- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Court Rules 12-Year-Old's Mother Cannot Read Her the Bible, Take Her to Church
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:14 pm to realbuffinator
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:14 pm to realbuffinator
quote:Yes. That has been the law in Anglo-American jurisprudence for centuries.
(One parent has) the right to force the (other) to not take the child to church?
quote:Nothing “Liberal” about it. To the contrary, it originally favored the more conservative, traditional churches. I suppose it still does.
the liberal mindset is confusing
This post was edited on 11/29/25 at 12:19 pm
0
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:22 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:Fatty?
Anyone who made or accepted this argument in court deserves corporal punishment.quote:
you and your wife divorce. Your wife converts to Satanism. During the divorce proceedings, you ask for and receive sole right to determine religious education. Corporal punishment for you?
This post was edited on 11/29/25 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:35 pm to udtiger
quote:
This is sort of shite that will result in violence against judges.
You say that like it would be a bad thing...
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:41 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
you and your wife divorce. Your wife converts to Satanism. During the divorce proceedings, you ask for and receive sole right to determine religious education.
Corporal punishment?
We are a Christian nation. None of our laws work if the basis is not Christianity. How stupid are you?
Essentially, this court has ruled that this mother cannot raise her child using the foundation of our laws.
This post was edited on 11/29/25 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:41 pm to Y.A. Tittle
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.
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:43 pm to L.A.
Talk about unconstitutional!
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:43 pm to dickkellog
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.
This post was edited on 11/29/25 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:46 pm to dickkellog
quote:
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.
Speaking in tongues is a strange practice, but is also completely Biblical and was not at all invented out of thin air by protestants.
quote:
i know i wouldn't my daughter exposed to that crap.
You don't read the Bible with your children?
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:47 pm to dickkellog
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.
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:48 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:FFS, in this case ONE element of the child’s raising belongs exclusively to the father, NOT “the State”
Children belong to the state according to the left.
The horror.
This post was edited on 11/29/25 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:48 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Speaking in tongues is a strange practice, but is also completely Biblical
Do you think the Bible is describing the weird blabbing that some evangelical churches do?
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:50 pm to antibarner
quote:no, it does not.
The Constitution clearly tells the courts to butt out.
if the court were consistently ruling in favor of Methodist over Baptist, you might have a point.
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:50 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Do you think the Bible is describing the weird blabbing that some evangelical churches do?
No, but they didn't invent it out of thin air like that poster alleged. There is definitely Biblical basis for speaking in tongues.
This post was edited on 11/29/25 at 4:16 pm
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:54 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Relentless and retired
JFC on these obnoxious alters
JFC on these obnoxious alters
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:55 pm to imjustafatkid
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?
Essentially, this court has ruled that this mother cannot raise her child using the foundation of our laws.
I never cease to be amazed by how much this place hates the US Constitution.
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:58 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
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.
This post was edited on 11/29/25 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 11/29/25 at 12:59 pm to dafif
They all need a case of stage 4 sick cancer.
Posted on 11/29/25 at 1:10 pm to imjustafatkid
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.
Posted on 11/29/25 at 1:11 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
taking the child to some snake-charmer evangelical cult.
Tell me you know nothing about Calvary Chapel without saying you know nothing about Calvary Chapel...
Posted on 11/29/25 at 1:13 pm to McLemore
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.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News