Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
Christforums

Student Kicked Out of Preschool after Parents Refuse Same-Sex Education Course

Recommended Posts

A 4-year-old student was reportedly kicked out of a preschool in Colorado after her parents questioned books about homosexuality that were read in class.

 

 

 

More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A 4-year-old student was reportedly kicked out of a preschool in Colorado after her parents questioned books about homosexuality that were read in class.

 

 

 

More...

 

If it was for children and their education, that's okay.

 

If it was for the teacher's perverted or disgustingly weird fetishes. No, it is not okay.

 

 

If it was for education, good, if it wasn't, not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If it was for children and their education, that's okay.

 

If it was for the teacher's perverted or disgustingly weird fetishes. No, it is not okay.

 

 

If it was for education, good, if it wasn't, not good.

 

Do you have children? I agree with that article in one way, if it was my child then I agree placing my child into that particular secular community would not be a good mix. If my child was older, then them being salt and light would have some emphasis, but at that age it is a difficult concept even for a four year old. Seems like those incapable of having children want to teach and raise children. Secularism raises its ugly head, "He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future". - Adolf Hitler

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you have children? I agree with that article in one way, if it was my child then I agree placing my child into that particular secular community would not be a good mix. If my child was older, then them being salt and light would have some emphasis, but at that age it is a difficult concept even for a four year old. Seems like those incapable of having children want to teach and raise children. Secularism raises its ugly head, "He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future". - Adolf Hitler

 

You've got me there. No children.

 

But sheltering people doesn't do much in the long run, except maybe make it more devastating when they finally find out. It's better to show someone something, and teach them right from wrong, and show them how to deal with it, than to shelter them, and sugarcoat it.

 

Also, humanity invented secularism.

We invented the idea of black and white, good or bad, but it's just not that simple.

Things can be used for the greater good.

We deemed anything not directly related to God as "secular" but that's ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You've got me there. No children.

 

But sheltering people doesn't do much in the long run, except maybe make it more devastating when they finally find out. It's better to show someone something, and teach them right from wrong, and show them how to deal with it, than to shelter them, and sugarcoat it.

 

Also, humanity invented secularism.

We invented the idea of black and white, good or bad, but it's just not that simple.

Things can be used for the greater good.

We deemed anything not directly related to God as "secular" but that's ridiculous.

 

Four years old, they need to be protected and sheltered from the World. In my household, a child under the age of 18 is under my parental care. Again, that particular community would not be ideally suited to raising Christian children. There are certain things in life I am willing to die for, these include my wife and child. Don't mess with either of them. As Christian parents we are to raise our children up in the precepts of the Lord. That particular community's ideology opposes our right to freedom of religion, and our parental responsibility.

 

I believe those four year old children in the class are the victims of child molestation. At that age there is little difference between educating and exposing one's self or another to pornography. Porn can be conveyed without images through literary or other devices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We invented the idea of black and white, good or bad, but it's just not that simple.
What does that mean, "we invented good or bad"? Are you suggesting that morals are subjective?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does that mean, "we invented good or bad"? Are you suggesting that morals are subjective?

 

 

One good deed may seem good at the time, but it could simply harm a person in the long run.

Giving a poor man money, perhaps, maybe he won't use it for food, instead, he'll go and get high, then he'll go rob a place for more money because he doesn't want withdrawals, so he spends the rest of his life in prison. (Of course, you always want to try and help the poor, maybe give them a bible verse to think about and some money), but that's just one example.

 

Morals, and attempting to be "good" and well behaved is good, straying from sin, listening to God.

But it's not all black and white.

 

 

Also, you know how they say "Two wrongs don't make a right" well, in some cases they can.

 

It's just, looking at something and saying "Well, isn't that good!"

"Well, isn't that terrible!" Is silly, in some ways it's okay.

 

But sometimes, a good act can cause just as much bad, as a "bad" act. We need to look at the bigger picture. Doing "good" things, can sometimes turn you into an enabler. And doing "bad" things, such as refusing to help a poor man, may actually help in the long run, by the poor man figuring out that nobody has helped him, and probably won't, he gets inspired to help himself.

 

Then again, sometimes people need a crutch, they need something to lean on, and sometimes they don't, they just think they do.

 

'Tis not all black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One good deed may seem good at the time, but it could simply harm a person in the long run.

Giving a poor man money, perhaps, maybe he won't use it for food, instead, he'll go and get high, then he'll go rob a place for more money because he doesn't want withdrawals, so he spends the rest of his life in prison. (Of course, you always want to try and help the poor, maybe give them a bible verse to think about and some money), but that's just one example.

Actually you are confused. You are confusing the act of the giver (i.e. a good deed) as the cause of the receiver's poor choice. If anyone followed that example then no one ought to do good deeds for anyone because we can NEVER KNOW how it might end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually you are confused. You are confusing the act of the giver (i.e. a good deed) as the cause of the receiver's poor choice. If anyone followed that example then no one ought to do good deeds for anyone because we can NEVER KNOW how it might end.

 

 

No, but it'd also, by definition, be our fault for enabling them. Even if that isn't what we intended.

But, that wasn't my point, my point was, it's not all black and white, end of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, but it'd also, by definition, be our fault for enabling them.
No, it's not by definition. One cannot be held responsible for another actions. If I do something good for someone else and that person decided to do something evil with it, that is on that person.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's not by definition. One cannot be held responsible for another actions. If I do something good for someone else and that person decided to do something evil with it, that is on that person.

 

 

He's confusing his left hand with his right, and in effect has lost all righteousness when giving alms. Matthew 6:3 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's confusing his left hand with his right, and in effect has lost all righteousness when giving alms. Matthew 6:3 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,".
Suppose when Jesus feed the 5000, that allowed one person not to go hungry. Then that person murdered someone, or stole, or committed adultery. Thus Jesus would be at fault.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suppose when Jesus feed the 5000, that allowed one person not to go hungry. Then that person murdered someone, or stole, or committed adultery. Thus Jesus would be at fault.

 

Is that liberal logic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One good deed may seem good at the time, but it could simply harm a person in the long run.

Giving a poor man money, perhaps, maybe he won't use it for food, instead, he'll go and get high, then he'll go rob a place for more money because he doesn't want withdrawals, so he spends the rest of his life in prison. (Of course, you always want to try and help the poor, maybe give them a bible verse to think about and some money), but that's just one example.

 

Morals, and attempting to be "good" and well behaved is good, straying from sin, listening to God.

But it's not all black and white.

 

 

Also, you know how they say "Two wrongs don't make a right" well, in some cases they can.

 

It's just, looking at something and saying "Well, isn't that good!"

"Well, isn't that terrible!" Is silly, in some ways it's okay.

 

But sometimes, a good act can cause just as much bad, as a "bad" act. We need to look at the bigger picture. Doing "good" things, can sometimes turn you into an enabler. And doing "bad" things, such as refusing to help a poor man, may actually help in the long run, by the poor man figuring out that nobody has helped him, and probably won't, he gets inspired to help himself.

 

Then again, sometimes people need a crutch, they need something to lean on, and sometimes they don't, they just think they do.

 

'Tis not all black and white.

 

But that's not moral. Origen asked you if you think morals are subjective? You showed an example of charity or deed and said they can be good or bad.

 

Giving to poor people is not a moral for Christians. It is something considered good thing to do which can sometimes have bad effects.

Not killing someone (without a reasonable cause like self-defence etc.) is considered moral. It is not debatable whether you did good or bad by killing someone. You did BAD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lesbian teacher: How I convince kids to accept gay ‘marriage’, starting at 4 years old

 

Parents really need take responsibility for children. They should not just drop kids off thinking they are safe. They should at least know the curriculum being taught to them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that the student is better off being kicked out of that class.
Good point.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×