Posted on 05/17/2002 3:36:51 AM PDT by L.N. Smithee
This lady is not as nice, or as Christian, as you think she is. Her actions speak volumes.
I generally agree full heartedly with you, although let me throw out a few doctrinal issues which deepen this topic a bit.
First, we all recognize we sin, at least those who have salvation, have repented, have stumbled and continue to seek forgiveness for our sin. There is considerable doctrine though regarding the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and of Jesus Christ in the believer during the Church Age. In those passages of Scripture touching upon this aspect, we are indeed righteous,...THROUGH Him.
I have some doubts regarding the consequences of only appealing to forgiveness of all vices repeatedly, especially if full rebellious volition has been discernibly observed and identified. Granted, there might be cases where this is appropriate, I also see many Scriptural references to opposing such rebellious volition with very assertive and aggressive commission.
Also the judgment of which I speak, is more akin to a localized judgment. We get traffic tickets and I don't believe all law enfrcement officers are doomed to the lake of fire. Similarily, in administering a covenant between parent and school, I don't see any serious problem in the school discerning along the lines of Scripture when they identify such rebellious volition in their midst.
It's a liberal position to claim that what people "think" defines who they are. Conservatives know it's what they "do" that matters. You have it exactly right, pray4liberty. This woman's actions are all we should be looking at.
It's the same logic for defining some crimes as hate crimes. The liberal position is that the crime is somehow worse based on what the perp thought. In a murder, for example, dead is dead -- no matter what the murderer was thinking at the time.
As far as mom's, "I did it for the kid" b.s., it's a copout. A real mom looks beyond a child's material needs and also considers the child's moral needs. This mom failed that test "big time." She knows it. She's making excuses for her behavior -- which no thinking person should accept.
What is mind-boggling is that intelligent people like TightSqueeze and Nov3 are falling for it.
<< sigh... You've stepped in it again...>> I think I've bought 2 copies of Playboy in my life - one with the Hoffa interview and the other with the Whatsername interview, the one who got raped by the televangelist; hell I can't keep my flakes in order any more... Anyway, I razored the articles out and kept them and threw the paper booty garbage away. (boy does that date me...).
By the way, I don't care how "good it pays", they're sluts as are those males who enter there.
No argument there, really... but from a sociological satandpoint, more than an indictment of the people that go there, those places are a sad commentary on the condition of "Society", which stomps hard on the sex impulse in such a way that it manifests itself in depravities like the so-called "sex industry".
Decent people don't associate with scum or subject their kids to same.
Interesting. My mother was always warning me about the consequences of my behavior among "decent people". I keep wondering who she was talking about. I have yet to find whoever it is, since I (obviously, by her satandards) never qualified, and everyone I know who keeps their front lawn carefully mowed, has a trash pile out back.
Maybe I should go on looking, in the manner of Diogenes... but then, while he could (apparently) define "honest", I still can't define "decent", so I'm not sure what I'd be looking for.
But the Christians are always fond of pointing out how Jesus spent his time with sinners, trying to "Save" them - So, what's the deal? Wasn't he decent, and evertheless associating with scum? (Be careful when making exceptions, here... I have a Rabbi's appetitite for intellectual destruction...).
Of course, you could always hang out with Pee Wee Herman.
I doubt if he likes to talk about guns
I am sure you wouldn’t see any serious problem basing contract law on scripture, and I have no problem when secular and scriptural law converges to the benefit of all citizens. If the church in question excommunicated this woman so be it, they have the freedom of association to do whatever.
The crux of this issue as I see it, is that this school has been granted license to compete in a free secular society for the right to educate children. They accepted the responsibility, and received payment to provide a definable level of service to both this student and the community and have failed to provide that service to either.
The question becomes, when is a church no longer a church, the answer is when it acts like a business.
In the business of education, the student must come first, when that does not happen, it is the obligation of those who granted license to investigate and correct the problem. There were many options open to the school that did not involve the abandonment of the ideals necessary to educate and they choose the easy way out.
We all know of the agreement Silvas made with the school and her inability to live up to it, but what of the commitment the school made with the community to educate their children? I really don’t care how you twist scripture, but if you can justify the way this school treated this child, my prayers go out to you.
We can throw Bible verses around like Frisbees, but that will not change the fact this school failed to promote the tenants it pretends to live by. Christ commanded that we be long suffering with one another, and that we suffer not the little children, my last comment on this thread.
The church is the body of believers in Christ. It no longer functions as a church when it fails to act in accordance with God's will. Christians are able to perform good works within His will and hosting a school dedicated to becoming an institution of education following His will is well within their authority.
The authority to license is only granted ultimately by God. If one seeks to remain secular and only appeal to the State for authority, then likewise only appeal to the state in times of calamity. Why not abide by the same Law as the one who controls eternal authority and omnipotence?
The girl is the only one hurt here. The only one. These Pharisees hurt a little girl, they did nothing to her titty dancing mom. They could have done it in a responsible manner, but no they did it in a manner that had to be explained to the little girl and her friends. Inexusable. These "Christians" had a responsibility to this little girl, THEY FAILED.
Jesus would not have thrown this little girl out.
You've built up a big case in your mind that this girl's entire life is built around this school and that she will be scarred for life and propbably be on a suicide watch over this. Get off it.
The truth is that you got your feeling hurt in church and your pride won't allow you to let go of the bitterness. This is not about the girl, it's about you. You need to let go of the bitteness that is festering inside you.
Whether you realize it or not, you've exaggerated the suffering that you imagine the girl is facing in order to justify the case you've built in your mind agains any church-related authority with which you disagree. You are allowing your emotions to rule instead of subjecting them, hence you cannot see the spiritual aspect of this case, all you see is your hurt all over again. This isn't about the girl; it's about you.
Do you have a problem with authority? With legal contracts? Why are you making excuses for an immoral woman who has been given every chance to change? Jesus did not have the lady sign a legal and binding contract. If she didn't want the church telling her how to live, she should have got her kid educated elsewhere. No one forced her. This school is not the only game in town.
Jesus has said, in the Bible, to say yes when you mean yes and no when you mean no. Anything else is from the Evil One. In other words, practice honor. The injunction is very clear: do what you say you will do and don't try to weasel out of it.
On hindsight, she probably shouldn't have signed that legal agreement with the school if she didn't intend to honor it. There IS such a thing as honoring one's commitments and Christians are held to that standard by our religion. To point the finger at the school and tell us that they are to blame because they have a strict standard is ludicrous.
The mom has the freedom to go elsewhere if she wants to pursue her lifestyle. She also knew what would happen if she didn't honor her commitment, i.e. her kid getting pitched out. She probably thought she could get away with it, she always has run her number on people, and was probably shocked when the Church School did what they said they would do--but not after giving her a chance, which she refused.
Look, a deal's a deal, and if the consequences are bad, tough. Clinton taught us all that anything and everything can be violated, that one can slip out of legal contracts and j'accuse all those who object by labeling them self-righteous, like what you're doing with your name-calling.
The irony here is that you are being judgmental yourself. Maybe this school is being self-righteous and judgmental, but this lady is being dishonorable. Always read the fine print.
She dances naked in front of men. She bends over, she reclines spreads her legs and displays her vulva. She shakes her breasts and her butt in men's faces. She manipulates (willing) men's lusts. In fact, she does everything in her power to be suggestive and seductive to these customers in hopes that the will giver her big tips. They will giver her big tips hoping that they can impress her so that she will have sex with them. If she does lap dances, she simulates sex with them, often to the point of their climax. She does this for money. None of this is spiritually acceptable or healthy.
And you still say that the church school who asked/told her to stop and offered her alternatives is wrong? Remember that this is a woman who, on national tv, was reluctantly accused of exposing herself to a grade school child by bending over in short shorts without panties.
Sometimes parents do dumb things and those dumb things bring consequences on the children. This mother portrayed herself as a disciple: faithful church goesr and Sunday School teacher. She fell short of her obligations and failed to repent. This child is not being punished, she is simply not receiving the priveleges that are available to children of disciples.
Go back and read the Gospels. You'll see many times where Jesus made demands on those who claimed to want to follow Him. Those who could not/would not seek him first were left behind. Some of those people undoubtedly had children.
Yeah Right! I go to a real church, not one populated with a bunch of people who think it is right to hurt a child. Almost everyone agrees they should have the right to remove the mother (me included) but that they should have done it in a responsible manner and not had the victim be the child. No real Christian would do that.
You've built up a big case in your mind that this girl's entire life is built around this school and that she will be scarred for life and propbably be on a suicide watch over this. Get off it.
Having small children I definitely can say this little child's world was turned upside down. Picture this as a 5 year old girl; you all of a sudden can't be around your friends because your mommy is bad or a slut. What young child would not be devastated? These kids know what happened; little pitchers have big ears. I really don't see how anybody who was not in knee jerk fundamentalist denial could not see that. No Christian who thumps his breast and hurts little girls can be all bad. . . . Right?
Face it, these jerks did nothing but hurt an innocent child. I think they are worse than the titty dancer mom. At least the mom says she is not proud of what she does. These jerks hurt a little girl and think they did the right thing.
Their malicious behavior towards a little girl sickens me.
Been there, done that, kids are more resilient than you give them credit for. Are your that weak that they cannot change schools?
Picture this as a 5 year old girl; you all of a sudden can't be around your friends because your mommy is bad or a slut. What young child would not be devastated?
She changes schools. I don't recall anything about what the kid's friends did. I know that I am particular about with whom my kids associate, aren't you? Maybe you don't care if your kids get the idea that having their mother pose naked for men is ok, but I don't.
These kids know what happened; little pitchers have big ears.
See above. To the best of my knowlege, the school didn't take this public and seemed reluctant to discuss it publicly. The mother is the one who likes the exposure.
Would you have been satisfied if they's have let the girl complete her last three weeks? She'd still have to live with all the shame, devistation, harm, etc that you'd said she must have, and she'd still have a stripper for a mom.
Maybe you should go back and actually read about the Pharisees and the Saducees. You throw those terms around like you know what you are talking about, but it is apparent that you are off target. Those guys would have not offered job transition assistance or tuition assistance.
I'd be interested in knowing what your church would do if they had someone turn away from church doctrine and refuse to change despite offers of help. Would they still allow the family all the privelges that they had or would there be exclusions of some type?
Thanks, but I think I am capable of determining for myself what is right or wrong. The simple fact is the mother entered into a private contract in which she pledged to uphold a standard of conduct as part of the agreement to aquire schooling for her daughter. Consult your constitution on laws that impede obligations of contract.
But since the Constitution is no longer in effect, and since the mother is 'paying' for the school using Federal Reserve Notes, BOTH the mother and the school must comply with the statutory (private) law of the corporation "United States" -- meaning, that whatever its administrative courts decide is "civil rights" IS proper a priori, principly because there is no external authority to appeal to.
Don't confuse reality with liberty, and then claim it actually IS liberty and "proper".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.