Should homosexuality and bisexuality be treated differently?

[Hooahguy]

As Truth1337 asked, we will be discussing the merits of this argument, as posted by the said member in the Political Outlook thread:


Sexuality: Bisexuality prohibited. Homosexuality allowed, but prohibit pride parades and/or praise of homosexuality.

So, is there really a true difference between the two?

I say no, because all bisexuality is, is being both homosexual and heterosexual. Otherwise no difference.

[rory_20_uk]

I can't really comprehend why there would be a difference. Some in life are plugs, others sockets. Some like to be both. So what?

Personally I am more in favour of bisexual women as I can understand why women's bodies are attractive but struggle to see how they find male bodies attractive - but are grateful that they do.

~:smoking:

[Hax]

Personally I am more in favour of bisexual women as I can understand why women's bodies are attractive but struggle to see how they find male bodies attractive - but are grateful that they do.

Well, that's what makes you straight, right? If you'd find other guys' bodies attractive, you wouldn't be the way you are right now, right?

Just to make my position clear, I think we can pretty much objectively judge whether or not a man is good-looking, but to be attracted to him is something else. And in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with that either.

[Fragony]

Nah, it doesn't really matter.

[CountArach]

How are they at all different? Both are natural urges felt by people towards other people. And why can people not celebrate that part of themselves if that is a primary part of themself that they choose to identify with? And not even allowing praise of them? What the hell?!

Even if they are a choice, does it matter to any adult human what any adult human is putting in any other consenting adult human and why they want to be doing that?

[CountArach]

And if it were possible, the sentence directly below that one in the original thread is even more offensive:

Ethnicity: Establish mostly racially pure nation states all over the world.
Just what the world needs.

[Fragony]

How are they at all different? Both are natural urges felt by people towards other people. And why can people not celebrate that part of themselves

Can't you see the contradiction in what you are saying

[Lemur]

For what it's worth, the population of genuine bisexuals is thought to be quite low. Most self-identified bisexuals date/romance overwhelmingly with one gender or the other. In other words, quite a lot of "bi" men are functionally gay (or straight). By the same token, quite a lot of "bi" women are functionally straight (or gay). The population for whom gender is a complete and total non-issue is vanishingly small.

Plus, I always think of a bi guy I knew back in the day who would moan, "It just means that I can be rejected by all of humanity, while you only get rejected by half." Which I thought was pretty damn funny.

Meh. Sexuality is a slippery thing. I only date/breed/make-sexytime with women. But if Strike For The South were to turn up on my doorstep in sparkly chaps? All bets would be off.

[Vladimir]

And shortly thereafter, the sparkly chaps!

[rvg]

Is this nonsense really worthy of creating a thread?

[Hooahguy]

Is this nonsense really worthy of creating a thread?

Truth1337 refused to talk about it in another thread and said he would if I made a new thread. I am genuinely interested in why he has his opinion that I stated in the OP. So far, no reply by him, which makes me believe hes just a troll.

[Lemur]

And shortly thereafter, the sparkly chaps!

Something like this, please. Hat optional.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ5cMLyUxMo

[johnhughthom]

Are we actually taking seriously the apparent opinions of someone who stated abortion should be mandatory for rape victims and that immigrants and guest workers (and only such people) who commit rape should face the death penalty?

[Strike For The South]

Meh. Sexuality is a slippery thing. I only date/breed/make-sexytime with women. But if @Strike For The South (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=13127) were to turn up on my doorstep in sparkly chaps? All bets would be off.

YOU LIKE ME, YOU REALLY LIKE ME!

As far as the thread goes, I am only attracted to women. Which sucks. I know my way around a penis, Dudes generally share many of the same common interests, and I generally know how dudes think.

I am convinced it's a biology thing. if I had a choice, I would be in a San Fransisco bath house, dressed in a fully body prophylactic, lubed with tingling sensation KY and going after the sun kissed, mocha skin of some Puerto Rican pool boy

But I'm not.

[Lemur]

And then there's the obvious fact that the people who spend a lot of time working on limiting gay rights or "converting" gay people end up being self-hating closet cases (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?127960-Why-Is-Seemingly-Every-Anti-Gay-Activist-a-Closet-Case).

Not to mention the studies that showed a strong relationship between same-sex arousal and anti-gay anger (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201206/homophobia-associated-homosexual-arousal-part-ii).

[Beskar]

Truth1337 refused to talk about it in another thread and said he would if I made a new thread. I am genuinely interested in why he has his opinion that I stated in the OP. So far, no reply by him, which makes me believe hes just a troll.

That is easy, he says it in his post. He wants monogamous relationships, so the idea of two dudes is ok or a dude with a dudette, but having a dude with aother dude and a dudette is simply not cool. It seems truth feels that bisexuality is a threat to monogamous relationships since a person cannot be both a dude and a dudette.


The population for whom gender is a complete and total non-issue is vanishingly small.

That is more pansexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality) than bisexuality.

Most bisexuals do have a gender preference, but not a sex preference. So "bisexual, pref feminine" might mean they are attracted to the soft characteristics which are typically associated with females, but if there is a "cute male", they would be willing to do the funky with them. Then there is "bisexual, pref masculine" who might love the rugged look of a burly gentlemen, but they are also interested in burly dominant females as well.

So in short, bisexuality is more about the sex aspect, but there is far more than simply "sex" in relationships, such a gender (masculine/feminine), roles (sub/dom/switch) or even romantic attraction (sexuality attracted to being taken by big beefy guys, but prefer the romantic company of a gentle female).

[Kralizec]

I vaguely recall a guy on the interwebs who thought that homosexuals or bisexuals should be punished if they ever got romantically involved with the opposite gender. His reasoning being that the gay population is rife with STD's and he didn't want it to spill over.

[drone]

By trying to fit sexuality into some kind of 'Column A, Column B' paradigm you're just confusing yourselves.
I have a fetish for Excel spreadsheets, you insensitive clod!

[a completely inoffensive name]

If Lemur has dibs on Strike, I have dibs on PJ. Every picture he posts I find myself being jerked to the other side of the spectrum.

[Lemur]

[W]e're all nasty-minded, lusty, dirty sex-freaks
You just don't get it—if it turns me on, it's tasteful, sexy, artistic, worthwhile, naughty and hot.

If it turns you on, it's filthy, disgusting, pornographic and wrong.

Sheesh. Do I gotta explain everything around here?

[PanzerJaeger]

If Lemur has dibs on Strike, I have dibs on PJ. Every picture he posts I find myself being jerked to the other side of the spectrum.

I'm not that easy. You'll have to buy me dinner at Chick fil A first!

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not that easy. You'll have to buy me dinner at Chick fil A first!

Bro I will buy you all the chicken you want. As long as I hear clucking in the bedroom....

[Strike For The South]

Can we all just have sex in a pile?

[Visor]

Everyone back in the heap!

[Catiline]

You're all going to get greased up with fried chicken and roll around in a sparkly pile? Have fun chaps.

[CountArach]

Can't you see the contradiction in what you are saying
Would you care to point it out?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Who cares? People are too uptight about sexuality. When you get down to it, we're all nasty-minded, lusty, dirty sex-freaks with more un-admitted strange deviant thoughts than we care to admit. By trying to fit sexuality into some kind of 'Column A, Column B' paradigm you're just confusing yourselves.

This.

Also, "sexuality" is something of a misnomer, it usually means something between "sexual preference" and "sexual practice".

These two are entirely seperate.

Let's say you like dudes, you prefer them to chicks, given a choice you'd rather be sleeping with a dude. However, you can't get another dude pregnant or raise a family with him, so you start a relationship with a woman who like chicks. You marry, you have sex, children are born.

What is this?

It's homosexual preference and heterosexual practice, it used to be quite common. Are this couple "bisexual"?

No, not really. They have clear sexual preferences they have subborned to their life goals.

[truth1337]

Ok as promised a short explanation.

I normally don't agree with the extremely hateful racist book that the Talmud is, but when it comes to lesbianism, I tend to agree with its view that lesbianism is no sin but "mere lewdness".

However sex between men is a sin against God - but so long as they stick to only other men, God can punish them with HIV without having it spread to innocent hereosexuals. Therefore, so long as males are purely homosexual, they do not cause any damage to others and can thus do what they want without anyone needing to care. Bisexuals connect this pool of humans with the innocent heterosexuals, and that is a horrible, unforgivable sin, just like heterosexuals having sex with animals is a horrible sin as it connects the disease pool of the animal, with that of humans.

I believe there may exist two causes of homosexuality:
- homosexuals from birth
- homosexuals by environment

These groups should be treated differently, but since we can't distinct them as outsiders, the responsibility for identifying which group they belong to lies entirely upon themselves. Those who are so by birth, will have the genes that gave them higher tendency to become homosexuals cleansed from the gene pool because they can't have children since they won't marry a woman. It is therefore a great sin to repress and persecute such homosexuals so much that they choose to act as heterosexuals and spread their genes to another generation, therefore they should be fully tolerated. Those who are not so by birth, but by environment, should - if they take the initiative to ask for it - be helped back to the path intended for them by God - and society should have the attitude, that asking for such help is brave and righteous, rather than having disgusting "pride marches". Because showing "acceptance" for "someone's right to be turned into a homosexual by society" is as absurd as showing "acceptance" to a beaten woman's "right to have bruises".

[Lemur]

Bisexuals connect this pool of {HIV positive] humans with the innocent heterosexuals, and that is a horrible, unforgivable sin, just like heterosexuals having sex with animals is a horrible sin as it connects the disease pool of the animal, with that of humans.
You are aware that the vast majority of heterosexual transmission comes not from intercourse with bi people, but rather needle sharing and unsafe sex among drug users (http://www.npr.org/2012/07/27/157352062/greeces-latest-crisis-rising-hiv-cases)? I mean, you're not just spouting off, you've done some research, right?


Because showing "acceptance" for "someone's right to be turned into a homosexual by society" is as absurd as showing "acceptance" to a beaten woman's "right to have bruises".
Please demonstrate, in essay form, that you can distinguish between the concepts of "consensual" and "non-consensual."

[truth1337]

You are aware that the vast majority of heterosexual transmission comes not from intercourse with bi people, but rather needle sharing and unsafe sex among drug users (http://www.npr.org/2012/07/27/157352062/greeces-latest-crisis-rising-hiv-cases)? I mean, you're not just spouting off, you've done some research, right?

Drug usage is also a sin against the will of God.



Please demonstrate, in essay form, that you can distinguish between the concepts of "consensual" and "non-consensual."
The task of identifying who is consensual homosexual, and non-consensual homosexual, lies upon the homosexual himself. If he is non-consensual and made so by environment, then those environment factors should first of all not be acceptable, and secondly - if he takes the initative to ask for guidance back to God - I think we should be there for him, and lead him to the divine path again, rather than saying "you have the right to have been turned into homosexual against your will by society". The consensual homosexuals, may do what they wish to do, without our interference.

[Lemur]

Drug usage is also a sin against the will of God.
Whose god? Yours? The Hindus? The Buddhists? The Muslims? Saying something is "against the will of God" as a show-stopper only works in church, and most importantly, only your church. The Methodists down the road may not agree, after all.


The task of identifying who is consensual homosexual, and non-consensual homosexual
I wasn't saying anything about homosexuality; I was referring to your false equivalence between consensual sex and spouse abuse.

[Hooahguy]

I normally don't agree with the extremely hateful racist book that the Talmud is,

Wow, that's the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

[truth1337]

I wasn't saying anything about homosexuality; I was referring to your false equivalence between consensual sex and spouse abuse.

I believe you're missing my point, which is to say there is both consensual and non-consensual sex. For the consensual sex category, I don't believe we are in disagreement.

As for the non-consensual category, I claim that saying someone "has a right to do it", is in my opinion equal to saying a beaten woman "has a right to have bruises".

[a completely inoffensive name]

There is no such thing as non consensual sex. It's called rape.

[Montmorency]

There is no such thing as non consensual sex. It's called rape.

Ergo, there is no such thing as rape.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ergo, there is no such thing as rape.

Damn my terrible english!

[ajaxfetish]

This is fun. I don't think we've had this much crazy on the .org since Navaros left us. :2thumbsup:

Ajax

[Ironside]

Drug usage is also a sin against the will of God.


I hope you don't drink coffee then. Or are we just talking about illegal drugs?

[drone]

I hope you don't drink coffee then. Or are we just talking about illegal drugs?
I know a couple of Rastafarians that will be extremely disappointed.

[Lemur]

However sex between men is a sin against God
Just going back to this—we're all aware that gluttony (http://www.openbible.info/topics/gluttony) is condemned more than 20 times in the Bible, correct? While homosex is mentioned (most generous estimate) four times? So being fat is clearly a higher priority sin than hot, sweaty man-on-man action.

And let's not even get started on poverty (http://www.openbible.info/topics/poverty). Jesus of Nazareth just would not shut up about poverty. Effing hippie. Somebody ought to show him the prosperity gospel (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2009/03/The-Problem-for-the-Prosperity-Gospel.aspx).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok as promised a short explanation.

I normally don't agree with the extremely hateful racist book that the Talmud is, but when it comes to lesbianism, I tend to agree with its view that lesbianism is no sin but "mere lewdness".

However sex between men is a sin against God - but so long as they stick to only other men, God can punish them with HIV without having it spread to innocent hereosexuals. Therefore, so long as males are purely homosexual, they do not cause any damage to others and can thus do what they want without anyone needing to care. Bisexuals connect this pool of humans with the innocent heterosexuals, and that is a horrible, unforgivable sin, just like heterosexuals having sex with animals is a horrible sin as it connects the disease pool of the animal, with that of humans.

I believe there may exist two causes of homosexuality:
- homosexuals from birth
- homosexuals by environment

These groups should be treated differently, but since we can't distinct them as outsiders, the responsibility for identifying which group they belong to lies entirely upon themselves. Those who are so by birth, will have the genes that gave them higher tendency to become homosexuals cleansed from the gene pool because they can't have children since they won't marry a woman. It is therefore a great sin to repress and persecute such homosexuals so much that they choose to act as heterosexuals and spread their genes to another generation, therefore they should be fully tolerated. Those who are not so by birth, but by environment, should - if they take the initiative to ask for it - be helped back to the path intended for them by God - and society should have the attitude, that asking for such help is brave and righteous, rather than having disgusting "pride marches". Because showing "acceptance" for "someone's right to be turned into a homosexual by society" is as absurd as showing "acceptance" to a beaten woman's "right to have bruises".

I have just one quest; what is the Greatest Commandment, and what is the Second?

Meditate upon that and consider what you are saying.

[truth1337]

I hope you don't drink coffee then. Or are we just talking about illegal drugs?

I would have thought anyone could make an educated guess on the meaning of that phrase, unless they didn't make a difference between taking coffee during a 15 minute work break, and literally living in the gutter and focusing one's brain activity on ways of stealing to get money for the next high.

[truth1337]

Just going back to this—we're all aware that gluttony (http://www.openbible.info/topics/gluttony) is condemned more than 20 times in the Bible, correct? While homosex is mentioned (most generous estimate) four times? So being fat is clearly a higher priority sin than hot, sweaty man-on-man action.

And let's not even get started on poverty (http://www.openbible.info/topics/poverty). Jesus of Nazareth just would not shut up about poverty. Effing hippie. Somebody ought to show him the prosperity gospel (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2009/03/The-Problem-for-the-Prosperity-Gospel.aspx).

I suppose you would find words in your book of law that are mentioned more often than those of greater significance. Would you draw the same type of conclusions from that?

[Lemur]

I suppose you would find words in your book of law that are mentioned more often than those of greater significance. Would you draw the same type of conclusions from that?
You really need to have a sit-down with your minister or priest. He'll clear up that heresy with some doctrine and a medicated cream.

[truth1337]

You really need to have a sit-down with your minister or priest. He'll clear up that heresy with some doctrine and a medicated cream.

I believe in Christ, not in institutionalized worship. You need only look at the things Luther was protesting against in the late Renaissance, and notice that the same is going on in the Protestant church too and the communistified Moscow Patriarchate, to know that high priests bear as much relevance to Christians, as bikes do to fish.

[rory_20_uk]

I believe in Christ, not in institutionalized worship. You need only look at the things Luther was protesting against in the late Renaissance, and notice that the same is going on in the Protestant church too and the communistified Moscow Patriarchate, to know that high priests bear as much relevance to Christians, as bikes do to fish.

Quakerism is quite a good one then.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

I believe in Christ, not in institutionalized worship.
Well, that would explain the advanced case of heresy. (God personally drew the boundaries of nations and condemns race-mixing? Needs citation, as the Wiki folks say.) Priests aren't good for a whole lot, but they can clear up points of doctrine nicely.


the same is going on in the Protestant church too
Which protestant church? According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195103181/) there are at minimum 33,000 denominations. They're all corrupt and naughty and bad?

Help me out here, what general age bracket are you in? Teens? Twenties? Thirties?

[Memnon]

as bikes do to fish.

http://www.moldychum.com/storage/fish_bike2.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1248925332874

Oh if only you knew...

[truth1337]

Well, that would explain the advanced case of heresy. Priests aren't good for a whole lot, but they can clear up points of doctrine nicely.
What is it you claim is heresy?



Which protestant church? According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195103181/) there are at minimum 33,000 denominations. They're all corrupt and naughty and bad?

Help me out here, what general age bracket are you in? Teens? Twenties? Thirties?
Good point, I'm referring to the one closest to me, namely the Swedish church. It has been infiltrated by people like Helle Klein. She is a convert to Christianity from another religion which I will not specify, and she is undermining all doctrine, so much that people are leaving the Swedish church en masse. Note to self: Speaking of that, I wonder if I already did that or not, I surely will do it if I haven't.

[truth1337]

http://www.moldychum.com/storage/fish_bike2.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1248925332874

Oh if only you knew...

Nice :) You should show that one to women suffrage activists ;)

[Lemur]

What is it you claim is heresy?
Clarified in my edit, which I must have performed around the moment you responded. To wit: God drew the borders of all nations. And by extension, keeps re-drawing them. Also see miscegenation (http://catholicexchange.com/does-the-bible-forbid-miscegenation/).


Good point, I'm referring to the one closest to me, namely the Swedish church.
Well, if you're going to ground so many of your beliefs in God's will, it might make sense to either (a) study for a doctorate of divinity, or (b) put yourself in a context with someone who has done so.

[truth1337]

Clarified in my edit

(God personally drew the boundaries of nations and condemns race-mixing? Needs citation, as the Wiki folks say.)
The burden of proof lies upon you, when you claim the nations and world order should be replaced by a New World Order with forced racial mixing and ending of the beautiful diversity of mankind. An idea which is, by the way, based on the faulty religious belief that all humans had a common ancestor before a "Tower of Babylon" like incident and should go back to that stage. Yet you claim to be against religion? *sigh* The Tower of Babel belief system that is the foundation of multi-culti and globalism is in fact none other than the Scottish Rite branch of Free Masonry. I should know, because I have friends in the organization and yes - they're supposed to be experts at keeping secrets with all those "level up" rituals, but they sure as **** don't live up to their reputation in that regard.

[Lemur]

you claim the nations and world order should be replaced by a New World Order with forced racial mixing and ending of the beautiful diversity of mankind. [...] Yet you claim to be against religion?
Please feel free to show me where I have made either of those arguments. Go ahead, the entire forum is searchable. Please, point to the post where I articulated either of those positions.

And when you're done, and you come up with a hand full of nothing, maybe we can talk like grownups.

[truth1337]

Well, if you're going to ground so many of your beliefs in God's will, it might make sense to either (a) study for a doctorate of divinity, or (b) put yourself in a context with someone who has done so.

If you are to have a meaningful argument, you should quit making strawman assumptions such as that I have no contact with people knowledgeable in Bible and historical linguistics. The church where I live is, for the most part, no longer an institution where this can be acquired. I know many well-educated and serious priests, but I also know the whole church has been taken over by communists who have converted to Christianity semantically but not in spirit, who dominate the church thanks to pulling various strings such as the small government connection that still exist, the media's ability to depict the church and its people as they wish, and economical strings. Not only that, but I would go so far as to claim massmedia has become the new church, for while the old church had 1-2 hours every Sunday to tell people what to think, massmedia has over 2 hours per day on average. Any arguments against the indoctrination done by the church historically, must be put in contrast with this grave danger that massmedia poses. It is simply not rational, to claim they "are better because they rely on science", for as proven almost daily, they make little effort checking the correctness of their claims, nor do they face much problems for deliberately lying to tell "the big story", as the communists label it themselves.

[Lemur]

If you are to have a meaningful argument, you should quit making strawman assumptions such as that I have no contact with people knowledgeable in Bible and historical linguistics. The church where I live is, for the most part, no longer an institution where this can be acquired. I know many well-educated and serious priests, but I also know the whole church has been taken over by communists who have converted to Christianity semantically but not in spirit, who dominate the church thanks to pulling various strings such as the small government connection that still exist, the media's ability to depict the church and its people as they wish, and economical strings. Not only that, but I would go so far as to claim massmedia has become the new church, for while the old church had 1-2 hours every Sunday to tell people what to think, massmedia has over 2 hours per day on average. Any arguments against the indoctrination done by the church historically, must be put in contrast with this grave danger that massmedia poses. It is simply not rational, to claim they "are better because they rely on science", for as proven almost daily, they make little effort checking the correctness of their claims, nor do they face much problems for deliberately lying to tell "the big story", as the communists label it themselves.
Are you familiar with the term word salad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad)?

[truth1337]

Please feel free to show me where I have made either of those arguments. Go ahead, the entire forum is searchable. Please, point to the post where I articulated either of those positions.

And when you're done, and you come up with a hand full of nothing, maybe we can talk like grownups.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Show me where I claimed I wasn't in contact with people knowledgeable about the Bible.

[truth1337]

Are you familiar with the term word salad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad)?

I hope that one day you will find Christ, or Socrates, and realize that the purpose of discussions isn't to fight for the idea you entered the discussion with, but to broaden your perspectives. you clearly

Are you familiar with the word "diversion"?

[Lemur]

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Show me where I claimed I wasn't in contact with people knowledgeable about the Bible.
Well, you're mangling your quote right there, so that isn't a good sign. Then you went on to declare that you are unaffiliated with any organized religion (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142154-Should-homosexuality-and-bisexuality-be-treated-differently&p=2053472528&viewfull=1#post2053472528). Lastly, you hold what appear to be a panoply of heretical views (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142160-Check-this-out&p=2053472262&viewfull=1#post2053472262).

So if you're in contact with a Biblical scholar, he should probably have his license revoked.

Also, you should probably go easy on the "strawman" accusations. Give yourself a budget, say, two a day. If you use the term persistently loses its oomph.

So there, I've answered your question. Please answer mine (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142154-Should-homosexuality-and-bisexuality-be-treated-differently&p=2053472553&viewfull=1#post2053472553), and then we can talk like grownups.

[Hooahguy]

Do you even know what a straw man argument is?

[truth1337]

Then you went on to declare that you are unaffiliated with any organized religion
In the context, it would seem possible that you consider that heresy. Is that a correct interpretation?


Lastly, you hold what appear to be a panoply of heretical views
What are those heretical views, in your opinion?



So if you're in contact with a Biblical scholar, he should probably have his license revoked.

Because he doesn't like deliberate communist and Scottish Rite free mason misinterpretations of the Bible?


Also, you should probably go easy on the "strawman" accusations. Give yourself a budget, say, two a day.
The number is wholly decided by the ones I discuss with.



So there, I've answered your question

I don't think so, I still don't know what exact statements you hold to be heresy, which by the way is an interesting choice of word, for one who seems to object to basing opinions on God's word.

[Lemur]

In the context, it would seem possible that you consider that heresy. Is that a correct interpretation?
Obviously not. Being unaffiliated with a church could not be construed as heresy under any definition of the word.


What are those heretical views, in your opinion?
Follow teh link (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142160-Check-this-out&p=2053472262&viewfull=1#post2053472262). Or read what I've spelled out twice already in this thread.


Because he doesn't like deliberate communist and Scottish Rite free mason misinterpretations of the Bible?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAOxY_nHdew


I still don't know what exact statements you hold to be heresy, which by the way is an interesting choice of word, for one who seems to object to basing opinions on God's word.
I've spelled it out twice and linked it twice. And I don't object to basing an opinion on God's word, I just think it has a limited context, i.e., co-religionists and people with whom you already share both a religion and an interpretation. Saying, "This is God's will" is fine and dandy, it just doesn't carry weight for a general audience.

[truth1337]

Follow teh link (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142160-Check-this-out&p=2053472262&viewfull=1#post2053472262). Or read what I've spelled out twice already in this thread.


I follow the link, and find a post where I discuss what David Duke is and isn't. What has my impression on David Duke to do with heresy. Surely David Duke isn't mentioned in the Bible?

[Lemur]

Okay, let me put on my monsignor hat:

Do you, truth1337, believe that the Lord God personally drew the boundaries of all nations? That he continues to define them? Please explain where this belief originates.

Do you, truth1337, believe that the Lord God explicitly forbids and denounces miscegenation? (Citing seed-mixing passages from the OT does not count, since that applied specifically to the Chosen People. You must find an explicitly Christian source for this belief.)

(Everybody gear up for a good, old-fashioned heretic burn. I'll bring the zippo if someone else can bring the kerosene and driftwood.)

[truth1337]

Do you, truth1337, believe that the Lord God personally drew the boundaries of all nations? That he continues to define them? Please explain where this belief originates.
No, I believe God made us into different races, and roughly decided where on earth each race should live. This belief stems from the very fact, that we were turned into separate races before we had civilization (the advent of civilization corresponds to the expulsion from Eden). And as we all know, civilization represents the time when mankind took the power for herself to decide the direction of her own evolution, because she would come in control over ways of changing the evolutionary pressure by making every human grow up in an environment defined by a society. Before that, humans could fight to survive within the evolutionary pressure given around them, but after civilization came, she also gained the power to decide the evolutionary pressure.

In a sense you will see that my concept of God is quite similar to what an atheist would call "nature" or "reality", but the main difference is that I also believe there exists an invincible force which will guide those of pure heart to defeat evil no matter how powerful it grows, and that force will always resurge no matter how evil tries to kill it.

Thus you could just as well say that my belief is founded in love for nature, as in my belief in God. I.e. nature made us into different races long before we had any say about it, and to hate our diversity is to hate nature. If we again go back to religion, hatred of nature is of course the ultimate blasphemy, as nature - including mankind within it - is God's creation. I know that many Talmudic azkenazi Jews disagree, then again Talmud almost makes it a semantic game to interpret the words of the Torah in a way that is as different as it could possible be from its most obvious interpretation, sometimes even the opposite.



Do you, truth1337, believe that the Lord God explicitly forbids and denounces miscegenation? (Citing seed-mixing passages from the OT does not count, since that applied specifically to the Chosen People. You must find an explicitly Christian source for this belief.)

The answer to this is given in my above post, where I state why encouraging or even enforcing racial mixing (as persons of certain races such as Sarkozy - who himself is racially pure and has a wife who is bragging about how racially pure she is - such hypocrisy!) has no advantage whatsoever. This is not founded in religion, but in simple facts about biology, evolution, and psychology.



(Everybody gear up for a good, old-fashioned heretic burn. I'll bring the zippo if someone else can bring the kerosene and driftwood.)
I'm afraid you'll have to consult institutionalized religion from 400 years ago or pagan priests for that. But I can give you this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU

[Ironside]

I would have thought anyone could make an educated guess on the meaning of that phrase, unless they didn't make a difference between taking coffee during a 15 minute work break, and literally living in the gutter and focusing one's brain activity on ways of stealing to get money for the next high.

So an alchoholic in the gutter sins, while the one beating his wife is ok? What about marijuana? Only the stoners are sinners? Functional morphine addicts? Are a misfunctional morphine addict more of a sinner that a functional heroine addict?



Good point, I'm referring to the one closest to me, namely the Swedish church. It has been infiltrated by people like Helle Klein. She is a convert to Christianity from another religion which I will not specify, and she is undermining all doctrine, so much that people are leaving the Swedish church en masse. Note to self: Speaking of that, I wonder if I already did that or not, I surely will do it if I haven't.

Oh, dear. You really aren't familiar with Sweden. You know why people are leaving the Swedish church? Taxes and state church. Anybody born in Sweden before year 1996 and has one parent who member in the Swedish church did default into a member, unless specified otherwise. After 1996, you need to be babtized first. Being a member in the church cost you about 1% extra in taxes. Low enough to normally bother, high enough that it's worth leaving if it's pointed out and aren't believing.

[truth1337]

So an alchoholic in the gutter sins, while the one beating his wife is ok?

Eh...?



What about marijuana? Only the stoners are sinners? Functional morphine addicts? Are a misfunctional morphine addict more of a sinner that a functional heroine addict?
What do you think yourself would be a reasonable standpoint? I think you've locked your mind on believing, that because I quoted religion once I must have opinions far from yourself in everything.



Oh, dear. You really aren't familiar with Sweden. You know why people are leaving the Swedish church? Taxes and state church. Anybody born in Sweden before year 1996 and has one parent who member in the Swedish church did default into a member, unless specified otherwise. After 1996, you need to be babtized first. Being a member in the church cost you about 1% extra in taxes. Low enough to normally bother, high enough that it's worth leaving if it's pointed out and aren't believing.
These articles may enlighten you:
http://www.nationell.nu/2012/08/02/svenska-kyrkan-sparar-ur-startar-kampanjen-jag-ar-ocksa-ett-pissluder/
http://www.nationell.nu/2012/06/08/svenska-praster-judar-har-tagit-over-svenska-kyrkan-och-bedriver-inkvisition-mot-kristna/

[Ironside]

Eh...?
What do you think yourself would be a reasonable standpoint? I think you've locked your mind on believing, that because I quoted religion once I must have opinions far from yourself in everything.

You said "Drug usage is also a sin against the will of God." Alchohol has to be legal, since they drink in the Bible (unlike coffee). Don't get too drunk though, or you might get raped by your daughters or forced to condemn one of your sons into eternal servitude. Anyway, is it the legality of a drug that makes in a sin? The end result (making the alchoholic hobo a sinner, unlike a somewhat functional alchoholic)? What makes drug use into a sin?


These articles may enlighten you:
http://www.nationell.nu/2012/08/02/svenska-kyrkan-sparar-ur-startar-kampanjen-jag-ar-ocksa-ett-pissluder/
http://www.nationell.nu/2012/06/08/svenska-praster-judar-har-tagit-over-svenska-kyrkan-och-bedriver-inkvisition-mot-kristna/

The second one has significant conspiracy warnings. But, yeah the Swedish church is very left leaning, but it's not the big reason on why it's losing members.

[truth1337]

You said "Drug usage is also a sin against the will of God." Alchohol has to be legal, since they drink in the Bible (unlike coffee). Don't get too drunk though, or you might get raped by your daughters or forced to condemn one of your sons into eternal servitude. Anyway, is it the legality of a drug that makes in a sin? The end result (making the alchoholic hobo a sinner, unlike a somewhat functional alchoholic)? What makes drug use into a sin?
You seem extremely interested in my view but don't tell me anything about what you yourself think. You've even started arguing against things you think I'm going to say, before I've said it, and making all sorts of ridiculous and irrelevant associations to the Torah, whose importance is minor in Christianity. Christianity is mainly a system for defeating the endless evil of the conspiratorial pharisee high priests, and can work with many different moral systems for the remainder of life. That Jesus happened to grow up in a Torah-based moral system, is mere coincidence.

As for the difference between sin and not sin it is when you're starting to put the superficial and artificial emotions of the next high above all else in life. A man who lives only for his next drug high is a sinner.



The second one has significant conspiracy warnings. But, yeah the Swedish church is very left leaning, but it's not the big reason on why it's losing members.
<sarcasm>Yes of course, because saying that those who truly control massmedia, politics, culture, the church and the banks actually do control one of those institutions, makes you an insane conspiracy theorist. Actually, massmedia is not controlled by Helle Klein-like people, but by ze evil reptilian nazis who came with UFOs from the moon, and all must fight against them, to drive the revolution against the evil forces that control us all, and communism will save us! This time we won't kill 60 million white people, we promise.</sarcasm>

[Major Robert Dump]

This guy is a troll. I mean look at his name.

He is probably an alt account for someone on this board, trying to rile folks up. His initial post in this thread was wrong on so many levels, I refuse to believe that there is anyone so devoid of actual fact in the day of the internet. I am, however, enjoying reading Lemurs reactions. I did not comment on the first paragraph in this thread because it was just too easy, like making a Sandusky joke.

Or maybe Truth1337 is this lady:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRxjJZFGgNM

[rvg]

This guy is a troll. I mean look at his name.
That is obvious enough. What puzzles me is why do the Backroomers keep feeding it.

[Tristuskhan]

The answer to this is given in my above post, where I state why encouraging or even enforcing racial mixing (as persons of certain races such as Sarkozy - who himself is racially pure and has a wife who is bragging about how racially pure she is - such hypocrisy!) has no advantage whatsoever. This is not founded in religion, but in simple facts about biology, evolution, and psychology.

It's been a long time since I logged on this board for the last time but this one is.... so outstanding! Sarkozy: hungarian noble father, Thessaloniki jewish mother, how racially pure that is! Such idiocy can't be unwanted, and talking NOW about our ex-nanopresident... smells like truth1337 is Louis VI the Fat in disguise, having fun with his fellow members. Karl Marx, satanist? Bad french humour, I say. Jo Stalin and my grandfather are both shooking their coffins with hilarity, those days.

[drone]

He is probably an alt account for someone on this board, trying to rile folks up.

My guess is that Tribesy and Navaros met up at a bar and decided to have a little fun.

[truth1337]

My guess is that Tribesy and Navaros met up at a bar and decided to have a little fun.

I'm looking forward to the pleasure of meeting those guys

[Fragony]

I'm looking forward to the pleasure of meeting those guys

I don't think he would like you

[CountArach]

Nice :) You should show that one to women suffrage activists ;)
As in people who want women to vote? Do you oppose that too?

[Kralizec]

This guy is a troll. I mean look at his name.

He is probably an alt account for someone on this board, trying to rile folks up.

Dunno. It's entirely possible, but on the other hand I've seen plenty of people on the interwebs who hold similar opinions. I wouldn't rule out that he's sincere.


He is probably an alt account for someone on this board, trying to rile folks up.

I like cashews and milk :yes:

[CountArach]

This guy is a troll. I mean look at his name.
Nope. He has plenty of other legitimate posts in other sub-fora.

[truth1337]

As in people who want women to vote? Do you oppose that too?

The fish with a bicycle parable comes from women's suffrage activists.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, I believe God made us into different races, and roughly decided where on earth each race should live. This belief stems from the very fact, that we were turned into separate races before we had civilization (the advent of civilization corresponds to the expulsion from Eden). And as we all know, civilization represents the time when mankind took the power for herself to decide the direction of her own evolution, because she would come in control over ways of changing the evolutionary pressure by making every human grow up in an environment defined by a society. Before that, humans could fight to survive within the evolutionary pressure given around them, but after civilization came, she also gained the power to decide the evolutionary pressure.

This is stupid, because you keep quoting a cod Anglo-Saxon version of the Bible, and the Anglo-Saxons are an admixture of Norse, Danes, Brythonic Celts, Gaels, Saxona, Angles, Jutes, Geats, which are all quite distinct "races" historically, coming from as far afield as Norway, Spain, Austria and Wales. before they mixed. More to the point, these people moved.

So, I know you have no understanding of scripture, and none of history.

I also know that you are a mysoganist, because you gendered civilisation as "she".


In a sense you will see that my concept of God is quite similar to what an atheist would call "nature" or "reality", but the main difference is that I also believe there exists an invincible force which will guide those of pure heart to defeat evil no matter how powerful it grows, and that force will always resurge no matter how evil tries to kill it.

Thus you could just as well say that my belief is founded in love for nature, as in my belief in God. I.e. nature made us into different races long before we had any say about it, and to hate our diversity is to hate nature. If we again go back to religion, hatred of nature is of course the ultimate blasphemy, as nature - including mankind within it - is God's creation. I know that many Talmudic azkenazi Jews disagree, then again Talmud almost makes it a semantic game to interpret the words of the Torah in a way that is as different as it could possible be from its most obvious interpretation, sometimes even the opposite.

This is stupid, because you cannot read Hebrew, therefore you cannot talk of the "obvious" interpretation of the Torah because your only knowledge of it is mediated through the translator. Most of those translators are Jews, working with Christians.

From this I see you know nothing of language or scholarship.


The answer to this is given in my above post, where I state why encouraging or even enforcing racial mixing (as persons of certain races such as Sarkozy - who himself is racially pure and has a wife who is bragging about how racially pure she is - such hypocrisy!) has no advantage whatsoever. This is not founded in religion, but in simple facts about biology, evolution, and psychology.


I'm afraid you'll have to consult institutionalized religion from 400 years ago or pagan priests for that. But I can give you this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU

This is stupid, because it is known that all current "races" are a result of admixture.

From this is may conclude you know nothing about nature or genetics.

So -

I may conclude that you are stupid and you know nothing because your eyes are closed and your ears are stopped.

May God have mercy on my soul for making such a judgement.

[truth1337]

This is stupid, because you keep quoting a cod Anglo-Saxon version of the Bible
Eh? This remark makes no sense in response to a paragraph that didn't quote the bible.


So, I know you have no understanding of scripture, and none of history.
Are we perhaps jumping conclusions a bit here?


I also know that you are a mysoganist
Eh?


you gendered civilisation as "she".
Mankind, not civilization. Learn to read, thank you very much.


This is stupid, because you cannot read Hebrew, therefore you cannot talk of the "obvious" interpretation of the Torah because your only knowledge of it is mediated through the translator. Most of those translators are Jews, working with Christians.

This is beyond mere semantics, my friend. The Torah says "thou shalt not kill", the Talmud says: "It is allright to murder, so long as you do it indirectly. An example - if you tie up your neighbor to a tree so that he dies of starvation, you did not commit murder". Linguistical details are a minor issue in saying, that the latter didn't quite seem as the most straightforward interpretation of the former, in any language.



From this I see you know nothing of language or scholarship.
You are as impressive as the old monk in "The name of the Rose" in your reasoning capabilities.



This is stupid, because it is known that all current "races" are a result of admixture.
Show me where Swedish mixed with Zimbabweans before immigration begun.


From this is may conclude you know nothing about nature or genetics.
I'm utterly impressed.



So -

I may conclude that you are stupid and you know nothing because your eyes are closed and your ears are stopped.

Nice words, from someone who thought I called cvilization "she".

[Ironside]

You seem extremely interested in my view but don't tell me anything about what you yourself think. You've even started arguing against things you think I'm going to say, before I've said it, and making all sorts of ridiculous and irrelevant associations to the Torah, whose importance is minor in Christianity. Christianity is mainly a system for defeating the endless evil of the conspiratorial pharisee high priests, and can work with many different moral systems for the remainder of life. That Jesus happened to grow up in a Torah-based moral system, is mere coincidence.

As for the difference between sin and not sin it is when you're starting to put the superficial and artificial emotions of the next high above all else in life. A man who lives only for his next drug high is a sinner.

My views are often inexact and illdefined, ergo I usually don't talk a lot of my own views in those cases. On drugs, I'm generally opposing it, but are pragmatic in the legality of it. I don't deal with sin, so it doesn't matter.

Interesting about you rejecting the Old Testament, solves the coherence issue I suppose.

Thanks for expanding on your opinon. :bow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eh? This remark makes no sense in response to a paragraph that didn't quote the bible.

You're someone in the 20th Century quoting a cod Anglo-Saxon translation of the Bible, complaining about mixing and immigration.

Angles immigrated into Britannia and mixed with the local Brythonic Celts, the resulting people have dark hair (like Celts) but are longer limbed (like the immigrants).

Accoding to you the Anglo-Saxons and an abbrogation of God's plan.

I conclude from your posting that you equate Civilisation with a feminine gender because of the way you write.

You are wrong Exegetically, by the way, Civilisation does not correspond with the expulsion from Eden, but with the murder of Abel by Cain because it was after he recieved his Mark from God that Cain and his descendents founded the first cities and used technology.

[truth1337]

You're someone in the 20th Century quoting a cod Anglo-Saxon translation of the Bible, complaining about mixing and immigration.

What quote are you referring to?



Angles immigrated into Britannia and mixed with the local Brythonic Celts, the resulting people have dark hair (like Celts) but are longer limbed (like the immigrants).

Deliberate mixing to eliminate diversity by mixing all races into one, has no place in a civilized society. Killing our diversity is a crime against humanity, it is only a covert form of genociding us all. Do you support other forms of arbitrary eugenics too?


I conclude from your posting that you equate Civilisation with a feminine gender because of the way you write.

How cute of you


You are wrong Exegetically, by the way, Civilisation does not correspond with the expulsion from Eden, but with the murder of Abel by Cain because it was after he recieved his Mark from God that Cain and his descendents founded the first cities and used technology.
Depends on your definition of civilization. I define it as the acquisition of the wisdom that made men like gods, in the sense of being able to form her own evolutionary pressure. Cities came shortly after this. Cain and Abel represent the struggle between (at that time already existing) settled farmer civs, and cattle herding civs.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What quote are you referring to

The speck and the beam.


Deliberate mixing to eliminate diversity by mixing all races into one, has no place in a civilized society. Killing our diversity is a crime against humanity, it is only a covert form of genociding us all. Do you support other forms of arbitrary eugenics too?

Acts Chapter 10 establishes that there is not difference between Jews and non Jews, and hence no difference between any peoples. Saint Paul says that after chastity to marry and have children is most pleasing to God, and he says that a husband and wife should love each other. At no point does he say you must choose someone from your own tribe.

In an African woman and a European man love each other, therefore, it must be pleasing to God for them to marry, produce children and raise them to worship Him.

If fact, it behoves them to do this. You are the one practiciing Euogenics, not us.

How do you define a race? Skin colour? Hair colour? Eye or nose shape?

If Gaels have red hair and Swedes have blond hair, are they not two seperate races? After all they have distinct traits?


How cute of you

Nobody has described me as cute since I was about 10.


Depends on your definition of civilization. I define it as the acquisition of the wisdom that made men like gods, in the sense of being able to form her own evolutionary pressure. Cities came shortly after this. Cain and Abel represent the struggle between (at that time already existing) settled farmer civs, and cattle herding civs.

That is not how the Bible defines it, Genesis 4.17-22 establishes that Cain's son Enoch founded Enoch, the first recorded city, and his descendent Tubal-cain was the one who, "made all kinds of bronze and iron tools".

Cain and Abel were the fisr sons of Adam and Eve, they do not represrnt two seperate civilisations, they represent two ways of living which is not the same thing. Cain's descendents built both cities and lived in tends and raised livestock.

[truth1337]

The speck and the beam.
So from the fact that I copy+pasted that single phrase from King James Bible, rather than copy+pasting in a Hebrew text that the reader wouldn't understand - you draw the conclusion that all my Bible studies are based on KJB?



Acts Chapter 10 establishes that there is not difference between Jews and non Jews, and hence no difference between any peoples.

Taken out of context, you can interpret it that way, as does the multi-culti infiltrated church these days. The passage you probably refer to is Acts 10:28, which I will post here from the KJB mainly because I'm sure most people wouldn't be able to read the Greek version anyway. Besides, I haven't found it in digital form yet. If you would claim the linguistical discrepancies from the Greek original are significant to the interpretation then we may proceed to discuss the original one, I then expect you provide the Greek text and show your understanding of the grammatical details.

10:28 [kjv] And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

If this is the passage you're referring to, it clearly states that it is wrong to mix races and nations, but God makes an exception in this case. The way that this law is mentioned in passing as if it were a self-evident truth that nobody would be stupid enough to question, shows how central this concept is.



Saint Paul says that after chastity to marry and have children is most pleasing to God, and he says that a husband and wife should love each other.

In an African woman and a European man love each other, therefore, it must be pleasing to God for them to marry, produce children and raise them to worship Him.

If fact, it behoves them to do this.

There is a pressure through propaganda to enforce mixing. I know many women who were coerced into a mixed race marriage out of uncertainty - believing they would get a pat on their head from society for living up to the multi-culti expectations of the bankers and massmedia establishment. Later, they realized the marriage was not out of love but out of self-coercion and propaganda, and their marriages broke apart. The same is true about many import wives from Thailand, which happens occasionally in Sweden. So yes, if they truly love each other - but I doubt that is the case. Love is so much more than just sexual attraction - it is the will to form a family and knowing that it would be a happy one and that the children would grow up and feel included in the neighborhood.


You are the one practiciing Euogenics, not us.
I'm not advocating Eugenics, I'm stating that if people weren't harassed by propaganda, or if multi-culti mass immigration didn't exist, then people wouldn't choose race mixed marriage nearly as often. Moreover, the geographical separation of races is natural - at most you'll have contact with your own group and the ones on your border zone, creating a sometimes seamless sometimes sharp gradient of change as you move through the world away from your homelands. When you start experimenting with mixing, and even enforcing it by propaganda, you're doing Eugenics. You may not realize it, but that is what it is. When you scare people of an inbreeding risk which is imaginary in most cases. And when you make people think superficially and abandon the deeper and more meaningful feelings of love. To summarize - I wouldn't prohibit race mixing in a natural society where no immigration existed - but I would prohibit creating unnatural scenarios or spreading propaganda that any particular form of partner choice should be made.

Additionally as I stated, increasing the size of each population's gene pool too much, removes the threat of inbreeding in the case one male would choose to have 100 women impregnated, leaving 99 men without children. That type of behavior, if it isn't self-punished, creates practical problems with this type of society. It will turn mankind into an insect-like society, where many males do not have children or wives at all, but are some kind of lower class of drones.

Note that to perform Eugenics you don't need to actively choose who breeds with who and who is not to breed at all, but if you change the environment in such a way that instincts will lead us into a dramatically different genetical direction than otherwise, then you are indeed doing Eugenics implicitly.

As for your discussion on Cain and Abel, I believe the Old Testament is for the most part irrelevant to Christianity. Tubal-Cain - isn't that the free mason code word for the 3rd degree? I saw it posted in some leaked masonry secrets text a while ago.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, I meant Acts 10, not 10.28.

I don't generally quote verses, as it is pointless. The shortest unit I usually refer to is a chapter, more often a book, and I then expect you to go away and read it.

Indeed, as usual, the KJV is somewhat corrupt - but perhaps you should consider the following verses and especially verse 34

"Then Peter began to speak to them: "I truly understand that God shows no particularity."

End of verse.

Perhaps you need a lesson in basic narrative logic?

The entire chapter is about Peter coming to terms with the fact that there is no division which God has made between Jews and gentiles, see later verse 45

"The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles"

Peter then Baptises them, and the Chapter ends.

Then we have Chapter 11, wherein Peter must convince the other Jewish followers of Jesus to accept the Gentiles and not make a distinction between the two peoples.

So - this is why Lemur calls you a Heretic, because you deny the written Testement according to the Evangelist Luke.

[Montmorency]

To say that "separation of races" is "natural" is to imply an aversion to technologies of transport and communication.

What are you doing on the Internet, eh?

[Tristuskhan]

"There is a pressure through propaganda to enforce mixing. I know many women who were coerced into a mixed race marriage out of uncertainty - believing they would get a pat on their head from society for living up to the multi-culti expectations of the bankers and massmedia establishment. Later, they realized the marriage was not out of love but out of self-coercion and propaganda, and their marriages broke apart. The same is true about many import wives from Thailand, which happens occasionally in Sweden. So yes, if they truly love each other - but I doubt that is the case. Love is so much more than just sexual attraction - it is the will to form a family and knowing that it would be a happy one and that the children would grow up and feel included in the neighborhood."

I know a tremendous lot of mixed races couples that last for decades, out of love, boy, despite your kind's views. And if the kids sometimes don't feel included in the neighbourhood, it's because people like you teach their own kids in dispising those who look just a bit different from their 'superior' 'race'. Whatever race that can be, by the way.

You are a former satanist, you said? You must have been a bore of a satanist. Now you fell in love with God? You're a pain of a believer. Probably within six months you'll discover there is nothing like a God, and you'll become the most terrible kind of atheist... Come on, grow up.

[Tellos Athenaios]

http://www.moldychum.com/storage/fish_bike2.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1248925332874

Oh if only you knew...

You might know, might not, but there's a cute little song by Koos Meinderts titled "Er ging een vis uit fietsen" which translates as "A fish went cycling".
Er ging een vis uit fietsen.
Het was op een mooie dag.
Zijn fiets, dat was een rooie.
En rood was ook zijn vlag.

Hij suisde van de duinen.
Hij sjeesde door het bos.
Hij scheurde door de bochten,
Soms met de vinnen los.

Hij fietste over bergen.
Hij fietste over zee.
De vis wist van geen stoppen.
Hij had steeds windje mee.

En zie je hem ooit fietsen,
Zeg de vis van mij gedag.
Zijn fiets, dat is een rooie.
En rood is ook zijn vlag.

[HoreTore]

I declare this thread to be the best thread in Backroom history.

This is even better than when Navarros defended creationism. I have read most of it, but I won't read the rest until I have a beer and some popcorn.

This. Is. Awesome.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think new guy have a point or two.

It's probably hard for non-swedes getting where he comes from though.

[Vladimir]

I declare this thread to be the best thread in Backroom history.

This is even better than when Navarros defended creationism. I have read most of it, but I won't read the rest until I have a beer and some popcorn.

This. Is. Awesome.

Agreed. Some well-timed trolling has really got PVC's knickers in a bunch.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Agreed. Some well-timed trolling has really got PVC's knickers in a bunch.

Please, I bitch slapped him in eleven lines, and he hasn't come back.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Although that might have something to do with the little problem of his being indefinitely banned.

[Papewaio]

There was just too much cohesion and agreement of the regulars to let him stay.

[Beskar]

Although that might have something to do with the little problem of his being indefinitely banned.

He isn't. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?113326-Indefinite-Bannings)

[Vladimir]

Please, I bitch slapped him in eleven lines, and he hasn't come back.

Now that's motivation!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Although that might have something to do with the little problem of his being indefinitely banned.

Even so, there was no knicker twistage involved, just some mild irritation. I simply bestirred myself because I felt that his poor exegesis should not go unanswered. As I said, I spent on eleven lines pointing out his flawed logic to him.