Click any Horse
Wild Horses Couldn’t Drag You Away From Free Republic
So Why Not Donate Monthly to Keep Things Going Strong?
Sponsors will pony up $10 each time a new monthly donor signs up
Posted on 04/11/2012 9:44:41 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Can't counter the argument so throw out a red herring. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
I am pretty sure that abstinence is
Actually, she was fired for openly flaunting that she broke the commandment against extramarital sex.
So who made her pregant? And why didn’t she marry?
So now, we have to justify the school’s decision by hoping that the divorce was the husband’s fault. Face it, the school made a move based on PR and it is coming back on them.
Her fiance.
As you obviously don’t know; I was not the one who brought up that “red herring” you spoke about (Catholics).
Psalm did.
So I countered his weak point with a strong one. I hope you understand beter now.
True, but it is plausable that the school saw to be forgiving on the divorced facet, but when she screwed up again - enough is enough. And as I said before, being divorced is not as outwardly noticeable as walking around pregnant.
The school could no longer tolerate her behavior. Forgiveness does not mean the school has to allow her to teach there.
:-)
Your "point" had nothing to do with the situation. It was a weak/lame/ feeble attempt to divert the discussion by throwing stones at the Catholic Church. I do understand perfectly, not just beter(sic)
Simple question coming....
WHO brought up the Catholic church in the first place?
Hard question now: And why was it (Catholic church) brought up? This incident happened at a Christian school. So was was the point of infusing Catholics into this debate?
I'll tell you why. To stir the pot. To agitate. The make some lame point. That is despicable.
And if you bring that sort of stuff in here, I will respond.
Your "point" had nothing to do with the situation.
See? I prove my point. You should tell Psalm that his point - that he brought up first - had nothing to do with the situation.
Heritage Christian Academy was birthed by a common vision of a community of believers who met together for the first time on February 19, 1995. The vision from conception was to form a multidenominational, college preparatory school that was distinctively Christian. These families saw a need for an independent Christian school in the Rockwall community that would not be tied to any one particular denomination's style of worship or doctrine while holding true to the biblically based Christian values and truths that are clearly enunciated in scripture and common to all Christian denominations.
Fornication is against the Christian values "clearly enunciated in scripture and common to all Christian denominations.. Acceptance of divorce does NOT fit that catagory. The school has the right to decide that for itself, which it did when it hired the (GASP!) divorced woman.
All I'm saying is that it is not up to us, or any other outsider, to pass judgement on that so called "issue"; which for many denominations, is NOT an "issue".
It may or may not enter into a decision to pay them pay them to educate one's child, in keeping with their own denominational values, but that's as far as it goes.
OTOH, out-of-wedlock fornication by a divorced PERSON (male OR female) is Biblical ADULTERY, as well as fornication; and the (pending) remarriage to the baby-daddy would be a perpetuation of that adultery, per the interpretation of most, if not all, denominations' understanding of church doctrine.
Let's look at these.
Luke 7:36 "And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat." Did you mean something else?
John 7:53-8:11 (the woman taken in adultery). The Law, which Jesus spoke to Moses, requires the life of the adulterer and adulteress.
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulter and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
They BOTH must be brought forth:
If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. (Deuternomy 22:22)
Only the woman was brought before him. That should have raised some red flags that something was amiss in this accusation.
The execution of the death penalty ALSO required two or three witnesses. And the witnesses will be the first to strike the death blow.
On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and aftward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 17:6,7)
And false witnesses would be punished with the punishment they sought by bearing false witness.
If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 19:16-19)
In accordance with the Law Jesus prompted the witnesses to step forth (he who is "without sin" -- i.e. not bearning false witness in this matter) and cast the first stone. None did.
Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. And he cannot deny himself. The Law is the righteous expression of his faultless character. He knew the truth of the matter and judged righteously within the system he established. Had there been in fact faithful and true witnesses, the woman would have been stoned.
I would encourage everyone to read all of the Bible. And when one has read it through completely from cover to cover, read it again (and again).
Yeah I did understand you just didn't like being called out on your logical fallacy and bigotry
Simple question coming.... WHO brought up the Catholic church in the first place?
Psalms point was valid and on topic. If you had left it at that you wouldn't be showing bigotry, the two topic had NOTHING to do with each other.
Hard question now: And why was it (Catholic church) brought up? This incident happened at a Christian school. So was was the point of infusing Catholics into this debate?
You do realize that Catholics are (The original) Christians. Psalms was commenting that He/ she felt the Catholic Church was doing a better job.
I'll tell you why. To stir the pot. To agitate. The make some lame point. That is despicable. And if you bring that sort of stuff in here, I will respond.With Bigotry. Fixed it for you. And so know you know what is in peoples hearts. I didn't realize you were omniscient.
Your "point" had nothing to do with the situation. See? I prove my point. You should tell Psalm that his point - that he brought up first - had nothing to do with the situation.
His had every thing to do with it, your was a red herring bigoted comment.
Thanks, I’ll stop by a farm on my way home from work tonight to find a sheep to sacrifice.
I'll set you straight on two more things:
Second I am not your pal.
Third don't let the door hit you on the way out.
“Simple question coming.... WHO brought up the Catholic church in the first place?”
Hard question now: And why was it (Catholic church) brought up? This incident happened at a Christian school. So was was the point of infusing Catholics into this debate?”
****************************
Err... That would be me. I had no idea this thread was still going, and I appreciate the ping.
My thoughts on the thread is that it is pretty useless because people are opining all over the place from the specifics of this teacher, to unmarried pregnant women in general, without much differentiation between the two.
Regarding the Catholic church, I originally brought it up in respose to a general observation that single pregnant women are often treated poorly by some Christians who also espose pro-life views. I think the Catholics do a very good job of supporting women in that situation, offering BOTH spiritual guidance AND material assistance with an eye towards redemption of both the mother and the child. I raised the example because I think it is a good one, and worthy of emulation. I believe it is an example of living out the directions given to us by Christ himself, who saved the woman taken in adultery and then told her to go and sin no more, and who also ordered the apostles to suffer the children to come to him. More distantly but still relevant, the warning about millstones, necks, and deep water comes to mind with reference to treatment of the unborn and the just born.
That said, I am not a Catholic, although I am convicted that the Catholic Church is a conduit of God’s grace and salvation through Christ. For some reason that eludes me this usually irritates everyone. I hope I have not caused any confusion or discord as a result of my post. In truth, at this point I wish I had never posted in the thread at all.
I hope this clarifies things. Please ping me if it does not.
If you were to die today, where do you think you'd spend eternity? Heaven or Hell?
Thankfully due to God’s gift of His Son Jesus and my recognition that I’m a sinner I would be in Heaven.
You would have me condemned to death and stoned.
I’m glad God is in charge and not you.
I bet you believe Jesus turned water into grape juice?
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.