Core Belief ?'s

[Traveler]

I thought to add one other thing to my previous post. In 1974 the American Psychiatric Association declared that homosexuality was not an illness (I assume this means that they thought it not to be an acquired addictive behavior). Yet in their declaration there is not a single scientific study cited to back the declaration or give any validation to it. There has been no effort to my knowledge to scientifically pursue this possibility in any specific published study I have ever heard of.

My question to any reader that cares to add opinion or reason - Why would a scientific association make a statement without any scientific basis or backing? If the reason was that there was no evidence that homosexuality was an addiction (illness) - Why not make a statement that because of lack of evidence and research that homosexuality should not be considered an illness or not an illness without real evidence by which to make a scientific conclusion? In essence their method was to close the door to research or consider any evidence - ever and without scientific method to reach their conclusion.

I do not see this as a scientific method or even a informed conclusion. It looks to be to be propaganda in its most glaring and obvious form. I do not know why any reasonable and informed person would or should accept it.

As for myself - I see no other course than to rely on what-ever evidence we are allowed - and it appears to me from that evidence that homosexuality is an acquired addictive behavior. Is there any evidence to the contrary?

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Hello Traveler,

Here are my thoughts on the issue. When I say we are mortal, I am talking about being human (mortal limits) not god. You make a good point when you point to the creation “when you eat of it you shall surely die.” Death there however is talking about a spiritual death. An important side note to that is how Satan tricked Eve into partaking. He told her “"You shall be as gods." This approach seems to be continuing today. I’ll try and explain how my point of view (POV) differs from yours. We read about sin entering the world in Gen 3. We also see that this sin, through Adam, makes occasion for all to die (Rom 5:12). Eph. 2:1 says, “And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;” is talking to people that were still alive physically, but tells them that they were dead because of sin (a spiritual death). We then see in Jn 3:16 that salvation is in Jesus for those that believe. 1 Peter 1:18-19 also tells us that our salvation is not bought by anything but Jesus’ blood. We then see starting in Lk 16:19 that men get divided for eternity. See Matt. 25:46 for an example of this. And Lk 16:26 also says that this separation cannot be changed. Then Jn 3:36 tells us “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” When Jesus was talking to Nicodemus (see John 3) He told him that he had to be born of the Spirit to enter into the kingdom of heaven. The spirit that died as the result of man's sin must be reborn in man.

I’m also curious about another tree God placed in the garden. The tree of life. God took extra precautions after the fall to keep Adam and Eve away from it. If they were going to live forever (physically) anyway, why would God have placed something like that there?

The word “dominion” there was about our task of watching over and caring for the world. Although it belonged to the Creator, we were called to tend to it. After the fall the heavy toil and sweat of our brow accompanied that curse.

Dr. T

[pushka]

Hi Traveler, also my friend :)

Thanks for your extra posts. I do see how any activity, sexual or non sexual, related to drugs or not, can become addictive if it is repeatedly enjoyed. I do not see this as dangerous in itself, with the exception of taking drugs/becoming an alcoholic, or practising unsafe sex-without protection, be that homosexual or heterosexual sex.

I still do not see that as the main motivation for homosexuals however. I have heard homosexuals and their families speak of how they felt homosexual from a very early age, attracted to the same sex I mean, not actually indulging in the homosexual activities. How the families of those people could tell their son or daughter was homosexual or a lesbian from an early age too. These children, as they grew older, just did not feel attracted to the opposite sex. Nobody taught me, as a child, to just be attracted to males, I just felt that way. It is my belief that it is exactly the same for gay people.

I do agree that people can force themselves to no longer take part in activities which others frown upon, in order to fit into a particular group. However I do not believe that this means that they are no longer tempted by that activity. I know this sounds like I'm agreeing to your 'addiction' theory, when I say it's like a drug addict or alcoholic, once an addict always an addict even though you don't do the activity anymore, so I will say, once a homosexual/lesbian, always a homosexual/lesbian, even though you don't practise it anymore...but NOT addicted or taught to be homosexual or lesbian.

I hope I'm not beginning to sound annoyed or anything myself. I suppose it's just as frustrating to me to see why you cannot believe that a child can just find him/herself unattracted to the opposite sex without thinking that they have been taught this in some way or are addicted to homosexual behaviour if it gives them pleasure so they continue to practise it.

[Traveler]

Hi Traveler, also my friend :)

Thanks for your extra posts. I do see how any activity, sexual or non sexual, related to drugs or not, can become addictive if it is repeatedly enjoyed. I do not see this as dangerous in itself, with the exception of taking drugs/becoming an alcoholic, or practising unsafe sex-without protection, be that homosexual or heterosexual sex.

I still do not see that as the main motivation for homosexuals however. I have heard homosexuals and their families speak of how they felt homosexual from a very early age, attracted to the same sex I mean, not actually indulging in the homosexual activities. How the families of those people could tell their son or daughter was homosexual or a lesbian from an early age too. These children, as they grew older, just did not feel attracted to the opposite sex. Nobody taught me, as a child, to just be attracted to males, I just felt that way. It is my belief that it is exactly the same for gay people.

Hello friend: My best friend from the time I was 5 until after my mission and serving in the military was a boy. We did everything together, we stood by each other and we loved each other - we never engaged in sexual activity most likely because we were taught not to. I have been attracted to many men but because I was taught not to seek sexual pleasure with men that never happened - not even an experiment. But it was not without counter example or effort to teach me otherwise - my best friend's brother grew up homosexual and died of aids. He was not so different from my friend in his youth - except he experimented with things we didn't.

To be honest I have had difficulties marrying a woman. I have written a book titled 101 things a man can say to his buddies but never to his wife. It was never published and was written with humor and frustration over the differences of men and women. Much in my marriage I have not done because I wanted to but because I believed it was right. My marriage is the greatest accomplishment and joy of my life - it did not just happen - I had to learn to make it happen. More often than not that meant sacrificing what I wanted (yes even in sex) for the greater benefit of my wife.

Now I may not be an expert in these things but everyone that I know that enjoys their marriage says the same thing - It will not happen just letting what will happen, happen. Such joy comes from great effort and sacrifice and learning and changing things in their life. If a person is unwilling to change themself for the benefit of others they will never perform true service. I am not looking for excuses for not doing something - I am looking for real non-selfish things to believe in something - And I do not see it with homosexuality.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Hello Traveler,

I’m also curious about another tree God placed in the garden. The tree of life. God took extra precautions after the fall to keep Adam and Eve away from it. If they were going to live forever (physically) anyway, why would God have placed something like that there?

The word “dominion” there was about our task of watching over and caring for the world. Although it belonged to the Creator, we were called to tend to it. After the fall the heavy toil and sweat of our brow accompanied that curse.

Dr. T

You and I see something different in scripture. I see the garden epoch as symbolic - including the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. The tree of life was always there but it was not needed until after the fall. I see the atonement of Jesus Christ in the symbolism of the tree of life. Unlike you I do not see G-d keeping Adam and Eve from the tree of life - I see G-d making sure that no one came to it unless they came on the right way. I see Jesus Christ in other symbolism of the garden epoch as well. For example: At the end of chapter 2 of Genesis, G-d places cherubim and a flaming sword to "keep the WAY" to the tree of life. Jesus said he is the "WAY" and if you search all the scriptures you will find only one place where anyone with a sword and fire has anything to do with salvation and that is in Revelation chapter 19.

So either the scriptures are nuts and full of nonsense stuff or there is meaning and things to learn that are important. If you can come up with something different I will listen but I am quite sure that Jesus and his role was known and symbolically hidden right from the start.

BTW - If I were you I would be careful believing what Satan says - he is a liar and more likely not tell something that is true than something that is a lie. If you can find anyone else that is know for telling the truth saying the same thing then I would be more likely to believe it is true - but unlike you I do not believe knowledge of good and evil (by itself) will make anyone like the g-ds.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

I see that we do take different things from scripture Traveler. You see the tree of K of G&E as symbolic. Ok, can you tell me what you see it symbolic of exactly. How did humans fall/become seperated from God? How is that relationship restored? Thanks for you thoughts Treveler.

[JohnTaylor1886]

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?

Ah yes, the old argument for moral relativism. Sin and vice are exactly that, sin and vice. Much like describing the taste of salt, except in this case, there is right and there is wrong.

I couldn't care less about what the Taliban says or thinks, personally, and that is because that group has already demonstrated who they are by their actions of destruction, terrorism, and perversion of the Qur'an.

Even atheists would agree that even if the religious standards were not present, there is a law of universal justice, and I have noted that they also have the same set of values as those who are Deists. (I met quite a few atheists in Poland, actually, and put the question to them.)

I do not have to accept what I know to be wrong. There is a difference in being unaccepting and being intolerant. You can call me unaccepting if I choose to speak out against homosexuality, drug use, pornography, etc. You can call me unaccepting if I choose to fire shots at a dope dealer who is coming into my house after I tell him that he is not welcome. You can call me unaccepting for saying that illegal immigrants should be shipped back from whence they came.

The difference between the Taliban and myself is that I do not seek to force my will on anyone, and I also do not want anyone forcing their will on me. It is a sin in both cases. While I will always believe that men are free to act for themselves, I also believe in the statement by Sir Edmund Burke, who said "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". Yet that is the very thing that we are encouraged to do, nothing.

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

In Atlanta, a man decided to open an adult book store in a neighborhood where there were a lot of children and a few churches. The county had to grant the permit above the protests of its citizens because not to grant the permit was considered trampling on the rights of the 1st Amendment. The citizens rallied together and boycotted the store and the store was forced to close down and move elsewhere.

This is ideal. Why? Because the citizens took action that was not invasive and shut down their enemy. No one had to resort to violence, attacks, or anything of that nature. The citizens stood up for themselves, and fought by refusing their patronage.

I feel the same way. The Taliban and other Islamo-fascists are trying to force people to capitulate to their way of thinking by terrorism and senseless violence. Any ideal that relies on the use of force to propagate it is definitely an ideal that will not survive long.

Two examples: Jesus Christ did not require violence to further His ideals. And yet his teachings have gne around the world and have lasted for about 2,000 years.

On the other side of the coin, we have Adolf Hitler. His way of propagating National Socialism was to eliminate people who would not accept his political or racial agenda. He only lasted 12 years as a leader.

Now, as far as sin and vice go, like I said, it is not relative. However, there is also what is called transgression. Transgression is a mere stepping across of the boundaries, stepping beyond what is acceptable, whether you know it or not. Sin is transgression, but it is done willfully and with full knowledge that consequences will be brought about.

Now that this has been estabished, sin is not acceptable. If one wants to find pleasure in vice, then that is their decision, but also, I have the right (yes, right) to find pleasure in calling people aboslute idiots who overindulge in such things. And they have the right to ignore me, shout back, or turn away and cry.

Getting back to the topic at hand, if you don't want your core beliefs insulted, then don't hang them on your sleeve. You have the right to believe what you will or in nothing at all (nihilism). However, offenses come when (1) people take offense and (2) when people try to force others to acceptance, because that shows signs of a weak-minded individual or group who tries such (e.g. Taliban). There is no obligation to protect you from being offended, such rights are not guaranteed in the Constitution or anywhere else.

[sgallan]

The difference between the Taliban and myself is that I do not seek to force my will on anyone, and I also do not want anyone forcing their will on me.

You could have saved yourself some time and just said the above. Because I really don't care all that much about what you, or any other person, religious or otherwise, with different values, thinks of me, as long as you don't attempt to force it on me. I like that there are different views..... the world would be kind of boring if we were all alike.

[Dr T]

Hi Sgallan,

Just so we're clear. You are saying that it is not ok to place "absolute rules" or our own persoal standard onto someone else. Is that correct? If it is, are you making that an absolute standars?

Thanks

[pushka]

Hi Traveler. I cannot disagree with what you said about it being hard work to make a marriage work, and that a great deal of sacrifice is required in order to succeed at it.

I admire your ability to place your own needs beneath those of your wife, and of your God.

I also understand that society generally tries to pigeonhole people and behaviours into types and acceptable/non-acceptable kinds. Again, I admire your strength of will for going along with what you were taught was acceptable behaviour as opposed to what your natural tendencies might have been. On the other hand, I do not condemn others that do not choose your way. Please don't forget that many homosexual/lesbian couples do want to raise children, whether they are theirs naturally or by adoption, I think this is admirable.

[sgallan]

You are saying that it is not ok to place "absolute rules" or our own persoal standard onto someone else. Is that correct? If it is, are you making that an absolute standars?

My vote will go for the Taliban and/or Whabbi(sp) Islam. Their God says what they do is proper, and they have millions and millions of adherents. Who is to say they are wrong afterall?

[Traveler]

I see that we do take different things from scripture Traveler. You see the tree of K of G&E as symbolic. Ok, can you tell me what you see it symbolic of exactly. How did humans fall/become seperated from God? How is that relationship restored? Thanks for you thoughts Treveler.

There is a reason that scriptures and such things from G-d are given symbolically. When Jesus was asked why he taught symbolically in parables he answered so that only the covenant followers would understand and that the world as a whole would not get it.

In the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS our doctrine understands that the fall of Adam was not just a choice of Adam and Eve. We believe that the Father had a great counsel in Heaven where he discussed his plan with each and every one of us to come to experience and understand things that at the time only he understood and had experienced. This plan included several things. One thing was that we obtain a physical body (in the image and likeness of his) and have physical experiences (as he had). But he also pointed out that there could be risks in having a physical body. The greatest risk is that we could be altered forever from our spiritual state by the almost un-resistible propensity to sin.

The only way to permanently overcome sin would come through experience of the pain (including death) of sin and an atonement by a savior G-d willing to sacrifice their life for the rest of us. Thus we would have knowledge of evil. We would also be able to sacrifice ourselves in a similar manner for others. This would come through loyalty to the commandments of G-d and following the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Thus we would have knowledge of good.

The problem is that once we come to a knowledge of good and evil we would have to make a choice between them. This is called agency. We would become an agent of good or an agent of evil. There was another problem - once tarnished by evil we would become corrupted and unworthy to live with our Father in heaven as members of his kingdom.

Now we see how the atonement of Jesus Christ enabled the Father plan (which pleased the Father concerning Jesus).

The ancient Hebrew name and word Adam is a term that means man. The ancient Hebrew name and word Eve is a term that means “Mother of those that will live”. For me the symbolism of the tree of Knowledge of Good and evil is accepting the coming to earth, obtaining a body, experiencing the joy of good and the pain of evil and the acceptance of Jesus Christ to redeem us from evil.

For G-d to cast us out of his kingdom of heaven without us having a choice would make G-d unjust. If we had no choice but to become fallen and live on earth because of Adam’s transgression would make G-d unjust. For G-d to allow us to become fallen without any hope, would make G-d unloving. Thus partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is symbolic of each of us buying into G-d the Father, G-d the Son (Jesus Christ) and the G-d the Holy Ghost and having faith that they would lead us into a higher state (salvation - resurrection) that we could never obtain on our own.

Thus G-d the Father, G-d the Son (Jesus Christ) and G-d the Holy Ghost together accomplish that which none of them had power to do as individual G-ds on their own. They achieved the highest achievement that there is. They make the impossible possible in an incredible act of love and service that frees man in the same manner that they (G-ds) are free (as spoken of in John 10). That we can be exalted to a status of citizenship in the Kingdom of G-d and in his heaven that they enjoy and know what they know. But G-d realized that some, having experienced evil would turn away and desire something else and in his great love he has provided a place where they will be happy. And thus we all have become partakers of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Hi Traveler. I cannot disagree with what you said about it being hard work to make a marriage work, and that a great deal of sacrifice is required in order to succeed at it.

I admire your ability to place your own needs beneath those of your wife, and of your God.

I also understand that society generally tries to pigeonhole people and behaviours into types and acceptable/non-acceptable kinds. Again, I admire your strength of will for going along with what you were taught was acceptable behaviour as opposed to what your natural tendencies might have been. On the other hand, I do not condemn others that do not choose your way. Please don't forget that many homosexual/lesbian couples do want to raise children, whether they are theirs naturally or by adoption, I think this is admirable.

There are two things I would like to respond to in your post. First I agree that we do not condemn those that disagree with us. However there is a second point. That point is that we recognize that their choice is not needed for society to exist and that society does not have an obligation to force by law the notion that their behavior must be given incentive equal to the encouragement we need to maintain for biological parents to love and care for their own children. I cannot accept that such thinking that loving biologocal parents should be or can be replaced without possible effect of children. We must first take into account what is best for children or that something other than loving biological parents willing to love and sacfirice will be equal or improve for children what a loving and a proper relationship between the biological parents will do for children. I know that some can desire for children that which is better than what many children have but it is not the best that can be done for children nor is it equal to the best. I do not believe we should ever forget what is best for the children.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Hi Traveler,

Thanks for the lesson on this. To make sure I'm getting this straight, I'll see if I heard you correctly. You are saying that God the Father needed a counsel to run things by, to educate them on His plan for salvation and this is what they chose:

People would not/do not understand some things unless they are part of the covenant. Can you explain that more? As for sin, (sorry I have some confusion here) you are saying that Jesus' atonements shows us the knowledge of good and evil. This is the part I'm confused about, I thought you said that we all choose to sin because, in so doing, we can know what choosing good is. Sorry if i missed it. You are also saying that God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost all work in unison because they could not accomplish all this on their own. I'm sure I didn't cover everything you said but I'll end with this last piece. You are saying that humanity is unable to chose good and inevitably would sin. Would you say that God tempted us (which I do not think He does) or Satan? Is it something in our body? What makes people sin?

Thanks again,

Dr. T

[sgallan]

Hey Dr T -

I appreciate that you got my point (I say this with no sarcasm). It is unusual to find someone who can read between the lines... so to speak. :)

[Dr T]

:)

[pushka]

Hi Traveler. Are you saying that gay couples adopting children is not the 'best for children' because it can never be as good as a child having its own biological parents/man + woman?

I would say that a situation in which a child is brought up in any environment in which it is loved and the best is done to care for that child and to educate it is just as good, if not better in some cases, as being brought up by its natural biological parents.

I'm sure the children up for adoption would be happier with a gay couple than having to spend the rest of their childhood in a care home or moving from one foster home to another, without any continuity to their education or surroundings.

I agree that it is the ideal that children be brought up by their natural parents, as long as they are capable of doing so.

I do feel that gay couples ought to have the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to adoption.

Think we may have to just agree to disagree on some of our core beliefs! :)

[Traveler]

Hi Traveler. Are you saying that gay couples adopting children is not the 'best for children' because it can never be as good as a child having its own biological parents/man + woman?

I would say that a situation in which a child is brought up in any environment in which it is loved and the best is done to care for that child and to educate it is just as good, if not better in some cases, as being brought up by its natural biological parents.

I'm sure the children up for adoption would be happier with a gay couple than having to spend the rest of their childhood in a care home or moving from one foster home to another, without any continuity to their education or surroundings.

I agree that it is the ideal that children be brought up by their natural parents, as long as they are capable of doing so.

I do feel that gay couples ought to have the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to adoption.

Think we may have to just agree to disagree on some of our core beliefs! :)

I agree that children being brought up gay couples as better than feeding them to crocodiles. The fact that something worse can be found is not the point - please forgive me for the extreme example. To be honest I am not concerned about the rights of parents (biological or otherwise) as I am about the rights and needs of children. I glad you agree that "the ideal" is that children be brought up by their natural parents in a kind, loving and caring environment. I will go even farther to say that children have the right to be brought up properly by their biological parents and when they are not society and their parents have failed them.

I realize that one parent cannot force another parent to execute their responsibilities - that is not the point either. My point is - what ought to be and what society has as its first obligation to children and the next generation. That is to make clear - without exception what is really the best and ideal.

Our society is failing badly - 60 percent of the children being borne today in our society will not be raised in the home of their biological parents and that is not to say that those that are; that society is encouraging the parents to consider the children's needs before their own passions and desires. I do not believe that homosexuality is the main problem and I am sorry that we are stuck on that.

I believe that if society was doing its part that everyone would believe that the best for children is to be brought up properly by their biological parents; understanding and knowing the love and care of a mother and what mothers add to society and the love and care of a father and what fathers offer to society. If for any reason, that is not possible, then I believe that our next best is to offer to children the next best situation that reflects the environment of their biological parents of a loving father and a loving mother. I do not think that we ever ought to compromise the importances of fathers and mothers performing their responsibilities.

I do not think we should ever give the impression that a father or a mother is really not that important for children or society and can easily be replaced with hardly any effect to care about on children or society. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children and making sacrifices to help society. My problem is what many come to assume that such should be given the same priority as a father and mother - the reason is that I cannot accept the message is send about the needs for fathers and mothers. It is about children and without fathers and mothers there will be no children.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on our core beliefs. I do want to make certain that it is understood that my core belief is in the role of fathers and the role of mothers being recognized as the single most important right for children. Anything that distracts from that understanding - I cannot and will not support.

The Traveler

[pushka]

Okay Traveler..I think we've near enough reached an agreement here. Perhaps I would be better stating that I think each individual, male or female, straight or gay, should be judged on their own merits before being allowed to care for a child (via adoption/fostering), bearing in mind the needs of the child above all else. That way, if a gay person is found to be better suited to bring up that child than a straight person, then I would have no objection to this. I hope that satisfies, a little, both our positions :)

[Traveler]

Hi Traveler,

Thanks for the lesson on this. To make sure I'm getting this straight, I'll see if I heard you correctly. You are saying that God the Father needed a counsel to run things by, to educate them on His plan for salvation and this is what they chose:

People would not/do not understand some things unless they are part of the covenant. Can you explain that more? As for sin, (sorry I have some confusion here) you are saying that Jesus' atonements shows us the knowledge of good and evil. This is the part I'm confused about, I thought you said that we all choose to sin because, in so doing, we can know what choosing good is. Sorry if i missed it. You are also saying that God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost all work in unison because they could not accomplish all this on their own. I'm sure I didn't cover everything you said but I'll end with this last piece. You are saying that humanity is unable to chose good and inevitably would sin. Would you say that God tempted us (which I do not think He does) or Satan? Is it something in our body? What makes people sin?

Thanks again,

Dr. T

Point 1. G-d is not just to force all mankind to suffer because of Adam and Eve without any choice in the matter. To punish us for Adam and Eve is not justice - I do not believe that G-d is unjust. I have no idea what you believe because you have not said what you believe regarding this matter.

Point 2. The Tree of Knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of our current state. We experience both good and evil in this life. Even if someone was to live choosing only good - as Jesus did they will still suffer because of evil. It is not just the evil that suffer - those that do evil cause all to suffer. That is part of the charactor of evil. Again you do not offer anything to the discussion of what it means to know good and evil.

Point3. It is the nature of that which is physical to focus on the wants and needs of self. It is the attraction of self gradification that draws people to sin. That which is physical is more likely to reinforce self gradification that that which is spiritual.

That G-d allows us to be tempted is not to say that he tempted us. I do think that G-d encourages us to exist in a suituation where we can be tempted - evening knowing in advance that we all will sin. Yes I believe G-d knew Adam and Eve would sucum to Satan's temptation - but I believe he still allowed it - even realized that it would benefit Adam and Eve - and all of us. Again you have said nothing as to why you think G-d forced Adam and Eve to be in the Garden knowing that Satan would tempt them and that they would fall - not much of a choice for Adam and Eve in my mind? That would be like making your children play on the freeway knowing they would be run over and then blaiming them when it happened saying something like did I not tell you to be careful playing on the freeway. G-d did not warn Adam and Eve about Satan - whose fault then is that?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Very well said Pushka. I agree with the idea that it ca nbe best for kids to have a "mother" and a "father" however to limit the children to only these options if a better one exists would not be in the best interest of the child in my eyes. If the child could get better love and attention out of a gay couple in their area instead of being forced into a substandard straight family, then i say put them where they will be loved and nurtured.

I am sorry that I have not made my point clear. If a father and a mother are not upholding their responsibilities for their children and society and its laws implies in anyway that this failure to the children can be conpensated for - We have all failed the children - it is not just the failure of parents - it is the failure of everybody. If the best we can offer is gay parents - we have failed. But thank heavens for at least providing gay parents so we do not have force children into something worse.

I am sad that we have failed children to the point that we must admit this is the best that our society can do for many of our children. I am also sad that this admission as failure to our children is not very popular in our society.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Hello Traveler,

You say that I have not added to the discussion on various points. Again, I'm trying to understand your stance based on what you have said thus far. You did not address my confusion though in this search for understanding (which you can find in the quote in your last post) about what you said about sin and the atonement of Christ.

God placing people in a position to follow Him or disobey Him wile giving the opportunity to be reconciled to Him through Jesus is very just and compassionate. Your conclusion that He forced them to make a choice to obeying or not as being impossible and therefore unjust/unrealistic/unfair (or whatever other word you want to use there) misses the fact that it is God's plan. Who are we (mere humans) to say God did it wrong? Just as you said, it is beneficial to experience both good and evil and have free agency to chose to obey or not. This is the way that we learn the need for acceptance of Jesus' death for us on the cross. Then we can show by our fruits and devotion by becoming more Christ-like that we have been saved.

Would you say that God putting us on this Earth, while He knows that is sin in the world and we will be tempted and ultimately fail, is unjust? (I'm guessing you would say) "No". Then why would it be in the Adam and Eve account? I also agree that physical gratification is very appealing. Spiritual gratification however, is also gratifying. How else would you explain putting off physical desires and conforming to what God wants if there spiritual dealings are not also reinforcing? Ultimately was it God's fault that Adam and Eve disobeyed? I would answer no. They were given a direction from God and they chose to put themselves above God. Adam put Eve above God too. When we sin, we always put ourselves/our wants ahead of God. Is that God's fault?

Thanks for your ideas

[pushka]

<div class='quotemain'>

Very well said Pushka. I agree with the idea that it ca nbe best for kids to have a "mother" and a "father" however to limit the children to only these options if a better one exists would not be in the best interest of the child in my eyes. If the child could get better love and attention out of a gay couple in their area instead of being forced into a substandard straight family, then i say put them where they will be loved and nurtured.

I am sorry that I have not made my point clear. If a father and a mother are not upholding their responsibilities for their children and society and its laws implies in anyway that this failure to the children can be conpensated for - We have all failed the children - it is not just the failure of parents - it is the failure of everybody. If the best we can offer is gay parents - we have failed. But thank heavens for at least providing gay parents so we do not have force children into something worse.

I am sad that we have failed children to the point that we must admit this is the best that our society can do for many of our children. I am also sad that this admission as failure to our children is not very popular in our society.

The Traveler

I think this is where we cannot agree with each other Traveler...Your sentence 'If the best we can offer is gay parents - we have failed', sounds to me as if you consider gays to be akin to 2nd class citizens? I'm sure that isn't what you really mean, but that is how it sounds.

Loving, Gay couples are much better than unloving/uncaring straight couples, and I don't see how the failure of one set of parents can be blamed on society as a whole?

[Ray]

Hello Traveler,

You say that I have not added to the discussion on various points. Again, I'm trying to understand your stance based on what you have said thus far. You did not address my confusion though in this search for understanding (which you can find in the quote in your last post) about what you said about sin and the atonement of Christ.

God placing people in a position to follow Him or disobey Him wile giving the opportunity to be reconciled to Him through Jesus is very just and compassionate. Your conclusion that He forced them to make a choice to obeying or not as being impossible and therefore unjust/unrealistic/unfair (or whatever other word you want to use there) misses the fact that it is God's plan. Who are we (mere humans) to say God did it wrong? Just as you said, it is beneficial to experience both good and evil and have free agency to chose to obey or not. This is the way that we learn the need for acceptance of Jesus' death for us on the cross. Then we can show by our fruits and devotion by becoming more Christ-like that we have been saved.

Would you say that God putting us on this Earth, while He knows that is sin in the world and we will be tempted and ultimately fail, is unjust? (I'm guessing you would say) "No". Then why would it be in the Adam and Eve account? I also agree that physical gratification is very appealing. Spiritual gratification however, is also gratifying. How else would you explain putting off physical desires and conforming to what God wants if there spiritual dealings are not also reinforcing? Ultimately was it God's fault that Adam and Eve disobeyed? I would answer no. They were given a direction from God and they chose to put themselves above God. Adam put Eve above God too. When we sin, we always put ourselves/our wants ahead of God. Is that God's fault?

Thanks for your ideas

One of my ideas centers around concern that you are misdiagnosing your patients, Doc, if you can think Traveler actually meant what you think when he responded to you and your post.

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Very well said Pushka. I agree with the idea that it ca nbe best for kids to have a "mother" and a "father" however to limit the children to only these options if a better one exists would not be in the best interest of the child in my eyes. If the child could get better love and attention out of a gay couple in their area instead of being forced into a substandard straight family, then i say put them where they will be loved and nurtured.

I am sorry that I have not made my point clear. If a father and a mother are not upholding their responsibilities for their children and society and its laws implies in anyway that this failure to the children can be conpensated for - We have all failed the children - it is not just the failure of parents - it is the failure of everybody. If the best we can offer is gay parents - we have failed. But thank heavens for at least providing gay parents so we do not have force children into something worse.

I am sad that we have failed children to the point that we must admit this is the best that our society can do for many of our children. I am also sad that this admission as failure to our children is not very popular in our society.

The Traveler

I think this is where we cannot agree with each other Traveler...Your sentence 'If the best we can offer is gay parents - we have failed', sounds to me as if you consider gays to be akin to 2nd class citizens? I'm sure that isn't what you really mean, but that is how it sounds.

Loving, Gay couples are much better than unloving/uncaring straight couples, and I don't see how the failure of one set of parents can be blamed on society as a whole?

You’re sure that isn’t what he really thinks about that but YOU are making it sound that way anyway.

Does anyone else want to misrepresent what Traveler is saying, or to assign society into classes?

Personally, I think Traveler did a very good job of explaining why “gay” people CAN’T be very good parents… not counting what happens when real parents don’t do their duty as parents and society thinks it can cope with the victims.

And btw, when did the world vote to use the word “gay” to describe people who act like that???

I never voted to give them that word and “queer” makes a lot more sense.

[Dr T]

Hello Ray,

Sir, I'm sorry but I have not been reading the discussion between Traveler and Pushka beyond a quick scan (sometimes). If there was something specific that related to our discussion in that dialogue, I did not read it. Maybe I should have. My fault.