>> to label UNchristian anyone who doesn’t invite the entirety of any group to any function is beyond judgmental.
I didn’t label anyone “unChristian”, and certainly didn’t issue judgment on whether people are “Christian enough”. I said I thought the response was wrong given my understanding of Christ’s ministry.
>> so you are comfortable being seen as saying, “well it’s ok for the REST OF YOU HEATHENS to behave like that but I, for one, in all of my Christian sanctimony, would never raise MY children to behave thusly.”
Good grief. Come off it. I never claimed sanctimony or “holier-than-thou”ness. I never called anyone a “heathen” or inferred it in the least. I never decried the way anyone else was raising their kids — though how I am raising mine was referred to a time or two (i.e. “remind me not to let my kids associate with your kids” — Post 49).
I simply stated what I believe the appropriate response to the situation is/was given a Christian moral foundation. I even admitted outright that I’ve been wrong before, and did not rule out the possibility that I was wrong here.
Believe it or not Christians can disagree about the right course, or even the Biblical course, without believing that their opinion is necessarily the final word of God, without claiming personally holiness or sanctimony, and without necessarily believing those that disagree are unChristian.
SnakeDoc
Note that Snakey talks about how he’d want his children to act, yet you can’t talk about how you’d want your children to interact with those.
you have fairly categorically stated on this thread that the failure to include every last one of them is APPALLING and WRONG and MEAN, not really Christian. you have miscast the facts to fit with that judgment, despite it being pointed out to you repeatedly that you have no proof of the assumptions you were making. i don’t want to rag on you, but you have dug in on this and while you didn’t SAY any of the things i imputed to you, all of those things were insinuated by what you did say. just pointing out to you how it comes across. the clear inference to be drawn from your statements is that those of us who disagree with your stand are less Christian than you.
Is that you, sinkspur? ;-)
If you've been a member since September 1997 (actually, Jim didn't mark our FR handles as "registered" till December 1997), you would know that this is a classic Leftist political op.
And, as usual, the WRONG question is being asked and answered. As we saw with Clinton "it's just about sex" - not about the felonies of perjury, obstruction & witness tampering.
With Ms. McMillen, the subject is being changed to "ostracism" by "wrong-thinking students, parents, and school board officials".
However, it IS just about sex, this time. To wit: What did the ACLU & the LGBT alliance know, and when did they know it?
Who was tapping McMillen in the eighth grade, when she was a MAJOR minor?
It speaks volumes that you don't seem to be interested in the answer to that question...