kengs333

It really is a yes or no answer. Do you think that pedophelia is wrong? I'm asking your personal opinion on the matter.

Let's see some examples of "the number of horrible things"... I'm fairly certain what you have in mind, but let's see it anyway. The NT is pretty clear on how freeing people from "evil and sin" should come about; it never involves force or violence.

It really says alot when you consider someone who wants good to prevail, for our society to be free from evil and sin to be "sick". I would strongly disagree with the claim: "who no fault of their own are gay". The development of human character and personality, how people integrate external influences, conciously and unconciously, is very, very complex. To simply dismiss someone's homosexuality as "that's just the way they are" is disingenuous. You're suggesting that people can't change how they think, their attitudes, how they behave; people should simply go with how they feel. This is exact reason why some much is wrong with our society.

Again, we have a statement that really seems to condone pedophelia. How interesting. So really the only thing that makes pedophelia wrong is that according to the "western world's modern lexicon" it is wrong. So basically, if enough people in the modern world stood up and and said that pedophelia was normal, and formed "pedophelia rights" groups, paraded in the streets, bullied, harassed, and intimidated people into accepting their views, had pedophelia removed from the criminal code, etc., then it would be okay because it has become normalized in our society???? That's pretty disgusting. I don't see there being much of a difference between 12 year olds in the ancient world and those of modern Canadian society. Perhaps they were forced to mature a little earlier in some respects, but the physical age is the same, and the detrimental effects of deviant sexual behaviour would not be that much different. Modern children who are forced to engage in pedophelic acts eventually become hardened; that does NOT mean they are okay with it, and that it won't have lasting psychological consequences.

I wouldn't consider it a "creative interpretation" at all. You stated that in the ancient world children who engaged in sex acts with adults would have been protected. You're implying that the same would go in the modern world; in other words, that if a child would be protected, that pedophelia would be considered "normal". What other conclusion could one draw from what YOU have written? So is pedophelia wrong: yes or no?

Again, there's no logic to this. Both pedophelia and homosexuality are what exactly? Kinds of (deviant) sex. Going to a movie and driving a car are two totally different things. Pedophelia and homosexuality are not. Pedophelia is a celebrated aspect of male gay culture. Ancient Greek men who engaged in sex with boys are pedophiles and homosexuals.

Thanks for point that out. It looks to me that it has something to do with the exact same phrase just above it; when I have to type quickly I slip up just like anyone else. You'll notice two that earlier I used the word "not" incorrectly as well. When it comes down to it, though, it's clear enough what my argument is and to make an issue out something like just speaks to the fact my opponents are having a little difficuly themselves, I suppose. I'm not governed by voices, but rely on teachings from the Bible for guidance. I feel that I can discuss my faith when and where I want; it's not for you to decide that others don't want to hear what I have to say. For some something may take root and they will eventually come to realize the Truth and find salvation in Jesus Christ.

So basically what you're saying is that with the proper legislation in place to protect children who engage in sex acts with adults, pedophelia would be okay? That's pretty disgusting.

Yeah, loving one's neighbour doesn't mean you have to accept their sinfulness. I commend you for leaving the Catholic church, but if you have as a result chosen to turn your back on Christ yet again, I don't see how you can claim you've grown. To live in sin and to allow others to live in sin is the easy and convenient thing to do; change takes effort, it means improving, and by what you say, that's not what you done.

Actually, not it's not.

And that's the only reason there's a problem with it, because it's controlled by the Liberals. If it was the other way around, we'd never hear a peep about from all those westerners who seem to have nothing better to worry about. Let's start with reforming the electoral system to be more representative, first.

This doesn't really relate to what you "quote" so I'm assuming that you haven't really understood what I wrote. I think you know full well what I mean by change. Suggesting that it should also apply to changing one's skin colour is just plain stupid. Nor is the reference to sports all that much better. We're talking about people changing their attitudes, lifestyles and worldview--this is something that can happen at any age. Your suggesting that someone who is gay can never change, that they are condemned to living that lifestyle; I disagree. Not everyone who tries will succeed, and those are the ones who go around saying that it can't be done, which people like you will readily believe.

Bravo. I commend you for finally realizing this. Yet, I doubt it will stop you and many others from lumping them in the Christian camp, anyway.

Sorry, but "use Christ to justify" is a complete misrepresentation of my faith. I don't "use Christ," I follow his teaching, I have faith in God, I strive to live without sin. My Saviour is not something I use for my convenience, to bolster my arguments. Criminalizing homosexuality is something that society does; irregardless of whether it is criminalized or not is irrelevent to the fact that it is immoral, that it is an absolute wrong. Certainly criminalizing does disuades many from seeking that lifestyle in the first place, as does not promoting it in childrens' literature. People can change; to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Nobody's talking about using force.

You obviously don't understand the NT if you make a comment like this.

You don't really seem to get it. Whether or not Churches that follow the teachings of Christ "are dying" while Churches that erroniously "allow Homosexuals" are "thriving (they aren't) is irrelevant. People who follow the teachings of Christ are the only true Christians, they are the ones who will find everlasting life in Heaven. The Bible is quite clear when it comes to sexual deviance that it is a sin, Christ makes it clear what happens to those who continue to live in sin. If you recall the parable in which Jesus talks about those who lose interest in his teachings, and the roots do not take hold; you do recall that Jesus states that only the few will be rewarded for their faith. Homosexuals, or people who believe that sexual deviants can be Christians, can belive themselves to be Christians all they want, but in my opinion I don't think it will do them much good. Faith in God, the teachings of Christ, are timeless--there's nothing narrow minded about it. In fact, it's quite the opposite. You're reference to narrow mindedness is, of course, one of the standard devices used by the gay rights movement--anyone who doesn't believe that homosexuality is "narrow minded"? Hardly. Being a slave to sin, sexual deviance is truly narrow minded. But I guess anyone whose mind is clouded by such things won'r recognize that fact. I hope you one day see the error of your ways...

Wrong on both counts. Read the NT and find out. Jesus taught peace and non-violence, but he also taught about the evils of sin and the consequences of a sinful life. Invoking the teachings of Christ when you don't really understand what they mean is not only ignorant, it's insulting and disrespectful.

Actually, most climatologists do agree that man is having an impact on the environment. The best that the detractors can muster is mathematicians like Bjorn Lomborg and scientists funded by the oil and gas industry and dubious special interest groups secretly backed by corporations.

Yes, you better not respond. Only a matter of time.

Okay, homosexuality and incest are two forms of sexually deviant behaviour. Better? Whether you want to accept it or not, the reality is that many pedophiles are homosexuals, as is my statement about female teachers. The only cases that make the headlines, though, are the ones involving boys. It would take ages for me to describe the manner in which homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviant behaviour drag down society. No, they are trapped and manipulated into deviant sexual behaviours, not heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is normal, it is the way humans are intended to procreate. It's as simple as that. Your argument has no logic because heterosexuality is not deviant, therefore it cannot be considered sexual deviance. I've already discussed the difference between normal and deviant sexual behaviour. Why homosexuality is immoral should be self-evident; as should any other form of sexual deviance. I don't have to "show... how" incest is deviant, nor should I with homosexuality. The fact that you've been brainwashed to believe homosexuality is not deviant does not change the fact that in absolute terms homosexuality is not wrong.

That doesn't make any sense. What's moral and immoral in Christianity is defined in the NT, not by what an organized church states to be the case. An organized church that accepts the teachings of Christ and abides by them is correct; an organized church that twists the teachings of Christ, as do pro-gay churches, are incorrect. But not only that, they are spreading false teachings.

Why? Can't Canadian laws become twisted by radical, ideological ideas? The commonalities in the rise of Nazism and the rise of the "gay rights" movement are quite startling.

The "discovery" of this supposed text is more than a little questionable, and most scholars seem to be leaning towards its being a forgery.

That still doesn't make it right, though. The Nazi regime was democratically elected, and ALL of its initiatives to eliminate undesireable races were legally sanctioned. Which is why the Nuremburg trials had to be conducted the way they were. Moreover, the Anglican church is quite divided on the issue, and ultimately whatever they choose to do has no bearing on who ends up going to Heaven or hell. The Anglican church, like all other organized churches, is merely an institution created by humans--true salvation only comes through putting one's faith in God and abiding by his rules--which includes sexual deviance as being a no-no. One can attend church as much as one wants, perform all of the applicable rituals and ceremonies, it makes no real difference. Organized churches have advocated/supported a whole host of things; it just goes to show that they are too easily influenced by secular ideas and power.

No, you still don't get it. I'm not arguing that homosexuality is wrong because it used to be a crime. Homosexuality is wrong because it is sexual deviance, is immoral, and therefore wrong. The argument was made that homosexuality is not wrong because it is no longer illegal. I did NOT make that argument, somebody else did. I stated that by their logic that the fact that homosexuality used to be illegal should call into question whether it is not not wrong.