Posted on 03/28/2017 5:25:10 PM PDT by Morgana
FULL TITLE: Single mother who dressed up as dad so she could go with her little girl, 6, to her father-daughter dance is BANNED from the event
A single mom dressed up like a man so that she could take her six-year-old daughter to her highly-anticipated father-daughter school dance — but the school's principal refused to let them attend.
Knowing how much her daughter, Gracie, wanted to attend the dance even though her father was out of the picture, Amy Peterson, of Henry County, Georgia, decided she'd take her daughter to the dance.
The conform to the dance's theme though, the duo decided that Amy would attend dressed up like a man.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
By your definitions, Jesus condoned the prostitute’s behavior because he didn’t call her a whore publicly and proclaim that everything in her life was her own fault, etc etc ad nauseum.
I guess you’re more holy than Jesus. Wow.
“Nifster is simply speaking what we can all see.”
No you are condoning this behavior. It’s pretty clear to me you are or have a single mom in your family so you are accepting this behavior.
Since you feel I’m wrong then you track down this woman and prove me wrong. Other wise STFU.
>Have you heard of the Office of the Keys? We are given the authority to announce the forgiveness of God.
You are not given authority to absolve someone of their sin which is what you’ve been doing this entire thread.
>Jesus did not publicly shame this woman. He privately told her to go and sin no more.
You do realize that his disciples were there recording this event, right? It was quite public.
>You said you would throw the first stone. Either you believe you are without sin or you are willing to disobey Jesus’ command that whoever is without sin could throw the first stone.
Amazing. You turn Jesus forgiving this women into a general forgiveness of all sluts and whores.
Isaiah 5:20 ESV
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
>Obviously we need to teach and preach the commands of God. Sexual immorality - like gossip and lovelessness - is sin, and we need to say that.
And yet you spend all this time defending and forgiving her sin. You’re more offended at my attacks on her sin than at her sins. Makes one wonder if you’re not lying about hating sin.
>People DID wallow in sin back then. That’s why Jesus had to speak so harshly to the Pharisees and scribes. It was just a different KIND of sin. Loveless self-righteousness.
They did not. The Pharisees spent their time making up special rules that only they keep keep that allowed them to be declared as more holy the next guy. That was their sin because the law was given to help people live righteous lives not to lift people who where gaming the law through self righteousness. You on the other hand wallow in the very serious sin of sexual immorality which is the only sin that Jesus allowed a divorce to be based on and compare it to minor sins like gossip. That’s the talk of someone trying to cheapen sin, not fight it.
>BTW, Rahab the prostitute was an earthly ancestor of Jesus Christ.
Rahab chose the path of righteousness and stopped her sin. Like Rahab, my great-great grandmother was knocked up at 15 and was quickly married to to my step great-great grand father who she gave 8 children to. She went forth and sinned no more by getting married and she never wallowed in her sin or repeated it because of the social pressure against that behavior.
The woman in this article has not and your defense of her sin by comparing her to righteous women is shameful. As is your desire not to have any social pressure applied to her sinful behavior. My great grandmother and my entire family line benefited from being harsh on sluts and bastards while this little girl will grow up to be just like her mother.
>How bout tjis hot shot....your attitude on this subject is Koranic. You would do well in any middle eastern mussie country
My attitude on the subject is entire Christian. Begone you forked tongue snake, you wolf in sheep’s clothing. Take your lies elsewhere.
Did you see the cheeks on this little girl when she smiles? Like an angel!
Bet she’s real smart too. And so lucky to have a mother who will do whatever it takes to make up for the loss of the father.
Perhaps the parents of the little bullies should teach their children their choices have consequences.
Profanity now too?
Are you saying that you do not know this woman personally and thus do not know the details about why there is no father in the girl’s life, as you had earlier claimed you knew?
You are lashing out wildly because you know that you bore false witness. Rather than repenting you are trying to justify yourself.
Think about it. Pray about it. Peter cursed as he denied even knowing Jesus. And then Jesus was brought past after having been mocked at the High Priest’s house - and looked straight at Peter. Whatever was in that look brought Peter to repentance, and I believe it was love - love that later brought Peter to say, “Lord, You know all things. You KNOW that I love you!” Jesus forgave and restored Peter - even to the point that Peter asked to be crucified upside-down, considering himself unworthy to die in the same way as the Lord who loved and redeemed him. Peter was forgiven much, and he could not help but love much because of it.
Jesus died for your sins, for my sins, and for the sins of this woman in the story. We do need to speak the wisdom of God’s commands in a heathen generation, but we also need to remember Whose we are, and extend that same grace to others who so desperately need it.
>Unless you know this woman personally so you know details beyond what was in the story, you are making assumptions and passing it off as if it was fact, which is the definition of bearing false witness.
You read the article in an intentionally stupid way to avoid the obvious. She was not called a widow. Her title was single mother. Thus Morgana is quite correct about her status. Play liberal word games someplace more suitable for them like the DU and stop accusing people of falsehoods.
Who is a bully?
For whatever reason she does not have a father, that means she doesn’t go to the dance.
Just a fact of life.
After watching women working on a nativity place girls in the roles of the Kings, marginalizing the boys, I walked away from the church with a year.
>Jesus died for your sins, for my sins, and for the sins of this woman in the story. We do need to speak the wisdom of God’s commands in a heathen generation, but we also need to remember Whose we are, and extend that same grace to others who so desperately need it.
You cannot not forgive other people of their sins. Only God can. Are you God? I think not. And God only does so after they repent. In the case of slutdom the standard procedure of repentance is either marriage or giving the child up to a retaliative more suitable to raise it, IE someone who is married. The very fact that she is unmarried pretend playing father shows that she’s living in sin and your enabling of this behavior is disgusting. How can we expect to raise righteous daughters when people like you are too busy defending evil behavior?
Show me one place where I condoned any sin by this woman. (In fact, do we know that she sinned, or is that an assumption? Do we know she wasn’t a widow, for instance? You say I condone her sin but I don’t even KNOW her sin - nor do you.) Or absolved it. (And the Office of the Keys DOES allow us to absolve people of their sins, based on the atonement made by Jesus’ blood).
You deflect. Jesus said you could throw the first stone if you have never sinned. You said you’d throw the first stone. Are you saying that you have never sinned, or are you taking a liberty that Jesus never gave you?
Jesus did not publicly shame this woman. He spoke to her privately after the people like you had dropped their stones and left. If you had been there you would have been standing there accusing Jesus of being godless and condoning sin - which is precisely the trap that the Pharisees had laid out for Jesus, because they wanted to be able to say either that Jesus was not loving as He wanted people to believe, or that He was soft on sin. It’s the same trap you are trying to lay out for me. Who is your daddy?
He who breaks one part of the Law breaks the whole thing. You can try to minimize gossip as if it’s nothing but lovelessness is the ultimate breaking of the Law. That’s why the sin of the Pharisees demanded Jesus’ harsh words and the broken prostitutes and tax collectors were extended forgiveness.
Sexual immorality is wrong. We need to let people know that. Bearing false witness and minimizing our own sin by claiming that promiscuity is worse than our own lust, gossip, etc is NOT the Biblical way to do it.
It said that the girl’s father was not in her life.
We know nothing beyond that. For all we know she could have divorced the dad after he had an affair, which is permissible according to Scripture. We just don’t know. That’s why Nifster said Morgana should give the details if she knew them. She wouldn’t. Do you know the details? If so, tell us. If not, admit that you have speculated and in so doing have spread gossip with an intent to damage this woman’s reputation.
“Among those who were excluded from entering the congregation, even to the tenth generation, was the bastard. ( 23:2 ) The term is not, however, applied to any illegitimate offspring, born out of wedlock, but is restricted by the rabbins to the issue of any connection within the degrees prohibited by the law.”
Misuse of Bible is also part of your problem. YOU have proven here that you are spreading gossip about people you don’t know. Do you consider a divorced woman a single mom?
I do not need to prove anything to you. You have misused scripture, acted angrily to anyone who doesn’t agree, and now want others to make your violation of God’s commands to go away.
You keep saying that people are condoning her behavior. We don’t know what behavior that is so we can neither condone or condemn. Your insistence that you know all is just sad.
Agin Jesus said, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” John 20:21-22
But that’s a whole nother discussion, and it’s moot here because I have said nothing about this woman’s sin or not, because I don’t know her story, which was my whole point.
Show me where I have defended evil behavior.
>(In fact, do we know that she sinned, or is that an assumption? Do we know she wasn’t a widow, for instance?
Was she called a widow? No. Then she’s not a widow. Words matter.
> You say I condone her sin but I don’t even KNOW her sin - nor do you.) Or absolved it.
Repentance would involve marriage or giving the child up to a 2 parent family where the kid could be raised right. She hasn’t done so. She’s continuing to live in sin.
>(And the Office of the Keys DOES allow us to absolve people of their sins, based on the atonement made by Jesus’ blood).
Only God can absolve sin, scripture is quite clear on this point.
>Jesus did not publicly shame this woman. He spoke to her privately after the people like you had dropped their stones and left.
Again, who wrote about it if everyone left? The mob of pharisees left, not everyone else. You inability to read and understand context makes your arguments childish.
> If you had been there you would have been standing there accusing Jesus of being godless and condoning sin - which is precisely the trap that the Pharisees had laid out for Jesus, because they wanted to be able to say either that Jesus was not loving as He wanted people to believe, or that He was soft on sin. It’s the same trap you are trying to lay out for me. Who is your daddy?
You know nothing about scripture or history to lay out that fantasy. Under Roman law only the Romans could put someone to death but under Jewish law stoning was the penalty for adultery. The Pharisees where trying to trap Jesus into either rejecting the law to avoid being killed by the Romans thus destroying his authority as a teacher or by getting him to accept the stoning and then have the Romans kill him for breaking Roman law. This was a deadly serious event. Jesus instead cloaked himself in the authority that he had the right to absolve people of their sin dispersed the mob by making it clear they didn’t have the authority to judge her. He kept the law because he and only he could forgive her sins and thus avoided the trap set for him.
>He who breaks one part of the Law breaks the whole thing. You can try to minimize gossip as if it’s nothing but lovelessness is the ultimate breaking of the Law.
And yet gossip isn’t grounds for divorce with Jesus, only sexual immorality is. You’ll note that the law itself has very severe and less serve punishment for various sins, thus some sins are worse than others and you are trying to devalue the very serious sins of this women by conflating them with minor ones. You’re being dishonest about it.
>That’s why the sin of the Pharisees demanded Jesus’ harsh words and the broken prostitutes and tax collectors were extended forgiveness.
Jesus forgives everyone willing to repent.
>Sexual immorality is wrong. We need to let people know that.
You wouldn’t know that you believe it from your endless defense of this woman’s sin.
>Bearing false witness and minimizing our own sin by claiming that promiscuity is worse than our own lust, gossip, etc is NOT the Biblical way to do it.
You’ve accused me of bearing false witness without proof multiple times. You have zero authority to tell me or anyone else what is and is not biblical. I will not be lectured to by a someone who makes childish arguments without understanding the context of scripture who then bears false witness against me.
>We know nothing beyond that. For all we know she could have divorced the dad after he had an affair, which is permissible according to Scripture.
Actually it’s not. Only man can divorce a women for sexual infidelity. There is no biblical basis for a wife to divorce her husband. If he was living in sin it was her duty to stay faithful to him as a example of Christ like behavior. Read the original Greek and see for yourself.
>We just don’t know. That’s why Nifster said Morgana should give the details if she knew them. She wouldn’t. Do you know the details? If so, tell us. If not, admit that you have speculated and in so doing have spread gossip with an intent to damage this woman’s reputation.
Did IQ suddenly drop? She was not called a widow, thus she is not a widow but rather a single mother. QED.
The article did not say that this woman was a fornicator. YOU said that she was, because you ASSUMED it. The girl’s father was not in her life. The mom and dad could still have been married and the father left, or any number of other situations that none of us knows - that the piece’s author might not even know when choosing the words to describe the situation.
You are caught in bearing false witness and you are trying to excuse your sin.
I do believe we need to confront sin, which is why I am confronting you. You refuse to repent.
What does your Bible say about that?
Sometimes I am amazed at which threads take off at FR.
She was not called a widow so she was not a widow.
She also was not called a fornicator, so by your reasoning she can’t be a fornicator either.
Wow, there is no biblical justification for a woman divorcing her husband? Women are required to be Christlike but men not?
I agree with Nifster; you have a Quranic worldview.
>She also was not called a fornicator, so by your reasoning she can’t be a fornicator either.
She had a child. It came from somewhere. Or are you going to tell me it was a virgin birth?
>Wow, there is no biblical justification for a woman divorcing her husband? Women are required to be Christlike but men not?
You disagreement with the word of God isn’t my problem. Take it up with God if feel that you’re holier than he is. Are you a follower of Christ or a follower of modernity and liberalism?
>I agree with Nifster; you have a Quranic worldview.
Unlike Nifster and you I’ve read the Quran and the Hadiths and have a pretty good handle on the religion. Under Islam both a Woman and Man can divorce at will but a women seldom does so due to the social shame.
There is however no holy sanctified marriage in Islam as there is in Christianity. During most of the middle ages Divorce was illegal and adultery was generally dealt with by executing the adulteress wife for her crimes in Christendom. Traditional Christianity was quite serious marriage. Islam is perfectly happy with lots of sluts and whores as they make good 2 and 3ed wives for Muslim men as well as sex slaves for them to play with. You own beliefs are closer to that of Islam than mine.
Again, you continue to babble about things you know nothing about like a child. Perhaps you should learn wisdom before you try to preach to others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.