PDA

View Full Version : Kids Overhearing Christian Music Earns Counselor Suspension



MrsSmith
03-17-2009, 04:04 PM
Foster Kids Overhearing Christian Music Earns Counselor Six-Week Suspension

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

City: Orange County, CA
February 18, 2009

A lawsuit has been filed against Orange County by a veteran group home counselor who was suspended six weeks for exposing four teenagers to Christian music. The counselor is represented by affiliate and staff attorneys of Pacific Justice Institute.

The lawsuit states that, in the summer of 2006, the counselor took four teenage girls from the Orangewood Children's Home on an approved field trip to a 5K run and then to the beach. At the beach, the group encountered a "Surf Jam" taking place at the Huntington Beach pier. The group also overheard Christian music for about ten minutes while they were eating.

Following the beach outing, the counselor, an eighteen-year employee, was summoned to a disciplinary meeting focusing on the Christian music. Several months later, the same incident was brought up again and the counselor was slapped with a six-week suspension for "exposing children to unapproved religious activities."


Insanity reigns. :mad:

http://www.pacificjustice.org/resources/news/focusdetails.cfm?ID=PR090218a

http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/blog/breaking-news/kids-overhearing-christian-music-gets-counselor-six-week-suspension/

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/loya-suit-pier-2313777-christian-orangewood

FlaGator
03-17-2009, 04:08 PM
Insanity reigns. :mad:

http://www.pacificjustice.org/resources/news/focusdetails.cfm?ID=PR090218a

http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/blog/breaking-news/kids-overhearing-christian-music-gets-counselor-six-week-suspension/

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/loya-suit-pier-2313777-christian-orangewood

I imagine that taking them to a bath house in San Francisco would have earned him a promotion.

EricMartin
03-17-2009, 04:28 PM
Even as a very secular person, I'm baffled by the persecution of Christianity in the U.S. :mad:

PoliCon
03-17-2009, 04:34 PM
Christianity is evil and islam is the religion of peace. Any questions?

AlmostThere
03-17-2009, 06:00 PM
Eliminate religion and morality becomes unnecessary. There would be no right, no wrong. What, you didn't like Lennon?

EricMartin
03-17-2009, 06:27 PM
Eliminate religion and morality becomes unnecessary

I strongly disagree with that. Philosophy would remain -- such as the philosophy of Objectivism. As long as man has to make choices, there is no escape from moral values. Morality can never become unnecessary.

movie buff
03-17-2009, 06:35 PM
That is disgusting. How can they do that to the counselor?

The Night Owl
03-17-2009, 08:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v8pGMM-9zU&feature=related

FlaGator
03-17-2009, 09:00 PM
I strongly disagree with that. Philosophy would remain -- such as the philosophy of Objectivism. As long as man has to make choices, there is no escape from moral values. Morality can never become unnecessary.

I would suggest looking at history of societies that have rejected religion and then draw conclusions on the moral behavior of those societies. Let's make it easy and start at the 20th century.

EricMartin
03-17-2009, 09:48 PM
I would suggest looking at history of societies that have rejected religion and then draw conclusions on the moral behavior of those societies. Let's make it easy and start at the 20th century.

Christians say that God is the standard of value, while Communists say that the Collective is the standard of value. Of course Communists are every bit as mystical as the Christians, as there is no such thing as "The Collective" -- there's only a number of Individuals. Objectivists recognize the Individual as the standard of value. The period in history which has been most consonant with Objectivism, or rather secular individualism, is the Age of Enlightenment. During this age, most of the intellectual freethinkers -- including some of the Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine -- were Deists, not Christians. Deism was the closest to Atheism at that time, as this was before Darwin's Theory of Evolution (which is every bit as solid as the Theory of Gravity).

Most of my closest friends are Objectivists, or Atheist Libertarians, and they're honestly the most moral people that I know. As for myself, I study philosophy consistently and am deeply conscious about acting morally. I don't act morally because I want to please some other being, but because it's in my own self-interest to do so; if I act immorally it isn't St. Peter who would take note of it, but rather my own subconscious, and my subconscious is uncompromising -- immoral behavior would lead to a lack of self-esteem/self-worth and injure my pride.

I believe the U.S. will be going through a moral revolution in the not too distant future -- based not on faith, but on reason and individualism. Objectivism is being taught at numerous colleges now, more and more high-profile individuals identify themselves as Objectivists, the staff from the Ayn Rand Institute are being invited to speak at numerous Republican conventions and television programs, the Wall Street Journal consistently publishes Objectivist material, the sales of Atlas Shrugged and various Objectivist literature has more than tripled since last year, everyone who's been following politics have learned the meaning of "Going Galt", there's been a surge of donations to the Ayn Rand Institute, and a new branch of ARI has opened in Washington. All of this will influence the culture greatly in the coming years -- especially as more people are realizing that Atlas Shrugged is coming true.

In any case, I hope you found this informative. :)

EDIT: Here's an interesting new article (http://washingtonindependent.com/32415/congressman-were-living-in-atlas-shrugged) which illustrates one of my points.

FlaGator
03-17-2009, 10:35 PM
Christians say that God is the standard of value, while Communists say that the Collective is the standard of value. Of course Communists are every bit as mystical as the Christians, as there is no such thing as "The Collective" -- there's only a number of Individuals. Objectivists recognize the Individual as the standard of value. The period in history which has been most consonant with Objectivism, or rather secular individualism, is the Age of Enlightenment. During this age, most of the intellectual freethinkers -- including some of the Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine -- were Deists, not Christians. Deism was the closest to Atheism at that time, as this was before Darwin's Theory of Evolution (which is every bit as solid as the Theory of Gravity).

Most of my closest friends are Objectivists, or Atheist Libertarians, and they're honestly the most moral people that I know. As for myself, I study philosophy consistently and am deeply conscious about acting morally. I don't act morally because I want to please some other being, but because it's in my own self-interest to do so; if I act immorally it isn't St. Peter who would take note of it, but rather my own subconscious, and my subconscious is uncompromising -- immoral behavior would lead to a lack of self-esteem/self-worth and injure my pride.

I believe the U.S. will be going through a moral revolution in the not too distant future -- based not on faith, but on reason and individualism. Objectivism is being taught at numerous colleges now, more and more high-profile individuals identify themselves as Objectivists, the staff from the Ayn Rand Institute are being invited to speak at numerous Republican conventions and television programs, the Wall Street Journal consistently publishes Objectivist material, the sales of Atlas Shrugged and various Objectivist literature has more than tripled since last year, everyone who's been following politics have learned the meaning of "Going Galt", there's been a surge of donations to the Ayn Rand Institute, and a new branch of ARI has opened in Washington. All of this will influence the culture greatly in the coming years -- especially as more people are realizing that Atlas Shrugged is coming true.

In any case, I hope you found this informative. :)

I have heard it said repeatly over the years that society does not need a concept of a deity in order to be a moral society, but history and human nature stands in contrast to this. You may act morally due to your conscious but it does not follow that you are the norm. In fact, some grow up with a strong moral background but due to a nilhistic view of the world and peer involvement come to condone and celebrate immoral behavior. In fact they adopt a philosophy that justifies their criminal/immoral behavior. There moral view point changed

Morality under objectivism runs the risk of becoming fluid and in a state of flux. In fact relying on mankind to mantain some adherence to moral behavior demands for this to happen. What is moral today may be immoral tomorrow and what was immoral yesterday is moral today. Social morality can not survive in a state of constant change and when morality dies so does society. Examine the decadence and immorality that contributed to the fall of just about every major society in history. When there is no common source of morality, no yard stick to define a standard of behavior, society collapses in on itself. Didn't Keats say that the center fails to hold? If I have no concern of being held responsible for my actions either in this life or the life after then I am more likely to do what feels good and is easy whether these actions are right or wrong. It starts out with small things and then I kill my neighbor because he plays his stereo too loud.

Why not? They law may not catch me and I have no God to answer too. Why don't I just do whatever it is that makes me feel good? Why do I need to concern myself with others who don't fill some need that I have? Why should I concern myself with your rights when those rights may infringe upon my happiness?

I've heard talk of a new moral revolution that was just around the corner. In the 80s and 90s it was called new age-ism, as in the new age of mankind. Man was on the verge of the next step in his evolution. This was just a pipe dream of those who desired something better in life but felt that a relationship with God was too constraining. Faith open the door to belief but reason and rationality support faith. I use my ability to reason to find reasons not to believe, but I find none. I look at the world with rational eyes and a logical mind and I see God handiwork everywhere. Aristotle and Plato reasoned out the existence of a Creator using pure reason, but now people say that belief is not compatible with reason.

At this point I have to ask. What gives you the impression that some moral change/revolution is about to occur? What signs do you see that lead you to believe that something that has never happened in the recorded history of man stands in the wings?

MrsSmith
03-17-2009, 10:43 PM
Christians say that God is the standard of value, while Communists say that the Collective is the standard of value. Of course Communists are every bit as mystical as the Christians, as there is no such thing as "The Collective" -- there's only a number of Individuals. Objectivists recognize the Individual as the standard of value. The period in history which has been most consonant with Objectivism, or rather secular individualism, is the Age of Enlightenment. During this age, most of the intellectual freethinkers -- including some of the Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine -- were Deists, not Christians. Deism was the closest to Atheism at that time, as this was before Darwin's Theory of Evolution (which is every bit as solid as the Theory of Gravity).

Most of my closest friends are Objectivists, or Atheist Libertarians, and they're honestly the most moral people that I know. As for myself, I study philosophy consistently and am deeply conscious about acting morally. I don't act morally because I want to please some other being, but because it's in my own self-interest to do so; if I act immorally it isn't St. Peter who would take note of it, but rather my own subconscious, and my subconscious is uncompromising -- immoral behavior would lead to a lack of self-esteem/self-worth and injure my pride.

I believe the U.S. will be going through a moral revolution in the not too distant future -- based not on faith, but on reason and individualism. Objectivism is being taught at numerous colleges now, more and more high-profile individuals identify themselves as Objectivists, the staff from the Ayn Rand Institute are being invited to speak at numerous Republican conventions and television programs, the Wall Street Journal consistently publishes Objectivist material, the sales of Atlas Shrugged and various Objectivist literature has more than tripled since last year, everyone who's been following politics have learned the meaning of "Going Galt", there's been a surge of donations to the Ayn Rand Institute, and a new branch of ARI has opened in Washington. All of this will influence the culture greatly in the coming years -- especially as more people are realizing that Atlas Shrugged is coming true.

In any case, I hope you found this informative. :)

EDIT: Here's an interesting new article (http://washingtonindependent.com/32415/congressman-were-living-in-atlas-shrugged) which illustrates one of my points.

If your "objectivist thinking" and morality are as strict as the guy you quote in this thread (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=12530), you're in a lot of trouble. Baseless lies are no way to reach any goal. :rolleyes:

The US may well go through a revolution...but Christ will be waiting when we fall on our "collective" faces and turn back to Him.

AlmostThere
03-18-2009, 01:03 AM
I strongly disagree with that. Philosophy would remain -- such as the philosophy of Objectivism. As long as man has to make choices, there is no escape from moral values. Morality can never become unnecessary.

You think if religion was eliminated we wouldn't become a nation of hedonists. We practically fit that description now and a majority of the population believes in a God. Take God totally out of the picture and I think all hell would break loose, (pardon the pun).

AlmostThere
03-18-2009, 01:27 AM
Insanity reigns. :mad:

http://www.pacificjustice.org/resources/news/focusdetails.cfm?ID=PR090218a

http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/blog/breaking-news/kids-overhearing-christian-music-gets-counselor-six-week-suspension/

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/loya-suit-pier-2313777-christian-orangewood

And this is the same state where a class of small children were herded off to celebrate the wedding of 2 lesbians. When and how did we get here? I know all the canned answers, but why did we allow this to happen? I'm glad my grandmother isn't with us anymore. She'd be REALLY pissed at us for allowing this.

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 08:37 AM
You think if religion was eliminated we wouldn't become a nation of hedonists. We practically fit that description now and a majority of the population believes in a God. Take God totally out of the picture and I think all hell would break loose, (pardon the pun).

If you believe in the god of the Bible then you have to believe that it gave us free will and reason so that we would have the ability choose between right and wrong. If our morality depends on a god being in control then we're essentially puppets.

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 08:54 AM
I believe the U.S. will be going through a moral revolution in the not too distant future -- based not on faith, but on reason and individualism.

I consider myself to be anti-theist in the vein of Christopher Hitchens but unlike him I believe that religion has its uses. I believe that for a very small segment of society religion is a necessary proxy for morality. In other words, the promise of reward and fear of punishment is, in some cases, the only thing keeping people with sociopathic tendencies from behaving badly in circumstances when the law is not around.

noonwitch
03-18-2009, 09:07 AM
Obviously, the "christian music" the kids were exposed to was not U2 or Dylan. How does one define christian music? Is it music that you can only find at "christian" book stores? If they hear a black gospel choir, is that considered offensive christian music, or traditional african-american music?


This is bull, and I hope the counselor is taking legal action. I can see so many different ways that he could fight this.

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 09:10 AM
Obviously, the "christian music" the kids were exposed to was not U2 or Dylan. How does one define christian music? Is it music that you can only find at "christian" book stores? If they hear a black gospel choir, is that considered offensive christian music, or traditional african-american music?

For the record (no pun intended), Bob Dylan is an atheist.

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 09:15 AM
Just out of curiosity...

Would anyone here object to kids in a publicly funded group home being exposed to Islamic music?

PoliCon
03-18-2009, 09:44 AM
without some concept of the divine - morality is relative and transient.

noonwitch
03-18-2009, 10:09 AM
Just out of curiosity...

Would anyone here object to kids in a publicly funded group home being exposed to Islamic music?


Art is art, whatever the religious beliefs of those who are making the art may be. I know little about Islamic music, but there is beauty in the designs of the mosques, and in the elaborate prints and motifs found in tile works and in the hand-made copies of the Koran. I've seen such items at museum exhibits celebrating Detroit's arab americans.

American pop culture, at it's best, has elements of the religious beliefs and the cultural experiences of the people living in our nation. It is wrong for someone to purposely try to keep kids from exposure to music based on religion-as wrong as it is for a christian to tell a kid that isn't his kid that he can't listen to music that isn't christian in nature.

And, if kids are actually studying music history in school, how could a teacher avoid talking about music with religious roots? The histories of rock, country and jazz have elements of the southern christian gospel music tradition interlaced in their histories. Classical music has much of it's foundation in the european catholic mass tradition. Some composers' most moving music is the work they composed for the celebration of mass.

I'm a liberal, I don't think there should be organized prayer in public school, but students are free to express their beliefs in an appropriate manner. If a teacher asks the class to write a paper about what the students did that summer, and a kid turns in a paper about finding Jesus at summer camp, the paper should be graded on it's merits, and the kid shouldn't be told it's not appropriate for the assignment. If a teacher asks students to write papers on the most important thing in their lives, that teacher better be prepared for some papers to be written with religious themes. The issue with schools shouldn't be about the expression of one's religious beliefs, it should be about preventing any group from forcing their beliefs on another, and about the school refraining from sponsoring or endorsing a specific religion.

PoliCon
03-18-2009, 10:32 AM
Just out of curiosity...

Would anyone here object to kids in a publicly funded group home being exposed to Islamic music?
I don't see how it was the INTENT of the councilor take them to hear this music. Seems to me like it was happening and they happened to be there at the same time. So - if it was accidental - no. I would have no objection to them being exposed to islamic music in that way.

FlaGator
03-18-2009, 10:38 AM
If you believe in the god of the Bible then you have to believe that it gave us free will and reason so that we would have the ability choose between right and wrong. If our morality depends on a god being in control then we're essentially puppets.

That's really oversimplifying issue. Some people who believe in God willingly choose to do what is wrong. Some of us who believe in good attempt to choose what is right. Freewill works in both directions my friend. I am free to obey God's will and I am free to disobey. I am also free to accept the consequences of either action.

Are you a puppet for the state because the state says you can't murder some or does your choice not to murder just happens to coincide with the laws of the state? From my point of view, our morality was defined by God and we as individuals choose to work within that moral framework or to work outside of it when it suits our purposes. In no way is a person a puppet for making a free choice to obey.

FlaGator
03-18-2009, 10:44 AM
I consider myself to be anti-theist in the vein of Christopher Hitchens but unlike him I believe that religion has its uses. I believe that for a very small segment of society religion is a necessary proxy for morality. In other words, the promise of reward and fear of punishment is, in some cases, the only thing keeping people with sociopathic tendencies from behaving badly in circumstances when the law is not around.

You and most atheists lack understanding of believers and that is why you have erroneous conceptions about them. Believers do not obey God's moral framework because they fear punishment. They are saved and there will be no punishment. They attempt to obey the moral code God set before us because it pleases God for us to do so. When you where little did you attempt certain things because it pleased your parents and pleasing them made you feel good?

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 10:48 AM
Are you a puppet for the state because the state says you can't murder some or does your choice not to murder just happens to coincide with the laws of the state? From my point of view, our morality was defined by God and we as individuals choose to work within that moral framework or to work outside of it when it suits our purposes. In no way is a person a puppet for making a free choice to obey.

If the state is the only thing preventing you from feeling free to commit murder, and not a sense of right and wrong, then yes, you are a puppet, so to speak.

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 10:59 AM
without some concept of the divine - morality is relative and transient.

Can you provide a few examples of what you believe to be moral absolutes?

PoliCon
03-18-2009, 11:25 AM
Can you provide a few examples of what you believe to be moral absolutes?

Sure. Get this book - it's called the Bible. :)

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 11:32 AM
Sure. Get this book - it's called the Bible. :)

I'm asking for rules which you consider to be moral absolutes.

PoliCon
03-18-2009, 11:34 AM
I'm asking for rules which you consider to be moral absolutes.

So am I.

Gingersnap
03-18-2009, 11:35 AM
I'm asking for rules which you consider to be moral absolutes.

Maybe you guys should start another thread for this. The OP thread title will be ignored by some people who will want to chime in on this new topic.

PoliCon
03-18-2009, 11:44 AM
Maybe you guys should start another thread for this. The OP thread title will be ignored by some people who will want to chime in on this new topic.

no worries. I'm not interested in falling into his "trap."

noonwitch
03-18-2009, 11:46 AM
Can you provide a few examples of what you believe to be moral absolutes?



Matthew 5-7, the Sermon on the Mountain. Treat others the way you want to be treated, and don't go looking for external rewards for doing so. Do it because it's the right thing to do, not because the person you treat well will treat you well in return.

This may be oversimplified, but I am a big-picture thinker, not a jot and tittle thinker.

lacarnut
03-18-2009, 12:11 PM
Just out of curiosity...

Would anyone here object to kids in a publicly funded group home being exposed to Islamic music?

They were out on a public beach. A counselor has no control over what type of music was being played. The school board was wrong in suspending her. That is what the topic is about; not your demented view of christianity.

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 12:41 PM
Matthew 5-7, the Sermon on the Mountain. Treat others the way you want to be treated, and don't go looking for external rewards for doing so. Do it because it's the right thing to do, not because the person you treat well will treat you well in return.

This may be oversimplified, but I am a big-picture thinker, not a jot and tittle thinker.

Can we say that Saul was following the Golden Rule when he and his men, acting on orders from God, slaughtered the children of the Amalekites? I don't think we can.

The only way we can say that the Bible establishes moral absolutes is if we define morality to be that which pleases God. In other words, if the story of the Amalekites is to be believed then that which pleases God is not necessarily moral by human standards.

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 12:50 PM
They were out on a public beach. A counselor has no control over what type of music was being played. The school board was wrong in suspending her. That is what the topic is about; not your demented view of christianity.

Yes, I understand that the counselor is being unfairly accused of proselytizing. The question I asked was tangential and for the sake of my own curiosity.

PoliCon
03-18-2009, 12:55 PM
Can we say that Saul was following the Golden Rule when he and his men, acting on orders from God, slaughtered the children of the Amalekites? I don't think we can.

The only way we can say that the Bible establishes moral absolutes is if we define morality to be that which pleases. If the story of the Amalekites is to be believed then that which pleases God is not necessarily moral by human standards.

lol I knew this was your intent. Silly noon fell into this trap.:rolleyes:

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 12:58 PM
lol I knew this was your intent. Silly noon fell into this trap.:rolleyes:

I'm sure Noon knew where I was going. The difference between you and Noon is that she is a player. :D

Ree
03-18-2009, 01:56 PM
Can we say that Saul was following the Golden Rule when he and his men, acting on orders from God, slaughtered the children of the Amalekites? I don't think we can.

The only way we can say that the Bible establishes moral absolutes is if we define morality to be that which pleases God. In other words, if the story of the Amalekites is to be believed then that which pleases God is not necessarily moral by human standards.

Dude...ya keep confusing Old Testament with New Testament...

The Night Owl
03-18-2009, 02:03 PM
Dude...ya keep confusing Old Testament with New Testament...

I have been talking about the god of the Bible. The god of the OT is the same god of the NT.

PoliCon
03-18-2009, 02:13 PM
I have been talking about the god of the Bible. The god of the OT is the same god of the NT.

That He is. And He is unchanging. :)

aerojarod
03-18-2009, 02:31 PM
That the Founding Fathers were guided by a strong spiritual faith is undeniable. They were not necessarily all "Christian" however. Though religion was to be apart from the structure of government, it was to be its most crucial bedrock and foundation. The founders believed that there were common core values, priciples & moralities that spanned all the great world religions, and were in favor of teaching those common spiritual codes within the elementary schools.

Read "The 5000 Year Leap".

noonwitch
03-18-2009, 02:44 PM
Can we say that Saul was following the Golden Rule when he and his men, acting on orders from God, slaughtered the children of the Amalekites? I don't think we can.

The only way we can say that the Bible establishes moral absolutes is if we define morality to be that which pleases God. In other words, if the story of the Amalekites is to be believed then that which pleases God is not necessarily moral by human standards.


There are plenty of christians out there who do define morality as that which pleases God. I'm a liberal, so I don't believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. I think it's the Word of God as interpreted by humans, combined with a lot of history of the jewish people, and in New Testament times, of a specific time and place in the roman empire. So when Yaweh orders up the offing of children by Israel's army, I don't necessarily believe that God approved of it even if the Bible says that He did. The writers wanted justification. I don't think God ordered us to keep kosher, for example, I think that the writers of the Torah understood what was safe to eat in that day and age, before food preservation and modern refrigeration, and felt that encoding it in religion will ensure that the people remain healthy. The same applies to deeming menstruating women unclean and making them ritually cleanse themselves after every period. We have modern, indoor plumbing and manufactured paper products to deal with that, these days. We also have science to explain bodily functions and take ancient stigmas from what is now known to be normal.

I do feel that the Sermon on the Mountain is direct moral teaching, as written down by men. One can practice the principals and not even be a christian, nor believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. There is a lot of good psychology embedded in the teaching-don't build up resentment of others (forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us), don't be a braggart about your good works, don't judge others by standards you are not willing to be judged by yourself, be grateful for the good things you have and share with others, be nice to people even if they are awful to you (turn the other cheek), love your friends and your enemies, and so on. It's about being a Child of God, regardless of what is going on around you. It is about having the kind of peace within yourself that you don't care what others think about you, because you know that you are a Child of God- but so is that wino down the street, that democrat from Chicago, the people of Detroit, and so are the guys in prison and whichever killer Texas executed this week.

Molon Labe
03-18-2009, 03:08 PM
Christians say that God is the standard of value, while Communists say that the Collective is the standard of value. Of course Communists are every bit as mystical as the Christians, as there is no such thing as "The Collective" -- there's only a number of Individuals. Objectivists recognize the Individual as the standard of value.

I too see the individual as the standard of value.
C.S. Lewis once said that Christianity in it's perfect form was socialist in nature. I don't think he was thinking about it on a national level or even suggesting that secular socialism was good. I don't think he believed you could seperate the two. To him a collective communiy must be Christian to be successful. To take care of each other was a true representation of the Christ.
I haven't concluded whether I totally grasp that concept yet because of my belief in individualism over the collective, but I try to see his premise that Christs coming, according to the Christian beliefs, will foster a perfect collective body.

MrsSmith
03-18-2009, 07:56 PM
If you believe in the god of the Bible then you have to believe that it gave us free will and reason so that we would have the ability choose between right and wrong. If our morality depends on a god being in control then we're essentially puppets.

God gave us free will not so we could choose our morality, but so we could choose to love and follow Him...or not.

lacarnut
03-18-2009, 09:19 PM
I'm sure Noon knew where I was going. The difference between you and Noon is that she is a player. :D

Evidently you are too stupid to understand Gingersnap's post #30 regarding sticking to the topic at hand.

The Night Owl
03-19-2009, 07:14 AM
Evidently you are too stupid to understand Gingersnap's post #30 regarding sticking to the topic at hand.

Well, evidently at least.

FlaGator
03-19-2009, 07:57 AM
If the state is the only thing preventing you from feeling free to commit murder, and not a sense of right and wrong, then yes, you are a puppet, so to speak.

Then we are all puppets so to speak. So why do you have issues with being Gods puppet, if by you own apparent admission we are puppets to something anyways. With that in mind you who point was a red herring and pointless.

FlaGator
03-19-2009, 08:02 AM
Can we say that Saul was following the Golden Rule when he and his men, acting on orders from God, slaughtered the children of the Amalekites? I don't think we can.

The only way we can say that the Bible establishes moral absolutes is if we define morality to be that which pleases God. In other words, if the story of the Amalekites is to be believed then that which pleases God is not necessarily moral by human standards.

Can you name the sin that the Amalekites commited that caused God to order all their deaths? You make it sound like God ordered their deaths for no other reason than it pleased him to have them die. Hint, God defined this as one of the moral standards that we are to live by.

The Night Owl
03-19-2009, 10:11 AM
Can you name the sin that the Amalekites commited that caused God to order all their deaths?

Irrelevant. The children of the Amalekites did not deserve to be slaughtered for the crimes of their parents. Punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty is the epitome of injustice.


You make it sound like God ordered their deaths for no other reason than it pleased him to have them die. Hint, God defined this as one of the moral standards that we are to live by.

Feel free to provide a reasonable justification for the slaughter of infants and children.

Molon Labe
03-19-2009, 10:23 AM
Can you name the sin that the Amalekites commited that caused God to order all their deaths? You make it sound like God ordered their deaths for no other reason than it pleased him to have them die. Hint, God defined this as one of the moral standards that we are to live by.

Is this it?


'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.- from Samuel 15

I've been doing a bit of reading on this since it came up in the thread. I found a study of the story and it's a pretty indepth look at the argument. It pretty much answers all the Night owls question: although I'm sure not to your liking:

Some highlights:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html


The Amalekites had a long and violent history of aggression against early Israel (and other nations as well), raiding, plundering, and kidnapping them for slave trade.

Amalek attacks Israel, in spite of the distance, and without provocation:

So God:

1. tried to convince the people, for a long time, of the dangerous consequences of combating Israel.

2. waited patiently for centuries for them to change their minds about their violent anti-Israelite terrorism.

3. apparently "convinced" some of them to emigrate to Israel and enjoy the blessings of His people.

4. apparently waited until some Amalekites were away from the main body of the group (since they show up later in the biblical record, implying some survivors who were not involved in that battle)

The case of Amalek does not conform to known patterns of genocide, and therefore cannot legitimately be so called.

stsinner
03-19-2009, 10:53 AM
This story is disgusting.. If it were the Muslim call to prayer that kids had to suffer through no one would have batted an eye..

MrsSmith
03-19-2009, 04:38 PM
Irrelevant. The children of the Amalekites did not deserve to be slaughtered for the crimes of their parents. Punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty is the epitome of injustice.



Feel free to provide a reasonable justification for the slaughter of infants and children.

Do you support abortion?

Gingersnap
03-19-2009, 04:40 PM
Do you support abortion?

People! Start a new thread already! ;)

The Night Owl
03-20-2009, 08:50 AM
Do you support abortion?

Continued here... http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=12622

Hugh Lincoln
03-20-2009, 09:00 AM
This story is disgusting.. If it were the Muslim call to prayer that kids had to suffer through no one would have batted an eye..

Yup.

The Subway I go to for lunch plays the Christian station. I really find it refreshing. The big bosses would probably shut him down, though.

The Night Owl
03-20-2009, 09:12 AM
Yup.

The Subway I go to for lunch plays the Christian station. I really find it refreshing. The big bosses would probably shut him down, though.

I don't really have anything against Christian music but I find that most contemporary Christian music is too gushy and conventional for my taste. The only contemporary Christian group I like is Blackhouse...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSPyykEmWPc&feature=related

http://www.myspace.com/therealblackhouse

PoliCon
03-20-2009, 10:55 AM
Yup.

The Subway I go to for lunch plays the Christian station. I really find it refreshing. The big bosses would probably shut him down, though.

they are individually owned and operated - they even have huge control over the menu and their pricing - so the only one who can stop them playing it is the owner.