Is the US a Christian nation?

[1robin]

But we were discussing which world view provides the best basis for moral behavior, not which world view is true. If Christian Scientists are generally more moral than Christians are, you have no case.

That is a topic you brought up, not me. My comments have been about foundations. It seems the Christian scientists have almost the same foundation as I would so there is no point even if your estimation alone could determine which group is more moral (which was not my point anyway). Christianity would still have the best foundations even if Christians built terrible structures on the foundation.

 

[1robin]

Yes, you did that, and you also have done that in some other threads, but you haven't spent much time discussing the Bible during the past twelve months. Typically, people spend a good deal of time discussing the issues that are the most important issues to them. That is why I discuss homosexuality a lot.

You have actually reviewed my posts for 12 months? I find that questionable. What is a lot? I must have mentioned the Bible a thousand times in the last 12 months. The debates go where they go and I just follow usually. Debates take place on common ground and the Bible is not common ground with an atheist.

As far as biblical textual criticism is concerned, you are no match for many of the skeptics at the FRDB (Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Boards). You are the master of one trade, engineering, and the master of none other than engineering. Highly educated, well-prepared skeptics could demolish you in a debate on practically any topic.

Your constant claims of who I a match for (if you say I have not discussed the Bible how would you know anyway) are not relevant. I think my positions strong because they are grounded in fact not because I am that smart. I have the advantage of telling the truth. Most of my (boxed) arguments come from world renowned Bible scholars and debaters. Your are not criticizing 1Robin but people like NT Wright, Lewis, Chesterton, White, and even Ehrman. Good luck with that. Regardless of my skills the Bible has been trouncing it's critiques for thousands of years. I gave a post with lost of information concerning the success of the Bible's critics recently. Did you see it. The Bible is 1 million and 0. I am not interested in your very flawed analysis (as I am no master on engineering and the arguments I use have floored the best professional critiques in history) and they really have no place here even if they were right. Do I somehow have a burden to be a better debater than any professional you name. I do not have time for all your off ramps.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: God withholds additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him if they were aware of it. Such people are not rejecting God. They are only rejecting a lack of evidence since they would accept God if he provided them with additional evidence. Similarly, no one can blame people who lived hundreds of years ago for eating lots of greasy foods since the health risks of doing that were not known back then, and many of those people would not have eaten lots of greasy foods if they had known about the health risks.

How do you know? The Bible records thousands of instances where people refused faith based on over whelming evidence. Where they asked for evidence and when it was given was used by them for other purposes. It may be that the amount of evidence we have is the most efficient. I can tell you being a believer after being a non-believer for 27 years it is not the evidence (there is more than enough) it is our heart. A hard heart will and did deny the parting of seas and the raising of the dead. A compliant heart has found enough evidence in the sophistication and complexity of nature alone.

How can not being aware of truth that would be accepted if it was known be immoral, and wrong? How can being sent to hell for eternity without parole be right, fair, and just?

That is not the criteria. The criteria is consistency with God's purpose. I'm telling you from much experience evidence is not the issue. It is the eye that beholds what there is. I do not think a torture chamber Hell would be just. My understanding of Hell is annihilation. That is more than just. We are given a soul and body we did not make. God created the soul. If we use it to defy him is not God just in destroying that soul for eternity?

Why would God tell Christians to tell people about the Bible, but refuse to tell people about it himself?

How can you for a second claim God has not went through more trouble in Christianity to reach us than in all other faiths combined. He came to Earth and died and produced the most beloved and studied book in human history. Christians have forsaken all, by the thousands to spread the word God supplied and died for it. What is enough to you? This is an example of what I meant above. He comes to Earth and dies for you, gives you the greatest book ever written, and Christ is the most well known figure in history. Yet you stand there and yell more. It is not the evidence that is the problem.

Millions of people died without ever hearing about the Bible. Even 1500 years after the time of Jesus, native American Indians had never heard about the Bible. How could God have intended for the Bible to partly be a book of rules if he knew that millions of people who die without knowing about all of the rules?

I think we have already covered this. See Craig's book on the unevangelised. It is not a topic I know well and not one that applies to you. You are responsible for your soul not the Aztec's.

Surely word of mouth is a very poor way of trying to let everyone know about the Bible, especially since God could easily, and simultaneously have told everyone in the world about it.

The written word is and still is the greatest form of information transmission on Earth. The Crouches mortgaged their home to but a debunk TV station. Now they own satellites that beam the word into every nation on earth and they are certainly not alone. Christianity is the only theology present in every single nation on earth. Bill Graham circled the world and spoke to the largest crowds ever assembled (for any reason I believe). What more can you demand? How much is enough?

Why would God tell Christians to give food to hungry people, but refuse to give food to millions of people who died from starvation?

Once again a false optimization. Your rational would result in God creating a world free from any negativity, free will, and devoid of anything consistent with his purpose. He does not intend sin to not cost dearly. We are too stubborn and this post of yours is a perfect example for anything less than massive suffering to reach us and most are too stubborn for even that.

None of that makes any sense unless the God of the Bible does not exist.

I am not sure that what you agree with (being a fallible and finite mind currently hostile to God) is the standard.

In your opinion, what mainly prevents non-Christians who know a lot about the Bible from accepting it?

You will not like this but for me and the hundreds of others I have read from or talked to or heard them speak on it. It is a lack of wanting to be eternally accountable, the lust to be our own master, the lack of desire for moral restraint is areas we wish to operate within, the desire to go along with the crowd, the natural enmity towards God that was present at our birth and permeates the fallen world, ignorance concerning God even for those familiar with the Bible, and pride. You may not understand why I say pride. Men love to be masters of their own life (the song I did it my way is an example), we like to think we can overcome it all by our own wits and power, and we love to be beholden to nothing. I was the same way and it caused me to attack every one who had faith I knew (in debate). I literally had to have life knock the wind out of my before I would even listen and I was raised in church. You do not realize it until you are born again but the natural man does not want God. "The carnal mind is enmity against God"—Romans 8:7. See this famous sermon by the legendary Spurgeon for additional info.
The Carnal Mind Enmity Against God That man could and has debated everything and everyone into submission he faced.

 

[1robin]

Reread my post 1robin, you did not understand what was said to you.

The conceptual understanding of mortals does not and can never know or describe the reality represented by such concepts as God, Allah, Brahman, etc.. Iow, concepts have no reality except as mental constructs representing reality, but they are not that reality. Iow, the reality represented by the concept of God is unknowable by the mortal mind, only the concept is knowable, and the resultant conceptual understanding is merely a symbolic representation of THAT which beyond the ken of the conceptual mind.

Now since it appears you do not have the prerequisite understanding to understand what is being conveyed to you, there is nothing else that needs to be said at this time.

That is not a effectual point. While I can't know how God created the Universe I can know he claims to have done so. I can't know how he healed blindness though I can know evidence exists that indicate he did. I may not know how God reconciled me to him based on Christ's merits and actions but in that case I know he did. I have no need to fully understand any God to know what I must do, which one exists, or everything about him I have necessity to know. I know the Biblical God exists because I experienced him, I know Christ exists because it is on the basis of his actions I experienced God. I do not believe any other God exists based on the merit of the claims that they do. What additional needs do I have?

 

[1robin]

What is necessary about "god" in knowing that it is "moral" to respect the dignity and rights of others? To assume you need a god, IMO, is to think either inexplicably low of yourself, in that you need a hand to hold and guide you, or inexplicably high of yourself, in that your way is the only proper way. No one actually needs a god, book, or religion to tell them how to be a good person, and in many instances those with this god, book, and religion are often some of the most immoral people you'll ever find. And of course there is the whole assumption that your god exists to begin with.

Your are still confusing the epistemological with the ontological. If only a good atheist and a good Christian exists then it would not be so important. But in a world that has atheist who believe like Dawkin's that: What is to prevent us from saying Hitler was not right without God? Then it gets very important as to what ground morality. Is it the heard mentality of evolution or as Hitler used evolution to further race supremacy? Is morality an illusion as the atheist philosopher of science claims? On what basis outside objective moral fact can we ask our sons to die to stop a Stalin from killing his people? It is the godless liberal community that argues for the "sacred right" to kill almost a billion unborn children but who also insists capitol punishment is wrong. That moral insanity comes from morality being untethered from it's objective foundation. The only objective foundation possible is God. Once the foundation is denied morality becomes un-rooted on objectivity and just kind of floats around rooted in nothing beyond opinion. Who's opinion? Stalin's, Pol Pot's, Mao's, yours, Mother Theresa's, or Obama's? As long as opinion agrees with the objective (as in the case you make) it is not so bad but it has cost us a billion unborn children (one might have cured cancer), led the atheist Stalin to kill 20 million, and is morally destroying the nation Lincoln called the last best hope for man. That is sort of why it matters what the foundation are. Here is the academic argument.

1. It is impossible for objective morality to exist without a transcendent standard.
2. Transcendent standards only exist if God does.
3. If you agree that just one action is wrong in absolute terms then objective morals exist.
4. Therefor God must exist.

What do good, bad, or evil even mean without God?
Prove killing all life we know of is actually wrong without God.
Why is human flourishing good when that means killing countless other life forms?
Why is cow flourishing at our expense not good?
That is speciesm not morality.

Foundations matter.

 

[McBell]

Just based on probability alone I would bet that I have spent at least twice as much time researching Islam than you have.

Interesting that you can spend so much more time researching something and still be so glaring wrong.

Makes one wonder how you define "research"...

That is a pretty safe bet when those that claim inaccuracy do not do the slightest thing to show it actually is. The only possibility that exists for inaccuracy in my statements you posted is of degree. I was not intending to illustrate in exhaustive detailed research, salvation in Islam and abbreviated in the extreme to only indicate difference in character. Until you bother to post the slightest evidence that my claim is inaccurate it stands. The point was and is an absolute fact that in Islam works play a very significant role in salvation and in Christianity they play none.

I gotta admit, you are quite talented at using tons of words to say so little.

 

[Muffled]

It's misleading to argue that Adams was a Christian, therefore he would have supported the notion this is a Christian nation. Adams believed strongly in separation of church and state.

I wonder if he realized that swearing on a book of laws was what I believe to be absolutely worthless because it doesn't have the weight of a vow before God. Certainly he knows as a Christian that making an oath is only as good as a person's belief that God will hold him to it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your are still confusing the epistemological with the ontological. If only a good atheist and a good Christian exists then it would not be so important. But in a world that has atheist who believe like Dawkin's that: What is to prevent us from saying Hitler was not right without God?

For one, many atheists do not like Dawkins, and for two only an idiot would actually claim Hitler was right, with out without belief in god.

I wonder if he realized that swearing on a book of laws was what I believe to be absolutely worthless because it doesn't have the weight of a vow before God. Certainly he knows as a Christian that making an oath is only as good as a person's belief that God will hold him to it.

Do you realize that he wouldn't have cared what you thought about it? Why does it have to be god? Since when has upholding your own personal honor and integrity not been enough?

1. It is impossible for objective morality to exist without a transcendent standard.
2. Transcendent standards only exist if God does.
3. If you agree that just one action is wrong in absolute terms then objective morals exist.
4. Therefor God must exist.

For one, it is impossible for this so-called objective morality to exist because morals are not universal.

 

[1robin]

Interesting that you can spend so much more time researching something and still be so glaring wrong.

I like un-ignoring you from time to time for entertainment purposes.

1. My claims stated probably and that I think. They were not intended to be statements of known fact purposefully.
2. Even if I am wrong you have not the slightest way to know it.
3. You have no way of knowing that I do not have a Phd in Islam or comparative religion so your claims are the wrong ones. Not only that stating to know what you can't possibly know is intellectually dishonest.

Makes one wonder how you define "research"...

No it doesn't.

I gotta admit, you are quite talented at using tons of words to say so little.

I admit there was only one paragraph there. You also used no words to even attempt to show what you claim so what little words you did use produced hypocrisy.
Opinion based commentary is not an argument. This was not even entertaining I may have to question the first claim I made.

 

[McBell]

I wonder if he realized that swearing on a book of laws was what I believe to be absolutely worthless because it doesn't have the weight of a vow before God. Certainly he knows as a Christian that making an oath is only as good as a person's belief that God will hold him to it.

Seems to me that makeing an oath on the law is actually more convincing if we follow your logic.

 

[McBell]

I like un-ignoring you from time to time for entertainment purposes.

1. My claims stated probably and that I think. They were not intended to be statements of known fact purposefully.
2. Even if I am wrong you have not the slightest way to know it.
3. You have no way of knowing that I do not have a Phd in Islam or comparative religion so your claims are the wrong ones. Not only that stating to know what you can't possibly know is intellectually dishonest.

No it doesn't.



I admit there was only one paragraph there. You also used no words to even attempt to show what you claim so what little words you did use produced hypocrisy.
Opinion based commentary is not an argument. This was not even entertaining I may have to question the first claim I made.

It is utterly amazing how much you can pat yourself on your back and not wrench your shoulder out of socket.

Are you by chance double jointed?

 

[1robin]

For one, many atheists do not like Dawkins, and for two only an idiot would actually claim Hitler was right, with out without belief in god.

That was not the point. The point was that Dawkin's was right. I watch dozens of atheist debate morality in thousands of hours of debate. I am only aware of one that does not conceded the point that without God objective morals do not exist and he (Harris) admits he simply assumes they do. The point was that there exists nothing within evolution, atheism, or non-theism that can demonstrate Hitler was not right. I do agree that most atheists would think he was wrong, but there is nothing within atheism to prove he was wrong. If the biblical God exists Hitler was and can be shown to be absolutely wrong.

Do you realize that he wouldn't have cared what you thought about it? Why does it have to be god? Since when has upholding your own personal honor and integrity not been enough?

What is honorable without God? What you believe? What I believe? What Genghis Kahn believed? We are adrift in a sea of moral ambiguity without the objective.

For one, it is impossible for this so-called objective morality to exist because morals are not universal.

You do not know this. You only know that the adoption of morality is not universal. Though it does have a almost universality concerning core values but my argument has no burden in that context. Murder may be wrong even if no-one believed it was.

 

[McBell]

You do not know this. You only know that the adoption of morality is not universal. Though it does have a almost universality concerning core values but my argument has no burden in that context. Murder may be wrong even if no-one believed it was.

Please present an absolute morality.

 

[Agnostic75]

How do you know [that God withholds evidence]?

Common sense since there is no way that you will claim that God is not able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him.

The Bible records thousands of instances where people refused faith based on overwhelming evidence.

But even if that is true, that does not mean that not any more people would accept
God if he provided them with additional evidence. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when, and where some natural disasters would occur, month, day, and year, a year in advance, surely at least some people would become Christians partly as a result of his predictions. Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of strange religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that.

The New Testament says that some people became Christians only after they saw Jesus perform miracles. John 3:2 says:

"The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

In the New International Version, the book of Acts says that even after the coming of the Holy Spirit, the disciples went about "confirming the message of his grace" by performing signs and wonders.

 

[Agnostic75]

Once again a false optimization. Your rational would result in God creating a world free from any negativity, free will, and devoid of anything consistent with his purpose. He does not intend sin to not cost dearly. We are too stubborn and this post of yours is a perfect example for anything less than massive suffering to reach us and most are too stubborn for even that.

I was not suggesting a world free of any negativity, only a world with a good deal less suffering.

What fair, worthy, and just purpose could God have had for sending Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans that he could not have achieved without doing that? What fair, worthy, and just purpose could God have for forcing innocent animals to suffer. William Lane Craig admits that at least higher animals are self-aware, and experience suffering.

Eternal suffering without parole is immoral, wrong, and unmerciful. The very brief human life span is much too short a time for humans to have to try to find the truth.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: With your permission, I will cut and paste this post to a thread on homosexuality. Even without your permission, I am allowed to post what you said without using your name. If you refuse to reply to my post, that is fine since it is apparent that you know that you are poorly prepared to debate homosexuality.

I have not the slightest Idea about the gay community in Norway. Have you researched the increase in the military budget that men on men sex caused?

There are not any good reasons to assume that that has cost Norway a good deal of money. The millions of monogamous homosexuals in the world probably compare very favorably health wise with heterosexuals since promiscuous homosexuals spread STD's far more than monogamous homosexuals do. Even if we lump all homosexuals in the U.S. together, 80% of them do not have HIV.

In the U.S., the highest risk groups by far for HIV are African American gay men, and Latino gay men. Most members of those groups who have HIV are probably going to have it whether or not they are in the military, and medical expenses would still be an issue. In the military, replacing them would be an issue, but that would be favorably offset by providing homosexuals with equal rights. Providing people with equal rights is very important.

Of course, you only use statistics as a convenience since you would still oppose homosexuality even if cures were found for all medical problems.

It is probable that certain groups of monogamous homosexuals, such as Caucasian, monogamous lesbians, have lower rates of HIV than many groups of heterosexuals, and possibly lower rates than all heterosexuals as a whole. Lesbians are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are.

Consider the following:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6210a2.htm

In 2009, an estimated 27% of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in the United States were attributed to heterosexual contact.

I will bet that the HIV rate for monogamous lesbians is much lower than that.

The leading causes of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals, are heart disease, and cancer. Heart disease is largely preventable. Cancer if often preventable, but less preventable than heart disease is.

Some experts predict that by the year 2030, which is only 17 years from now, half of Americans will be obese, and that that will add 500 million dollars to health care costs. Obesity is often preventable.

Of course, all other problems are minimal compared with the current, and future potential problem of global warming, otherwise known at AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Some experts have predicted that eventually, global warming will cause the polar ice caps to melt, which will circulate cold water throughout the world, and will eventually cause severe global cooling which might eventually kill all humans. A large part of global warming is due to raising cattle. There is no human need to eat any beef, much less lots of beef. Grains are much cheaper to grow, cheaper to buy, and much easier to digest than meat. It takes half of the calories in a steak just to digest the steak, but it only takes about 20% of the calories in some grains to digest the grains. Many cities are short of water. Growing cattle takes lots of water. In short, growing cattle is preventable.

Republicans disproportionately reject AGW.

How many people died by diseases that would not have been contracted without the practice?

Far fewer than have died from eating harmful foods, and not getting enough exercise.

What you said mainly applies only to promiscuous homosexuals, not to monogamous homosexuals. Monogamous homosexuals are not responsible for what promiscuous homosexuals do.

If you wish to discuss homosexuality in a thread on homosexuality, please let me know, but I do not believe that you are willing to do that.
I will not bother you further about homosexuality in this thread unless you wish to discuss it.

 

[1robin]

Common sense since there is no way that you will claim that God is not able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him.

I think you added a statement in brackets to the end of mine and then argued with what you added for some reason. Why? My statement meant addressed a much bigger point than what you added to it.

But even if that is true, that does not mean that not any more people would accept
God if he provided them with additional evidence. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when, and where some natural disasters would occur, month, day, and year, a year in advance, surely at least some people would become Christians partly as a result of his predictions. Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of strange religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that.

I agree and posted my own version of what you said here.

The New Testament says that some people became Christians only after they saw Jesus perform miracles. John 3:2 says:

"The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

In the New International Version, the book of Acts says that even after the coming of the Holy Spirit, the disciples went about "confirming the message of his grace" by performing signs and wonders.

Well I see a few verses here. What is the argument?

1. Miracles are given to help convince those willing to believe.
2. Miracles are not enough to convince those that will not.

 

[Awoon]

It's a shame this thread doesn't have a poll.

 

[1robin]

I was not suggesting a world free of any negativity, only a world with a good deal less suffering.

Where is this arbitrary line that you have decided is just the right amount of suffering to be consistent with God? And why did you draw that line there? That is not the logical outworking of your original claims.

What fair, worthy, and just purpose could God have had for sending Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans that he could not have achieved without doing that?

God did not send Katrina anywhere. God perfectly sustained nature in a benevolent form until we told him to screw off and that we could handle it from there. Nature was untethered from God in general. He does step in as he wishes and according to his purpose and revelation but nature normally does as it wishes.

What fair, worthy, and just purpose could God have for forcing innocent animals to suffer. William Lane Craig admits that at least higher animals are self-aware, and experience suffering.

You do not have to distinguish who is suffering. Suffering is the result of rebellion either specifically or in a passive sense. What amount is acceptable for God by you and why?

Eternal suffering without parole is immoral, wrong, and unmerciful. The very brief human life span is much too short a time for humans to have to try to find the truth.

I am pretty sure I have already rendered this moot. I do not believe in eternal suffering. Me and you both believe that people's conscience terminates when they die. However I believe for those who are saved live in eternal contentment but you believe all end. Yet the same God who provides that net gain is the one you say is bad. Don't get it.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: With your permission, I will cut and paste this post to a thread on homosexuality.

That is fine but why? I didn't say but a few marginally important things here.

Even without your permission, I am allowed to post what you said without using your name. If you refuse to reply to my post, that is fine since it is apparent that you know that you are poorly prepared to debate homosexuality.

Poor preparation is al that is required in that case. No I will not add to my current debates at this time but copy and post what you wish.

There are not any good reasons to assume that that has cost Norway a good deal of money. The millions of monogamous homosexuals in the world probably compare very favorably health wise with heterosexuals since promiscuous homosexuals spread STD's far more than monogamous homosexuals do. Even if we lump all homosexuals in the U.S. together, 80% of them do not have HIV.

Is 20% of unnecessary HIV cases ok? Let me ask you this, at what level of increased suffering is something prohibitive? What amount of money is too much to spend on an unnecessary practice that over 95% of us do not practice? You seem to just invent arbitrary thresholds as need to get what you want.

In the U.S., the highest risk groups by far for HIV are African American gay men, and Latino gay men. Most members of those groups who have HIV are probably going to have it whether or not they are in the military, and medical expenses would still be an issue. In the military, replacing them would be an issue, but that would be favorably offset by providing homosexuals with equal rights. Providing people with equal rights is very important.

Of course, you only use statistics as a convenience since you would still oppose homosexuality even if cures were found for all medical problems.

It is probable that certain groups of monogamous homosexuals, such as Caucasian, monogamous lesbians, have lower rates of HIV than many groups of heterosexuals, and possibly lower rates than all heterosexuals as a whole. Lesbians are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are.

Consider the following:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6210a2.htm



I will bet that the HIV rate for monogamous lesbians is much lower than that.

The leading causes of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals, are heart disease, and cancer. Heart disease is largely preventable. Cancer if often preventable, but less preventable than heart disease is.

Some experts predict that by the year 2030, which is only 17 years from now, half of Americans will be obese, and that that will add 500 million dollars to health care costs. Obesity is often preventable.

Of course, all other problems are minimal compared with the current, and future potential problem of global warming, otherwise known at AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Some experts have predicted that eventually, global warming will cause the polar ice caps to melt, which will circulate cold water throughout the world, and will eventually cause severe global cooling which might eventually kill all humans. A large part of global warming is due to raising cattle. There is no human need to eat any beef, much less lots of beef. Grains are much cheaper to grow, cheaper to buy, and much easier to digest than meat. It takes half of the calories in a steak just to digest the steak, but it only takes about 20% of the calories in some grains to digest the grains. Many cities are short of water. Growing cattle takes lots of water. In short, growing cattle is preventable.

Republicans disproportionately reject AGW.

None of this is a response to me that I can tell.

Far fewer than have died from eating harmful foods, and not getting enough exercise.

Is something ok because something else is worse? I have already stated several times that gluttony is as morally wrong as homosexuality (or as we discuss it, produces unjustified suffering and is wrong).

What you said mainly applies only to promiscuous homosexuals, not to monogamous homosexuals. Monogamous homosexuals are not responsible for what promiscuous homosexuals do.

When you can guarantee that only monogamous homosexuality will be practiced that might matter. I have addressed this many times as well. No wonder your posts are so long, half of them are redundant.

If you wish to discuss homosexuality in a thread on homosexuality, please let me know, but I do not believe that you are willing to do that.
I will not bother you further about homosexuality in this thread unless you wish to discuss it.

I would only be interested in that when the issues I like are dead, unlike now. I do not even want to discuss that here.