Elton john wants....

[BVS]

Michael Hutchence died attempting auto erotic asphyxiation, in which choking to the point of unconsciousness heightens sexual pleasure.

In addition, the combination of Viagra or other potency enhancing drugs with nitrates (most commonly amyl nitrate or "poppers") can cause severe hypotension and sudden death.

But most commonly, it's not all that unusual for men to suffer fatal heart attacks during or immediately after sexual intercourse. Especially if the relationship is extramarital or involves prostitutes. The cardiac events can be attributed to increased stress combined with an underlying etiology of uncontrolled hypertension or heart disease.


The professor.

But they die from the heart attack, not the orgasm. But hey, nice try everyone.

 

[INDY500]

But they die from the heart attack, not the orgasm. But hey, nice try everyone.

If the corpse is smilin'...I'm goin' with orgasm as C.O.D.

 

[AEON]

And most homosexuals could give a flying f**k about Christianity and their flat-earth view of the world.

.

Actually - I think the world is round.

Also, just because something used to be taboo doesn't mean that today it should no longer be taboo.

Yes, inter-racial marriage used to be taboo and that has now changed. But that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING that used to be taboo should now change. I'm sure you can think off the top of your head a list of actions you think were - and still are - taboo.

 

[AEON]

But hey...go right ahead and think Christianity is inherently better than Islam in history.

Earlier you talked about the "success" of the spread of Islam in the Middle East and Africa as if someone was walking around holding revivals in a tent. The truth is - Islam was spread by force.

And for the first several centuries - Christianity spread underground at the risk of death. It was not until Constantine that Christians were safe to practice their faith without fear of persecution. Unfortunately - it also marks the beginning of the state taking over the church - and there were, and still are, consequences for this.

The two religions have much different histories.

 

[Irvine511]

sorry i bowed out of this thread early last night, i have been on the road for most of the month and wanted to spend my evening doing deviant, diseased things with my equally perverted, warped boyfriend like talking to each other and catching up and planning our social calendar for December which is filled with holiday parties as well as discuss thanksgiving plans, have dinner, and plan on going christmas shopping together right after thanksgiving.

we're so disordered. it must be our distant fathers.

 

[Irvine511]

Earlier you talked about the "success" of the spread of Islam in the Middle East and Africa as if someone was walking around holding revivals in a tent. The truth is - Islam was spread by force.

And for the first several centuries - Christianity spread underground at the risk of death. It was not until Constantine that Christians were safe to practice their faith without fear of persecution. Unfortunately - it also marks the beginning of the state taking over the church - and there were, and still are, consequences for this.

The two religions have much different histories.

Melon is absolutely right -- you'd be a great Muslim, had you been born into a Muslim society.

 

[coemgen]

 

[maycocksean]

BVS said he never heard of anyone dying from an orgasm. I think it is safe to say that many people have.

This is a terrible argument. I mean really.

Totally unsupportable and distracts from whatever point is being made. There is so much implied in this statemetn that I'm sure you really don't care to imply.

 

[Dreadsox]

So Elton John has sparked a thread about death from orgasm?

I volunteer to go this way.

 

[Dreadsox]

Just curious....

If my wife does me in the ass with a dildo, is it sin?

WE have not tried this yet, but, shit, I am getting older and on a lot of percocette today and my mind is wandering.

 

[maycocksean]

Just curious....

If my wife does me in the ass with a dildo, is it sin?

I'd really like to hear the answer to this question.

 

[Ormus]

Earlier you talked about the "success" of the spread of Islam in the Middle East and Africa as if someone was walking around holding revivals in a tent. The truth is - Islam was spread by force.

And for the first several centuries - Christianity spread underground at the risk of death. It was not until Constantine that Christians were safe to practice their faith without fear of persecution. Unfortunately - it also marks the beginning of the state taking over the church - and there were, and still are, consequences for this.

The two religions have much different histories.

The history of Islam is not much different than the Israelites' violent conquering of Canaan, is it not? Islam just happened to accept more converts and kill proportionately fewer people in the process.

"When you march up to attack a city, first offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you, all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor. But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you battle, lay siege to it, and when the LORD, your God, delivers it into your hand, put every male in it to the sword; but the women and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth plundering you may take as your booty, and you may use this plunder of your enemies which the LORD, your God, has given you. 'That is how you shall deal with any city at a considerable distance from you, which does not belong to the peoples of this land. But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul alive. You must doom them all-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the LORD, your God, has commanded you, lest they teach you to make any such abominable offerings as they make to their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD, your God. 'When you are at war with a city and have to lay siege to it for a long time before you capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them. You may eat their fruit, but you must not cut down the trees. After all, are the trees of the field men, that they should be included in your siege?" -- Deuteronomy 20:10-19

Nice to see, though, that "God" loves trees.

As far as I'm concerned, the early pre-Constantinian Christian church is a completely different religion, because it bares little resemblance to the patriarchal blather that has existed since then.

Speaking of patriarchal blather, I once mentioned "original sin" and how it is mostly a construction of St. Augustine of Hippo, rather than the Bible. I'm not sure if you believed me, but it is one of the defining differences between Western Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Eastern Orthodoxy acknowledges that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind, but denies (or rather never accepted) Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt. The act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act changed the reality of this present age of the cosmos.

Just thought I'd follow up.

I don't have a lot of love for Islam, don't get me wrong. However, I hate it when people make extra effort to demonize Islam, while glossing over all the violence in Christian history.

 

[Ormus]

Also, just because something used to be taboo doesn't mean that today it should no longer be taboo.

Yes, inter-racial marriage used to be taboo and that has now changed. But that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING that used to be taboo should now change. I'm sure you can think off the top of your head a list of actions you think were - and still are - taboo.

That usually means having a compelling and logical reason to continue a taboo, rather than basing one on questionable Biblical passages, offensive stereotypes that flat out aren't true, and double standards that not even heterosexuals can live up to.

 

[verte76]

Earlier you talked about the "success" of the spread of Islam in the Middle East and Africa as if someone was walking around holding revivals in a tent. The truth is - Islam was spread by force.

And for the first several centuries - Christianity spread underground at the risk of death. It was not until Constantine that Christians were safe to practice their faith without fear of persecution. Unfortunately - it also marks the beginning of the state taking over the church - and there were, and still are, consequences for this.

The two religions have much different histories.

Let's not forget that Charlemagne offered the Saxons a choice between baptism and death. The history of Christianity is full of this stuff. Also, the Muslims didn't always use force to convert. They conquered Damascus and promised the Christians of the city that they wouldn't hurt their churches, and they kept their promise. The non-Muslims simply had to pay an extra tax. They had a vested interest in converting but were not necessarily forced to.

 

[AEON]

The history of Islam is not much different than the Israelites' violent conquering of Canaan, is it not? Islam just happened to accept more converts and kill proportionately fewer people in the process.

"When you march up to attack a city, first offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you, all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor. But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you battle, lay siege to it, and when the LORD, your God, delivers it into your hand, put every male in it to the sword; but the women and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth plundering you may take as your booty, and you may use this plunder of your enemies which the LORD, your God, has given you. 'That is how you shall deal with any city at a considerable distance from you, which does not belong to the peoples of this land. But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul alive. You must doom them all-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the LORD, your God, has commanded you, lest they teach you to make any such abominable offerings as they make to their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD, your God. 'When you are at war with a city and have to lay siege to it for a long time before you capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them. You may eat their fruit, but you must not cut down the trees. After all, are the trees of the field men, that they should be included in your siege?" -- Deuteronomy 20:10-19

Nice to see, though, that "God" loves trees.

There is no doubt that Israel as a nation was founded through violence. However, the Kingdom of God that Christ has ushered in is built on faith – the type of faith that cannot be won at the point of a sword.

As far as I'm concerned, the early pre-Constantinian Christian church is a completely different religion, because it bares little resemblance to the patriarchal blather that has existed since then.

I agree – the early church probably had more things “right” than we as a church do today. That being said, I don’t think the early church necessarily “tolerated” sexual immorality – which is addressed specifically in 1 Corinthians 6.

Speaking of patriarchal blather, I once mentioned "original sin" and how it is mostly a construction of St. Augustine of Hippo, rather than the Bible. I'm not sure if you believed me, but it is one of the defining differences between Western Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Perhaps the definitions are a bit different – but the consequence is similar – we live in a “fallen” world. And this is the main point: that we do not have the power to be “perfect” aside from the “perfection” that God gives us through faith. This is not solely from Augustine – it is clarified by Paul. The concept goes all the way back to Abraham when God credits his faith as righteousness – not his deeds.

Just thought I'd follow up.

I don't have a lot of love for Islam, don't get me wrong. However, I hate it when people make extra effort to demonize Islam, while glossing over all the violence in Christian history.

I didn’t make any extra effort – I was only correcting you about how you presented the spread of Islam.

 

[AEON]

I'd really like to hear the answer to this question.

Why are you so interested in this answer maycocksean?

It's a strange question - but I suppose it comes down to the fact that this is not adultery, because you are married. I think it would cross the line into sin if either one is harmed.

I guess I would put this in the category of "permissible" but not necessarily "beneficial."

 

[AEON]

Melon is absolutely right -- you'd be a great Muslim, had you been born into a Muslim society.

Irvine - who are those people in your avatar? It is too blurry for me to see clearly.

 

[AEON]

And just to refer to the first post...

If Elton John could read the totality of this discussion, he would most certainly reassert that religion should be banned. None of you are helping your case.

Now who is being more like the Taliban here, Melon?

This whole notion of "agree with me or you will banned for being intolerant" is not very, well, tolerant.

 

[BVS]

Yes, that's why I asked the question. How does that website prove that Paul knew he was only upholding cultrual law and not God's law by saying that?

Yes, that's why I asked the question. How does that website prove that Paul knew he was only upholding cultrual law and not God's law by saying that?

Yes, that's why I asked the question. How does that website prove that Paul knew he was only upholding cultrual law and not God's law by saying that?

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine - who are those people in your avatar? It is too blurry for me to see clearly.

Scissor Sisters. have been obsessed with their new album and especially the lead single, "i don't feel like dancing."

my main point is that all faiths claim exclusivity and exceptionality -- if you were a Muslim, you'd have the same strong feels about Islam that you do about Christianity.

it's all to do with culture.



another question, not just to you but to others: what am i supposed to do? if i have a constitutive attraction, which is to say emotional and physical, to my same gender (that we'd all HAVE to agree is unchosen, because i insist that i am not making a choice and, really, my word would have to be authority since we're dealing with me, as an individual, which is what it ultimatley all comes down to), how am i supposed to deal with that in order to live a more biblical, christ-like, church-approved life? what are my options? what course of action should i be taking? am i supposed to live a life of celibacy? if i loved Jesus more, prayed a bit harder, and were just a little more churchy, would same-sex attraction magically melt away?

all of these biblically-based opinions on homosexuality seem to have very little to do with homosexuals themselves -- what is a homosexual to do?

 

[BVS]

-- what is a homosexual to do?

 

[Irvine511]

^ but, seriously -- are there people in here who are seriously going to look me in the face and tell me that the only available option is celibacy?

 

[coemgen]

another question, not just to you but to others: what am i supposed to do? if i have a constitutive attraction, which is to say emotional and physical, to my same gender (that we'd all HAVE to agree is unchosen, because i insist that i am not making a choice and, really, my word would have to be authority since we're dealing with me, as an individual, which is what it ultimatley all comes down to), how am i supposed to deal with that in order to live a more biblical, christ-like, church-approved life? what are my options? what course of action should i be taking? am i supposed to live a life of celibacy? if i loved Jesus more, prayed a bit harder, and were just a little more churchy, would same-sex attraction magically melt away?

all of these biblically-based opinions on homosexuality seem to have very little to do with homosexuals themselves -- what is a homosexual to do?

OK, so I couldn't resist answering this.

This is the big question, isn't it? I'm honestly anxious to know the answer, too. I've heard Christians speak about how they did leave homosexuality for their relationship with Christ. Some remained celibate, some married a woman. They say they're happy and they sound like they're happy. Not just because they left homosexuality, but because they're in a relationship with Christ.

That's the overarching point for me. Maybe some people are born with a tendancy to be homosexual or to have that attraction. I don't know. I'm open to that possibility. I can't believe though that everyone who practices homosexuality is doing it out of a natural attraction. I think for some it's nothing more than a kinky, "more adventurous sexual lifestyle" to them. What are your thoughts on that? That's where I'm at now in my understanding of this.
That's why I've been talking with you guys. I'm debating, but it's ultimately to learn more.
Again, back to the overarching point, and I've posted this before, I know God is more excited about the homosexual who's honestly seeking him than the straight man or woman who isn't. Also, the great tragedy, to me and I think God, too, isn't that someone's gay. It's that someone doesn't know Christ.

I've been praying about this since last night. It's been on my heart a lot. It got to the point in here where I felt angry at you, Melon and others. I caught myself and I ask for your forgiveness. I'm a debater my nature (maybe even a masterdebater ).
Ultimately though, I may never know the truth about homosexuality. Who knows. That's why I'm done debating it. It's not the biggest issue.

 

[Dreadsox]

^ but, seriously -- are there people in here who are seriously going to look me in the face and tell me that the only available option is celibacy?

No....marry a good churchgoing girl.....pretend to be happy....and get back in the closet.

Thank yoU!

 

[verte76]

^ but, seriously -- are there people in here who are seriously going to look me in the face and tell me that the only available option is celibacy?

This is exactly what my bishops just did. But I won't buy it. They also condemned artificial birth control. I don't buy that either.

 

[INDY500]

Burn down the mission
If we're gonna stay alive
Watch the black smoke fly to heaven
See the red flame light the sky

 

[The Tonic]

I think for some it's nothing more than a kinky, "more adventurous sexual lifestyle" to them. What are your thoughts on that?

My thoughts on that are that that's the stupidest thing I've heard all year. And it's almost December.

You clearly have no idea what people risk and sacrifice in order to identify themselves publicly as gay. You have no idea how people struggle with being gay, and how hard they try not to be gay - not only the religious, who live with the guilt of thinking God hates them, and that they are perversions of nature, but also the non-religious who worry about getting the shit kicked out of them at the busstop, or getting passed over for promotion, or having their friends drift away, or losing their parents' respect.

What do people gain by coming out of the closet? The answer is nothing. Nothing at all, nothing but the ability to pursue what makes them happy a little more freely, and a chance to shake off some of the expectations straight culture places on them. What do people lose by coming out of the closet? Some people lose everything.

To drastically and permanently change your life, to reforge your whole identity, to risk leaving your friends and family behind forever, to turn yourself into middle America's punchline, to place your career in jeopardy ... for a kink? To do all this to pursue a sex life that titillates you because it repulses you, because it feels unnatural and wrong to you, because you actually find it unpleasant? To do something that disgusts you your entire life, out of no more than capricious, flippant rebellion? To completely give up the pursuit of being with someone you love, to squander your life growing old with, spending holidays with, and raising children with someone you feel no love for, just to have the same nauseating sexual experience with the same person again and again and again, for decades, until you die?

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've heard all year.

 

[coemgen]

Wow, The Tonic. You clearly misunderstood my post. And, on top of it, I was trying to ask a simple question to gain more understanding, and the reply I get is "that's the stupidest thing I've heard all year."

Who's being closeminded here?

I'll restate what I did earlier because you seem to keep neglecting half of what I say anyway. I'm open to the possibility of there being people who are born with this attraction. However, I don't think everyone who has gay sex is born that way. That's absurd. In fact, it's close minded. Those who "come out of the closet" may not fall under this category. I don't know. What I'm getting at, is people who just do it for a thrill. You can't tell me nobody who's ever walked the face of the Earth hasn't done it for that reason.

 

[Ormus]

Now who is being more like the Taliban here, Melon?

This whole notion of "agree with me or you will banned for being intolerant" is not very, well, tolerant.

Pop quiz:

Which group is the one pushing for constitutional amendments that the gay community vehemently opposes, and which group likes to think that any form of gay rights or benefits is "marriage"?

Let me give you a hint: It starts with "C" and ends with "hristianity."

 

[AEON]

Scissor Sisters. have been obsessed with their new album and especially the lead single, "i don't feel like dancing."

my main point is that all faiths claim exclusivity and exceptionality -- if you were a Muslim, you'd have the same strong feels about Islam that you do about Christianity.

it's all to do with culture.



another question, not just to you but to others: what am i supposed to do? if i have a constitutive attraction, which is to say emotional and physical, to my same gender (that we'd all HAVE to agree is unchosen, because i insist that i am not making a choice and, really, my word would have to be authority since we're dealing with me, as an individual, which is what it ultimatley all comes down to), how am i supposed to deal with that in order to live a more biblical, christ-like, church-approved life? what are my options? what course of action should i be taking? am i supposed to live a life of celibacy? if i loved Jesus more, prayed a bit harder, and were just a little more churchy, would same-sex attraction magically melt away?

all of these biblically-based opinions on homosexuality seem to have very little to do with homosexuals themselves -- what is a homosexual to do?

Honestly Irvine - I think you should let Christ into your heart and see what He says. Forget what AEON and the others say. I would rather you be a gay Christian than a gay non-Christian.

I do think it is possible to love Christ and remain gay. I also believe the God's love does change our hearts over time. I wouldn't worry so much more about where you are today - and whether or not old fashioned dudes like AEON agree – or whether or not you need to cease being gay - just worry about where you will spend eternity (because, my friend, you are going to die some day - same as me...just take a few moments and think about that. Seriously think about that...no air, no heartbeat, no sounds...nothing. Could be tomorrow – or could be fifty or sixty years from now. But that day is coming.) Read a little about what Jesus says tonight – and if you have the tiniest bit of thirst for truth – He will satisfy it.

Once you have the love of Christ in your heart and you are still happy being gay - I will simply be grateful that I will see you on the other side where none of this matters anymore. We may even have a sandwich together while listening to the Scissor Sisters.

Back on earth, I share what I feel the Bible says. And I admit, I could be wrong on this issue. What I am certain of is this – Jesus Christ completely changed me and I know that have an eternal life that began the moment I professed faith in Him.

Irvine, I can tell you are a kind person. If you were close – I would love to have a glass of wine and talk with you about a great many things. I despise the way many people have probably treated you throughout your life. In this forum, and others, I sometimes fall into the trap of defending what I believe what the Bible says or intends. However, in person – I really do try to listen more and say less (I do not claim success in this area, bu I do claim there is intense effort)

If Jesus were around today – I think he would certainly take issue with those who vehemently oppose gay rights (or the rights of any person). I’m not sure He would support gay marriage – but that is my opinion.

Ultimately Irvine – I know I have been more of a roadblock to Christ than an avenue. I am torn when I read through these threads. I am not sure if what I say is appropriate or not. On one hand – I don’t think that I should simply say whatever would get applause from the FYM crowd – or the respect of Melon – or the others. On the other hand, I question if I should reserve my opinion on this issue for those who already know Christ – and want my personal advice on the matter. I don’t know – because I have also received PM’s from people who only read and do not post saying they are happy someone is FINALLY standing up and saying what they themselves want to say but don’t want to rile the bullies in here - those who call us bigots, homophobes, or Pharisees (not my word Yolland).

I don’t know…it is probably a balance of both.