No same-sex hugs allowed

[ErasOmnius]

Quoting would be a big deal, so I'll just ask simple questions, or make simple statements:

Wolf:

Where does the Holy Spirit fit into your theology? If you are a Christian, but you don't believe He can change people, what do you believe about Him? We can dig up every Gnostic book and read there is -- and I have. But really, some-where [over-using hyphen] along the line, you have to believe in something. Or is it, there are so many ancient-oriented books that say so many things, that you simply can't choose what to believe?

But remember, there are no Gnostic books that give the OK to homosexuality, you are pulling that from a pagan belief system. That is what my main contention is with you, you keep trying to justify homosexual behavior with Christian texts. There are none.

As far as the whole political thing, why change the laws? It's not going to change people's 'hearts'. Lawrence and other legal cases are a non-issue to me. I'm not sure why the rich oligarchs are wanting homosexuality legal right now. Not sure why they want a lesbian like Elena Kagan on the Court. Don't care.  

From what I've seen, and the counseling leaders that I am getting info from, it runs like this. Most male homosexuals delve head-first [i over use hyphens because it is easier on non-English readers] into their life-style, hit rock bottom, and want to change. It's up to me to be there for as many as possible when they want to change. That includes when anyone wants to change.

For these male homosexuals, it seems to be the hyper-sexual life pattern [with the accompanying booze, amal nitrate, and drugs]. Then the over-exposure the VD and HIV brings them in, as well. Rock bottom can be in their 20s, 30s, or even later. Or it may happen when in their mind they believe they are 'washed up' because they are old, and the male gay culture does not have room for them anymore -- and they feel a terrible loneliness.

Huge number will come in for religious Christian counseling -- and they either believe they can change or not. Sadly, I know a few that have passed away and died -- not changing.

As far as homosexuality in nature, the homosexuals rights movements' constant falling back upon Dr Bruce Bagemihl's thesis, is a joke. The guy is a Language professor who is trying to speak about Biology. The fact that he is a gay rights activist makes it almost a comedy, if it wasn't leading so many people astray.

Society, as a whole, seems to be more and more accepting of gays and lesbians. But the quick poll I did of leaders of the Center, the number of homosexual people seeking counseling is spiking as well, and constantly hitting higher and higher numbers. So some want to change.

As far as this claim that they were never gay or lesbian, well, you should hear some of the stories of their former life-styles [over-use of hyphen]. They sounded like they led very exclusive homosexual lives. And now they are happy. There is simply no denying this.

Practically everyone has been revolted...practically everyone has been revolted...practically everyone has been revolted...practically everyone has been revolted. Funny, I still feel the love.

Felt much worse when I was trying to defend Brian and Kevin last year -- probably because for years I was mainly wrong. Not wrong on this one, though.

Dragoon:

Your points? What were they? Mainly insults.

I don't want a Rent boy? It would have to be a girl, but I can turn aside temptation. Actually, sorry to bring up Amy Winehouse. She is my temptation -- trying to beckon me back to a life of loose women and alcohol. See, I am not un-compassionate [over-use of hyphen]; I know temptation is hard to resist, but temptation must be resisted.

The Dawn. The Dawn on the Forum...It may never arrive...but I can take it, as you know, I can take it. For the good of all, and of humanity, and for those who want to change -- I can take it.

[chatfsh]

Lest there be any confusion...

The reason that I have been staying away from this thread is that it has become mind-numbingly boring.

I have stated my position clearly and succintly on a number of occasions.  Contrary to what some here are implying, I believe and stand by everything that I've said 100%.  According to God's Word, homosexual sex is a sin, always has been a sin and always will be a sin. No matter how craftily Wolf seeks to twist, obfuscate, and undermine the Scriptures, nothing can change that simple truth.   Next you'll attempt to argue that the Bible doesn't condemn anything as a sin.  Or that if it does, then it's just not keeping up with current trends and should therefore be ignored on all matters of morality.  It is for this reason, Wolf, that you sicken me beyond words.  Henceforth, I am done with you and your snivelling band of simpletons.

ErasOmnius, your work is a great blessing to mankind.  And you have conducted yourself remarkably well throughout this entire thread despite the putrid acrimony being spewed at you. For this you are to be commended.

With that, I bid this particular thread adieu as I will now focus my attention on the engaging thread that Eliyyahu has begun.  

[Wolf]

Hwi: First of all, if this thread is so boring, why did you come back (1) to respond, (2) to read all of my posts, and (3) to read all of Eras' posts? Come on.

Second of all, good! Good on every point! Look, you can't admit it, but your view is abominable. You condemn homosexuality. It isn't a disease, it isn't a choice, and it isn't simply a behavior or a lifestyle: it's who people are. If you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-loving God, then you also believe that He made them who they are. You might as well condemn people for the color of their skin or their gender. You certainly also condemn people (millions, in fact) who don't share your religious views. (What? You consider the ~70 million American Protestants who belong to denominations that don't say homosexuality is a sin to be "evil, sickening" people, too? Come on.) I'm glad you feel uncomfortable: you should. What you're doing really is evil. It's a crime. (Only, you seem to do it more out of spite where Eras seems to do it more out of true belief. Just how personal you've made this debate indicates to me that this isn't even about religion at all for you, but instead, for you.)

Third of all, religion doesn't play as big a part of this as you think. I'll break it down for you.

(1) People are free to interpret scripture however they like. That's why different sects exist. That's why we have freedom of religion in America. If you think there is any clear meaning to the Bible, then explain to me why some churches believe in transubstantiation and others don't? Explain to me why some churches allow women to be ordained and others don't? Explain why all churches have valid scriptural bases for these different beliefs? You accuse me of "twisting" scriptures, but I've explained a dozen times why this accusation doesn't make any sense. First of all, you've relied on scripture way more than I have, so, you've probably been "twisting" scriptures way more than I have--you know, assuming you aren't a perfect, divine being. Second of all, I'm making the point that the literal words are open to interpretation, but that higher, divine principles of enlightenment exist, don't change, and are there to be found in different verses and in different contexts by different people. They do not include a condemnation of homosexuality. The universe is not so poorly constructed. Third of all, I don't think I'm "twisting" passages that say, "love God and love each other, this is the whole of the law." I don't think it's "twisting" anything to think that a condemnation of people's state of being, that they cannot help is not only illogical but in contravention of this "obvious truth (to use your words) of what Christianity admits is its overriding, prime directive.

(2) If you were really opposed to homosexuality solely because of your religious views you would say something to the effect of, "I have no problem with homosexuality, but that's what I think the Bible says." Your attempt to rationalize an irrational, dubious, and highly ambiguous Biblical directive and then try to impose it on others by attacking their religion if they don't agree indicates that this is less about the nature of the Biblical directive and more about your personal bigotry and your inflated sense of self-importance. (EDIT: I think this is backed up by use of words like "snivelling [sic] little simpletons" and "For this you are to be commended." You think anyone gives a damn about your "commendation?" Who do you think you are, the Queen? Does he get a certificate? Come on. )

(3) You are not God, nor any other arbiter of judgment. You act like you are, though. You act like anyone who doesn't agree with your specific interpretation of the Bible is going to Hell. That's not even "Christianity," but something I'm going to call "Hwiism." But that would be assuming that you actually believe in what you're saying. I don't think you do, because I think this argument is personal for you, and that leads me to ...

(4) I can't take your religious views seriously. You behave in such a consistently un-Christian manner that it makes your fanatical invocation of Christian doctrine a mockery of itself. You accuse people of abusing scriptures to satisfy their arguments, but more than anyone else here, you employ that strategy yourself. You play the victim, and then victimize others. It's infantile, and that's the reason why the more you assure us of your earnestness, the less I believe it. More than anything else, I feel really embarrassed for you.

So, even if religion mattered... uh... you'd be wrong about your interpretation anyway.

Fourth of all, coming back to a thread simply to restate your original position, with no support, and insult the other side is not only what I have come to expect from you, but it is also the closest thing you do to admitting defeat. I accept your surrender.

Eras: I'll get to you in a little bit. Just you wait.

[Dante]

Well finally. I was beginning to think this pantomime would go on for further weeks of reruns. It's gratifying to see another ugly sister bow out in defeat, even if said defeat remains unacknowledged.

Two down, one to go! Anyone else notice how Eras keeps asking me questions and then ignoring the replies? I can only assume that he keeps getting unexpected answers and doesn't know what to do with them.

[Dragoon Knight]

I have pretty bad hayfever around this time of year.  It's enough to make me sneeze repeatedly and often violently, cause my eyes to redden and itch and (on a semi-regular basis) give me a nosebleed.  Now, replace "sneeze" with "laugh", and you have my reaction to this thread.  I am allergic to idiocy, but find it just about everywhere I go.  The antihistimine relief provided by Dante, Wolf, Lord J and Eliyyahu makes it bearable, and my own immune response is obviously emphatic, but the medicine needs to be constant to be effective.

With this in mind, the pollen of your stupidity needs to be addressed.

Your points? What were they? Mainly insults.

I insult you while making my points.  Others in this thread have shown you more respect than you deserve, but since this has had no bearing on how many issues you address, I may as well let you know how stupid you are at the same time as letting you know how wrong you are.  But congratulations on admitting that you ignored them.

I don't want a Rent boy?

Oh I think you do.  Real deep down. :P

The Dawn. The Dawn on the Forum...It may never arrive...but I can take it, as you know, I can take it. For the good of all, and of humanity, and for those who want to change -- I can take it.

This is what I consider to be the pinnacle of your egotistical hatred.  Not only do you believe you're doing "right", but you believe that because every other sane person is telling you that you are completely wrong, you are somehow being "tested".  And that this testing somehow makes you more right.

You are not being tested.  I am not an instrument being sent against you to test your faith.  Your cause is not sacred or blessed or anything remotely similar.  Comparing yourself to people in the Bible who "suffered the slings and arrows", so to speak, is as hilarious as it is pitiable.  There will be no dawn; there will only be the ceaseless criticism of you and your ideals.  You are wrong, you cannot back up your statements, and we will never stop telling you this.  No matter how much you plug your ears and deny the arguments laid against you, you will never be able to claim victory, you homophobic, bigoted and deluded idiot.

Hwi: Thank you for being so predictable.  Your latest post was a last, pathetic attempt at trying to get your point across.  It failed, and so have you.  At every juncture, in every possible way.  There is nothing sickening about Wolf, you demented old witch.  It's you and your ilk that are the cancer of today's society.  Call us "snivelling simpletons" all you like - we beat you, because we're right, and you're wrong.  Stew in your hatred, knowing that you can never succeed.

And to the both of you: know that even though your notion of your faith being "tested" was a self-righteous illusion, you still failed that test.

[SandChigger]

ErasOmnius, your work is a great blessing to mankind.  And you have conducted yourself remarkably well throughout this entire thread despite the putrid acrimony being spewed at you. For this you are to be commended.

Yes, and enjoy what pats on the head like the above you receive from fellow Paulians like Hwi for parading your "good works" before the world, because Christians were enjoined against such behavior. ;)

[ErasOmnius]

(3) You are not God, nor any other arbiter of judgment. You act like you are, though. You act like anyone who doesn't agree with your specific interpretation of the Bible is going to Hell. That's not even "Christianity," but something I'm going to call "Hwiism." But that would be assuming that you actually believe in what you're saying. I don't think you do, because I think this argument is personal for you, and that leads me to ...

(4) I can't take your religious views seriously. You behave in such a consistently un-Christian manner that it makes your fanatical invocation of Christian doctrine a mockery of itself. You accuse people of abusing scriptures to satisfy their arguments, but more than anyone else here, you employ that strategy yourself. You play the victim, and then victimize others. It's infantile, and that's the reason why the more you assure us of your earnestness, the less I believe it. More than anything else, I feel really embarrassed for you.

So, even if religion mattered... uh... you'd be wrong about your interpretation anyway.

Fourth of all, coming back to a thread simply to restate your original position, with no support, and insult the other side is not only what I have come to expect from you, but it is also the closest thing you do to admitting defeat. I accept your surrender.

Eras: I'll get to you in a little bit. Just you wait.

Still waiting...still waiting...for you treatise on how Christianity, the Gnostic Gospels, anything, anything, at all approves on homosexuality. Let me save you the trouble, Wolf. There is none.

Surrender? Feel embarassed? Why should I?

It's you, and your sad devotion to trying to find approval for homosexuality that is going to net you nothing. I have to wonder why you even claim to be Christian-oriented at all on this topic. You, of all people, should stop lecturing me. At least Dante has the guts to say that he considers all ancient Christian-oriented texts at zero value.

You wish to cloud the issue, by puffing up this so-called ultra-love of Jesus that you have found -- that allows anyone to perform any consensual sex act that they want. Where Wolf? Where in your Christian-oriented text does it allow males to engage in bondage and sadism, that allows six or seven males to engage in an orgy, that allows 3 men to share each other's sp... [You know, some things are just too disgusting to write].  As you know very well, Wolf, this concept exists no-where in early Christianity, or any Christian thought until the 1960s.

At least have the guts to say the same thing that Dante has. That you, like he, simply want to believe what you want to believe. Only you, unlike him, wants a dash of Jesus on top!

Meanwhile, you trash me. Someone you know who is speaking the truth about the viewpoint of every Christian theologian before the 1960s. Every single writer, every single Letter or Gospel in the Pseudo-Epigrapha [the non-accepted New Testament], or the accepted New Testament. That you continue to cloud this truth, and ignore it, for what-ever [overuse of hyphen] 'strange' and unusual reason--only you know what it is.

You speak of the acceptance of homosexuality like priests of Baal in Antioch and Emesa in Syria in the 220s and 230s, and of the failed bi-sexual Roman Emperor Elagabal, and his/their desire to blend their religion with Christianity. Sorry Wolf, you cannot blend Christianity with homosexuality.

So I have to wonder who this god is that you are so dedicated to? This oh-so touchy-feely god, who is so accepting of homosexuality, especially male homosexuality. Who?

[Wolf]

No God that you have ever known. His name is Jesus Christ.

[Calthazar]

Where in your Christian-oriented text does it allow males to engage in bondage and sadism, that allows six or seven males to engage in an orgy, that allows 3 men to share each other's sp... [You know, some things are just too disgusting to write].

When I read your posts I cant but wonder what a fearful idiot you must be.  You cringe at the most pathetic of topics, semen semen semen.  And you love to just shove vulgar imagery around and revel loudly in how disgusting it is.  All it shows to me is some immature, pathetic, and ignorant man.  Just because someones gay doesnt mean they have anal, just because someones gay doesnt mean they have orgies, just because someones gay doesnt mean they engage in S&M. Thats like saying because your straight you will always want a threesome, you'll always want head, and you'll always want her to dress like a maid.  F**king retarded.  I live near SF, theres hella gay people.  Big fuckin woop.  This last weekend was Pride Weekend.  There are lots of funky lookin people on the street, some straight, some gay, some bi, some transvestite, some transexual, some transgender, some pretty, some fuck ugly.  Who gives a shit.  When you think gay guy, your mind always seems to go to sex, to anal or to men sipping cups of semen, but I think that says more about you then anything else.  When I think about what a gay man is I think a guy who kisses another man with passion.  Your head is in the gutter and it drives your hate.  As a straight male that thought will be offensive to you, its your instinct, but as a human you can override your instinct.  Thats the point of the gom jabbar and right now your dying.

PS: just curious when I f**k a chick and she drips some out after is that a sin because some of my seed is wasted? and if so is it my fault or hers? I'm all down for post-coital snuggles if I have to wait or something.

[ErasOmnius]

No God that you have ever known. His name is Jesus Christ.

Sorry Wolf. it's the opposite. When every single text ever written about someone, Jesus Christ, from 33 Ad until 1958, says that He would have condemned homosexuality; it's you who does not know Jesus Christ.

Today's quote -- from Augustine, in the 400s, from his work the   Enchiridion. He talks about exactly what I have said happens in the counseling/ministry section of the Center -- strongly encouraging people to choose to leave a life of homosexuality.

BTW, before anyone gets too apoplectic, the Center is there and free for anyone who visits. Anyone who needs help from the food pantry or a place to sleep, which is over 90% of what we do. Open and can refer for free health screening, and some on-site work [the remainder]. We are there for abused spouses or significant others. And yes, we are there for gays and lesbians who want to change.

Sorry everyone, this is real, traditional Christianity. If you want to live in a non-Christian world, Wolf -- just say so. Don't try to find some justification for gay sex in early Christianity.

When I read your posts I cant but wonder what a fearful idiot you must be...

Clever.

...Just because someones gay doesnt mean they have anal...

Really Cal, what male do we know, who has not taking a vow of chastity, does not engage in intercourse?

...I live near SF...

Have some guts, Cal. Tell us about the real San Francisco. Tell us about the gay men that dress up like nuns, tell us about Castro Street, tell us about what bath-house is.

PS: just curious when I f**k a chick and she drips some out after is that a sin because some of my seed is wasted? and if so is it my fault or hers? I'm all down for post-coital snuggles if I have to wait or something.

So, there's one difference between you and I -- I make love to my wife.

Now back to your question, "When I f**k a chick and she drips some out after is that a sin because some of my seed is wasted?"

Well, it's wrong if you're not married to her, because you are just using her body, and toying with her emotions -- without a real commitment. Back to your seminal fluid -- If some of your seed drips out of her vagina, it's not wrong, there are still hundreds of million of sperm cells that can reach her egg [if it's there in the uterus].

Welcome, Cal, to the Fray about Homosexuality on the Dune2k Forum. Read some historical and philosophical texts about what you really believe in. This Thread is not for the faint-hearted, or for the intellectual who likes to cloud things.

But, I may just stop posting on this Thread, not because I'm wrong. But because I want to be a sensitive, caring person; who does not drive my fellow Machine Crusade avatar-person farther away.

[SandChigger]

PS: just curious when I f**k a chick and she drips some out after is that a sin because some of my seed is wasted? and if so is it my fault or hers? I'm all down for post-coital snuggles if I have to wait or something.

The spilt/wasted semen isn't even the point. You shouldn't be "f**ck[ing] a chick" = some "chick" = a woman who isn't your wife. (I see he's addressed this point while I was typing. ;) )

And you shouldn't even be having sex with your wife unless you are expressly doing it for the purposes of reproduction, to create another sentient creature who will live for the greater glory of God.

(Oh...yawn. Excuse me...I just got up from a late afternoon/early evening nap. Which is probably a sin, too. Oh well, chalk me up another one. ;) )

It's all about control.

[ErasOmnius]

The spilt/wasted semen isn't even the point. You shouldn't be "f**ck[ing] a chick" = some "chick" = a woman who isn't your wife. (I see he's addressed this point while I was typing. ;) )

And you shouldn't even be having sex with your wife unless you are expressly doing it for the purposes of reproduction, to create another sentient creature who will live for the greater glory of God.

(Oh...yawn. Excuse me...I just got up from a late afternoon/early evening nap. Which is probably a sin, too. Oh well, chalk me up another one. ;) )

It's all about control.

Every time I try to stop posting, SandChigger drags me back in.

No one says you have to have sex solely for reproduction...but that my friends, is a different story...

[Wolf]

First of all:

Sorry Wolf. it's the opposite.

"I know you are, but what am I" has never been particularly lauded in the annals of good comebacks.

Second of all:

Just go back and re-read every post of mine from the beginning. I've already explained this all to you multiple times. In general, it boils down to these premises:

1. It is possible for Christianity to tolerate homosexuality.

2. This is compatible with the most important pillars of the faith.

3. Incompatible fragments in scripture are the result of translation error, contextualized meaning, or metaphor, and should not be regarded as the direct will of God.

4. Even if (3) were not true, different sects have different scriptural interpretations all the time, and this is perfectly appropriate. Indeed, it is part of what makes Christianity such a widespread global religion.

Basically, Eras, you're making the argument that "anyone who thinks that homosexuality is not a sin, or is compatible with Christianity is not a Christian." I would recommend highly against that. Even most Catholics I know are of the mind, "yeah, the faith really needs to start accepting homosexuality." Why? Because they believe Christianity has valuable things to teach and don't want it extinct in 20 years.

That's pretty much that. I'm not going to sit here and repeat myself only to have you say that I am "twisting" the Bible or confusing you with intellectual cleverness. If you want me to engage with you, you have to promise to actually read what I'm saying, take things slow, and try to understand. I'm willing to do it, but you seem really rabid about all of this right now, and I think you need to cool down and commit yourself to a more sensible attitude.

[Caid Ivik]

I would support Wolf's view. It's a debate already active among the highest Church ranks - http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/14678

And anyway, when I consider what I learned during my mere 24 years of being a Christian, it seems to me Jesus wasn't a guy who liked to condemn. Wasn't he visiting corrupt tax collectors and whores, telling them they are worth something despite the popular opinion?

[SandChigger]

No one says you have to have sex solely for reproduction...but that my friends, is a different story...

Right. ;)

[ErasOmnius]

Basically, Eras, you're making the argument that "anyone who thinks that homosexuality is not a sin, or is compatible with Christianity, is not a Christian." I would recommend highly against that.

I never said. But I have said that I believe that a practicing homosexual is not a Christian. It is your attacks on Hwi, who seems like a good person; and your religious attacks on me -- when you know that no Christian document before 1958 approves. It is your calling me an intellectual light-weight, when you have over-generalized any ancient document on the matter.

With that aside, I hope we can get a long better. Post again to the Abortion Thread, and I am sure we will.

Even most Catholics I know are of the mind, "yeah, the faith really needs to start accepting homosexuality." Why? Because they believe Christianity has valuable things to teach and don't want it extinct in 20 years.

True Christianity will be extinct soon, no matter what anyone does.

That's pretty much that. I'm not going to sit here and repeat myself only to have you say that I am "twisting" the Bible or confusing you with intellectual cleverness. If you want me to engage with you, you have to promise to actually read what I'm saying, take things slow, and try to understand. I'm willing to do it, but you seem really rabid about all of this right now, and I think you need to cool down and commit yourself to a more sensible attitude.

As I am sure that you have seen on this Thread, I am one of the nicest people you will ever know. I look forward to continuing Posting dialog.

[Wolf]

I never said. But I have said that I believe that a practicing homosexual is not a Christian. It is your attacks on Hwi, who seems like a good person; and your religious attacks on me -- when you know that no Christian document before 1958 approves. It is your calling me an intellectual light-weight, when you have over-generalized any ancient document on the matter.

You are a liar. It is a necessary implication of your views: anyone who tolerates homosexuality is not a Christian. It is you who attempts to mask the bulging pustule of your argument with halfhearted niceties.

With that aside, I hope we can get a long better. Post again to the Abortion Thread, and I am sure we will.

We will not if you continue in your pattern of baseless accusations and flimsy religious arguments.

True Christianity will be extinct soon, no matter what anyone does.

If by "true" you mean the kind of Christianity you believe in, then yes. If Christianity continues on a path to openness and tolerance, then it can only become closer to the faith that Christ envisioned. If that is not compatible with your beliefs, then the problem lies with you, not Christianity.

As I am sure that you have seen on this Thread, I am one of the nicest people you will ever know. I look forward to continuing Posting dialog.

You are a very frightened person who refuses to think critically about his own religion, who lashes out at others, and then complains when he himself is lashed out at. That says nothing about your kindness, and, in truth, I have really little data with which to form an opinion on that point. If forced to think about it, I must conclude that you have shown me no kindness whatsoever, as I consider your choice to ignore a vast bulk of my comments and your ceaseless implications that I am not a true Christian to be a violation of the most basic tenets of common courtesy. You want to show me kindness? Listen to me. Stop your ceaseless, ignorant presumption that I must not be a "true" Christian. Even then, however, you will still disgust me for your abominably prejudiced rhetoric toward homosexuals. I do not tolerate the intolerant.

You keep on mentioning something about the year 1958. Let me tell you why none of that matters here. Your argument is that Christianity condemns homosexuality and homosexual behavior. My argument is that Christianity tolerates it. The standard for "condemn" is much higher than the standard for "tolerate." If Christianity says nothing about homosexuality as a state, then it can reasonably be said to tolerate it. On the other hand, in order to condemn, there must be no reasonable doubt as to the literal or metaphorical meaning of the scriptures, and the meaning must not be undermined by either other portions of the text or the circumstances of its drafting. Christianity says only very few things about homosexuality as a behavior, and as I have said repeatedly, there is no compelling reason to consider this "gospel." It is not one of the ten commandments. It is, in fact, in contravention (necessarily) of Christ's own distillation of the Christian faith. It could easily be explained by author prejudice, translation error, geographically and temporally contextualized meaning, and metaphor. Even if it could not be, many sects have different interpretations of many different pieces of scripture. There is nothing wrong with this. You continue to ignore this. Choosing to recognize it would be the first step at earning any respect with me, and, I think, the other members of this community who do not already agree with you.

[Dante]

At least Dante has the guts to say that he considers all ancient Christian-oriented texts at zero value.

Now, that's not true. The bible has inspired humanity and kindness in many. It can bring out real compassion in people. A theological placebo, if you will. Unfortunately, for every Mother Theresa there's five or six hateful little toads like you. You could be bottle-feeding orphaned kittens in your spare time and you'd still be a failed christian. That's how bad you are.

And for the love of Antinous, stop suggesting that we could all just get along famously in other circumstances. I don't like you, I have no desire to like you, and I have cherished that animosity ever since you started coming out with crap like "I think Brian and Kevin are doing themselves an injustice by just not coming out and saying that they consider "Dune" and "The Life of Muad'Dib, Part 1" to be the same work" in Duniverse.

"Jessica murdering the townspeople of Caladan. I like that! She is part Harkonnen, after all."

"What part of Arrakis = Iraq, don't we understand? What part of Oil = Melange?"

"The Golden Path. One of the my favorite lines in "Hunters of Dune" is when Murbella says that Leto was wrong about the Golden Path, that uniting humanity is better! Gutsy, Brian, gutsy. Turning your father's main premise upside down!"

I remember your idiocies, Eras. I do not befriend idiots. I will not act friendly-like when this topic goes away, because this topic did not start anything. It merely sharpened a sneering sense of disgust that already existed.

And for the record, I believe that Wolf has the right of it. Even though I am an atheist, I think that his interpretation of the material is, in every sense, the right one. And I know one or two gay christians who feel the same way.

And even if that wasn't the case, Live and Let Live. You have no right to intrude upon my life or that of others with your harmful and frankly offensive suggestions. Just like I don't go around insulting christianity (unless provoked...), you are expected not to insult... well, anything.

But, I may just stop posting on this Thread, not because I'm wrong. But because I want to be a sensitive, caring person; who does not drive my fellow Machine Crusade avatar-person farther away.

The word is "further," moron.

And seriously, even if you can't comprehend irony, stop pretending that we're all one big happy Dune family. Especially with the prequels. Also, if you want to be caring or sensitive, reverse your position. Because what you are right now is... well, I think Dragoon said it best:

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.

That's what drives people away, Eras, your sheer evil.

Well, that and your ridiculously poor argument skills. And believe me, there is no way that I will ever mistake you for a caring, sensitive person. I've met a few of those. They didn't tell me lies.

As I am sure that you have seen on this Thread, I am one of the nicest people you will ever know. I look forward to continuing Posting dialog.

...That was a joke, right?

[SandChigger]

Hwi, who seems like a good person

Oh, dear. You have obviously only picked up a copy of the PR package put out by her people. (Well, by HER, mainly.) Seeming is not being. Beware the spin doctors! ;)

Anyway, seriously, I'm sure she does little harm when she's asleep, so during those hours she could possibly be called a "good person" without doing too much violence to the language.

(Then again, she may snore and snort like a rutting walrus and make hubby's nights a Living Hell. As well.)

[ErasOmnius]

I guess I can stop posting the truth for now...about homosexuality.

Thanks Hwi for the encouragement.

Over 375 posts by everyone in around 1 month. That was rather spirited.

[Wolf]

"Origins of Life" was a lot like this, too. Wonder why?

I'm still willing to engage with you. If you want to bow out, however, I am perfectly happy seeking new trails. And in any case, it is yet another sword that I might add to my collection.

[Dante]

Three for three folks, we're done here. About time too.

Now lets have a party.

[ErasOmnius]

"Origins of Life" was a lot like this, too. Wonder why?

I'm still willing to engage with you. If you want to bow out, however, I am perfectly happy seeking new trails. And in any case, it is yet another sword that I might add to my collection.

When you find me a Christian or Christian-oriented text that gives the okay for male/male body and genital worshipping, you can claim that sword.

I see you really gutted yourself on the popularity pole in the topic area of abortion. Embarassing. Have you figured out exactly what religious belief you are, yet?

Three for three folks, we're done here. About time too.

Now lets have a party.

Sorry, the only way to get rid of me, is by requesting that I be censored by the mods. Because I simply asked you to think about changing.

[Wolf]

When you find me a Christian or Christian-oriented text that gives the okay for male/male body and genital worshipping, you can claim that sword.

Actually... yes, I can. I already told you, the standard for condemn is higher than the standard for tolerate. I don't need to find any such passage; silence or ambiguity is enough. On the other hand, for you to assert that there is an affirmative condemnation of homosexuality, you must find a lot more than anything you've quoted or asserted. And it has to survive scrutiny. You fail.

I see you really gutted yourself on the popularity pole in the topic area of abortion. Embarassing. Have you figured out exactly what religious belief you are, yet?

Dude, I am so sick of this infantile behavior from you. Multiple people, including a mod, have warned you to stop trying to accuse people of being "false Christians." Do it one more time, just one more time, and I'm reporting your sorry ass.

But to answer your offensive question... I'm a Christian. A Lutheran, to be specific. None of that causes any problems for me. What are you? And... what the hell are you talking about? "Popularity poles?" A pole is a long, hard rod. A poll, on the other hand, is an assessment of a group's views. What popularity polls are you talking about? My take on the abortion thread is that I've come into line with the consensus on the topic... so... what the hell are you talking about?

Sorry, the only way to get rid of me, is by requesting that I be censored by the mods. Because I simply asked you to think about changing.

This is profoundly, profoundly messed up.

[ErasOmnius]

Actually... yes, I can. I already told you, the standard for condemn is higher than the standard for tolerate. I don't need to find any such passage; silence or ambiguity is enough. On the other hand, for you to assert that there is an affirmative condemnation of homosexuality, you must find a lot more than anything you've quoted or asserted. And it has to survive scrutiny. You fail.

So how do you explain away Romans 1:27?

Dude, I am so sick of this infantile behavior from you. Multiple people, including a mod, have warned you to stop trying to accuse people of being "false Christians." Do it one more time, just one more time, and I'm reporting your sorry ass.

My behavior is anything but infantile. People, not just you, really like to bend what they believe in, to fit 'the times'.

Are you really that hurt by my questioning and debating you? Just think how I can sharpen your Christian debating skills with your friends and acquaintances in your non-Dune Forum life.

And when has a Mod warned me? Why would a Mod have to? I have called no person a name. I have simply talked of Christian documents to bolster my position. I have also simply repeated some of the sexual practices that allegedly two or three+ males would enjoy together. I have spoken of events that have happened in my life, and as you will read a couple of paragraphs below -- are still happening.

But to answer your offensive question... I'm a Christian. A Lutheran, to be specific. None of that causes any problems for me.

Wisconsin or Evangelical?

What are you?

A lone Christian, who has studied the New Testament in depth for years.

And... what the hell are you talking about? "Popularity poles?" A pole is a long, hard rod. A poll, on the other hand, is an assessment of a group's views. What popularity polls are you talking about? My take on the abortion thread is that I've come into line with the consensus on the topic... so... what the hell are you talking about?

I though your reasoning back in 2008 was far more sound -- when you were defending children before birth.

This is profoundly, profoundly messed up.

How can 'it' be messed up? What is so messed up about 'it'? That it can't be just a little Dune Forum on current events where everyone just gets along, hugs each other according to each member's time zone, and goes home for the day. Isn't it better that we are stretched philosophically, religiously, and intellectually?

An interesting event happened just two weeks ago. A friend of mine came 'out of the closet' to myself and my two other Christian friends. Obviously, I was devastated.

So really, I have really had to think about what I believe, and why? Our friend has said that he simply can't stop lusting for the bodies of young males, even though he is far older than them in his late 40s. He has said that he is finally 'happy'.

So, and to me this is the big problem -- now, he has changed everything.

A year ago, he was a nice guy who lived in a nice house with his wife and two kids. Now, according to his wife, he is completely AWOL. Male/male sex, and as much as possible with no commitment, just as many partners as possible in just a short amount of time, has become the paramount events in his life.

He didn't say: "Wow, my wife and I should go to counseling. Maybe there is a solution to this dilemma", or "I should probably restrain myself, so my kids aren't utterly humiliated." No, it's simply; "Rack up as many 'rent boys' as possible". It's no secret that I am devastated by his admission-- and it has given me impetus to continue posting to this thread.

You have not said anything about homosexual restraint -- nothing. Just some vain belief that 2 or 3+ males can do whatever they want, at any time. I am not like you, Wolf, I am not going to give the open-ended 'blank check' that you have so religiously given to male homosexual behavior.