Georgia Christian School expells girl.

[-Metablade-]

quote="Bill Glasheen"]I don't have a lot of confidence with someone quoting the Bible. The Church (of any faith) exists in the context of its time. The Bible - while considered an authoritarian document by many - is clearly anachronistic.
[/quote]

Meta: To you and many, yes, it is. But then if you say that it is open to interpretation then it is not the word of God, isn't it? In fact, it isn't the word of God at all, clearly, but the written word of men. A good story, with some good social values, but not quite the reason to burn in Hell or float to heaven.

All churches have leaders who interpret and re-interpret their doctrine and dogma with respect to the times.

Meta: How convenient! Sort of like an ever-morphing tale!
So if the Bible can "change" with the times, then it would seem that it is not quite immutable, and therefore fallible.

Gasp!

I don't know where you were raised, Meta.

Meta: In a barn, naturally.

But I was taught repeatedly that it was THE ACT and not THE PERSON that was an abomination.

Meta: Someone needs to tell that to a few fundie groups!
BTW: I was once a Baptist Bible Thumper when I was a boy, so I am not just talking out of my pie hole when I speak on the subject.

"....and a woman should obey her man. (Or then again... Oh never mind.)"

Meta: heheh. Spoken like a true married man!
You know the deal!
...As if that would ever work anyway..

And I MOST DEFINITELY do NOT have a problem with any private school punishing children for having sex. Rules are rules. If you want to change the law and the rules, then work on it. But right now children aren't supposed to be having sex. There are very good reasons for that, Meta.

Meta: I never disagreed with you on this point.
I simply said that it "happens" regardless.

1) Someone might get pregnant. Fair is fair... If girls can have sex with girls, then boys should be able to have sex with them. We can't discriminate, you know... And we already have enough problems in this country with children having children. It's one sure way to keep women in a cycle of poverty, and young men at risk for going to prison.

Meta: Agreed.

2) Someone might get an STD. These days, HIV, HPV and herpes are permanent. Two out of the three of those can kill you. And they are epidemic. This is a serious matter, Meta, whether or not you want to make light of it. And it doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.

Meta: That would be strictly true if the person were:
A. In the high risk group
B. Did not use proper protection
C. Had multiple partners

Although as I understand it, sexual activity among teens appears to be in decline. So something appears to be working.

It's well known that boys especially don't fully develop in the judgment centers until their mid twenties. At least women mature earlier in that regard. But the least we can do is to encourage children to wait.

Meta: Agreed.

No, Meta, we can't stop people from doing what isn't right. But that doesn't mean you give up. You wouldn't give up on your own daughter, would you? And you wouldn't expect children to follow rules if there weren't consequences for breaking them, would you?

Meta: Right. and she is well aware of the consequences.
But as we have discussed, we as parents can only provide the support and education (and a little intimidation and nagging never hurts) but in the end, we have to hope that it sinks in.

This has nothing to do with religion. This is a matter of common sense and public health.

Meta: I disagree, I think the issue at hand deals with discrimination and intolerance.

Meta: No, you try to love everyone because you are a good, decent human being Bill, not because the Bible told you.

If I'm not mistaken, YOU are PREACHING to me, Meta. How ironic!

Meta: If I am guilty of expounding basic human truths regardless of the faith, then I suppose I am guilty as charged! You see, I don't need a book or Church to tell me what I know inherently is right.

It's my right as a human to love or hate whomever I want. It is Judeo-Christian teaching that teaches us to love people regardless. And I'm going to do what I do because of what I believe based upon the net of my upbringing.

Meta: I like to think that children are born with only love in their hearts. (and the need to poop) and that hate is a learned trait.

I'm really surprised you would make light of one of the most positive aspects of Judeo-Christian teaching. It's frankly the only thing remaining from my years in various churches. And that's not a bad outcome.

Meta: Compassion for your fellow man isn't a axiom by which Christianity can expressly claim as it's own. It is a universal human trait. What I find profoundly Ironic is that many of my fellow human beings are want to kill one another simply because this truth is extolled in a different wrapper.

[benzocaine]

Meh!

Ah don' need none 'o dem dere high flah-lutin' fainseh, frilleh, puhraivait skools fo mai chilluns!!

Just toss 'em out baick w'thn th' dogs an' other critters an' such, theyall be just faihn!
Hyuk!

Who and what was this directed towards? If it was in reference toMontessori scholl let me know. I really don't know a lot about it, so, if there is something I should know step up and tell me.
------------------------------------------------------
Dialectized (redneck)

Who an' whut was this hyar direcked towards? Eff'n it was in reference toMontesso'i scholl let me know. ah pow'ful doesn't knows a lot about it, so, eff'n thar is sumpin ah sh'd knows step up an' tell me.

[Bill Glasheen]

Truth be told, what's happening here is that people area allowing themselves to be emotionally hijacked by a reporter with an agenda.

Two kids admit to having sex and they are going to a private school. They are booted from the school.



Two girls who are students at a Christian school are seen kissing in public. (pant, pant...) Later it is discovered that they admitted to having (gasp) sex with each other..

Honey, hide the children!!! (Pant, pant, pant....)



It makes for a good read, no? It sells more ads in my publication, no?

You see... I didn't take the bait. Others in this discussion have. I think certain individuals (ahem) want me to take the bait. But why look for a problem when it doesn't exist?

Two kids in a private school broke the rules. The rules were enforced.

End of story.

Now, can we kiss and make up?

- Bill

[-Metablade-]

[quote="benzocaine"]

Who and what was this directed towards? If it was in reference toMontessori scholl let me know. I really don't know a lot about it, so, if there is something I should know step up and tell me.
------------------------------------------------------

Meta: It was directed at no one in particular, was a random idea, and was posted for no other reason rather than I like to make myself laugh.
I'm afraid I'm a bit sick that way.

[-Metablade-]

Now, can we kiss and make up?

Meta: Only if you wear that frilly dress that I like.

[cxt]

We also need to be careful that make clear if were discussing the old or the new testament.

Also we need to beware of getting so bogged down in the details that we overlook the central, more important points.

[-Metablade-]

We also need to be careful that make clear if were discussing the old or the new testament.

Meta: Why does it matter?

Also we need to beware of getting so bogged down in the details that we overlook the central, more important points.

Meta: Which in your view are....?

[cxt]

Meta

Different books from different eras with different messages.

The role the OT or the NT plays in modern Christain worship tends to vary.
Some focus on the NT some the OT, many use a mix.

But to be specific the NT represents a NEW covenent, one largely replaces the OT with a new outlook.

The base message of the NT seems to me to be one of acceptance.
The overiding emp, to me anyway, is that there is nothing that god cannot forgive.

(a theme by the way that sours me towards christianity)

The OT has a very different "flavor" to me. Its themes deal quite a bit with war, violence, vengenece and retribution.

Things that the NT took pains to say was NOT the way to behave.

[Bill Glasheen]

In reference to a discussion about quoted scripture, Meta made these comments about the Bible and literal vs. general interpretation.

Bill: The Church (of any faith) exists in the context of its time. The Bible - while considered an authoritarian document by many - is clearly anachronistic.

Meta: To you and many, yes, it is. But then if you say that it is open to interpretation then it is not the word of God, isn't it? In fact, it isn't the word of God at all, clearly, but the written word of men. A good story, with some good social values, but not quite the reason to burn in Hell or float to heaven.

{snip}

Bill: All churches have leaders who interpret and re-interpret their doctrine and dogma with respect to the times.

Meta: How convenient! Sort of like an ever-morphing tale!
So if the Bible can "change" with the times, then it would seem that it is not quite immutable, and therefore fallible.

You know... I'm not even going to go there, Meta. I'm a scientist, and not a religious scholar. I have no need to "defend" the source of the Bible - Old or New Testament. To me, it is what it is. It's of unknown source, has been translated and retranslated, and exists in a language and a culture that most definitely is anachronistic.

You want to debate the fallibility of scripture? Be my guest. I don't have a dog in that fight. To me, it is what it is.

Regardless of how one wants to view it, it's most definitely a document relevant to many cultures, depending of course on which part of the Bible you're talking about.

I was talking with older son yesterday about the Bismark. He was asking me how this "unsinkable" ship finally sunk with one well-placed torpedo. How could that happen? His only reference frame was a movie he saw years back with a fictitious plot around a real (sinking of the Titanic) event. It fascinated him.

So I unconsciously made a reference to Greek mythology. "They found the Achilles heel." Then I stopped myself... I wanted to make sure my son understood what I was saying.

Achilles was the son of the mortal Peleus and the Nereid Thetis. He was the mightiest of the Greeks who fought in the Trojan War, and was the hero of Homer's Iliad.

Thetis attempted unsuccessfully to make her son immortal. There are two versions of the story. In the earlier version, Thetis anointed the infant with ambrosia and then placed him upon a fire to burn away his mortal portions; she was interrupted by Peleus, whereupon she abandoned both father and son in a rage. Peleus placed the child in the care of the Centaur Chiron, who raised and educated the boy. In the later version, she held the young Achilles by the heel and dipped him in the river Styx; everything the sacred waters touched became invulnerable, but the heel remained dry and therefore unprotected.

And then I talked with him a bit about how this silly old story of this formidable Achilles warrior was relevant to an event centuries later.

That's the point. The "story" is anachronistic, and yet timeless. History does repeat itself, and we humans are all too predictable. We like to think we aren't, but free will to me just means we are unpredictably predictable.

Let's go to other sources. Musashi has often been called the "sword saint" of Japan. Uechi Kanbun was either the choreographer of our kata, or a messenger who added his own spin to things. Their times mean only so much to us. But yet we talk about martial documents (like The Bubishi) and kata (like Sanchin) like they are "the Bible" of our traditions.

But then if you say that it is open to interpretation...

It most certainly is - if I want to make it relevant to my life experiences.

...then it is not the word of God, isn't it? In fact, it isn't the word of God at all, clearly, but the written word of men. A good story, with some good social values, but not quite the reason to burn in Hell or float to heaven.

Who is "God"?

What is "heaven"?

What is "hell"?

Why do we do Sanchin, and what the hell does it mean to me? To you?

But most importantly of all, who is trying to convince whom of what here?

If a document (kata or katas, book, points of view) is/are relevant to you in a context, go for it. If it means so much to your existence that you want to share it with other who feel the same way, well then go for it. If there are others who feel differently, well power to them.

If you think the world would be better if we all felt the same way and came from the identical sets of experiences, well... I disagree.

Heck...I'm still trying to figure out if my "consciousness" is at all relevant to the real world around me. Ponder that one a bit...

- Bill

[-Metablade-]

Meta

Different books from different eras with different messages.

Meta: I've heard that argument before, with the Old Testament being the "Fire and Brimstone" section and the New Testament being the "Peace and love" section, and it does not seem to hold water.(In my view)
Many of the scripture I quoted were from the new testament.
As far as I can tell, there are many such items in equally found in both books.

[-Metablade-]

Let's go to other sources. Musashi has often been called the "sword saint" of Japan. Uechi Kanbun was either the choreographer of our kata, or a messenger who added his own spin to things. Their times mean only so much to us. But yet we talk about martial documents (like The Bubishi) and kata (like Sanchin) like they are "the Bible" of our traditions.

Meta: I would not necessarily call Musashi that, based upon what I think I know of his life, but then again, I wasn't there.
As you are aware, time seems to inflate facts into legends.
I would argue that NO document, or word of any man, can ever be considered a "bible" in this context, but rather more like a diary, with pages at the end for ongoing appending.
This is a feature which generally, religious texts do not have.

What is "heaven"?

What is "hell"?

Why do we do Sanchin, and what the hell does it mean to me? To you?

Meta: Exactly. I and you, and other folks would say that they are nebulous concepts with no fixed form. (And some would negate the concepts altogether) They mean different things to different people of course, but many, many MANY people, see text religious as COLD HARD UNWAVERING STONE, Black and White.

But most importantly of all, who is trying to convince whom of what here?

Meta: Every time I have a dialogue with anyone, I learn something about myself and others, so more than anything, I am engaging in the process of testing my thought processes, how I feel about them, where the feeling originates from, and resolution.

If you think the world would be better if we all felt the same way and came from the identical sets of experiences, well... I disagree.

Meta: The power of this statement is immeasurably profound.
As much as anyone disagrees with another on any given subject, they in truth NEED one another.
Otherwise, how would one know which position they had taken at all?
Much as Good cannot exist without Evil, any position cannot exist without a counter position.

Heck...I'm still trying to figure out if my "consciousness" is at all relevant to the real world around me. Ponder that one a bit...

- Bill

Meta:
Some might say that in fact, the real world around you could not exist at all without your "consciousness", and it is it which requires you, rather than the other way around.

[cxt]

Meta

Yeah, but as the quote goes "even the devil can quote Scripture."

I can point to more quotes that have to do with love, honesty, brotherhood, sacrifice, non-violence, etc.

Point being is that any text that old is going to have alot of stuff in it--some of which was perfectly normal when it was penned--some of it quite radical for the times.

(such as the notion of the meek being the inherators of the earth)

In any case that still is focusing on the trees to the exclusion of the forest--the "forest" in this case is the overwhelmeing theme of the NT.

A theme of peace.

[-Metablade-]

That was a most reasonable and well-put explanation.

[IJ]

Judge Judy, who ought to be the supreme court, would simply call this a contract issue. Did the school spell out the rules, and did the rules say that homosexual behavior would lead to expulsion plus or minus loss of tuition? That's your only real question. Then she would call one or both sides idiots and it would take five minutes. I wonder: if they specified these rules, why must they claim the right not to define their beliefs?

The bigger question is what prejudices are or are not to be permitted. Golf clubs and restaurants who specified they served only men or whites sure had their rules revised by the courts. Religious organizations may claim a higher calling when it comes to discriminating against gays and lesbians, but they also used to claim very sexist ideas and racist ones as well... where do we draw the line? And do we, by permitting religious discrimination but not secular discrimination, favor (dare I say, Establish?) religion? Tough questions that someone smarter than me should solve, OR we could stack the SCOTUS with more conservatives than JP left in among the cardinals in Rome and not have to wonder

Flawed logic here: that church doctrine has anything to do with the Bible. Conservative christians (and here I must generalize) are many fold more panties-boundable by any same sex daliance than some obviously more understandable heterosexual one. This is cultural not biblical. I've never heard more than 1-2 christians who've supported the executive of gays suggest the same for adulterers, leviticus be damned.

Bill: BIG chuckle that you imply it is as bad for two 17 and 364/365ths year olds to have sex as it is for an adult (and you imply one in a position of trust, like a priest or something) to have sex with a child. Tell me you'd be as upset if your nonexistant daughter broke that law as carefully as could be with her same age boyfriend as if she brought home an adult teacher she was sleeping with! If their judgement is impaired until they're mid twenties (note disconnect with driving, enlistment, voting, medical consent laws) why've you sung the praises of ethanol the social lubricant on several occasions? What makes two intoxicated adults safer from an unplanned childhood, the epidemic of teenage heterosexual HIV, or regrets than two sober teens?

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian

Let me turn this one on you. And you're a big boy, so I know you can take it.

You've put up with a lot of crap on these WebPages over the years. As much as we'd like to think that folks love their fellow man, we are never, ever going to get 100% of society feeling warm and fuzzy about same-sex sexual activity or relationships.

That being said... You know very well the insinuations and accusations that go along with being gay. You love boys... You're going to make a pass at (name your homophobe)... Etc., etc. I've seen you bear the brunt of it, and have to explain it all to people who never, ever will respect you.

And you just now brought the simple justice of Judge Judy here.

You too are getting emotionally hijacked here, and in doing so you are feeding the prejudices of people who think you are diseased or defective. You, sir, are implying that it's fine for 2 children to have sex with each other.

I don't give a rat's ass if they both are within 2 hours of being "legal" age, and neither would Judge Judy. We live in a world where it is necessary to make rules, and those rules often constitute boundaries. And if you've ever dealt with adolescents (I don't think you've had the pleasure; I've done it for years...) you will know that they make a profession of testing and trying to redefine those boundaries.

Rules are worthless if you won't enforce them. There are good, public health reasons to have those rules. Whether or not some other idiot in some other category is doing some stupid-assed thing is a red herring. These two children broke a rule that any Christian school (and any decent parent) would find unacceptable. And there should be consequences. And trust me - I've been in enough schools and brought my kids to enough schools to know about what they make you sign and how they make "the rules" obvious for anyone who cares to check out.

And if it was my daughter and she was within an hour of "age", I'd expect the school to enforce the rules. I might not like it. My daughter most definitely wouldn't like it. It might really hurt my daughter's chance of getting in a good school and it might change the course of her life. But letting her slide just might be the most un-loving thing you could do for her. Adolescents need to learn the rules of survival in society.

Remember - in most such situations there is a guilt/innocence phase and a sentencing phase. The latter phase of the process is where "discretion" can be applied.

Obviously Marcus Vick did not. Because he got so many "passes", he went from being a Heisman candidate to probably being on the verge of a jail sentence. What a waste...

We all make mistakes, and we all make bad choices. I make mistakes and bad choices. And life sure can bite you in the butt when you do...

Think before you fire back, Ian. I'm on your side. I know what a good person you are. This is a very simple case. There's no reason to invoke what doesn't need to be invoked.

- Bill