kengs333

Where did I say gays were Nazis? I'm suggesting that there are similarities in way that their respective ideologies crept into the psyche of their respective societies. I'm not sure they really were all that thorough in rounding up gays; labelling someone gay was a convenient way of finding an excuse to send them to the concentration camps--or to murder them outright. Do you remember the night of the long knives? Truth be told, it sounds as though there was a great deal of sexual deviance among the high ranking Nazis--not that they were evil or sinful as it was. Well, just because a group of people was persecuted and victimized, doesn't mean that they themselves can't turn around and act the same way when they have control of a society. Israel is a perfect example of this, wouldn't you agree? Or what about all of those Jews who went along with the Soviets? Didn't the Soviets murder something like 30 million people? There's nothing hateful in anything that I've written--you're just twisting things because I don't see things your way.

I don't see how anything in those supposed verses can be construed as "gay". It's typical, though, isn't it, how things that are not gay are gayified. Two male friends walking down the street; a bunch of secular thugs standing on the corner start calling them gay for simply being two men walking down the street. That's what gay activists have done; they make everyone interpret everything as being gay, even when it's not.

She claims to have laced the book with subtle suggestions of his being gay. That's how it goes. It's really no different than gradually poisoning someone by putting small amounts of arsnic in their food or drink, only that she's done it to tens of millions of young, innocent children.

People who piece together verses from the Bible like you just did are a dime a dozen; I've never been in a discussion about Christianity where it doesn't happen. Does it ever occur to you that all it does is indicate that you just don't understand the Bible? Did not Jesus stop the execution of a woman for committing adultry? Why did he do so? That's right, Jesus did preach "a lot of great things". If you keep refering to Leviticus, and other "horrific passages" in the Bible as proof that the is something wrong with Christianity, then all you are doing is proving that you don't understand what is written in the Bible. Again, I really don't think you know what you're talking about. If you look at the time in which Christianity emerged, the world was full of sin. Ask anyone who studies ancient Rome what kind of a culture they had; they were hedonistic and barbaric, their polytheistic religion involved the slaghter of animals, prayer to demons, and other disgusting practices; women had virtually no rights, and could be nothing more than wives or whores; slavery--most of whom were non-Romans--was the norm. Christianity actually freed people from this. Let's not forget that the Roman put Christians to death, they murdered them and other people for sport. Morality never "advances". It either exists or doesn't, and there is no connection between the passage of time and an "advance" in morality. Getting back to a point where sexual deviance becomes normalized again is not progressive, it's regressive. There is never anything progressive about people who prefer to be governed by base instinct.

Keep it the way it is now; the faster it get's depleted the better, then we can go back to riding around on horses and fueling our homes with cow chips like they did in the good old days.

Wow, what a brilliant statement. Where did you learn this enlightened fact?

Just how exactly is Harper on the "right track with the environment"? Nothing that he ever said prior to his becoming PM suggested that he had any concern for the environment, that he thought climate change was a legitimate issue. Only when he realized after becoming PM that his remaining PM could be in jeapordy over the issue, did he start with all this smoke and mirrors business with the environment. It's sad when Canada has a PM that follows the lead of the Americans when it comes to the environment; we have much more to be concerned about, much more to lose. Maybe in the end it's a good thing, though; the less action that is taken to save the environment means that water levels in the Great Lakes will continue to decline, drought will become more serious in the Prairies, milder winters will allow for invasive beetles to survive in the boreal forests and destroy large tracts of timber, artic ice will continue to melt raising coastal water levels, among other things that eventually erode the basis for our western civilization, which will thankfully go down the tubes.

What's a "monght"? What exactly is the basis for this question? Where did I ever state that I take drugs, smoke pot...????

Yes there is; drug use was commonplace among most of the crew members. You're not one to be telling people what they can and cannot discuss--on this thread, board, or anywhere else. Given everything that you've written, linked; given the fact that you are a shameless illegal drug advocate and no doubt drug addict; given the fact that you go around here attacking and antagonising anyone and everyone; you are the one who should be censoring themself more often--not me.

This is such a falacious statement: "Alcohol use is so common and open we all know lots of people who drink without coming to grief". Almost everyone who uses alcohol has experienced negative consequences; whether it's causing a multi-vehicle accident that results in the death of innocent people, violence and aggression, breakdowns in relationships, lost work hours, lower grades in school, self-destructive thoughts. The fact of the matter is that alcohol should be illegal as well, because it is just as bad or worse than some illegal drugs (but not most). The problem is when alcohol is made illegal, the homebrew stuff that starts to be sold on the black market tends to be considerably more dangerous. That's the sad fact of the matter.

The fact that you'd make light of something like that... That ferry sinking could have had much more serious consequences, and the fact that many of the crew members are druggies is cause for serious concern.

"2. Definition Wir wollen hier nicht erst in eine schwerfällige publizistische Definition des Krieges hineinsteigen, sondern uns an das Element desselben halten, an den Zweikampf. Der Krieg ist nichts als ein erweiterter Zweikampf. Wollen wir uns die Unzahl der einzelnen Zweikämpfe, aus denen er besteht, als Einheit denken, so tun wir besser, uns zwei Ringende vorzustellen. Jeder sucht den anderen durch physische Gewalt zur Erfüllung seines Willens zu zwingen; sein nächster Zweck ist, den Gegner niederzuwerfen und dadurch zu jedem ferneren Widerstand unfähig zu machen. Der Krieg ist also ein Akt der Gewalt, um den Gegner zur Erfüllung unseres Willens zu zwingen. Die Gewalt rüstet sich mit den Erfindungen der Künste und Wissenschaften aus, um der Gewalt zu begegnen. Unmerkliche, kaum nennenswerte Beschränkungen, die sie sich selbst setzt unter dem Namen völkerrechtlicher Sitte, begleiten sie, ohne ihre Kraft wesentlich zu schwächen. Gewalt, d. h. die physische Gewalt (denn eine moralische gibt es außer dem Begriffe des Staates und Gesetzes nicht), ist also das Mittel, dem Feinde unseren Willen aufzudringen, der Zweck. Um diesen Zweck sicher zu erreichen, müssen wir den Feind wehrlos machen, und dies ist dem Begriff nach das eigentliche Ziel der kriegerischen Handlung. Es vertritt den Zweck und verdrängt ihn gewissermaßen als etwas nicht zum Kriege selbst Gehöriges." Vom Kriege

You've got some reading to do, then.

When it gets to the point where the best you can do is make short, cheap off-handed remarks, perhaps you should just consider not posting. It's bad enough that you're whole argument boils down to if it wasn't for Christianity sexuality wouldn't be narrowly defined, homosexuality, pedophelia, etc. would be considered "normal".

First of all, the evidence for "homosexuality" among animals is extremely questionable. There is some evidence that that kind of behaviour occurs among animals that have become severely contaminated by pollutants. It's just another example of what toxins can do to organic life. I wouldn't take that as a sign that homosexuality is "natural" or that this is what God had intended his creations to become. Furthermore, it would appear that most of the people making claims of "homosexual" behaviour among animals do have a pro-gay agenda; from what I've read, they like to interpret animals leaning against one another, engaging in not understood by science movements between pairs of animals as having some sort of "sexual" conotation. One book that I read, in part, even went so far as to provide "evidence" in the form of drawings. LOL. Ultimately, it's pretty sad though that gay rights activists would use this as a means of furthering their cause. Animals engage in all forms of behaviours--infanticide, murder, copulating with offspring, etc. etc.--that humans (or at least Christians with their "narrow" definition of morality) consider wrong. Should humans follow the example of the animal kingdom in these respects as well?

I never said I don't have to answer anything; I stated that I have reasons for not answering questions the YOU have posed.

What does the fact that almost every kid said "so what?" mean--it means that they've been brainwashed or intimidated into believing that homosexuality is normal. And that's how it works. Always go after the kids. That's what the Nazis did to perfection, this is no different. If you were in Berlin in 1938 and you would have asked children what they thought of Hitler, they all would have said he was a great man. Why? Because they were brainwashed to believe this.

Oh, well, are those secular websites you're using as sources???? Sorry, what makes you think that they have any legitimacy if you don't want to accept "Christian" websites as valid sources?

The rules apply to everyone; it's a question of whether one abides by them or not.

So in other words it existed in the ancient world irregardless of a specific era. So men who engaged in homosexual acts also readily engaged in pedophelia, as well. That point has already been established. What's deviant isn't relative; what a society considers to be normal is. Deviant sexual behaviour is always deviant. The ancient Greeks, etc. were aware of this.

Oh, so now we're talking about a very specific time in history; I don't recall this previously being the case. As far as I'm concerned we're talking about the period around the time of Christ.

Oh, no it's not, but it doesn't surprise me that you'd think so.................

That's no excuse. I have reason not to answer you're questions, but in this case you don't. Okay, the Bible quite clearly states that homosexuality, among other "sins of the flesh" are wrong; people who engage in these activities are sinners and unless they repent and "sin no more" will have to live with the consequences as stated in the Gospels. What constitutes sin and evil is defined by God; it is something as a Christian one has to abide by. It's not an "excuse" to be "intolerant". That's such a ridiculous assertion. Moreover, one cannot be "intolerant" of sin and sinful people; it is those who are sinful and evil who are intolerant--intolerant of good, intolerant of faith and virtue.

This is such a crock. They did not have "vastly different concepts of sex" in the ancient world; the fact that Christians, or instance, considered "sins of the flesh" as wrong would resonate with so many, and that Christianity spread like wildfire throughout the ancient world suggests that your simplistic argument lacks validity.

Nope, not at all. I have read, studied, and known more about history than you'll ever know. And this is based on what? Children may have been married at a younger age, but adults having sex with children is still the same then as it is now. Old Age in the ancient world was not different than it is today; people lived to quite an old age on occasion; but the life expectancy may have been shorter, but "old age" was not 30 or 40 years old. So if we've "progressed" as a society in respects to child labour, then why is adopting their attitudes towards deviant sexual behaviour acceptable? I would say that with the decline of Christian civilization, we are beginning to regress as a society; once morals begin to be undermined, then too go all the other foundations of modern society. Anyone who has gone through the public school system recently has seen what has become of it; and this chaos and dysfunctionality eventually gets transferred to the workplace. And so on and so forth. I suppose it's only a matter of time before we have slavery, child labour, high infant mortality, reduced life expectancy, etc. Maybe not advocates, but there seem to be some willing to defend or rationalize it. How sad; that's how eventual acceptance begins. I don't recall being "shown to be wrong". The practice of man-boy love is something that is a celebrated aspect of the homosexual lifestyle; this is something that the gays themselves advocate. Moreover, many incidents of pedophelia occur when a man assaults a boy or a woman assaults a girl. So there is a connection between pedophelia and homosexuality.