Christians, ACLU join forces in favor of 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'

Doesn't prove your point in the least, mk. Just proves the liberal stand is not what God expects of His people.

You are forgetting that all through the Bible, God uses His people to exact His vengeance on ungodly people. On occasion, He even uses the ungodly to get His point across.

 

Bejamin, where have I recomended that Christian's lie down like a whipped puppy. Not advocating violence as a method for bringing folks to Christ does not mean one shouldn't boldly preach, teach and tell Christ.

Instead of snatching signs out of the hands of teenagers why not give him something better to hold? A gospel track or even a copy of the New Testament. How about directions to your church along with an invite to a youth service? Be creative and let God take care of the "wrath giving".

You'd be better off doing some "sword" practice than pumping iron. Just my opinion.

 

Right back at ya His Blood. That scripture doesn't prove your point either. We weren't talking about a liberal stand, we was talkin' 'bout whether it is appropriate for a Christain to tear down a sign that he/she doesn't believe is God honoring. Try sticking to the topic and not changing topics when things aren't going your way.

 

We certainly are talking about a liberal stand. The liberals are the ones who are arguing for the 'rights' that those boys do not have according to the Word of God.

Show me one Scripture verse that says one has the right to commit sin.

 

Let's try:

Ge 2:16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:Ge 2:17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Did God give Adam a choice to eat or not eat? Was the choice to eat not sin? Therefore God Himself gave Adam the "right" to commit sin.

I'm not denying that there are and were consequences to sin, however, God gives us to right to sin and also provides the consequences for it. He no where gives us the right to provide consequences and sorry, but that don't make me no liberal.

 

If the student was within his rights to pen down his speech and put it on a sign for all to see, the principal was even more in the right by exercising her right to make the statement she made in tearing down that sign.

Her stance was the one right that was rightly exercised. For she knew it was promoting evil and she would not stand for it.

 

God does not give us the right to sin. That is just plumb ridiculous.

If God gave us the right to sin as you so wrongfully claim, Jesus would not have had to die. Whether one sinned or not, according to that line of thinking, one would be accepted of God.

That is the same foolishness that was penned by CS Lewis when he wrote because Edward served Tash faithfully, he was accepted. Pure Idiocy.

I am so sorry you think you have a right to disobey God.

 

Ah, now we are back on topic and here we can agree to disagree. I do not believe that the principal was "in her right" or had the authority to tear down the kid's admittedly uncalled for sign. His parents would have had that right, but not the principal. The kid wasn't at school, no was he at a school sponsered event (here meaning something the school provided funding for or transportaion to).

Now if you want to complain that this kids parents need to have their parenting skills reexamined for allowing the kid to make such a sign, I'll stand right beside you.

In my above post right = freedom and yes God most certainly did give us the freedom to choose His way or the world way and His allowing us that freedom does not mean that Christ shouldn't have had to die to provide salvation. God told Adam what the consequences for disobeying were at the very same time He gave Adam the freedom to choose for himself.

 

The principal was indeed not wrong in tearing up that sign. She exercised her 'freedom of speech' in her actions.

Since the sign the boys were holding promoted that which was evil, theirs was not freedom given by God.

Adam was not free to sin. He was free to choose. If he were free to sin, he would not have suffered the consequences for that sin.

 

Yep, she exercised her "freedom" (just as Adam did) and now faces the consequences.

And is there really any difference in having the freedom to choose as oppose to having the freedom to sin? No where did I say that Adam had the freedom to sin and not face the consequences of his actions and I think you probably already knew that.

 

When one sins, it is not freedom. The Word of God says:

One does not have a freedom to sin, a right to sin, or whatever other word you want to use there.

When one is in sin, one is in bondage, not freedom.

 

So her freedom of speech does not matter when she tears up a repulsive sign, but the boys who were promoting sin does matter?

You have your priorities switched, mk. You should be advocating righteousness rather than sin.

 

God gave Adam the "right" to commit sin??????????????? Better back that train into the depot--it's leaving out without a full load!

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:16-17)

That sounds like a command to me. God commanded Adam--He did not give Adam a choice. He told Adam that he could eat freely from every tree of the garden--except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That was NOT a choice that God gave Adam, but a command--and Adam's disobedience to that command (not choice) resulted in sin entering into the world (Romans 5:12).

Those boys chose to DISOBEY the commandment "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." (Exodus 20:7). In addition, they were asked by the principal of the school to take the sign down--they chose to disobey--the consequences of that disobedience was the ripping up of the sign by the principal.

We do not have the "right" to commit sin and call it "freedom of speech". I believe the principal was correct in ripping up that sign and suspending those boys. Lines need to be drawn somewhere.

 

Where did I advocate violence? FTR, you liberal guys :smilewinkgrin: brought up getting beat up for ripping down a sign, I just responded and am saying don’t stereotype me into an image of a Christian being whipped on like a scared pup; you start kicking this dog and your gonna find out he’s got teeth.

Really, the whole thing is what I would call a “non-happenen issue to begin with” regarding the way I personally handle things. I agree about being creative and I’d have gone up and firmly and rationally talked to him about it while centering on intimidation about his drug use, immature rebellious nature, and ignorance and disrespect of the Lord Jesus Christ using plenty of the word if he was listening. If he was nothing but a smart-aleck, which very few young people are to me, then yes I probably would have calmly took down the sign myself. Any escalations of the situation during or after that would have come back on him and his delinquency. I seriously doubt it would ever have made it to court but would welcome my day to defend my actions if it did.

Thanks, but the iron pumping was exuberating!

 

She was only exercising her freedom of speech while she was talking to the boys. When she reached out and snatched that sign out of their hands, she crossed out of freedom of speech and into possible assualt (there is probably a better term for it). If she was the authority over the boys and that is a big if, in this case, it wouldn't be considered assault but an exercise in enforcement (just as it is not assault for a cop to arrest someone). In any case, the physical action of tearing down a sign is not free speech.

Excuse me? Was not the action of putting the tree in the midst of the garden not God's way of giving Adam a choice? If He (God) hadn't wanted Adam to have the free will to choose He'd have planted something else in that place!

 

Assault falls under physical contact with another person, not just violence but also can include a pat on the back or even brushing against someone and them falling.

The articles says nothing of physical contact with those students, so assault is not even a possibility.

 

Mmmm, I don't In His Blood. Remember I said here was probably a better term. Maybe destruction of property would fit better, but that wouldn't cover the physicality of snatching away the sign. Oh well, I'm sure the lawyers can figure it out.

 

Excuse me? No, God did not put that tree in the garden to give Adam a choice. He COMMANDED Adam not to eat of the tree. God did not give him the choice.

The choice was set forth by the serpent. When the serpent lied and said 'Ye shall not surely die...' Then that caused the choice. Until the lie, there was no choice.

 

Love the Logic

I love the logic of using scripture and Biblical principle to usher in the loss of freedom that we have to worship and speak out about our savior in the great land of ours. Somehow that makes perfect sense, lets use the Bible to bind ourselves so that we do not have the right to FREELY proclaim that sin is sin and right is right and wrong is wrong. Let's not be intellegent about the issue, let's just bow up and take away all freedoms.

I do not support the words that were written or the attitude in which it was done, but as an American citizen, I have to also stand up and fight against the denial of free speech even if it is offensive to me. Why, well I am glad you asked...

1. Because of all the lives that have been shed over our history for the right to live and worship in freedom.

2. While I am Christ-Follower first, I am also an American citizen second and refuse to allow my rights as a Christ-Follower and an American to be trampled.

3. Because every small encroachment on my right of free speech enboldens those that would shout down the truth of God's Word.

 

Choice - Yes

Yes, Adam did have a choice. He had the choice to obey or to disobey. He had the choice to choose righteousness or unrighteousness. He had the choice to allow his wife to suffer alone and to himself be alone again (in his mind) or to join her and both die together.

Adam was created as an unconfirmed creation, he was neutral in relation to sin and righteousness. He had the choice to choose sin or to choose righteousness and God gave him that choice. God already had angels that were forced to worship and praise Him. He created Adam so that he would CHOOSE to worship God and CHOOSE to praise God. That is what real love is and does, it allows choice. Just like God allows men to choose salvation or reject salvation. God did all he could do at the cross, it is now up to man to obey the work of the Holy Spirit and CHOOSE salvation.