yes, why treat not feeling like your own sex with hormones to make you more not like your own own sex, why not give hormones to make you feel more like what your own sex is?
We don't treat a broken leg by replacing it with an arm.
Studies Prove Homosexuality Is Not Genetic
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
yes, why treat not feeling like your own sex with hormones to make you more not like your own own sex, why not give hormones to make you feel more like what your own sex is?
We don't treat a broken leg by replacing it with an arm.
Explain. And why have you stopped quoting the person correctly so their post can be pointed back to?
Excellent idea. Although what I meant particularly was if you had feelings for someone of the same sex and you didn't feel right in your own skin when with peers of the opposite sex.
I don't see what's complicated about 'homosexuality is unnatural'.
It sounds more like you are afraid of man. Even thieves love their neighbours. And if you think that thieves don't love God then you have already judged them and introduced a new rule 'thieves don't love God'. You have made it more complicated and thus defeated your own position. At some point the love of God has got to be translated into new ways of living which exclude things like being a thief, indulging in unnatural desires or being unfaithful to your spouse and include things like self-discipline and self-sacrifice. Otherwise Christianity is meaningless and just another religion whose only benefit is that it makes you feel better because you think you have a guarantee of eternal life.
I've never found it complicated either, which is why I haven't advanced the notion, or seen much importance in the whole genetic/choice arguments people invest so much time in as though it would absolve anyone of responsibility for an exercise of will.
Nah, that's just you reading a comment into another point where it wasn't aimed, I suspect.
There was literally nothing complicated about my position. What's complicated is found in the layers upon layers of legalistic thinking within the body over centuries and its expression in dogma.
I haven't suggested anything contrary to your notion. Saying we should concentrate on the salvific advances a simple, straight forward narrative less concerned with the sort of dogmatic in fighting we've allowed, wine or grape, dance or not, Saturday or Sunday, and on and on.
How is one saved? Meet that, meet the person of Christ, advance that flag and love your neighbor. We do that and the church will grow. Else it's business as dwindling business.
The early church didn't lack standards. But the narrative was simple, hadn't been convoluted by well intentioned intellectuals and those interested in self empowerment.
You must mean "apply" instead of define. I only just did the defining.
Did you only just tell me and mine how to? Stop doing anything until we do something else you think we should do?
Or maybe we should advance a standard that all men can aspire to, though all men will fail as they make the attempt. And so grace.
But I don't think you can make the objective case that the standard itself brings with it arrogance and self righteousness. That's conflating a particular failure in an individual with the standard they fail where that's the case. Grace should invite gratitude. Repentance should invite a measure of humility or at least the sure understanding that all fall short and none merit what God gives to any who embrace the truth of redemption.
And you don't think that's a bit smug, arrogant or self righteous? :think: I think Christianity explains the human condition and that grace and love are simple. Men are complicated. We have to be to justify the evil we do, to contort it until it resembles the good and a semblance of the justifiable.
...which works for you and not all of your brethren, so, stop pretending like you guys see eye to eye for the most part and have mere mild family squabbles. I don't buy that story anymore and haven't for a while.
I was addressing more the issue of rampant hypocrisy more than anything else. That this point was lost on you isn't lost on me. This happens all the time. A bunch of Christians start lecturing strangers on how they should live; those being lectured suggest the Pharisees straighten out their own affairs; the lecture continues with some tweaks. Rinse, wash, repeat.
That's not all you do or propose and you know it.
Sure I could. Another thread sometime, maybe.
In millions of instances millions of times a day all over the earth for two thousand years. Thanks, I'll pass. With that kind of track record...
No, I don't. Introducing the God of Christianity into this world doesn't "simplify" the human condition, or agony, or suffering, or the indifference of the universe around us--it makes it far, far worse.
Its explanations aren't original and aren't persuasive. Among other things.
No kidding.
I didn't say we weren't a quarrelsome bunch. In fact, I said the opposite and noted the pointlessness of most of that infighting and the impact of it as one reason for my suggesting a different approach, one that goes back to the root of the tree and, I think, a better witness.
It's not that I didn't get you, it's that I found your complaint hypocritical, which was why I turned it back on you. How'd you miss that?
Or, advancing a standard by which all men should live.
Not Pharisees, just human beings with a truth that has as its foundation grace, because even when our intent isn't hypocritical we're going to fail it as surely as men fail any aspiration. Doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire.
Okay, what else have I done except advance that notion here? What do you have in mind, keeping in mind I can't answer what isn't argued, but that I'm game to answer on my own failures where you see them. I might even agree. I don't claim to be perfect either.
I wrote: But I don't think you can make the objective case that the standard itself brings with it arrogance and self righteousness.
I think you're being unreasonable and I'm ready to meet your effort to establish the point any time you feel like it. Until then, sure you can't.
Re: mistaking the standard bearer with the standard
Then abandon truth unless you always have it, mercy unless you always display it.... You know you don't apply that to your own thoughts and conduct, so when you find yourself using the imperfection of men as a charge to set against perfection you should know better.
Understanding a thing doesn't render the thing any particular, but while I have no idea what you mean by "simplify the human condition" I do know what I mean by explaining it and that love, by way of example, isn't complicated.
Speaking of love...
Well, truth is truth and if Jesus is telling you that (the truth) then every other advance on the word is the less original one. Persuasive? An understanding can't be if the person outside of it isn't interested for their own reasons, which may or may not have much to do with reason. Among other things is right up there with door number one or another thread. It isn't meaningful until it's voiced.
Good to find a point of agreement.
Great. Go tell it on the mountain. I ain't holding my breath.
Which is inherently arrogant as all get out. And last I checked Christianity isn't a set of cute suggestions. There are some extremely unpleasant repercussions involved for not getting with the program. As a system, Christianity does not merely ask nicely (if it bothers with the niceties at all).
Your conviction doesn't entitle you to push your own version of Amway on the rest of us, but many of you find that urge irresistible--no matter what you're told, or what you see.
Again: Christianity isn't a set of suggestions. Give me a break, pal: Are you trying to modestly claim your faith "only" gives mankind a simple "standard" to which we should aspire? That omits an awful lot and you know it.
We'll have to disagree on this and leave it at that.
The difference being I'm not presuming to claim to have ultimate truth or access to it, and you guys do.
It is if you're being hacked to death in Rwanda or starving in Dachau. Yep, he loves you, all right. Loves you with all his heart. Honest. You better hope your name's in the big book, though, because otherwise what you're getting now is just the appetizer.
Well, you have to start somewhere.
Not if the standard is true/truth.
Of course not. It's also not a set of laws.
All sorts of truth is similarly situated. But Christianity isn't established to harm or damn men, but to save them.
My conviction leads me to tell you about it. Push? You mean by advancing it the way you do any idea you find admirable or true?
Love doesn't tend to want to sit still. And it almost always annoys anyone who isn't, until they are.
Again, I advance what I advance. Find fault in it in particular and I'll be happy to consider it. Set of suggestions? Of course not. It's also not a set of laws you're forced to follow. It's a context, an instruction in the truth of being that you're free to reject as I am to note.
Sure, unless and until you want to try your hand at advancing that integral assumption you made, in which case I stand ready to meet you on the point in any setting, formal or otherwise. That's about all I can do for now.
You can't presume to have a thing your own context negates, so there's no real virtue there. Beyond that, you're advancing a negative as truth and one that judges every truth that stands against it, rather forcibly, so what's that?
And from a cross we nailed him to. Absolutely.
Last edited:
Give that horse of yours some oats, he's a strapping steed.
So the law has nothing whatsoever to do with it?
...from a nasty situation it concocted, which is a pretty nifty racket if you think about it. God the Father, meet the Godfather.
Can't think of much I "push" on anyone, per se. (Okay, fine: The prequels are irredeemable and #12's best of all time.)
"You can tell she lives for others--you can tell the others by their hunted expression."
Not sure what you're talking about.
Doesn't address what I said and you know it. If you're going to be lazy and or eely let's just wrap this up right now.
Give that colorful nag of yours some legs to run on. Now where are we?
Depends on how you mean it. But I think I clarified the point a bit further down. I'd have edited that out but I'm working around a four year old.
Edit: here was the clarification I was speaking to, "Set of suggestions? Of course not. It's also not a set of laws you're forced to follow. It's a context, an instruction in the truth of being that you're free to reject as I am to note."
That's your assumption/context. If it's true then it's nothing of the sort.
One man's reasonable advance or answer is another man's arrogant intrusion, to put a pin in it.
Then she isn't doing it right. Or the others are assuming a pose.
Your restating an unsettled context as preferable/superior, or the inference is pointless.
It provides context. God knows suffering. You aren't condemning God when you note human suffering, you're only repackaging the old "Is God good or all powerful" advance. We can have that conversation, but it's a long one.
Quit acting like a kid, Granite, trotting out pejorative and insult or threatening to take your marbles and go home if I do a thing that you rests in your noggin to begin with. You're doing a lot of that and I've resisted matching your tone because this is important.
Lunch time.
This version of Christianity seems pretty superficial. And trying to couch it as an innocent "take it or leave it" proposition omits a lot, as you continue to do for whatever reason.
There's a third option to consider, but considering the original source it probably didn't cross his mind, either...
I guess your point's just lost on me then.
My point being that bringing a loving, kind, compassion, benevolent God into this equation doesn't simplify the matter at all--it compounds the situation and certainly makes it worse. If there's something "simple" about the love of God gazing on a gas chamber the philosophers are all out of a job and just don't even know it.
Yeah, it is. So's my time. And I'm not interested in wasting it if you're going to sidestep, or be lazy, or less than direct if you're going to respond to my posts. Countering unspeakable human suffering in this life and the next with a figure you think had a get out of jail free card after less than three whole days is somewhat disingenuous. To put it another way, the "love" of God in the face of eternal damnation strikes me as demented.
Could be. And it could be that the problem is in your understanding of it. Or, maybe superficial isn't really a word that can be applied at this point.
You mean without addressing consequence, but consequence won't matter to you unless you accept the context that generates it. And if you do then you reframe everything and consequence only matters in relation to your desire for others.
And my response to this point is that it isn't intended to simplify. It does, however, contextualize.
Let me know when you get to countering a point I actually made. This isn't that either. Like I actually did say, men are complicated, have to be to justify the evil they do.
Re: importance or the topic
Right. That's why you're in an internet chat room. You're up against the clock. Else, no more or less than anyone else in the room, Granite.
I haven't been less than direct, or side stepped anything other than, for the most part, the insulting jabs you seem actually incapable of refraining from. Maybe you should just go back to sneering at the meshaks of the world and taking broad potshots at people inclined to yell back at you.
What Christ endured, great suffering, he endured as we do, singularly. God understands suffering. Calling me disingenuous or describing the resurrection the way you did goes back to my point about you deciding the sort of conversation you're actually interested in and the sort of person you'd be more comfortable having it with.
I believe you. I just happen to think you're wrong.
Funny that there's one possibility that didn't come up. Imagine that.
If the consequence is the reason there needs to be a greater context in the first place I'd say that makes it pretty darn important.
What "point" do you think you made by referencing Calvary? It didn't address my post at all--it was a side step, and a pretty feeble one at that. To simplify:
ME: God's version of "love" is bizarre when confronted with human misery.
YOU: Jesus suffered on the cross, so...there.
Sorry, that's not good enough. Nowhere near. It never has been. Never will be. And it doesn't address the issue.
Take the stuffing out of your shirt, why don'tcha. Either that or I can save us both the time and trouble and use the ignore list, which is where meshak is, incidentally.
Makes me think of Moe bemoaning the idiocy of his fellow stooges even though he was always right in the thick of it with them.
I can't tell if you honestly don't realize how that belittles and minimizes suffering in the here and now or if you actually don't care or if you simply see no difference. What you see as a noble reflection of faith is monstrous on this side of the lake.
HisServant
New member
So you don't think "I'm wrong/you're wrong/it's too early" covers it?
Hard to recall at this point and you didn't link any of my comments, but I'm fairly certain I was speaking to the approach of the Body. I think drawing people toward is both better and more in line with Christ's teaching than trying to get people to run away from a negative they don't accept at the outset. And I'd say the point is that men are made for relation, that living a life absent that is tragic, before we get to the continuance of that separation.
That God isn't indifferent to suffering, understands human suffering intimately. I also suggested at some point that you were repackaging the "Good God or impotent God" argument.
Look, you're the one who went out of his way to tell me how important your time was and how you could take yourself elsewhere and now you're at the "I can put you on ignore" and I'm the stuffed shirt?
lain:I'm not upset with you and I'm not trying to be overly formal, I'm just weary of this sort of thing:
You seem, when it comes to religious discourse, to be like one of those republicans who can't imagine a democrat who isn't an idiot or dishonest or both.
I wrote: What Christ endured, great suffering, he endured as we do, singularly.
I reject your premise. Demonstrate how it minimize anyone's suffering to note that Christ suffered and understands it?
That's a broad declaration that I don't think is in any part demonstrably true.
Flies with honey versus vinegar. I get that. But I don't often hear or see as much.
That's all well and good but you don't need organized religion to fellowship.
I'd say you can understand something or someone just fine without truly caring about them. And if he cares...
Well, there you go.
Uh...yeah. I don't appreciate people who waste my time. That's what the list is there for, pretty much.
I consider "well he suffered too" to be cold, distant comfort at best given the two situations I mentioned.
That marks the second time in as many sentences you've said "I reject what you think" in so many words. Not much ground left to till here.
:cheers:
I think it's more in line with how Christ approached people. Gentle, encouraging. Vehemence was mostly reserved for hypocrites and those with power abusing their trust.
I think it's clear that there were roles and gathering, even living together right from the start. I believe it wasn't accidental. We need the warmer and more direct experience of one another in the faith. There is, after all, an element of war within faith also and it's a foolish soldier who mounts a singular offensive.
The point of that suffering wasn't to scratch an itch of curiosity. And forgiving people in the act of that murder wasn't an indifferent, intellectual posit. So I don't see how if enters into it.
That isn't offered as comfort. It was offered contextually. As the beginning of what I followed up above. But God does offer comfort, both directly and contextually. It won't keep our limitations from overwhelming us in a given moment, but it will be enough to sustain us and our faith. Even Christ had a moment in the garden and on the cross.
I rejected declaration without support as I had in the question above it and asked for something more.
The challenges I issued remain for anyone who thinks they can manage it. I'm ready for that conversation.
:e4e:
Last edited: