Gay Marriage

[FileNotFound]

Originally posted by lumberjim


dude, he's 5yrs old

Well then, do you intend to continue the program. I'm not being judgmental just curious.

[jinx]

Originally posted by FileNotFound


Am I to assume then that you do not desire a college level education for your kids?

Or are you confident that 3 days a week is sufficient to gain entry into a competitive college?

Well, he's 5, this is his first year and the 3 day week is working out really well ( it's a long day and his first group experience). When/if he's ready to go 5 days we'll give that a try.
I'm not really worried about college at this point, my main concern is the here and now. I agree with the philosophies put forth by this school, I love the non-coersive environment for learning. If my kids go on to college I hope it's becuase they want to, and they have specific goals that they'll meet there. I would not be disappointed if they did not go to college though - it's just a small part of a bigger picture in my opnion.

[slang]

Originally posted by jinx
....it's just a small part of a bigger picture in my opnion.

Skilled trades will be in high demand for the foreseeable future. Especially right after the boomers retire/die. College tuition might be a million bucks a year by the time he goes too.

I agree (for what it's worth regarding the education of your child).

[elSicomoro]

College isn't for everybody anyway.

[slang]

Yeah, just ask the darbs I work with.

Me: Would you enjoy and find fulfilling working here until the day after you die? Or might you want to expand your skillset?
Them: Fuck off and speak English asshole....for I kick yer ass.

[FileNotFound]

Originally posted by sycamore
College isn't for everybody anyway.

Of course not. But it seems to be mandatory for anybody who wants a job over 80k/y.

First of all, I do not think that college is worth shit. So far I've wasted 3 years of my life in college with 2 more to go (5 year program) and honestly the only thing I've gotten out so far is people saying that they're impressed with my education when they're really impressed with my knowledge.

Fact 1: Every skill I use or have ever used at my job was self taughtt.

Fact 2: My formal education was highly responsible for most of the jobs I got.

My parents forced me into college because they both have PhDs and I had to have college education also, plus my father insisted that I'd be a different person after college. (If he meant more bitter and more broke...he was right)

The thing is, in the end you may want to provide your kids with an education that gives them a sense of self value and forces them to think for themselves while giving them all the knowledge they may need in the world. Yet the world won't accept or respect their education until they have a BS in whatever...

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by FileNotFound


Of course not. But it seems to be mandatory for anybody who wants a job over 80k/y.

eh...hem

[FileNotFound]

Originally posted by lumberjim


eh...hem

Yes exceptions exist, but open the newspaper and look at job listings.

Pretty much everything wants college.

College has become almost as mandatory as a drivers license. Which is also responsible for the whole grade inflation thing...even the dimwits need a degree...

[jinx]

Originally posted by FileNotFound


The thing is, in the end you may want to provide your kids with an education that gives them a sense of self value and forces them to think for themselves while giving them all the knowledge they may need in the world. Yet the world won't accept or respect their education until they have a BS in whatever...

Well, I think jim has already pointed out that the money thing is incorrect. I can also think of quite a few of my own friends who have very impressive degrees and don't make anywhere near $80K.

What I want to provide my kids with is confidence a desire to learn more. If they choose to go to college, believe me, I'm all for it. I think your point though, is sometimes true. But I don't see aquiring a token degree as all that difficult either - and definitely not something to plan a chidhood around.

[elSicomoro]

Now that I look back, earning my college degree was easier than high school for me. And IIRC, college was actually cheaper than my high school.

[slang]

Originally posted by lumberjim
eh...hem

If I'm not mistaken, LJ is using the age old principal of consistent, focused work.

Thats something many degreed pros assume they are bypassing by earning a degree.

Ok, not many, just me.

[jinx]

Originally posted by slang


If I'm not mistaken, LJ is using the age old principal of consistent, focused work.

After traveling around the country in a vw microbus and generally fucking off for a few years anyway....

[slang]

Good to know. There's hope for me.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by FileNotFound

The wife is listed amongst things that 'belong' to the neighbour. As a woman do you not feel offended being listed right next to an ox and ass?

Disclaimer: this post is personal opinion, and is not presented as factual.

I'm offended when people bring this argument up about women and the bible, and only tell one side of the story. Yes. Women are subservient, even possessions in the bible.

BUT!

In the time that the bible was written, just as the woman was to "stay home and take care of her man", he ALSO had an obligation to get out there and work to take care of his wife and family. The children, too, were to get out there and take care of their father, mother and family. It was a relationship that worked because everyone pitched in and supported the other.

Think 1950's Leave it to Beaver. Ward went out there and worked to have a nice house and two cars and feed everyone, and it was June's job to purchase groceries, cook, clean, and primarily care for the children. The boys were expected to get paper routes and join the boy scouts and all that crud, to learn how to be industrious in very much a "man's world."

Then the system broke down. The morals and "uptightness" of the 50's (which I would venture to say were more religious in nature in the U.S.) gave way to the "make love not war" of the 60's and "free thinking" and the feeling that "I can do what I want." Men were beating their women, not taking care of them, some were alcoholics, taking drugs, whatever. In essence, men (generally) stopped taking care of THEIR responsibilities and women had to support themselves and their children. Divorce rates started rising, and once that happened, you saw a rise in the feminist movement.

In the bible, there was one reason why divorce was ok: Adultery.

Matthew 19:3-9: (RSV)
3: And Pharisees came up to him (Jesus) and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"
4: He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
5: and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
6: So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
7: They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
8: He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

So marriage (and by biblical standards, the wife being subserviant to her husband) was a solemn, sacred thing. If a man was a drunk and didn't work, what father is going to give his daughter to him? Men were supposed to care for, and cherish all his possessions, yes, even his wife. That means not mistreat her. That means provide for her. That means respect her, and teach her the Lord's word. The man was also responsible for his wife's actions.

There are a whole bunch of other things that came with being a husband that equaled out the PARTNERSHIP of husband and wife. Read that section of Matthew again. GOD said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? And Jesus said, So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." Not even the husband. The husband was to care for his wife, in all ways, just as she was to care for him in all ways.

Yes, women are subservient in the bible. But men were held to a MUCH higher standard of behavior and responsibility than they are now. Saying "women are subservient in the bible" without any additional commentary is, as is the case with most things, half the story. If you're going to present a set of examples to prove a point, put them in complete context.

[OnyxCougar]

Oh, and by the way:

How about human sacrifices of children? Moral? No? Oh...crud it's in the bible though. The ever just is at it again..

God did tempt Abraham, ... And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest ... and offer him there for a burnt offering...
-- Genesis 22:1-2 (AV)

You only quote this part, but fail to quote the rest of the story. I could post it, but to save time and space, I'll sum up:

In the Old Testament, the "wages of sin" were death. (Romans 6:23) That means, if you sinned, you had to sacrifice something. There are alot of cases of animal sacrifices, which animal to pick, and all that.

Now. In the above quote, the part you left out is this: Abraham takes Isaac to the mountain to sacrifice his child, because God told him to. When he gets up there, he raises his hand to kill his son, and the angel of the Lord stops him, and tells him, you have not withheld your only son. (So, it was a test of Abraham's faith.) Abraham doesn't kill his son.

I can't think of any instance where a follower of God's word offered up a human sacrifice to God. God offered Jesus up for sacrifice, and that supreme sacrifice is what stopped all other sacrifices, because Jesus became the "Lamb of God." The "wages of sin is death" rule is STILL in effect, but now the difference is that Jesus suffered that death for us. Hence, why he is called the redeemer.