Reality would mean that you knew factual causes of why someone would be gay or bi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Have you been holding out on us? Do tell. What is the reason?
|
Reality would mean that you knew factual causes of why someone would be gay or bi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Have you been holding out on us? Do tell. What is the reason?
Scripture is clear that it is a choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
Matthew 5 tells us that lust is a sin. But it doesn't offer any account of the distinctive marks of lustful as opposed to non-lustful desires. It doesn't provide any criteria by which the two classes may be discriminated, nor does it tell us what the relation is between desire and lustful desire. It's a nice chapter, but it doesn't speak to the distinction you've been keen to draw.
If you are citing Mt.5 to help you out with the distinction you yourself had advocated it looks like you're reading into the Scripture something that is manifestly not there.
Well, you claim to be both a professor and Greek expert. Why don't you tell us what you think Matthew 5 means when it speaks about lust. Indeed, tell us what you believe sinful lust is in the wider context of scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
While you are at it, why don't you answer my previous question question about what an orientation (generic) is?
Surely someone who claims to be a Greek Expert and professor could handle those questions.
How do you KNOW no one is born gay? Have you had personal experience? Because that is the only way you would know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Scripture is not necessarily factual. What else you got?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I think that the creator of all that exists would know and I think that we can be safe and secure in taking his word for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
Besides I know a person who was once a homosexual, and just like scripture records of those in Corinth who were once homosexuals, he was changed when he was saved.
TL;DR (Too long, didn't read):pQuote:
Originally Posted by CSlager
Lust –nounQuote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
1. intense sexual desire or appetite.
2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually fol. By for): a lust for power.
4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.
5. Obsolete.
a. pleasure or delight.
b. desire; inclination; wish.
Lustful -adj.
1. Full of lust; excited by lust. --Spenser. --Tillotson.
2. Exciting lust; characterized by lust or sensuality. " Lustful orgies." --Milton.
3. Strong; lusty. [Obs.] " Lustful health." --Sackville.
Syn: sensual; fleshly; carnal; inordinate; licentious; lewd; unchaste; impure; libidinous; lecherous.
Desire -noun
1. a longing or craving, as for something that brings satisfaction or enjoyment: a desire for fame.
2. an expressed wish; request.
3. something desired.
4. sexual appetite or a sexual urge.
I spoke to the first of these yesterday. See #382:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And again at #387:Quote:
One can have a desire before being fully aware of onself having it. It's only if one embraces the desire that sin has been committed (this seems to be the force of the example you give). This suggests that the mere desire isn't itself sinful. One has to do something with that desire in order for a sin to be committed, by embracing it (lust) or acting on it (adultery). If this is true, then it's unclear to me how the mere having of a homosexual desire is sinful.
See also #393:Quote:
So you're saying the mere desire is itself already lust. If a desire pops into my head, even before I can refuse it, I've already sinned? I would have thought that in order for the desire to count as lust, I would have to affirm it in some way inwardly. But you appear to hold the view that the mere occurrence of the desire is already sinful. Is that right?
You didn't like my take on it, so I've asked you repeatedly to offer your own. You have refused--unless you regard referring me to a dictionary as offering an explanation of your understanding of the relation between desire and lust.Quote:
And I think you are conflating desire and sinful desire. The latter are typed not according the object of the desire but according to the attitude of the subject toward the desire. It is a subject's response to the desire, once it emerges, that either is or is not sinful.
As for the second: I have explained to you about a half a dozen times why I regard the issue of orientation in general to be a red-herring. I am not the only poster to this thread who does not see the relevance of that. And you have not made any compelling case for its relevance. (In fact, all you've said about that is that you sometimes find it useful to consider a phenomenon in general first. Since we are discussing sexual orientation in general, your obsession with orientation in general looks like a ploy to derail the discussion.)
As for your concluding remarks: You seem to be unhealthily hung-up on my profession. You certainly bring it up with great frequency. Perhaps you should concentrate on the issues at hand, and leave off obsessing over my professional life.
Okay, I just saw this.
No, I didn't read the previous posts, sorry.
In your original post you say;
There's more than one "pet expert" and I am one. Did you mean me?Quote:
posted this for the "pet expert" but anybody can answer
If so, why?
I have no problem with anyone's sexual preference. I don't read the bible, because I find it too contradictory. I've said it many times, I do believe in God, not the bible and not organized relgion. I'm a Deist.
So, having said that, what do you really want to know?
For whatever reason, it appears that you have ignored or skipped over my responses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
As for orientation, you have continually resfused to answer, choosing instead to answer a different question.
And I have no issue with the dictionary - do you?Quote:
You have refused--unless you regard referring me to a dictionary as offering an explanation of your understanding of the relation between desire and lust.
You keep making these claims and then when the simplest possible matter arises, you slip into the 20 questions mode, just my kids who keep asking "why". Except I don't expect that when sharing views on an adult discussion board. I expect a two-way exchange, and I expect others to be able to check out word definitions for themselves without asking me for the definition of a word of no greater than 4 letters.Quote:
As for your concluding remarks: You seem to be unhealthily hung-up on my profession.
[/QUOTE]Quote:
Besides I know a person who was once a homosexual, and just like scripture records of those in Corinth who were once homosexuals, he was changed when he was saved.
Now THAT'S the person I want to talk to. Someone that has had first hand experience. I'd ask WHEN, he decided to become gay, and what exactly happened to him when he was "saved." Did the feelings and desires stop or just the behavior?
If he was on the effeminate side, as some gay men are, did that disappear too? Was that also something he could turn on and off? I know some gay men are macho looking and acting and some are your stereotypical hair dressers, make-up artist, decorators, fashion designers, etc. They are effeminate in their mannerisms, their voices, their walk, and more. Are you also saying theses tendencies are also the result of choice and not something that was innate in their personalities?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The only sense I can make of your response is that you are under the misapprehension that lustful desires are one and all sexual. But, of course, that's just nonsense. Moreover, even if that were the case, the dictionary definition would go no way toward discriminating between non-lustful sexual desires and lustful sexual desires. If you think that the distinction between desire and sinful desire, or between non-lustful desire and lustful desire turns on the satisfaction conditions of the latter (sinful desire, lustful desire) involving sex, then I've been giving you WAY too much credit.
I'm with you, cozyk. I'd like to hear a detailed, first-personal account of WHEN he decided to become gay and WHEN he decided to become straight. The accounts of this that I have so far encountered have been less than entirely credible. (Of course, we also have to bear in mind that first personal accounts can be riddled with the effects of psychological manipulation.)Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
All summer I lust after a good, crisp Mcintosh apple like I used to eat when I was growing up in western NY. I also lust after my mom's cinnamon-sugar-pecan (with a sprinkle of nutmeg) pull-aparts and vanilla frosted cinnamon-raisin breakfast rolls. In fact, I also lust after the flaky crusts on the fruit pies she makes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
So I guess that makes you polymorphously perverse! I never knew this about you, Wondergirl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Yes, to assume that I am suggesting that is nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
In that case, your appeal to the dictionary is an utterly pointless exercise--or gambit. This isn't something that a dictionary can sort out. I'm guessing if you had any clue how to answer my question you'd have done so. Your recent posts have been little attempts at deflection because I doubt you know what to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You reject dictionaries?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
If someone was truly interested in an answer, there would be two way interaction, not just another series of questions regarding word definitions, following by a stream of personal demeaning remarks. I am willing to put more effort and to spend the time in discussions with someone who has shown serious interest than someone asking 20 questions to waste my time (and unwilling to answer any asked of him).Quote:
I'm guessing if you had any clue how to answer my question you'd have done so.
Well, Tom, you can find my answer in post #490--I brought together in one post the answers I had provided last night. That's me contributing something to the discussion. If you don't want to contribute your answer to the question, that's your right. But then don't whine about the conversation being a one-way street. I've done my part; now it's your turn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
But, of course, this latest whine of yours is just another way to avoid answering a question you don't know how to answer. Go ahead: You can keep deflecting all you like. I know why. It's okay.
It's impossible to argue with someone who decides for himself what words mean and won't tell anyone what he means by a word.
In fact, it all feels very familiar.
Quote:
"Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
"Would you tell me, please," said Alice "what that means?"
"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. "I meant by 'impenetrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life."
"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."
—Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, 1872
Quote:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
—Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
No wonder Wittgenstein loved Lewis Carroll. I knew it wasn't just about the math!Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
We were all through that before, and once again, you apparently did not see it important enough to even look at my responses. That is exactly the problem - you are not discussion - you just keep lobbing questions without providing your views on the topic, and further you refuse to answer questions asked of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
So I see nothing that suggests any interest in a serious discussion.
Again, see #490.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Your responses were snide one-liners (e.g. "Then I guess Jesus was wrong").
Again more whining.
What question that you have posed to me have I refused to answer? Other than the definition of "orientation" in general--which, as I have explained enough times a door stop would understand, I refuse to answer for principled reasons (which I've explained enough times a door stop would understand) unless and until you can demonstrate its bearing on the discussion of sexual orientation--what question have I refused to answer?
You are once again engaging in evasive maneuvering. You can whine all you like, Tom. You're not being persecuted; you're being exposed.
Sigh! Rather than repeating that old line, why not start a real discussion. What have you got to fear?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
BTW, if I shortened my responses from what they were previously that was only because I saw no value wasting my time when you were unwilling to engage in a discussion. I have more important things to do if you are not willing to spend the time and effort into seeing if we can find common ground.
Even asking that question either means that you are not serious or you have not even read any of my posts.Quote:
What question that you have posed to me have I refused to answer?
Why bother responding if you are not going to engage in a serious discussion?
I bet you'd go on like this all night just to avoid admitting that you are lost. It's pretty clear now, so I'm going to let you off the hook. I think this little exchange has run its course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I don't care - if you want to know what I would like, it is for your to step down off your high horse, and be determined to have a real discussion and treat others respectfully. Despite your abuse, I do not hold anything against you, and if you won't so afraid of opening up and taking a risk that you might just be wrong, we might just be able to have a good discussing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
If you are unwilling to do so, and the fear of an open and real discussing is a problem for you, then there really is no reason to continue, because so far you have done little but wasted my time and yours.
Let me see. How many times have I read that in various threads... hmmmmm, every time? In fact, the words are almost identical to the last time I read them. Are they saved in Word, or are they simply c/p-ed from one "discussion" to the next?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
1. "It seems from our discussions that you cannot get X or Y right, and despite the fact that A and B both disagree with you, you want to keep beating a horse that has been dead for days."
2. "I know, we've been through this before and to date, the facts have had no sway with you."
3. "But I note that you did not comment on any of the dictionary definitions which universally agree."
4. "You did not answer the question that I asked several times now."
5. "Every dictionary says that..., and so far the only thing that your side has produced is your own personal opinions."
6. "Where does that attitude come from?"
7. "You will note that these same folks will refuse to provide any source (i.e. dictionary) which defines the word, because there is none that agrees with them."
8. "I have been consistent all along, and I would be very pleased to answer your question once again when you will finally answer my question for once."
9. "I answered your question. Your responses time and time again showed that you did not read what i said. Having answered yours, it is time for you to answer mine."
10. "Of course you won't, and we know why."
11. "I am not responsible because you did not read, or choose to deny reading my answers. I proved already once in our discussions that you did not read what I said."
12. "Now, even though I answered before, I have agreed to answer it once again if you will for once answer my question."
13. "Give it up - to date neither you nor anyone else has found a single credible source to validate your position."
14. "Now, even though I answered before, I have agreed to answer it once again if you will for once answer my question."
15. "Ho hum - I answered the question - what is the problem - does the answer, and the facts of the situation scare you as much as the question that I asked that you refuse to answer?"
16. "Have you bothered yet to crack open a dictionary, or does the risk of finding out that you are wrong paralyze you with fear?"
17. "If you say that you did read what I said, then you are deliberately mis-representing what I said, because you know then that I have responded, and that means that you are deliberately avoiding dealing with the issues and questions that i raised."
18. "I will give you yet another chance, and if you will answer this, I will keep my promise to once again answer your question. But I bet you won't because the answer to this question is fatal to your argument, and my answer to your question is so dangerous to your argument, you won't even acknowledge it."
19. "I expect that you will continue to attack me. You have no other refuge since not one single credible source supports your point of view on this topic."
20. "Deny it, by all means, but both you and I know the truth. If the truth must be sacrifice because you must believe what you want to believe, then the facts have no hope of budging you."
21. "None whatsoever. I just don't see why I should keep addressing the same point over and over when you refuse to do so much as crack a dictionary or hold the abuse, let alone actually deal with any questions or points that I raise."
22. "Those who love truth have no reason to fear it."
23. "I see once again you simply play games nitpicking at words and have yet to actually address the points that I raised, the authoritative sources, or the questions that I asked."
24. "Avoid the issue if you cannot deal with the facts seems to be the name of the game."
25. "If you would agree to deal with all the evidence and my questions finally, I'd gladly post them once again."
26. "This is funny - you avoid accepting the truth no matter what. You won't even acknowledge what a dictionary says on the topic for fear of admitting that you might be wrong."
27. "I note that so far, you haven't posted a single authoritative source."
28. "False accusations get you nowhere. Go ahead do a search, but I trust that you will apologize when you find that you are wrong." (#510 below)
29. "I wonder why do many people choose to after the person rather than deal with the topic when challenged?" (#510 below)
30. "Please read the whole discussion. This is the same problem that we had in our other discussion at a few points because you did not fully read what I said."
31. "BTW, if you cared to read what I said...."
32. "You leave me no option when you fail to answer the question. I can only assume that you have no answer."
33. "When you make a claim, you should be prepared to back up that claim. I did."
34. "As I said previously, I stand by what I said."
False accusations get you nowhere. Go ahead do a search, but I trust that you will apologize when you find that you are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I wonder why do many people choose to after the person rather than deal with the topic when challenged?
Wow!
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Wow - no pulling punches there;)
For some reason, your statement got me thinking, not that I haven't thought about it in the past, but what if my 10 yo son "turned out" to be gay.
I would still think that the homosexual act is biblically wrong, but you know what he is my son and I would still love him.
In a way I think God sees us like that. My children sin, I don't like it, I forgive them, I will always love them.
As to the biological basis of homosexuality - that is a different thread.
G&P
This is a really nice post. Thank you for offering this perspective. I sure hope there are many more like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Absolutely. That was exactly my point earlier. Homosexuality is no different than any other sin. We don't cease loving our children because they are homosexuals, thieves, or whatever. God so loved the world that He came to earth as a man to die on the cross for us, even for those who were pounding the nails in His hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
I do not understand why Christians see this as different from any other sin. Christ compared the orientation to the sin, hate to murder, lust to adultery, etc. so why do so many Christians feel that changes when it comes to sexual sin?
It has nothing to do with whether the person is still loved, and it has nothing to do with whether God died on the cross for that person, but it also does not change the fact that sin is sin.
Lev 18:22-23
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
NKJV
I'm with inthebox on this one!. I still think the homosexual act is still wrong
Well I guess you got your answer. I guess this thread can be closed then?Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbalina
Yes
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:07 PM. |