re: Court Rules 12-Year-Old's Mother Cannot Read Her the Bible, Take Her to Church

quote:

---

This is sort of shite that will result in violence against judges.

---

You say that like it would be a bad thing...

quote:

---

frick the idea that you need a disclaimer like this.

---

Yeah it wasn’t really a disclaimer for my point. Just more about my theology generally because Calvary is irksome.

quote:

---

no it's a simple matter of a custody case both parents have rights here, obviously the father doesn't want her exposed to that goofy a*s talking in tongues bullschit that you protestants invented out of thin air. the calvary chapel association is an ancient tradition dating back to 1965! i know i wouldn't my daughter exposed to that crap.

---

You clearly missed the point of my post. Which is not surprising at all.

Eta: also dumbass “you Protestants” didn’t “invent” speaking in tongues. Today’s bastardization of Pentecost has nothing to do with Reformed Theology.

Also, if you’re a Romanist criticizing anti-Biblical superstitions, then that’s super amusing.

quote:

---

no it's a simple matter of a custody case both parents have rights here,
obviously the father doesn't want her exposed to that goofy a*s talking in tongues bullschit that you protestants invented out of thin air.

the calvary chapel association is an ancient tradition dating back to 1965!

i know i wouldn't my daughter exposed to that crap.

---

Wow what a patriarchal misogynist you are.

quote:

---

The Constitution clearly tells the courts to butt out.

---

no, it does not.

if the court were consistently ruling in favor of Methodist over Baptist, you might have a point.

Relentless and retired

JFC on these obnoxious alters

quote:

---

So, in your view, it is totally acceptable for the court to favor Christianity over a non-Christian religion, but unacceptable for the court to favor one Christian denomination over another?

---

No, in my view it is unacceptable for a court to rule a woman can't take her child to church and can't read the Bible to her child at home, especially since our nation was founded as a Christian nation. Any judge finding that Christianity cannot be taught in this country deserves capital punishment.

quote:

---

I never cease to be amazed by how much this place hates the US Constitution.

---

You're the one arguing against the Constitution itt.

quote:

---

but is also completely Biblical and was not at all invented out of thin air by protestants.

---

The predominant Reformed (i.e., the actual legit Protestant) view (supported by the text of Luke’s Book of Acts and of 1 Cor etc) is that the tongues at Pentecost were actual languages. Not “angelic” languages. Certainly not the gibberish these so-called “churches” teach or learn (fabricate) today.

Boring football day so I’ll elaborate a bit

The tongues spoken/heard at Pentecost were not “ecstatic” or angelic utterances but real, known human languages miraculously given by the Spirit to signal the gospel’s expansion to all nations and to serve as a covenantal sign of both blessing to the Gentiles and judgment on unbelieving Israel.

These tongues marked a unique, foundational moment in redemptive history—confirming the apostles’ authority and inaugurating the New Covenant church—and therefore ceased once the apostolic era ended and Scripture was complete.

Tongues were temporary, purposeful, intelligible languages, not an ongoing private prayer language or continuing gift in the church today.

Acts 2:1–13 (tongues described as real, known human languages understood by many nations)

Isaiah 28:11–12 (foreign tongues as a covenant-judgment sign to unbelieving Israel)

1 Corinthians 14:20–22 (Paul cites Isaiah—tongues are a sign for unbelievers, especially Jews)

Mark 16:17–20 (sign-gifts accompanying the apostles’ foundational ministry)

Hebrews 2:3–4 (miraculous gifts confirm the message of the apostles, not an ongoing norm)

Ephesians 2:19–20 (church built on one-time foundation of apostles and prophets)

1 Corinthians 13:8–10 (“tongues will cease”—interpreted as temporary and tied to the incomplete/childhood stage of the church)

Acts 10:44–48; 19:6 (later instances of tongues mirror Acts 2—cross-cultural language signs authenticating new groups entering the church)

So, the Bible itself clearly supports the cessationist view and the view that this wasn’t some gibberish trancelike incantation.

Again. Irrelevant to my point about objective truth. I was pointing out a logical defeater.

quote:

---

The predominant Reformed (i.e., the actual legit Protestant) view

---

Calvinism is garbage.

quote:

---

the tongues at Pentecost were actual languages

---

This is the predominant view of everyone who isn't a charismatic.