Posted on 02/02/2002 6:32:51 AM PST by Khepera
Why should people be forbidden from getting high? And if they should, are you also campaigning to make their most popular drug, alcohol, illegal? Or is it just the drugs used by people you don't like that should be criminalized?
What about prescription drugs? Their only non-medical use would also be to get high--should we make them illegal? FedGov is trying -- doctors are afraid to prescribe "too much" pain medication to their patients for fear that NannyGov (who did not spend 6+ years in medical school and has no business dictating scientific policy to them) will yank their licenses.
Soap, glue, correction fluid all have purposes other than getting high
So then, you would agree that criminalizing snack foods and shampoo is a silly waste of our tax dollars?
To "repent" means to "change direction" as in "turn from your wicked ways." The Bible makes clear that the unrighteous will not see the Kingdom of Heaven. Grace is for believers who do not "practice" sin. Nobody is sinless, but if you are a Thief, Murderer, prostitute, homosexual, and etc., and you indulge in this as a lifestyle, then you are "practicing sin."
How did they "know" this?
Heterosexual males preying on young girls are twisted and need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (and much worse; I can't say it here because "NO profanity... or violence in posts")
However, is there a North American Man Girl Love Association? Or are there programs fully supported by departments of education and schools where heterosexual adults are allowed to come in and teach children about filthy, perverted sexual practices, like the homosexuals did at Fistgate?
As Mary Eberstadt wrote in "Pedophilia Chic" Reconsidered - The taboo against sex with children continues to erode:
** "...For elsewhere in the public square, the defense of adult-child sex—more accurately, man-boy sex—is now out in the open. Moreover, it is on parade in a number of places—therapeutic, literary, and academic circles; mainstream publishing houses and journals and magazines and bookstores—where the mere appearance of such ideas would until recently have been not only unthinkable, but in many cases, subject to prosecution...
...Plainly, as the record even then showed, a surprising number of voices were willing to rise up on behalf of what advocates refer to as "man-boy love," or what most people call sexual abuse..."
For one thing, no sustained public challenges have arisen over other primal taboos. Even more telling, if nihilism and nihilism alone were the explanation for public attempts to legitimize sex with boy children, then we would expect the appearance of related attempts to legitimize sex with girl children; and these we manifestly do not see. Nobody, but nobody, has been allowed to make the case for girl pedophilia with the backing of any reputable institution. Publishing houses are not putting out acclaimed anthologies and works of fiction that include excerpts of men having sex with young girls. Psychologists and psychiatrists are not competing with each other to publish studies demonstrating that the sexual abuse of girls is inconsequential; or, indeed, that it ought not even be defined as "abuse."
Two examples from the last few weeks will suffice to show the double standard here. In the November 12 New York Times Book Review, a writer found it unremarkable to observe of his subject, biographer Gavin Lambert, that when "Lambert was a schoolboy of 11, a teacher initiated him [into homosexuality], and he 'felt no shame or fear, only gratitude.'" It is unimaginable that New York Times editors would allow a reviewer to describe an 11-year-old girl being sexually "initiated" by any adult (in that case, "initiation" would be called "sexual abuse"). Similarly, in mid-December the New York Times Magazine delivered a cover piece about gay teenagers in cyberspace which was so blasé about the older men who seek out boys in chat rooms that it dismissed those potential predators as mere "oldies." Again, one can only imagine the public outcry had the same magazine published a story taking the same so-what approach to online solicitation, off-line trysts, and pornography "sharing" between anonymous men and underage girls." **
While not every homosexual is a pedophile, pedophila is a significant problem in the homosexual community and adult-child sexual relations are supported and even celebrated in the homosexual community - see:
Reply #40 in the thread 'L.I.E.' Is Infomercial For North American Man-Boy Love Association
Additional information:
Reply #35 in the thread Gay/straight alliance urges support of hate-crimes bill (gag alert)
Parental Notification Laws regarding Gay & Lesbian Programs for Youths?
Homosexual students say curriculum shortchanges them
"Feminists Who Celebrate Rape"
The Overhauling of Straight America
(Bump to *Homosexual Agenda bump list)
I hear this many times from people who in turn "heard from somebody else". There are many churches who have Bible studies that research, (and very accurately) translations of the original text as well as the culture from those times. In these times it is very easy to know precisely what the Bible says...
"When you seek me with all your heart, then thats when you will fine me"...Jesus Christ
And you are practicing sin if you shop on Sunday, right? Should we make it a crime to operate a business on Sunday? Should we make it a crime for Seventh-Day Adventists to operate a business on Saturday? Should we make it a crime to take the Lord's name in vain? Where are you going to draw the line, and more interestingly, why are you going to draw the line where you do?
Taxpayer funding to all of these activities (and all other extra-constitutional programs) should be stopped. If enough people want them to exist, they'll contribute their tax dollars thys saved directly to the agencies and then no one will be paying for it who doesn't want to.
This is a problem of too much government, but the way you're suggesting to solve it is to add still more government.
But, acts like committing adultery are crimes. Adultery is a crime against one's spouse.
It's certainly a sin, and can have some horrible natural consequenses such as disease, but since one must be married to commit adultery I don't really see how it relates to homosexuals.
We may be talking at "cross purposes" here. Gods love & forgiveness is a winner. But most Christians only witness condemnation, love isn't mentioned. Who wants to try to please an angry parent that can't be pleased? And that's the picture presented most often. "You're going to Hell!" is the refrain, not "God loves you so much that he's not willing to lose you". Conviction of sin usually comes after the realisation of His great love. Am I right and we actually agree?
I hear this many times from people who in turn "heard from somebody else". There are many churches who have Bible studies that research, (and very accurately) translations of the original text as well as the culture from those times. In these times it is very easy to know precisely what the Bible says...
"When you seek me with all your heart, then thats when you will find me"...Jesus Christ
...ooops!
I don't think I saw saturday night shoppers on that list from the Apostle Paul...read your Bible. The King James version is a nice place to start.
If there is nothing animalistic about you, then I assume that you do not eat, or sleep, urinate, or deficate or even die one day. For the rest of us who still have to deal with those realities we share with the world of animals, it is a different story.
The bigger question is, is only man made in the image of God, or is the universe made in the image of God? The really big question for puritanical Christian sects is this: Does God have genitals?
Not all Christian sects are puritanical, and not all conservatives are puritanical, and not all conservatives are Christian.
It's time for Christianity to grow up about sex and stop trying to be little perfect children of God without genitalia.
You're going to tell God what's right & wrong? Good luck!!
Jesus Christ made made many references to the old testament. He supported the text as being from "His Father". If you believe that Jesus was the essence of the "Father" who dwelt among us in the flesh as I do, does that answer your question?
He has risen!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.