PDA

View Full Version : Public Elementary School Caught Publicly Shaming Students Who Don’t Believe In God



WiccanLiberal
10-07-2015, 08:59 PM
Posted without comment


http://www.occupydemocrats.com/public-elementary-school-caught-publicly-shaming-students-who-dont-believe-in-god/

Teachers in Swainsboro, Georgia, have settled a lawsuit (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/07/3709974/public-elementary-school-allegedly-waged-shame-campaign-against-students-who-dont-believe-in-god/) out of court for forcing their religious beliefs on students and leading their classes in Christian prayer. The teachers humiliated students who did not want to participate, specifically from the “Doe” family, who had children in the first grade and kindergarten. When the children’s parents complained about the unconstitutional violation of the first amendment, the teachers reacted by demeaning the children in front of their classmates.

fj1200
10-07-2015, 10:14 PM
Posted without comment


http://www.occupydemocrats.com/public-elementary-school-caught-publicly-shaming-students-who-dont-believe-in-god/

Teachers in Swainsboro, Georgia, have settled a lawsuit (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/07/3709974/public-elementary-school-allegedly-waged-shame-campaign-against-students-who-dont-believe-in-god/) out of court for forcing their religious beliefs on students and leading their classes in Christian prayer. The teachers humiliated students who did not want to participate, specifically from the “Doe” family, who had children in the first grade and kindergarten. When the children’s parents complained about the unconstitutional violation of the first amendment, the teachers reacted by demeaning the children in front of their classmates.

It's really the Globalists who are giving Christians a bad name. :rolleyes:

Perianne
10-07-2015, 10:30 PM
Posted without comment


http://www.occupydemocrats.com/public-elementary-school-caught-publicly-shaming-students-who-dont-believe-in-god/

Teachers in Swainsboro, Georgia, have settled a lawsuit (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/07/3709974/public-elementary-school-allegedly-waged-shame-campaign-against-students-who-dont-believe-in-god/) out of court for forcing their religious beliefs on students and leading their classes in Christian prayer. The teachers humiliated students who did not want to participate, specifically from the “Doe” family, who had children in the first grade and kindergarten. When the children’s parents complained about the unconstitutional violation of the first amendment, the teachers reacted by demeaning the children in front of their classmates.

From the link:

“teachers have received educational training on their obligations not to promote religious beliefs in their classrooms and the Doe family has been financially compensated for harm they suffered.”

The school should not force religious beliefs on children, but.... the Doe family sounds like a bunch of whiners to me. The family has been "financially compensated for harm they suffered"? Looks like they took a page right out of the queers' book and demand to get compensated for having their feelings hurt.

Abbey
10-07-2015, 11:06 PM
Jesus said, love your neighbor as yourself, and if someone strikes you, turn the other cheek.
Oh no, how awful! How harmful!
I have no problem keeping religious instruction out of public schools. But damages? That's a joke.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-07-2015, 11:18 PM
It's really the Globalists who are giving Christians a bad name. :rolleyes:

^^^^ And ironically, in his infantile sarcasm he finally speaks a truth. :laugh:--Tyr

fj1200
10-07-2015, 11:20 PM
^^^^ And ironically, in his infantile sarcasm he finally speaks a truth. :laugh:--Tyr

:facepalm99:

revelarts
10-07-2015, 11:37 PM
Teachers were wrong in getting others children to pray without permission.
Much more wrong if "shaming" was involved.

It's really the Globalists who are giving Christians a bad name. :rolleyes:
The point of the other thread wasn't about "a bad name" but out right systematic rejection of christian standards ...all standards finally.

and just the fact that a we've come so far that even the idea of prayer in public school is considered criminal shows just how strong the modern academics and others are.

was it Christians that got prayer taken out of public schools because children all over were praying too much. the horror.

Seems M.M. O'hara and the ACLU had something to do with the removal didn't they?
At the time most parents didn't have any problem with prayers. but the minority here claimed it was to much of a burden to be excused from class prayers.

well now the Christians students are in the minority and have to deal with various assaults on their faith from teachers, students and curiculum with few to ZERO options to opt out. They have to endure secular anti-Christian teaching and often regurgitate it or not advance.
But somehow there's no concern for the burden there.

fj1200
10-07-2015, 11:44 PM
Teachers were wrong in getting others children to pray without permission.
Much more wrong if "shaming" was involved.

The point of the other thread wasn't about "a bad name" but out right systematic rejection of christian standards ...all standards finally.

and just the fact that a we've come so far that even the idea of prayer in public school is considered criminal shows just how strong the modern academics and others are.

was it Christians that got prayer taken out of public schools because children all over were praying too much. the horror.

Seems M.M. O'hara and the ACLU had something to do with the removal didn't they?
At the time most parents didn't have any problem with prayers. but the minority here claimed it was to much of a burden to be excused from class prayers.

well now the Christians students are in the minority and have to deal with various assaults on their faith from teachers, students and curiculum with few to ZERO options to opt out. They have to endure secular anti-Christian teaching and often regurgitate it or not advance.
But somehow there's no concern for the burden there.

What anti-Christian teaching is that? And of course I agree that there are individuals and organizations that started the removal. I disagree with the conspiratorial aspects of it.

And there is also no criminality here, the teachers did many things wrong and they, and unfortunately, the school district are paying for it.

Motown
10-08-2015, 05:47 AM
I'm guessing shaming happens a lot in public schools, I know for a fact it happened on a regular basis in my local district when my kids were in school. The only reason we heard about this is because there are watchdog groups looking out for Christianity being taught in the schools, if there were groups looking for other offenses not related to Christianity we'd be reading stories about shaming and undermining the authority of parents just about every day.

revelarts
10-08-2015, 08:59 AM
What anti-Christian teaching is that? And of course I agree that there are individuals and organizations that started the removal. I disagree with the conspiratorial aspects of it.

And there is also no criminality here, the teachers did many things wrong and they, and unfortunately, the school district are paying for it.
people are saying it's "unconstitutional" for teachers to lead prayer in school, in their minds "unconstitutional" means illegal, criminal.
Schools have been taken to court for the activity.
In this case the teacher and school district was let off with a warning.


concerning conspiracy.
If a large group of people have a similar mind set and some of them -here and there- get together from time to time to plan various agendas and actions to promote the general themes of that mind set is that conspiracy.

I don't see it as conspiracy in the sense of twirling mustaches, but conspiracy in the same sense as political parties or trade unions, or shared industry objectives, or evangelism or attempts at market dominance.
if those are conspiracy thenYES, there is a conspiracy against Christian values and old school rational thinking. With various groups, some in corporate foundations, some like the NEA, some in higher Ed, that share a vision that wants to remove Christian values and old school rational thought and individualist mindsets.


1973 Chester M. Pierce, M.D., Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard, had this to say:
Quote:

<tbody>
• "Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well – by creating the international child of the future."



</tbody>


February 10, 1973---In the SATURDAY REVIEW OF EDUCATION, NEA president Catherine Barrett pronounces: Quote:

<tbody>
"Dramatic changes in the way we will raise our children in the year 2000 are indicated, particularly in terms of schooling.... We will need to recognize that the so-called 'basic skills,' which currently represent yearly the total effort in elementary schools, will be taught in one-quarter of the present school day.... When this happens--and it's near--the teacher can rise to his true calling. More than a dispenser of information, the teacher will be a conveyor of values, a philosopher.... We will be agents of change."



</tbody>




FJ, There's any number of humanist, atheist, philosophical, academic, legal, and industry organizations that have similar mind sets and dovetailing agendas and projects that have been carried out over the decades mostly OVERTLY but often with subtlety.

These have been a like a sea of assault on the Christian and rational foundations.
You may not like the way Tyr frames it but IMO he's essentially correct.

Your counter to him here is that the "conspiracy" is unreal and that Christianity did far more to lose the culture because of things like there were "to many teachers praying in schools".
uh, Sorry IMO that's no where CLOSE to the reason why we are in this cultural anti-christian place.

fj1200
10-08-2015, 12:40 PM
people are saying it's "unconstitutional" for teachers to lead prayer in school, in their minds "unconstitutional" means illegal, criminal.
Schools have been taken to court for the activity.
In this case the teacher and school district was let off with a warning.

While it may be illegal Constitutionally speaking, it is not criminal. Nobody was going to go to jail unless they defied a court order.


concerning conspiracy.
If a large group of people have a similar mind set and some of them -here and there- get together from time to time to plan various agendas and actions to promote the general themes of that mind set is that conspiracy.

I don't see it as conspiracy in the sense of twirling mustaches, but conspiracy in the same sense as political parties or trade unions, or shared industry objectives, or evangelism or attempts at market dominance.
if those are conspiracy thenYES, there is a conspiracy against Christian values and old school rational thinking. With various groups, some in corporate foundations, some like the NEA, some in higher Ed, that share a vision that wants to remove Christian values and old school rational thought and individualist mindsets.

That stretches the definition of conspiracy the way it has been presented.


FJ, There's any number of humanist, atheist, philosophical, academic, legal, and industry organizations that have similar mind sets and dovetailing agendas and projects that have been carried out over the decades mostly OVERTLY but often with subtlety.

These have been a like a sea of assault on the Christian and rational foundations.
You may not like the way Tyr frames it but IMO he's essentially correct.

Your counter to him here is that the "conspiracy" is unreal and that Christianity did far more to lose the culture because of things like there were "to many teachers praying in schools".
uh, Sorry IMO that's no where CLOSE to the reason why we are in this cultural anti-christian place.

I think I've placed the blame on two aspects, Christians acting in a non-Christian manner along with modern society where the church is not at the center of the community. Globalists didn't create a society where kids are more likely to move away from their homes to the big city when they graduate, get a job, and create their own lives. I'll share your dismay all day in how things are today in society but blaming nameless and faceless entities is not a path to reversing the decline. Sixty years ago a church could merely open its doors and people would walk in and be part of the community which made some churches "uncompetitive" in the marketplace of Christianity. Some churches need to relearn how to advance Christ-like compassion in their local communities.

revelarts
10-09-2015, 01:31 AM
...
I think I've placed the blame on two aspects, Christians acting in a non-Christian manner along with modern society where the church is not at the center of the community. Globalists didn't create a society where kids are more likely to move away from their homes to the big city when they graduate, get a job, and create their own lives. I'll share your dismay all day in how things are today in society but blaming nameless and faceless entities is not a path to reversing the decline. Sixty years ago a church could merely open its doors and people would walk in and be part of the community which made some churches "uncompetitive" in the marketplace of Christianity. Some churches need to relearn how to advance Christ-like compassion in their local communities.

I'm going to skip the other bits and just comment here.

I think you miss one of the main points of what's under attack.
it's not the churches compassion or it's attendance.
but cultures ideas of what's foundationally TRUE or FALSE. What REAL and what UNREAL.
What's the basis of freedom, law, morals, rational thought and the universe.

There are plenty of churches that promote "compassion" and "kindness" but they do so while agreeing with the secular world in nearly every respect socially, philosophically, physiologically, scientifically and historically.
Leaving what for the churches and the Bible to address FJ?
Morals?
When the churches try to point out biblical morals people claim the church is too harsh and/or behind "the times" and finally they say that the churches have NO authority to encourage much less TELL others how to live.. on ANY issue.
Abortion, sexuality, marriage, divorce, political ethics, businesses ethics, social ethics, WHERE is Biblical morality is to be applied without someone crying foul? Or worse claiming it's "UNKIND" and 'NOT LIKE JESUS'?

I'd agree that the churches have given up the battles for WHAT IS REALITY here. While somehow wanting to hold onto some vague situationally pliable concepts of love and kindness taught --more or less-- by a man who they honestly consider a provincial middle eastern illegitimate Jewish man who died 2000 years ago. For whom myths arose about his rising from the dead. Myths which supposedly give these churches hope of some kind and compel them to a bit more "love". Heaven and Hell are just concepts of how things are earth. Evangelism is considered "mean". And "kindness and love" are the ONLY things to be taken seriously from the Bible and usually only used against Christians if they don't abide by what secularly MINDED christian and Non-Christians imagine that "love" means. Not what the old dusty book meant by it back in the olden days. The secularized academically astute Christian and generic Non-christian dismissALL aspects of Biblical teaching in favor of modern thought on every issue in every venue and somehow imagine no one's ATTACKED the "main" teachings. while completely forgetting how the old fashion Biblical POV used to be ubiquitous in western culture.

this is how far it's gone FJ.

Gunny
10-09-2015, 02:32 AM
I'm going to skip the other bits and just comment here.

I think you miss one of the main points of what's under attack.
it's not the churches compassion or it's attendance.
but cultures ideas of what's foundationally TRUE or FALSE. What REAL and what UNREAL.
What's the basis of freedom, law, morals, rational thought and the universe.

There are plenty of churches that promote "compassion" and "kindness" but they do so while agreeing with the secular world in nearly every respect socially, philosophically, physiologically, scientifically and historically.
Leaving what for the churches and the Bible to address FJ?
Morals?
When the churches try to point out biblical morals people claim the church is too harsh and/or behind "the times" and finally they say that the churches have NO authority to encourage much less TELL others how to live.. on ANY issue.
Abortion, sexuality, marriage, divorce, political ethics, businesses ethics, social ethics, WHERE is Biblical morality is to be applied without someone crying foul? Or worse claiming it's "UNKIND" and 'NOT LIKE JESUS'?

I'd agree that the churches have given up the battles for WHAT IS REALITY here. While somehow wanting to hold onto some vague situationally pliable concepts of love and kindness taught --more or less-- by a man who they honestly consider a provincial middle eastern illegitimate Jewish man who died 2000 years ago. For whom myths arose about his rising from the dead. Myths which supposedly give these churches hope of some kind and compel them to a bit more "love". Heaven and Hell are just concepts of how things are earth. Evangelism is considered "mean". And "kindness and love" are the ONLY things to be taken seriously from the Bible and usually only used against Christians if they don't abide by what secularly MINDED christian and Non-Christians imagine that "love" means. Not what the old dusty book meant by it back in the olden days. The secularized academically astute Christian and generic Non-christian dismissALL aspects of Biblical teaching in favor of modern thought on every issue in every venue and somehow imagine no one's ATTACKED the "main" teachings. while completely forgetting how the old fashion Biblical POV used to be ubiquitous in western culture.

this is how far it's gone FJ.




Holy crap, rev ... why don't you just write a book?

revelarts
10-09-2015, 03:30 AM
Holy crap, rev ... why don't you just write a book?

what i wrote is a rough laymen's attempt at a condensation of a few books into a paragraph or 2

Motown
10-09-2015, 06:46 AM
Teachers were wrong in getting others children to pray without permission.
Much more wrong if "shaming" was involved.

The point of the other thread wasn't about "a bad name" but out right systematic rejection of christian standards ...all standards finally.

and just the fact that a we've come so far that even the idea of prayer in public school is considered criminal shows just how strong the modern academics and others are.

What other thread are you talking about? It looks like an interesting conversation and I'd like to check it out.

As for this thread though I think you guys are over thinking things. A cultural shift didn't have anything to do with this. The actions of the two teachers never would have been tolerated. I can't remember a time when shaming children and telling them their mother was evil would not have drawn a reaction from the parents and resulted in censure of the teachers.

indago
10-09-2015, 08:43 AM
From the link:

“teachers have received educational training on their obligations not to promote religious beliefs in their classrooms and the Doe family has been financially compensated for harm they suffered.”

The school should not force religious beliefs on children, but.... the Doe family sounds like a bunch of whiners to me. The family has been "financially compensated for harm they suffered"? Looks like they took a page right out of the queers' book and demand to get compensated for having their feelings hurt.

Well, the lawyers have to get paid...

indago
10-09-2015, 08:59 AM
Religious dogma should not be engaged in in the schools. There are churches all over town for that. They don't teach math in the churches, so don't do dogma in the schools...

fj1200
10-09-2015, 10:52 AM
I'm going to skip the other bits and just comment here.

I think you miss one of the main points of what's under attack.
it's not the churches compassion or it's attendance.
but cultures ideas of what's foundationally TRUE or FALSE. What REAL and what UNREAL.
What's the basis of freedom, law, morals, rational thought and the universe.

There are plenty of churches that promote "compassion" and "kindness" but they do so while agreeing with the secular world in nearly every respect socially, philosophically, physiologically, scientifically and historically.
Leaving what for the churches and the Bible to address FJ?
Morals?
When the churches try to point out biblical morals people claim the church is too harsh and/or behind "the times" and finally they say that the churches have NO authority to encourage much less TELL others how to live.. on ANY issue.
Abortion, sexuality, marriage, divorce, political ethics, businesses ethics, social ethics, WHERE is Biblical morality is to be applied without someone crying foul? Or worse claiming it's "UNKIND" and 'NOT LIKE JESUS'?

I'd agree that the churches have given up the battles for WHAT IS REALITY here. While somehow wanting to hold onto some vague situationally pliable concepts of love and kindness taught --more or less-- by a man who they honestly consider a provincial middle eastern illegitimate Jewish man who died 2000 years ago. For whom myths arose about his rising from the dead. Myths which supposedly give these churches hope of some kind and compel them to a bit more "love". Heaven and Hell are just concepts of how things are earth. Evangelism is considered "mean". And "kindness and love" are the ONLY things to be taken seriously from the Bible and usually only used against Christians if they don't abide by what secularly MINDED christian and Non-Christians imagine that "love" means. Not what the old dusty book meant by it back in the olden days. The secularized academically astute Christian and generic Non-christian dismissALL aspects of Biblical teaching in favor of modern thought on every issue in every venue and somehow imagine no one's ATTACKED the "main" teachings. while completely forgetting how the old fashion Biblical POV used to be ubiquitous in western culture.

this is how far it's gone FJ.

I don't think the argument you've made above is necessarily in concert with your "conspiracy" charge. There is a lot up there that I can agree with but doesn't change my opinion. Has it gone far? Yes. Are teachings under attack? Yes, but I still disagree to the extent of how it's been influenced by a centralized group and not the other issues I've mentioned.

I'll take one issue you raised above; scientifically. You and I will both agree that the church was at the forefront of science centuries ago but that doesn't mean that someone who is a Young Earth Creationist is going to have support by society when science (by and large and I don't want to debate that with you) almost completely disagrees. I don't see the current viewpoint of science and all that goes with it as contrary to the story of God.

I will also generically say that the church needs to look at what is happening in society and look to the bible for guidance and also ask is the interpretation correct. The church has many times looked again to scripture to see what it says about women in leadership roles in church, segregation, slavery, etc. Just because we look back at an issue of the day and teachings are changed it doesn't mean what it's changed to is wrong.

fj1200
10-09-2015, 10:54 AM
What other thread are you talking about? It looks like an interesting conversation and I'd like to check it out.

As for this thread though I think you guys are over thinking things. A cultural shift didn't have anything to do with this. The actions of the two teachers never would have been tolerated. I can't remember a time when shaming children and telling them their mother was evil would not have drawn a reaction from the parents and resulted in censure of the teachers.

The treason of the intellectuals & “The Undoing of Thought” (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51767-The-treason-of-the-intellectuals-amp-%93The-Undoing-of-Thought%94)
Yes, this thread has gone beyond its original basis. :whistling2:

revelarts
10-11-2015, 03:24 AM
I don't think the argument you've made above is necessarily in concert with your "conspiracy" charge. There is a lot up there that I can agree with but doesn't change my opinion. Has it gone far? Yes. Are teachings under attack? Yes, but I still disagree to the extent of how it's been influenced by a centralized group and not the other issues I've mentioned.
I'll take one issue you raised above; scientifically. You and I will both agree that the church was at the forefront of science centuries ago but that doesn't mean that someone who is a Young Earth Creationist is going to have support by society when science (by and large and I don't want to debate that with you) almost completely disagrees. I don't see the current viewpoint of science and all that goes with it as contrary to the story of God.
I will also generically say that the church needs to look at what is happening in society and look to the bible for guidance and also ask is the interpretation correct. The church has many times looked again to scripture to see what it says about women in leadership roles in church, segregation, slavery, etc. Just because we look back at an issue of the day and teachings are changed it doesn't mean what it's changed to is wrong.

It seems were not quite communicating though.
you say you agree BUT don't agree. then give examples of WHY the Bible is wrong compared to science, and then say people's intereprations HAVE been wrong Before ... I your opinion... on at least 3 issues...
and, i guess ,you assume they are wrong again on some other modern issues.

But to me it's like you're sticking a pin in a ballon and letting air out slowly so it NOT REALLY an full on attack.


concerning different interpretations.
frankly I think you'd agree that the Bible is pretty clear in most areas. this is why some people have rejected it. BECAUSE they DO understand very WELL what it means once they've read it though and taken each passage in context. you make it sound as if every social, philosophical, physiological, scientific and historical issue that's in conflict with the modern views is mainly a case of people MISUNDERSTANDING or can be fixed RE-INTERPRETING the bible to fit todays mindset.

what i'm saying is that THAT is PART of the problem with the church. That IS part of the attack.

you mention slavery, but i think you'll acknowledge that slavery was ENDed in the west by people influenced by there Christians beliefs. Slavery was WORLD wide and mainly Under western Christian influence was it nearly removed from the world.

woman in leadership. I'm not sure woman should be a Pastor in a Church. the Bible is pretty clear on that. People take as if it's a Knock against woman. But in the old testament Only the family of Arron were allowed to be priest. and of those only one family was allowed to move the ark. Also God choose Abraham and his children to be the.. well... "chosen people". does that mean he this less of asians, of irish or africans or greeks? Have a selected group to minister is not a sign of "discrimination". But bottom line the question is it going to be obeyed or will we find a way to view it in light that more appealing to us?

segregation: there's nothing in the Bible that can honestly be construed to back-up southern U.S. segregation. One can cobble together a better case for woman preachers than for segregation of the races or racial supremacy.

each of situations you mention there were people MISUSING the Bible.
there are always people in church and culture that want to justify what they want and cherry pick a few verses and create a movement around it.

but certain things are clear if you take the WHOLE package in context. see what it says and leave it at that and work from there. one doesn't honestly get 2 dozens different views.

there may be 3 honest views based on the text and they probably will up with modern thing.


concerning the "conspiracy" as i've said i believe it's a conspiracy of ideas lead by various men in various times and places. but ultimately lead by corrupt spirits. I think you're ready to put to much blame on the bad apples of the church rather than the guys spraying feces, mold and worms over the church walls and village for a living.

Gunny
10-11-2015, 03:32 AM
what i wrote is a rough laymen's attempt at a condensation of a few books into a paragraph or 2

You might think you can write but the jury's still out on your counting. That ain't 2 paragraphs I quoted. Maybe you need to come over and watch Sesame Street with the baby. :laugh:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-11-2015, 10:43 AM
The treason of the intellectuals & “The Undoing of Thought” (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?51767-The-treason-of-the-intellectuals-amp-%93The-Undoing-of-Thought%94)
Yes, this thread has gone beyond its original basis. :whistling2:


Yep and you were just as wrong in that thread("The Treason of the Intellectuals & “The Undoing of Thought”) as you are in this one!
Even more so in that thread as you fixated on one symptom and tried to refute the premise of the article based upon that one grossly mistaken fallacy.-Tyr

revelarts
10-11-2015, 10:57 AM
You might think you can write but the jury's still out on your counting. That ain't 2 paragraphs I quoted. Maybe you need to come over and watch Sesame Street with the baby. :laugh:


i just re-read the last post i made and i had a rough time making it through some parts.
Sesame Street and the Electric Company might not be a bad idea. Maybe some sleep and editing time too.

fj1200
10-13-2015, 10:11 AM
Yep and you were just as wrong in that thread("The Treason of the Intellectuals & “The Undoing of Thought”) as you are in this one!
Even more so in that thread as you fixated on one symptom and tried to refute the premise of the article based upon that one grossly mistaken fallacy.-Tyr

:blah: Mindless repetition is not an argument.

fj1200
10-13-2015, 10:39 AM
It seems were not quite communicating though.
you say you agree BUT don't agree. then give examples of WHY the Bible is wrong compared to science, and then say people's intereprations HAVE been wrong Before ... I your opinion... on at least 3 issues...
and, i guess ,you assume they are wrong again on some other modern issues.

But to me it's like you're sticking a pin in a ballon and letting air out slowly so it NOT REALLY an full on attack.

I don't believe the bible is wrong compared to science. I think people can be wrong compared to science and they may point to the bible for reasoning. I think we both agree that people's interpretations have been wrong before. Is that a correct statement? If people's interpretations have been wrong before then they can be wrong again. We have varying interpretations currently within Christianity so why would one group be the specific one who is correct right now?

If Christians are the ones at the core who are disagreeing then it's not the outside forces that are sticking the pins in the balloon.


concerning different interpretations.
frankly I think you'd agree that the Bible is pretty clear in most areas. this is why some people have rejected it. BECAUSE they DO understand very WELL what it means once they've read it though and taken each passage in context. you make it sound as if every social, philosophical, physiological, scientific and historical issue that's in conflict with the modern views is mainly a case of people MISUNDERSTANDING or can be fixed RE-INTERPRETING the bible to fit todays mindset.

what i'm saying is that THAT is PART of the problem with the church. That IS part of the attack.

you mention slavery, but i think you'll acknowledge that slavery was ENDed in the west by people influenced by there Christians beliefs. Slavery was WORLD wide and mainly Under western Christian influence was it nearly removed from the world.

woman in leadership. I'm not sure woman should be a Pastor in a Church. the Bible is pretty clear on that. People take as if it's a Knock against woman. But in the old testament Only the family of Arron were allowed to be priest. and of those only one family was allowed to move the ark. Also God choose Abraham and his children to be the.. well... "chosen people". does that mean he this less of asians, of irish or africans or greeks? Have a selected group to minister is not a sign of "discrimination". But bottom line the question is it going to be obeyed or will we find a way to view it in light that more appealing to us?

segregation: there's nothing in the Bible that can honestly be construed to back-up southern U.S. segregation. One can cobble together a better case for woman preachers than for segregation of the races or racial supremacy.

each of situations you mention there were people MISUSING the Bible.
there are always people in church and culture that want to justify what they want and cherry pick a few verses and create a movement around it.

but certain things are clear if you take the WHOLE package in context. see what it says and leave it at that and work from there. one doesn't honestly get 2 dozens different views.

there may be 3 honest views based on the text and they probably will up with modern thing.

I do agree that the Bible is very clear in many areas and many will reject it because of that but that's not a conspiratorial rejection, it's a rejection based on not wanting to be held to a higher standard. In many cases people come back to the church because of family and that was a much more common path in the past than it is currently. But don't misunderstand; I don't want to "reinterpret" the bible, I suggest it should be read correctly. A long time ago a woman "should submit" but that very text is now read correctly IMO. FWIW, I don't mean to "make it sound" like that but it's just that we've only scratched the surface of some of those issues. For example, we disagree on gays but I'm guessing we don't disagree on sex before marriage. I think that is pretty clear and yes, people don't like that interpretation.

I know that we agree that there are situations where people misuse the bible and I think you're right that on the whole there are not two dozen different views but if you drill down into a particular issue then you may get many more views; but keep in mind that whole denominations are based upon those particular issues.

I'll tell you that I think I am very fortunate to be in the Sunday School class that I'm in, the main teacher and many of the others are/were seminary students who studied Hebrew and an "Old Testament Scholar" who's moved on to greener pastures BTW, so please understand that I don't come to my beliefs and opinions haphazardly. It is very considered.


concerning the "conspiracy" as i've said i believe it's a conspiracy of ideas lead by various men in various times and places. but ultimately lead by corrupt spirits. I think you're ready to put to much blame on the bad apples of the church rather than the guys spraying feces, mold and worms over the church walls and village for a living.

I suppose that's a difference of opinion (I can agree with corrupt spirits though) but I will tend to make the assertion that the church united in common spirit, honestly seeking the Kingdom, being open to every man, will win out. But don't forget modern society being very different from even 1950's America, for example.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-13-2015, 11:01 AM
:blah: Mindless repetition is not an argument.

Then why do you so happily engage in it so often? :laugh:-Tyr

fj1200
10-13-2015, 11:04 AM
Then why do you so happily engage in it so often? :laugh:-Tyr

You're going with, "I know you are but what am I?" Impressive.

Gunny
10-13-2015, 01:32 PM
I s anyone even supposed to know WTF y'all are talking about?

fj1200
10-13-2015, 02:13 PM
I s anyone even supposed to know WTF y'all are talking about?

Nope, just us. :poke:

Gunny
10-13-2015, 02:16 PM
Nope, just us. :poke:

I guess. Crap, I got lost by this morning.