Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

sHnaCk · 09-02-2009 08:00PM

I disagree on the hate God in his heart bit. We have enmity with God out of our original rebellion, but not hate. Please let me know where you got this idea?

sHnaCk · 09-02-2009 08:06PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Who says any child who dies is not among the elect? God elects whom He will; He also determines the life-span of us all - so He is perfectly able to ensure all who die in childhood are of the elect.

Sorry mate... this is incorrect.
Our life spans are not determined. It is Gods will that we all live rightously etc. and long productive lives but, due to sin etc. we "go to sleep early". in Hosea God says catagorically that "...too many of my people go to sleep early through lack of knowledge."
Sin is to our spirit as disease is to our body.

Húrin · 10-02-2009 09:53PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I can't say I'm surprised by the direction the world is going. I just never realised it was at such an advanced stage. We live in a sexed up world where desire is king. Its direction is inevitable. We are told in scripture where this world would go, and low and behold.. it was right. Its like scripture is somehow divine;):)

You know, it's frustrating to see Christians hold up the example of same-sex marriage as the ultimate proof of a moral decline in the world. Since there are clearly numerous far worse unBiblical things happening in the world that affect many more people, it undermines the credibility of the Gospels to elevate homosexuality to such a level of importance.

JimiTime · 10-02-2009 10:18PM

Húrin wrote: »

You know, it's frustrating to see Christians hold up the example of same-sex marriage as the ultimate proof of a moral decline in the world. Since there are clearly numerous far worse unBiblical things happening in the world that affect many more people, it undermines the credibility of the Gospels to elevate homosexuality to such a level of importance.

Is that directed at me? For the issue here, was not homosexual marriage, but homosexual adoption. Also, you jump the gun with your line, 'Christians hold up the example of same-sex marriage as the ultimate proof of a moral decline in the world'. No-one has done that here that I'm aware of. Now that you mention it though, 5 year olds being thought in school that homosexuality is A-ok (which is the post i was responding to), from a Christian perspective, 'is' indicative as to where this world is going as far as Godly morals are concerned. Its one of many things, but one non-the-less. You disagree?

EDIT: Cheers FC. Only saw ur mod threat post from the 'not again' thread.:)

Mickeroo · 11-02-2009 02:32AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Is that directed at me? For the issue here, was not homosexual marriage, but homosexual adoption. Also, you jump the gun with your line, 'Christians hold up the example of same-sex marriage as the ultimate proof of a moral decline in the world'. No-one has done that here that I'm aware of. Now that you mention it though, 5 year olds being thought in school that homosexuality is A-ok (which is the post i was responding to), from a Christian perspective, 'is' indicative as to where this world is going as far as Godly morals are concerned. Its one of many things, but one non-the-less. You disagree?

EDIT: Cheers FC. Only saw ur mod threat post from the 'not again' thread.:)

yea i agree, it would be much more moral to teach the kids hatred and bigotry.

sink · 11-02-2009 12:52PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Yeah, because thats the alternative isn't it, you muppet! I remember the class now, 'Ok class, we are now going to learn which bat to use when beating a homosexual'. Stop being an @rse!
Its tiresome having to deal with muppet posts like yours!

Where did he say that they would teach kids to beat homosexuals with baseball bats? You are attempting to use reductio ad absurdum and failing badly. Bigotry and hatred can take the form of simple discrimination such as not allowing homosexuals to fulfil certain job positions, not allowing them to join certain sports and social clubs and even not allowing them to be patrons of businesses run by homophobes. 'No dogs, no blacks, no irish, no homosexuals!', ring any bells? By not allowing homosexuals to teach children you are teaching the children that it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals and also that homosexuals are deviants that need to be discriminated against.

wolfsbane · 11-02-2009 10:15PM

sHnaCk said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Who says any child who dies is not among the elect? God elects whom He will; He also determines the life-span of us all - so He is perfectly able to ensure all who die in childhood are of the elect.
Sorry mate... this is incorrect.
Our life spans are not determined.

God says:
Job 14:1 “Man who is born of woman
Is of few days and full of trouble.

2 He comes forth like a flower and fades away;
He flees like a shadow and does not continue.

3 And do You open Your eyes on such a one,
And bring me to judgment with Yourself?

4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
No one!

5 Since his days are determined,
The number of his months is with You;
You have appointed his limits, so that he cannot pass.

It is Gods will that we all live rightously etc. and long productive lives but, due to sin etc. we "go to sleep early". in Hosea God says catagorically that "...too many of my people go to sleep early through lack of knowledge."
Sin is to our spirit as disease is to our body.

Agreed. But that does not negate God determining our lifespan. He takes us when He wills; sometimes in judgment ( Herod in Acts 12, or the sinning Christians in 1 Corinthian 11, for example). Sometimes to take them home to their rest, away from the evil to come:
Isaiah 57:1 The righteous perishes,
And no man takes it to heart;
Merciful men are taken away,
While no one considers
That the righteous is taken away from evil.
2 He shall enter into peace;
They shall rest in their beds,
Each one walking in his uprightness.

wolfsbane · 11-02-2009 10:31PM

sHnaCk wrote: »

I disagree on the hate God in his heart bit. We have enmity with God out of our original rebellion, but not hate. Please let me know where you got this idea?

John 7:7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.

John 15:23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. 25 But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’

James 4:4 Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

Hate in the NT (KJV):
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3404&t=KJV

Enmity in the NT (KJV):
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2189&t=KJV

Note: enmity in James 4:4 is contrasted with friendship, and is then described as being an enemy. Hatred of God is surely part of being His enemy.

wolfsbane · 11-02-2009 10:39PM

sorella wrote: »

Not true.

We have choice always.

Man does not hate God; this is your experience?

Yes, we have a choice always. But is our choice not determined by our nature? Will an evil man freely chose to love God, against all that his heart desires? Man's free-will is chained to his sinful nature. What he is in his heart will come out. The choice is always his - but the choice he always makes is according to his nature.

Yes, man hates God. My experience agrees with that - once we cut through all the pretence, once the cost of loving God or loving one's sin is made clear.

See my previous post for what the Bible says.

wolfsbane · 11-02-2009 10:48PM

Mickeroo said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

Man is only morally free to do what his nature desires, and is only able to carry out those desires if God permits.

So what you're saying is he's not free to do what you said he is free to do?

Can you say paradox?

No paradox: note that I said morally free to do what his nature desires. Free to make the choice. He is not free to put it into practice, unless God permits.

Even on a totally human level we see this. A man is free to choose to rob the bank - but the police may well prevent him. We still say he had free-will about the robbery, even though he was not free to do it.

wolfsbane · 11-02-2009 10:57PM

MatthewVII wrote: »

Interesting. Can you provide a few examples in recent history where a human was trying to exercise free will to carry out something sinful and was not permitted by god? And when I say this, I don't mean any occurences which can be explained in any other way except by divine intervention.

Hmm. So God cannot use means to stop the wicked? He cannot kill him with cancer? Have the police 'by chance' pass by just as he prepares to kill someone? Or have the target change his normal routine for some unforseen reason?

Even when God sends an angel to kill the wicked, He normally uses means:
Acts 12:20 Now Herod had been very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; but they came to him with one accord, and having made Blastus the king’s personal aide their friend, they asked for peace, because their country was supplied with food by the king’s country.
21 So on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on his throne and gave an oration to them. 22 And the people kept shouting, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” 23 Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.

JimiTime · 12-02-2009 02:03AM

sink wrote: »

Where did he say that they would teach kids to beat homosexuals with baseball bats? You are attempting to use reductio ad absurdum and failing badly. Bigotry and hatred can take the form of simple discrimination such as not allowing homosexuals to fulfil certain job positions, not allowing them to join certain sports and social clubs and even not allowing them to be patrons of businesses run by homophobes. 'No dogs, no blacks, no irish, no homosexuals!', ring any bells? By not allowing homosexuals to teach children you are teaching the children that it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals and also that homosexuals are deviants that need to be discriminated against.

Yeah, I reckon we should teach kids to hate homosexuals as thats the alternative to teaching that homosexuality is all fine and dandy. Thats what I meant all along, hiss, hiss.[/evil] Pardon me, I'm just the dim hate filled christian.

Jimi, the homo hater!

Mickeroo · 12-02-2009 02:24AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. So God cannot use means to stop the wicked? He cannot kill him with cancer? Have the police 'by chance' pass by just as he prepares to kill someone? Or have the target change his normal routine for some unforseen reason?

[/B][/COLOR]

Speaking as someone who has lost somebody to cancer,that is highly offensive. That is also the weakest argument i have seen on this board to date. Good people still get murdered, if the police just happen to walk in its either because they've had good reason to suspect a crime was about to take place because they've investigated or its just blind luck. People change they're normal routines all the time,because they're people and they can, it could result in them avoiding being murdered or it could result in them getting run over by an articulated lorry or eaten by a crocodile. C'est la vie.

If there's no such thing as chance then whats the point of living??

JimiTime wrote: »

Yeah, I reckon we should teach kids to hate homosexuals as thats the alternative to teaching that homosexuality is all fine and dandy. Thats what I meant all along, hiss, hiss.[/evil] Pardon me, I'm just the dim hate filled christian.

Jimi, the homo hater!

Are you being sarcastic or serious? if sarcastic then please explain what you actually meant? If you're being serious then admitting your faults is the first step in overcoming,good for you.

JimiTime · 12-02-2009 02:38AM

Mickeroo wrote: »

Are you being sarcastic or serious?

You couldn't hazard a guess?

if sarcastic then please explain what you actually meant?

No. If you can't see it, I'm not going to try explain as you're too st.... Oh wait, better not say that.

If you're being serious then admitting your faults is the first step in overcoming,good for you.

Well coming from one of the enlightened ones, I feel so honoured. I'll keep working on it though. Maybe one day I can be as enlightened as even you. Oh what joy. Everybody:
Oh Happy day...............Oh Happy Day
Oh Happy day...............Oh Happy Day.

sink · 12-02-2009 03:02AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Yeah, I reckon we should teach kids to hate homosexuals as thats the alternative to teaching that homosexuality is all fine and dandy. Thats what I meant all along, hiss, hiss.[/evil] Pardon me, I'm just the dim hate filled christian.

By virtue of not teaching that homosexuality is 'find and dandy' you are confirming that it is indeed not 'fine and dandy'. For if it was 'fine and dandy' why wouldn't you teach it?

Either it is or it isn't, you either tell kids it is an acceptable trait or you tell them it is not. There is not enough grey area in the middle, in which any sort of official policy can exist.

If you choose to teach that homosexuality is not acceptable you are vilifying homosexuals. Which is by extension teaching hate. Or do you propose to attempt to teach that homosexuality is both unacceptable and acceptable at the same time?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, I'm afraid.

Mickeroo · 12-02-2009 03:03AM

JimiTime wrote: »

You couldn't hazard a guess?

I was being patronising.

JimiTime wrote: »

No. If you can't see it, I'm not going to try explain as you're too st.... Oh wait, better not say that.

Ah,to be young. Seams your just trying to get away with not defending your stance by being childish. Admit it,you hate homosexuals.

JimiTime wrote: »

Well coming from one of the enlightened ones, I feel so honoured. I'll keep working on it though. Maybe one day I can be as enlightened as even you. Oh what joy. Everybody:
Oh Happy day...............Oh Happy Day
Oh Happy day...............Oh Happy Day.

again,i was being patronising.

sink · 12-02-2009 03:05AM

JimiTime wrote: »

You couldn't hazard a guess?

No. If you can't see it, I'm not going to try explain as you're too st.... Oh wait, better not say that.

Well coming from one of the enlightened ones, I feel so honoured. I'll keep working on it though. Maybe one day I can be as enlightened as even you. Oh what joy. Everybody:
Oh Happy day...............Oh Happy Day
Oh Happy day...............Oh Happy Day.

TBH Jimi you are coming across as a sarcastic self righteous prick! Either contribute in a cordial manner or don't contribute.

JimiTime · 12-02-2009 03:13AM

sink wrote: »

By virtue of not teaching that homosexuality is 'find and dandy' you are confirming that it is indeed not 'fine and dandy'. For if it was 'fine and dandy' why wouldn't you teach it?

Do you remember being thought about sexual relationships at 5 years old in school? Do you remember being thought about marriage at that age even? About the differences between girls and boys even? So not politicising kids or coaching them in whatever the agenda of the day is, does not in turn mean you are making them hateful. I wont argue this point. If you disagree, then we disagree.

Either it is or it isn't, you either tell kids it is an acceptable trait or you tell them it is not. There is not enough grey area in the middle, in which any sort of official policy can exist.

Ehh, they don't need to be told. They're kids. Let them be innocent. Bringing PC agenda's, sexual relationships, alternative life choices etc into their lives is muddled thinking. If their parents wish to do it, its up to them. I certainly wouldn't be telling my kids about this cr@p at such a young age. I would hope that they are eating jelly beans, playing with transformers or barbies and not giving a toss about who lives with who!

If you choose to teach that homosexuality is not acceptable you are vilifying homosexuals.

Why is it that you all see the alternative of teaching kids about homosexuals, is teaching kids that homosexuals are bad. They should simply not be taught about it, Period.

JimiTime · 12-02-2009 03:15AM

sink wrote: »

TBH Jimi you are coming across as a sarcastic self righteous prick! Either contribute in a cordial manner or don't contribute.

And I couldn't give a monkey's. I'm secure enough to know what I am, and it aint a pr!ck. A guy, 2 guys, 50 guys on a message board thinking that, doesn't really bother me tbh. As for cordial discourse, Don't respond, if you don't want to. There's an ignore function you know?

JimiTime · 12-02-2009 03:17AM

Mickeroo wrote: »

I was being patronising.

I got that. i responded in kind.

Ah,to be young. Seams your just trying to get away with not defending your stance by being childish. Admit it,you hate homosexuals.

Of course I do. I'm a deluded hate filled homophobic christian remember?! Do keep up.

again,i was being patronising.

Again, responding in kind.

sink · 12-02-2009 04:09AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Do you remember being thought about sexual relationships at 5 years old in school? Do you remember being thought about marriage at that age even? About the differences between girls and boys even? So not politicising kids or coaching them in whatever the agenda of the day is, does not in turn mean you are making them hateful. I wont argue this point. If you disagree, then we disagree.

Anyone under the age of 10 is hardly going to grasp the situation at all so my concern is not for them. Even if you only discriminate against homosexuals in teaching positions for kids under that age, the older kids will ask the question why?. And what other reason can you give other than homosexuals are not acceptable.

JimiTime wrote: »

Ehh, they don't need to be told. They're kids. Let them be innocent. Bringing PC agenda's, sexual relationships, alternative life choices etc into their lives is muddled thinking. If their parents wish to do it, its up to them. I certainly wouldn't be telling my kids about this cr@p at such a young age. I would hope that they are eating jelly beans, playing with transformers or barbies and not giving a toss about who lives with who!

I'm not proposing an alternate sexual education class. Kids are inquisitive, they will ask questions, and when the ask the question what answer would you give them? Will it be 'We don't let homosexuals teach kids because we're afraid they're going to turn all you kids into homosexuals!' implying that you can catch homosexuality like some sort of contagious disease.

JimiTime wrote: »

Why is it that you all see the alternative of teaching kids about homosexuals, is teaching kids that homosexuals are bad. They should simply not be taught about it, Period.

When did the conversation change from allowing homosexuals to teach kids to teaching kids about homosexuality? They are two different topics and I would not be in favour of teaching kids anything about homosexuality, or any other specific sexual practice. Teaching them about reproductive anatomy and their function as well as STD's and preventative measures is enough.

JimiTime · 12-02-2009 12:08PM

sink wrote: »

When did the conversation change from allowing homosexuals to teach kids to teaching kids about homosexuality? They are two different topics and I would not be in favour of teaching kids anything about homosexuality, or any other specific sexual practice. Teaching them about reproductive anatomy and their function as well as STD's and preventative measures is enough.

I think we've identified our issue. I certainly haven't been arguing about homosexuals teaching kids. Thats is indeed a completely different topic. I'll give you the discourse:

sorella wrote:

I was in Scotland when they started the campaign to introduce teaching in schools that "gay" union was a life style as much as marriage.

Some of the material planned for 5 year olds was...words fail.

It was then already allowed in UK schools.

This was in an area where the head of social services was an active Lesbian as were other leading figures.

jimitime wrote:

5 year olds being thought in school that homosexuality is A-ok (which is the post i was responding to), from a Christian perspective, 'is' indicative as to where this world is going as far as Godly morals are concerned. Its one of many things, but one non-the-less.

mickeroo wrote:

yea i agree, it would be much more moral to teach the kids hatred and bigotry

Cue me thinking that this was such a provoking, villifying and untaught response, that I'd give it the response I felt it deserved. Nowhere, have I been arguing that homosexuals should not be allowed teach, that is a completely different subject. As you can see above, this has always been about the report of young kids learning about 'alternative lifestyles' in their curriculum. You seem to agree above when you say, 'Teaching them about reproductive anatomy and their function as well as STD's and preventative measures is enough.' That would be my view on it.

kiffer · 12-02-2009 04:59PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I think we've identified our issue. I certainly haven't been arguing about homosexuals teaching kids. Thats is indeed a completely different topic. I'll give you the discourse:

Hum I realise sorella has left us for now... but Jimi's post has drawn this to my attention...

sorella wrote:

I was in Scotland when they started the campaign to introduce teaching in schools that "gay" union was a life style as much as marriage.

I find the emphasis amusing here for some reason...

"Gay" union, seems to question the validity of the claim that they are gay... while accepting that they have a valid union
whereas I feel, Gay "union", would have been accepting the fact that they are gay but highlighting the (in)validity of their union.

Pointless silliness on my part.

sorella wrote:

Some of the material planned for 5 year olds was...words fail.

The failure of words has left us noting to work with here... fearing the worst, we could imagine that they were showing heavy videos of sexual activities...
With out someone telling us what the material was we can't really discuss it.
Has this been addressed? Have I missed it?
If so someone please link to posts were someone established what is actually being presented for teaching to the children.

sorella wrote:

It was then already allowed in UK schools.

This was in an area where the head of social services was an active Lesbian as were other leading figures.

Those dastardly Lesbians! Working in social services!

JimiTime wrote:

Cue me thinking that this was such a provoking, villifying and untaught response, that I'd give it the response I felt it deserved. Nowhere, have I been arguing that homosexuals should not be allowed teach, that is a completely different subject. As you can see above, this has always been about the report of young kids learning about 'alternative lifestyles' in their curriculum. You seem to agree above when you say, 'Teaching them about reproductive anatomy and their function as well as STD's and preventative measures is enough.' That would be my view on it.

We should teach them about preventative measures (disease and pregnancy), including preventative measures necessary for safe homosexual sex, in a nonjudgmental manner.

We should be teaching things that are reasonable for the age of a child...
By the time they are likely to become sexually active they should know how to protect themselves...
This does not mean that 5 year olds need to know things like "Butter makes a handy lube if you find yourself on a picnic and decide to get busy" but we don't have the curriculum that they are using/proposing, and what shocks a nun might not be all that awful (or it might be pretty hardcore, but with out any details... I'm repeating myself so moving on).
Is it acceptable to teach the small kids that "some people like boys, some people like girls, Billy has two daddies, don't throw stones at him"?

On basic mechanical sex education:
I'd figured out where babies came from very early (at a basic, "from their mummies tummy, put there by their daddy, like the animals on telly" level of details) ...
My sister told me a story once about the family watching a nature programme and various creatures started to mate... I turned round and the whole family started to brace themselves for explaining what was going on on the television, the whole "what are those animals doing", "what does that mean... where do babies come from?" dilemma... suddenly I ask flat out, "how do worms mate?" We had to break out the encyclopedia for that one!

Children that live on farms should be able to figure out the basics of sex long before I (a city child) did... I don't see any harm in that.

wolfsbane · 12-02-2009 07:13PM

Mickeroo said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Hmm. So God cannot use means to stop the wicked? He cannot kill him with cancer? Have the police 'by chance' pass by just as he prepares to kill someone? Or have the target change his normal routine for some unforseen reason?
Speaking as someone who has lost somebody to cancer,that is highly offensive.

I'm sorry for your loss, but what is to be offended about? I'm not saying all cancer is a punishment on the wicked. I have lost both my Mother-in-law and my Dad to cancer.

That is also the weakest argument i have seen on this board to date. Good people still get murdered, if the police just happen to walk in its either because they've had good reason to suspect a crime was about to take place because they've investigated or its just blind luck. People change they're normal routines all the time,because they're people and they can, it could result in them avoiding being murdered or it could result in them getting run over by an articulated lorry or eaten by a crocodile. C'est la vie.

So? I did not say God prevents all murders, or all accidents, or all illnesses. I said He sometimes uses such means to prevent evil men from doing what they have willed to do.

If there's no such thing as chance then whats the point of living??

To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

Mickeroo · 12-02-2009 08:00PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mickeroo said:

I'm sorry for your loss, but what is to be offended about? I'm not saying all cancer is a punishment on the wicked. I have lost both my Mother-in-law and my Dad to cancer.

Sorry to hear that. Thats what it came off sounding as. Not trying to argue here now or anything, but if god occasionally uses it on bad people then whats do you think is his reason for giving it to good people? Or do you put that down to,for want of a better description, moving in mysterious ways? I'm not trying to be sarcastic there or anything,please dont think i am.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So? I did not say God prevents all murders, or all accidents, or all illnesses. I said He sometimes uses such means to prevent evil men from doing what they have willed to do.

Then he needs to do his job better

wolfsbane wrote: »

To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

But whats in it for me? Agree to disagree?

wolfsbane · 12-02-2009 08:28PM

Mickeroo said:

Sorry to hear that. Thats what it came off sounding as. Not trying to argue here now or anything, but if god occasionally uses it on bad people then whats do you think is his reason for giving it to good people? Or do you put that down to,for want of a better description, moving in mysterious ways? I'm not trying to be sarcastic there or anything,please dont think i am.

I don't at all. It is a sensible question, Mickey.

The answer is, He knows what is right. Suffering can lead the unrighteous to repentance - as it did my Dad some months before his death. He had no time for God during his 70+ years, but God brought him low on a sick bed and gave him pause to think. That led him to repentance and faith.

For believers it can be one of the trials that ultimately strengthen their faith and bring them closer to God.

For all, it is a general consequence of man's Fall. Suffering and death became part of our lot when our first parents fell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So? I did not say God prevents all murders, or all accidents, or all illnesses. I said He sometimes uses such means to prevent evil men from doing what they have willed to do.
Then he needs to do his job better

That presupposes He intends to prevent all evil. He does not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. But whats in it for me? Agree to disagree?

To those who refuse to repent and believe, life is just the prelude to eternal punishment. Life now may vary in its pleasure, but it always ends the same.

Mickeroo · 13-02-2009 11:06AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Do you remember being thought about sexual relationships at 5 years old in school? Do you remember being thought about marriage at that age even? About the differences between girls and boys even? So not politicising kids or coaching them in whatever the agenda of the day is, does not in turn mean you are making them hateful. I wont argue this point. If you disagree, then we disagree.

Ehh, they don't need to be told. They're kids. Let them be innocent. Bringing PC agenda's, sexual relationships, alternative life choices etc into their lives is muddled thinking. If their parents wish to do it, its up to them. I certainly wouldn't be telling my kids about this cr@p at such a young age. I would hope that they are eating jelly beans, playing with transformers or barbies and not giving a toss about who lives with who!

Why is it that you all see the alternative of teaching kids about homosexuals, is teaching kids that homosexuals are bad. They should simply not be taught about it, Period.

I can hold my hands up and say you have a good point there.

JimiTime · 13-02-2009 11:15AM

Mickeroo wrote: »

I can hold my hands up and say you have a good point there.

I appreciate that. Fair play.

...Is this the end of boards as we know it?......... A peaceful conclusion to a contentious topic?.........Will our boardsies ever be the same again?................Tune in for next weeks topic...Aborton.:)

Nodin · 13-02-2009 11:29AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. So God cannot use means to stop the wicked? He cannot kill him with cancer? Have the police 'by chance' pass by just as he prepares to kill someone? Or have the target change his normal routine for some unforseen reason?

Even when God sends an angel to kill the wicked, He normally uses means:

I had cancer, had to get half a limb chopped off and part of my skull. Robert Mugabe seems fine, and he's about 30 years or more older than me. And a lot of death and suffering ahead, in the "Evil" stakes.

Que pasa?

Mickeroo · 13-02-2009 11:43AM

JimiTime wrote: »

I appreciate that. Fair play.

...Is this the end of boards as we know it?......... A peaceful conclusion to a contentious topic?.........Will our boardsies ever be the same again?................Tune in for next weeks topic...Aborton.:)

Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

Comments