United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Being a faggot is a choice
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/ ... raight-here-are-5-reasons-why/
Published: Feb 12, 2018
Author: ejaneward
Post Date: 2018-02-12 11:57:20 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 26208
Comments: 212
1. Just because an argument is politically strategic, does not make it true: A couple of years ago, the Human Rights Campaign, arguably the country’s most powerful lesbian and gay organization, responded to politician Herman Cain’s assertion that being gay is a choice. They asked their members to “Tell Herman Cain to get with the times! Being gay is not a choice!” They reasoned that Cain’s remarks were “dangerous.” Why? “Because implying that homosexuality is a choice gives unwarranted credence to roundly disproven practices such as ‘conversion’ or ‘reparative’ therapy. The risks associated with attempts to consciously change one’s sexual orientation include depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior.” Image The problem with such statements is that they infuse biological accounts with an obligatory and nearly coercive force, suggesting that anyone who describes homosexual desire as a choice or social construction is playing into the hands of the enemy. In 2012, the extent to which gay biology had become a moral and political imperative came into full view when actress Cynthia Nixon, after commenting to a New York Times Magazine reporter that she “chose” to pursue a lesbian relationship after many years as a content heterosexual, was met with outrage by lesbian and gay activists. As one horrified gay male writer proclaimed, “[Nixon] just fell into a right-wing trap, willingly. …Every religious right hatemonger is now going to quote this woman every single time they want to deny us our civil rights.” Under considerable pressure from lesbian and gay advocacy groups, Nixon recanted her statement a few weeks later, stating instead that she must have been born with bisexual potential. Yes, it’s true that straight people are more tolerant when they believe that lesbian and gay people have no choice in the matter. If homosexual desire is hardwired, then we cannot change it; we must live with this condition, and it would be unfair to judge us for that which we cannot change. By implication, if we could choose, of course we would choose to be heterosexual. Any sane person would choose heterosexuality (not so. see here). And when homophobic people come to the opposite conclusion—that homosexual desire is something we can choose—then they want to help us make the right choice, the heterosexual choice. And they are willing to offer this help in the form of violent shock therapy and other “conversion” techniques. In light of all this, I can absolutely understand why it feels much safer to believe that we are born this way, and then to circulate this idea like our lives depend on it (because, for some people, this truly is a matter of life and death). Indeed, most progressive straight people and most gay and bi people–including Lady Gaga herself–hold the conviction that our sexual orientation is innate. They have taken their lead from the mainstream gay and lesbian movement, which has powerfully advocated for this view. But the fact that the “born this way” hypothesis has resulted in greater political returns for gay and lesbian people doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is true. Maybe, as gay people, we want to get together and pretend it is true because it is politically strategic. That would be interesting. But still, it wouldn’t make the idea true. The science is wrong: People like to cite “the overwhelming scientific evidence” that sexual orientation is biological in nature. But show me a study that claims to have proven this, and I will show you a flawed research design. Let’s take one example: In 2000, a team of researchers at UC Berkeley conducted a study in which they found that lesbians were more likely than heterosexual women to have a “masculine” hand structure. Presumably, most men have a longer ring finger than index finger, whereas most women have the opposite (or they have index and ring fingers of the same length). Lesbians, according to this study, are more likely than straight women to have what we might call “male-pattern hands.” The researchers concluded that this finding supports their theory that lesbianism might be caused by a “fetal androgyn wash” in the womb—that is, when female fetuses are exposed to greater levels of a masculinizing hormone, it shows up later in the form of female masculinity: male-pattern hands and… attraction to women. But this study makes the same error that countless others have made: it does not properly distinguish between gender (whether one is masculine or feminine) and sexual orientation (heterosexuality or homosexuality). Simply put, the fact that a woman is “masculine” (itself a social construction) or has been introduced to greater levels of a male hormone need not have anything to do with whether she is attracted to women. We would only assume this if we had already accepted the heteronormative premise that masculine people (or men) are naturally attracted to femaleness and that normal (i.e., feminine) women are naturally attracted to men. Herein lies the bias. Many “masculine” women who are heterosexual (have you been to the rural South?) would like us to know that their gender does not line up with their sexual desire in any predictable way. And many very feminine lesbians would like us to know this too. The bottom line is that ideas about sexual desire are so bound up with misconceptions about gender and with the presumption that heterosexuality is nature’s default, that science has yet to approach this subject in an objective way. For a comprehensive examination of the flaws in the most widely cited research on sexual orientation, see Rebecca Jordan-Young’s brilliant book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (Harvard University Press, 2011). 3. The science is wrong: An even greater problem with the science of sexual orientation is that it seeks to find the genetic causes of gayness, as if we all agree about what gayness is. To say that “being gay” is genetic is to engage in science that hinges on a very historically recent and specifically European-American understanding of what being gay means. In Ancient Greece, sex between elite men and adolescent boys was a common and normative cultural practice. According to historians Michel Foucault and Jonathan Ned Katz, these relationships were considered the most praise-worthy, substantive and Godly forms of love (whereas sex between a man and a woman was, for all intents and purposes, sex between a man and his slave). If men having frequent and sincere sex with one another is what we mean by “gay,” then do we really believe that something so fundamentally different was happening in the Ancient Athenian gene pool? Did some evolutionary occurrence enable Plato’s ancestors to get rid of all of those heterosexual genes? And what about native cultures in which all boys engage in homosexual rites of passage? Do we imagine that we could identify some genetic evidence of propensity to ingest sperm as part of a cultural initiation into manhood? What about all of the cultures around the globe in which male homosexual sex does not signal gayness except for under certain specific circumstances (e.g., you are only gay if you are the receptive sexual partner, or if you are feminine)? And while I am on this subject, what about the fact the United States is precisely one of those cultures? When young college women lick each other’s boobs at frat parties, or when young college men stick their fingers in each other’s butts while being hazed by their frat brothers, we don’t call this gay—we call this “girls gone wild” or “hazing.” My point here is that a lot of people engage in homosexual behavior, but somehow we talk about the genetic origins of homosexuality as if we are clear about who is gay and who is not, and as if it’s also clear that “gay genes” are possessed only by people who are culturally and politically gay (you know, the people who are seriously gay). This is a bit arbitrary, don’t you think? Just 150 years ago, scientists went searching for the physiological evidence that women were hysterical. Hysteria, by Victorian medical definition, meant that a woman’s uterus had become dislodged from its proper location and was floating around her body causing all sorts of trouble—like feminism, and other matters of grave concern. And guess what, they found the evidence, and they published books and articles to prove it. They also looked for and found the evidence that all people of African and Asian ancestry were intellectually and morally inferior to people of European Ancestry. Many books were published dedicated to establishing these obviously absurd and violent beliefs as legitimate and indisputable scientific facts. Similarly, the science of sexual orientation has a long and disturbing history. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, it was believed that homosexuals had beady eyes, particularly angular facial structures, and “bad blood.” Today, we apparently have gender variant fingers and gay brains. Is it possible that people who identify themselves as “gay” in the United States (again, keep in mind that “gay” is a culturally and historically specific concept), share some common physiology? Perhaps. But even if this is so, do we really know why? Indeed, we may find (as Simon LeVay did) that men who identify as gay share a certain trait—a larger VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalamus, for instance. But how do we know that this “enlargement” is a symptom or cause of their homosexuality, and not, say, a symptom or cause of their general propensity for bravery, creativity, or rebellion? In a homophobic culture, you need some bravery (and other awesome traits) to be queer. Perhaps these personality traits are what are actually being observed under the microscope. And, of course, there is the time-eternal question: why aren’t scientists looking for the genetic causes of heterosexuality? Or masturbation? Or interest in oral sex? The reason is that none of these sex acts currently violate social norms, at least not strongly enough to be perceived as sexual aberrations. But this was not always true. In the 19th century, scientists were interested in the biological origins of the “masturbation perversion.” They were interested because they believed it was pathological, and because they wanted to know whether it could be repaired. At the end of the day, what we can count on is that the science of sexual orientation will produce data that simply mirror the most crass and sexist gender binarisms circulating in the popular imagination. This research will report that women are innately more sexually fluid than men, capable of being turned-on by almost anything and everything (hmmm…. other than in Lisa Diamond’s research, where have I seen that idea before? Ah yes, heterosexual pornography.) It will report that men are sexually rigid, their desires impermeable. It will tell us that straight men simply cannot be aroused by men and that gay men are virtually hardwired to be repulsed by the thought of sex with women. Regardless of what else we might say about the soundness of these studies, what is evident to me is that they have been used to authorize many a straight man’s homophobia, and many a gay man’s misogyny. 4. Just because you have had homosexual or heterosexual feelings for as long as you can remember, does not mean you were born a homosexual or heterosexual. There are many things I have felt or done for as long as I can remember. I have always liked to argue. I have always loved drawing feet and shoes. I have always craved cheddar cheese. I have always felt a strong connection with happy, trashy pop music. These have been aspects of myself for as long as I can remember, and each represents a very strong impulse in me. But was I born with a desire to eat cheddar cheese or make drawings of feet? Are these desires that can be identified somewhere in my body, like on one of my genes? It would be hard to make these claims, because I could have been born and raised in China, let’s say, where cheddar cheese is basically non-existent and would not have been part of my life. And while I may have been born with some general artistic potential, surely our genetic material is not so specific as to determine that I would love to draw platform shoes. The point here is that what we desire in childhood is far more complex and multifaceted than the biological sciences can account for, and this goes for our sexual desires as well. Some basic raw material is in place (like a general potential for creativity), but the details—well, those are ours to discover. 5. Secretly, you already know that people’s sexual desires are shaped by their social and cultural context. Lots of adults worry that if we allow little boys to wear princess dresses and paint their nails with polish, they might later be more inclined to be gay. Even some liberal parents (including gay and lesbian parents) worry that if they introduce their child to “too much” in the way of queer material, this could be a way of “pushing” homosexuality on them. Similarly, many people worry that if young women are introduced to feminism in college, and if they become too angry or independent, they may just decide to be lesbians. But if we all really believed that sexual orientation was congenital—or present at birth—then no one would ever worry that social influences could have an effect on our sexual orientation. But I think that in reality, we all know that sexual desire is deeply subject to social, cultural, and historical forces. We know that if the world today were a different place, a place where homosexuality was culturally normative (like, say, Ancient Greece), we would see far more people embracing their homosexual desires. And if this were the case, it would have nothing to do with genetics. The concept of “sexual orientation” is itself less than 150 years old, and almost equally recent is the notion that people should partner based on romantic attraction. Most of what feels so natural and unchangeable about our desires—including the bodies and personalities we are attracted to—is conditioned by our respective cultures. The majority of straight American men, for instance, will tell you that they have a strong, visceral aversion to women with bushy armpit hair. But this aversion, no matter how deep it may now run in men’s psyches and no matter how nonnegotiable it may feel, is hardly genetic. Up until the last century, the entire world’s female population had armpit hair, and somehow, heterosexual sex survived. People like to use the failure of “gay conversion” therapies as evidence that homosexuality is innate. First of all, these conversions do not always fail; if you make someone feel disgusted enough by their desires, you can change their desires. Call it a tragedy of repression, or call it a religious awakening—regardless, the point is that we can and do change. For instance, in high school and early in college, my sexual desires were deeply bound up with sexism. I wanted to be a hot girl, and I wanted powerful men to desire me. I was as authentically heterosexual as any woman I knew. But later, several years into my exploration of feminist politics, what I once found desirable (heterosexuality and sexism) became utterly unappealing. I became critical of homophobia and sexism in ways that allowed these forces far less power to determine the shape of my desires. If this had not happened, no doubt I’d be married to a man. And if he wasn’t a complete asshole, I’d probably be happy enough. But instead, I was drawn to queerness for various political and emotional reasons, and from my vantage point today, I believe it to be one of the best desires I ever cultivated. [Does this mean that your daughter may decide to be a lesbian if she takes some women’s studies courses? Yes. Whatcha gonna do now?!] Perhaps most importantly, the fact that we might cultivate or “choose” something doesn’t mean that it is a trivial, temporary, or less a vital part of who we are. For instance, is religion a choice? Certainly it is if we define “choice” as anything that isn’t an immutable part of our physiology. But many religious people would feel profoundly misunderstood and offended if I suggested that their religious beliefs were a phase, an experiment, or a less significant part of who they are then, say, their hair color. Choices are complex. Choices run deep. And yes, choices are both constrained and fluid–just like our bodies. Post script: Ultimately, the terms set forward in the public debate about this subject–biology versus “choice”–are quite limited, mainly because “choice” is not the most useful term for describing all of the possibilities that sit apart from biology. Several social, cultural, and structural factors can shape our embodied desires and erotic possibilities. The fact that these factors are not physiological in origin does not mean that they aren’t coercive or subjectifying, resulting in a real or perceived condition of fixity or “no choice.” We know that social factors also become embodied over time. And yet, I remain somewhat committed to the concept of “choice”–or something like it–to describe the possibility of a critical and reflexive relationship to our sexual desires. Personally, the idea that I don’t have control over who or what I desire is a big turn-off to me, so I am constantly pushing back on what feel like the limits of my own desires. For instance, I went through a period of pushing myself to date femmes because I had some good reasons for being suspicious about why I had ruled them out from my dating pool. When it felt like I could never be nonmonogamous, I made it a goal to at least try. Then when I realized I only really felt attracted to alcoholic rebels, I nipped that in the bud too. Just when I thought I’d never think hairy men were hot, I allowed myself to face my attraction to Javier Bardem. When my tastes and proclivities start to feel like they are solidifying, I get suspicious and disappointed. So, in the interests of full disclosure, I am writing from the perspective of someone who finds sexual fixity pretty uninteresting, and who believes that there are really good feminist and queer reasons to take regular, critical inventory of the parts of our sexuality that we believe we cannot or will not change.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
(Edited)
Here's the bottom line: It makes no difference. It makes no difference if it's a choice, if it's genetic, cultural, environmental or if you were sexually abused as a child. If you get stuck arguing the origins of homosexuality, you've lost the argument. What makes a difference is how you behave. Alcoholics have long argued about the origins of alcoholism. "It's in my genes." "My uncle was an alcoholic." "Everyone I knew drank." "I'm Irish." Screw all that. Stop drinking and start acting like the rest of society. You may not have a choice about who you are, but you certainly have a choice how you behave. There's no reason whatsoever for homosexuals to behave the way they do -- a different sex partner every week, hanging out at restrooms, parks and rest stops looking for sex, sex with strangers, drug use, orgies, unprotected sex, etc. That's not genetic. And there is certainly no need to tell anyone about your sexual peccadillos. I don't want to hear it from straight people and I don't want to hear it from you. One last thing. Not that long ago your behavior was officially considered a perversion. Some people may not have gotten the news about the reclassification. So STFU about it and get out of my face.
There has always been a problem with this argument. If a homosexual can choose to be straight, then the obverse must also be true: heterosexuals can also choose a sodomy lifestyle and stick with it for a lifetime. This is, after all, what is expected if homosexuals do choose to live straight lives. So you think you could just as easily choose to be a homosexual as a heterosexual? When exactly did you choose to be a heterosexual instead of choosing to be a homo? This argument only works with people who already believe it. Not so different from the arguments the libs make to defend Teh Gays. They're all fundamentally bad arguments.
ESAD/FOAD = If you do, you will. Play self-destructive Nature-Abominating games, win self-destructive Nature- Abominating prizes.
Absolutely true! It ain't easy,though. Very few people are successful the first few times they try to quit addictions,and there can be no question about sex being addictive. Have you EVER heard anybody say "I tried it once and didn't like it,so I just gave up."? HOWEVER,what you are doing is demand people become celibate in order to please YOU,or society in general,not to please or improve themselves. Granted,there are a small number of celibate by choice people in the world,but I'd be willing to bet that not a single one of them every had much of a sex drive to begin with. In short,it's asking too much. Especially given that it's none of your,mine,or anyone else's business if they have sex or not,and none of us have the right to tell them to not have sex. I think a lot of you people would be spending your time more wisely trying to figure out how to have a little sex yourselves,than waste it all trying to keep someone else from having it. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Some do seem to be "born that way". Most choose, at some point. So what? It's no skin off my nose who people choose to snog with. I've said before and I will repeat my own view of the whole subject: I don't care what people do, as long as they don't do it in the streets and disturb the horses. (And cars ain't horses - there are no more horses.) Is homosex a choice? Sure. It's not illegal, and I don't hate the people who choose it. It's none of my business, and I just don't care. Why should I? Live and let live.
Yes they could. That is their choice. What's your point? So you think you could just as easily choose to be a homosexual as a heterosexual? When exactly did you choose to be a heterosexual instead of choosing to be a homo? People have sex with animals. People have sex in all weird kinds of ways. First, I chose to be heterosexual by nature. I chose to be a normal person because I know the difference between right and perversion. Basic anatomy doesn't suggest faggot sex is normal.
Nah, you don't really "think" much at all. Otherwise you and the turd burglar brigade would observe the sociobiological FACTS regarding what, thanks to Natural Selection, SEX really is. XX + XX = FAIL XY + XY = FAIL XX + XY = Human
Ok. But why do you CARE? Really. What difference does it make to you what people do with their pee-pees? This is the part I just don't get: all of the ANGER at the people do deviant things. Who cares? WHY do they care? I don't care. It's not interesting. There are people who love chopped liver and onions. I don't. Ick. It doesn't make me angry at the people who do. Why does it MATTER?
Ok. But why do you CARE? Really. I wouldn't if they limited it to their bedrooms.
This is why the argument is not about the origin of homosexuality (or alcoholism or pedophilia or any other behavior). The argument should be about behavioral choices. The argument that "I was born this way so this is how I'm going to behave" is a complete non-starter with me. Society sets the norms -- you can choose to fit in or not.
Envy.
Ok. But why do you CARE? Really. What difference does it make to you what people do with their pee-pees? This is the part I just don't get: all of the ANGER at the people do deviant things. Who cares? WHY do they care? I don't care. It's not interesting. There are people who love chopped liver and onions. I don't. Ick. It doesn't make me angry at the people who do. Why does it MATTER? Ok. But why do you CARE? I wouldn't if they kept it in their own bedrooms.
Fair enough. I don't think it should be the basis of political power either.
Hah! That's a thought.
I don't believe you. I think you sexually imprinted on heterosexual patterns (as the vast majority do) and that everything you're saying is just a justification for you find "natural". So do you actually practice only vaginal sex? Or do you freely commit sodomy with a female (oral and anal) and still consider that to be "normal"? [I'll probably regret letting hondo know about it but it seems we can post MP4 video clips from Imgur here at LF. ... Oopsie, it seems we can post them and see them in Previews but they get filtered out when we actually Post.]
The problem with faggots is they insist on being called normal. That and the special rights they want like insisting everyone pretend they're actually married. It's a sign of the end times when they call good bad and bad good. Faggots are always look at me I'm a faggots.
Didn't you say you were a fag?
BTW, there is one large group of very prominent people in the sodomy community who do choose to practice sodomy: a majority of the gay porn performers are gay for pay, many of them married with kids. Are they "choosing"? If so, what? Making money? Fulfilling deepseated same-sex desires? The whole topic gets rather exhausting. Apparently, people when considered in large enough numbers are just incomprehensible pervs.
psychobabble What I do or don't do with my female wife is none of your damned business.
It only has political power to the extent that some people want to forbid it. Their disapproval throws the gasoline on that particular fire. Roy Moore, for instance.
Um, no, but lots wonder about you and FireIsland's closets.
I take that as an admission that you practice sodomy with your wife. And you have even less excuse than a homo does to practice oral or anal sodomy when you have that vaginal alternative. If God hates sodomy, won't He hate men who use their wives for sodomy even more than He hates same-sex sodomites? After all, a hetero-sodomite like yourself is choosing sodomy when he has a legitimate natural alternative with sanctioned vaginal sex with his wife.
You're just pinging me here, right?
But they don't. And now they demand that everybody submit to, and parrot, their opinion that their behavior is healthy and normal -- when the CDC clearly documents the due penalties for their perversions. They're also fond of redistributing other people's reproductive resources to proliferate their abomination of nature.... https://www.google.com/search? q=homosexuals+infertility+treatments ...behind the facade of treating their "infertility". That is obviously what a BIG part of Obamacare was really about, along with forcing the rest of us to pay for the EXPENSIVE treatment of their self-inflicted preexisting conditions.
No, sorry Stone.... you're just going to have to keep looking for your special someone. Good luck!
What a dumbass remark. What I said was that I am not going to discuss what goes on in my bedroom. That is something i wish faggots would practice.
So I guess your gay friends discuss their bedroom activities with you, right?
I don't discuss sexual activities with my friends. That is a private matter and always should be. Yeah, i was in college and heard the exchange of stories, but I choose not to live in that world anymore.
Just wondered -
They more than WANT to forbid it. Historically, the laws punished homosexual sodomy, practiced in the privacy of one's own home, as a life- destroying felony. This was over the top. It did not go away on its own (as it should have, had people been reasonable). It required the mobilization of massive political power after a Supreme Court decision to force the issue and keep it dead. A tremendous amount of political power has been expended to try to keep homosexual behavior between consenting adults criminalized, and that has, in turn, caused a massive mobilization of political power to strike that down. Once such power is mobilized, it does not simply dissipate of its own accord once the immediate objective is achieved. It remains cohesive and seeks new battles. Which is why it is wisest to not fight pointless battles in the first place. The British fought over their penny tax on principle - the principle of Parliamentary supremacy and not yielding to "the mob". And they provoked a full-on revolution and lost an empire on principle. This was folly. Folly should be avoided.
I would check ouT The school lunch program I'm only halfway safe WenT To caTholic grade school Love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
You're misstating what's going on. They're not only doing deviant things; they want to normalize these deviant things. They want their behavior to be legal and acceptable. Now in a society consisting of responsible adults only, this might be possible. As you say, who cares? But in a society also containing impressionable children, giving the green light to irresponsible and dangerous behavior sends the wrong message.
No such thing. The specific sin of Genesis 19 was forcible anal rape of a man by another man. This passage does not concern marital relations. Anal sex between a husband and wife, within the confines of marriage, in the spirit of mutual consent, cannot be definitively categorized as a sin.
How do you know that angels have anuses that can be raped? Do you think that angels, a separate and more purely spiritual creation than mankind, have anuses and genitals and so on? Perhaps they are "ill-equipped" for sex. Please explain.
Anyone who voted for Bush, McCain, Romney, and Trump has stepped out of the closet and made their gender reassignment choice clear... Log Cabin Republican!
I see Stain finally coming out and holding hands with his Lady Lindsey, still hoping his hero will make an honest woman of him. But I thought Howdy Doody retired decades ago, yet there he is.
They do, yes. And that's politics. The reason they are so militant is because the laws were brutally repressive in the day when gays were not open about it. Private sex got convictions and felony prison sentences. When people are brutalized, they react if they can. If their reaction causes an easy rollback of the oppressive policy, that can be the end of it. And that's what happens in other countries regarding many things. But in America, the rules are the result of a relentless and endless low- level political civil war in which policy changes are treated as a zero-sum game. Sodomy was not decriminalized because "who cares?" the way that it was in many other places. Here, it became the object of a political crusade between factions. The two sides fought it out, and the side with the greater political power triumphed. Both sides are filled with hate towards the other, and when people hate other people, they don't simply win - after the victory they rub the noses of the defeated in their defeat. That's the American way. The gays fought an absolutely brutal political battle. Unable to win directly, they won through the courts, and once the courts, the way the abortionists did. Once the law was changed by the courts, the attitudes of the people shifted - Americans are legalists - what is LEGAL is MORAL in the American mind, and if one takes the stand that that which is legal is nevertheless IMMORAL, one encounters strong political forces designed to beat back that view. Trouble is, we Americans learned how to politically fight for "rights" in the context of the brutal repression and ultimate liberation of slaves and segregated blacks. Neither side gave any quarter, and the battle was one through blunt instruments (warfare) and brute political (and armed) force (National Guard called out to drive governors out of doorways and escort minority students into schools whose leaders did not want desegregation, but who were forced to do it at the physical gunpoint. That is the way politics are played in America: with force. When sodomy was illegal, some states made a point of BRUTALLY enforcing the law. The Supreme Court BRUTALLY stripped the rights from the states, and the gay activists BRUTALLY went straight into the most conservative states to make DAMNED sure that those big-bellied sherriffs were forced to submit, to stand aside, so that they would SEE and FEEL their defeat at the hands of superior power. That's how Americans play with each other, and talk to each other. Look at the degree of vile nastiness that various posters here unleash on each other. Americans justify all of that brutality in their own minds through appeals to their respective gods, who are all absolutists. So yes, the gays have driven - successfully - to normalize homosexual behavior, just as the blacks and their allies drove -successfully - to normalize racial equality and to break the power of the segregationists. If Americans were not so utterly intolerant and brutal in their exercise of power over one another, things not need be as bad as they are, but it is the American way of politics. For my part, I nevertheless refuse to acknowledge that the forced adherence to laws about who can (consentingly) touch whom, and how. I think that the whole American system ITSELF stinks to high heaven, and that the roots of all of the brutality ultimately go back to the black/white racial issue. Americans are cussed, on all sides, and so everything has to be a zero-sum game. I don't accept that logic. I don't care who screws whom, or how. I do understand the DEGREE of aggressiveness of the gays in asserting their rights, now that it is a war - they are angry at past oppression. I also understand the reason for the past oppression: aggressive Christian fanaticism. I am not a Christian fanatic. I don't like the Taliban, be they Christian or Muslim. So I don't get the hellbent nature of the desire to punish private behavior. But what I get, or don't get, isn't really relevant. I don't hate the gays. Nor do I particularly love the gays. If people want to identify themselves by the way they procure their orgasms, I think it's all rather sleazy and gets into things I don't want to know. But it's in everybody's face, and like every other American I am forced, against my will, to have a specific opinion on the matter. My opinion is that of the Supreme Court: Homosexual activity is a constitutional right, and whoever decides to try to beat down that right is an enemy of freedom who has to be broken. Therefore, just like blacks, homosexuals have the right to be served in the stream of commerce, and nobody has the right to either exclude blacks from his store, or refuse to provide goods and services to homosexuals - up to the point where the court has recently - correctly - drawn the line. When it comes to artistic expression, people cannot be forced to express themselves in favor of something they oppose. In a similar vein, churches cannot be forced to marry gays or accept them as clergy. It's sort of like the Civil War. It would have been so much better if "Christians" had acted like it and not insisted on slavery, and not, then, insisted on dominating slaves and fighting over it. But they did, so we all have to live with the aftermath. I see the fanatics screaming "faggot" and I still wonder WHY DO YOU CARE? And I see the gays pressing their current political advantage but being rightly blocked by the Supreme Court at the place they should be blocked. So as far as I can see the gays have gotten their "rights", and that's that. And I'm still not interested what they do with their pee-pees. Not likely to change my mind about any of these things. I don't like the Taliban of any cause.
I voted for McCain, Romney and Trump, and I'm not a Republican. Nor am I gay. So you probably ought to rethink that theory.
Please explain. Angels had children with human women, creating the Nephilim (and their descendants, the Basques) so apparently they have the equipment...at least some of them. At Sodom the angels were desired, for rape, by the townsmen. Whether they could have consummated the act or not is not known.
Spoken like a Catholic faggot lover. Well that is what your liberal whiny ass sounded like.
That won't slow down the Log Cabin Republicans in the least, they keep trying for the conversions. They're evangelical like that.
In Genesis 19 the angels took the form of human males. "Perhaps they are "ill-equipped" for sex." Some interpret Genesis 6 to read that fallen angels bred with women and resulted in giants called Nephilim.
It's people like you that give idiots such a bad reputation.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Hey, I'm not the one that's referred to as... Fred's Ass Hertz Why is it a faggots first defense, is to call other, more manly dudes, faggots? You'll call Stone or me gay... but you'd never suggest Stinky Pee Pee is a fag... and he defends faggots. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I can tell you why he cares,he cares because he is a fundie Christian that happens to b e bi-sexual or homosexual by nature,and he is convinced he is going to hell because of it. So he overreacts and condemns others to hell in the hope that the Big Guy will cut him some slack. He's also jealous. People out of the closet are having sex,and he isn't. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
And our rights? Do you care about them? Or do homosexual rights trump everyone else's rights and that's that? If a majority of parents don't want their 8-year-olds exposed to the homosexual lifestyle at school, what about their rights?
Um, no, but lots wonder about you and FireIsland's closets. From what I have noticed my whole life,there are only two kinds of people that walk around with that kind of anger over homosexuality,homos still in the closet and afraid to admit it due to religious beliefs,and people that suffered homosexual rape when they were a child and powerless to defend themselves. A lot of times they were even shamed into staying silent because it was their father,brother,or another close relative that raped them,and reporting it would have destroyed a lot of lives. I don't care who you are,you have to have sympathy for the second class. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Spoken like a Christian. I am a Catholic, yes. Homosexuals are homosexual, or gay. "Faggot" is an aggressively pejorative word, like "nigger". Christians talk like that (case in point: you and VxH). Catholics should not, because it's wrong to speak so evilly. You care what homosexuals do. I don't. I don't love what they do. I don't hate what they do. I simply don't care. If I felt like doing that, I am glad that the laws would not nonsensically come down on my head as though I had murdered somebody or burnt down a house. So I am glad the laws have changed. But I don't actually care to do any of that, so it's academic. As far as being a "faggot lover", as VxH so pointed out with such Christian charity somewhere on these threads, my father died of AIDS, and had indeed caught it by being a practicing homosexual. I did love my father, and still do, so yes, I am a "faggot lover" by your definition of the word. I do not think that churches should be forced to marry gays, or that wedding cake artists should be forced to design cakes for them, or that wedding photographers should be forced to photograph them. I do think that hotel chains should be forced to rent rooms to them for the night, and that landlords and car salesmen should be required to lease to them if they rent to the public. If you're a government official in a state that requires marriage licenses, I think you have to issue the license if a gay couple appears requesting one. Common sense, really, all of it.
8 year old children shouldn't be exposed to any sort of sex by anyone. They are children. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Third graders should not be being exposed to sex education at school at all.
We seem to be in violent agreement on this subject.
A lot of lives, yes. "Let go, and let God."
That is what it says, in English and in the Hebrew and in the Greek and in the Latin.
Yeah,that's one way to put it. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The reason we have an age of consent is because in the early teens sexuality is strong and ambiguous. Nobody is supposed to be having sex with young teenagers. But by the time we get to adulthood, we know what we like. How would a "conversion" be effected? I'm thinking about it. How could somebody "convince" me that I really didn't find the women I like attractive, but really did find adult boys more attractive? I don't even find all that many women attractive - I'm finicky. I'm at a loss to think of one SEXUALLY attractive male. Maybe some Asian he/she who looks like a hot girl? I can't see how somebody jawboning at me with any argument under the sun would make me like the taste of liver, or make me decide that the women I find attractive aren't, but that men are. I don't think such conversions are possible. I DO think that teenagers can much more easily get sucked into drugs, alcoholism, tobacco addiction and deviant sexuality, precisely because of the malleability of the young teenage brain - and that's why there are, quite properly, drinking ages and smoking ages and ages of sexual consent. Granted, 18 and 19 year olds are pretty impressionable, and people aren't REALLY adults until their mid-20s. Still, I don't think that "conversion" is an issue for adults. Could you be "converted"? Just think about it. How would that even work? I'm content to live and let live.
Vicomte13 wrote: To: sneakypete ---- We seem to be in violent agreement on this subject . I think that the whole American system ITSELF stinks to high heaven, and that the roots of all of the brutality ultimately go back to the black/white racial issue. Americans are cussed, on all sides, and so everything has to be a zero-sum game. I also understand the reason for the past oppression: aggressive Christian fanaticism. I am not a Christian fanatic. I don't like the Taliban, be they Christian or Muslim. So I don't get the hellbent nature of the desire to punish private behavior. I agree with most of what you've written, and in particular that the reason for the past oppression:---- aggressive fanaticism. Americans are addicted to aggressive fanaticism, having been exposed to it from childhood by adult approval... Our enemy is fanaticism, and it's teachers. There are many right here at little LF, and there is absolutely zero chance of ever even tempering their views...
I'm sorry to hear about your father. No that isn't what I meant. I meant your acceptance of homosexuals as normal behavior not to be ostricized. I used to harsh of words. Sorry for that.
How would that even work? Trump rallies and GOP conventions?
Common sense, really, all of it. That is evil. God would never want someone to be forced to sin like that in order to work. Of course it also clearly violates the first amendment? It also contradicts your stated belief of being against homosexuals pretending to be married.
Let us put this in a proper perspective, living a homosexual life style is a choice, what ever your orientation might be, and it is not hate speech to say so
Legally, constitutionally speaking, --- private, consensual homosexual behaviors between adults should not be criminalized.. But that does not mean that we should accept homosexual acts as normal behavior not to be ostricized. Public ostracisms of public displays of homosexuality are perfectly legal, bearing in mind that the doctrine of 'fighting words' applies.. Sixty years ago, in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court upheld for the first and only time a conviction for fighting words and made that doctrine a rare exception to the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Walter Chaplinsky, a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, called a city marshal a "damned Fascist" and "a God damned racketeer." He was convicted of violating a New Hampshire law that declared, "No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place." In affirming the state court, the Supreme Court announced that the First Amendment does not protect "insulting or 'fighting' words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
You like to believe that these were angels but the bible never calls them angels. The bible has no problem using the word "angels" in any other passages, yet you wish to believe that "sons of God" = "angels" and for no sound reason. Because you enjoy your little pet theory that you are one of the few survivors of angels interbreeding with mankind to create the Basque and blah-blah-blah, self-aggrandizing insecure claptrap. I see no descriptions that includes the word "angels". I see "sons of God" and "daughters of men". I don't know what those are but I do know that the bible clearly designates angels in many other passages but it does not do so here. But who else was there in this small ancient world following the murder of Abel by Cain and Cain's subsequent departure from Eden with his family? Genesis 4:25-26: According to ancient Arabic myths, Cain had never bore any resemblance to Adam but Seth was the spitting image of Adam. After leaving Eden, Cain's clan lived in a rich valley, just east of Eden, the same valley where Cain slew Abel. Seth's clan lived on the mountain above where they had buried Adam. Seth and succeeding patriarchs forbade contact with the Cainites who were lovers of pleasure and singing and dancing and perversions. But toward the end of the reign of Seth's clan on the mountain, some of the young men of Seth's clan ignored the prohibition against intermingling (and intermarriage) and went down to the valley for some fun. Lots of fun. The Arab writers, Semites as were the Jews, routinely called the descendents of Seth "sons of God" as the mountain they dwelt on was supposedly so close to heaven they could hear the angels sing and even join in on the choruses. And Eve herself had claimed Seth as "another seed" raised by God to replace Abel, not like her other children. In the Targums, we find these renderings: Schamchazai and Uzziel, who fell from heaven, were on the earth in those days; and also, after the sons of the Great had gone in with the daughters of men, they bare to them: and these are they who are called men who are of the world, men of names. At any rate, your notions of the Nephalim are just a corny Catholic myth in contradiction with facts and scripture but that just happens to flatter your ancestry. Which we all know is sooooo important to you. After all, the rest of us are just mindless cattle compared to refined ancient noble breeds like yourself. But there are other problems with your alleged noble heritage of angelic paternity. According to a few ancient sources like the Targum of Onkelos and the Targum of Jonathan, the only angels on earth at this time were Schanchazai and Uziel, both fallen angels but still incapable of having any children as all angels are. But if you wish to make the Nephalim the children of angels, then you and your Nephalim kin are the children of fallen angels. Not so flattering. But let's move beyond that. Here in Genesis 6 starting in verse 5, God is declaring his displeasure with the wickedness of man (including the disobedient "sons of God" (sons of Seth who were intermingling with the descendants of Cain) and leading God to His decision to destroy man and beast and birds. Except for Noah. And who was Noah? A "son of God" who had remained true to God and thereby found favor with him. Noah did not marry any of the Cainite women, neither did his sons. They built the ark as commanded and then all of mankind was drowned in the Flood. No survivors who turned into the Basque. And there were no Nephalim stowaways on the ark. The bible says all were destroyed except those on the ark. All means all. Period. And poof goes your inflated ideas about your alleged ancient heritage, albeit one that would, if followed logically, make you a descendant of the first of the ancient fallen angels if we take your version literally. But no one would because it would make no sense. But if you don't believe that all were destroyed other than the eight righteous and obedient members of Noah's family, you are calling Genesis, your claimed favorite book in the Bible, a baldfaced lie. Which means your claims of "Nephalim" ancestry have to be bogus as well. Kinda self-defeating when you're trying to spruce up the family tree with some sparkling bible garland.
I was in a church once where the pastor made a similar claim. Except he called it a theory. He also taught the so called gap theory to harmonize scripture with current "Scientific" theory.
Negative, Ghost Ranger. A faggot is a sick twisted freak of nature. One that by his/her own nature, does ZERO to ensure the survival of their own species. They are a weakness... and the only reason my species grow more accepting of them, is due to the increasing pussification of my species. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Did I miss where Vic claimed to be a decendamt, or are you making it up. Does any of this tie into the pre adamic world I have heard some teach. Fascinating as it is, I don't believe it.
So if you went to the DMV to get license plates and a drivers license and some Mormon DMV clerk decided she didn't want you to have those because it was contrary to God's will for non-Mormons to drive, that would be fine with you? When you accept state employment, you are obliged to obey the laws of the state as you do your work. Roy Moore was a judge who refused to follow the lawful (but immoral) rulings of superior court judges. He got tossed off the court once for it, he did it again. Then he managed to lose us an easy Senate seat to boot. If Roy Moore wanted to change the law, he should have run for president or for Congress. Or he should have tried to organize a constitutional convention. Thumbing your nose at your bosses (superior courts) is not lawful. Moore should lose his law license, should have lost it back when they removed him from the state supreme court.
See Vic's post #39 on this thread. And Vic clearly claims Basque (and Sami and French) heritage. Ipso facto... This is not something new he's come up with recently. He posted about this same stuff back at LP too. You might glance at the Targum source I linked and quoted from above. In some ways, I prefer the Targum (memorized and chanted orally by Yemeni Jews from ancient times) to the version we have from the Masoretic text. It just makes a little more sense than our Genesis does. It explains a little more than ours does.
No, they didn't. See my #62 for a better explanation of these problematic passages from Genesis. The Jews don't have these problems because they have the Talmud and the Targums to help explain it. We Christians generally are not familiar with these sources and it gives rise to a lot of misinformation, like angels having sex with women and having children which is completely inconsistent with everything else we are told about them in scripture. They're wrong. Angels are spirit beings and possess eternal bodies created to glorify God and to serve Him. God has no genitals. Neither do the angels. They do not possess the animal nature of our bodies (which follow the general pattern of mammals that God created before he created Adam). Nothing in scripture indicates that they do possess carnal organs.
LOL. You turd burglars always have to project your perversion onto others when confronted with biological fact. It's all you got. Meanwhile, XX + XY = Human Boo hoo for you and the LGBT "gender" jackwagon.
This is one of those issues where it takes one to know one, and everyone only knows one side, not the other. Unless there's somebody out there that spent 10 years as a complete homosexual and then converted to complete heterosexual for the next 10 years (which I very much doubt), anyone who claims to know the whole issue is pretty much full of it. As for no gnu, if you chose to be a heterosexual, could you perhaps describe what happened that day when you did so? Did it happen on a day when you were about 10 years old when your parents, school counselors or perhaps your health teacher sat you down and explained that you had an important decision to make, and talk to you about the benefits and consequences of being one over the other? Was there a ceremony at your church or something? However, speaking for myself, I know I never made a choice. Hell, most boys under that age practically hate girls in true Calvin and Hobbs style. That's the popular boy sentiment, so if it were a choice, I would imagine most boys, being ignorant of sexuality, morality, biblical edicts and so forth would simply never make a choice to like girls. Why would they? So on your claim to have made a proactive choice to be heterosexual, I side with TC in saying I don't believe you.
If they were born that way then it is a dangerous birth defect. That if spread to far on the gene pool could cause the end of the species. Perhaps they should abort gay fetuses.
It's as natural as cancer. And in the context of Romans chapter 1 it's a punitive consequence. "God gave them over" to a mechanism whereby a self-worshiping culture self-destructs. It's not surprising that, as Bezmenov revealed, the Bolshe-Soviets had the demoralization of American culture as an important strategic objective.
If everyone was gay then obviously yes, it would bode poorly for the human race. Obviously if this was the state of things going back to the dawn of civilization, there would not have been any civilization. I agree with you there. It could be considered a birth defect, if it was known to be something that is determined by the time birth occurs, but we don't know that. But if so, then... fine, it's a birth defect. But it wouldn't be the only one out there. But while I don't think gayness is a choice, it doesn't necessarily mean it's DNA issue. The list of possibilities includes that but also includes upbringing & chemical exposure (Some suggest birth control pills can impact offspring in this way). Obviously modern drugs couldn't be the sole cause of it as homosexuality does date back thousands of years as you know. However, it could account for a much higher increase of occurrences.
They used to say it was 1 percent of the population. Now some homosexuals are claiming it is 10 percent. According to them it is growing exponentially. We will be doomed faster than global warming.
[duplicate post]
The cause and effect described in Romans chapter 1 isn't hypothetical. "God gave them over" How?
Michael Eisner was bragging about 40+ percent of his Disney Caste members being homosexual back in the 90's. That's an important clue about how they propagate their numbers through nepotism and reverse discrimination.
I don't know if the 10% figure is true, but as I mentioned, some suggest modern synthetic drugs or other chemical exposure could be causing an increase in homosexual rates. The chemical revolution occured in the 1950's when there was a true explosion in the science of chemistry. Obviously it's all still going on, and the human race is exposed to myriads of chemicals now that simply did not exist before 80 years ago. No one can certify all these chemicals we are exposed to, even those that are not actually consumed, don't impact us in ways we have not thought of yet.
https://www.google.com/search? q=bpa+plastic+estrogen+feminization
Why did you drag me into this dark thread? I don't care about homosexuality; in fact, I abhor the activity.
If they ever get a half-reliable test, they'll abort them just as viciously as they abort the Downs syndrome babies now.
Yes, that's Biblical.
Other than the fact that they mated with human females and produced the Nephilim. And of course the Father begat Jesus via Mary.
our claimed favorite book in the Bible, a baldfaced lie. Which means your claims of "Nephalim" ancestry have to be bogus as well. Kinda self-defeating when you're trying to spruce up the family tree with some sparkling bible garland. Except of course that the Bible tells us that they also were begotten by the angels again AFTER the flood, that the Anakim were their descendants, etc. You Christians - you, VxH - you all talk alike: abusive, nasty, arrogant. I have learned to detest Christians by the way that Christians speak to me here and elsewhere.
Which aircraft, exactly, did you sucker the American tax-payers into paying for you to qualify on, Comrade?
Are you a Christian?
I don't feel any need to classify my spiritual life with any particular semantic label for your convenience, Comrade. It is what it is, between me and the Architect of the Universe. Which aircraft are you expecting us to believe the Navy qualified you on?
Where in scripture (no apocrypha) is it plainly stated that angels fathered the Anakim? As you look at the descriptions of them, vague as they are, it seems they were merely descendants of tall people who had lived at Hebron and Arba. So, can you tell me just how often God fell asleep and let angels come down to earth to have a lot of sex with women? Is it just the regular nice angels like the Archangel Gabriel (who brought good tidings to Mary, oops) who get to cat around with women or do the fallen angels also get to screw all the women they want? Do you believe that angels (either in good standing or fallen angels in hell) are still coming to earth and screwing all the broads they want and that God does nothing to stop any of them? Or do you think God is in on the sex thing, like maybe God is pimping out these women for the horny angels? Could an angel show up at any time and have sex with your secretary or a nun or Mother Theresa or Joan of Arc or whoever strikes their horny fancy? After all, these are angels and apparently you're telling us that they get to screw all the women they want, whenever they want, and God either doesn't care or is powerless to stop them. Please explain.
Catholic/Christian dialogue is a dead letter. There is no respect between the parties. Pass.
I see, too important to be a mere Christian. Got it. Too Conservative and A K A Stone are one thing, and you are a very different thing, believe in a different God, one whose name you will not deign to mention. Does Jesus embarrass you?
Finally learning the "nobody is smart enough to lie" lesson, ehh your Worshipfulness?. LOL. Better late than never. And an admission that Catholics are not Christian. A Twofer! { shrug } Then again, maybe you're not as "Catholic" as you pretend to be, either:
Nope. Which aircraft are you expecting us to believe the Navy qualified you on, Comrade?
Yeah, I thought so. Too bad, I had a very long series of questions I was hoping you could explain about these horny angels and their offspring. Starting with: why did God destroy all of mankind except Noah's family when (in your view) the cause of that destruction was these angels having children with human women? Would God destroy the human race for something that He allowed His angels to do to weak human women? I would also want to know much more about the Book of Enoch (and Jubilees) and their account of history. These two books were written during the inter-testamental period, around the same time as the two traditional Jewish targums that I quoted above. Enoch 6-7 is quite descriptive. I'll quote it here for Stone to read since I don't think he's looked at it much. 1And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto 2them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men 3and beget us children.' And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not 4indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations 5not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves 6by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn 7and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, 8Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. These are their chiefs of tens. 1And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms 2and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they 3became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed 4all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against 5them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and 6fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones. So these 200 horny rebel Watcher angels, with the leaders' names listed, made a pact to sex it up with some hot women here on Earth and have babies with them. God was powerless to stop them or just didn't care enough to stop them. Then the Nephalim were born and were monstrous giants who ate their parents out of house and home. And then they ate their parents and everybody else within reach and were eating everything on earth (including each other), utterly destroying God's creation. So sleepy old God finally woke up from His nap and saw what had happened and got mad and destroyed what remained of the human race and the evil Nephalim giants in the Flood. The book of Jubilees supports this view that God destroyed mankind in the Flood for the evil of these hungry giants and their horny angel papas. I am willing to learn more if you want to explain how all that worked. I'm sure I missed some of the fine points. Including why you would even want to claim any genetic relationship to these vile Nephalim giants which does puzzle me quite a bit.
I was satisfied with this portion from your link to Catholic.com. I thought that this was very much in agreement with my previous post.
So you think the Father actually has genitals, that He was Mary's secret lover at least that one time? Ever consider that the God who created the universe could just say "Let there be a zygote" and caused Mary's pregnancy in that way? Then God doesn't have to carry around an otherwise useless penis for all eternity. God is a pure spirit and does not possess a human body after all.
I am willing to learn more if you want to explain how all that worked. This is why conversations with Christians is useless. In the first sentence you assumed facts not in evidence. I never wrote, and it is not my view, that God destroyed the world because of those angels. I never said that, and I don't believe it. So before I even come out of the gate in any conversation, you have already asserted what I allegedly believe, based on what you don't believe. Then you say you're willing to learn more "if I want to explain..." So, If I want to explain why what you said at the beginning is not right, deconstruct everything you wrote and put it back together so that I am stating what I DO think, and then proceed forward against a gradient of constant resistance from you based on things I never said. Yeah, that sounds pleasant. I don't care what you believe. Think what you want to think. Religious conversation between Catholics and Christians - I use Christians' language in that regard - is unrewarding and useless. Christians simply make up straw men and scream at Catholics. It's not worth Catholics' time to bother with it. Truth is, your mind isn't open to anything. you're sure you have all of the answers, and you're arrogant and abusive in language, to the point of abusing me already for things I never said. What's in this conversation for me? Nothing. Pass.
Two peas in a pod.
So you're not a Trinitarian.
You won't state you're a Christian because you're too good for Christianity? Where and when did YOU serve?
No. Because VxH is not a Christian. Not that this necessarily makes him a bad man; just a bit...vague.
Because VxH is not a Christian. Not that this necessarily makes him a bad man; just a bit...vague. He quotes Scripture a lot, and accuses people of not obeying it, but he's not a Christian? This doesn't make him a bad man, I agree. It's the other things he does that make him a bad man.
In the first sentence you assumed facts not in evidence. I never wrote, and it is not my view, that God destroyed the world because of those angels. I never said that, and I don't believe it. So before I even come out of the gate in any conversation, you have already asserted what I allegedly believe, based on what you don't believe. Oh, I don't know about that, Vic. On the main platforms, any actual Christian is going to agree. I don't think we can just off-handedly disregard convos simply because of interpretational disagreement. As I saw it, both of you state and stated a presumption that may be open to debate. Genesis is one of those chapters of the Bible that is open to different interpretations, assumptions/presumptions. I will say that there IS solid tangible evidence of giants in man's past; of 10'+ skeletal remains. And not just one here and there. Plenty. Now that could lead to further conversations/debates/disagreements about the nature of "Nephilim" as well as a pre-Flood past, History AND Science. The evidence strongly suggests that the Antediluvian World was one where ALL life was much larger than after the Great Flood (the giant human remains, dinosaur bones, larger plant/insect/animal fossils.) All life lived longer as well. The Bible -- if the 600+ year ages of Adam, Methuselah, Noah, etal are to be believed -- would seem to back that theory up. There are theories that after the Great Flood man's DNA was altered (as well as all other life) as lifespan and size of life was reduced greatly (the Bible states God re-calibrated man to live to be "120 years.") Can you imagine the evil today were people (and dictators) to live to age 600+ as in the days of yore?
Catholics claim to be followers of Christ. Now you are saying they aren't. Also you Catholics don't like to debate scripture because you lack the scripture to back up your tradittions. I'm not saying every Catholic is going to hell. I don't believe that. Now answer tcs question please. I've heard your position before in a Protestant church I used to attend. Please explain your view more. Thank you.
True. Quotes Scripture, is NOT a Christian. Seems a bit...ODD. This doesn't make him a bad man, I agree. It's the other things he does that make him a bad man. Maybe he's a Wizard who lives on the bad side of town in Oz.
Wow conversations with followers of Christ are worthless. Since followers of Christ are saying what Jesus said for the most part. That must mean by extrapolation that conversations with Jesus is also a waste of ti!me. You could found a new religion on that if the Catholic didn't already start one.
I think I agree with Vic here. If God created man in his image wouldn't that mean we look like him kind of?
This is the wrong comment I'm responding to but I will put this out there. What vxh put out about Vic's father was a low skumbag move. It had little to do with the thread and it was just meant to hurt him. While I disagree with Vic on some things. Ok a lot of things. Vic posts with class and he doesn't t come here to try to hurt people. I like him. So cut out all the following Vic around and bringing up shit that is irrelevant and mean spirited. Another example. Who trusted you with that plane or however you put it.
When my interlocutor writes things I never wrote nor said, and that I don't think, and then proceeds to write a screed demolishing the straw man, I'm not off-handedly disregarding the conversation. I am purposely avoiding a rigged trial before a court that has already found me guilty before I even had a chance to speak! I am willing to discuss the Nephilim from both a Western Biblical and an Eastern Canon (the Ethiopian Orthodox include the book of Enoch in their canon). I'm willing to have sober conversation about anything. What I am getting here is not sober, it's baiting, full of invective, asserting that I am dishonest. People here act like crap, then expect to be treated with respect and to have conversations. It's getting real old, and not very enjoyable.
Point taken. What I am getting here is not sober, it's baiting, full of invective, asserting that I am dishonest. People here act like crap, then expect to be treated with respect and to have conversations. I hear ya. I think that speaks to others regard and expectations for you meeting their challenge -- justifiable or not ;-)
Where are all of these giant skeletons then? The ones we know of were phonies cooked up by charlatans to try to create a tourist trap or a sideshow exhibit in some sleazy circus. The height of the Nephalim were, according to this pernicious myth, 300 ells. And 300 ells = 300 cubits. (An ell being the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger or about 1.5 feet.) That would make the average height of the Nephalim 450 feet tall. Certain very famous rabbis pronounced a curse on anyone teaching this nonsense about angels having sex with women and producing these giants and that that was why God destroyed the world with the Flood.
I am and generally a pretty orthodox one. That means, among other things, that I do not believe that God was a created being and that He therefore possessed the sex organs of a created being. You, OTOH, seem to be stating that the Father produced sperm and used His penis to impregnate Mary.
Well, exactly how we were created in the image of God is debatable. The Father is not your daddy, Adam was. And Adam was formed from the dust of the earth and his body, like our own, bore the design patterns of other life created previously on earth. We are not an alien species to this planet after all. Our digestion, our organs, the various systems of our bodies are all analogous to various similar characteristics of the animal kingdom. So we are created in the image of God in that we have a spiritual component which the animals like. The old sense of the word 'soul' is that of 'body + spirit'. Animals possess bodies but not spirits. Only man, alone of all God's creation on earth, possesses both body and spirit. And that body will die, every single time. It is only the spirit that can survive death. By another measure, while we possess brains similar to those of some of the higher mammals, only we possess true reason. The bible was not written for gorillas and chimpanzees. It was written by us, for us. So we possess reason and intelligence. And we possess hands capable of creation, the hands of a toolmaker. And we have, as a result of Eve's disobedience in eating from the forbidden tree, the ability to know the difference between good and evil, to know if we are naked or clothed, etc. So, no, we do not resemble the Father physically. We do not appear as a cloud or as a pillar of fire, for instance. His appearance is so fierce that to view Him fully in our flesh would destroy our bodies.
I'm not saying every Catholic is going to hell. I don't believe that. Now answer tcs question please. I've heard your position before in a Protestant church I used to attend. Please explain your view more. Thank you. Shit on my religion. Shit on me. Then tell me to answer a "question" of somebody who already built a strawman of what I never said and then knocked it down calling it me. Pass. My answer is: read the text. It tells you that the sons of heaven looked down, saw the daughters of men were fair, and had relations with them, producing giants and great heroes, both before and after the Flood. In the Ethiopian canon is the book of Enoch, to which Jude referred directly, Peter referred not by name, and that Jesus outright quoted or paraphrased several times (because Enoch isn't in the Western bible, Jesus' quotations of it are not footnoted). Enoch speaks directly of the very incident that Genesis refers to: the angels taking earthly wives and bearing children by them. I didn't make this up out of thin air, and don't deserve one scintilla of abuse, reference to hell, glancing attack on my religion - none of it for recounting a well-known and long-discussed subject. But it is impossible to talk to Christians without having to put up with all of the verbal crap you all feel obliged to hurl at any Catholic. It is unpleasant, and it makes communication simply not worth it. Pass.
Planes AND helicopters, according to the pathological liar whose whose fortune was supposedly stolen by the "nurse" associated with his daddys elite HIV infested blood. Multiple aircraft with months or years of training on each... $$ spent by the American tax payer to educate a communist POS who thinks trying to understand the educational history of Pol Pot in his beloved France is "humorous". Or, maybe Comrade Nephilim's entire shpeeel and bloodline are bullshyte. Nobody is smart enough to lie.
You're "Christians", you're not followers of Christ. You know a tree by its fruit. I've been eating your bitter fruit, and Too Conservatives, and VxH's, and several other "Christians" fruit here and over at Christian Forums for awhile. I see Christ in many. I don't hear anything that sounds remotely like Christ from any of you. You're nasty, hypocritical, vengeful, spiteful, dark souls. You love to preach and criticize, and to attack, and you do it from a presumed position of power and moral authority. I don't see anything Christlike about any of you. It is you people who have decided that Catholics are not Christian. I am happy to cede to the word "Christian" to you since that what you call yourselves. What you are, I do not desire to be, in any way. Bitter fruit, ugly dialogue. Follow Christ, yeah, I do that. You've polluted the word Christian by claiming it, so you're welcome to keep it. You're Christians. I follow Christ. We do not walk the same path in this life. Whether we will walk the same paths in the life to come, I don't know. If either you or I are not changed, I don't see how, nor do I see why we would want to. You people frankly disgust me. I don't care who you SAY you follow. I listen to your words and hear what you say and how you treat people. You are vile, mean spirited and undiscerning. The lack of discernment is not a terrible fault, but being as nasty about it as you people are, and then claiming it to be "love" - if THAT is "Christian love", then you can keep it. I want none of it. I'll stick with Catholic love. It's better.
You said to stick to the Bible. Now you're quoting the book of Enoch.
Yah you Jesuit commies sure LOVED Viet Nam into an awesome Tell us again how "humorous" Pol Pot's French Jesuit Commie education was when he was living that out in Cambodia.
Yes, that is correct, planes AND heliocopters, because that is the way that Navy Flight School works, you little monkey. See, you start in flight basic. There, you learn to fly by flying turboprop airplanes. Back them it was the T-34C. Had a little bit of training command time in the T-2 also, but that was purely for fun and not part of the curriculum. Then comes service assignment and you are sent out to fly what you will fly in the fleet. I was assigned to helicopters, which means I then went through helo training, learning on TH-57Cs. Then in the fleet I flew H-3 Sea Kings, specifically for HS-14, specifically off of the USS Ranger, CV-61, based in Naval Air Station North Island, Coronado, California. You call me a liar. I'm not. But you never served at all, did you. Who are you to be judging me? You quote Scripture, but you are ashamed to say you believe in Christ, that you're a Christian, or a Catholic, or anything. Either that or you don't, but you cuddle right up with the Christians to spit bile at me. You're a cockroach, a lying little cockroach, and a cunt. Fuck you. Go die in a hole. Goodbye, and to hell with you.
Why would a Mormon take a job where their sole duty was to issue driver's licenses contrary to God's will?
South Carolina, GA, Nebraska, California, Kansas. 1985 to 92. Enjoyed serving with the folks in the LRSD of the 167th Cav 35th ID the most. Big red rock star like you wouldn't have fit in very well, Comrade. ESAD / FOAD. The apple and the tree. Did your passengers know about your commie "elite" HIV infested blood line?
Nope. I just don't bark like a dog when commanded by a commie, manipulative, game playing, narcissistic, pathological liar like you. I call it like I see it. If that bruises your ego, I don't give a shyte.
Obviously, others believe differently. You should publish a book containing the one definitive and true interpretation of the Bible. You're as bad as t-pain-in-the-ass -- the only interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is his interpretation. Everyone else is wrong.
Winter is coming.
I've always thought that I could support any denomination that believed Christ was the savior, even though I didn't agree with every aspect of what they taught. However, I can't support anything to do with the current Pope. He is just a far left secularist. The 7th Day Adventist Church has always said the Papacy was the antichrist. With this Pope, I'm thinking they may be on to something.
LCMS Lutherans like to regurgitate that they're "more catholic than Catholic". But, it's not the same organization it was 40 years ago. After the seminary split in 2001+-, the parrots perched in Saint Loueee seem to be more interested in what's fashionable among the Jesuits, whom they appear to envy and are attempting to emulate. Their iconification of Martin "The Angels Dance when a Jew Farts" Luther as the face of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation was quite telling about the theological flock of wolves that lurks behind the vestigial Roman plumage they love to wear. Meh, stupid priesthood of all believers. Who needs that anyhow.
Wasn't enough for the folks in Japan. The Jesuits deceived their Japanese herd into believing they needed a priest to intercede between herd members and their creator. That's the big LIE Catholics (big C) propagate wherever their empire spreads. Catholic Confession has always been more about intelligence gathering than salvation. The KGB was never so effective in their wildest dreams.
Well, I am not Catholic and haven't attended many Catholic churches, but it seems that confession is becoming a far less common practice these days.
Again. "And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!"
It's not just confession that the Eunuch Priests have assumed dominion over. Seems to me Akhenaten, the Aten (Sun), God-King - was the proto-Pope. With himself requisitely perched between the sheeple and the object of their worship. Artists throughout history have subtly pointed that out as well - with depictions of the Sun / Hallow adorning the religious art they were mandated to perform.
Really? Did you or did you not state definitively back in September that God was the author of evil, based on the (flattering) address by Isaiah to the Persian king Cyrus, in Isaiah 45:7? You did. You repeatedly insisted that God was the author of evil. redleghunter was there on that thread as was Liberator and Stone. Isaiah 45: In just the last month, you posted speculation that Jesus was an XX male specimen, inheriting no original sin from the Y chromosome the rest of us inherited from Adam. This was hardly original since Augustine had well-known views on the matter of the transmission of original sin and that original sin was transmitted from generation to generation by male semen and that Jesus, born of a virgin and without human sperm, alone was the only male ever born without the curse of original sin. You seemed fascinated with the idea that we might extract cells from the Shroud of Turin and clone our very own hermaphrodite savior. You got all insulted and disappeared when I started accurately pointing out that we do know the genetic results of an intersex male suffering from XX male syndrome. That was on the thread about the still-unknown first-century manuscript of Mark. LF: First-century Mark: More Information! IOW, you stomped off as soon as you realized that I knew you were saying that Jesus might have been our intersexual hermaphrodite savior and a genetic freak who was not really a man at all. In both instances, you love to play the aggrieved party after suggesting dire heresies known from ancient times and then stomp off because "these Prots are just vulgar animals who can't be reasoned with". You're not fooling me or anyone else with this act. We steadily uphold the traditional orthodoxy of Christian doctrine while you invent and expound these batshit-crazy heresies of various sorts and then get mad and stomp off because we won't consider your enlightened ideas.
Yeah, but angels aren't coming while having sex with women to create evil 450' tall giants. If you have something to say, why don't you just skip the passive-aggressive vagueness? It seems to me that you have no interest in this thread, you're just looking for some negative interaction because you're bored. Or are you just quoting from the series Game of Thrones? State a position or begone with your weak trolling.
Maybe the Mormon DMV clerk didn't like some new policy the state implemented or that was dictated by higher courts. Just like Roy Moore refusing to obey the direct orders of higher courts. I can't believe I have to argue with the dumbasses who helped lose us that AL senate seat.
And a real ego deflator... at least among folks for whom the cornerstone of their identity is propped up on the specialtude of their blood line.
You and your fairy tails were the laughing stock of the flight line, weren't you.
Returning to your quote from Catholic.com: Having "no official teaching" is itself a kind of permission for people to think what they want about it. So refusing to take a position is itself taking a permissive position on the matter. The Orthodox, the Jews, and Prots as a whole do not have this permissiveness toward this evil fairy tale which was based on cursed ancient writings. The Jews find it especially offensive.
That is not the Bible. So Catholics use the book of Enoch. Interesting.
The book of Jude also directly quotes the book of Enoch, giving substance to it. I'm merely tracing out the entire lineage of these myths about horny angels and evil giants. And I've done so accurately.
I don't worship the pope who is an extra biblical character. You ignore scriturre when you blaspheme and call him holy father. I was feeling pity for you as vxh savaged you and kicked your ass. Since you took my kind words to you and returned with hateful you're not a Christian for asking questions about your beliefs. We have turned a page and I look at you differently. Maybe you aren't just lost but you are a dark creature.
Jesuit syncretism and accommodation. Helps the eunuchs spread their empire like butter on mlk toast.
You peel back any faith and you find different layers of the onion. I saw all these free will Baptist churches and later realized why they felt the need to call themselves "free will." Still I thought they all accepted Christ. The current Catholic Pope seems to just be interested in leftist dogma, not any actual teachings of Christ.
Then why do you class a man God's name " holy father" You also pray to a woman and that is stupid because she is dead and can't hear. You ignore these contradictions of yourself and you cannot explain it. So again why would we think Catholics are followers of Christ when they ignore simple truths? Now I do believe that if Catholics believe in God and genuinely repent they are saved despite their errors. But you are a smart guy and I do wonder how you get so much wrong. You ignore passages we have pointed out to you many times. You have never pointed out scripture that I have rejected. Yes I have sinned many times. However I am talking about the teaching of scripture and what it means.
Only the Ethiopian Orthodox. It is from copies of their ancient versions in the Ge'ez language that we know of the book of Enoch (other than some references to it among the church fathers). More recently, some fragments of the book of Enoch were recovered from the Dead Sea scrolls from the caves at Qumran. Once the Orthodox, of any stripe, ever gets their hands on something, they will keep and preserve it forever. It is a well-known characteristic of the Orthodox. And the Ethiopian church was cut off when the northern African Christian heartland was lost. We tend to forget that northern Africa was once the breadbasket of ancient Christianity as, for instance, when Augustine was a major theological influence and political power when he was bishop of Hippo. And Hippo was where the bishops met to affirm the official canon of the books of the Bible. Not Rome but Africa. It is a fact about the ancient churches that is worth remembering. The Ethiopian church put into their canon every last book they had in their hands. That doesn't mean they weight them all equally, any more than we do with our canon of 66 books of the bible. Some books are far more important than others.
Like when you said we should transfer our wealth to the rest of the world. That sounds like a commie not a follower of Christ. Also when you said the solution was to murder every right wing person. That was following Christ correct? The more I think back I can remember some pretty evil stuff you said. Like the murdering everyone you talked about. Or you claiming to raise nlizards from the dead.
Hah. Must've missed that. It's consistent with Vicomte13 finding humor in/ridiculing anyone who tries to understand the process by which the French Commie Jesuits "educated" Pol Pot in preparation for his genocidal endeavors. Although the Socialists have been making gains at Annapolis and the other academies for decades, I doubt that's where Comrade Vic learned what he's preaching. More likely a character/mental defect inherited from the tree he fell so close to.
In both instances, you love to play the aggrieved party after suggesting dire heresies known from ancient times and then stomp off because "these Prots are just vulgar animals who can't be reasoned with". You're not fooling me or anyone else with this act. We steadily uphold the traditional orthodoxy of Christian doctrine while you invent and expound these batshit-crazy heresies of various sorts and then get mad and stomp off because we won't consider your enlightened ideas. You said that good. You're ducks are I'll in a row. Vic has to twist scripture and ignore stuff. Then he gets mad as you say. It's ok for him to say we are not followers of Christ. I am a flawed person but I truly believe the Bible is the word of God. So when ai tell him stuff in it and he ignores it and turns all nasty where he even said every right wing person should be murdered.
You may be misled on the subject. I'm not making any definitive claim on any interpretation of Genesis or Book of Enoch, but there is some very compelling evidenece that supports the existence of "Giants." I understand that this is one more subject you easily toss in your circular CT File; And if you don't see it in the New York Times or Smithsonian, I guess it can't be believed? WAIT. It seems the Times DID cover these type of stories once upon a time. And the Smithsonian IS kind of involved -- not in a good way. Here are a few couple of sources to prime your pump. IF you're sincerely interested in the subject. Others might well be. It really is fascinating. http://humansarefree.com/2014/09/the-great-smithsonian-cover-up-18-giant.html https://manvsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/giant-remains-near-cagliari-sardinia/ There are quite a few contemporary researchers delving into this subject. I am quite familiar with Steve Quayle's work. If you feel this is impossible or the spread of hoaxes, so be it. One thing is crystal clear -- some very powerful PTB have actively impeding actual science and history while simultaneous corrupting it. One could point directly at the same Darwinists who've displayed "Lucy" and "Neanderthal Man" at Museums and claimed "Evolution" as "Settled Science."
I saw all these free will Baptist churches and later realized why they felt the need to call themselves "free will." Still I thought they all accepted Christ. The current Catholic Pope seems to just be interested in leftist dogma, not any actual teachings of Christ. There are lots of false teachings in Protestant churches also. One thing I will say for the Catholics and Vic agrees with. They pretty much have the same beliefs and teach from the same materials. I will say that Catholic charities and family values are spot on traditionally. The Catholics have been a great Ally in the pro life cause. Just because I criticize several things about them doesn't mean that I don't respect some of their charitable work. They have made a diffference?. However it is not by works we are saved and their is some real problems in the Catholic Church.
I always saw that attributed to influential French intellectuals from the circle of French existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre. I don't think Pol Pot was attending Notre Dame or hanging out with French Catholics. At least, I don't recall that.
Natural Law. The universe is ordered. "Let there be light" is consistent with today's quantum cosmology, where at the moment before the "big bang" there was nothing, and a moment later - all the energy in the universe, was. Pretty good guess for a bunch of nomadic sheep herders. Likewise, their socio-biological model of human proliferation: Male and Female. Who is the architect of that order, why are we separated them, and how did they restore our relationship with them? iMHO, those are the essential, substantive, questions of the "Christian", biblical, worldview.
At first I wasn't going to participate in this thread. Then I thought I'll make one comment. Then another and another.
He attended a Jesuit Catholic school as a child. There are many sources saying he went to Paris to study. The name of the institution, however, I have not been able to find.
I see know reason why it has to be.
Uh-huh. The museums and archaeologists are all just hiding the evidence. They're so afraid of upsetting the public. Just another giant conspiracy theory. I did notice in the comments: Steve Quayle is the source of a lot of this stuff. And we notice the currency of these ideas about horny angels having Nephalim giant babies with human women.
Most any child in Cambodia at the time would have attended a Jesuit-run elementary school if they received any formal education at all. But the Jesuits never taught what Pol Pot grew up to practice. This was well before any liberation theology among Roman clergy (which was mostly found in South America anyway). He attended the Sorbonne (at the time, the name of the main building of the ancient University of Paris) on scholarship, apparently to study radio and electronics. He dropped out. However, he did absorb much of the French existential philosophy of Sartre and his associates back in the day. Pol Pot got much of this via another Asian, Khieu Samphan, who advocated ruthless communist doctrine and the necessity of policy similar to that of Mao Tse Tung and his Cultural Revolution which killed millions in China. These unabashed Maoists wanted to promulgate such massacres around the world, in former colonial client states such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Africa, etc. And Paris was no stranger to the idea of mass murder of counter-revolutionary forces, as they held the original mass murders of the nobility, monarchy, and bourgeoisie back during the French Revolution (Reign of Terror). Baltimore Sun: A terrifying synthesis of forces spawned Pol Pot's ugly regime, 1998
Now I'm wondering if I have any cheese/sour cream potato chips left in the pantry. : )
I assure you, I've never met another Catholic who says some of these nutty things he tries to peddle to us. BTW, I just retrieved my potato chips! You're to blame. LOL
It seems the Jesuits learned (or at least practiced) quite a bit about Communal/Centrally Banked farming down among the native bipedal cattle of Paraguay... who, oddly, were never empowered with quite enough education to actually run the farms autonomously, themselves. Got Mlk?
That's a good article / find. Thanks.
Touché. : ) I don't find the old Jesuit Reductions of Paraguay as sinister as you do. You might want to read up on them more. The Jesuits were trying to protect the natives from being enslaved by the colonial regime and to Christianize and educate them. I'm no Jesuit fan but the Reductions were not villainous IMO. Those Jesuits were decent enough and not related to the later commie-influenced liberation theology types (like the murdered bishop, Oscar Romero who was adopted by the commie Catholics as their hero despite his rejection of their ideology and was then canonized by Pope Frank) or the many daft Lefty bishops like Pope Frank himself.
Gee what a surprise... Speaking of trees and apples... Cluster frack; Monumental, 1 each.
The Jesuits were trying to protect the natives There. Fixed it. :-D I think the comunual/monastic pre- history of Roman/Syncretic Catholocism can be observed in communes of Qumran: https://www.google.com/search? q=qumran+community+rule And possibly further back: https://www.google.com/search?q=qumran+Akhenaten What happened to Akhenatens's caste of religious eunuchs after Egypt returned to its polytheistic old-school ways? Hmmm. Ol' Akhe sure does resemble a proto-Pope, perched between the Sun/Aten and Akhe's minions. I think Islam probably got cooked up in the same soup.
So what was the curricular focus at the Sorbonne - secular humanistic social engineering?
For Pol Pot, it was elementary 101 classes in radio and electronics theory. He failed and dropped out. But he did absorb some half-baked Sartre existentialism and Maoist genocidal policies that were au courant in Parisian Lefty circles of the era. France is still uncomfortable with Pol Pot's time there, much as they are with having sheltered the Ayatollah Khomeini during his exile in France or their accommodations of the regime of Zimbabwe's vicious dictator, Robert Mugabe. There are other vile leaders directly associated with France that I could name but that is a decent sample that comes to mind.
You're stretching it too far IMO. Qumran was conquered and abandoned in 70 AD, almost 1500 years before there was any Jesuit at all. Jesuits were created by Ignatius Loyola in 1539 to wage a murderous Counter-Reformation against Protestants across Europe. You shouldn't assume that Qumran was a commie commune. We simply don't know enough. And our modern standards of Marxist-Leninist communist ideology just don't apply to people living in the first century A.D. You can't so easily connect A to B despite a few common elements. And, again, much of what we know of the Essene community at Qumran is pretty speculative. What we do know is they had a scriptorium and, in the face of Roman conquest, they left us a lot of ancient scrolls in those caves. The scrolls are evidence, most of what we think we know of Essene religion and social practice is very tentative. As with many marginal sects, we just don't know that much about the Essenes beyond their treasure trove of scrolls.
No big surprise... https://garagemca.org/en/publishing/ronan-de-calan- the-ghost-of-karl-marx-by-ronan-de-calan Ok. So I think we've got an adequate picture of the Sorbanne as an incubator for Communists and their "ideals". But then you knew all that, didn't you Comrade Vicomte13?
Yeah I know that's when they formalized Loyola's militant order, but the timeline fits with Roman Catholicism - and Islam. More like a monastery I think - And they were selective about who they let in: https://www.google.com/ search?q=Requirements+for+entering+the+monastery+at+Qumran [Tevya MlkcowVoice-ON] But, OTOH... "The compulsory communism of the Qumran monastic group, identical to that of the Essenes" ...I dunnno! [Tevya MlkcowVoice-OFF]
Spot on. Nice use of Google Books. The Reign of Terror during the 1790's French Revolution, Marx publishing the Communist Manifesto in 1848, the widespread revolutions against monarchies across Europe in 1848 (Sicily, France, Italy, Germany, Austrian Empire), the subsequent publication of Marx's Das Kapital in 1867, these all led directly to the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia/Georgia/Ukraine and the emergence of Marxist-Leninist ideology in the early Soviet Union. It spread then to Mao's China in the 1940's and to other regimes like Vietnam and Cambodia in the Fifties and Sixties. Everywhere it took power, innocent people died by the millions. That was integral to the design of communist ideology, not a flaw or shortcoming. Brittanica: The Revolutions of 1848 The French Reign of Terror in the 1790's was a template that many of these followed. The revolutions against monarchs all failed in 1848. And that fueled the growth of Marxism as the only force that might be able to overthrow the monarchies of the era (including the despicable Russian empire when the Bolsheviks took power and murdered the Romanov royal family as a deliberate matter of policy, no turning back).
We still can't even prove whether Qumran was an Essene group or a bunch of Sadducees or a mix of the two. I think at the end it was likely both groups and some other Jews who fled there for sanctuary when the Romans were destroying the walled cities and fortresses of Israel in 70 AD when they leveled Jerusalem and hauled the population off into slavery in the Roman empire, i.e. the Diaspora. To be fair, almost every monastery we know of, even the Buddhists and Hindus, are communal. That doesn't make them some early version of Marxist-Leninism. I'm pretty sure there weren't any Bolsheviki at Qumran.
>>We still can't even prove whether Qumran was an Essene group or a bunch of Sadducees or a mix of the two. "the wide consensus of opinion favours an identification of the people of Qumran with the Essene sect" { shrug } >>I think at the end it was likely both groups and some other Jews That seems reasonable to me. >>I'm pretty sure there weren't any Bolsheviki at Qumran. No worshippers of Mlk? It's the collective behavior, not the tribal taxonomy that I think distinguishes Bolsheviki. Fire in the minds of men...
I graduated from the Sorbonne. It's a great school. Pol Pot went to the Sorbonne? So what. The Sorbonne has been in existence since 600 AD. A lot of people have gone to the Sorbonne.
Lots of Commies, like you.
I am not a Communist. You, on the other hand, are a cockroach, and you would never get in. And if somehow you did, you wouldn't get through.
What ever you say, Comrade. You and your fairy tails are probably STILL the laughing stock of the flight line on Coronado island. =================== (2) A very dead lizard was raised from the dead in my hand by God, when I asked him "Please". (3) A dead mouse was raised from the dead in my hand by God, when I asked him "Please". That's Legendary stuff! SMH.
(2) A very dead lizard was raised from the dead in my hand by God, when I asked him "Please". (3) A dead mouse was raised from the dead in my hand by God, when I asked him "Please". That's Legendary stuff! SMH. That is all completely true stuff. God is. Christ is his son. His physical son. Real. Not a legend. Rose from the dead. If all of the "Christians" and Catholics and Orthodox and people like you who are ashamed to say all get their religious beliefs wrong and talk themselves into a pit, then nevertheless God is, and Jesus is his son, and Jesus rose from the dead, and he can bring others back from the dead. And if we follow him, by doing what he said to do, we can find favor with him. Neither one of us has been behaving very well towards the other. I would extend you the hand of peace and suggest we start over and try again. In fact, I am. Here. Now. Peace to you. Let's make peace and stop swearing at each other. It is as unkind as it is unnecessary.
{ shrug } I don't feel ashamed. I just don't bark on command.
If its a worthy subject, it's like a pool -- you MUST jump in. And you do. Head first. I for one enjoy your first-blush totally unfiltered reaction. And for that reason it's honest and straight-forward -- though lacking a bit of tact, crude and raw at times. Fwiw, we are in agreement often.
Get real. That is NOT restricted to Americans. It is true of every group of people to be found anywhere in the world. It's one of the flaws of human nature,as well as one of the survival traits needed by tribes to maintain unity. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
So,what are you saying? If you don't think homosexuals should have the right to vote,hitch up your big girl panties and spit it out. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
If that's true,who are you to try to do God's Work for him? Let HIM handle it. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
But that does not mean that we should accept homosexual acts as normal behavior not to be ostricized. True. I have no idea why so many people in America,allegedly a country of people who worship individual rights and freedoms,confuse public policy with private rights and prejudices. By LAW,if it is ok for the government to punish homosexuals for having sex in private,the government has that SAME AUTHORITY to punish heterosexuals for having sex in private. This is America. We are all supposed to have the same rights,as well as to have our own personal beliefs. Nowhere is that more true than when discussing personal likes and prejudices. To have our own freedoms,we MUST allow others to have their freedoms,also. REGARDLESS of if we share those desires or not. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Negative, Ghost Ranger. A faggot is a sick twisted freak of nature. One that by his/her own nature, does ZERO to ensure the survival of their own species. They are a weakness... and the only reason my species grow more accepting of them, is due to the increasing pussification of my species. AFAIK,the word "faggot" came from the British,whose original use for the word was a bundle of sticks used to start a fire. Since at one time when the Catholics were in charge,burning homosexuals at a state was a common punishment. Doesn't take a real stretch of the imagination to guess where and how the term "faggot" came to describe homosexuals,is it? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I think it was a stake, driven into the ground that should have been driven into their perverted Godless hearts. Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Homosexuals like to pretend they are the "majority minority" for political power reasons,but I strongly suspect there are a HELL of a lot more bi-sexuals running around than there ever were dedicated homosexuals. Just look at all the married fathers of multiple children that got a divorce and suddenly announced they are homosexuals for proof. If you are really and truly a homosexual male the idea of having sex with a woman would be as repulsive to you as the idea of having sex with another man would be to me. I would like for anybody that claims that God demands us all to be purely one or the other and condemns bi-sexuals or homosexuals to a lifetime of burning in hell to explain to me why males are born with nipples,and to take a good close look at a clitoris and tell me what it looks like. God is either perfect in all respects,or he flunked out of design school. Which is it,and if God DOES exist and is perfect in every respect,WTF are YOU to condemn his creations? IF your God didn't think it was a biggie,who are you to get your panties all in a wad over it? Spend more time trying to improve yourself than finding flaws in others,and you will be a lot better off. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yeah,and we ALL know nobody would ever consider telling a lie to gain political power and wealth,right? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
How CHRISTIAN of you! In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yes, some Protestant sects have gone way off the reservation. Their teachings are so far off, or have so diluted/subverted/dismissed the whole of the Word that they wind up working for the OTHER "team." Creating that bit of doubt or creating a distracting fork in the road (like "Saints"/Marian worship) is exactly how Satan hopes to undermine belief in the Gospel. YES -- EVEN AMONGST "BELIEVERS." If a church (or individual) simply believes in the literal word of Scripture -- both OT as well as NT there should be no rails to run off. If there are any parts of the Bible that so-called "Believers" insist should be dismissed as a "Fairy Tale," "Impossible!," or NOT the inspired-breathed Word of God written by men -- then the entire fabric Bible is suspect, unworthy of belief. But why believe one or a couple of select "miracles," and not others as some "Christian do? It's because their church is weak, has mislead them or compromises on the Word. Moreover, these churches or individuals then give too much weight to the Secular Humanist/Evolutionist insists on an exclusive "truth," declaring unofficial ultimatums: Christians must choose between The Bible and both Physical AND Social "Science." As we well know, that's a false dichotomy; Any "science" is the study of the Material/Physical World. It can not "prove" the existence of the Spiritual Realm, ergo its Humanist high priests dismiss all Biblical claims and authority. Here is where "Believers" are taking the bait of Un-Believers and tripping themselves up because if Genesis is not literally true, the REST of the Bible falls. Kill Genesis and the entire reason for a Redeemer along with the Gospel becomes un-necessary. It must be noted that Jesus Christ Himself quoted from the Old Testament many time. For those who insist on cherry-picking OT Scripture while dismissing Genesis and its supernatural events, or any number of other supernatural events and miracles, one may as well create their own "Bible." IF one considers themselves "Christian," by definition they believe in the documented Life-After Death of Jesus Christ and His Ascension -- THE Supernatural Event of events. So then why should the realm of OT events in Genesis (The Six-Day Creation, Eve created from the rib of Adam, Jonah and the Whale, The Parting of the Red Sea, the powers of Moses (as well as his speaking directly TO God Himself), etc.) be doubted or rendered, "Impossible!"? MUCH of Scripture -- both OT and NT are Prophecy, which itself is supernatural knowledge. Gut or cherry-pick the Bible of SN events and people, and what have we? A Jeffersonian Salad Bar. Or a seriously diluted "Bible" with so many holes of doubt within it, Faith fails to take hold. Matthew 7:21-23 (NKJV) Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. "Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Nice analysis of what I'd written... Oh wait -- you ignored the meat, the evidence, the photos, then immediately went on your usual red herring tangent, and then a par for the course -- dismissing or ridiculing all sources as, "Just another giant conspiracy. theory. And YES btw -- the evidence IS being filtered, confiscated, and hidden for reasons that are obviously beyond your spectrum of knowledge or comprehension level. This leads you to get pissy when your area of expertise extends beyond your comfort zone; Which is everything other than in your "safe" space -- what you read in WaPo or Times, an Encyclopedia, or in your monthly GOPe Newsletter. It's not MY fault you're oblivious to many area of life.
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. "Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ That is one of the most powerful verses of the bible, and I think everyone should always think about it when they examine their own lives.
A little man in a canoe? What do you think it looks like, that's what I want to know. : )
I've always thought this too. Let's say there are 10%-15% of all men who are a little bisexual or who are willing to have sex with other men at times, like in prison. And some guys I've met over the years seem like any-port-in-a-storm types, basically just horny guys that want some action of whatever kind. I mention this because a couple of them surprised me by making passes at me for no good reason I could see except they were just horny. Some guys really do spend more time thinking with the little head than the big head. Anyway, if a bi guy really doesn't have much preference sexually and just likes sex, he might choose to be in a relationship with an exclusively gay guy because he's rich or he can help his career or whatnot. And then he would count as a "gay guy" because he's in a relationship with another man, perhaps even married to him. But that doesn't mean he's actually gay. He's still just the same any-port-in-a-storm kind of horny guy but now he's considered gay instead of being considered straight because he chose instead to be in a relationship with a woman instead. The bisexuals screw up all these statistics they try to beat us over the head with. I think they're pretty dubious studies as a result, going all the way back to Kinsey.
I see that you noticed my loaded language. ; )
Amen!
I think it was a stake, driven into the ground that should have been driven into their perverted Godless hearts. I have spelling recognition problems after having a stroke a while back. Sometimes I can read a post 3 or 4 times and still not see anything wrong. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Let's not forget the females. They are horndogs as much as the men are. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
No, they just aren't. Maybe a few but they are rare. Women are interested in intimacy and nesting and emotional issues and a decent home for their kids. Men are just plain horny. If anyone was relying on the horniness of women to promulgate the race, we would have died out thousands of years ago. Horny dudes, willing to tell most any lie or do most anything just to get laid, is how we all got here.
You need to get out more. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I have never heard anyone say seriously that women have a sex drive as strong as a man's.
I am honestly shocked by that. I've met a few that scared me a little. They like to pretend they aren't that interested in sex,but that's just a game they play so they can threaten to not have sex with you unless you do what they want. That never did work with me because I'd tell them,"Fine,I'll go find a woman that will. Lock up when you leave." True funny story. Once had a woman I worked with ask me for a ride home after work one day. Got near her where she lived,and she said "How about we just get some beer and go to your place?" Hot redhead with green eyes asking ME if I thought that was a good idea? So I said,"Uhhhh,yeah. I can do that!" Next day same thing,but when we got to where she lived,she said,"I'll be right back" and jumped out of the truck. When she came back out the door she was carrying her suitcase. "Hmmmm" I said to self,"Why the hell not? I'm not dating anyone right now,so go with the flow!" so I just let her move in. A month or so later we were sitting around the house after work and out of the blue she just announced "You know that after we get married we won't be having sex so often,right?" I was speechless. Number 1,I had no idea we were even engaged. I thought we were just poking fun and killing time. After I gathered my wits,I told her "You know,I think you need to start looking for another place to live,and while we are on the subject,you should probably also do some work on your presentation. Telling a man he is going to get LESS sex after you marry is no way to convince him to marry you. Not that we don't all KNOW we will get less sex. We do know this. We just like to pretend that's not happening for as long as we can." A couple of months later she married another guy that worked there with us. Girl was gorgeous,very smart,and a hard worker,but seemed to have a wire or two loose. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I am talking about post-honeymoon sex. Once they decide to put out, they make a real effort. Once they feel settled in a relationship, it drops off more often than not. We've all heard this a lot of times from a lot of guys. There may some exceptions out there but it seems to stand the test of time.
With their husbands,maybe. They get bored,and need to control someone else. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Maybe you should stop sleeping with these married woman. It's distorting your view of things. LOL
Yep. Women just don't possess as strong a sex dive in general. That's consensus opinion and fact. Not that there aren't many exceptions, Pete. All one has is personal experience, anecdotal from friends/acquaintances, and the research. (TC): I am talking about post-honeymoon sex. Once they decide to put out, they make a real effort. Once they feel settled in a relationship, it drops off more often than not. We've all heard this a lot of times from a lot of guys. There may some exceptions out there but it seems to stand the test of time. TC's full assessment and typical way things play out in the medium-long run is far more often the case than exception. I've also informally polled other guys. THIS IS INDEED THE TYPICAL CASE whether anecdotal or researched.
We USED TO have a few women at either LP or LF to wade in on a matter like this.... I presume none exist.
There are a few who make occasional posts here but they'd never post on this topic. Orthodoxa and goldilucky come to mind. There may be a few others. I always thought that 3-Dee is a lady but only because I think a man wouldn't choose that handle. I don't think you want to ping them to come render their opinions.
Legally, constitutionally speaking, --- private, consensual homosexual behaviors between adults should not be criminalized.. But that does not mean that we should accept homosexual acts as normal behavior not to be ostricized. --- tpaine True. I have no idea why so many people in America,allegedly a country of people who worship individual rights and freedoms,confuse public policy with private rights and prejudices. By LAW,if it is ok for the government to punish homosexuals for having sex in private,the government has that SAME AUTHORITY to punish heterosexuals for having sex in private. This is America. We are all supposed to have the same rights,as well as to have our own personal beliefs. Nowhere is that more true than when discussing personal likes and prejudices. To have our own freedoms,we MUST allow others to have their freedoms,also. REGARDLESS of if we share those desires or not. ---- sneakypete You're preaching to the choir.. And we agree, although I'm far from being a choir boy.. What's weird about this is those who have such a violent reaction about queers.. By and large, I ignore while ostracizing them, -- and unless they get personal, just live and let live. Private acts, unless they will harm others, can NOT be criminalized, as per our Constitutional Principles..
I presume none exist. Or want to confess. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Think of your own experiences when people talk about this. For every account of a man saying he turned a woman down for sex (and I can recall a few), you have 100 men talking about getting turned down for sex by a woman in a bar, a girlfriend, or a wife. Of course, a man turning down sex is about as rare as a dog missing a chance to get petted. Most guys, it's anytime/anywhere. I think this is a pretty universal thing.
Women "ask" men all the time,but it is a subtle thing,not the "wanna get nekkid and do it?" approach of most men. See the thing is that women don't HAVE to ask or to seduce in most cases. All they have to do is show up. If they were to say yes to every man that asked him,none of them would have time to eat or sleep. They also have to show a little more restraint about casual hookups because they are the ones that get stuck with pregnancy. This isn't a problem with the last couple of generations of women,but being impregnated by a stranger that will disappear into the distance and leave them as the sold caretakers and providers for a new baby was a VERY big deal and real thing for their grandmothers. The teen girls and young women of today are unbelievably sexually aggressive compared to their grandmothers,and it's not because they are the first of their gender to discover sex is good. It's because due to birth control and job/career openings in the modern world that weren't available to their grandmothers,as well as a public more open-minded about unmarried mothers and their children has freed them from most of the worries about being tagged as a slut,their babies tagged as bastards,and both with nothing to look forward to be a unpleasant live of poverty and exclusion. Women in the pre-1960's had a lot to worry about and a lot to bitch about that just doens't exist today outside of some fundie commune. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Actually, it is not so happy a situation. There is a large number of college-educated career women, increasingly competing for the attention of a small group of college men or professional men. If you are not a high-earning professional male, opportunities are drying up. If you are, you have your pick of women.
Who would want them? They don't want a husband,they want a status sysmbol. The male equivalent is the guy that goes for the blonde bimbo with the huge hooters. The blonde HAS to be stupid to agree to marry someone that shallow. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
"Being a faggot is a choice"
#2. To: no gnu taxes, misterwhite (#0)
Title: Being a faggot is a choice
#3. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
#4. To: misterwhite (#1)
Screw all that. Stop drinking and start acting like the rest of society. You may not have a choice about who you are, but you certainly have a choice how you behave.
#5. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
(Edited)
#6. To: Tooconservative (#2)
heterosexuals can also choose a sodomy lifestyle and stick with it for a lifetime.
#7. To: sneakypete (#4)
I think a lot of you people would be spending your time more wisely trying to figure out how to have a little sex yourselves,than waste it all trying to keep someone else from having it.
#8. To: no gnu taxes (#6)
(Edited)
Basic anatomy doesn't suggest faggot sex is normal.
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
Basic anatomy doesn't suggest faggot sex is normal.
#10. To: Tooconservative (#2)
you think you could just as easily choose to be a homosexual as a heterosexual?
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
This is the part I just don't get: all of the ANGER at the people do deviant things. Who cares? WHY do they care?
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
Basic anatomy doesn't suggest faggot sex is normal.
#13. To: no gnu taxes (#12)
I wouldn't if they kept it in their own bedrooms.
#14. To: Jameson (#11)
Envy.
#15. To: no gnu taxes, hondo68, A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#6)
(Edited)
First, I chose to be heterosexual by nature. I chose to be a normal person because I know the difference between right and perversion.
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
#17. To: Jameson (#11)
#18. To: no gnu taxes (#6)
Yes they could. That is their choice.
#19. To: Tooconservative (#15)
I don't believe you. I think you sexually imprinted on heterosexual patterns (as the vast majority do) and that everything you're saying is just a justification for you find "natural".
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
Fair enough. I don't think it should be the basis of political power either.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#17)
Didn't you say you were a fag?
#22. To: no gnu taxes, Vicomte13 (#19)
What I do or don't do with my female wife is none of your damned business.
#23. To: Tooconservative (#22)
(Edited)
I take that as an admission that you practice sodomy with your wife.
#24. To: no gnu taxes (#9)
(Edited)
I wouldn't if they limited it to their bedrooms.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#17)
Didn't you say you were a fag?
#26. To: Tooconservative (#22)
I take that as an admission that you practice sodomy with your wife.
#27. To: no gnu taxes (#26)
That is something i wish faggots would practice.
#28. To: Jameson (#27)
#29. To: no gnu taxes (#28)
#30. To: Tooconservative (#20)
It only has political power to the extent that some people want to forbid it. Their disapproval throws the gasoline on that particular fire.
#31. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
boris
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
all of the ANGER at the people do deviant things. Who cares? WHY do they care?
#33. To: Tooconservative (#22)
I take that as an admission that you practice sodomy with your wife.
#34. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#33)
(Edited)
The specific sin of Genesis 19 was forcible anal rape of a man by another man.
#35. To: Tooconservative, Fred Mertz, Log Jamin Republicans, no gnu taxes, tater, FireIsland (#15)
(Edited)
#36. To: hondo68, buckeroo (#35)
#37. To: misterwhite (#32)
You're misstating what's going on. They're not only doing deviant things; they want to normalize these deviant things.
#38. To: hondo68 (#35)
Anyone who voted for McCain, Romney, and Trump has stepped out of the closet and made their gender reassignment choice clear... Log Cabin Republican!
#39. To: Tooconservative (#34)
How do you know that angels have anuses that can be raped? Do you think that angels, a separate and more purely spiritual creation than mankind, have anuses and genitals and so on? Perhaps they are "ill-equipped" for sex.
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
#41. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
I'm not a Republican. Nor am I gay.
#42. To: Tooconservative (#34)
How do you know that angels have anuses that can be raped?
#43. To: VxH (#7)
#44. To: Fred Mertz (#21)
#45. To: Vicomte13, no gnu taxes (#8)
Ok. But why do you CARE? Really.
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
So as far as I can see the gays have gotten their "rights", and that's that.
#47. To: Fred Mertz (#21)
Didn't you say you were a fag?
#48. To: A K A Stone (#40)
Spoken like a Catholic faggot lover.
#49. To: misterwhite (#46)
If a majority of parents don't want their 8-year-olds exposed to the homosexual lifestyle at school, what about their rights?
#50. To: misterwhite (#46)
If a majority of parents don't want their 8-year-olds exposed to the homosexual lifestyle at school, what about their rights?
#51. To: sneakypete (#49)
#52. To: sneakypete (#47)
A lot of times they were even shamed into staying silent because it was their father,brother,or another close relative that raped them,and reporting it would have destroyed a lot of lives.
#53. To: misterwhite (#42)
Some interpret Genesis 6 to read that fallen angels bred with women and resulted in giants called Nephilim.
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#51)
We seem to be in violent agreement on this subject.
#55. To: hondo68 (#41)
That won't slow down the Log Cabin Republicans in the least, they keep trying for the conversions.
#56. To: Vicomte13, y'all (#51)
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#48)
As far as being a "faggot lover", as VxH so pointed out with such Christian charity somewhere on these threads, my father died of AIDS, and had indeed caught it by being a practicing homosexual. I did love my father, and still do, so yes, I am a "faggot lover" by your definition of the word.
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#55)
#59. To: Vicomte13 (#48)
If you're a government official in a state that requires marriage licenses, I think you have to issue the license if a gay couple appears requesting one.
#60. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
(Edited)
#61. To: A K A Stone, yall (#57)
(Edited)
---- acceptance of homosexuals as normal behavior not to be ostricized.
#62. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#39)
(Edited)
Angels had children with human women, creating the Nephilim (and their descendants, the Basques) so apparently they have the equipment...at least some of them.
1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Notice that Eve had already had other children including sons. But she declared Seth as having been "appointed" as "another seed instead of Abel" and by God Himself. 25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
This seems to indicate that the two fallen angels encouraged the grandsons of Seth to fornicate with and marry the hot horny depraved Cainite women. VI. And it was when the sons of men began to multiply upon the face of the earth, and fair daughters were born to them; and the sons of the great saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and painted, and curled, walking with revelation of the flesh, and with imaginations of wickedness; that they took them wives of all who pleased them. And the Lord said by His Word, All the generations of the wicked which are to arise shall not be purged after the order of the judgments of the generation of the deluge, which shall be destroyed and exterminated from the midst of the world. Have I not imparted My Holy Spirit to them, (or, placed My Holy Spirit in them,) that they may work good works? And, behold, their works are wicked. Behold, I will give them a prolongment of a hundred and twenty years, that they may work repentance, and not perish.
#63. To: Tooconservative (#62)
You like to believe that these were angels but the bible never calls them angels. The bible has no problem using the word "angels" in any other passages, yet you wish to believe that "sons of God" = "angels" and for no sound reason. Because you enjoy your little pet theory that you are one of the few survivors of angels interbreeding with mankind to create the Basque and blah-blah-blah, self-aggrandizing insecure claptrap.
#64. To: Vicomte13 (#48)
"Faggot" is an aggressively pejorative word, like "nigger".
#65. To: Tooconservative (#62)
And poof goes your inflated ideas about your alleged ancient heritage
#66. To: A K A Stone (#59)
That is evil. God would never want someone to be forced to sin like that in order to work.
#67. To: A K A Stone (#65)
(Edited)
Did I miss where Vic claimed to be a decendamt, or are you making it up.
Angels had children with human women, creating the Nephilim (and their descendants, the Basques) so apparently they have the equipment...at least some of them.
Does any of this tie into the pre adamic world I have heard some teach. Fascinating as it is, I don't believe it.
#68. To: misterwhite (#42)
(Edited)
In Genesis 19 the angels took the form of human males.
Some interpret Genesis 6 to read that fallen angels bred with women and resulted in giants called Nephilim.
#69. To: sneakypete (#45)
convinced he is going to hell
#70. To: Tooconservative, no gnu taxes (#2)
#71. To: Pinguinite (#70)
#72. To: A K A Stone (#71)
If they were born that way then it is a dangerous birth defect.
#73. To: A K A Stone (#71)
If they were born that way then it is a dangerous birth defect. That if spread to far on the gene pool could cause the end of the species. Perhaps they should abort gay fetuses.
#74. To: VxH (#72)
(Edited)
#75. To: Pinguinite (#73)
If everyone was gay then obviously yes, it would bode poorly for the human race. Obviously if this was the state of things going back to the dawn of civilization, there would not have been any civilization. I agree with you there.
#76. To: A K A Stone (#74)
(Edited)
#77. To: A K A Stone (#74)
I know they weren't born that way. I'm talking hypothetically.
#78. To: A K A Stone (#75)
Now some homosexuals are claiming it is 10 percent.
#79. To: A K A Stone (#75)
Now some homosexuals are claiming it is 10 percent. According to them it is growing exponentially.
#80. To: Pinguinite (#79)
(Edited)
some suggest modern synthetic drugs or other chemical exposure could be causing an increase in homosexual rates.
#81. To: Tooconservative, hondo68 (#36)
I see Stain finally coming out and holding hands with his Lady Lindsey, still hoping his hero will make an honest woman of him. But I thought Howdy Doody retired decades ago, yet there he is.
#82. To: A K A Stone (#71)
Perhaps they should abort gay fetuses.
#83. To: Tooconservative (#67)
Angels had children with human women, creating the Nephilim
#84. To: Tooconservative (#68)
Nothing in scripture indicates that they do possess carnal organs.
#85. To: Tooconservative (#62)
The bible says all were destroyed except those on the ark. All means all. Period.
#86. To: Vicomte13 (#85)
(Edited)
#87. To: VxH (#86)
Which aircraft, exactly, did you sucker the American tax-payers into paying for you to qualify on, Comrade?
#88. To: Vicomte13 (#87)
(Edited)
#89. To: Vicomte13 (#85)
(Edited)
Except of course that the Bible tells us that they also were begotten by the angels again AFTER the flood, that the Anakim were their descendants, etc.
#90. To: Tooconservative (#89)
Please explain.
#91. To: VxH (#88)
I don't feel any need to classify my spiritual life with any particular semantic label for your convenience, Comrade.
#92. To: Vicomte13 (#90)
(Edited)
Pass
The Church has no official teaching on this passage, although some ancient writers have speculated that the “sons of God” may have been fallen angels, given that Nephilim, a Hebrew word often rendered as “giants,” may also mean “fallen ones.” However, given that angels do not have bodies, which are needed for the procreation of human children...
https://www.catholic.com/qa/explaining-the-nephilim-of-genesis
#93. To: Vicomte13 (#91)
(Edited)
Does Jesus embarrass you?
#94. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#90)
Catholic/Christian dialogue is a dead letter. There is no respect between the parties. Pass.
VI
VII
#95. To: VxH (#92)
Of course, it doesn't include 200 horny Watcher angels having evil giant babies to devour the earth. So that's kind of a literary letdown.
The early Church Fathers generally understood the “sons of God” to be the offspring of Seth, the righteous son of Adam, whereas “daughters of men” are understood be the offspring of Cain, the immoral son of Adam. Thus, “fallen ones” could be understood as the fruit of succumbing to the corrupt Cainite culture.
#96. To: Vicomte13 (#84)
And of course the Father begat Jesus via Mary.
#97. To: Tooconservative (#94)
why did God destroy all of mankind except Noah's family when (in your view) the cause of that destruction was these angels having children with human women?
#98. To: Tooconservative (#95)
I was satisfied with this portion from your link to Catholic.com. I thought that this was very much in agreement with my previous post.
#99. To: Tooconservative (#96)
God is a pure spirit and does not possess a human body after all.
#100. To: VxH (#93)
#101. To: Vicomte13, VxH (#100)
You won't state you're a Christian because you're too good for Christianity?
#102. To: Liberator (#101)
No.
#103. To: Vicomte13, TooConservatives, A K A Stone (#97)
This is why conversations with Christians is useless.
#104. To: Vicomte13 (#90)
Please explain. Catholic/Christian dialogue is a dead letter. There is no respect between the parties. Pass.
#105. To: Vicomte13, VxH (#102)
He quotes Scripture a lot, and accuses people of not obeying it, but he's not a Christian?
#106. To: Vicomte13 (#97)
This is why conversations with Christians is useless.
#107. To: Tooconservative, vicomte13 (#96)
Ever consider that the God who created the universe could just say "Let there be a zygote" and caused Mary's pregnancy in that way? Then God doesn't have to carry around an otherwise useless penis for all eternity. God is a pure spirit and does not possess a human body after all.
#108. To: VxH, vicomte13 (#88)
#109. To: Liberator (#103)
I don't think we can just off-handedly disregard convos simply because of interpretational disagreement.
#110. To: Vicomte13 (#109)
When my interlocutor writes things I never wrote nor said, and that I don't think, and then proceeds to write a screed demolishing the straw man, I'm not off-handedly disregarding the conversation. I am purposely avoiding a rigged trial before a court that has already found me guilty before I even had a chance to speak!
#111. To: Liberator (#103)
I will say that there IS solid tangible evidence of giants in man's past; of 10'+ skeletal remains. And not just one here and there. Plenty.
#112. To: Vicomte13 (#99)
So you're not a Trinitarian.
#113. To: A K A Stone, Liberator (#107)
I think I agree with Vic here. If God created man in his image wouldn't that mean we look like him kind of?
#114. To: A K A Stone (#104)
Catholics claim to be followers of Christ. Now you are saying they aren't. Also you Catholics don't like to debate scripture because you lack the scripture to back up your tradittions.
#115. To: A K A Stone, vicomte13 (#108)
(Edited)
Who trusted you with that plane or however you put it.
#116. To: A K A Stone (#106)
Wow conversations with followers of Christ are worthless.
#117. To: Tooconservative (#111)
The height of the Nephalim were, according to this pernicious myth, 300 ells.
#118. To: Vicomte13 (#116)
(Edited)
I'll stick with Catholic love.
body collective cluster frack, Comrade.
#119. To: VxH (#115)
Planes AND helicopters, according to the pathological liar
#120. To: Tooconservative (#66)
So if you went to the DMV to get license plates and a drivers license and some Mormon DMV clerk decided she didn't want you to have those because it was contrary to God's will for non-Mormons to drive, that would be fine with you?
#121. To: Vicomte13 (#119)
(Edited)
But you never served at all, did you.
#122. To: Vicomte13 (#119)
(Edited)
you are ashamed to say you believe in Christ
#123. To: Tooconservative (#68)
#124. To: Tooconservative (#111)
That would make the average height of the Nephalim 450 feet tall.
#125. To: Vicomte13 (#116)
I'll stick with Catholic love. It's better.
#126. To: no gnu taxes (#125)
(Edited)
I've always thought that I could support any denomination that believed Christ was the savior, even though I didn't agree with every aspect of what they taught.
#127. To: no gnu taxes (#125)
(Edited)
believed Christ was the savior
#128. To: VxH (#127)
Catholic Confession has always been more about intelligence gathering than salvation.
#129. To: misterwhite, tooconservative (#124)
(Edited)
Winter is coming
www.kiplingsociety .co.uk/poems_copybook.htm
#130. To: no gnu taxes (#128)
(Edited)
confession is becoming a far less common practice these days.
#131. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, Liberator, A K A Stone (#109)
(Edited)
I am willing to discuss the Nephilim from both a Western Biblical and an Eastern Canon (the Ethiopian Orthodox include the book of Enoch in their canon). I'm willing to have sober conversation about anything.
1Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
2I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
3And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.
4For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
5I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
#132. To: misterwhite (#124)
(Edited)
Winter is coming.
#133. To: Tooconservative, vicomte13, IfAkhenatenHadAVicSun (#131)
You're not fooling me or anyone else with this act.
#134. To: misterwhite (#120)
Why would a Mormon take a job where their sole duty was to issue driver's licenses contrary to God's will?
#135. To: Tooconservative (#95)
Of course, it doesn't include 200 horny Watcher angels having evil giant babies to devour the earth. So that's kind of a literary letdown.
#136. To: Vicomte13 (#119)
(Edited)
#137. To: VxH (#135)
The Church has no official teaching on this passage
...
#138. To: Vicomte13 (#114)
In the Ethiopian canon is the book of Enoch,
#139. To: Vicomte13 (#117)
You said to stick to the Bible. Now you're quoting the book of Enoch.
#140. To: Vicomte13 (#116)
don't see anything Christlike about any of you.
#141. To: Tooconservative (#137)
(Edited)
Having "no official teaching"....
#142. To: A K A Stone (#138)
#143. To: Vicomte13 (#116)
Follow Christ, yeah, I do that
#144. To: A K A Stone (#138)
(Edited)
So Catholics use the book of Enoch. Interesting.
#145. To: Vicomte13 (#116)
You people frankly disgust me. I don't care who you SAY you follow. I listen to your words and hear what you say and how you treat people. You are vile, mean spirited and undiscerning. The lack of discernment is not a terrible fault, but being as nasty about it as you people are, and then claiming it to be "love" - if THAT is "Christian love", then you can keep it. I want none of it. I'll stick with Catholic love. It's better.
#146. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#145)
(Edited)
Also when you said the solution was to murder every right wing person.
#147. To: Tooconservative (#131)
Jesus might have been our intersexual hermaphrodite savior and a genetic freak who was not really a man at all.
#148. To: Tooconservative (#111)
Where are all of these giant skeletons then? The ones we know of were phonies cooked up by charlatans to try to create a tourist trap or a sideshow exhibit in some sleazy circus.
#149. To: no gnu taxes, vicomte13 (#142)
You peel back any faith and you find different layers of the onion.
#150. To: VxH (#146)
It's consistent with Vicomte13 finding humor in/ridiculing anyone who tries to understand the process by which the French Commie Jesuits "educated" Pol Pot in preparation for his genocidal endeavors.
#151. To: no gnu taxes, A K A Stone (#142)
You peel back any faith and you find different layers of the onion.
#152. To: Tooconservative (#150)
#153. To: Tooconservative (#150)
I don't think Pol Pot was attending Notre Dame or hanging out with French Catholics. At least, I don't recall that.
#154. To: VxH (#151)
(Edited)
"Let there be light" is consistent with today's quantum cosmology, where at the moment before the "big bang" there was nothing, and a moment later - all the energy in the universe, was.
#155. To: Liberator (#148)
https://manvsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/giant-remains-near-cagliari-sardinia/
I’d also like to ad that these giants aren’t aliens from other planets, they’re the fallen angels who came down to earth & mated with earth women, and their offspring were the giants. Gen: 6:4 tells us about them. They’re mentioned a lot in the Bible with different names, such as the Anakin & other names. Steve Quayle has all that info on his site: stevequayle.com.
#156. To: VxH (#153)
(Edited)
There are many sources saying he went to Paris to study. The name of the institution, however, I have not been able to find.
#157. To: A K A Stone (#152)
At first I wasn't going to participate in this thread. Then I thought I'll make one comment. Then another and another.
#158. To: A K A Stone (#147)
It's ok for him to say we are not followers of Christ.
#159. To: Tooconservative (#156)
(Edited)
But the Jesuits never taught what Pol Pot grew up to practice.
=================================
#160. To: Tooconservative (#156)
He attended the Sorbonne
#161. To: VxH (#159)
(Edited)
Got Mlk?
#162. To: Tooconservative (#156)
He attended the Sorbonne
#163. To: Tooconservative (#161)
(Edited)
from being enslaved by the colonial regime and to Christianize and educate them by assuming dominion over them and their faith... and redistributing farm profits via their central bank.
#164. To: Tooconservative (#161)
(Edited)
#165. To: VxH (#164)
So what was the curricular focus at the Sorbonne - secular humanistic social engineering?
#166. To: VxH (#163)
I think the comunual/monastic pre- history of Roman/Syncretic Catholocism can be observed in communes of Qumran:
#167. To: Tooconservative, Vicomte13 (#165)
Etc Etc...
"The famous phrase “A specter is haunting Europe—the specter of communism” from The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in Brussels in 1848, inspired Sorbonne professor Ronan de Calan to write a children’s book where Marx himself appears as a ghost explaining his theory of economics and the cruelty of the market economy to schoolkids...."
#168. To: Tooconservative (#166)
(Edited)
Qumran was conquered and abandoned in 70 AD, almost 1500 years before there was any Jesuit at all.
You shouldn't assume that Qumran was a commie commune.
#169. To: VxH (#167)
#170. To: VxH (#168)
More like a monastery I think - And they were selective about who they let in:
"The compulsory communism of the Qumran monastic group, identical to that of the Essenes"
#171. To: Tooconservative (#170)
(Edited)
"although a minority of scholars, whilst acknowledging a certain degree of relationship between the two movements"
#172. To: VxH (#167)
But then you knew all that, didn't you Comrade Vicomte13?
#173. To: Vicomte13 (#172)
A lot of people have gone to the Sorbonne.
#174. To: VxH (#173)
Lots of Commies, like you.
#175. To: Vicomte13 (#174)
(Edited)
I am not a Communist.
(1) When I was a boy, I dove off a dock into a shallow, rocky lake alone. I broke my neck and severed by spinal cord, and was completely paralyzed and drowning at the bottom of the like. I asked God "Please", and he healed me and allowed me to rise and walk away. I told no one until decades later.
https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=38701
===================
#176. To: VxH (#175)
(Edited)
(1) When I was a boy, I dove off a dock into a shallow, rocky lake alone. I broke my neck and severed by spinal cord, and was completely paralyzed and drowning at the bottom of the like. I asked God "Please", and he healed me and allowed me to rise and walk away. I told no one until decades later.
#177. To: Vicomte13 (#176)
people like you who are ashamed to say
#178. To: A K A Stone (#152)
At first I wasn't going to participate in this thread. Then I thought I'll make one comment. Then another and another.
#179. To: tpaine (#56)
Americans are addicted to aggressive fanaticism
#180. To: hondo68 (#58)
Trump rallies and GOP conventions?
#181. To: A K A Stone (#59)
God would never want someone to be forced to sin like that in order to work.
#182. To: tpaine (#61)
Legally, constitutionally speaking, --- private, consensual homosexual behaviors between adults should not be criminalized..
#183. To: GrandIsland (#64)
"Faggot" is an aggressively pejorative word, like "nigger".
#184. To: sneakypete (#183)
burning homosexuals at a state
#185. To: A K A Stone (#71)
If they were born that way then it is a dangerous birth defect. That if spread to far on the gene pool could cause the end of the species.
#186. To: A K A Stone (#75)
(Edited)
They used to say it was 1 percent of the population. Now some homosexuals are claiming it is 10 percent. According to them it is growing exponentially.
#187. To: IbJensen (#184)
I think it was a stake, driven into the ground that should have been driven into their perverted Godless hearts.
#188. To: A K A Stone, no gnu taxes, redleghunter (#149)
There are lots of false teachings in Protestant churches also.
#189. To: Tooconservative (#155)
Uh-huh. The museums and archaeologists are all just hiding the evidence. They're so afraid of upsetting the public. Just another giant conspiracy theory.
#190. To: Liberator (#188)
Matthew 7:21-23 (NKJV)
#191. To: sneakypete (#185)
I would like for anybody that claims that God demands us all to be purely one or the other and condemns bi-sexuals or homosexuals to a lifetime of burning in hell to explain to me why males are born with nipples,and to take a good close look at a clitoris and tell me what it looks like.
#192. To: sneakypete (#185)
Homosexuals like to pretend they are the "majority minority" for political power reasons,but I strongly suspect there are a HELL of a lot more bi-sexuals running around than there ever were dedicated homosexuals.
#193. To: Liberator (#189)
Just another giant conspiracy theory.
#194. To: Liberator (#188)
IF one considers themselves "Christian," by definition they believe in the documented Life-After Death of Jesus Christ and His Ascension -- THE Supernatural Event of events. So then why should the realm of OT events in Genesis (The Six-Day Creation, Eve created from the rib of Adam, Jonah and the Whale, The Parting of the Red Sea, the powers of Moses (as well as his speaking directly TO God Himself), etc.) be doubted or rendered, "Impossible!"?
#195. To: IbJensen (#184)
burning homosexuals at a state
#196. To: Tooconservative (#192)
Let's say there are 10%-15% of all men who are a little bisexual or who are willing to have sex with other men at times, like in prison. And some guys I've met over the years seem like any-port-in-a-storm types, basically just horny guys that want some action of whatever kind. I mention this because a couple of them surprised me by making passes at me for no good reason I could see except they were just horny. Some guys really do spend more time thinking with the little head than the big head.
#197. To: sneakypete (#196)
Let's not forget the females. They are horndogs as much as the men are.
#198. To: Tooconservative (#197)
No, they just aren't. Maybe a few but they are rare. Women are interested in intimacy and nesting and emotional issues and a decent home for their kids. Men are just plain horny.
#199. To: sneakypete (#198)
#200. To: Tooconservative (#199)
(Edited)
I have never heard anyone say seriously that women have a sex drive as strong as a man's.
#201. To: sneakypete (#200)
A month or so later we were sitting around the house after work and out of the blue she just announced "You know that after we get married we won't be having sex so often,right?"
#202. To: Tooconservative (#201)
Once they decide to put out, they make a real effort. Once they feel settled in a relationship, it drops off more often than not.
#203. To: sneakypete (#202)
With their husbands,maybe.
#204. To: Tooconservative, sneakypete (#201)
I have never heard anyone say seriously that women have a sex drive as strong as a man's....
#205. To: Tooconservative, sneakypete (#203)
#206. To: Liberator (#205)
I presume none exist.
#207. To: sneakypete, Y'ALL, (#182)
#208. To: Liberator (#205)
We USED TO have a few women at either LP or LF to wade in on a matter like this....
#209. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#204)
I've also informally polled other guys. THIS IS INDEED THE TYPICAL CASE whether anecdotal or researched.
#210. To: Tooconservative (#209)
Of course, a man turning down sex is about as rare as a dog missing a chance to get petted. Most guys, it's anytime/anywhere.
#211. To: sneakypete (#210)
Women "ask" men all the time,but it is a subtle thing,not the "wanna get nekkid and do it?" approach of most men.
#212. To: Tooconservative (#211)
There is a large number of college-educated career women, increasingly competing for the attention of a small group of college men or professional men. If you are not a high-earning professional male, opportunities are drying up. If you are, you have your pick of women.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]