I have a question in reguards to teaching children.

[CdwJava]

I am not going to argue theology with you here.

Fortunately we have a NEW Testament for canon, not the old.

But, the beauty of the LAW is that you can believe what you wish and - at least for now - holding your beliefs will not be enough to put you in jail.

 

[Vegito]

This is coming from probably the most uber liberal poster in the forums. Ready?

You're misunderstanding the Constitution, and you're gravely misunderstanding the reality.



(putting on my "nicer" hat)

Hon, you really need to sit down and study the Constitution and what it actually means.

I find it funny how you disregard what I have written and assume I am working off assumption of what others have said, or you discount it because you don't believe it. It's fine either way. You are intitled to your thoughts and opinions. However I do not need to be re educated and neither do I miss understand it. I am working off of the common understanding on what the first amendment means. however I do add this. I personally think that since when it was established (the amendment protecting the religion) I believe it was actually in regards to and only to christianity because the people who wrote it were mostly high 90% christian. These men are also men who tried "witches" and other people who didn't match Christianity if they were something different they were sentenced to death, however they didn't infringe on how to be a christian. so I doubt that they would write that statement having thoughts of Buddhists and Atheists and Satanists.

 

[Vegito]

I am not going to argue theology with you here.

Fortunately we have a NEW Testament for canon, not the old.

But, the beauty of the LAW is that you can believe what you wish and - at least for now - holding your beliefs will not be enough to put you in jail.

well if the OT isn't holy anymore you might as well burn it. besides without it you cant prove messiah is messiah. And you can't really prove anything out of the NT anyway since they didnt have the NT before they started writting it. They wouldnt just DUMP IT. in order to form a new thing out of old substinces. like the messiah said you cant put new stuff in old stuff.

after all those who say the OT is done away with advicate that the only way to save us is to get rid of the law and by saying that i believe that that means they agree with satan who says no one can follow the law. so why is satan satan again? oh yeah because of lawlessness. Of wait messiah did away with the laws so there for cant satan be saved now????? lol

I was only replying to your comment. You opened the can.

still to digree from silly disagreements such as this please. still no one has answered the basic question of why is this happening. if you read my other posts completely you will understand the question.

 

[Proserpina]

I find it funny how you disregard what I have written and assume I am working off assumption of what others have said, or you discount it because you don't believe it. It's fine either way. You are intitled to your thoughts and opinions. However I do not need to be re educated and neither do I miss understand it. I am working off of the common understanding on what the first amendment means. however I do add this. I personally think that since when it was established (the amendment protecting the religion) I believe it was actually in regards to and only to christianity because the people who wrote it were mostly high 90% christian. These men are also men who tried "witches" and other people who didn't match Christianity if they were something different they were sentenced to death, however they didn't infringe on how to be a christian. so I doubt that they would write that statement having thoughts of Buddhists and Atheists and Satanists.

Add History 101 to your list of "Things I need to Learn"

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

You can take the scriptures and their interpretation literally and end up in a mental ward or stick by the axioms and apply them in your daily life while trying to coexist with those who go against the teachings of the bible. You could also reconcile yourself that the scriptures are in fact the interpretation of God set to writing by man and absorb the intent from them. You could also attend a church and allow the minister/pastor to be your vessel of interpretation. In contrast, you can look at sin and sinners as those who commit sin, those who bask in sin and those who are consumed by sin. Generally speaking, those consumed in sin are waging a war on God.

As you examine this war, you must choose to be a bystander, an actor or an aggressor. When you make this decision, you should keep in mind that God created this sin, he also set the parameters under which it flourishes and grows. You must then keep in mind when one does something un-Godly, they are doing it on the path set out by God. If you truly believe and want to go to heaven you must resist the urge to become overly active in thwarting the actions of the heathen devils because they are still operating according to the groundwork laid out by God. Your job is to stay within the bounds of being eligible to go to Heaven when the world falls apart.

 

[Ohiogal]

The book of Genesis says literally word for word without interpretation "If a man is found sexually with another man than he must be put to death out side the camp". Then in the NT it says that women will lie with women and be lovers of themselves in the last days. I can quote direct without interpretation. So YES from the BIBLES position and only it and not interpreted and not from human tradition it says to put them to death. You might want to check your translation with the actual script it is translated from if it doesnt say that exact quote because there is a lot of miss translations.

Did you read the actual text in the ORIGINAL language? What languages can you read, write and speak? Do you have a beard? Do you eat shellfish? Do you sit where a woman has sat who was on her menses? Do you follow everything in the Bible literally? If not, then you are a hypocrite.

 

[stealth2]

People - you can't fix the ignorant. Let veggie-person talk to itself.

Personally, if self-proclaimed "Christians" spent more time on behaving like actual Christians, the world would be a better place.

 

[LdiJ]

Add History 101 to your list of "Things I need to Learn"

No kidding...the whole witch trials bit took place a full 100 years before the constitution was written.

 

[single317dad]

The book of Genesis says literally word for word without interpretation "If a man is found sexually with another man than he must be put to death out side the camp".

No, it doesn't. The only Google result for the exact phrase you posted is your own post here on FA.

If you want to be effective, you need to state only facts in your arguments. Then, based on only the facts, you can debate your topic.

 

[stealth2]

The book of Genesis says literally word for word without interpretation

Please post Genesis in the original(hint: NOT English.).

 

[I'mTheFather]

Vegito, as a peace officer I can say with confidence that if you told a lesbian that you believed that lesbians should be put to death because that is what God said (and, I would argue that point with you, by the way), you could not be arrested here in CA.

While such words might be labeled as "hate speech," the speech - BY ITSELF - is not a crime. For it to be a crime some other element/action would have to be present. if your words were intended to incite immediate violence against the target of your speech, yes, it could be criminal. If your words were accompanied with some action that carried with it the threat of imminent harm to the target, you might have committed a crime. But, simply saying it to her would NOT be a crime. If it were, then the whole of the Westboro Baptist Chuch (and I use that term with my fingers squarely holding my nose as it regards that group) would have been arrested long ago because that is PRECISELY what they advocate.

And, ImTheFather, if you were involved in CA education or paying attention to the changes in curriculum occurring here you would know that the state-mandated changes sweeping through our school systems are increasingly hostile to people of faith both in policy and required implementation. I'd be less concerned if the state would allow us to send our children to public OR private schools through the use of a voucher system, but they don't, and our children are and will increasingly be subject to social indoctrination that is becoming increasingly unfriendly to those of faith through mandated texts and additional hours on areas involved in social engineering at the expense of core skills. Fortunately, my children are all but done with school (as of next year I will have 3/4 in college), but I fear for the generation coming up behind them and the parents that are increasingly lacking the financial ability to send their children to alternative - and often better - educational alternative programs.

I agree that some student religious organizations are permitted on most campuses still, but there have been instances here of public schools banning ALL religious or political groups - even all student organizations entirely - in order to avoid having one faith-based organization ... not so much because of an anti-faith bias, but a fear of legal repercussions for permitting its presence. We have become so cowed out here that when one speaks of a student religious organization, a day of prayer, a prayer rally at the flagpole, etc., you hear hushed whispers of concern about the ACLU ... it can be a truly unnerving affair.

I'm sure we have very different perspectives, but I don't want to derail this odd thread any further. So, the only comment I have is in response to the bolded. I think it's unfortunate that the ACLU is viewed as the impediment to religious freedom, when, in fact, the ACLU has represented students in suits regarding expressions of religious beliefs (including Christians).

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I'm sure we have very different perspectives, but I don't want to derail this odd thread any further. So, the only comment I have is in response to the bolded. I think it's unfortunate that the ACLU is viewed as the impediment to religious freedom, when, in fact, the ACLU has represented students in suits regarding expressions of religious beliefs (including Christians).

The ACLU has made its mission to dissolve and dispose of the moral fibers of the US one special interest at a time. Many of its major contributors benefit financially from precedents set by its rabid court cases. I suggest you attempt to get the access to the list of its major contributors.

 

[I'mTheFather]

The ACLU has made its mission to dissolve and dispose of the moral fibers of the US one special interest at a time. Many of its major contributors benefit financially from precedents set by its rabid court cases. I suggest you attempt to get the access to the list of its major contributors.

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how misguided.