Christian couple lose their High Court battle to foster children because they are against homosexual

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I hope you and celimonster are both this vocal when Sharia begins to take root here

This seems to be the new trump card of christianity, the monster in the closet was once the devil then we had Pascals' wager now the bogey man is Sharia Law.

Let's turn this on its' head with a question for you - What kind of world would you prefer to live in given the option of a secular world or an Islamic world ?

I will reiterate what I have said time and again in previous posts, Xtians need to get a grip and stop their pathetic attempts to scare people with the Chicken Little Sharia Law nonsense.

Here are some reasons why you are talking BS and what I would consider ignorantly scaremongering -

In Europe we love Bacon it is also part of a full English Breakfast which also happens to contain Sausage both of which ( in case you didn't know) are primarily mad from dead Pigs slaughtered in the most cost effective way possible.

Incidentally a Full English is often accompanied with Black Pudding whose main ingredients are Pigs Blood (be aware Christians jesus loves the smell and spillage of blood but you dare not eat it as that would be the greatest abomination of all) and Pig Fat and good old Pig Intestine.

This delightful start to the day is often shoveled down by us Infidels with a healthy dose of photographs of Bare Breasted sometimes completely naked young women of questionable virginal qualities and a nice cup of tea made with cow juice.

Be afraid of Sharia law ? what a joke I have only mentioned start of the day breakfast and already trod on the toes of 3 multimillion pound industries Pork Farming ,Fast Food, Glamor Modeling. Do you truly believe that investors in these industries are quaking in their boots or high heels because bible thumpers are trying to scare the citizens of Springfield back into the pews ?

Get a grip man the majority of Muslims being born in the UK are relishing the freedom from silly bronze age religious myths, no doubt the leaders of these religions sit down to tea together desperately trying to think of new ways for their minions to fear each other and keep the money coming in.

reply to post by Swanseadog


So, what you're saying is the government can't prevent people with socially deviant views from raising children, which is a bad thing to be avoided. But then you're glad when the government does so (it's socially deviant to not sing praises about homosexuality). Uh, what?

In a world in which our Judicial system is composed of ever increasing numbers of sexual perverts and child abusers, such decisions could be expected. With the same Judicial system being devoid of any respect for the devine creator one could almost be assured that prejudice against Christians would be rampant. We, as Christians, are guilty as a group of not being the "salt of the Earth".

I think my Dog might be gay or maybe bi curious as he tries to get it on with any dog he see's male or female so can all the religious people here help me to save my dog form hell???

Should i stop him watching TV?? As i am sure thats where he got this bloody idea that being gay is what all the cool kids are doing these days

Really people wake up just because these people are religious don't mean they are good parents automatically
and there tolerance just shows how little minded they are

I really dont think that the religious people on here can comment on weather being gay or not is a choice unless they have walked a mile in a gay persons shoes

And just think how screwed up the kid would be if he was aloud to be with the religious foster parents and then turned out to be gay!!!!!!!
it would be like the KKK fostering a black/asian kid

Originally posted by romanmel
In a world in which our Judicial system is composed of ever increasing numbers of sexual perverts and child abusers, such decisions could be expected. With the same Judicial system being devoid of any respect for the devine creator one could almost be assured that prejudice against Christians would be rampant. We, as Christians, are guilty as a group of not being the "salt of the Earth".

The Judicial system is devoid of any respect for other cartoon character cash cows like Mickey Mouse and My Little Pony, so why should Yahweh be any different?

reply to post by Bossdog82

Really people wake up just because these people are religious don't mean they are good parents automatically
and there tolerance just shows how little minded they are

Taken from the article :

The grandparents have already fostered 15 children and were praised by social workers as ‘kind and hospitable people’ who ‘respond sensitively’ to youngsters.

And just think how screwed up the kid would be if he was aloud to be with the religious foster parents and then turned out to be gay!!!!!!!

Taken from the article :

She added that the couple have visited her nephew, who is gay, and his partner in San Francisco.
Her husband added: ‘We wanted to offer love and stability and security to a vulnerable child. Eight-year-olds we have looked after want to play, not talk about their sexuality.’

Peace

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


So, what do you think of this?



www.dailymail.co.u k
(visit the link for the full news article)

It's a terrible injustice! (I heard the couple on the radio today, they're completely stunned. Poor people!
Vicky

I have heard about this on the radio and read about it.

I think it is sad, I think the childrens potential future should be paramount, not some nonsense on disagreements about something so petty.

reply to post by The Djin


Djin, what you are missing here is the inconsistency in the liberal mindset. Is Iran a secular state? Oh and by the way AIG is already Sharia compliant and US tax dollars bailed it out. There was even a lawsuit.

Sharia is already being introduced in Britain. I suspect you already know this but are unwilling to admit it.
www.timesonline.co.uk...
"ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. "

Meanwhile here's an actual ruling in the US involving AIG
"AIG, Geithner, sued for bailout money promoting Sharia Law

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kind of different. On one side, we apparently have AIG spending millions of dollars to promote Sharia Law. On the other side, we having people suing them for doing so."
"Last week, Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff, a federal district court judge in Michigan, dismissed a constitutional challenge to the U.S. Government’s bailout of AIG, which used over a hundred million dollars in federal tax money to support Islamic religious indoctrination through the funding and promotion of Sharia-compliant financing (SCF). SCF is financing that follows the dictates of Islamic law. "
source:
www.generalnonsense.net...




Your NICK is interesting:source en.wikipedia.org...
Genie", "Jinni", and "Djinn" redirect here. For Gin, see Genie (disambiguation), Jinni (disambiguation), and Djinn (disambiguation).

The Majlis al-Jinn cave in Oman, literally "Meeting place of the Jinn". It is one of the world's biggest cave chambers.Jinn (Arabic: جن jinn, singular جني jinnī; variant spelling djinn) or genies are supernatural creatures in Arab folklore and Islamic teachings which occupy a parallel world to that of mankind. Together, jinn, humans and angels make up the three sentient creations of Allah. According to the Qur’ān, there are two creations that have free will[citation needed]: humans and jinn. Religious sources say barely anything about them; however, the Qur’an mentions that jinn are made of smokeless flame or "the fire of a scorching wind".[1] They have the ability to change their shape. Like human beings, the jinn can also be good, evil, or neutrally benevolent.[2]

The jinn are mentioned frequently in the Qur’an, and there is a surah entitled Sūrat al-Jinn in the Quran. Some research by the American Jewish Committee has shown that the belief in jinn has fallen compared to the belief in angels in other Abrahamic traditions.[3]"




But I tell you what: if Egypt goes secular I will revise my "scaremongering" ideas

I would have declined their request as soon as I found out they were christian. I don't think any children should be exposed to that kind of lifestyle...

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by The Djin
Tell that to the godman

It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17

Your not even a Christian and your telling me what that Bible says? Your out of context as usual. Jesus fulfilled the law. We only have to laws now, 1. Love the Lord your God and 2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Firstly, one doesn't need to be a christian to be able to read.

Secondly, the bibles are allegedly the instruction manual for life allegedly "inspired" often times allegedly written (depending on which flavour xtian your talking to ) by the alleged creator of the universe.
Clearly this alleged creator of all that is namely the jesus/yahwhe god is the most appalling communicator if he needs you to interpret his message that is allegedly for all of us.

Thirdly, like many others I have read several copies of the bibles inside out thank you very much and at no time does the character jesus who is also alleged to be one and the same being as Yahwhe, say that what he says should not necessarily be taken at face value because he may not mean what he says.

The character jesus/yahweh when discussing "his own" laws that "he" gave to the prophets clearly and unambiguously states -

It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17

Now this is not rocket science, after all he was talking to mostly first century illiterate jews who were allready well acquainted with the commandment to love (and fear) their god ie jesus/yahweh.

Indeed jesus/yawheh would have really made himself look like a dick should he have suddenly told his jewish creation to forget all about the laws he gave when he was calling himself Yahwhe ie no letter of his laws were to become invalid, quite an easy thing to understand even for the dumbest Palestinian.

Now let's look at the problematic " I have come to fulfill the law" , we should remember that it is his own law which he is claiming to fulfill and also bear in mind that according to xtians god (yawhe/jesus) cannot/does not change his mind.

We see that "Fulfill" is primarily defined as bringing something into effect, meeting the requirements of etc and sometimes but less so bringing to an end of, however to fullfill is generally understood as the former.

Now if we are to enquirer as to the possibility that when jesus/yahwhe could possibly be implying the latter least used definition of "fulfill" ie "to bring to an end" we need look no further than his own words .
At no time did jesus yawhe/say the laws he gave were now revoked and obsolete nor did he say "some" of the laws are revoked or obsolete. In fact nowhere in the bibles can we find jesus/yahweh giving a list of laws that hes has revoked ie changed hi mind about.

Once again, we need look no further than Jesus/yahwehs' own words for clarification -

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

And if that is not clear enough we need look no further than what jesus/yahweh has to say next about "his own laws" to be quite clear that he had not changed hi mind -

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment

Now this again is pretty unambiguous, we should also not that jesus/yahwhe did not follow with "but it will be ok to ignore this or that law" indeed an observant reader should make special note that jesus/yawhe did not mention the revocation of the law against the consumption of blood. The penalty for this transgression as we know is probably the worst and should be avoided at all costs.


No sir I am not a christian thank god, apparently there are over 34000 different flavoured xtians all professing to have some greater insight in how the bibles should be read and how to cherry pick the scriptures.

Unfortunately for you lot the Roman Pontiffs saddled you with one of the most disgusting misogynistic, bigoted, racist, ignorant and violent pieces of literature on the planet, the Old Testament.

Xtians are like a housewife who desperately needed a vacation and was sold a none existent luxury apartment in a time share scam by a grinning salesman while her husband was as work.

The house is spotless dinner is on the table, hubby is home let the squirming begin.

Originally posted by The Djin


Although you seemed to have omitted the bit where the persons doing the "definitely not a good thing" should be put to death, the courts did not. Needless to say it's not necessarily a "good thing" to hand over children to xtian foster parents.

Incidentally, if your god told you to kill me would you do it ? Yes or No.

Sigh, your comments are predictable.
It's the Old Testament that mandates the putting to death. Why do so many atheists choose to ignore the New Testament or the fact that it supersedes the Old?
As for the second question - it's a nonsense question. God would not tell anyone to kill (and in fact, has specifically said NOT to kill.)
So the question is meaningless.

reply to post by The_Zomar


But what if they could provide that child with a loving home for as long as they needed?

You would deny a child a home on the basis of your own disagreement of someone else's religion?

I am of no religion other than my own belief in myself and i think its bad that a child should be refused what could be a stable loving home for a month or so just because someone disagrees with that persons religion.

Christians have no teeth anymore but as far as im aware Islam has similar views on homosexuals, lol i cant wait untill its a muslim fosterer cus those guys really know how to cause an uproar when they feel persecuted.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

 

[sarcasm]
Wow, yeah, what is the world coming to when gays can adopt but people who discriminate against them can't?

You know they're even allowing black people to adopt, but I heard that white supremacists who openly say being black is wrong have been denied that right.[/sarcasm]

What if the kid they adopt turns out to be gay? They're going to tell this kid that he/she is WRONG to be gay, possibly tell this kid that he/she is committing a sin simply by being his/herself.

Today they asked judges to rule that their faith should not be a bar to them becoming carers, and the law should protect their Christian values

The law has no obligation to align itself with antiquated viewpoints about sexuality but it does have an obligation to protect a child from being adopted by people who discriminate. Do you honestly think these people will treat a gay child equally? I don't have any faith that they would.

Like a few others have said 'there's no need to be teaching children about sex at all not until they reach a certain age'.... i agree as there's no need for it.... they even teach in pre-school now, whats that about?

Let the children be children.... let couples adopt.... see how they do, monitor them and if things arent turning out, you take the child away....

Another point is why do couples need to be Pro-Gay? Not everyone on the planet needs to be Pro-Gay.... entitlement of opinion is very much an entitlement as far as i know. They would only be teaching the child that Male and Female were meant to be together....

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


I completely agree with you, kids are being exposed to this kind of stuff now at far too young an age.

reply to post by texastig

That's hogwash dude. Do you think I'm stupid? A man and a man cannot bear a child from a womb cause they don't have one. A woman needs a man to have a child. I really thought you were smart, because you took a biology class in school.

Welcome to 2011 my friend you obviously stayed indoors while humanity has been evolving -



So long as people are prepared to pay science will find a way , I did not at any time mention anything about births from a womb in a man. Needless to say that the doors of possibility are opening wider by the day and you may well be posting on a thread discussing this very thing in the not too distant future.

Just because you limit yourself with your bronze age way of thinking please don't drag the rest of us back with you, keep it to yourself let the rest of us reach for the stars.

Originally posted by EnigmaticDill
reply to post by The Djin

 

God never put it in anyone's heart to kill unless it was necessary to fulfill a purpose. Righteous without blemish and its quite literal.

Man because of pursuing after their own righteousness and lusts, kill.


Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.
Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

Now that to me sounds as though following after ideals and leaders in an earthly sense.

To quote what I said earlier -

spouting meaningless biblical sounding drivel does not in anyway impress me but only raise my gorge further in sight of your lack of reason.

reply to post by Annee

It really amazes me that Christians - - - are so in denial that they pick and choose from the bible - - especially Leviticus. And when ever you present Leviticus to them - - and show them - - they either avoid answering or come up with some completely ridiculous excuse.

I believe this form of retardation is politely know as "learning disability ", there seems to be a loop in certain types of brain that bypass the faculties of reason and logic, not unlike connecting via tube ones butt to ones mouth. A concentrated form of sustenance for a while but inevitably ends up with the death of the organism through self poisoning.

Ugh

reply to post by C21H30O2I

If I, were the social worker, first question I would ask... Do you believe in the bible and practice what it says? Yes.. DENIED!!!!

Occams' Razor -

reply to post by Frontkjemper

It's not for me, I don't believe in it. So why force me?

No one is forcing you to believe anything you are however asked to keep your nose out of other peoples sexual preferences.

If you happen to accept the ideologies of a character in a book which explicitly states that homosexuals should be killed, then I would not leave my child in your care.

If you also happen to wear a frock and give your self a title like Father or Monseigneur then I would sooner have the Kray twins babysit my kids.