No same-sex hugs allowed

[SandChigger]

And since you mentioned it those creative days are of unknown length. They are not 24 hour days.

REALLY? And this you know from your extensive knowledge of HebrewGreek, I suppose?

;D

[Wolf]

Athanasios: This article outlines the calculation of the age of the Earth based on statements made in the Bible.

Maybe you should read the Bible and not sling insults? Did you not ever notice that all of the ages of the descendants of Adam are given? Did you ever take any class in elementary math or logic? Using deduction, or reason through inference, we may deduce the age of the Earth as according to the Bible.

You and ErasOmnius need to stop wasting my time.

EDIT: Chigger, any idiot would know that the word "day" as used in the Bible--from the Hebrew "day" meaning "a period of time equal in length to 24 hours or one rotation of the planet Earth, or Sol III"--means literal days and doesn't refer metaphorically to any deeper meaning. God, Chigger! You're such a moron! And not even a Christian! And going to Hell! You have to stop ignoring the obvious meaning of the Bible!

Wanna weigh in, Hwi? You love to speak for God. How old is the Earth? Tell me, does your knee hurt?

[ErasOmnius]

Athanasios: This article outlines the calculation of the age of the Earth based on statements made in the Bible.

Maybe you should read the Bible and not sling insults? Did you not ever notice that all of the ages of the descendants of Adam are given? Did you ever take any class in elementary math or logic? Using deduction, or reason through inference, we may deduce the age of the Earth as according to the Bible.

You and ErasOmnius need to stop wasting my time.

I am not wasting your time. What do you do, pull my name out as a bogeyman? I have approached everything everyone has on here with logic and with no name calling.

The Book clearly says the Earth is about 6000 years old.

[Wolf]

Haha, sorry, ErasOmnius--your pattern of posts led me to believe that you were going to try the same nonsense with me. I suppose I just assumed it.

But to continue this object lesson in having your own inconsistent reasoning thrown back at you...

...tell me--you say 6,000 years, Anathasios says 4,000,000,000 years. What tremendous difference! Are you sure you both read the same Bible? Maybe one of you isn't really a Christian! (gasps)

EDIT: Erasmus, you also keep bringing up HIV. Dante's right on this point, however, you continue to argue--I think--because you have incorrect figures.

And when the condom breaks. Then what? Then what? HIV? What kind of odds are those?

Just as you did with immigration into the United States and U.S. racial and ethnic demographics, you labor under a false assumption. This is upsetting, because you claim to work for some sort of "shelter," and you of all people should know. They must be very short of volunteers. Here are the "odds" of contracting HIV (I have even taken the trouble to rank them, Wiki did not bother):

Blood transfusion: 90% (9,000 infections per 10,000 exposures)

Childbirth: 25%

Receptive anal intercourse (*2009 and 2010 studies): 1.7% / 1.43%

Needle-sharing injection drug use: 0.67%

Insertive anal intercourse for uncircumcised men (*2010 study): 0.62%

Receptive anal intercourse (*1992 study): 0.5%

Low-income country female-to-male intercourse: 0.38%

Low-income country male-to-female: 0.3%

Percutaneous needle stick: 0.3%

Insertive anal intercourse for circumcised men (*2010 study): 0.11%

Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse: 0.1%

Insertive anal intercourse for circumcised men (*1992 study): 0.065%

Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse: 0.05%

Receptive oral intercourse: 0.01%

Insertive oral intercourse: 0.005%

All figures assume no condom use. Based on your logic, blood transfusions, human childbirth, and percutaneous needle use should all be regarded as "sins" and outlawed before homosexual sodomy.

[SandChigger]

EDIT: Chigger, any idiot would know that the word "day" as used in the Bible--from the Hebrew "day" meaning "a period of time equal in length to 24 hours or one rotation of the planet Earth, or Sol III"--means literal days and doesn't refer metaphorically to any deeper meaning. God, Chigger! You're such a moron! And not even a Christian! And going to Hell! You have to stop ignoring the obvious meaning of the Bible!

Well, WoofWoof, I will have you know that I am not just ANY idiot! ;D

(From what I hear, I'm pretty sure Hwi would be down with banning blood transfusions, too! Back to the Middle Ages now, BACK!)

[ErasOmnius]

EDIT: Erasmus, you also keep bringing up HIV. Dante's right on this point, however, you continue to argue--I think--because you have incorrect figures.

Just as you did with immigration into the United States and U.S. racial and ethnic demographics, you labor under a false assumption. This is upsetting, because you claim to work for some sort of "shelter," and you of all people should know. They must be very short of volunteers. Here are the "odds" of contracting HIV (I have even taken the trouble to rank them, Wiki did not bother):

Blood transfusion: 90% (9,000 infections per 10,000 exposures)

Childbirth: 25%

Receptive anal intercourse (*2009 and 2010 studies): 1.7% / 1.43%

Needle-sharing injection drug use: 0.67%

Insertive anal intercourse for uncircumcised men (*2010 study): 0.62%

Receptive anal intercourse (*1992 study): 0.5%

Low-income country female-to-male intercourse: 0.38%

Low-income country male-to-female: 0.3%

Percutaneous needle stick: 0.3%

Insertive anal intercourse for circumcised men (*2010 study): 0.11%

Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse: 0.1%

Insertive anal intercourse for circumcised men (*1992 study): 0.065%

Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse: 0.05%

Receptive oral intercourse: 0.01%

Insertive oral intercourse: 0.005%

All figures assume no condom use. Based on your logic, blood transfusions, human childbirth, and percutaneous needle use should all be regarded as "sins" and outlawed before homosexual sodomy.

Not sure where you got this study... I don't agree with the percentages, although the rankings seem somewhat accurate; although the top two seemed very skewed.

I should have clarified myself. Male/Male intercourse has the highest sexual rate of transmission, and definitely higher than male/female.

From what I have observed, being in an urban setting, HIV is transmitted probably the highest through drug addict needle-sharing.

So Wolf, is your Good News an attempt to get those who believe in a traditional way of interpreting the Book; to change and believe in your all-encompassing, pluralist, way of looking, at the First and Second Covenant [Old and New Testament]?

So, if a young male or female homosexual wants to change from that life-style, could he or she turn to your interpretation of the Book, and see the ability to change in there?

[Dante]

No what I'm saying is that if people actually came out and said what they believe. Emoted it, said it, like I do, then change might happen. What you don't like is that myself, and perhaps Hwi, would like to ask you if you would like to change.

You don't know it, but that's really funny.

You're not emoting, you're not being clear, and everyone else is not concealing their beliefs. Again, with the possible exceeption of SandChigger.

No, I don't want to change. And I resent the suggestion. Indeed, it's rather insulting. But then, that's the point, isn't it?

I don't have a problem with your forth-rightness, nor your honesty. What I find strange and unusual are people who claim one thing, but believe another.

Really? And to whom is that directed? Is this your idea of being forthright?

Yeah, and they are acting against the Natural Flow of the universe.

That wasn't the point that I was addressing, so well done on dodging that one a third time, but (repetition time) there is no "Natural Flow" and you're a damned idiot.

I understand that some heterosexual people engage in anal intercourse. It's wrong, as well. But heterosexuals have the in-nate natural ability to perform the 'normal' deed of intercourse, which may create another human being.

Ah, so your point is not that anal intercourse is wrong, but that sex should only be undertaken with the express aim of procreation.

With that in mind, how do you feel about

1) infertile couples

2) contraception

3) voluntary infertility (eg. vasectomy)

4) a woman with AIDS who wants to have a child?

And you deserve applaud. That's good.

The word is "applause." And don't patronise me, you leprous little troll.

I can only give advice. As you know, I am not an advocate for any political legislation, etc.

And yet here you are, telling me how to live my life. You missed the point, again.

The Book is God's loving attempt to reach out to a mankind that inherently wants to ignore Him.

Blah blah blah...

This is a DUNE Forum. I have been involved with DUNE since the late 1970s, I know the type of people I am dealing with -- I used to have a solely humanistic philosophy.

Non-sequiter is not the same as reasoned argument... you know that, right?

I don't want to censor you, ban you, or try to force your behavior by any law or legislation; so you should not feel threatened.

Then I suggest you stop criticising me and stop "helping" people to change.

We probably have a different view of celibacy, as does the Orthodox and Catholic Church. They exclude self-gratification, as do I.

If that's your way of asking whether I masterbate then you're being remarkably unsubtle about it. Again, none of your business.

Once again, you deserve applaud for restraining yourself; but, once again, we probably have different definitions for what constitutes behavior.

I'm not restraining myself, you sanctimonious gobshite. I remain single because of a lack of opportunity and a desire to avoid superficial relationships, not because I'm afraid of eternal consequences.

Bingo. Anal Sex is more likely to result in infection. Go to the CDC web-site page, and see how many times more likely to get infection through being a 'receiver' of anal sex. I'm glad we finally agree on something.

No, we don't. Go read what I said again, because I'm running out of adjectives to use on you and I'm saving all the good ones for Hwi. You filth-ridden midden heap of sputum-sodden snotrags.

I said that the greatest factor in whether or not someone catches HIV is whether or not they have unprotected sex with an infected person. That is the salient point here.

Dante, you need to go and volunteer at a free health clinic in a major urban area in the West. Then you will see the sadness of who is coming with STDs, AIDS, and hepatitis. Almost a third are male homosexuals. Do you think I want this to be true?

Then I suggest, in the most unfriendly terms possible, that you start preaching safe sex, not prejudicial anti-gay bullshit. Do I make myself clear?

Until the condom breaks, then your playing VD Roulette.

And you can catch STDs from a vagina as well. Are you saying that nobody should have sex, ever? Good luck convincing people of that.

I work with two [not in a relationship to each other]. Very much into poetry.

Really. Do you cast aspersions on their sexual conduct while they're around, or wait until they're out of earshot first?

No, I'm just trying to participate in a Dune Forum, about the topic of male homosexuality.

No, you aren't. And if it were, it's not what you're supposed to be doing.

You people just don't get it, do you? No matter how many times we say it and how many times it's rephrased, repackaged and turned around in an attempt to jam it sideways into your dense little microcephalic heads, you persist in operating on the assumption that we're all just dying to know about your grubby prejudices. So once again, here's a list of your misconceptions:

1) That the terms "homosexuality" and "anal sex" are synonymous.

2) That there are no female homosexuals, or if there are that they aren't worthy of discussion.

3) That this topic is about homosexuality in general, scripture, or STDs. It's not. It's about the growth of your brand of ignorant hatred in Africa.

4) That your argument is at all consistant or, in nautical terms, seaworthy.

In conclusion, you're dumb. Boy, I'm really running out of epithets, aren't I?

I know, I have a 16 year old daughter. But the point is, heterosexuals can perform it correctly. The number of those performing it correctly in the West may be going downward, but there is the chance of correct-ness. Homosexuals do not have that chance at correct-ness.

Are you trying to misunderstand me? I mean, do you read my arguments and think "Oh, he must have meant something completely different from what he said" or are you just unable to comprehend what I say, so you substitute an idea that you can wrap your tiny brain around?

I was talking about your frankly pathetic delusion that you're somehow being daring by using words like "fetish." Oo, how adventurous! What words are you going to use next? Blowjob? Clitoris? You can't even bring yourself to say "anal" most of the time, your belief that mainstream society is still prudish enough to object to all but the most vulgar of terms is childishly misguided.

And until you answer my points about infertility, contraception et al then I'm not going to bother with your "correct sex" tripe. Way to avoid the point again. Are we noticing a pattern yet?

I didn't discriminate against them. They don't like me, because they know I want them to change.

Contradiction.

You know that I feel that marriage is something between 1 man and 1 woman. What these two men in our neighborhood have, is NOT a marriage. If that is what the definition in the West that Marriage is devolving to, then a new term will be needed, such as Religious Marriage.

My point exactly. Marriage is open to heterosexual couples only, ergo it is discriminatory against homosexual couples. Quod erat demonstratum.

As you know, I always give you the courtesy of responding to your comments and questions -- sadly, you don't like the answers I give.

As I've pointed out several times so far, you and Hwi both ignore points that you can't easily understand or reply to. It doesn't do your side of the argument any favours.

And since I'm a nice sort of person who believes that people should be allowed to live their own lives free of "correction" from others, I don't try to press my worldview on you as you do on me (in case you're curious: your "god" is the result of a two thousand year practical joke, believers who think that they can communicate with him are psychologically disturbed as only people with invisible friends can be, the bible is a rulebook written by bitter old men which itself has been twisted through so many mistranslations and back-translations as to be practically gibberish, the entirity of every religion on the planet is an attempt by confused and frightened people to explain that which they do not know. God is a fluffy pink blanket for the brain, no more). And since I'm not telling you that you should really give up your sordid little exercise in volitional brain damage, I find it rather presumptuous that you think you have the right to tell me to change. And I make up for my disadvantage by dredging up as many elaborate insults as my whims dictate and directing them at you. Not because I think it will help but because you deserve it, you wretched, slime-spewing pustule on the arse of a smelly, scarred, fungal, wig-wearing sow.

And finally...

So, if a young male or female homosexual wants to change from that life-style, could he or she turn to your interpretation of the Book, and see the ability to change in there?

I won't try to speak for Wolf, but if I understand him correctly, his interpretation would argue that there is no need to change. No necessity. Such a desire should not be encouraged or coddled.

And in that we would agree.

[Wolf]

(1)

Ugh, ErasOmnius, your intellectual laziness is stunning. This is fully the fourth time I have had to link to an article to explain the truth: your problem, sir, is that you cannot take anyone who disagrees with you at their word. Well, weep, then, and observe the objective reality as governed by consensus. The article is from Wikipedia, and the percentages are the result of the following studies: Donegan E, Stuart M, Niland JC, et al. (1990). "Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) among recipients of antibody-positive blood donations". Ann. Intern. Med. 113 (10): 733

[Wolf]

Athanasios, you wanna try backing that up? But, may I take that as your admission that you are, in fact, a hypocrite who does not always interpret the Bible according to its literal meaning?

PS: Maybe if you Greeks hadn't invented homosexuality, we wouldn't have to have this argument?

EDIT: And a note on your un-Christian behavior. I wasn't actually insulting Chigger, because my comment was a joke between him and I. When you say, "you are such an idiot," not only are you missing the point of the joke, but you are actually leveling an insult. No. I'm getting tired of posting data, reasoned analysis, and fair treatment of your posts. I've been trying to avoid personal insults, but I guess this entire thread and your entire position on this subject is so inherently offensive to any rational person that I might as well not try. Support your comment about the meaning of the word "day" in the Old Testament, or shut up and go back to your backwards, prejudiced little existence in some European backwater.

[SandChigger]

(I guess deleted posts answer my earlier, deleted question.)

[Wolf]

(I only wish I knew what that answer was.)

[Wolf]

This is a thought-provoking article that I post in response to Hwi's argument that "the God of the Old Testament did terrible things, so God cannot be all about love." It even has Biblical support, which--if I apply the vaunted Hwi Standard of Biblical Literalism--is quite telling:

2 Samuel 24:1 "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah,"

1 Chron. 21:1 "Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel."

Both refer to the same event (where 70,000 people are exterminated). Clearly the obvious meaning is obvious.

Many early Christians actually advocated the position that the Old Testament God could not have been the benevolent godhead of love as revealed in the New Testament, because he went around slaughtering thousands. Interestingly, the response from the ruling church councils at the time was to... slaughter the proponents of these arguments by the thousands.

Seriously, Hwi, the touchstone of religion is faith, which can only be founded on some form of enlightened or transcendent love. Anything that moves you to commit actions in defiance of that love cannot be divine.

And to set Eliyyahu at ease... I would not go so far as to suggest that the creator of the universe is Satan (I believe, logically, that he cannot be), nor do I believe that your faith is at all invalid or misguided--if we are to talk about "Satanic" behavior, there are religions far ahead of Judaism on the list. However, I would go so far as to say that it is possible that other entities (be they angels, men or space aliens) may have impersonated God throughout time for their own reasons. This may not be sufficient to invalidate scripture and doctrine as a whole, but I do think it introduces reasonable doubt as to the validity of some highly problematic segments thereof.

[ErasOmnius]

Well Dante,

Not going to continue to spar with you. You will either be right, or I will be right...one day. I feel sorry for you, I really do. You sound like a nice guy. But you will only find a permanent relationship with a woman.

One of my favorite themes in DUNE, are the themes of: Leto and Jessica. Paul and Chani. Leto II and Hwi. Frank really knew what he was writing.

My views on contraception are thus:

Pure contraception [condoms, barriers]: I really don't have anything against these methods.

Birth control [abortifacients]: They are wrong.

Permanent maiming [vasectomies, etc]: Not against, but probably best not to do.

Abstinence, even in marriage, is best.

[Acriku]

How can you be against homosexuality but not against vasectomies (or other things that deviate from procreation)?

[Wolf]

I feel sorry for you, I really do. You sound like a nice guy. But you will only find a permanent relationship with a woman.

You know what our mistake was, Eras? It was letting you think for even a second that views like this are appropriate. They are not. This entire debate, and the entire position espoused by you, Hwi, and Anathasios is wrong morally, factually and legally. I need not even touch on the notion of religion, for certainly, if what is perceived as religion is out of accord with these principles, then the problem lies not with them. This is the 2010 equivalent of saying that a black person is not a human being, or that Muslims are beasts from Tartary. You mistake this for "name-calling," but it is not. It is for your own good. You display an ugliness so pure that it by definition cannot be personal: "prejudice" is too weak a word, it is corruption straight from the darkest depths of the human soul. It is a form of depravity far worse than anything you have ever imagined in the realm of sexual impropriety. It is a hatred that is so complete that you cannot even for a moment consider that it is evil. You know, I've just had an enlightening moment. Not all hatred--indeed, perhaps not even the worst hatred--is the fuming, foaming, spitting rants and hysterical shrieks that Hwi displays with such alarming regularity. No. The worst hatred is this: the cold, thoughtless, emotionless dehumanization of your fellow man. I hope that you are simply ignorant, merely lacking the opportunity or the capacity to learn of your grave error, as the truth of your Raskolnikovian criminality would threaten to shatter even the hardest of hearts. Indeed, it is the only way that you may be excused, and you may thank God that His love is so total and uncompromising that you may even yet be saved.

[Dante]

Ah, Wolf. Always keeping a cool head. Me, I've been getting fired up of late. There's something soothing in spitting venom. But I appreciate that you're saying the sensible thing. It means that I'm free to be the bad cop.

Eras: I don't want and don't need your pity, you sad, quivering lump of gelid fear and ignorance. I will find myself a boyfriend one day, and perhaps when I celebrate our anniversary I will return here in order to crow my victory over you and your pathetic delusions. You don't deserve the attention, but I can be extraordinarily vindictive when I want to be.

If you're still here, that is. You might very well have fled by then, tail between your urine-soaked legs. And that would suit me fine.

But hey, if you want to back out now, that's good too. Your point-avoiding, word-twisting ways were unwelcome in any case, as was that final insult to Frank Herbert and Dune. Goodbye, piss off, and always remember that you are an agent of harm in the world.

[Eliyyahu]

Wolf,

I pointed those two verses out myself in a previous post, and how they pose no problem whatsoever for religious Jews.

[Wolf]

Well... great! My apologies, I can only keep track of so much at once. Nevertheless, I felt the disclaimer was appropriate.

[Eliyyahu]

LOL, no apologies necessary my friend, I was just making note of that since you brought it up.

[ErasOmnius]

You know what our mistake was, Eras? It was letting you think for even a second that views like this are appropriate. They are not. This entire debate, and the entire position espoused by you, Hwi, and Anathasios is wrong morally, factually and legally. I need not even touch on the notion of religion, for certainly, if what is perceived as religion is out of accord with these principles, then the problem lies not with them. This is the 2010 equivalent of saying that a black person is not a human being, or that Muslims are beasts from Tartary. You mistake this for "name-calling," but it is not. It is for your own good. You display an ugliness so pure that it by definition cannot be personal: "prejudice" is too weak a word, it is corruption straight from the darkest depths of the human soul. It is a form of depravity far worse than anything you have ever imagined in the realm of sexual impropriety. It is a hatred that is so complete that you cannot even for a moment consider that it is evil. You know, I've just had an enlightening moment. Not all hatred--indeed, perhaps not even the worst hatred--is the fuming, foaming, spitting rants and hysterical shrieks that Hwi displays with such alarming regularity. No. The worst hatred is this: the cold, thoughtless, emotionless dehumanization of your fellow man. I hope that you are simply ignorant, merely lacking the opportunity or the capacity to learn of your grave error, as the truth of your Raskolnikovian criminality would threaten to shatter even the hardest of hearts. Indeed, it is the only way that you may be excused, and you may thank God that His love is so total and uncompromising that you may even yet be saved.

Wow, kinda really showing who you are, Wolf.

1. If the Book says a particular word means something, I don't try to say like you do, 'Well, maybe I should consult a Gnostic text, maybe I can find what I want this subject to mean there'. or 'Plato and Socrates thought that this particular life-style was okay, so it is okay." Don't do it, never have.

I am not interested in watering down the Book, like you are. Because watering down the Book turns it into just everything else -- neo-paganist. You cannot admit anything that might cause you to change your mind. I am constantly re-fining what I believe as people show me that I wrong. Anathema showed me I was wrong in Paul's exposure to democracy -- so I changed my point of view.

But I am certainly not going to change my POV, by calling me names, etc. Hey, do me a favor, why don't you lump me in with Edric, he's against the practicing of homosexuality -- as am I.

Am I so bad that I believe that allegedly the most powerful being in the Universe -- the Holy Spirit, can change someone -- even a male homosexual? And that we should ask male homosexuals to make that change?

2. I really do not like that you keep saying I am a racist. Period, and you know it. Yet you do it, continually. As if saying it, is going to make it true.

You know that I am married to a Native American, whose family had everything taken from them in the 1800s. Then when they saved enough money to buy some land along the Cumberland River in Tennessee, it was taken again in the early 1900s. You're baseless accusations of racism are sick, and the sign of weak position.

Your confusing ethnicity and race; with behavior. In the case of this thread, male behavior. Something they were not born with.

3. As I have said before -- I see no economic nor political persecution against homosexuals. The US Supreme Court just ruled against traditonal Christianity and for male homosexuals -- so where is this persecution you have dreamed up?

The 2 males in their late 40s/early 50s [as you know] are near-millionaires living in my neighborhood. They do what-ever they want. They cat-call my 18 year old son [who hates it] -- and I cannot do anything about it -- I'm supposed to be open-minded. Earlier this month around the 10th, they paraded around a 20-ish old male they 'found' on the Internet, and introduced him at the neighborhood Association Block Party as the new 3rd person in their 'marriage'. Now, he's already gone. What a joke to this new world you are trying to lead us into, Wolf.

These two men have hundreds of thousands of dollars. What do they do with it? They are over-concerned about looking young -- and brag about having one surgery after another. They accumulate sports cars. They have 4 dogs --each is named 'Precious'. Literally, 'Precious 1, 'Precious 2', 'Precious 3', and 'Precious 4' -- each dog has a jewel-encrusted collar.

No concern for the home-less. None. This is the future of the West?

So your glorification of their life-style sounds so wonderful, Wolf. So grandiose, so open-minded, so inclusive. But when you think of what our male bodies, souls, and emotions, are really supposed to be used for -- loving one woman, producing children, caring non-sexually for others -- many, many [if not most] male homosexuals fall far short of what God, or Nature, or the Universe, intended.

4. While your typing your repsonse tonight to myself, remember me. I'll be the one guiding the drunk who came in off the street at the shelter  in the Cass Corridor in downtown Detroit, near Comerica Park [where the Detroit Tigers play]. While your click-clacking on your key-board about how I'm the worst person possible, I'll be getting a balnket for a woman who came in with her 2 kids because her husband beat her up. As you snick-snicker as you think you have 'gotten the best of the freak in the Forum', I'll be handing what we call 'the last call' drink of the day, some iced tea, to a bunch of people whom the rest of society calls 'bums'.

Then, not too often, but as I have said before, a male homosexual will come in wanting to change. And he'll commit to change, and change. And I'll call myself lucky to help him and others, these people society calls 'bums', because the Son of God did the same thing, 2000 years ago.

[ErasOmnius]

How can you be against homosexuality but not against vasectomies (or other things that deviate from procreation)?

That is a good question...I will definitely think about what you have written. [sorry for double-posting].

[Dante]

Oh, so it's just me you're not replying to? Wolf and Acriku still get the honour? I'm hurt, Eras, so deeply hurt. That was my question originally, you know.

Please tell me that you understand sarcasm, at least.

Always with the "male homosexual," I'm seriously wondering if there isn't some Freudian reason for this non-acknowledgement of lesbians. "In the case of this thread, male behavior" indeed. All this talk of "male bodies, souls, and emotions," is anyone else finding that a tad dubious? Perhaps I'm not the only one who dreams of same-sex hugs, mm?

Interesting how there has as yet been no answer to my point that homosexuality applies to both genders and isn't synonymous with a sex act. Well, not interesting so much as predictable, but you get the idea.

Hey, do me a favor, why don't you lump me in with Edric, he's against the practicing of homosexuality -- as am I.

Because Edric believes that christians should not practical anal sex. That's as far as he's written on the matter, that I can remember. You, on the other hand, are expressing the opinion that everyone should not only not have anal sex, but stop being homosexual altogether. And there are so many things wrong with that that it's taken us all these posts to point every single one of them out to you. Racist.

Also, Edric is a reasonable human being while you're just a jumped-up racist, er, homophobe with the racist and the racist with the racist racist racist.

I see no economic nor political persecution against homosexuals. The US Supreme Court just ruled against traditonal Christianity and for male homosexuals...

...But ignored lesbians? How many times do I have to point this out to you, racist? Lesbians are homosexuals too!

And geez, way to judge several million people by the actions of two. I mean if I didn't already think you were such a (racist) moron that would have cemented it. Are you going to tell me that there are no careless, crass, age-fearing hetereosexuals in the world, racist racist racist?

Also, shame on you, Eras, for intruding on Hwi's sacred domain. Don't you racist know that she's been comparing herself to racist god all along? And now you come along and rub your racist racist musk all over her schtick. That's just rude, I tell you, plain rude, racist racist racist.

You help all the people you like, you prideful little closet-lurker. Your "help" is degenerate and your intentions are corrupt.

Also, you really shouldn't have revealed your weakness. :)

Racist racist racist.

[Dragoon Knight]

Like some foul hate-train, ErasOmnius is capable only of following rails of ignorance and bigotry.  They are rails of his own creation, and he has affixed a tarnished iron Bible to the front of his locomotive.  It is no Bible that the vast majority of decent Christians would accept, but his own, soiled and putrescant interpretation.  He steams along, powered by a deep fear of being taken from behind, plowing through all reasonable arguments, and ignoring the signs that tell him to stop.  This post is one of those signs, and like every single one of mine before it, he'll ignore it, too.

1. If the Book says a particular word means something, I don't try to say like you do, 'Well, maybe I should consult a Gnostic text, maybe I can find what I want this subject to mean there'. or 'Plato and Socrates thought that this particular life-style was okay, so it is okay." Don't do it, never have.

So what you're saying is that you make no attempt to try and interpret the Bible in the way it would have been interpreted in its first days.  Nor do you make any attempt to see how the world has changed, and that certain passages are now completely invalid, unacceptable or reduced to metaphor.  What you're saying is that you take everything the Bible says at face value and look for no deeper meaning whatsoever.  Now that's pretty damned ridiculous, and disrespectful to those who take their faith a little more seriously than you appear to.

You cannot admit anything that might cause you to change your mind. I am constantly re-fining what I believe as people show me that I wrong. Anathema showed me I was wrong in Paul's exposure to democracy -- so I changed my point of view.

Classic Hwi manoeuvre.  You accuse Wolf of precisely the transgression you are committing, then go on to provide an "example" of how understanding and reasonable you are, by citing an instance when you conceded to a factual error.  In faith, there are very little facts.  You're trying to hide your own failings, and you're doing a wholly miserable job of it.

Hey, do me a favor, why don't you lump me in with Edric, he's against the practicing of homosexuality -- as am I.

Ah, now this could be our fault.  We might not have made ourselves clear.

You are an idiot.

Edric, on the other hand, is not.  Neither is Wolf.  Notice that they are both Christians, both with differing views, but are still treated with respect.  Unlike you, the Idiot Queen herself, and previously athanasios, the latter of which has had the sense to see that he was fighting a losing battle.  It is your dogged persistance, and your laughably misguided belief that you are "doing good", that causes such an uproar against you.  You are symbolic of the worst humanity has to offer; at least rapists, murderers and thieves are direct in their harm to society.  You, and people like you, are the rot that seeps from within.

Am I so bad that I believe that allegedly the most powerful being in the Universe -- the Holy Spirit, can change someone -- even a male homosexual? And that we should ask male homosexuals to make that change?

To put it bluntly, yes.  For several reasons.  Among them are these two:

1) Homosexuality is not a choice, and thus it is not something that one can "change".  It can be suppressed, repressed or expressed.  There are a myriad of other sexual standpoints, including bisexuality, which are not so clear cut.  You may be labouring under the misaprehension that things are black and white - you either like men or women.  Heterosexual or homosexual.  You are wrong.

2) As Wolf - and indeed others - have pointed out before, God would not damn a person for who they were.  If a person was born with an allergy, or a terminal illness, or the wrong colour of hair, would you condemn them for not changing?  Because that's what you're asking.  Can you choose your hair colour, ErasOmnius?  You can dye it, or you can wear a hat... but it's always going to be the same colour.  Unless, of course, you treat it so badly - expose it to such a level of abuse - that it loses its pigmentation.  I do love the metaphors.

2. I really do not like that you keep saying I am a racist. Period, and you know it. Yet you do it, continually. As if saying it, is going to make it true.

You know that I am married to a Native American, whose family had everything taken from them in the 1800s. Then when they saved enough money to buy some land along the Cumberland River in Tennessee, it was taken again in the early 1900s. You're baseless accusations of racism are sick, and the sign of weak position.

Your confusing ethnicity and race; with behavior. In the case of this thread, male behavior. Something they were not born with.

Blah blah blah, more reticent bullshit.  You're trying to defend yourself in the most horrible of ways.  "Hey, I might hate the gays, but boy I sure do love me some Native Americans!"  Don't you realise that this is racism?  You're trying to prove that you don't care about colour, yet you make an almighty fuss about having a wife who isn't a freaking Aryan.  Whoop de doo and congratulations, you're still an idiot.

3. As I have said before -- I see no economic nor political persecution against homosexuals. The US Supreme Court just ruled against traditonal Christianity and for male homosexuals -- so where is this persecution you have dreamed up?

Are you seriously asking us to show examples of when gay people have been discriminated against?  I'm going to let that one slide, because you've probably had a hard day's hating, and you're not thinking, haha, straight.

The 2 males in their late 40s/early 50s [as you know] are near-millionaires living in my neighborhood. They do what-ever they want. They cat-call my 18 year old son [who hates it] -- and I cannot do anything about it -- I'm supposed to be open-minded. Earlier this month around the 10th, they paraded around a 20-ish old male they 'found' on the Internet, and introduced him at the neighborhood Association Block Party as the new 3rd person in their 'marriage'. Now, he's already gone. What a joke to this new world you are trying to lead us into, Wolf.

These two men have hundreds of thousands of dollars. What do they do with it? They are over-concerned about looking young -- and brag about having one surgery after another. They accumulate sports cars. They have 4 dogs --each is named 'Precious'. Literally, 'Precious 1, 'Precious 2', 'Precious 3', and 'Precious 4' -- each dog has a jewel-encrusted collar.

Because this is how all homosexuals act.  Oops, wait, sorry, all male homosexuals.  Why, I know a guy who has fifty-seven pink poodles named Precious.  They have their own mansions on an exotic island, but they never live in them.  All they do is stand in a giant circle and screw eachother up the arse, day in, day out.  All this while he rapes the barely-legal hordes of boys he orders from South America with his vast amounts of cash, often in the centre of the orbiting bestiality perimeter.

ErasOmnius, you are a giant tool.  You clearly base your view of homosexuality - males, specifically - around these two characters, who are representative of almost fuck all of the homosexual male population on this planet.  It's a combination of jealousy and envy, and probably a secret longing to get your prostate tickled.  The sooner you realise this, the sooner you'll fill with self loathing and be unable to live with the crimes you've committed.  Perhaps you'll try to repent.  Perhaps not.  I couldn't care less.

The rest of your post is more re-iteration of the same hate-filled spew that you've been belching out over the last couple of pages.  I'm glad Hwi's inspired you to play the Guilt Card now, though.  If only you'd played it earlier, when you hadn't made your entire argument clear, we might have accepted it.  Pried no further.  Your secret hate kept hidden.  Ah, hindsight.

But no.  You don't get to play that card.  I turn it all around back to you.  I name you a sinner; the closest thing to a demon in disguise that I can currently envision.  You do the work of what you might term Satan.  You whisper to the vulnerable and weak, hiding in plain sight like a wolf in sheep's clothing.  You offer them promises of redemption, of an escape from their sorrow and pain... if only they renounce who they are.  If they sign their souls away, and live the rest of their life as a shell of who they are meant to be.

So when you're wrapping these people in those blankets, consoling your potential flock of converts and dishing out ice tea, perhaps take five minutes out of your hectic schedule to take a good, long look in the mirror.  You might want to check that you don't see the flicker of hellfire in those judgemental eyes of yours.

[ErasOmnius]

Just about ready to walk out the door, to do some good in the world...

Dragoon, boring.

Go and get a degree in History [a minor], like I did, or quote from a major historical book or journal. If you want to say that the Book means other things than what I say, at least quote a passage or two. Don't just spout out what you've read on the Internet, or heard Amy Winehouse sing about. If you want to stick up for your bestest friend, you'll have to read a little first.

Dante, not going any-where.

I found a Forum I like, so I'm not leaving; so let's think of the future a little, and tone it down a bit.

Racist? Wow, to be called a racist by someone from the UK. Doesn't that just floor my Italian/Arabic/French head?

Will never agree that homosexuals are born that way -- so it can be changed -- it's behavior.

Now I must go to help the people of our society.

[athanasios]

Shame to all who fail to enjoy a masterpiece of creation on above videos!

-

Now because IGNORANCE of HEBREW and STUPIDITY has no limits and is persistent, or better say CONSPIRACY against culture, history and the Bible? Here is a link about DAY (the fellow has done pretty nice work there-and again I may argue at a few points-but for this it suffices):

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html