Youth Suspended Over SKETCH of Gun

[laura_4787]

its just a picture!

when your young you draw things that come into your imagination clearly he had seen it somewhere and thought it was cool

just like the whole original sin idea

are guns a sin, or using them?

[JustinM]

its just a picture!

when your young you draw things that come into your imagination clearly he had seen it somewhere and thought it was cool

just like the whole original sin idea

are guns a sin, or using them?

Thanks for getting this forum back on track. Perhaps submission to authority should be discussed in the Doctrinal Questions forum and not the US News.

[JustinM]

It looked like the kid was using a little Salvador Dali style in his picture. Because he blended 2 images together to make a picture. A gun and a building. He was just doodling, letting his mind wonder.

It was "artistic" expression and didn't give any indication of violence towards his fellow students or teachers. Poor kid.

Some boys draw rainbows and flowers, other boys draw ninjas and warriors, and some draw trucks and cars and houses and guns. Leave him be. I didn't see a threat of violence towards anyone and I think the whole "zero tolerance" policy was inappropriately applied to this situation. This is a clear abuse of authority by the teacher, who seems to have a problem with guns. I would say she isn't teaching, but abusing her influential position by being a political activist and using her classroom as an anti-gun platform. Perhaps the "Zero Tolerance" policy should be equally applied to her abusive behavior. If we're gonna overreact here, why should the 13 year old student be the only one corrected?

[KeilanS]

Buck, some of those examples have already been explained. When Daniel continued praying despite it being against the law, that was because he was following God's law over the government's law. God's law ALWAYS comes first. Same thing goes for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, they were comanded to violate God's law and so they had to disobey.

The example about Moses on the other hand, made me think. How do we know that Moses was in the right when he killed that egyptian? What was it that put him above the commandment to not murder? (and does it have any relevance that this was before the ten commandments were given).

I would of course resist the anti-christ because he will eventually command something that goes against God's law. Maybe it will be that we all need to join the world religion, or maybe it will be getting a 666 on our foreheads. Those things go against the Bible and at that point we must follow God over the government. But at first before he starts going against scripture? Everyone will support him. I highly doubt that we will all know who the antichrist is at the beginning of his reign. Unless you plan to oppose every politician who shows himself to be a great leader and is very convincing while speaking, you'll likely support him at the beginning as well. Thankfully the Bible has given us warning signs so that we will know him as soon as he starts opposing the church.

As for Jesus saying everything belongs to Caesars... well I'm not sure where you got that from. When he said "Give to caesar what is caesars", he was telling them to pay their taxes. That would basically be Jesus contradicting himself if he was actually saying "Give to God what is God's, and that money is God's but give it to Caesar anyway".

Thankfully, in the government we live in, we are allowed to oppose laws that go against Christianity. That's the beauty of a democracy, it is fully within our legal rights to vote against homosexuality and to protest it (assuming we are not attacking the homosexuals themselves). If we suddenly found ourselves in an oppresive authoritarian government, well we should obey all of God's laws, and if possible, do that within the limits of the government's laws. And if we can't follow God's laws within the government laws, that is when we can break the government laws.

[Axxman]

its just a picture!

when your young you draw things that come into your imagination clearly he had seen it somewhere and thought it was cool

just like the whole original sin idea

are guns a sin, or using them?

Thanks for getting this forum back on track. Perhaps submission to authority should be discussed in the Doctrinal Questions forum and not the US News.

I soooooo badly wanna keep the convo going cuz some interseting points have been made....but my Brother Justin is right! We have TOTALLY hi-jacked the thread and thats not fair. I'll stop the "authority" convo until a better opportunity presents itself.

Thanks Justin.

[buckthesystem]

Buck, some of those examples have already been explained. When Daniel continued praying despite it being against the law, that was because he was following God's law over the government's law. God's law ALWAYS comes first. Same thing goes for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, they were comanded to violate God's law and so they had to disobey.

The example about Moses on the other hand, made me think. How do we know that Moses was in the right when he killed that egyptian? What was it that put him above the commandment to not murder? (and does it have any relevance that this was before the ten commandments were given).

I would of course resist the anti-christ because he will eventually command something that goes against God's law. Maybe it will be that we all need to join the world religion, or maybe it will be getting a 666 on our foreheads. Those things go against the Bible and at that point we must follow God over the government. But at first before he starts going against scripture? Everyone will support him. I highly doubt that we will all know who the antichrist is at the beginning of his reign. Unless you plan to oppose every politician who shows himself to be a great leader and is very convincing while speaking, you'll likely support him at the beginning as well. Thankfully the Bible has given us warning signs so that we will know him as soon as he starts opposing the church.

As for Jesus saying everything belongs to Caesars... well I'm not sure where you got that from. When he said "Give to caesar what is caesars", he was telling them to pay their taxes. That would basically be Jesus contradicting himself if he was actually saying "Give to God what is God's, and that money is God's but give it to Caesar anyway".

Thankfully, in the government we live in, we are allowed to oppose laws that go against Christianity. That's the beauty of a democracy, it is fully within our legal rights to vote against homosexuality and to protest it (assuming we are not attacking the homosexuals themselves). If we suddenly found ourselves in an oppresive authoritarian government, well we should obey all of God's laws, and if possible, do that within the limits of the government's laws. And if we can't follow God's laws within the government laws, that is when we can break the government laws.

Keilan I think probably I didn't explain my views clearly enough. What really worries me if that so many people seem to have the idea that some Biblical passages mean they are to submit to governments. I find that really scary and I hadn't heard of the idea before I came across it on WB. I had read those passages and thought that "it must refer to something else", or maybe it is one of those things that we won't be able to explain for sure until Jesus himself explains it to us and as mere mortals we could never grasp it anyway. I assumed that everybody took that as a given, and it didn't occur to me that anyone would take it to mean "supporting government" and I cringed when Axxman said that he thought God appointed some people to be "in authority" over others and I immediately thought of the dictators of the world and the genocide, destruction, enslavement, theft of property and blood spilt that they have been responsible for and thought "how could anyone think that God would have someone believe that these dictators were "put in place" by Him?

Anyway, I'm sure you knew all that - what my views are anyway. It is your fourth and fifth paragraphs that I feel I have to answer.

I don't think I said, at any time that "Jesus said everything belongs to Caesars.." Maybe my wording was so bad that you read my post that way. If this is the case, I apologise. I did quote "Give to caesar what is caesar's", though, and I said that I thought Jesus was sort of "talking in riddles" (maybe to avoid appearing to be "playing the antagonist") in saying that because he knew and thought the deciples should have known also that everything belongs to God and nothing actually belongs to Caesar. Maybe he was saying "that money actually belongs to God, but give to Caesar anyway to placate him" or sort of like "let the baby have his bottle". I we talk that way, why couldn't Jesus?

Basically what I am saying is that nobody should put government on a pedestal. They are there only because the people allow them to be, and as soon as they "step out of line" the people have the power to get rid of them. Politicians, bureaucrats and civil servants should never elevate themselves above the people. They are nothing special and God will judge them the same way that he judges the rest of us.

But "And if we can't follow God's laws within the government laws, that is when we can break the government laws". Well the thing I'm afraid of is that that might not be so easy or obvious.

[buckthesystem]

its just a picture!

when your young you draw things that come into your imagination clearly he had seen it somewhere and thought it was cool

just like the whole original sin idea

are guns a sin, or using them?

Thanks for getting this forum back on track. Perhaps submission to authority should be discussed in the Doctrinal Questions forum and not the US News.

I soooooo badly wanna keep the convo going cuz some interseting points have been made....but my Brother Justin is right! We have TOTALLY hi-jacked the thread and thats not fair. I'll stop the "authority" convo until a better opportunity presents itself.

Thanks Justin.

Aptly put Axxman. My sentiments exactly. This is so not the place to discuss these points. So, until the opportunity presents itself ..........................

[rtwo]

It looked like the kid was using a little Salvador Dali style in his picture. Because he blended 2 images together to make a picture. A gun and a building. He was just doodling, letting his mind wonder.

It was "artistic" expression and didn't give any indication of violence towards his fellow students or teachers. Poor kid.

Some boys draw rainbows and flowers, other boys draw ninjas and warriors, and some draw trucks and cars and houses and guns. Leave him be. I didn't see a threat of violence towards anyone and I think the whole "zero tolerance" policy was inappropriately applied to this situation. This is a clear abuse of authority by the teacher, who seems to have a problem with guns. I would say she isn't teaching, but abusing her influential position by being a political activist and using her classroom as an anti-gun platform. Perhaps the "Zero Tolerance" policy should be equally applied to her abusive behavior. If we're gonna overreact here, why should the 13 year old student be the only one corrected?

I think the "zero tolerance" policy is itself inappropriate. It's the response of people who would rather punish expression than do their own jobs by watching for actual signs of actual violence. Watch for bullying, and don't worry about who's drawing guns, and watch the dramatic decline in school violence.

Honestly, it isn't as if the teachers at Colombine were wringing their hands saying, "if only we hadn't let them draw those pictures of handguns when they were younger!"