Would you tell Mom and Dad?

[Guest regulation]

RE: OFF TOPIC

 

>Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blow me.

>

 

If you're going to act like a five-year-old, why not sit on the floor instead of at your computer?

 

 

 

>Now THAT was intended as an

>insult and should be taken

>as such. However, the

>post you responded to was

>not meant to be an

>insult but an expression of

>my opinion. And that

>opinion still stands: I think

>you would be a pathetic

>excuse for a Father.

>And that's all I have

>and will say about it.

>

 

Thanks for being hateful. We never really get enough of that on this message board.

[Bilbo]

On the other hand, Reg, there are parts of various religions which were evidently meant to be in use only as long as they were helpful and protected God's children. One of them has a real bearing on being gay, which is "Go forth, be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth." (Sorry if I got the words somewhat out of whack.) If the faithful were looking at a naked Earth, devoid of people, it would have been a very negative thing for an individual to refuse to participate in propogation of the species and religious scientists amongst us might speculate that God would also have not activated many homosexual genes right around that time. However, now, as close as many of us can tell, the Earth is overfull with humanity. A religion which changed its preaching from something like "we need all the babies we can get!" to something like "let's celebrate gay people and try for only 1.5 births per heterosexual mother" is, in my opinion, closer to following God's will than one that didn't change.

[Guest regulation]

>On the other hand, Reg, there

>are parts of various religions

>which were evidently meant to

>be in use only as

>long as they were helpful

>and protected God's children.

 

 

On what do you base that statement? It seems to me you're imagining God as saying "Obey my commandments, but ONLY as long as they make sense to YOU." As I said earlier, one doesn't have to be a theologian to figure out that there's no point in being a member of such a religion. If religion doesn't really connect one with divine wisdom, it's no more than a pastime.

 

 

>However, now,

>as close as many of

>us can tell, the Earth

>is overfull with humanity.

 

Again, where did you get that idea? I know of no consensus in either the scientific or religious community to support it.

 

>A

>religion which changed its preaching

>from something like "we need

>all the babies we can

>get!" to something like "let's

>celebrate gay people and try

>for only 1.5 births per

>heterosexual mother" is, in my

>opinion, closer to following God's

>will than one that didn't

>change.

 

Once you start saying things like "In my opinion, God wouldn't really want us to do what he told us to do earlier because times have changed," religion becomes pointless. If God is omniscient, then His commands are motivated by a wisdom that transcends human understanding, and it makes no sense to try to interpret them so that they will conform to our own ideas. If God isn't omniscient, then what is the point of listening to Him at all?

 

Take any of the world's major religions that you care to; my argument would be that you either believe that its teachings come from a divine source -- and therefore can't be questioned -- or you disbelieve it, which means they are worth no more than advice from "Dear Abby." I think what you want is something in between. You want to accept all of the teachings that you personally are comfortable with, and re-interpret the others so that they somehow don't apply any more. Surely you can see how intellectually dishonest that is.

[Guest AIM]

RE: Regulation, what's your point? Any original thoughts?

 

> Thanks to all for enduring

>this lengthy post. I really

>was compelled to address Regulation's

>posts. Part of me thinks

>Regulation sets traps to intimidate

>or anger others. I'm neither

>angered nor intimidated. (maybe a

>little saddened by the loss

>of a great topic. People

>were opening up. Sharing and

>caring.) But I am definitely

>confused as to what Regulation

>is trying to say. Mainly

>because he is saying very

>little original thought. He's merely

>quoting from a book I

>doubt he understands or has

>even read.

>

>Zach

 

 

Damn Skippy! Damn! (and NO pun intended)

 

And I think you might be on to something that I, unfortunately, was not smart enough to see for myself. After re-reading his posts and you pointing it out, I too suspect now that his post was just intended to stir up anger and controversy. And it certainly worked. I fell for it and responded back pretty angrily.

 

But oh well, I live and learn.

[Guest Thacher Cate]

Rod Hagen/Music

 

Rod,

 

http://www.kcrw.org

 

Since you're in LA, you definitely should at least be listening to "Mornings Become Eclectic" on KCRW 89.9 from 9am till noon Monday through Friday. They got some of the best music on the southland. This National Public Ratio station also has great music weeknights starting at 7pm. At least checkout the site's playlist and dj recommendations. There's so few non-corporate radio stations out there that don't stick to a designated playlist. If you listen to KROQ's show "After Hours", Saturday night/Sunday morning from 12am till 3am Jason Bentley (dj extraordinaire/Maverick records producer) plays stuff similiar to his show "Metropolis" on KCRW heard weeknights.

[Bilbo]

According to many holy books, we were created as smaller versions of God. If this is so, then he created our minds to explore and to teach ourselves how to be even more God-like. I believe that God blessed us with the kinds of minds that would be capable of science. I don't think that this means that He (OK I used a male pronoun, I do acknowledge that many will disagree with me for so doing, but it is my habit.) left us alone. I don't think that He quit talking to us and revealing things. People thousands of years ago were not ready for the scientific process of making pork safe to eat. So He told them not to eat it. Now we do know how to do it safely. And when I ask Him if it is OK with him for me to eat it, He says yes. He also reminds me of the epistle of Paul to the Romans, (which should be read in its entirety, not taken out of context), in which it was pointed out that what is a sin for one man (A) is not necessarily a sin for another man (B). What would be a sin for A would be to convince B to do it, because that would be tempting another into sin. So, there are a number of people to whom I would never serve pork. But because God is a living, and loving God, and hasn't quit talking to us, He can tell us what is right for us at this time.

 

To a certain extent, those problems which are caused or exacerbated by human overcrowding can divide us into different groups of believers. There are those who believe that children shooting children is only because of violent games and movies and not partly because schools are overcrowded and pupil/teacher ratios are to the point that the teachers that the teachers can't really care about all of their many charges. There are those who don't believe in global warming. There are those who truely believe that arsenic in our drinking water won't harm us - and those, like me, who don't agree but who know we haven't researched the thing. And there are those who say they care about our environment, that they have formed a rainbow coalition that combines enviromentalists and gay rights people, often in the same person, but who do not take canvas bags with them when they go to the grocery store. So, if you look into the matter and decide that the earth is not full, I will try to respect your beliefs. For myself, the earth is full.

[Boston Guy]

RE: Regulation, what's your point? Any original thoughts?

 

Zach -

 

> Thanks to all for enduring

>this lengthy post. I really

>was compelled to address Regulation's

>posts. Part of me thinks

>Regulation sets traps to intimidate

>or anger others. I'm neither

>angered nor intimidated. (maybe a

>little saddened by the loss

>of a great topic. People

>were opening up. Sharing and

>caring.) But I am definitely

>confused as to what Regulation

>is trying to say. Mainly

>because he is saying very

>little original thought. He's merely

>quoting from a book I

>doubt he understands or has

>even read.

>

 

I wanted to respond to your post, which I appreciate and with which I sympathise on a couple of levels, although not so much about Regulation. Forgive me, please, for copying the bottom of your post to the top -- I wanted to respond to it first, even though that meant I had to place your last words first.

 

Anyone who has been following M4M for a while will know that I've been on the opposite ends of several different discussions with Regulation and I've been skewered pretty good by him a couple of times, too. And I think we see the world from really different points of view. I guess I'm saying I'm the wrong person to be thought of as a Regulation apologist.

 

And I sympathise with your sadness at having a great thread that you really liked hijacked (and I apologize to you, for I have been one of the guilty parties). I even created a whole thread about hijacking threads a long time ago here at M4M (I'm sure it's in the archives), because the process was driving me crazy. If I recall, I even asked Bilbo not to do it.

 

But, on the other hand, threads do diverge and sometimes really interesting discussions somehow grow out of the middle of another really interesting discussion and I've come to accept that much more than I used to, for I now see that this process often results in a more interesting M4M, rather than a less interesting one. And when a thread has been hijacked, it's always possible to make a new post to try to bring it back on point.

 

But, to go back to your original point, you say two things: (1) you think Regulation sets traps to intimidate or anger others; and (2) you're confused about what he is trying to say.

 

There have been times when I was pretty tempted to believe that he made a particular post just to fan the flames of a discussion. But, of course, one can't be certain and there is something to be said for a post that gets a discussion going, so long as it is within reason. But I didn't sense that here with his original post. And, while I do think Regulation is quite skilled at drawing others out without revealing his own cards, I didn't sense that here with his original post. He said:

 

>>It's always hard for people who

>>don't have strong religious beliefs

>>themselves to appreciate the strength

>>of others' beliefs. For

>>many Christians and Jews, the

>>story of Abraham and Isaac

>>illustrates the point that one's

>>allegiance to one's beliefs should

>>come before everything else, including

>>the lives of one's own

>>children. I don't think

>>people should be classified as

>>unloving or uncaring because they

>>remain true to their beliefs

>>in that respect.

 

The key is in the last sentence, where he clearly says what he thinks.

 

>

>Here we had a community of

>people openly discussing a sensitive

>topic--to whom do we reveal

>our "escort secret" and our

>decisions for doing so. The

>topic was going well--intelligent discussion

>and some heartfelt self disclosures.

>Revelations about the bonds between

>friends and the bonds between

>children and parents.

>

> Regulation tosses in the story

>of Abraham and Isaac, a

>tale about human sacrifice, a

>father promising to slay his

>son as proof of faith

>to his God. As unfitting

>as your post seems in

>this topic, I don't need

>to tell you that. Others

>already have.

>

 

Here I disagree. If you trace the thread back, Regulation's comment was a direct response to Tampa Yankee's post, in which he described the reaction of some parent's to their son's coming out. The parents disowned the son and TY closed his post with a paragraph describing his thoughts about parents disowning their child.

 

I read Regulation's post as being a reasonable reply to TY's message because in America today people who disown their children because they are gay are usually going to do it because of some reason or reasons that have to do with their religious faith. In fact, I thought Regulations' post was pretty thought-provoking: I could never abandon a child this way, but when Reg said that parents who hold their belief systems so high should not be called unloving when those belief systems force them to take acts that I see as clearly 'unloving', it really made me stop and think.

 

I don't hold strong religious beliefs, but surely many people do. And he was making a point that suggested we look at the situation from another point of view. Certainly, I don't like it when parents abandon their children and certainly I don't like it when families don't embrace their gay members. But Reg's post made stop and wonder if there was a way to look at this subject that I've had pretty strong opinions on for a long time from a different point of view; was there a way to look at it from the parent's point of view that could make their actions seem clearer, rather than just dismissing them as unloving?

 

In a thread about 'coming out', I don't think that's inappropriate at all, even if it did divert the thread in an unexpected direction.

 

> You criticized those others who

>clearly expressed their opinions about

>you and your controversial post.

>Your words--

>>>Insulting someone just because you don't

>>agree with an opinion he's

>>expressed on an issue under

>>discussion is a rotten thing

>>to do, Paul. Can't

>>you disagree with others without

>>getting personal?

>They've expressed their opinions, mostly about

>your choice of words in

>this otherwise peaceful and insightful

>topic. They spoke their minds

>and signed their names to

>it.

 

I can't agree with you here. I think the others were doing the insulting first. This is an emotional subject for all of us, combining religion and parenting and coming out. But I don't think Reg insulted anyone first and I agree with what he said: people should be able to disagree here without it getting personal. If someone doesn't like what Reg says, by all means tell him so. But that can be done without insulting him or telling him that he's going to rot in hell.

 

 

>The odd thing is

>that you have not. You

>bring up a tale of

>a man agreeing to murder

>his son. You feign surprise

>when others take offense to

>your words. But that's right,

>it's not your words, it's

>the words of the bible.

>

 

But, as I pointed out above, he did clearly state what he believed in his very first post: that parents who choose to remain true to their faith even when that forces them to take actions that we view as unloving or uncaring should not themselves be classified as unloving or uncaring.

 

That's pretty clear. We don't have to agree with it, but I think some of the posters may have misread it. Nowhere does Reg say that he thinks parents should disown their children. He simply says that he doesn't think we should necessarily call parents unloving who take that action.

 

And it was post that made me sit back and try to understand the personal anguish that a very religious parent might feel while trying to reconcile their faith with actions of their child that they see as being directly against it. While I was thinking about this, I read an article about McVeigh's father. He was completely unable to accept or condone McVeigh's actions and he was unable to understand how it was his son could have done such a thing. But he said he still loved his son because "he's still Tim." So I tried to imagine a parent who was grappling with these very complex and difficult issues and who felt forced to take an action I view as the wrong one to take. Should I necessarily call the parent 'unloving' because I disagree with his final decision?

 

 

>

> You quote scripture, interpret the

>beliefs of several religions.

>But having read your posts,

>you avoid assigning your name

>to any of these beliefs.

>All are written in the

>third person, "many Christians and

>Jews...beliefs," "Cardinal Aponte of San

>Juan...stated," etc. None are in

>the first person. None of

>your posts says, "Here's my

>thoughts, I believe..."

>

>Rather slippery of you, Regulation.

>

> So for the record, and

>since you brought it up,

>what is your opinion on

>human sacrifice in the name

>of religion? Do you agree

>with those who bomb abortion

>clinics in the name of

>God? Would you murder

>anyone if your god commanded

>you? Would you take your

>son, your pride and joy,

>tie him to an altar

>with a knife to his

>heart, awaiting further instructions from

>God?

>

 

Do you really think Reg was advocating that the parents disown their son? If so, why? Nowhere did he say that. He only said that we shouldn't necessarily call those parents who do so unloving or uncaring. How do you take that statement and then extend it to ask him if we agrees with those who bomb abortion clinics?

 

> I really not trying to

>be flippant here. I'd like

>to hear you voice your

>own opinion. Quote the bible

>if you need to reinforce

>or explain your beliefs. And

>please, anyone quoting the bible

>as often as you have

>should at least get the

>words right. The meaning is

>open to interpretation, but the

>words are spelled out in

>black in white. In another

>post you say,

>>Check out the Sermon on the

>>Mount (it's in the Book

>>of Matthew). In it,

>>Jesus stated that "not one

>>iota" of Biblical law should

>>be changed. He also

>>said that people who encourage

>>others to disregard the law

>>will occupy "the least place"

>>in the Kingdom of God.

>Here you've quoted only 6 words

>from Jesus. But even those

>few words you quote aren't

>right. Regulation, have you even

>read The Bible?

>

>"...not an iota, not a dot,

>will pass from the law

>until all is accomplished." (Matthew

>5:18 KJV)

>"...shall be called least in the

>kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 5:19

>KJV)

>"...one jot or one tittle shall

>in ..." (Matthew 5:18 RSV)

>

>"...shall be called least in the

>kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19

>RSV)

>

>You've (poorly) quoted six words of

>Jesus and placed then with

>a heap of your own

>words. It's easy to take

>biblical text out of context

>to construct a meaning that

>fits your purpose.(by the way,

>what is your purpose?) Ironically

>though, this sort of eisegesis

>is in part what Jesus

>was preaching against on his

>Sermon on the Mount. He

>was addressing the Scribes and

>Pharisees on their manipulation of

>the laws of God.

>

>I'm curious to hear more on

>your viewpoint on The Sermon

>on the Mount. If you

>have not yet read it,

>please do. You spoke of

>"biblical law." To what are

>you referring?

>

>If you are implying that Jesus

>meant that every word of

>The Bible be held as

>law, that is wrong. The

>Bible (as a whole) was

>written long after Jesus died.

>

>

>

> Here are the words of

>Jesus in Matthew 5:17 (the

>verse right before your misquotes

>of verses 18 and 19).

>"Think not that I have

>come to abolish the law

>and your prophets; I have

>come not to abolish them

>but to fulfill them. (KJV)

>

>

>Jesus was preaching to the Hebrews

>(and anyone else that would

>listen). He was saying, I'm

>not here to change your

>religious beliefs, I'm here "to

>fulfill them." He was teaching

>them that God was not

>an angry god, a god

>to be feared, a god

>that requests human sacrifices, no,

>no, no. Our God is

>a merciful, loving god.

>

>Many people misunderstood the words of

>Jesus; they had been taught

>for so long that God

>damned those that did not

>strictly obey. Those in power

>often used "The Fear of

>God" to keep their people

>enslaved. These men in power

>feared and hated Jesus for

>he preached of a God

>that loves. These new beliefs

>would mean losing a stranglehold

>on the people. And so

>they killed Jesus.

>

>

>>[Jesus] said that people who encourage

>>others to disregard the law

>>will occupy "the least place"

>>in the Kingdom of God.

>

>Once again, Regulation, I'm not sure

>what you are implying. Would

>you please explain? Are you

>suggesting that Jesus is damning

>all to hell that "disregard

>the law" or even suggesting

>a place less than Heaven?

>Jesus was crucified. Are we

>not all washed of our

>sins by his sacrifice?

>

> So Regulation, what do you

>think Jesus meant in his

>Sermon on the Mount? What

>do any of your Biblical

>quotes mean in this forum?

>How do any of these

>scriptures reflect your personal beliefs?

>What's your point?

>

>Please, tell us your own thoughts.

>Quote The Bible if you

>need emphasis. I'm not sure

>of your religious beliefs. Do

>you hold The Bible as

>sacred? I'm even less certain

>of your educational background. One

>who spouts scripture should at

>least quote the words right.

>Reading is fundamental. A much

>greater task is understanding what

>you've read. I will gladly

>help you in the future.

>(Once again, not being flippant.)

>

>

>Zach

 

BG

[Guest regulation]

RE: Regulation, what's your point? Any original thoughts?

 

>As unfitting

>as your post seems in

>this topic, I don't need

>to tell you that. Others

>already have.

>

 

A couple of posters have. And others have indicated that they are interested in discussing the aspect of the issue that I raised. For some strange reason you "forgot" to mention that.

 

 

> You criticized those others who

>clearly expressed their opinions about

>you and your controversial post.

>Your words--

>>>Insulting someone just because you don't

>>agree with an opinion he's

>>expressed on an issue under

>>discussion is a rotten thing

>>to do, Paul. Can't

>>you disagree with others without

>>getting personal?

>They've expressed their opinions, mostly about

>your choice of words in

>this otherwise peaceful and insightful

>topic. They spoke their minds

>and signed their names to

>it.

 

 

Their names? You mean those made-up handles we all use?

What they did was exactly what HB and numerous others have protested against -- attacking the poster rather than the post. There is a difference between saying "I don't agree with your opinion," as Boston Guy did and saying "There is a place in Hell reserved for you because of what you said," as AIM did. I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand that difference.

 

 

The odd thing is

>that you have not. You

>bring up a tale of

>a man agreeing to murder

>his son. You feign surprise

>when others take offense to

>your words. But that's right,

>it's not your words, it's

>the words of the bible.

>

 

In fact I do find it surprising that anyone would become angry at me simply because I spoke to an issue that is clearly related to the topic of this thread. It was another poster, not I, who first talked about parents who cut ties with their children over a question of values. I merely spoke to that issue, and I defy you or anyone else to say that my comments were not germane. And I didn't write the story of Abraham and Isaac, I merely read it. Why would that make anyone angry?

 

 

> You quote scripture, interpret the

>beliefs of several religions.

>But having read your posts,

>you avoid assigning your name

>to any of these beliefs.

>All are written in the

>third person, "many Christians and

>Jews...beliefs," "Cardinal Aponte of San

>Juan...stated," etc. None are in

>the first person. None of

>your posts says, "Here's my

>thoughts, I believe..."

>

>Rather slippery of you, Regulation.

 

 

It's rather immature of you to cast aspersions on the motives of others. I'd ask you the same question I asked AIM. Can't you talk about an issue without attacking others involved in the discussion? Apparently not.

 

In addition, what you said above is FALSE. I did indeed say, not once but twice, what I thought of Cardinal Aponte's statement. Why did you write that falsehood?

 

 

>

> So for the record, and

>since you brought it up,

>what is your opinion on

>human sacrifice in the name

>of religion? Do you agree

>with those who bomb abortion

>clinics in the name of

>God? Would you murder

>anyone if your god commanded

>you? Would you take your

>son, your pride and joy,

>tie him to an altar

>with a knife to his

>heart, awaiting further instructions from

>God?

>

> I really not trying to

>be flippant here. I'd like

>to hear you voice your

>own opinion.

 

What you like or dislike is of no concern to me. Like every other poster here, I'm free to post my opinion on any topic under discussion, and I'm also free to withhold my opinion. I can't force anyone to talk about his beliefs, and no one can force me to do so.

 

More to the point, I haven't asked anyone else to share his religious beliefs or opinions. The question I've raised is not whether it's good or moral for parents to cut ties with their children, but whether at least some of the parents who do so do it out of deep religious conviction rather than from other motives. If you are having trouble understanding the difference between the two, say so and I'll try to explain further.

 

Quote the bible

>if you need to reinforce

>or explain your beliefs. And

>please, anyone quoting the bible

>as often as you have

>should at least get the

>words right.

 

 

As OFTEN as I have? So far I've done it twice.

 

 

 

The meaning is

>open to interpretation, but the

>words are spelled out in

>black in white. In another

>post you say,

>>Check out the Sermon on the

>>Mount (it's in the Book

>>of Matthew). In it,

>>Jesus stated that "not one

>>iota" of Biblical law should

>>be changed. He also

>>said that people who encourage

>>others to disregard the law

>>will occupy "the least place"

>>in the Kingdom of God.

>Here you've quoted only 6 words

>from Jesus. But even those

>few words you quote aren't

>right. Regulation, have you even

>read The Bible?

>

>"...not an iota, not a dot,

>will pass from the law

>until all is accomplished." (Matthew

>5:18 KJV)

>"...shall be called least in the

>kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 5:19

>KJV)

>"...one jot or one tittle shall

>in ..." (Matthew 5:18 RSV)

>

>"...shall be called least in the

>kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19

>RSV)

>

>You've (poorly) quoted six words of

>Jesus and placed then with

>a heap of your own

>words.

 

"Poorly" quoted? Why don't you explain to us the semantic difference between the quotes I posted and the ones you posted. Frankly, I see none.

 

 

It's easy to take

>biblical text out of context

>to construct a meaning that

>fits your purpose.(by the way,

>what is your purpose?) Ironically

>though, this sort of eisegesis

>is in part what Jesus

>was preaching against on his

>Sermon on the Mount. He

>was addressing the Scribes and

>Pharisees on their manipulation of

>the laws of God.

>

>I'm curious to hear more on

>your viewpoint on The Sermon

>on the Mount. If you

>have not yet read it,

>please do. You spoke of

>"biblical law." To what are

>you referring?

>

>If you are implying that Jesus

>meant that every word of

>The Bible be held as

>law, that is wrong. The

>Bible (as a whole) was

>written long after Jesus died.

>

 

I implied no such thing. Clearly, Jesus was referring to Biblical law as it existed when he made the statement that he did. How could anyone possibly think otherwise?

 

As to your request to hear more from me on the subject, I rarely do favors for people who go out their way to insult me.

 

>Jesus was preaching to the Hebrews

>(and anyone else that would

>listen). He was saying, I'm

>not here to change your

>religious beliefs, I'm here "to

>fulfill them."

 

Exactly my point.

 

 

He was teaching

>them that God was not

>an angry god, a god

>to be feared, a god

>that requests human sacrifices, no,

>no, no. Our God is

>a merciful, loving god.

>

 

 

Here it is YOU who are taking a few words from the Bible and combining them with many of your own to support your own ideas. Above, you criticized me for doing that. So it's wrong for me to do it, but fine for you do it? Or is it only wrong when it leads to a conclusion with which YOU disagree?

 

 

>>[Jesus] said that people who encourage

>>others to disregard the law

>>will occupy "the least place"

>>in the Kingdom of God.

>

>Once again, Regulation, I'm not sure

>what you are implying. Would

>you please explain? Are you

>suggesting that Jesus is damning

>all to hell that "disregard

>the law" or even suggesting

>a place less than Heaven?

>Jesus was crucified. Are we

>not all washed of our

>sins by his sacrifice?

>

 

 

All? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is not what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that only those who repent their sins are forgiven, correct? And what are we told will happen to those who don't?

 

 

> So Regulation, what do you

>think Jesus meant in his

>Sermon on the Mount? What

>do any of your Biblical

>quotes mean in this forum?

>How do any of these

>scriptures reflect your personal beliefs?

>What's your point?

>

 

See above.

 

>Please, tell us your own thoughts.

>Quote The Bible if you

>need emphasis. I'm not sure

>of your religious beliefs. Do

>you hold The Bible as

>sacred? I'm even less certain

>of your educational background. One

>who spouts scripture should at

>least quote the words right.

>Reading is fundamental.

 

 

Given the fact that you were unable to read the opinions that I posted on the Cardinal's words, so that you then claimed I hadn't posted any (see above), I really don't think you should be criticizing the educational background or reading ability of anyone else. You seem to have some work to do on your own verbal skills.

 

 

A much

>greater task is understanding what

>you've read. I will gladly

>help you in the future.

>(Once again, not being flippant.)

>

 

It couldn't possibly be any clearer that the purpose of your post is to denigrate and insult someone with whom you disagree. I thought we had reached a consensus on this message board that people shouldn't do that. Clearly you don't agree.

 

 

>

> Thanks to all for enduring

>this lengthy post. I really

>was compelled to address Regulation's

>posts.

 

But the fact is you that failed completely to address the question that I raised. Far from addressing it, you didn't even mention it.

 

 

Part of me thinks

>Regulation sets traps to intimidate

>or anger others.

 

I consider that a ridiculous statement. How could anyone be intimidated by a discussion of the role of faith in the relationship between parents and children? And why would any adult be angered by it? To become angry at someone simply because he refers to opinions with which you may disagree is childish, isn't it?

 

 

I'm neither

>angered nor intimidated. (maybe a

>little saddened by the loss

>of a great topic. People

>were opening up. Sharing and

>caring.)

 

But I don't think you are opening up at all. Nothing that I've done has prevented anyone from continuing to post his thoughts on any other aspect of the topic of this thread -- to imply otherwise is extremely dishonest. I think you just want to yell at me because something I said reminded you that many people disapprove of what you are doing. Just my "opinion."

 

 

But I am definitely

>confused as to what Regulation

>is trying to say. Mainly

>because he is saying very

>little original thought. He's merely

>quoting from a book I

>doubt he understands or has

>even read.

>

>Zach

 

Well, if we ever have a shortage of insulting posts for this message center, we know that we can call on you to supply some.

[Guest Zach DC]

Thanks Aim

 

>After re-reading his posts and

>you pointing it out, I

>too suspect now that his

>post was just intended to

>stir up anger and controversy.

> And it certainly worked.

>I fell for it and

>responded back pretty angrily.

 

Hey Aim. Yeah, it's funny, your response to Regulation was "Blow me." Regulation snapped right back saying, "Insulting people because you don't agree with their opinions is childish." That's odd of him to say. Regulation has no opinions.

 

Regulation's parables and quotes from The Bible aren't attached to any of his own beliefs. Read any of his biblical posts. None says anything like, "I think parents' religious beliefs should come before everything, even their own children." Instead, he only tells the story of Abraham and Isaac.

 

This thread was about opinions and he hasn't the courage to share any. He hides behind the words of others.

 

Extremists like Dr. Laura at least have the balls to say what they think. Things like, "Homosexuals are gonna burn in hell," "Adulterers should be castrated," "Male escorts should all be hung." Strong opinions, but at least these guys have convictions. They speak their minds. Of course, they will often attempt to justify their outrageous beliefs with the words of The Bible.

 

But Regulation quotes The Bible not to defend himself, but to offend others. Posting controversial passages that he neither affirms or denies as his persuasions. He sets traps to anger others with an easy out for himself. No words are his own.

 

And you took offense, Aim. You told him what you thought. And yeah, you lost your manners while addressing him. (You're not the first.) Regulation got the confrontation he craves. He countered, finally using his own words.

 

My reason for addressing Regulation was not because of his Abraham and Isaac post. Yes, it was inappropriate, but it's just a story nonetheless. Regulation said nothing about what Regulation thinks. I responded to his poor attempt to quote the words of Jesus. Anyone who is so moved to recite the words of Jesus on a site about escorts had better have a good reason. And for Christ's sake, he should understand what he's saying. Regulation does not know what he's talking about.

 

I hope Regulation takes the advice he suggested to us and actually reads The Bible.

 

But anyway, Aim, your "blow me" quip had its own merit. Much shorter and to the point, so to speak. Be good.

 

Zach

[Guest regulation]

RE: Thanks Aim

 

> Regulation's parables and quotes from

>The Bible aren't attached to

>any of his own beliefs.

>Read any of his biblical

>posts. None says anything like,

>"I think parents' religious beliefs

>should come before everything, even

>their own children." Instead, he

>only tells the story of

>Abraham and Isaac.

>

>This thread was about opinions and

>he hasn't the courage to

>share any. He hides behind

>the words of others.

>

 

I'm sorry to say that you're lying. As both I and Boston Guy have pointed out, my posts on this subject contain several of my own opinions, including what I thought of the statements of the Cardinal I referred to. I can't think why you'd want to lie about that, but you are doing so.

 

> Extremists like Dr. Laura at

>least have the balls to

>say what they think. Things

>like, "Homosexuals are gonna burn

>in hell," "Adulterers should be

>castrated," "Male escorts should all

>be hung." Strong opinions,

>but at least these guys

>have convictions. They speak their

>minds. Of course, they will

>often attempt to justify their

>outrageous beliefs with the words

>of The Bible.

>

>But Regulation quotes The Bible not

>to defend himself, but to

>offend others. Posting controversial passages

>that he neither affirms or

>denies as his persuasions. He

>sets traps to anger others

>with an easy out for

>himself. No words are his

>own.

>

 

It would be more accurate to say that I overestimated the maturity of posters like you and your friend. Adults are able to deal with opinions they dislike without hurling schoolyard insults at each other. You and he clearly aren't.

 

 

>My reason for addressing Regulation was

>not because of his Abraham

>and Isaac post. Yes, it

>was inappropriate, but it's just

>a story nonetheless. Regulation said

>nothing about what Regulation thinks.

 

 

Again, you're lying. My words about my own views are there for anyone to read.

 

 

>I responded to his poor

>attempt to quote the words

>of Jesus. Anyone who is

>so moved to recite the

>words of Jesus on a

>site about escorts had better

>have a good reason. And

>for Christ's sake, he should

>understand what he's saying. Regulation

>does not know what he's

>talking about.

>

 

Translation: You're not happy that I quoted those words in a manner that doesn't support YOUR opinions. What a pity you're not honest enough to say so.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Thanks Aim

 

"Male escorts should all be hung."

 

 

Hmmm... I knew there was something on which I had to agree with Dr. Laura.

 

:-)

 

(Should but not necessary... same applies to me :-) )

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Regulation, what's your point? Any original thoughts?

 

I have been watching this thread unfold from the sidelines and I have found much of the discussion fascinating -- taking directions now and then that I did not anticipate. And again I agree with that Boston Guy that it has gotten emotional in places, which is not surprising given the subject matter that I unintentionally spawned.

 

And I have paid close attention to Reg's posts, they have been very thought provoking, though I too do not always agree with his thrust -- not to imply I always disagree either. He has been skilled at presenting his position in this thread, I think, making arguments that are not so easily dismissed. And whether I agree or not he has made me think about his arguments -- something a good debater is supposed to do. It is clear that emotions have spawned some strong reactions that I do not think he provoked in this thread. It is difficult to separate emotions from the debate process, but it does make for a clear sound discussion of the positions. I think Reg;s arguments have been clear and logical from his point of view.

 

And on occasion in the past I had the impression that Reg was playing Devil's Advcoate in the discussion putting forth a contrary view for the sake of discussion. I don't really know this to be true then or today, but it is irrelevant. A good debater should be able to take either side of an argument, make his points and provoke thought and discussion. I think I have seen that from several quaters in this thread -- and that is great... and what makes this site great.

[Guest Theron]

Hello guys --BIG SMILE!

 

This will be my first post to the message center. Concerning Rod Hagen's question, "...who do you tell that you hire escorts or that you are an escort and why...," I am an escort, and have told my family and friends. In fact, I contributed to an article on this subject that is presently on http://www.hookonline.org.

 

Without telling anyone else what "they should do," the reason I elected to tell my family and friends has to do with my philosophy of life. I believe we each have a right to make our own choices, and that the people who love us should love and accept us as we are. None of us are perfect, and people make choices I would not make all the time -- but I respect their right to make them. I believe, as a person, I am entitled to this same degree of respect.

 

One of the most beautiful things about the world is individuality. Life would be pretty boring if we all tried to fit into the same mold, and I have always refused to fit into a mold someone else has designed for me based upon their value system. Personally, I do not subscribe to the philosophy, "let me pretend to be someone I'm not because if you really knew me you might not like me." Life is short and time is valuable. I believe it is always easier to just be open and honest, and a lot cleaner, too. I do not have to make up stories constantly when my friends or family ask me about my job. I am not afraid to be open and vulnerable with people. Yes, when you make the choice to do that there may be friends who dump you like a hot potato, or speak poorly of you, but then they were not really friends, after all -- only people parading as friends, so then I go back to "life is short and time is valuable."

 

In my opinion, society has always tried to oppress people based on what is considered the "preferred value system," at the time. I say, at the time, because over a period of years value systems shift -- so what you may hide today may become acceptable tomorrow. One perfect example is the once long held view society promoted that women, outside of marriage, should not have sex, and then, definitely, should not become pregnant. As a result, over 10 million single women secretly relinquished their children to adoption in the 50's, 60's and 70's, alone. Why did they do it -- FEAR, SHAME and DENIAL. Fear of being discovered for doing something considered unacceptable, inner shame and embarrassment because they, themselves, bought into the dogma society was selling, and even if they didn't knew they would be judged by it, and denial because the relinquishment erased all evidence that the values of society had been transgressed.

 

In my opinion, the key to fighting off the lingering affects of fear, shame and denial is PRIDE, DIGNITY and SELF RESPECT. At some point in life, many of us decide that it is not important what others think of us because we believe in ourselves, and when you reach that point you can stop pretending and start living.

 

Of course, these are just my opinions. Please understand I am not suggesting that my solution will work well for everyone -- only that it works well for me.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron :-)

Based Out of Chicago

Web Site: http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Losgatan]

Theron,

 

Welcome to the message center. I like what you've written here, I like your response to the apparently bogus review that was posted today, and I like your website.

 

It seems that there a good chance I'd really like you too! :-)

[Rod Hagen]

>abreviation - Rod, you are

>the prince of what again?

>What does that refer to?

 

Dragon BALL Z!

 

 

http://www.rodhagen.com

"I will seek out these androids, and I will break them with my bare hands!"

[Guest AIM]

RE: Regulation, what's your point? Any original thoughts?

 

>What they did was exactly what

>HB and numerous others have

>protested against -- attacking the

>poster rather than the post.

> There is a difference

>between saying "I don't agree

>with your opinion," as Boston

>Guy did and saying "There

>is a place in Hell

>reserved for you because of

>what you said," as AIM

>did. I find it

>difficult to believe that you

>don't understand that difference.

>

 

I never said that. Would the gay guy get it straight please.

[Guest Theron]

Hi :-)

 

What I warm and wonderful welcome! Thank you for taking the time to read my post, response to the review and visit my web site. How very sweet of you. You are a man after my own heart, and your kindness and interest are very much appreciated --BIG SMILE!

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Zach DC]

RE: Regulation, what's your point? Any original thoughts?

 

Hey Boston Guy,

I appreciate your concern. You've raised some questions about my post to Regulation. I won't debate you on every point you make. I'll keep it brief and address just two.

 

Regulation says,

> >>It's always hard for people who

> >>don't have strong religious beliefs

> >>themselves to appreciate the strength

> >>of others' beliefs. For

> >>many Christians and Jews, the

> >>story of Abraham and Isaac

> >>illustrates the point that one's

> >>allegiance to one's beliefs should

> >>come before everything else, including

> >>the lives of one's own

> >>children. I don't think

> >>people should be classified as

> >>unloving or uncaring because they

> >>remain true to their beliefs

> >>in that respect.

 

Boston Guy says,

>The key is in the last

>sentence, where he clearly says

>what he thinks.

 

That sentence in no way states Regulation's own religious beliefs. In that entire paragraph he discusses "people," and "others' beliefs," "one's beliefs" and "their beliefs." He makes a personal reference only once. And he keeps it in the first person very briefly. Only three words.

 

Regulation says, "I don't think..."

 

The rest of the last sentence immediately shifts back to third person references, "people should be.....their beliefs"

 

Boston Guy asks Zach,

>Do you really think Regulation was

>advocating that the parents disown

>their son? If so,

>why? Nowhere did he

>say that.

 

Nowhere did I ask him that. However, one of the questions I did ask Regulation was "Would you take your son, your pride and joy, tie him to an altar with a knife to his heart, awaiting further instructions from God?"

 

I did not ask if he'd disown his son. I questioned Regulation on a subject more grave than disownership. Would he committ murder in the name of religion? Obviously, it was a rhetorical question. I know he would never kill anyone. Quite the contrary. In reality, outside the "Internet Playground" I imagine Regulation to be a gentle person.

 

But I was questioning his actions on this Internet site. He posted a story about a father prepared to murder his son for God. He posted it in a thread that was not about religion, clearly not about murder, and therefore, not about having to choose between the two: faith and murder.

 

Regulation posted it with no explanation of his own. I sought an explanation from him.

 

And now, Boston Guy, you've asked me to explain what I think Regulation thinks.

 

Is it Regualtion or I that you find vague? If it is my words/intentions you are unclear about, I'm sorry. I hope this post helps.

 

If it is he you don't understand, then I'm not the better person to explain.

 

 

Take care, Zach

[Guest curtenz]

RE: Regulation, what's your point? Any original thoughts?

 

Threads that talk about serious issues are usually pretty boring because there isn't much diversity of opinion on this message board. Everyone here is a gay man who thinks prostitution is fine, so any issue that has to do with being gay or prostitution is not going to attract a lot of varied opinions. People don't usually even mention other opinions except to sneer at them. A lot of the time reading this message board reminds me of reading the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, where you always get only one side of the issues. Every once in a while someone does at least look at another point of view, and that makes for an interesting discussion. Maybe the reason it doesn't happen more often is that there are a bunch of P.C. types here who scream at anyone who says anything remotely non-P.C. or anything that might just possibly be interpreted as critical of hookers. They're trying to stifle debate and that's what they're doing.

[Guest Zach DC]

RE: Regulation, what's your point? Any original thoughts?

 

Hey Regulation,

First, I'd like to apologize. Your post on Cardinal Aponte clearly included your own views. I was wrong to state otherwise and I'm sorry.

 

Fortunately, you weren't harmed by my misquote. Your words are recorded for all to see and I was easily disputed. When writing that post I knew in the back of my mind that point still needed editing, but I forgot. My intention was never to lie. But I'm sorry for being careless.

 

My intention was never "attacking" you or "hurling schoolyard insults" at you. My primary intention was to denounce your misquotes of The Bible. The most successful denouncements come with enlightenment.

 

You write,

>Here it is YOU who are taking a few words from the Bible

>and combining them with many of your own to support your

>own ideas. Above, you criticized me for doing that. So it's

>wrong for me to do it, but fine for you do it? Or is it only

>wrong when it leads to a conclusion with which YOU disagree?

 

 

I've already told you what was wrong.

 

So if you're actually asking me to explain further, I will--Not just the literal discrepancies. I'll discuss all differences, objective, subjective, and purely theological divergence. But if your questions are merely dull inquisition, I'll let them pass.

 

My post asked that you share some original thoughts. And you've countered my post with thought and detail. Thanks for taking the time to respond. You've raised many points about my behavior. Though I don't agree with you, I appreciate you at least sharing what you feel.

 

You said I was "hurling schoolyard insults" at you, that I was "childish." Thanks for your insight. I did not know that.

 

With even deeper thought you reveal, "You overestimated (my) maturity." "You think I just want to yell at you," and "Adults are able to deal with opinions they dislike...(but I am not)."

 

Thank you again for sharing your personal thoughts. However, I find only one word in my entire post where I attacked you personally. I attacked the poster, and not the post.

 

I said, "Rather slippery of you, Regulation."

You replied, "It's rather immature of you to cast aspersions on the motives of others."

 

Immature? Immature for casting aspersions on your motives...? These words make no sense together.

 

Did you mean a differnet word from your vocabulary. Perhaps you meant I'm "childish" for casting aspersions. Or maybe I'm a "five-year-old," sitting in a school yard, casting aspersions on your motives. (Ouch! Damn kids! That aspersion hit me right in my motive.)

 

Regulation, might you consider expanding your vocabulary? At the least, you should seek a better understanding of such basic language.

 

Things you state, questions you ask -- many are truly pointless. And some things you've posted I thought were designed to beguile or bewilder.

 

When you remember to only speak the words of others--or at least shroud yourself in another's wisdom--yes, it can be provocative, if not offensive.

 

But when Regulation speaks pure "Regulation" -- it descends to a simple language. Basic, trite words; words that articulate people have no use for. But Regulation, you jump at the chance to wield their mightless power. And yet, somehow, you can't avoid stumbling over these simplest of words. You're confused by your own limited vocabulary.

 

I see now why you hide behind the words of others. And you have my blessing to stay there. But I do hope you'll learn how to learn.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Regulation, what's your point? Any original thoughts?

 

>Hey Regulation,

>First, I'd like to apologize.

>Your post on Cardinal Aponte

>clearly included your own views.

>I was wrong to state

>otherwise and I'm sorry.

>

>Fortunately, you weren't harmed by my

>misquote.

 

Since you take it upon yourself below to criticize my use of language in rather harsh terms, I suppose it would be appropriate for me to point out that you misuse the word "misquote" above. You did not purport to quote my words and include language that was not among them; instead, you falsely claimed that I had not said something that I had in fact said. The former would be a "misquote," the latter is not.

 

As far as "harm" is concerned, nothing that you have ever said or could ever say could harm me. I am wounded only by the disapproval of people I respect.

 

 

 

>My intention was never "attacking" you

>or "hurling schoolyard insults" at

>you. My primary intention was

>to denounce your misquotes of

>The Bible. The most

>successful denouncements come with enlightenment.

>

 

You have taken it upon yourself to question my motives, so you cannot now complain if I do the same to you. I don't believe that your description of your motives above is truthful.

 

 

>Thank you again for sharing your

>personal thoughts. However, I find

>only one word in my

>entire post where I attacked

>you personally. I attacked the

>poster, and not the post.

>

 

You attacked the poster, not the post. Exactly.

 

 

>

>I said, "Rather slippery of you,

>Regulation."

>You replied, "It's rather immature of

>you to cast aspersions on

>the motives of others."

>

>Immature? Immature for casting aspersions on

>your motives...? These words make

>no sense together.

>

 

In fact, they make perfect sense.

 

 

>Regulation, might you consider expanding your

>vocabulary? At the least, you

>should seek a better understanding

>of such basic language.

>

 

As I've shown above, your own command of English leaves a little something to be desired. You really aren't in a position to give (or recommend) English lessons to others.

 

>Things you state, questions you ask

>-- many are truly pointless.

 

As you can see from other responses in this thread, there are several people who don't agree with you.

 

 

>But when Regulation speaks pure "Regulation"

>-- it descends to a

>simple language. Basic, trite words;

>words that articulate people have

>no use for. But Regulation,

>you jump at the chance

>to wield their mightless power.

>And yet, somehow, you can't

>avoid stumbling over these simplest

>of words. You're confused

>by your own limited vocabulary.

>

 

Once again, your intention is to hurt, to insult, to denigrate. It could hardly be any clearer. I hope that you will someday learn how to disagree with others without being disagreeable. So far, it's a skill you haven't mastered.

[Guest dickhawaiikai]

But some people can't ignore their beliefs and remain true to themselves. Should they be expected to do that? Is that one of the sacrifices parents are expected to make for their kids? In other words, should Abraham have told God to forget about it and leave him alone?

 

Damn straight. It's a stupid story. Imagine your morning paper with a headline "Man kills son because God told him to." Some beliefs have no reasonable ethical standing.