Dark Moth

Why, thanks. Jerk. (j/k) And that was no threat. It was a promise.

Thanks, julian. I'm flattered. No really, I am. :"> I guess the only thing left is for me to return the favor. Oh, and trust me, the internet corrupted me long before you did.

Oooooh-aaaaaah. "

I love you.

Drawn Together

I still like the eye-patch teddy bear best.

Where was this? EDIT: Nevermind. But why the heck does it always have to take place many years after the predecessor? Sheesh, all the original characters will be old by then.

Pac Man. : )

I found this a little interesting, if not a little disturbing. http://channels.netscape.com/whatsnew/defa...y=20060318-0700

I wanna watch you bleed! \,,,/

I didn't mean that. I meant that one sexual orientation may be more predisposed to that sort of thing with the other. A priest spends much of his life around other men, and in many cases alone with other men. If a priest does not feel any sexual attraction toward males, he'd be less likely to have sex with them. And yes, I'm well aware that heterosexuals do in many cases have intercourse with those of the same sex (ex. prisons), which comes mostly out of sexual starvation. But my only point is that you'd have a greater chance of that (abusing members of your own sex) happening with one orientation than another.

It's common knowledge.

Making it is just as wonderful.

They do advocate chastity. For one thing, I can't really speak for Catholics, since I am Protestant (woo-hoo!). But one reason why they might oppose homosexual priests is probably the same reason boy scouts would oppose gay scout troops. Not necessarily out of homophobia, but out of safety. Imagine this: you have a male priest who has taken a vow of chastity. Sex is a part of human nature that, like any other part, starts to really get to you once you go without for a long time. Then say that this priest was homosexual. A priest who spends much of his life around other men AND young boys. The chances of a homosexual priest abusing a young boy would be greater than that of a heterosexual priest abusing a young boy.

No, I got LL's funny. I think Muso missed my point.

Oh, I don't think I didn't get the funny that you didn't think that I thought I didn't get.

Maybe I'll do a review of julianw. I was going to do one before until I lost all motivation for it. (when TOMBS was starting to lapse into stagnation)

So wait meta, are you saying that blacks are still repressed in the USA, and still do not have equal rights? Um, Llyranor, abusing a minor of any sex is frowned upon in most cultures and religions.

Age of Empires 1 Sim City 3000 deluxe (I notice there's not a lot of Sim City players here) Diablo 1 Starcraft: Brood War Rollercoaster Tycoon

I'll go with C.

About Gray's post that one can't be homosexual and be a Christian, or course that's not true. I mean, Jesus ate with the "sinners", blessed a prostitute, and ensured a convicted criminal entrance into heaven. Of course one can be homosexual and still be a Christian. From the Biblical viewpoint, we're all "sinners". One type of sin won't make you better or worse than anyone else in God's eyes. And it does say in the Bible "Don't judge others, or you too will be judged." -Mathew 7:1

Audioslave - Show me how to Live

There are plenty of places to serve God and spread the Gospel. These boards are not one of them. Sure, I thought people were unfair in the way they jumped on him at first, but these boards are not the place for that sort of thing. And his response to everyone else was just way out of line. The best way one can hope to spread Christianity through these forums is merely by setting an example, nothing more. And certainly not by going "paladin" on the "infidels".

Yup. I thought that one was funny. Giant John Wilkes Boothe for the win.

And of course, the essentials: