Traveler

The War in Heaven

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No one in their right mind, or in righteousness, would focus on what is wrong with someone who is striving to live by these doctrines, covenants and ordinances.

That's like saying if someone crippled is trying their best to cross a busy street that no one in their right mind, or in righteousness, would pay pay attention to or give any heed to their disability even if it meant them getting smashed by oncoming traffic. Is that really "right mind", "righteous" thinking? Ignore the weakness? Or is it, perhaps, reality that paying attention to the weakness, keeping a special eye out for their unique needs BECAUSE of their weakness, and running to their rescue, maybe even shoving them out of the way in spite of some bruises, is the real right minded, righteous, and actual loving way to approach things? Even better yet, note the weakness before hand and say and do something so the shove out of oncoming traffic situation never comes about.

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No temptation is alleviated by emphasizing that something is wrong with someone; 

I find this patently bologna. The first step to overcoming a weakness is to recognize it. Pretending it is no weakness at all is useful how?

Are we meant to believe that Ether 12:27 is a bunch of hooey? How can weakness lead to humility if one casts off the reality that they have weakness? If our objective and command is to help others gain salvation through repentance than how can we do that if we ignore the reality that there is repentance to do?

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

that is often the devil's way of getting us to succumb to it. 

Helping others to see their weaknesses is the devil's way of getting people to succumb to those weaknesses? According to what? Show me where you get this principle from please? Got a scripture? Quote from a general authority?

I have a source that specifically states that the Lord's means is to show men their weakness. (Ether 12:27 again). You're trying to say that's the devil's means now? So which is it?

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The focus has to be on our divine nature and our power to choose faith in the face of challenges.

This statement is rendered inaccurate by use of the word "the". If you replaced it with the word "a" then it's fine. Pretending that self-improvement isn't painful hard work is not helpful. It is. It always has been. It always will be. God's grace takes up the slack. But it won't pull us along while we bury our heads in the sand and hum a happy tune pretending all is well in Zion because we were just born this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You've got a big chip on your shoulder about this and accordingly set up your semantics and meanings and then use that to judge everyone you deem not in line with your views, all the while proclaiming how we shouldn't judge unrighteously.

How is it that you feel it acceptable to judge others who in your mind are failing to abstain from judging others? Is alienating that group okay with you?

I am not aware that I am judging anyone. If anyone here feels that my argument is about them then they judge themselves. I'm only presenting a case and arguing one side. If no one here wants to hear the other side then they have not only judged themselves, they have defined themselves.

Why are you making this about me? I took a statement and said it was not true. I didn't make about them. You have now made this personal. 

This is the limit. I do not expect an answer. Please don't make me defend myself, it would bring the war that started in heaven into this thread then it won't be about that war, it will be that war.

Have I not made my position clear? What have I said to offend you or anyone on this board?

Frankly, I am new here. I'm not certain what the politics are here. I realize I have waded in over my head but I cannot find a way to escape this topic. I am not wrong. Shall I just leave? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Well, if you are seeing I the same sense at a child with scoliosis, then I stand corrected. But personally I believe that for the child it is that way until an adult changes it with his bigotry. Would the blind man ever think whose fault it was that he was blind, his parents or something he did before being born, if no one asked that question? I think not. The fault for such conclusions lay squarely on the shoulders of the unrighteous judge and they pierce the hearts of the innocent, doing more damage than the affliction (speaking only of those that can be corrected).

I am astounded at the resistance this topic is meeting here. It reminds me of my first trip the Utah. Before I arrived, I had vision of Zion, the pure in heart of one mind but that was quickly dispelled. Zion is not yet on the earth and when it comes, it will not be to Utah.

There's nothing wrong with Utahns; there is something wrong with those who think there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brotherofJared said:

I am not aware that I am judging anyone.

 

18 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I am astounded at the resistance this topic is meeting here. It reminds me of my first trip the Utah. Before I arrived, I had vision of Zion, the pure in heart of one mind but that was quickly dispelled. Zion is not yet on the earth and when it comes, it will not be to Utah.

Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The focus has to be on our divine nature and our power to choose faith in the face of challenges.

This statement is rendered inaccurate by use of the word "the"

But if you just said "in face of challenges", that would be grammatically incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Well, if you are seeing I the same sense at a child with scoliosis, then I stand corrected. But personally I believe that for the child it is that way until an adult changes it with his bigotry. Would the blind man ever think whose fault it was that he was blind, his parents or something he did before being born, if no one asked that question? I think not. The fault for such conclusions lay squarely on the shoulders of the unrighteous judge and they pierce the hearts of the innocent, doing more damage than the affliction (speaking only of those that can be corrected).

I am astounded at the resistance this topic is meeting here. It reminds me of my first trip the Utah. Before I arrived, I had vision of Zion, the pure in heart of one mind but that was quickly dispelled. Zion is not yet on the earth and when it comes, it will not be to Utah.

 

27 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I am not aware that I am judging anyone. If anyone here feels that my argument is about them then they judge themselves. I'm only presenting a case and arguing one side. If no one here wants to hear the other side then they have not only judged themselves, they have defined themselves.

Why are you making this about me? I took a statement and said it was not true. I didn't make about them. You have now made this personal. 

This is the limit. I do not expect an answer. Please don't make me defend myself, it would bring the war that started in heaven into this thread then it won't be about that war, it will be that war.

Have I not made my position clear?

Brother, I see this discussion very clearly, I think.  I understand what you're trying to say.  But you are saying it in a weird way that is easily misinterpreted. I just want to clarify this one thing - If you see nothing wrong with gay sexual intercourse and gay marriage, then yes, we are completely in disagreement there.  You're in a Mormon forum - Mormons believe that sex outside of marriage is harmful and that male and female are necessary in a marital union.  And no, this is not a political position.  This is a HUMANITIES position.

So, I'm going to see if I can help you out.  What you're trying to say is that SSA is something that "just is".  It's not something a person chooses to have.  We all agree on this.  But when you say "there's nothing wrong with them" that is nebulous.  We have explained to you why we think that's confusing.  Because, clearly, a deaf person has something wrong with him - he can't hear.  You want to insist that there's nothing wrong with the person - I think what you're saying is, there's nothing a person can do about changing his deafness or his SSA.  We all agree to that.  Now, a deaf person or a homosexual person HAS TO DO SOMETHING to overcome that weakness.  So when you say, "nothing is wrong with them, there's something wrong with you" that's where we push back on the discussion.  Because that is WRONG.  Basically, one can't just say, I have SSA or I am deaf,.  I don't have to do anything about it - you should just accept me for what I am and something is wrong with you if you don't.  That is problematic because that implies that instead of the homosexual person overcoming his SSA to live a normal existence, you are promoting that he can't help having SSA so he should just do what comes naturally to him.  Or at least, that's what WE hear when you say it - which may not be what you're wanting to say.  So, in the case of the deaf person - you think because they're deaf, they don't have to change to adapt to a hearing world, rather, we have to change to adapt to a deaf world.  This is not as problematic with deafness because deafness has no causation to sinfulness - like, deafness doesn't cause you to have sex outside of marriage.  SSA, on the other hand, has a direct causation to sinfulness.  So, we have to be more careful about normalizing it. 

 

27 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

What have I said to offend you or anyone on this board?

Frankly, I am new here. I'm not certain what the politics are here. I realize I have waded in over my head but I cannot find a way to escape this topic. I am not wrong. Shall I just leave? 

You haven't offended anyone.  Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean we are offended by you.  This has nothing to do with politics.  SSA should not be treated as a political discussion.

Why should you leave?  If you can't handle being challenged, then you'll have a hard time in ANY online forum.  My advice to you is this - hold your position, defend it, but at the same time, listen to what other people are saying, especially those who disagree with you or challenge you.  This is the best way to learn - you will either strengthen your position by seeing the flaws in other people's viewpoints, or you will take a better position after seeing the good points in other people's viewpoints.  At the minimum, you'll understand where people are coming from.   But yes, the first step is to understand what other people are saying and use it to improve the way you express yourself (choice of words is very important in online forums where we can't see non-verbal cues).

Hope this helps and hope you stay.  Even if you're not Mormon.  We have lots of non-Mormons here.  We even have a resident atheist.  But yeah, try not to disrespect Mormonism - and Utah.  It's like going to a Mosque and saying the Koran is a piece of trash.  Just won't get you brownie points, ya know?

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, yjacket said:

In a serious tone, learning the difference between self-righteousness and righteousness is critical.  One can proclaim things are not of God and still recognize that it is only in and through the grace, and mercy of Christ that we can ever hope to obtain salvation.  Self-righteousness is "I have no faults, thank you God b/c I'm so much better than everyone else". Righteousness is "This is wrong, that is wrong; I am not perfect I sin in my own ways, and I'm working on it-thank you God for your Son, help me to be better, help me to be more like Thee, help others around me to be more like Thee."

I define self-righteousness as finding the mote in another person's eye. Righteousness is finding the mote in our own eye and being blind to everyone else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Why are you making this about me? I took a statement and said it was not true. I didn't make about them. You have now made this personal. 

Because I want you to realize the irony of claiming that saying "such-n-such is wrong" is offensive, hurtful, and drives people away from the church when at the same time you are saying EXACTLY THAT. You can't have it both ways. Either saying that isn't so problematic as you seem to think or else what you're doing by saying that is just as problematic. You clearly think it's acceptable, by your very actions in posting here, to come into a public forum and say "THIS is wrong!" But the message you're trying to claim is wrong is that saying something is wrong is wrong. That makes no sense at all.

23 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Please don't make me defend myself

Then don't throw out these constant passive-aggressive accusations. You can couch them all in phrases like "anyone who thinks this way is a hypocrite and a bigot", and that keeps you "technically" safe from having directly called those who think that way hypocrites and bigots, so therefore you can claim "it wasn't personal". But I, for one, am not deceived. It is personal. You're calling me (and those who think as I do) hypocrites, bigots and sinners. How is that not personal? Frankly how you can think that others won't ask you to defend yourself when you do this is astounding.

27 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

What have I said to offend you or anyone on this board?

If it isn't clear from above, I don't particularly care for someone who doesn't know me, doesn't understand the way I think, doesn't even care to learn to understand the way I think, and gets to sit on their anonymous throne and cast judgment at all my views all the while innocently blinking their "who me?" eyes at me like they haven't done a thing that should have upset anyone. You basically say that anyone who sees things a certain way must be evil and then act surprised that those who see it that way are offended? I won't claim to have never called another's views evil. (Actually, I'm probably quite well known for it.) But I'm under no delusions that it shouldn't cause any offense or upset to those people.

Let's be clear though: I'm not emotionally upset. But coming into a room of people and implying they're all hypocrites and bigots who deserve to burn in hell if they don't repent isn't likely to illicit anything else than what you're getting.

34 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I am not wrong. 

Do you suppose that anyone thinks differently of their own views?

35 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Shall I just leave? 

I can't tell if this is a serious request or a tactical plea to elicit sympathy. If the first then the answer is that is your choice, not mine or anyone else's here (except moderators and pending the breaking of site rules and getting oneself banned). We don't collectively own this place. You have as much right as anyone to post your views. If the latter then...yes. ;) (Haha. J/K.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I define self-righteousness as finding the mote in another person's eye. Righteousness is finding the mote in our own eye and being blind to everyone else's.

The bolded is problematic.  It makes the 2nd commandment of Loving Others as you love yourself difficult.  After all, Jesus was not blind to the sin of the adulteress even as he stayed the hand of the ones that want to throw rocks at her.  Rather, he encouraged her to sin no more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's like saying if someone crippled is trying their best to cross a busy street that no one in their right mind, or in righteousness, would pay pay attention to or give any heed to their disability even if it meant them getting smashed by oncoming traffic. Is that really "right mind", "righteous" thinking? Ignore the weakness? Or is it, perhaps, reality that paying attention to the weakness, keeping a special eye out for their unique needs BECAUSE of their weakness, and running to their rescue, maybe even shoving them out of the way in spite of some bruises, is the real right minded, righteous, and actual loving way to approach things? Even better yet, note the weakness before hand and say and do something so the shove out of oncoming traffic situation never comes about.

I find this patently bologna. The first step to overcoming a weakness is to recognize it. Pretending it is no weakness at all is useful how?

Are we meant to believe that Ether 12:27 is a bunch of hooey? How can weakness lead to humility if one casts off the reality that they have weakness? If our objective and command is to help others gain salvation through repentance than how can we do that if we ignore the reality that there is repentance to do?

Helping others to see their weaknesses is the devil's way of getting people to succumb to those weaknesses? According to what? Show me where you get this principle from please? Got a scripture? Quote from a general authority?

I have a source that specifically states that the Lord's means is to show men their weakness. (Ether 12:27 again). You're trying to say that's the devil's means now? So which is it?

This statement is rendered inaccurate by use of the word "the". If you replaced it with the word "a" then it's fine. Pretending that self-improvement isn't painful hard work is not helpful. It is. It always has been. It always will be. God's grace takes up the slack. But it won't pull us along while we bury our heads in the sand and hum a happy tune pretending all is well in Zion because we were just born this way.

Watching out for someone having difficulty crossing the street is very different than hollering out to them, “Something is wrong with you!” Don’t you agree?

In Ether 12:27, the Lord only shows us our weakness, but His focus is to turn them into strengths so as not to be taken advantage of in order to accomplish our work in His name, through humility, faith and grace. I suppose that verse could be applied to overcoming temptation, as it often is, but I think a better scripture for that is 1 Corinthians 10:13, where the focus is not the temptation but our escape from it through trust in the Lord. And back to Ether, don't you think it is telling that "weakness" in this chapter is always in the singular?

As in a relative spiritual sense so that we have it to be humble to accomplish what the Lord has asked us to do in our ministry? And semantically speaking, if you want to apply weakness to a penchant for temptation, does the Lord show us temptation, or does the devil?

Yes, focusing on a temptation and not the Lord is precisely the devil’s way to get us to succumb to it. Focusing on another person's temptation (whether they have come to you for help or you're just judging from afar or just being a busy-body) is not the Lord's way.

So now focusing on the Lord and our covenants is burying our heads in the sand… very nice!

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Watching out for someone having difficulty crossing the street is very different than hollering out to them, “Something is wrong with you!” Don’t you agree?

Yes.

But that's not the point. No one is suggesting "hollering" such a thing, but rather the recognition of it, including those who have "something wrong" recognizing it.

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

His focus is to turn them into strengths

How can a weakness be turned into a strength? I read the meaning being that our weaknesses lead to humility that leads to relying upon the Lord which gives us strength. Not a literal "Alacazam! Now your uncontrollable temper is a strength!"

I mean I know there are examples where one could imply something like meekness is a weakness but then can be a strength. The reality is that meekness is and always has been a strength though and some just view it as a weakness. So not really the same thing.

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As in a relative spiritual sense so that we have it to be humble to accomplish what the Lord has asked us to do in our ministry? And semantically speaking, if you want to apply weakness to a penchant for temptation, does the Lord show us temptation, or does the devil?

I don't think the devil gave me my sex drive.

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, focusing on a temptation and not the Lord is precisely the devil’s way to get us to succumb to it. Focusing on another person's temptation (whether they have come to you for help or you're just judging from afar or just being a busy-body) is not the Lord's way.

This seems to imply something other than what I'm saying. Like you think my views are specifically "only" and "focus" on the weakness/wrong. I haven't said anything of the sort. I'm claiming recognition of is needed.

Like knowing you have a weakness for porn means don't browse the internet alone or watch certain movies or anything else you've recognized might set off the urge to engage in that activity. You need to recognize the weakness first and set up boundaries accordingly. Treating it like, "It's natural. There's nothing wrong." doesn't strike me as particularly helpful. The message that, "you're a good person in spite of all the disgusting things you're tempted to do" may be true, but I don't see much value in the message. Treating it like, "these things are disgusting and I need to do everything I can to avoid them at all costs because I am weak and foolish" seems a better idea. The first doesn't particularly push one to turn to the Lord because they don't need Him to be a good person. The second recognizes the weakness/wrongness and therefore implies the need for help.

I understand there are some who respond to "I am a disgusting person" by wallowing in it. And I have no problem with that individually semantically avoiding those sorts of thoughts. But the "I'm A-okay. Validate me. There's nothing wrong with weakness!" sort of approach strikes me as potentially harmful as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, @brotherofJared, The Folk Prophet doesn't agree with it.  Not sure which one of what I said he said No too.  But whatever it is - just adjust my paragraph for that one discrepancy.

:)

"It's not something a person chooses to have."

I don't agree with this as a blanket idea. I believe sometimes that is the case. I can't say, nor do I think anyone can, how often that is true. But I think the now common acceptance that homosexuality is indisputably beyond a persons choice{s) in all cases is a big load of hogwash.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yes.

But that's not the point. No one is suggesting "hollering" such a thing, but rather the recognition of it, including those who have "something wrong" recognizing it.

How can a weakness be turned into a strength? I read the meaning being that our weaknesses lead to humility that leads to relying upon the Lord which gives us strength. Not a literal "Alacazam! Now your uncontrollable temper is a strength!"

I mean I know there are examples where one could imply something like meekness is a weakness but then can be a strength. The reality is that meekness is and always has been a strength though and some just view it as a weakness. So not really the same thing.

I don't think the devil gave me my sex drive.

This seems to imply something other than what I'm saying. Like you think my views are specifically "only" and "focus" on the weakness/wrong. I haven't said anything of the sort. I'm claiming recognition of is needed.

Like knowing you have a weakness for porn means don't browse the internet alone or watch certain movies or anything else you've recognized might set off the urge to engage in that activity. You need to recognize the weakness first and set up boundaries accordingly. Treating it like, "It's natural. There's nothing wrong." doesn't strike me as particularly helpful. The message that, "you're a good person in spite of all the disgusting things you're tempted to do" may be true, but I don't see much value in the message. Treating it like, "these things are disgusting and I need to do everything I can to avoid them at all costs because I am weak and foolish" seems a better idea. The first doesn't particularly push one to turn to the Lord because they don't need Him to be a good person. The second recognizes the weakness/wrongness and therefore implies the need for help.

I understand there are some who respond to "I am a disgusting person" by wallowing in it. And I have no problem with that individually semantically avoiding those sorts of thoughts. But the "I'm A-okay. Validate me. There's nothing wrong with weakness!" sort of approach strikes me as potentially harmful as well.

It depends doesn’t it, on context and semantics? I do see a lot of hollering going on here. And a lot of waffling.

I think I can sum up my position on this very simply: when you can look a person you deem defective for whatever reason in the eye and tell him he is a beloved child of God with more fervor than when you tell him there’s something wrong with him, you’re on the right track in doing the Lord's work.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm all for that.  But that isn't what you're doing.  When you say "there's something wrong with us."  That is saying there is something wrong with us.

But saying something is wrong with them is okay. Got it.

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That doesn't separate us from our sin.  That's equating us with our sin.

Do you, by any chance, know what that sin is? What sin am I placing on us?

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, let's be consistent.  There's nothing wrong with us.  There's nothing wrong with them.

If we said there was nothing wrong with them, then I wouldn't have started down this path.

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 We can all go about with nothing wrong and be totally blissfully unaware of our weaknesses because God will take care of everything else.

No. The fact is, there is nothing wrong with them. We aren't the judges of them and the person they are. I have no problem with judging what they do. But saying something is wrong with them is a judgment we are not equipped to make. I am not suggesting that we do nothing because nothing is wrong. I believe I was quite clear that I don't know what to do about it if there is anything we can do.

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

No, there is something wrong with us.  There is something wrong with them.

I'm perfectly fine with this and I recognize it, but the only thing we can do anything about is us, not them.

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Based on the actual definitions, that is incorrect.

If a child has autism (which I believe we can all agree is most often not their fault) I have no problem saying "that child ain't right."  Or even "There's something wrong with that kid."

autistic children cannot function in society entirely alone, most often. What's wrong with them is not the same.

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If a teenager doesn't show proper respect or has a propensity towards theft and bully behavior, I say,"That kid's messed up."

The teenager is the responsibility of the parent. Often it is the parent that is the cause that the kid's messed up, but we can't do much about it. Parents often inflicted their children with the challenges they will meet later in life. This is not the same.

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

But for some reason when someone has SSA, it is all of a sudden "wrong" for us to say "That is wrong."

Absolutely correct. Actions are wrong, People are not.

"That is wrong" is fine when it's associated with action. That statement is quite different from "there is something wrong with that person". And I'll agree that something is wrong with the person, but we don't know how to fix them or to fix it, whatever is wrong. We barely know how to fix ourselves and generally, fail at it. Why then would we try to fix someone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

:)

"It's not something a person chooses to have."

I don't agree with this as a blanket idea. I believe sometimes that is the case. I can't say, nor do I think anyone can, how often that is true. But I think the now common acceptance that homosexuality is indisputably beyond a persons choice(a) in all cases is a big load of hogwash.

Okay, this is my 2nd topic dealing with Extremism.  There just really is ZERO benefit to holding such extremist views.  It serves no purpose.

This is a misunderstanding of the issue.  The idea that you can choose to have SSA already denotes that you are not a homosexual.  Are there people who claim to be homosexuals when they're actually not?  Yes, of course.  In the same manner that there are those who say, "I am bipolar" when they're not.

But when talking about SSA issues - especially when we're speaking in generalities as we are on this thread, there is no purpose to focusing on those who are not really homosexuals just to muddy the discussion.  They're already a small minority, there's no point in making them even a smaller minority just so you can reject the claim to irrelevance.  It doesn't help anybody.

The way I understand this is to ask a straight guy (especially one that was not raised in a religious household) - Did you choose to only be sexually attracted to women?  Are you also sexually attracted to men, you just chose not to act on it?  Or do you find sexual relations with men... disgusting, ewww, no way Jose, but yeah, okay, if I'm in jail and the only choice is other men I might just close my eyes and do it but attraction has nothing to do with it?  If that's who you are, then you're not a homosexual.  But if the opposite is how you are - attracted to men, ewww to women, then you're a homosexual.  If you can't say you're disgusted about either men or women, you're not a homosexual either.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I do see a lot of hollering going on here.

In the context of our specific interchange (hollering at a person who has something wrong with them that they have something wrong with them) then I don't see it.

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And a lot of waffling.

Whats wrong with waffling? Isn't that, for the most part, pretty much the entire purpose of why forums exist? A place to waffle?

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think I can sum up my position on this very simply: when you can look a person you deem defective for whatever reason in the eye and tell him he is a beloved child of God with more fervor than when you tell him there’s something wrong with him, you’re on the right track in doing the Lord's work.

I think we've reached agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, this is my 2nd topic dealing with Extremism. There just really is ZERO benefit to holding such extremist views.

You're calling my view that some people might choose and some people don't extremist? As opposed to ALL people are THIS!

Methinks you have a definition problem here with what a word actually means.

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It serves no purpose.

Believing that choices we make affects the person we become serves no purpose?

.......................................okay.

In case you've forgotten, we've had this conversation before. I do not wish to have it again. Think as you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You're calling my view that some people might choose and some people don't extremist? As opposed to ALL people are THIS!

Methinks you have a definition problem here with what a word actually means.

Believing that choices we make affects the person we become serves no purpose?

.......................................okay.

In case you've forgotten, we've had this conversation before. I do not wish to have it again. Think as you wish.

Sigh.

Choices we make affects the person we become. Of course.  Now, explain my cousin, my nephew, my best friend from Kindergarten, all growing up in solid Catholic families with several siblings, going to Catholic schools where homosexuality is taught as sinful, living in an 80% Catholic majority country where homosexuality is taught as sinful, growing up in the Marcos era where homosexuals can end up killed...and still developing SSA.  What choices did they make that made them gay?  Yes, choices affected who they became - my classmate from kindergarten is now living as a woman in London, my cousin and my nephew are living single celebrate lives.  That's why people with SSA have to work on making good choices DESPITE their SSA.  Telling them that they couldn've chosen not to have SSA is a lie, IS HARMFUL and is completely unnecessary.  Yes.  Extremist.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

 We barely know how to fix ourselves 

False.

28 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

and generally, fail at it.

True.

29 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Why then would we try to fix someone else?

We don't. No one ever said that was the objective of any of this. What we would try to do is guide others to the means to fix themselves, which means is repentance (change) which implies change is needed, which change isn't needed if nothing is wrong (we'll leave off the "with them" part as it seems to be causing confusion), and which change is empowered by the Atonement of Christ, (which I believe you declared as a useless tool earlier in the thread -- I'm not entirely sure why).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sigh.

Choices we make affects the person we become. Of course.  Now, explain my cousin, my nephew, my best friend from Kindergarten, all growing up in solid Catholic families with several siblings, going to Catholic schools where homosexuality is taught as sinful, living in an 80% Catholic majority country where homosexuality is taught as sinful, growing up in the Marcos era where homosexuals can end up killed...and still developing SSA.  What choices did they make that made them gay?  Yes, choices affected who they became - my classmate from kindergarten is now living as a woman in London, my cousin and my nephew are living single celebrate lives.  That's why people with SSA have to work on making good choices DESPITE their SSA.  Telling them that they couldn've chosen not to have SSA is a lie, IS HARMFUL and is completely unnecessary.  Yes.  Extremist.

 

In case you've forgotten, we've had this conversation before. I do not wish to have it again. Think as you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

In case you've forgotten, we've had this conversation before. I do not wish to have it again. Think as you wish.

Sure.  I always have hope that I can influence HARMFUL brick walls. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

See.  This is confusing.  I understand what you're trying to do.  You're trying to be compassionate to homosexuals.

Nope. I don't like homosexuals generally. I believe they have an agenda and that it is evil and pernicious. It has nothing to do with compassion. I'll reserve further comment until I see where you're going with this.

 

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

But, compassion doesn't have to include normalization. 

Normalization is, by definition, making everything the same. That's not what I'm doing. Accepting that there are differences is not bringing everything into the same state.

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The more disturbing aspect of your paragraph is the idea that being gay is so normal that it is US who has a problem.

That is not what I'm saying either. I never intended to polarize the US and THEM as being straight and gay. The US is those who judge that something is wrong with others, if for no other reason than that they are different from us. The US can be gays who say there is something wrong with straight heterosexuals. The problem isn't sexual orientation. This applies whenever we undertake to judge others. To judge righteously is to judge the action. To judge unrighteously is to judge the person's weaknesses. This latter judgment leads to prejudice and bigotry (might be the same thing) and to class people and claims false statements like same-gender attraction is a disease that can be cured. It prevents those who have such issues who are confused and uncertain to withdraw and fear the society they exist in. Sometimes the escape is to find people who will accept them as they are, and those people might have an agenda, or to simply escape life altogether. At that point, the problem is now on those who judge, even if they did so innocently, not knowing that their words pierced the lost and confused.

I like my superhero shows. It bothers me that they insist, to be PC, that every show must have characters that portray open gay relationships. I believe that is unnecessary and I believe that doing so is pushing an agenda. I am vocal about my objection. What the shows portray is not that it's normal to have these feelings. They portray that it's normal to act on these feelings. If acting on feelings is the only justification one needs to act on them and it's okay, then Vort's list of "wrongs" would make for some very interesting shows. I'd be afraid to turn on the TV ever again.

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

That it is US who has to change.  That is just plain wrong and can lead to conflicts with the gospel.  We need to continue to support homosexuals to help them on the path of Christ.  The path to Christ doesn't change just because you're a homosexual.

My point is, that it is us who need to stop saying that there is something wrong with others. It doesn't matter what's wrong with them. Our efforts would be much better focused on what's wrong with us because we can do something about that. I know the path to Christ doesn't change. It is the individuals choice to take that path regardless of what's wrong with them. I feel that being the example, that accepting others for what they are has a much better chance of success than does judging them for what they are.

----------------

I crossed posts. Scrolling up and down to add comments is a little awkward. 

5 hours ago, zil said:

To deny that something is wrong in a person who is experiencing same-sex attraction is to deny truth.  God clearly intended us to be attracted to the opposite sex, just as he intended for us to be able to see.  When that doesn't happen, something is wrong.

1

Good example. Not all of us can see. And when that doesn't happen, something is wrong. Can you make that person see? No. So who has to change how they respond to that person? The blind? or the person who has what God intended?

5 hours ago, zil said:

"Wrong" is not the same as "sinful".  "Something is wrong with me" is not the same as "I did something wrong", nor even "Someone did something wrong."

Then we should stop treating as if it was sinful or even as something that can be fixed.

Edited by brotherofJared
Oops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now