Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
Badgergirl

[*] posted on 23-6-2017 at 14:27
I'd sign the thing if I was underage (and therefore pretty much at the mercy of adults for where I'd study in the first place).
A means to an end so I could get on with studies.

It's not a serious document, it's just a silly rule set by adults who should know better than to make people who *already don't have a legal say in their school choices* and want to interfere in the sex lives of other people.

Hopefully this young lady will go on to understand judgements on her sex life are only made by people who think too much about other people having sex.
And she can use her diploma to make more interesting choices in her adult life.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 31-5-2017 at 10:15
If your assertion is factual, Scholar, and I have no reason to think otherwise, then a breach of contract may be punishable as laid out in said contract. Like many "OMG" stories, there is always way more to it than meets the eye.
scholar

[*] posted on 29-5-2017 at 18:54
I remember one of my professors remarking that, as an academic institution, the seminary was under law, not gospel.

Students were to study and earn their grades and degrees and follow the rules. If a student cheated, or flagrantly broke rules such as would result in expulsion, he would get what his actions earned. He might also repent and be forgiven, but that would not undo the harm he had done himself. Good intentions, and grace, would not give you what you needed to learn and earn.
scholar

[*] posted on 29-5-2017 at 18:48
Miss Runkles signed a pledge that included an agreement to abstain from sexual immorality (which she and the school agree she violated). She gets the diploma she earned, but she is not allowed to receive it in the graduation ceremony, as a disciplinary penalty for violating the agreement.

The school is not saying that the other students are perfect and sinless, or that Miss Runkles is a worse sinner than anyone else at the school (including faculty)--only that she won't be permitted to receive he diploma at the class ceremony, as a consequence of breaking the agreement. That doesn't mean she isn't forgiven, or isn't a Christian headed for heaven. But repentance and forgiveness doesn't free a Christian from consequences and suitable discipline for his action (the Christian who is arrested for stealing doesn't get pardoned from spending time in jail simply because he repented).

If other students broke the agreement and were not found out and disciplined, that has nothing to do with Miss Runkle, any more than I can claim I should not have to pay a speeding ticket because some other drivers on the road who were speeding were not caught and thus do not have to pay.

Having heard the young lady on television, the single point on which she and her family seem to be standing is that the common practice at the school has been for discipline to happen just after the problem, not with so long an interval of delay as the time until graduation. I think the school was unwise in doing so, but I don't think they they were malicious, or acting improperly with respect to exceeding their authority.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 27-5-2017 at 13:32
You lot need to realise that He made us all perfect, He's just not finished with you lot yet! nananana


Seriously, The same Bible that Katzy has quoted, also says "to him who knows the right thing, and does not do it, that is Sin".

What is a Sin in Christianity, may not necessarily be so in Islam. So the definition of Sin must be determined but the tenets of whichever religion you choose to follow. In my religion, Christianity, BTW, there are certain scriptures that forbid certain things. In the circumstances where Christ was reported to say, "Let he who is without......." a woman was before Him accused of adultery. According to Jewish law, adultery is punishable by stoning. Of course, there was one critical omission in this story - Where was the bloke???? In my book, adultery requires two people. In this case, the Pharisees were seeking to entrap Jesus and His response was perfect for the circumstance.
marymary100

[*] posted on 27-5-2017 at 11:51
Quote:
Originally posted by Katzy
Quote:
Originally posted by JackInCTYour reply is much too facile an answer.


It was fine for Mr. Christ. :D

When God made man, she was only joking.




kewl_glasses
Katzy

[*] posted on 26-5-2017 at 19:25
Quote:
Originally posted by JackInCTYour reply is much too facile an answer.


It was fine for Mr. Christ. :D

When God made man, she was only joking.
JackInCT

[*] posted on 26-5-2017 at 15:17
Quote:
Originally posted by Katzy
He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone


Your reply is much too facile an answer.

Let me make an attempt to dissect that ye olde bromide in a de facto seminary style theology class.

The most important aspect is the definition of what is "sin", and who gets to define the criteria for what constitutes one, i. e., is it "allowed" that duly appointed representatives (ordained types) can and should/must do that, OR is it the sole prerogative of whatever divinity(s) that the worshipers believe in, and which can only occur in the "afterlife".

And then there is the question of whether the gravity of sin exists on a continuum, or is a dichotomy set forth in a man made classification system on some sort of a range of just how evil a given behavior is (by the way, "man made" does NOT preclude "divine revelation", but the problem lies in the individual(s) who have received the Word convincing others that that has occurred to them, and them alone in some cases, and everyone else had better follow their lead, or else).

The expression that you choose has always struck me with the reference to being stone, as a de facto approval of stoning someone if only someone actually existed who had never sinned. But I would bet that expression has always been taken out of context, especially the role of "forgiveness/penitence/redemption/et al".

These several paragraphs of mine are an exercise in classic sophistry by the way cause it, hopefully, illustrates how a wide variety of religions came to be all of which have very little in common, theology wise, cause the 'rules' (of one religion or another) were a bit too much re cramping one's lifestyle choices, OR, were much too lenient re keeping what were perceived as the "worst" aspects of human nature under tight, self-imposed control, i. e., not 'caving' in to 'impulsive behavior' AKA "temptation".

I have to answer the door now, I think there are some people from the Spanish Inquisition here to interview me.
Katzy

[*] posted on 26-5-2017 at 08:30
He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone
LSemmens

[*] posted on 26-5-2017 at 06:30
I am one who tends to abide by the "God said it, I believe it, That settles it" viewpoint. Therefore if the Bible tells me to forgive a sinner who has repented, I, therefore, must do so. It is not up to me to judge any person for their choices.

Now; to qualify that. F'rinstance: The tenets of my religion forbid extra-marital sex. Therefore if a couple choose to attend my church and "live in sin" i.e. live together, although unmarried, then, by all means they may continue to attend my church. If they wish to act in a leadership role, then, I would discuss with them my reasons for declining their offer. If they choose to "renounce their sin" then, once they have either, separated, or married (preferable) then they can proceed into a leadership role. It's a matter of being seen to be doing the right thing.
JackInCT

[*] posted on 26-5-2017 at 00:00
Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
.....If 't were me, I'd ascertain that she was not continuing in the "sin" (of which the pregnancy is merely a by-product) and that she has "repented", end of story.


You seem to be holding to the classical/traditional role of a specific religion in one's personal life. Some people have always forsaken such a view, i. e., NOT applicable at least as far as they are concerned.

There was a recent series of articles in the local rag re a major retrenchment by the Roman catholic church in this state re parish closings and mergers (a major retrenchment policy coming from the head of the church in this state). The comments to these articles are filled with folks who wonder why so many of the current church goers are "grey" haired, and the services are poorly attended.

There are still many middle age folks around who attended parochial schools as youth, and commenters wonder why that didn't "work", i. e., whether the current state reflects folks who have "lost their faith", i. e, #2, how could such a thing ever happen among educated catholics (grammar school and high school, and often a catholic university education).
LSemmens

[*] posted on 25-5-2017 at 23:08
I'm with you there, Mary. The only "Sin" that this girl is guilty of is deciding to keep the child. She has my full support. Jesus, himself, said "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." Whether it is the sin of murder or one of uttering an expletive when one hits one's finger it is still a sin. The Bible is very clear on that matter. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God". It is also quite clear that, just because you have sinned it does not mean that you are excluded form heaven because the Bible also says, "If we confess our sins, he will forgive them, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness". No where does it say that we can be the arbiters of who is, or is not, a Christian, that is up to God.

If 't were me, I'd ascertain that she was not continuing in the "sin" (of which the pregnancy is merely a by-product) and that she has "repented", end of story.
JackInCT

[*] posted on 25-5-2017 at 22:52
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
....Unprotected sex ruins the lives of young girls, not the young men they have sex with.


It would be most interesting if she named as the father someone who was also in the graduating class, and whether he would be allowed to graduate????
marymary100

[*] posted on 25-5-2017 at 22:25
It's more the hypocrisy that rankles. She will not be the only teen in that graduating group to have experimented with sex - just the only female stupid enough to not use some sort of contraception. Unprotected sex ruins the lives of young girls, not the young men they have sex with.
JackInCT

[*] posted on 25-5-2017 at 22:01
It has always struck me that the definition of what/who is a christian, as well as who is/is NOT a christian has ALWAYS been loosely, as well as ill defined, at the level of individual believers.

There is no such thing as a universal consensus as to what one has to "believe" in order to be recognized as a christian, to include just who has the authority (on this earth) to render such a judgment.

Included in this is at what point a believer who does not recognize certain tenants is declared a heretic. Schisms have occurred throughout the course of history. How schisms and heresies arise says a great deal about the inherent difficulty of postulating dogma. It is very obvious that the more restrictive a tenet is relative to human narcissism/hedonism, the more difficult it will be to have that tenet accepted/followed.

I fail to see why just because this school has unilaterally decided to classify itself as christian, why it can't make up it own standards however arbitrary they seem to outsiders; and not to mention change them as they go along for no better reason than they decided to do so.

No one is forced to join a religion, never mind practice it. If others in the body don't like your behavior, they can unilaterally decided to expel you. And if they do that, well you always have the right to go form you own religion even if you wind up with zero followers.

This girl's situation is an internal matter, and who knows, it may be the best thing that has ever happened to her if she loses her faith in the process.

Does anyone in this day and age really believe that you can't be a good and caring person if you don't belong to some organized religious group.
marymary100

[*] posted on 25-5-2017 at 19:07
US Christian School



Quote:

Refused to name father
In a statement, the school's head teacher, David R Hobbs, wrote: "Let me clarify some facts.
"Maddi is being disciplined, not because she's pregnant, but because she was immoral... her immorality is the original choice she made that began this situation."
Mr Hobbs denied he and the board were "harsh, cruel, hard-hearted men", adding that on the night of the graduation ceremony, he wanted "God to be glorified in a dignified manner".


I would applaud any teen at the school who would refuse to walk because they too had been "immoral" without falling pregnant.