Asilee.com

nazani14,

I wanted to clarify what you are saying. Are you saying that there were no groups of biblical Christians until the Reformation? Are you suggesting that Catholicism was the church until 1600, *including* (for example) the first century? Are you saying that Peter, Paul, Mark and John were a part of the Catholic church? Not sure what you’re saying here.

Also, I thought I should point out that most reputable scholars of the Bible consider Ehrman’s books to be tripe. His scholarship is shoddy and his contradictions have been well-answered before he was even born. Like Dan Brown, he likes to pretend that contradictions and “conspiracies” and the like exist, when we all know better. When Ehrman debates scholars like William Lane Craig he gets eaten alive. Incidentally, Ehrman charges $5000 to participate in a debate, while people like James White and Craig charge nothing. I can suggest many books that debunk Ehrman, without even using ones printed in this century. His arguments are old and hackneyed and he knows it. He is simply hitching his bandwagon to Dawkins and Hitchens in a time that atheists are getting some press using this new tactic (which will backfire and come to haunt them – no, I don’t mean “Hell”, I mean publicly) of attacking Christians, Christianity and the Bible. It’s nothing new, in fact it’s as old as the Devil. If you want to read something decent by atheists, try this book:

An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism
Edited by Gorden Stein, Ph.D.

It is published now as a second edition, but it’s still a good book. it was one of the first books I bought on atheism and rationalism, and it stands up to any written today. It’s a collection of essays on the existence of God, the historicity of Jesus, evil, morality, and a history of rationalism. It is certainly better than tripe by Ehrman or Dan Barker or Hitchens and Dawkins. You must know that these guys aren’t saying anything new. They are simply using a new tactic of attacking Christians (I already said that, didn’t I?) Barker and Ehrman are trotted out by atheists because they were once Christians (both supposedly former pastors). They aren’t good scholars, but are used for the one fact that that turned from God. Big deal? So did Satan (and he’s much smarter).

As far as this school goes, I think it’s absurd to ban children from dancing and listening to rock music. I am a Christian and I allow my children to go to proms and dances and listen to any music they want, as long as it doesn’t include vulgar lyrics or cursing. However, that is really not the case here. A school requiring a person to sign an agreement that they will conduct themselves in a certain manner, is a long established tradition in education. Many schools, some having nothing to do with Christianity, require their students to sign “agreements” that they will conduct themselves in a way that isn’t detrimental to the school – however they may define such behavior.

No one is forcing this kid to go to this school and he signed an agreement that he would conduct himself in a certain way. He knew – full well going in – that the school didn’t allow students to dance. This isn’t a religious debate, this is a contractual law debate. This student (and his parents) entered into an an agreement. The school kept up their end of the bargain, the student did not. Any court in the land would uphold for the school. The kid is a moron for going to the school in the first place. He knew the rules, he knew he was going to break them, and now he is all befuddled. Nonsense. Again, no one forced him to go to this school, and he has no business going to a school that prohibits dancing if he wants to dance, particularly if he signed an agreement that he would do anything the school prohibits. Doesn’t matter where he does it, he agrees not to do it PERIOD when he goes to the school.

Many seminaries have similar agreements that students sign, for example agreeing not to consume alcohol while they are attending school (on campus or off). No one has to go to the seminary, but if you go you must agree to abide by their rules. Same with this school. This isn’t a public school, it is a private school with very specific rules. Don’t like them? Don’t go. Go to a public school, it’s free and you can dance yo bootie off.

I’m sure few here would be grousing if the school were an atheist one and the kid signed an agreement that he wouldn’t preach the Gospel and he ended up preaching the Bible on a stump near the school. Come on, you little scamps, you know I’m right.

Atheists see the restrictions Christians place upon their conduct as some kind of “oppression” or “suppression”, as if God is slapping their hands with a ruler telling them “BAD, don’t do that!” Uh… wrong. Christians live by certain guidelines because they believe God set these up to keep us happy, healthy and safe. We don’t do certain things because we believe in God and believe that when He says not to do something, there is a very good reason. Often, it is very easy to see those reasons. We don’t drink to drunkenness because that can lead to making some really bad life choices, sometimes it leads to alcoholism, not to mention killing someone if you try to drive (you can also wake up next to a fruit bat – thank you for that one, Jamie Foxx). We don’t have premarital sex because that can lead to disease (including some things that can make your winker fall off), pregnancy (no contraceptive is 100%) and it often leads to broken hearts much more than when sex isn’t involved (try to lie and tell me sex doesn’t complicate things). Moreover, we follow God’s law because we love Him and we believe that doing so will lead to the most fulfilling, happy, enriching life. No… really… I mean it.

Now, I don’t agree with this school, or the people in it that dancing is wrong (I like to get down, I like to boogie). There is nothing in the Bible that says dancing is wrong (heck, David danced in the nude, no kidding). I don’t agree that there is anything wrong with *most* rock music – in general, though I can understand the contention with some of today’s music, e.g., the degradation of women, the glorification of drugs and alcohol, the hate-filled and sometimes racist lyrics, and so on. Seriously, do you want your 5-year-old to be listening to music about “hos” or “kill your mother!”? But most music isn’t like this, so I don’t see the problem with it, biblically. Personally, I think these people are going way overboard and frankly that makes all Christians look like puritanical, legalistic, prudish, close-minded, killjoys. We aren’t, you know. Some of us are swell and dandy.

In answer to your question, Asilee: “How much you want to bet that none of policies were mentioned when his mom was applying him at that school?” I’ll take that bet. I’ve gone to presentations or orientation meetings at Christian schools and they most *definitely* let you know up FRONT what is allowed and prohibited. (I never signed up, my sons go to public schools and they listen to demon rock music and dance their tails off). I have friends whose children go and they tell you right up front. What you don’t understand (because you are an atheist) is that most probably the school sees their prohibitions of these activities as a *selling point*! They see their stance as one of moral character that many parents would welcome. And believe me, many do. So, you’re wrong on that one, and I’d be willing to bet whatever amount you’d like before either of us gives the school a call to find out. We can pose as a parent of a potential student. I’ll find out the number and call you and then conference them in and then we can just ask questions like a potential parent. It’d be fun, kind of like a three-way prank call, except we won’t tell them their refrigerator is running. I’m not rich, but I’d bet beer money or a charitable gift to one of the microfinance sites.

Then you said that this is “sad for Christians to actually be this petty”. No, this isn’t sad for Christians, this is a situation with a small group of Baptist folks in the Midwest, it does not represent all Christians. Or would you like all atheists to be lumped in with the massacres of the atheist regime of Pol Pot?

You write: “Its pretty damn funny to watch them be hypocritical, judgmental, contradictive ass bastards.” How are they any of these things? They aren’t “hypocritical”, they aren’t dancing and telling this student not to dance. They aren’t “judgmental”, either. Are they saying he’ll go to Hell? Are they saying he is a bad person? No, they are just enforcing the school rules. They aren’t “contradictive”, how are they contradicting themselves? This is a rule, he knew it was a rule, he signed an agreement about the rule, they are enforcing the rule. Nothing in their actions is contradictory. Nothing. None of your accusations are accurate or logical (sorry, did that sound mean?)

You say, “taking away his soul is okay -sarcasm- but his freedom of expression?” Where did they say anything about his “soul” being “taken away”? Or are you saying the school is taking his soul away? He knew the school didn’t allow students to dance or listen to rock music. He signed an agreement to not dance or listen to rock music. He paid his tuition and enrolled. Now all the sudden he wants to do things that he knows he is not allowed to do. The school may be dumb, it may be legalistic, it may be narrow-minded and goofy, but this kid is way dumber. Seriously. “Duh, I’m going to go to a school that doesn’t allow dancing, pay for it and sign an agreement that says I won’t dance, then I’m going to go dance”. D’oh!

We all agree to suppress our “freedom of expression” in certain ways, every day. We may think it’s okay to be nude in all circumstances, but we don’t go to work nude (ouch, that gave me an image I won’t forget). Are they wrong for not allowing us to express our freedom in this way? How about someone who wants to smoke in a restaurant? What about a fast-food place demanding we wear “shoes and shirt or no service”? What about a football game allowing men to take off their shirts but not women? How about screaming and cursing in a museum? Don’t kid yourself, we all agree to suppress our “freedom of expression” every day, and no one is claiming these people and/or places are taking their souls away. Well, maybe fast food places. The transfats… omg.

I don’t know about Catholics being “bitchier” than Christians, but Catholics *are* different because they have seriously vicious nuns. I went to a Catholic school (before I was a Christian) and the nuns will hit you and hit you hard and they do use rulers. I’m not kidding, it is very much like that scene in The Blues Brothers, except without the hilarity of John Belushi. They don’t laugh either, they just stare a lot or bust you upside the head with a ruler. And they are equal-opportunity abusers. They will hit a White kid with one ruler and a Black kid with another, there is no racism when they are whacking the beejeezus out of you. I guess if I had to wear that polyester penguin get-up and could never have sex… ever, I’d be wailing on some people with rulers too, maybe yard sticks, maybe AK-47s. Anyway, just thought you should know.

WOW it’s nice to see that atheists can be as bigoted and judgemental as christians. You’ve just proved that it doesn’t take belief in God to be a closed minded ass. Catholics Rule!

One: Catholics and Christians are the same thing. Catholics are just a denomination within Christianity.
Two: Why should this give ALL Christians a bad rap? Just becuase some fundie idiots are making noise and showing how stupid they really can be doesn’t mean all Christians are like that. So I can most definitely see why Christians wonder why Athiests give them a bad rap. This happens with every religion, INCLUDING Atheism.
Three: No, I’m not Christian myself. I just understand where NORMAL Christians come from.