Jump to content


Photo

Is Coach Sandusky A H*mos*xual?


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#1 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:14 AM

The theme of this thread: Why are child molesters never called by their true label? I posted this on another thread on God's law, but I thought this would make a good topic since it's at the forefront of our daily news.

I assert, unequivocally and unabashedly, that Coach Sandusky is a H*mos*xual. But we never read in any news release or even hear a Christian say that he is one. Rather we label him a “child molester.” But God calls him a sodomite.

In Luke 13, Jesus used the news of the day to teach moral principles. Just as it was tragic that “Pilate had mingled the blood of Galileans with their sacrifices,” so too we have the tragedy of Penn. State. So we can use this news of the day to correct our moral compass.

Not one single boy, in the history of man, has ever been molested by a heterosexual man. No boys have ever been molested by a bi-S@xual man. All have been molested by h*m*sexuals. God says that when a man “lies with a male as with a woman,” he is a H*mos*xual. Further, God proclaims this to be a crime punishable by death.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22). “For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off [put to death] from among their people” (Lev. 18:29).

By God’s definition, a “bi-S@xual” man or woman can’t exist. When you commit the crime, you are labeled by that crime. Even though someone only occasionally rapes, he is a rapist by definition and not a “bi-rapist.” If someone robs just one bank, he is a bank robber and not a “bi-bank robber.” If he lies with just one human of the same s@x, he (or she) has committed the crime of h*m*s*xuality, he is a H*mos*xual, and he should be put to death. Heterosexual men do not get excited about young boys except when they see their son or grandson hit a triple and slide into third base.

Some Christians (and H*mos*xual advocates) argue that Jesus did not mention h*m*s*xuality so it’s not really an issue today. But neither did Jesus mention kidnapping, deadly negligence, capital perjury, b*stiality, incest, rape, human sacrifice, manslaughter during a crime, or abortion—all death penalty crimes. Who would argue that any of these would not be an issue today? We must also reflect that Jesus warned that “till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (Mat. 5:18 & Luke 16:17). Jesus reminds us that He “rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed” the h*m*sexuals living there” (Luke 17:29). Peter used the phrase “filthy conduct” to describe those in Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pet. 2:7). God uses “Sodom” spiritually in a very derogatory manner (Rev. 11: 8). Jude wrote that Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them are set forth as a warning to us (Jude 7). And, of course, Paul opens Romans in the first paragraph with, “Therefore God gave them [sodomites] up to uncleanness in the lust of their hearts to dishonor their bodies among themselves…” (Rom. 1:24). In light of the above, can we agree with God and move this issue to the front burner or at the very least put it back on the stove?

When we are “tolerant” of a crime, and do not follow God’s command to execute swift punishment, then we have to regulate crime. And this is not very easy to do nor is without consequences. By not obeying God, we then have to pass laws to regulate illegal, immoral activity. “Should h*m*sexuals be wrestling coaches?” “Should they be Boy Scout leaders?” “Should they be youth pastors?” And the list goes on. “Permit me a little folly,” as Paul wrote:. Imagine being tolerant of rape (which is not beyond the pale). “If you rape a woman, you have to provide a warm, dry hotel room.” “If she has the flu, you can’t rape her.” And, “all women have Sunday off. No rape is allowed on Sunday.”

Legalization and the unavoidable regulation of crime are not without unintended consequences. For the past 30 years, Coach Sandusky has been allowed to sodomize boys. While he is being charged with the “molesting” (which is really sodomizing) of eight boys, his young victims probably number in the thousands. Joe Paterno and others at this college are complicit and guilty in the crimes. There is no neutrality with God. Either you are “for Him or against Him” and if you “do not gather, you scatter” (Luke 11:23). Tragically,winning football games became more important than saving these poor young boys from this pervert.

Sadly, it is not just unbelievers, Hollywood, the news media, and politicians who have bought in to the idea that we must be “tolerant” towards h*m*sexuals; it is also our church leaders who have caved. Years ago, for example, James Dobson gave in to the H*mos*xual community in Colorado when he said, “h*m*sexuals should not have special rights. They should have equal rights. When he deemed his opinion had more authority than God’s law, he lost the war. As a result of Dobson's tolerance, if I lived in Colorado, I could be jailed and fined for writing this post. A few years ago, Colorado's governor signed a bill into law that forbids preaching against h*m*s*xuality and tucked into this bill is a clause that men dressed in woman's clothes can use the ladies restroom. Ignoring God's law has consequences.

At first blush, God’s law may seem too harsh. But long term, His law is more merciful. Just look at the millions around the world and in America who have died from all manner of s*xually transmitted diseases. Even more tragic are the millions of souls who are in Hell awaiting judgment due to nicer-than-God Christians who fail to warn the H*mos*xual that he is a pervert who will spend an eternity in Hell apart from His Creator God. Instead, we tell him that we “celebrate his lifestyle” and teach “love the sinner and hate the sin.” This last phrase is not in the Bible. It’s a cliché’ and for some unknown reason, clichés take precedence over God’s word.

Tolerant Christians do not really love h*m*sexuals. If they did, they would tell them the truth. When unbelievers do not see God’s justice here on earth, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to believe in a just God in heaven who will punish the wicked and reward the just. And God’s moral law is our number one evangelical tool to get people saved. Paul wrote, that the law is “our tutor” to show us our wickedness and convince us that we are in need of a savior. Instead, the news media, Hollywood, politicians, and sadly our Christian leaders have convinced h*m*sexuals that they are most wonderful of creatures. Why should they repent and accept Jesus if we first convince them that they have no need of Jesus?

TeeJay

#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:46 AM

I am not sure we can say all homos*xuals=child molesters like your post seemingly implys. I agree that both are morally wrong under God's law, and homos*xuals may in general be on a slippery slope to other forms of s*xual immorality, but I don't think there is a direct correlation there. The main difference between homos*xuality and child molestation is that child molestation harms the child, vs as homos*xuals often argue, two adult homos*xuals are consenting adults. I like women, but I do not molest young women, nor rape women of age. The two are mutually exclusive.

Bottom line on Sandusky:Yes he is a homos*xual, but this fact is kind of overshadowed the fact that he molested children.

#3 Chris

Chris

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:My trade is whatever pays the bills. My real passion, and what I hope to make my living from someday, is old-time carpentry. Felling trees, hewing logs with a broad-axe, and building or restoring log structures in the Piney Woods.
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mississippi

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:24 AM

TeeJay is saying that pedophiles who molest children of the same s@x are homos*xual, not that all homos*xuals are pedophiles or all pedophiles are homos*xual. At least that's how I read the post. :)

Obviously, some homos*xuals only partner with adults. Some pedophiles only molest children of the opposite s@x. Both acts are horribly wrong and unnatural, and both should be punished.

Modern "tolerance" equates to allowing perverts to run rampant and cease to condemn their sin as...well, sin.

#4 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:43 AM

http://www.childmole....pdfs/study.pdf

However, Gene Abel explicitly states that most cases of boy molestation cannot be attributed to h*m*sexuals:
[M]ost men who molest little boys are not g*y. Only 21 percent of the child molesters we studied who assault little boys were exclusively H*mos*xual. Nearly 80 percent of the men who molested little boys were heterosexual or Bis*xual, and most of these men were married and had children of their own.27
Based on Abel’s statistics, if approximately 33 percent of all molestations are male-on-male, and 21 percent of these cases are committed by h*m*sexuals, the actual percentage of molesters who are H*mos*xual is 21% x 33% = 6.9%. Keeping in mind that even the best surveys have a margin of error of a few percentage points, this figure is pretty close to the figures usually given for the total percentage of h*m*sexuals in the overall population, which is about five percent.28 In other words, H*mos*xual males are not a significantly greater threat to children proportionately than straight males. (In fact, one could argue that since the number of molestations committed by females is relatively rare, it is clear that lesbians pose less of a threat to children than straight males.)

#5 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 November 2011 - 11:09 AM

About God's language: Bible verses and ancient Greek lessons please. Prove your point, don't use assumptions.

About loving h*m*sexuals: Do I preach to every fornicator that is non-Christian that they should die? Do I preach to everyone taking God's name in vain that they should die? What about drunkards? Do I shun them and punish them and throw them into jail? What does Christ do? Does he heal them and give them time to change before judging them?

#6 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 November 2011 - 11:41 AM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1321466991' post='76800']
About God's language: Bible verses and ancient Greek lessons please. Prove your point, don't use assumptions.[/quote]

ME,

I'm astonished you would post this! In my Initial post, I made eleven Bible references. In light of this, can you retract your accusation?

[quote]About loving h*m*sexuals: Do I preach to every fornicator that is non-Christian that they should die? Do I preach to everyone taking God's name in vain that they should die? What about drunkards? Do I shun them and punish them and throw them into jail? What does Christ do? Does he heal them and give them time to change before judging them?[/quote]

By not researching the Word to see what God has to say, you err. God does not command the death penalty for fornicators--Christian or atheist. God does not demand the death penalty for taking His name in vain. Nor does He command the death penalty for drinking too much wine. Now if a man becomes so drunk that he is a public disgrace, a good flogging is in order (according to God). God's punishment fits the crime--always.

As far as Jesus upholding His death penalty, which He gave to Moses, He endorsed it in Mat. 5:18; Luke 16:17; Mat. 15:3-4. And if you do a little research, you will find that when Jesus comes again, He will not be "healing" and "forgiving." He will be judging and executing: "Bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want Me to reign over them, and slay them before Me" (Luke 19:27).

ME, do you realize that in your post, you are not disagreeing with me; you are disagreeing with God? You and I have no authority to enact moral law nor negate it.

TeeJay

#7 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 16 November 2011 - 12:22 PM

I agree, God does demand the death penalty. Through His grace, our heads our not rolling. Rebellion against the God of the universe is a serious crime. It is through understanding this that people come to understand that God is not playing around. His sacrifice was absolutely necessary for our sins to be paid, otherwise we deserve to pay for our own sins. I deserve justice, but I want grace.

I would say in response to what Chris posted, yes there is something homos*xual about a man molesting little boys. I do not agree with mama elephant. I have heard of homos*xuals being married with children before they decided to "come out", and divorce their wife. It does not matter what someone declares themselves to be. A tree is known by its fruit. Ultimately, we tend to focus on the "most severe" crime, which is child molestation.

#8 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 November 2011 - 03:00 PM

It does not matter what someone declares themselves to be. A tree is known by its fruit.

Those that declare themselves h*teros*xual are more likely to abuse boys than those that declare themselves h*mos*xual.

Teejay, I will read more carefully and get back to you. Sigh. I should know better to stick to my calling rather than wasting my time posting on forums.

#9 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:35 PM

[quote] name='JayShel' timestamp='1321458366' post='76789']
I am not sure we can say all homos*xuals=child molesters like your post seemingly implys. I agree that both are morally wrong under God's law, and homos*xuals may in general be on a slippery slope to other forms of s*xual immorality, but I don't think there is a direct correlation there. The main difference between homos*xuality and child molestation is that child molestation harms the child, vs as homos*xuals often argue, two adult homos*xuals are consenting adults. I like women, but I do not molest young women, nor rape women of age. The two are mutually exclusive.

Bottom line on Sandusky:Yes he is a homos*xual, but this fact is kind of overshadowed the fact that he molested children.[/quote]

JS,

My aim here is show that while it's true that Sandusky "molested," "sodomized," or "s*xually abused" these boys, in God's eyes he is a sodomite (g*y or H*mos*xual). And we should not call him a molester. We should call him for what he is. The news media purposely avoids referring to them as h*m*sexuals. If they did, they would expose them for what and who they are.

God would disagree with you strongly that h*m*s*xuality is okay if there are two consenting adults. Using your argument, anything would be permissible as long as the adults are consenting. Would b*stiality be okay?

H*mos*xual leaders blatantly voice tolerance for child s@x abuse. A prominent g*y magazine, "Out," quoted Damien Martin, the head of New York's H*mos*xual Harvey Milk High School, as saying, "No kid has ever been hurt by [oral s@x]" in September, 1994 on page 73. The leading g*y publication, "The Advocate," in an article titled "Getting Over It" pondered on May 5, 1992 about how many boys "would have missed out on a valuable liberating experience--one that initiated them into their sexuality--if it weren't for so-called molestation?"

The July 1998 "Psychological Bulletin" of the American Psychological Association worked to normalize pedophilia by undermining the "Assumed Properties of Child S@xual Abuse."

Time magazine also lacks zero tolerance for H*mos*xual child abusers. They quoted the ACLU in defence of an aggressive advocate of pedophilia. NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association exists to promote H*mos*xual s@x with young boys. Leading g*y-pride organizers in New York and San Francisco allowed NAMBLA to march undisguised in their parades repeatedly during the last two decades. A Time article grotesquely titled "For the Love of Kids" in November 1993 quoted ACLU defending a New York City teacher, Peter Melzer, who edits the NAMBLA journal. Melzer published an article "In Praise of Penises," on "how to make that special boy feel good." (Sorry, folks, but I have to be graphic to expose these people.) At the time, Melzer was being investigated for alleged s@x with a Filipino boy.

The media defends h*m*sexuals who want to adopt, but it also supports h*m*sexuals who openly advocate s@x with kids. The national media warmly eulogized Alan Ginsburg, conveniently ignoring this H*mos*xual poet's public endorsement of NAMBLA.

To address your last sentence, the fact that Sandusky is a H*mos*xual should not be overshadowed by the term "molestation."

TeeJay

#10 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:48 PM

[quote] name='Chris' timestamp='1321464249' post='76794']
TeeJay is saying that pedophiles who molest children of the same s@x are homos*xual, not that all homos*xuals are pedophiles or all pedophiles are homos*xual. At least that's how I read the post. :)

Obviously, some homos*xuals only partner with adults. Some pedophiles only molest children of the opposite s@x. Both acts are horribly wrong and unnatural, and both should be punished.

Modern "tolerance" equates to allowing perverts to run rampant and cease to condemn their sin as...well, sin.[/quote]

Chris,

True! It would be untrue to posit that "all" h*m*sexuals molest children. But it would be true to say that "most" H*mos*xual men molest boys. This is how they reproduce. Ironically, they argue that they are "born that way," but since they reproduce by molesting young boys, they can't possibly pass a g*y gene onto their offspring. There are mamy sites that expose just how previlent H*mos*xual molestation is. Usually, young boys are molested by a younger attractive g*y man. He is the one that plays catch with the boy and takes him camping. Once the boy is initiated into the g*y life style, he is then passed around to older less attractive homos. According to a 1994 "Out" article titled "The Men From the Boys," the director of a home for runaway youth admits that between 14 and 16 years of age, he "probably had s@x with well over a thousand people, most of them much older than myself." This boy hardly met a H*mos*xual adult who would not have s@x with him.

TeeJay

#11 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:00 PM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1321465437' post='76798']
http://www.childmole....pdfs/study.pdf

However, Gene Abel explicitly states that most cases of boy molestation cannot be attributed to h*m*sexuals:
[M]ost men who molest little boys are not g*y. Only 21 percent of the child molesters we studied who assault little boys were exclusively H*mos*xual. Nearly 80 percent of the men who molested little boys were heterosexual or Bis*xual, and most of these men were married and had children of their own.27
Based on Abel’s statistics, if approximately 33 percent of all molestations are male-on-male, and 21 percent of these cases are committed by h*m*sexuals, the actual percentage of molesters who are H*mos*xual is 21% x 33% = 6.9%. Keeping in mind that even the best surveys have a margin of error of a few percentage points, this figure is pretty close to the figures usually given for the total percentage of h*m*sexuals in the overall population, which is about five percent.28 In other words, H*mos*xual males are not a significantly greater threat to children proportionately than straight males. (In fact, one could argue that since the number of molestations committed by females is relatively rare, it is clear that lesbians pose less of a threat to children than straight males.)[/quote]

ME,

Please read my initial post again. Not one boy has ever been heterosexually molested by a man in the history of man on Planet Earth. Homos make up only 3 percent of the U.S. population (but their numbers are growing because Christians tolerate them)yet they have assaulted half of the s*xually molested children. One-third of these hurt kids are boys, and the vast majority of those are molested by men (Psychological Reports, 1986, vol. 58, pp. 327-337).

TeeJay

#12 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:10 PM

[quote] name='JayShel' timestamp='1321471378' post='76805']
I agree, God does demand the death penalty. Through His grace, our heads our not rolling. Rebellion against the God of the universe is a serious crime. It is through understanding this that people come to understand that God is not playing around. His sacrifice was absolutely necessary for our sins to be paid, otherwise we deserve to pay for our own sins. I deserve justice, but I want grace.[/quote]

The physical death penalty that God commands has nothing to do with being saved by grace. The thief on the Cross deserved and got the death penalty, but Jesus saved his soul because he repented and accepted Jesus. Earthly judges can only judge the flesh. God judges the heart. So even if a Christian commits a crime for which God demands the death penalty, he should still be put to death. When Paul was on trial for his life, he gave the bravest endorsement for the death penalty: "If I have done anything worthy of death, I do not object [paraphrased]. Jesus died to save our souls. When the soul is saved, the physical body will follow eventually. Jesus taught that "the time will come when all the dead will be raised, some to eternal glory and some to eternal damnation."

[quote]I would say in response to what Chris posted, yes there is something homos*xual about a man molesting little boys. I do not agree with mama elephant. I have heard of homos*xuals being married with children before they decided to "come out", and divorce their wife. It does not matter what someone declares themselves to be. A tree is known by its fruit. Ultimately, we tend to focus on the "most severe" crime, which is child molestation.[/quote]

Pedophilia is not mentioned in the Bible. h*m*s*xuality is the greater sin for which God demands the death penalty.

TeeJay

#13 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:14 PM

About God's language: Bible verses and ancient Greek lessons please. Prove your point, don't use assumptions.

About loving h*m*sexuals: Do I preach to every fornicator that is non-Christian that they should die? Do I preach to everyone taking God's name in vain that they should die? What about drunkards? Do I shun them and punish them and throw them into jail? What does Christ do? Does he heal them and give them time to change before judging them?


Jesus warned us about that. He said there were two men and the first man said "I thank you father that I am not immoral, a thief, or a liar." then another man who doesn't even raise his head up to heaven says "Forgive me for I have sinned." I tell you that it is the second man who will be forgiven. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Pedophilia is not mentioned in the Bible. h*m*s*xuality is the greater sin for which God demands the death penalty.


Under the new covenant, God doesn't command death at all only repentance. But Jesus did make reference to it when he said "It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."



Enjoy.

#14 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:19 PM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1321480850' post='76806']
Those that declare themselves h*teros*xual are more likely to abuse boys than those that declare themselves h*mos*xual.[/quote]

ME, it is not possible for a man to molest a boy and be a heterosexual. Can a man rape a woman and not be a rapist? What you are arguing is not logically possible.

[quote]Teejay, I will read more carefully and get back to you. Sigh. I should know better to stick to my calling rather than wasting my time posting on forums.[/quote]

Protecting young victims from homos like Sandusky is not exactly a "waste of time."

TeeJay

#15 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 17 November 2011 - 09:22 AM

[quote] name='jason777' timestamp='1321506882' post='76827']
Jesus warned us about that. He said there were two men and the first man said "I thank you father that I am not immoral, a thief, or a liar." then another man who doesn't even raise his head up to heaven says "Forgive me for I have sinned." I tell you that it is the second man who will be forgiven. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."[/quote]

Jason, Is Sandusky the first or second man?



[quote]Under the new covenant, God doesn't command death at all only repentance. But Jesus did make reference to it when he said "It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."[/quote]

Can you cite one Bible verse that supports your assertion that God has done away with the death penalty after the Cross. I gave proof that He has not in "For Whom Is God's Law Intended, Israel or the World."

TeeJay

#16 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:25 AM

Protecting young victims from homos like Sandusky is not exactly a "waste of time."

I am sorry, I actually thought of you taking it as directed at you. It was not. Not at all. I have a calling and it is not for me to use my time on message boards, not too much, not right now.

I agree that terms need to change "child molester" is not a strong enough term. Calling Sandusky a h*mos*xual, however, is not likely to protect anyone.

Yes, all men who assault boys are h*m*sexuals.

The study I cited shows that statistically, to leave a boy with someone who is not known to be a h*mos*xual puts them at a higher risk than leaving them with someone who is known to be h*mos*xual.

Jesus warned us about that. He said there were two men and the first man said "I thank you father that I am not immoral, a thief, or a liar." then another man who doesn't even raise his head up to heaven says "Forgive me for I have sinned." I tell you that it is the second man who will be forgiven. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

I agree, but I was speaking of how we should treat others, not how we view ourselves.

Can you cite one Bible verse that supports your assertion that God has done away with the death penalty after the Cross. I gave proof that He has not in "For Whom Is God's Law Intended, Israel or the World."

I don't see a vast difference in Paul's writings over the other writings. I intend to return to that question when I have time.

Under the new covenant, God doesn't command death at all only repentance. But Jesus did make reference to it when he said "It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."

A balanced view that I can understand. Thank you.

#17 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 17 November 2011 - 11:48 AM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1321550750' post='76860']
I am sorry, I actually thought of you taking it as directed at you. It was not. Not at all. I have a calling and it is not for me to use my time on message boards, not too much, not right now.[/quote]

Fair enough! But what I'm trying to teach here is that we should not give h*m*sexuals, who are after our kids, a free pass. Through clever PR, they have been able to distance themselves from the true child molesters and perverts that they are. We can no more violate God'smoral laws than we can violate the law of gravity. While violation of the law of gravity is immediately evident, violation of God's moral laws are long term. Sandusky has been able to freely molest thousands of young boys over a thirty-year period. Now his victims are out there creating more victims. Some have most likely become alcoholics or committed suicide. Their lives are tragically destroyed. God warned us that violation of His law has consequences "to the second and third generations." We can't break God's law without it breaking us.

[quote]I agree that terms need to change "child molester" is not a strong enough term. Calling Sandusky a h*mos*xual, however, is not likely to protect anyone.[/quote]

Calling Sandusky or any molester of boys a H*mos*xual will protect boys. Otherwise, h*m*sexuals are able to hide their true identity. Child molestaton and h*m*sexuals must be shown to be related. h*m*sexuals have to be shown to be child molesters so that they can't be the "wolves in sheep's clothing" that Jesus warned us about.

[quote]Yes, all men who assault boys are h*m*sexuals.[/quote]

ME, Thank you so much for that humble admission. Praise God. I feel as though I am now making some progress. Again, thank you.

[quote]The study I cited shows that statistically, to leave a boy with someone who is not known to be a h*mos*xual puts them at a higher risk than leaving them with someone who is known to be h*mos*xual.[/quote]

Me, I don't accept that study. I would be willing to bet my ranch, house, and truck that this study was done by a H*mos*xual. This would be like arguing that your assets are less likely to be stolen by a thief than by an honest man. I just can't accept it. If you want to know about h*m*sexuals, just visit a g*y Pride Parade or read their news papers ("Out" or "The Advocate"). You can read quotes from them in my prior post.


TeeJay

#18 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 16 December 2011 - 07:02 AM

God warned us that violation of His law has consequences "to the second and third generations."


Absolutely. For some reason this resonated in my head for a bit after I read it.

#19 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 December 2011 - 09:32 AM

Just as a side note: The reason some words are filtered concerning this subject is because those words can get this forum listed in some really bad sections of search engines. What this does is that it brings the most hateful foul mouth people here to debate. Filtering the words with * @ etc... Makes it to where the search engines don;t pick up on those words and we don't get listed in those areas of search engines that bring those hateful foul mouth people here,

The main reason I post this to show why this is done is to also let you guys know not to go around the word filter. It's there for a reason.

#20 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 16 December 2011 - 12:24 PM

That's all under the assumption that he's guilty. But I know what Teejay means. The (liberal) media generally avoids and distracts from the fact that this is a case of H*mos*xual child molestation. Except if they want to dispute the relationship between h*m*s*xuality and pedophilia.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users