The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Cabaal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Actually, yes I would be. That's what this thread should be about. If we're not willing to listen and be challenged this thread should be closed.

There's a difference between being challenged and people agreeing,
You can say all sorts in this thread, but nobody has to agree with you. We all have free will here thankfully.

In this case I don't agree with you and neither do others so you're asking for the thread to be closed,
Sort of silly,

If people not agreeing with stuff in threads meant threads should be closed then boards.ie wouldn't have very many active threads,

Of course if you want the thread closed then instead of calling for it in the thread you'd be better off reporting the thread and see what a mod decides.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I never said you had to agree did I? I'm just asking people to listen and honestly listen to the argument. I've offered very clearly to listen. I want to listen to you. Let's be challenged by one another.

That's the only model I ask for. Anything else and I might as well chuck it in and do something else.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

In this case I don't agree with you and neither do others so you're asking for the thread to be closed,
Sort of silly,

If people not agreeing with stuff in threads meant threads should be closed then boards.ie wouldn't have very many active threads,

Of course if you want the thread closed then instead of calling for it in the thread you'd be better off reporting the thread and see what a mod decides.

I don't see that anyone asked for the thread to be closed.

soleodeogloria asked others to exchange views with him and to listen to opposing viewpoints. He also said that the thread is pretty pointless otherwise.

It's disappointing that you're unable to see the difference between that and asking for the thread to be closed.

As for me, I think if people can't grasp basic logic then the thread should be closed. But I don't think that will happen, and I'm not asking for it to happen.

learn_more

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Actually, yes I would be. That's what this thread should be about. If we're not willing to listen and be challenged this thread should be closed.

In fact I'll read a book you recommend if you get a copy of Ed's. We can discuss what we've read here.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Well it was a rather clumsy challenge I made to you I admit, as I can't even suggest such a book but I take your word for it that at least you would read it if such a book did exist.

However when one says things like "I advocate people following what God has said" I can't think your really open to being challenged as you suggest you are.

The point is if one has such staunch points of view then I think one seeks out views that further bulwark there own point of view.

Actually, I'm not much of a gay activist or atheist either. I am interested in these issues from psychological point of view, ie why people take such trenchant and opposing views. My homosexuality is not a 'point of view', its just a reality in my life.

I have no personal, moral, ethical problem with my homosexuality whatsoever and I never have. And I'm really interested in why other people do, again, from a psychological point of view.

So as for the book you mentioned, I'm not much of a book reader bit I will actually see If I can get my hand on a copy of it.

On "Your identity is you sexuality". Being black in the US makes being black part of your identity. Of course that's absurd, we are literally talking about the color of their skin. But because of the issues they face in a white dominated society it becomes a prominent issue in their lives. No heterosexual defines themselves by their heterosexually, because there is no issue in society for being heterosexual.

I define myself as a human being that has the same needs as any other human being. I need food, I need personal interaction, I need interests to keep me busy, and feel I want to love and be loved. I don't need sexual intercourse but I know I desire it in the same way I desire all the other things I mentioned. And I desire all these things because I am a human being. I didn't just wake up one day and choose which desires I wanted to have.

nozzferrahhtoo

learn_more wrote: »

I am interested in these issues from psychological point of view, ie why people take such trenchant and opposing views. My homosexuality is not a 'point of view', its just a reality in my life.

I have no personal, moral, ethical problem with my homosexuality whatsoever and I never have. And I'm really interested in why other people do, again, from a psychological point of view.

I doubt there is any one answer as to why this is. There are likely 100s. But I certainly think one STRONG one is that human beings do not like members of their group departing from "the narrative".

A great way to explore this is to read some of the threads on this forum related to being a non-drinker socially in Ireland. Or some of the threads about people who have decided never to have children.

Be aware of the reaction these people get on the forum from others, or that they describe getting from people off line. Some of the reactions are downright hostile.

And some of the reactions are a response to feeling judged. People come out with lines like "Whats so wrong with having kids any way?" or "Whats your problem with people drinking?" when the person choosing to abstain from these things actually expressed no such position. I remember one comment from a person saying they feel judged as a drinker when they are sitting in the presence of a non-drinker. As if the whole time the non-drinker is looking at her going "Look at her, disgusting, drinking that stuff, getting drunk, for shame...." when in fact the non-drinker has done nothing more than say "This is not for ME".

But what happens is people tend to view people leaving "the narrative" as being judgmental of people still in it. And they take this as an affront and react with hostility.

And I doubt homosexuality and homosexuals are immune to this "narrative effect". As a homosexual you are diverging from the heterosexual narrative and becoming "the other". A narrative that drives and defines large parts of peoples lives. The majority of people enter into heterosexual relationships, marry, reproduce and so forth.

That said another large issue I think you face is that many humans mistake personal disgust as thinking the object of their disgust IS disgusting. Or put another way, many people think "That is NOT for me" means "That should not be for anyone else either".

As a heterosexual the idea of sexual interaction with another male is repulsive TO ME. I do not want to do it, I do not want to think about doing it. It simply is not for me. But I realize this is an attribute of ME not of homosexual sex. MANY people do not recognize that divide. They mistake their personal disgust at it as meaning homosexual sex IS ITSELF a disgusting thing.

If I could press a button tonight that magically installed a small idea on peoples neck top computers that "That is disgusting to me" and "That is disgusting" are two ENTIRELY different things..... I genuinely think we would live in a very much altered world tomorrow. Altered VERY much for the better and in no way I have yet thought of for the worse.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I'm a man of my word. Offer me any book to read and I will read it if you are willing to do the same. That doesn't mean that I will chuck in my Christianity but it means that I am willing to hear and understand where you are coming from.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

ScumLord

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I advocate people following what God has said.

That's hard to do, are we saying gods talking in metaphors this time or does he actually mean what he says at this point?

Part of what God has said is that sex is designed for marriage. Marriage from a Christian perspective is between a man and a woman.

Sex if designed for reproduction. Marriage is to ensure there's an agreed support structure their to raise the child. Back when the bible was written marriage was no more than a contract and sex was the seal on that contract. To say sex is for marriage is is another head in the sand, ignore reality fantasy where Christians have pretty much hijacked ownership of something that predates them.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

The context of my post was discussing what Christians who struggle with their sexuality (heterosexual or homosexual) should aim to do in light of what the Bible teaches.

If you find it unrealistic that's up to you, but the point of the post didn't concern unbelievers who obviously live differently. I'm not interested in judging outside the church on this issue.

Unlike atheists, Christians generally do care about what God has said in the Scriptures because they love God and trust that He knows what is best for us.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Nick Park

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As a heterosexual the idea of sexual interaction with another male is repulsive TO ME. I do not want to do it, I do not want to think about doing it. It simply is not for me. But I realize this is an attribute of ME not of homosexual sex. MANY people do not recognize that divide. They mistake their personal disgust at it as meaning homosexual sex IS ITSELF a disgusting thing.

If I could press a button tonight that magically installed a small idea on peoples neck top computers that "That is disgusting to me" and "That is disgusting" are two ENTIRELY different things..... I genuinely think we would live in a very much altered world tomorrow. Altered VERY much for the better and in no way I have yet thought of for the worse.

I don't think you're typical of most people. Most of us, I would think, recognise that different people make different choices and have different preferences, but wouldn't find what other people do repulsive or disgusting (unless it involves children or other kinds of non-consensual sex).

Plenty of people in prison, who would see themselves as heterosexual, engage in gay sex while in the clink, so they probably don't find it to be repulsive or disgusting.

nozzferrahhtoo

I do not recall claiming myself to be typical of most people. In fact I contrived very specifically to put the words "TO ME" in capitals to highlight and rammify the fact that I was talking about just me. So I am not convinced I know what your point is here, and am not entirely convinced yet that you do either.

Nick Park

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not recall claiming myself to be typical of most people. In fact I contrived very specifically to put the words "TO ME" in capitals to highlight and rammify the fact that I was talking about just me. So I am not convinced I know what your point is here, and am not entirely convinced yet that you do either.

Amazing that if you were talking about just you, as you claim, that you also put MANY in capitals as if you wanted to highlight the fact that you were talking about others.

Your post certainly gave the impression, posted as it was in the middle of of a discussion in the Christianity forum about how Christians view homosexuality, that personal disgust was a major factor. I don't think, for most Christians, that is an issue at all.

Therefore I pointed out that TO ME, and I suspect to MOST PEOPLE, that the idea of gay sex doesn't evoke disgust at all. It's not what I want to do or choose to do, but it no more disgusts me than other things I choose not to do (like watching soap operas).

But, I'll certainly agree with you that the world is a better place, albeit marginally, if YOU (and, as you say, not anyone else) don't let your personal disgust at other people's sexual preferences develop into disapproval of their actions.

aloyisious

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The context of my post was discussing what Christians who struggle with their sexuality (heterosexual or homosexual) should aim to do in light of what the Bible teaches.

If you find it unrealistic that's up to you, but the point of the post didn't concern unbelievers who obviously live differently. I'm not interested in judging outside the church on this issue.

Unlike atheists, Christians generally do care about what God has said in the Scriptures because they love God and trust that He knows what is best for us.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Interesting that you are including heterosexual persons as having struggles with their sexuality, something NOT usually mentioned on this thread. Is it something they do (in one form or another) when aroused which you are referring-to, something patently different to homosexual activity but still morally repugnant to you as anti-scripture, whatever about it being against other ethical/law values/standards?

Presumably by your wording, you are referring in a non-specific way to people in general you see as Christian (outside of current politics).

Cabaal

ScumLord wrote: »

Sex if designed for reproduction. Marriage is to ensure there's an agreed support structure their to raise the child. Back when the bible was written marriage was no more than a contract and sex was the seal on that contract. To say sex is for marriage is is another head in the sand, ignore reality fantasy where Christians have pretty much hijacked ownership of something that predates them.

Indeed,
Marriage was all about contracts and securing agreements between family's, tribes etc if you look at our history.

Marriage for love is a relatively recent invention,

Sex has ALWAYS been about both reproduction AND enjoyment, if people didn't enjoy sex then nobody would really bother with it.

Marriage doesn't really come into sex other then some people decided that you shouldn't have sex before marriage but as we know lots of people ignored this....because....sex is enjoyable

Sex was not designed for marriage, marriage is a human invention and its use and the relationships that it created have always changed in our history, its main use was alliance, contracts and exchange of wealth.

We now have marriage for love as a common thing but say 300 years ago it was far far less about love.

We also did previously have same sex marriages before Christianity decided it was wrong and sinful.

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

Marriage for love is a relatively recent invention,

Interesting to see this urban legend being repeated here.

Certainly marriage has, at many points in history, been distorted into something separate from love. But it is manifestly untrue to claim that marriage for love is a recent invention.

You ever read the story in Genesis where Jacob loved Rachel so much that he laboured for her father for fourteen years in order to win her hand in marriage? Marriage for love was being celebrated thousands of years ago.

nozzferrahhtoo

Nick Park wrote: »

Amazing that if you were talking about just you, as you claim, that you also put MANY in capitals as if you wanted to highlight the fact that you were talking about others.

I can see your error clear enough then. You are talking about two distinct parts of my post.

One part where I was referring to me in which I, contrary to your suggestion earlier, did the exact opposite of considering myself representative (hence the TO ME emphasis).

And the other part where I was referring to people who are not me, who therefore by definition I was ALSO not considering myself representative.

So either way your original suggestion that I was considering myself representative falls on its face.

Nick Park wrote: »

posted as it was in the middle of of a discussion in the Christianity forum about how Christians view homosexuality

It might be of benefit to your parsing of my post if you take it in the context of the person I was replying to, rather than in the context of the thread or the forum in which it finds itself.

The user I was replying to was discussing the psychology of why some people have such an entrenched view against homosexuality. Nothing of what he wrote limited that to Christians, so nor did I in my reply. So parsing my post through that limitation would be en error I would advise against making again.

My answer to him is there are likely 100s of answers to that question, not just one. But one common one *I* experience.......... often enough to make me suspect it is a common one....... is that they struggle to recognize the divide between what disgusts them, and what IS disgusting.

And I do not just see that in the context of homosexuality but in quite a number of subjects. When you attempt to unpack peoples issues with homosexuality, or pornography, or many other subjects...... it is quite common to find they HAVE no argument and they are ENTIRELY reacting to their own personal disgust.

And that is interesting in the environment of a thread like this which, despite 421 pages (on my settings that is), there has been no coherent argument presented by ANYONE against the morality of homosexuality, or the expression of it. No such arguments appear to exist. If we divest the thread of arguments from personal disgust, or vicarious personal disgust through a biblical god, then what arguments are actually left? IF there is one left, I admit I may have missed it, but by all means enlighten me.

And at the level of the brain this is actually no surprise either.... and not just some wild fantasy of mine where I am reacting to a statistical anomaly in my own personal experiences. It bears out in that we have found no small over lap in the neural modules that are shared between personal disgust, and moral judgement.

In fact so strong is the overlap then when scientists decided to see if there were any neural underpinnings to the phrase of moral transgression "leaving a bad taste in the mouth" they in fact found, as they suspected, an over lap there too between gustatory distaste and moral disgust.

So it is nothing something I have merely extracted out of thin air. I have observed quite often people who do not appear to be able to separate personal distaste from something from moral judgement of it..... and the scientific predictions one might make off the back of this observation are born out at the level of the brain and there is good reason for what I have observed. Our moral intuitions are heavily influenced by our personal levels of disgust. (And actually, nothing to do with the thread but as an interesting side note, when our brain judges a claim or proposition as "False" it ALSO sets off many "disgust" centers in the brain. It seems our capacity for disgust has been assimilated by evolution a few times as a module in other functions. All remarkably interesting stuff, when that kind of things interests you )

That some of us can recognize that, like myself and likely yourself, while others have not, will not or.... who knows..... maybe even can not.... is what I referred to when I said I think the world would be usefully modified tomorrow if I could press some magically button and disseminate that divide to the neck tops of all and sundry.

Cabaal

Nick Park wrote: »

Interesting to see this urban legend being repeated here.

Certainly marriage has, at many points in history, been distorted into something separate from love. But it is manifestly untrue to claim that marriage for love is a recent invention.

So the first recorded marriage goes back to around 4k years ago during the time for Mesopotamia, marriage during that time basically served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Of course lower classes weren't much better with parents choosing who the daughter would marry (of course this still happens in many society's and cultures)

Now of course if you move out of Mesopotamia and look at remote tribes around the world you'll also see the marriages or agreements that are basically marriage (but the word marriage may not be actually used in the language) also exist for very much the same reason. Forming alliances with villages etc. Again, its very little about actual love.

I'm sure love may have been involved now and then and of course arranged marriages can also turn into love but by far and above the idea that every marriage should be about love (which is now the view held by a vast majority) is very much a modern invention.

You ever read the story in Genesis where Jacob loved Rachel so much that he laboured for her father for fourteen years in order to win her hand in marriage? Marriage for love was being celebrated thousands of years ago.

You talk about urban legends and then you use a none factual source to try backup your claim?

Genesis also has people living well over 800 years old, are you going to source that people living longer then they do now and how the scientific community is wrong in relation to how long people can live?

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

So the first recorded marriage goes back to around 4k years ago during the time for Mesopotamia, marriage during that time basically served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Of course lower classes weren't much better with parents choosing who the daughter would marry (of course this still happens in many society's and cultures)

Ah, so when you said 'comparatively recently' you actually meant 2500 years ago rather than 'long ago' which is 4000 years ago?

Thanks for making that clear.

You talk about urban legends and then you use a none factual source to try backup your claim?

Genesis also has people living well over 800 years old, are you going to source that people living longer then they do now and how the scientific community is wrong in relation to how long people can live?

Nice try at deflection, but a total fail.

It is historical fact that the Book of Genesis was read every day in synagogues 2500 years ago. So it is perfectly legitimate to cite it as evidence that marriage for the sake of love was being celebrated by people thousands of years ago - and that remains true irrespective of whether you think Genesis is factual or not.

So, yes, I'm still calling you out on your urban legend. But now you've compounded it by waving red herrings around instead of fessing up that you made a blunder. Straight from the Donald Trump playbook.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Can I just say as well that the response to the book I recommended is very telling?

It seems like people are only willing to listen to people who are same-sex attracted who share their own views. It seems like some are quite happy to ignore these people depending on the circumstances.

That's very sad.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

nozzferrahhtoo

solodeogloria wrote: »

Can I just say as well that the response to the book I recommended is very telling?

It seems like people are only willing to listen to people who are same-sex attracted who share their own views. It seems like some are quite happy to ignore these people depending on the circumstances.

Now now, let us for a moment be fair about who is ignoring who exactly. You recommended a book and I took a not insignificant amount of time to respond to what you wrote about it.

And your response to that is...... what...... forthcoming? Or what?

So tell us again about people ignoring others, and who is doing the ignoring?

learn_more

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I doubt there is any one answer as to why this is. There are likely 100s. But I certainly think one STRONG one is that human beings do not like members of their group departing from "the narrative".

I totally agree with that assessment. In fact I often feel religious zealots feel they have everything so right in their in their minds that the only obstacle that prevents them from achieving total righteous nirvana is that they know there are people who don't totally agree with them so they are hell bent on changing their minds.

Nick Park wrote: »

Plenty of people in prison, who would see themselves as heterosexual, engage in gay sex while in the clink, so they probably don't find it to be repulsive or disgusting.

I think that's an urban Legend. I was watching a doc on homosexuality in Uganda recently by the BBC. They asked people on the street why they were against homosexuality and the vast majority of them said 'it's disgusting'. I didn't hear anyone say it was morally wrong.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Can I just say as well that the response to the book I recommended is very telling?

It seems like people are only willing to listen to people who are same-sex attracted who share their own views. It seems like some are quite happy to ignore these people depending on the circumstances.

That's very sad.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I don't think that's completely fair. I doubt anyone who has responded to you so far is in fact a Christian and homosexual. Is there anyone on this thread who is, out of interest? Let yourself be known !

Some responders have challenged the missteps so I don't get why your saying we're not engaging in the arguments. I challenged one of them and I haven't heard any comment from you about that.

If your presenting the book as a 'how not to be gay book' then I'm not surprised your getting short shrift.

I would question if you fully understand the dilemma of a gay man who is a Christian , when your not gay yourself.

aloyisious

learn_more wrote: »

I totally agree with that assessment. In fact I often feel religious zealots feel they have everything so right in their in their minds that the only obstacle that prevents them from achieving total righteous nirvana is that they know there are people who don't totally agree with them so they are hell bent on changing their minds.


I was watching a doc on homosexuality in Uganda recently by the BBC. They asked people on the street why they were against homosexuality and the vast majority of them said 'it's disgusting'. I didn't hear anyone say it was morally wrong.



I don't think that's completely fair. I doubt anyone who has responded to you so far is in fact a Christian and homosexual. Is there anyone on this thread who is, out of interest? Let yourself be known.

When replying to you, I deleted the part of your post referring to Jail life as I thought it irrelevant to my response to your's.

Re your last above, stick's hand in air. Then again, as I merely follow in the reported Christian practices of Christ, that of treating others in a christian manner, I might not fall within the bounds of what others define as Christian.

While waiting for possible point of view comments from other Christian believers on what I wrote above, I'd better make it clear I'd rather rely on God's judgement on such belief matters rather than that of other humans.

Re the Uganda BBC doc on homoseuality, there are misleading stories told by US and Ugandan christian preachers to the average Ugandan christian about homosexuals with the deliberate intent to disgust. Without going into specifics and having seen videos of Ugandan preachers speaking to other Ugandans about homosexuals and homosexuality, it's no wonder the word disgust is used by Ugandans to describe how they feel about homosexuals.

I don't know if the gent in the link below is mentioned on the BBC doc. He does, IMO, fit the bill of religious christian zealot preaching about homosexuals in Uganda...

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjmpbro-93PAhVLL8AKHWYzDkoQFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.advocate.com%2Fworld%2F2016%2F1%2F05%2Ftrial-crime-against-humanity-homophobe-scott-lively-begs-cash&usg=AFQjCNHqXVUgRZfJ-GKfbXbEOVDPMUB7EQ

Nick Park

learn_more wrote: »

I think that's an urban Legend. I was watching a doc on homosexuality in Uganda recently by the BBC. They asked people on the street why they were against homosexuality and the vast majority of them said 'it's disgusting'. I didn't hear anyone say it was morally wrong.

Seriously? You think it's an urban legend that many people who see themselves as heterosexual engage in gay sex in prison? No, it's been pretty well researched.

http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1328/sexual-behavior-in-prison-populations-understood-through-the-framework-of-rational-choice-and-exchange-theory

But making a generalisation on how the human race feels in general and basing it on what you heard people in Uganda say in a documentary - that sounds much more like urban legend material.

As another poster has already pointed out. Gays in Uganda have been the victims of a disgusting and shameful propaganda campaign. And the history of that country has some unique factors that affect attitudes to homosexuality.

solodeogloria

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Now now, let us for a moment be fair about who is ignoring who exactly. You recommended a book and I took a not insignificant amount of time to respond to what you wrote about it.

And your response to that is...... what...... forthcoming? Or what?

So tell us again about people ignoring others, and who is doing the ignoring?

learn_more wrote: »

I don't think that's completely fair. I doubt anyone who has responded to you so far is in fact a Christian and homosexual. Is there anyone on this thread who is, out of interest? Let yourself be known !

Some responders have challenged the missteps so I don't get why your saying we're not engaging in the arguments. I challenged one of them and I haven't heard any comment from you about that.

If your presenting the book as a 'how not to be gay book' then I'm not surprised your getting short shrift.

I would question if you fully understand the dilemma of a gay man who is a Christian , when your not gay yourself.

Good morning!

I've not got much to say to this other than that responding to chapter headings isn't the same as listening to someone's case.

I'm more than happy to read any book on this subject and consider alternative views. I think fobbing off a genuine perspective from someone who is dealing with this issue isn't listening. For example Cabaal pretty much suggested ignoring it. If we are going to ignore other perspectives then this thread is pointless and should be locked.

I don't mind if you don't read it but to say it isn't worth considering is something else.

The book is about living faithfully according to what the Bible teaches as a homosexual and what that looks like. We've all made a number of mistakes in how we handle this.

aloyisious wrote: »

Interesting that you are including heterosexual persons as having struggles with their sexuality, something NOT usually mentioned on this thread. Is it something they do (in one form or another) when aroused which you are referring-to, something patently different to homosexual activity but still morally repugnant to you as anti-scripture, whatever about it being against other ethical/law values/standards?

Presumably by your wording, you are referring in a non-specific way to people in general you see as Christian (outside of current politics).

Christianity has nothing to do with politics. Jesus' kingdom isn't of this world.

But yes, of course heterosexual Christians struggle. Particularly with singleness, temptation to have a sexual relationship before marriage, lusting after people and so on. Jesus' bar is pretty high. I've personally failed and need His grace daily.

Matthew 5:27-28 ESV wrote:

“You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

So Jesus says adultery isn't just sleeping with someone else's wife but looking on any woman to lust after her is wrong in God's sight. The bar is set rightfully high - because women aren't sex objects but are created equal in God's sight (Genesis 1:26-27)

Do I find Jesus' teaching hard? Yes, bloody hard but I follow Him because He's good and He loves me in a way that nobody on this earth can. He gave His blood for me on the cross and rose again so I can live eternally. He's given me a loving family with brothers and sisters in His church, I've got everything I need.

Walking Jesus' way involves sacrifice:

Mark 8:37-38 ESV wrote:

And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For gwhat can a man give in return for his soul?

Yes, it's bloody hard. But I've decided to take my cross up now and sacrifice lots and lots of things in this life.

Different people make different sacrifices but if Jesus changes us we will make them. This is why the argument of saying that Christianity expects too much from those who are same-sex attracted is a lie.

It expects a lot from all of us. God will help us though. He offers us something far far better.

I trust Him. It's bloody hard but it's worth it.

I hope this clarifies what I mean.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

nozzferrahhtoo

Nick Park wrote: »

But making a generalisation on how the human race feels in general and basing it on what you heard people in Uganda say in a documentary - that sounds much more like urban legend material.

But I am not seeing anyone making those generalizations. I certainly am not. And I did not see Learn_More do it either. He merely said that when asked in a documentary what their issue with homosexuality was, all the respondents said it was disgust. None of them said it was a moral issue.

But what can we generalize on? I can certainly generalize on my own experience. In my experience everyone against homosexuality is either against it because of personal disgust, or because their religion tells them to be against it.

What I have NEVER received, ever, is a coherent moral argument against it. An actual argument that says "Homosexuality is morally wrong because......". Much less on this thread here.

I am led to believe that this god is a rational god too. At least the vast majority of believers I speak with tell me it is. I would expect therefore that IF this god exists and IS against homosexuality.... there must be some rational arguments we could seek and discern for that position. But they simply do not appear to be forthcoming at this time.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've not got much to say to this other than that responding to chapter headings isn't the same as listening to someone's case.

Except I did not view it as responding to chapter headings. I viewed it as responding to YOU and what YOU have written. You did not return this in kind, and then presumed to accuse OTHERS of going around "ignoring". I just find that a bit rich really. And quite telling. You simply have not responded to a word I wrote, and have pretended other people are doing the ignoring rather than you.

solodeogloria wrote: »

So Jesus says adultery isn't just sleeping with someone else's wife but looking on any woman to lust after her is wrong in God's sight.

I trust you have heard the phrase "thought crime" before then. Because that is essentially what you espouse here and it is the most complete and absolute expression of totalitarianism.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The bar is set rightfully high - because women aren't sex objects but are created equal in God's sight (Genesis 1:26-27)

I do not think men and women are JUST sex objects. But that they are sexual beings which illicit sexual responses in other human beings is not to be denied or suppressed either.

I think it unhealthy in fact that so many religions are keen on classing emotions and responses as positive or negative. As if love is good, hate is bad. Empathy is good, lust is bad.

I reject that. I do not think ANY response or emotion is inherently good or bad. Be it love, hate, empathy, lust or anything else you name. What is good or bad is what we DO with those feelings. And depending on the expression of it Love can be bad and hate good. Empathy can be bad and lust good.

It is not what we feel, but what we do with our feelings that is important. And there is nothing, nothing at all, wrong with feelings of lust and desire.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is why the argument of saying that Christianity expects too much from those who are same-sex attracted is a lie.

It appears sometimes it expects more of them than it does of anyone else. So the issue is not about it "expecting a lot from all of us" as you pretend, but that it expects more of some people than others. Without any apparent basis.

learn_more wrote: »

I think that's an urban Legend. I was watching a doc on homosexuality in Uganda recently by the BBC. They asked people on the street why they were against homosexuality and the vast majority of them said 'it's disgusting'. I didn't hear anyone say it was morally wrong.

Indeed, and another error Nick Park makes there is the error of lack of choice. Just because people are prone to engaging in it in prison.... that does not mean they do not find it disgusting. Some might do. They just lack choices.

For example the food stuff on this planet that disgusts me more than any other.... literally to the point of retching..... is Heinz Baked Beans. I am disgusted to my core by the stuff. Lock me in a prison with nothing else to eat however, and you will find me having bowl after bowl of it.

Similarly some peoples drive to have sexual release with another is so strong that in the absence of people they would WANT to have sex with they often engage in it with anyone they can. There is a reason for the old disparaging saying "Any port in a storm" or "A holes a hole" when referring to sexual conquests. Some people would rather have sex with anyone rather than no one.

So I would be a LOT more cautious than Nick to use sexual behaviors in prison as a measure for anything at all, let alone specifically how personally disgusting some people find homosexuality.

Especially given the comments it was directed as a rebuttal to are talking about the people who DO find it disgusting. So pointing at people who do not find it so would be talking past the point. So even if Nicks point did not ALREADY lack any merit in applicability, it would already lack it in relevance.

solodeogloria

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except I did not view it as responding to chapter headings. I viewed it as responding to YOU and what YOU have written. You did not return this in kind, and then presumed to accuse OTHERS of going around "ignoring". I just find that a bit rich really. And quite telling. You simply have not responded to a word I wrote, and have pretended other people are doing the ignoring rather than you.

Good afternoon!

Perhaps I wasn't clear but the bullet points that I put in my response to Cabaal as he said that any view that differs to his own wasn't worth listening to were the chapter headings in the book to give a flavour of what is written in it.

I don't think it is rich to make an assessment of what was written and see wide scale dismissal of an opinion given by someone who deals with this issue.

Perhaps you disagree with my assessment. I'm happy to conclude that we disagree.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I trust you have heard the phrase "thought crime" before then. Because that is essentially what you espouse here and it is the most complete and absolute expression of totalitarianism.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another way is that God isn't only concerned with our outward actions but with our hearts also because He loves us. I think that's a good quality. In the same way as we would long for others to be purged of racist inclinations for example our God loves us enough to call on us to treat others with love and respect in all areas of our lives.

I think that's rightly loving. I'm perfectly happy if you wish to disagree.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not think men and women are JUST sex objects. But that they are sexual beings which illicit sexual responses in other human beings is not to be denied or suppressed either.

It depends. Self control is very important. In fact if people didn't exercise self control in respect to their sexual responses the world would be a very grim place indeed. We'd probably see a lot more sexual violence for a start.

The difference is that our God loves us enough to encourage us to live in the best way in His world which is a bit more comprehensive.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think it unhealthy in fact that so many religions are keen on classing emotions and responses as positive or negative. As if love is good, hate is bad. Empathy is good, lust is bad.

I reject that. I do not think ANY response or emotion is inherently good or bad. Be it love, hate, empathy, lust or anything else you name. What is good or bad is what we DO with those feelings. And depending on the expression of it Love can be bad and hate good. Empathy can be bad and lust good.

Again I think self control is essential. Our feelings are not always accurate and they don't always provide us with an accurate indication of reality. It is possible to hate someone without cause or to love foolishly. Christians for that reason ask God to direct their hearts and listen to God through what He says in the Bible. Our world is deceptive and it doesn't have our interests at heart.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is not what we feel, but what we do with our feelings that is important. And there is nothing, nothing at all, wrong with feelings of lust and desire.

I disagree. Out of the overflow of our hearts our mouths speak. (Mark 7:18-23)

If you're doing rotten things you've got a rotten heart and a rotten mind. The problem is we all have this. It helps us to believe lies and reject the truth. The lies are always subtle.

If you think there's nothing wrong with desire you've clearly not been around at promotion time at the office. That is an annual spectacle of one man shafting the other.

You've probably also missed the horrible forms of sexual exploitation in this world that are only with us because of the wicked desires of our hearts.

Or perhaps we deal with it using subjective morality where we can call evil good and good evil?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It appears sometimes it expects more of them than it does of anyone else. So the issue is not about it "expecting a lot from all of us" as you pretend, but that it expects more of some people than others. Without any apparent basis.

I disagree. Christians all have to make difficult sacrifices in following the Lord Jesus. It might cost people different things, but sacrifices are always made in one area or another. Different situations mean that different Christians make different sacrifices.

For example one could argue that a Christian who leaves Islam makes more sacrifices than I do for the strains on his family after leaving. That doesn't mean that I don't sacrifice different things that are very challenging. It also doesn't mean that God expects less of me.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

nozzferrahhtoo

solodeogloria wrote: »

Perhaps I wasn't clear but the bullet points

Perhaps I wasn't clear but I know that, and I just told you that. However since that was all you wrote, I replied to what you wrote. But you simply ignored the post. And, I note, you CONTINUE to ignore it having not yet bothered to reply to it at all.

Then shortly afterwards accused other people of going around ignoring. That is the point I am making. I am not sure why it is one rule for you, and one for others. How you get to ignore posts, but then accuse others of ignoring posts. It very much is "rich" as I said.

solodeogloria wrote: »

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that God isn't only concerned with our outward actions but with our hearts also because He loves us.

Another nice expression of totalitarianism there too. The claim that it is all benign, loving and for your own good.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It depends. Self control is very important.

No, it really does not "depend". What I said is an entirely accurate generalization of our species except for a few outlying asexuals. We are sexual beings that illicit sexual responses in other humans. There is no "depends" about it, that is simply how it is.

And that is distinct from "self control". I am talking about THE impulses. Self control is talking about what you do WITH the impulses. Entirely different thing, so you are either missing my point or deliberately talking past it for reasons of your own. In fact what should be noticed is.......

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again I think self control is essential.

..... that this is my point exactly. That is why I am saying no emotion or response is inherently good or bad. It is what we do WITH those responses that determines the quality of them. And that, clearly (to me, if not to you) includes "self control". Because control over our emotions and responses, rather than being a slave to them, is what aids in that determination.

Self Control is, as you say, essential. It is essential because feelings and emotions and responses arise in us without our control. We can only control what we do with them. So telling someone they are sinful or wrong for feeling lust for another is completely the wrong thing to do. It is beyond their control and it does not make them in any way wrong or bad.

And that is why the "thought crime" you espouse is as irrelevant as it is unworkable and unrealistic. Our species can not help but feel emotions of desire and lust and so forth. It is what we do WITH those feelings that matters. So espousing a moral world view that lust or thought crime is bad is simply a sick and broken world view. Lust is not the crime. What one does with that lust can be. And any person, let alone any god, that fails to tell the difference.... has a lot of learning still to do.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is possible to hate someone without cause or to love foolishly.

You are making my point for me now, thanks.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I disagree.

Clearly, but a coherent basis for the disagreement rather than a mere assertion of it might be more helpful. But funny how you manage to disagree with me by actually agreeing with me because once again......

solodeogloria wrote: »

If you're doing rotten things you've got a rotten heart and a rotten mind.

..... you are making my point for me. It is what you are DOING that matters. Not what emotions or responses come careening into consciousness. But what you do WITH those emotions and responses. So the attempts to convict people of thought crime for something that is entirely natural, and beyond their control, is as sick as it is useless and unworkable.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If you think there's nothing wrong with desire you've clearly not been around at promotion time at the office. That is an annual spectacle of one man shafting the other.

Except once again that is ANOTHER example making my point for me. There is a distinction between the desires, and acting on the desires. In fact every attempt you have made.... and I strongly suspect any attempt you ever COULD make..... to counter my distinction between thought and action.... is predicated on you pointing at action. And every time you do so, you ramify my point for me.... all the while claiming to be disagreeing with it while you make it for me.

It is an error you seem to be happy to make again....

solodeogloria wrote: »

You've probably also missed the horrible forms of sexual exploitation in this world that are only with us because of the wicked desires of our hearts.

..... and again.....

solodeogloria wrote: »

Or perhaps we deal with it using subjective morality where we can call evil good and good evil?

.... and again.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I disagree. Christians all have to make difficult sacrifices in following the Lord Jesus. It might cost people different things, but sacrifices are always made in one area or another. Different situations mean that different Christians make different sacrifices.

And once again you declare disagreement but then make my point for me. I already said I am aware of the sacrifices different people make. This does not address the point I made that some groups are expected to make MORE sacrifices than others.

How you think you can disagree with "X demands some people make more sacrifices than others" with a response of "X demands some people make sacrifices" is entirely opaque to me and.... I suspect.... to you too.

solodeogloria wrote: »

For example one could argue that a Christian who leaves Islam

How can a christian leave Islam exactly? Does that even make sense linguistically to anyone here? Surely only Muslims can leave Islam?

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

My point is that the heart attitudes that lead to the actions are the roots of the ugly weeds that appear in our actions.

They are bad or good depending on the fruit.

If you cut off the top of the weed and don't tackle the root, the weeds will grow again and your work will be in vain. By all means cut it off but it doesn't stop the issue.

Tackling our hearts is the first place to go because we want to kill the weeds.

Claiming that we should just take off the top doesn't fix the problem in the garden and it won't fix the sin in our lives either. We need the gardener to change our hearts and our attitudes to deal with the issue once and for all. We want the weeds to be pulled out completely if we want the problem resolved.

So no, I'm not making your point.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

nozzferrahhtoo

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is that the heart attitudes that lead to the actions are the roots of the ugly weeds that appear in our actions.
They are bad or good depending on the fruit.

Then you entirely agree with my basic point. Which just makes it comical when you start everything with "I disagree" but then proceed to make my points for me.

As you say, and I entirely agree, the fruits of action are what we judge. Not the soil those fruits grow in.

That is why thought crimes is ridiculous. That is why the whole concept of "He who hath lusted in his heart has already sinned" is unworkable nonsense. Our desires, our lusts, our responses, our thoughts.... they all come careening into consciousness without our control.

So convicting someone of what rises unbidden in their consciousness is simply ridiculous and unworkable nonsense. The "weeds" you speak of can not be reached or killed. They are just there.

It is what you DO with those feelings that matters. So lusting after your neighbors wife..... go for it.... but channel those lusts and desires into right action not wrong.

solodeogloria wrote: »

So no, I'm not making your point.

Except you really, really are. In fact you are doing it so much I could not make you do it more if you gave me your password and allowed me to write your posts for you.

solodeogloria

Good evening,

I think the root heart issues are worse than the fruit of those heart issues.

You fix the issues that come from the heart issues and they will simply reoccur. I think our attitudes, and the lusts and desires of our hearts are also themselves sinful, and in some ways deeper than the actions that flow from our hearts.

That's my position, and that's why we don't agree. You claim that desires can't be bad. I think they can be rotten in and of themselves even if they are never acted upon.

For Christians who might be interested as to why I believe that I guess Romans 1 is my main proof text. People are given over to sin because they replace God with something else.

Jeremiah 17 goes as far as to say that the human heart is deceitful and wicked above all things. (verses 9 and 10). Therefore why trust it?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

learn_more

Nick Park wrote: »

Seriously? You think it's an urban legend that many people who see themselves as heterosexual engage in gay sex in prison? No, it's been pretty well researched.

You have no idea how much that comment made me laugh.