• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Enough To Make Fair-Minded Christians Sick To Their Stomachs

Sapiens

Polymathematician
JUST HORRIBLE!

NO... NO.... NO...

We should teach them about being a drag queen:

View attachment 29902


Some Parents Outraged After Drag Queen Speaks At School Career Day

And ABORTIONS WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT - or sex ed by our friendly neighborhood abortion mill PLANNED PARENTHOOD:

Planned Parenthood-Friendly Sex-Ed Mandate Passes Massachusetts Senate | NewBostonPost

New Jersey
  • No parental involvement required.
New Mexico
  • No parental involvement required.
New York
  • No parental involvement required.


OF COURSE, taught by people who are not psychologist - it is just you and your doctor!????????.



Yes... AND INDOCTRINATE 2ND GRADERS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY.

California Brings Gay History Into The Classroom

But Heaven forbid we talk about Pregnancy support choices (secular and religious)
Ah ... the ugly head of a False Dichotomy, a standard Christian Evangelist construct.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
She was his half-sister.
Ah, but then, of course, that is incestuous.

Still, by telling only a half-truth, he was apparently a willing party to the marriage of his (half-incestuous) wife to another man, and it was only God, not Abraham, that did anything to prevent her being touched bigamously.

Truly, I'm feeling morally uplifted. :rolleyes:
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Why ? Because their goal is the obliteration of Christianity, and using the bogus legal argument of a ¨wall΅ between church and state, they think they can accomplish their goal.
You are over inflating your importance in the grand scheme of things. Obliterating Christianity and a slew of other religions would be a pleasant side effect for our well being and planet but it hardly qualifies as a "goal." Besides, the "wall" was established by our nation's founders, not by anyone living today. You have a right to believe any claptrap you so desire, but when you lie about it you give up the right to complain when you are outed as a liar.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Ah, but then, of course, that is incestuous.

Still, by telling only a half-truth, he was apparently a willing party to the marriage of his (half-incestuous) wife to another man, and it was only God, not Abraham, that did anything to prevent her being touched bigamously.

Truly, I'm feeling morally uplifted. :rolleyes:
Ya know... I would have to research that more fully. But the topic of today's thread is "misrepresenting oneself and duping others so as to illegally push an agenda? "

The topic isn't incest. But incest is one of Skwim's favorite topics. Maybe it will come up soon?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
JUST HORRIBLE!

NO... NO.... NO...

We should teach them about being a drag queen:

View attachment 29902


Some Parents Outraged After Drag Queen Speaks At School Career Day

And ABORTIONS WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT - or sex ed by our friendly neighborhood abortion mill PLANNED PARENTHOOD:

Planned Parenthood-Friendly Sex-Ed Mandate Passes Massachusetts Senate | NewBostonPost

New Jersey
  • No parental involvement required.
New Mexico
  • No parental involvement required.
New York
  • No parental involvement required.


OF COURSE, taught by people who are not psychologist - it is just you and your doctor!????????.



Yes... AND INDOCTRINATE 2ND GRADERS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY.

California Brings Gay History Into The Classroom

But Heaven forbid we talk about Pregnancy support choices (secular and religious)
Having fun, Ken?

But let me ask a question: why would you teach 2nd graders about family life in a heterosexual context, and not in any other context? Is it because no other context exists? Oh, wait, Elton John and his husband David Furnish have two children, Elijah and Zachary. Should they be made to feel excluded from family life in their own classrooms? (I mention them, because they're famous...there are lots more...)

And nobody has any issue at all with talking about pregnancy support. Many of us, including myself, would much, much prefer that pregnant girls and women be helped to the best outcome for all. But some of us recognize that the world is just a tad more complex than a "God-ordained" dogma fest, and that sometimes the best choice is actually abortion. Not the best choice for everybody, but the best choice for the most possible in difficult circumstances.

Sorry, even God doesn't have all the answers...and from my reading of history, doesn't even have most of them.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
ut let me ask a question: why would you teach 2nd graders about family life in a heterosexual context, and not in any other context? Is it because no other context exists? Oh, wait, Elton John and his husband David Furnish have two children, Elijah and Zachary. Should they be made to feel excluded from family life in their own classrooms? (I mention them, because they're famous...there are lots more...)

I wouldn't... I would teach them, reading, writing with grammar, arithmetic, art, and physical education.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
I think the OP gave me the right.
No, it appears that you did not think. The OP did not give you the right, that is far beyond his poor power to add or detract, he gave you an opportunity, one that you wasted by spewing a Logical Fallacy.
 
Last edited:

shmogie

Well-Known Member
You are over inflating your importance in the grand scheme of things. Obliterating Christianity and a slew of other religions would be a pleasant side effect for our well being and planet but it hardly qualifies as a "goal." Besides, the "wall" was established by our nation's founders, not by anyone living today. You have a right to believe any claptrap you so desire, but when you lie about it you give up the right to complain when you are outed as a liar.
I pointed out twice that they were wrong and their misrepresentation was wrong.

I suggest you read the establishment clause in the first amendment. It says the government may not establish a religion, that is, determine one as the chosen religion of the nation, and support it.

This was in response to Britain´s established state church.

There is no mention of a wall between church and state, and this legal concept never arose till the 1960ś.

The establishment clause was never meant to defacto say that the state must be hostile to religion, or to totally exclude religion.

It was meant to say just what it says, the state cannot establish an official state religion and support it.

We have never had an official state religion, even when admitted Christians taught in the schools, and Christian student clubs used school facilities for their meetings, or a coach said a prayer before a game,
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
I pointed out twice that they were wrong and their misrepresentation was wrong.

I suggest you read the establishment clause in the first amendment. It says the government may not establish a religion, that is, determine one as the chosen religion of the nation, and support it.

This was in response to Britain´s established state church.

There is no mention of a wall between church and state, and this legal concept never arose till the 1960ś.

The establishment clause was never meant to defacto say that the state must be hostile to religion, or to totally exclude religion.

It was meant to say just what it says, the state cannot establish an official state religion and support it.

We have never had an official state religion, even when admitted Christians taught in the schools, and Christian student clubs used school facilities for their meetings, or a coach said a prayer before a game,
wiki said:
"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.

Jefferson wrote, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Your knowledge of history appears to be on a par with your concept of freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Wow people must be really weak minded these days if they think 1 class of a Christian speaking is indoctrination. :facepalm:

in·doc·tri·na·tion
/inˌdäktrəˈnāSHən/
noun
  1. the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
Indoctrination takes time. Many hours and days of swaying someone's thought. I find it funny people take arms over this but are totally oblivious and nonchalant about Marxists indoctrination in colleges. :shrug:
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
To say nothing of non-Christians.
Q. Is it really Christian to misrepresent oneself and dupe others so as to illegally push an agenda?

.
.

According to Kentucky state law, the Bible can be taught in an elective course at a public school. Hence, a Christian in Kentucky shouldn't have to be deceptive in any way there in order to publicly teach sex education from a biblical perspective . Right?

 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I wouldn't... I would teach them, reading, writing with grammar, arithmetic, art, and physical education.
Then you would leave them unprepared to understand a complex world, only because some of the complexities in it make you uncomfortable. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think children are more capable of understanding difficult topics, when delivered properly. You and I grew up mostly ignorant, because there were so many things nobody could talk about (and in my case, without derision and condemnation). That includes, by the way, not only my homosexuality, but also the fact that I was the ******* (sorry, that was edited...not allowed to use the real word for "illegitimate") son of parents long gone. Do you know what I was taught about that (until I went to a Quaker school?) … guilt. Do you know how it made me feel? No, you don't, nor can you ever.

I would love to ween you off of righteous prudery, but I fear that's beyond my power to do in a mere forum. Real understanding would suit you better, but you've already been trained out of that.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
According to Kentucky state law, the Bible can be taught in an elective course at a public school. Hence, a Christian in Kentucky shouldn't have to be deceptive in any way there in order to publicly teach sex education from a biblical perspective . Right?

Wrong, no different from teaching creationism in science class.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
According to Kentucky state law, the Bible can be taught in an elective course at a public school. Hence, a Christian in Kentucky shouldn't have to be deceptive in any way there in order to publicly teach sex education from a biblical perspective . Right?


If what you say about Kentucky law is true then, right. She shouldn't have to have been. In this case she should have kept her mouth shut. For those who want to hear about the sex aspects of the Christian faith in their school all they'd have to do is enroll in an elective course on the Bible, and not be illegally subjected to it in an 8th grade health class.

.
 
Top