The Simtropolis Closet

[ephorex_77 0]

~-Edited-~ TMS

[Simen 1]

OK! It is time to put an end to this. you can have the science vs religion fight, I dont mind that, but you have to stop trying to blame stuff on eachothers here! Be civil for craps sake! It must be possible to have different opinions and not going after eachothers throats!!!

~-Thank you for trying to be level-headed -~

[vidioman 21]

"but try explaining how some Hosts (from a scientific point of view, circular pieces of dried wheat) are incorrupt, that is, they have not decayed even after hundreds of years."

Seeds go into a state of hibernation... seeds can stay "alive" for hundreds of years. As for blood and flesh, if properly preserved, it can stay "fresh" for sometime as well. IE; the wooly mamoths they find in ice up north.

God does exist. In our hearts.

Now, all three of you shut the five asteriskses up or this thread will be closed and I will be vulgar to the whole lot of you. ~-I guess they didnt listen to you...-~

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: vidioman "but try explaining how some Hosts (from a scientific point of view, circular pieces of dried wheat) are incorrupt, that is, they have not decayed even after hundreds of years."

Seeds go into a state of hibernation... seeds can stay "alive" for hundreds of years. As for blood and flesh, if properly preserved, it can stay "fresh" for sometime as well. IE; the wooly mamoths they find in ice up north.

God does exist. In our hearts.

Now, all three of you shut the five asteriskses up or this thread will be closed and I will be vulgar to the whole lot of you.

quote>

 

LOL, the Host doesn't go into hibernation =) The Host is scientifically, a wafer made of wheat (and sometimes other stuff). Ever try leaving bread (even dried) out in the open for 60 years?? It decays . And mammoth corpses preserved in ice doesn't really count. The unblessed wafers were sealed in a box without ice, preservatives, pesticides etc. (pesticides?? =P) The miraculous Hosts were kept in the same environment and were yet uncorrupt for 250 odd years. The normal wafers (same material) decayed pretty quickly.

[Boggy1 45]

Ok, I've said it once, now I'm saying it again.

If you dont like homosexuals, dont like their way of life or anything like that, then you can stay out of the Closet. I don't mind you asking questions, but stop trying to start an argument and/or flame.

This argument will never get resolved until either us or you are destroyed. Or maybe if the human mind evolves into a more accepting state.

~-This has been said many, many, many, times before...-~

[ephorex_77 0]

~-Edited-~ TMS

[Simen 1]

No, but right now, you are the one keeping it going. I suggest you just let this go for now, and rather give ME MY answer

[Boggy1 45]

ephorex_77: I was not pointing the finger at religious types. Oh and stop being so sarcastic. I have a thing for sarcasm, and I really hate it.

Oh, also, I wasnt actually saying that post to YOU, I was just saying it to everyone.

Also, I'm 14. And so what has Quantum Physics got to do with your discussion?

I am not the type to jump to conclusions, or at least I try not to.

Just that, you have no idea how many time I have seen this argument. Its pointless! because it will end in a stalemate.

I mean hey, maybe I think their is proof againsts God, and maybe you think there is proof against homosexuals. But it just doesnt matter in the end!

[thesonofgray 0]

STOP THIS RIGHT NOW

Sigh.  I am very dissappointed in all of you.  ~-So am I... I leave for 3 days... and look what happens-~ We were having a perfectly decent conversation about this with RC.  ephorex  popped in and did say some slightly offensive things but they are his opinions and beliefs.  And, mind you, you did also make some very good points.  We must respect EVERYONE.

We must have a decent conversation about this.  And I said before, we probably will not completely agree with each other EVER, but we can at least allow everyone to have a better understanding of each other and let them say their peace.  If you cannot do that without offensive sarcasm or attacking someone personally then you shouldn't do it at all.

I don't have time to reply to any of the posts right now, but I hope that everyone can calm down and return this conversation to its civil state.  PLEASE

EDIT:  Ok I couldn't leave without replying to this one thing:

Also, you talk about things being disproven by science. Perhaps you refer to the creation in seven days thing. Well rest assured, nothing the Church has infallibly defined goes against what science has shown to be otherwise. In other words, the Church has not said infallibly that the world was made in seven days.quote>

That is exactly what I was refering to. So, in other words, you base your beliefs in what the church says?  Cause it seems to me that the church is choosing what to and not to believe from the bible.

The Church has, however, infallibly defined other things, but perhaps you might want to nip over the the religious thread for that if you're interested. quote>

Maybe I will.  At a later time.

[defcon pilot 0]

So we shall.

You haven't been flaming. I know that. But I see that things could easily turn into a flame war. BTW, what does quantum physics have anything to do with this discussion? I was saying earlier that what you were getting off on subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand (that being homosexuality), and trying to use that as an argument against our points. We know that we'll never agree with each other on how the universe was born: Why discuss it? We know that we'll never agree with each other on science: Why discuss it? We know that we'll never agree on such things as evolution (natural selection) and the beginnings of mankind: Why discuss it? It only confuses people, and, as we should all know, confusion is frustrating. If this is the way things are headed, then I vote YAY to end this entire discussion. This thread is for people to come out and claim their gayness, not for religious fundamentalists to come in and bring their persecution here for no reason. I don't see that you specifically have been persecuting the gay community itself, but we can see that we can't agree with each other.

[vidioman 21]

Boggy1 |I have a thing for sarcasm, and I really hate it.quote>

That explains why we don't get along now, doesn't it?

defcon pilot |This thread is for people to come out and claim their gaynessquote>

Yeah, slowpoke!

/off topic

If the Church interprets something from the bible as "thou shalt jump off thy bridgeth", would you?

[defcon pilot 0]

I'm not gay. I was bi for a time, but not right now. At the moment, you may call me asexual.

If the Church interprets something from the bible as "thou shalt jump off thy bridgeth", would you?quote>

Well, probably not today. A couple centuries ago, though, they probably would have. Of course, then again, they might not have. Who knows. Maybe their desire to live would overpower their desire for God.

The way I see it, people turn to religion because they figure it's easier to make assumptions than to figure things out.

[thesonofgray 0]

I think this discussion is very appropriate as it relates to homosexuality.  And if everyone who disagreed on an issue didn't have a civil debate about that issue, nothing would ever get resolved or at least understood.

I also don't think anyone was persecuting anyone.  Yes, things said offend people.  I offend people.  Everyone offends people.  And people should honestly get over it.  If I proclaim that god doesn't exists, instead of just yelling "blasphemy!" and burning me at the steak, the religious should ask "why".  Just as when people claim homosexuality a bad thing, I ask why.  It offends me, but I don't build up a wall and just ignore it.  I try to break down the walls and pursue a better understanding with those who disagree. 

And I'm not the only one to think like this.

A wise man learns more from his enemies than a fool from his friends.

-Baltasar Gracian

He drew a circle that shut me out --

Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.

But love and I had the wit to win:

We drew a circle that took him in.

-Edwin Markham

If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.

-Moshe Dayanquote>

[thatmonkeysim 8]

[hm... i wonder if some cleaning is in order...]  ~-I was right-~

well the closet was for GBLT's to talk about things going on in thier lives but it has pretty much been for anyone that wants to come here and have a nice safe place to talk about issues and stuff...

EDIT...

DP: Pansexual? Omnisexual? is that what your looking for?

[vidioman 21]

thesonofgray | Yes, things said offend people.  I offend people.  Everyone offends people.  And people should honestly get over it.quote>

I agree con-*****ing-pletely!

(too far?)

The Edwin Markham quote sure is fun. Irony, no?

asexual is not attracted to either sex, pansexual would probably be more appropriate, or bi-curious.

[defcon pilot 0]

I think this discussion is very appropriate as it relates to homosexuality. And if everyone who disagreed on an issue didn't have a civil debate about that issue, nothing would ever get resolved or at least understood.quote>

Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. Like in this case. We know that we nonreligious and the religious will forever refuse to agree, so why bother?

I also don't think anyone was persecuting anyone. Yes, things said offend people. I offend people. Everyone offends people. And people should honestly get over it.quote>

Of course people offend people. It's human nature.

If I proclaim that god doesn't exists, instead of just yelling "blasphemy!" and burning me at the steak, the religious should ask "why". Just as when people claim homosexuality a bad thing, I ask why. It offends me, but I don't build up a wall and just ignore it. I try to break down the walls and pursue a better understanding with those who disagree.quote>

Well, for some people, there are virtually invincible walls. Like in the case of religious people. You can't try to make them pursue a better understanding because they're allergic to change (which, of course, is directly related to learning: By learning, you are changing and/or adding on to your "database" of knowledge).

@TMS: No. "A" is a prefix meaning "non" or "not". It means that I currently have no sexual preference.

[thatmonkeysim 8]

but the prefix Pan or Omni means all so that would me you like all Sexualities... meaning the same thing to what you are trying to say... but Asexual is something like a worm kinda...

[RiverCocytus 0]

Ah. Indeed. Well, how about GLBTS (Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered/Straight)?

I qualify now!

Anyway, long weekend; bar/nightclub on friday (I remembered why I dislike nightclubs) on saturday I had a bunch of stuff to do and Sunday is always a day with family. But I'm back =)

I'd like to commend thesonofgray for his even-handedness. I'm always glad to see one who disagrees with me but is fair and civil about it in discussion. I believe in the gentleman's rule: Polite words and hard knocks (I've rarely ever had to use the knocks!) I prefer polite words.

About the subject(s) - "Judge not lest ye be judged" is a warning, not a commandment. (find the context of the quote.) Jesus is warning us that when we judge people and their actions, they will in turn judge us. What that really means is that many people will ignore your advice or admonishments because they see sin and trouble in your life. The goal, then, is to not judge someone just because they have judged you.

"This is the Word of God, take not from it nor add to it.." (paraphrase) you won't find stuff about jumping off bridges, whipping yourself, or other dangerous and extreme things in the Word. That doesn't mean that people didn't decide that these were interesting things to do or command others to do. But its not the Word of God. Basically, there are three ways (that I know of) to determine what the Word of God is. There is basically a checks-and-balances system.

1. The Scripture

2. Personal Revelation

3. Church Tradition

Church tradition is simply an accepted interpretation. Scripture refers to what is literally written. Personal revelation refers to either visions/prophecy or actual revelations one comes to in practicing the Word. Usually The Scripture itself trumps the other two, but back in the day when they were figuring out what was going to be included of the Letters and other Writings of the day, number 2 and 3 were taken into consideration. Number 3 also could be decisions made by Bishops or others in council as well.

Okay, 'nuff religious stuff that will probably bore you guys

About civil debates, civil debates only work for reasonable parties. There are times when people will not reason about a subject. For this there are two solutions. Fighting, and getting the heck away. (Americans are very good at both, I think, but we do the most getting the heck away.) Not that it proves what I'm saying, but Jonathan Swift (the guy who wrote Gulliver's Travels and a Modest Proposal, the English Satirist) said, "It is impossible to reason a man out of something that he was not reasoned into to begin with." He was no doubt speaking of the wackiness of his time, the whole Catholic/Protestant divide of the day and the un-reasonableness of much of it.

Baltasar Gracian is one of my most favorite writers of aphorisms. Gracian would have no doubt said: "But never forget who your enemies are."

It is as Jesus said: "Love thy enemies."

I have several complex arguments about homosexuality, fornication, information theft (think downloading music for free) extreme ascetisim, greed, enviousness, and many other things, and why I don't just think that they are sins, but are also detrimental to a person and to society.

To be fair; I have done as many of the things that I consider sinful as anyone else probably has. So don't consider me judging you in this case; since I really don't know you, your actual troubles & problems, and their reasons and sources. I try to reserve my judgement whenever possible.

If you want to know why I am so civil most of the time, it is precisely because Jesus commands it. I've also discovered that there are other positive side effects. I'm sure Baltasar Gracian wrote extensively about them, its really one of his things...

Oh, and all, just so you know, Catholics are FIERCE debaters. Jesuits, for instance, are some of the harshest teachers in the world. But they have produced from their schools some of the sharpest intellects of our times. 5 of our Supreme Court justices here in the U.S are Roman Catholic (or is it 4?) -- that is our of 9. So of the brightest and cleverest minds in law, a good percentage are either Roman Catholic or were educated in a Roman Catholic school. I'm a protestant; my mother was a Presbyterian I think, and my dad was a Baptist. Neither has a massively intellectual tradition in either culture or religion or education.

I'm just saying this, because Ephorex and I can't agree on some stuff, and we've agreed to disagree. So on some stuff that might be the best idea =)

Also, taking a parting shot when you agree to disagree does not help (this is to Boggy) it only seeds dissent.

*RC Blathers on for about another 30 min*

And to conclude, it is obvious why there are no more flavors of quarks. Also, it should be clear as to why we can predict the ultimate destination of a wave but not its position, or the converse. I think everyone should be ready for next week's test.

This was "Civics, Religion and the Quantum Physics connection" with your guest lecturer, River Cocytus.

Roll that beautiful bean footage! (Musta had one too many Captains)

[defcon pilot 0]

I have several complex arguments about homosexuality, fornication, information theft (think downloading music for free) extreme ascetisim, greed, enviousness, and many other things, and why I don't just think that they are sins, but are also detrimental to a person and to society.quote>

[ephorex_77 0]

boggy: Well, nice to see you hate sarcasm, although I'm sure you've been sarcastic before in the past. And dare I say that I'm sure you've made a sarcastic comment abot religious people before in the past?? 

Anyway, surely if the sarcasm is subtle and is not being spammed all over the place, then it's still reasonable?? Just like the way ST tolerates the HOW thread because we're not being overly religious (as in forced conversions) and also the Closet because you're not all trying to be overly gay (as in forced conversions), you can tolerate certain infractions. Just the way I tolerate your (to me) rude snubs of religion and anything religious. 

Btw, the quantum physics thing was only there to highlight your unusual intelligence (in a totally non-sarcastic way) and my surprise that such an intelligent person could jump to conclusions, but perhaps in future, I'll refrain from compliments; might save some trouble.

Actually defcon, no one has come out and discussed their issues (perhaps except boggy) in a long time. Dare I point out the numerous pages of one-liners that is tantamount to spam?? I remember pages where all we'd do was to discuss irrelevant issues and trivial banter. But of course, if everyone's fine, I won't say anything. 

Also, a thread is a place of discussion. The word "discussion", it may interest everyone here, usually involves people with differing views. If everyone posted something and the next guy wrote "ditto", and the next, and the next, would that thread also end up looking like this; with less than meaningful one-liners everywhere?? Filled with one-liners of things like "ditto" and "yeah, i agree"?? As long as I'm being polite and civil  (and a mod hasn't seen fit to edit any of my posts), why should you all gang against me??

vid: Well, trust me on this too, they won't get people to suicide. The Church is against suicide except in extraordinary cases =)

thesonofgray: Well, the Church existed before the Bible. The existence of the Bible is by no means, essential to the spreading of faith (where were Bibles in the early centuries of the Church??). The Church is the final interpreter and arbiter of the faith and the Bible. But if you care to visit the HOW thread, I'll explain more. I don't wish to add more meaningless posts to this thread...

defcon (again): Nope, we're not allergic to change (I could take offence there, but I won't). Not all change is bad, but the inverse applies; not all change is good. 

RC: Well, it's only on ST that I started to get to really delve into my faith to be honest. Previously, I didn't know as much about my faith, but hours of research (it was very interesting too) paid off. Catholics aren't really fierce debaters; we're actually too timid of our faith, which is a bad thing.

EDIT: Fixed some typos ~-Edited-~ TMS

[vidioman 21]

[Simen 1]

Lmao, vid!

I guess it is in cases of... sacrificing? if the church stops talkin to ya? If you REALLY need to go up n speak with god?

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: Simen Lmao, vid!

I guess it is in cases of... sacrificing? if the church stops talkin to ya? If you REALLY need to go up n speak with god? quote>

 

Hahahahaha!!! 

In case you haven't noticed, that was heavy sarcasm. ........

~-Edited-~ TMS

OK! It is time to put an end to this. you can have the science vs religion fight, I dont mind that, but you have to stop trying to blame stuff on eachothers here! Be civil for craps sake! It must be possible to have different opinions and not going after eachothers throats!!!quote>

 

Hmm, I guess not...

~-Edited-~ TMS

Well vid, about your inquiries on suicide. 

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide (emphasis mine).

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives. (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church)

There you are. I hope that answers your question. 

EDIT: Sorry, my pasted text had links in it. Fixed that now.

[Boggy1 45]

ephorex_77: I do hate sarcasm, even though I use it widely myself. I'm a hypocrite, I know.

And that's the last I will say on anything, since this entire affair has turned terrible petty.

So anyway, I had a nice talk with my mum tonight. She was asking about my crush and when I will invite him over for dinner

One little problem, Dad still thinks I'm straight. Gunna have to sort that out soon.

We were also talking about the much decreased-homophobic bullying. Which is great.

At last I think she has accepted that I'm gay. Fully accepted. And she doesn't care!! (well, she does care, being my mother and all, but she doesn't mind about the whole gay thing)

Also, crush knows I'm gay and apparently knows I have a crush on him, and has known for months. And, since he hasn't ran away from me and we are still friends, I think that's a good sign!!!

[Simen 1]

Ok, ephorex, once again you ARE kinda starting things here, because I have NEVER said that anyone here has offended me, and I have claimed this fact SEVERAL times now, still you have this image in your head that thats the way it is! YOU are the one keeping things from being civil here, because the MOMENT anyone makes a joke or have a good time, you try to shame em from doing that! I have NOT been offended by ANYONE in here, and I never will. because frankly, I cant manage to take anyone I dont even know that seriously. I can be offended if someone says something bad to me FACE TO FACE, in REAL LIFE, yes. But not here. And if you are so easily offended by me and Vid making jokes, then you might have to leave the closet, because that is who I am, and vid too(do I dare mention hamsters? )

[thatmonkeysim 8]

closed for cleaning...

Unlocked for now...

Lets keep it civil and nice... and I will not go on another vacation for awhile...

[defcon pilot 0]

defcon (again): Nope, we're not allergic to change (I could take offence there, but I won't). Not all change is bad, but the inverse applies; not all change is good.quote>

Nope. Not all of it. But a lot of it is good, like learning. Adding on and changing your ever-growing knowledge base, like I said before. It takes curiosity for change to occur, and Christianity definitely is not an advocate of curiosity. You're taught to accept only the word of "The Book" and your prophets, as well as the priests and priors, and nothing else. Otherwise, you're "heathen" and you get burned on the stake (in olden days, anyway). It seems that, for you Christians, almost all change is bad. Am I right?

Also, a thread is a place of discussion. The word "discussion", it may interest everyone here, usually involves people with differing views.quote>

Of course. Though, as you can tell, our views differ too greatly to ever agree. You refute our viewpoints because you think that they're "wrong": We do the same in return. No one ever wins in a word war like this.

If everyone posted something and the next guy wrote "ditto", and the next, and the next, would that thread also end up looking like this; with less than meaningful one-liners everywhere?? Filled with one-liners of things like "ditto" and "yeah, i agree"??quote>

Sigh... OK, let's get this straight. I wasn't saying that we ought to dumb down our comments to that level. What I was saying was that these kinds of "religious vs. nonreligious & homosexual" debates ought not to take place because we know that, in the end, nothing will be resolved, like I said above. If you want to turn this into another "House of Worship", that's fine with me. But I'm not going to stay and listen.

I suggest you read things more carefully in the future.

-DP

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: defcon pilot

defcon (again): Nope, we're not allergic to change (I could take offence there, but I won't). Not all change is bad, but the inverse applies; not all change is good.quote>

Nope. Not all of it. But a lot of it is good, like learning. Adding on and changing your ever-growing knowledge base, like I said before. It takes curiosity for change to occur, and Christianity definitely is not an advocate of curiosity. You're taught to accept only the word of "The Book" and your prophets, as well as the priests and priors, and nothing else. Otherwise, you're "heathen" and you get burned on the stake (in olden days, anyway). It seems that, for you Christians, almost all change is bad. Am I right? quote>

 

Actually, you're not. 

Christians in general are resistant to change that erodes certain things. Does anyone see Christians up in arms about computers, cars or cures for cancer?? I have wireless internet, my family has 3 desktops and 4 laptops (all of them less than 3 years old, so I'm not counting redundant ones), ipods, cars, televisions etc. 

I'm certainly not adverse to technology or change, I can assure you. Bad change, however, is what Christians in general don't like. Change, like RC said, that is bad for society and is contrary to natural law. Of course, to elaborate on that, I'll need plenty of time and posts which, judging by the rather nasty reception of my few posts here, I will certainly not attempt to embark upon.

EDIT: 2500th post =)

[GingerBlokey 30]

As the curator of The Closet I say can we just be nice for a bit. Its all too hostile in here.

[RiverCocytus 0]

defcon pilot: You caught my rhetorical trick!

But nonetheless, if that particular subject is so important to you, I can give an indepth explanation. Otherwise, I think I'm going to skedaddle.

They say that the Sleep of Reason begets Monsters.