No same-sex hugs allowed

[Eliyyahu]

Hwi,

I have read through the whole book of Acts on more than one occasion, and the impression I get is that the actual followers of Jesus both during his life and following were given no indication by Jesus of any change in obligation to Jewish law.  They are instead presented as being informed of such changes in visions after the Jesus they knew, traveled with, and learned from had been executed, with the help of people like Paul, who never knew the Jesus they spent years with, and whose conversion and concepts of Jesus came through visions.

Regarding Jews and gentiles, Judaism is said to have been popular throughout the Roman empire (I have read that 10% of the Roman Empire at one point were Jews or non-Jews who attached themselves to the Jews and followed the God of Israel), but non-Jews were not required to convert to Judaism to follow the God of Israel.

A non-Jew could commit themselves to following those sets of laws considered to apply to non-Jews (pretty much identical to those laid out by James in Acts for gentile believers), could attend and be a part of the Beit Knesset (synagogue in Greek), etc. without circumcision, or Shabbat observance, or the other things which are explicitly required of a Jew.  There are even inscriptions from

[ErasOmnius]

Eras:

What, you mean, just like you? Since when did Fed2k become populated by the faith Gestapo? Do any of you know how offensive this entire thread has been to the common sensibilities of human flipping beings? So, let me get this straight. You all start talking about how homosexuals are abominable snowmen. We flip out.

No, what you're really upset is the level of education and ability to refute a great deal of what is said about homosexuality.

Wolf, we all like Dune, for various reasons. Do you think that Frank Herbert would have handed back money and dollars from people such as myself and Hwi who bought his 6-book series? The answer is no.

I like DUNE because it is the writing I have ever read. Frank's ability to bring out nuance through simple phrases and sentences is a gift and a wondrous thing. Do I like every exposition that he came up with? No, there are some ideas that I inherently dislike, such as the necessity to sterilize worlds in the Jihad.

But we are all good thinkers, and have a lot of good ideas. I appreciate Anathema on a different thread showing me that Paul never specifically wrote about democracy. Anathema's right. I'm wrong.

But some of the ideas that are said here need to be directly addressed.

1. That any of the [so-called] Gnostic Gospels approved of homosexuality.

2. That any Roman or ancient text approved of homosexuality. In many Greek, Phoenician, and Roman areas, was it tolerated on a 'look the other way' mentality -- sure.

3. The West of the 21st Century is the first society EVER to try to codify laws to legalize and approve of homosexuality.

You proffer highly debatable and questionable scriptural standards, even though scripture is inconsistent, and none of you are religious scholars, theologians or translators by any stretch of the imagination. When we challenge you on those interpretations, you basically do everything you can to call us "false X" (X can stand for Christian, Jew, Sikh, whatever the person who happens to be challenging you is). Why do you care where he's coming from? So you can sneakily insinuate that he's a "false Jew?" Who gave you that authority? I thought it was God's alone.

Names are called. People are looked down on, etc. First of all, this is most un-Christian-like character on anyone's behalf. Second, if I believe that a particular behavior is wrong, and their no racial, religious, or ethnic bias on my part, I should be able to post without near-harassment. But I have not whined or complained in the least.

Some people are just really bothered by me, and that's sad.

Myself and others are the ones there when male homosexuals want to change. Myself and others are there when someone needs a roof over their head, or needs to escape from an abusive spouse, or free medical help.

I do not want to get involved with politics. Changing the laws will do no good, unless the person wants to change. I do not choose to get involved in restricting people's so-called rights, it does no good.

The Created World and its' Natural Law, will sadly, eliminate those who stray too far. How many male homosexuals have to die from AIDS [they are approx 2% of the population, but over a 1/3 of the deaths], before other so-called Christians care enough to say, there is a better way? 

[Acriku]

Eras, if the spread of AIDS was effectively eliminated from the homosexual population would you say that the natural order now accepts homosexuality? You certainly take the presence of AIDS as a testament to the natural order of things, what would you do when there's no more homosexuals going to your clinic?

The more you talk about it, the more you're looking like you are the cure to homosexuality as getting rid of chicken livestock is the cure to salmonella. It's just not going to fix the problem. AIDS stems from ignorance and carelessness, not sexual orientation. And converting homosexuals to heterosexuals doesn't eliminate AIDS either.

[Wolf]

Eras:

I'm afraid that I am unable to understand the vast majority of your post. However, from what I can parse, I think this is worth noting ...

No, what you're really upset is the level of education and ability to refute a great deal of what is said about homosexuality.

... as a statement whose conclusion violates its premise. You know, like, "everything I say is a lie." Eras, I can't be upset "is the level of education and ability to refute" when your posts reveal vast gulfs of ignorance and you and Hwi ignore virtually every salient objection to your statements. I'm not really upset at you--you seem to keep thinking that I am despite my repeated assurances that you haven't upset me. It's more astonishment, really. Shock.

You brought up a discussion with Anathema where you're apparently willing to admit you were wrong? Well, do me a favor:

1. Admit you are wrong and/or misrepresented general demographic trends and health risks associated with homosexual behavior;

2. Admit that the Bible, if all passages are taken literally, is internally inconsistent;

3. Admit that you make your own internal judgments regarding which parts to follow, and which parts not to;

4. Admit that this isn't actually wrong, but is necessary for humans both to understand scripture and to accept responsibility for their views;

5. Admit that you have, in fact, "name called" and complained about name-calling despite your last post to the contrary: even insinuating that I'm a "false Christian" or that Eliyyahu is a "false Jew" is an insult of the highest order, and is inherently un-Christian;

6. Admit that you can barely speak your own language;

7. Commit Japanese ritual suicide. Your bushido demands it.

Now, normally, I don't really demand that people get up and "admit" that they were wrong. But if you're apparently willing to do it for Anathema, then I'd like you to do it here.

Finally, this discussion has nothing to do with Dune by Frank Herbert. Sure, this is a Dune forum, but bringing up the book in the way you have just seems like an expression of your confusion and sadness. I'm sorry that you are confused and sad. Embrace people for who they are; it might make you feel a lot better.

And because I take pity on you, I will address what you seem to think are three worthwhile points.

1. I brought up the Gnostic gospels as an example where the Church as an institution edited or redacted (i.e. chose) to accept different interpretations of "God's word" despite Jesus' long absence and silence on those issues. If you don't understand that how undermines your entire position, stop posting. Whether or not they discussed homosexuality doesn't actually matter, does it?

2. You seem to admit that homosexuality was tolerated in the ancient Mediterranian world. You wonder why it wasn't codified. Perhaps it was so accepted that they never felt the need? We don't have "the right to breathe oxygen" in the Constitution, because we all take it for granted. If you acknowledge that it was tolerated, but no laws were ever written codifying it, well, then that's hardly conclusive, isn't it?

3. The 21st century West is the first society ever to codify laws approving of homosexual behavior? Formalized Samurai "brotherhood contracts" permitting veterans to take initiates as lovers until their majority seems to count as a legal document, don't you think? Again, it is not your "level of eduction" that offends; it's the precise lack thereof.

[arnoldo]

1. I brought up the Gnostic gospels as an example where the Church as an institution edited or redacted (i.e. chose) to accept different interpretations of "God's word" despite Jesus' long absence and silence on those issues. If you don't understand that how undermines your entire position, stop posting.

The following website is an excellent site for Early Christian Writings. The fact that the Church as an institution (after Constantine) consolidated some of these writings to form what is currently know as the New Testament is not a stunning revelation. 

Whether or not they discussed homosexuality doesn't actually matter, does it?

FWIW The Epistle of Barnabas mentions this issue. . 

Barnabas 10:6

Moreover thou shalt not eat the hare. Why so? Thou shalt not be

found a corrupter of boys, nor shalt thou become like such persons;

for the hare gaineth one passage in the body every year; for

according to the number of years it lives it has just so many

orifices.

[athanasios]

Interpretations such as "hate X group of people" are inconsistent with the holistic truth of God's Word. (Which I think is pretty accurately boiled down to "love.")

Don't distort our words. We do not hate X group of people but their wicked acts. We love all people and wish them to repent. If they don't it is not on us to force them to, They are free agents and can do whatever they like. But we cannot tolerate those contaminating the faithful. We have to protect the flock.

It's also historically inaccurate, too. The Bible didn't exist when Christ and his followers were alive. Some wrote notes, others wrote letters, but these were collected, translated, and expanded by others decades or centuries later. Numerous church councils reviewed these writings, deleted some, added others, altered the phrasing of yet more. In any case, it's wrong to say that the Bible as you know it is equivalent to what Christ and his disciplies "believed and taught."

Do you have proof for all this nonsense?

On the contrary, there exist so many manuscripts of the early centuries that suffice to prove that the Bible IS accurate. Spurious texts and additions as you claim are known and have been removed from the text. But even without those early manuscripts those additions were easy to understand that they didn't belong to the Bible because they contradicted the rest of the text and were outrageous attempts to promote false religious teachings such as the Trinity, which is a pagan concept. 'YHWH is One YHWH'. Am I right Eliyyahu?

But I suspect your aim is to question the validity of the Bible in order to support that homosexuals were not condemned by Jesus or the first century congregation...

Now regarding Gnostic writings, LOL, these are only printed to make money. Who can take them seriously? As I already stated you can find more accurate history in Zecharia Sitchin's works than in those.

[Wolf]

But we cannot tolerate those contaminating the faithful. We have to protect the flock.

A failure to tolerate can be legally equivalent to hate, especially if it results in aggressive or violent repression of the targeted class. Your use of "contaminate," in any case, highly undermines your position that you "love" all people. Any one else see this?

Do you have proof for all this nonsense?

Arnoldo confirmed it. And it's not nonsense: it's history. The New Testament as you know it is a highly edited version of many ancient texts. Indeed, the number of texts that the emerging Church did not approve of far outnumber the ones which it did.

Furthermore, I think you are all being quite small-minded. I'm not questioning the "validity" of the Bible: I'm questioning the validity of your interpretation of the Bible. There's a difference. There's nothing wrong with the fact that the Bible was edited, or that the Church edited some segments and changed others, that happens. The Bible was not written by God, it was written by people. But just because that's true doesn't mean that there isn't divine inspiration in the book, nor does it mean that all of Christianity is a sham. But, the truth is that it's possible--even likely--that early Christians probably discarded some of the divinely inspired words of Jesus' twelve disciples (yes, tell me why only 33% of them got a say, in the end?) for a world view that suited their own. They made an interpretative choice; and you all are making an interpretative choice now. If you can't see that, or can't accept it, then that's a problem with you, not the Bible. Thinking that it's a problem with the Bible... well, is immature, and is indicative of your inability to conceive of greater things. Again, I'm not casting doubt about God, I'm casting doubt about your blind faith in a book. The only thing that makes you a Christian is accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior.

EDIT: This is an interesting piece that discusses how to interpret the Bible. It also points out--which I agree with--that there are no explicit references to homosexuality in the Four Gospels, and that an argument from silence is hardly conclusive. Furthermore, it discusses the possibility that sexuality was possibly irrelevent to Christ's teachings. This would include all forms of sexuality.

[chatfsh]

Wolf consistently overlooks the glaring fact that Christ himself taught that marriage is the union between male and female.  And that Christ explicitly condemned any sexual relations that took place outside of that marital arrangement.  These are indisputable facts.  Therefore, it wasn't necessary for Jesus to say, "By the way, in case it wasn't abundantly clear,  sexual immorality includes premarital sex, sex with animals, sex with your children and homosexual sex."  All Jews knew that this was a given.

But stand back and behold as the Amazing Wolfini bends and twists the scriptures into something no earnest Christian would recognize!

[MrFlibble]

But stand back and behold as the Amazing Wolfini bends and twists the scriptures into something no earnest Christian would recognize!

May I ask if an earnest Christian recognizes this:

Spurious texts and additions as you claim are known and have been removed from the text. But even without those early manuscripts those additions were easy to understand that they didn't belong to the Bible because they contradicted the rest of the text and were outrageous attempts to promote false religious teachings such as the Trinity, which is a pagan concept.

Because I've always been under the impression that Trinity is one of the key Christian doctrines ???

Oh, and Hwi, I cannot but notice that the choice of words in your post I quoted above allows for an implicit accusation of Wolf not being "earnest"... You seem not to mind that claims like this have already greatly upset Wolf, to say the least. I'm in no position to judge anyone, but I feel sad that you have to throw serious insults at each other just to prove a point. Besides, it should be noted that attempts at discrediting an opponent in an argument are generally considered mauvais ton.

[Wolf]

Well, what's also irritating is the blatant mischaracterization of my allegedly "twisting" the Bible. There's no such twisting going on here. If you want me actively to pull passages and dissect their meaning out of context (like some people on this forum), I will. But the thrust of my argument has very little to do with the Bible and everything to do with assaulting interpretations of the Bible that I think are wrong. There is a vast difference. It might not be readily understood by the opposition.

EDIT: Also, Hwi's an idiot. Look at her last post, she's basically saying: "Christ explicitly condemned homosexuality! That's why he didn't need to say anything about it!" Furthermore, she treats sex-outside-of-marriage as an equal concept with homosexuality. If that's not "blatant twisting," then I don't know what is!

I mean, do I even need to say anything?

[Edric O]

Because I've always been under the impression that Trinity is one of the key Christian doctrines ???

It is. The doctrine of the Trinity was confirmed as a core element of Christianity at the very first Ecumenical Council - the one that condemned the Arian heresy.

Therefore, I believe that our dear athanasios is officially a heretic.

[MrFlibble]

Also, Hwi's an idiot. Look at her last post, she's basically saying: "Christ explicitly condemned homosexuality! That's why he didn't need to say anything about it!" Furthermore, she treats sex-outside-of-marriage as an equal concept with homosexuality. If that's not "blatant twisting," then I don't know what is!

Well, to be fair, Hwi's exact words were

And that Christ explicitly condemned any sexual relations that took place outside of that marital arrangement.  These are indisputable facts.  Therefore, it wasn't necessary for Jesus to say, "By the way, in case it wasn't abundantly clear,  sexual immorality includes premarital sex, sex with animals, sex with your children and homosexual sex."  All Jews knew that this was a given.

And although I do not think the inference is as obvious as Hwi presents it, there's no glaring contradiction either.

[Wolf]

Flibble: The problem, I think, is that the inference only follows if one assumes from the outset that Hwi's interpretation is right. This entire time, her conclusion has merely followed from the assumption of her premise--she's never proved it. There is sufficient ambiguity and room for interpretation re. the passages in the New Testament that deal with sexuality. She's refused to engage in an honest debate about them because;

1. She didn't live in the first century, A.D.;

2. She can't square the passages with other portions of the New Testament that seem to contradict them;

3. She can't account for the damage done by translation differences;

4. She's not a cultural scholar and can only make assumptions as to what text might mean in its original context;

5. She refuses to take the Bible as anything but the literal "Word of God." We should ask her about how old the Earth is.

So, until that happens, a blatant contradiction does exist--she just refuses to admit it. And I wouldn't entertain her by letting her think that her assumptions are prima facie valid.

EDIT: And furthermore... I really want to know what Hwi's stake in this all is. I mean, I'm here because I think this entire thread has been offensive to modern notions of social justice and that Christianity--if it wants to survive another century--needs to adapt to these notions now as they've adapted to other notions in the past. (Remember the Arians, anyone?) What was pure Pauline prejudice should not be allowed to tarnish what is a valuable and enlightening religious faith.

So, Hwi, what is your stake? Hm? What homosexual wronged you so severely that you feel the need to attack this issue so uncompromisingly? I've honestly never seen you fight harder. What, some gay person spurn you or almost screw up a marriage or something?

[SandChigger]

Here I decided last week to avoid this place, but I just can't help rubbernecking this train wreck! :D

at the very first Ecumenical Council

That's the one where they made the Orange Catholic Bible, right?! :P

First Council of Nicaea, 325 CE, yes? A couple centuries after Yeshua and even The Heresiarch were long gone and dust.

Therefore, I believe that our dear athanasios is officially a heretic.

You're all quasi-Jewish heretics and followers of a mystery religion. Deal with it. :)

So, Hwi, what is your stake? Hm? What homosexual wronged you so severely that you feel the need to attack this issue so uncompromisingly? I've honestly never seen you fight harder. What, some gay person spurn you or almost screw up a marriage or something?

Now THAT would be truly amusing if it's true.

Onward Christian Paulian soldiers!

[Edric O]

First Council of Nicaea, 325 CE, yes? A couple centuries after Yeshua and even The Heresiarch were long gone and dust.

Yup, that's the one. Orthodox and Catholic Christians (which together form the majority of Christians worldwide) agree that the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are as much a part of Christian doctrine as the Bible itself.

After all, as has been pointed out several times in this thread alone, the early Church wrote the New Testament, and the somewhat-later Church decided which writings count as Biblical canon and which count as fan fiction.

Since the Christian Bible is a creation of the Church during the first few centuries of its existence, the decisions of the Church at that time - especially the Ecumenical Councils - must carry at least as much authority as the Bible itself. They are, essentially, the decisions of the Bible's authors. And therefore Word of God (both figuratively and literally).

[Acriku]

Were the councilmen inspired and visited by God to accept or deny the books as much as the writers were in writing them?

[Edric O]

Were the councilmen inspired and visited by God to accept or deny the books as much as the writers were in writing them?

Actually, the composition of the Bible was decided long before the Councils. It's not really clear how, but we know that by the end of the 2nd century the majority of Christians used a New Testament composed of the same books as today. Therefore, the composition of the Bible was set by tradition, not by any recorded decision. The New Testament we use is the one that Christians used as far back as our records go.

So we believe that God arranged things in such a way that the correct books ended up in the Bible. After all, if God went to the trouble of guiding and inspiring people to write holy texts, it makes sense that He would have also ensured those texts - and not others - made it into the Bible. It would be absurd for God to inspire holy texts and then not care what happened to them.

The recorded decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are concerned with very few and very specific matters of doctrine. For example, the main job of the First Council (Nicaea, AD 325) was to decide between these two positions:

1. Christ is co-eternal with God the Father; He is God and He always existed.

2. Christ did not always exist, but He is the first and greatest creation of God the Father; Christ was made before the universe and before anything else, and He is greater than angels or humans.

In other words, the question was whether Jesus was God (#1), or very-close-to-God-but-not-quite-God (#2). By an overwhelming vote, the Council endorsed position #1, and position #2 (Arianism, named after Bishop Arius of Antioch, one of only two bishops to vote for it at the Council) was condemned as heresy.

And this was considered a really huge controversy at the time. The subsequent Councils split much narrower hairs.

[arnoldo]

Were the councilmen inspired and visited by God to accept or deny the books as much as the writers were in writing them?

Constantine's conversion to Christianity undoubtedly had a great impact upon Christianity as we know it.  Before him christians were alternately tolerated or persecuted throughout the Roman Empire.  Politically, Constantine may've hoped to bring the Roman Empire under the banner of christianity to help him solidify his power as Emperor.  Constantine did not tolerate that there were great schisms with his new faith and sought to unite this religion.  The issue of accepting/denying books was not some much an issue as settling theologically the nature of Christ.  Primarily this council sought to extinguish the Arian heresy.  Of course this council failed in defeating this alleged heresy and soon most of the so called barbarian which would soon trample upon the former territories of Rome would adhere to this Arianism.  The Emperor Julian, who succeeded Constantine, sought to bring the Roman Empire back to it's pagan roots.  Julian's strategy was in part to bring back the Arians and other heretics Constantine banished back to power.  In addition Julian sought to rebuild to Jewish Temple which, if successful, would undermine the idea of the church replacing Israel eschatologically.  Julian in turn failed to wipe out christianity and by this time the four gospels, paul's letters, along with Peter,James,John's letters/writings were generally accepted as canon.  Gnostics also wrote a tremendous amount of neo-platonic esoterical writings primarily in the city of Alexandria, Egypt. 

[Wolf]

Edric, I cannot disagree with your history, but I still feel it is valuable to point out that there is much room for interpretation and error--even in the books that God may have guided to fruition in the New Testament. And ultimately, regardless of what God may have desired, if we believe that humans have any free will at all, and are imperfect and fallable, then there always remains the possibility that either not all of what God wanted is in the Good Book, or perhaps something more than God wanted is in there.

PS: Damn your clarity and reason!  :P

[ErasOmnius]

Actually, the composition of the Bible was decided long before the Councils. It's not really clear how, but we know that by the end of the 2nd century the majority of Christians used a New Testament composed of the same books as today. Therefore, the composition of the Bible was set by tradition, not by any recorded decision. The New Testament we use is the one that Christians used as far back as our records go.

So we believe that God arranged things in such a way that the correct books ended up in the Bible. After all, if God went to the trouble of guiding and inspiring people to write holy texts, it makes sense that He would have also ensured those texts - and not others - made it into the Bible. It would be absurd for God to inspire holy texts and then not care what happened to them.

The recorded decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are concerned with very few and very specific matters of doctrine. For example, the main job of the First Council (Nicaea, AD 325) was to decide between these two positions:

1. Christ is co-eternal with God the Father; He is God and He always existed.

2. Christ did not always exist, but He is the first and greatest creation of God the Father; Christ was made before the universe and before anything else, and He is greater than angels or humans.

In other words, the question was whether Jesus was God (#1), or very-close-to-God-but-not-quite-God (#2). By an overwhelming vote, the Council endorsed position #1, and position #2 (Arianism, named after Bishop Arius of Antioch, one of only two bishops to vote for it at the Council) was condemned as heresy.

And this was considered a really huge controversy at the time. The subsequent Councils split much narrower hairs.

And here comes ol' ErasOm to ask:

Edric, you began the whole thread. Where do you stand on male/male intercourse?

[Lord J]

Texas Republicans to re-criminalize sodomy. Before the 1980's ruling, sodomy was punishable by 5-15 years in prison. God bless Texas [/sarcasm].

May I ask if an earnest Christian recognizes this:Because I've always been under the impression that Trinity is one of the key Christian doctrines ???

I was actually raised "oneness" pentecostal, a literalist doctrine that uses the Acts 4:12 passage:

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Basically, they baptize only in "Jesus'" name, asserting that Jesus was the Father and the Holy Ghost, as these are aspects of his character. This is also the type of church that doesn't allow women to cut their hair, or wear pants, makeup, or jewelry; and I've actually heard sermons preached against television, the internet, shirt sleeves above one's elbow, and Christmas trees.

Also, I don't know if it has been posted yet, but here's an interesting video I saw a few weeks ago on Hulu regarding the gay legislation in Uganda. Check it out.

Yes, I've been stocking a response to this thread for a while. As the heterosexual, happily married, agnostic (very closely bordering on atheistic) son of a lesbian and a gay man, I have STRONG opinions.

[Wolf]

Also, I had intended to do this for some time, but I forgot.

Galatians 5:14 (King James Version): "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

In other words, to Hwi's baseless and un-Christian assertion that Christianity is not "all" about love, scripture indicates otherwise. "For this is the whole of the law." I believe that any interpretation of scripture that leads to a condemnation of homosexuality is inconsistent with this, and ought to be discarded in favor of the unquestionable commandment that we are to love one another. You can call that "twisting" scripture: but when you are accusing someone whose entire point is that Christianity is about love, and love alone of "twisting" the scripture... well, then I think you ought to look in the mirror.

[Dante]

And here comes ol' ErasOm to ask:

Edric, you began the whole thread. Where do you stand on male/male intercourse?

And here's Dante, repeating himself as per usual.

1) Intercourse is not the same as orientation, and it was Edric who first clarified that.

2) How do you feel about female/female intercourse, Eras? All this attention to one particular aspect looks very much like... obsession.

[athanasios]

Heretics are the ones who accept the decisions First Council of Nicaea. YHWH is one. No place for Trinity.

Did anyone of you bother to check how many voted in that council, and under what circumstances?

From when is supposed the MINORITY under the THREAT of a PAGAN 'DICTATOR' to decide for the majority?

-

Apocrypha and their nonsense content that invalidates them? But some people here want to burn alive KJA and BH! ::)

[SandChigger]

But some people here want to burn alive KJA and BH! ::)

Really? And who might that be, pray tell? I personally wouldn't even burn their books, let alone propose physical violence against their persons. I can't recall ever seeing anyone here seriously suggest anything like that; do you have a link? Or maybe you misread something? (Google translate is NOT your friend, remember!) You would seem to be the person who goes on most about killing others around here, oddly enough.

(I will have to admit that I do say a little prayer every morning when I rise, that your omnipotent God will find it within His Divine Providence to drop a smallish space rock on Kevin J. Anderson's purdy bald head and thus end his writing career. On the day THAT happens I will of course repent and join you lovely people in becoming a faithful, if rather pent-up, "Paulian". ;D )

(Oh, btw, in the other thread when I suggested you PM me, I was joking. But here's a big brown eye winky-winky back at ya! ;) )