Valedictorian sues over Gospel speech

You should have never agreed to comply with her request.

Nothing in the article tells us she planned to deceive, That is your assumption.

You're at least as weak as the young lady you are attacking.

 

1) A wrong action done on the spur of the moment is still a wrong action.

2) I never claimed otherwise. That is your assumption.

 

There is no evidence in the article that suggests an intent to deceive. Like KenH, that is your assumption.

Are you gifted with the kind of insight that allows you to read people's minds and intentions?

Do you deny that the Holy Spirit could have prompted her to take advantage of her opportunity?

 

Yes, I deny that the Holy Spirit would have caused her to have engaged in a deception of that kind.

 

It would only be "deception" if there was intent.

You have judged her intent.

BTW

You may be right, but is it your place to judge without all the facts?

 

I am not judging intent. I am judging her actions. A wrong action is wrong regardless of intent.

If I say blurt out something stupid and hurt my wife's feelings I have not found that it is much solace to her to tell her that hurting her feelings wasn't my intention. My intention doesn't make my statement that hurt her feelings any less stupid.

 

Yep. I had a friend who was supposed to lead the prayer at his graduation, and the school officials wanted to edit content out of his prayer. He politely declined to do it and they ended up getting one of the most profane students (also an unbeliever) in the senior class to lead the "prayer."

That's because you have integrity. You had it then, and you've displayed it here on BaptistBoard for several years. Although I often don't agree with you (especially on politics), I never doubt the sincerity or force of your convictions.

 

Amen!

I'm right there with you.

Yep. You've said it well.

 

I've sort of done the opposite of a lot of people who buck authority when they are young and become more compliant as they age.

I was compliant when I was young and find myself becoming more willing to challenge the views of authority as I get older.

 

I freely admitted that the other option is that she didn't think enough of her "witness" for Christ to consider doing it when the speeches were prepared and approved.

And what did she think the approval process was about anyway? Unless she is severely lacking intelligence, she would know that deviation from the approved statement is forbidden.

I know how these processes work, and I have examined what she and her attorney claim to have done and intended (in an article that was clearly favorable toward them), so I can certainly analyze what sort of ethical hurdles they would have to cross for their stated intentions to match with the facts of the case.

For that matter, can you demonstrate that I have misread her actions?

The Spirit does not engage in deception.

Another thing that shows me that the Spirit did not inspire her actions is that she is unwilling to face the consequences of her actions instead of hiding behind an attorney.

 

It is only your very human judgement that has decided her action was wrong.

Musing...

Is it possible that you are slightly miffed that she had the courage to mention Jesus while you did not.?

 

But not the courage of his convictions at that particular time.

Had I been faced with that particular decision at that stage in my life, I may have wimped as well.

 

1) Look, carpro, we will just have to agree to disagree. You apparently don't have a problem with what she did if her intentions meet your approval. I think she did wrong regardless of her intentions.

2) No. That was 33 years ago and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then.

 

I disagree. I felt no qualms about changing my prayer. I knew who "Your" referred to in my mind when I said it. A Jew in the crowd would have conceived "Your" as referring to God the Father.

 

One thing I can't figure out in these kinds of discussions is that it is assumed that mentioning Jesus in public takes great courage.

Why is that?

Is it because the lives of most "Christians" do not demonstrate the life of Christ that is allegedly living in us, so that mentioning Jesus in public comes as a great contrast to the person we are normally?

I suggest that, if we live our lives as apprentices of Jesus (that is, intentionally reordering our lives to follow his example and commandments regarding love, denial of selfishness, honesty in all of our dealings, and training the body in righteousness), no one will be surprised or shocked when we mention Jesus in public. In fact, most will likely be willing to hear what we have to say, at least initially. It doesn't take much courage to speak to people who want to listen because they find your life interesting or unusual.

 

That's not true at all.

I refuse to judge what her intentions were.

Regardless whether she felt led to say that at that particular time or she planned it all along, she should never have apologized.

 

The world is hostile to Christians and getting more so all the time.

Where have you been?

 

If we are not praying in the name of Jesus there is no reason to pray. And leading double lives a Christian one and a secular one where God is allowed to be excluded is hypocritical.

 

Amen, Brother! :applause:

 

Actually, Jesus often gets a good hearing among the lost... but not among the religious. Many churches (including "fundamental" ones) have theological, social and institutional structures in place to ensure that nothing changes and that the Spirit is not welcome.

And there is certainly some hostility toward certain types of "Christians" who talk a good talk, but don't live it... but they are not suffering for the gospel.

Certainly there are people who are truly persecuted for the sake of the gospel, but most of them are not in the United States. And this instance of the school wanting to uphold the principle of separation of church and state (which is congruent with the New Testament ideal and has long been championed by Baptists) is not persecution.

In the world, but not of it.