MorningGlory Posted July 2, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.07 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 2, 2012 I wonder why foxnews gave the impression that this story was about an American family? Is this spin to make OUR government look bad? Dishonesty abounds. This story is from Ottawa, Canada. Seriously? I also got the distinct impression that this was an American family. I heard it on my local radio station though.....I don't think they said it was an American family but they didn't say it wasn't either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Believer Posted July 2, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,931 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 126 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/22/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/13/1955 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 Magog is Magog. The forces of Satan have brought their fight to all the Christian nations, some have already fallen, Canada, the US, England, and so forth. Europe is crumbling. I'm not sure if it will be in my lifetime, but Jesus is certainly coming. This man doesn't want government sticking its nose into his business, so he's anti-authoritarian? Yet, he's lost 150 pounds. Sure sounds like he's following recommended treatment to me. I don't know the whole story, but it sounds to me like they are afraid he might up his kids to be wary of the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Believer Posted July 2, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,931 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 126 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/22/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/13/1955 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 LOL, There are some who claim that they are christians , yet believe and teach there kids things contray to GOD, of whom I would include in what I said. I see your not a believer. I understand you don't believe the things I do. But from my perspective, what GOD says is enough. I wasn't always a believer. So I understand you not holding the same belief. rasing children is one of the most important duties a person can have. i believe it should be done in a way consistant with the word of GOD and Christ. I agree raising a child is one of the most important duties a person can have - I'm currently taking part in it. We however are talking about what makes someone a fit or unfit parent - I understand that you believe that parenting should be bringing people up with Christian values. But does the lack of those values truly make someone an unfit parent/should they not be allowed to care for their child? That's what I've been trying to hone in on, and is the area that I disagree with you about. I have argued that being morbidly obese to the point you can't provide for your child could be seen as making someone unfit. You and BoldBeliever have made the claim that being homosexual makes one unfit because they are not being consistent with God's teachings. My problem with that statement is it makes a lot of people (not just homosexuals) considered unfit parents because of religious viewpoints, something I think is wrong. I do not think the state (or anyone) should take children away from their parents because they are Jewish, or Muslim, or Atheist, or homosexual, or whatever. I agree that tangible issues (abuse, neglect, threat of violence, etc) are all areas that justify deeming someone unfit as a parent... but I do not agree that someone should be unfit simply because they are gay or because they don't believe in a certain God. While not believers in Jesus, Jews and Mormons instruct their children in some sense of morality. To that end, they are fit parents. Atheists, while not believers in any god, might still raise their children in some sense of morality (even though they don't realize where said morality came from). To that end, they are fit parents. Homosexuals are not fit because they pervert nature. They would pass such perversion down to their children, who might become like them. Pedophiles are not fit for obvious reasons as well. To me that viewpoint seems inconsistent. Homosexuals have ONE aspect that you consider perverse, but it is enough for you to deem them unfit parents. Don't Jews and Mormons & nonbelievers also have at least ONE aspect in their beliefs that you believe goes against God's desires for us? I don't see what makes one acceptable and one not... for example it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a homosexual couple could raise their child with some sense of morality, just like non believers, or Jews, or Mormons, or anyone else. In the same way, if you think that a problem with homosexuals raising children is they could "pass such perversion down to their children" is that not also true for Jews/Mormons/atheists? If Jewish parents pass their values on to a child is it not likely that those children will have a good chance of being Jewish too? Is that not also a "perversion" in your mind? Being theologically incorrect is not perverse. Homosexuality is against nature and harmful to the mind and the body. You don't grasp the concept of 'perverse' from what I can read. Actually homosexuality, bisexuality, same sex parenting etc is observable in nature among different types of animals. It's not something just humans have done. I also am not quite sure what you mean about homosexuality being harmful to the mind and the body, but I don't think that's necessarily true, or at least any more true than those in a heterosexual relationship. [quote] I am CERTAINLY not going to describe to you what I mean by perverse in the case of homosexuality. LOL! Thank you, a description is not necessary Bull pucky. Homosexuality is NOT observable in nature. (And please don't try to slip that bit about male dogs past me. That's a pecking order/superiority thing, not a sex thing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted July 2, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted July 2, 2012 To me it's about more than the lack of values, It's about the relationship with Christ. I understand you disagree, but the lack of relationship with Christ, the lack of living by GOD's rules, by his standard and what he expects of us, only leads to perversion and death. Things like hatred, murder, theft, envy, unrestrained lust and passion or a lack of self-control if you will, all this stems from our own nature. the only cure is a relationship with christ as Lord and savior. If we don't live by 'those morals" as you put it, then no I don't think someone should raise children. By everything I hold dear, the Father, Yeshua and the Holy Spirit and his word, the thoughts and intents of our hearts are only evil continually apart from GOD and having a relationship with him. I understand your viewpoint, I think the part that I disagree with is how a Christian upbringing would be the only cure for things like hatred,murder,theft,envy,unrestrained lust etc. Many of those things are viewed as unlawful in many societies around the world, not all of them Christian. In fact those things are almost universally frowned upon as a general rule. Therefore I think a Christian family may be about as likely as a non Christian family to teach their children about these moral issues. I do agree that those morals are good ones to follow for any family, I think the area that we disagree is in regards to homosexuality specifically. I don't think it's an issue of mutual exclusivity (IE I think you can be both gay AND teach similar values on how to treat people properly). I also agree that parents who do not follow the morals regarding hate, murder, theft, etc etc are not fit to be parents. Again however, parents of all religions teach those same things. Same with homosexual couples. From a religious perspective I can see how homosexuality would be viewed as a sin, but I don't think it's along the same lines as these other social morals that we are discussing. I wonder why foxnews gave the impression that this story was about an American family? Is this spin to make OUR government look bad? Dishonesty abounds. This story is from Ottawa, Canada. Fox got people riled up about government fears through false (intentional or unintentional) telling of a news story? I'm shocked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted July 2, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Bull pucky. Homosexuality is NOT observable in nature. (And please don't try to slip that bit about male dogs past me. That's a pecking order/superiority thing, not a sex thing.) Wikipedia I know, but I'm short of time right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals If that doesn't satisfy you I am happy to dig deeper another time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Believer Posted July 2, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,931 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 126 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/22/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/13/1955 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 Bull pucky. Homosexuality is NOT observable in nature. (And please don't try to slip that bit about male dogs past me. That's a pecking order/superiority thing, not a sex thing.) Wikipedia I know, but I'm short of time right now. http://en.wikipedia....vior_in_animals If that doesn't satisfy you I am happy to dig deeper another time. Even if such behavior were to take place in animals, WE ARE NOT ANIMALS. WE are created in the image of the One True and Living God and HE says it's abomination. I will take HIS word over YOUR word any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Believer Posted July 2, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,931 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 126 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/22/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/13/1955 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 This thread is not about homosexuality...is it? No, this portion of the discussion came about when I mentioned that while government is ready to take this man's children from him because he happens to be overweight, they have no problem permitting homosexual perverts from raising children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted July 2, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Bull pucky. Homosexuality is NOT observable in nature. (And please don't try to slip that bit about male dogs past me. That's a pecking order/superiority thing, not a sex thing.) Wikipedia I know, but I'm short of time right now. http://en.wikipedia....vior_in_animals If that doesn't satisfy you I am happy to dig deeper another time. Even if such behavior were to take place in animals, WE ARE NOT ANIMALS. WE are created in the image of the One True and Living God and HE says it's abomination. I will take HIS word over YOUR word any day. You said it wasn't found in nature, and I'm saying that's not accurate. You might believe that honosexuality is perverse & that it is sinful, but my point is being homosexual doesn't make you an unfit parent by rule... & KatyAnn I know the thread has gotten briefly side-tracked, but really I think it's in the spirit of the topic (what makes someone fit/unfit to parent). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Believer Posted July 2, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,931 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 126 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/22/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/13/1955 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 Bull pucky. Homosexuality is NOT observable in nature. (And please don't try to slip that bit about male dogs past me. That's a pecking order/superiority thing, not a sex thing.) Wikipedia I know, but I'm short of time right now. http://en.wikipedia....vior_in_animals If that doesn't satisfy you I am happy to dig deeper another time. Even if such behavior were to take place in animals, WE ARE NOT ANIMALS. WE are created in the image of the One True and Living God and HE says it's abomination. I will take HIS word over YOUR word any day. You said it wasn't found in nature, and I'm saying that's not accurate. You might believe that honosexuality is perverse & that it is sinful, but my point is being homosexual doesn't make you an unfit parent by rule... & KatyAnn I know the thread has gotten briefly side-tracked, but really I think it's in the spirit of the topic (what makes someone fit/unfit to parent). I said homosexuality wasn't found in nature? Or did I say that homosexuality was AGAINST nature. Two different things. Animals can sin too. The entire cosmos was damaged when Adam sinned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted July 2, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted July 2, 2012 You said homosexuality is not observable in nature... it's right there in the quote I replied to. Also: animals can sin? Wha? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts