Posted on 05/23/2002 7:12:13 AM PDT by Pokey78
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:19 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Without going into detail, as her husband, let me assure you that Terriergal is quite knowledgeable about and accommodating regarding the male sex drive...
Cyrano, the greatly and frequently blessed
I NEVER held her PAST against her. A central teaching of Christianity is NOT to hold the past against someone -- it's all about a fresh start, after all. As I earlier noted, in my pre-church days I myself once visited a stripclub. (Note to the curious: ya seen one, ya seen 'em all -- don't waste your money!) But, as a Christian, I DON'T go to those clubs NOW... which is the point. Certainly, I'm in no position to hold her past against her (not that I'd wish to anyway.)
But, the point you keep evading, is that at the time the school took action, she was PRESENTLY engaged in stripping.
Far from holding her past against her, I'm happy for her that she's finally quit. I hope that the change was motivated by a reawakened conscience (rather than just social pragmatism), but only God knows the heart.
...or are you waiting for her to confess to you ?
I'm not the one she sinned against, so she doesn't owe me any apologies. Perhaps she owes an apology to the school administrators, but that's between her and them.
Remember, the higher your horse, the farther away from the ground you are.
The "high horse" and "holding her past against her" accusations are standard ad hominen distraction techniques thrown at Christians in order to place them on the defensive. By deflecting the field of argument to a non-refutable charge against the Christian's character (sort of like liberals always crying "racism"), one can avoid coming to grips with the real issue, namely, that it is wrong to participate, patronize, or profit from stripping, that anyone who becomes a Christian ought to STOP such practices, and that those who won't quit are biblically required to be removed from the church.
From a biblical perspective, the only arguable point is, should a school demand Christian behavior on the part of a parent, as a condition of enrolling a child? But whether that policy is right or wrong, ultimately, it is beside the point in this case because the mother/stripper SIGNED A CONTRACT to that effect -- and then broke it.
But, in any case, that is just a side note. My point to you is that even I, who holds such a strong belief in morality, could not support a law outlawing the "turning on" of people besides your spouse. That is crazy.....you can't control what another person is going to feel. Furthermore, there is no Biblical basis for such a law and it can't be enforced.
Just wanted to show not all of us right wing Christian folks are in disagreement with you here.
Sometimes it's GOOD to see somebody bragging!
Please re-read the original article. That offer was MADE -- and she refused it. The school itself offered free tuition and assistance in finding a new job, and she said no.
I wouldn't go that far, as the government already has too much power to take children away from parents.
*Sigh* I'm sure you're quite right about this. It matches my own experience in other contexts. C.S. Lewis may have referred to the same phenomenon in Mere Christianity: "...a cold self righteous prig who goes regularly to church, may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute."
Cases like these make me re-think traditional theology. Consider Matthew 25, about the sheep and the goats being divided at judgement. What's most striking about that parable is that BOTH groups are surprised. The "goats" are very shocked -- indignant! -- at the fact that they aren't saved; these may well represent hypocritical Christians who, in their self-delusion, fully expected to be saved. No great mystery there.
But what really makes me wonder, is that the "sheep" -- the saved -- are surprised too: "Lord, when did we feed YOU?!?!?" How strange. Wouldn't any Christian know the parable, and realize that he was being credited with serving Christ because he had served others? WHY WOULD A CHRISTIAN BE SURPRISED? This is why I can't help but suspect that the sheep, or some of the sheep, may actually be -- (I dance on the edge of heresy here!) -- strippers, gays, Moslems, atheists, etc, who reached out to others with genuine Christlike love, and ignorantly partook far more of the spirit of Christ than they ever knew -- and after death, were shocked to discover that they had served Christ without ever realizing it. How else can one account for the fact that the SAVED are surprised at being saved? I've always wondered about that one.
Nevertheless, being a stripper still isn't a good thing. The complete CS Lewis quote is, : "...a cold self righteous prig who goes regularly to church, may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither."
No problem. Quite frankly, I lost interest in the argument because it was so ludicrous.
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.