Christian Men Buy 22% of Playboy Magazines
SatanSpeaks
THE GATES OF HELL BY MICKEY MYSTRO
Mickey: Good morning, Satan.
Satan: Good morning, Mickey.
Mickey: Today I would like to ask you about God's opinion of sexual
sin. First of all, does God hate sexual sin?
Satan: Oh, yeah! It really chaps His ass! That is why Hell is plum
full of sexual sinners.
Mickey: Mostly homosexuals, right?
Satan: No. Christians preach that God hates homosexual sin. But they
ignore the fact that God also hates HETEROSEXUAL sin.
Mickey: What do you mean?
Satan: God hates adultery and lust. You see, Christians are fighting
in the courts to ban homosexual males from entering the Boy Scouts, yet
they have no problem allowing adult males who have committed lust or
adultery to act as troop leaders. In the same way, they will not
permit active homosexuals from taking leadership roles in the church,
yet they will allow men who commit lust to take leadership roles. It
is crazy! God hates ALL TYPES OF SEXUAL SIN!
Mickey: Are you trying to say that Born Again Christians commit sexual
sin?
Satan: Yes. All the time. In fact, a recent Family Times survey, 37%
of Christian men ("Born again") admitted to viewing porn within the
past 48 hours from at least one of the following sources - Internet,
Video, Magazines, or Television (including Pay-Per View.) Yet you
don't hear Christian organizations trying to forbid membership to these
perverts.
Mickey: Wow!
Satan: Yeah! And lest you think that this problem does not include
church leaders and staff, the same poll found that approximately 27% of
computers within Christian organizations (Churches included) had been
used to download or view porn from the Internet.
Mickey: You are saying that Church computers are being used to view
pornography???
Satan: Yep. Amazing, huh? Christians rally to fight pornography, yet
they are the leading viewers of pornography. CHRISTIAN MEN LOVE NAKED
CHICKS!! But they refuse to admit it. They lie to themselves and
others. For example, If all Christian men would refrain from buying
porno magazines right now, Playboy estimates that it's newsstand sales
would drop by 22% overnight. No company can sustain a long-term drop of
22% in sales. I guess that Playboy Magazine should thank God that
Christian men are so sinful!
Mickey: What are you trying to say?
Satan: The Christian church is full of sexual perverts and sinners,
yet the same church is trying to ban homosexuality. These people are
fucking idiots. They fight to exclude homosexual sinners while, at the
same time, HETEROSEXUAL sinners are making the decisions and leading
church services.
Mickey: Yes, but you are the "Father of Lies"
Satan: Check my facts. EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID IS FACTUAL. Christians
hate it when I point out the error of their ways. They call it "lies",
but in fact it is an "ugly truth." The ugly truth is this: Christian
men are perverts. And while they are fighting to eliminate homosexuals
from society, they should also be fighting to get their OWN asses
kicked out of Boy Scouts and The Church.
REPORTING LIVE FROM THE GATES OF HELL - MICKEY MYSTRO
--
See the entire archive of "Interviews With Satan" at
http://www.InterviewWithSatan.com.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
stephen.wilson109
news:8u5d1v$alb$1...@geneva.rutgers.edu...
snipped posting.
> Satan: No. Christians preach that God hates homosexual sin. But they
> ignore the fact that God also hates HETEROSEXUAL sin.
>
> Satan: God hates adultery and lust. You see, Christians are fighting
> in the courts to ban homosexual males from entering the Boy Scouts, yet
> they have no problem allowing adult males who have committed lust or
> adultery to act as troop leaders. In the same way, they will not
> permit active homosexuals from taking leadership roles in the church,
> yet they will allow men who commit lust to take leadership roles. It
> is crazy! God hates ALL TYPES OF SEXUAL SIN!
The writer is right in saying that God hates all types of sexual sin. All
sexual encounters outside of marriage are a sin. The writer has a
good point here that is worth noting by all Christian men and women.
It ought to be noted also that indulging in porn is degrading both to
the person viewed as a sexual object and the viewer as well.
The rejecting of persons as leaders for the Boy Scouts is
not primarily based on whether one is a 'sinner', but on whether
they might pose a risk to children.
> Mickey: Are you trying to say that Born Again Christians commit sexual
> sin?
>
> Satan: Yes. All the time. In fact, a recent Family Times survey, 37%
> of Christian men ("Born again") admitted to viewing porn within the
> past 48 hours from at least one of the following sources - Internet,
> Video, Magazines, or Television (including Pay-Per View.) Yet you
> don't hear Christian organizations trying to forbid membership to these
> perverts.
>
Assuming that this survey is correct it gives an indication of how
'worldly' contemporary Christianity has become. This is not
so much fault with Christianity itself as with those who practice
it today. It's a shame that so many professing Christians lack
integrity in this area.
>
> Satan: Yep. Amazing, huh? Christians rally to fight pornography, yet
> they are the leading viewers of pornography. CHRISTIAN MEN LOVE NAKED
> CHICKS!! But they refuse to admit it. They lie to themselves and
> others. For example, If all Christian men would refrain from buying
> porno magazines right now, Playboy estimates that it's newsstand sales
> would drop by 22% overnight. No company can sustain a long-term drop of
> 22% in sales. I guess that Playboy Magazine should thank God that
> Christian men are so sinful!
>
Christian men are just as attracted to the female form as other men. The
problem seems to be one of a lack of holiness, which would normally engender
a desire to resist the urge to indulge in viewing pornography. I would have
thought that most Christians would have understood that the more you indulge
in something like pornography the more the desire for it grows until
eventually you become completely enslaved by it.
> Satan: The Christian church is full of sexual perverts and sinners,
> yet the same church is trying to ban homosexuality. These people are
> fucking idiots. They fight to exclude homosexual sinners while, at the
> same time, HETEROSEXUAL sinners are making the decisions and leading
> church services.
I think anger causes the writer to overstate the case. He is
trying to tar all Christians with this slur. He makes no distinction
between people who have sexually sinned in their pre-Christian past
and turned away from it and the relatively few who are actively pursuing
sinful sexual behaviour. The fact that it's still newsworthy when a
clergyman or Church leader is exposed for sexual misdemeanours
demonstrates that it is still not that common. You can also sin sexually
without being a pervert. Homosexuality is a perversion, adultery is a
sin but is not perversion. Would it make it right if active homosexuals
were allowed to make decisions and lead Church services? Two wrongs
do not make a right. However, I agree that leaders who indulge in
extramarital sex are doing wrong and should be removed.
The writer has brought up some valid criticisms of present day Christian
men that should sting us to repentance and cause us to take the life of
holiness seriously. This is what Christianity is about. However I suspect
that the motives of the writer are not very pure. I do not think for a
moment he is concerned about the lack of integrity of Christian men,
but is gleeful that he has found such an easy target. He seems to be
using the homosexual lobby tactic of finding and highlighting an
inconsistency, usually in the area of sexual practice, and then using
that as a lever to demand that Christian teaching be loosened to accept
the homosexual life-style. The writer has not explicitly called for this
but it seems to be behind what he writes. I hope the reader
can see the danger here.
Steve Wilson
James Eli Ewing
> The rejecting of persons as leaders for the Boy Scouts is
> not primarily based on whether one is a 'sinner', but on whether
> they might pose a risk to children.
>
I find this hard to buy. Homosexuals are not any more prone to being sexual
predators than heterosexuals.
And don't forget that first, there are girls in Boy Scouts, and second, sexual
predators often feast on children equally regardless of gender preferences.
Cheers,
James
po...@aol.com
SatanSpeaks <Sa...@interviewwithsatan.com> wrote:
> THE FOLLOWING INTERVIEW WITH SATAN IS BROUGHT TO YOU EXCLUSEVELY
FROM
> THE GATES OF HELL BY MICKEY MYSTRO
[snip]
> Mickey: Today I would like to ask you about God's opinion
> of sexual sin.
Mickey must be a US newsman; otherwise, he would have gone to
the source; would you go to Hawaii to find out how cold it is
in Antarctica?
[snip]
> Christians preach that God hates homosexual sin. But they
> ignore the fact that God also hates HETEROSEXUAL sin.
Actually, God hates sin and God condemns homosexuality;
God does not condemn heterosexuality per se, but only
the abuse of heterosexuality.
> Mickey: What do you mean?
>
> Satan: God hates adultery and lust. You see, Christians
> are fighting in the courts to ban homosexual males from
> entering the Boy Scouts, yet they have no problem allowing
> adult males who have committed lust or adultery to act as
> troop leaders.
Actually, the Boy Scouts, as opposed to Christians, are fighting
in court to keep homosexuals from leading the Boy Scouts. I am
certain the Boy Scouts would not welcome a rapist, prostitute,
or pedophile as a Scout leader, either, even if they were
heterosexual. Indeed, someone who is simply a "swinger" (one who
engages in free sex) would pose a problem for a lot of organizations.
I know a man right now who is highly capable, hard working, and
dependable, but if he doesn't stop speaking his dirty mind, he is
apt to run into serious trouble with his employer. I have never met
someone who is so constantly talking about all manner of sex as he
is. I know of another person at my company who was fired for his
sexually inappropriate action, and several others who simply aren't
at work anymore, right after they downloaded a bunch of porn over
the Web. It is well-accepted at my workplace that one of the surest
ways to lose your job with that company is to spend a few days
accessing porn sites at work. My company looks the other way for
most non-business Web access (my department has said they would
allow some goofing off during slow periods), but porn viewing at
work would get us fired.
> In the same way, they will not permit active homosexuals from
> taking leadership roles in the church, yet they will allow men
> who commit lust to take leadership roles. It is crazy! God hates
> ALL TYPES OF SEXUAL SIN!
Not all heterosexual activity is sinful. All homosexual activity
is sinful.
Lust is simply sexual desire, without which no creature would
likely ever successfully engage in sexual relations. I suppose
good Roman Catholics have tried. It is the sexual desire outside
of marriage that is sinful.
> Mickey: Are you trying to say that Born Again Christians
> commit sexual sin?
>
> Satan: Yes. All the time.
Scarcely surprising, considering that Born Again Christians commit
sin in general, and sexual desire is not easily controllable.
> In fact, a recent Family Times survey, 37% of Christian men
> ("Born again") admitted to viewing porn within the past 48
> hours from at least one of the following sources - Internet,
> Video, Magazines, or Television (including Pay-Per View.)
Obviously, this survey had to be conducted in an era and
region that can offer Internet, video, magazines or television.
That pretty much limits it to the last 100 years and the Western
hemisphere.
> Yet you don't hear Christian organizations trying to forbid
> membership to these perverts.
You have used membership and leadership interchangably, but
maybe it doesn't matter at the moment. What does matter is
that you appear to have no knowledge of how Christian
organizations respond to those who engage in sexual sin.
> Mickey: Wow!
>
> Satan: Yeah! And lest you think that this problem does not include
> church leaders and staff, the same poll found that approximately 27%
> of computers within Christian organizations (Churches included) had
> been used to download or view porn from the Internet.
What is being called pornography? Anything with sexual references?
Nudity? Sexual intercourse?
When I was in the Navy, I complained about several of the movies
that were being shown on my ship. The mess decks where the meals
were served were used as a movie theater. My ship had hundreds
of women living aboard her, as well as hundreds of men. People
brought their children aboard to watch the movies. It horrified
me that they showed movies in which full frontal nudity took
front center stage. But, when I complained, I was told that
nudity is not considered to be pornography; it is only
pornographic if it directly shows sexual intercourse.
The standards aren't consistent across Christian organizations,
either. Some consider pornographic movies acceptable if they
are viewed by two people who are married to each other. I mention
that one because, as an unmarried man, I have occasionally noticed
that some conversation about sex stops as soon as I enter the room,
apparently because I am the only unmarried person in the room.
Indeed, before handing out sexually-related literature, some have
asked me if I am married, and when I say I am not, they walk away
and give the literature to someone else. This literature isn't
necessarily entertainment material, either; there is a resistance
to discussing anything relating to sex until a person is married.
I know that Bob Jones University has the largest collection of
"sacred art" in some category (I think the category is "held in
a private collection in the United States"), and it has art classes
that include portraying the human form. I also know that at least
one young man refused to participate in an art project, stating that
the artwork was "pornographic." Visitors can do almost anything they
wish on the BJU campus, but one thing women visitors cannot do is
wear shorts in the BJU art gallery. There has been quiet debate
within the conservative Christian community as to whether the
nudity in the artwork in BJU's art collection constitutes
pornography or not, with no universal decision reached.
I have always had an intense interest in science, including biology
and medicine. I spent 3 years as a volunteer fireman and took
"First Responder" lessons. I was trained in CPR and lifesaving. I
was taught how to cut open a person's trachea or apply a tourniquet.
When I reached age 29, it seemed embarrassing to me that I still was
mostly ignorant of the female anatomy. I knew the general facts of
how things were supposed to work; I simply had not seen a naked
woman (well, except for the time that I accidentally wandered into
a life studies art class, but I was too distressed to remember
what I saw).
When I was at LeTourneau University, I found there were inconsistent
attitudes towards sexual material. This is partly due to the varied
history of the school. Twenty-five years ago, the school's president
was so strictly conservative that my own pastor was denied admission
on the grounds that his sideburns were too long. I found an old art
book in the library that would have shown a picture of a statue of
a nude woman, but someone had cut out the page; from the stories I
heard, I believe it was an administrator censoring the book, rather
than a student who was desperate. None of the older books still
contained their original pictures portraying nudity. But, a lot
has changed at the school (not everything, but a lot).
I attended New Testament Survey class with a man who had a pony
tail most of the way down his back, and he had eyebrow rings and
wore a metal-studded leather jacket. Another colorful character on
campus dyed his hair a different color every few weeks. I found that
inside the copier room of the Liberal Arts building there was hung a
page with dirty jokes. I overheard a student at a chapel service
laughing with his friends as he said, "God created the human body,"
and I saw that he was looking at that year's swimsuit edition of
"Sports Illustrated." There have also been open homosexuals in the
student body, who were allowed to graduate. But, when I mentioned
to my Electrical Engineering instructor that I was posing as an art
model, and might pose nude, he told me that he doubted the school
would want to have a famous nude art model in its student body. I
should mention that the Engineering Department is highly conservative
(and the instructors are mostly older men), in contrast to the Liberal
Arts or Science Departments.
The Computer Lab had just gotten Internet access when I was at
the school. At first, they kept the disk cache on the local drives.
I often went from machine to machine, looking at the history lists
and viewing the contents of the hard drive cache. This greatly
upset several people. I told them that I was finding a lot of
pornography. There were several replies that I got regarding this
issue. I was told that the school uses 3 layers of Net filtering
software to prevent access to porn sites; yet, I found that someone
had no trouble accessing "Hustler's" Web site. There was a sign on
the wall of the computer lab warning that accessing pornographic
software would result in expulsion, but the administration told me
that they would rather teach people why they should not view porn,
rather than take action against porn. Another of my instructors
later complained to the administration that a single typographical
error had brought up a pornographic Web site on his computer; the
administration assured him that they had recently improved their
Web filtering software so that this would not happen again.
I eventually decided that I am a 34 year-old man, and I don't
care what anyone's opinion is. Most people are idiots, especially
regarding sex and self-justification.
> Mickey: You are saying that Church computers are being used to view
> pornography???
>
> Satan: Yep. Amazing, huh? Christians rally to fight pornography,
At one time they did. "Focus on the Family" and a few others still
mention it from time-to-time. But, with Disney pumping out every
kind of filth it thinks it can market, all in the name of
entertainment (and in the name of being able to attract big-name
talent), it is instructive to see the apathy in Christianity.
> yet they are the leading viewers of pornography.
Thirty or forty percent isn't the leader of anything, except a
fragmented group.
> CHRISTIAN MEN LOVE NAKED CHICKS!!
That is not automatically sinful, nor condemned in Scripture.
What is condemned is the abuse of sexuality. Not all heterosexual
desire is an abuse; all homosexual desire is.
> But they refuse to admit it.
Nonsense! You show a profound ignorance of the issue.
> They lie to themselves and others. For example, If all
> Christian men would refrain from buying porno magazines
> right now, Playboy estimates that it's newsstand sales
> would drop by 22% overnight. No company can sustain a
> long-term drop of 22% in sales.
Nonsense! GM has done it for years. Lots of companies have had
a long-term major drop in sales. In fact, "Playboy" has had to
remake itself precisely because it *had* a major drop in sales.
The Playboy Rooms (or whatever they were called) have all been
shut down because they were losing money. Despite Playboy's
financial troubles, the porn industry is still collecting billions
of dollars.
[snip]
--
Richard Alexander
Richard's Electronic Kingdom
http://members.aol.com/pooua
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> The writer is right in saying that God hates all types of sexual sin. All
> sexual encounters outside of marriage are a sin.
Where is this information to be found? You can declare that they are
sinful, but I'm a little unsure of your proof.
> The rejecting of persons as leaders for the Boy Scouts is
> not primarily based on whether one is a 'sinner', but on whether
> they might pose a risk to children.
Oh, please. Are you really going to claim that gay people pose some
sort of risk to children now?
BUSHBADEE
<jaee...@indiana.edu> writes:
>
>And don't forget that first, there are girls in Boy Scouts, and second,
>sexual
>predators often feast on children equally regardless of gender preferences.
>
>Cheers,
>James
>
WHEN WERE girls allowed into the boy scouts.?
sirach
> sort of risk to children now?
"...a familiar pattern in greek culture in the archaic (seventh-sixth
century bc) and classical (fifth-fourth century bc) periods is that in which
an adult male is attracted to a boy or young man, especially when the later
is between puberty and growing a beard..."
this seems to have been how homosexuality was perceived in the time of
socrates, plato, and aristotle.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Oh, this is really getting out of line.
First, those "boys or young men" were legal adults. Second, the youth
in question were not at some kind of risk; the relationship was
beneficial to them. And third, this is not how homosexuality was
perceived; it's how it was actually practiced, by almost all citizen
males.
And it has nothing to do with the Boy Scouts or 21st century America.
Haraslee
>> ignore the fact that God also hates HETEROSEXUAL sin.
>
>Actually, God hates sin and God condemns homosexuality;
>God does not condemn heterosexuality per se, but only
>the abuse of heterosexuality.
>
You seem to assume that homosexuality is a choice. Could one also assume that
heterosexuality is a choice as well, then? Or are all people born
heterosexuals, and some, when they hit puberty, magically decide to "change"
and "become" homosexual, even if they've had no previous exposure to anything
related to homosexuality? Studies have shown physical and chemical differences
between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Did these physical changes also occur
when the child "chooses" to become a homosexual? (even at the risk of
persecution at the hands of family, friends, teachers, etc, not to mention
discrimination within certain organizations, even our government?) Are all
such studies to be ignored? It seems to me that you assume a lot in your
statements.
>Actually, the Boy Scouts, as opposed to Christians, are fighting
>in court to keep homosexuals from leading the Boy Scouts. I am
>certain the Boy Scouts would not welcome a rapist, prostitute,
>or pedophile as a Scout leader, either, even if they were
>heterosexual. Indeed, someone who is simply a "swinger" (one who
>engages in free sex) would pose a problem for a lot of organizations.
One does not have to engage in sex to be a homosexual. The fact is,
homosexuals would be kicked out simply on the basis that they are, in fact,
homosexual, and not based on *anything* they did. It's the same with the
military. People get kicked out not because they've done something wrong, but
because they are gay. Anyone has the potential to do something against the
rules. They should not be kicked out, in the case of the military, simply
based on their sexual orientation. That's open discrimination on the part of
our military.
>Not all heterosexual activity is sinful. All homosexual activity
>is sinful.
Does that mean that simply being a homosexual is sinful?
>Lust is simply sexual desire, without which no creature would
>likely ever successfully engage in sexual relations. I suppose
>good Roman Catholics have tried. It is the sexual desire outside
>of marriage that is sinful.
How would someone get married in the first place if they didn't have lust?
Sexual desire, despite your beliefs, is natural and healthy. It is not
harmful. Lusting for someone outside of marriage is also natural and healthy.
One can have a committed marriage and still find others sexual appealing.
There's nothing wrong with that.
>I found an old art
>book in the library that would have shown a picture of a statue of
>a nude woman, but someone had cut out the page; from the stories I
>heard, I believe it was an administrator censoring the book, rather
>than a student who was desperate. None of the older books still
>contained their original pictures portraying nudity.
That's rather ridiculous. People seem to fail to realize that there's a
difference between nudity and sexuality. Nudity doesn't always equal sex. For
example, watching the Discovery Channel you can see nude people all the time;
usually remote tribes in the rainforest and such. Their nudity doesn't have
anything to do with sex. People hardly look twice when they see stuff like
that. Funny thing is, if you were to suddenly introduce a white American woman
into that same documentary nude, she'd probably have a few censor blurbs on
her.
>Most people are idiots, especially
>regarding sex and self-justification.
I happen to think the idiots are the ones who hide their sexuality, who act
like it's a bad thing to be ashamed of, and not a natural and healthy part of
who we are. I think idiots are people who try to force others to hide their
sexuality as well.
>At one time they did. "Focus on the Family" and a few others still
>mention it from time-to-time. But, with Disney pumping out every
>kind of filth it thinks it can market, all in the name of
>entertainment (and in the name of being able to attract big-name
>talent), it is instructive to see the apathy in Christianity.
What kind of filth is Disney marketing?
>What is condemned is the abuse of sexuality. Not all heterosexual
>desire is an abuse; all homosexual desire is.
>
The only abuse of sexuality I see here is on your part. Being reserved about
sexuality is your choice, albeit a silly one. People enjoy to indulge
themselves in eating good food. People like to try exotic foods, and junk
foods, etc. Excessive eating can be harmful, of course, but eating great food
is not. Can you imagine if Christians had the same views on food as they do on
sex? They'd be eating bread and water all the time. Don't get me wrong, maybe
some of them *like* bread and water and *prefer* that, that's up to them, but
what if they went around claiming that it was a sin to eat say, McDonald's food
because it isn't "natural" or whatever? That's certainly how many Christians
feel about sexuality.
~Haraslee