NJ parents outraged: Second-graders will learn you can 'have boy parts but feel like a girl'

a reply to: Boadicea

I have no idea how you got this --

From your statements that discount the Christian influence due to "mistakes" in the Christian practice of the time. If one discounts any religion on that basis, then logically they must discount all religions. All religion is practiced by man; man is imperfect; ergo man gets it wrong.

There is no need to get defensive with me. I am simply trying to get my point across. The Founding Fathers were trying to escape religious interference with their religious practices and beliefs. The country was founded, in large part, on allowing each individual to worship as they felt led to do so. That was and is a "Christian principle," based on Jesus' teachings and offers of personal salvation, since the time of Jesus Himself, spoken by Him. It has not changed since that night angels serenaded shepherds.

Albeit, all three -- our founding principles, Natural Law, and Christian principles -- are often compatible and even complementary. But, obviously, at the time of the founding, freedom of religion and freedom of worship were not Christian principles, as practiced and understood at the time.

That seems to be our major point of contention. God does not change day to day, and neither does His principles. The Bible has remained unchanged for thousands of years, despite numerous translations and the inevitable errors such can bring. "Christian principles" are based on the words spoken by God through His prophets recorded in the Bible. Therefore, those principles do not change. The cannot change unless God changes, as they are a result of the Word of God.

Man does not define Christ; man does not define God. If man gets it wrong, it simply means man was not following the principles that God laid down. It does not mean, as your posts appear to indicate, that God changed those principles to accommodate man. To claim so is to claim that during the Spanish Inquisition, God desired His Children to be persecuted for non-existent crimes. He did not; MAN prosecuted God's children for non-existent crimes.

Our Founding Fathers likely did not know as much as we do now, admitted. However, they used what they did know. That is sufficient to say that the nation was founded on "Christian principles."

neither Gender Ideologists NOR Christians may impose their beliefs on anyone else, but both have a right to believe what they believe.

Further, we have decided for reasonable and rational reasons that the choices of and for children MUST be safeguarded and protected, including medical procedures with known and unknown short-term and long-term adverse consequences, and that parents are virtually always their greatest advocate AND the one with primary responsibility for doing so. But we must also protect their developing minds from undue influence, and especially dangerous influences, while providing children with the best facts and information appropriate and necessary to be thoughtful and reasonable adults. At which time, they can make their own choices and believe what they choose to believe.

On that we agree, and that is the contention of this thread.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hmmmm... I don't think we really disagree at all. I think our disconnect is in the verbiage, which is necessarily limited and subject to interpretation to one extent or another.

When I use the term Christianity and the Church, I refer to those organizations by men and of men, and all its inherent fallibility. I am not referring to the teachings and ministry of Jesus, which are infallible. And which often agree and overlap with other faiths and organized religions. Many/most Christian principles are shared with many/most other religions and faiths, as well as Natural Law.

In the case of our Founding Fathers, specifically, many of them actually professed a form of Deism, not Christianity. But many of the principles are the same/similar.

So yes, many of the founding principles were also Christian, but Christianity was not the inspiration or purpose of the Founding Fathers. Nor was Deism the inspiration or purpose. Natural Law principles were the inspiration and purpose, which were contrary to the established practice of Christianity at that time.

I have a busy morning ahead of me, so I have to keep it short. But I hope this helps explain my position better.

Bit too young in my opinion.

Needs to be taught just not so young.

a reply to: Boadicea

But it is incorporated into religion by men (and women -- not being sexist here!), and especially those who use religion for their own power and benefit.

Perversions in a religion can be incorporated into religious practices by man; that does not change the religion itself. Jim Jones of Jonesville did the same; did that change Christianity? No, all it did was deceive a great many people (and ultimately lead to their demise). What he practiced was not Christianity. It was a cult that started out being based on misunderstanding of Christian principles.

Your position is dangerously close to that of Jim Jones. He as well believed that Christianity could be redefined by man. Now, I am not accusing you of being a cult leader, but that proximity between beliefs is something I felt should be underscored.

They did not say "Laws of Jesus and of Jesus' God," because these are universal and common to all mankind -- not just for or by Christians.

They said this (and thank you for quoting a section I should have... that was my error):

the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

"The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"... so who is nature's God? The one we call God, obviously! The exact same Deity that Jesus claimed as His Father. The exact same Deity from which the Holy Spirit, the essence of Christ, emanates. The exact same Deity who created nature itself!

How can the laws of nature be separate from the laws of nature's Creator?

Christianity is called Christianity and not "Jesusity" for a reason: it is based on Christ, not solely on Jesus. Jesus was and is our salvation through Christ. Christianity does not deny the Power of God; it reinforces it and makes it personal for us. I do not pray to Jesus; I pray to Jesus' Father, God. God is the source of Christ, not Jesus.

God is the destination; the Holy Spirit (Christ) is the doorway to that destination; Jesus is the key to that doorway. I cannot obtain an audience with God unless I enter through the doorway after unlocking the door with the key, but it does not follow that the key or the doorway is my goal.

Jesus is my guide, my mentor, my salvation, and my brother in Christ. God is my God, and the principles of Christianity are His principles. The laws of nature are His laws.

I clicked on your first link, and the very first thing I saw on that page was this quote:

"Man ... must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature...is of course superior to any other.... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original." - Sir William Blackstone (Eminent English Jurist)

That is exactly what i and others have been saying! "The will of his Maker is called the law of nature"... the will of God, our Maker, as revealed to us through our personal relationships with Him and through His Word... Sir William Blackstone defined these as the "laws of nature." These are what the Constitution was based upon.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I was enjoying our conversation, but not anymore. Again, I honestly don't know how you can accuse me of being a Jim Jones, when I haven't even come close.

Perversions in a religion can be incorporated into religious practices by man; that does not change the religion itself. Jim Jones of Jonesville did the same; did that change Christianity? No, all it did was deceive a great many people (and ultimately lead to their demise). What he practiced was not Christianity. It was a cult that started out being based on misunderstanding of Christian principles.

Your position is dangerously close to that of Jim Jones. He as well believed that Christianity could be redefined by man. Now, I am not accusing you of being a cult leader, but that proximity between beliefs is something I felt should be underscored.

You begin by acknowledging that man can and does corrupt religious practices. Fair enough and true enough. But that it does not change Christianity. What I think you mean is that it does not change Divine Law. Of course it doesn't! Not by "one jot or one tittle." Also fair enough and true enough. But at the time of our founding, Christianity as practiced was quite corrupt and brutally enforced. Of course that was a corruption of man and by man of Divine Law, and did not by "one jot or one tittle" change Divine Law. But that was "Christianity" for all human intents and purposes at the time. What we know and (hopefully) practice today, in our current understanding and belief, was not what was practiced then, nor the same understanding and belief.

As you have already agreed, the Christian practices of the time were not always compatible or complementary to the principles of Natures Law, and the Founding Fathers necessarily had to step outside the confines of their generations experience and knowledge of Christianity, and chart new territories.

More important for the Founding Fathers, Divine Law is not limited to just Christians. In today's terms, it's as inclusive as possible for all faiths and all beliefs. It presumes one Creator of all mankind, compatible with monotheism, but does not exclude polytheism. Divine Law is universal no matter what faith we profess. It is the true Laws of Nature that we all must live with and deal with and are subject to. It is the Natural Law that inspired and influenced our Founding Fathers, who were not all Christians, but compatible and complementary to both Natural Law principles and Christian principles.

That's not redefining anything. The Founding Fathers wanted freedom of religion and worship, and Natural Law provided a thoughtful and reasoned justification for throwing off the chains of England, and it provided a legal framework for incorporation into the Constitution.

This is all just part of history -- as the links I provided show. I'm not trying to redefine Divine Law, or even Christianity.

Personally, of course I know that the "Nature's God" and the "Creator" in Natural Law is the Heavenly Father of Jesus, His only begotten Son, sent to us because He so loves the world. It is because I recognize that Natural Law is as close to Divine Law as it is -- that it is compatible and complementary -- that I do realize that so many Christian principles are included and represented by Natural Law. It also guarantees me (and everyone of every faith or no faith at all) the right to believe and worship as we see fit.

Have your say, but I'm pretty much done. I've said my piece.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Question to the self proclaimed female participants on this forum, what exactly does it feel like to be a girl or woman? How do you identify elements as being pertinent or essential to the categorization of "female"?

I hope I don't break your armor, but this is akin to asking a bar of gold
what it feels like to be gold. When one is female, as I am, one knows
the intrinsic value in being a woman created by God on a multi faceted
level that is really hard to put into words. I will try, however to describe
a few aspects that are suitable to this board.

1. Feminine

All things female. This includes but not limited to being delightfully
heterosexual. I knew this from a young age that I liked boys and was
attracted to them in a way that was multi faceted. You might laugh
at that, however being the age of 10 or so, finding that you liked boys
but thought that they were kind of irritating and did things that were
at the time seemed challenging is about as mild a description as I can
give on here. I am sure there are males on the board who will attest
to perhaps feeling this in reverse.

That is just the beginning.

I feel female everyday in every way and it is glorious.

God made me this way, and I give thanks to Him for the other gifts
that come with being a female: women's intuition is one of them,
motherly instincts to protect children, and even compassion upon
men. LOL. Dont mess with my children or any around me, you will
find out what it means to tangle with Mama Bear.

a reply to: Boadicea

I was enjoying our conversation, but not anymore. Again, I honestly don't know how you can accuse me of being a Jim Jones, when I haven't even come close.

OK, you can put your chip back on your shoulder now. I specifically stated that i was NOT... you know, that word that means negative... NOT accusing you of being a cult leader like Jim Jones. I was simply comparing your statements that Christianity was subject to the desires of men and Jim Jones' apparent belief that Christianity was subject to his whims.

That's what he did. He started with setting himself up as an authority on Christianity to gain followers. He then abused and perverted those principles that Christianity was founded on, the lessons imparted by Jesus, to proclaim himself some sort of savior. That's a general recipe for how all cults appear: take partial truth, use it to gain a following, then slowly change the principles behind those partial truths to profit oneself. As long as people are willing to ignore discrepancies in the religious principles, that is a doable thing.

You are accepting that man can change Christianity. I am not. If man changes the principles, then it is no longer Christianity; it is a man-made quasi-religion or even a cult. At that point, it does not follow the tenets of Christianity and therefore does not deserve to be called Christianity.

The problem comes in when people accept that it is some form of Christianity. That causes acceptance of those perversions among the population, as people are easily led and tend to follow the masses.

At the time of the settling of the United States, the Church of England was persecuting those who believed differently from that which was officially sanctioned. That is a violation of a basic tenet of Christianity. As a result, many of those who initially settled in America were fleeing such persecution and looking for a place where they could believe as they chose in peace. True enough, some of them likely violated other basic tenets of Christianity*, but they did so out of ignorance, not out of a desire to control. Some of those Puritan values are still with us today, and they still affect our laws.

Heck, it wasn't long ago that no alcohol could legally be sold in Alabama, even in wet counties, on Sunday. And yes, we still have dry counties where alcohol sales are illegal period! We did get a law passed that allows cities over a certain size in dry counties to hold their own wet/dry referendum, so it's getting better. I can also remember when businesses were shunned because they dared open on Sunday. Gambling is still illegal! We can't even have a state lottery to help our schools!

No one is saying that Christianity is the official religion of the USA. It cannot be; the USA is forbidden from having an official religion. All people are saying is that the United States was settled by Christian refugees, it was governed at the time of its founding primarily by those who professed a Christian belief system, and many of our initial laws were based on Christian principles. Your own link defines the "natural law" you ascribe to that as the principles upon which a Divine Creator provided. Christianity is the worship of a Divine Creator and (attempted) adherence to His principles.

We're arguing over semantics here. I initially thought our disagreement went deeper, but I see now it does not.

* I remember during my early US literature class reading a diary from one of the early settlers. He wrote about the hardships they had finding enough food, then one day his party came across a storehouse of grain (corn if I remember correctly). They actually believed that God had placed that storehouse there for them! So they promptly stole the corn from the natives, thanked God for for their bounty, and completely ignored the fact that someone else had harvested the corn and they had stolen it!

That was certainly not a Christian act, but it was attributed to Christianity.

TheRedneck

a reply to: infolurker

That would have been a field day as a kid at my school.

Those would have been dangerous words.

When I was a 3rd grader they had this assembly. It was about tolerance of the handicapped.

For about an hour they drilled into our heads "We don't say handicapped because it refers to putting your hand to your cap, which is offensive and dismissive. So we say "disabled".

Needless to say we didn't like him. We spent recess mocking him, even at 9, we were calling each-other "disabled" on the playground.

We were playing football and if they missed the catch we called him disabled.The objective was lost and we had a new word to be insensitive with.

If they tried this we would have spent the recess making fun of each-other for wanting girl parts. Because it still wasn't what our parents told us. And I think parents will always be the ultimate authority in forming a child's opinion.

Never underestimate a kids ability and intelligence to identify propaganda and reject it. Especially if their parents lay the contrarian  groundwork.

a reply to: Degradation33

Addendum:

Call it the Sesame Street Theory. Whereby watching "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn't belong." teaches ostracizing behavior. Teaches kids to identify difference and not tolerate it.

It's that in reverse. A growing to desire to make every kids show teach open diversity, and all the ideals to reprogram future generations to be as tolerant as a Lady Gaga concert. And to do it at the same age. They think they're preventing bullying and suicide. Which was up again last year... go figure.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Stolen valor.

Christians are NOW claiming the founding principles as being based on Christianity, because the genuine Natural Law principles our nation was TRULY founded upon gave them this freedom to expand and grow. But the Christians of the time did not practice these values or principles.

And quite frankly, it's disgusting.

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is no need to get defensive with me. I am simply trying to get my point across. The Founding Fathers were trying to escape religious interference with their religious practices and beliefs. The country was founded, in large part, on allowing each individual to worship as they felt led to do so. That was and is a "Christian principle," based on Jesus' teachings and offers of personal salvation, since the time of Jesus Himself, spoken by Him. It has not changed since that night angels serenaded shepherds.

I repeatedly attempted to get these facts to sink into Boadicia's skull but to no avail. He/she is in very close agreement in most other aspects yet somehow cannot accept facts. A person that is not even willing to change their mind is not worth arguing with
Thus I ended the discussion .

a reply to: Boadicea

Stolen valor.

Christians are NOW claiming...

*sigh*

First false offense, now direct condemnation. How little you understand about the religion. How sadly not unexpected.

No matter. We live in a country where everyone is free to worship and believe as they so choose... for now. That's a precious thing, for before 1776 such a place did not exist. Perhaps you should contemplate on that and just how lucky you (and I) are because of that.

While it is not possible for man to do so, understand that the same freedom that allows me to be Christian allows you to be whatever you choose. So many have tried to destroy Christianity by associating it (sometimes, admittedly, appropriately) with atrocious groups from history... and were it not for those failures, you and I would be forced to worship as we are told.

May God bless you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Alien Abduct

It's not unexpected. The world is a powerful influence, especially on those who know nothing beyond the meager offerings it holds. We are all born with a spirit, but with a body full of senses as well. How easy is it for those 5 senses to overcome the knowledge we are born with! How hard is it to ignore those senses and see reality through the Spirit!

Such is the closed mind: one can see, hear, smell, touch, taste... but one cannot understand. The door is closed and locked from the inside; nothing can enter, and they cannot escape.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Can the hearer be heard?
Can the seer be seen?

Or is That invisible?

a reply to: Itisnowagain



TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Itisnowagain

TheRedneck

Three questions.
Do you have answers?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Three questions.
Do you have answers?

1. 47.342
2. Blue
3. Only on Mondays

(Makes as much sense as your questions)

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Ok...I get it.
You are no fun to play with.

Think of it as a koan.

If it went straight over your head then so be it.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

koan:

noun

a paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment.

Ummm... OK, if you say so.

It did demonstrate the "inadequacy of (your) logical reasoning," so I guess maybe it sort of qualifies? Try something that "provokes enlightenment" and I think you've got it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Degradation33

Speaking of Propaganda in Schools Today , seems they All have been Coopted by Perverts...