Jump to content


Photo

Is Coach Sandusky A H*mos*xual?


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#21 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 17 December 2011 - 04:54 AM

glad that god healed me and uh the generation curse thing if not repented applies to all sin,not just G*ys.

lying, stealing and so forth.smoking, and drugs and overeating. the later is a sin.

#22 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 19 December 2011 - 03:55 PM

Sin affects the coming generations regardless of if we are forgiven before God. You cannot take back the devastating effects of a murder, rape, or molestation. This is why God warns us against sin.

#23 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 14 February 2012 - 07:29 AM

[quote] name='ikester7579' timestamp='1324053179' post='77654']
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.
[/quote]

Ikester,

Thank you so much for this revelation! I have always wondered why this happened.

TeeJay

#24 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 24 November 2013 - 07:03 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. smile.gif

But pedophiles are more frequently also h*m*sexuals or bisexuals in proportion to their share of the population.


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.

The term "unnatural" is often, sometimes deliberately, misunderstood in that context. You mean teleologically unnatural, which means that it is against or not in line with the natural purpose of sexuality (making children, bonding between members of the opposite s@x). Some use it in the discussion in the way of ontologically natural, which just deals with whether something physically exists or not. 



#25 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 10 December 2013 - 03:42 AM

None of the sources here can be checked. Anyone care to point at some numbers again?

 

I read a lot of hatred in the original post and some of the replies. I'm trying to understand it all. :)



#26 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 10 December 2013 - 07:03 AM

I read a lot of hatred in the original post and some of the replies. I'm trying to understand it all. smile.png

 

Do you read hatred IN the OP, or to you read hatred INTO the OP?

 

What standard do you use to distinguish whether or not someone is hateful, as opposed to being concerned about the long-term fate of H*m*sexuals?

 

Atheists often argue from the perspective of their worldview, as though it was a proven fact that there is no such thing as sin - particularly sins that do not appeal to human reasoning. The assumption is that opposition to such sins is evidence of someone being hateful and judgemental. That might be true, but you cannot determine that unless you know the motives of the person in question.

 

Is a Christian is "hateful" simply by rejecting humanistic standards and pointing out that God has established laws that have eternal consequences? I don't think so, and I think Teejay pointed that out by explaining that the definition of love is not just being "tolerant". Christianity is based on grace, which people often seem to confuse with tollerancy, but there is a distinction.

 

Tollerancy simply ignores the problem, and rather than leading to repentance, it sweeps everything under the carpet and pretends that the problem was caused by a law was too harsh. The old covenant law IS too harsh, but it is too harsh for a particular reason - to make us realize that we need a savior. Laws that are not harsh are worthless. If we decide that the punishment of our transgressions are bearable, then there is nothing to stop us from continuing to transgress under a "bearable" law. It is only when a law is unbearable that we decide to look for a solution.

 

Grace, on the other hand is "directed leniency". The intention is not just to say that sin is OK, but to inspire repentance from sin and to turn us to Christ, which solves the original problem. It is not by trying to adhere to harsh laws, but by being reborn spiritually, having God's nature rebuild our hearts, and conform to new thoughts and desires. That is what Christianity is about.



#27 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 10 December 2013 - 09:10 AM

Maybe hatred is too strong a word for what I perceived. Anger perhaps, incomprehension is another. Judgemental is also correct.

 

But thinking "child molesters" and "h*m*sexuals" are the same is odd, and even disproven in the paper provided. (http://www.childmole.../pdfs/study.pdf)

The S@xual orientation of the population measured of child molesters was not different from the average American population. So according to the study, there is no correlation between h*m*sexuals and child molesters.

 

Tolerance is not simply ignoring the problem.You can impose your own limits to what you tolerate. You call setting the limit grace?

 

BTW: In fear of going completely off topic, but I've heart "God is Love" and "Love is God" on multiple occasions. When a H*mos*xual is in love with another H*mos*xual, is it not love he is experiencing, is it not God he is experiencing?



#28 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 10 December 2013 - 09:51 AM

Fjuri, setting your own limits is, again, based on an atheistic presupposition that there isn't a higher law-giver than mankind, so whether you use the word hatred, or something milder is irrelevant. If there is a divine law-giver then I am not acting in love by encouraging someone to break those rules, especially if I know what the consequences are. On the contrary, I would be guilty of deceiving him and pointing him on a path that leads to death.

 

As to your last question I don't think God uses as broad a definition of love as we do. The definition of love is given in the Bible:

 

"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." (1 Cor 13:4-7)

 

S@xual relationships and S@xual acts are never described in the Bible as being examples of "love", even though it is something that normally exists within a relationship. The Bible sanctifies s@x within a specific context - i.e. marriage betweem a man and a woman, and from a Christian perspective God determines that context, not mankind.



#29 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 10 December 2013 - 05:31 PM

Fjuri, on 10 Dec 2013 - 04:48, said:
None of the sources here can be checked. Anyone care to point at some numbers again?

I read a lot of hatred in the original post and some of the replies. I'm trying to understand it all. smile.png

Fjuri,

I apologize for not answering sooner. I've been absent from this site for a while.

I hate H*mos*xual child molesters who sodomize defenseless children. I hate them with righteous indignation. But, I love them enough to not lie o them. I will tell them the truth that they are perverts destined to spend an eternity in hell apart from their creator God. People who are tolerant of them do not really love them. If I see someone who is about to get run over by a truck, I am being kind by not warning them.

TeeJay

#30 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 10 December 2013 - 05:45 PM

Fjuri, on 10 Dec 2013 - 10:16, said:
Maybe hatred is too strong a word for what I perceived. Anger perhaps, incomprehension is another. Judgemental is also correct.

Fjuri,

Yes, I am angry that h*m*sexuals can molest children with impunity. So should you. Explain "incomprehension." You accuse me of being judgmental. Are you not being judgmental when you judge me to be judgmental?

Quote
But thinking "child molesters" and "H*m*sexuals" are the same is odd, and even disproven in the paper provided. (http://www.childmole.../pdfs/study.pdf)
The S@xual orientation of the population measured of child molesters was not different from the average American population. So according to the study, there is no correlation between H*m*sexuals and child molesters.

Positing that there is no correlation between h*m*sexuals and child molesters is like arguing that there is no correlation between prostitutes and prostitution, or robbing banks and bank robbers.
/

Quote
Tolerance is not simply ignoring the problem.You can impose your own limits to what you tolerate. You call setting the limit grace?

What in the world are you talking about here?

Quote
BTW: In fear of going completely off topic, but I've heart "God is Love" and "Love is God" on multiple occasions. When a H*mos*xual is in love with another H*mos*xual, is it not love he is experiencing, is it not God he is experiencing?

If God loved the wicked as He loves the righteous, then His love would be valueless. God would not call this love; He calls it an "abomination."

TeeJay

#31 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 11 December 2013 - 08:21 AM

Fjuri, setting your own limits is, again, based on an atheistic presupposition that there isn't a higher law-giver than mankind, so whether you use the word hatred, or something milder is irrelevant. If there is a divine law-giver then I am not acting in love by encouraging someone to break those rules, especially if I know what the consequences are. On the contrary, I would be guilty of deceiving him and pointing him on a path that leads to death.

Thanks for this explanation. :)

I'll go looking for a non-presuppositioned opinion then.

 

Yes, I am angry that H*m*sexuals can molest children with impunity. So should you. Explain "incomprehension." You accuse me of being judgmental. Are you not being judgmental when you judge me to be judgmental?

You should be angry for any people that can molest children with impunity. Being G*y has nothing to do with it. The study showed the largest part of the child molesters are heterosexual.

 

With incomprehension I mean not understanding the h*m*sexuals. Hey, I don't understand them myself, but I don't like G*y with child molestation. Both can be wrong btw, according to your believes, but they are not the same.

I judge you on what you wrote. You can judge me on what I'm writing. You judged every H*mos*xual based on one child molester that may or may not be G*y.

 

Can a H*mos*xual not experience the following?

"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."



#32 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 12 December 2013 - 12:31 AM

What's worse, being atheist or being G*y? There are 4 commandments about theism, while there are none about S@xual orientation. Do you tolerate neither? Do you tolerate a G*y person that also is an atheist? Which is your priority to change, his S@xual orientation or his unbelief in your god?



#33 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 December 2013 - 04:40 AM

Fjuri, is it possible to recognize the harm a person is generating, through their actions and choices, without necessarily being hateful or intolerant as often portrayed by people who are self-proclaimed lovers of tolerance?

#34 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 12 December 2013 - 06:31 AM

It is possible to recognize the harm a person is generating without being necessarily hateful or intolerant.

 

I think, it is when you take action on your observation that you show if you are being hateful/intolerant/tolerant. One of the most important things when you try to get a point across (like being G*y is evil) is first trying to understand the situation and the one you are trying to 'convert'. Unwillingness to try and understand is being intolerant. If you come to understand each other, then and only then can you mutually progress towards a goal.

 

When I see a grave error or a perception very different from what I believe, like the one in this thread, I am stupefied. To my knowledge h*m*s*xuality and child molestation are two very different things. This is affirmed in the study provided above.



#35 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 20 December 2013 - 04:26 PM

It is possible to recognize the harm a person is generating without being necessarily hateful or intolerant.

 

I think, it is when you take action on your observation that you show if you are being hateful/intolerant/tolerant. One of the most important things when you try to get a point across (like being g*y is evil) is first trying to understand the situation and the one you are trying to 'convert'. Unwillingness to try and understand is being intolerant. If you come to understand each other, then and only then can you mutually progress towards a goal.

 

When I see a grave error or a perception very different from what I believe, like the one in this thread, I am stupefied. To my knowledge h*m*s*xuality and child molestation are two very different things. This is affirmed in the study provided above.

Fjuri,

God says in His word that we are to be hateful and intolerant of unrepentant sinners.  h*m*s*xuality and Christianity are mutually exclusive.  One or the other has to go in the closet.  You want Christians to be tolerant of h*m*sexuals.  Are h*m*sexuals tolerant towards Duck Dynasty?  If a man lies with a person of the same s@x, he is a H*mos*xual and God commands that he should be put to death.  Now when you post that h*m*s*xuality and child molestation have no connection, you should also argue that a bank-robber has nothing to do with robbing banks.  

 

Let's look at what God has to say about being tolerant and loving towards unrepentant sinners:

 

God’s word says that you can’t separate man from his sin (except through Jesus Christ):  “As a man thinks in His heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7).  And God hates the sin before it’s committed.  Contrary to what Gandhi believes, God hates the wicked.  Let’s look at a few of God’s scriptures:

 

“God hates all workers of iniquity” (Ps. 5:5).

“The Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man” (Ps. 5:6).

“The wicked and the one who loves violence [God] hates” (Ps. 11:5).

“The face of the Lord is against those who do evil” (Ps. 34:16).

“God loves righteousness and hates wickedness” (Ps. 45:7)

“The Lord hates a heart that devises wicked plans, a false witness, one who sows discord among the brethren” (Prov. 6:16-19).

God reminds us, “All wickedness is in Gilgal, for there I hated them.  Because of the evil of their deeds I will drive them from My house; I will love them no more” (Ho. 9:13).

 

And Moses wrote of God:  If you do not obey Me, “My soul shall abhor you” (Lev. 26:27-30).

 

What is hypocritical love?  The Bible answer is, “Should you love those who hate the Lord?  Therefore the wrath of the Lord is upon you” (2 Chr. 19:2).  Warning the wicked of the coming judgment is harsh, but is a necessary component of acceptable love.  A love that is not hypocritical rebukes and condemns, and then points to Jesus Christ.

 

Paul also warns, “Let your love be without hypocrisy.  Abhor what is evil” (Rom. 12:9).  Love is a precious commodity that should not be squandered.  The lips that profess love for God should not in the next breath profess love for an unrepentant H*mos*xual molester of young boys.  This type of love profanes God:  “You call good evil and evil good.”  “You put those to death who should be kept alive and keep alive those who should be put to death” (Ezek. 13:19).   If you love everybody, then your love becomes meaningless.  If we gave the Medal of Honor to all soldiers, then it would no longer merit a salute.

 

Should not your righteous indignation be towards the unrepentant homos rather than Christians on this thread who judge with righteous judgment?

 

TeeJay



#36 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 December 2013 - 03:12 AM

Now when you post that h*m*s*xuality and child molestation have no connection, you should also argue that a bank-robber has nothing to do with robbing banks. 

 

From the paper in childmolestationprevention.org referenced several times now, we see that the number of boy victims was only 45% of the number of girl victims. We also get that child molesters that went after boys had double the number of victims compared to those that went for girls. Which means the number of men on boy child molesters (h*m*sexuals) is much smaller then the number of men on girl child molesters (heterosexuals). That is fact.

 

Or do you argue child molestation only happens by men and on boys?



#37 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 23 December 2013 - 09:44 AM

Fjuri,

Not one Boy Scout or not one Catholic altar boy has ever been molested by a heterosexual scout leader or priest.  All have been molested by H*mos*xual men.  Homos make up only 3 percent of the U.S. (although their numbers are growing quickly) yet they have molested 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).

I find it disturbing that you use molestation of girls by men to justify molestation of boys by h*m*sexuals.  Using your logic, we can justify Hitler's slaughter of 6 million Jews by pointing out that Stalin killed 30 million Russians.

You have to be honest and ask:  Why does the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) march arm in arm with the g*ys at G*y pride parades?  Why are NAMBLA guest speakers at these events?  If you really want the truth about homos, you need to go on line and read some articles in their national homo magazines.  In a big city, if a homo owns a business, these magazines will be front and center in racks outside their business.  

 

In these magazines you will read articles titled, "In Praise of Penises" (on "how to make that special boy feel good.").  The nations largest G*y publicist, Alyson Publications of Boston, which distributes Daddy's Roommate and other H*mos*xual books for kids published "Paedophilia:  The Radical Case," hundreds of pages of why and how seven year old boys should be brought to climax.  Another Alyson book, "The Age Taboo on page 144 insists:  "Boy-lovers... are not child molesters.  The child abusers are... parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody."

I contend, Fjuri,, that if there were still a shred of God's righteousness alive in your heart, your attendance at a G*y-pride parade would change your stance on homos.  If you ever do attend one, please leave your wife and kids at home.  What you will see is not fit for family viewing.  But to justify your relative morality, you must deny truth.

Relative morality is, of necessity, the result of atheism.  Absent God, the atheist can't justify anything he encounters in reality--not morality, not laws of logic, i.e. none of the preconditions of intelligibility.  

 

Again, this old man would like to see you concerned more about the children that these monsters molest than your concern about offending homos.

TeeJay  



#38 Jambobskiwobski

Jambobskiwobski

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 23 December 2013 - 02:22 PM

TeeJay,
I'll leave Fjuri to respond to the bulk of your post but am disgusted by your gross misrepresentation of Fjuri's comments. If no apology is forthcoming from you then I can have no respect for you.

#39 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:29 AM

Not one Boy Scout or not one Catholic altar boy has ever been molested by a heterosexual scout leader or priest.  All have been molested by H*mos*xual men.  Homos make up only 3 percent of the U.S. (although their numbers are growing quickly) yet they have molested 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).

What part of this quote is from the "psychological reports" and which are interpretation?

 

I find it disturbing that you use molestation of girls by men to justify molestation of boys by H*m*sexuals.  Using your logic, we can justify Hitler's slaughter of 6 million Jews by pointing out that Stalin killed 30 million Russians.

Where am I justifying molestation of boys? I am stating molestation of children is something different then h*m*s*xuality.

Like rape can be something different then theft.

 

You have to be honest and ask:  Why does the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) march arm in arm with the g*ys at g*y pride parades?  Why are NAMBLA guest speakers at these events?  If you really want the truth about homos, you need to go on line and read some articles in their national homo magazines.  In a big city, if a homo owns a business, these magazines will be front and center in racks outside their business.

Maybe because the G*y pride parades are an expression of a hidden desire, much in the same way the child molestation can be. That does not make it right. I think it would indeed do good for G*y pride organisers to shun such organizations. But the G*y pride is about "freedom of speech" and expressing yourself, them imposing censor would be hypocrite.

 

In these magazines you will read articles titled, "In Praise of Penises" (on "how to make that special boy feel good.").  The nations largest g*y publicist, Alyson Publications of Boston, which distributes Daddy's Roommate and other H*mos*xual books for kids published "Paedophilia:  The Radical Case," hundreds of pages of why and how seven year old boys should be brought to climax.  Another Alyson book, "The Age Taboo on page 144 insists:  "Boy-lovers... are not child molesters.  The child abusers are... parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody."

Sure, there are h*m*sexuals who are also child molesters, I am not denying that. And sure, H*mos*xual magazines probably don't have a lot of censor in what they publicize. That doesn't make it right.

 

Again, this old man would like to see you concerned more about the children that these monsters molest than your concern about offending homos.

So better to be save then sorry is what you are saying?



#40 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 24 December 2013 - 03:46 AM

Fjuri,

Not one Boy Scout or not one Catholic altar boy has ever been molested by a heterosexual scout leader or priest.  All have been molested by H*mos*xual men.  Homos make up only 3 percent of the U.S. (although their numbers are growing quickly) yet they have molested 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).
...

In all fairness, I think that 3 percent is just the more or less pure h*m*sexuals whose S@xual interest would be exclusively in males. That won't include bisexuals, whose number may be multiple times that figure.

 

As for child molesters (on both boys and girls) below what age is that counted? My personal guess would be 12 years, but I think some reports may take the legal age 16 or 18 years and then count all charges in. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users