Bob Dole

Everything I claim has come directly from the bible, no one has shown anything to the contrary, every time someone claims something new about homosexuality in the bible I've proven it wrong by doing research into the meanings of the original wording of the bible. I don't understand where I've been proven wrong. All I want is one line from the bible that says homosexuality is wrong. I don't mean homosexual sex, lust or male prostitution, I mean homosexuality, being attracted to the members of the same sex. Again, I don't mean lust. Everything in the bible that mentions homosexuality means homosexual sex if you look at the original writings.

No, actually, I read the book to my daughter before I decided to take the issue to the principal of the school. But before I did, I explained to her in the best way possible (to a 7-year-old) why the book was bad. Remember that old expression about assumptions? But you still took it upon yourself to be the parent for the rest of the children in the school by going to the principal. Now you're making yourself look even worse, you felt the book wasn't appropriate for children your daughter's age, but you read the book to your daughter anyway? I'm glad you explained what it was I don't understand so that I may understand it. Isn't satan the head of all that is wicked? So when you turn to the dark arts or anything evil, satan is involved. Don't be a smart alek. There are some things that cannot be understood unless experienced, and there is no way I am going to talk about something so horrible and so personal to a stranger on a public forum. Yes, Satan is the head of all that is wicked. I'm trying to understand why you are accusing me of giving Satan too much credit but not acknowledging that I'm giving him credit. Sorry, but that's confusing me. Another thing I don't understand is why you are arguing with me on how I rear my daughter I can't understand that I'm supposed to experience something before I can understand it unless you tell me "This is something you haven't experienced" rather than "This is something you can't understand." Also, I've experienced a lot in my lifetime. I know people who practiced witchcraft, (and that's practiced, as in they stopped.) My best friend tried, for about a week actually, maybe less I'm not sure. He wasn't devoted to it, he knew it was a bunch of garbage he just wanted to believe it could work. He wasn't lured in by harry potter, or lord of the rings, and while me and my other friends were really into Magic The Gathering and Dungeons and Dragons, he didn't enjoy playing those games. Yet he was the one to turn to witchcraft. I knew 2 other friend's who practiced it, they also had no interest in MTG or D&D and they also stopped (although they practiced it for longer.) Anyway, I've seen no evidence from the bible, or from the real world to suggest that Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, D&D, Yu Gi Oh, or any of these other fictional works will lure kids to start practicing the dark arts, and what I've seen suggests the opposite. Kids who are not into the groups that play these games, read these books or watch the movies will feel like outcasts and it'd be more likely that they'd get lured into the dark arts because they want to belong to something. The same reason they would choose to join a cult, they just want to belong to a group. Also, I'm not arguing with you on how to raise your daughter, she's your daughter and I have no right to do that. I'm arguing that I don't believe satan has a foothold in harry potter or any other fantasy works. That's why I'm saying we're giving satan too much credit. I don't think he's responsible for those things and I don't think they're going to lead children to him.

Thank you, I needed that :-) Good for you. I'm glad you don't understand. Somehow, I think if my daughter was given half a chance, she might have some inkling of understanding. BTW, I didn't mention Satan. You did. I'm glad you explained what it was I don't understand so that I may understand it. Isn't satan the head of all that is wicked? So when you turn to the dark arts or anything evil, satan is involved. ...Which is why parents need to learn to parent, instead of letting the world do it for them. When my eldest child was in 3rd grace she picked up a book from the school library that told a story of a young girl who went sleep and dreampt of skeletons, spiders and death. I took the book to the school principal and showed it to her. She agreed with me that it was not appropriate for my daughter's age group, and she had it removed from the library. If parents don't take an active role in their children's lives then they shouldn't complain when their children follow the world. Ok, so instead of telling your daughter she shouldn't read the book, or explaining these things to your daughter, you played the part of the world's parent and had the book removed from the school. Any child that has ever been let outside for the month of october knows what a skeleton or a spider looks like and they'll probably understand death too. I think a child that age would also understand a nightmare and has probably had a good amount of them already. I'm not bothered that you don't let your own daughter read the book, that's your choice, you're her parent, but don't have a book removed from the school's library because you don't think your daughter should have read it.

I know what desires and emotions were inside of me while I was a child. I watched all kinds of movies with witches and I never had any desire to be a witch. I knew what I was watching wasn't real. I've read all kinds of fantasy stories and still, no desires to worship satan. For a child to go on to a path where they start to practice dark arts they'd have to find something like the satanic bible, or they'd have to go into a shop for occult items. I know where I'd go if I wanted to do this stuff, I live in NYC there are occult shops around. Reading Harry Potter will not tell me where to find one of these shops, it won't tell me how to build an altar, it won't tell me how to worship satan, it won't tell me anything about witchcraft except in the world of the book, which has a completely different type of witchcraft than the type we're talking about in the real world. Also, you don't seem to acknowledge that you are giving too much credit to satan. If children think satan is responsible for most of the clothes they like, the TV shows and movies they want to watch, the books they want to read, the games they want to play, and the music they want to listen to, then they're not going to think too low of satan.

Look at the bible verse in Leviticus 18: 22 said Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. meaning that God forbids anyone do this and they cannot enter Kingdom of God at all. that s why God cant stand any of kind of sin like that unless you decide to repent and confess your sins and no more doing this. then you can inherit into God's kingdom. as I am standing what the Bible says I won't bend any of those truth because God speaks the truth. it is really sad for some christians people thinks that it is ok to being homosexuality. some people say need to respect their wishes to be doing this. like Human rights. It is really hard for me to understand why they are allowed do that and think it is alright. I am sorry i say that because I just follow what the Bible says and God said obey his laws meaning all of His Words in the bible. also the bible say in Leviticus 18: 30 so be careful to obey my laws, and do not practice any of these detestable activities. Do not defile yourselves by doing any of them, for I, the Lord, am your God. meaning that He wants us to follow His ways not world way. and also He is asking us to keep ourselves holy and doing right thing for Him to give Him glorify. Thanks Deafcanada Leviticus 18: 22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." It's saying a man shouldn't have sex with another man. That's a homosexual act, but you can be a homosexual without having sex. I've argued this so many times but people seem to ignore it. The bible doesn't mention being a homosexual is a sin it just says having homosexual sex is a sin.

This forum doesn't seem to be able to handle over a certain number of quotes so - I am not sure if this is frustrating me or entertaining me. Unless I was around during that time, I am relying on other people's words? I guess in a technical sense, yes. However, I have also looked at this words in the ancient manuscripts to see how they work in the context. Thus, the other people's words that I have learned from lately have been those who did live in that time and did speak that language. Secondly, the encyclopedia, if this is truly all it says about the word, is highly inadequate. It does not explain that it is a contraction of two words (which I dare you to disprove) or that the modern idea of pornography is more akin to porneia than to pornographos. I did miswrite in my last one by saying graphos was part of the root, but I added the end sigma on accident. It should instead end with the omega. My apologies. The simple fact of the matter is you are relying on something that is giving you an icomplete history of the word. I challenge you to find evidence proving what I have said concerning this word is wrong. You will not find a single iota, but it should be interesting to see how you try to prove me wrong on this. The simple fact is, it is a contraction of two Greek words (this is not disputable at all, to try and dispute it shows me that you know nothing of Greek as you claimed earlier in your post), and that our modern term pornography, though it comes from pornographos is more akin in idea and connotation to porneia. You've just said what I've been arguing. The word pornography comes from pornographos. That was my point, I wasn't arguing that porneia had nothing in common with pornography I was just saying it wasn't where the word came from.

Well the key to defeating AIDS is through finding a cure and educating people on how they get AIDS. If somoene refrained from all sexual acts, became a doctor, and treated a bleeding patient with AIDS, they could get the disease through an open wound. Sex isn't the only way to get the virus but it's deffinitely the easiest and most frequent cause. This, once again, ignores what the Greek word means. You have consistently ignored it. When it refers to a "child of immorality," this is a state of being and not a sexual act. The entire point that I am stating here is that the word porneia does not just refer to sexual acts but states of being and thoughts as well. The child referenced might be a state of being (although it's a child, a physical, living, breathing, child, I'm not going to argue that point though) but the immorality is a sexual act. If it were "Child of sin" and the sin was just sin in general, and meant a bad child that sinned a lot, the sin refers to a state of being. Sin is both physical and mental. In this case it's a "Child of immorality" the immorality being the word porneia refers to fornication. The entire sentence as a whole isn't a sexual act, but the word porneia in that sentence is a sexual act, if two people think about fornicating with each other for 10,000 years they will never produce a "child of immorality." The child can only come about when they do fornicate. Fornication is a physical act, you can't fornicate by thinking about it really hard. Also, most of the translations of the word porneia I've found say it means fornication, could you give me an example where porneia isn't referring to fornication? You have too broad a definition for what attraction is. When I refer to attraction I am speaking of a desire to be with a person in a sexual or partially sexual manner. Likewise, you were refering to two guys, who are both attracted to each other, hanging out and kissing. This is inevitably a sin because it refers to what the Bible explicitly condemns. Well you haven't shown that the bible condems two guys kissing, you've just said it without providing an example. Also, I can and have seen girls who I thought were attractive without thinking sexual things about them. It's not that I don't want to have sex with the girl, it's just that the bible tells us lustful thoughts are a sin so I try not to think them. Sure they might pop in every once in a while but that's rare and as long as these thoughts leave as quickly as they came it's ok. Well in context in the bible, the word porneia makes more sense as "fornication" and the word arsenokoites makes more sense as "male partner in homosexual sex." From all the reading I've done they also seem to be the agreed upon ancient meanings of these words. I haven't found much to the contraty (and the stuff I did find was usually from someone who was just stating the translation found in newer bibles and not touching on the original greek translation based on the meaning of the word at the time.) Not one of the deffinitions I've found described either one of those words as meaning a sexual thought. They've all refered to something physical. It was never "a man who lusts for another man" or anything like that. It was either fornication or a male who has sex with other males or something similar. Also, I thought the New Testament was most likely written in Greek, not Hebrew. Sure, lust is mental, fornication is physical. Except the bible condems both of those acts specifically. It doesn't say "Lust is wrong" and leave out fornication and it doesn't say "Fornication is wrong" and leave out lust. It mentions both because both are considered wrong. With homosexuality, the bible seems to just condemn the behavior (homosexual sex) and NOT the mental part (being attracted to another man.) Hmmm, attraction in a friendly way? I've never been attracted to someone in a "friendly" way, I don't even know what that would mean. I've seen people as being attractive but I'm not attracted to them. I'd say Brad Pitt is attractive but I'm not attracted to him. That isn't a friendly attraction that's just an observation. Also, lust applies for everyone, the bible doesn't say "homosexual lust is wrong" it says all lust is wrong. You haven't really acknowledged my original hypothetical situation. What if two men are in a relationship that is not sexual. They're very affectionate towards each other, and they both love each other very much. Most people would consider there relationship homosexual but they abstain from sex because the bible says it's wrong. Are they still sinning because they are considered homosexuals or do they have to have some type of lustful thought or some type of sexual intercourse for that to happen? My argument is that they have not sinned yet because the bible is only against homosexual sex.

No, not at all. I am guessing that you looked this up and did not do it from your own knowledge. Regardless, a child cannot be a sexual act. Being a person and not an action (a noun and not a verb in clearer terms) he cannot be an act. The word is being used to refer to a state of being, not to an act. It is not even refering to an act that brought him about. It is instead a description of his being, that he is not a child of immorality. Actually I did it from my own knowledge, I didn't look it up. A child is not a sexual act, but it's "Not a child of immorality" it's not refering to an immoral child. It's stating "This child has not been brought to life through immorality. The act that it's reffering to would have be fornication, sex outside of marriage. Yes, I do believe they are sinners. I once again point you back to the word which can refer to both internal and external actions. The internal action of the Greek word is refering to anything that is sexually immoral. With this in mind, when a man likes a man and has that attraction in a sexual way, especially to the point of kissing not in a greeting manner but in a sexual manner, then at this point sin has most definately occured. As I also pointed out, to realize you are attracted to the same sex you have to begin with a lust, or with a sexual desire to that person. There has to be sexual attraction or there is no attraction at all. Furthermore, if you are attracted to a man, or even a woman, of the same sex and spend enough time around him, you are eventually going to lust and give into that lust. However, as we have seen from Biblical examples, sin begins from within. Even lust must have a seed, because lust does not simply develop on its own. WHat is that seed? The seed is attraction. Whereas attraction is okay in some cases for straight people (I think once married or even seriously dating, the attraction needs to be brought under control, or an affair will occur), it is not for homosexuals because: 1) It is controled, as I have shown and this has gone uncontested 2) At the point we gain attaction, we have caused it and subsequently gone against God's plan. What you are advocating is simply not realistic, and even if attraction isn't a sin you still have a useless point because it is impossible to be around peole you are attracted to for a prolonged period of time and not act on that attraction. I meant kissing in an affectionate manner and it doesn't say going against God's plan was a sin or that being attracted to a member of the same sex is going against God's plan. Plus you can be around someone you're attracted to without doing anything about it. I've been around plenty of females I've been attracted to without acting on the attraction. Mostly it's the girlfriend of a friend, or perhaps a much younger co-worker. I'd find the girl cute, but I wouldn't think anything past that, there weren't any lustfull thoughts. It was "Hey she seems cute, and she's into the same music and hobbies, that's cool" and we were like a couple of good friend's, nothing more. Wonderful. You should also stop by and talk to John Sexton, he's a new friend of mine. I got to lecture at NYU a couple of months back, though not on the Greek language. Instead, it was on the early Gnostics and then a brief summarization on modern Gnosticism. Regardless, him and I hit it off. He's a Jew from the same area as my grandfather was (who was also Jewish), so we got along. Don't agree on everything (obviously, he's a libera) but he's still a good man with a big heart. Get a hug while you're at it, he's famous for them. Regardless, you are using encyclopedias and that is wonderful, but they are not giving you the entire story. I'm using my own knowledge of the Greek language. WHo do you think is going to be more correct on this one, you who are relying on what other people have said, or someone who has done a word study on it that is applicable to this situation? Now, as I have said, pornographos is a composition of pornos and graphos. pornos is also the root word for porneia which refers to sexual thoughts as well as actions. pornos merely refers to prostitution. Thus, if we are doing a contextual translation, porneia, though not the direct root word, is still closer to what we consider "pornography" because of what it stands for (sexual thoughts and actions) than pornos (writing about sex with prostitutes). THe literal root word is pornos but a contextual root word is going to be porneia because of what it represents, the idea of pornography in the modern world is closer to the idea presented in porneia which represents a wide variety of sexual acts, more than "sex with male prostitutes." So, go ask those professors, that's fine by me. Some might have been at my lecture because I was challenged a few times on my interpretation of Greek words in reference to the Gnostics...so who knows. Anyway, good luck searching. But unless you were around during the time the word came into use, you are also relying on the word of other people. The difference is that in the encyclopedia there's a whole team going over the statement, checking it for accuracy, asking many different people.

No no no no, it doesn't just describe sexual acts. You can look it up in a dictinoary all you want (or what you would call a concordance) but any lexicon is going to put this away from just sexual acts and more towards an inner morality that manifests itself in outward acts. For instance, if you came across a Greek phrase that read something like this: έκ πονείας ού γεγένημαι It means "not a child of immorality" which would be a state of being, not a literal action. It is refering to the chlid not being illigitimate. Not a child of immorality. The immorality it refers to is a sexual act (fornication.) Perhaps you should try again? The sexual thought is considered lust and that's a sin no matter who you lust over. I've gone over that before. No one has yet to show me anything in the bible that says if you prefer a man to a woman you're a sinner. If you lust that is a sin, but what if you know that's your preference from one time you've lusted over another man, then some time maybe a month later you meet a man you think is really great. He has all the same interests, he's like a great friend, but you're affectionate towards each other. You think no sexual thoughts and the two of you do not fornicate. Perhaps you kiss on the lips when you great each other but that's it. Do you believe those two people are sinners? I'm sorry, I've referenced every encyclopedia I own and I've checked tons of websites, they all say the word pornography came from pornographos which was the one of the earliest forms or pornography. Perhaps I should head to NYU and find some greek scholar's and ask them.

I've never known anyone who wasn't muslim or hebrew to fast from food. I'd figure if someone were to fast it'd be from something they really enjoy, and not something their body needs to stay in healthy. working order. I have no problem with other people doing it if they want to, I was just wondering why he thought God would want him to fast.

Why do you think God would want you to fast? Have you done something wrong?

Err sorry, "Porneia describes sexual acts, sure that is a more fitting word for" pornography today, pornographos fits with the origins of pornography perfectly since it was really just stories of men who had sex with these loose women.

Pornographos, the writing of harlots. Men would write of their tales with these women and that was an early form of pornography. That's where the name came from. Porneia describes sexual acts, sure that is a more fitting word for pornography to come from, but it just isn't the word. Also, it describes sexual acts, being attracted to men is not a sexual act. Homosexual sex is considered porneia, but I wouldn't describe a man who has a sexual preference towards men as someone who has commited porneia.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to find the original greek new testament and have one of my greek friends read the whole thing to me. Can you point me to the verses I should read? Pornography comes from the greek word for prostitute and the word for written material.

Fornication, lust, and adultery are sexually immoral. It doesn't say homosexuality is sexually immoral.

You've read all 6, but found something so disturbing in number 4 you told your child she can never read the books? Sounds like the perfect way to make sure she reads every one of them. The old "do as I say, not as I do" thing doesn't work with most kids. It never worked with me, and it didn't work with my kids, or anybody else that I ever saw, as a matter of fact its almost a perfect recipe for disaster. Children learn from example, and their own hard knocks, not somebody elses. True, but the books were never in my house. I don't even own them. How could she me read them? Well she could always go to the library, borrow them from a friend, find them online, buy them in the book store, or she can find the movies and watch those. Anyway, lets say we get our children together and we tell them "These movies are all bad, these TV shows are all bad, these books are all bad, this music is all bad and these clothes are all bad. The people your children looks up to (whoever America's top pop star might be at the time) are now all worshiping Satan according to you. Doesn't that make Satan look pretty good to a child? Hey everyone else is watching those movies, watching those TV shows, reading those books, wearing those clothes and listening to that music, so Satan can't be all that bad, right? Don't believe for a second that I think Satan is a swell guy. I don't, what I'm saying is you're all giving Satan credit he doesn't deserve, and you're making him look really good to a child. I don't believe for a second Satan had a hand in Harry Potter, Yu Gi Oh!, most shows on TV, most music or most clothing, but you're keeping your children away for this fear that he might and he'll steal them away if they get into that stuff. Can't you at least compromise a little? Explain to your child that Harry Potter isn't real (although your child should know this, and if your child doesn't know this by the age they can read Harry Potter, perhaps you should look into that?) Explain that in real life people who practice witchcraft can't do any of the things Harry Potter can do, and they go to hell for worshiping Satan. It's much better than telling them "Well Satan made that so you can't do it" because eventually their idea of Satan is going to be much more friendly than what he really is (hey, he can't be too bad if he created all of their favorite stuff.)

I've studied the New Testament, I don't think I've read the entire thing but I know I've studied enough of it to know what it says of homosexuality. Again, I say it speaks of homosexual sex it does not speak of homosexuality without the sex or without lust. It's up to you to point those parts out though, I couldn't show what the bible doesn't contain but you could show what it does contain. Your origional argument was that homosexuality went against God's design. God designed the earth, the rivers in it, the treets, the mountains, the valleys, everything. If you move a mound of dirt you're going against God's design. Now we're going against the image of God. God is not a man or a woman and has attraction for neither one so any attraction would be going against God's image, but that's not my point. God designed women to be a partner for man to have children with. God did not create woman so men would have something to be attracted to. Two men having a child would go against the bible. Two men being attracted to each other wouldn't.

If you are trying to convnce a Christian to change his/her position, a statement like that isn't going to work. Which "God" do you serve? Well I thought I served the same God as you, apparently I don't. In America there are laws against the government giving priority to one religion over the next. Yes, God tells me marriage is between a man and a woman, but that's my God and not everyone believes in my God, and in America God isn't part of the law, so marriage as a legal term can be defined as between two people of any sex. I have no problem with that, it doesn't change my religion it just changes a legal term. Deuteronomy 10:19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

I don't think they should even consider marriage unless they've been living together for some time. That way they're much better prepared for marriage. You have to get used to the idea of seeing someone every single day. Also, I find that in high school a person might think that a relationship lasting a year is a long relationship, they have no concept of how long a marriage is going to last.

I know what marriage is in a religious context. I also know m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e is just a word. Changing the legal deffinition of the word marriage does NOT change the meaning of marriage in the eyes of god. Ok, so what if someone creates a religion where marriage is between two people who love each other? Why does any one religion get priority over another? The marriage is holy to them. I'm all for civil unions as long as they've got the same rights, but I see no harm in calling it marriage (I wouldn't describe it as a marriage according to God, I hope you understand this point, they are not married through the eyes of my God but they can use the word marriage, it's only a word.) I didn't have artificial insemination in mind when I wrote that. I was thinking more along the lines of a parent whose spouse has died while the child was very young (or still in the womb.) There's also adoption. Although I see nothing wrong with artificial insemination for families who want children but can't have them any other way and can't afford to adopt. Same sex couples can't PLAN to have a child. They have to have the child by unnatural means or it will not happen. They are using science to play God. But you would encourage this? You can plan to buy a house. You can plan to take a cruise. You can plan to buy a car. None of those things are "natural" yet you can still plan to do them. A gay couple must always plan for a child. It won't happen by accident during sex. They have to try and adopt a child. Or obtain one through artificial insemination. Or have sex with a member of the opposite sex. My entire argument there was really that a gay couple that has a child wanted it and had the resources to take care of it. In the case of a straight couple, the child could be unwanted and in a lot of cases the couple might not have the time or the money to be able to look after a child so it becomes more of a burden then a blessing. I understand that you have many friends that are homosexual and that you want the best for them and to see them happy. You should understand that you are only condemming them by encouraging them. You profess to be a Christian or at least seem to have some understanding of scripture, yet you continue to defend their acts, or at least their right to commit them. You agree that sex with someone of the same sex is a sin but you continue to promote environments and conditions that only serve to encourage such behavior. These people don't need tolerance they need the truth and as a Christian it's your duty to either present it to them or to come out from among them. Your misrepresentation of scripture is as bad if not worse than the the sin of homosexuality, because you should know better. 2corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Even if I knew no homosexuals, I'd still understand them as people. My beliefs differ from theres. Should I try to change them by sharing the message of the Lord with them? Yes. Should I make living a normal life harder for them just so they get fed up and change their ways? No.

If I dig a river, I am going against god's design. If I plant a tree, I am going against god's design. However, as far as I can tell, those two aren't a sin. The only thing the bible says about homosexuality is that a man should not lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. I don't know how many times I can repeat this before you truly understand it, the bible speaks of men who have sex with other men. It says NOTHING of a man who is only attracted to other men but never acts upon this attraction. So you're saying men aren't born with an attraction to females they just learn it? Why is it that if a gay couple adopts a child, it's as likely to be straight as a child raised by a straight couple? Actually I don't know a single gay couple that has ever raised a gay child (raised from a young age, I know gay couples that have adopted gay teens because the teen's family kicked them out for being gay.) We're born with our instincts, and I believe in these instincts we have our sexual preference towards the opposite sex, and like everything else in biology, we're not perfect. So some people would be born with an attraction to the same sex.

Ok so lets say attraction isn't lust, then there's no sin. God does not say in the bible a man must not be attracted to females and not a male. Also, what if it's ever discovered that the attraction is something the person is born with?

It's irrelevant why the TV was on that channel, but you are telling people "Don't watch this it's evil." You haven't once described why it would give satan any kind of foothold in our lives. Also, didn't you ask me to find references in the scripture that said books like "Harry Potter" were ok? Ok so you're warning us not to watch these shows because they give satan a foothold in our lives. I disagree with you though, I don't believe it gives satan a foothold. I reject satan as much as I ever did and I watch Adult Swim, I read Lord of the Rings, I enjoy violent movies. I don't enjoy real violence, I don't swear (although I am not against other people swearing, I don't care if they do, I do not think any differently about that person, it's just words and only society makes them swear words, not god), I don't practice witchcraft, I don't do drugs, I don't fornicate. I don't understand how you can say that satan has a strong foothold in my life when he so obviously doesn't. I also care. I care when someone shuts out some of mankind's finest literature (Lord of the Rings is an amazing story, as well as Harry Potter) because they fear it may lead satan into their lives. As long as you are strong willed satan will not have influence on you. When someone warns me to stay away from Harry Potter, or that they themselves stay away I think to myself "That person's conviction's must be weak if they feel satan can influence them just by them reading a work of fiction." If your convictions are strong enough there is nothing satan can do that can convince you otherwise. Reading or watching "The DaVinci Code" won't plant seeds of doubt in your mind if you know in your heart that what the bible tells you is true. Everyone seems to be ignoring my main question - Yes, specially disney, A christmas carol might be the only one I would watch but rather prefer not to, but no way do I watch any disney movies, not even the one's with people just because I know a lot of stories about disney. Now refer to the below quote. Hmm well I can't ague with Disney being evil based on stuff they've done, but I would not base that on the content in their stories. Although Microsoft is just as evil (if not more) than Disney, yet I bet most people on this forum are using Microsoft Windows on their computers. Microsoft has actually had satanic references in some of their products. How many of those people using Microsoft products on this form will say that they are evil themselves? They in and of themselves are not evil, though they can be vehicles for such. What is a temptation for one person is not necessarily interesting to another, much less a temptation. People talk about gun violence but we have to remember that people shoot those guns. A gun in my home would not be a temptation to gang or regular gun violence, because I'm just not that kinda gal. Neither would a sword be or a knife. And I have used "Crystals" to make wind chimes. they are pretty and mean nothing to me. I'm not channeling anything or attempting to change anything with them, just making a decoration for the window. Paul talked about meat sacrificed to Idols. It was meat used to worship pagan gods, then distributed for whoever bought it to eat. Christians went to pagan homes for dinner and were wondering if they should eat it or not. Was it evil? Paul said to eat what was served and leave it at that. In another place he said to not eat meat if it would cause a brother to stumble. This teaches that the meat itself, even if it had an evil use originally, was just a peice of meat. It was the meaning given to it by the people using it that made it evil. Like the guns. There is no demon in a bottle of beer, but alot of people use it get drunk. Medicinal plants were put on earth for us to use for medicinal purposes and people use them instead to create an "unsober" mind or altered state of consciousness. The problem isn't the plants, the beer, the meat, it's the people USING it. I have a mind very much fascinated by the mystical. I don't believe it is wrong, per se, if used to ponder the mystery of the uncomprehensibility of God. But if not reigned in properly it becomes one and I was drawn into the occult when I was younger. Things which affected me in that way (like Isis cartoons) had no affect on my sister whatsoever. She thought the show was cheesy and didn't care about ancient egypt or their religion. For some reason I did. Had my parents been aware of what was going on, they might have forbid us to watch that stuff because it was a stumbling block to ME. If I'd been like my sister, they would have just left us alone. Isis cartoons were meat sacrificed to Idols. My older son was very much like me. I kept him sheltered from any references to the occult, outright or latent, until he was about 11 or 12. During that time I filled his head with alot of really solid theology and gradually over time I slowly started introducing things to him to see how he reacted. Like superheroes. I made sure that they were, in the beginning at least, not using eastern concepts (like chi) or getting their powers from other beings or forces...Thus XMen, batman and spiderman were all ok cause they were supposedly mutations and the power rangers were not (he was a boy so that was less of a problem anyway). When he was 12 the family we were visiting watched the Wizard of Oz. We get to the good witch. He says "there is no such thing as a good witch. They may be nice, but their magic comes from demons" I knew he understood the truth I'd been filling him with all those years. I've watched him, he's a very strong christian. He debunked the Davinci code to all his friends after we watched the whole history of the thing on tv (I never read the book so had no idea what the big deal was). I didn't have to tell him what was wrong with it, he knew right off... My younger son got exposed to some things in a christian run daycare that I had not introduced his brother to at that age. I was no longer a stay at home mom due to a divorce and had to place him somewhere, that was the best option I had. I sat down to talk to him about it, he looked at me really funny and said "MOM, thats just a dopey story." he isn't even INTERESTED in magical thinking. He could care less. His sins run along the line of sloth and having a temper. I have trouble getting him to think about the more mystical elements of scripture. He's really concrete "do this, don't do that" and I fear he will become either a legalist or a pragmatist (he's now 12, the older boy is 16). Now I would not cause one child to stumble to give the other freedom, but at the same time, I think we need to remember that one person's temptation is anothers ... nothing. The whole concept behind the game YuGiOh is foreign to Christianity because it is eastern. Because of the obviously eastern/oriental themes, it may be a problem for some kids whose minds run along that line who like to find mystical meanings and what not. It might not be a problem for others. To me, its the same thing as meat sacrificed to idols. It might have come from the world, but it has no power in and of itself. If it causes sin, magical thinking or an overreaching imagination, yank the stuff. If not, worry about the post modern world view in schools, that's even more of a threat because they will GET those concepts while any religious references in Yugi will fly over the heads of most people. I agree with you about the cartoonsand alcohol and all rather being used as a vehicle for evil. Here's a story about something that happened 5 days or so ago. A 10 year old kid beated he's 7 or so months old brother to death. The kid was as cold as a cold blooded killer when they were interviewing him, they asked him,'' do you feel sorry?''he answered "no" Then they asked him " what were you watching before you killed him'' he answered" Jackie Chan Adventures((the animated cartoons) . He then said that he felt like the devil got in him or something. So are you trying to say that the cartoon let satan into this child and that's why he beat his brother to death? I can't seem to find anything on google relating to this story either (I believe that it's possible it could of happened but I'd like to read the full story as it was reported.) I believe it's more coincidance than anything especially when you consider the amount of children that watch "Jackie Chan Adventures" and the amount of children that beat their little brother's to death right after watching "Jackie Chan Adventures." What if a drunk driver killed someone and I asked him "What was the last show you watched on TV?" and he said "The world cup was on TV in the bar", should I then conclude that the world cup causes drunk driving? And are you trying to blame the violence in the show, or the magic and sorcery?

Well I believe I found the post you were referring to, and the scripture speaks of following false prophets, but it says nothing of playing a card game, but I'll address your points below. Actually I respect everyone's feelings and opinions. I pick apart posts I disagree with, I post counterpoints to anything I feel is wrong. I spend lots of time looking up information and reading scripture to help me back up my point. I'm also not the only one on this forum with my view, I do seem to be the one who is most vocal about it though. If there was some evidence that proved I was wrong (some scripture that mentioned fictional witchcraft) then I'd I'll be praying for you to see that god has no desire for you to reject these works of fantasy. I stand in total agreement with Brian and say amen to the scripture he searched and quoted in order to help soften the hearts and lift the blinders off of anyones eyes who may possibly consider that messing with any form of witchcraft, wizardry, reading of cards, fortune telling...the list goes on and on. First of all we as God's children are in no way shape or form to entertain any part of the dark side of spirituality. Regardless of how old we are. We are all still vulnerable to satanic attacks because satan always looks for a way to sneak in to our unsuspecting minds. The is why Jesus called him the Deceiver. Now lets just take a look at Egypt and what it was up to around the time of Moses and the Jewish people. Was not that around 5000 years ago or so? And what did the Lord tell Moses to do with the staff He had given to Moses? He told Moses to drop the staff on the ground and it will turn into a serpant. He also told Moses that Pharoah's heart would be hardened and he would not let the people go. What was Pharoah's response to Moses? He summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts EX 7:2-11. And what occured when the magicians staff turned into a snake? The staff of the Lord ate the staff of the magician. That alone should tell people that Satan has the ability to perform signs and wonders similar to our Father. However, Satan is not as powerfull as the Almighty and will always lose the battle. There is a single truth I go by in order to differentiate between what I believe is that if it doesn't come from God it comes from satan. If Pharoah's magician performed the same "trick" as Moses and lost then Pharoah's magician was practicing an art that only could come from satan. 1 Timothy 4:1 The Spriti clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spritis and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whos chonsciences have been seared as with a hot iron. Further into the chapter he tells us not to give satan a strong hold into our lives. This means in all shapes, forms, and sizes. Please if you are Christian and believe whole heartedly that the Word is the truth. Then remove the lie that satan has planted in your minds that Yu Gi Oh and any other form of magical wonders are okay. They are not, they are death. God be with you all. Jackie I believe this is the post you were referring to? You compare playing Yu Gi Oh to Pharoah's priests summoning a serpent. I see one flaw in that argument, the priests actually summoned a serpent. Kids who play Yu Gi Oh have not, and will never, summon a Blue Eyes White Dragon or any other creatures printed on the cards. They will never do that because the game isn't real. You aren't really casting spells, you aren't really worshiping any dark lord (although there isn't a dark lord I know of to worship in Yu Gi Oh.) The instructions don't say "Give your soul to satan and sacrifice one lamb to summon this creature." It'll say something like "Put down this card and then you can put down that card." Yu Gi Oh is as satanic as a game of dominos. This isn't a form of magical wonder, this is a form of cards based on a physical ruleset. There is nothing supernatural going on during the game. You aren't meditating before putting down a card. Things like tarot cards and ouiji boards rely on getting power from a source outside of god, but even these things are fake and never work (I repeat, NEVER WORK.) The problem with ouiji boards and tarot cards is that you're praying to satan for the power for these items to work. Satan never answers the prayer (otherwise these items would actually work) and you've still turned your back on god. Like any other game (monopoly, chess, go), Yu Gi Oh cards just go by the games rules, and not some supernatural source.