-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
Well, I can't blame him for wanting to distance himself with Focus on the Family. I find they frequently send a mixed message. For example, I once heard Dobson boasting on the radio that he was raised in a very "conservative" home. I will boast about being raised in a Christian home because we are Christians first and whatever else second. See, I'm sure that Dobson would say that he's a Christian first and conservative second, but when there are many non-Christians who think of conservative families as those who go to church everyday because it's the traditional thing to do. So, when he talks like that it can sound to people my age that his religion is a product of his cultural upbringing rather than knowing a living God.
Secondly, he (like many Christians including myself) believe that homosexuality is a sin, but he (according to American Chronicle http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/23095 ) has said some stuff about homosexuality that's not in the Bible, nor is there evidence to support it. He also supports the corporal punishment of children despite the overwhelming evidence that it is bad for children in the long run. So if one is a psychologist, I could see why one wouldn't want to be associated with another psychologist like that. BUT, I doubt that bothers Warren because there isn't evidence that people who meet on eHarmony are more compatible, but he still pushes it.
Third, Focus on the Family can send mixed messages. For example, it's speculated that Dobson has supported Newt Gingrich, who has been twice divorced. He divorced his first wife while she had cancer and left his second wife for his current wife. My parents have been married since 1972 and they've seen a lot of friends divorce. Not one of them divorced because of the legalization of same-sex marriage. All but one of those divorces were due to the husband leaving the wife for another woman. See, my parents each have two degrees, and most of their long-term friends have university degrees. The university graduates of their generation have generally done well financially, and there's a lot of beautiful young women out there who'd love to marry a rich, middle aged man, even if he's already married. Furthermore, nearly all of my mom's friends who have been left by their husbands have struggled financially. My mom really wonders if their daughters are ever going to sacrifice their careers to raise for their husbands after they've seen where it's put their mothers. Maybe they'll forgo marriage altogether. I don't know about Gingrich's daughter's but I'd be surprised if they'd support a husband through grad school after they saw what happened to their mother. If Dobson was truly pro-family in ever sense, he'd be Gingrich's biggest critic. Furthermore, with fiances being the number one reason why couples get divorced and paying medical bills being the number one reason why Americans declare bankruptcy, Dobson supporting candidates who oppose universal health insurance just baffles me. So, basically, if Warren's trying to send a pro-marriage message, I could understand how being associated with Dobson could be counter-productive.
HOWEVER, what I don't like is the idea of him wanting the support of Focus on the Family and then going back on that. eHarmony should have taken a stance and stayed with it. I mean, it's like World Vision. They're a Christian organization and they gladly accept donations and sponsorship from non-Christians. However, from what I heard they're pretty good at not compromising in an effort to get more money. Like, if an atheist said "I'll sponsor a child through you on the condition that you don't tell them about Jesus" they probably couldn't agree to that. I don't know. But even if they did, World Vision is a non-profit aid organization that reaches children in need. eHarmony is a for profit business that isn't meeting a need in the same sense. They don't NEED to expand their busyness. I mean, I've heard that homosexuals have complained that eHarmony only matches men and women, and maybe they should have been more upfront about that, as in they could have found that out before they took the test. But there are plenty of sites that set up homosexuals, so I don't see why they feel the need for eHarmony. Really, if Warren hadn't studied same-sex relationships when he did his compatibility research (and I assume he hadn't) then he's not really qualified to match gay couples and therefore it's wrong for him as a psychologist, as well as a Christian, to have a gay site.
Secondly, he (like many Christians including myself) believe that homosexuality is a sin, but he (according to American Chronicle http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/23095 ) has said some stuff about homosexuality that's not in the Bible, nor is there evidence to support it. He also supports the corporal punishment of children despite the overwhelming evidence that it is bad for children in the long run. So if one is a psychologist, I could see why one wouldn't want to be associated with another psychologist like that. BUT, I doubt that bothers Warren because there isn't evidence that people who meet on eHarmony are more compatible, but he still pushes it.
Third, Focus on the Family can send mixed messages. For example, it's speculated that Dobson has supported Newt Gingrich, who has been twice divorced. He divorced his first wife while she had cancer and left his second wife for his current wife. My parents have been married since 1972 and they've seen a lot of friends divorce. Not one of them divorced because of the legalization of same-sex marriage. All but one of those divorces were due to the husband leaving the wife for another woman. See, my parents each have two degrees, and most of their long-term friends have university degrees. The university graduates of their generation have generally done well financially, and there's a lot of beautiful young women out there who'd love to marry a rich, middle aged man, even if he's already married. Furthermore, nearly all of my mom's friends who have been left by their husbands have struggled financially. My mom really wonders if their daughters are ever going to sacrifice their careers to raise for their husbands after they've seen where it's put their mothers. Maybe they'll forgo marriage altogether. I don't know about Gingrich's daughter's but I'd be surprised if they'd support a husband through grad school after they saw what happened to their mother. If Dobson was truly pro-family in ever sense, he'd be Gingrich's biggest critic. Furthermore, with fiances being the number one reason why couples get divorced and paying medical bills being the number one reason why Americans declare bankruptcy, Dobson supporting candidates who oppose universal health insurance just baffles me. So, basically, if Warren's trying to send a pro-marriage message, I could understand how being associated with Dobson could be counter-productive.
HOWEVER, what I don't like is the idea of him wanting the support of Focus on the Family and then going back on that. eHarmony should have taken a stance and stayed with it. I mean, it's like World Vision. They're a Christian organization and they gladly accept donations and sponsorship from non-Christians. However, from what I heard they're pretty good at not compromising in an effort to get more money. Like, if an atheist said "I'll sponsor a child through you on the condition that you don't tell them about Jesus" they probably couldn't agree to that. I don't know. But even if they did, World Vision is a non-profit aid organization that reaches children in need. eHarmony is a for profit business that isn't meeting a need in the same sense. They don't NEED to expand their busyness. I mean, I've heard that homosexuals have complained that eHarmony only matches men and women, and maybe they should have been more upfront about that, as in they could have found that out before they took the test. But there are plenty of sites that set up homosexuals, so I don't see why they feel the need for eHarmony. Really, if Warren hadn't studied same-sex relationships when he did his compatibility research (and I assume he hadn't) then he's not really qualified to match gay couples and therefore it's wrong for him as a psychologist, as well as a Christian, to have a gay site.
A
You're right. I heard about a third of the people who fill out the quiz are told that they can't have a match found for them. Although they claim that the main reasons for regection is looking for a same-sex relationship or already being married.
It's true though. The main reason why guys don't like me is because I'm too talkative. I mean I don't go on and on without looking for a word from anyone else, and I don't go on and on about topics that don't interest guys. My co-workers have pointed out whenever a topic is mentioned I have to bring up some trivia about it. Some people find me interesting. Some people find me annoying.
It's true though. The main reason why guys don't like me is because I'm too talkative. I mean I don't go on and on without looking for a word from anyone else, and I don't go on and on about topics that don't interest guys. My co-workers have pointed out whenever a topic is mentioned I have to bring up some trivia about it. Some people find me interesting. Some people find me annoying.
The reason homosexuals have sued is not because they need the help of eHarmony.. it is because their activists (and I do make a distinction between activists and others) feel the need to sue anyone who does not give them equal rights or absolute equal consideration. They do it to make a point, not to solve any practical problem.
E
Gather 'round and I'll tell you: Well, she came to the airport with her family. For some reason they were all glaring at me, and my lady-friend wasn't speaking to me. I went through the whole first day like this and was thinking, "Gee, I hope she's alright... I wonder what's wrong..." The next day, we ate breakfast, and then she went straight to her room... her family continued to glare at me for the rest of the day. When she came down in the evening, I asked her if she was alright... she asked me if I'd like to see a movie, and I agreed. As soon as we got in the car, she informed me that she was no longer attracted to me. Ouch. I had to sleep at their house and stay with them for 6 days... or at least it was supposed to be 6 days... but then there was a freak snowstorm and my flight was delayed by 24 hours... lol, much fun indeed. After the original 24 hour delay, there was a further 5 hour delay (which wound up being a major blessing, but that's another story...)