def59

Jesus said he would be coming back on a cloud, so keep looking up.

or was that non-loving humans?

Most loving non-human? Way Corps 4-10 :)-->

I am now learning that ALL my experiences in life were allowed by God to happen to mold me into the person I am today to be utlizied for His purposes and glory. So I look back at twi and use this thought to gauge how it affected me.

Well it made a profit. Christian? That's debateable

I didn't leave sooner, because I was still rebelling against my parents. As long as we fought about twi, I dug my heels in and stayed put. When they stopped, I stopped. Within a year, I was GONE!!!!!!!

I won't go into it right now, but when one says The Son of God they are equating Jesus with God.

Oh i get it now

I thought it was good movie. Not great, but good. It is just that I have been down this road so many times that the brutality didn't get to me as much as the hammer hitting the nail and piercing his hand. Every time it hit, I winced, knowing that I was driving the nail. The scenes that got to me were the demonic. Satan was done beautifully, if I can say that. When Satan was moving in the crowd, mirroring Mary, that got to me. What did you make of the scene of Satan holding a baby? Or the scene of Satan in hell after the crucifixion?

Jesus talked to Paul on the road to Damascus. Also, remember the song "Family of God" "I'm so glad I'm a part of the family of God." Well, the part where we sing "joint-heirs with Christ as we travel the way" according to our song books should have said 'joint-heirs with Jesus as we travel this sod," then it rhymes with the family of God on the next line. the song was written by Bill Gaither. It is a cool song when sung his way and not twi's!

Oak It's the same battle over years. Remember the brouhaha over the millennium? Some said it started in 2000, others in 2001. 2001 is techically correct because our calendar has no year zero. ex 1-100 the first century 101-200 the second century 1901-2000 the 20th century. The reason we call this century the 21st is that it will end in the year 2100. So our decades are all screwed up as well. The sixties technically ended in 1970, not 1969 because the century didn't start until 1901. So we count the first year 1901, 1902, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 and 10. But — and at long last — my point is, culturally we say the new century started in 2000 because we understand the concept of zero now. It sounds better to think of sequences beginning and ending in zero. That may explain the first, third and sixth hour stuff, it was cultural. Or, VPW got it wrong, it wouldn't the first or 1,001st time!

Tref, You are right, we have more important matters to discuss. The war on terror is a good one. Homosexuals have waited this long to marry they can wait another decade/century/millennium right?

Roy, A minor point here. But do you know how to operate the spell checker mechanism on your computer? Your arguments would come off oh so much better if your sentences made sense. You sound like an intelligent guy. Your writing makes you come off as a simpleton. I can help if you like.

Tref That's good ploy. Just call the other person's arguement boring and repetitious and then maybe it will go away. But I think we can agree to disagree on this matter, since you as well have brought nothing new to the table either.l

The difference here is just as the CBC and others have said. The black experience for civil rights was the inclusion and equal opportunity for all people. Gays are not barred from education, voting or health care or restaurant service, hotels, buses, drinking fountains, etc.' Gays are among the most educated and affluent citizens around. Does this sound like oppression? The ability to form contracts that bind two people together have been around for years. But that's not their game. They want to rewrite laws (i.e. hate crimes/speech) that benefit them only. There's a good article on the dangers of same-sex marriage on www.christianitytoday,com which is a good, well-researched site that deals with religion and culture. The article is good, but I cannot obtain permission to print it here.

Here's a random list of web sites about the topic www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html www.tegenwicht.org/13_rbt_eng/p_smear.htm us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf www.unites.uqam.ca/dsexo/Revue/ Vol2no1/10_Freund~1.html www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm www.gayxjw.org/ped.html www.puellula.org/HFP/

To all I have no anger. I just like to get other bits of information into the arguments. You can disagree if you like, refute, counter or dismiss. That's what debate is all about. My whole point is to suggest that if we allowe full marriage rights to homosexuals, what's next. There will be a next, there always is. For the gays, what will happen when they fail to gain the level of acceptance they seek? Will they demand more laws, more protections? Will they seek polygamy to be accepted, so they can marry again and again. And what if some man or woman wants to fall in love with a person under the age of 18 or consent? Who is to say that is wrong? Really, why have rules at all? We are all born with something or we have been violated or warped or something, why not allow everything and let the chips fall where they may?

Tref Here's a startling moment in time. We actually agree on something. Good post. It's a start, at least. Def

Really All you have to do is a google search and this stuff comes right up. So do we igore the evidence? Do we label it as hate speech, intoleranc, bigotry, or do we confront the gay rights agenda head on? How's that for documentation Tref?

Here's another report that details how homosexual activists are working to lower the age of consent -or outright abolishing them to gain access to kids. http://us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf

Here we go folks, and look who is writing this stuff. www,narth.org For many years, Western society has considered adult-child sex to be legally, socially, and morally taboo. Pedophiles have been judged criminal by the courts, sinful by theologians, and psychologically disordered by the mental-health profession. Slowly, however, that situation has been changing. A Fringe Element Begins to Make Inroads into the Mainstream NAMBLA--the North American Man-Boy Love Association--was once the lone voice lobbying for the normalization of pedophilia. NAMBLA representatives marched in gay-pride parades as a fringe element of the gay-rights movement. Then in 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality produced a special double issue devoted to adult-child sex, which was entitled "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" (1). One article said many pedophiles believe they are "born that way and cannot change" (p. 133). Another writer said a man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve "miracles... not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them." The loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. l62). Parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..." (p. 164). A British university professor wrote: "Boys want sex with men, boys seduce adult men, the experience is very common and much enjoyed" (p. 323). A professor of social science at the State University of New York says he looks forward to the day when Americans will "get over their hysteria about child abuse" (p. 325) and child pornography. A.P.A. Publishes a New Study: Not All Pedophile Relationships are Harmful The American Psychological Association did not denounce the positions advanced within the that journal. In fact, just recently, the A.P.A. published a new, major study (2) written by one of those same Journal of Homosexuality writers. This latest article appears in the A.P.A.'s own prestigious Psychological Bulletin. It provides an overview of all the research studying the harm resulting from childhood sexual abuse. The authors' conclusion? That childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm--and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children's backgrounds. When the sexual contact is not coerced, especially when it is experienced by a boy and is remembered positively, it may not be harmful at all. The authors of the article propose that psychologists stop using judgmental terms like "child abuse," "molestation," and "victims," using instead neutral, value-free terms like "adult-child sex." Similarly, they say we should not talk about the "the severity of the abuse," but instead refer to "the level of sexual intimacy." The authors conclude that behavior which psychotherapists commonly term "abuse" may only constitute a violation of social norms. And science, they say, should separate itself from social-moral terminology. Religion and society, these writers argue, are free to judge behavior as they wish...but psychiatry should evaluate behavior by its own set of standards. In fact, the authors of the Psychological Bulletin article propose what they consider may be a better way of understanding pedophilia: that it may only be "abuse" if the child feels bad about the relationship. They are in effect suggesting a repetition of the steps by which homosexuality was normalized. In its first step toward removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic Manual, the A.P.A. said the condition was normal as long as the person did not feel bad about it. Few laymen are aware that the American Psychiatric Association recently redefined the criteria for pedophilia. According to the latest diagnostic manual (DSM--IV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children. To be diagnosed as disordered, now he must also feel anxious about the molestation, or be impaired in his work or social relationships. Thus the A.P.A. has left room for the "psychologically normal" pedophile.

Tref Actually, I am. Def California court bans gay marriages and Mass Legislature OKs initial ban.

Not Well, if that's the way you took it, I apologize. I never intended to paint academia with a broad brush. But, I felt justified to pick your post apart, just as others have picked mine in other times. We all have sayings and yours sounds nice. Sorry, about editorializing it. We will just have to agree to disagree. I guess I would have amend my earlier post and say "some" in academia are leading the charge to legalize pedophilia.

Notinkansas" Quote: Now hear this. ARE YOU LISTENING? Don't you ever, EVER attempt to equate education or academics with PEDOPHILIA. I did no such thing. What are you saying? Is education SO DANGEROUS that it will ultimately lead to the acceptance of PEDOPHILIA? No. What I am saying is that pedophiles are working in the fields of education and academia and are working the "rights" game just like everyone else has. How utterly (fill in this blank with any curse word you like). And yes, I AM YELLING. And yes, I DID TAKE TIME TO COOL OFF BEFORE WRITING THIS. Get a grip on the hatred, Def. I'm from Texas for 5 generations; I was brought up just as conservative as you were. I have no hatred. This is a WARNING! Yes I was YELLING back at you. We have people all over the political and academic spectrum that are working to subvert our freedoms and liberty. One of the greatest tools is in the so-called sexual liberation movement. There people who want our kids (for sex) and want it to be legal. The North American Man Boy Love Association is the lead lobbying effort, and so far, the gay rights community has yet to repudiate them. How can they? If they say that part of homosexuality (two males engaged in sex) is wrong, that could stunt their own efforts. I am the NRA. Good for you, I despise guns. I had to put ducttape on my cowboy boots at age 16, because I had worn them out. By the age of 16 I was wearing size 16 shoes, so no boots for me. Like Catcup, I had some LEARNING to do, about COMPASSION. So what have you done with it.? You didn't show me any. Learning, I once heard, is an exciting adventure. Maybe you could look at both sides of an issue in the future DON'T you try to lump me (or any other ACADEMIC) with pedophiles. Again, I wasn't. COLLEGE = GOOD. I agree, I went to college. Do you have ANY IDEA how many God-fearing, hard-working, pillar-of-the-community, medicine-discovering, WONDERFUL PEOPLE you just equated with PERVERSION? No, how many? 5 10 2,000? I equated no one. I said there are some. I could find your faults and equate everyone in your profession, but that would be wrong. I don't want to go to church with you. That's a shame, you might like it. (This message was edited to MAKE IT NICER.) (BUT NOT BY MUCH.) I agree, it was not nice at all. "Live just, and fear not." Justice demands accountability and punishment. Fear is irrelevant, except our reverence of God.

Mike when you said Jesus was not an exceptional dude, that he is one of us, your ignorance of basic Christianity — even for VPW — is appalling. He called the Only Begotten, unique, God with us, messiah for a reason. He is right now, our mediator (Galations 3, 1Tim 2, Heb 12 interceeding for us, building a place for us in heaven, knocking on the hearts of people, admonishing churches, and communing with the Father (all at the same time) He is the author and finisher of our faith — he doesn't need to be born again because He was the one who made the new birth possible. He was greater than John the Baptist because even John thought so. Jesus said he was The Way, The Truth and the Life, no one can come to the Father, except through him. Who among us can say that. You? He was called God, he was God and he is God. Don't give me the parenthesis crap, there was none in the original texts. I never had residual trinitarianism in twi, but now I have blatant trinitarianism — and if this damages my credibility with you or any one else take it up with Jesus. Mike, what you said was blasphemy and I will pray for your soul. You are either damned for eternity or in serious need of mental help.