Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Because we deal with reality rather than with what some folk would prefer to think happened.

---

Reality would mean that you knew factual causes of why someone would be gay or bi.
Have you been holding out on us? Do tell. What is the reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

Reality would mean that you knew factual causes of why someone would be gay or bi.
Have you been holding out on us? Do tell. What is the reason?

---

Scripture is clear that it is a choice.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

No one is born "gay". Chosing to become so is a sin according to scripture. the same is true according to scripture for any sinful orientation (this is probably why some folk on here fear to discuss what an orientation is).

All sins, rather it be a sinful act or choosing a sinful orientation are equal sins regardless of what they may be - neither better nor worse whether or not your act on that chosen orientation.

---

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 clear that it is a choice.

---

Scripture is not necessarily factual. What else you got?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

How do you KNOW no one is born gay? Have you had personal experience? Because that is the only way you would know.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSlager

Depending on which bible translation you read, homosexuality is not found in the translations although it's assumed sexual perversion holds the same meaning. I am not too sure of that since the Talmud makes pretty clear the sin of the Sodomites is the transgression of inhospitability not homosexuality. In fact the bible never really makes a clear line or distinction even in 1st Corinthians where various translations have interpreted the language as either homosexuality, sexual perversions, with no definite type, and bestiality. Since bestiality is clearly defined biblically and in the Talmud I am guessing this is one of the transgressions that would be considered sexual perversion, as well as what Paul would have done himself in the same time period: rape as a form of tax collection, bestiality, prostitution, orgies which were gaining popularity at the time, virgin baths, pedophilia. When he converted to Christianity he was probably still yearning for many of the sexually abusive temptations available to tax collectors at the time. It was Josephus who first put the world onto the notion that Homosexuality took place in Sodom. Considering the speed at which everything occurred within the passages leading up to sodom's destruction and the fact that Jesus himself called Sodom's transgression inhospitability, I am guessing that Sodom at the time of it's destruction was little more than a war ravaged town suffering from Drought and avarice of in Jesus's words "overfed and unconcerned women", they had recently been pillaged by foreign armies and only ten years previous within biblical context they had suffered a great drought and famine. So I am guessing with their relatively weak king that the city was destitute and made it's living as a port of sin, brothels, gang warfare, brigandry drugs and nationalism. Place reminds me of modern Thailand or Somalia, where daughters are sold as sex slaves to pay for parents drug addictions, and boys six and seven years old are sold to foreigners for sex to feed the family.

Is homosexuality a sin? Can't really tell you. If there was ever any biblical evidence that the 12 apostles had male sexual relations it was never mentioned and neither was it mentioned whether they had female sexual relations. That could mean that they did and it was not discussed or they did and it was removed, or they didn't have any relations at all. However the sin of coveting is discussed and to covet a neighbors manservant is a sin. That always made me wonder if manservant had more of a sexual connotation. Therefore it is all right for you to have a manservant (your boi) but you can't steal someone elses gay manservant. Again can't prove that either. Heck I can't even prove that the bible disapproves of incest since at least three relationships are incestous.

The point is you do what you believe, but Jesus himself said let he without sin cast the first stone, before you dig the thorn out of my pull the log out of your own. So regardless of whether it is a sin, I question whether a person should attack others for their beliefs. As for hand holding, they could be sisters. The fear of homosexuality has obviously insinuated itself in so much that people are willing to be inhospitable, which is a great sin according to Jesus.

---

TL;DR (Too long, didn't read):p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Dictionary.com

---

Lust –noun
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

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.

---

I spoke to the first of these yesterday. See #382:

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.

---

And again at #387:

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?

---

See also #393:

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.

---

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.

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;

Quote:

---

posted this for the "pet expert" but anybody can answer

---

There's more than one "pet expert" and I am one. Did you mean me?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

You didn't like my take on it, so I've asked you repeatedly to offer your own.

---

For whatever reason, it appears that you have ignored or skipped over my responses.

As for orientation, you have continually resfused to answer, choosing instead to answer a different question.

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.

---

And I have no issue with the dictionary - do you?

Quote:

---

As for your concluding remarks: You seem to be unhealthily hung-up on my profession.

---

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:

---

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.

---

[/QUOTE]

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

For whatever reason, it appears that you have ignored or skipped over my responses.

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?



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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

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?

---

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 Akoue

The only sense I can make of your response is that you are under the misapprehension that lustful desires are one and all sexual.

---

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 Wondergirl

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 pecan pullaparts and vanilla frosted cinnamon-raisin breakfast rolls. In fact, I also lust after the flaky crusts on the fruit pies she makes.

---

So I guess that makes you polymorphously perverse! I never knew this about you, Wondergirl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

---

Yes, to assume that I am suggesting that is nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Yes, to assume that I am suggesting that is nonsense.

---

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 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.

---

You reject dictionaries?

Quote:

---

I'm guessing if you had any clue how to answer my question you'd have done so.

---

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).