‘I Started in Kindergarten’: Lesbian Teacher Explains How She Convinces Kids to Accept Homosexuality

King BookTORONTO — A public school teacher in Canada recently explained at an educator’s conference how she convinces young children to accept homosexuality and same-sex households.

“I started in Kindergarten. What a great place to start,” fifth grade school teacher Pam Strong stated at the Accepting Schools Act Conference in Toronto, according to LifeSite News. “It was where I was teaching. So, I was the most comfortable there.”

Strong, a teacher for five years, led a workshop for educators on how she introduces issues on homosexuality to elementary school students. She explained that with the principal’s “encouragement,” she decided to go class to class, teaching children about what it means to be homosexual.

Strong began by reading the book “King and King” to the Kindergarten class, a publication about a prince who passes up all the princesses his mother presents as potential mates and instead “marries” the brother of a princess.

She told the story of one incident when she got to the part of the book where the two men have a “wedding” ceremony, a student began to object.

“They can’t do that!” the Kindergartner proclaimed. “They can’t get married. They’re two boys.”

Strong then replied, “Oh, yeah. Yeah, they can. It’s right here on page 12.”

  • Connect with Christian News

When the student remarked that the book was just a story, she then began to tell the class that she herself is a homosexual.

“And I said, ‘It happens in real life too. I am married to a woman. I am gay. And I am in love with my wife,” Strong told the Kindergarteners.

She further explained about all the fun activities that she and her partner do together with their children in order to convince the class that her household is similar to theirs.

The objecting student then stated, “Well, you’re a family.”

“And I said, yeah, we are,” Strong told the group of teachers at the workshop.

“And off I go to the next classroom,” she explained.

Strong said that she has been convincing her own 5th grade class to accept homosexuality, teaching them words such as “stereotype, prejudice and discrimination” and having them make lists of the ways that same-sex households are similar to heterosexual households. Sometimes, Strong shows homosexual-themed commercials to the students in addition to reading them books like “King and King.”

“Sometimes with these big ideas there are also very big words that are very hard to understand. I find that whether it’s kindergarten, right up to grade six, visuals help a lot,” she explained in the workshop. “I use current events, news articles, advertisements are great for gender—especially with Kindergarten kids—pink and girl toys and all the rest of it. Commercials are great. I use one right now, the Honey Maid commercial.”

Radio host and blogger Geoffrey Grider recently commented on the report, stating that he believes teachers like Strong are able to indoctrinate young children only because of the silence and apathy of the Church.

“[I] have been warning for years now about the concerted push by the LGBTQ to force-indoctrinate young schoolkids to accept the LGBTQ’s radical agenda and same-sex marriage,” he said. “This is being emulated in public schools all across America and Canada. Adolf Hitler was able to capture Nazi Germany in 1933 because he began indoctrinating young German schoolkids starting in 1921. This is no different. This is how the LGBTQ is growing their ranks, with Nazi-style brainwashing.”

“And because America’s Christians have no guts and are afraid to open their mouths,” Grider said, “it’s working quite well.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Crono478

    There is no such thing as “neutral position”. We are either for or against Christ (Matthew 12:30). This type of things will happen when we abandon God’s words in public places such as schools. In order for a teacher to teach students to accept homosexuality and so on, God’s words has to be removed from the school first. This is why we saw nothing of this decades ago.

    • Paul Hiett

      Change, Crono, isn’t a bad thing.

      • Oboehner

        So when my car changes to a pile of rust, that’s a good thing?

        • Paul Hiett

          Invalid analogy is invalid analogy.

          • Oboehner

            Your opinion.

          • Paul Hiett

            How, exactly, is a rusted car a valid analogy?

      • Deina

        And thank God those days of teaching hate & intolerance will soon be behind us, eh, Crono?

        By teaching acceptance from the start, hopefully there will be a significant drop in bullying & teen suicide!

        But how many more tragic deaths will happen before then?

        • Psk6565

          We should accept pedephiles. You will say that is horrific, but only based on your morality. Who are you to bind the conscience of other people?

          Based on what is suicide immoral and tragic?

          • Deina

            Why would you wish to accept the behavior of pedophiles?

            Why is the concept of consenting adults so difficult for you people to comprehend?

            Children cannot consent!

            Non-humans cannot consent!

            Mentally impaired people (whether temporary or permanent) cannot consent!

            The Eifel Tower cannot consent!

            Farmer Jones’ milking machine cannot consent! (though if you want to buy your own, you can do anything you like with it, except use it for food prep afterwards!)

            And while you haven’t said it yet, I’ll preempt: I think the age of consent should be raised to 18 nation wide

            Of course, we really do know why you always try to link gays with pedophiles: it adds a dramatic “save our children!” Bit of emotional hysteria to your “argument”, & secondly, well, honestly, who is going to get that bent out of shape about private acts between consenting adults?

          • Beleaguered

            Consenting adults is one thing promoting your lifestyle to children is another

          • Psk6565

            Wait, you have a prove that two consenting adults is the standard by which you judge a moral or immoral relationship.

            Tell me, have you ever questioned the relationship of a father with a son and that son refuses to consent to the fathers authority over him?

            You must fight for the right of children who refuse to be obedient to their fathers because it is clearly an immoral and non consensual relationship!

          • Psk6565

            It is not consent that you care about, you care about what you want.

        • Mary Kilbride

          How about just stop teaching children in kindergarten all about homosexuality and that it is right and normal. You see, there are those of us who abide by the Bible, so we can all live together in peace, if you just stop trying to push this on the children. If I were a mom today, they would not be teaching my child all the immorality that they are doing….my child would be removed from the schools that do this. You have them at your mercy during school and even though you know this is not accepted by Christians and some non-Christians as a normal life-style choice, you still choose to push this off onto them for what? Why is it so important to you to teach this to children, to run people out of business if they don’t agree and then call yourselves “tolerant”. Yes, you are….if it is all going your way, but if it isn’t going your way, the words that come out of your mouths are sue and murder … burn down businesses…that is YOUR tolerance. We can live in peace, if you just stop trying to force what you want onto all of us. That is far from the “tolerance” you demand. People! Get your children out of the schools that teach this, that is if you are opposed to it. I would hope you would want your child making their own choices anyway…not being force-fed in the schools.

          • Deina

            In a class of 30 students, whether it’s a public school, private school, Christian school, or what have you; statistically two or three of them will be gay or lesbian. Out of eight such classes, at least one person will grow up transgendered. Even if you teach them at home!

            Of my own graduating class, in a rural, very conservative area, I found at my 40th reunion that over 15% of my class is openly gay or lesbian.

            If your child turns out to be “different”, & ends up getting bullied to the point that he or she feels their only option to stop the pain is to kill themselves… Don’t you think you would see Ms. Strong’s classes in a different light?

          • bowie1

            We have several hundred members in our church but there are no gays or lesbians that I am aware of. The current theory is that perhaps 2-3% of the population may have a weakness in this area of sexuality.

          • Beleaguered

            Those are invalid statistics. The pain comes from being convinced you are something other then what you are. As the increase in teen suicides spikeing up indicates,
            How do you explain that ?

        • Beleaguered

          It seems to me teen suicide is increasing how do explain that ?

  • D Haines

    This is sickening, disgusting, and downright disgraceful. It is exactly the type of sin that fits Dr. Vance Havner’s words: “Sin that used to slink down back alleys now struts down main streets.”

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      In what way(s) are/is this “sickening, disgusting, and downright disgraceful”?

    • Paul Hiett

      Yes, teaching children to accept people for who they are is a terrible, terrible thing!

      • Richard

        Teaching children that sin is acceptable is a terrible thing.

        • Paul Hiett

          Sin is only a religious idea, and obviously what you folks consider “sin” varies from person to person.

          I’m going to stick with treating others with love, kindness, and respect over using the Bible to judge others, thanks.

          • Richard

            The notion of sin comes from God himself. God teaches us to love the sinner but hate the sin.

            You aren’t God. You teach love both the person and the sin. Can you see the difference?

            BTW, for someone who is a moral relativist, you shouldn’t be judging my comments, as doing so contradicts your own belief system. If you truly believed in moral relativism, you should be okay with my comments.

          • Paul Hiett

            And since “God” is just an opinion, you’re deciding that your opinion is good enough to judge and condemn others, all the while professing “love” for the sinner. What a hilarious concept.

            Again, I’ll stick with the love and tolerance over hate and intolerance.

          • Richard

            > since “God” is just an opinion

            Can you prove your assertion? Otherwise yours is just an opinion and has no bearing on the reality of God.

            God has already told us what he thinks of homosexuality. I’ll believe him over your opinion.

            > What a hilarious concept.

            It is for you, because you like sin.

            > I’ll stick with the love and tolerance over hate and intolerance.

            As I said, leading people to sin isn’t loving at all. It’s actually a virulent form of hate.

          • Paul Hiett

            All religious beliefs are opinions, Richard, atheism included. Whether you are capable of understanding why is up to you.

          • Richard

            > All religious beliefs are opinions,

            There is a difference between opinion and truth. Jesus said he was God. That’s not my opinion. God demonstrated himself to the world over thousands of years and in many ways, including Jesus. That is a matter of the historical record, and not opinion.

            Jesus came into the world to prove he is real. He was killed for it and rose again to prove he is God.

            You weren’t predicted to arrive on earth thousands of years ago. You haven’t performed any miracles. You haven’t been killed because you claimed to be God. You haven’t risen from the dead to prove you are God.

            What you’ve shown so far is that you are a mere human and a sinner who supports sinful behavior. As I said, I’ll believe God and his reality over your sinful opinion.

            I understand fine. You don’t seem to.

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, you can cite all of the scripture you want. You can reference stories in the Bible to your hearts content. Proving them true, however, is impossible, which is exactly why it becomes your ‘opinion’ that it’s true.

            Feel free to argue that til you’re blue in the face, but until you can prove that your deity is real, it’s simply your opinion. Just as it is true that it’s just my opinion that god is not real.

          • Richard

            > Proving them true, however, is impossible, which is exactly why it becomes your ‘opinion’ that it’s true.

            That’s another unfounded assertion. If you don’t believe the accounts are true…as historically recorded, the burden of proof is on you to disprove. Unless you can, yours is just another opinion that has no bearing on the reality of the accounts.

            > Feel free to argue that til you’re blue in the face, but until you can prove that your deity is real,

            Jesus already proved it. If you disagree, you will need to prove that Jesus either never lived or wasn’t God…as he said he was.

            Otherwise, once again, yours is just an opinion that has no bearing on the reality of the historical account.

            Denying the accounts don’t negate them.

          • Paul Hiett

            The stories in the Bible, Richard, can neither be proven nor disproven, therefore, belief in them or non-belief becomes nothing more than opinion.

            The only way to refute that, is to prove either one. Either you prove that your god exists, or I prove that your god does not exist. Until such time as either one of us can do that, our beliefs are nothing but opinion.

            If you disagree, then prove your deity exists and end the argument. If you can’t do that, it remains your opinion only.

          • Richard

            > The stories in the Bible, Richard, can neither be proven nor unproven, therefore, belief in them or non-belief becomes nothing more than opinion.

            Your statement is incorrect. God predicted the fall of Babylon (and who would bring it) many years before it happened. If you check Babylon’s history, you’ll see that it fell by the very person God said would cause it.

            There are countless examples of the accounts in the Bible being true. Once again, denying the truth doesn’t negate it.

            Unless you can prove Jesus wasn’t real or God, your opinion is wrong. No matter what you say from this point on, your opinion remains wrong until you can prove it true.

            And this is where the difference comes in: God proved he is real through Jesus (and a multitude of other demonstrations). The historical account recorded it all.

            You say otherwise with absolutely no proof. It’s plain to see what is true and what is mere opinion.

          • Paul Hiett

            There isn’t a single real prophecy that has ever been proven to be true, in any religion. Sorry Richard, but your belief is just an opinion, nothing more. I know you hate it when people bring up points you can’t refute, but truth does not care who believes it.

          • Richard

            >There isn’t a single real prophecy that has ever been proven to be true, in any religion.

            Of course there is. If you took the time to study what you criticize you’d know how foolish your comment is. I just gave you one example. Flatly denying doesn’t negate it.

            > but your belief is just an opinion, nothing more

            I’ve already proven your comment is wrong. Stating it again doesn’t somehow make it true.

          • Paul Hiett

            The fall of Babylon? You mean the quote that says no one shall live there again? Tell me all about how no one lives there…

            Oh, that also references “dragons”. Seen any dragons lately?

          • Richard

            > You mean the quote that says no one shall live there again? Tell me all about how no one lives there..

            You really should study what you criticize, Paul. Otherwise your comments come across as foolish.

            The reference to ‘no one shall live there’ is hyperbole to describe the extend of the punishment, not the science of it.

            The dragon is a ‘characterization’ that describes satan’s character and behavior, not his physical attributes.

            It’s your lack of understanding that trips you up. That can be remedied with study.

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL…how cute. Now you’re interpreting the Bible so it fits your own warped viewpoint, even though no one agrees with you.

            I find it hilarious when the Bible doesn’t line up with your own claims, so you twist the words 180 degrees to try and make it fit.

            Sorry bub, even the Bible proves you wrong!!!!!

          • Richard

            You continue to look foolish, Paul. As I said, study would clear those mistakes up for you. I hope you don’t read other literature woodenly.

          • uzza

            Wait, …what? Isn’t the bible the literal word of god? IF it isn’t we can interpret it so it doesn’t conflict with science and evolution, just as many Christians do. What are you claiming?

          • Richard

            The Bible is a literary work. It needs to be read and understood as such. Literary works use literary devices to communicate meanings and intent. To read everything literally (woodenly) is a gross error since the writers never intended it to be understood that way but in the way they intended.

            Here is an example of a lack of knowledge causing the problem, not the Bible itself being a problem.

          • uzza

            So it can be interpreted as condemning homosexuality, as some christians do, or as accepting it, as other christians do. Same with fortune-telling and all the rest. Even the story of Jesus might be hyperbole. We have no reason to accept your literary interpretation over someone else’s.
            You just shot yourself in the foot, hyperbolically speaking.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “That’s not my opinion. ”

            It’s your opinion that the Bible contains an accurate representation of what Jesus said. It is further your opinion that what Jesus was purported to have said is true.

          • Richard

            > It’s your opinion that the Bible contains an accurate representation of what Jesus said.

            The contents of the Bible are well established as fact and trustworthy. It’s only uninformed skeptics that claim otherwise.

            > It is further your opinion that what Jesus was purported to have said is true.

            I base my beliefs on facts and the truth of them. As I said to Paul, there is a big difference between opinions and actual facts.

          • doiregirl

            You people are all the same, when it comes to defending an abhorrent lifestyle you go back to the old argument that anyone who disagrees with you must be intolerant, hateful and unloving. It is the LGBT agenda to promote this thinking.

          • Richard

            Absolutely. It think it’s funny that first they condemn others for disagreeing with their chosen lifestyle, then they claim to be the tolerant, loving, and accepting ones.

            They can’t even see their own hypocrisy.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Speaking of hypocrisy……do you support not allowing citizens who have been divorced for reasons other than adultery to get married? Do you support making it illegal for unmarried people to have sexual relations? Do you support making it illegal for an unwed woman to give birth? Do you support making it illegal to divorce for reasons other than adultery? Do you support making it illegal to not honor your mother and father?

          • Richard

            > do you support not allowing citizens who have been divorced for reasons other than adultery to get married?

            God allows divorce for many reasons. For valid reasons, yes, divorce is necessary.

            All of the other questions come down to sinful behavior. No matter what we deem ‘legal’ from a human standpoint, it has no bearing on what God determines sinful behavior. As such, God will be the final authority which no man can challenge.

            In all of the situations you mentioned, I would not want teachers saying they are ‘okay’ and acceptable behavior.

          • Paul Hiett

            And what are those “reasons”, Richard?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “God allows divorce for many reasons.”

            Really? I’m only aware of adultery. What are the other reasons with which God would be OK with divorce?

            “No matter what we deem ‘legal’ from a human standpoint, it has no bearing on what God determines sinful behavior.”

            But if you believe that same-gender marriage being sinful is sufficient reason to make it illegal, why wouldn’t you also be pushing to make all sins illegal?

            “I would not want teachers saying they are ‘okay’ and acceptable behavior.”

            I agree. But I WOULD want teachers to explain that encountering people who are involved in those situations is not an excuse for being disrespectful.

          • Richard

            > Really? I’m only aware of adultery.

            I’m not surprised. Many non believers don’t know much about what they criticize. You could remedy that through study.

            > why wouldn’t you also be pushing to make all sins illegal?

            The same reason Jesus didn’t come down to rule the earth. He is more concerned about our spiritual destiny than temporal pleasure.

            We are all sinful. But that doesn’t mean we should legalize them. Doing so is a reflection of man’s sinfulness, and not what God desires of us.

            > I agree.

            You do as long as they condone the sin you approve of.

            No one escapes the punishment for sin…no matter how many rules man pass. This isn’t about legality, but the eternal consequence.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “You could remedy that through study.”

            You are the one who said that God was OK with divorce for reasons other than adultery. Can you not back that up?

            “But that doesn’t mean we should legalize them.”

            So then you would like for the US to make it illegal for people to have sexual relations outside of marriage, for an unwed woman to have a child, for people to not worship any god other than the Christian god, to make it illegal to not honor your mother and father, etc., etc., correct? You would prefer that the US were a Christian Theocracy rather than a constitutional republic where freedom, liberty and equality are protected, correct?

            “You do as long as they condone the sin you approve of.”

            Not at all. People are free to condone or not condone whatever they care to. People should do so based upon their beliefs.

            “This isn’t about legality”

            That is exactly what it is about.

          • The Last Trump

            Oh they see it. They just don’t care.
            As long as they get what they want. Like spoiled children.

          • Levi

            Actually, it’s clear that you agree that there is injustice and evil by judging that treating with prejudice and inequality is wrong. The difference is who gets to decide what is evil: you or God. This is and always has been a matter of morality and who gets to decide what standard of right and wrong gets implemented: those of certain people or the Creators.

            Also, you promote “accepting people for who they are,” but would you accept your mate if he or she cheated on you constantly while claiming “that’s just who I am?” If not, why the double standard and inconsistency? You see, a mere self-proclamation of “this is how I am, therefore you must accept my behavior” doesn’t make it morally right nor acceptable. And remember, by your own standard, you must accept Christians for they are, lovers of God and haters of sin, lest you be guilty of intolerance and hate. So, by your logic, you must accept us even when we hate the sin you love…that’s just who we are.

            Point is, this one-sided “accept us for who we are” rhetoric just doesn’t work. The clear goal is push an agenda of making society accept and promote the abomination of homosexuality. And my clear response to that is “No. I will honor God and live His standard of morality and not yours or any other humans.”

          • uzza

            The clear
            goal is to push an agenda of making society accept and promote the
            abomination of christianity, as well as other harmless delusions.
            The fact is, the gods don’t care about homosexuality, and the fact
            that you do is an abomination.
            Nevertheless, we accept that you
            exist amongst us, and blasphemous as you are it is better to accept
            you, so long as you don’t follow the horrible advice given in your
            holy books.
            There is always a chance you will find the courage to
            use your god-given intelligence to set aside your childish
            superstitions and accept reality, in which case you and the rest of
            the world will be much better off.

          • Levi

            Uzza, with all due respect, you’ve completely side-stepped the arguments and resorted to insults and ad hominem attacks, yet you called me “childish.” Christianity is a belief given from an objective source, outside mankind and promotes loving God and people and hating evil as prescribed by God. This means behaviors such as greed, idol worship, and sexual immorality including homosexuality. So, we have a moral standard that outside ourselves and is from God’s very nature and character. If morality is defined by mere men and women, then who’s to say sharing and loving people is good rather than evil and not the other way around? Point is, if we get to define morality then you can’t say anything is an abomination (that’s it’s really wrong) including Christianity. The reality is, morality on your view cannot be founded on anything…when asked why something is actually wrong, you cannot provide an objective basis which means there is no actual good and evil. Therefore, you cannot call anything wrong, even the suppression of same-sex marriage. Deal with the arguments Uzza and points made without attacking me or Christianity. Thank you.

          • Diaris

            Homosexuals do not understand commitment or fidelity. Their “marriages” are a revolting sham.

          • Psk6565

            Love, kindness and respect are biblical ideas. Stop borrowing from the bible while despising it.

          • Linda Lensing

            Sin is defined by GOD, not people. That’s your problem, you listen to people instead of the true & living GOD. You’ll meet him face to face one day & you’ll be held accountable for every word you ever said, so do it your way for now. Just know the day is coming when you’ll have to stand face to face with Jesus Christ…be ready to answer to him…

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          So then schools should not be teaching, as part of their efforts to create an atmosphere of respect for others, that sometimes kids only have 1 parent. Or that parents are sometimes divorced. Or that not all people adhere to the same religious belief. Correct?

          • Richard

            Teaching respect for others is healthy. Teaching sinful behavior is ‘normal’ isn’t.

            If you think teaching sinful behavior is healthy, should we also teach them that ped o filia is normal? Murder? Stealing? Adultery? Pornography? Incest?

          • Paul Hiett

            When you figure out that being gay has nothing to do with those other things, then maybe you won’t come across as being so ignorant.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            They aren’t teaching children to behave sinfully. They are making children aware of those they will encounter in life and the importance of treating people respectfully. That does not mean that one has to agree with what the other person is doing nor that they view it as not being against their religious beliefs.

            It is a biblical sin to be divorced for reasons other than adultery. It is a biblical sin to have a child out of wedlock. It is a biblical sin to believe in a faith other than the Christian faith.

            Your examples are not relevant as they are not the same thing.

          • Richard

            > They aren’t teaching children to behave sinfully

            That’s your opinion. Unless you can prove homosexuality isn’t a sin against God. Can you?

            > Your examples are not relevant as they are not the same thing.

            They are completely relevant…which is why you can’t answer my questions.

            If you think homosexuality is okay, why not the rest of the sins?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            They are teaching children to behave as homosexuals.

            “They are completely relevant…which is why you can’t answer my questions.”

            I’d be happy to address your irrelevant examples:

            None of them represent ways of living, which is what the topic at the school was.

            Acting on pedophilia, murder, and stealing all harm others. Homosexuality does not.

            Adultery is an action – it is not a sexuality. Pornography is not a sexuality, nor is incest.

            “If you think homosexuality is okay, why not the rest of the sins?”

            If you believe sin is sin, then we get back to my original statement. Based upon that, schools should not be addressing that some children are raised in homes with divorced parents, or by a single mom who has never been married, or that some children adhere to faiths other than Christianity, but that they deserve to be treated respectfully. You would prefer that children not be taught to treat others respectfully, unless they are Christian and unless they are in an environment that does not involve biblical sin.

          • Richard

            > None of them represent ways of living, which is what the topic at the school was.

            Sure they do. It’s all about ways of behaving (living, as you put it).

            >Homosexuality does not.

            Yes, it does. Homosexual behavior harms a great many. Look at the rates of suicide, mental illness, stability in comparison to the heterosexual lifestyle. To say homosexuality isn’t harmful is naive…of willfully uninformed.

            > Adultery is an action – it is not a sexuality. Pornography is not a sexuality, nor is incest.

            Of course they are. What do you think they are predicated on? Sinful desires and lusts.

            Children should be taught to be respectful of others, but not to condone sin…which is what you want. There is a difference between being respectful and discerning sinful behavior. Gay supporter often try to confuse the two…but they are distinctly separate.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            ” It’s all about ways of behaving”

            Exactly. Not ways of living. Two individuals of the same gender being married and raising children is in no way comparable to a person who steals or murders.

            “Homosexual behavior harms a great many. Look at the rates of suicide, mental illness, stability in comparison to the heterosexual lifestyle.”

            You are suggesting that it is the sexuality itself which is the cause for these statistics. That would not be true. There is no study which shows that being homosexual is the reason for greater levels of suicide, mental illness, or stability.

            “Of course they are. What do you think they are predicated on? Sinful desires and lusts.”

            Something being predicated based upon desires and “lusts” does not mean that it is a sexuality. If that were true, the strip clubs would be a sexuality.

            “Children should be taught to be respectful of others, but not to condone sin”

            No one is teaching children to condone sin. Being respectful does not require that one condone something. You are free to teach your children your views regarding what is sinful and to teach them to believe that things are sinful, and to not condone sinful things.

            “There is a difference between being respectful and discerning sinful behavior.”

            Yes, there is. Being respectful is something that benefits all of us and is based upon commonly shared beliefs. What is sinful depends on one’s views.

            Fundamentalists seem to be under the mistaken impression that public schools are to adhere to the Christian viewpoint of sin. They are not.

          • Richard

            >Exactly. Not ways of living.

            For someone who claims to have knowledge of psychology, you keep showing you don’t. Behaving and ‘living’ are the exact same.

            >Two individuals of the same gender being married and raising children is in no way comparable to a person who steals or murders.

            Can you prove that?

            > sexuality

            You say that as if sexuality means something different from desires and lusts. It doesn’t.

            > There is no study which shows that being homosexual is the reason for greater levels of suicide, mental illness, or stability

            It appears you just haven’t looked. There are plenty.

            >Something being predicated based upon desires and “lusts” does not mean that it is a sexuality.

            That’s what you’d like us to believe. But that’s not true. They are one and the same.

            > No one is teaching children to condone sin.

            Not according to your opinion, but according to God, they are. Normalizing sin is that attempt.

            > What is sinful depends on one’s views.

            No. Sin depends on God’s views, which far supersedes your opinion.

            > They are not.

            All people are subject to God’s authority. Even you…whether you want to believe that or not. You will experience his authority personally at the appointed time. Denying this reality won’t eliminate it.

          • Paul Hiett

            “Two individuals of the same gender being married and raising children is in no way comparable to a person who steals or murders.

            Can you prove that?”

            You’ve asked some downright stupid questions in the past, but this one takes the cake. Even you can’t be so stupid as to believe this.

          • Richard

            It may be stupid to you, but Umustbekiddingme stated an unproven assertion. Since he stated it, I was asking him to back it up with some facts…things that you appear to avoid as you, too, make unfounded assertions.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re the one that claims that gay marriage is the same thing as someone stealing or murdering.

            That’s your claim. You made it. Not him. Can you prove it? I doubt it. So, either you’re lying, or you’re just being stupid.

          • Richard

            You misunderstood my comment. Maybe you can substantiate what he claimed.

          • Paul Hiett

            Not at all, since you’ve made this claim many times.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Behaving and ‘living’ are the exact same.”

            Uh, no, they are not. It’s a good thing that you make no claims regarding having knowledge of psychology.

            “Can you prove that?”

            Yes. Two individuals of the same gender being married and raising children does not inherently involve murdering anyone or stealing from anyone.

            “You say that as if sexuality means something different from desires and lusts. It’s not.”

            So if you lust for a woman who is heavy set, that is a different sexuality than a man who lusts for women who are thin? How so?

            “There are plenty.”

            Oh, please, share some of them. If there are plenty, it should be quite easy to find two or three.

            “but according to God, they are.”

            How is teaching children to be respectful of others teaching them to condone sin?

            “No. Sin depends on God’s views”

            What you believe to be God’s views are dependent on what you view to be God’s views. For you, that is the Bible. For others, it is not. Even within the Christian faith there are significant differences of opinion regarding what is sinful and what is not.

            “All people are subject to God’s authority.”

            You are certainly entitled to your belief in that regard and I respect that you believe that to be true. Your believing it to be true, does not make it definitively true. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

            “You will experience his authority personally at the appointed time.”

            I believe that to be true.

          • Richard

            > I believe that to be true.

            How do you reconcile the bulk of your comments with your final comment?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I don’t see any conflict. What do you believe needs to be reconciled?

      • Oboehner

        Indoctrinating children into thinking mental problems are normal IS a terrible thing.

        • Paul Hiett

          Are you gay?

          • Oboehner

            Are you?

          • Paul Hiett

            Nope, it’s a valid question. Are you?

          • Oboehner

            Nope.

          • Paul Hiett

            Incapable or ashamed of answering?

        • Guest

          Teaching them to be a pervert is okay with you?

      • bowie1

        Teaching them to engage in unnatural relations is okay with you?

      • Psk6565

        Yes, it is Paul.

      • Mary Kilbride

        That’s not what they are doing and you know it. Teaching children to not be mean or hateful toward others CAN happen without indoctrination into homosexuality. I was taught to not be mean or spiteful all of my life and the gay lifestyle was never mentioned. Teaching children to be kind and loving can happen without what you all are doing to them, so be real.

    • Deina

      You won’t feel that way when one of your kids or grandkids tells you they’re gay. Or maybe a sibling. What about that favorite aunt or uncle who just never could find the right person to marry? Or the kids of one of your best mates.

      More & more people come to the realization that gays, lesbians, transgendered, or any other sexual minority are no different than you are!

      Well, they probably aren’t as hate filled as you are, but overall they’re no different.

      • Diaris

        tell us about YOUR kids. How do two women make a baby together?
        Since you are equal to heterosexuals, let’s see you make a baby without a man involved.

        LOL

        So you’re not even remotely equal.

        • Deina

          We’ve been together for 32 years.

          We are both previously married, and between us we have 5 children, 19 grandchildren, & 17 great grandchildren (with 2 more due in June).

          What relevance does our ability to procreate have to do with anything?

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            LOL

            You can’t do it without a man,.

            Are you fat and hideous like most lesbians? Most would make a man vomit.

          • Deina

            Sorry, but I don’t talk about serious issues with spoiled 3rd graders.

            You’re dismissed.

          • kccoallday

            Elderly lesbian talking back to a man – does that make you feel powerful, you disgusting old hag?

            “Happy lesbian” – they don’t exist!

    • MisterPine

      All she’s doing is teaching children that homosexuals exist. And that they aren’t horrible monsters. I’d really like to know what’s wrong with that. If any one of those kids in those classes turn out to be gay they will remember and appreciate what that woman said.

      • Diaris

        I think “horrible monsters” would be a pretty accurate description of a group that infected itself and killed many thousands of its own kind.

        Obviously you people don’t like each other very much, you don’t care if your fellow gays die. Some “community” you got there.

        • MisterPine

          What an utterly disgusting thing to say – if you’re talking about the AIDS epidemic of the 80s, they weren’t deliberately spreading disease and killing one another.

          Is this what being a Christian means to you?

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    ” stating that he believes teachers like Strong are able to indoctrinate young children only because of the silence and apathy of the Church.”

    He is absolutely correct. If the church were not so silent and apathetic they would be able to indoctrinate children into being discriminatory and intolerant. Instead, we have efforts like this teaching children that families come in many forms. How awful!

    • Psk6565

      You realize you made a lot of noise, but didn’t even make a rational argument?

      All you did is give your baseless opinion.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        You realize that my post was sarcasm, right?

        • Psk6565

          Yes.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Then your comments in reply make no sense.

          • Psk6565

            “Instead, we have efforts like this teaching children that families come in many forms. How awful!”

            Makes plenty of sense. You say any “family” unit is good without any form of reason why.

  • Richard

    “If anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” – Jesus

    • uzza

      Jesus wants to drown people, Strong wants to keep kids from beating up other kids, and Strong is the bad guy? !

      • Richard

        Jesus is telling everyone the consequence of leading ‘little ones’ to stumble. It’s up to each person what they do with that warning.

        Sin always carries a consequence. That consequence always comes due.

      • Scot Carpenter

        How does Jesus want to drown people? You’ve got to show me that from the Bible.

      • Psk6565

        Seems you have a weird standard of morality based on your own conscience.

      • Psk6565

        And Yes, Jesus will do something more violent then drowning people who destroy the morality of children

      • Beleaguered

        Is strong protecting or confusing kids I think the latter

        • uzza

          Confused or not, as long as they aren’t beating up on other kids, it’s good.
          They’re sure to get confused when you come around telling them that drowning people is good.

      • jstan442

        he drowned them to save the race(that is called showing ‘mercy’)–they were dispicable–where even heir thoughts were evil–just think of having evil like hitler,pol pot,arsonists,pedophiles etc. running amok–that is what it will be again in the great tribulation when God will let mankind behave as they wish–

    • Mary Kilbride

      Very true.

  • Richard

    What’s more loving and kind:
    Helping people find their way to God and an eternity in paradise with the author of love, kindness, and compassion (all things good)?

    Or, leading people away from God and to eternal torment and anguish (an environment without love, kindness, compassion – all things evil)?

    • Paul Hiett

      Considering that belief in a deity is just an opinion, I think the the second option is better, because that option offers love and compassion and tolerance from people who don’t do it because a book told them too, but because it’s the right thing to do.

      • Richard

        > Considering that belief in a deity is just an opinion,

        You keep making that mistake. God is already established as fact. God is already documented as a matter of the historical record. If you disagree with these facts, you will need to prove your assertion true…which you’ve never done. And you won’t ever do.

        Making the same false assertion over and over again doesn’t make it true. It just means you keep making the same mistake.

        Unless you can prove the historical record untrue? Of that Jesus wasn’t God? Can you?

        • SFBruce

          You’re just wrong: belief in God is a matter of faith, not the result of the historic record. And while I’m not a believer myself, I say this with no hostility to those who are, it’s simply an acknowledgement of the difference between faith and fact. Paul described faith as the “substance of things hopes for, the evidence of things not seen,” The nature of the historic record is completely different: an accounting of what has actually happened, based on substantial data. Jesus himself acknowledged this distinction in his encounter with Thomas after his resurrection.

          • Richard

            > belief in God is a matter of faith

            Not believing in God requires more faith.

            > the difference between faith and fact.

            The distance is far greater for a non believer.

            Paul experienced Christ first hand….which is why Paul did a complete 180.

            How much faith do you think it took for the disciples to believe in Jesus when he appeared to them after he rose again? A lot, or little? After that, was it faith or fact?

            I know God is real as a matter of fact. It was faith initially, but he revealed himself to me so much, it’s now fact. To deny the reality of God would require me to lie.

            Do you think Thomas was fully convinced Jesus is God after he put his fingers in Jesus’s wounds? Or did his remain unknowing faith?

          • SFBruce

            At this point, we’re not having a theological disagreement, we’re having a semantic disagreement. I accept the commonly held definitions of “faith” and “historic fact.” If you want to use those words in ways that are different from the consensus which goes all the way back at least to Paul, go ahead, I completely accept the “fact” that your “faith” is a vital, central part of your life and I have no particular desire to try and dissuade you of that, but it’s simply not possible to empirically prove God’s existence, or for that matter, His non-existence.

          • Richard

            Faith: putting your trust in someone or some thing.

            Fact: something that is the case.

            Belief in God can be both. Many people have first-hand experience with the living God. Many also wrote about it.

            > but it’s simply not possible to empirically prove God’s existence

            Jesus already did that. It’s up to you whether you believe that demonstration. But you can’t say God hasn’t shown himself to be true.

            It’s true no one can prove God isn’t real. But Jesus proved he is real.

  • Richard

    Paul is called a Jesus denier. He is of the opinion that God isn’t real…in spite of the mountain of historical, archeological, and practical evidence to the contrary. Paul’s opinion is summed up in the words of King David when he said, “The fool says in his heart, there is no God.”

    Not believing in God isn’t new. In fact, the real reason for this disbelief has nothing to do with evidence, but of the will.

    John (who actually walked, talked and lived with the real Jesus) summed up this nicely when he wrote, “He who believes in Him [Jesus] is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.”

    No matter what Paul’s personal opinions are, they in no way negate the reality of God…no matter how many times he makes his unfounded assertions.

    Truth always wins out over evil. It’s always only a matter of time.

    Speaking of this, Paul will get his ‘full’ evidence of the living God. This, too, is just a matter of time.

    • Paul Hiett

      Until you can prove the existence of your deity, it remains your opinion, and nothing more, that it’s real. This is easily proven by the fact that no deity can be proven to be real (or not real), therefore, any belief either for or against any deity existing, is nothing more than an opinion.

      • Richard

        > Until you can prove the existence of your deity

        God has already proven his reality. If you disagree, you will need to prove all of the evidence wrong. Can you? You haven’t yet?

        All you keep doing is denying and asserting…which don’t equate to real evidence. Your comments are an example of your opinion versus truth. As it stands, truth and facts win out over your opinion.

        Asserting your opinion over and over again doesn’t make it truth or fact.

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          “God has already proven his reality. ”

          How so?

          • Richard

            Who do you think Jesus was? Why he came to earth?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I think Jesus was a very wise and thoughtful person. I don’t think he “came to Earth”. I think he was born. Do you think he was from a different planet and “came to earth”?

            I’ll ask again: How so?

          • Richard

            >I think Jesus was a very wise and thoughtful person.

            Was he wise or a lunatic?

            He claimed to be God. Was killed for it. Rose to prove it. The Christian faith was born from him.

            Unless you can prove he didn’t do any of those things?

            > Do you think he was from a different planet and “came to earth”?

            No. God doesn’t reside in our physical restrictions.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’ve noticed that for every single claim anyone makes, you always demand proof of their claim, but if you make a claim, you demand everyone else prove you wrong.

            Why are you so intellectually dishonest in that way?

          • Richard

            > intellectually dishonest

            Haha. Did you make that up? If so, do you know that it contradicts itself?!

          • Paul Hiett

            Yep, ignore the point. Typical.

          • Richard

            There is an abundance of evidence for God, including my personal experience. Yet, you reject all of it because you like darkness.

            There is no amount of evidence that will dissuade those who prefer darkness to turn from it.

          • Paul Hiett

            Then prove your deity exists. It’s pretty simple. If all of this evidence exists, it should be easy to do.

          • Richard

            It’s easy to do. But not easy for you to receive. All the evidence in the world won’t convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced.

          • Paul Hiett

            Then provide the evidence that the BIble is true. The Bible is the claim, so by all means, prove that the Bible is true.

          • Richard

            > prove that the Bible is true

            The Bible is a historical account of Jewish history, then early Christian history. If you don’t believe the historical accounts, you will need to disprove them, not just claim they aren’t true. This means the burden of proof falls to you to disprove what is already established as historical fact.

            The fact that you can’t substantiate your claims means your assertions are wrong.

            Many skeptics over the last 2000 years have attempted to disprove the claims in the Bible. All have failed. In fact, many that have tried to disprove the integrity of the Bible have come to Christ…including me.

            You are trying to win a battle that’s already been lost. Choose wisely.

          • Paul Hiett

            We’ve already proven two of the stories to be false…Exodus and Noah’s Flood. We should probably throw Sodom and Gomorrah in there too, to be frank.

            So yeah, we can absolutely, 100% show parts of the Bible to be untrue. If part of “God’s Word” is fallible, it obviously brings into question the rest of it. Fortunately for you, the really big part, the resurrection, can’t be proven false…but then again, nor can it be proven true.

            Yes, Richard, over and over again, you attempt to fight a lost battle. More and more people are turning away from religion. Soon, we’ll out number you.

            Are you so sure that you still want to support “majority law”?

          • The Last Trump

            “We’ve already proven two of the stories to be false…Exodus and Noah’s Flood. We should probably throw Sodom and Gomorrah in there too, to be frank”
            !!
            WE HAVE, have we? DO TELL!
            Again with the wild and unsubstantiated claims! Typical Paul.
            To the contrary, my friend. Look it up.
            (Google search. It’s on the Internet! 😉

          • Richard

            Paul has an aversion for facts and a penchant for unsubstantiated assertions.

          • MisterPine

            There is no archaeological record of there ever being a worldwide food.

          • Richard

            Who says Noah’s flood was worldwide?

          • MisterPine

            The fundie websites gotquestions and answers in Genesis even say it…come on Richard.

          • Richard

            Of course there will be different opinions on the subject, just as there are for any subject. But that doesn’t mean their mistaken understanding is true.

            There are also people who say man never landed on the moon…and that crop circles are still caused by aliens. You can find critics for anything.

            That, however, could all be cleared up with some study.

          • MisterPine

            What is being talked about in the story in the Bible of Noah’s flood was that God wiped out the world because of its wickedness (wow, nice guy) and spared just those who could start over and procreate.

          • Richard

            As I said, the language used by the author is hyperbole to describe the severity of the punishment, not the science of it.

            When the biblical writer said that ‘everyone in the world came to see Solomon’ do you think he meant every person on earth went to see him?

            This is another example of hyperbole – to describe how knowledgeable, wealthy, and important Solomon became, and not that everyone on earth visited him.

            I hope you don’t read all literature literally. If so, you’ve missed out on a lot color and meaning.

          • Richard

            Paul, your understanding of what you criticize is abysmal. Your comments continue to make you look foolish and uninformed.

            You’ve already lost the battle, Paul. It’s now just a matter of who chooses God and enjoys eternity in paradise with him, and who doesn’t. Choose wisely as eternity is a very, very long time.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yeah…you caught me…I made it up.

            /facepalm

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Was he wise or a lunatic?”

            A matter of opinion, I suppose.

            “Unless you can prove he didn’t do any of those things?”

            It is impossible to prove things didn’t happen. That does not mean they did.

          • Paul Hiett

            Ask him to prove that Odin doesn’t exist. He’ll then turn the tables and demand you prove Odin exists, rather than accept the same challenges he presents to everyone else.

          • The Last Trump

            Actually, an honest debater would concede that they CAN’T prove Odin does or doesn’t exist if they truly could not.
            That’s how honest debate is supposed to work.

          • MisterPine

            And substitute Odin in that sentence for Jesus, and you change the rules. Why?

          • Richard

            Odin is a strawman. Try something more realistic.

          • MisterPine

            Not a strawman. Paul is correct. You do not accept the challenge you present everyone else with.

          • Richard

            It is a strawman. It’s also illogical. That’s why no one takes that approach seriously. It only seems reasonable to those with faulty logic.

          • MisterPine

            Not a strawman. A strawman is when your opponent misrepresents your position (ironically, the very thing I see YOU doing here all the time). How is anyone misrepresenting what you’re saying? We don’t AGREE with what you’re saying, but the point here is you cannot prove Odin OR Jesus.

          • Richard

            Since you don’t seem to be grasping the concept, equating a fictional character (Odin) to a real person (Jesus) in an attempt to diminish the reality of Jesus is a strawman: (the comparison is the misrepresentation).

            Odin has always been a fictional character. Jesus is a real historical person. Big difference to someone who can critically think.

          • MisterPine

            I’m starting to see why everyone gets so frustrated with you.

            Here’s the concept YOU are not grasping. “Jesus is a real historical person.” Really? Prove it. Jesus by many people’s accounts is just as fictional as Odin. Or, if you want to prove Jesus was real, could we not use the same methodology to try to prove Odin was real?

          • Richard

            > “Jesus is a real historical person.” Really? Prove it.

            Jesus is a matter of the historical record. Biblical writers wrote about him as did non biblical historians. That is a matter of historical fact. If you don’t believe these historical accounts, you will need to prove them false, not merely deny them.

            Until you can prove they are false, they are true accounts of the real Jesus. Denying these accounts don’t make them false.

            That’s what you and Paul don’t understand: your opinions aren’t facts, nor do they negate the historical accounts.

            References to any fictional or made up entities is illogical, and frankly, silly. But that should tell you something about how far non believers have to go to deny God.

          • MisterPine

            I don’t believe this. Weren’t you, in this very thread, saying that the Bible was a literary work? And this literary work is now proof of Jesus existing?

            Anyway, people merely claiming Jesus existed is not proof, I think you know this as much as anyone else.

            And as Paul and other have told you countless times now, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

            So – prove he existed. Saying “prove he didn’t” in response would flunk you in any professional debate – I only point that out because your actions are nothing by now if not predictable.

          • Richard

            Do you know that literary work means? You may want to look up the word ‘literary’ up before commenting again.

            > Anyway, people merely claiming Jesus existed is not proof

            Do you not believe any history? ALL history is written by people who have personally experienced the events, or have heard reliable accounts of them. ALL history is done that way. If you don’t believe the historical accounts of Jesus, then you must doubt all history…but that still doesn’t negate it. It just means you don’t believe it.

            > And as Paul and other have told you countless times now, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

            And that continues to be your mistake. The proof has already been documented…and by many people…and by many renown historians. If you don’t believe it, the burden of proof is on you to disprove what has already been proven. Denying the facts don’t negate them.

          • MisterPine

            From carm dot org (fundie website)

            “We can’t prove absolutely that Jesus existed”

            From gotquestions dot org (fundie website)

            “It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus’ existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.”

            I think you should just concede at this point Richard. You haven’t got proof.

          • Richard

            > “We can’t prove absolutely that Jesus existed”

            You can’t prove most things beyond every possibility…such as tomorrow will come; we are actually alive on earth; love exists; creativity is real; we have free will; and so on.

            But you can prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the historical accounts…and the many that attest to them as being authentic, Jesus is real and did the things the authors attribute to him. To suggest otherwise is misleading.

            While a lot of Jewish history was destroyed, much remains. We have sufficient documentation to verify the accounts are true…from Greek, Jewish, Roman, and Christian sources.

            NT was copied and distributed well before 70 AD…and into many languages for many cultures. The Dead Sea Scrolls also demonstrate the OT was well copied and preserved throughout time, as well as in many languages and cultures. To suggest the massive amount of documentation isn’t sufficient to demonstrate God is real is ludicrous.

            If you notice, there isn’t ONE rebuttal about Christ from any of the sources I mentioned. Surely, if the events weren’t true, some sources would have mentioned it.

            The only point to concede is that you will need to disprove all of the historical accounts if you continue to assert Jesus isn’t real and isn’t God. I won’t wait for that because no one has done that in over 2000 years even after countless attempts to discredit the Bible or Christ.

            Assertions and opinions aren’t proof. But historical facts are.

          • MisterPine

            You should read up on a few historical people who supposedly lived around the same time as Jesus and were products of virgin births, healed the sick, etc. Appolonius of Tyana is one.

            So even if you can prove Jesus existed, and you can’t – you’ve got a whole other mountain to move in proving he could perform miracles and was the Son of God.

          • Richard

            > You should read up on a few historical people who supposedly lived around the same time as Jesus and were products of virgin births, healed the sick, etc

            There are similarities and comparisons in almost all things in life. But that doesn’t mean they are all true.

            > So even if you can prove Jesus existed, and you can’t

            No, you need to prove the historical accounts are false. The eye-witness testimonies aren’t true. The non biblical historians lied. Until you can, your assertion is wrong.

            > you’ve got a whole other mountain to move in proving he could perform miracles and was the Son of God.

            No, again, you need to prove the documented history is false.

            You can say you don’t believe the historical accounts, but you can’t say they didn’t happen…as eye witnesses said they did.

            Assertions aren’t true nor do they negate the historical accounts. If you don’t believe them, that’s fine. That is up to you. But you can’t say they didn’t happen as recorded…unless you can prove that.

          • MisterPine

            “There are similarities and comparisons in almost all things in life. But that doesn’t mean they are all true.”

            The issue is whether they can be proven.

            “No, you need to prove the historical accounts are false”

            Taking someone at their word that something happened a long time ago isn’t proof.

            “No, again, you need to prove the documented history is false.”

            No, again, taking someone at their word that something happened a long time ago isn’t proof. Eyewitness testimonies aren’t proof. Evidence is proof.

            “But you can’t say they didn’t happen as recorded…unless you can prove that.”

            For the millionth time, that is not how burden of proof works. You do not disprove a negative. The onus is on you to prove your positive statement is true.

            rationalwiki dot org/wiki/Negative_proof

          • Richard

            > The issue is whether they can be proven.

            The facts will help in that case. It’s fairly easy to tell which is fiction and which is recorded fact using critical thinking and reasoning.

            > Taking someone at their word that something happened a long time ago isn’t proof.

            Maybe not for you. If that is your opinion, you have to discount the entirety of history…including all of the events you don’t have personal experience with. Do you think that is reasonable?

            > Evidence is proof.

            Evidence isn’t proof…but can lead to an informed conclusion. You might want to study the legal system and how it handles decision making.

            > For the millionth time, that is not how burden of proof works.

            Yes, it does. If you don’t believe the recorded events, YOU need to prove them false. Until then, assertions to the contrary are wrong (also called dogmatic assertions).

            There’s no point in providing links to atheist websites. Their information is misleading, untruthful, and generally, uninformed. I visited many of them when I was a non believer. They are a poor resource when dealing with Biblical and Godly matters.

          • MisterPine

            “The facts will help in that case.”

            Couldn’t agree more

            “If that is your opinion, you have to discount the entirety of
            history…including all of the events you don’t have personal experience
            with. Do you think that is reasonable?”

            It’s very reasonable if there is no proof of it happening. I never get behind anything unless it has facts to back it up. Let’s say we reach an agreement that OK, Jesus existed. How do you propose to prove to me that he was the son of God? He may well have been crucified, but how do you prove the resurrection?

            If you make statements the onus is on you to prove them, not to say to me “prove otherwise.”

            Rationalwiki is not an atheist website, it is, as the name should suggest, a website dedicated to logic and reason. You have no basis to call it misleading, uninformed or untruthful, when it is the opposite of all those things.

          • Richard

            > He may well have been crucified, but how do you prove the resurrection?

            First, most historians and scholars agree that Christ is a real historical person. The only people who disagree are uninformed skeptics. That said, ok, Christ did walk the earth.

            If you look at the evidence of the accounts of his resurrection, you’ll see they ALL agree. Not one discrepancy. The internal textual evidence, the non biblical attestations, and the commitment of early Christians even to the point of death all point to it being true.

            The final evidence is the multiple billions of people over the years who have personally experienced the living God, including me. A fictitious god doesn’t interact back. The real God does.

            There’s so much more.

            If you want God to reveal himself to you, all you need to do is ask with a sincere desire to know God.

            > You have no basis to call it misleading, uninformed or untruthful, when it is the opposite of all those things.

            You just don’t know the truth of it yet. As you spend more time there, you’ll see what I mean.

          • MisterPine

            I elect to believe otherwise.

          • Richard

            That you can do. I’ll respect your decision to not believe.

          • Richard

            > A matter of opinion, I suppose.

            That’s why I asked for your opinion.

            Either Jesus was wise and true, or a lunatic. He can’t be both. Which is it?

            Jesus claimed to be God and was killed for it. Was he wise or foolish?

            > It is impossible to prove things didn’t happen

            That’s true, but yours is a strawman argument. The recorded history is true until proven otherwise. Can you prove the documented history was wrong? False?

            Don’t you find it interesting that there isn’t one source in that day that disputes what the history recorded?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I already stated that I thought he was wise and thoughtful. Why would you ask me my thoughts when I had already expressed them?

            “Jesus claimed to be God and was killed for it.”

            I think that he was killed less because he claimed to be God and more because people were believing his claims which was disrupting the status quo in the religious hierarchy where he was preaching.

            “The recorded history is true until proven otherwise.”

            No. Being recorded does not make it true. It was widely recorded that the world as flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. Neither of those were true until they were proven false. The were untrue the entire time.

            “Don’t you find it interesting that there isn’t one source in that day that disputes what the history recorded?”

            There’s not one source that disputes that Zeus existed. That doesn’t mean he did.

          • uzza

            Was he wise or a lunatic?
            He was a lunatic, just like the guy who said
            a “I’m God’s messenger, from and in the truth, brother and son to all men.” b “God is in me and I’m in God and we both have a spirit of justice for the world.”

            Horus claimed to be God. Was killed for it. Rose to prove it. The Egyptian faith was born from him.
            Unless you can prove he didn’t do any of those things?

        • Paul Hiett

          There is no truth to the existence of any deity. Yes, you have a Bible, that’s great…lots of religions have texts too, something you seem willfully ignorant of for some reason.

          I can’t prove your choice of a deity doesn’t exist out of the thousands that people believe in. Nor can you prove that your deity exists. Making these wild claims that the Bible is a “verified historical document’ is about as ludicrous a claim as I’ve seen on here. Where you get the idea that anyone, besides yourself, believes it’s a historically accurate and proven document is beyond anyone.

          The bottom line is, if you can’t prove the existence of a deity, belief in it remains an opinion.

          • Richard

            That’s just another of your opinions, Paul. As I said, restating it over and over again doesn’t make it true.

            To make your assertion true, you would need to prove it. You haven’t in many weeks. That tells my you can’t. As such, yours is an unfounded opinion, unlike documented and verified history.

          • Paul Hiett

            Claiming that the Bible is documented and verified history is laughable at best. Anyone associated with “history” would toss you out of the room for such a ludicrous claim.

            The fact remains, until you can prove your deity exists, your belief remains an opinion. Why you are so intellectually dishonest about this is amazing. But hey, by all means, continue judging others based on your opinion.

          • Richard

            > Claiming that the Bible is documented and verified history is laughable at best

            If the claim is so laughable, why do so many cultures in that time borrow from the Bible to supplement their own histories?

            Once again your ignorance on the subject trips you up. You really should study that which you criticize, else it makes you look foolish.

            Stating it again still doesn’t make your assertion true. Don’t you feel embarrassed that that is all you can do…state your unprovable assertion? Shouldn’t that be telling you something?

          • Paul Hiett

            Other cultures did? Really? Tell me all about those cultures and tell me which parts they “borrowed” from to supplement their histories?

            Or, would you care to address the fact that the Egyptians never recorded a flood that supposedly wiped them out?

            And yes, it’s a fact, inarguable, that belief in religion is an opinion and nothing more. Nothing you say can change that fact.

          • Richard

            > Tell me all about those cultures and tell me which parts they “borrowed” from to supplement their histories?

            As I said, if you took the time to study, you’d know this. I’m not going to do that work for you. That is up to you to pursue.

            >And yes, it’s a fact, inarguable, that belief in religion is an opinion and nothing more.

            Stating it over and over again doesn’t make it true. Jesus is fact. Your opinion is wrong.

          • Paul Hiett

            So give an example…can’t be that hard if so many of them used the Bible as you claimed. Unless you have no examples?

            Jesus is fact? Based on what? A story in a book? If a story in a book written 2000 years ago is your “proof”, I’ve got some bad news for you.

            Sorry bub, but until you can prove that your deity exists, your belief in it is just your opinion and nothing more.

          • Richard

            > Sorry bub, but until you can prove that your deity exists, your belief in it is just your opinion and nothing more.

            Stating your unproven assertion over and over and over again still doesn’t make it true. However, I think logic escapes you and is the reason for you unreasonableness.

          • Paul Hiett

            All I have to do is sit back and wait for you prove that your deity is real. Until it happens, it’s just an opinion that you have.

          • Richard

            > Until it happens, it’s just an opinion that you have.

            Jesus has already done that, as if the thousands of years before him wasn’t enough.

            Jesus said there would be no more signs. Being ignorant of the evidence isn’t going to absolve you of the consequences of your sins…no matter how much you dispute God’s reality…he still lives.

  • DeEtta Meirose Saunders

    These comments are exactly why Christians do not make comments. They do not enjoy having their comments attacked and do not like to debate about their opinion. I find it is rather frustrating to have my opinion disrespected and treated like a second class citizen made it. You have your opinion and I have mine. I believe that teacher should be fired if she does not have the parent’s approval to teach them about homosexuality. It is not part of a school’s agenda and should not be taught the way she is teaching it. It is in the Bible and, further more, a man cannot get a man pregnant and a woman cannot get a woman pregnant. So how can one have children unless a third party is brought into the picture. I believe homosexuals have gone a little too far with their BFFs and think they are in love and not just very good friends whom they love.

    • Paul Hiett

      ” I find it is rather frustrating to have my opinion disrespected and treated like a second class citizen made it.”

      Now maybe you might understand how gays in this country feel about people like you.

      • uzza

        Or atheists. Or Pagans. Or pretty much any non-christians, really.

        • Paul Hiett

          Bingo.

      • Diaris

        Yes, except Christians don’t care what gays think,
        but gays do care what Christians think – as evidenced by your
        hundreds of post on Christian blogs.

        LOL

        You just can’t handle living in a country where someone doesn’t approve of your sexual perversion.

  • Richard

    Paul and Umustbekiddingme, you can assert your opinions until the cows come home. Assertions aren’t facts.

    But God is giving you the opportunity right now to choose him or reject him. He’s leaving that decision up to you. Based on your decisions, however, there will be consequences.

    Choose wisely.

    Also keep in mind that your opinions of God have no bearing on the reality of God. But based on them, you will experience blessing or separation. Again, the choice is yours.

    I know God is real. You don’t. All of your assertions in the world can’t disprove what I already know to be true (as do a great many others).

    Should you choose to reject God, that will be your loss. I pray that you carefully consider your decision, because at some point, there will be no additional opportunity to choose. That time is now.

    • Paul Hiett

      “I know God is real”

      There’s a lie.

      • Richard

        > There’s a lie.

        Just another dogmatic assertion. You are full of them. Unless you can prove that I’m lying? Can you?

        I’m not holding my breath. I know what I know. You don’t know what I know. Asserting otherwise is folly.

        • Paul Hiett

          Prove your deity exists first. You’re the one who claims it’s real.

          • Richard

            Jesus already did that. If you don’t believe Jesus is God, you would have to disprove it, not just deny it. Can you?

            I won’t hold my breath on that either.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, again, the onus of proof is on the person making the claim. Have you never taken a debate class in your life?

          • Richard

            Jesus already proved God is real. If you don’t believe Jesus, you will need to prove him wrong…not just claim it.

            I won’t wait for any proof from you because you…and no one else has any. That’s the plight of a non believer. All you have is baseless assertions but nothing else. That should tell you something.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Jesus already proved God is real. ”

            How?

          • Richard

            Read the Bible and find out. It’s a great read. True too!

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I have. Many times.

            Since you aren’t able to answer my question, either you haven’t read the Bible, or if you have, then the answer is not to be found in it.

          • Richard

            I doubt you have. Or else you would know why your question is foolish.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            If you don’t know, then you don’t know. No worries.

          • Richard

            I know. You don’t. But you can find out through study.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            If you know, why are you avoiding answering the question?

          • Richard

            What’s preventing your from finding out on your own?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I am quite familiar with the bible. I do not believe that it contains proof that “Jesus proved God is real”.

            You made the claim. It’s yours to defend. If you can’t explain it, then your point becomes moot.

            I’ll ask again: why are you avoiding answering the question?

          • Richard

            > I am quite familiar with the bible.

            I doubt that. Your comments show you don’t know what you are talking about.

            Who do you think Jesus is? Why was he killed?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I’ve already answered those questions, Richard.

            Why won’t you answer mine?

          • Richard

            Who do you think Jesus is? Why was he killed?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Again, Richard, you have asked me those questions before and I answered them.

            Why won’t you answer mine?

          • Richard

            Who do you think Jesus is? Why was he killed?

            Answer the questions. If you have previously, I didn’t see your answers. Since you have answers, it shouldn’t take you long to post them again.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            As I have said before, I think Jesus was a vey wise and thoughtful person. I believe he was killed because the religious and political hierarchy at the time saw him as a threat.

            Now, would you please answer my question?

          • The Last Trump

            Humble yourself and acknowledge that you are a sinner.
            Genuinely seek God and ask that He reveal Himself to you in Jesus name. Sounds hard, huh?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Sounds pretty easy to me. Are you finding it difficult?

          • The Last Trump

            You have repeatedly made the claim that there is NO God.
            Sorry, pal. But by your own logic the onus is on you to prove YOUR claims. Otherwise, you can’t make them.
            Makes them just unsubstantiated opinion. Guesswork. That is all.

        • Linda Lensing

          Palms 14:1
          Godless fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt. They do disgusting things. There is no one who does good things.

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      You are certainly free to your beliefs and I respect that you believe what you do. Your belief, however, does translate into definitive truth. Perhaps your beliefs will turn out to be true. Perhaps not. None of us will know for certain until after we die.

      • Richard

        Are you suggesting Christ was lying? That he didn’t rise from the dead to prove life after death and that he is God?

  • Bill

    Oh no a teacher teaching kids acceptance, how awful

    • Psk6565

      Oh no, ISIS is teaching kids to murder people, how awful. See, you have a morality and others have a morality. Both you and ISIS have arbitrary foundations. Build your house on Christ and not sand.

      • Bill

        my morality is based on empathy not fairytales

        • Psk6565

          Your empathy is a fairy tale. You think empathy is good in a world where there is no God? One mans empathy is another mans weakness. You think you are noble for your empathy? Based on what do you prove empathy is good?

          • Bill

            so you’ve discovered that morality is subjective, congratulations

          • Psk6565

            And you suppress the truth that you are irrational for being against others morality if it is subjective. But you know there is God’s Law which is objective and feel the need to stand up for morality.

          • Bill

            there is no god and there is no objective morality

          • The Last Trump

            Good luck proving that.
            Last time I checked, the jury was STILL out on that one…

          • Bill

            If there’s no proof of a god then i take that as proof that there isn’t one

          • The Last Trump

            That “Bill” SAYS that there is no proof of God hardly qualifies as proof.
            Gonna have to do better than that I’m afraid. I don’t think the billions of religious followers are ready to throw in the towel just yet based solely on THAT.
            And then there’s that small matter of ALL OF THE RIDICULOUSLY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF PROOF! 🙂
            Don’t bother asking where. I couldn’t possibly list it all here and you don’t really even care. I’ve been researching this for over twenty years and I’m STILL finding new evidence. Where would I even begin!

          • Bill

            and what proof would that be?

          • Richard

            The proof the is displayed on several hundred websites listing all of the proof…that many non believers fail to find, read, or believe.

          • Bill

            garbage written by the insane a or con-artist that’s all your worthless religion is

          • Richard

            “Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates.” – Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.; the study is published in the British Journal of Psychiatry.

            Noted child sexual abuse expert David Finkelhor found that “boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences.” – Watkins and Bentovim, p. 316.

          • Bill

            crap, crap crap. what year was that garbage posted?

          • Richard

            Denying the statistics don’t make them crap. Check the facts before making uninformed assertions.

            There is indeed a clear disparity between homosexual men and heterosexual men and child sexual abuse. Using a non-clinical population of 465, Tomeo et al. found that 46 percent of the gay men reported being sexually abused as children compared to 7 percent of the matched heterosexual men.What’s intriguing is that 68 percent of the homosexual men did not identify as homosexual until after the abuse. Earlier research by Johnson and Shrier concluded that boys who had been sexually abused are 7 times more likely to identify as homosexual or bisexual than their heterosexual counterparts. Even more intriguing is that Friedman noted that the boys who later identified as heterosexual had a mean average of 15.7 as the time of their first sexual experience. For the boy who later identified as homosexual, the mean average was 12.7.” – Dr. Byrd is referencing Diane Shrier and Robert L. Johnson, “Sexual Victimization of Boys: An Ongoing Study of an Adolescent Medicine Clinic Population,” Journal of the National Medical Association 80, (1988); he also references Richard C. Friedman and Jennifer I Downey, “Homosexuality,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. #331 (1994): 923-930,

          • Bill

            how about something factual and more recent

          • Richard

            Those are facts. You just don’t like them.

          • Bill

            all a complete lie. especially that sexual abuse rubbish. heterosexuals are far more likely to sexually abuse children

          • Richard

            You should check the statistics before making such a blunder.

            “More than three-quarters of gay men (78.6%) and about two-thirds of bisexual men (65.8%) who experienced sexual violence other than rape identified male perpetrators.” – Mikel L. Walters, Jieru Chen, and Matthew J. Breiding; The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation; January 2013; National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Atlanta, Georgia; 11,12

            A study in the Journal of Sex Research found that “although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.”

          • Bill

            your own source says that there are more heterosexuals child abusers than homosexuals, and that first part is dubious since they seem to say that abusing a member of the same sex is proof of homosexuality, anyone with any understand of sexual violence knows that’s not true, you don’t have to be gay or bi to rape a member of the same sex

          • Richard

            Bill, since 94 percent of the population is heterosexual, what would you expect?

            > anyone with any understand of sexual violence knows that’s not true,

            You obviously don’t know.

            There is indeed a clear disparity between homosexual men and heterosexual men and child sexual abuse. Using a non-clinical population of 465, Tomeo et al. found that 46 percent of the gay men reported being sexually abused as children compared to 7 percent of the matched heterosexual men.What’s intriguing is that 68 percent of the homosexual men did not identify as homosexual until after the abuse. Earlier research by Johnson and Shrier concluded that boys who had been sexually abused are 7 times more likely to identify as homosexual or bisexual than their heterosexual counterparts. Even more intriguing is that Friedman noted that the boys who later identified as heterosexual had a mean average of 15.7 as the time of their first sexual experience. For the boy who later identified as homosexual, the mean average was 12.7.” – Dr. Byrd is referencing Diane Shrier and Robert L. Johnson, “Sexual Victimization of Boys: An Ongoing Study of an Adolescent Medicine Clinic Population,” Journal of the National Medical Association 80, (1988); he also references Richard C. Friedman and Jennifer I Downey, “Homosexuality,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. #331 (1994): 923-930,

            “A study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, “all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories,” which included males as young as age fifteen.” – Zebulon A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey, “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women,” p.73.

          • Bill

            1994, it mit as well of been done in the stone age. more recent studies paint a clearer picture and show that sexual abuse is in no way connected to sexual orientation

          • Richard

            > more recent studies paint a clearer picture and show that sexual abuse is in no way connected to sexual orientation

            No they don’t. Homosexuality hasn’t changed in thousands of years. The problems are the same. The only thing that has changed is gay suppression of honest data.

            > sexual abuse is in no way connected to sexual orientation

            Of course it is. That hasn’t changed either.

          • Bill

            then you should have no trouble find a reputable source from 2009-15 that supports your garbage.

            https:// 1in6. org/ therapists-and-other-professionals/myths-facts/

          • Richard

            The honest data has been suppressed by gay activism. Most information you find online today has been ‘politically corrected’ to avoid becoming a gay activism target…such as the nonsense included in the link you provided.

          • Bill

            “politically corrected” meaning actual science like the source I provided

          • Richard

            No, it means suppressed or else you’ll be attacked by nasty gay activists. The real science has been known for the last 100 years.

          • Bill

            there’s’ no conspiracy your views and science have just become obsolete

          • Richard

            Hardly. I brief check of history will negate your assertion. If there’s one thing gay activism has done, it’s suppress most opposition to the gay lifestyle.

            But God isn’t swayed at all. Homosexuality is a sin, and as such, has consequences.

            If the many harms of homosexuality aren’t enough on earth, the eternal consequences are staggering.

          • Bill

            and you have proof of this suppression? because all I’ve ever been provided is testimonies from quacks who’s lively-hoods depended on homosexuality been a mental illness. and how your god feels is irrelevant, this is a nation built on laws an science,.

          • Richard

            > and you have proof of this suppression?

            Yes. Plenty. Read up on why the American Psychiatry Association dropped homosexuality from the DSM. It had nothing to do with what was right, but everything to do with gay activism.

            > and how your god feels is irrelevant

            Hardly. It’s the most relevant. It may not be relevant to you right now, but it will be when he judges sin.

            > this is a nation built on laws an science

            That’s funny. Laws made by sinners, and some actual science with much of it political.

            But if you believe in science…what scientific proof do you have to show the Bible is fiction? God isn’t real?

          • Bill

            the fact that many of the bibles claims are false. like the garden of eden, the wold flood or that the hebrews were slaves in Egypt

            I’ve read why the American Psychiatry Association dropped homosexuality from the DSM. they reviewed the evidence and concluded that homosexuality wasn’t a mental illness. this conspiracy only exist in the minds of you sore losers

          • Richard

            >the fact that many of the bibles claims are false. like the garden of eden, the wold flood or that the hebrews were slaves in Egypt

            Your opinion isn’t science. Do you have any actual science to back up your claims?

            If you actually look, you’ll see that the region the bible talks about did experience a major flood at about the time the Bible said it happened.

            If you actually checked, you would find Hebrews were in Egypt prior to the Exodus.

            If you actually checked, you’d see there is an Egyptian papyrus that talks about the plagues.

            While you claim to be science based, it’s obvious you actually aren’t.

            Science supports the claims in the Bible, as does actual history.

          • Bill

            all wrong. the bibles claims that the flood covered the whole world not just one region of it and what’s your source for that Egyptian stuff because I can’t find anything. in fact my information says that here is no historical record of the hebrews being anywhere near Egypt and there definitely isn’t anything on the plagues

          • Richard

            > the bibles claims that the flood covered the whole world not just one region

            Not so. The language is hyperbole – meant to describe the severity of the punishment not the science of the flood.

            > what’s your source for that Egyptian stuff because I can’t find anything.

            Look up Sir Flinders Petrie, a British archaeologist and Egyptologist

            Look up Impuwer Papyrus.

            Look up Zahi Hawass – Egyptian archeologist, Egyptologist on the Hebrews in Egypt.

          • Bill

            Ipuwer Papyrus has a suggested connection to exodus which has been rejected by mainstream archeologists including the one who found it. and two hack one of whom died in 1942 doesn’t change the fact that there is no evidence that hebrew were slaves or that they were even in egypt. and you’re wrong about the flood being hyperbole, the interpration was and to creationist still is that the flood covered the whole world

            there’s also the fact that many of the places mentioned in the exodus did not exist within the same chronological period as one another. Pithom (Per‐Atum/Tckenu) and Raamses (Per‐Ramesses),

            http://www. religiouscriticism. com/bible/the-jews-were-never-slaves-in-egypt/

          • Richard

            > has been rejected by mainstream archeologists

            The Papyrus is an independent account of the plagues. It has never been rejected.

            There are critics who dismiss the Exodus, but that’s because no hard evidence has YET been found. The same was true for Babylon…until they found it. Shechem…until they found it. Pontius Pilate…until they found it. King David’s kingdom…until they found evidence of it…and so on. Just because nothing has been found yet, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

            >that they were even in egypt

            Of course there is. Dismissing the evidence because you don’t want to believe it doesn’t negate the evidence.

            > you’re wrong about the flood being hyperbole

            No, I’m not. You are wrong because you have little to no understanding of reading the Bible in the way it was intended to be read. A lack of understanding doesn’t mean you are correct.

            > here’s also the fact that many of the places mentioned in the exodus did not exist within the same chronological period as one another.

            Yes, they do. People who make this claim also have very little knowledge of the Bible. There isn’t any mystery, except in the minds of the uninformed.

          • Bill

            that;s you then. an uniformed idiot. the bible is a lie

          • Psk6565

            But you act like it is immoral to not accept homosexuality.

          • Bill

            yeah and? just because morality isn’t objective doesn’t mean I have to accept yours

          • Psk6565

            It does mean that, unless you want to contradict what you say you believe.

            Everyone would think you are insane if you refused to accept that one man enjoyed vanilla more than chocolate. You know why? Because taste buds are subjective.

          • Bill

            this isn’t a matter of taste. morality has an effect on everything.

          • Psk6565

            So does the sun, but it isn’t moral or immoral. Your standard is “It effects everything” then the sun must be moral or immoral in what it does.

            That does not pan out. If something is subjective, then you must accept it in others.

          • Bill

            no i don’t. where is it written that one must accept every perspective?

          • Psk6565

            Think about it. If you believe math is objective, you refuse to allow someone to be right when they say 1+1=3.

            You act as if you believe morality is objective, yet you say it is subjective. Every area in life you would be consistent with subjectivity and objectivity. Since you know God is real, He has revealed His Law, but you are in rebellion against Him, you deceive yourself into believing that morality is subjective and you don’t live that way.

          • Bill

            I don’t know god is real, I know he isn’t. and something being subjective doesn’t mean I must accept all interpretations.

          • Psk6565

            That is not the argument. The argument is that you cannot object to other peoples morality. Just like the subjective nature of fashion, taste, etc.

          • Bill

            sure I can and I do.

          • Psk6565

            Because you are inconsistent.

          • Bill

            because i don’t care about your opinion.

        • Jeff Briggs

          Liar, you empathize with no one except your own kind. All other people you despise.

          • Bill

            and how is that different from anyone else? and I do care about other peoel even if I disagree with them, I would never let someone die if I would help them

    • Diaris

      Since you clearly do not accept people who differ from you, what’s the problem?
      Hating is OK, so long as you’re the one doing it, right?

  • Deina

    Wonderful!

    Bravo Zulu, Ms. Strong!

  • bowie1

    Although I didn’t go to kindergarten I did learn about Dick and Jane, and See Spot Run in grade 1. Now this pervert wants to ruin the lives of these little children with this unnatural material. She needs to stick to basics – reading, writing/printing, and arithmetic and let them grow up before they are exposed to this nonsense, when they are able to speak for themselves at a more mature age.

    • Deina

      By teaching acceptance from the start, hopefully there will be a significant drop in bullying & teen suicide!

      Don’t you think that’s a good thing?

      But how many more preventable tragedies will happen before then?

      • drefasddfff

        There is a difference between tolerance(the true definition) and acceptance, which liberals have turned into being synonymous to tolerance. I am tolerant of homosexuals, but I disagree with them.

        tolerance is defined as:
        the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

        • Deina

          In a class of 30 students, whether it’s a public school, private school, Christian school, or what have you; statistically two or three of them will be gay or lesbian. Out of eight such classes, at least one person will grow up transgendered.

          Of my own graduating class, in a rural, very conservative area, I found at my 40th reunion that over 15% of my class is openly gay or lesbian.

          If your child turns out to be “different”, & ends up getting bullied to the point that he or she feels their only option to stop the pain is to kill themselves… Don’t you think you would see Ms. Strong’s classes in a different light?

          • drefasddfff

            Na man, first off, I think that if i could i would never want my child to go to public(even some private) schools with the way they try to twist and warp your thinking(I would know because I go to a public school), so hopefully bullying would not be a problem. I would not even care if everyone of my relatives/ family were gay, God’s word comes before man’s. I would not see Ms.Strong’s class in a different light.

          • Paul Hiett

            And what will you do if you have a gay child?

          • drefasddfff

            That sir is a very broad question.

          • Paul Hiett

            It’s a valid question to ask you. I myself had the question asked of me, in a different manner of course.

          • drefasddfff

            Just because you had that question asked of you, does not mean that it is not still a very broad question that is hard to answer unless it is narrowed down.

          • Paul Hiett

            It’s pretty simple. What will you do if you have a gay child?

          • drefasddfff

            Can you please narrow it down to a topic like possibly would I then accept homosexuality.

          • Paul Hiett

            How would you treat your child if they came to you and said they were gay?

          • drefasddfff

            I would still respect them and love them as my child, but I would not agree with any behavior CHOICES that they make, It is one thing to have this lust for another male, but it is another thing to act upon it through actions. Just like for me, I sinfully lust after women, but I do not act upon that. Why? Because almighty God is sovereign and I am only accountable to Him in the end, and since God created me, why should I deliberately disobey His commands?

          • Paul Hiett

            Would you allow your child to date members of the same gender?

          • drefasddfff

            No

          • uzza

            You wouldn’t let your son go to a ball game with another boy?

          • FoJC_Forever

            Broad question. Two boys going to a ball game doesn’t constitute a homosexual relationship. Homosexuality is not normal, it’s perversion.

          • Paul Hiett

            So, without ever having the ability to understand what a gay person thinks, feels, or lives with, you’d simply assume your kid doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and force Christianity down his throat? How can you simply dismiss how your child feels and thinks as “choices”?

          • drefasddfff

            How can you simply dismiss my authority as a parent to advocate what is right and true? and I never said I dont care how my child feels… If I were to do everything that my sinful heart desired who knows where this world would be.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Paul is a troll. He goes around hammering the same harassing questions to everyone. Your conversations with him fuel his obsession with trolling Christians and others.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’ve noticed all you do is go around, and tell people what you think of me, rather than actually discussing anything. You’re simply immature, and a rather rude individual. If you’re not goihg to actually discuss anything, I’d appreciate it if you’d stop insulting me. Thanks.

          • FoJC_Forever

            I’m not insulting you, just explaining how your heart works. You’re an empty person, void of understanding. You don’t discuss, you reiterate your ignorance of God, His Word, and reality in general.

          • Linda Lensing

            2 Corinthians 3:14
            However, their minds became closed. In fact, to this day the same veil is still there when they read the Old Testament. It isn’t removed, because only Christ can remove it.

            They can’t understand it. There’s a veil upon their eyes.

          • MisterPine

            He’s nothing of the kind. Answer his questions rather than shrinking from them maybe.

          • FoJC_Forever

            No shrinkage here, just not wasting too much time on fruitless discussions with those who run around in circles, frantically waving their hands.

          • Paul Hiett

            And how can you do that if you have no idea what’s going on in your child’s head? Or, is it simply a matter of, the Bible trumps my child?

          • Deina

            Matthew 5:27-28 | New American Standard Bible (NASB)
            (27)”You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; (28)but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
            New American Standard Bible (NASB)

            Apparently Jesus didn’t think it was “another thing.”

          • FoJC_Forever

            Tell them they’re accepting Sin and it is displeasing to God and not His Will for them.

            You keep trying to use kids to leverage people into accepting the lie of homosexuality. What a deceiver you are, Paul Hiett.

          • Deina

            “Tell them they’re accepting Sin and it is displeasing to God and not His Will for them.”

            That’s what they tried to tell left handed kids when I was in the 1st & 2nd grade.

            That’s what they said about abolitionists.

            That’s what they said about interracial marriages. (At least if one of them was black. If the female was oriental, or either one was Latin, no problemo!)

            The church threw Galileo in prison for the “sin” of saying the earth was round!

            Look at the thousands who were burned at the stake as witches, because of the “sin” of knowing the healing properties of plants!

          • Linda Lensing

            Every example you listed was man pursecuting you, not GOd!

          • Deina

            ??????????????

            Apparently you replied to the wrong post.

        • mark

          What is there to disagree with though? People don’t choose to be attracted to the same sex. That’s like saying you disagree with someone for being left handed. Same thing… There’s no clear biological evidence of that but I don’t think anyone would say that’s a conscious decision. If you’re against promiscuity that’s one thing, but being against a gay person just for being gay is just silly

      • bowie1

        Or it could aggravate the situation further. Bullying is nothing new since I had a one or two students that tried to intimidate a kid like me so many years ago.

        • Deina

          Can you think of a single time when knowledge in the hands of the right people has made anything worse?

          I can’t.

          • jstan442

            how about the knowledge of how to make a nuke bomb in the hands of iranians??–i do not need someone else to tell my chidren what is right from wrong and immoral–please go to a muslim site and tell them that throwing gays off buildings is wrong-love to see the response you would get

          • Deina

            how about the knowledge of how to make a nuke bomb in the hands of Iranians Israelis?

            Are you that weak on reading comprehension that you don’t understand what I said, or do you simply have selective vision & ignore the bits that make your question irrelevant?

          • jstan442

            betcha did not go to that mulsim site to share how inclusive you are huh?? if you have kids-teach them perversions-stay away from mine

          • Deina

            Gladly!

            Just do me a favor & tattoo “666” on your kids’ foreheads, so I’ll know they’re yours!

      • bowie1

        These are little kids, not teens. When they get to high school they can teach them to respect others. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with sex but I think it’s mostly an attack on self-esteem.

        • Deina

          Why would you want to wait until hate & prejudice is ingrained in them before equipping them to fight against it?

          There is no doubt whatsoever that they will have gays, lesbians, & transgendered people in their lives, some in minor roles, but others may well play major roles in their lives – a police officer or fire fighter who saves their life, a doctor who mends them after a major illness or injury, a grocery clerk they see whenever they go to the store, school teachers, college professors, their best friend. The list goes on & on.

          No matter how much you want to “protect them” from “teh dreaded ghey”, it’s simply not possible, so why shouldn’t they be prepared ahead of time?

          Or are you somehow afraid that if they learn too much, too soon, that they won’t fear & hate them as much as you want them to?

          • bowie1

            You’re focusing too much on one group of people. We can learn to be good citizens to all people. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

      • FoJC_Forever

        Social acceptance of sexual perversion isn’t going to save lives. The vast majority of all HIV/AIDS cases are among male homosexuals. This is a fact. Only a moron cannot see it’s directly tied to the homosexual act.

        Allowing children to be lied to is worse for their soul than anything.

        Judgement is coming.

        • Deina

          I bet you’re against anything other than “abstinence only” sex education, too.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Sex was created by God to take place between a man and woman for the primary purpose of procreation. He also made it intimate and comforting so that procreation is an act of Love, not simply a ‘continuance of the species’.

            So, yes, abstinence of sex until one is married in the eyes of God is His Will, which is always the best plan.

      • Diaris

        Typical lesbian. Only your feelings matter.
        Normal people care about their children. You can’t possible understand love that is nonsexual in nature. It would be like trying to explain color to a blind person. Lesbians and gay men lack the ability to empathize with other human beings.

        • Deina

          What evidence do you have to support your contention that I neither care about my children nor “understand love that is nonsexual in nature”?

          Have you ever met me? Of course you haven’t! If you had, you would know how wrong you are about me.

          Perhaps in future you might wish to base your arguments on actual facts, instead of how you merely wish things were.

          But that’s alright! The more you spout your ridiculous uninformed nonsense, the more people who may be sitting on the fence lean toward equality, because they can see how pathetic and desperate your comments are.

          Thank you, and continue yourself!

          • kccoallday

            If you’re “equal,” prove it by making a baby without a man.

            take your time. Oh, wait, you can’t – you’re old.

          • Linda Lensing

            Lady you’re delusional. The bible is fact. Just because you choose not to believe it doesn’t discredit its validity. One day, you will stand before Jesus Christ, the King of Kings & the Lord of Lords, and answer to him. It clearly states in the bible the life style you’re living is an abomination to him. It’s bad enough to corrupt yourself, but to try to convince little kids to believe a lie straight from the pits of hell is something on a whole different level. There’s a special place in hell for people like you…please repent & change your ways. I love you as a person & I don’t want you to spend eternity in hell. Bottom line..teach the subject the school hired you to teach & stop trying to influence kids that being gay/homosexual/transgender is acceptable to God. It’s not now, nor will it ever be.

          • Deina

            “The bible is fact.”

            Even the errors?

          • Linda Lensing

            Please elaborate. What errors?

          • Deina

            You can start with Leviticus 11, which has a number of errors in it — errors that people living so close to the land should not have made.

            I’ll let you find the errors yourself – that way you’ll have a better chance of remembering them, but I will tell you that there are at least three separate verses in error within the first 25 of that chapter. The third one is actually more, since it’s the same error repeated three times over four verses.

            There are other errors as well, most noticeably in Genesis & Job. While each error in itself is minor, the fact that they exist at all questions the premise that it is the “divine Word of the omniscient God.” Instead they are evidence that the scriptures are written by fallible & imperfect men.

          • Linda Lensing

            Like I asked before, please quote specific errors or specific locations where the errors can be located. I’m assuming you didn’t include them, because you can’t find them. All scripture is inspired by GOD himself. Do you believe in GOD? Do you believe in Jesus Christ? What do you believe GOD thinks of a homosexual lifestyle? Regardless of what you think or believe GOD will punish you eternally for your actions if you don’t repent. Unless you change, and I pray that you do, your future is a fiery spot in hell where you’ll be tormented forever & ever. Even in hell you will continue to hear about Jesus Christ forever! There’s not 1 place in the bible that contradicts itself. When you stand before Jesus Christ & he ask you why you chose this life style, are you going to tell him it’s because you thought there were inconsistencies in the bible. That’s not going to be acceptable.

          • Julie Kasenow

            You dont give a crap about bullying. If you did your solution to the problem would be much different than it is. Bullying is about someone tearing down someone else in order to make themselves feel better about themselves. The victim and what they get bullies for are utterly irrelevant. This bully will find a weak kid and use whatever they can to tear this kid down. The victim could be short or tall, fat or skinny, have braces glasses or pimples, they could have short hair or long hair, it could be stringy or frizzy, ears or nose too big whatever. Being or acting gay is just another one of those. If you want to fix bullying you teach kids no bullying of any kind will be tolerated and you follow through. You dont spend a ton of time on one thing one kid got bullied over. You just dont tolerate bullying at all. You wouldnt develope whole curriculums and pull kids out of math class to have love your buck teeth day, or a day of silence for kids with zits.

          • Deina

            Is that the same thing you’d say to a black kid, who was being called the n-word? What about a child being teased about their disability? How about a Jewish or Native American child? Or one with glasses or a speech impediment?

            Would you simply say “sorry, kid, but it’s your turn in the barrel!”?

            Somehow I don’t think so, but I have been wrong before, so maybe you would. After all, I didn’t put xtians in the list.

          • Julie Kasenow

            I would say the same thing to everyone at the school…bullying of any kind wont be tolerated. You dont have to like everyone but you do have to treat everyone with respect and if you dont you will be punished. The end. Make a few examples out of a couple of bullies and it will stop happening. But as far as i am concerned the victim and why they are bullied are irrelevant. The bully him or herself must be dealt with. If you consider that uncaring I am sorry. But I consider it very caring because it tells kids you all matter and we arent going to pick and choose which vitim we care about and which we dont.

  • Psk6565

    Training children to accept perversion. There is a milestone waiting for her if she does not turn to Christ.

  • Mary Kilbride

    Oh God please help us to be strong…I should never read in these comments. This world is not my home…. thanks to You Jesus. I’m getting out of this dark place. There is no teaching or discussion here…this is just children throwing rotten tomatoes back and forth and I have to wonder what God would think about my participation. God bless y’all.

    • FoJC_Forever

      Melodramatic much?

    • mark

      People’s true thoughts come out on the anonymous internet. It really is pretty scary..

  • FoJC_Forever

    She’s lying to kids. It’s easy to lie to kids and make them accept it. This very argument is what the Wicked use to keep children from hearing about the LORD, Jesus Christ, even though it’s Truth. Yet, they have no problem with children being forced to accept the propaganda of sexual perversion. The states of Sodom and Gomorrah are rising again, until the End, when all will be destroyed with the fire of God.

    Come, Lord Jesus.

    • MisterPine

      I read the entire article over again looking for the lie. There isn’t one.

    • Zasz

      Whats wrong with you?

      Telling children to be nice and tolerant is “lying to kids”?

      *This very argument is what the Wicked use to keep children from hearing about the LORD*
      Yeah, its called “reason”. Probably unknown to you.

      *they have no problem with children being forced to accept the propaganda of sexual perversion*
      You have no problem indoctrinating children with your fantasies but oppose children being taught to be nice to other people…

      • FoJC_Forever

        Teaching children that homosexuality is normal and good is lying. Homosexuality is corrupt and an abomination. Teaching children to not obey lustful feelings is teaching them Truth. Teaching children Truth is loving them and wanting the best for them.

        • Zasz

          Not knowing what homosexuality is about but telling children “its evil!” is the definition of lying here. If you believe in talking snakes and virgin births, you dont get to tell me what is unnatural. Especially when humans are one of over 1500 species that have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors.

          Homosexuality exists in over 1500 species. Homophobia is found in only one. Which seems unnatural now?

          There is, however, a sexual orientation that cannot be found in nature and can be accurately described as “unnatural”: CELIBACY.

          So the “wanting the best for them” is only your passing on your ignorance.

          • FoJC_Forever

            I hope you never have kids subjected to being taught how to justify sin and walk the path to Eternal Destruction. Telling kids accepting homosexuality produces a balanced, loving human being is just another lie told by those like you who are groping in Darkness.

            There is a huge difference between the supernatural and the unnatural. The virgin birth was a Work of God.

            Homosexuality is more than “unnatural”. In fact, it is carnally natural and an abomination before God. It is also forgivable by Jesus Christ, for those who will repent and ask Him to forgive their sins. The term “unnatural”, when used to describe homosexuality, is meant as not being God’s design, since He is the God of nature.

            As far as talking snakes, the relationship mankind had with the animal kingdom in the Beginning was quite different that it is now, and has been for thousands of years.

            Homosexual desires and actions are sins born of the carnal lust present in the fallen nature of mankind. Homosexuality doesn’t exist in animals.

            Homophobia is an invented term used to attack those who will not pacify people who want to spread their sinful desires into every part of society, especially preying upon children. I am not afraid of homosexuals nor homosexuality, but I am concerned for those who fall victim to the lies of the homosexual agenda.

            Celibacy isn’t unnatural. Celibacy is simply refraining from heterosexual activity, which all are to do if they are not Married as God has defined.

            Ignorance is rejecting God and embracing a fallen life which is destined for Eternal Damnation.

  • Andrew

    Christians are not afraid to open their mouths. Hypocrites are.

    Most assuredly I say to you that the Lord has sent his prophet named Artis all over the the western part of this country to fight against homosexuality and NONE have helped him and some have hurt him. Yea, the Lord has sent him from church building to church building and from pastor to pastor and from publisher to newspaper and none have taken up a lament for the lack of justice which is done. For fear of loss of house and business they sent him away for fear that they would become poor.

    The Lord has given him the words necessary to stop this nonsense in it’s tracks and none have taken up this word because those whom he spoke to are hypocrites and liars some of which are liars and their own sons and daughters are homosexual themselves.

    For everyone who desires to hear the words of this prophet and is strong enough to stand, contact me: [email protected]

    Judgment has already begun for this sin and the Lord has promised to destroy any nation who goes in this way unto iniquity and sexual immorality.

    “Despise not prophesying” – So commanded the Spirit through Paul

  • Truthhurts24

    When you try to brainwash children to accept evil you know your working for Satan. No different than a pedophile telling kids “its okay for adults to have sex with you its just love” hell will be very hot.

    • Bill

      except for the fact the pedophilia causes harm and homosexuality doesn’t

      • Richard

        Of course homosexuality causes harm. Homosexuals have the highest incidence of mental health issues, highest incidence of sexually transmitted disease, high incidence of teen suicide, homosexual parents have the highest incidence of sexually abusing children, highest incidence of domestic violence, highest incidence of relationship instability, and so on.

        • mark

          Yeah… Good points you bring up. Obviously no homosexual would CHOOSE to experience what you just said. And if it were a choice, obviously the depression and suicide risk wouldn’t exist because they could just switch back to being straight. Because obviously alternating between being straight and gay is like a lightswitch.Good job pretty much acknowledging that being gay isn’t a choice 🙂

      • kccoallday

        So all those dead gay men who gave each other AIDS – that was “harmless”?

        • Bill

          yes. that was because they had unprotected sex not because they were gay, the same has and still dose happen to heterosexuals

      • Truthhurts24

        Homosexuality causes diseases like HIV to spread how is that not harm

        • Bill

          promiscuity is what spreads STD’s not homosexuality

    • mark

      All children are “brainwashed” no matter what they’re taught.

  • Machiavellian

    Well, you can always homeschool your children if you’re not okay with what Mrs. Strong is doing.

  • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

    Oh it’s ok to teach about same gender s_x and relationships, but its not ok to pass out Bibles at school. Does anyone see the hypocrisy in this. Where is the FFRF now, when are they going to write a letter complaining that this teacher isn’t teaching classroom materials, but trying to convince students that it’s ok to believe that SS is ok but a Bible isn’t. How about this teacher designing a group instead of going class to class. That is what was proposed by the teacher that was passing out Bibles (accepted voluntarily). If all things are equal as atheists continue to argue, than equally this teacher should not be teaching kids about her personal preferences. This another example of choosing a life style, and then trying to convince kids that its fashionable to be a L or G. Again all I can say is UNBELIEVABLE!! How much more is going to be forced down the throats of people who don’t agree with L or G lifestyles and then promoting it in our schools. And atheists certainly will agree this is ok to them.

  • sammy13

    Just plain old fashioned liberal thinking and teaching. I am all for accepting people for who and what they are and letting God judge them, as we will all be judged. But let children form their own opinions and conclusions based upon the morality found in the Bible.

  • bluesky

    Satan uses the 4 hidden dynasties to fool the people. Religion, political, economic, and
    education.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    The teacher is such a Satanic woman.

  • Josey

    It’s ironic how it’s okay for her to preach her homosexuality to young ones who are very impressionable but it’s not okay for a Christian to teach about God, such hypocrisy!