JustinM Posted October 19, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 144 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,512 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 625 Days Won: 10 Joined: 04/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/07/1979 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Now I have a problem here, because you are a member of the believer's group, but attack the pillars of the Church. You are giving no clear definition of your faith. You are against church's tax free status, but what about all the other organizations that enjoy the same status? You are against displaying the Cross, the symbol of our salvation. You are against us fulfilling our great commission by not allowing us to witness to non-believers in public places. That does not sound like a Christian at all, but someone that is hiding behind the pretense thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anti-hillbilly Posted October 19, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 211 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/02/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 19, 2006 (edited) Now I have a problem here, because you are a member of the believer's group, but attack the pillars of the Church. You are giving no clear definition of your faith. You are against church's tax free status, but what about all the other organizations that enjoy the same status? You are against displaying the Cross, the symbol of our salvation. You are against us fulfilling our great commission by not allowing us to witness to non-believers in public places. That does not sound like a Christian at all, but someone that is hiding behind the pretense thereof. I'm not in favor of tax exempt status for any organization, religious or secular; it's all income for the organization. Some churches "opt out" of the 501c3 exemption. I'm not against displaying the Cross; we can do that within legal guidelines; that's our right and priviledge. We have lots and lots of places to do so. I'm a Christian and an American Citizen. You didn't address the problem I mentioned in our local schools; nor the other things I mentioned. Would you care to do that now instead of attempting to insult me personally or imply that because I'm not "your kind" of Christian that I'm not one at all? [edit] Pardon me, you did "touch" on the problem; sounds like you're looking for a way to justify it. This minister uses his position to gain access to the children during school hours. He asks the kids (the boys) to leave the lunch line and go to lunch with him off campus. Bottom line - it's dangerous and he shouldn't be in there at lunch to begin with; we parents aren't allowed to do this so why is a stranger allowed to? Sometimes bad people use religion to get access to children. I'm not saying this guy is bad, but what if he is and why is he allowed to do this? You can bet if it were a Catholic priest or a Muslim cleric doing this it'd be stopped immediately. AND IT SHOULD BE. I've told my child not to leave that building with anyone, EVER. btw - Implying that one Christian isn't a "true" Christian, or not the "right kind of Christian" because they disagree with another Christian [with political power] goes to the heart of why we have the establishment clause.........not because of a handful of atheists or Muslims or Scientologists etc. I personally feel much more threatened by some other Christians....especially these days. Edited October 19, 2006 by anti-hillbilly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinM Posted October 19, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 144 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,512 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 625 Days Won: 10 Joined: 04/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/07/1979 Share Posted October 19, 2006 I wasn't implying anything. Just interested in the motive behind your secular POV. I also wasn't trying to find an excuse for this minister's actions either. If he is the leader of a local church and hundreds of people know him, then he is no stranger. His reputation and motives have been validated and trusted. He is asking students to leave campus (in my view) so he can avoid a potential ACLU lawsuit. I doubt he has a patty-wagon parked outside so he can round the kids up like cattle, they probably use their own transportation off campus. Also, he is probably meeting them at a legally neutral place (like BK or something) High Schoolers should have a pretty good idea of who they can trust. He is fulfilling his commission, for that I see no problem with it, especially since is is offering an invitation and not "forcing" the students to go meet him. If we can have gay "heritage" month in our schools, we can allow a minister to offer lunch invitations to learn about Christ. He should be applauded not condemned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anti-hillbilly Posted October 19, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 211 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/02/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 19, 2006 (edited) I wasn't implying anything. Just interested in the motive behind your secular POV. I also wasn't trying to find an excuse for this minister's actions either. If he is the leader of a local church and hundreds of people know him, then he is no stranger. His reputation and motives have been validated and trusted. He is asking students to leave campus (in my view) so he can avoid a potential ACLU lawsuit. I doubt he has a patty-wagon parked outside so he can round the kids up like cattle, they probably use their own transportation off campus. Also, he is probably meeting them at a legally neutral place (like BK or something) High Schoolers should have a pretty good idea of who they can trust. He is fulfilling his commission, for that I see no problem with it, especially since is is offering an invitation and not "forcing" the students to go meet him. If we can have gay "heritage" month in our schools, we can allow a minister to offer lunch invitations to learn about Christ. He should be applauded not condemned. I have explained myself. We don't celebrate "gay heritage" month in our schools. He can offer his invitation on his own time; my child's time at school is his time to learn and associate with his friends. He has church, vacation bible school and we used to have a vibrant youth group until the mega-church E-Free's, with their mega bucks, whittled the other youths groups down to a trickle via the public school system. In our case the public school is endorsing one particular church. On their groups web site they even say this: Our goal is to help the youth in South Central (state) establish a personal relationship with Jesus Christ!! If not us, now, then who and when? I can answer that: We the parents; our chosen minister; our chosen church with it's own Sunday School teachers. I have to wonder if 10 years down the road will we find out that these children who have left with him been learning about Christ or has something else been going on? This situation poses a physical danger to the children and it puts that youth minister in a bad situation if a child decides to "lie" as people sometimes do. I suspect if I'd said it was a Scientologist or a Muslim doing this your response would be much, much different. No matter the belief system, this type of situation is inexcusable in my opinion and he is opening himself and the school system up to a potential lawsuit which will cost the taxpayers. If he wants kids to leave with him he should make arrangements with the parents of those children and wait for them to walk to his car........not stalk the hallways and lunchline (that is the wrong way to go about things). It is also interesting to note that only two of the children will leave with him; several of the other children who attend this Free-Evangelical church will not go and my child has said a couple of them have made comments about it being "weird". Edited October 19, 2006 by anti-hillbilly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amdntstr Posted October 19, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 66 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/09/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/05/1967 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Paul was jailed many times because he spoke the Word everywhere, even if it meant him going to jail for it. If he and Christ were willing to lay down their lives and freedoms to preach the Word, then that must mean that I as a Christian will continue to do so. We are to follow the Laws of the land up until the point where it goes against God. Not preaching the Word or witnessing to the lost would be against the Word of God and what we are told to do. I will golorify God every where and NO LAW SHALL STOP ME!!! Even when the literal meaning of the 1st. Amendment is overriden by those who wish to put their own spin on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinM Posted October 19, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 144 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,512 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 625 Days Won: 10 Joined: 04/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/07/1979 Share Posted October 19, 2006 amdntstr: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anti-hillbilly Posted October 19, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 211 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/02/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 19, 2006 (edited) Paul was jailed many times because he spoke the Word everywhere, even if it meant him going to jail for it. If he and Christ were willing to lay down their lives and freedoms to preach the Word, then that must mean that I as a Christian will continue to do so. We are to follow the Laws of the land up until the point where it goes against God. Not preaching the Word or witnessing to the lost would be against the Word of God and what we are told to do. I will golorify God every where and NO LAW SHALL STOP ME!!! Even when the literal meaning of the 1st. Amendment is overriden by those who wish to put their own spin on it. So....hmmm, bringing the original post back into the mix; you are opposed to Islamic teaching in school but it's okay if evangelicals come in and promote their version of the gospel .....even if other non-fundamentalist/evangelical Christians oppose it? Where's the freedom in that? What is democratic about that? Your way or no way? That is not a "free-gift"; that is not freedom of religion; that is religous tryanny! I don't think it's your place or this pastor's place to decide that these school children are "lost" as you put it [if you're referring to these school children]. This country is predominately Christian and the Christian message is widely available, for free, on a daily basis (t.v. radio, print, church etc). Whether it's the Muslims or Evangelicals, going into the schools behind parents back, to prey on vunerable children is just wrong and it undermines parental authority. Edited October 19, 2006 by anti-hillbilly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amdntstr Posted October 20, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 66 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/09/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/05/1967 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I really think that you need to reread my words in this thread. I have repeated them twice and do not feel like doing so again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.59eed8b93aa1c92d8b306f10811981dc.jpg)
Recommended Posts