[talaniman]

Your premise that God was removed from public schools is just WRONG and I expressed that. The mandatory nature of school prayer was removed for ALL religions in the public schools by due process of law by other Christians.

I suppose if you don't want to acknowledge things like wage disparity or income inequality that has eroded over the years I can't make you, but you cannot just dismiss their impact on your fellow citizens either. Closing factories destroy entire communities and school prayers can save them from that but not surprising you would blame THAT on the decline of American life. I blame it on the deprivation of economic opportunities that's making it hard to buy a loaf of bread and ever rising costs that accounts for regional and local disparities even while a great economy pervades in many places for the most part.

It's like the MAGA crap I cited before, great for some at the time, but not others, but you seem to be of the mind that it's the others fault for not having or losing an adequate livelyhood. Seldom can one control his own circumstances and judos to those that can navigate difficult situation but why bash those that struggle? Why blame others because you ignore or dismiss that struggle?

You are good at dismissing and ignoring others yet you take my approach as holier than thou?

Nobody on this board is holier than thou and I say that with affection my friend it's just you and that's okay with me. Don't expect me to not express my opinions and positions though, which I'm sure you already know I will.

[jlisenbe]

Your premise that God was removed from public schools is just WRONG and I expressed that. The mandatory nature of school prayer was removed for ALL religions in the public schools by due process of law by other Christians.

Read more carefully. That was not my premise; it was Wondergirl's premise.

I suppose if you don't want to acknowledge things like wage disparity or income inequality that has eroded over the years I can't make you, but you cannot just dismiss their impact on your fellow citizens either.

Your original statement was that wages were stagnant. That was not a true statement. Now you are pretending you were speaking of income inequality. They are not the same thing.

Closing factories destroy entire communities and school prayers can save them from that but not surprising you would blame THAT on the decline of American life. I blame it on the deprivation of economic opportunities that's making it hard to buy a loaf of bread and ever rising costs that accounts for regional and local disparities even while a great economy pervades in many places for the most part.

I think the decline in factories is a cause for concern, but I'm sure you'll be glad to hear that, in 2018, there were more manufacturing jobs added than in any year since 1988. Hard to buy a loaf of bread? For practically everyone it's not. In our family we have eaten hundreds of loaves of day old bread. People who want bread can get it. Medical and dental care are different matters.

It's like the MAGA crap I cited before, great for some at the time, but not others, but you seem to be of the mind that it's the others fault for not having or losing an adequate livelyhood. Seldom can one control his own circumstances and judos to those that can navigate difficult situation but why bash those that struggle? Why blame others because you ignore or dismiss that struggle?

And once again your imagination has taken over. I have not bashed those who struggle. "Seldom can one control his own circumstances"??? What? In our country we actually get to control a great deal of our circumstances.

You are good at dismissing and ignoring others yet you take my approach as holier than thou?
Nobody on this board is holier than thou and I say that with affection my friend it's just you and that's okay with me. Don't expect me to not express my opinions and positions though, which I'm sure you already know I will.

You know exactly what I was talking about. You made a comment about me trying to force my opinion on others and that it was such a terrible thing. It is the exact same thing that you and everyone else on this board does. We all advocate for certain beliefs and policies. When you criticize me for doing what you do yourself, then you are taking a "holier than thou" position and trying to pretend you don't do it yourself. Or, as you said above, "Don't expect me not to express my opinions and positions.." Well, aren't you criticizing me for doing the same as you?

[talaniman]

Read more carefully. That was not my premise; it was Wondergirl's premise.

I am often mistaken, MAYBE this is one or maybe I was confused by the next quote from you. I'm not adverse to be corrected when wrong.

It was a simple question. Since we took prayer and the Ten Commandments out of school, which direction has the country, and young people in particular, taken?

I thought that was your premise to which I have commented about. The two are not related in my mind, a notion you can ignore, or dismiss. I'm just not convinced.

A very simple solution would be going to educational vouchers and allowing parents to make the choices of whether or not their children should be taught religious principles (such as prayer) in school. It always amuses me that the same people who argue that women should have the "choice" to have their unborn child killed in abortion will then deny school choice to parents once the surviving children are ready for school.

You want your child to go to a private religious school, then pay for it. You expect taxpayers to use their tax dollars to educate your kids in religious principles of your choice? Does that extend to vouchers for kids of ANY and ALL religions? I think vouchers and school choice are a sneaky way to starve the public schools of needed funds and does not even address the real issue of making a quality public school system. A quality public school system would be preferable to vouchers for private school choice. That's where public money taxpayer money should go.

I don't support abortions or school choice with taxpayer money though I recognize many homes are sold on the basis of good schools in the neighborhood. All neighborhoods should have a great school for the community regardless of class income or status.

Some of those private schools have long waiting lists and some are very selective and discerning about who they admit. What of those kids that cannot get in?

[Wondergirl]

You need to be sure to tell God where He belongs and where He does not belong. I imagine He will be surprised to find that out.

"God in public schools" back in the '50s was, in my experience, memorizing Bible verses for cheap religious trinkets. Whose God was in public schools? Again, in my experience, it was the Southern Baptists' God, not the Lutherans' God.

Since we took prayer and the Ten Commandments out of school, which direction has the country, and young people in particular, taken?

It's certainly not because we took prayer and the Ten Commandments out of school!

[jlisenbe]

You want your child to go to a private religious school, then pay for it. You expect taxpayers to use their tax dollars to educate your kids in religious principles of your choice? Does that extend to vouchers for kids of ANY and ALL religions? I think vouchers and school choice are a sneaky way to starve the public schools of needed funds and does not even address the real issue of making a quality public school system. A quality public school system would be preferable to vouchers for private school choice. That's where public money taxpayer money should go.

So it's OK for the taxpayer to pay for kids to go to schools which promote all sorts of moral values such as homosexuality is fine, boys can actually be girls and vica versa, premarital sex in fine and here's how to put on a condom, God is a made-up concept, and so forth? And if parents don't want their children taught such things, then they can just suck it up and suffer? Or if poor parents don't want their children trapped in disastrous public schools, then that's just too bad? "The parents of rich kids can send their children to good schools, but you're just out of luck." Is that what you would tell them?

I don't support abortions or school choice with taxpayer money though I recognize many homes are sold on the basis of good schools in the neighborhood. All neighborhoods should have a great school for the community regardless of class income or status.

Where I live, the county schools routinely far out-perform the city schools and have for years. The city schools have much more money and their teachers are paid more. The last county school I was in was in terrible physical condition, but ended up the 32nd ranked school in the state. How do you explain that if funding is all there is to it? I'm telling you, Tal, you don't know what you are talking about. Washington D.C. is one of the most heavily funded school systems in America, and it's a train wreck. Your solution is basically to tell all those parents, "Forget you. The solution does not fit Tal's political perspective."

Some of those private schools have long waiting lists and some are very selective and discerning about who they admit. What of those kids that cannot get in?

Then they go to a school of their parent's choice that they can get in. It won't be a perfect system, but it would be a million miles better than the system we have now. Worst case scenario would be to put their children back in the gosh-awful public school that you wanted them trapped in to begin with. They would certainly be no worse off.

[jlisenbe]

"God in public schools" back in the '50s was, in my experience, memorizing Bible verses for cheap religious trinkets. Whose God was in public schools? Again, in my experience, it was the Southern Baptists' God, not the Lutherans' God.

We don't serve the same God?

You think you had a bad experience? I tell you what you need to do. Go back to your six year old self and enroll in practically any public school in D.C. Philly, Detroit, CHICAGO, or any one of many other areas of the country where low academic performance and violence are common. I'll bet your experience would look a lot better after about one week. You'd get down on your knees and thank God for the school you attended.

You guys seem to forget something. I spent my career in these schools. Some were good and some not so good, but I've seen what the kids have to go through in the not so good schools. I know you don't really care, but I do. Throwing more money at the problem is not the solution. I am Mississippi and yet I never felt underfunded until my last two years when some budget cuts hit in the middle of the school year, but even that was not a lack of money but a lack of discretion in how to spend it.

It's certainly not because we took prayer and the Ten Commandments out of school!

How would you know that?

[Wondergirl]

So it's OK for the taxpayer to pay for kids to go to schools which promote all sorts of moral values such as homosexuality is fine, boys can actually be girls and vica versa, premarital sex in fine and here's how to put on a condom, God is a made-up concept, and so forth?

The word "homosexuality" in the Bible isn't how you think of it. Read this:
https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/201...-romans-124-27

Ever read/hear about how DES messed up generations of babies and their babies? Google DES and intersex.

What would you have said to your young son who wanted to wear girl clothes or paint his nails or play with dolls? Or to your young daughter who wanted to be a cowboy and grow up to be a pastor?

You've never understood the advantages of premarital sex?

[jlisenbe]

The word "homosexuality" in the Bible isn't how you think of it. Read this:
https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/201...-romans-124-27

So your case is based upon German translations? Really? Are you familiar with the word Paul used for homosexual, and how it is a combination of Greek words for "man" and "bed"? Your guy begins with the idea that translating the word "homosexual" is relatively recent, but are you aware that the KJV, which is centuries old, translates it as "nor abusers of themselves with mankind", or that Wycliffe translated is as "they that do lechery (lustfulness) with men", of that Young's Literal Translation renders it as "sodomites"? Are you also aware that the article was written by a man who is a homosexual and would certainly have good reason look for alternative meanings to Scripture?

But even if I was to accept that argument, and I don't, then show me in the Bible where gay marriage or two men having sex is affirmed? You are in the terrible situation of having to try and explain away the considerable passages which show homosexual behavior as a sin, and yet having nothing at all to affirm it. Your liberal ideology is affecting your theology.

What would you have said to your young son who wanted to wear girl clothes or paint his nails or play with dolls? Or to your young daughter who wanted to be a cowboy and grow up to be a pastor?

I would have told my son that he could not wear girls clothing or paint his nails. I would have steered him away from playing with dolls. As to my daughter wanting to be a cowboy or be on a pastoral staff in a church, I don't see a problem with those career choices.

You've never understood the advantages of premarital sex?

Your problem is that you have determined your beliefs outside of the Bible. You can't get such a statement from Scripture.

And for the record, I'm not in favor of hammering homosexuals or anyone else with the Bible. The grace of God is a wonderful thing. They are certainly no worse than I was. I would tell them, or anyone else, that the opportunity to know God is far greater than any sexual obsession or activity of any kind. Commit your life to Christ in faith and true repentance, and Jesus will bring about change in your life. Does He solve everyone's sexual problems? Not always in the way we might think, but there is always a solution. 100 years from now, these problems we face here will be put in their proper perspective.

One more thing. I am not a Southern Baptist.

[Wondergirl]

So your case is based upon German translations? Really? Are you familiar with the word Paul used for homosexual, and how it is a combination of Greek words for "man" and "bed"? Your guy begins with the idea that translating the word "homosexual" is relatively recent, but are you aware that the KJV, which is centuries old, translates it as "nor abusers of themselves with mankind", or that Wycliffe translated is as "they that do lechery (lustfulness) with men", of that Young's Literal Translation renders it as "sodomites"? Are you also aware that the article was written by a man who is a homosexual and would certainly have good reason look for alternative meanings to Scripture?

St. Paul's made-up word (arsenokoitai) meant "boy molesters." Homosexual in the OT had to do with pagan temple practices whereby both men and women dressed as a pagan goddess and prostituted themselves to encourage worshipers to make temple donations (pay for sexual services rendered).

I would have told my son that he could not wear girls clothing or paint his nails. I would have steered him away from playing with dolls. As to my daughter wanting to be a cowboy or be on a pastoral staff in a church, I don't see a problem with those career choices.

So your son can't be girly but your daughter can take on a male role?

What if your baby was born with a mix of male and female internal and external sex organs?

Your problem is that you have determined your beliefs outside of the Bible. You can't get such a ludicrous statement from Scripture.

Please do more in-depth research.

And for the record, I'm not in favor of hammering homosexuals or anyone else with the Bible. The grace of God is a wonderful thing. They are certainly no worse than I was. I would tell them, or anyone else, that the opportunity to know God is far greater than any sexual obsession or activity of any kind. Commit your life to Christ in faith and true repentance, and Jesus will bring about change in your life. Does He solve everyone's sexual problems? Not always in the way we might think, but there is always a solution. 100 years from now, these problems we face here will be put in their proper perspective.

Sexual obsession??? Good grief! Homosexuals then must become celebate when they become Christian?

One more thing. I am not a Southern Baptist.

Who said you are?

[jlisenbe]

St. Paul's made-up word (arsenokoitai) meant "boy molesters." Homosexual in the OT had to do with pagan temple practices whereby both men and women dressed as a pagan goddess and prostituted themselves to encourage worshipers to make temple donations (pay for sexual services rendered).

Sorry, but that is simply not correct. The Leviticus passage absolutely does not read that way. It is nonsensical to suggest that it was a reference to "men and women dressed as a pagan goddess". And you can't get "boy molesters" out of arsenokoitai no matter how hard you try. Find that meaning in any concordance and we can talk about it.

It is one thing for a boy to dress like a girl. It is entirely different for a girl to take on a job that is typically performed by men, such as a woman being a policeman.

Please do more in-depth research.

That's kind of funny coming from you. The last time (a few days ago) I asked you to support your position with scripture, you told me to read the entire Bible. In other words, you had no particular scripture you could cite to support your position. So I'll challenge you with this. Show me the scriptural support for sex outside of marriage or for two men to have sex together, and we can talk about it.

Sexual obsession??? Good grief! Homosexuals then must become celebate when they become Christian?

Being celibate is not the same as dying. Young Christian people remain celibate all time while waiting on a spouse. Why even Martin Luther was celibate for much of his adult life. And there are many, many testimonies to be found of homosexuals who became Christians and ended up married to a woman and happy. You act like sex is the most important thing on the earth. It is not. Besides, the opportunity to know and enjoy God Himself is greater than any cost it might involve. I honestly get the impression that you do not genuinely know Him in the sense of having a personal, close relationship. Do you?

[Wondergirl]

Sorry, but that is simply not correct. The Leviticus passage absolutely does not read that way. It is nonsensical to suggest that it was a reference to "men and women dressed as a pagan goddess". And you can't get "boy molesters" out of arsenokoitai no matter how hard you try. Find that meaning in any concordance and we can talk about it.

Someone needs to do some research and it ain't me.

It is one thing for a boy to dress like a girl. It is entirely different for a girl to take on a job that is typically performed by men, such as a woman being a policeman.

Nope. The boy says he is a girl inside. The girl says she's a boy inside.

That's kind of funny coming from you. The last time (a few days ago) I asked you to support your position with scripture, you told me to read the entire Bible. In other words, you had no particular scripture you could cite to support your position. So I'll challenge you with this. Show me the scriptural support for sex outside of marriage or for two men to have sex together, and we can talk about it.

There's no support nor is there condemnation. These weren't issues.

Being celibate is not the same as dying. Young Christian people remain celibate all time while waiting on a spouse. Why even Martin Luther was celibate for much of his adult life. And there are many, many testimonies to be found of homosexuals who became Christians and ended up married to a woman and happy. You act like sex is the most important thing on the earth. It is not. Besides, the opportunity to know and enjoy God Himself is greater than any cost it might involve. I honestly get the impression that you do not genuinely know Him in the sense of having a personal, close relationship. Do you?

So if a person is interested in the same sex....

Why do you care about my relationship with God?

[Athos]

the article was written by a man who is a homosexual and would certainly have good reason look for alternative meanings to Scripture?

Therefore, we should dismiss your arguments because you are against homosexuality and would certainly have good reason to have Scripture support your view?

[jlisenbe]

the article was written by a man who is a homosexual and would certainly have good reason look for alternative meanings to Scripture?
Therefore, we should dismiss your arguments because you are against homosexuality and would certainly have good reason to have Scripture support your view?

I think everyone here can understand the difference between using scripture to support a position versus looking for alternate renderings which are not warranted.

Nope. The boy says he is a girl inside. The girl says she's a boy inside.

I actually know some cowgirls. They would be astonished to find out that, according to you, they are a boy on the inside. So would female policemen.

There's no support nor is there condemnation. These weren't issues.

In about ten minutes you can go to any one of several sites and find apps that allow you to switch quickly between translations. I did that. Every translation I looked at rendered the Corinthians passage as either "homosexual" or a meaning which clearly implied that. I don't think I have ever met a person as reluctant/unable to support his/her doctrinal positions with scripture as you are. So again, if you can support sex outside of marriage or sex between two men, then bring it forward. We can talk about it.

So if a person is interested in the same sex

So if a person is interested in his neighbor's wife, or his neighbor's 12 year old daughter, or his neighbor's bank account, or in three women at one time, or in any one of thousands of other interests, does that make it alright? Just having an interest in something doesn't make it a legitimate one.

Why do you care about my relationship with God?

Why are you reluctant to answer?

[Wondergirl]

I think everyone here can understand the difference between using scripture to support a position versus looking for alternate renderings which are not warranted.

In other words, cherry-pick.

[jlisenbe]

In other words, cherry-pick.

No. It's called the use of scripture to support a position. Martin Luther certainly did it with great effectiveness. "The just shall live by faith." Remember?

[Wondergirl]

No. It's called the use of scripture to support a position. Martin Luther certainly did it with great effectiveness. "The just shall live by faith." Remember?

That was different. Today it's cherry-picking and gotcha verses.

[talaniman]

So it's OK for the taxpayer to pay for kids to go to schools which promote all sorts of moral values such as homosexuality is fine, boys can actually be girls and vica versa, premarital sex in fine and here's how to put on a condom, God is a made-up concept, and so forth? And if parents don't want their children taught such things, then they can just suck it up and suffer? Or if poor parents don't want their children trapped in disastrous public schools, then that's just too bad? "The parents of rich kids can send their children to good schools, but you're just out of luck." Is that what you would tell them?

For starters, public schools don't teach any of those things and you are exaggerating and misrepresenting what they teach. I attended PTA meetings for years and worked with to many teachers to let you bad mouth public schools with such crap. Takes a community to start making a school a GOOD school.

Where I live, the county schools routinely far out-perform the city schools and have for years. The city schools have much more money and their teachers are paid more. The last county school I was in was in terrible physical condition, but ended up the 32nd ranked school in the state. How do you explain that if funding is all there is to it? I'm telling you, Tal, you don't know what you are talking about. Washington D.C. is one of the most heavily funded school systems in America, and it's a train wreck. Your solution is basically to tell all those parents, "Forget you. The solution does not fit Tal's political perspective."

The state administers the schools. You got a beef then take it up with your state legislatures. Don't blame your woes on Tal's ideology.

Then they go to a school of their parent's choice that they can get in. It won't be a perfect system, but it would be a million miles better than the system we have now. Worst case scenario would be to put their children back in the gosh-awful public school that you wanted them trapped in to begin with. They would certainly be no worse off.

So why hasn't your state given you what you want? Geez and I'm the one who doesn't know what he is talking about!

[jlisenbe]

That was different. Today it's cherry-picking and gotcha verses.

Only the people who cannot support their positions say that. With the absence of Scripture, you are basically asking us to believe something simply because you say so.

[Athos]

Why are you reluctant to answer?

Why do you answer a question with a question?

This strategy of yours is not unfamiliar. You have no real interest in WG's belief. You simply want to find something to criticize and insult. Defensive fundamentalists are commonly guilty of this. Why not just answer the WG question she asked - Why do you want to know her relationship with God? Are you God's lawyer - self-appointed as checking up on others?

[Wondergirl]

I actually know some cowgirls. They would be astonished to find out that, according to you, they are a boy on the inside. So would female policemen.

Read up on DES.

In about ten minutes you can go to any one of several sites and find apps that allow you to switch quickly between translations. I did that. Every translation I looked at rendered the Corinthians passage as either "homosexual" or a meaning which clearly implied that. I don't think I have ever met a person as reluctant/unable to support his/her doctrinal positions with scripture as you are. So again, if you can support sex outside of marriage or sex between two men, then bring it forward. We can talk about it.

This thread is about Hillary. Start a new thread under the appropriate topic, and I'll wander over and post.