Fether

Stacey Harkey comes out

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

In defense for @Just_A_Guy, although he is very articulate at defending himself. I don't believe his post was about someone supporting Stacey as breaking any standard with the Church. The post appears to follow this line of thought:

Realistically we all break the standards of the church... its called sinning.  Its not a good thing, however as long as we recognize it as such and are trying to do better we will be ok.  The bigger problem is when we buy into the lies the world selling that our favorite sin (whatever it might be) is really ok.

Public figures are not immune to sinning... And we should not expect them to be.  The real question is are they becoming converted to the Great and Spacious Building?  We have no way of knowing that at this point in time.  However stepping out from under the control of BYU will let them be more truely who they wish to be...  For Good or Bad 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

any attempt to say, "you're judging" is held up as a hypocritical judgmental statement towards the person who uttered it.

It's only hypocritical if the 1st is saying 'You shouldn't judge. Judging is wrong. ', etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are using logic rather than religion, I think nature actually would be against the idea of Homosexual intimacy or intimate relations.

The reasons is that physically there is no benefit.  There may seem to be a benefit emotionally to those who engage in such acts in committed relationships, but physically there is no benefit and can only ever result in a net negative.

In heterosexual intimacy there may be physical drawbacks as well, but there is also the possibility of a child which in regards to the perpetuation of the human race is a net positive.

On the otherhand, both acts can eventually cause physical injury and deterioration over time of the physical body.  Ailments and injuries eventually result from intimacy over time, but only one type results in a physical positive of the creation of life.

Admittedly, this is an argument that some say could also be applied to those who are barren couples and admittedly this is also correct.  However, as nature has built into the species the ideas of survival and reproduction in order to perpetuate a species, the percentages of both those who are barren and those who are homosexual are typically low, lest the species dies out.

Hence, even without religion, logically, only those who were able to reproduce would engage in intimacy in order to continue the species...while acts that could not result in such are avoided as such acts over time can cause a net negative result of injury, disease, or ailments on the body for no net physical benefit.

Of course, this completely negates the religious, emotional, or psychological effects of these acts within any committed relationship, or the impacts that religion may or may not have. 

If one incorporates religion and it turns out the their is a Deity who rules the universe according to their dictates and has dictated against certain actions, then it would certainly be logical to obey those dictates.

On the otherhand, in the absence of the above (religion or deity) but there is an emotional benefit, it would need to be seen if the emotional benefit outweighs the physical detriments.  There are many that would say that regardless of one's ability to reproduce in an intimate relationship with another, that the emotional benefits that an individual attains outweighs the physical negatives.

However, talking simply from a PHYSICAL viewpoint, the idea of those who cannot reproduce engaging in acts that at most can be neutral as far as physical health goes and can result in negative results would not be logical.

Luckily, I'm not logical most of the time nor hold people to keep within a logical mindframe in regards to relationships...for starters, lest old people find their emotional connections to spouses less fulfilling than they would like them to be.

Note:  I am not a Medical Doctor, a Philosopher, or a Psychologist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2018 at 11:05 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

And the preceding part is worth at least 2 mill: "This part of myself that I’ve spent my whole life fighting isn’t my enemy. This part of myself that I’ve shoved into a dark dungeon deserves light."

What the what?!

I'm pretty sure this is what he meant by that:

EDIT:  As in light eliminates darkness; as in light that is from God.  Oh, well, you win some you lose some 😕

 

Edited by person0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tyme said:

Answer this 8 year old question: Why would god create people who are gay pedophiles if it's something the majority of people are going to act on? That doesn't sound like a loving god or loving leaders to parrot the thought. It's one reason I believe gay marriage will be solemnized in the Temple once the older generation follows the spirit or dies off.

(I’m dealing with the fallout of a client suicide right now that I just heard about yesterday, so excuse me if I’m not my normal warm-fuzzy self.)

First:  FIFY.

I realize you find the comparison objectionable; but the truth is that the reason I make it is the same reason you hate it:  because it serves as a stark reminder that both God and society can and do expect at least some people to live full, engaged, fulfilling, happy lives even while telling those people that they may never expect to be able to have sexual intercourse in the precise manner, or with the specific class of partner, that their libidos are geared to prefer.

The simple fact is, you don’t want to believe that a life of sexual restraint is, or can be, worth living; and when you spout nonsense like what you’ve written above you inadvertently show that—in spite of your feigned horror at pedophilia and your hifalutin talk about “consent”—you don’t want to believe that God would expect sexual restraint of anyone for any reason, period. You’re just a few academic white papers and a slick PR campaign away from supporting legalized pederasty, because you have no moral grounding other than sex uber alles.  There’s no point in engaging you over whether gay sex, or even pedophilia, is wrong; because with you it’s all a red herring.  You don’t care if it’s wrong or destructive, and you won’t care when it’s proven wrong; regardless of what the “it” happens to be.

When we look at gay suicides, the question few are asking is:  cui bono?  The rash of gay suicides has not increased due to the Church suddenly telling gays that they have value independently of their sense of sexual fulfillment—we’ve been doing that for almost two centuries, and if anything our rhetoric has softened of late.  It’s you guys who have started telling gays in the last 30 years that the unsexed life is not worth living; and then when they start believing your bullcrap and end their lives—either out of a sincere belief they can never be happy in abstinence, or out of despair when they reject the values of their youth and experiment with new sexual practices, only to find them a hollow foundation on which to build a life—you turn around and blame us; even though you created the tension and you’re the one trying to leverage their deaths to muzzle the Church and get more formerly-abstinent young Mormons into the sexual meat market for use and abuse by your allies.  

We mourn these youth and plan the funerals and dress the dead and pay for the undertaker and the coffin and the burial plot; while other filthy sex-crazed ghouls trot out their victims’ names at $500-a-plate fundraiser galas.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets talk advantages for Society at large.    What is the advantages to/for Society for Homosexual relationships and/or Marriages?  The answer Nothing... zip... zero... nada...  It all about individual desires and interest.  What is the advantages to/for Society for Heterosexual relationships and/or Marriages?  The continuation of the species.  That is a big, huge, major, deal.  So much so that even though not all Heterosexual relationships and/or Marriages will produce offspring it is still worth supporting as a Society as a general thing.

Winner in the best for Society is Heterosexual relationships.  Hands down. (even with all their flaws)

Now lets talk individual advantages... This is were the Homosexual supporter are limited to making their cases.  They want to be happy, they want joy.  This is totally understandable.  So much that those who are speaking out want them to have it too, but we know that 'wickedness never was happiness', and the maximum joy comes from following God's command.  It does not come from rebelling against God, or trying to convince yourself that God is really ok with your sin.  So yeah both sides want the same goal they just have different understandings of how to get there.

Now perhaps your response to that is tell me to mind my own business and let you live your life as you wish.  That is fair.  But to get that you have to leave me alone as well.  Don't try to force me to validate your choices. I respect that it is your choice to make, but do not expect/demand that I approve or support your choices.  Because that is in no way your right.  Go live your life the way you deem fit and grant me the exact same ability to live my life the way I deem fit.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 Now perhaps your response to that is tell me to mind my own business and let you live your life as you wish.  That is fair.  But to get that you have to leave me alone as well.  Don't try to force me to validate your choices. I respect that it is your choice to make, but do not expect/demand that I approve or support your choices.  Because that is in no way your right.  Go live your life the way you deem fit and grant me the exact same ability to live my life the way I deem fit.

Thank-you for saying this.  Agree with this sentiment completely.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
19 hours ago, Carborendum said:
  • Being gay is who I am.  (implied: and that's ok).  But homosexual acts are sins in the eyes of God.
  • As a child of God I seek Him out, regardless of what roadblocks are in my path.  And with His help, I'll overcome them all.

Which do you think will encourage individuals towards a better life?  I believe the reason that religious gay teens are suicidal is that they're told these competing ideologies.  Instead of determining which is right, they try to walk a tightrope of reconciling the two together.  And they can't.

18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

FWIW, I not entirely convinced of this.

I agree with you.  I was close.  But JAG hit it right on the head.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

When we look at gay suicides, the question few are asking is:  cui bono?  The rash of gay suicides has not increased due to the Church suddenly telling gays that they have value independently of their sense of sexual fulfillment—we’ve been doing that for almost two centuries, and if anything our rhetoric has softened of late.  It’s you guys who have started telling gays in the last 30 years that the unsexed life is not worth living; and then when they start believing your bullcrap and end their lives—either out of a sincere belief they can never be happy in abstinence, or out of despair when they reject the values of their youth and experiment with new sexual practices, only to find them a hollow foundation on which to build a life—you turn around and blame us; even though you created the tension and you’re the one trying to leverage their deaths to muzzle the Church and get more formerly-abstinent young Mormons into the sexual meat market for use and abuse by your allies.  

We mourn these youth and plan the funerals and dress the dead and pay for the undertaker and the coffin and the burial plot; while other filthy sex-crazed ghouls trot out their victims’ names at $500-a-plate fundraiser galas.

We offer a path out of sin and death.

The other side encourages both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2018 at 7:21 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

(I’m dealing with the fallout of a client suicide right now that I just heard about yesterday, so excuse me if I’m not my normal warm-fuzzy self.)

First:  FIFY.

I realize you find the comparison objectionable; but the truth is that the reason I make it is the same reason you hate it:  because it serves as a stark reminder that both God and society can and do expect at least some people to live full, engaged, fulfilling, happy lives even while telling those people that they may never expect to be able to have sexual intercourse in the precise manner, or with the specific class of partner, that their libidos are geared to prefer.

The simple fact is, you don’t want to believe that a life of sexual restraint is, or can be, worth living; and when you spout nonsense like what you’ve written above you inadvertently show that—in spite of your feigned horror at pedophilia and your hifalutin talk about “consent”—you don’t want to believe that God would expect sexual restraint of anyone for any reason, period. You’re just a few academic white papers and a slick PR campaign away from supporting legalized pederasty, because you have no moral grounding other than sex uber alles.  There’s no point in engaging you over whether gay sex, or even pedophilia, is wrong; because with you it’s all a red herring.  You don’t care if it’s wrong or destructive, and you won’t care when it’s proven wrong; regardless of what the “it” happens to be.

When we look at gay suicides, the question few are asking is:  cui bono?  The rash of gay suicides has not increased due to the Church suddenly telling gays that they have value independently of their sense of sexual fulfillment—we’ve been doing that for almost two centuries, and if anything our rhetoric has softened of late.  It’s you guys who have started telling gays in the last 30 years that the unsexed life is not worth living; and then when they start believing your bullcrap and end their lives—either out of a sincere belief they can never be happy in abstinence, or out of despair when they reject the values of their youth and experiment with new sexual practices, only to find them a hollow foundation on which to build a life—you turn around and blame us; even though you created the tension and you’re the one trying to leverage their deaths to muzzle the Church and get more formerly-abstinent young Mormons into the sexual meat market for use and abuse by your allies.  

We mourn these youth and plan the funerals and dress the dead and pay for the undertaker and the coffin and the burial plot; while other filthy sex-crazed ghouls trot out their victims’ names at $500-a-plate fundraiser galas.

First, i am very sorry for your client.  That's devastating.  And i don't claim to understand how it feels for you.

But sexual meat market, filthy sex-crazed ghouls, pederasty, pedophilia, don't care if it's wrong or destructive, sex uber alles, no sexual restraint?  

Are those sentiments any less correct or hurtful than the one that says Oaks has blood on his hands for doing what he feels is right?

i mean, if this is the kind of tension between the two sides of this issue, then it's no wonder that people are taking their own lives.  It's like dropping someone in no-man's land during a war.  Does it really matter who started shooting first?  Or does anyone really know which side's bullet did the killing?  Or maybe they got clipped from both sides.  Does any of that change that they're dead?  

Maybe the people caught in between will only stop dying when both sides quite trying to kill the other one.  Because you know, the gays and the Christians have both been here for thousands of years.  And the only thing our indignation has purchased so far is an increased amount of hate, a decreased amount of understanding, and an escalating number of dead bodies and human tragedies. 

Edited by lostinwater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the article, I find myself hoping that he intends to live up to his covenants with God. The fact that he went to the Lord in prayer makes me hope for this outcome, some of his wording I'm trying not to over analyze.

I really hope he can find a way to stay on the covenant path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, lostinwater said:

[1]First, i am very sorry for your client.  That's devastating.  And i don't claim to understand how it feels for you.

[2]But sexual meat market, filthy sex-crazed ghouls, pederasty, pedophilia, don't care if it's wrong or destructive, sex uber alles, no sexual restraint?  

Are those sentiments any less correct or hurtful than the one that says Oaks has blood on his hands for doing what he feels is right?

[3]i mean, if this is the kind of tension between the two sides of this issue, then it's no wonder that people are taking their own lives.  It's like dropping someone in no-man's land during a war.  Does it really matter who started shooting first?  Or does anyone really know which side's bullet did the killing?  Or maybe they got clipped from both sides.  Does any of that change that they're dead?  

Maybe the people caught in between will only stop dying when both sides quite trying to kill the other one.  Because you know, the gays and the Christians have both been here for thousands of years.  And the only thing our indignation has purchased so far is an increased amount of hate, a decreased amount of understanding, and an escalating number of dead bodies and human tragedies. 

1.  Sincere thanks for the kind thoughts.  

2.  I acknowledge they are ugly words. They apply to ugly behaviors and, in the case of a specific post by @Tyme, ugly sentiments and ugly reasoning with deeply horrific implications.

And more broadly, we have reached a stage of sexual mores that people like Nero and Caligula could only fantasize about—what they had to pay massive sums of money for, the victims of the Sexual Revolution have been encouraged to give away for free—and they don’t even realize it’s a problem until youth and beauty pass them by and they find themselves paying scads of money to therapists and psychologists—the latter-day father confessors, many of whom fleece their flocks more thoroughly than the old priesthood ever did—to work through (or at least numb) the bankruptcy of their relational histories and restore some semblance of functionality to their lives.  Not only is the emperor naked, but he’s shooting up the schoolyard with an Uzi and trying to bust his way into the cafeteria; while  the faculty are in the lounge celebrating the fact that Principal Fuddy-Duddy just got demoted and giving detentions to anyone who utters the word “gun”. 

3.  As I indicate above, the Church’s rhetoric has only softened in the past few decades—and as thanks, posterior-clowns like the Mama Dragons and other “mainstream” gay-rights groups are now accusing us of murder (and using made-up numbers in the process).   This is calculated to bring about a very particular end, and our playing nice isn’t going to stop it.  Speaking anecdotally:  Professionally, just the facts that I a) continue to oppose gay marriage, b) assert the Church’s right to enforce its own community standards, c) assert the right of parents to encourage their children to refrain from gay sex, and d) express personal skepticism of adoption by gay couples and singles in cases where adoption by equally qualified straight couples is an option—regardless of the tone with which I have made my arguments—would cause me a lot of discomfort amongst my colleagues and quite possibly put my job at real risk.  None of that is going to relax any time soon, so we may as well tell the hard truths now, while we still can.

4.  When you ask whether it matters who started the shooting since the battle is destructive to all:  YES.  To continue your metaphor by looking at historical wars:  One side bombed Pearl Harbor.  One side fought for the preservation and promotion of slavery.  One side set out to rule a continent and exterminate ethnic “inferiors”.  One side declared unrestricted submarine warfare and invaded Belgium.  One side crossed the 38th parallel.  For those sides to simply tell their victims “look, we wouldn’t have to do this if you’d just lay down their arms”—

Screw that.  Intentional or not, it’s horse manure.  It’s victim-blaming.  It’s bullying.  It’s promoting the ultimate victory of evil. 

Their ranks may include decent people who are deceived to some degree; but that number diminishes as the agenda becomes clearer and the demands more extreme. The leadership, those setting the agenda—and those who stay with them and keep parroting their arguments as the mask comes off—are, in the main, tyrants who demand complete obeisance, and they’ve manipulated the situation so that every gay suicide feeds back into their cause.  I think it’s high time gay Mormon kids understood which side wants them alive and which side profits from their deaths; and if the left doesn’t like me pointing out that they use gay suicides to advance their agenda, then maybe they shoul quit using gay suicides to advance their agenda. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  Sincere thanks for the kind thoughts.  

2.  I acknowledge they are ugly words. They apply to ugly behaviors and, in the case of a specific post by @Tyme, ugly sentiments and ugly reasoning with deeply horrific implications.

And more broadly, we have reached a stage of sexual mores that people like Nero and Caligula could only fantasize about—what they had to pay massive sums of money for, the victims of the Sexual Revolution have been encouraged to give away for free—and they don’t even realize it’s a problem until youth and beauty pass them by and they find themselves paying scads of money to therapists and psychologists—the latter-day father confessors, many of whom fleece their flocks more thoroughly than the old priesthood ever did—to work through (or at least numb) the bankruptcy of their relational histories and restore some semblance of functionality to their lives.  Not only is the emperor naked, but he’s shooting up the schoolyard with an Uzi and trying to bust his way into the cafeteria; while  the faculty are in the lounge celebrating the fact that Principal Fuddy-Duddy just got demoted and giving detentions to anyone who utters the word “gun”. 

3.  As I indicate above, the Church’s rhetoric has only softened in the past few decades—and as thanks, posterior-clowns like the Mama Dragons and other “mainstream” gay-rights groups are now accusing us of murder (and using made-up numbers in the process).   This is calculated to bring about a very particular end, and our playing nice isn’t going to stop it.  Speaking anecdotally:  Professionally, just the facts that I a) continue to oppose gay marriage, b) assert the Church’s right to enforce its own community standards, c) assert the right of parents to encourage their children to refrain from gay sex, and d) express personal skepticism of adoption by gay couples and singles in cases where adoption by equally qualified straight couples is an option—regardless of the tone with which I have made my arguments—would cause me a lot of discomfort amongst my colleagues and quite possibly put my job at real risk.  None of that is going to relax any time soon, so we may as well tell the hard truths now, while we still can.

4.  When you ask whether it matters who started the shooting since the battle is destructive to all:  YES.  To continue your metaphor by looking at historical wars:  One side bombed Pearl Harbor.  One side fought for the preservation and promotion of slavery.  One side set out to rule a continent and exterminate ethnic “inferiors”.  One side declared unrestricted submarine warfare and invaded Belgium.  One side crossed the 38th parallel.  For those sides to simply tell their victims “look, we wouldn’t have to do this if you’d just lay down their arms”—

Screw that.  Intentional or not, it’s horse manure.  It’s victim-blaming.  It’s bullying.  It’s promoting the ultimate victory of evil. 

Their ranks may include decent people who are deceived to some degree; but that number diminishes as the agenda becomes clearer and the demands more extreme. The leadership, those setting the agenda—and those who stay with them and keep parroting their arguments as the mask comes off—are, in the main, tyrants who demand complete obeisance, and they’ve manipulated the situation so that every gay suicide feeds back into their cause.  I think it’s high time gay Mormon kids understood which side wants them alive and which side profits from their deaths; and if the left doesn’t like me pointing out that they use gay suicides to advance their agenda, then maybe they shoul quit using gay suicides to advance their agenda. 

Thanks.

Well, sounds like i'm not going to convince you - and that's fine.  

But all i can say is that there are all sorts of tragedies when it comes to anyone, of any age, and of any sexual orientation or gender identification.  You'll find no disagreements from me that some of those tragedies involve an abandonment of all restraint.  And those are tragedies indeed.  

But i (and perhaps some of those Mama Dragons, also), can tell you stories of tragedies that look an awfully lot different.  i can vouch for there being plenty of people who live as homosexuals, etc., in healthy ways.  They're generally a pretty quiet bunch though - definitely not the ones used as marketing material in the pamphlets that warn against it as being a social and moral pathology of infinite consequence.  And this is just my opinion, but i think many mainstream religions create cultures in which being homosexual, transgender, etc., in those healthy ways is *much* harder than it would be otherwise.  Now please, please, please, please don't mistake.  i am not blaming you, or anyone here, or any church, or any scriptual passage for that.  Just acknowledging it.  i mean, people can call me a liar, or a sinner, or tool of satan, or a posterior clown for saying that verbally, but i'm just speaking what i've seen.  

And rather than letting both camps exist, we seem to allow ourselves to get whipped up into a frenzy by two 1%'s of the population that run around with bullhorns telling each of us what the other half of the world is.  And they're having a stunning amount of success.

Either toss religious norms in the trash, or with utmost determination, continue to bash someone's emotional and spiritual health against a set of dogmas that just make them worse - as we promise them that some interpretation of God is smiling approvingly as they bleed out.  And am i saying that anyone who is not sexually active is somehow bleeding out?  Nope, not at all.  But if there are those here who think the only motivating factor of those who "join" the LGBT community is sex, then i'm not sure i can do much to help you.  Attraction and gender identification slices through every domain of life imaginable.  Sex is just one - and at least in my opinion, is used by most to try and numb the pain when the other more important ones grow sick, even as it is classified as being the only one.  

i guess if it's mutual exclusivity at any cost - then by all means, full steam ahead.  But i think if that's true, then both sides have forfeited the right to complain about the cost.

And then on the wars, all i say is that the victors write the history.  The thread of man's injustice to man weaves through countries and time, with varying degrees of self.  You'll find me justifying none of it, but at least attempting to acknowledge all of it.  

And finally, as someone who supports same sex marriage, and thinks the Mama Dragons do a lot of good, can i say how much i hate that you are as persecuted as you are for your beliefs?  How much i cringe when i see people forcing people to bake cakes, and trying to desegregate child bathrooms, etc.,  Because i do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, lostinwater said:

But i (and perhaps some of those Mama Dragons, also), can tell you stories of tragedies that look an awfully lot different.

This isn't really relevant to @Just_A_Guy's point. He's talking about the frame of mind that the homosex advocates have convinced society at large to have. Specifically: Sexual orientation is the true self. One cannot be happy not being one's true self. Not giving into this is oppressive. Etc.

17 hours ago, lostinwater said:

definitely not the ones used as marketing material in the pamphlets that warn against it as being a social and moral pathology of infinite consequence.

There are pamphlets?

17 hours ago, lostinwater said:

i think many mainstream religions create cultures in which being homosexual, transgender, etc., in those healthy ways is *much* harder than it would be otherwise

Well...yeah. Isn't that kind of the point of religion? We need to be a certain way (like Jesus, in the case of Christianity).

Why, may I ask, is it only tragic for homosexuals that religion suggests they'll be happier becoming like Christ? Why isn't that true of all tendencies toward the natural man?

17 hours ago, lostinwater said:

And rather than letting both camps exist,

Who isn't letting homosexuals exist?

17 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Either toss religious norms in the trash, or with utmost determination, continue to bash someone's emotional and spiritual health against a set of dogmas that just make them worse

Those are the only choices, huh?

I think not.

This, of course, is one of the core lies being told my the pro-homosex camp. If you preach against my natural tendencies you're hurting my spiritual health. I ask again, however, why does this seem to only apply to homosexuality and other sexually related tendencies (except, of course, any tendencies the world still deems wrong, pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc.) But how is it different for someone to preach against one thing they consider sin and not crush someone's soul, but preaching against another thing they consider sin does crush someone's soul? Why is it not soul crushing to preach against bad health practices, stealing, lying, lust, hetero fornication, adultery, murder, anger, rage, unkindness, jealousy, etc? Why aren't you as worried about the poor soul who's natural tendency is to be jealous of their neighbor when someone preaches that they should work to overcome those feelings? Poor...poor souls who's natural tendency, and therefore emotional well being and spiritual health is, clearly, being crushed by anti-jealousy dogma?

Of course this is nonsense. Yes, of course it can be difficult to hear that one's natural struggles are a sin. But when I hear something I struggle with is a sin and it makes me feel bad it typically buoys up my determination to improve. Just A Guy is claiming, and rightfully so, that if the world was preaching at me that buoying up my determination to improve was wrong...because I had no reason to improve...had no ability to improve...was permanently set at odds against the religion I practiced...and that the ideas of true change, true choice, true faith and trust in God, and true repentance were actual impossibilities, then perhaps I wouldn't feel so buoyed up. Because, after all, the promises of the gospel are as important as the sanctions. The world and the homosex camp is out there promoting the evils of religious sanctions with absolutely no understanding of the promises. What I cannot fathom is how those who should very well understand those promises are here in this forum (and elsewhere) arguing on behalf of those who don't understand them.

17 hours ago, lostinwater said:

as we promise them that some interpretation of God is smiling approvingly as they bleed out.

Give me a freaking break. No one has even begun to suggest anything of the sort, ever.

Ridiculous.

17 hours ago, lostinwater said:

But if there are those here who think the only motivating factor of those who "join" the LGBT community is sex,

I seriously doubt anyone thinks that's the only motivating factor. But on the other hand you get people arguing that homosexuality somehow has no relationship to sex at all. The motivating factors are irrelevant to the reality that if you take "sex" out then it's not homosexual. An effeminate man who dresses nice, enjoys musical theater, and takes pleasure in baking and home decoration is still heterosexual if he wants sex with women. It's only the desire for sex with men that makes one ultimately homosexual.

17 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Attraction and gender identification slices through every domain of life imaginable.

Until one desires sexual activity with someone of the same sex, however, one isn't homosexual. Claiming otherwise is buying into a lie.

17 hours ago, lostinwater said:

i guess if it's mutual exclusivity at any cost

If what's mutually exclusive? What's "it" referring to?

17 hours ago, lostinwater said:

then by all means, full steam ahead.  But i think if that's true, then both sides have forfeited the right to complain about the cost.

What are you talking about? What is the "that" here?

17 hours ago, lostinwater said:

And then on the wars, all i say is that the victors write the history. 

So if Hitler had won the Nazi's didn't set out to rule a continent and exterminate ethnic “inferiors” afterall?

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


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

This isn't really relevant to @Just_A_Guy's point. He's talking about the frame of mind that the homosex advocates have convinced society at large to have. Specifically: Sexual orientation is the true self. One cannot be happy not being one's true self. Not giving into this is oppressive. Etc.

There are pamphlets?

Well...yeah. Isn't that kind of the point of religion? We need to be a certain way (like Jesus, in the case of Christianity).

Why, may I ask, is it only tragic for homosexuals that religion suggests they'll be happier becoming like Christ? Why isn't that true of all tendencies toward the natural man?

Who isn't letting homosexuals exist?

Those are the only choices, huh?

I think not.

This, of course, is one of the core lies being told my the pro-homosex camp. If you preach against my natural tendencies you're hurting my spiritual health. I ask again, however, why does this seem to only apply to homosexuality and other sexually related tendencies (except, of course, any tendencies the world still deems wrong, pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc.) But how is it different for someone to preach against one thing they consider sin and not crush someone's soul, but preaching against another thing they consider sin does crush someone's soul? Why is it not soul crushing to preach against bad health practices, stealing, lying, lust, hetero fornication, adultery, murder, anger, rage, unkindness, jealousy, etc? Why aren't you as worried about the poor soul who's natural tendency is to be jealous of their neighbor when someone preaches that they should work to overcome those feelings? Poor...poor souls who's natural tendency, and therefore emotional well being and spiritual health is, clearly, being crushed by anti-jealousy dogma?

Of course this is nonsense. Yes, of course it can be difficult to hear that one's natural struggles are a sin. But when I hear something I struggle with is a sin and it makes me feel bad it typically buoys up my determination to improve. Just A Guy is claiming, and rightfully so, that if the world was preaching at me that buoying up my determination to improve was wrong...because I had no reason to improve...had no ability to improve...was permanently set at odds against the religion I practiced...and that the ideas of true change, true choice, true faith and trust in God, and true repentance were actual impossibilities, then perhaps I wouldn't feel so buoyed up. Because, after all, the promises of the gospel are as important as the sanctions. The world and the homosex camp is out there promoting the evils of religious sanctions with absolutely no understanding of the promises. What I cannot fathom is how those who should very well understand those promises are here in this forum (and elsewhere) arguing on behalf of those who don't understand them.

Give me a freaking break. No one has even begun to suggest anything of the sort, ever.

Ridiculous.

I seriously doubt anyone thinks that's the only motivating factor. But on the other hand you get people arguing that homosexuality somehow has no relationship to sex at all. The motivating factors are irrelevant to the reality that if you take "sex" out then it's not homosexual. An effeminate man who dresses nice, enjoys musical theater, and takes pleasure in baking and home decoration is still heterosexual if he wants sex with women. It's only the desire for sex with men that makes one ultimately homosexual.

Until one desires sexual activity with someone of the same sex, however, one isn't homosexual. Claiming otherwise is buying into a lie.

If what's mutually exclusive? What's "it" referring to?

What are you talking about? What is the "that" here?

So if Hitler had won the Nazi's didn't set out to rule a continent and exterminate ethnic “inferiors” afterall?

Thanks @The Folk Prophet

Maybe one day we'll be able to gaze into one another's hearts and each understand the other.  Know that things are not at all how they appeared from the outside.

But i doubt that anything like that will be made more likely by continuing this thread.  Regardless, it's definitely not worthy of Christmas Eve.

Anyways, Merry Christmas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2018 at 3:05 PM, lostinwater said:

Thanks.

Well, sounds like i'm not going to convince you - and that's fine.  

But all i can say is that there are all sorts of tragedies when it comes to anyone, of any age, and of any sexual orientation or gender identification.  You'll find no disagreements from me that some of those tragedies involve an abandonment of all restraint.  And those are tragedies indeed.  

But i (and perhaps some of those Mama Dragons, also), can tell you stories of tragedies that look an awfully lot different.  i can vouch for there being plenty of people who live as homosexuals, etc., in healthy ways.  They're generally a pretty quiet bunch though - definitely not the ones used as marketing material in the pamphlets that warn against it as being a social and moral pathology of infinite consequence.  And this is just my opinion, but i think many mainstream religions create cultures in which being homosexual, transgender, etc., in those healthy ways is *much* harder than it would be otherwise.  Now please, please, please, please don't mistake.  i am not blaming you, or anyone here, or any church, or any scriptual passage for that.  Just acknowledging it.  i mean, people can call me a liar, or a sinner, or tool of satan, or a posterior clown for saying that verbally, but i'm just speaking what i've seen.  

And rather than letting both camps exist, we seem to allow ourselves to get whipped up into a frenzy by two 1%'s of the population that run around with bullhorns telling each of us what the other half of the world is.  And they're having a stunning amount of success.

Either toss religious norms in the trash, or with utmost determination, continue to bash someone's emotional and spiritual health against a set of dogmas that just make them worse - as we promise them that some interpretation of God is smiling approvingly as they bleed out.  And am i saying that anyone who is not sexually active is somehow bleeding out?  Nope, not at all.  But if there are those here who think the only motivating factor of those who "join" the LGBT community is sex, then i'm not sure i can do much to help you.  Attraction and gender identification slices through every domain of life imaginable.  Sex is just one - and at least in my opinion, is used by most to try and numb the pain when the other more important ones grow sick, even as it is classified as being the only one.  

i guess if it's mutual exclusivity at any cost - then by all means, full steam ahead.  But i think if that's true, then both sides have forfeited the right to complain about the cost.

And then on the wars, all i say is that the victors write the history.  The thread of man's injustice to man weaves through countries and time, with varying degrees of self.  You'll find me justifying none of it, but at least attempting to acknowledge all of it.  

And finally, as someone who supports same sex marriage, and thinks the Mama Dragons do a lot of good, can i say how much i hate that you are as persecuted as you are for your beliefs?  How much i cringe when i see people forcing people to bake cakes, and trying to desegregate child bathrooms, etc.,  Because i do.  

You are the kind of person that the Homosexual agenda drivers love.  Because you are doing everything they want in the name of poor hurting people.. without understanding why they are really hurting.

Homosexual have gotten there legal equality... But that is not enough... and it is never going to be enough until you destroy anyone that thinks differently. The church has existed for 200 or so years.  And in that two hundred years, there as always been a small numbers of suicides and self harm.  It is a simple fact of human nature that there will always be outliers.

Then the Homosexual agenda takes off.. and the Suicides and Self Harm  among the Homosexual population rise.  Instead of thinking critically about the cause and effect of what is really causing the Dead and Broken.  You weaponize compassion and take aim at the wrong target.  Our position on Homosexuality did not cause the rise in Dead Bodies.  We are the Scape Goat.  Now your weaponized compassion is taking you to the point where you are justifying the punishment of anyone that think or feels differently.  That is not leaving us alone.  That is not tolerant, that is not supporting diversity...  That weaponized compassion... that is you abusing the dead and hurting yet again... while lying to yourself that you are doing the RIGHT THING.

 

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This part of myself that I’ve spent my whole life fighting isn’t my enemy. This part of myself that I’ve shoved into a dark dungeon deserves light. "  You are going to embrace your inner demon?!  This cannot end well.  Put it back in the dungeon/closet while you still can!

Edited by Luke
too wordy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Luke said:

"This part of myself that I’ve spent my whole life fighting isn’t my enemy. This part of myself that I’ve shoved into a dark dungeon deserves light. "  You are going to embrace your inner demon?!  This cannot end well.  Put it back in the dungeon/closet while you still can!

There is some wisdom is recognizing your weaknesses.  Take your standard Addiction Recovery Program the standard intro in these programs is "I am <Name> and I am a Alcoholic/Addict" An such programs really can't help as long as the person is in denial of their problems.  Said acknowledgment is very much pulling it in to the light.

The problem is the world is in hard denial of the spiritual damage of sin and is currently celebrating this one.  Which makes it like an alcoholic hanging out in a bar.  I would not put it pass the various news agencies to spin a confession in to a "Coming out."   Are they doing that here with Brother Harkey?  I do not know... Time will tell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

There is some wisdom is recognizing your weaknesses.  Take your standard Addiction Recovery Program the standard intro in these programs is "I am <Name> and I am a Alcoholic/Addict" An such programs really can't help as long as the person is in denial of their problems.  Said acknowledgment is very much pulling it in to the light.

The problem is the world is in hard denial of the spiritual damage of sin and is currently celebrating this one.  Which makes it like an alcoholic hanging out in a bar.  I would not put it pass the various news agencies to spin a confession in to a "Coming out."   Are they doing that here with Brother Harkey?  I do not know... Time will tell. 

Except the actual rates of recovery using ARP programs is pretty dismal-might as well flip a coin and you'd have just as good a chance.

https://luxury.rehabs.com/12-step-programs/aa-success-rates/

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/the-surprising-failures-of-12-steps/284616/

ARP programs are total complete bunk-sure they may help some people, just like a placebo helps some people too!  Starting off saying the typical line is so weak.  Just like all things in life we each have certain desires and for whatever reason the person who is "addicted" whether to porn, drugs, homosexuality, etc. they are choosing that lifestyle b/c they enjoy it. When they figure out how to change what they desire then the "addiction" will magically disappear.

It's unfortunate that the Church bought into the 12 step program-but I guess it makes people feel good instead of acknowledging the obvious; we are wicked, sinful fallen creature who must put off the natural man to change.  The natural man is carnal, desires things of this world more than the things of God.  The natural man desires things like pornography, homosexuality, etc. 

Put off the natural man and become converted to Christ and those "addictions" will fall away. Men look at pornography b/c they aren't converted to Christ-period.  It's easy to give wickedness a pass b/c no one likes to say "mean" things today.  It's easier for people to lie to themselves, get up bear a quick testimony and say "I believe in Christ, I'm converted"-except their hearts are faaar from Him-than it is to admit to oneself, I thought I was a disciple of Christ, but I'm really not.

Edited by boxer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

 I would not put it pass the various news agencies to spin a confession in to a "Coming out."   Are they doing that here with Brother Harkey?  I do not know... Time will tell. 

They aren't spinning it. Homosexuality in everyway except in deed is accepted in the Church.  It is now an acceptable way to think, feel and believe . . . just not act.  It can only be an acceptable way to think, feel, believe for a short time period before it will be an acceptable way to act. 

Just as day follows night it will eventually be an acceptable way to act-unless it no longer becomes an acceptable way to think, feel and believe.

Edited by boxer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, boxer said:

Put off the natural man and become converted to Christ and those "addictions" will fall away. Men look at pornography b/c they aren't converted to Christ-period.  It's easy to give wickedness a pass b/c no one likes to say "mean" things today.  It's easier for people to lie to themselves, get up bear a quick testimony and say "I believe in Christ, I'm converted"-except their hearts are faaar from Him-than it is to admit to oneself, I thought I was a disciple of Christ, but I'm really not.

Way to miss the point...Lets give another example.  I am a heterosexual male.  If my "True Self" was heterosexual male (as the world defines it) then I would be trying to have sex with just about every attractive female I meet. The church accepts my heterosexual maleness, but it does proscribe limits on my behavior/deeds.   Since my "True Self" is "Child of God" with a subset of "heterosexual male" and other stuff, in as much as the subsets are in harmony with my "true self" they are allowed, the parts that are not, are not.

And of course I am working on becoming converted to Christ, and putting off the natural man.  To do that effectively I need to know were my weak points are, and the subset of heterosexual male has a big one (and really most people's sexual identity does).  I do not do myself any favors pretending it does not exist.  By acknowledging that it exists I can plan for it, take whatever steps needed to counter it.

Whereas if it listened to people like you and figured it would just go away. I'd be constantly failing, constantly miserable, and be ready to curse God because he simply did not take it away.  God will strengthen and support us be we still have to put in the work. And no work can be done if you fail to acknowledge where the work is needed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Way to miss the point...Lets give another example.  I am a heterosexual male.  If my "True Self" was heterosexual male (as the world defines it) then I would be trying to have sex with just about every attractive female I meet. The church accepts my heterosexual maleness, but it does proscribe limits on my behavior/deeds.   Since my "True Self" is "Child of God" with a subset of "heterosexual male" and other stuff, in as much as the subsets are in harmony with my "true self" they are allowed, the parts that are not, are not.

And of course I am working on becoming converted to Christ, and putting off the natural man.  To do that effectively I need to know were my weak points are, and the subset of heterosexual male has a big one (and really most people's sexual identity does).  I do not do myself any favors pretending it does not exist.  By acknowledging that it exists I can plan for it, take whatever steps needed to counter it.

Whereas if it listened to people like you and figured it would just go away. I'd be constantly failing, constantly miserable, and be ready to curse God because he simply did not take it away.  God will strengthen and support us be we still have to put in the work. And no work can be done if you fail to acknowledge where the work is needed.

 

Way to miss the point yourself.

I never said you "pretend", I said you change yourself.  But good job missing the boat.

Edited by boxer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, boxer said:

Put off the natural man and become converted to Christ and those "addictions" will fall away. Men look at pornography b/c they aren't converted to Christ-period.  It's easy to give wickedness a pass b/c no one likes to say "mean" things today.  It's easier for people to lie to themselves, get up bear a quick testimony and say "I believe in Christ, I'm converted"-except their hearts are faaar from Him-than it is to admit to oneself, I thought I was a disciple of Christ, but I'm really not.

Am I to understand that a true convert has NO moral weakness, NO susceptibility to temptation, and NO capacity for sin? Because it seems to me that you're painting the portrait of a type of individual who, by your church's own teachings, has only existed once in all of human history, and you just celebrated his birthday yesterday.

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