Author Topic: Religion (Potentially sensitive)  (Read 33127 times)

The Jade Knight

  • Moderator
  • Level 39
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Lord of the Absent-Minded
    • View Profile
    • Don't go here
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #60 on: January 25, 2007, 04:34:43 AM »
So, regarding the religious implications of homosexuality, we have to ask ourselves two questions:

What is the purpose of sexual love in human life?  [note:  if it's not sexual, I don't consider it homosexuality.  I'll leave the definition of "sexual" up to you, however]

What is the purpose of religion?
"Never argue with a fool; they'll bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

Armadius

  • Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Bloptch.
    • View Profile
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #61 on: January 25, 2007, 06:34:21 AM »
(Please forgive me if this is poorly phrased; I'm both sick and exhausted, a combination which never lends itself to lucidity.)

Okay, I know I said I wouldn't be responding anymore, but it seems some people really want to hear more. I'm not going to address the points about overpopulation, energy usage, or AIDS; I absolutely laothe discussions that get down to facts and figures. On top of that, both are topics which I find to be even more controversial in many ways than homosexuality is. My feelings on the way all three are handled are very strong, and I don't think the discussion would remain civil for much longer, were we to continue debating them. I have much more to say, but I'd rather not say it. I think there's a mutual understanding that I believe most (if not all) of you are wrong, and you probably feel the same way about me; let's just leave it at that.  This thread started as a question about morality, and I'd rather have it steered back that way.

That said, I'll address the on-topic points that have been made.  Also, please keep in mind that I'm using "homosexuality" with the blanket meaning it has adopted; I do not mean to limit my statement exclusively to either sexuality or emotions, unless otherwise noted.

Robert_Boyd - I agree entirely on the genetics/singing analogy. People are born with an inclination towards a certain sexuality, be it bi-, hetero-, or homo-. This can be denied or ignored, and thus not developed or further discovered. For example, had I not bothered considering my sexuality more closely, I may very well never have taken notice of the fact that I'm gay, or how this affects me. Similarly, because I did make that examination, I've developed to the point where I can make very confident statements about my orientation and how it affects me. But keep in mind, just as an innately talented singer cannot reasonably turn a good voice into a bad one, a gay man cannot simply erase the homosexual leanings he has. At best, a singer can allow his/her voice to fall into disrepair; in the same way, a gay man can at most ignore his sexuality to the point where it is neither practiced nor explored.

I disagree, though, with the insinuation that love can be forced. This is something that, again, is unable to be proved by science, due to the highly subjective nature of emotions, but it's my belief that love cannot be forced. Encouraged, perhaps, but it's not something that can be made to exist. I admit I'm relatively inexperienced in this area, having been in love only once before and that for a very brief period of time, but I don't think the extreme emotional connection I established with the boy I loved was forced, nor could it ever have been. It existed from the beginning, but was just undiscovered for a while. Performing acts of love can help reveal this connection. The story you reference is most likely a similar situation, in my opinion; the man did not love his wife because the connection he had with her had lain dormant for so long that he lost track of it. It existed from the beginning, but was somehow obscured. Far be it from me to second guess somebody's personal experience, but that's my interpretation. I don't think it's possible to fall in love with just anybody. That's not to say I endorse the "soul mate" theory, but I believe there are intrinsicly stronger connections between some people than between others.

And you've actually touched on one of the main things that perplexes me about this whole issue. Homosexual urges are there for a reason - yes, it's true that we can opt to act on them or opt not to, but they are present either way. If you believe homosexuality is not a choice, then I can't quite make sense of this - the God you've placed such faith in sees fit to instill homosexual urges in somebody, but these urges are less fit to act upon the heterosexual urges. Would anybody care to explain?

Sigyn - I shudder to think what kind of response this will provoke, but I'm a bit hazy on the history regarding one more issue I'd like to ask about. What, exactly, happened to so sharply reverse the pro-polygamy views your church once had?

Precious-jules - The story you've told about your brother could be another example of how experiences during developmental phases of life can heavily affect sexuality. If your brother admits that he never had any natural homosexual urges, it's probably true. The fact that he needed to perform homosexual acts to satisfy an addiction could very easily muddle the already complicated issue of sexuality. This is another situation where it's important to distinguish between sexuality and love, though - I'm willing to bet your brother has never nor would ever fall in love with another man.

The Jade Knight - Both of your posts will be addressed in another post in this thread. My mind isn't working clearly enough right now to give them the thought they deserve. Check back some time tomorrow.

SaintEhlers - I think the dicussion did stray very much from its original subject. I asked about Mormonism, and we wound up debating AIDS and overpopulation. The two are not the same.

Hauf - This is a big debate I've had many times before. We can have it somewhere else if you want (another thread or personal messages), but to sum up my views on it...

Peace and joy come from mastering the flesh. This is true, but I mean it in an entirely different sense. I believe sexuality exists within people not only for reproductive purposes. Sex is a pleasurable, joyous, and in many ways peaceful act which is practiced for more purpose than just to conceive a child. This strays dangerously close to justifying promiscuity (which I am not doing), but mastery of all aspects of humanity is what leads to ultimate peace, joy, and happiness. It involves celebrating both the fact that we have pleasurable physical urges and abilities, and also the fact that we have the capacity to control them (to a certain degree) if we so desire.

Ookla - I am still reading. You can thank Hauf for dragging me back.

Dawncawley - I'm glad this is pleasing to you. I hate uncivil discussions as much as all of you do; I appreciate the lack of conversion attempts and blatant "you're wrong" statements very profoundly. You're all making me dislike Mormonism much less than I did before I came here.

Also, Hauf, thanks very much for the book recommendation. That looks very interesting, and I'll try to find a copy at Barnes & Noble when I next stop by.

There we go. My head is spinning like a dreidel. I hope at least some of this made sense; I'll edit tomorrow if necessary.
"Beauty is a form of Genius - is higher, indeed, than Genius, as it needs no explanation. It is of the great facts of our world, like sunlight, or springtime, or the reflection in dark waters of that silver shell we call the moon. It cannot be questioned." - Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

The Jade Knight

  • Moderator
  • Level 39
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Lord of the Absent-Minded
    • View Profile
    • Don't go here
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #62 on: January 25, 2007, 09:40:10 AM »
A quick note:  Non-sexual homosexuality was not recognized as having existed in most historical cultures, as far as records are able to ascertain.  Homosexuality was sexual.  No one cared how men felt about eachother, just whether or not they acted homosexually.

So, for your responses to me, please keep this perspective in mind.  In addition, modern readers, in reading ancient accounts of same-gender (non-homosexual) affection, are likely to entirely mistake affection in other ages (I remember a Wikipedia article which contained such confusion)…
"Never argue with a fool; they'll bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

42

  • RPG Editors
  • Level 56
  • *
  • Posts: 4350
  • Fell Points: 8
  • Unofficial World Saver
    • View Profile
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #63 on: January 25, 2007, 04:26:30 PM »
Though I will probably regret this later, I feel like taking a shot at the whole "What is the purpose of religion?" question. According to many anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists, the purpose of religion is said to be providing hope to people. The theory is that there are numerous aspects of human existence that are likely to never be answered by science. Things like what happens to people when they die or what is the purpose of life type questions. The philosophical basis for science is not really designed to address those sort of issues because they deal with intangible and unmeasurable aspects of life. Not that there aren't scientist who do try to answer those questions. Psychologists (Jung and Freud being good examples) have tried to answer these sorts of issues. Course, Jung is often written off as being a mystic by many contemporary psychologists, and Freud is perhaps the most debunked psychologists of all time (most of their theories simply cannot be scientifically proven).

There is the branch of psychology, called existential psychology, that attempts to address issues such as death and giving meaning to life. Again, it deals with non-scientific methods to answer these questions. However, it has taught a lot of behavioral scientists that having strong religious beliefs are a part of human existence.

From my own experience working with people with mental illnesses and from the testimonies of many social workers and therapits: people with mental illnesses that are not religious do not get better. That may not be completely reliable, but it does seem that non-religious people have more mental health problems and they recover from those problems much more slowly if they recover at all.

So there seems to be a lot a logic in say that religion is about hope. Course there is also a lot of debate about the role of organized religion versus individual practice.
The Folly of youth is to think that intelligence is a subsitute for experience. The folly of age is to think that experience is a subsitute for intelligence.

The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers

  • Administrator
  • Level 96
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Fell Points: 17
  • monkeys? yes.
    • View Profile
    • herb's world
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #64 on: January 25, 2007, 04:53:25 PM »
I think, Armadius, you have a very fuzzy definition of "being in love" versus "loving" someone. You can most certainly choose to love someone. Based on personal experience, I honestly don't think that "being in love" is any sort of state other than that which comes from loving and caring for someone (ie the state arises from the action) . And any emotion that was based on a non-willing response has always been weaker than the love I have chosen to bestow. This holds true for all of the loving relationships I have: my brothers and sister, my parents, grandparents, my wife, my kids, my ex-girlfriends, infatuations, etc.

So... that I can further understand your position, please explain to me what you mean when you say things like "being in love" or "falling in love." Or even what love is.

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #65 on: January 25, 2007, 08:51:38 PM »
Quote
I'm not going to address the points about overpopulation, energy usage, or AIDS; I absolutely loathe discussions that get down to facts and figures.
Frankly, so do I, but there comes a point in a discussion at which if you are unable to back up your claims, it makes them pretty much meaningless. If all we do is say "X is the truth," "No, X is false, Y is the truth," "Nuh-uh, X is the truth and I know I'm right!" then there's no point in discussing at all. And unless I'm mistaken, you brought up energy and overpopulation first.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2007, 08:56:52 PM by Ookla The Mok »
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

Sigyn

  • Level 15
  • *
  • Posts: 717
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Nonononono
    • View Profile
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #66 on: January 25, 2007, 10:03:29 PM »
Woo hoo!  Let's talk about polygamy!

A lot of LDS people hate this subject.  I bring it up with my sister whenever I want to make her mad. Historically, this is polygamy in brief.

Polygamy started during Joseph Smith's (our first latter-day prophet) time.  Exactly when is hazy and to what extent is also hazy. Records aren't clear.  It didn't come to it's codified form until Brigham Young and the move to Utah (1847). Opinions vary on how many people actually practiced polygamy. I've heard anything from 3% to 90%. All I know is that all of my ancestors who were church members and alive at this time (meaning the second half of the 19th century) were polygamists. The US government passed a law outlawing polygamy and even co-habitation (so people couldn't just live together in polygamous relationships even if they weren't legally married). They started enforcing this in the 1860s after the Civil War. Civil rights were suspended for anyone who practiced polygamy or even believed in it. Mormons weren't allowed to sit on juries or vote. Women were forced to testify against their husbands. All church property was confiscated by the federal government.

It was pretty harsh. The men were either arrested or forced into hiding and many of the women also went into hiding to avoid having to testify against their husbands. This went on until 1890 when Wilford Woodruff, then president of the church, received a revelation that the church members had done enough and it wasn't in God's plan for the church to continue on when it would mean losing everything they had built so far. The exact revelation is in our Doctrine and Covenants, but I'm terrible at hyperlinks, so if someone else could put in a link to this I would be hugely grateful.

A lot of people had sacrificed for polygamy and had a lot of trouble with having to give it up. Several groups broke off from the Church, forming the various fundamentalist groups that are so prevalent in southern Utah. Others thought that polygamy was just stopped in the US and still practiced it in Mexico and Canada. The last church approved polygamous marriage happened around 1910. After that, it was clearly stated that the church was to stop all polygamous marriages (though those already made still stayed intact). One of our apostles was excommunicated because he wouldn't stop performing polygamous marriages.

At this point, if a church member practices polygamy, he or she is excommunicated.  It's pretty simple. The issue can be muddied for some people because some people outside of the LDS church still think of fundamentalists as being part of the LDS church.  They aren't.

That's probably more than you wanted to know, but if you do want more, just ask.
If I had any clue, would I be here?

Skar

  • Moderator
  • Level 54
  • *****
  • Posts: 3979
  • Fell Points: 7
    • View Profile
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #67 on: January 25, 2007, 10:43:40 PM »
Quote
And you've actually touched on one of the main things that perplexes me about this whole issue. Homosexual urges are there for a reason - yes, it's true that we can opt to act on them or opt not to, but they are present either way. If you believe homosexuality is not a choice, then I can't quite make sense of this - the God you've placed such faith in sees fit to instill homosexual urges in somebody, but these urges are less fit to act upon the heterosexual urges. Would anybody care to explain?

I'll give it a shot.

Point one, the LDS church cannot be categorized as believing that "homosexuality is not a choice." Whether it's one way or the other is not a matter of doctrine.  In the end, I don't think it matters.

So, the root question you seem to be asking is really, Why would God give us urges that are not fit to act on?  The answer is, very simply, so we can learn to control them.  The question applies to all urges, whether they be physical, mental, or spiritual.  We must learn to control our responses to these urges so that we can truly have the power of choice over them. 

An ideal example of this is smoking.  Smoking is addictive.  If you never give in to peer pressure, or whatever is urging you to smoke, your choices remain open.  You have no trouble not smoking but you could also start tomorrow if you wanted.  If you do get addicted, your choices become more difficult.  You can easily choose to smoke, but not smoking isn't easy anymore.

Our lives are not so ideal, obviously. One chooses to smoke in the first place but nobody chooses to want to steal.  We're all, probably, born with urges to act in ways that God has forbidden.  These could be anything from the urge to punch rude people in the nose to feelings of sexual love for members of the same sex.  We don't all have the same urges.  In mormonism we believe that God has given each of us challenges in this life that are precisely designed to teach us what we need to know before moving on to the next. 

I myself have some trouble seeing how this plays out.  What exactly do children born into physically abusive homes have to learn from that?  I don't know. 

But, the principle is a sound one.  Our challenges teach us things as we work through them.  And I don't think that someone who acts on urges in ways that I happen to think God has forbidden is just blowing it either.  From what you've said, you've learned a lot from working with your homosexual urges and your discourse in this thread shows that you are, at the least, far more mature than most of the 16 year olds I have known.  Which brings us back to the concept that Brandon introduced.  That each of us will be judged according to our understanding of the truth.   

Far be it from me to decide what another person is supposed to learn from their life.  I have enough trouble with my own.
"Skar is the kind of bird who, when you try to kill him with a stone, uses it, and the other bird, to take vengeance on you in a swirling melee of death."

-Fellfrosch

Armadius

  • Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Bloptch.
    • View Profile
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #68 on: January 25, 2007, 11:56:14 PM »
The Jade Knight - Sorry this is taking so long, but it may have to wait until tomorrow. I've got oodles of homework tonight, and I just have time for a quick post right now.

SaintEhlers - You ask a very, very, very complicated question. It's not really something I can put into words, and my guess is that my view of the whole matter is entirely different than yours. I consider love to be an entirely different feeling than any other; romantic love is a sort of emotional closeness that isn't achievable with any relationship other than that between romantic partners. It's possible to love friends, but I consider this to be a different connection as well; as I said earlier, I love some of my friends, but I'm not in love with them. Being in love is having found this connection; falling in love is the process of discovering it. Again, it's hard to explain because love is such a wholly subjective concept. I hope that helps.

Ookla - You're mistaken. The Lost 24 raised these issues; I just responded to them. Regardless, I'd still rather not debate them.

Sigyn - That's actually exactly what I was looking for. Thanks a lot. If there's more you feel like adding, I'd be happy to hear it.

Skar - I can respect this view, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. I still don't think there is much logic behind it. After all, what I've gained so far from my experiences has been gleaned by accepting the orientation with which I was born, not by denying it. I think that denying something that is so central to who I am would only lead to an unhealthy lack of self-understanding and a discomfort with myself. There is certainly something to be gained from homosexuality, but it's something entirely different than you're suggesting. And thanks again for the compliment.
"Beauty is a form of Genius - is higher, indeed, than Genius, as it needs no explanation. It is of the great facts of our world, like sunlight, or springtime, or the reflection in dark waters of that silver shell we call the moon. It cannot be questioned." - Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #69 on: January 26, 2007, 12:53:02 AM »
Ookla - You're mistaken. The Lost 24 raised these issues; I just responded to them. Regardless, I'd still rather not debate them.
No, he did not. The Lost 24 said homosexuality did not contribute toward maintaining population. You are the one who brought up overpopulation, and you were the first one to say anything at all about energy in this thread. Please don't bring things up if you don't want to talk about them.

This thread was better when there were direct responses with a better post ratio. When too many unanswered posts piled up, the thoroughness of the eventual replies took a major nosedive. Of course you have been otherwise engaged and battling illness, but at times a partial, cursory response can come off as less satisfying than no response.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2007, 01:07:43 AM by Ookla The Mok »
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

HornedToad

  • Level 1
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #70 on: January 26, 2007, 01:01:03 AM »
2)  Logic.

I don't like to talk ill about other religions.  To be honest, there are wonderful things in each and every religion I've studied--and, as a writer, I like to read about religions and learn about their teachings.  Also, as I said above, I don't think you can prove religion with arguments.  Only God can prove whether a religion is true or not.

However, there are some things, logically, about Mormonism that just make SENSE to me.  I served a mission for the Church, and during that mission, I taught about what I believed.  There were several questions that people would ask that I haven't found sufficient answers to in any other Christian religion.  Two of the biggest of these were:

1)  How can you believe in God when there is so much suffering in the world.
2)  What about all the people who aren't of your religion?  They go to hell because they happened to live at the wrong time, when there were no missionaries to teach them?

Question Two:

LDS doctrine is one of the only world religion which includes serious, powerful provisions for the benefit of those who never learn of Christ. 


I'd just like to mention that Christianity also has reasonable answers to both of those questions also.  There is not necessary *accepted* Church doctrine for all of Christianity, but there is definitely *potential* answers to those individual questions, specifically in the apologetical circles.

1a.  This is the typical problem of evil question.  If we are not talking about natural evil(i.e. natural disasters), then the common view is that there must be a great enough Good to justify all the evil that is in the world.  Typically that is viewed as mankind's free will.  Because God is allowing Man free will for both good and evil, the benefits of that free will and all the acts of love, kindness, selflessness, friendship, community etc. outweigh the negative effect of giving Man the free will to engage in evil.

1b.  Natural evil is a harder question and less clear cut, but the typical answer to that also generally involves free will and God giving us dominion over the earth.  I won't dwell on this since it is typically less argued.

2.  I would think/hope that most educated Christians do not simply say that because missionaries never preached to the Native Americans for thousands of years then all of those Native Americans were destined to hell.  There are several possible solutions to this problem that are discussed, one is counterfacturals as you mentioned: if someone WOULD have accepted the gospel.  Other possibilities include judging people on what they did know and feel and how they acted.  Perhaps people felt the higher power of God and felt in touch with it, or acted in community and kindness with their fellow man, or what have you and so the argument is that for their specific understanding of God and the world that they acted in a godly or good manner.  There are other possibilities here also, there is no specific one espoused by the Christian Church simply because the answer cannot be known but these were some of the more well known arguments. 

All that said, I definitely agree with your opinions on Experience, Logic, and Feelings as being conducive to faith and it was interesting to read your posts and beliefs.

Thanks.




Archon

  • Level 27
  • *
  • Posts: 1487
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Master of Newbie Smackdown
    • View Profile
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #71 on: January 26, 2007, 02:25:05 AM »
To be fair, Ookla, there are many of you, and only one of Armadius. I understand that it is frustrating to bring up a point, and not have it be addressed, but it is also frustrating to have your viewpoint dragged down by the sheer number of points that you have to address.
It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. -Andre Gide
In the depth of winter, I finally discovered that within me there lay an invincible summer. -Albert Camus

Armadius

  • Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Bloptch.
    • View Profile
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #72 on: January 26, 2007, 04:04:02 AM »
Ookla - Fine, I did bring up overpopulation and energy, but they were in a direct response to one of The Lost 24's comments. I'd rather not discuss them further in this thread because it derails the conversation; the topic is not about overpopulation nor the energy crisis. I'd rather keep it brief than allow the conversation to completely change topic.

Thank you, Archon. You're entirely correct. Ookla, responding to so many comments from people who all disagree with me is very far from easy. I'm giving the best responses I can with my limited timeframe; as you say, I've been otherwise occupied. My schedule is exceedingly busy, and this is hardly a top priority for me. And frankly, if you don't like the quality of my posts anymore, then stop reading them. Your complaints aren't going to affect the way I'm handling this, and they just clutter a conversation which, as you've so rudely pointed out, is already becoming too convoluted.

Jade Knight - I'm still working on it. You'll have to wait until tomorrow; I have an important geometry project to complete tonight, on top of a handful of other random assignments. Again, I apologize.
"Beauty is a form of Genius - is higher, indeed, than Genius, as it needs no explanation. It is of the great facts of our world, like sunlight, or springtime, or the reflection in dark waters of that silver shell we call the moon. It cannot be questioned." - Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

The Jade Knight

  • Moderator
  • Level 39
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Lord of the Absent-Minded
    • View Profile
    • Don't go here
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #73 on: January 26, 2007, 04:42:54 AM »
2.  I would think/hope that most educated Christians do not simply say that because missionaries never preached to the Native Americans for thousands of years then all of those Native Americans were destined to hell. 

And yet this was the Catholic Church's official doctrine for centuries (that is, any human who was not baptized during their life would go irredeemably to hell.  This included infants who died in childbirth).


Addendum:  Technically, it was their official "dogma"; being something that was considered a "non-negiotiable."  It was baptism in the Church, or hell.  Clerical strikes during the Middle Ages were devastating among the peasants, and thus very effective, for this reason.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2007, 04:59:57 AM by Lé C'valyi d'Jade »
"Never argue with a fool; they'll bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: For Brandon - Religion (Potentially sensitive)
« Reply #74 on: January 26, 2007, 05:06:56 AM »
Quote
To be fair, Ookla, there are many of you, and only one of Armadius. I understand that it is frustrating to bring up a point, and not have it be addressed, but it is also frustrating to have your viewpoint dragged down by the sheer number of points that you have to address.
It was the sheer number of those posts which led me to my previous post about preaching to the choir. If people had posted less overwhelmingly in Armadius' absence, then we might have had a more balanced and satisfying conversation. :)

Armadius, if you think I'm so rude, then you are also welcome to stop reading my posts.

I apologize for cluttering up everyone's thread.
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!