Jump to content


Member Since 10 Feb 2007
Offline Last Active Private

#293738 Are there any biblical grounds for divorce?

Posted by HappyChristian on 28 March 2012 - 01:53 PM

Sigh...I typed an entire post and lost it because Google Chrome disconnected. I'm not going to type it again.

Who is unsure of the meaning> I showed you what it says in the dictionary, did you read it? You keep saying "God hates divorce" like we don't all know it.

Let's not make this personal, you keep saying the dictionary is right but the fact is, the dictionary is not always right. As well, words such as this can be used in multiple ways, sometimes in a more specific manner, sometimes in a more general manner. The more specific manner has more acceptance throughtout the course of Christianity than does the more general term here.

No, the dictionary isn't always right. But looking at the word in both Hebrew and Greek (since it is used in both testaments), the meaning is clear: it applies to all sexual sins, as well as spiritual idolatry, and must be taken in context of teaching (in other words, if it's marriage being discussed, it's not spiritual idolatry and if it's God's relationship with Israel, etc., it's not sexual sin). Ergo, when Jesus said, "except it be for fornication" He was speaking of sexual sin. In or out of marriage.

Back to Scripture, Jesus made it clear that only if one has a hardened heart will they sue for divorce. If the Christian is submitted to Christ in this matter, they will not sue for divorce. You keep trying to cite scripture, and yet you are leaving out much. "Except it be for fornication" is is in that scripture you are referencing. It's interesting, but what you are implying by your statement is that a spouse must stay married to someone who is fornicating all over the place because, if the victim sues for divorce, the VICTIM has a hardened heart. That is absolutely not what scripture is saying, and you ought to be ashamed for implying it.

There are many good men who believe that there should never be divorce, and if there is, there should never be remarriage. If they want to believe that, that's fine. But to imply (or actually state, as has been done over and over in this thread) that the person who has been cuckolded cannot divorce or they are in sin flies in scripture's face.

When a spouse fornicates, said spouse departs the marriage - whether they "stay" married to their innocent spouse or not. Jesus said, "except it be for fornication," and Paul expanded on it when he, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said that if the unbeliever departs, the brother or sister is NOT UNDER BONDAGE. That means, even though God doesn't want marriages to end in divorce, it is permissable. To condemn someone who has sought God for answers and the ONLY WAY is divorce (whether you think so or not, John - thankfully you've never faced the issue personally) is absolutely unscriptural. Especially when GOD says, "NOT under bondage in such case." I'll take God's Word over man's opinion any day.

#293644 Are there any biblical grounds for divorce?

Posted by HappyChristian on 27 March 2012 - 07:44 PM

Referring to some previous posts about divorce being beneficial or not...

My parents were divorced when I was 3. He was a whoremonger (and ended up having 5 wives total) and he tried to kill my Mom. I realize that some on here would say my mother was a horrible sinner because she left my father, but there isn't anyone on this forum who wouldn't have done the same thing - no matter what your belief on the exception clause is. No-one in their right mind would stay with a spouse who has tried to kill them and is a major threat to their children.

My Dad was divorced as well. He had 3 boys with his first wife. And he was in the Navy - served in Vietnam. And she honored her vows to him while he was in Nam by getting pregnant...and then trying to pass the child off as his so she could get support.

My Mom was saved at a young age, but wasn't taught anything. God was merciful to her in ways that would take a long time to list. And he was merciful to us. How? Yes, we suffered the pain of divorce - that is something that children never get over. But God is gracious. And He sent another man into our lives. My Dad.

My Dad wasn't perfect - he was raised in a pentecostal pastor's home, so he had some mixed up teachings. But God was gracious and brought him to Himself. And my parents did the best they could with us.

My Dad died a month ago. He went to be with Jesus. And I'll tell you this much: his death has left a bigger void in my life than the divorce did so many years ago.

To say that there is always another choice is plain ignorance. There is not always another choice. And when divorce happens, those involved are hurting and need compassion not a spanking. Granted, there is sin in divorce. But many times there is an innocent victim as well.

I'm thinking of several women I know who tried with everything they had (including prayer and fasting) to keep their marriages together. But the spouses weren't interested. And these same people had no protection if they remained married to their spouses. Yes, God is protection, but we need to be realistic and admit that there are evil people who will not respond to God or His wooing. Such was the case of my biological father. He promised to return and kill my mother. Her protection? LEAVING. Leaving him, leaving the home there, leaving the state, and leaving the marriage. And God blessed and protected her doing that. You can doubt that all you want, but I lived through it, so I know wherewith I speak.

To make blanket statements that there is always an option is inaccurate. Else God wouldn't have said to allow the unbelieving spouse to depart (and depart my biological father did when he decided to pursue strange women and beat my mother; depart my dad's first wife did when she decided she was going to sleep with at least one other man and bear his child [she married him right away]).

I don't accept that the exception clause was only for the betrothal period. Putting away was a major shame in those days - an ending of the marriage. We can fine line it all we want and say the marriage wasn't consummated, so it wasn't a real marriage, she wasn't his complete wife, etc. But Joseph didn't want to shame Mary, so he was going to put her away privily. Divorce is divorce - whether or not the marriage is consummated. And God said "except it be for fornication," and then later said "let him depart." There are more ways than one to depart a marriage.

#292413 Why do we use wimpy, enemy friendly terms?

Posted by HappyChristian on 20 March 2012 - 12:33 AM

Wow, that's the way it goes in Christian circles, everyone gets, not everyone, just some, bent out of shape when someone disagree with them or they disagree with someone. If you disagree with me, great, just ell me you disagree, & why. I don't know who you are referencing here, but if you are referencing my post, I most certainly am not bent out of shape. If you feel someone is disagreeing with you and not saying so, perhaps you should say so yourself...

But as for me, I refuse to copy from, copy after, nightclubs, bars, & drinking establishments of this world. And if I ever find that I have, I will quickly as I can change, getting rid of what I copied after them. And if someone informs me I am copying after nightclubs, bars, & drinking establishments & such, I will thank them for pointing it out. No-one asked you to copy after anything from bars, etc. And it's great that you will change if someone points out something to you. That is a good thing, no doubt about it. But you are not the Holy Spirit, and just because you tell someone they ought not do something because you don't agree with what they are doing doesn't mean they have to stop...

That stated I hold to what I've stated about Ladies Night out. Why. I do not want anything at church to remind any worldly person of nightclubs, bars, & drinking establishments of this world were sin prevails. And that is very commendable. I doubt there would be anyone here who would want that. But, there again, there are things that people do think of as worldly in churches. Some people think it's a sin to have a piano or an organ - because those are used in nightclubs and bars. Do we get rid of those?

Oh, I learned about "Ladies Night Out," from advertising in newspapers, not from going to nightclubs, bars, & drinking establishments. And when the local 1st Baptist Church started having their "Ladies Night Out," the 1st thing that hit my mind was, nightclubs, bars, & drinking establishments that uses that phrase as a way to get more women into their establishments on slow week nights, in order to get more men into their establishments , so they can sell more liquor, & more sin can take place in their establishments . And yes, from what I hear, if the , nightclubs, bars, & drinking establishments can get the women in their business, many men will follow right behind them. Ladies Night at bars is definitely a way to drum up business - no-one would argue that. And it's too bad that when the church you referenced began having theirs that was your first thought. I'm sure the church didn't intend for that to be the case.

Ro 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

As for me there is no doubt in my mind that copying off the nightclubs, bars, drinking establishments, of this world, ladies night out, is wrong, If someone is copying nightclubs, yes. But you are wrong to assume that is what is going on. Because you cannot read the hearts, and you have just jumped to conclusion that the churches who use that term are doing it for worldly purposes. That is not righteous judgment.

Someone mentioned, I don't remember who did, born again being from the Catholics, a term we picked up from the Roman Catholic Church {RCC} its not, it is a Bible term, & even a KJ Bible term, in fact Catholics do not believe one must be born again, that's according to many of them that I talked to. No, actually, no-one said we picked up the term born again from the catholics. What I said was that the RCC had co-opted the term. In other words, they use it now. Yes, it is a Bible term and that was the whole point (John, I nowhere indicated we shouldn't use the term. Obviously my post was not comprehended by everyone). THEY took a Bible term and added it to their terminology. Using the logic that has been shown in some of the posts in this thread, we should then quit using it because it has a different meaning now.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

So its true, the ones not born again, will never enter heaven, just as Jesus taught us, & its aslo true its not a RCC term, it is a solid Bible term.. Please read posts more carefully. I said it was a Bible term. One that they adopted (whether any that you talk to use it or not, they do use it and teach it).

Again, as Christians, we are to judge righteous judgment. That is something that isn't real common amongst Christians anymore, because we are too busy being little holy spirits. Instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to work in people's lives, we decide how they must live and proclaim them as sinners if they don't do it our way, which of course is always the Bible way. Not.

Yep, we need to be careful of the things we say.

#292369 Why do we use wimpy, enemy friendly terms?

Posted by HappyChristian on 19 March 2012 - 01:35 PM

Jerry, before you judge the churches...honestly, I had some "Ladies' Nights Out" last year and to be perfectly honest with you...being not raised "in the world" I had no clue that was what they called it at bars. *shrug* We just went out to eat, and we were a group of ladies, so to me, that's "Ladies' Night Out" without the kids. So I had absolutely no clue that it would be a bad thing to call it that...so before you judge what churches call things, you should remember only God sees the heart and knows the motives. :-)

As for "adult entertainment" I don't think I've ever even called it that because I have no reason to discuss it. Anyway I'm too lazy to say "adult entertainment"...its easier to say "Porn". :-)

I do say "Good luck" occasionally but God knows my heart that I just mean "Hope everything goes well for you" and it does NOT mean that I'm neglecting or omitting God.

I'm not defending myself but rather just saying, lets be careful how quick we are to be harsh and judge just a few words people might say...people these days might have not even been taught what things mean. A good example is that a VERY VERY common thing people say nowadays is, instead of "That stinks" they say "That S****". Even Christians say it now. However the meaning has changed to not be obscene (supposedly) but we still teach our kids its wrong, and our oldest knows what it means (loosely) and has been taught not to say it...but yet he can't figure out why Christians are saying it. We just tell him, "Well, I guess maybe they don't know how bad it is. But YOU do know. So you won't say it."

Instead of judging people and being upset, maybe we could educate people instead. We are raising a generation that, frankly, probably doesn't know any better than to say curse words or say "gay" or say "Ladies Night Out" (like I said, I had not an inkling that it was remotely bad)...... and be happy for the good that's being done. If a Christian is against "gays" then be happy they are not pro-homosexual. If a Christian is attending "Ladies Night Out" be happy they're active in their local church.

Know what I mean? I'm not saying compromise...but I am saying lets not be so quick to assume people are compromising just by what they say.

I've never heard of bars referring to "Ladies Night Out" but have heard and seen signs (as I've driven by...don't anyone go hyper and think I'm stopping in to these places!) that call it "Ladies Night" (and that is true in every area of the country where I've lived). If it bothered you, you could re-name it to Mother's Night Out - but then you run into the problem of it being discriminatory to those who aren't mothers. "Ladies Night Out" describes what you are doing. The ladies are going out - and it is highly doubtful that people who hear that term would jump to the conclusion that you all are drinking and dancing.

Yes, the world has co-opted many things. Kinda like the RCC has co-opted some terminology we use (like born again...). Does that mean we stop using the terms? No. We do need to use discernment as we speak, because the Bible ways we are to minister grace to the hearers of our words. But if we were to stop using all the terminology that the world co-opts, we'd be out of terms pretty quickly.

It would be impossible, if sin had not entered this world, but sin entering this world caused all types of problems for mankind, including mental illnesses.

Absolutely, Jerry!

The term "mad" is a euphemism, now, for crazy (or maybe it's the other way around) - also known as mental illness. As used in scripture, it also meant the same thing: a deranged mind. Sin has resulted in many things, and one of those is minds that are not whole. While much of so-called mental illness is the direct result of sin in the person's life, it is also a fact that there are problems due to chemical imbalance in the brain. That is a general result of sin being in the world. And it does happen. I do believe completely that it is easy to plop a diagnosis on a person when what is needed is character adjustment. But there are times when there are genuine problems. And the problems are often exacerbated when Christians tell other Christians that they don't need this or that medicine, that their problem is a result of personal sin and lack of faith in God to take care of it.

It so easy for us to sit in judgment of someone else. The Bible tells us to be careful of that. We are to "judge RIGHTEOUS judgment." Unfortunately, that doesn't usually happen. We usually pounce on people, proclaiming that because they do or say something WE deem wrong they are in sin. The Bible is our guide, but too often we add to that guide. I believe Jesus called it traditions of men...

#291855 Christian Dating Sites

Posted by HappyChristian on 13 March 2012 - 09:41 PM

Okay, gentlemen...let's get back on topic. That topic is Christian dating sites online...other topics may be taken elsewhere. Feel free to hijack any threads you start, but do not do that to others. Thank you.

#290147 Looking Down On Others

Posted by HappyChristian on 24 February 2012 - 03:06 PM

If you place them-in public school you are violating the above verse, for you setting your children in the den of old Satan, & your setting them up to be won over by the world. That is something that fathers have to decide for their own families.

Yes, whether or not to follow God's Word of the world. I cannot understand how the Lord would give a burden for me to do something sinful and for another not to do the very same thing. Doesn't make any sense to me. Anyone?

So, are you saying that any burden God gives to anyone automatically makes that a sin for everyone else? Where is that in scripture? And why are you allowed to have the Lord speak to you about something, but don't allow someone else that same courtesy without bludgeoning them about it?

An example I could give is the television. We do not have one. Because my husband was convicted of owning one before we ever met. It burdened him to see his family spend so much time away from each other in front of the tube. And so he promised God he would never have one in his home. And we never have. So, by your logic, any man on here who has one (I know not all do, but many do) in his home is in sin because my husband was burdened about it for his own family. Sorry, but that just isn't the way it works (and I'm not just talking about watching the tv...I'm talking about OWNING one - so, following that, anyone who owns one must get rid of it...see how illogical that is? And here's a good verse for it: I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes...)

Yes, fathers are to make decisions on whether or not to follow God's Word or the world. Each individual father, in each individual home. Some fathers make decisions for one thing, some for another (such as tv, in my above example). The case could be made for homeschooling against any other kind of schooling, and scripture could be used effectively. The case could also be made for Christian schooling against any other kind of schooling (including homeschool), and scripture could be used effectively (I've heard it preached, so I know it's done). The case could be made for public schooling as well, using scripture. I know it would be a stretch, but it's there. Like witnessing. Yes, I know of people who send their kids to public school to be a witness to the lost there. And those kids are pretty strong Christians. Do I agree with that? No way - but they aren't my kids.

This is the point I've been trying to make. It is absolute scripture that each man is to be the head of his home. Yes, under God. That shouldn't even have to be said on a Christian forum. Yes, in line with scripture - again redundant. But no man will do anything just like any other man - else we would just be robots (where scripture is completely clear, we are all to follow in exact formation else there is confusion). If a man, after prayer and scripture searching, cannot honestly say that God is showing him to homeschool or place his kids in a Christian school, then he ought not do so. The burden for training his children in the ways of the Lord then triple or quadruple as he must gear them for the battles they will face every day (just as Rick said in his last paragraph). But, to be quite honest, raising one's children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord is a whole lot harder than just not putting them in the public school. There are casualties in any education scenario we could come up with.

Rick, I hear you about the debauchery of the public schools. It has gotten much worse since I was in school, 20 years earlier than you. Sad to say, many Christian schools are going the same route - and started when I was still in school...I know because I attended more than one like that. Homeschooling isn't always the answer, either. The answer lies completely in the hands of the father of each home, and if and how he trains his children while they are in his home. It can be done, whatever educational course the family takes. But it takes lots of prayer, work, and consistency.

#290039 Looking Down On Others

Posted by HappyChristian on 23 February 2012 - 11:41 AM

"And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem." 1 Cor. 16:3
Liberality means " The quality or state of being liberal or generous."

Isaiah 32:5-8 "The vile person shall no more be called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful...The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right. BUT the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand." No, liberal in the Bible does not mean unbelief. Let's be careful of applying meanings of today to scripture...

There are other verses in the Bible which use the term liberal - and all in a way that shows the word is a GOOD thing. In point of fact, the term liberal USED to mean a good thing here in America. Classical liberalism promotes limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, liberty of individuals...all the things so-called conservatives are for. The reason it's called classical is to differentiate it from social liberalism, which is what people mean when they use the term liberal nowadays.

By the same token, the term conservative means to preserve. Conservatives want to maintain the traditional way of looking at things. That isn't always good, because in America today, the traditional way of looking at things is not always what our founders had in mind...

We do judge based on scripture - at least we are supposed to. But all too often we judge on pet ideas that we stick a scripture onto...

#290011 Looking Down On Others

Posted by HappyChristian on 22 February 2012 - 09:23 PM

There is a tendancy to get personal when one gets passionate about a stand, not much grace given in these circumstances by some.


Being passionate about a stand is a good thing, especially when the stand is scriptural - rightly divided. Too often we come to a point in our lives where we've made decisions, believing them to be scriptural based on principles, but then that grace mentioned is absent toward others who haven't seen things the way we do. The unfortunate tendency is to then pummel the person we think is not doing things the way we believe scripture would have everyone in the world do them.

Certain things in scripture are clear beyond doubt. Other things are not so clear cut. Principles are there to help us, and the Holy Spirit, as our Teacher, will guide us. One principle in scripture does not nullify another principle, but too often we try to create a scenario where that is the case. And we aren't kind about it. And then, too often, when we are called on it, we go on the attack.

We forget verses like "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." We are all human, and sometimes tend to forget that we can all fall...

"Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." There's that word grace - unmerited favor. Salt preserves - and Jesus told us that we are to be salt as well as light. Yes, salt can burn, but if our speech is with grace, the salt we use with our fellow Christians will preserve, not burn (for no purpose...salt in a wound does not heal, it just burns). I find it interesting that God says seasoned with salt, and NOT pepper...

All too often, we use the excuse that Jesus pulled no punches with His words. And He didn't. But when He was harsh with his words, it was with the Pharisees and Saducees. Not the common folk. He was patient with them.

We can disagree with each other, and that's fine. But the WAY in which we do it needs to be scriptural just as much as the scripture we quote needs to be in context.

#289987 Looking Down On Others

Posted by HappyChristian on 22 February 2012 - 05:17 PM

No, what gets topics locked is insufferable attitudes from people. When anyone - whether they are more liberal or more conservative - begins taking conversation beyond the pale, the thread will be locked.

When David danced before the Lord, I would guess he was showing "liberal tendencies"...and his wife Michal looked on him and despised him in her heart. God didn't judge David, though. He punished Michal by causing her to be childless - because of her contempt toward her husband. All too often, threads become mired down in who is the more spiritual and who isn't spiritual based on one person's (or two or three) opinions on what they think everyone in the world should be doing. That, as I mentioned in the thread I locked which inspired this thread, is a form of pride. I realize that none of us like to be shown that we are being prideful, but it is what it is.

Christianity today has come so far from what Christ intended - we (and I say that generically) focus on the letter and not the spirit, just like the pharisees. And compassion is driven out...all in the name of "love."

When we, as adult Christians, cannot have a conversation without proclaiming that one or the other is in some sort of sin because of their actions (with NO scripture to back it up, other than verses pulled out just to support that pet thought), we are indeed guilty of looking down on whomever the target is - and that is the very same contempt Michal had for David.

#289887 How many hours a week do you devote to reading and studying Gods word?

Posted by HappyChristian on 21 February 2012 - 12:10 PM

I don't know exactly how much time - it varies from day to day. But I think it'd be safe to say, it's never enough!

#289883 School “lunch inspector” replaces child’s healthy lunch with “nuggets,” bills...

Posted by HappyChristian on 21 February 2012 - 12:00 PM

Kob - not everyone is in agreement with statements that have been made, so the adjective "some" should be in front of "...people here are..."

This is a subject that has been beaten to death and always comes up with the same results - a few adamantly stating that they know what is best for each and every family. And that is not so. Scriptural principles mandate that the parents of each family (with the father at the head) are responsible for the education of their family.

I would hasten to say that I do not like the public school system, and would encourage anyone to educate their children in a different manner if at all possible. However, for various reasons, that is not always possible. To demean people who have their children in public school by stating that they are abusing their children is absolutely non-scriptural - and it is a judgmental statement that is rooted in pride...pride that is reminiscent of the pharisee who praised himself while the publican smote his breast and asked for mercy.

Christian schools are not always the answer. I know people who have turned away from any interest in church/God due to experiences they had at "great" Christian schools. I know girls who lost their virginity on the grounds of "good" Christian schools. And I know others who smoked while at school. I've known boys who were abused by their peers at "strong" Christian schools and their abusers were (and are) defended because it's "only homosexuals" who complain about being bullied. The doctrine taught in the schools is spot on. But many of the students have big problems, and the staff are blind to the worse ones.

Does that mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater? No. We accept the Biblical principles that 1. Men are to lead their own homes. 2. We have liberty in Christ...to make choices that others might not like. No, we are not to go against direct scriptural commands, nor biblical principles. But neither are we to ignore one principle to strangle someone with another.

The plain fact of the matter is that the spiritual life of children is the responsibility of the parents. And it is in the home that the relationship with the Lord is to be nurtured. Not in a public school, not in a private school. Many would say therefore that it's only right to homeschool. But that isn't true, either. The plain fact of the matter is the decision is up to the father, as he looks to the Lord for guidance. (and I will tell you I'm thinking right now of two little girls who cannot go to a Christian school because of a court decision [right, wrong, or otherwise, that's the case], and they love the Lord, they love to tell their fellow students about the Lord - and kids who otherwise would never come to church come to church with them. That's more than I can say about some of their peers who attend Christian school)

To mandate that someone needs to move in order to go to a private school is most definitely overstepping the line of Christians helping Christians. It moves into the area of meddling and control. And that's just not right.

This thread began with discussion about free lunch...it degenerated into attacks on persons for decisions that are their personal business. Of course, those who are so concerned that Christian parents who have their kids in public school for reasons that are none of our business, could offer to pay for their education...but I don't foresee that happening. And so, I'm closing this thread. Let's be a little more charitable with each other, okay? No man on this board has the answer to the families represented by the other men on this board. And shame on those who postulate that they do. (and, no, I'm not talking about discussing scripture like adults...I'm talking about mandating that ONLY certain things are right when scripture is silent)

Kudos to those who can pay for Christian education or homeschool. Instead of trying to make someone who doesn't feel they can or should do either feel like a rotten Christian, how about praying for them...like the Bible tells us we are supposed to do for each other.


#289433 School “lunch inspector” replaces child’s healthy lunch with “nuggets,” bills...

Posted by HappyChristian on 16 February 2012 - 11:57 AM

Kind, the problems you mentioned did not exist (or at least very minuscule) in 1946 (okay, so maybe I wasn't around at the very beginning, but I've seen it really go awry! :icon_smile: ) when the free lunch program was begun. Bleeding heart you are, and I agree that I feel for the kids. But, you see, it should not be a federal issue. It is not in the purview of federal responsibility to legislate anything about education, let alone food. However, if a state or local municipality wish to provide lunches on the taxpayer's dime, and the taxpayers have no problem with it, go for it.

What you described is exactly what was forecast...and it is the inevitable result of the mindset that the government is to be the caretaker, because that is what is being fostered, and has been since 1946, whether "bleeding hearts" can see it or not.

And I would totally disagree with you that it is up to a school official to decide if a child's lunch brought from home was healthy enough for that child. It isn't their business. I've taught school, so I do know that what a child eats influences his/her behavior. But it isn't up to the school to mandate foods sent from home. Most children who bring only junk to school pack their own lunch once in a while and try to get away with just junk (the kids who use the free lunch program don't need to pack lunches, and usually don't). But that isn't the norm. Kids who need the free lunch program usually don't have twinkies at home...

I agree that we need to work with the child, but I totally disagree that the parents need to be written off. We have seen many parents come through our church who started out as addicts who neglected their kids. I'm thinking of one family right now. Both parents were addicted to crack and other drugs and were on the verge of losing their kids permanently. That sounded an alarm in their drug-fogged minds. Their kids were already riding our buses to church, and the workers were working with the parents (our bus workers have seen it all, let me tell you). Anyway, long story short, the parents started coming to our Reformer's program. Got saved. Got clean. And have stayed clean (although I would warrant that it's been hard for them at times). And are consistent in their church attendance. Three of their kids help us in our nursing home. And they are a tremendous blessing.

I realize that isn't the story of every single child, and I feel for them. I truly do, even if I sound heartless. But federal funding of feeding children is not right. It isn't constitutional - and folks who say they don't care if it is or not because children are being helped don't understand that in the long run, they are being hurt. Because they are de facto learning that the law of the land doesn't matter if it "helps" someone to override it. However, if states would take back their sovereignty, then states and local government could decide to continue something like that, with the taxpayer's blessing.

And I SO agree that many, many children are hurting and wounded...but public schools don't really give them what they need...(I guarantee you wouldn't see those children treated harshly in our church. Our bus ministry brings many, many underprivileged children to church every Sunday - giving them a meal in the mornings, and most Sundays a meal in the afternoon, and often bus workers taking them to lunch on Saturdays or other days during the week...and helping in other ways as well. We love our "bus" kids).

#289426 School “lunch inspector” replaces child’s healthy lunch with “nuggets,” bills...

Posted by HappyChristian on 16 February 2012 - 10:56 AM

I agree that this should have been a local issue. The mother should have gone to the principal, and the principal should have reined in the "inspector."

I do not agree with school lunches being provided at taxpayer expense. I'm old enough to have seen it's beginning and the warnings that were sounded that parents would begin to rely on the free lunches and neglect their kids...and that soon breakfast would be served. And it has indeed come to that. That is wrong. Initiative is taken away when things are provided "free."

However, if government funds are used for feedings, then, yes, some type of regulation and oversight needs to be done. However, when a parent sends lunch with a child, no person, NO PERSON, has the right to even check the lunch, let alone make any decisions as to the nutritive value of said lunch. That is one thing that many schools, public and private, seem to forget: the parents are the authority and just being in a school does not negate that, nor does it give the right of school personnel to countermand something the parents have done or said.

I have always been in favor of homeschooling. And the more things I see and hear about kids in schools, the more I favor it. That's not to say that all schools are bad - I don't believe that. But I do think that parents will have more success in training their kids in the way they should go if they oversee their education.

#289344 My Valentine

Posted by HappyChristian on 15 February 2012 - 01:09 PM

amblivion, I hope your FIL is recovering well from the surgery. And the first smile is a dandy valentine!

John, you're right...sorry about that. (and I do think first, second, third, etc...would be too confusing)

I don't think it's practical to try to change the names of the days of the week. Even the French names come from the same source. Tuesday in French is le mardi, which comes from dies Martis, which is Day of Mars. Tiw or Tyr was the Norse equivalent of Mars...
le dimanche simply means Sunday "Sun's day" - and it is named for the Sun god. Not the Lord.

Germanic, Latin, etc. - the names all come from pagan gods - the gods have slightly different names in different cultures, but they
have the same roots/meanings.

I have heard of homeschool groups who have created their own calendars and teach their kids different names for the days and the months...but to me (and I homeschooled and believe in separation) that simply creates people who can't always function in society.

My hubby made dinner last night. We had lasagna by candlelight. And then we just relaxed for the evening. It was wonderful. Like my hubby. :icon_smile:

#288976 WW III?

Posted by HappyChristian on 10 February 2012 - 02:40 PM

That hatred started before Dubya, Jerry. Clinton's antics made us a laughingstock. And, to be honest, civil unrest has been a hallmark of the middle east for many a year - long before the US ever existed. I agree that some of the things we've done have fed the flame, though.

I don't see how we couldn't be near another world war. And it wouldn't surprise me if we ever found out that the "powers that be" planned it...

I totally agree, Rick, that Israel shouldn't have to ask permission...but that is the consequence of accepting money from another government. I know Israel told America they don't need out $ anymore...they can refuse it...I don't think we should be giving any tax $ to any country - Israel included. That isn't what sovereignty is about, and we can show our friendship in ways other than $.

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500