I said that if blackregiment ignored my challenge to prove the statement that there is evidence that I am lying, I would refer to the Christian Witness Union as the False Witness Union.

He has decided to go the ignore route.

Blue post is his.

It seems that the subject of this thread has chosen to continue inflame this issue by posting a blog, taking snippets out of what I have written to twist my position and now accuses me of being a liar. From the beginning, I have asserted that if this person was called hateful names in a PM, then that was wrong. I have also asserted that he should support his claims with evidence. I suggested that he start a thread, exposing the guilty party and naming names by posting the PM's in which he alleges that he was called names. For whatever reason, he has not done this to the best of my knowledge. I also suggested that if this was occurring, that he should file a moderation against the guilty party. I would assume he has done this since he keeps threatening to visit our union and file multiple moderation requests.

In America, our legal system is based on a presumption of innocence. Oour legal system assumes innocence until guilt is proven. Accusations of wrong doing must be supported by evidence. These are sound principles of justice. In keeping with these principles, I have suggested that the poster provide this evidence in a public thread so that the guilty party will be exposed, and appropriately chastised where appropriate. For whatever reason, he has not done this, to the best of my knowledge. That is his choice but it is also my right to question why he won't do this and also my choice to reject accusations, unsupported by evidence.

Apparently, this poster feels that rather than follow these sound principles of justice and basic common senses, we should abandon them and just accept his word as truth. If we don't we he proclaims that we are a liar. How dare we ask for evidence? He has spoken and that should suffice. In his world, things may work like that, but in the real world they don't. The real world requires evidence to support accusations. I stand on my consistent position that the burden of proof is on the poster to supply the evidence to support his accusations. He claims that I am calling him a liar because I won't just accept his word without evidence. I have not called him a liar, as he has done to me in his post on his blog. I am not calling him names as he is doing by referring to our union as the False Witness Union. Once again, I am not asserting that these things did not happen, and I again say that if they did, they were wrong, I am simply asking that the evidence be posted and names named so that the guilt, if appropriate can be fixed to the guilty party. If the poster is unwilling or cannot do this, then his accusations cannot be confirmed and must be deemed suspect.

Here are excerpts from my responses on this thread that support that I said that if these things occurred, it was wrong and that the accuser should provide evidence of the alleged wrong doing so that the blame can be appropriately fixed to the guilty party.

"I agree that if these things were truly said to Theo, regarding his sexual orientation, it is wrong. Rather than make broad assumptions, the guilty parties should be admonished. It reminds me of school where two or three students are misbehaving and the whole group, gets admonished and punished for the actions of a few."

"I think that the guilty parties should be confronted, rather than implying through the fallacies of guilt by association and hasty generalization that since it was allegedly Christians, that allegedly made these comments, and we are Christians, that it was members of our union."

"I can only speak for myself with 100% certainty, and I will state that I have not ever sent a single PM to this poster regarding anything, including his sexual orientation, and I also have not discussed or commented, to date, on his sexual orientation on any thread."

"If people are PMing him and saying objectionable things and making inappropriate comments, then he should report them to the moderators, and/or post their PMs in a thread to expose the guilty parties. That what the moderation system is in place for."

"The bottom line is this. This whole thing started over a post in which battlefront23 reported that a homosexual Christian had told him that he was called names in PM's by one or more Christians. There was no evidence presented that this even occurred. It was all just hearsay that was assumed to be true. If these things are true, then the homosexual Christian should post the PM's to support his claims. There has been also been evidence presented that refutes the hearsay allegations of the homosexual Christian. I will repeat, if the homosexual Christian was indeed called names by Christians, then he should post the PM's, including the author's name to support his claims. If he is unable to do provide this evidence then his claims cannot be substantiated and deemed unsupported by the evidence."

Anyone is free to think whatever they want but I stand on my position.

First he accuses me of spinning his words, yet he does not say exactly how I do so, other than taking bits of it. The reason I did so is because the post in question was very long and included a lot of irrelevant detail. If you will go to my previous post, I LINKED his post for anyone and everyone to see, so if someone can verify his baseless accusation, I'd appreciate it.

Next he compares our situation to the American justice system. First of all, he cannot seem to get through his head that I am not accusing any member of that union of sending me hateful messages, other than segagenesisfan. He wants me to start a thread, but there's a problem: I'm not in that union and it requires an application to join that union, so starting a thread is out of the question.

He states that if they don't blindly accept my claims as the truth, I proclaim them liars. No, I proclaim them liars because they have been caught lying. They lied about having evidence against my claims, they lied about the messages I have sent, and they have lied about the things I have said. I have proven all three of these lies with their own messages and links to their messages; any man, woman or child viewing this can click the links to their messages in question and verify my claims.

Black says that I have said that he called me a liar. Which is also false. I said he has implied that I am lying, another claim of mine that can be verified with his own forum posts. He also states that he is not calling me names; I never said he was, and I am now referring to the union as the False Witness Union because I am convinced, and I have proven, that that is all it is. Black could have easily avoided this consequence had he verified his own claim that there is proof that I am lying about the messages being sent to me.

He then takes snippets of his own statements (right after complaining about me doing the SAME EXACT THING).

So far, he has:

1. Challenged me to prove what I say is true.

2. Ignored my responses to said challenge, and posting verified LIES to justify his willful ignorance.

3. Stated that there is evidence that I am lying, which he has not given nor has he responded to challenges to do so.

4. Accused me of taking his words out of context to make him look bad (when it can be verified that I have done no such thing).

5. Challenged me again.

I have noticed as of late, and you (the reader) may have as well, that all comments in my blog posts have been getting a lot of "disagree"s. I suspect that I have some stalkers, who, instead of being mature, like to abuse the comment rating system (because when a given comment gets enough "disagree"s, it disappears and can be moderated) and avoid discussing the problem. This occurs not only in my blogs, but in the blogs of WtFDragon as well. Despite what the stalkers (and I know there are more than one) may think, I know who is doing it, and you (the reader) may know as well.

So here's what I'm gonna do.

I want to ask all commenters on my blog to give their own comments and the comments of every other user who decides to comment here an "agree" click. This way comments can avoid being deleted due to immature and abusive marking. I myself am doing this, but there is only one of me, and several stalkers.

To the stalkers: Until this abusive comment rating stops in my blog and in WtFDragon's blog, I will be visiting a certain union very regularly and I will report for moderation EVERY SINGLE POST that violates a GameSpot rule, and there have been a good few. Everybody who visits my blog should know what union I'm speaking of, including (and especially) the stalkers. While WtFDragon is handling this issue with saint-like patience, I am not that patient. I don't tolerate bull like this.

If the stalkers would like me to refrain from doing this, they must identify themselves either in my blog or via private message and must promise to cease abusing the comment rating system in both my blog and WtFDragon's blog. Or, they can keep their identity anonymous by no longer abusing the system for three blog posts. At that point I'll assume that they have learned their lesson and I will not invade the aforementioned union. But if it starts back up again, I will take back my new policy, and it will be permanent.

Now, the stalkers are more than welcome at any time to argue with me about something that concerns them about one of my blog posts. As long as you don't flat-out insult me or anyone else, I won't delete your message or report it to the GameSpot moderators.

Let's hope something good comes of this.

I really dont get why people actually try to push gay habits, and they will say "whats wrong with me holding hands with another guy?" Well that is not the problem, the problem is this....

The genitalia was not made for you to put it in someone elses gluteous maximus..... Seriously

The thing is it causes other people to become homosexual, homosexuals dont ever decrease in number, more so they always have a tendacy to grow in numbers.

Lets just look at Rome shall we, full of homosexuals, which was also full of violence, people killing eachother, lust, just like the greeks, guess what happened, full of death.....

Being gay is against gods creation, god created the woman to help the man, when you have a two man, or two woman relationship, it never is going to work. The roles that each does is going to be confusing, and they probably will never really have a truely meaningful relationship, just lust. Above all homosexuals are violent towards children.

http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php?ArticleID=3742

Hitler was gay the nazi where gay they didnt even kill gays, hmmmmmm. I think people need to know this. The homosexuals are actually the murderers themselves, think about it...

Julius Caesar was a homosexual

Alexander was a homosexual

Hitler was a homosexual

Ironic that the greatest generals who strived at killing people where homosexuals. Heck not even the nazis were intolerant towards gays, because they were gay gays are more violent people (right now we see gays who act very nice, for the purpose of making homosexuality look better). But overtime when there is a great acceptance, they will show their true colors. Yet many christians where killed by nazi, jews, etc, even their own catholics where killed, but not the homosexuals.

SOMETHING IS WRONG WHEN HOMOSEXUALS ARE TOLERATED BY NAZI OVER CHRISTIANS!

You heard it here first, folks! All gay people (including myself) are secretly Nazis and/or Roman centurions who pretend to be nice to make homosexuality look pleasant. It's also contagious.

Oh! And look at this gem at the bottom of this page!

Seriously he (Theokhoth) is gay why does he think his opinion matters, unless.... He is a heretic.

Gee, and here I thought having an opinion wasn't heresy. . . . .I could easily use that logic. But I won't, though I'm sorely tempted.

Before that, in that same thread, he stated that "I wish Theo would discuss these but I bet he won't."

Well, sega, I'd love to discuss them with you. . . .unfortunately, it seems you have put me on your ignore list after spamming my inbox with anti-Catholic (I'm not even Catholic!) Jack Chick articles.

Here's another complaint from the very same user:

The heathens have a defence tool, it is called "report as offensive." I have been reported at least five times, non of it is like bad language, or trying to annoy, it is just me putting facts on a page. I hate people who like to play the "I am offended," card, well honestly do I care to offend you? Your going to be offended, because I am telling you something you don't like to know.

:lol:

I'm sure people want to be known as "heathens." ;)

*sigh*

The other day I posted a topic on OT asking for relationship advice. I have since then received a few private messages, some from genuinely concerned individuals and some just outright ignorant. Needless to say, one message said that you can't be gay and a Christian. Yesterday an atheist said a gay Christian is like a vegetarian who eats meat.

I want to address this.

Now, in the context of Christianity, what is homosexuality? A sin. Though this is debatable (one could very well argue that it is not homosexuality that is the sin, but homosexual acts, such as sodomy), I'll assume that it is completely true.

Now, with that simple fact, it's impossible for a gay man to be a Christian, right? Before you answer, ask yourself this:

Have you ever lied?

Have you ever stolen anything, no matter how insignificant?

Have you ever had lustful thoughts for a man/woman?

Have you ever hated another person?

Lying is a sin. If you have ever lied, that means you are now and forever a liar.

Stealing is a sin. If you have ever stolen anything, that means you are now and forever a thief.

Lust is a sin, and the equivalent of adultery according to Christ. If you have ever lusted, then you are now and forever an adulterer.

Hating another person is a sin, and the equivalent to murder according to Christ. If you have ever hated another person, you are now and forever a murderer.

So: Are you a Christian? Or are you forever exempt from being a Christian because of your sins?

If you answer "yes" to the former question, then do you deny committing any of the sins listed above? Is it not a Christian doctrine that all men have sinned?

Just as a thief or murderer can be a Christin, so too can a homosexual.

Now, here is where one can argue that after becoming a Christian, Christians try to avoid the above sins, but homosexuals don't do that. The reason why this is is very simple:

We can't help it.

I didn't choose to be gay It happened beyond my control. I don't know what causes it, but I can't choose to make it go away any more than I can choose to make it appear in the first place.

So why would God condemn something that He Himself knows can't be helped? It is for this very question that I think it is not homosexuality that is a sin, but homosexual acts.

So I'm refraining from committing homosexual acts by being celibate. No sex. No marriage. No children. I'm trying to not commit any sinful acts. . . .just like a Christian would say to do.

So. Am I a Christian?

On a couple of unrelated notes, I bought Chosen by Ted Dekker yesterday. It's the first of six books that are told in the same universe as his Circle trilogy, which I loved.

School begins tomorrow, which means you guys won't be seeing me as much anymore. I'll pop in every now and again, but I won't be around as much. So if you have anything you'd like to say, today's the day to say it.

I've finished Red and White, the sequels to Black in Ted Dekker's Circle Trilogy.

They. Were. Amazing. I'll try to keep my reviews as spoiler-free as possible.

Where the "preachy" factor was low in Black, it is much more present in Red, for what is obvious reasons when you're reading it (can't give details). It still isn't a proselytizing book, and it still shouldn't turn off the reader to the story, but it is much more noticeable than in Black. That aside, Red is wonderful. Some say it's better than Black, though in my opinion Black was better. Where the allegory of Black was centered on the Creation and the Fall of man, Red uses allegory symbolising the Old Testament up until the New Testament. One thing about Red that was better than Black: The book stirred up emotions far greater than anything in Black. Where Black had me weeping, Red had me full-out crying by the time I was finished.

White was also a work of genius. The "preach-o-meter" is pretty high on this one, as direct references to the Bible and Jesus are present. But again, it isn't like one of the characters goes "repent, sinner!" at any point in the book, so I still say it isn't an Evangelist propaganda technique. The symbolism in White focuses much more on God's love for all of humanity, and humanity's way of sometimes getting that wrong. There weren't any strong tear-jerking moments like in Red, but I still enjoyed the book. My only complaint was the ending left a bit of room for yet another book. While I'm not certain, I keep hearing rumors that a fourth book will be coming out, titled Green. . . . .

In my last blog post (the one concerning Black) I told you that the main protagonist, Thomas Hunter, wakes in another world whenever he falls asleep in ours, and wakes in our world whenever he falls asleep in the other. The symbolism in the books takes place almost entirely in the other world. The events that occur in our world are not symbolic, as far as I can tell, and are purely entertainment fiction.

The series ends with a bang (literally or metaphorically? ;)), and I could not recommend this series enough. Buy it. Read it.

Since I'm so very sick of seeing "religion is irrational!" posts, let me try to clarify some things.

Religion is not inherently irrational.

Now, why is this? After all, people believe in religion without proof, right? Well, first of all, this is not what defines rationality. Rationality is based on logic, and is a method of reasoning that arrives to conclusions based on your own observations.

Here's an example: Let's say I witness a murder. I tell the police. Now, I can't prove that I saw a murder, and the police for whatever reason do not believe me (maybe I've made some crackpot claims in the past). Now, since I cannot prove that a murder occurred, am I irrational for believing a murder occurred? No, because I saw it happen. I observed it, and concluded that a murder had occurred.

Let's take that a bit further. Let's say I stumble upon a bloody knife, a recently-fired gun, or some other lethal weapon. Based on these observations I can logically conclude that, though I didn't actually see it happen, a murder had occurred.

Now, how is this relevant to religion? A religious person is like the man who saw a murder, but cannot prove it. A religious person concludes that a religion is true by the world around him, just as a man may conclude a murder occurred by the bloody knife on the ground. It's by his observations.

Rationality and logic are subjective to the person's own personal experiences. Since religion is very personal, to call it irrational under the excuse that "it is not proven" is a distortion of what rationality is, and is in itself irrational. It is proven to the religious person, therefore the religious person is following his own observations when following a religion, therefore following a religion is not irrational.

Now, when is following a religion irrational? Blind faith is irrational. Picking a religion out of thin air and following it is irrational. Pascal's Wager is irrational.

So no, God cannot be proven to exist, at least not scientifically (read my older blog posts for more on this). A person cannot prove to another person that God exists. However, this does not make religion irrational any more than believing to have witnessed a murder is irrational when you can't prove it to somebody.

I have just finished Black, the first book of Ted Dekker's Circle Trilogy. I am awestruck. If I could be any more amazed with this book I'd think I was in love. Here's a short, spoiler-free review:

Black begins with Thomas Hunter, a man working in a coffee shop in Denver, getting shot at by thugs. When the men catch up to him and shoot him in the head, Thomas wakes up in another world, with no memory of who he is, where he is or where he came from. He finds himself in a paradise without fear, pain or death, ruled by an entity named Elyon.

But all is not well with Thomas, who is having extremely vivid dreams of a place called Denver where he is a normal man with a sister, being chased by mafiosos. When Thomas falls asleep in one dream, he awakes in the other, in chain-like fashion. There is a catastrophe approaching both worlds, and Thomas is the only one who knows anything about it and can stop it. But which world is real and which is just a dream?

The book had me hooked from the very beginning. The books are allegories, not at all unlike The Space Trilogy of C. S. Lewis. In fact, the two are trilogies are extremely similar, except the Circle is much more fast-paced than the Space trilogy. The book had me up all night. It struck emotional cords I haven't felt from a book in a long time; I was laughing, embarrassed, even weeping at some of the wonderfully well-written scenes in the story.

As the books are obvious religious allegories, an atheist reading these books may feel a bit preached at, even though the protagonists are atheists themselves. However, there is no evangelical preaching or proselytizing in here that wouldn't turn the reader off to the story, unless he was extremely insecure with his own beliefs.

I don't care what you believe. Buy this book. Now.

I am starting on Red, the sequel to Black, soon. I am looking very forward to it. Black will be on my shelf of "best books ever" for a very long time.

This is the story of how I came to be a Christian, despite my sexual orientation and a lifetime of naturalistic philosophy. For those who do not wish to read so much material, I shall sum up the crystaline miracle that convinced me, that wonderful gift from the hand of God Himself, described only as divine intervention, in three words:

Meet the Spartans.

Now, I had heard all the crap about Meet the Spartans going into the theatre, but it was a Saturday and I was bored and I wanted to spend some money, so I figured I'd go see a movie. Well, they were out of the movie I wanted to see (thank God), so I picked Meet the Spartans.

I took my ticket and went inside. I was about ten minutes early, so I bought some popcorn and Pepsi and a bag of M&M's. I went into the showing room and found a seat in the middle, nice and comfortable view of the screen and everything.

The next 65 minutes BLEW. MY. MIND. Seriously. About halfway through the movie I had to pee extremely bad, but I wanted to wait until the movie was over, so I held it in. Well, there was a scene (I won't tell you because it would be spoilers) that made me laugh so hard that I unleashed the full fury of the dam in my pants. I honestly wet myself. I wanted to stop the flowing but I was laughing so hard that I just couldn't close up my bladder. I finally managed to stop giggling after about five minutes of non-stop laughing and peeing. My pants were soaked and the seat I was sitting on was wet and smelly. I felt bad for the guy who'd have to clean it up. So I stood up and moved another seat down. No way in hell was I going to miss the rest of the movie.

I was met, the whole time through, with a euphoria that cannot be accurately described with a million years of studying human language. More potent than the strongest wine, more soothing than the calmest music, more shocking than the coldest bath. The senses, the pleasure, the gratification, all of it struck me with a force so powerful and divine that the very attempt to describe such eternal joy feels in and of itself blasphemous, as it undermines the holy works put into these grand experiences.

After it finally ended (the only bad part of the entire movie, in my opinion) I sat there, in my own urine, watching the credits with tears down my face. I don't know why I was crying. Perhaps it was the fact the movie ended. Perhaps it was the fact that the movie was so good that I laughed until I cried. Or perhaps it was because some douchebag behind me was smoking something I suspect to be illegal. In any case, I stayed there until the final credits had rolled.

I limped out of that theatre a new man. That movie changed my life, my worldview, even my taste in food. I left the theatre enlightened, with a new goal, a new mission, and with wet pants.I was met by two angels, named Michael and Gabriel, who informed me of my new life, and of God's plan for me, and how special I was to Him.

And I knew. I knew that a god must exist. And I knew that He smiled upon His creation when He made Meet the Spartans.

Ugh. I've been sleeping worse lately, going to bed past midnight and waking up at eleven with a headache that remains there all day. I'm exhausted and I still have that headache, which is getting worse. I wanted to write a big essay about how the hope that religious belief will one day die out is stupid, but not right now.:(