Thursday, June 26, 2008

Children Growing Up Confused

I am not sure how to go about commenting on this piece by MassResistance.org other than to say click HERE.

WARNING: The video and photos may be offensive to many. Proceed with caution!!

84 Comments:

OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Ah, once again good ol' MassResistance and the Toxic Twins, Amy Contrada and Brian Camenker, use their tried and true scare tactics of taking the the radical fringe element and attempting to portray that fringe element as every homosexual on the planet.

Still, Brian did provide us all with some memorable moments in his interview on the Daily Show.

8:30 AM, June 27, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

dmurphy98,

Do you think it is O.K. for homosexuals marching down the streets of Boston yelling "I F--k women" and "lick bush"? The radical fringe element was provided by those militiant homosexuals who acted out in an inappropriate manner. Not all the lesbians did this, but many did.

When did Brian Camenker attempt to portray the radical fringe element as being part of every homosexual on the planet? The march only took place in Boston??? Let's focus on the details here for once.

Mr. Camenker showed what the homosexuals did in the streets of Boston and how disturbing their portrayal of "coming out" can be.

Mr. Camenker did not edit anything that the homosexuals did. They are the ones who shot themselves in the foot do to their abnormal behaviors.

Would you have your kids watch this parade if they had the chance Mr. Murphy?

10:37 AM, June 27, 2008  
Anonymous Rufus said...

I know lots of gay people, and I'd be happy to take my kids (if I had any kids) to a gay pride celebration. I've been to a few gay prides with my brother and I can tell you it is NOT like Massresistance portrays. Yes, there are some of the so-called "fringe" elements expressing their sexuality, and this is ALL massresistance ever focuses on. There is a large cross section of people at these celebrations.

I agree with dmurphy, all Massresistance (and yourself for that matter) does is try to present what you consider the worst elements of the gay community, and insinuate (no you never come out and say it directly) all gay people are like this. Anyone who reads Massresistance, or your blog, can see that for themselves.

1:34 PM, June 27, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Rufus,

I will give you the floor to really tell us exactly how these radical gay parades REALLY are. Go ahead champ. Enlighten me.

7:18 PM, June 27, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

So, do I think it's O.K. for them to march down the street yelling such obscenities? Absolutely. The First Amendment protects that speech.

Do I think it's in good taste? Absolutely not. I would not find it to be in good taste for a heterosexual to do so, either.

In response to your question regarding Brian Camenker, one needs only to peruse MassResistance.com.

And thank you, Scia, for proving my point. You state that "Mr. Camenker showed what the homosexuals did in the streets of Boston . . . ." It was not "the homosexuals!" It was a small group of tasteless, militant lesbians. Let's not throw generalities around so lightly, shall we?

I would not have my kids watch that parade, and, by the same token, I would not subject them to Spring Break in Cancun. There is no difference. Bad behavior is bad behavior.

But, on the other hand, would I forbid my children from seeing their uncle, or my best friend and his parter, because they are homosexual? Never. These are people like you and me, whose orientation is different from ours. They are also great role models, in that they are caring, giving, loving people.

That's what the Brian Camenkers seem to lose sight of in the Fog of Hate.

8:40 PM, June 27, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

dmurphy98,

Like me, your a sinful man. I pray that you do not glorify sin by advocating to your children that they should be exposed to dangerous and abhorant lifestyles even if it lies in your family.

You should tell your kids, if your a believer in the Words of Christ, that homosexuality is wrong as depicted by the words of God.

You said:

"That's what the Brian Camenkers seem to lose sight of in the Fog of Hate."

Just because Jesus hates homosexual sin, are you suggesting that He is also in a "Fog of Hate"?

Sorry for the simplicity of my questions, but I think that when difficult issues arise, simple questions are all we need.

8:49 PM, June 28, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

But Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, did he? Instead, he kept the marginalized as his followers and friends.

I don't pretend to think that I can define what is and is not sin. I will not rely on tortured and misguided interpretations of vague and possibly incorrectly translated passages of non-gospel scripture to do so, either.

And, I think that if Jesus bumped into Brian Camenker in an elevator, he would say something like, "Brian. WTF?"

2:36 PM, June 29, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

dmurphy98,

You said, and I have not yet stopped laughing over:

"And, I think that if Jesus bumped into Brian Camenker in an elevator, he would say something like, "Brian. WTF?"

Very funny. I am pissing my pants!!

Jesus said plenty about homosexuality and how he abhors such sin and I can verse scripture with you if you would like. But, I understand, and wholeheartedly agree with what you are trying to say. Mr. Camenker is NOT going about the right way of exposing the...for the lack of a better word... "sin" of others by making tasteless opinions and comments about them. He should, and in which Christ would agree with, become friendly with them and then try and convert them to Jesus' way of living. Maybe I should try and do the same, but when someone, such as Mr. Hosty, and sometimes yourself, spread blatent lies about the "benefits", ect of the homosexual lifestyle or the roles of the judicial system then you both need to be verbally filleted and set straight with the facts.

Good analysis of MassResistance. I agree they are extreme, but the issues are exposed, and for the most part...the facts are presented, even if they are sarcastic!!

Scia

4:43 PM, June 29, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

I take up the gauntlet. Quote me chapter and verse where in any Gospel Jesus, in any form, even mentions homosexuality.

And if have the audacity to call me a liar, them's fightin' words. If you want to engage in argumentum ad hominem, feel free. I just won't stoop to that level.

6:59 PM, June 29, 2008  
Anonymous Rufus said...

"I will give you the floor to really tell us exactly how these radical gay parades REALLY are. Go ahead champ. Enlighten me."

Your sarcasm and pompous know it all attitude are shining through SCIA. Have you been to a gay pride parade yourself? What do you see? All I can do is tell you what I see. You see what you want to see, the "worst" elements. I do see what you see, there are radical elements to these events, but that is not all that is there. There are ordinary everday people, who happen to be gay, just expressing themselves openly. How can I explain this to someone who lives with his Jesus blinders on, where a simple kiss between same sex partners is part of the radical homosexual agenda? You would need to open your mind, and see people as people, and not as the sex act you define them as.

Maybe take the time to think "why" the people, all different kinds of people, express themselves the way they do at these events...believe me it is not part of some vast conspiracy, or agenda to take over the world.

5:42 AM, June 30, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

Scia, you said:
"Jesus said plenty about homosexuality and how he abhors such sin and I can verse scripture with you if you would like."

And, as dmurphy has requested, I would also like to see where Jesus himself claimed he "abhors" homosexuality in the Gospels.
I would like chapter and verse, please.
Granted, as a non-christian, the Bible means little to me. However, for you to say that Jesus HIMSELF specifically mentioned and condemned homosexuality is bearing false witness, at best.

10:51 AM, June 30, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Katiekat:

He can't, because Jesus didn't. It's as simple as that.

"Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."

"God is love."

Too bad that whole message gets so lost in here. Sad, really.

7:21 PM, June 30, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

Oh man! This is getting ugly. Everyone is a sinner. Jesus always told the sinner "go and sin no more"

Seems the homosexual crowd that professes Christian belief wants to pick and choose what sins they want to identify with and discard the others.

Listen, the Bible teaches that certain heterosexual sexual behaviors are wrong and sin, such as fornication & adultry. All sin is an abomination before God so let's get beyond using that word to describe the sin of homosexual sex.

Freedom of speech doesn't give anyone the right to say just ANYTHING they want. Whatever happened to civility, responsibility and self control? How does distasteful displays of language improve our lives?

When Christians get bashed because of their bad behavior, the reference is ALL Christians are guilty.

The same is true for the homosexual crowd. It is all Guilty by Association. The homosexual community should be policing their community and standing up AGAINST hate filled behavior such as that which took place at the Lesbian March.

Same holds true in Christian circles.

In Christianity we cannot affirm the sexual sin that goes along with homosexuality. It is a sin.

Another thing that's missing in this discussion is that God, the Father, God the Son [Jesus] and God the Holy Spirit are one in the same. Jesus is God in human form. He loves each and everyone of us shown by His act of humility by giving up His station in Heaven and walking among us and giving His life as an atonement, a final sacrifice giving us the ability for redemption. All we have to do is accept His free gift, change our lives and live for Him.

The Bible is God's word. If you don't believe that... well you don't believe it but none of us can pick and choose what parts meet with our acceptance. You see, the Bible is all about God. God is revealing himself to us. He so badly wants NONE to perish BUT some will because they will not surrender their lives to Him.Look, by losing our old lives we gain our new lives. This means all of us. Surrender to Jesus. Give up the old life.

What we have is people living for themselves not for God. Distasteful expression serves no one. It is anti-social and full of contempt. It is purely self-serving and advances no ones cause. Let's concentrate on Jesus and live our lives for Him. He gave His for us.

8:14 PM, June 30, 2008  
Anonymous Rufus said...

OMD, you are forcing your religious views on those who don't hold them. This is just plain wrong. We live in a secular society, and no one religion should dictate how we all live, plain and simple.

As far as the bible is concerned, I have little faith in it. EVERYONE picks and chooses from it. There are so many rules, some that contradict each other, it is virtually impossible to follow them all. Don't get me wrong, the bible is a good book, and has many lessons to be taught and learned. But to take it literally, word for word, is just asinine.

It seems to me the lesbian march showed less hate and more anger. Both sides have a lot of anger, and maybe "anger" is a better word to use for both sides then "hate".

I don't see a lot of hate toward christians in general coming from the gay people I know, but I do see some anger, but this anger is not directed at all christians. Just those who seek to squelch the equal rights they seek. On the other hand, I do see hatred from some christians, but I would never lump all christians together like SCIA and massresistance do with gays and lesbians. There is much more of a profound "guilty by association" when it comes to homosexuals than with christians.

6:42 AM, July 01, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

My perception of what you just wrote about me forcing my religious views on people that don;t believe them is a bit of a stretch, rufus. I gave my opinion and my views on a subject being discussed.

I espousing ones opinion is considered forcing then we are all guilty of a form of coercion, aren't we.

Thanks for responding though. I am following this up with a new post.

12:05 PM, July 01, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

I am posting a commentary written by Chuck Colson. As I've stated before this has nothing to do with rights. Rights are simply a smoke screen. The ONLY agenda in play is forcing society to accept a sexual behavior that the majority finds... well politely put... distasteful.

We humans discern or make judgements about behavior all the time. That's we we do not condone murder, or cheating, or adultry, or stealing, and a myriad of other behaviors you can think of. Because of this FORCED acceptance of a behavior we are now looking down the barrel at deviant behaviors thus having rights. Let's get real here. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RIGHTS!! NOTHING AT ALL!! [caps for emphasis only]

****************************

The Coming Persecution
How Same-Sex 'Marriage' Will Harm Christians

July 1, 2008

It is all about equal rights, the gay "marriage" lobby keeps telling us. We just want the right to marry, like everyone else.

That is what they are telling us. But that is not what they mean. If same-sex "marriage" becomes the law of the land, we can expect massive persecution of the Church.

As my friend Jennifer Roback Morse notes in the National Catholic Register, "Legalizing same-sex 'marriage' is not a stand-alone policy . . . Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes."

The bad news is these changes affect other liberties we take for granted, such as religious freedom and private property rights. Several recent cases give us a sobering picture of what we can expect if we do not actively embrace—and even promote—same-sex "marriage."

For instance, a Methodist retreat center recently refused to allow two lesbian couples to use a campground pavilion for a civil union ceremony. The state of New Jersey punished the Methodists by revoking the center's tax-exempt status—a vindictive attack on the Methodists' religious liberty.

In Massachusetts, where judges imposed gay marriage a few years ago, Catholic Charities was ordered to accept homosexual couples as candidates for adoption. Rather than comply with an order that would be harmful to children, Catholic Charities closed down its adoption program.

California public schools have been told they must be "gay friendly," as Roback Morse notes. But it will not stop with public schools. Just north of the border in Quebec, the government told a Mennonite school that it must conform to provincial law regarding curriculum—a curriculum that teaches children that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle. How long will it be before the U.S. government goes after private schools?

Even speaking out against homosexuality can get you fired. Crystal Dixon, an associate vice president at the University of Toledo, was fired after writing an opinion piece in the Toledo Free Press in support of traditional marriage . . . Fired—for exercising her First Amendment rights!

Promoters of same-sex "marriage" seem to go out of their way to target Christian businesses and churches. Their goal, it seems, is not the right to "marry," but to punish anyone who disagrees with them.

Clearly, there is a spiritual battle going on here: Christians are under attack because they are a public witness to the fact that a holy God created us male and female, and we will always put obedience to Him and His laws above obedience to any earthly demand for loyalty.

The coming persecution of Christians is one more reason why we need to get involved with efforts to pass laws at the state and federal level defining marriage as a legal relationship between one man and one woman. We must protect, not only genuine marriage, but also many of the freedoms we now take for granted: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom to use private property the way we see fit—all are under threat.

And we must tell our friends and neighbors why gay "marriage" is not just about equality: It is about forcing religious believers to accept the validity of the homosexual lifestyle —or else.

****************************

12:15 PM, July 01, 2008  
Anonymous Rufus said...

Here's an opinion of your last post, the commentary by Chuck Colson. UTTER HOGWASH. All the examples he gives of supposed persecution have other sides, which he does not address. There is reconciling secular rules and laws with religious viewpoints in these cases. None of these examples actually squelch free speach.

It IS about equal rights. There is no vast agenda to force society to accept a sexual behavior. You are falling into the same trappings as SCIA, equating being gay with only sexual behaviors.

Think about it. Is sexuality the only reason people marry. No, it's a part of it, but not the reason. Why do you think it is different for gays and lesbians?

Maybe "forcing" your religious views was the incorrect thing to say to you OMD, maybe applying your religious views is more accurate.

How many times, though, have I heard the phrase "forcing homosexuality down the throats". Just as you are not "forcing" your religion, no one is "forcing" homesexuality.

1:59 PM, July 01, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Is this the same Chuck Colson that was one of the "Watergate Seven?" I don't keep my store by the viewpoints of born-again Evangelicals.

3:48 PM, July 01, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

I have stated my opinion. It is Christian belief and thus my belief that homosexual sexual behavior is a sinful behavior.

We will have to agree to disagree on this and I hold no animosity towards homosexuals.

My job as a Christian is to ensure those participating homosexuals and/or those sympathetic to homosexual behavior hear that the God of creation considers homosexual sexual behavior and thoughts of such, a sin. BUT is willing to forgive, forget, heal and make those that come to Jesus a joint heir in the Kingdom of Heaven.

In order for any of us to get back into God's grace we have to understand that we are all in need of redemption through a Savior. That Savior is Jesus. We all know the history of Jesus's life, death and resurrection so I won't go on about it.

God loves each of us and does not want even one of us to perish BUT many will.

Who will perish you ask? All those that reject Jesus and His offer of grace and salvation, will perish, meaning they will be eternally separated from God.

You may believe this or not. It's YOUR choice, no one else's. If you haven't called out to Jesus and asked Him to forgive you [Jesus is the judge] do it now. I can tell you that I am a changed person from what I used to be. Do I sin? Yup. On purpose? Sometimes. Is it right? Nope. Everyday I go before God and ask for forgiveness and help so that I do not sin. He is working on me. I am healing and improving and happier.

You see, when we go to Jesus and give Him our lives it is our Spirit that is changed. We still have to contend with our sinful flesh.

I pray that each of you will ponder Jesus and I pray the Holy Spirit will descend on each of you and begin to nuture your spirit.

Just watch and see what happens as the government and churches give approval to homosexual behavior. It's already beginning to happen now. For a time it will seem sweet and victorious but I guarantee it will sour in your bellies when the consequences are seen.

Lord Jesus, forgive each of these as that really do not know what they are doing.

6:10 PM, July 01, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why does religion deserve to not be attacked? They've done a hell of a lot more attacking others than I have. They deserve every lawsuit and bankrupt churches that they have now and more. They are deserving of the scorn and the embarassment they receive and more. They indoctrinate children to believe in invisble men that love them but will kill them if they're too naughty. They endorse the genital mutilation done to children. And some have even taken children to their beds. And these are supposedly the ones that care for children's souls.

I only hope I live long enough to see religion die. Then I can go to the void with a smile.

Ken Weaver

7:50 PM, July 01, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

OMD, who are you to tell anyone what is and what is not sin?

8:37 PM, July 01, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Oh, and did you mean to sound as pompous and condescending as you came off?

8:40 PM, July 01, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

I find it very interesting (and typical) that Scia has not responded to our requests for Scripture where Jesus himself condemned homosexuality.

8:29 AM, July 02, 2008  
Anonymous rufus said...

"I find it very interesting (and typical) that Scia has not responded to our requests for Scripture where Jesus himself condemned homosexuality."

Maybe his "staff" lost the post it note again...those slackers.

Everyone have a great 4th!

2:00 PM, July 02, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

dmurphy98,

You said:

"Quote me chapter and verse where in any Gospel Jesus, in any form, even mentions homosexuality."

Let's start real simple.

1 Corinthians 6:9

" 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

6:54 PM, July 03, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My KJ version says:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

Fornicator: Basically one who has sex while not married or to an unmarried person.

Idolater: One who worships idols.

Adulterers: Having sex with someone who is not your spouse.

Effeminate: Having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.

Abusers of yourselves with mankind: This could mean almost anything. What if me and my friends like to hit each other with baseball bats?

One thing I don’t see here is the word homosexual or even an indisputable correlation with homosexuality.

Lastly, I thought this was a letter from Peter, not Jesus, am I wrong?

Ken Weaver

7:58 PM, July 03, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Scia:

Ken hits the nail on the head. I did not ask for a quote from any epistle, Pauline or otherwise. I simply asked you in response to your post that Jesus "said plenty about homosexuality" to quote me, chapter and verse, what he said.

You can't do so, because Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Isn't that true?

8:27 AM, July 04, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"My job as a Christian is to ensure those participating homosexuals and/or those sympathetic to homosexual behavior hear that the God of creation considers homosexual sexual behavior and thoughts of such, a sin. BUT is willing to forgive, forget, heal and make those that come to Jesus a joint heir in the Kingdom of Heaven."

No, your job as a Christian is to follow the commandments of Christ. He gave two great commandments, neither one of them dealt with GLBT people. Spreading His word this way is your own concoction, not His will.

Since you want some Bible talk let's consider this:

A Study of Romans 14
"Accept those whose faith is weak, Paul begins, without passing judgment in disputable matters"

"People grow in faith through love and acceptance, not through ostracism."

"Christians who think they are strong are sometimes tempted to look down on others."

"Some matters are disputable. The beliefs and practices that some Christians think are important are unimportant to others."

"Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification"

"Blessed are those who do not condemn themselves by what they approve"

Do not help me with the splinter in my eye when you have a log in your own.

I am unashamed of who I am and the loving relationship I have with Raymond now going on 14 years. I believe God made me who I am and I love Him even more for having trusted me with the challenge of living in a world where homophobia exists.

While you're milling this over you might want to also realize that this is merely an exercise in academics for people in Massachusetts. We have had marriage equality for years and we have not had any verifiable negative ramafications what-so-ever.

If you truly come in His name let us start thinking along the terms of how we learn to live together as respectful neighbors rather than trying to impose your beliefs on the unwilling.

3:10 PM, July 04, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

Questions: Please answer yes or no

1. Do you believe the Bible is the word of God given by God to mankind.

2. Do you believe that God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit are the same person in 3 different forms?

Read John 1: 1-18

As far as my only job being to fulfill the commandments... not true.

Read Matthew 28: 16-24

As the Bible IS the word of God given to mankind and God is a triune being then Jesus was God in human form. He is also the same God in Genesis 1. This being established...The Bible is replete with teaching about homosexual behavior being a sin and JESUS is the author as He is the Same as God the Father & God the Holy Spirit.

Believe it or not. It's YOUR choice and YOUR choice only.

If you do not believe what I have shared then our conversation has to end because there is nothing left.

Now, I do not have any anomosity towards those choosing to engage in homosexual behavior. This has nothing to do with how one may or may not have been made. It is ALL about the choices or actions we take regarding behavior.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Romans 3: 21-26

This means me too. I am making no judgement of you. You yourself have admitted your sin. I have shared what the Bible teaches. All I am doing is offering you the choice of accepting Jesus, asking His forgiveness and trying your best to follow God's laws. If that means giving up adultry, fornication or homosexual behavior then we are committing ourselves to die to self to serve Him.

The term homophobia is fallacious term and way overused. Because one states their opinion about homosexual practice does not make one homophobic as you intend the term. No one is imposing their beliefs when you engage in a mutual conversation. I could say the same of the homosexual lobby with forcing their lifestyle on those that disagree with it. I don;t know what the answer is all I know is that I will not affirm my sin and I will not affirm the homosexual sin. I can accept you as you but I cannot accept your sin as much as I cannpt accept mine is another way of stating it. The homosexual wants the non-homosexual to affirm their chosen behavior. Remember, everything we do i.e. take action on, is a choice.

God's speed to you

4:04 PM, July 05, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"The homosexual wants the non-homosexual to affirm their chosen behavior."

Wrong. We don't have to agree in order to treat each other in a way that does not bring ourselves shame. We can behave as dignified neighbors, giving credit for the good we see in each other while maintaining our beliefs.

When you care to respond to Romans 14 I will answer your questions.

4:32 PM, July 05, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Do you believe the Bible is the word of God given by God to mankind.

No

2. Do you believe that God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit are the same person in 3 different forms?

No

“As the Bible IS the word of God given to mankind and God is a triune being then Jesus was God in human form. He is also the same God in Genesis”

Man what a turn around. First he’s like “Do something just a little wrong and I’ll turn you into a pillar of salt” Then he says I love you and I’ll die if you do something wrong” I think god might be bipolar. He has some major mood swings.

“I am making no judgement of you.”

Oh of course not, why would anyone think that of you? You just believe if you’re not going to honor god’s plan you can’t get married.

“All I am doing is offering you the choice of accepting Jesus, asking His forgiveness and trying your best to follow God's laws.”

And trying to ensure marriage is only for good hetero people.

“I could say the same of the homosexual lobby with forcing their lifestyle on those that disagree with it.”

Don’t drop the soap?

Ken Weaver

10:24 AM, July 06, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

John I did not know you expected a response on Romans 14. You had asked me to consider it. I will reread your post and then read Romans 14 and respond to it. Fair enough?

BTW I do agree and have stated on numerous occasions that all people should be treated with human dignity.

10:49 AM, July 06, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

Ken, you are off base. You answered no to both my questions, which is a shift for you as before you admitted your were more agnostic and at least open to the idea of the Bible.

We are unable now to communicate on the whole issue in discussion because you have no belief in the teachings of the Holy Scriptues, which is the basis and foundation for my viewpoint. You have heard the word of God and have made your choice.

Some times I think the positions you take are purely to be an antagonist.

You have absolutely no understanding of the Bible and on top of that you believe that you should be able to do anything you want AND on top of it you expect that God is going to say "That's ok Ken, you say you don't believe in me and that you don't believe my word BUT you can still enter my realm without discipline. You get a free pass."

Ken if that were true there would have been no need for God to appear in the human form of Jesus and be nailed to a tree to atone for our sins. Read the John it comes right after Luke. It teaches you about the Word of God and who He is. It also includes Jesus' words concerning Himself.

11:04 AM, July 06, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I will respond in kind to any and all respect afforded me. If we want progress we will have to work together. One common goal I am sure we all have is that we want to live in a community in which we do not feel threatened. How we go about relieving that feeling makes a world of difference.

12:33 PM, July 06, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“…before you admitted your were more agnostic and at least open to the idea of the Bible.”

I’m agnostic in the idea of proof; in everyday knowledge I doubt there is a god.

“You have heard the word of God and have made your choice.”

Now it is you who is way off base. I never heard anything from god; that’s what the problem has been.

“Some times I think the positions you take are purely to be an antagonist.”

Sometimes you’d be right.

“You have absolutely no understanding of the Bible…”

Wrong!! Would you like to go head to head on biblical knowledge?

“…you believe that you should be able to do anything you want…”

As long as it’s not taking away another person’s right to do what they want; yes!

“…you expect that God is going to say "That's ok Ken, you say you don't believe in me and that you don't believe my word BUT you can still enter my realm without discipline. You get a free pass."”

Actually I don’t expect god to say anything because imaginary people don’t talk to those who can’t see them. But if god is not imaginary and you are correct in your religious convictions I will happily go to the gallows because he is not worthy of my love, friendship or my worship.

“Read the John it comes right after Luke. It teaches you about the Word of God and who He is.”

Do you have any idea how crazy John was? The man sat out in the wilderness eating crickets. Does that sound like a reasonable sane man to you? Come on man, think just a little please!

Ken Weaver

9:16 PM, July 06, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

No Ken, John the Apostle not John the Baptist. Read John. It's the book after Luke.

You have heard the word of God. It has been quoted to you and references for you to read have been given to you. At least look at al the evidence so you can make an informed decision

But as you say, He is not worthy of your love, friendship or worship. By saying this you are rejecting Jesus. That is the one and only unforgivable sin. No man or woman wants to pass from this world rejecting Jesus.

11:30 PM, July 06, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

John are you paraphrasing and picking out selected verses from Romans 14? I ask because I have read at least 6 different Bibles from NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, Holman, 21st Century KJV and I do not see the wording you are using in quotes. It seems to me you are assigning your value assessment and individual interpretation. The word of God is for all not just Christians.

For example you wrote:
"Christians who think they are strong are sometimes tempted to look down on others."

For clarity sake please provide the verse number you are referring to. I do not want to guess. This is what is written in verse 3 of Chapter 14 of Romans:
"3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him." [NIV] Are you implying that verse to be a pro-homosexual verse?

11:50 PM, July 06, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“But as you say, He is not worthy of your love, friendship or worship. By saying this you are rejecting Jesus. That is the one and only unforgivable sin. No man or woman wants to pass from this world rejecting Jesus.”

Let me get this strait, I can murder, rape, pillage cities, molest babies, eat children, rob banks, destroy lives and your god would still forgive me unless I say he is not worthy? By that alone he would not be worthy.

How can anyone love, let alone respect this so called god? Even if he did create us, even if he created the heaven and earth, the fact that a belief is stronger than action to him is deplorable. The possibility that a good and decent man could go to hell for not believing and a serial killer could go to heaven simply by believing is NOT justice. There are other reasons that could cause me to turn my back on your god, but this alone causes me to turn my back with disgust at your “loving” god. I can’t comprehend how intelligent people can shower this “invisible man” with such praise and devotion and call him merciful. Even if Jesus is god in human form and he willingly went to the cross to die for our sins he would not be worthy of my respect because of his forgiveness of major crimes and his lack of forgiveness for those that look at the world and see no or very little evidence of his existence.

This is but just one of many reasons the most highly educated people in this world turn to atheism, but maybe that’s just par for the course.

Ken Weaver

7:57 AM, July 07, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

Ken, you are not the judge. Jesus is the judge. You are always saying that "Christians" can be judgmental people to which I would agree. The whole darn human race is that way. You show your frustration and that is born out of your continued judgement of God. You want to judge Him but you don't want Him to judge you. A bit hyopcritical, Ken, isn't it?

You get angry about that because deep inside you, you know you will stand before God and give an accounting of your life, which will be judged. Yet you stand with raised fist shaking it at God. Have you read the gospel account of John yet as I asked. I also suggested this to you over a year ago when we conversed privately via email.

9:41 PM, July 07, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

Ken check this out. Here is why God can forgive

We are a New Creation in Him!

Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,

namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

2 Corinthians 5:17-21 NASB

When we truly give ourselves to Him we become NEW. It is through Jesus that this is accomplished. Our own efforts, i.e. our works, will not work.

I lived an illicit life of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, sexual promiscuity, I stole, lied, cheated, was even faced with incarceration at one point, laughed in my parents faces and riduculed them, and there is much more that I don't care to share. I rejected God because I was angry with him. Then one day I found myself at a point where I couldn't turn anywhere. I was boxed in. I cried out to Jesus after I realized what a fool I had been and all the harm I had caused to people that loved me. I confessed my unbelief and asked Jesus to be my King. Now look, there were no lightning bolts or booming voices. I just knew in my heart that I truly repented and was willing to change my ways. I had become a new creature, spiritually. I still fight my flesh. AGAIN

We are a New Creation in Him!

Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,

namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

2 Corinthians 5:17-21 NASB

10:08 PM, July 07, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“You want to judge Him but you don't want Him to judge you.”

I have no problem with god judging me by my actions; that’s completely right and fair. But to judge me by my belief or lack thereof and solely on that aspect of my life is not righteous, it’s tyrannical.

John’s a crazy guy, that’s why I mistakenly correlated him to the Baptist John. However he was a disciple of John the Baptist.

John 1 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

What about Ezekiel?

Ezekiel 8 2Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of his loins even downward, fire; and from his loins even upward, as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber.

John 3 13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Where did Elijah go?

2 kings 2 11And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

John 3 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Who were these guys?

Genesis 6 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Shall I go on? John uses circular logic to prove points, but it’s funny anyway.

“You get angry about that because deep inside you, you know you will stand before God and give an accounting of your life, which will be judged. Yet you stand with raised fist shaking it at God.”

Please don’t presume to know who I am. It’s very rude. Maybe that’s why Christians have always pushed my buttons; they presume to know that if you don’t believe in Jesus as your savior, you’re not really happy, you’re only falsely happy. The audacity to know what true happiness is for not only themselves but for others as well. I have a little fly trap outside my back door. It attracts flies by imitating the pheromones flies produce when looking for a mate. All those little flies are all excited thinking about the great time their about to have, the no holds barred sex parties. But once they get in the door, BAM!! Their locked in and their about to die. I think faith in Christianity is a lot like that; Christians are blindly happy thinking about the heavenly rewards they’ll receive when the loving god embraces them to his bosom. I wonder what kind of a shock it would be to know your brain is about to shut down and darkness is enclosing on them. All the wasted time on your knees, all the times you wanted to party on Sunday but didn’t, the wasted money for the church, being nice to a jerk neighbor when you really wanted to smack him up the side of his head. What a letdown.

Ken Weaver

10:57 PM, July 07, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

We can have all the "God talk" we want, but it means little in the legal world. These issues are not to be used in making law.

11:18 AM, July 08, 2008  
Blogger unowhy said...

In Jesus' day, homosexuality was punishable by death. Jesus never challenged that law, instead He said, ""Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17

2:53 PM, July 09, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Unowhy:

Jesus in Matthew 5:17 did not say "the law." He said "the law or the prophets." In this context, that reference is to the Old Testament. Jesus indicates that he does not come to abolish the Hebrew scriptures, but to fulfil their promise through the apocalyptic event of Jesus' death and resurrection.

You attempt to interpret this passage as some implicit condemnation of homosexuality is at best a stretch and, at worst, lacking in any intellectual integrity.

3:50 PM, July 09, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Well said DMurphy98.

Laws are made in the best interest of those whom they govern, and they derive their authority by those people; "We the people..."

Religious teachings are slictly forbidden in law making. Have some gotten past the system? Of course they have, but we don't need to leave them in place once we recognize them as unnecessary.

Laws made to impose control on others need to bear the burden of scrutiny, and if they don't pass the test they don't get to stay (or become) law.

4:06 PM, July 09, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Well said, John.

5:12 PM, July 09, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“In Jesus' day, homosexuality was punishable by death. Jesus never challenged that law…”

Slavery was legal then, why didn’t Jesus say something about that? Working on the Sabbath was punishable by death as well, but Jesus kept silent there too. I wonder if Jesus wasn’t the moral guide some like to claim?

Ken Weaver

7:30 PM, July 09, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

Ken, you wrote,

"...Maybe that’s why Christians have always pushed my buttons; they presume to know that if you don’t believe in Jesus as your savior, you’re not really happy, you’re only falsely happy. The audacity to know what true happiness is for not only themselves but for others as well. I have a little fly trap outside my back door. It attracts flies by imitating the pheromones flies produce when looking for a mate. All those little flies are all excited thinking about the great time their about to have, the no holds barred sex parties. But once they get in the door, BAM!! Their locked in and their about to die. I think faith in Christianity is a lot like that; Christians are blindly happy thinking about the heavenly rewards they’ll receive when the loving god embraces them to his bosom. I wonder what kind of a shock it would be to know your brain is about to shut down and darkness is enclosing on them. All the wasted time on your knees, all the times you wanted to party on Sunday but didn’t, the wasted money for the church, being nice to a jerk neighbor when you really wanted to smack him up the side of his head. What a letdown."

Answer - The we are to be the most pitied

8:07 AM, July 10, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Answer - The we are to be the most pitied”

What the heck is that supposed to mean? You didn’t respond to anything I quoted from John.

Ken Weaver

11:30 PM, July 10, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

Ken you wrote:

"I wonder what kind of a shock it would be to know your brain is about to shut down and darkness is enclosing on them? All the wasted time on your knees, all the times you wanted to party on Sunday but didn’t, the wasted money for the church, being nice to a jerk neighbor when you really wanted to smack him up the side of his head. What a letdown."

My response was an answer to your question. Ken, do you really think that being a Christian is easy. Do you think we are are any less human than you or that we don't succumb to temptation or want to smack our neighbor? There is a lot that I no longer do that I used to, to the angst of my party boy/girl friends. If all this is a sham as you imply and I wasted my time on my knees while everyone else was having fun and all this was for naught THEN:

We are to be among the most pitied of people.

As far as your verse quotes from John what are you asking?

John was a Apostle of Jesus. He was one of the 12 not to be mistaken with John the Baptist whose sole purpose was to prepare the people and announce Jesus.

No one has seen God the Father. No one has come from heaven and ascended to heaven except Jesus. Elijah was born of mortal man & woman. The verse you quote says he went up to heaven in a whirlwind. Where in Heaven, who knows?

Elijah, Ezekiel, John the Baptist are all prophets. I don't think I fully understand what you are asking about those verses in John

7:32 PM, July 19, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Ken, do you really think that being a Christian is easy.”

Easier than being an atheist.

“We are to be among the most pitied of people.”

No; you are to be the most hated of people not because you believe but because your beliefs intrude on the rights of others.

“The verse you quote says he went up to heaven in a whirlwind. Where in Heaven, who knows?”

Okay, let me get this strait, OT says Elijah went to heaven, his mode of transportation is unimportant; NT in John says no one has ascended to heaven; and you give me this lame excuse? That’s like me going to Boston and you saying I didn’t go to the right part of Boston. IT WAS STILL BOSTON!!

John said no one has ever seen god, but in the OT It specifically states that Ezekiel saw god’s loins; are you going to tell me it wasn’t the right part of god? IT WAS STILL GOD!!

John said that god had ONLY one son but in the OT it specifically states that the sons of god had sex with women, maybe they were god’s son in laws?

These are real inaccuracies in the bible, and the lame excuse you tried to pass off won’t fly with me. I want real answers, not this lame crap.

I’m sorry if I got angry, but this is the kind of crap people have been trying to indoctrinate me with since I was a kid. And it always pisses me off when instead of answering a simple question they evade or ignore it.

Ken Weaver

11:28 PM, July 19, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Children are best served when given all the information they need in order to be successful. A school does not need to teach people that their religious beliefs are wrong, but they do have to talk about how all different types of people deserve the very same respect from our government. They also need to know that harassment and violence is wrong.

Much like sex education when I was a kid, if children don't learn things from school they will learn things in the streets and get much misinformation. It is better for us to sit down and iron out what should be taught than to leave the kids ignorant of the facts.

In real life we can't provide all children a mother and father scenario, nor is that what would best serve the child. There are many biological parents out there that are terrible with children. They do drugs and beat their kids, that is no sort of life for a child. Do you think in this situation it is stil better to have the children raised by their biological mother and father rather than a more responsible couple or even single guardian?

I say a child needs love and attention as well as stability in order to be healthy.

7:51 AM, July 20, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"Children are best served when given all the information they need in order to be successful."

Does that mean in addition to teaching children about homosexuality we should also teach them other lifestyles, like the lifestyle of a priest who makes mistakes and is put in jail for his actions? If your trying to play off of the "homosexuals are good people too" agenda, but their sin, like mine, is abhorable, then I will provide that priests are good people too and they as well can lead dangerous lifestyles.


You said:

"They also need to know that harassment and violence is wrong."

This I agree with, but why are we playing fire with fire? The homosexual lifestyle can lead to violent behaviors such as sadomachism and suicide. Why would I want to introduce children to those themes?????

You said:

"It is better for us to sit down and iron out what should be taught than to leave the kids ignorant of the facts."

O.K. John, what should children learn about the homosexual lifestyle? Will you leave out the fact that this lifestyle can decrease your life expectancy and increase your chances of catching STD's vs the heterosexual lifestyle??

You conclude with:

"I say a child needs love and attention as well as stability in order to be healthy."

It seems the Beatles got it wrong! You need a whole lot more than love when it comes to raising stable and healthy, well-adjusted children.

Kids need their mother AND father. The majority of children growing up in same-sex homes are being raised by lesbians - intentionally fatherless homes (U.S. Census 2000). While our hearts tell us that children need their mothers, thousands of social-science studies tell us that children suffer in all the important ways when they live in a home without their father (Ronald P. Rohner and Robert A. Veneziano, "The Importance of Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence"). And having an additional new parent replacing the father does little to make things better. While a compasionate and caring society ALWAYS comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families, a wise and loving society NEVER intentionally creates fatherless or motherless families. But that is exactly what every same-sex family does and for no other reason than for the sexual desires of the adults of such families. No child-development theory says children NEED parents of the same gender - as loving as they might be - but rather that children NEED their mother and father.

In addition to my above questions to you John, think about these questions:

1. How can two loving, homosexual men teach a young boy to care for and love a woman?

2. How will the boy observe this in a home where it doesn't exist?

3. What will two loving moms teach a little girl about men? How healthy will that picture be?

4. Don't dame-sex relationships, by definition, fail to provide many of the important things children need, since they are missing one of that child's natural parents and one essential part of humanity?

Love does little to help a man teach a little girl how to be a woman. Can you imagine two men guiding a young girl through her first menstrual cycle or helping her through the awkwardness of picking out her first bra?

Love can't equip mothers to teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the two most loving men can't be a mother to a child.

Yes, children need love and attention, but from a stabile relationship of a mother and a father.

Thanks for listening John.

Scia

7:29 PM, July 22, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Now I understand! Scia likes to pose questions to make it seem like he's the smartest guy in the room, but never answers anyone else's. Nice rhetorical device.

Ignore the man behind the curtain.

7:43 PM, July 24, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

dmurphy98,

What questions am I dodging my friend??

8:24 PM, July 26, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Thank you for proving my point.

4:29 PM, July 27, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Priest abuse of children should cannot be compared to homosexuality because the former is a crime where the latter is not. The comparison in and of itself is insulting.

Scia, you said:

"The homosexual lifestyle can lead to violent behaviors such as sadomachism and suicide. Why would I want to introduce children to those themes?????"

The GLBT community has no monopoly on sadomasicism, the hetereosexual community is just as apt to practice this behavior. As far as suicide goes, the dangers of not saying something to help a confused GLBT teen identify themselves and get the proper support increases the likelihood of this happening. Prevention comes with education.

You said:

"O.K. John, what should children learn about the homosexual lifestyle?"

They need to learn different things at different ages. In the early grades they should simply learn we exist. In the later ages it would be best for us to put all our knowledge on the table and trust our children are at least as smart as we are. Like I said, we could meet on what is to be taught and why, that way we have a sound social policy going forward.

As far as increased risk of STD's, show me information independent of Dobson's shadow and I will consider the point. Cite your source.

You say:

"Kids need their mother AND father. "

What happens when this is not an option? Clearly we have had this situation arise in our history. Are you saying that children won't be healthy otherwise?

I have someone in mind who blows your theory out of the water. This person had his mother and father around, but they were abusive drunks who seldom did more than beat him and degrade him. Are you going to tell me he was not better off living in a non-tradtional home with his grandparents than in that abusive situation simply because it was his biological mother and father? I hope not, that would be ridiculous.

You asked me:

"1. How can two loving, homosexual men teach a young boy to care for and love a woman?"

The same way any single parent has since the begining of time. Romance and nurtouring
are not sex specific, the same is required of either sex.

"2. How will the boy observe this in a home where it doesn't exist?"

Again, since these qualities are not sex specific there is no trouble in using the love they do see as grounds for proper behavior.

"3. What will two loving moms teach a little girl about men? How healthy will that picture be?"

I'd ask you in return what it is you think they can't teach their children. This picture will be as healthy as the effort that goes into the process, just like any other developmental issue.

"4. Don't dame-sex relationships, by definition, fail to provide many of the important things children need, since they are missing one of that child's natural parents and one essential part of humanity?"

Same sex relionships are not simply about children, they are also about two people in love wishing governmental recognition of their union. When children are also a part of the equation what matters most is that the child is given love and a structured environment.

"Love does little to help a man teach a little girl how to be a woman. Can you imagine two men guiding a young girl through her first menstrual cycle or helping her through the awkwardness of picking out her first bra? "

You make it sound like men have never come across this issue before. I am keen of the old saying "two heads are betterthan one". Where a straight single parent can succeed at this, so can two gay men.

Today's children are more savvy than we were at the same age. They don't need protection from the same information we know. What they do need is for us to equip them with the tools for success, those tools being knowledge based.

We know for fact that children develop their behaviors based on what they learn at an early age. If we don't teach them that violence is unconditionally wrong no matter the situation we cannot expect them to learn this on their own.

Whether we have marriage equality or not is not going to stop GLBT families from existing. It sounds to me like if you had your way we wouldn't be allowed to keep our own children soley based on our sexuality. What a dangerous, discriminatory and irresponsible viewpoint.

7:45 AM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"The GLBT community has no monopoly on sadomasicism, the hetereosexual community is just as apt to practice this behavior."

37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism. Source: Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.

1. Where are your facts/sources to back up your claim that "the hetereosexual community is just as apt to practice this behavior."

You continue with:

"As far as suicide goes, the dangers of not saying something to help a confused GLBT teen identify themselves and get the proper support increases the likelihood of this happening."

Thanks for answering my question of:

"Why would I want to introduce children to those themes ('confused GLBT teen' issues)?????"

You state:

"In the early grades they should simply learn we exist."

2. WHY John, why??? What are the benefits of this??

You continue:

"Like I said, we could meet on what is to be taught and why, that way we have a sound social policy going forward."

3. This is my question - what is to be taught and WHY??? What is this 'sound social policy'??

You ask:

"As far as increased risk of STD's, show me information..."

Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. They make up only 1-2% of the population. Source: "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet

Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles historically accounting for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus. Source: United States Congressional Record.

78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs. Source: Rueda, E. "The Homosexual Network." Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, p. 53.

I have many more facts on this if you desire.

I said:

"Kids need their mother AND father. "

You responded with:

"What happens when this is not an option? Clearly we have had this situation arise in our history. Are you saying that children won't be healthy otherwise?"

And continued with:

"...Are you going to tell me he was not better off living in a non-tradtional home with his grandparents..."

What his heterosexual grandparents have to do with the topic at hand (HOMOsexual "parents") is confusing and does not prove any sort of point.

You said:

"...Romance and nurtouring
are not sex specific, the same is required of either sex."

I will ask a second time:

4. "What will two loving moms teach a little girl about men?"

You said:

"When children are also a part of the equation what matters most is that the child is given love and a structured environment."

The optimal environment for a child is one in which the child’s biological mother and father are married to one another. While it is true that men and woman are capable of providing love for children, it is also true that no child should deliberately be deprived of either a mother or father which is what occurs as the result of homosexual “marriage”. The small amount of research available regarding children raised in same-sex couple households reveals that such children are comparable in terms of well being to those in single parent households.(6. F. Tasker and S. Golombok, “Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65:2: 203-215 1995)

According to Sara McLanahan of Princeton University: “Regardless of which surveys are looked at, children from one parent families are about twice as likely to drop our of school as children from two-parent families.”

The Progressive Policy Institute, the research arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, reports that “the relationship between crime and one-parent families” is “so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low-income and crime. The conclusions show up time and again in the literature.” (Elaine Kamarack and William Galston, “Putting Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990s,” White paper from the Progressive Policy Institute(Sept 27,1990), pp.14-15.)

You said:

"Today's children are more savvy than we were at the same age. They don't need protection from the same information we know..."


You continue with:

"...It sounds to me like if you had your way we wouldn't be allowed to keep our own children soley based on our sexuality..."

No, it is based on the FACT that a homosexual parenting configuration is unhealthy for the child, of which I have proved in my above statements.

8:29 PM, August 01, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“No, it is based on the FACT that a homosexual parenting configuration is unhealthy for the child, of which I have proved in my above statements.”

Sorry Scia; I can show just as many studies as you have that show homosexual parenting to be just as healthy as any other. You haven't proved anything; the issue is still hotly debated.

Ken Weaver

11:24 PM, August 02, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It does seem odd though that all of your studies are backed and funded by religious organizations; I'd call that just a tad bit problematic.

Ken Weaver

11:26 PM, August 02, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Scia, like always you sidestep anything I say that you find too difficult to respond to. I asked how a child was best served staying with alcoholic abusive parents instead of being raised by his grandparents. You in turn said that my point had nothing to do with gay married couples.

That's true, but if the standard is that a child is best served by staying with his biological parents, then that standard should hold in all circumstances.

I was merely pointing out that your standard does not always work, so it now becomes suspect against the point you make.

The truth is that children are not always best served staying with their biological parents. The other point is that some of us ARE the biological parents in a now failed relationship. Do you expect us to forfit our parental rights because we no longer can live with the mother/father of our children?

4:30 PM, August 03, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

All your sources are suspect Scia, every last one. Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about:

"To cite an even worse example, consider the citation used for several of the other outlandish "statistics" listed on the page, including the claim, which you repeated, that the average homosexual dies in their 40s: "Fields, Dr. E. 'Is Homosexual Activity Normal?' Marietta, GA." Here, we don't even get a publication.

So who is Dr. E. Fields of Marietta? I hope he's not, but expect he is, the same individual described in a report by the Center for Democratic Renewal, an Atlanta-based hate-group watchdog organization: "The Truth At Last, handed out by various KKK factions, Populist Party, and neo-Nazi groups, is published by Marietta's Ed Fields. Fields was co-founder of the America First Party, a white supremacist political party."

This is from a listener of the Tony Dale show that I was alerted to. Here is the link for reference:

Listener's letter to Tony Dale

Are you out of your rabid little mind quoting a known white supremist?! You either did not do your homework, you are the company you keep, or more remotely you are someone who is sympathetic to our cause trying to make bigots look bad. Any way you slice it I have to say "wow!"

I think the listener put it best when he said:

"But it's your so-called facts, Tony, that can't mount a defense against a little critical thinking. Again, smart news consumers always consider the source. And your source was a Web page put up by the International Organization of Heterosexual Rights. The page does, in fact, use footnotes, but a footnote does not a fact make, as anyone who examines this page closely can quickly discern."

Most of your points in your last entry come from a group called "International Organization of Heterosexual Rights", the bias is ridiculous. Here's the link once again:

"Dr." Frank

I'll be delighted to hear you try to talk your way out of this mess.

4:13 PM, August 04, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Scia, I thought you said gay rights had absolutely nothing to do with the civil rights struggles of blacks, yet you quote Fields? You are doing a great job making this issue about civil rights Scia, thanks; you keep proving me right.

Ken Weaver

7:07 PM, August 04, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"Sorry Scia; I can show just as many studies as you have that show homosexual parenting to be just as healthy as any other. You haven't proved anything; the issue is still hotly debated."

Well...show me what studies you have then Ken. I love how you can pass your opinion off as fact and not BACK UP your claims.

Where are the studies????????

7:24 PM, August 08, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Well...show me what studies you have then Ken.”

A quote from the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics issued March 2007

“Millions of children have one or more gay and/or lesbian parents. For some children, having a gay or lesbian parent is not a big deal. Others may find it hard to have a family that is different from most families. Being different in any way can be confusing, frustrating, and even scary. But what really matters is that children can talk to their parents about how they feel and that there is love and support in the family.
Studies have shown that children with gay and/or lesbian parents are ultimately just as happy with themselves and their own gender as are their friends with heterosexual parents. Children whose parents are homosexual show no difference in their choice of friends, activities, or interests compared to children whose parents are heterosexual. As adults, their career choices and lifestyles are similar to those of children raised by heterosexual parents.
Research comparing children raised by homosexual parents to children raised by heterosexual parents has found no developmental differences in intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, or peer popularity between them. Children raised by homosexual parents can and do have fulfilling relationships with their friends as well as romantic relationships later on.


(How) Does The Sexual Orientation Of Parents Matter?. American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, April 2001
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=276907

This study did find some striking differences. While the children of SS couples were more likely to experiment with SS activity, they were no more likely than any other children to identify as adults as gay or lesbian.

“the children of homosexual parents show no difference in levels of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, behavior problems, or social performance, but do show a higher level of affection, responsiveness, and concern for younger children and "seem to exhibit impressive psychological strength."”

This study also showed that daughters of SS couples were more likely to take on a career that generally were dominated by males such as doctors, engineers and lawyers.

And here is a link to the APA and here are nearly 70 studies that show no ill affects of homosexual parenting.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpstspec.html

Now I know you’re going to pull out some weird quote from some fundamentalist saying all these studies are wrong for one reason or another. So I’ll just say this; the studies I bring are from independent sources, not one is from a known pro-homosexual organization. You cannot say the same about the studies you mentioned can you? Are any of the studies you mentioned not from a known anti gay organization or religiously funded group? That’s the real difference Scia. The anti-gay organizations and religious groups had their minds made up well before their studies began as to what they wanted their study to end up saying.

Ken Weaver

PS “I love how you can pass your opinion off as fact and not BACK UP your claims.”

Shadupppp!!

1:22 AM, August 09, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I'm still waiting for a retort upon learning one of your sources to be Fields, co-founder of the America First Party.

More likely what you'll do is pretend you didn't get caught quoting a white supremist and hope people forget. We don't forget Scia. We remember everything. In case we forget it's written in our emails and our blogs for all of eternity to read and learn from.

You are nothing but a narcisist and a bigot. If you represent what God wants of us I wouldn't follow Him, his standards are too low for me. Thankfully more people by the day can see exactly what you and your friends are really like.

It puts a smile on my face to know that displays like yours help bring us to that understanding, an understanding it seems that will forever escape you while swaddled in your hate.

Know this; the pain that both consumes and drives you is not from my actions but from your lack of ability to love your fellow man in spite of his differences. It is just that you suffer for this ignorance.

2:01 PM, August 10, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Are you quoting the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) whom in a2002 study cautioned that "the small and non-representative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve," and that "Research exploring the diversity of parental relationships among gay and lesbian parents is just beginning." (Ellen C Perrin, MD, “Technical Report: Co-parent and Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics, Vol 109 no.2, (2002).

Thus, the report's conclusion that "a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual," contradicts the fact that the authors of the study acknowledge the newness of the research.

The report concludes that the same-sex families closely resemble step-families formed after heterosexual couples divorce. Strong empirical evidence exists that suggests that children fare better with a single biological parent than in a step-family. Thus, if children raised in same-sex homes resemble children raised in step and divorced families as the AAP Technical Report concludes, there is very little research to indicate that same sex parenting is healthy for children.

The AAP is ENTRENCHED, if not in bed with, the homosexual community and you have the gall to say:

"the studies I bring are from independent sources, not one is from a known pro-homosexual organization."

ARE YOU SERIOUS?????!!!!!!!!

7:56 PM, August 10, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

Wow, you really feel good about yourself. Well, that is what Christ would want, but not at the expense of someone elses mistakes.

After futher INCONCLUSIVE evidence has, and continues to show, it is revealed that the late Dr. E. Fields of Marietta, GA has possible ties to the white supremicist circles. As a result of this possibility my blogs use of Dr. Fields as a source in previous posts and comments is no longer going to be tolerated. My sincerest appologies to all of you in using such an abhorant individual to cite from.

Know Thy Facts, or its staff, does not tolerate racism or hate of any kind, so even the use of a source who could possibly be tied to racism is unacceptable.

Thanks for the leads John, it lead to a lot more "cons" than "pros" in using Dr. Fields as a credible source.

God Bless,

Scia and staff.

8:11 PM, August 10, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“The AAP is ENTRENCHED, if not in bed with, the homosexual community…”

What’s your evidence for this assumption? I’ll quote you “I love how you can pass your opinion off as fact and not BACK UP your claims.”

And I don’t feel the need to show how kids with ss couples are just as well off as those with their natural parents; I just have to show how they are equal to or greater than any other individual or couples that are allowed to adopt by the standards today. An A+ isn’t needed to graduate, people can still graduate with D’s.

I don’t believe this crap Scia; you sucked me into this conversation once again. Marriage isn’t about kids so any issue you’ve invented combining the two is irrelevant. It’s just another “straw man” argument to stay away from the real issues; citizen rights.

Ken Weaver

10:27 PM, August 10, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"Know Thy Facts, or its staff, does not tolerate racism or hate of any kind, so even the use of a source who could possibly be tied to racism is unacceptable."

Lol, still living in the land of make believe I see. OK, I'm game. Why don't you forward this declaration to your international headquarters so that it can be disseminated to all your worldwide branches and staff simultaneously.

Since you claim a "no room for hate" policy please feel free to disassociate yourself with the hate group MassResistance while you are at it.

12:28 PM, August 11, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

I said:

“The AAP is ENTRENCHED, if not in bed with, the homosexual community…”

And the evidence:

1. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jun/07060404.html

And my fave:

2. http://www.narth.com/docs/endorses.html

You said:

"I just have to show how they (Same-Sex Couples) are equal to or greater than any other individual or couples that are allowed to adopt by the standards today."

I am still waiting for the UNBIASED facts on this fallacious claim.

You said in closing:

"I don’t believe this crap Scia; you sucked me into this conversation once again."

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! AKA - You can not refute what I have stated as fact! Plain and simple.

7:28 PM, August 19, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“And the evidence:”

Scia, please do not attempt to use circular logic on me, it doesn’t work. Try citing evidence from unbiased sources.

I said: I just have to show how they (Same-Sex Couples) are equal to or greater than any other individual or couples that are allowed to adopt by the standards today.

Scia replies: I am still waiting for the UNBIASED facts on this fallacious claim.

You want evidence that ss couples should be allowed to adopt when their relationships are equal to or greater than other adoptions? Please clarify.

I said: I don’t believe this crap Scia; you sucked me into this conversation once again.

Scia said: WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! AKA - You can not refute what I have stated as fact! Plain and simple.

I’m sorry Scia but 1+1 does not equal 3. My statement only said that your arguments are lame. Your statement is not unlike someone saying people shouldn’t be allowed to buy a sports car because there isn’t room for a back seat.

Ken Weaver

11:01 PM, August 20, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

“The AAP is ENTRENCHED, if not in bed with, the homosexual community…”

This is the same response to anyone that looks and sees that equality is for everyone, including GLBT people. Any group or people that see th merit of judging GLBT people as individuals suddenly become either brainwashed, controlled, or co-conspiritors in the "gay agenda". It does not occur to the people in MassResistance that some simply see th injustice and want to correct it.

Scia said: "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"

I have to smile when he reduces the conversation to this level. This reaction needs no retort, it speaks poorly enough of the person who spat it in and of itself.

Clearly we are not dealing with the most educated or mature people here.

12:41 PM, August 21, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

HOW are same-sex couples greater than any other individual in raising children, either when the child is adopted or when the child is the biological son/daughter of one of the SS individuals?

Now, I gather that you are going to give me an answer that will focus on 'it is not the sexual orientation of the SS "parents" that matters, but it is how they get the job done of raising the child that is more important.'

If that is the case why would someone want to INTENTIONALLY take away a mother or a father from the child as a result of SS couples taking over the child rearing duties? In your opinion Ken, what are the benefits of injecting a child into a motherless or fatherless household.

Yes, not all situations can be perfect by having children in a household with a mother and a father, but WHAT are the benefits of intentionally giving a child a family WITHOUT a mother or a father?

8:16 PM, August 22, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“it is not the sexual orientation of the SS "parents" that matters, but it is how they get the job done of raising the child that is more important.'”

Well said!

“If that is the case why would someone want to INTENTIONALLY take away a mother or a father from the child as a result of SS couples taking over the child rearing duties?”

I am assuming that what you are speaking of is a situation in which a ss couple to get one of the members pregnant or a person outside the relationship to bear a child for the couple; am I correct? If so, I doubt that the idea is to take away a mother or father figure from the equation in totality, but is an effect of the situation as a whole. When I was younger I used to take old junk cars and make them fast. I’d rebuild the engine and trans, weld the spider gears in the differential and then beef up the brakes and suspension. Also what I would do is remove as much weight as possible from the vehicle; up to and including removing the back seat. The purpose of a car is to get passengers from place to place, but when you remove the seats it is no longer able to fulfill that purpose. I didn’t take out the seats to ensure it could not take passengers; I took out the seats to make the car faster. SS couples are not having kids to intentionally remove a mother or father; it is purely an effect of the situation as a whole. As to why they would continue to produce a child knowing that; I can only surmise it is the instinctual drive to continue the bloodline.

“In your opinion Ken, what are the benefits of injecting a child into a motherless or fatherless household.”

I must concede that I see no real benefits. But as I wrote before the intention is not to “inject” a child into a motherless or fatherless situation, it is purely a consequence. Life does not always deal us all the same cards. I believe homosexuals are born that way; and even though they cannot produce children as a hetero couple could they still feel a need to reproduce. Our medical advances in child bearing have provided them with a path to fulfill that need. Even if society denies ss couples the right to marry nothing society can do will remove this need. The most you can hope for is that homosexual couples would not be allowed to adopt; but what a loss. How many kids need to be adopted? And you want society to deny these couples that ability and think it is for the benefit of children? If they want kids there is no possible way to deny them the use of their own bodies to reproduce. All you would be accomplishing is ensuring that fewer kids will be adopted and more born from surrogate mothers or sperm donors. Is that really an end you or anyone could relish? I guess my question for you is what are the benefits to ensuring that ss couples are not allowed to adopt? Is your next step to deny them the ability to use their bodies to produce children if their parenting structure does not adhere to your characterization of a family?

Ken Weaver

1:13 AM, August 24, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

“In your opinion Ken, what are the benefits of injecting a child into a motherless or fatherless household.”

The benefits are determined on an individual basis by examining all the facts. It may not seem possible to people like Scia but we can be judged as individuals in life and not stereotypes.

I would expect that whomever is in charge of deciding the children's fate would take all options involved and give the children to the enviornment that seems best for that specific situation. In some cases the best option is a loving and stable same sex couple's home, or even a single GLBT person's home over their other options.

I am hopeful that the well being of the child perveys over politics.

1:16 PM, August 24, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"SS couples are not having kids to intentionally remove a mother or father; it is purely an effect of the situation as a whole."

I am sure the ss couple does not give a crap about subjecting the child to a motherless or fatherless family, because if they did they would not subject a child to such a "family".

You continue with:

"As to why they would continue to produce a child knowing that; I can only surmise it is the instinctual drive to continue the bloodline."

So, you think it is O.K. for two men to get "a person outside the relationship to bear a child for the couple" which would intentionally subject the child to a motherless household? Or maybe you think if this "outside person" visits the child a couple times a week that will be good enough for the child to witness a mother figure...kind of sounds like a divorced family situation of which I have pointed out the many discrepincies of.

You asked:

"I guess my question for you is what are the benefits to ensuring that ss couples are not allowed to adopt?"

The child will have a mother and a father.

You continue with:

"And you want society to deny these couples that ability (to adopt) and think it is for the benefit of children? If they want kids there is no possible way to deny them the use of their own bodies to reproduce. All you would be accomplishing is ensuring that fewer kids will be adopted and more born from surrogate mothers or sperm donors. Is that really an end you or anyone could relish? "

Why is it that people think all of a sudden, past four years let's say, that just because same-sex couples can adopt in some states, that if they can no longer have the ability to adopt it is going to crush the adoption process because there is not going to be enough heterosexuals to take care of the kids?

The adoption process survived the PRE-homosexual agenda, I think they can handle it now without intentionally subjecting children to a motherless or fatherless family, AKA a divorced family atmosphere, which in some cases is worse than NOT having a mother or a father.

You conclude with:

"Is your next step to deny them the ability to use their bodies to produce children if their parenting structure does not adhere to your characterization of a family?"

It is not my 'characterization', it is what Christ wants for His children, not what you or I want.

8:29 PM, August 30, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“I am sure the ss couple does not give a crap about subjecting the child to a motherless or fatherless family…”

Some people do not share your opinion that those families are not detrimental to a child’s well being.

“So, you think it is O.K. for two men to get "a person outside the relationship to bear a child for the couple…”

Yes I do.

I said: I guess my question for you is what are the benefits to ensuring that ss couples are not allowed to adopt?

Scia replied: The child will have a mother and a father.

Are you serious? How many kids in adoption centers or in foster care never get adopted? In 2006, 216 kids in Arkansas alone left adoption centers without ever being adopted, and those kids grow up without a family of any kind. I don’t know the national numbers but I have little doubt that the numbers are somewhat similar from state to state. Those kids won’t have a mother or a father or even anyone they could possibly depend upon. They can’t get beyond a high school education because once they turn 18 they’re out on the street. Imagine that for your 18th birthday you were put on the street. I know what that’s like, but it’s worse for them because they have no one. I can’t even imagine that, can you? Would it really be so bad if even just a few were adopted into a ss family instead of never getting adopted?

“The adoption process survived the PRE-homosexual agenda, I think they can handle it now without intentionally subjecting children to a motherless or fatherless family, AKA a divorced family atmosphere, which in some cases is worse than NOT having a mother or a father.”

Some atmospheres are worse than divorced families yes, but they are caused not so much by divorce but by abuse. Growing up with one parent if that parent truly cares about the child regardless of bloodline is better than any abuse. Can you show me how it is possible that having a caring ss family is worse than not having a family?

“It is not my 'characterization', it is what Christ wants for His children, not what you or I want.”

I just deleted what was going to be my last paragraph but decided to delete it because it was filled with a lot of venom; I suggest you quit trying to tell me what your god wants because I doubt you know. I ask you this instead; is nothing outside the abilities of your Christ-god? Can he do absolutely anything?

Ken Weaver

10:23 AM, August 31, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You asked:

"Would it really be so bad if even just a few were adopted into a ss family instead of never getting adopted?"

That is like asking: would it be so bad to have Christ's children exposed to sexual sin between homosexuals until they can move out at 18 years of age? Come on!!

You asked:

"Can you show me how it is possible that having a caring ss family is worse than not having a family?"

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP)2002 report concludes that the same-sex families closely resemble step-families formed after heterosexual couples divorce. Strong empirical evidence exists that suggests that children fare better with a single biological parent than in a step-family. Thus, if children raised in same-sex homes resemble children raised in step and divorced families as the AAP Technical Report concludes, there is very little research to indicate that same sex parenting is healthy for children.

National studies show that children from divorced and remarried families are more aggressive toward their parents and teachers, experience more depression, have more learning difficulties, are two to three times more likely to be referred for psychological help at school than their peers from intact families. More of them end up in mental health care clinics, have earlier sexual activity, have more children out of wed lock, have less marriage and more divorce, and experience more psychological problems than children of intact marriages.” (Judith Wallerstein, “The Long Term Effects of Divorce on Children: A Review,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 30 (1991) 349-360.)

I would rather turn my heart to Christ and be without a family than go through that Ken.

You conclude with:

"...is nothing outside the abilities of your Christ-god? Can he do absolutely anything?"

Yes.

You ought to ask Him to do something for you. Have you? Why or why not?

8:20 PM, September 06, 2008  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

Scia, would you provide me with a link to this report you mention “The American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP)2002 report concludes that the same-sex families closely resemble step-families formed after heterosexual couples divorce.”

8:43 AM, September 07, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Here is the source of the information you wanted. Google it and see what you can find.

Ellen C Perrin, MD, “Technical Report: Co-parent and Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics, Vol 109 no.2, (2002).

7:51 PM, September 12, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 341-344


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS


Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents
Ellen C. Perrin, MD and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health

What is the very first thing they have to say? Read here:

"A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes."

Here is the source cited.

Wow, followers of the Hate Group named MassResistance are misrepresenting scientist's work, who saw that coming, lol! Can anyone say James Dobson and Carol Gilligan?

5:57 AM, September 13, 2008  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

Scia, you have been duped. While the report you mentioned does actually say “These families closely resemble stepfamilies formed after heterosexual couples divorce…” the rest of the report goes to refute the belief that SS families are worse than the standard “nuclear” family. Whoever provided you with this quote deserves a good tongue lashing because they either completely took the quote out of context, lied, or took the quote from someone else without verifying it. You probably thought your source was reliable; they are not. You have numerous times called people “lazy” for not backing up their evidence; you have just been caught doing the same. You should have checked up on that quotation before posting it and passing it off as fact. You call your blog “Know thy Facts”, when you apparently don’t know them yourself.

“That is like asking: would it be so bad to have Christ's children exposed to sexual sin between homosexuals until they can move out at 18 years of age? Come on!!”

Would it be better if one of the parents was a drug user? How about a burglar? Bank robber? You’ve said many a time that all men are sinners and that god doesn’t view sin A as worse or better than sin B. If all men are sinners and sins are all equal then how is it possible that any kid would not be exposed to sin before 18?

“I would rather turn my heart to Christ and be without a family than go through that Ken.”

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

I said: ...is nothing outside the abilities of your Christ-god? Can he do absolutely anything?

Scia replies: Yes.

Can god make a rock so big that not even he can pick it up?

“You ought to ask Him to do something for you. Have you? Why or why not?”

I asked god for help years ago and got left to the “mercies” of good little Christian boys in the church bathroom. I don’t feel the need to ask god for anything now.

Hey John; extreme thanks for the link!!!!

11:13 AM, September 14, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Thanks in return for your continued effort to refute misinformation Ken. I echo your words, people should check their facts as the name of this blog implies.

My assumption is that we are talking to members of Focus on the Family and other radical elements. They know these are distortions in the truth, they just don't care.

11:45 AM, September 14, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com