A Sign Of The Times?

"equal protection for all" has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue.
Yes it does. It's the primary Constitutional protection upon which this issue hinges.

Shall we endorse "marriage" of an adult man and a minor child? Don't pedophiles want to be "equal"?
How about a man and a sheep? Can't leave the bestiality supporters out in the cold.
Wow...really? You went straight to the crazy, didn't you? This is exactly why I believe 1) the courts are consistently ruling against you, and 2) history won't be kind to Christianity on this.

Take a second and try and understand the concept of "consenting adults" please. Sheesh.

I was lamenting the fact that no amount of indecency or perversion seems to offend the modern mind.
No matter what kind of sugar coating you may wish to put on it, homosexuality is a perversion of natural desires.
To some people, oral sex is a perversion. Should that be illegal? To many Christians, sex outside of marriage is a perversion. Should that be illegal?

We don't live in a theocracy.
 
it comes back to the question 'what would Jesus do or say?'.... i object to the act but i dont hate a person for being gay. rising above petty issues around sexuality in modern FALLEN times is the only way forward as fighting about or taking moral high ground just drives you further away from the kingdom and into Satans arms.
 
Ian,

True, but there's two aspects to this issue. There's the religious/spiritual part that you address, but there's a legal part too, that IMO should not be overly entangled with the religious part.
 
RiverJordan - you are missing the point by miles.

The law states whatever the government says the law states. It does not need to be just, fair, balanced, or even sane.
I could not care less what the "opinion of the courts" is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality that we all will be judged by.
The courts just affirmed the "right of the government (NSA) to collect whatever data it bloody well pleases from whoever it pleases", the 4th amendment of the Constitution notwithstanding.
And a more amusing one, the right of Congress to engage in insider trading, which is of course very illegal for the rest of us.
Did you miss the NDAA, which codifies a whole slew of laws that blatantly violate the Constitution.

We don't live in a theocracy NOW, we will rather soon. Those few who are still living.
 
History won't be kind to Christianity?
Where do you think "history" is going?
The "end of days" is coming, what we are accustomed to in this world will cease to be.
There will not be a single non-Christian living after the tribulation.
 
Counting on it, no. Aware of it, yes.

RiverJordan, if you would make the attempt to look at the world without the odd-colored glasses of
"modern Western culture" distorting your vision, you would very likely have a much different view on things.
 
The problem with that is, people have been "aware" of the end times being "just around the corner", "soon", "imminent", etc. for....well basically since the time of Jesus.

And "modern Western culture" has far less to do with this for me than people I actually know and am good friends with. They have very real, practical everyday issues that you and I take for granted. I'm not inclined to tell them they shouldn't worry about overt discrimination because the end times are coming, and I'm definitely not going to compare them to pedophiles and people who have sex with animals. That's simply mean and hurtful and accomplishes nothing (except maybe making them hate Christians).
 
What are you talking about? I never said anything was "dated". I merely pointed out that scriptures about "children" don't apply in this case since the students in question are not children.

You're taking a scripture about children and trying to apply it to 16 and 18 year olds. See the problem? Just a hint...it's not that scripture is "dated".


Wow. So high schoolers are not to express their opinions according to you. Ok then....

I understand your position on this. I just disagree.

It seems that as time goes on we tend to allow the Bible meanings to fade away and be replaced by our thoughts instead of what the Word of God says and teaches.

I have to agree with calvin here and you did IMO try to DATE the Scriptures for your opinions. Not in word but in thoughts and there is the key tot he whole conversation.

Allow me to extrapolate this.

Matt. 5:21-22................The Lord Jesus teaches us that:
"You have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shall not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council".

Raca
means empty-headed; moron. It is a form of cursing, belittling, or speaking contemptuously of. The person who says this shall be in danger of the council.

Jesus is saying that He agrees with Ex. 21:15-17. For a child to speak contemptuously of or to consider his parents to be foolish puts him in danger of the death penalty. This isGod's Law here, and here, Jesus, our Savior, says that He agrees with it. He will be the God who judges.

Cursing is placed on a par with murder, and there is a reason why: because it proceeds from this same attitude of heart. Thus, it is punishable by death.
 
I have to agree with calvin here and you did IMO try to DATE the Scriptures for your opinions. Not in word but in thoughts and there is the key tot he whole conversation.
That may be your opinion, but it is not correct. You do not know my thoughts better than I do.

Jesus is saying that He agrees with Ex. 21:15-17. For a child to speak contemptuously of or to consider his parents to be foolish puts him in danger of the death penalty. This isGod's Law here, and here, Jesus, our Savior, says that He agrees with it. He will be the God who judges.
So do you think these students should be facing the death penalty?
 
Calvin,

So you believe the students should have formal debates about the issue among themselves, and leave it at that? Let's just say I disagree. Also, I disagree that the scripture you quoted about children obeying their parents was about all Israelites, of all ages. You quoted Ephesians, which was a letter Paul wrote to fellow Christians in Ephesus, and the context of that chapter make it pretty clear to me that Paul was talking about literal children, not using some metaphor for all Israelites.
River when we quote/study Paul, or Isaiah or whoever, we need to look into the language they used, rather than just the language as we use it.
The word Paul used to those Christians at Ephesus when speaking to children was :
G5043
τέκνον
teknon
Thayer Definition:
1) offspring, children
1a) child
1a) a male child, a son
1b) metaphorically
1b1) the name transferred to that intimate and reciprocal relationship formed between men by the bonds of love, friendship, trust, just as between parents and children
1b2) in affectionate address, such as patrons, helpers, teachers and the like employ: my child
1b3) in the NT, pupils or disciples are called children of their teachers, because the latter by their instruction nourish the minds of their pupils and mould their characters
1b4) children of God: in the OT of “the people of Israel” as especially dear to God, in the NT, in Paul’s writings, all who are led by the Spirit of God and thus closely related to God
1b5) children of the devil: those who in thought and action are prompted by the devil, and so reflect his character
1c) metaphorically
1c1) of anything who depends upon it, is possessed by a desire or affection for it, is addicted to it
1c2) one who is liable to any fate
1c2a) thus children of a city: it citizens and inhabitants
1c3) the votaries of wisdom, those souls who have, as it were, been nurtured and moulded by wisdom
1c4) cursed children, exposed to a curse and doomed to God’s wrath or penalty
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from the base of G5098
You can see that what I have said is embodied within those notes? There is no implicit thought in the Ephesus passage that restricts Paul's thoughts to young children, indeed if that were the case, it is reasonable to think that he would have been much more specific...." Little children, pre schoolers and elementary aged?? children obey your parents...." or "You children under the age of twelve, obey your parents...." No River, that is not what Paul wrote, and that is not the thought Paul expressed. On the flip side (surprised nobody chimed in on this), Fathers are not to provoke their children to anger. So, although here Paul's language seems more focused on close family members, I don't believe it controls our understanding of Paul's opening remarks in any way.
Nevertheless, it was not good that the actions of the 'older' generation provoked the younger generation as it did.
 
Calvin,

As I said before, if you read Paul's epistle to Ephesus as not referring specifically to children, but instead referring to everyone, then we're just going to have to disagree on that.

Back to the issue in the OP, we don't even know if the students in question were actually being disobedient to their parents, do we?
 
I think the subject of the students being disobedient to their parents is irrelevant to the subject. For argument's sake, we can pretend for now that the parents had no problem with their protesting, even if in real life many of them did.
 
That may be your opinion, but it is not correct. You do not know my thoughts better than I do.


So do you think these students should be facing the death penalty?

Of course it is my opinion. You have yours and the rest of us have ours. In fact, I do not know your thought neither do I desire to do so. I can only draw conclusions from what you actually posted and I stand by that.

Do I think the students should be killed? That my friend is the usual responce that comes from a skeptic. It is meant to portray God as a mean and vengenful God who could not possibly be the God of love.

I am sure you know that Our Lord has allowed us to live today under grace and not the Law. The Law was good and right in the day it was given and for the purposeses that it was given for. Without a universal system of law and order that would protect the innocent and elderly in that dispensation, the Law of God had its purpose and it did well.

I do not believe nor condone slavery but it was done in those days for survival.

Premeditated killing, the hitting and cursing of ones parents and kidnapping were all capital offences in Isralite society and it was there to protect the innocent. Now that is a Biblical and historical fact. It is not for me to question whether or not those students should have faced the death penalty. It was what God placed into effect.
 
Last edited:
Major,

You didn't really answer. I asked if you think these students should be facing the death penalty. All I'm asking is for your opinion, which I think is reasonable given that in a thread about high school students engaging in a protest, you cited an OT law about children being put to death for speaking contemptuously of their parents.
 
Will the Catholic Church eventually change its stance, or will it stand by its position, likely losing followers in the west with each passing year?

Man, this is a great question. I'm going to go ahead and say the Catholic Church will eventually change its stance. Throughout history, Popes have been forced to change their position - Heliocentrism comes to mind. I know this example isn't quite the same, but if I had to make a prediction, I'm guessing the Catholic Church will soften its stance and "evolve" it's position in the "way we interpret the Holy scriptures."
 
Man, this is a great question. I'm going to go ahead and say the Catholic Church will eventually change its stance. Throughout history, Popes have been forced to change their position - Heliocentrism comes to mind. I know this example isn't quite the same, but if I had to make a prediction, I'm guessing the Catholic Church will soften its stance and "evolve" it's position in the "way we interpret the Holy scriptures."

With all due respect, the case for the Catholic Church and Heliocentric-ism is a widely misunderstood and non-theological issue. To compare the Church's position on a scientific theory vs. their position on a vocational practice are two different things. In fact, their position on the heliocentric model wasn't that they were totally against it, but that they felt Galileo was rejecting scientific discipline when he made definite statements rather than treating it as a theory.

Tradition (capital T), tradition (little t), and scientific theory are three very different things.
 
With all due respect, the case for the Catholic Church and Heliocentric-ism is a widely misunderstood and non-theological issue. To compare the Church's position on a scientific theory vs. their position on a vocational practice are two different things. In fact, their position on the heliocentric model wasn't that they were totally against it, but that they felt Galileo was rejecting scientific discipline when he made definite statements rather than treating it as a theory.

Tradition (capital T), tradition (little t), and scientific theory are three very different things.

Hence, why I made the qualifier "I know this example isn't quite the same." But you're right, it's not a theological issue. [Side note: Major opened up a can of worms about RCC theological issues in post #17 in the Bible Study/A Church Whose Teachings... thread. I'd be really interested in your response to those.] But it is a function of the Roman Catholic Church taking absurd positions in areas in which it shouldn't.

As for your statement about the RCC's position on the heliocentric model, I hadn't quite heard that version of things before. Everything I've read told a different story, but let's say for a moment you are correct - what is the implication of that then? Now the RCC are the Science Dicipline Police? We put a scientist on house arrest for the remainder of his life because we don't like his methods?
 
Hence, why I made the qualifier "I know this example isn't quite the same." But you're right, it's not a theological issue. [Side note: Major opened up a can of worms about RCC theological issues in post #17 in the Bible Study/A Church Whose Teachings... thread. I'd be really interested in your response to those.] But it is a function of the Roman Catholic Church taking absurd positions in areas in which it shouldn't.

As for your statement about the RCC's position on the heliocentric model, I hadn't quite heard that version of things before. Everything I've read told a different story, but let's say for a moment you are correct - what is the implication of that then? Now the RCC are the Science Dicipline Police? We put a scientist on house arrest for the remainder of his life because we don't like his methods?

Indeed, you did say it was stretching it, so I'll certainly give you that. ;)

Can you give an example of where the Catholic Church took absurd positions in which it shouldn't? If you mean in terms of something like science, they don't take definite positions. For example, while the Church (ie, clergy and some of its predecessors) have embraced the certain scientific theories, they don't treat it like a doctrine or dogma. It makes no difference whether a religious or secular were to agree with certain scientific theories or not.

But maybe you meant something else.

Indeed, there is a lot about the history of the Catholic Church that either gets twisted or overlooked. One of my favorite books that also provided a lot of citing is a book called The Catholic Church: Builder of Western Civilization by a historian named Thomas E. Woods (and his TV special by the same name which can be seen on YouTube also). There is a lot mistaken, like that the Inquisition was an effort to force conversions or that the Crusades was aggression from the Christians on the Turks.

The story of Galileo is often twisted outrageously. The Catholic Church promoted science as a discipline, not just a practice as it was before -- the overall idea to have a better understanding of creation to better understand the creator. (Back in the 7th century, science was basically just astronomy, coming from the old Greek disciplines). Would this be a valid reason to hold Galileo under house arrest? I'd say no, and the Church has come forward and said apologized and said it could have been handled better without doing that. It wasn't so much that they assumed position as Scientific Discipline police, but that they were funding Galileo's work, especially since Galileo expressed to the Church that they could prove the Copernican theory that Earth revolved around the sun. The Church and Galileo had a split because the Church was looking for absolute proof while Galileo was claiming his theory as fact. Granted, Galileo was right, but in those times, there was no space exploration and so there was difficulty in finding sound evidence.

Galileo's trial was brief, and while the Church has said it should have been handled differently, he was certainly not treated inhumanely. He was put up in a villa, had servants, a chef, and was even free from house arrest a bit later. Galileo went back to his work in science and continued his practices in Catholicism. He was never excommunicated, under house arrest for life, tortured, beaten, killed, or anything of that nature by the Catholic Church, and they even continued funding his work.

The whole deal with the Church hating science or that they hated Galileo and excommunicated him is one of the many anti-Catholic myths that continues to float around and are taught in universities.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't so much that they assumed position as Scientific Discipline police, but that they were funding Galileo's work, especially since Galileo expressed to the Church that they could prove the Copernican theory that Earth revolved around the sun. The Church and Galileo had a split because the Church was looking for absolute proof while Galileo was claiming his theory as fact. Granted, Galileo was right, but in those times, there was no space exploration and so there was difficulty in finding sound evidence.

I'm not here to pick a fight, but I do want to take issue with one of the things you said. How can you say that Galileo didn't have sound evidence? The guy went blind looking through a telescope which amounted to a coke bottle in its level of sophistication but was still able to detect the phases of Venus! That is solid proof that by itself debunks Heliocentrism.
 
Back
Top