At 12/16/04 10:01 PM, SPQRI3 wrote: Conservative said it was going to happen and those that were blinded by the homosexuals and their agenda are going to realize what is going on at this very moment in Canada. Yes, thanks to the Canadian Supreme Court and their ruling on the non-discrimination against gays and allowing gay marriage, groups like NAMBLA and the EGALE are pushing to lower the age of consent for anal sex. This is thanks to the idea that the Canadian government cannot "discriminate" upon their sexual preferences. Currently at the age of 18, anal sex consent is possibly going to be lowered to 16 and even 14. This is a sign of what is coming. Since nationwide sodomite marriages are being allowed in Canada, the scum of the Earth, and the wierdest of the wierd are going to push to have their "rights" be given to them. Like what has been said before, with Canada's current rulings, what is stopping them now? Where is this line drawn. Not only is unbelievable that Canada's heterosexual consent age is 14, but for anal sex. This is sick. These people who are pushing for these rulings are pedophiles and nothing more. They are worth less than the dirt on my shoe and only wish to prey on children. You cannot possibly tell anyone that 14 is old enough for a person to make up their own mind on their sexuality considering they are influenced so easily into what others tell them. This is where we are headed, a world full of pedophiles and homosexuals. Where a person can marry their dog because you would be discriminating against them if it weren't allowed. I thank God that America has not turned into the homo loving country that Canada is. I thank God we will never have a nation wide acceptance of pedophilia and/or gay marriage. America is a wise nation and I don't plan on letting our society become the shit that Canada has allowed their's to.

Yea... and its only going to get worse. Reminds me of...
Hebrews 13:4
"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."

1 Corinthians 9-10
"Do 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."

At 12/17/04 12:23 AM, afliXion wrote: Yea... and its only going to get worse. Reminds me of...
Hebrews 13:4
"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."

1 Corinthians 9-10
"Do 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."

Yes, and back those several centuries ago it was common to use homosexual rape as a deturrent from breaking into houses as well as a form of punishment. Most people considered this to be a bit cruel so thus they spoke out against it. Too bad people still believe that every last word of the bible is completely true for all people for all time. It's a book written by many different authors over thousands of years with many parts being edited as religious leaders "see fit." Such an old and unstable document really shouldn't be the basis of your argument.

You know what I wonder. I wonder if Gayness is a disease you a born with. But not like a usual disease. When Adam and Eve were created they were perfect. Except they didn't know what God knew. Theywere told by the devil that they could know if they ate the apples God told them not to. They did :(. They were chased out of the Garden Of Eden. From that point humans became less and less perfect. Look at all te mistakes in our bodies. We need glasses we need braces we need medications. I wonder If gayness is just another imperfectality that the Human race has developed. I mean God doesn't want us to be Gay. But it kinda seems like you can't just choose if you'r gay or straight.

At 12/16/04 11:04 PM, killer_haggis wrote: I don't think it realy matters we in North America dont have problems we fight over if two girls or guys should marry seriously who cares Religon is outdateed for modern society anyway. Look at Ukraine they acctualy have political problems

Two Words killer_haggis:

Add Periods

At 12/16/04 11:59 PM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 12/16/04 11:24 PM, SPQRI3 wrote: You act as if happiness pursued is always attained. I'm sorry, but this whole "you're taking away their happiness" is bull. In a democratic Republic, you do not always get what you want. It's as if the supporters of this frame of mind are devoid of all reason. The majority rules and the majority does not always want what the minority wants, but it's too damn bad. It's life and these homosexuals need realize that they are not going to get what they want because they are in the minority. That is the worst thing a government can do, and that is tending to a minority group.

Wow, I take it you failed basic poly-sci. Just about any High School gradute can tell you that our nation is based on Majority rule, Minority rights. This is so that the majority still has control and minorities don't get pissed on in the process. You (being a reincarnated bigot from the 50's) have no consideration for your fellow man, unless they are very similar to you. You know, I almost pitty you. I really can't see how someone that has so much blind hatred can really have any joy in their life. I could go into a long argument showing that homosexuals are no better or worse at raising children, do not produce homosexual children, and will not be the downfall of our society; but I have a feeling you wouldn't understand, call me a liberal bastard, and go running home to rush limbau. So to keep this simple, you are wrong, you are the embodiment of modern day bigotry, and I hope that if you ever reproduce that at least one of your children is homosexual.

Thanks for the biggot remark. You're lucky I don't expect anything more from people like you. You are in fact a liberal bastard who could simply throw such a stong word as biggot around as if it applies to everyone with an opinion different than yours. Your claimed association between those angered by homosexuality and the racists of the 1950's is a total fallacy and your just using slander to put out an attack. I'm not a biggot nor racist and your assumptions(let make this clear, these are just assumptions) are making you look like your own type of biggot. Never did I say that it was only homosexuality that was disgusting and wrong. I said sex between heterosexuals at the age of 14 is also an immoral act. Make sure you read before calling someone a biggot and certainly make sure you read what I said were the real reasons for my disgust.

At 12/17/04 12:17 AM, UNOWNED wrote: and most us states have low ages of consent.

NOT KANSAS >:(

Age of consent is 14 in Canada? This is pretty poor, I think it should be at least 16. 14 year old kids have no idea what the hell they are doing.

At 12/17/04 08:07 PM, commanderkai wrote: Age of consent is 14 in Canada? This is pretty poor, I think it should be at least 16. 14 year old kids have no idea what the hell they are doing.

Yeah they do...
in, out, in, out.
:)

At 12/17/04 08:02 PM, SPQRI3 wrote: Thanks for the biggot remark. You're lucky I don't expect anything more from people like you. You are in fact a liberal bastard who could simply throw such a stong word as biggot around as if it applies to everyone with an opinion different than yours.

Do you know what a bigot is?

You may not be a racist, but you most certainly are a bigot. I would say that you fit the category of 'unreasonably intolerant.'

At 12/17/04 08:02 PM, SPQRI3 wrote:

I'm not a biggot

Hell no...but you're a bigot.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

That's like you in a sentance.

Read up on your Canadian laws. The age of consent is technically 14, but it's illegal to have sexual contact with a kid under 18 if the adult has an authiratative/trusting relationship with the kid. This is to prevent sexual exploitation. Also, there's some things in the works to raise the age to 16, while still keeping it legal for teens to have sex with each other, but not adults.

And if you call "Upholding the fundamental freedoms of the individual" "The Downfall of Society", then fuck you.

Gay marriage does not equal the raping of little boys.

At 12/17/04 12:33 AM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 12/17/04 12:23 AM, afliXion wrote:

Too bad people still believe that every last word of the bible is completely true for all people for all time. It's a book written by many different authors over thousands of years with many parts being edited as religious leaders "see fit." Such an old and unstable document really shouldn't be the basis of your argument.

uh huh.... so... where is the evidence for that claim? You dogmatically assert that the Bible has been re-edited and mistranslated as fact, but you have no evidence whatsoever to support this notion. Why don't you look at the original Hebrew copies and compare them and then we will talk. And if you did do that, you would find they're not so different after all.

At 12/17/04 09:14 PM, afliXion wrote: Why don't you look at the original Hebrew copies and compare them and then we will talk. And if you did do that, you would find they're not so different after all.

Then why are Jewish scholars still arguing over what the transliteration really is? What they are doing is trying to figure out the translations from Aramaic into Hebrew. So if the Hebrew isn't entirely accurate, how can you judge the English version (which passed from Aramaic>Hebrew>Greek>Latin>English>American English) to be accurate? You can't. I doubt you know how to read Aramaic.

At 12/17/04 10:38 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 12/16/04 10:01 PM, SPQRI3 wrote: I thank God we will never have a nation wide acceptance of pedophilia and/or gay marriage. America is a wise nation and I don't plan on letting our society become the shit that Canada has allowed their's to.

I think you're a homophobe, un-American, and un-Christian for supporting a ban on gay marriage, and insulting gay people.

He is not Anti-American for having his own beliefs!

Let me explain, God would never want us to impose our religous beliefs on other people, and while pedophilia is wrong, to call them the scum of the Earth is also wrong, for which, i am greatly offended.

Man + Woman = Baby
Man + Man = A bad case of STDs.

:Christians need to understand that even though homosexuality is a sin, no one is perfect (except Jesus), and you wouldn't want to be discrimintaed against the sins you commit, so stay out of the homosexual's business.

Sexual intercourse is what needs to be banned. Not gays as a whole.
Life is unfair and trying to make it fair will only result badly.

And for the record, I am not a homosexual yet i advocate gay rights, and i utterly despise anyone who is a homophobe, and I am a Christian.

Homophobe you mean by afraid of homos. That would not include me. I just oppose the idea of wrong sex.

At 12/17/04 10:41 PM, Tal-con wrote: For the record, i know that the man who translated The Bible (though his name escapes me) knew a variety of languages, about four, of which i can recall are Hebrew and Latin, and maybe Greek as well.

But Aramaic? That's what the Bible was originally written in.

At 12/17/04 10:43 PM, drDAK wrote: He is not Anti-American for having his own beliefs!

No, but he is acting anti-American for trying to foist his religiously based values on others as a fact of law. I think everyone should stop shaving, but that doesn't mean I think it should be a law.

Man + Woman = Baby
Man + Man = A bad case of STDs.

LOL. Men and women pass plenty of STDs amongst themselves too. Not all gay people have STDs, either.

I just oppose the idea of wrong sex.

Soooo, you never get blowjobs? Or wank off? By your strict definition, that is 'wrong sex.'

At 12/17/04 09:14 PM, afliXion wrote: uh huh.... so... where is the evidence for that claim? You dogmatically assert that the Bible has been re-edited and mistranslated as fact, but you have no evidence whatsoever to support this notion.

"dogmatically assert" doesn't really apply to what he said...try not to just regurgitate what others have accused you of doing right back at them.

Obviously, if the Bible had never been re-edited then there wouldn't be so many different versions of it. Likewise, if there was only ONE interpretation of the Bible then there wouldn't be so many different sects of Christianity.

Try actually finding the evidence for yourself ; look up things like "Hermas", "Origen", "Council of Nicaea", and you'll not only learn a whole lot, but you'll find a whole lot MORE to look up and learn, too. There have been MANY doctrinal disputes throughout the ages, and the Bible HAS been edited at various times by various people. For example, the 'Shepherd of Hermas' books are found in some of the most ancient manuscripts of the New Testament...but certain church leaders deemed them apocryphal while other church leaders argued otherwise. Now, the books of Hermas are excluded from the Bible. That's just one ancient edit for you, right there.

Waiting passively for someone to challenge your understanding instead of trying to find the truth yourself...it's not a good idea, bud.

At 12/17/04 09:23 PM, Maus wrote:

At 12/17/04 09:14 PM, afliXion wrote:

Then why are Jewish scholars still arguing over what the transliteration really is? What they are doing is trying to figure out the translations from Aramaic into Hebrew. So if the Hebrew isn't entirely accurate, how can you judge the English version (which passed from Aramaic>Hebrew>Greek>Latin>English>American English) to be accurate? You can't. I doubt you know how to read Aramaic.

The Hebrew scholars are argueing if they were translated correctly. They are argueing over how to interpret some things. Like yom or adamah. Adamah (man) could also be Ish (gender) Enosh (infirmities, physical) or Geber (strength).
more
The oldest written parts of the Bible found were transcribed in three languages. What scholars call the Hebrew Bible (the same books Jews call the Tanakh or Written Torah and Christians call the Old Testament) was first written in Hebrew with a few chapters of the books of Ezra and Daniel recorded in Aramaic.

At 12/17/04 11:14 PM, afliXion wrote: The Hebrew scholars are argueing if they were translated correctly.

Soooo, basically you just said I'm right. Sweet.

At 12/17/04 11:06 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 12/17/04 09:14 PM, afliXion wrote: uh huh.... so... where is the evidence for that claim? You dogmatically assert that the Bible has been re-edited and mistranslated as fact, but you have no evidence whatsoever to support this notion.

"dogmatically assert" doesn't really apply to what he said...

Yes, it does. He sat there and said as fact the Bible was erronous and mistranslated. That is a dogma.

Obviously, if the Bible had never been re-edited then there wouldn't be so many different versions of it. Likewise, if there was only ONE interpretation of the Bible then there wouldn't be so many different sects of Christianity.

Whoa whoa whoa.... there is a big difference between a mis-translation and an interpretation! Catholics don't interpret the Bible... They make things up. Worshipping Mary, prayer to the Saints... the 7 deadly sins... Those sure aren't in the Bible.

Try actually finding the evidence for yourself ;example, the 'Shepherd of Hermas' books are found in some of the most ancient manuscripts of the New Testament...but certain church leaders deemed them apocryphal while other church leaders argued otherwise. Now, the books of Hermas are excluded from the Bible. That's just one ancient edit for you, right there.

Why did y ou assume that I haven't tried finding evidence? You think I've never heard of Shepherd of Hermas? Hermas says in a nut shell that there is a Son of God; but this 'Son of God' is distinguished from Jesus, because it says, "That Holy Spirit which was created first of all, God placed in a body, in which it should dwell, in a chosen body, as it pleased him." So it makes Jesus just a human host to the Holy Spirit. This passage appears to make the "tabernacling" of the Holy Spirit in Jesus a reward for the purity of his life. Jesus then becomes divine through the power of God, after consultation with the Son of God, who elsewhere in The Shepherd is identified with the Holy Spirit. "The most venerable angel," "the glorious angel," "the holy angel" are titles that Hermas gives to Jesus in his allegory; but it is understood that the angelic status of Jesus is not his by nature. His labours on earth to save and to cleanse have gained him a co-inheritance with the Holy Spirit, God's primary Son, so that Jesus now is the second Son of God.
Now, I don't believe that has any place in the New Testament.

Waiting passively for someone to challenge your understanding instead of trying to find the truth yourself...it's not a good idea, bud.

All you know is what I do on NG... I don't usually make my own threads about religion because 99% of the replies are nothing but 'shut up you religious idiot'. I have already found the truth, I' not waiting for somone to tell me.

At 12/17/04 11:19 PM, Maus wrote:

At 12/17/04 11:14 PM, afliXion wrote: The Hebrew scholars are argueing if they were translated correctly.

Soooo, basically you just said I'm right. Sweet.

Shut up! you know I meant aren't.

At 12/17/04 11:37 PM, afliXion wrote: Shut up! you know I meant aren't.

The rest of that post suggests they are still arguing over what certain words mean. That would mean they are arguing over the translation.

I have a solution, everyone just needs to learn some morals.

At 12/17/04 11:52 PM, Anukis wrote: I have a solution, everyone just needs to learn some morals.

Right-O...

You hear that Conservatives...

*eyes roll over*

At 12/17/04 11:36 PM, afliXion wrote: Why did y ou assume that I haven't tried finding evidence?

Calm down man.

As the bible says, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

At 12/17/04 08:02 PM, SPQRI3 wrote: Thanks for the biggot remark. You're lucky I don't expect anything more from people like you. You are in fact a liberal bastard who could simply throw such a stong word as biggot around as if it applies to everyone with an opinion different than yours. Your claimed association between those angered by homosexuality and the racists of the 1950's is a total fallacy and your just using slander to put out an attack. I'm not a biggot nor racist and your assumptions(let make this clear, these are just assumptions) are making you look like your own type of biggot. Never did I say that it was only homosexuality that was disgusting and wrong. I said sex between heterosexuals at the age of 14 is also an immoral act. Make sure you read before calling someone a biggot and certainly make sure you read what I said were the real reasons for my disgust.

Well, as Maus already pointed out bigot = racist and the reason why I was saying you are is because of comments like:

Since nationwide sodomite marriages are being allowed in Canada, the scum of the Earth, and the wierdest of the wierd are going to push to have their "rights" be given to them.

and

Not only is unbelievable that Canada's heterosexual consent age is 14, but for anal sex. This is sick. These people who are pushing for these rulings are pedophiles and nothing more. They are worth less than the dirt on my shoe and only wish to prey on children.

Unless you really don't understand what you are saying, you ARE making the claim that homosexuals are pedophies; not to mention the whole "scum of the earth" comment. That is intollerance, that is hate, that is prejudice hence I made the bigot comment. Sure, you are an american and like the rest of us you have the right to believe whatever you want. However, that does not give you the right to treat people however you want to. I may disagree with people that don't agree with homosexuality, but I despise people that want to do everything possible to shove them back into the closet they came out of (so to speak).

sorry, I actually meant: bigot (does not equal) racist

Thank you jmaster306 for pointing out the obvious that the author and a very few folks could not plainly see even if it dressed like Mimi Bobeck...

Pedophelia is not homosexuality, it is another different thing that occurs more frequently in heterosexual members of society. Yes, there are groups like NAMBLA, but the "Christian Agenda" needs to understand that the "Pedophelia Agenda" is not the same as the "Gay Agenda". NAMBLA is a category all by itself...

Downfall of Society: GOP

god just kill all the gays look what they did to out navy turned it into a big gay floating laghing stock just give permits to kill them then the worlds problems then the fourth reich can rise!!!!!!!wawwawawa

At 12/18/04 11:31 PM, pvtpile wrote: god just kill all the gays look what they did to out navy turned it into a big gay floating laghing stock just give permits to kill them then the worlds problems then the fourth reich can rise!!!!!!!wawwawawa

What did you say?
Kill gays for being gay?
Nah, i dont think so....