-called "false converts".

Thats not what hypocrisy is.

"You could be dealing with someone far more morally corrupt than an "unbeliever""

No because everyone is "corrupt" in God´s sight. You feel like because you might have better morals than a serial killer, you are a good person but no one is compared to God.

"YOUR faith that tells you not to judge or you'll be judged"

It tells us to judge righteously not to not judge at all. Moreover, actions in your life automatically judge people, like securing belongings, locking your car and house so I am afraid it is you that is being hypocritical.

[–] Stratego (31083) 3 years ago

No, hypocrisy is ignoring the flaws of your own kind and blaming it on "false converts". Duh!🙄

"No because everyone is "corrupt" in God´s sight. You feel like because you might have better morals than a serial killer, you are a good person but no one is compared to God."

You need to reread what I said. I said MORE morally corrupt. Or in your words, giving in more frequently to their "love of sin". And I'm not talking about god, but people. Get with the program.

No, your bible says:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

In other words, if you judge me, than I can judge you. At least I'm basing it on your own actions.

Not one single thing I said was hypocritical. Try again instead of just parotting me or the bible. Are you even capable of thinking for yourself?

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

"No, hypocrisy is ignoring the flaws of your own kind and blaming it on "false converts".

Thats not what hypocrisy is either.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged."

Yes it is referring to hypocritical judgment. Ie If I told you not to watch porn, while I am doing it myself.

The Bible doesnt say we cant judge which is what you are insinuating. John 7:24 says to judge righteously. If we couldn´t judge people, then people couldn´t get expelled from a church which is clearly not the case in the Bible.

"Not one single thing I said was hypocritical. "

I never claimed that about what you said. I was talking about your daily actions in life. When you secure your belongings, you do that because you know people steal. That is a judgement you make about people you don´t know.

[–] Stratego (31083) 3 years ago

Hypocrisy is a using different standard for yourself. Of course you're a hypocrite for excusing immoral behavior of your own kind by saying they're just "false converts". No question about it.

"Yes it is referring to hypocritical judgment."

Exactly!

"The Bible doesnt say we cant judge which is what you are insinuating"

I didn't insinuate that whatsoever. I said your bible said you shouldn't complain about being judged, when you yourself judge. And might I add that saying you have an unhappy life is not a judgement, but simply an observation.

"When you secure your belongings, you do that because you know people steal."

Lol, that's not a judgement of any particular person or group of people. It's simply a fact that thiefs exist and that they steal. Even so, there's nothing hypocritical about me doing that, since I can't blame strangers for wanting to secure their belongings from me.

Now can you please stop deflecting? The point is that Candace's kids could be dating a christian with more corrupt morals than any "unbeliever" they might have dated instead.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

"Hypocrisy is a using different standard for yourself. Of course you're a hypocrite for excusing immoral behavior of your own kind by saying they're just "false converts".

No thats not hypocrisy. Our criteria differs on what a Christian is. I don´t take someone´s word for it like you do.

Jesus said , "my sheep hear my voice, they follow me". If a professing Christian is not following Jesus or his word, then he isn´t Christian. Look up what Jesus says happens to false Christians in Matthew 7:21-23.

"I said your bible said you shouldn't complain about being judged"

Where did I complain about being judged? I was just pointing out the irony of your arguments. I am used to being criticized, it comes with the territory of being a Christian. Jesus said if the world hates you remember it hated me first.

"And might I add that saying you have an unhappy life is not a judgement, but simply an observation."

My lack of using sarcasm, emojis and ad hominem attacks towards you (despite how unpleasant you have been throughout this exchange) suggests that I am not the one who is unhappy.

[–] Stratego (31083) 3 years ago

That's 100% what hypocrisy is.

"Where did I complain about being judged? "

The part where you complained about the irony of me judging you. No need to point it out if it doesn't bother you. And there is no irony, because one, I didn't say you shouldn't judge, I said that unlike you, I don't judge a whole group based on the actions of some. Two, I didn't judge you for being unhappy. And stop playing the victim, no one is hating you because you're a christian. The problem is that you're judgemental, bigoted, sanctimonious, arrogant and hypocritical and clearly lashing out because of your unhappiness.

PS.: emojis are fun!🇷🇼🌼👩‍🌾🏞🎚🎨♈🐀📀🪒📻🚙🟥🇷🇴🤖🪒🦏🍘📇

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

The whole irony about this all is that you are indignant that I am "judging" people while at the same time, you have no problem using childish emojis, sarcasm and ad hominem because you don´t like Christians/the gospel.

If you want to continue this discussion in a more civilised manner, I am happy to continue but otherwise I don´t want to unhinge you further, which benefits neither of us. Hope you have a better day.

[–] Stratego (31083) 3 years ago

" hominem because you don´t like Christians/the gospel."

So now you need to lie to make your point? The only thing I ever criticized was YOU.

"If you want to continue this discussion in a more civilised manner"

Lol, you already made that impossible when you started off with your comment about morally corrupt unbelievers and their love of sin. I didn't get personal until you continued that bigotry. If anyone's unhinged, it's you and your fantasies about what unbelievers love or don't love to do. Again, good luck with the rest of your unhappy life!

[–] Arasaid (202) 3 years ago

Well said.

[–] nte1igentwon (963) 3 years ago

Believe in a god who sacrificed himself to himself to forgive humanity for "sins" that they may have committed and the original sin of just existing due to our nature which is supposedly in the image of said god and ultimately his doing. Make it make sense. Oh never mind, you can't.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

"original sin of just existing due to our nature which is supposedly in the image of said god and ultimately his doing"

Sinful nature is not from God. It is from man´s choice to disobey.

James 1:13-14 ´When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.´

[–] nte1igentwon (963) 3 years ago

Wrong. god is the creator of everything according to your theology. But keep running away from the many logical contradictions of Christianity and the like.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

Wrong. god is the creator of everything according to your theology

lol your misuse of words and misunderstanding of fundamental theological concepts doesn't mean you are making a good logical point.

You're acting like the people who go "God can't make a rock that God can't lift! God is not all powerful. CHECKMATE. Athiests 1: Christians: 0.

[–] nte1igentwon (963) 3 years ago

Is it your opinion that god is all powerful or just maximally powerful? Is god not the creator of all things? It's not my fault that you seem to believe or at the very least defend claims that violate the law(s) of thought aka the fundamental laws of logic.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

I never said that I believe in God. And even if I did, my "opinion" is largely irrelevant here. I'm just calling you out on your misshapen arguments that you're throwing at strawmen.

And now you allege that you're appealing to "fundamental laws of logic"? lol. like, really?

The person you spoke to claimed that "Sinful nature is not from God. It is from man´s choice to disobey" and cited the Bible.

If you want to cite something, or if you want to argue against that, by all means. I've studied a little and I've argued with all sorts of Christian religious.

But your response "Wrong. god is the creator of everything" is asinine. He literally just claimed that God does not create sinful behavior, and you just go WRONG. lol This is why I said, you don't know what you're talking about. Which is fine, but why are you pretending to argue and use these words that you don't understand?

[–] nte1igentwon (963) 3 years ago

Just because you can't comprehend logical fallacies you're projecting your ignorance onto me. The god of Abraham clearly violates the law of identity as well as the law of contradiction. As far as the claim that god isn't responsible for man's nature it's iust that - a claim that's contradicted by the "fact" that he's supposedly the infallible creator.

I never said you claimed to believe in god. Read more carefully. Also my arguments are far from being strawmen. I'm not misrepresenting christianity's assertions that are made in the bible, that would be straw manning. Just because it's a highly contradictory book isn't my fault, nor is god being the creator of everything being an asinine concept. I totally agree that it's a ridiculous claim. I'm not responsible for the stupidity of bible.🤷

Let me ask you this, aren't we all born with original sin according to christian dogma? And how can an infant make a choice to disobey? Well of course they can't but it doesn't matter because that so called loving sky wizard created humans with a built-in sin packet! So before you can exercise or even conceive of the idea of free will you're already a dirty sinner.

"But but there's a difference between actual and original sin!"😂

[–] nte1igentwon (963) 3 years ago

I forgot about Isaiah 45:7. I'll just leave this right here:

"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create EVIL; I the lord DO ALL THESE THINGS."

I have no idea what to do with this microphone? I guess I'll just drop it.

[–] Jinx (3877) 3 years ago

James 1:13-14 ´When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.´

But God DID deliberately blind people from truth and hardened people's hearts in the Bible. So it wasn't a person's CHOICE to do what they did.

Exodus 4:21
The LORD instructed Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders that I have put within your power. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Exodus 9:12 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and just as the LORD had predicted to Moses, Pharaoh refused to listen.

John 12:40 "'The Lord has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts--so that their eyes cannot see, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and have me heal them.'"

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

"But God DID deliberately blind people from truth and hardened people's hearts in the Bible. So it wasn't a person's CHOICE to do what they did."

They are not the same thing. Blinding someone from the truth means sinners can´t choose their salvation. Salvation is God given. Just because some of us don´t get saved, doesn´t mean that we aren´t accountable for our actions/sins. For example, God established laws (10 commandments) that couldn´t/can´t be kept by anybody and yet people were/are still held accountable for breaking them.

John 12:40 is a reference to blinding the eyes and dulling the hearts of the Pharisees who are already blinded by their unbelief/wickedness. This is more elaborated on in Matthew 13,fyi.

RE: Pharaoh. Pharaoh was already an evil,ungodly man. God simply hardened his heart (made him stubborn) further to prolong judgment and fulfil his sovereign purposes. We see a reference to this in Romans 9:17-18. “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.”

You will notice here that mercy can´t happen without someone doing something wrong in the first place. Those who were chosen for mercy and those who are "hardened". Both deserve hell because they are both accountable for their actions/choices but God chose to save some by "making them believers in Christ" (Ephesians 1:5). It follows that God didn´t make Pharaoh evil, he CHOSE to be evil and do evil things but God merely sustained him in this state. We see something similar but not exactly the same in Romans 1:28 "Furthermore, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." Again, God is not "making them" do evil things, he is merely allowing them to remain sustained in it for his sovereign purposes.(Romans 9:22-23)

[–] Jinx (3877) 3 years ago

Blah blah blah blaahhh, you are just reiterating my point.

Which is nicer than me pointing out that you are lying for Jesus. A common tactic to make the obviously horrifying and immoral things that God does in the Bible somehow okay.

[–] sslssg (35194) 3 years ago

I didn't actually read the article, but I don't see anywhere that says that she won't allow it. It is her wish that her adult children will date those with similar beliefs, but I don't see where it would be forbidden. I think that when one has a strong belief in something it makes sense to find one with the same beliefs. The possibility of having issues in a relationship/marriage if core beliefs are different are much greater than those who have similar. I'm not saying that those relationships never work, but they are more the exception. I also don't think that since all her children are over 18, mom can really stop them from dating anyone, but just that she hopes that she has raised them to choose what is best for their family.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

Yeah, what's she saying isn't that odd or newsworthy, and it's been completely misrepresented by the clickbait title lol.

This isn't weird to have this want of your children. Will you get it? Probably not lmao. But it's not really different from anything else.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

because i'm sort of tech-illiterate, i just figured out how to post emojis easily yesterday.
i'm happy to make this post the first one where i use my new ability.

👍

[–] sslssg (35194) 3 years ago

🥂💙✨🎈🎂

I feel so honoured that you chose my post!!

[–] BensGirl (590) 3 years ago

Good for her. She’s a really good mom!

[–] Gubbio (3893) 3 years ago

Her choice, but more importantly, who cares?

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

No one... with the exception of triggered atheists, and triggered liberals of course. You know, the tolerant left...