[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).

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.

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.

[asking]

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.

"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

"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

[Akoue]

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.

No wonder Wittgenstein loved Lewis Carroll. I knew it wasn't just about the math!

[Tj3]

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.

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.

So I see nothing that suggests any interest in a serious discussion.

[Akoue]

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.

So I see nothing that suggests any interest in a serious discussion.

Again, see #490.
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.

[Tj3]

Again, see #490.

Sigh! Rather than repeating that old line, why not start a real discussion. What have you got to fear?

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.

What question that you have posed to me have I refused to answer?

Even asking that question either means that you are not serious or you have not even read any of my posts.

Why bother responding if you are not going to engage in a serious discussion?

[Akoue]

Sigh! rather than repeating that old line, why not start a real discussion. What have you got to fear?

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.

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.

[Tj3]

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.

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.

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

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?

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."

[Tj3]

Lemme 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?

False accusations get you nowhere. Go ahead do a search, but I trust that you will apologize when you find that you are wrong.

I wonder why do many people choose to after the person rather than deal with the topic when challenged?

[asking]

Wow!

[inthebox]

Bobbalina,

Yes. It is right to be gay.

It is as right to be gay as it is right to be straight, to have brown hair or white or dark skin, to be a man or to be a woman. It is right to be smart and it is right to be not so smart. It is right to carry one of 16 different alleles for the same gene. It is right to carry another of the 16 alleles. It is right to be different.

It is right to be human.
It is not wrong.

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

[Akoue]

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.

This is a really nice post. Thank you for offering this perspective. I sure hope there are many more like you.

[Tj3]

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.

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.

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

[bobbalina]

I'm with inthebox on this one!. I still think the homosexual act is still wrong

[NeedKarma]

im 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?

[bobbalina]

Yes