Core Belief ?'s

[Traveler]

Hi Traveler,

To answer your question, a human form is a human not matter what age. Or as good old Dr. Seuss wrote, "A person is a person no matter how small." I think God is able to do all things that are possibly done. We are creatures and not able to attain status of Creator in the same essense of God. We will always remain mortal.

Just so I have this right - you do not believe man was created in the "image" and "likeness" of G-d "no matter how small" and that there is no resurrection of man from mortality to immortality?

The Traveler

<div class='quotemain'>

It is my honest opinion that if someone believes that G-d cannot make (in eternity - with no limits) a g-d out of a human (teach man of g-dliness) then they must believe that with G-d "all things" are not possible and that says much more about their belief in G-d than it does about their belief in the possible destiny of man. It is my understanding that a "damned" being is one that has limits and that the opposite of limits is infinite and I believe infinite is a definition of G-d.

Whether it is possible or not for God to create "a god" doesn't necessarily mean that God would or should. Should the created tell the creator what he should be doing? IMO, God is unique for the fact that he is God.

M.

What about G-d is it that must be unique and never become part of anything else or any one else? What is it that we do not need or want anything more.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Here are some thought on this. In the 6th day of creation we read that we were created ( `asah) made in the image of God. We were given dominion over the Earth, (fish of the sea, fowl in the air, animals, etc). Being made in His image does not mean that we are god in embryo. The most revealing thing about Gen 1:26 (and on) is key. We are created by the Creator God. We read that we are mortal not God. In 1 Cor. 11:7 we also read that “…he (man) is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Would you take that to mean that woman are men in embryo?

Here are some sermon notes from Chuck Smith (Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa)

WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD?

A. First of all the Bible tells us that God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.

1. God is a superior trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

2. Man created an inferior trinity, spirit, soul, and body.

3. It is in the realm of the Spirit that man meets and can commune with God.

a. The Apostle Paul said that His Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God.

b. It is interesting that when Jesus who is the Son of God became man, as described for us in Philippians 2 Paul wrote,

Phl 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Phl 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

c. Note that He was in the form of God, whatever that form might have been, and was made in likeness of man.

d. John tells us that no man has seen God at any time, but the only begotten Son has manifested Him.

e. Jesus later said, "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father."

B. We are created in the image of God in the spiritual sense.

1. God's chief emotional attribute is love, so God created us with a capacity to love.

2. God has the capacity to reason, so He created us with the ability to reason.

3. God's chief governing characteristic is self determination, so he created us with the capacity of self determination.

4. God thinks, feels, wills, speaks, so He has created us with the capacity to think, feel, will and speak.

C. What we can learn from discern by observing the abilities and capacities that God has given us?

1. We have the capacity to understand the existence of God, therefore God evidently wanted us to know that He existed.

2. We can understand the concept of infinity. Thus God must have wanted us to understand that He is infinite.

3. He created us with the capacity to fellowship with God, so He must have desired that we have fellowship with Him.

a. Indeed John wrote,

1JO 1:1 That One who was from the beginning, who we have heard, who we have seen with our eyes, who we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

1JO 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

1JO 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship [is] with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

C. What was God's purpose in creating us? As we mentioned earlier for His good pleasure, but what is His good pleasure?

1. First that we believe in Him. "For without faith, it is impossible to please God, for he that comes to God must first believe that He is and believe that He will reward those who diligently seek Him."

2. God desired meaningful fellowship with His creation.

a. That is why He created us as self determinate beings, or has given us the capacity of choice.

b. Man was not made a robot. Though the body functions as a highly complex machine, God gave to us a soul and spirit, that takes us beyond just a machine.

c. I know some people that have a love relationship with their car, they even talk to it, but it really can't be a meaningful relationship, even though some cars can talk. But when your car talks to you that is mechanical, it really has no feelings for you.

3. God built into us the need to worship, so that we would worship Him, the worship of anything less than God is a prostitution of that capacity.

a. The response of Jesus to the suggestion of Satan that He would give the world back to Jesus if Jesus would just bow down and worship him, was. "It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve."

If it's not too much reading, here are some more thoughts on this:

From David Guzik

Man is different from every other order of created being because He has a created consistency with God.

i. This means there is an unbridgeable gap between human life and animal life. Though we are biologically similar to certain animals, we are distinct in our moral, intellectual, and spiritual capabilities.

ii. This means there is also an unbridgeable gap between human life and angelic life. Nowhere are we told the angels are made in the image of God. Angels cannot have the same kind of relationship of love and fellowship with God we can have.

iii. This means the incarnation was truly possible. God (in the Second Person of the Trinity) could really become man, because although deity and humanity are not the same, they are compatible.

iv. This means human life has intrinsic value, quite apart from the “quality of life” experienced by any individual, because human life is made in the image of God.

c. In Our image: There are several specific things in man that show him to be made in the image of God.

· Man alone has a natural countenance looking upward

· Man alone has such a variety of facial expressions

· Man alone has a sense of shame expressing itself in a blush

· Man alone speaks

· Man alone possesses personality, morality, and spirituality

d. In Our image: There are at least three aspects to the idea that we are made in the image of God.

·It means humans possess personality: knowledge, feelings, and a will. This sets man apart from all animals and plants

·It means humans possess morality: we are able to make moral judgments and have a conscience

·It means humans possess spirituality: man is made for communion with God. It is on the level of spirit we communicate with God

e. In Our image: This does not mean that God has a physical or human body. God is a Spirit (John 4:24). Though God does not have a physical body, He designed man so man’s physical body could do many of the things God does: see, hear, smell, touch, speak, think, plan, and so forth.

i. “It will hardly be safe to say that the body of man is patterned after God, because God, being an incorporeal spirit, cannot have what we term a material body. Yet the body of man must at least be regarded as the fittest receptacle for the man’s spirit and so must bear at least an analogy that is so close that God and His angels choose to appear in human form when they appear to men.” (Leupold)

f. In Our image, according to Our likeness: The terms for image and likeness are slightly different. Image has more to do with appearance, and likeness has more to do with an abstract similarity, but they both essentially mean the same thing here in this context.

[Snow]

Do any of you think that it is possible to speak against someone’s core beliefs and not be offensive?

Absolument!

Prisonchaplin is the perfect example. I've seen him take a more strident tone on a few occasions but I have never felt either offended or that he was trying to offend me or Mormons. Pretty much the same thing for Maureen.

I person can question your beliefs or state their reservations without saying or implying that you are stupid, immoral, ignorant, lied to, or going to hell.

Now ya'll know that I am a big fan of offending but being offensive about someone's legitimate, core, well-intentioned, religious beliefs is another deal.

[Dr T]

Hello Snow,

We have dialoged at length, and I am happy to say that I have never seen you as offensive. You seem like a person that is willing to "call it the way you see it." You were one of the first to respond to one of my first questions. From that time on, I've seen you as an honest person. This was only based on limited interaction though. I look forward to reading more of you ideas. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Hello Snow,

We have dialoged at length, and I am happy to say that I have never seen you as offensive. You seem like a person that is willing to "call it the way you see it." You were one of the first to respond to one of my first questions. From that time on, I've seen you as an honest person. This was only based on limited interaction though. I look forward to reading more of you ideas. :)

Dr. T. take time to find Snow's marriage proposal post (to Ari, who may currently be posting as Monica), to see an example of his ability to zing at non-core beliefs. It's a unique talent Bro. Snow has. Beware, though--never try what he does at home. It's only meant to be carried out by professionals in carefully controlled situations.

[Dr T]

I did a search but couldn't find it. Do you remember some key words that I can use to find it?

Thanks

[boyando]

You are correct Ray. That sentance can be misleading. I apologize. As you said, "And while we may someday grow up to be exactly like Him, we still have a long way to go." I would say, No, we will never grow to be exactly like Him.

Dr T:

You accidently hit on a truth. No matter how far I progress, I can not become like my Father in Heaven because everything I do for my self and everything that I do for others, adds to his glory.

It is like a pyramid scheme (no light mindedness intended). No matter how hard I try, I will never have what my father above me has. Unlike a pyramid scheme, the reward is pure love. Love, unlike money is not broken down into smaller amounts when shared with others.

That I am almost sure, does not fit into your core believes (not yet anyway) but I don't believe that you are offended by what I just said, because you have a great love for other people.

Please, all of you great people on this site, let me throw out a hypothysis and see were it lands: Our ability to love, will determine how much we are offended by others, core believes. True or false?

[Dr T]

Hello Allmosthumble,

Thank you for your ideas. You are correct; I am not offended by your thoughts. The idea that you bring up in this quote

No matter how far I progress, I can not become like my Father in Heaven because everything I do for my self and everything that I do for others, adds to his glory.

It is like a pyramid scheme (no light mindedness intended). No matter how hard I try, I will never have what my father above me has.

is something with which I have some difficulty. In one thread, awhile back, AK and I were talking about this concept (a little). If we follow you train of thought, that God gets all the glory, it does not follow that "the God before Him" would benefit (like a pyramid scheme). Because it doesnt' follow, I have a hard time coming to the conclusion that it works that way. You thoughts would be appreciated Humble one.

Thank you

[debiinmt]

Hi, I'm new to this chat site, but am intrigued by this thread. IF the questioner does not mean to offend and is simply asking questions, it is the responders responsiblity to not take offense. Intelligent conversations come from that type of discussion. It is each person's right to have their core beliefs -- both the questioner and the questionee. We always need to keep that perspective.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

If we follow you train of thought, that God gets all the glory, it does not follow that "the God before Him" would benefit (like a pyramid scheme).

It is like a pyramid profit model (sounds better than "scheme"). There's one key difference. To extend the analogy, think of money as the glory we add to our Heavenly Father and so on, ad infinitum. In the pyramid model, a percentage of your profits goes to the person above you. That's money out of your pocket.

I see the glory analogy like so: I get "money," I photocopy it, and give the same amount I received to the person above me, where they photocopy it and hand up the line, etc...

In the case of glory, there's no "celestial money mint" and no "celestial reserve bank" to regulate how much "glory goes around." It's not like glory has to be divided and parceled out. Let's look at it this way: If I take up my father's profession (he was a fighter pilot) and he trains me and I excel, it makes him look good because he's "responsible" for my success. Sure, sure, I had to work hard and all that jazz, but my point is that while I gain respect for performing well, my dad would also gain more respect for having made it possible for me to succeed.

I'll be the first to admit I'm using clumsy language to explain an elegant system of eternal progression. My main point is that there's plenty of glory to go around, and as one person gains glory, they give the same amount to the Person who made it possible for them to progress.

[Dr T]

Hi AK,

Thank you for your understanding. I've been wondering where you have been. I hope you are well. I understand that analogies always break down. All that aside, I find it difficult to understand that if we are saying that glory gets passed along, that does not seem to be the case with your God. He is the only one with whom you have anything to do. He says he is a jealous god. If he was really passing on glory, pointing to the one that preceded him or any of that type of thing, why doesn't anyone talk about the specific deity that preceded him? See sir, that is the part that is troubling me right now.

Best wishes to you and your family.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Thanks for your concern for my family Dr. T

If he was really passing on glory, pointing to the one that preceded him or any of that type of thing, why doesn't anyone talk about the specific deity that preceded him?

As you said, He is the only God with Whom we have anything to do. He alone is the author of the Plan of Salvation, the Father of our Savior, the One to Whom we pray and rely on for everything. I can understand your inquisitive nature, Dr. T. These are issues that tax the brain but whose answers seem worth seeking.

All I can tell you is that regarding our personal salvation, we only need to be concerned with three Beings: God the Father, God the Son, God the Testator. Concerning the corridors of eternity and who preceeded our Godhead, we have no revelations and no need to know. I'm not saying we can't want to know, just that such knowledge isn't a necessary part of us working out our salvation with fear and trembling. :)

[pushka]

Ooooh, I'm getting really angry at my computer now!! I've tried to use the Add Reply function and can't get the page to load properly, I've tried the Reply function, and the same happens, and the post I just made using Fast Reply didn't post!!! If it suddenly appears twice, then I apologise. I also apologise for not replying for 24 hours, it's taken me a while to reach this thread again.

Anyway, here goes, and I will try to cover all my previous stuff, but please let me know if I miss replying to anything.

I still believe that homosexuality is something you are born with. I do believe that a homosexual can deny himself homosexual activity and can also marry into a heterosexual marriage and raise children. I am unsure whether all who do so are happy however?

I do also believe that it is possible to rehabilitate sex offenders, up to a point. However I have heard interviews with paedophiles who have stated that they will never lose their attraction to children. It is part of who they are. For those people, they believe castration would be the only real solution to their problem, as well as rehabilitation, of course.

Traveler, you used the example of a divorced couple no longer being attracted to one another as an example of being taught not to be attracted to somebody, through their life experiences together. I find this a little misleading. I am a divorced woman. I choose to no longer look at my ex husband as a potential sexual partner, this does not stop me from being attracted to other men however. I have not become a lesbian, I have just been taught thru my marriage experiences with him, that I am no longer attracted to his personality, not his looks. I don't think this is the same as someone learning how to be attracted to somebody of the same sex, or having aversion therapy in order to teach them to be attracted to somebody of the opposite sex.

On the point of believing in God/not believing in God/Turning away from God being akin to turning your back on your parents, I think this only applies if you once had a belief in God and really do see him as a Father to you. If you have never believed in God, or have been taught to believe in him in the past but have researched and found that you no longer believe in him, then there wouldn't be a problem with turning your back on him, as you just wouldn't believe in him anyway. I think it is possible to be a good person, doing good deeds, without the need to believe in God.

I hope this posts this time!! Still smilin' just about..lol. :)

[JohnTaylor1886]

I saw the topic of this thread and read a few of the posts on this.

I believe in the adage that "offense is never given, but always taken". You cannot be offended if you choose not to be.

The problem with most people is that we do not speak out. There is a time and place for everything, I agree. However, I believe that we have been held captive to political correctness way too long.

Why do I say this? Look at what is going on today. It seems that the media and all of these other libertines try to make people ashamed for associating with a traditional value or a tradition-based system. Look at the way people describe Christians today as being archaic, backwards-thinking, closed-minded characters who cannot think for themselves. Many people that stick to their traditions are painted as those who are not up on the times, and are slaves to what they have been taught.

Ah, yes, and who made you an authority on what I think and what I believe, Mr(s). Enlightened Thinker? Has it never occurred to you that I have already thought about my own beliefs and that is why I accept them?! Who are you to say that I haven't? Do you presume to read everyone else's mind?

And yet, that is exactly what people do. There is nothing more revolting than being told what I think, believe, or feel, especially if it nowhere close. (Such has been my experience with several anti-Mormons..especially those who are so-called "authorities" on Mormonism.)

Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. If you have any doubts about that, do an etymological study on both words. You will be amazed.

I can tolerate homosexuals, but I do not have to accept their agenda. I can tolerate drug users, but I do not have to accept having them acting crazy around me because they are stoned. I can tolerate adulterers, but I do not have to have them in my house or around my wife or girlfriend. I can tolerate Klansmen, but if I catch them in my yard burning a cross, then the lead will be flying.

Is the acceptance that sin is normal and that vices are a good thing...these are examples of enlightened thinking in this day and age?! Heaven help us!

Whatever happened to asking someone their core beliefs instead of assuming them? Yes, the saying about the word "assume" comes to mind here as well.

You may not like what one believes or thinks. You may choose to speak out against it. You may not like the agenda of a group or organization. (For example, Hezbollah's agenda is nothing more than an pitiful, idiotic attempt to stir up trouble and put the blame on Israel. Period.) That's fine. Just make sure that if you choose to throw stones, some may get thrown back at you.

Gee, I wish some of these "Enlightened Thinkers" would realize this? But no, give them their own medicine and they scream like a burned child.

Value of this thought: 1/2¢...so forget the penny for my thoughts.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I pretty much agree JT. Israel will prevail in the end. Once they're hemmed in on every side, they're going to find a secret weapon that'll pretty much make tanks and rockets useless...his name is Jesus Christ. I am of course referring to the Second Coming and the annihilation of Israel's enemies.

As for being offended, Eleanor (sp?) Roosevelt said it best:

"No one can offend you without your consent."

And as someone else said:

"The ability to quote is a suitable substitute for wit."

[john doe]

I believe it was Benjerman Franklan that said, "Only a fool would be offended by someone that did not mean the offence - but it takes a bigger fool to be offended by someone that did mean the offence.

The Traveler

So, the lingering question is, did Ben Franklin ever become so offended by something that he did something about it? Was he not offended by the excessive taxation on the Colonies at the time? Was he not so offended that he signed (and quite possibly helped co-write) the Declaration of Independence? Or was he simply excersizing righteous indignance?

My point is, sometimes offensive behavior does have its limits of tolerance before we should do something about them. If someone comes to this board with the sole intention of causing offense, strife, and dissension among the posters here, I have no problem if the admins decide to remove the offender. You can only laugh off mean-spiritedness for so long before it becomes tiresome. And offensive. And then something has to be done about the offender.

[Dr T]

Interesting thoughts all. Thank you. I hear what each of you are saying. John Doe's point of having a limit is understandable but then taking the heart of what JT said, does that put someone in the "enlightened thinker" position that he so hates?

Dr. T

[JohnTaylor1886]

Interesting thoughts all. Thank you. I hear what each of you are saying. John Doe's point of having a limit is understandable but then taking the heart of what JT said, does that put someone in the "enlightened thinker" position that he so hates?

Dr. T

What puts someone in the position of "enlightened thinker", especially in this day and age?

An "enlightened thinker" is one who preaches tolerance and acceptance of vice.

An "enlightened thinker" is one who won't stand up for what he believes because he worships the god of "non-offense" and political correctness.

An "enlightened thinker" is one who will pander to the emotions of just about anyone.

An "enlightened thinker" spurns those who take a stand, especially if that stand is based on traditional, wholesome values and, hypocritically, refuses to let them have a voice without being heckled.

An "enlightened thinker" is one who accuses those who follow traditional values of backwards and archaic thinking and will suggest going by the values of 2006 and not 1866.

An "enlightened thinker" is one who considers himself an intellectual elite, and in order to be like him, you must sacrifice your morals, ethics, and values for a philosophical "new world order".

An "enlightened thinker" is like a fashion model, always following the trend no matter how ridiculous it is, and will sacrifice any personal values that he has in order to follow that trend.

An "enlightened thinker" never "puts his money where his mouth is".

An "enlightened thinker" will spare no effort in shaming people who believe in things like morality, truth, and decency...things held sacred and dear to most Christians.

Now, when I hear people on the television or radio speak of how people need to live the ideas of today and abandon their traditional beliefs, it puts me on edge because so many people adopt that liberal garbage. (No, I am not speaking politically, although it could also apply.) It's really fascinating. We have things like gay pride, but I guarantee you, if we had Christian pride parades, people would be jeering. People will worship the god of political correctness and believe in henotheism, yet we forget the injunction of the Saviour who said "I am the way, the truth and the life". James E. Faust had a quote that I believe is accurate, and that is "people try to please God without offending the devil", and such is the mindset of these "enlightened thinkers".

Value of this thought...not even worth a tinker's.......

[Traveler]

Here are some thought on this. In the 6th day of creation we read that we were created ( `asah) made in the image of God. We were given dominion over the Earth, (fish of the sea, fowl in the air, animals, etc). Being made in His image does not mean that we are god in embryo. The most revealing thing about Gen 1:26 (and on) is key. We are created by the Creator God. We read that we are mortal not God. In 1 Cor. 11:7 we also read that “…he (man) is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Would you take that to mean that woman are men in embryo?

There are a couple of problems that I see in your logic. First: I would point out that man was not created mortal. (see Genesis 2:17) It was not until man partook of the forbidden fruit and fell from the grace and glory of the Father that mankind became mortal.

Let us take a look at your scripture in 1Cor 11:7. The very word image indicates physical relationship. The word Glory indicates that which pleases or through which fullness is experienced. This would indicate that man is the greatest work of G-d and that in woman is the greatest achievement of man. I would also point out a couple of other things of great interest. Note the word "dominion" in the verse you quoted from Genesis. This word relates directly to G-d and his relationship to the universe - That is G-d has dominion over the universe. This would indeed indicate that coming to earth is the very training and experience to do and learn what G-d does.

Now I would go back to the glory of man in the woman. It is in the relationship and covenant of marriage that G-d has granted the power to create his finest achievement - that is the creation of human life. In marriage, man and woman become creators with G-d in the glory of human life. So I see your logic wrong on two points here - first that man (Adam) was created mortal (man was not created mortal but became mortal through the fall and second that G-d is the creator and mankind is not (I understand that G-d intended that man and woman experience creation of life).

Having had children in the covenant of marriage I know for a fact that there is nothing that man or woman can do while on earth that is more pleasing to G-d than to obey by covenant of marriage the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth with the creation of human life. And this is the greatest achievement of G-d and he has given this power to man so man can be like him. This is one of the major reasons that sexual relationships outside of marriage is do damaging to mankind (and no other creature) because it is part of the essence of that which is G-d.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Ooooh, I'm getting really angry at my computer now!! I've tried to use the Add Reply function and can't get the page to load properly, I've tried the Reply function, and the same happens, and the post I just made using Fast Reply didn't post!!! If it suddenly appears twice, then I apologise. I also apologise for not replying for 24 hours, it's taken me a while to reach this thread again.

Anyway, here goes, and I will try to cover all my previous stuff, but please let me know if I miss replying to anything.

I still believe that homosexuality is something you are born with. I do believe that a homosexual can deny himself homosexual activity and can also marry into a heterosexual marriage and raise children. I am unsure whether all who do so are happy however?

I do also believe that it is possible to rehabilitate sex offenders, up to a point. However I have heard interviews with paedophiles who have stated that they will never lose their attraction to children. It is part of who they are. For those people, they believe castration would be the only real solution to their problem, as well as rehabilitation, of course.

Traveler, you used the example of a divorced couple no longer being attracted to one another as an example of being taught not to be attracted to somebody, through their life experiences together. I find this a little misleading. I am a divorced woman. I choose to no longer look at my ex husband as a potential sexual partner, this does not stop me from being attracted to other men however. I have not become a lesbian, I have just been taught thru my marriage experiences with him, that I am no longer attracted to his personality, not his looks. I don't think this is the same as someone learning how to be attracted to somebody of the same sex, or having aversion therapy in order to teach them to be attracted to somebody of the opposite sex.

On the point of believing in God/not believing in God/Turning away from God being akin to turning your back on your parents, I think this only applies if you once had a belief in God and really do see him as a Father to you. If you have never believed in God, or have been taught to believe in him in the past but have researched and found that you no longer believe in him, then there wouldn't be a problem with turning your back on him, as you just wouldn't believe in him anyway. I think it is possible to be a good person, doing good deeds, without the need to believe in God.

I hope this posts this time!! Still smilin' just about..lol. :)

So sorry about your computer problems. Friend Pushka: I used the divorced couple to demonstrate that mankind are an intelligent beings and can learn and control their attractions. That is my whole point. That attractions are cognitive and can be learned and changed. The operative word is cognitive which means that it requires an awareness - this also indicates control or choice when to be attracted.

Babies are not born with sexual attractions - I am sorry but I cannot see the logic in that at all or why anyone believes that. The nervous system has two parts the cognitive and the sympatric. The sympatric is that part over which there is no awareness. The cognitive is that part that cannot occur without awareness. For example: even though a attractive woman may be in the same room there will not be any attractions until the man becomes aware - not just that the woman is present but also the awareness that they ought to be attracted. Thus some one can be attracted at one time and not another time to the very same person or kind of person.

What I do not understand is why you have made an exception to the cognitive behavior of sexual attraction to all other cognitive behaviors. Why is this one the only exception? What is so convincing to you - you keep saying "you believe" but you never offer the why. I guess it is just how I think but I am unable to make that transition to believe without the why behind it.

Thanks for not going out of orbit on this.

The Traveler

[pushka]

Hi Traveler.

I understand your frustration at my insistence on believing something, yet not being able to offer any concrete reason why. I suppose it's a little like you having faith in something, but (apart from offering scriptural reasons) having no real concrete evidence for your belief...In the Bible being inspired from God, that God exists apart from what you've read that's made you believe, and in the belief that you've received a message (testament) that He lives via the Holy Spirit...which you again believe in, but others cannot see why. (sorry if that was rambling a little!)

I think that I may be supporting the case of homosexuality being less driven by cognicance than other behaviours because the reasons being given as to why it is a learned behaviour suggests that every gay person must have been either molested by a homosexual when they were very young, so now believe that is the acceptable way to act, or is just a depraved person who is merely acting out of lust rather than of real attraction and love towards another person. I just find these unacceptable options on the whole, although I do know of cases where people have been molested and so have gone on to try out homosexual acts when they are older, to see whether they really are gay or not, but from the people I've known who have done that, they are psychologically injured by the abuse they suffered and usually find they are not actually homosexual at all...as I said before, their true sexuality preference becomes apparent over time.

[Traveler]

Hi Traveler.

I think that I may be supporting the case of homosexuality being less driven by cognicance than other behaviours because the reasons being given as to why it is a learned behaviour suggests that every gay person must have been either molested by a homosexual when they were very young, so now believe that is the acceptable way to act, or is just a depraved person who is merely acting out of lust rather than of real attraction and love towards another person. I just find these unacceptable options on the whole, although I do know of cases where people have been molested and so have gone on to try out homosexual acts when they are older, to see whether they really are gay or not, but from the people I've known who have done that, they are psychologically injured by the abuse they suffered and usually find they are not actually homosexual at all...as I said before, their true sexuality preference becomes apparent over time.

I agree - I do not believe being molested by a homosexual is what makes homosexuals - nor do I believe being molested by a heterosexual is what makes a person heterosexual.

I do believe that when a person seeks to satisfy self and self need that it will lead to addictions and bondages. Continual and constant renforcements of additions will result in addictions that are never broken.

Seeking other's needs through self sacrifice leads to freedom and liberty.

Just one side note here. I have never met a homosexual that did not first engage in self sex (almost habbitual). I have met many heterosexuals that have never engaged in self sex. That is not to say that self sex causes homosexuality but only that there is a possible cognitive learning step that if continued to addiction is a possible factor.

The Traveler

[pushka]

Hi Traveler, I think you've finally lost me!!

You seem to be saying that our sexual preferences are an addiction?

I don't think 'self-sex' has anything to do with it either, perhaps you are only speaking to a small group of hetero and homo sexual men on which to base your theory, I know of many heterosexual men who practise 'self-sex' (I take it you mean masturbation?) and it has not led to an addiction with sex with the same or the opposite sex, nor has it affected their ability to be self sacrificing and choose whether or not to have children. Please let me know if I'm still misunderstanding your theories...they do seem to be getting a little 'deep'. :)

[sgallan]

Is the acceptance that sin is normal and that vices are a good thing...these are examples of enlightened thinking in this day and age?! Heaven help us!

Are you also equally as okay with religious sects, such as the Taliban, thinking the same thing about you, and some of your practices, as you are in condeming what you consider sin and vices. Or does it stop with what you consider sin and vice?

[Traveler]

Hi Traveler, I think you've finally lost me!!

You seem to be saying that our sexual preferences are an addiction?

I don't think 'self-sex' has anything to do with it either, perhaps you are only speaking to a small group of hetero and homo sexual men on which to base your theory, I know of many heterosexual men who practise 'self-sex' (I take it you mean masturbation?) and it has not led to an addiction with sex with the same or the opposite sex, nor has it affected their ability to be self sacrificing and choose whether or not to have children. Please let me know if I'm still misunderstanding your theories...they do seem to be getting a little 'deep'. :)

Friend Pushka: I am sorry I lost you: Please consider the possible reality that whenever an individual continues by repetition, behavior to achieve self wants and self gratification, that eventually the individual must ether break off (permanently - by a process of sacrifice) the behavior or that behavior will become addictive. Also please consider that with humans the most addictive behaviors are related to sexual pleasures and drugs that provide similar pleasures.

I had hoped that with this understanding you would be able to identify the dangers and costs of any individual that perseus exploration into such things for the primary or only purpose of self gratification.

I realize that not everyone that indulges in self sex will use that behavior as a gate way to homosexuality. I am suggesting though, that self sex can be a gateway to many sexual addictive behaviors and that self sex is itself an addictive behavior.

Not everybody that finds pleasure in animal cruelty will become an addicted psychopathic killer like Jeffery Dolmer. But all such addicted psychopathic killer started out with such gateway behaviors before progressing to more elaborate behaviors to enhance the personal pleasure acquired by addiction.

Again I submit the logic that addictive behaviors are based on self gratification and that sexual gratification and drugs that produce similar gratifications produce the most addictive behaviors in humans (this is not to say that all addictive behaviors are related to sexual pleasures). I also submit that for this reason there exist in humans a vast array and variation in addictive sexual behaviors - homosexuality being only one of that array.

I would also submit for consideration that when an individual becomes involved in addictive behaviors that they acquire a disposition that such behaviors defines them (meaning that they have always been that way) and that they are hopeless to ever change the behavior.

The plain simple truth is that everything associated with homosexual behavior indicates to me everything that I understand about addictive behaviors that homosexuality is an acquired addictive behavior right down to the expression that those involved are hopeless (for whatever logic or reason) to ever change.

If someone - anyone that understands addictive behavior could demonstrate and logically produce any real difference between homosexuality and known attributes of addictive behavior I would be more than glad to consider the possibility - But in all my searching and asking I have never encountered a believer in homosexuality as not being acquired addictive behavior, to even being willing to try to demonstrate any difference. I find it odd that they refuse to consider the possibility of homosexuality as an acquired addictive behavior. This leaves me with the impression that their conclusion has come about because of methods of social propaganda (brain washing) rather than careful consideration of facts.

Please understand I am not trying to downgrade anyone - I am trying very hard to understand. Thank you for your sincere efforts. I have found your input honest and straight forward

The Traveler