Homosexual Books for First Graders

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Rambunctious: I doubt over thousands of years after the event with the reasons that people would remember with any particular strong feelings what the ravens did. Could you please give me some examples where the Bible refers to ravens as dark or evil?

People have strong feelings that some animals are 'always helpful' and some believe some animals are just plain evil because of myths and legends.

I never said it was in the Bible. I just pointed out that some Christians believe ravens are associated with death. There's a difference like though I may believe that 'the great black dog that haunts graveyards' means death, doesn't mean that it's written in the Bible that this creature means death (and I highly doubt this creature is in the Bible).

See? Camels rebelling may be a just a basic characteristic in general. When that camel rebels when in control of the people, it may be seeing if the people will prove their superiority over it or not. Not doing so may result in further refusal to carry out commands in the future.

I love the 'may' part. Though it is a nice theory, then why do camels who have never done this before just go ahead and do it? Some camels only do it twice and some do it continuously.

The fact is that they are thinking, and thinking is the way you are classifying animals and humankind.

Being born a psychic is questionable indeed. I still have a few psychic experiences myself, but I do not practice in bringing them forth anymore. Having these experiences does not necessarily mean practicing them.

Though people who do have them can practice and be condemned for practicing something great. Joan of Arc was condemned for witchcraft though she said she could talk to God. Which is true then, that witchcraft is against the Bible so we should condemn all who have 'supernatural experiences' or that supernatural experiences are life and thusly must be dealt with like anything else, with tolerance?

It's not up to you to change them. If they refuse, then it's not your fault, but theirs.

It may not be my place to change them but then who's place is it? Psychologists can only go so far like priests without having stuff being shoved down the person's throat. But yes, if they kill themselves when you've tried to reason with them, it's not your fault. It's basically not anyone's fault actually. Not changing from what your idea of what is right is not anybody's fault. Because it is someone else's idea of what they should be instead of what they choose to be is more of being dominant over that person. If they're a killer then report it to the police, let them deal with it.

Rei Zero failed to see my whole point out of his/her ignorance. Animals do not have as advanced minds as us and do not have conciousness to see right or wrong as we do.

They see right or wrong, just not as extreme as us. They know when to go after something, just like us. They think about what will happen if they chase after a full grown, male buffalo than if they go after an old, about to die buffalo. Which is more reasonable and how will I come out? Fact is, we don't think of this as thinking though it is, it's rational thinking. They learn what happens if they go after a full grown elephant. So they don't do it again. If they go after an elephant that is young and alone, they know they will have a better chance of taking it down.

They take consquences and remember past experiences, just like all humans.

Already explained the carbon dating thing.

Like you said, some people refuse to become heterosexual. If they don't think it's wrong, they won't try and change. Others do think it's wrong and have changed. You also don't exactly have to know the source of the problem to change it, meaning the homosexual does not have to know what caused homosexuality in order to change.

Yes you do.

For example, some person can claim they are homosexual because of being molested. The psychologists fixes it and voila!

Then, there's the person who doesn't say anything and doesn't know why they are homosexual. The psychologist has to dig before he/she can do any improvement. Without finding the problem first off, you have only a small, general way of curing it. This does not mean it will last forever as many can remember past experiences and revert back.

Does all that make them right? Does all that make them unsalvagable?

The refusal of one to change is not your fault nor does it mean that it is physically impossible to change.

It makes them right in their sense, like loving my mother and father is right in my sense. Being right in one's sense is enough to keep them going. If their views on the world are shot down by someone, what would they do? What would you do? You would fight the change, just like that person until they are forced to believe that it's right.

Physical change is almost impossible without lots of money. To change physically deals with the body, not the mind.

Second: I doubt the very first people (Adam and Eve) would have already labeled God's creatures as people have today. Satan's incarnation as the serpent is very likely what gave snakes the image they have today.

They called them the different names. We have universal names for all of them and have related them to what the first people have "made" them to be.

I don't believe that I ever specified how sexual abuse caused people to become homosexual.

It says it in all the changing sites you gave us as evidence and we've been arguing over that for a while now...