Posted on 04/26/2007 2:45:58 PM PDT by Sopater
GIG HARBOR, Wash. - Restrictions on the use of security videotape have been tightened at a suburban Tacoma high school after images of two girls kissing were shown to the parents of one of the girls, officials say.
Keith Nelson, dean of students at Gig Harbor High School, said he saw the students kissing and holding hands in the school's busy commons, checked a surveillance camera and showed the parents the tape because they had asked him a few weeks earlier to alert them to any conduct by their daughter that was out of the ordinary.
They then transferred their daughter to a school outside the Peninsula School District, which lies northwest of Tacoma.
Both girls said their privacy was invaded and denied doing anything wrong. Neither was identified by name in an article published Thursday by The News Tribune of Tacoma.
The kiss amounted to a quick "peck," said the girl who remains at the school, a 17-year-old senior described as the daughter of a News Tribune employee.
"We weren't doing anything inappropriate, nothing anyone else wouldn't do," she said.
Nelson said students could not have any expectation of privacy in a crowded place and maintained that he would have taken the same action had the students kissing been a boy and a girl.
An internal investigation into a complaint from a student -- it was unclear whether the complaint came from one of the girls -- established that Nelson had not violated district policy, Assistant School Superintendent Shannon Wiggs said.
Even so, Principal Greg Schellenberg said, school surveillance videotape may now be used only for security monitoring and discipline for actions such as trespassing, vandalism and fighting.
Kissing and other public displays of affection were at the time and remain violations of school rules, but violators will first be given warnings and will be disciplined only for a second offense, Schellenberg said. In addition, school employees are barred from sharing surveillance video in response to an open-ended parental request.
"It's not our normal practice," Schellenberg said. "It's not going to happen again."
In the case of the kiss, he added, "the same information could have been portrayed to the family without the video."
Nelson said he respected the change in policy but added that he believes his first obligation is to parents.
"They're paying good money for us to make their kids good citizens," he said. "Whatever that means to the parents, I'll do it."
You said — “I will ask you one more time. Do you have any Old Testament scripture supporting your belief in the Trinity? I am certain that you don’t. So from what I can see you don’t believe in the God of the Old Testament and you don’t believe in the God of Moses, Noah and Abraham.”
Well, I see you’re avoiding the main doctrine and tenet of Christianity — the one attacked most vociferously by the non-Christian cult groups — the doctrine of the Trinity, which explains the nature of the Jesus of the Bible.
I’ve got a long list of verses — Old Testament and New Testament that go over those very things that Christians have done for the last 2,000 years, including at the Council of Nicea, in which they formulated the short version of understanding who the Jesus of the Bible is.
However, seeing that you are so adamantely opposed to it (and this information is available *prominently* on just about *every single* Christian apologetics site and in every Christian teaching from every Christian group) — that means that you’ve definitely already rejected it and would only continue to argue.
So, suffice it to say that you are *against* the Doctrine of the Trinity, the main tenet and foundation of Christianity and who the Jesus of the Bible is. I can accept the fact that you’re opposed to it. It simply means that you’re outside of Christian teachings — that’s all.
But, that’s okay — at least I know what kind of “teaching” you’re coming from, then. For Christians, they do know who the Jesus of the Bible is and that the doctrine of the Trinity is the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity from the beginning...
Sorry to see you outside of Christian teachings...
The best of luck to you in your “other group”....
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. — And you *know* you don’t need me to supply you with a single verse in that regard, although I have them all stacked up here, because you can get them virtually *anywhere*. That says a lot about your position there. You are definitely *steeped* in a non-Christian cult teaching...
You said — “Actually, there’s a boat load of support in the Old Testament for the Trinity. Google on, Trinity in the Old Testament.”
I know there is, you know there is, and the poster knows there is. That’s not the point to what this poster is saying or doing. They have already “bought into” a “non-Christian cult teaching” which denies the deity of Christ in the manner described in the Council of Nicea and by all the true Christians for the last two thousand years.
Once one is seen to be *adamantly against* this — it’s obvious that one is arguing for that “non-Christian cult” position — and is not interested in the true facts of the matter.
At this point, this person is *definitely outside* of Christian teachings. That part is abundantly clear.
If they want to get back into “Christian teaching” let them make their own moves and get back in themselves with the abundant material that is there on the Internet.
But, between you and me — this won’t happen....
And that’s all we need to know on the matter.
No argument here.
I think it’s just that very few people find anything attractive about two men being together, whereas it isn’t uncommon for a heterosexual woman to watch lesbian porn with her husband without having a problem with it. At the same time, both she and her husband would be disgusted by a video of a couple of sphincter spelunkers.
You said — “I think it’s just that very few people find anything attractive about two men being together, whereas it isn’t uncommon for a heterosexual woman to watch lesbian porn with her husband without having a problem with it. At the same time, both she and her husband would be disgusted by a video of a couple of sphincter spelunkers.”
Well, of course, the whole thing is weird to me. I was just asking to get an opinion from some others, to see how things are “out there”... LOL
I’ll stay away from it, thank you... :-)
I have simply asked you for an Old Testament scripture that verifies your concept of the Trinity. I am certainly not avoiding the subject. Do you really think that simply claiming that such a scripture exists is good enough? LOL
By the way I am not a member of a unchristian Cult that you seem to imply.
But, that’s okay — at least I know what kind of “teaching” you’re coming from, then. For Christians, they do know who the Jesus of the Bible is and that the doctrine of the Trinity is the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity from the beginning...
Now we have come full circle to the heart of the matter. Your concept of Christ or God the Father is not founded in the Scriptures. You don't understand the concept of the God of the Old Testament and the Religions that have been derived from that concept. That is why you fail to understand when I say that the Muslims, Jews and Christians all believe in the same God of Abraham and the Old Testament. The God you believe in is some weird construct created by the Catholics more than 300 years after the death of Christ. The scriptures are perfectly clear when it comes to Christ. Christ is the only begotten Son of God.
I’ve got a long list of verses — Old Testament and New Testament that go over those very things that Christians have done for the last 2,000 years, including at the Council of Nicea, in which they formulated the short version of understanding who the Jesus of the Bible is.
And yet you can't share a single Old Testament scripture that clearly states your definition of what Christ is. I wonder why that is? Maybe because your definition is unscriptural and wrong?
Sorry to see you outside of Christian teachings...
I think it is impossible to be in your contradictory definitions of Christian teachings.
P.S. — And you *know* you don’t need me to supply you with a single verse in that regard, although I have them all stacked up here, because you can get them virtually *anywhere*. That says a lot about your position there. You are definitely *steeped* in a non-Christian cult teaching...
Clearly you have no scriptural evidence or you would have presented it. Implying that I know your version of Christ is scripturally correct is simply wrong. You simply have no evidence to support your belief. Furthermore your stating that I am steeped in a non-Christian cult is actually funny, especially coming from someone who won't even claim a denomination?
Once again, do you believe in the God of the Old Testament? The Jews and the Muslims do.
You said — “Once again, do you believe in the God of the Old Testament? The Jews and the Muslims do.”
—
The Christians over the centuries, from Jesus’ time onward, have all the verses that you need. The Christians today have all the verses that you need. There’s no shortage of that information for you. Just do your work....
What I now see, in this discussion, is that you have taken to supporting the teachings of a non-Christian cult.
As for me — I’ll take the advice of Jesus, My Lord and Savior, who is the true Jesus of the Bible, and of that doctrine of the Trinity, as Christians over the centuries have taught and affirmed.
Mark 6:10-12
10 Also He said to them, “In whatever place you enter a house, stay there till you depart from that place.
11 And whoever will not receive you nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet as a testimony against them.
Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!”
12 So they went out and preached that people should repent.
And thus, this is my testimony against you and these non-Christian cult teachings.
I bid you farewell...
Simply brilliant.
As always simply brilliant.
Seeing two attractive men would be preferable, but I wouldn't post it because it would send all of the men reading this thread screaming out of the room.
There is a segment of the female population that does have a fascination with opposite sex couplings, but it's much smaller than the male counterpart.
Hi ST...
Just sat down for the first time today (except for
church). The organizing is going pretty well. Just
wanted to let you know I haven’t fallen off the planet ...
yet. I’ll try to read this thread so I can catch up.
I knew you were really busy... :-)
1 Corinthians 7:34 - There is a difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.”
The Scriptures make a distinction between a wife (married) woman and a virgin (unmarried) woman. No other options are endorsed by God’s Word, the Bible.
“The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord.” That is, therefore, what we teach our daughters, from the day they can understand anything at all. We don’t present other options to them, knowing that for an unmarried woman to spend her days caring for the things of the Lord (good things; all found in the Scriptures; all bringing God’s blessings and joy to the girls’ hearts) is clearly the will of God.
Now, what would you call “truth” that you insist upon our daughters knowing?
You said — “Dare to be specific, or do you not really know anything about the Bible? Are you one who attends a worldly church with a corrupt bible version, who allows your children just to mingle with the world?”
Well, take another look at my comment. You’re reading it from the wrong side... I think you’re “geared for bear” and you thought I was a bear...
The instructions there were very literal instructions, which cannot be divided up and one or the other chosen for personal spiritual reference today. They were commanded as a complete set.
Of course, some spiritual applications can be made, but I don’t think that a message on a forum such as this can amount to shaking of the dust under one’s feet in testimony against anyone. The judgment was upon the cities of Israel for their rejection of the King’s messengers.
If you are going to follow those instructions, then you need to obey everything literally (as the Twelve Apostles literally did) from Mark 6 verse 7 through 13. You can only go forth two and two; you will exercise power over unclean spirits (don’t reduce it to a spiritual application - they literally through out literal unclean spirits); you can take nothing for your journey, except a staff (walking stick); no scrip (bag); no bread; no money; only one coat; sandals only; etc.
These are exactly the conditions and procedures under which the Twelve operated during our Lord’s earthly ministry because of the imminent nature of the King establishing His reign on earth should the nation repent.
You said — “These are exactly the conditions and procedures under which the Twelve operated during our Lord’s earthly ministry because of the imminent nature of the King establishing His reign on earth should the nation repent.”
—
I realize (and very well know) that there is a primary and exact meaning of Scripture, meant for a particular and exact circumstance (as you say) and we must know and undertstand that. And sometimes, there are double meanings, too — in the case of prophecy, it seems that we see this (a near and a far).
And when we know that primary meaning, there can be “applications” that one may derive from it.
.
As you say here — “Of course, some spiritual applications can be made, but I don’t think that a message on a forum such as this can amount to shaking of the dust under one’s feet in testimony against anyone. The judgment was upon the cities of Israel for their rejection of the King’s messengers.”
—
As you indicate, or maybe imply or infer, there is an exact and primary meaning, context and/or specific instruction. But, as to “application” once one understands the specific meaning and to whom it originally applied — it’s not quite as “hard and fast” as you may want to make it (with the application).
For what I can see, it’s a very legitimate application, probably one of the most appropriate that I’ve come across in my experience, in all the posting that I’ve done.
But, then again, it looks like we’re differing right off the bat. So, while one may agree with you on the original intent and exact meaning — I don’t think I’ll personally be agreeing with you on the application.
Other than that, I wish you well...
Hey! You do okay, Star Traveler, you know it? Not breaking the Scripture (John 10:35) Make your applications as the Spirit of God leads you. Thanks.
Thank you, I appreciate it...
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.