Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    20 Oct '16
    Moves
    8851
    05 Mar '19 05:12
    @mghrn55 said
    British Columbia
    Funny that. I suppose that there's more to BC than Vancouver, though.
  2. Joined
    20 Oct '16
    Moves
    8851
    05 Mar '19 05:45
    @mghrn55

    My point, which has been misinterpreted, was that the school must have been rather invasive in order to find out that they were having sex, since that's obviously not public information. Even "living together" is not enough evidence to suggest a sexual relationship. They must have questioned her.

    Part of me says that the school was wrong to quiz her like that, and part of me concedes that she did agree to the terms and conditions of employment.
  3. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    05 Mar '19 06:441 edit
    @ashiitaka said
    @mghrn55

    My point, which has been misinterpreted, was that the school must have been rather invasive in order to find out that they were having sex, since that's obviously not public information. Even "living together" is not enough evidence to suggest a sexual relationship. They must have questioned her.

    Part of me says that the school was wrong to quiz her like that, and part of me concedes that she did agree to the terms and conditions of employment.
    I have not found a news article with details of the case, so it is difficult to say how “invasive” the school’s directors were. Still, I can well imagine that for a Christian school, merely co-habiting with a person of the opposite sex lead to a presumption of “living in sin” and was in breach of their code of acceptable behavior for teachers.

    If someone has a link to the case, please post. It would also help to know whether the school’s directives explicitly require its teachers to abstain from sex if not married, or only require its teachers to behave with “probity” or some such vague and general phrase.
  4. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    05 Mar '19 07:17
    @ashiitaka said

    There is nothing wrong with unmarried sex.
    Not everyone agrees with that, you know.
  5. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    05 Mar '19 07:47
    After a brief dip during the shutdown, Trump's approval is back to 42%. Crimes, incompetence, corruption, sloth, nothing seems to deter the brainwashed masses.
  6. SubscriberKingDavid403
    King David
    Planet Earth.
    Joined
    19 May '05
    Moves
    143269
    05 Mar '19 09:392 edits
    @moonbus said
    Evangelicals typically want a religious agenda to be legislated; they want abortions outlawed, creationism taught as science in the public schools, marriage defined as being between one man and one woman, etc. etc. Those are the principles. As long as they thought Trump was likely to pursue this legislative agenda, Evangelicals supported him. So long as Trump needed their vot ...[text shortened]... ing to suggest he would support that agenda. Wake up and smell the covfefe; Trump is no Evangelical.
    Evangelicals typically want a religious agenda to be legislated; they want abortions outlawed, creationism taught as science in the public schools, marriage defined as being between one man and one woman, etc. etc. Those are the principles. As long as they thought Trump was likely to pursue this legislative agenda,
    Here's the problem; as you say,
    Evangelicals typically want a religious agenda to be legislated; This is not principals; this is politics; and, it goes against the Constitution of the United Sates of America which demands a separation of church and state.
    Not everyone has the same religious beliefs as these people; period. If they want those principles to become church law in their churches, then they have every right to do that in the United Sates. However, as you see and said, they are attempting to force their religious views on every one else in the nation by LAW. And, they are lying, thieving, bullies, about it; as is all right wing politics. You don't go to Satan to defeat Satan! Another reason no religious sect should control our nation with politics.
    The Constitution calls for the separation of church and state; and , most of our founding fathers were Christians and a couple deist's. They knew what they were doing when they put this in the Constitution. Christians needs to follow Christ without FORCING their religious beliefs BY LAW and politics; and bullying it onto others.
    The United States is NOT a church and we are not going back to European Christendom. Not until Jesus comes back anyway.
  7. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    05 Mar '19 10:001 edit
    @kingdavid403 said
    Evangelicals typically want a religious agenda to be legislated; they want abortions outlawed, creationism taught as science in the public schools, marriage defined as being between one man and one woman, etc. etc. Those are the principles. As long as they thought Trump was likely to pursue this legislative agenda,
    Here's the problem; as you say,
    [b]Evangelicals ...[text shortened]... NOT a church and we are not going back to European Christendom. Not until Jesus comes back anyway.
    Hardly a year goes by without some school district in the USA attempting to get Creationism on the public school curriculum as science. That is the Fundamentalists' explicit agenda, they make no secret of it.
  8. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22665
    05 Mar '19 10:07
    @moonbus said
    Hardly a year goes by without some school district in the USA attempting to get Creationism on the public school curriculum as science. That is the Fundamentalists' explicit agenda, they make no secret of it.
    The descendant notions of John Calvin and his puritanical beliefs are alive and well, indeed.
  9. SubscriberKingDavid403
    King David
    Planet Earth.
    Joined
    19 May '05
    Moves
    143269
    05 Mar '19 11:31
    @moonbus said
    Hardly a year goes by without some school district in the USA attempting to get Creationism on the public school curriculum as science. That is the Fundamentalists' explicit agenda, they make no secret of it.
    I know this; what message are you attempting to tell me here?
    Personally in my opinion, school is for academics, not religion. Creationism is religion; as well as evolution in a sense. Neither should be taught in public schools to children; that is the responsibility of the parents and church to teach their own children. Same goes for the evolution believers. Once one reaches college age they can explore other beliefs if they choose as a young adult.
  10. SubscriberKingDavid403
    King David
    Planet Earth.
    Joined
    19 May '05
    Moves
    143269
    05 Mar '19 11:393 edits
    @wolfe63 said
    The descendant notions of John Calvin and his puritanical beliefs are alive and well, indeed.
    John Calvin was nothing but a mass murderer; and all in the name of Christ. He is known to have committed at least fourteen murders; he burned them all at the stake. Some for having different Christian beliefs than him, and he had a thing for burning woman at the stake that were caught in adultery or prostitution. He always used green wood also to make them suffer longer. He was one sick person and so were those that followed him. Guess he never read the Scriptures of Jesus saving the woman who was going to be stoned to death for adultery; or all the prostitutes that came to Jesus and Followed Him.
    Calvin also took up and promoted the teachings of Huldrych Zwingli who murder thousands of anti-baptists; (those that did not believe in baby baptism but baptism at young adulthood. The main way Zwingli murdered these people was by tying them up and pushing them into a lake so they would drown.
  11. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20331
    05 Mar '19 12:08
    @kingdavid403 said
    Everyone pretends that Christians should be incapable of choosing the lesser of two evils and fantasize about this world where collectively the Christian right stays home because they don't have a literal Saint running in the election...
    Give it a rest liar. It is supposed evangelical Christians that have claimed Trump is a Christian before he was even elected; ...[text shortened]... tate, lol.[/b]
    Who,s they? Please show us a link where this has ever been said or suggested; liar.
    Who among the evangelical right -- the tens of millions of them -- was really treating Pres. Trump that way?

    None of the personalities I listen to was ever doing that.

    ...

    alright, so you think that the American left would be totally cool with it if Evangelicals roundly refused to vote for a gay candidate simply because of his gayness...?

    Really?

    You think for one second that Ellen Page wouldn't be crying on Colbert?
  12. SubscriberKingDavid403
    King David
    Planet Earth.
    Joined
    19 May '05
    Moves
    143269
    05 Mar '19 12:251 edit
    @philokalia said
    Who among the evangelical right -- the tens of millions of them -- was really treating Pres. Trump that way?

    None of the personalities I listen to was ever doing that.

    ...

    alright, so you think that the American left would be totally cool with it if Evangelicals roundly refused to vote for a gay candidate simply because of his gayness...?

    Really?

    You think for one second that Ellen Page wouldn't be crying on Colbert?
    Who among the evangelical right -- the tens of millions of them -- was really treating Pres. Trump that way?
    Almost all of them. Start with Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, etc etc etc. You have to have your head in the sand to have not seen this.
    alright, so you think that the American left would be totally cool with it if Evangelicals roundly refused to vote for a gay candidate simply because of his gayness...?
    Really?

    I would not care what the left thought if evangelicals did not vote for a gay person; they have the right to vote for whom ever they wish; and, who ever wins, wins. Either way, you still lied and bared false witness; because, no one has ever claimed or suggested that not voting for a gay person, was not following the constitution and separation of church and state.
  13. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    139050
    05 Mar '19 13:24
    @moonbus said
    I have not found a news article with details of the case, so it is difficult to say how “invasive” the school’s directors were. Still, I can well imagine that for a Christian school, merely co-habiting with a person of the opposite sex lead to a presumption of “living in sin” and was in breach of their code of acceptable behavior for teachers.

    If someone has a link to the ...[text shortened]... arried, or only require its teachers to behave with “probity” or some such vague and general phrase.
    Thanks.
    I didn't think I needed to explain it in detail.
    But you stepped up. 😏
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    05 Mar '19 14:56
    @KingDavid403
    While I done mind your stance, evolution is out of the bag and is not going to be forced back in by evangelicals or anyone else and if it is scientifically viewed to be the way things happen, which BTW, you need to make the distinction between life origins and evolution, they are in fact two separate scientific if not religious discipline's. There is active work and discussion in the scientific community going on about life origin and that work is nowhere close to conclusion so in the meantime, feel free to poo poo all such work and therefore to conflate life origin with evolution. But the scientific definition of evolution is this: It comes from the word EVOLVE. Evolve means CHANGE. And in life terms, forget how life started, Evolution is the study of how life EVOLVED after it got here so the studies go back billions of years (which you may not accept as possible if you are a young Earther) but they haven't figured out a clear path to how life could have started from maybe lighting hitting a mudbank or life starting out in the fumerals of underwater hydrovents of superheated water providing the energy to kickstart life, all of that so far is supposition and so can be validly attacked by the religious set.
    That may not last much longer in the future however. For instance, now we realize life does not have to have happened only here on our planet. There were times when even VENUS had liquid water before it turned into a supergreenhouse nightmare and even Mars had a time lasting maybe a hundred million years where THAT planet had liquid water, but killed dead by the fact they don't have the nice magnetic shield we sport here on Earth which protects us from the ravages of the sun. Going past those inner planets now we see there are oceans under several outer moons and where there is an ocean and a source of energy, there is the possibility for life forming. So the question of life origin is an ongoing scientific discipline that may bear real fruit in the next hundred or so years so in my opinion the time which religion can polk fun of life origin will be limited.
    But in the meantime, have fun dissing all life origins and trying to conflate that discipline with evolution. The cat is out of the bag and nobody can shove it back in!
  15. SubscriberKingDavid403
    King David
    Planet Earth.
    Joined
    19 May '05
    Moves
    143269
    05 Mar '19 15:162 edits
    @sonhouse said
    @KingDavid403
    While I done mind your stance, evolution is out of the bag and is not going to be forced back in by evangelicals or anyone else and if it is scientifically viewed to be the way things happen, which BTW, you need to make the distinction between life origins and evolution, they are in fact two separate scientific if not religious discipline's. There is active wo ...[text shortened]... conflate that discipline with evolution. The cat is out of the bag and nobody can shove it back in!
    Did I say something somewhere against evolution? Evolution is a fact. However, as you even said here, they do not know where life began; or how. Now, why should grade-school kids be taught anything different than that? Evolution is one thing; however, saying that man evolved from apes with no physical proof of that is a false belief according to creationists as I. So why should either theory be taught as fact? Other than that, I have no problems with the scientific teachings of evolution; as it is provable fact that species of everything adapt to their surroundings and evolve.
    BTW, I'm not a young Earther.
Back to Top