Post-Mortem: A Discussion on the Afterlife

[ErasOmnius]

As always, your increasing personal animosity toward me is not only indicative of your fundamentally un-Christian disdain for your fellow man, but also of your personal insecurities with respect to your faith.

I have no insecurities at all. I have no animosity towards you at all.

In fact, in my asking for you and others to change, for example, I believe that I care more for you, that perhaps, you do.

In June, when I asked a member to change, it ignited a fire-storm, why? Because you [and others] thought I was being rude, crude, and that I did not have the right to ask him this.

In reply, I simply asked you for a Christian-oriented tract, book, pamphlet, anything, from antiquity; that gave you the right to have this point of view. You have not produced any document, nor can you, because there is none.

So, instead of me spending the next two, three, or four years, going on this hamster cycle-wheel, with you. The cycle of:

Me asking for change. You getting mad. Me asking for antiquitous proof. You providing none.

Instead of this non-productive cycle, I have tried to establish what you believe. Maybe some it could be gleaned from your specific Lutheran belief. I have read that the Missouri Synod jives with a great deal of my thinking. The Evangelical and Wisconsin do not. Just trying to see if you have a core belief. You obviously don't want to provide this, as I have asked 3 times.

The reason I don't address you often, ErasOmnius, is because either your prose is so awkward that I can't work up the mental effort to unravel it, or I have already addressed your point in some form at an earlier stage, and you either didn't read it or didn't get it, and, again, I often cannot command the mental effort to respond.

I understand that I over-describe activities. I do this because of the people who are reading who may not understand English. Everything else is pretty clear-cut. I don't like to call names. I do limit myself to 3 sentence paragraphs, as longer paragraphs are too hard to read.

This is not one of those times. You've completely misrepresented what I said. I did not say there's no need for change, in fact, I think a lot of things need to change. Aggressive ignorance, for example.

I hope that your not calling me ignorant, because I know that you know that I am not. To re-iterate, I have spent 30 years reading the texts of antiquity, and have a degree in History from Michigan State. Coupled with that, is 40 credit hours of religious studies at the same university, and the University of Michigan.

I understand where 'this' is all going. Sexual permissiveness and true Christianity cannot live side by side in the same society. It never has been able to, and it never will. Not in the persecutions of Nero in the 60s, not in the Great Persecutions of Decius in the 200s. Sexually permissive people simply don't want to hear it.

You seem to want to find some middle ground where the sexually permissive somehow accept true Christians, and Christians accept the sexually permissive. Sorry, such a la-la land does not exist.

Sin is what it is, and it is intuitively evident when harm has been done or injury inflicted, and even a sociopath is aware of the wrongness of his actions. The key is to avoid inflicting harm on each other, be it physical or psychological, and to understand in context what the right course of action is.

But to my point of view, this view of harm is ever changing. In 2008, you tended to believe that taking a sharp-edged vacuum cleaner to the placenta and body of a child before birth was wrong. Now, just 2 years later, you don't even believe that anymore. It seems that you just want to go along with the Gang, throwing everything you know about the Good News out the window?

There is no single rule or guideline that can fully encompass this thought, save, perhaps, for the Golden Rule.

Golden Rule: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Once again, I don't think you want a sharp-edged vacuum cleaner taken to your body, till you end up a quarter of a pound of ground up tissue in a medical waste bag, is a good example of pointing out the Golden Rule on your part.

The fact of the matter is that the viciousness inherent in your arguments and Hwi's are fundamentally sinful, because they are actions contemplated in the pursuit of sinful desires--I can only suppose what they might be, but it is what I believe based on the ever-escalating viciousness of the replies.

What possible sinful desire could I have? To be hated by everyone? I am now hated by 80-90% of the members of the Dune2k Forum, and this is NOW after I have just almost totally turned my back on Brian Herbert's writings. Members that used to talk to me on other Dune-oriented forums now will not. Just because I asked someone to change. But, obviously, I would do it all over again.

I have been called Satan, destroyer of worlds, corrupter of souls, liar, insulter, false Christian and so forth in various forms, either explicitly or implicitly, but if any of you actually stand back and tried to apply a label to my position, you'd find it would probably be "Christian apologism."

I don't see how it can be 'apologism' -- when you don't use any Christian oriented documents to support your beliefs. C'mon now, someone actually called you the 'destroyer of worlds'?

I don't think that's actually Satanic: if anything, I'm trying to get more people to be comfortable learning about and accepting Christ than otherwise. Your and Hwi's only possible counter is that I'm also an apologist for sin, and that is, in fact, not the case, and it is not supportable. You have no evidence for this position, and even if you did, it would be refuted by my comments above in this paragraph. You really should try to listen to what I'm saying, and not react purely out of Pavlovian instinct. I have good reason to believe that to do otherwise is the path to ruin, or, to quote Tassadar: "I never believed that they would go so far. In the face of total annihilation they still cling to their failing traditions!"

As your beliefs change, and they are, and in my opinion downward, away from Christ -- they are changing who you are.

[Wolf]

Oh, this is probably going to be my last post. And this thread's.

First things first: ErasOmnius, if you behave like an idiot, I will call you one. You also behave like a bigot, and lines like, "I would say X, but if I did I'd be banned" are indicators that you should be banned right now.

In reply, I simply asked you for a Christian-oriented tract, book, pamphlet, anything, from antiquity; that gave you the right to have this point of view. You have not produced any document, nor can you, because there is none.

Uh... why does it have to be antiquity? Those people could be full of crap, too? Why does it being old make it right? And, isn't it true that the older the source, the more likely it's been tampered with? You see, these are all really obvious questions that you have no answer to. And, no, "magic" is not an adequate answer. If God lets evil exist, then he's willing to let his scared texts be abused and perverted by people like Hwi. I meant the Crusaders and Southern slave-owners. Shit, what'd I say? I mean, really, let's tease this issue out: suppose you believe that God would never let anyone tamper with "the Word," right? Well, let's ignore the million translations, the book of Mormon, Calvinism, and all of that for a moment--because, they exist, so, you're wrong, but I still want to play with this idea. Ignoring that, suppose that I come along. I'm smarter, I write better, and I'm interested in the issue. If I get to write my opinion of the Bible on this forum and not get struck down instantly... doesn't that by itself refute your view? Funny, huh? Oh, anyway. So, can you see why my incentive to actually waste my precious time (my billable hour is... none of your business but way more than yours!) doing research that doesn't matter is very low? But, for the record, I'm certain I can find something. Hwi spent a lot of time pulling "sources" from antiquity talking about how homosexuality was universally condemned by the Greeks, and yet Achilles--the principle hero of the Iliad--has not one, but two prominent homosexual relationships at the beginning of the book to establish his character. Uh huh. Look, you can find sources that say anything. Only reason matters.

Instead of this non-productive cycle, I have tried to establish what you believe. Maybe some it could be gleaned from your specific Lutheran belief. I have read that the Missouri Synod jives with a great deal of my thinking. The Evangelical and Wisconsin do not. Just trying to see if you have a core belief. You obviously don't want to provide this, as I have asked 3 times.

You are a hypocrite: you belong to no church, yet, you demand that other users disclose their "core beliefs" vis a vis an organized religion before you seem willing to treat their arguments with respect? I share this simply to get you to stop asking a meaningless question, but, yes, as you have surmised, I was brought up in the ELCA. (It's a good church; I recommend it. It's poorly organized, though, I suppose that makes it even more like the early church?) It does not matter, you realize, and if you attempt to criticize me for not sharing all of their beliefs, I will tell you immediately that you are behaving in a manner that is fundamentally prideful and hypocritical, and I would feel no qualms in alerting you to the substantially high possibility of your burning in Hell for all eternity. I mean, if you guys continue to lob that around, why can't I? You cast the first stone on that breed of insults, so... you can't complain.

I hope that your not calling me ignorant, because I know that you know that I am not. To re-iterate, I have spent 30 years reading the texts of antiquity, and have a degree in History from Michigan State. Coupled with that, is 40 credit hours of religious studies at the same university, and the University of Michigan.

As Chigger likes to say: "pix or it didn't happen!" U. Mich. is a great school; you were either not a great student, or are a liar. What do you do for a living? How much money do you make? Are you ugly? (Do you see how these questions, uh... don't matter? Or, wait, maybe they do! Of everyone on this forum, you seem to have a particular hang-up about sex. Are/were you hideous? Bad in bed? Did you serve in Gulf 1, get hit, and it's like Spaghetti-O's down there now? Do tell.)

I understand where 'this' is all going. Sexual permissiveness and true Christianity cannot live side by side in the same society. It never has been able to, and it never will. Not in the persecutions of Nero in the 60s, not in the Great Persecutions of Decius in the 200s. Sexually permissive people simply don't want to hear it.

You seem to want to find some middle ground where the sexually permissive somehow accept true Christians, and Christians accept the sexually permissive. Sorry, such a la-la land does not exist.

Why scare-quote "this?" What's "this?" Why are you so insecure about using words? You described a partial birth abortion, for f*ck's sake!  And, uh... "sexual permissiveness?" What is that? That sounds like a very broad term, and if you're going to have a clear-cut rule, then you need clear-cut terms. Look, sex that arises out of love or mutual desire that harms no one is not, and cannot be a sin. If you believe that God is Almighty, then that is merely fulfilling the desires and capacities that He gave us; if you believe that sex without any harm is a sin simply because of the absence of marriage or gender, then I'm afraid that's just completely inconsistent with any solid philosophical conception of God--on the one hand, it's unjust, on the other, it's nonsensical. Look at the Ten Commandments. Why is it wrong to covet your neighbor's wife? Because it's someone's wife. But anyone who isn't married, you can covet all you want. Sex isn't inherently suspect--like murder is, there we get the blanket "Do not kill," but even there you've created a conundrum, which... I'll get to later if you really care (this is my test to see if you're actually reading this stuff)--so, no, using the Bible, I see evidence that indicates that sex is not an inherently suspect class of behaviors. Adultery may be, but that's not the same as sex--it encompasses a different idea. But, again, I don't like using the Bible because... it's inconsistent. It violates it's internal logic, I think, because multiple authors who had agendas wrote it. Sorry! There's truth there, but it's obscured by thousands of years of... human interaction. But, you shouldn't listen to me: I'm just trying to save your religion from itself, try to get people to engage with the Bible critically, and start being nice to each other. Clearly I am the Dark One.

But to my point of view, this view of harm is ever changing. In 2008, you tended to believe that taking a sharp-edged vacuum cleaner to the placenta and body of a child before birth was wrong. Now, just 2 years later, you don't even believe that anymore. It seems that you just want to go along with the Gang, throwing everything you know about the Good News out the window?

This is actually your last chance. You have to read my posts, if you don't, then there's no reason to discuss anything with you. I believe my stance on abortion is, "I am comfortable with the current state of abortion law." As far as I understand it, there is still a partial-birth abortion ban, which is the procedure you have just described. I have always been for a partial-birth abortion ban, I will always be for a partial-birth abortion ban. Your attempt to discredit me like I'm some kind of politician is so offensive, I cannot even begin to describe it. I will let you know, however, that these tactics are definitely sinful. So, let me ask you a question, did you actually read anything I said, or are you intentionally misrepresenting my views? If it's the latter, I'd like to ask you to stop: only false Christians bear false witness. So, which is it? Are you stupid or evil? (Go with the former, just say you f*cked up and misread me, that way you don't look like a complete hypocrite--and, besides, everyone here already thinks you're an idiot, so it isn't like you have capital in that department to lose.)

Golden Rule: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Once again, I don't think you want a sharp-edged vacuum cleaner taken to your body, till you end up a quarter of a pound of ground up tissue in a medical waste bag, is a good example of pointing out the Golden Rule on your part.

Read above.

What possible sinful desire could I have? To be hated by everyone? I am now hated by 80-90% of the members of the Dune2k Forum, and this is NOW after I have just almost totally turned my back on Brian Herbert's writings. Members that used to talk to me on other Dune-oriented forums now will not. Just because I asked someone to change. But, obviously, I would do it all over again.

Three words: self-righteous suicide--and before you flip out, I don't mean the literal kind. You suffer from a fairly common emotional disorder most frequently observed in teenagers, which is the compulsion to adopt an unpopular political position, habit, form of dress or other affectation in order to gain negative attention. You do this because you possess, as part of your identity, the notion that to be persecuted means also to be right. That's unfortunately not true, however, and you have begun to associate the persecution with correctness, despite the absence of a logical relationship, and so the pattern of behavior continues, and, I think, escalates. It'll definitely lead to some form of cognitive breakdown for you. My advice? Quit your job, give away your money, go West, find some lonely place in the desert far away from civilization, try to meet some people out there in the boonies and start over. I think it will be good for you--and besides, it's a very Christian thing to do. (Not actually sarcastic, it really is pretty Christian, but I want to remind the group that He didn't wear pants and shat in holes in the ground, so...)

I don't see how it can be 'apologism' -- when you don't use any Christian oriented documents to support your beliefs. C'mon now, someone actually called you the 'destroyer of worlds'?

On this point I think I'll start at the top. What does apologism mean? Try to imagine how my views could be considered Christian apologism, and flesh those out. And then we'll... wait, seriously? What the hell? You take issue with "destroyer of worlds?" You realize then that you're implicitly admitting that I've been called all those other things, and that you don't care? Jesus... is this as obvious to the rest of the world as it is to me? You know something, I think you guys are "the enemy" that Christ warned us about. At the end of the day, you twist the Bible to conform to your personal and political views, and you aggressively persecute anyone who questions you. Wow. Hwi, Eras [EDIT: I had Athan here, but realized that he's pretty much just really into Greek nationalism, which is very Orthodox, and I can't blame him for that. Whatever. If you're Greek and you love Greece, and whatever identity that means to you, go for it.]: you guys really are the servants of evil. Since you cast that first stone, you can do nothing but accept that with grace. You destroy your own religion from within, and may God have mercy on your souls. Unfortunately... I have to acknowledge that that's as much B.S. when I say it as when you say it. Like I said, "magic!" is never an adequate explanation, nor is "black magic!" an effective rebuttal. You guys might be right; but I also might be right. (I'm pretty sure I'm right.) But, I'm not going to pretend like I know God's Will. That being said, though, you guys definitely look like how I imagined the false Christian "enemy" to be. What's it Shakespeare said? The wise doth know he is a fool and the fool... oh, nevermind.

As your beliefs change, and they are, and in my opinion downward, away from Christ -- they are changing who you are.

I don't care about your opinion, and for you to judge me as Christ by proxy condemns you more surely than a thousand sodomies occurring inside the ragged wombs of a thousand partial-birth abortions. Oh... and quick question. Do you think you'll still have the same beliefs in 10 years that you do now? In 20? In 30? You definitely care about the opinions of others, since you flog around the (I think fake, but we'll see about "Useless Servant") testimonials of homosexuals you've psychologically mutilated cured, how will you feel on your deathbed knowing that so many people from so many walks of life who share so many different views were repulsed, offended, annoyed, bothered, troubled and alienated by you? I dunno, man. Seems like a bad play to me, but, whatever--you won't admit it, but your views will change. They're changing right now. Hey, didn't you just admit earlier in this thread that you were wrong about the afterlife when Hwi corrected you? And yet you still try to use the "flip-flop" tactic to discredit me? Haha, oh, man: go to Hell.

[ErasOmnius]

Wolf, I understand you now. You made fun of my income, and used the phrase 'billable hour'. Only my attorney talks to me like that.

Well, I sell foreclosure homes for one of the largest financial institutions in the West, so my income might be different from what you think.

But it's not the size of my income, it's what i do with it.

[Wolf]

That's what she said, right? Yeah, man, at this point I'm pretty much an attorney. Didn't you know? I'm pretty sure that was public knowledge on this forum beforehand... oh, the irony of it all.

But, wait, don't just tuck your tail in between your legs like that--I feel bad now. Look, I reacted with pretty scathing humor because you and Hwi have been going at me for my religious beliefs really venomously (which, come on, everyone knows that's just completely offensive and off-limits, and anyone in my position would crack eventually because of your antics), but the point I'm really trying to get across is... be open-minded. I used to take the Bible a lot more literally than I do now, and I came to realize that that's wrong for a bunch of reasons. First of all, simply by virtue of our being different people, a literal reading to you may be slightly different than a literal reading to me--it all has to do with our imagination, and our experiences which inform our interpretation of the words. That leads into my second point, that what you think of the Bible is a private thing--God isn't speaking to mankind so much as he's speaking to you. Maybe he's telling you that the planet will be burned to ashes by His Son and that homosexuality is wrong. That's fine (I mean, if you want to believe that), but did you ever stop to think that at the end of the day all you really know is what he told you? Maybe, God doesn't tell His children the same thing, but what each of them needs to hear? I don't know why that's what you need to hear, but it's His business, not mine. Maybe He's trying to get you to better yourself, to grow into a higher level of awareness and understanding for your fellow man. At least, that's how I interpret it. Finally... look at the level of animosity with which you and Hwi have pursued a fellow Christian, what does that say about how you might treat other religions? Does only the law keep you in check, otherwise you'd be out there right now baptizing the unwise and slaughtering the unlucky? God doesn't want us to fight over a book, and He doesn't want us to be cruel to each other. If people do things that are neither cruel, nor harmful, nor even illogical, I can't see how God would frown upon them, and I don't think you can, either. If He does, then none of us are going to be saved, my friend.

[ErasOmnius]

That's what she said, right?

Yes, The Office is my favorite show, as well.

Yeah, man, at this point I'm pretty much an attorney. Didn't you know? I'm pretty sure that was public knowledge on this forum beforehand... oh, the irony of it all.

As Bender would say, "Now that, is, irony!"

But, wait, don't just tuck your tail in between your legs like that--I feel bad now. Look, I reacted with pretty scathing humor because you and Hwi have been going at me for my religious beliefs really venomously (which, come on, everyone knows that's just completely offensive and off-limits, and anyone in my position would crack eventually because of your antics), but the point I'm really trying to get across is... be open-minded.

I try not to crack.

I used to take the Bible a lot more literally than I do now, and I came to realize that that's wrong for a bunch of reasons.

That's what makes me so sad. I feel like I'm talking to Anakin Skywalker on Mustafar.

First of all, simply by virtue of our being different people, a literal reading to you may be slightly different than a literal reading to me--it all has to do with our imagination, and our experiences which inform our interpretation of the words. That leads into my second point, that what you think of the Bible is a private thing--God isn't speaking to mankind so much as he's speaking to you. Maybe he's telling you that the planet will be burned to ashes by His Son and that homosexuality is wrong. That's fine (I mean, if you want to believe that), but did you ever stop to think that at the end of the day all you really know is what he told you? Maybe, God doesn't tell His children the same thing, but what each of them needs to hear? I don't know why that's what you need to hear, but it's His business, not mine. Maybe He's trying to get you to better yourself, to grow into a higher level of awareness and understanding for your fellow man. At least, that's how I interpret it. Finally... look at the level of animosity with which you and Hwi have pursued a fellow Christian, what does that say about how you might treat other religions?

Because you claim to understand ancient Christian documents, that's why. Everyone else says they don't care, or are strangely silent. But since you represent a Christian who seems to be saying that the Book can mean almost anything, I must respond.

Does only the law keep you in check, otherwise you'd be out there right now baptizing the unwise and slaughtering the unlucky?

You know that is not true. Only baptize those who want to be. Slaughter? Slaughter? Only those who want to 'save their life' slaughters others.

God doesn't want us to fight over a book, and He doesn't want us to be cruel to each other. If people do things that are neither cruel, nor harmful, nor even illogical, I can't see how God would frown upon them, and I don't think you can, either. If He does, then none of us are going to be saved, my friend.

Wow, friend? Friend! What a change has come over you since I said that 5 men shouldn't engage in an orgy.

[Wolf]

And... that was the last time Wolf tried to show compassion to a defeated foe.

Because you claim to understand ancient Christian documents, that's why. Everyone else says they don't care, or are strangely silent. But since you represent a Christian who seems to be saying that the Book can mean almost anything, I must respond.

This is an admission that all you really care about is the title of "Christian"; not the doctrine, not the consequences, nor anything really touching upon any greater understanding of the cosmic order. That's problematic for you, I hope you realize. I really have no problem being called a proto-Protestant Heretic--people thought Luther was going to hell for pretty much exactly the same reasons you seem so perturbed with me now, and he turned out to be... um, right. In fact! The only reason you get to have the views that you do, Mr. "I Don't Believe in the Authority of Rome and Am Not a Member of Any Organized Church" is because Luther pushed for the vernacular translation of the Bible so that the common man could read it for himself! Why bother if no one is supposed to come up with their own interpretations of the text? I'm more certain now than ever that not only is my interpretation of the Bible pretty justified, but also that I think I understand the relevant history better. Really, everything I'm saying actually does make terrifying sense.

So, why did you ignore my whole bit about God telling people what they needed to hear? I thought that was really good; heartfelt, made sense, was pretty lenient toward your views, let everyone else off the hook. I suppose I shouldn't compromise with you, though; your views produce monstrous consequences for society. (Why don't you tell the board what you referred to earlier that you were afraid would get you banned?)

[EDIT: And to answer your question... yeah! Yeah, it should be able to mean almost anything, because people mean almost anything. The book is supposed to impart some wisdom unto all who behold it, which it can't do if people are to take it literally forever, and follow its traditions without respect for context. I know this is scary for you to contemplate, but people change, societies change, and it doesn't mean that the world is suddenly descending into evil. Frankly, more than anything, I'm happy to consider myself a Christian precisely because so many of its important religious truths have endured so many different, difficult and trying times, and that says something to me. For example, in a lot of ways in the modern age, it's an extremely democratic faith, with so many accepted sects, and (not here, but elsewhere) so much tolerance for debate and contemplation. (sigh) It's a shame people want to rob the world of that.]

[athanasios]

[EDIT: I had Athan here, but realized that he's pretty much just really into Greek nationalism, which is very Orthodox, and I can't blame him for that. Whatever. If you're Greek and you love Greece, and whatever identity that means to you, go for it.]

Not a nationalist, not an Orthodox! But proud for the works of my ancestors. Since God decided that I should grow up in this country I have to love it and do my best. No I do not want to be like Adam who disregarded the garden of Eden. All those exploiting their country for personal benefit are disregarding their God given inheritance and will get the proper reward. It is not about nationalism to promote the ideals of my ancestors as these will benefit all mankind. And I am always humble to be taught by other cultures where ever they have excelled.

-

It is a tragedy that billions will be executed in Armageddon but I am happy because the earth will be cleaned from those who ruin it. I have already started the party! - Luke 21:28

No God is not interested in numbers, God is interested in hearts. Who ever has a pure heart and good motives does not need to fear anything.

-

ErasOmnius is right about sexual immorality. It is a sin. But still there is a big difference from one sin to another sin. Premarital sex is a sin, but can you compare that with spiritual immorality? Of course religious leaders will disagree with me because as I said they are "HYPOCRITES, WHITEWASHED GRAVES FILLED WITH FILTH"!

[chatfsh]

You persist in promoting a form Christianity that doesn

[Dante]

God sure sounds like a compulsive control freak.

[Lord J]

...in a related story....

[Wolf]

Unfortunately, Hwi, since I wasn't advocating pure hedonism, I'm afraid that there really isn't much I can say with respect to your post. My actual position is a bit more nuanced, and shouldn't be confused with or misconstrued as hedonism.

I do want to talk about this "friend of the world" bit, though. What is God really telling us to do, at the end of the day? Anyone? It's to be good. Simple as that; don't be a dick, be a good person. There aren't hard and fast rules for that, and though there are rules in the Bible, as Lord Johnsonius pointed out, they come in varying levels, with varying authority. The Ten Commandments are pretty explicit, and don't include a lot of the things that you consider to be sins. But, these may take precedence over the rules, say, in Leviticus, and Christ's directives may or may not take precedence over all. But this is all beside the point: how can a good person not be a friend of the world? If your universe consists solely of the directives that you've frantically quoted, such as this:

"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets."

... then any religious terrorist or Crusader may be a candidate for salvation (hey, even Hitler was nominally Catholic--he might count) while, under this rationale--"You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."--Pope John Paul II and every humanitarian in the world is a candidate for eternal damnation. Come on, not everyone is motivated by pure evil and will treat your good works as poisonous works of Satan. If you help people, objectively, you're going to be liked. Charity? Hard work? Mercy? Help in time of need? Condolences? Companionship? Yeah, it seems to me that being a good person by pretty much any understanding ends up with you being friendly to at least some of the world. If not, then this directive is impossible and meaningless.

Your problem, Hwi, is that you don't bother to think critically about anything anyone who claims to oppose you says. You skim it, get the basic idea, confuse it for other things you've heard of, or, more often, label it as something that you want to argue against, and leave it at that. There's no consistent train of logic between what I say and your responses. (Incidentally, this how I also feel you treat the Bible.) I didn't advocate for hedonism, I advocated for perpetual analysis of one's behavior in context. God isn't saying that you can't be a friend of the world and enter Heaven, God is saying, on the one hand, that you can't pursue worldly things to the exclusion of everything else (in other words, pure materialism is bad), and, on the other, if you are good and you find yourself hated, then you shouldn't fear because that has nothing to do with your reward in the afterlife. He's merely reassuring the good people of the world not to lose heart when bullies and malcontents deride them and their attempts at working good. This doesn't actually help your argument, however, because from my perspective, it's perfectly applicable to me (I'm being hated by you, and you do insult and reject my name as being evil--actually, that's been your M.O. this entire argument), and I'm sure that from your perspective you're the good guy. So what? Constantly lobbing this crap at me doesn't advance the argument, Hwi, and because of it's key ambiguity in the sense that I've just illustrated, all it really can amount to is an attempt by you to use scripture to advance your personal goals. That's wrong. You should stop, and we should bring this topic back on track.

[ErasOmnius]

And... that was the last time Wolf tried to show compassion to a defeated foe.

No Wolf, I am not a defeated foe. I have simply asked where you get your views, and you have not provided any text to quote from.

In the area of sexual immorality, you haven't said, "The Book of Thomas says this..." or "Irenaeus said the following in the second century..." You have for months that I have observed; said whatever you want with a snicker and a grin about people like Hwi, myself, Ath; who believe what ancient texts say, and their application to modern life.

That is why I have given Dante great credit for his admission that he doesn't care what ancient texts say. He is much closer to change for the better than you are.

This is an admission that all you really care about is the title of "Christian"; not the doctrine, not the consequences, nor anything really touching upon any greater understanding of the cosmic order. That's problematic for you, I hope you realize.

What a bunch of malarkey--as someone who volunteers and puts himself in the direct path of the results of your belief system as it winds its' way through the West-- I can tell you, that you are causing great harm. Counseling and STD health care needs are way outpacing resources.

Every day teens and adults come in for VD screening. How did they get VD, Wolf?

How did the 16-year old girl who came in for help last evening get her VD? Because someone like you told her that she is an evolutionary product. Someone like you told her she is Slime+Time. Someone told her that she was just an evolved 'primate' who cannot control her's and her boyfriend's desires.

Someone like you told her that the Son really doesn't represent very much of what is written about Him. That maybe what the apostles wrote Him was too Paulian, or proto-Gnostic, or whatever you may believe about the Book. Who knows, it changes from year to year.

But Natural Law and the rules set up by the Father will guide her. Natural Law sent her to a group of volunteers that care about her, and told her that the Creator cares about her, and that He would like her to wait till she gets a life-time commitment (marriage) from a male before having sex with him.

But don't worry, ol' Eras and his friends are 'mopping up' after your belief systems. She has received necessary medical treatment, and changed.

The multitudes that come in for help to centers, is the direct result of your's and people like you's confused and strange belief system. Don't worry, we'll help them and take care of them -- while you have a good ol' time in the suburbs.

[chatfsh]

Well done, ErasOmnius.  Well done!

[Dante]

Way to brown-nose, Hwi. Subtlty is such hard work, isn't it?

Eras, don't try to complement me. And don't compare me, favourably or otherwise, with Wolf or anyone else. In fact, if you could just stop talking to or about me, that'd be dandy. Everything about you is ugly, and I'd rather not be tainted by association.

You know what I think? I think that girl got a disease because she was stupid and didn't use adequate protection. Nothing to do with god, nothing to do with evolution, nothing to do with morality. Everything about not using a condom.

But hey, as long as we're comparing completely unrelated philosophies, the rise of killer bees is totally due to interracial marriage, right? Right.

[Acriku]

How did the 16-year old girl who came in for help last evening get her VD? Because someone like you told her that she is an evolutionary product. Someone like you told her she is Slime+Time. Someone told her that she was just an evolved 'primate' who cannot control her's and her boyfriend's desires.

Or maybe... Someone like you told her preventative measures [i.e. condoms] were wrong and should not be used. I wonder if the girl told you any of those reasons? I highly doubt it. It's really disturbing how you use your work to further your own religious agenda in the moments where people are their weakest. Telling them that if they change into what you want them to be it will be alright is negligent towards real causes and real problems.

[chatfsh]

Wolf, in regards your claims of Christianity, the only area in which you have been consistent is in your attempt to undermine Biblical authority.  Throughout this discussion, I have presented numerous scriptures to support the arguments that I have put forth.  You have responded by  1) trivializing the message, 2) discrediting the author as being insane or 3) of trying to promote a dubious agenda, or 4)by implying that the author has improperly interpreted certain events as acts of God.  With dogged persistence you have sought to perpetuate the lie that the Holy Scriptures are not the inspired, infallible and inerrant Word of God.

How can you fail to understand that this makes your claims of faith in Christ inconsistent and illogical?  On what basis do you believe that Jesus is the Messiah, that He is the divine Son of God?  Do you believe it as a result of what is written about Him in the Holy Scriptures

[Dragoon Knight]

This thread has been entirely derailed by the same few malcontents that caused so much outrage in the Hugs discussion.

Eras: You were wrong before and you're wrong now.  16 year olds have sex for hundreds of reasons, and I can just about guarantee that it wasn't because she was having an existential crisis at the time.  As the wonderful Doctor Cox might say, "take your blah-blah, to the blah-blah-ologist".  Either start posting about things that are on topic or start your own thread.  The latter course of action will lead to Wonderful Things

[chatfsh]

It's really disturbing how you use your work to further your own religious agenda in the moments where people are their weakest.

When one

[Acriku]

When one

[ErasOmnius]

Or maybe... Someone like you told her preventative measures [i.e. condoms] were wrong and should not be used. I wonder if the girl told you any of those reasons? I highly doubt it. It's really disturbing how you use your work to further your own religious agenda in the moments where people are their weakest. Telling them that if they change into what you want them to be it will be alright is negligent towards real causes and real problems.

Condom use in Reducing STDs. I find it sad and a lie that Planned Parenthood never gets around to quoting actual stats about that thin piece of latex reducing Venereal Disease.

First of all; male volunteers don't counsel women. Second, we solve their problem. Usually the Christian counsel takes strong effect, and in this situation, the girl will be much better off than before.

Why are the DUNE people so hostile to religion? Who do you think is helping the poor. Sure isn't the government, the government could care less. It's religious people.

This thread has been entirely derailed by the same few malcontents that caused so much outrage in the Hugs discussion.

If you want to talk about Death in the Dune world or something like that, then post in that Forum. Such as, 'Does a ghola spend any time in eternity, and if so, would his or her cells remember any of that experience?"

But until then, we shall be basically be talking about the decline of Christianity in the The West, and it's ramifications.

Eras: You were wrong before and you're wrong now. 16 year olds have sex for hundreds of reasons, and I can just about guarantee that it wasn't because she was having an existential crisis at the time.  

Not sure what some may have seen on porn sites, but 16-year old girls are usually having sex to keep their boyfriends happy, and to keep them from leving.

As the wonderful Doctor Cox might say, "take your blah-blah, to the blah-blah-ologist".  Either start posting about things that are on topic or start your own thread.  The latter course of action will lead to Wonderful Things

[Dragoon Knight]

If you want to talk about Death in the Dune world or something like that, then post in that Forum. Such as, 'Does a ghola spend any time in eternity, and if so, would his or her cells remember any of that experience?"

But until then, we shall be basically be talking about the decline of Christianity in the The West, and it's ramifications.

Then start a thread about the so-called decline of Christianity in the West, and post your bile there.  This thread is meant to be a discussion about the afterlife.

Not sure what some may have seen on porn sites, but 16-year old girls are usually having sex to keep their boyfriends happy, and to keep them from leving.

I assume you mean "leaving".  Firstly, I don't take kindly to the insinuation that I visit porn sites, let alone the type that feature 16-year-old girls, so kindly keep that sort of thing to yourself.  Secondly, you've just disproved your own point.  I quote you in your previous post:

How did the 16-year old girl who came in for help last evening get her VD? Because someone like you told her that she is an evolutionary product. Someone like you told her she is Slime+Time. Someone told her that she was just an evolved 'primate' who cannot control her's and her boyfriend's desires.

Not only have you invalidated your previous point, you've completely missed the actual one: 16-year-old girls have sex for a plethora of reasons.  Yes, some will feel pressured into doing so, either from their peers or their partners; that's a given.  But not all, or even most of them will fall under this category.  The majority will have sex because they've come of age, or because they've been doing it for a couple of years already.  There - some content for your new thread.

[chatfsh]

No, I just don't like the pouncing on the weak strategy for proselytizing.

I really do understand what you

[Dante]

And that warm, wet trickle of self-satisfied superiority, of course.

That argument doesn't hold water for the simple reason that it can be applied to completely the opposite case with equal validity. If one felt that someone's religion was killing them (literally or metaphorically) then any compassionate atheist would feel obliged to step in and save them, either from a life that is no life at all or a death that certainly is a death.

[chatfsh]

If you were a compassionate person who truly believed that someone

[Dante]

Except that people don't go to clinics for religious interference, they go because they're hungry, infected or scared and have nowhere else to go.

Helping people is a good thing. Taking advantage of them is not.