Posted on 01/12/2013 4:38:21 PM PST by rhema
Who -- in the sensitive, civilized Minnesota of 2013 -- could possibly be in favor of bullying? If you were short or fat in sixth grade, you may have cringed from bullies yourself. If your kids have endured bullying, you've suffered through it with them. No child should have to put up with bullying. So how could a decent person oppose a campaign at our State Capitol to prevent it?
But what if the antibullying campaign now unfolding there has little to do with protecting the traditional targets of bullies: kids who are pudgy, shy or "vertically challenged"? What if it's driven instead by a political/cultural agenda that's not so much about stopping bad behavior as it is about using the machinery of state education to compel children to adopt politically correct attitudes on "the nature of human sexuality," "gender identity" and alternative family structures?
What if a new antibullying law would require private religious schools -- along with public schools -- to enforce this agenda, so families who don't want to subject their kids to indoctrination in state-approved views of sexuality have no educational refuge?
In the 2013 legislative session, you'll hear lots of warm, fuzzy language from lawmakers and public officials about protecting "all kids" from bullying. You'll read about hearings designed to break every legislator's heart with tearful stories about bullying.
But every Minnesotan with a child in public or private school should understand that there's more going on here than meets the eye.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
And the devil is in the details, as this yet allows for imprisonment and torture of theological dissenters, or suspects or even witnesses, and slaying of the convicted (and often prolonged imprisonment in any case), all in the name of Christ.
And it is reasonable to expect you would have affirmed that kind of respect in such periods as the 13th century due to its papal sanction, and justify under the rubric of doing what is best for their souls, but which is contrary to what the NT teaches on the means the church used for proactive discipline, as that required spiritual power.
Is it about me? Fascinating subject.
Yes, respect for the heretic includes taking his heresy and the consequences thereof seriously. I know I would.
Speak for yourself because my wife and I sure as hell didn't.
That your kind of Catholic thinking is still alive and well is a testament to the deceit of Satan.
No way I’d ever want to go back to Catholicism if their history of treating heretics is still being applauded by Catholics.
Thank God for the Reformation breaking the power stranglehold that the RCC had on governments and people. People are safe now, safe from the *loving* arms of the mother church.
It certainly can be solved by quality martial arts training, to the degree that it can be solved at all. You may not change bullys' minds, but bring able to casually tap them with two fingers as you pass them in the hall so they collapse puking and gasping for air without a single witness in the crowd to what transpired, will certainly change their behavior. If there's a second encounter, ask them which eye they like best, the right or the left. Psychological song and dance aside, bullys bully others because they can. A bully who can't breathe or is seeing out of one eye, learns there are some they can't.
People may disagree with the comparison, but in many public schools the atmosphere is prison yard lite...if your child were going to prison tomorrow, would you rather they be prepared by the wisdom of Norman Vincent Peale or Wong Fei Hung?
Some folks are just to impatient to wait; or maybe they just want to help the Lord out...
Matthew 13:24-3024 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying,
“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 “But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26 “But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also.27 “The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
28 “And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’
The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’
29 “But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”
Praise you!
May your offspring help save this country!
You’ll get your eye put out with this thing...
I stand by all my posts and do not respond to trolls.
This is off-topic, — and a deliberate attempt to start a flame war. However, the treatment of heretics was purely defensive and harsh as it sometime was, was not intended to replace or hasten their judgment by the Eternal Judge. In fact, the suffering to which a heretic was put through was viewed as a chance for him to gain salvation nevertheless.
You have the last word.
Very true.
God help us.
Could you show where Christ taught conversion through torture?
It is relevant as you advocated respect, which needed defining, and represent the class of Catholics who believe they were putting forth their best efforts in punishing them by physical means under Rome's claim to coercive jurisdiction, after the manner of the Inquisitions, etc., and seem to affirm that level of obedience, and thus illustrate what kind of "respect" that can lead to.
Yes, respect for the heretic includes taking his heresy and the consequences thereof seriously. I know I would.
Obviously it is how that translates into action that is the issue.
Ha ha ha!
You have the last word.
I'll take it.
Yeah... Sure...
|
Are you still killing your unborn? -- GOD |
This is a moral issue which invites religious posters, (and the OP is a Christian), and as some RCs are clearly committed to conformity with Rome and submission thereof, then it is fitting to inquire of their views when they seem to convey something different from how their moral authority has defined it.
It seems this began with an RC who justifies papal-sanctions for imprisonment, torture and the death of Rome’s theological non-conformists, and who gave his RC opinion on how (practicing) homosexual children should be treated, but which then justly extended to how those guilty of criminal behavior should be treated. And in light of the RC poster being one whose views are to be in conformity with the church that he holds all must submit to, thus just what “respect” can entail justly became is a valid topic.
As for evidencing simply looking to denigrate someone, that is not foreign to RCs, as i can show.
Wow. Justifying torturing and killing someone into salvation.
Just when you think you've heard it all.
Seems to me that Jesus simply let people walk away from Him if they chose not to follow Him.
Just where in the gospels does Jesus give the church, or ANYONE for that matter, the authority to torture and kill anyone in a bid to *save* them?
Suffering does not gain salvation. It does not pay for sins.
Personally, I prefer to post the truth of Scripture to convince someone to choose God.
I don't know what God you serve or what Jesus you serve, but the one in the Bible did not ever condone or authorize that kind of treatment of people, believers, *heretics*, infidels, whatever.......
That quote was from an article. I was not speaking for myself. My grown kids are not narcissists by any means.
It wasn’t italicized which would indicate a quote and not your own words.
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.