Wow man this is very good stuff you have here. This is how I feel and Aaron (my character in my story) feels too. I hope that you do make more of these man because they are very good. This is the kind of stuff that I'm writting about and I'm glad to come across this so thank you. This will help me with my story and how I look at myself (I'm gay to) and besides even though I'm catholic I can still be gay. So again thanks

Aheh... ^.^;; I'm a little unsure how to take the compliment, but thanks. Still a little uncertain about the whole "gay Christian" thing... might have to type up something on that.

In any case, glad you like it. =) I'll keep up the good work.

thanks

Heh, very clever naming convention Bandit.

As for your "HISI fit" I think you've illustrated some very good points using examples from your own life. I'm looking towards you throwing another fit.

Thanks. I hope there are many more to come, though hopefully I don't turn into something, well, ugly. I want to be a man of God, not another idiot with a keyboard and an axe to grind.

I think I can manage it, God willing.

I suppose there is no reason to even try to argue about this, and even if I try, I'll have been found fighting against God on what he has already made clear to us from the start... though one thing I connot help but to state is that this is a rather tuchy subject that must be handled carefully.

I know. It goes straight to the heart. 'Cause I know a lot of people make their sexuality part of their identity, part of who they are. And we're all searching for our own identity. Some base it on who they're attracted to, some to money, fame or power... some to a religious or social cause. And some just figure they might as well be a bastard.

Me, I wish to base my identity on God and what He did for me. Only time I'm happy is when I abide in Him.

Some won't like that. That's their choice, and though I hope you're not among them, I understand if you are. I won't hold it against you. You walk the path you have to. I'll walk mine. And we'll see what happens.

I am not among them, nor would I try to go to them. surtenly our heavenly Father has better things instore for me then the this world has to offer, but I know that I must serve him in all of my ways, or I will stray away from the path god has set before me.

Don't try to serve a God you don't know. Get personal with Him. It's what He really wants, though it can be a little scary.

I'll be here if you need support. Promise.

Thank you.

No problem.

It seems like you see a lot like I do. This is interesting.

*sigh* I don't know if I can. Honestly. What am I to say? This is a touchy subject indeed, and people aren't gonna like what I have to say. Yet, I stand by it.

I don't pretend to have all the facts. I don't know what others have gone through. As I stated above, it's all based upon my own experiences. Not exactly as solid as scientific studies, psychiatric journals or whatever else you wish to use. I'm not a researcher nor was I ever on the debate team. I'm kinda stumbling through this, and I'll probably piss a few hundred people off before I'm true.

But honestly? I don't think God makes people gay. The entire idea seems ludicrous to me. So, either the scriptures in the Bible against homosexuality are false doctrine...

...or the scriptures are true and homosexuality has nothing to do with God.

I don't know what all is going on. I'm not an expert, I'm not a psychic. People have their own stories and their own views and opinions. I'm just sharing mine as honestly I can. I don't even know if I'll be able to say these things without backing down. But I'd like to try, at least.

Is there anything wrong with sharing my own views?

Problem I have with the idea of homosexuality being a choice is that, were it a choice, it would be very illogical one.

"Boy, ya'know, women are nice and all, and I'm naturally attracted to them, but I really think I'd rather be hated and outcast by society for who I love."

Besides, people generally don't "turn" gay. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I've ever met a gay person who was straight for any period of time. This would mean that they would have to "decide" to be gay before they even experienced any sort of sexual attraction at all, which really makes very little sense.

As for free will... well... strictly speaking I don't believe in free will, but for the sake of argument I will speak as if I did.

A violation of free will would be any situation in which you are forced to do something that you don't want to do.

This is impossible.

Nothing under the sun can make you do something. They can threaten you, they can bribe you, they can pick up your hand and push you, but they cannot *make* you do it. They can only alter the consequences, or else it is not really you that is doing it.

Some people make choices without realizing it. But that's getting into the messy interior of the human heart. You can't go there without finding raw, primal emotion and the core of desire.

Most people don't understand the human heart. I'm not sure I do; I've only read a lot of one guy's books. Yet I do know that you can't live apart from your heart. Hell, that much I know for sure. I've tried. Hell on earth. Maybe Buddhists and Hindus can manage, but I'm of hot-blooded European stock. Doesn't work.

It may not have been the porn alone that "bent" me. After all, I've been pretty lonely. And in one of the books I read, the author suggested perhaps gay men are just looking for male affection. It's a matter of debate over whether they're going about it the right way.

If you don't understand your desires and the wounds of your heart, you can't make much progress. Even if you do, sometimes it takes God to help things along. And how many trust God with their hearts?

Maybe it's easier not to choose. Maybe it's easier not to believe, not to accept the responsibility of free will. Blame it on biology, on your parents, on society.

But is it right? We need to ask that question, or we are lost.

I don't believe God "makes people gay". Even if He did, then the scriptures written against homosexuality would be invalid. So, it's a matter of whether God wrote the scriptures or mankind did. Me, I'm in the first camp.

And what if the scriptures mean what they say? What if homosexuality is indeed a sin? Where do we go from there?

No place comfortable, I'm sure, but I don't think God's concerned with our comfort so much as the status of our hearts.

Looking back on this discussion (based on the comments I made on this submission with my old profile), I was mistaken, Homosexuality is a sin.

As you deleted your comments, I kinda forgot what you said. =P It's been five years after all.

So... now that you accept that, what will you do now?

The next four comments that are hidden were also my comments.

No, I didn't. Even if I did, I don't think I'd be convinced.

I don't believe God makes people gay. I think the whole thing is a lot more complex and messy and needs to be handled carefully. It is not for those whose only ideas are to make up cardboard signs and chant loudly on public sidewalks.

It is a matter for the wise and compassionate, not lovers of contention. Hell, even I may be too passionate yet to deal with it properly. But I do think it needs to be addressed, though not in general. People are complex. Like raising kids, you need to do what works for that person, not find a cookie-cutter solution.

Sure. Soon as you show me where my reasoning is flawed, other than not being based upon any sort of research.

I could kinda tell. =P Well, no harm done. Just agree to disagree and we'll call it good, kay?

There are... a host of things I want to respond to in this, but given that you and I differ so fundamentally on moral and ethical bases, I'm honestly not certain I should.


First, if you want to know why people denounce your faith, consider this: punishing individuals who engage in homosexual behaviour is currently the exclusive domain of theocratic Islamic countries. And perhaps communist states. Yet you state that god will punish such behaviour (presumably by casting the sodomites into the lake of fire). If you cannot acknowledge that this would seem egregiously evil to non-believers, then perhaps you should stop reading here. The rest of this post will be a waste of your time.

Now, I want to take a detour into the porn thing for a second, because I think it bears exploring, though let me do so in this fashion: how many sodas do you drink a week? 1? 2, maybe? For... a good chunk of my adult life, I would drink at least... I'd say three sugary drinks a day. That includes things like juice and sweetened iced tea. I'm certain I don't need to detail you on the surfeit issues that arise from excess sugar consumption.

Last August, I weighed about 320 lbs.

Now, this weight is obviously not exclusively from sugar, but one of the things I learned was that excessive sugar can cause a dysregulated metabolism, which can lead to increased appetite even in the face of caloric equilibrium.

Of course, I knew sugar = calories, but that it could screw with me in such a way was so far from my mind... I just thought I could exercise it off. But I always found it difficult to lose weight.

That same August, I quit sodas (and juices and such) cold turkey. And as of today I'm down to 239 lbs.

The thing is, there are definitely things in this world that can take your toll on you in unexpected ways. I don't know if I can say I was addicted to sugar, per se, though I did have fairly strong urges to drink it.

That being said, I wouldn't bear down and say something like drinking sodas is evil or sinful. Different people can handle different things. And even today, when I see sodas, I don't cross my fingers and back away while the theme of the Wicked Witch of the West plays in the background (ok, maybe a little). I had a couple last month when I was with my family for Father's Day.

So my condolences on the porn addiction. Porn is a serious problem for you, I won't deny that. But for who knows how many other men and women, looking at porn is a pleasurable pastime akin to gaming, reading, playing sports, arguing on the internet etc.

That differentiation between people is what leads me into my next topic. From what I understand is the crux of your argument, you seem to think that sexual orientation is a myth because your own personal experiences were that you had natural, heterosexual urges from as long as you can remember before you turned 18 and looked at porn, and that the thought of two men or two women engaging each other repulsed you. Yet here you are, confessing to having had cybersex with a guy and enjoying gay furry porn. I'm guessing you think porn "corrupted" you, so to speak, to have engaged in this.

Let me offer you a counter-example, again from me. I had always found myself attracted to guys as far as I can remember. Certainly when I was just starting to learn about sex I was curious about everything, both male and female. Yet I still found myself more intensely interested in males.

This bugged me for a while, for the same reason it bugs you. I was raised Catholic and was aware that same-sex behaviour was frowned upon by society. When I was younger (before developing strong sexual feelings), I once said "I'm gay" to my older brother (I was innocent of its modern usage at that time, and was using it in the old-fashioned sense of "happy"). My brother told me never to say that, because people would beat me up. He explained to me then what "gay" meant.

Ultimately, though, I failed to gain any appreciation of women that my brother had developed, or that my classmates and friends developed. What did develop is that I started looking at boys rather than girls.

I won't go through my life story. Suffice it to say that I considered myself bisexual for a while because I thought I could at least pretend not to have same-sex attractions then. Then at one point I accepted that I had almost zero urges for women and very strong ones for men. I was (and still am) closeted, and at one point thought I could just be one of those eccentric perpetual bachelors. I'm a geek with low social skills anyway. :: shrug ::

You said that same-sex behaviour destroys the mind and body. Yet it was in finally accepting that I was fundamentally attracted to guys that I found myself with a more whole mind than I had before. It was in realizing what my attraction primarily was that I found motivation to improve my body (hey, if I want one of those buff guys myself, I better at least have a presentable body). Yes, I'm aware of the issues of STDs and mechanical issues that can (but not necessarily will) arise from anal sex, though given that I personally plan to abstain from that anyway it doesn't present itself as significant a problem to me. Even if I didn't plan to abstain, though, one can still be responsible to the same extent as straight couples are to mitigate or even eradicate potential problems (though given that all these issues are almost absent in lesbians...)

Basically, I refute you thusly: take the most beautiful, voluptuous woman in the world and put her in front of me naked, and the most that will happen is that I will flounder and fluster and avert my eyes because my culture has taught me that boobies = zomg! Put a well-built naked guy in front of me and... I'll probably still flounder and fluster, but I can guarantee you that I will get hard. And that is fundamentally what sexual orientation is.

It is not incongruous for this to be true and for free will to remain intact. Certainly, I can choose not to behave in concordance with my attractions, that part you say is true. But why? I can choose to act as if I don't find men hot and live with an unfulfilled desire for the sake of... what? Conformity? Religion? Or I can choose to act in concordance with my desire and, understanding and acting to ameliorate the potential problems that can come from it, engage it for its positive attributes and find companionship that is compatible with me.

The truth is, I am attracted to men. I cannot help that. I will choose to find romantic and sexual companionship among men. That is my free choice, and I see nothing fundamentally wrong with it. It is both compatible with my desires and a healthy expression of it.

I lied to my heart for probably around 20 years of my life. I won't lie to it anymore.

Thank you for your thoughts on the matter. I hope you find what you truly desire in life.

I appreciate the sentiment.

One thing I want to add that I failed in my last post was that I truly think the idea of "homosexuality is a myth" is not only untrue, it is malicious. You are aware of programs like Exodus International that sponsor things like reparative therapy to "change" people from gay to straight, yes? They're based on the same idea that being gay is a "corruption" of a natural state of being straight.

Advocates for groups like these will point out successful graduates as proof, but they fail to mention how many reengage in same-sex behaviour after doing so, and how even those who do abstain have high levels of depression and suicide. They merely persist in a constant state of self-deprivation, denying their own feelings the way an ascetic starves himself.

It's not even just about sex either. It's about companionship. People in these situations are placed in constant stress over any situation involving the same sex, afraid they'll lead to triggers for their desires.

This came into sharp relief recently having read this story: http://serendipitydodah.wordpress.c.....y-kyle-luebke/

The thing about sexual orientation as you describe it is that it doesn't take away the fact that we have stimuli, both internal and external, that we seek to satisfy. Just because we choose to eat doesn't mean we don't feel hungry. Just because we choose to wrap ourselves doesn't mean we don't feel cold.

Given that we seek to to satisfy our needs, why abstain from same-sex behaviour? Why attempt brute-force changing the stimulus? Is homosexuality intrinsically of a destructive nature? It seems the opposite is true: attempting to starve yourself of it can do immense damage, while the writer of that story has found happiness with his husband.

This is why I've spent time on these posts. I think it's too important to let such a destructive idea go unchallenged.

I cannot speak to your experience or what others are doing. I know nothing of that. I can only argue on my own experiences, as you have done, and as I did in my article. If I am wrong, let me be proven wrong. I may not enjoy it, but I hold truth, real objective truth, not the nonsense many teach these days, far too dearly to just reject correction. 'Course, I am a fool at times. I feel like my previous reply was a cop-out, an attempt at appeasement just 'cause you presented opposition. I don't intend to do that again, if I can help it.

To be honest though, the idea is only destructive if your identity is based upon being sexually attracted to men. Thus, suggesting that such attraction is wrong and even abhorrent... if it were me, I'd be pissed too. Kinda like when some idiot in junior high saw my Christian shirt and suggested I was really a servant of Satan. I did not react kindly to such a thing! My faith has always been a solid part of my identity, even if I didn't always have things quite right. So, to have something disdain and even insult my faith is very... what's the word... infuriating, I believe. It's why I could never give up my faith to follow those urges to have sex with men. Even then, it may just be that I'm "gay for furries", which is quite possible. The human psyche is weird.

Erf, I do prattle on, don't I?

In any case, before we go any further, I need to ask: can you put aside your own biases and feelings to discuss this matter openly with me? If you can, I will attempt to do the same. Even a promise of effort is enough. I wouldn't hold it against you if it's too much to ask. I sometimes wonder if I'm capable of it.

I only ask because you seem dogged and determined to treat me as an enemy, or a deranged lunatic. And so far as I can tell, I'm not the latter, and the former will always be your choice, not mine. I don't intend to make enemies on purpose (least, I hope not!), yet I accept my views are not welcome by some. As such, I wonder how much good this discussion will do either of us in the long run.

I'm not moving. Let me make that clear. You can bully me, you can beat me down, you can shut me up. You can play upon old wounds that have yet to heal. But until I hear an argument that makes sense to me, in terms of how I understand the world, I will not relent. Besides, whatever you think of me, my intent is not the destruction of people's psyches. And honestly, I think real change can only come from God, not some Christian retreat. The "Gospel" of Tips and Techniques is an empty one, based upon the teachings of modern-day Pharisees. If a man wants to stop lusting after other men, or just wants to ease the pain in his heart, he should search for intimacy with God. Because in my experience, only by sheltering under His wings can any man turn against the tides of this world. Only by opening your heart to Him can you truly find peace and healing. That is what I believe.

If you cannot believe in even the possibility of anything I've just said, then this conversation won't do either of us much good. About the only good it will do, at least to one of us, is to sharpen one's wit and teach how to make good arguments based on little more than logic and perhaps a little personal experience.

I do intend to continue though, if you wish to. I think this could benefit me somehow, even if you don't change my mind. It'll be rough, but then you can't learn to fight if you don't get into the ring.

So, what's your answer? Will you dance with me a little more? I'm ready when you are.

Well, I definitely don't think you are a deranged lunatic. And if I treat you as an enemy, it is only incidentally. I hold no particular malice for you. At the same time, though, I don't intend to bully or belittle you.

As I noted in my initial post, I hold very different ethical bases than you. Being an atheist, I cannot commit that I will accept religious reasons in arguments you may present, at least not purely religious. At the same time, I am curious as to how you'll answer, so I'm willing to at least attempt to listen unbiased.

So I await your response.

To be honest, I'm not sure how to proceed. And this conversation has been a little stressful. Not used to putting out what I believe for people to come across, and then having to defend it. So, please be patient with me as I try to figure out how to go about this.

One way is you could pick a couple points that don't make sense to you, and I could try to explain my logic behind them. Granted, seeing as we have different ways of looking at the world, you may not have the same ideas associated with some words as I do. I'm having a conversation with someone on DA over comments, and he views the words "King" and "Father" in terms of God very differently than me. So, if something doesn't make sense, hopefully it's not because I didn't explain it right, but more than you and I simply disagree.

I should apologize though. My last comment was posted during a bit of distress and anxiety. I was perhaps a bit more confrontational than I should have been, though I was also pretty honest. =P You'll find that, above all things, I do try to be honest, even when I'm lashing out. I've little use for lies, even less for those I tell myself. And for those others tell themselves, though I probably should be a little lenient with them. After all, it's not my story, it's theirs.

So, is there anything you'd like to bring up? Or should I just go back and try to reread your first comment in whole? I kinda end up skimming it for some reason. Maybe 'cause it's so opposite to my own experience. *shrugs* But I'll make the effort if you wish.

It would be preferable if you read my first post, but if it helps, I'll summarize and attempt to explain the purpose behind it more succinctly here.

I essentially explained that I had issues with something that many, many people see as innocuous (sugar) but that it was personally a problem for me. Just because I have problems with sugar doesn't mean other people will necessarily have those problems (for example, my aunt drinks Pepsi like there's no tomorrow and she's both skinny as a rail and active in her garden.) I then went on to explain how my attraction to guys pervaded for as long as I can remember, while I never really had an eye for girls.

Both of these are to illustrate what I believe is the primal flaw in your argument: your own experiences are not necessarily transferable to other people. Consider that same link I posted: the author of that post DID turn to his god for support in addition to the therapy, but his feelings did not abate and he grew increasingly anxious.

Truthfully, rereading your original post, I'm actually less certain how your argument is supported. You state you have no scientific evidence to back your point up, but at the same time I'm wondering if you're aware that expert opinions (the American Psychologists Association, American Academy of Pediatricians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, for example) both affirm the definition of sexual orientation and that it is not a choice.

Of course I would not ask you to take expert opinion at face value without question, but I'm not certain you presented evidence that decisively refutes them. From what I read, your main contention doesn't seem to be that sexual orientation is a myth, but that people use it as an excuse. To a certain extent, I agree with you on this point: sexual orientation "merely" refers to what you find attractive (and it DOES have measurable effects. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile....._homosexuality for example). That sexual behaviour is a choice, however, is a tautology. The point of the "born that way" meme is to deconstruct moralistic attempts at demonizing homosexuals, which attempted to paint it as an arbitrary choice that people engage in to be rebellious, like hedonism or smoking. If it is decisively not arbitrary and does not majorly have negative consequences for those who engage in it, while on the other hand those who abstain have a high rate of problems themselves, the moralist argument falls apart. So if it helps, you can view it that way instead.

So from what I understand, those two points seem to be your main contention. If I misrepresented them or if I missed a something else important in your argument, or if you think what I've written here doesn't illustrate why I think your reasoning is flawed, please tell me where and explain to me.

Well, you do make some fair points, and my purpose has never been to force my views on others. *headtilts* Though you didn't accuse me of that, so far as a I know. *shrugs* If I got the impression, it may not have been from you. Either it was my own emotional state (which does go up and down at times), or something else entirely.

Anyway, no, my experiences may not be applicable to others. My story is not yours, nor is it that of the homeless guy on the corner. On the other hand, there may be those who read my stuff and find it to be similar to their own struggles. And although I am no expert and have not (and probably won't do) the research, I feel I should present an alternate view of things. Again, my concern is mainly with choice. If some feel they have none, that is their belief, and they have a right to it. I may not agree with it, and it may disturb me a little depending upon the implications... but it's still their right to believe it, no? All I can do is present my own views and let people choose whether to agree or disagree. Though in many ways, this is sort of a good way to keep my ego in check. Such arguments keep me well aware of how little I know, which is important to keep in mind.

As to the experts, well, I'm not about to dismiss them out of hand. I am a little leery of just trusting in "experts" since we're all human and some will invariably show some bias. There may even be those who are willing to fudge data to support their own beliefs. I hold no truck with such people, though I'm willing to give some the benefit of the doubt. It is entirely possible that some are ostracized from the medical and scientific communities simply for holding unpopular views. But as for whether it actually happens, I am not qualified to speak. I can only speculate and wonder. Far more knowledgeable people than me would know. So, I know that many arguments I could raise on the opinions of "experts" probably aren't worth much, especially considering there are no doubt others who believe the opposite of me on many topics who would use the same arguments. And trading citations and links back and forth in an endless "duel of wits" seems wearisome to me.

And... well, I'd touch on the other arguments that come to mind, but I feel I should be honest with you.

I am a fool. I am arguing from points that would not stand up in a college classroom, using no citations and "stealing" from those whom I've read. I am also a Christian (a "conservative" one on most political matters), and a bit stubborn.

The fact of the matter is, I feel a bit as if to continue would waste your time. As it stands, I'm not likely to change my point of view, only to admit that my opinions may not be very correct. And I'm not sure whether you want this to continue as an argument or a conversation.

Then again, maybe I'm just showing my inability to commit. Bleh. I need to get rid of that. In any case, you may wish to consider whether talking further with me is worth your time and energy. I do not wish to waste either; we humans have so precious little of it.

Anyway, I do wish to cover one last topic at least before I finish this post: those who get counseling and revert to old ways.

Now, I do not know what those men are going through. The reasons they went into therapy and the reasons why it didn't take are many and varied. I doubt any two had the same reasons for either. However, one possible reason for going back to old habits is that they are using tips and techniques. I've tried that version of Christianity. It kills the soul, and I despise it. I don't think tips and techniques are enough to change anyone's heart, or old habits like that. Intimacy with God, now, that is powerful. As far as I know (and remember, I know rather little!), being under God's protection, right next to His heart, is the safest place one can be. I cannot say for certain if that's what my Daily Prayer effects; I only know that temptation is practically non-existent once I say it. It might be that some of those men who tried to "go straight" and failed relied on their own strength, and thus did not have God's support. Still, I cannot say this is the real reason. After all, I don't know these men. I only know what you've told me, which is that they got counseling and it didn't take. To make any further argument based upon their life would require getting to know them personally. And even then, it'd be very subjective. My views and opinions on the experiences of someone else. It'd take heavenly insight to get even close to the truth.

This, of course, does not touch upon those who get counseling and do succeed. About them I am prepared to say little. I would have to give it some thought.

Anyway, that's my views on things. So, would you like to continue, or is this not worth your time?

As far as the argument is concerned, I say we end it. I do thank you for it, though: these types of arguments tend to devolve very, very quickly and I'm immensely glad to have had this one with little in the way of drama. :3 If you want to continue in a more conversational fashion, I'll be glad to do so.

One topic I want to speak about is research, though. Thankfully, with sites like Google Scholar and NIH, it's far easier to get hold of abstracts of even full papers that are cited in order to peruse them. I can't claim to go through everything I look through with a fine-toothed comb: I'm too unfamiliar with standard methodologies to discover flaws that may arise from them, and must rely on others with keener eyes and greater knowledge to point them out, but it is helpful to determine anything blatant.

I want to relay an anecdote of mine, because it's one that's become a bit formative for me with respect to arguing about sexuality and sexual identity. Someone once presented me a cite with respect to abuse rates among homosexuals, I can only assume in an effort to demonstrate how "disordered" it was. And certainly, they quoted from the study that homosexuals experienced abuse at a rather higher rate than heterosexuals. I managed to find the original document, and read through it. One of the things that wasn't mentioned in the quote was that "homosexual" referred to anyone who had ever had a long-term relationship with a member of the same sex, whether the relationship they were in at the time of the survey was with a member of the opposite sex or not. This skewed the rates significantly. While male-male was still higher than female abuse of either heterosexual or homosexual males, it was still lower than male abuse of females. And male abuse on females was something like 20% for heterosexual participants, but was a whopping 30% for homosexual participants (compared to 10% for female-female abuse). For females, that meant while the original cite tried to present, for example, female homosexual abuse as double that of heterosexual abuse by including male abuse of homosexual females in the total, it was actually half. The end result, if you took same-sex relationships and heterosexual opposite-sex relationships, they were pretty much similar (same-sex relationships being ever so slightly lower.)

I want to tell you, I was livid. Irrepressibly furious. It was one thing to present your own view, but it was quite another to distort studies to fit them. (For the record, I'm still talking about this past event, it has nothing to do with you. :s) This is merely one situation. There are a few more I won't go into length suffice to say that I found similar results: misquotes or distortions of data to fit their worldview.

OK, that was a bit of a ramble, and even though it's rather argumentative, I don't want to start an argument over it. ^^; I just wanted to show you a bit of why I tend to react strongly to these topics and why I responded in the first place, and also why I place such importance on sources and research.

Y'know, I've heard of that study. This whole thing I posted actually came from a thread on homosexuality where I posted my own views. I copied it and let it set for a while, then gave it a little edit before posting here and on DA (not surprising, I've gotten more disagreement here; I've also gotten more attention =P ah, the miseries of a writer on an art site). One of the posters, a home-schooling mother who apparently has a lot of time to do a bit of research on the internet mentioned that study. I think she took the study the same way as that person presented it to you. I'm actually kinda interested in the study now. Heh. Even though it's kind of "against my side", in a way. *shrugs* I guess I'm starting to get to that point where I'm stable enough not to panic or get upset when someone comes with some new study or scientific article that "proves I'm wrong" on something. Part of it may come from being comfortable with never "winning" the argument. Part of it is realizing being a Christian is far more important than anything else, including politics. It's granted me a bit of peace, and I'm thankful for that.

Anyway, whether that woman was right or wrong to interpret the study in that manner, she did have an interesting thing to share, though you may find it a little provocative. Please don't take it out on me, and try not to get mad with her. I don't think you'd get very far with her anyway; she's pretty firmly centered in her own identity.

But yeah, she had done research and thought that perhaps one reason m/m relationships had such a large incidence of abuse was due to the chemical processes involved in male orgasm. Yeah, a Christian home-schooler reading up on what happens when men spooge. =P Life is weird. Anyway, she had read that there tended to be a bit of hostility toward other males after orgasm, brought on by some kind of chemical released during this. Think of it as evolution's way of encouraging men to discourage other men from screwing their wives. Plus, she mentioned something about "pair-bonding" and such, but I don't remember much of it, and I'm honestly worried about rising your ire again. *shrugs* I guess she likely has a much different viewpoint on things and may accept stuff you wouldn't. I may ask her for links to some of her stuff though, so that I can read it myself.

Still... when it comes to abuse, I think the problem is often more spiritual. In fact, that's always my number one concern with people. Their spiritual health. And while yes, my beliefs are probably a bit like nails on the chalkboard to most people in the fandom, it's really never been my intent to pick a fight. Even though I might end up doing it anyway; I'm still young enough to be full of spitfire. No, my purpose is and always will be to do what I can to help others live better. And, though you probably may find it irksome, to indeed convert them. Not to "put notches in my belt", nor to swell the number of church goers. But to introduce people to a real, loving God. One whose greatest desire is intimacy with humans. *shrugs* I apologize if I preach a little, yet it's hard not to. Heh. You never know. I may end up on a street corner somewhere, preaching to the masses. There are stranger things in life.

In any case, this is why I emphasized choice so much in my writings above. I believe choice is one of the most powerful spiritual forces a human being can wield. What thoughts and actions we choose ultimately decide who we are and where we go. And I think such a thing needs to be protected from anything that threatens it. Even the laws that "my own side" would wish to implement. In many ways, I'm something of a Libertarian. And so long as people are choosing their way in life, not merely being blown about by sudden whims and misunderstood desires (talking in general here, not about you <.<;; sorry if that was implied). To... well, be grounded, I guess. And while I sincerely believe only Jesus is the way to true life, I am not about to prevent others from choosing against Him. I'll argue, I'll plead, I may even beg. But I have to be very careful how far I'm willing to go "for their own good". Many vile men would lock us in chains using that as an excuse. And to my shame, many of them claim Jesus Christ as their champion, not Karl Marx. *sigh* It would help if people understood the real definition of "Christian". Hell, it'd help me for one. I'd at least have a standard I could work with, y'know?

Ah, but I do ramble on. Sorry for that. I'm getting to a point in my life where I actually enjoy talking on these things, perhaps because I can understand them now. Though I probably still tiptoe since I am a novice, and wary of having my nose bit off. =P It's never a pleasant experience.

Speaking of unpleasant experiences, I think I'm going to give up on "Atlas Shrugged" and go read my C.S. Lewis book. Ayn Rand is the first author I've read where I've kept reading long past the point I stop enjoying it. =P Do you know where I could get a Cliff Notes version?

The particular study re: abuse is this: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf

The part about same-sex abuse is, specifically, page 29.

To be honest, I don't want to talk about religion all that much. It's very emotionally draining for me, so I'm probably not going to comment any more on that aspect.

As for Ayn Rand, I've not actually read her works. Just read a bit bout Objectivism from secondary sources and such. Nothing in it which really pops out at me, though.

Thanks for the link, though I can tell just by reading that I may have a little trouble understanding it. Still, I gave it a little read through and seemed to figure out what they meant by some of the words, using their context. I bookmarked it for later, though God knows when I'll get off my fuzzy butt and read it. =P I kinda struggle with laziness. The internet doesn't help much.

I understand if you don't wanna go into religion. Heh. Besides, even if I tried to explain my views, you no doubt have different ideas matched to the word. I remember reading something like that in a book by George MacDonald called "Lillith". Guy was the precursor to C.S. Lewis and other Christians who wrote fantasy in his day. Not the best author, mind, but I'd still recommend giving his stuff a read. Better than Ayn Rand. Augh.

Far as I know, Objectivism is just a bunch of conservative atheists. They think selfishness (or "enlightened self-interest" might be the term) is the highest moral value. Being a Christian, I cannot really agree on that. True, I don't think I'll ever be anything close to a socialist or even lean a little left on the American political spectrum... but such a dry and depressing philosophy is not for me. Besides, if God doesn't exist, I don't see the use of morality anyway. It's all shadows and dust.

Objectivism starts with the axioms "existence exists" and "that which exists has identity" (i.e. properties which differentiate it from other things which exist) and then goes on to derive everything else from there. (Had to wiki it to get a refresher). Beyond that I'm not sure, though I know it's usually atheistic and capitalistic (incidentally, Rand supposedly abhorred libertarians and anarcho-capitalists).

As for "why morality", there's a heap we could discuss in that, but it's not something I'm prepared to go into at length. Though I have been reading up on it. One interesting piece I'm still trying to digest is http://praxeology.net/whyjust.htm It's still difficult for me to understand, but it seems to be a reasonable exploration of the topic (you may find section 5 interesting as it indirectly goes into the necessity or lack thereof of God for morality).

Huh. Dunno why Rand would be set against them. I suppose it might have something to do with some of their beliefs and political policies. Or that they didn't "go far enough" in some respect. *shrugs* In the end, they may just not have been "rational" enough. I vote we lay it aside; I'm not qualified to speak on it. Besides, I have as much interest in Objectivism as I do her fiction. Which is very little. =P

This article you linked is rather interesting. I admit, I'm only skimming, yet section 5 has proved most interesting.

Ah. The H2O example makes sense. And reading a little further, I see they do seem to apply the same to God. Heh. Funny thing is, this is similar to my thoughts on the matter. Granted, I'm not a philosopher, or at least not one that's gone to the trouble of obtaining a fancy degree in it. So...

*thunk*

Here's your block of salt. =P Try to pace yourself.

You see, to me, I don't think it matters whether there's any sort of God up there. For morality to have any basis beyond man-made rules, there has to be something eternal behind the scenes, some form of afterlife or Karma system in place. I am something of a romantic (though I admit I use the term in ignorance of its original meaning), and strongly believe that the mythical is more real than what we can objectively, rationally observe. So, to me, morality must be backed up by something stronger, something beyond, merely the material. Otherwise, all we have left are societal constructs, flimsy things built by an arrogant race of primates, living on a dirty rock on the ass end of the universe.

Least, that's how I see it. *shrugs* After all, if there is nothing more than earthly punishment awaiting me, I might as well be a bastard. Death is oblivion, and thus both the "good" and "wicked" alike are destroyed by the cessation of prime bodily functions. To me, it's all dust and ashes without something permanent, something lasting that sifts through the debris of humanity and chooses the best to reward in some fashion. Whether it's another shot at life or a home where nothing and no one can be lost ever again, I much prefer that over the oblivion many atheists insist upon.

I don't think I can be very easily dissuaded of this. In fact, I suspect if it were somehow proven that there is nothing that is truly eternal, that this fact were somehow thrust upon my mind in such a way as I could not refute it logically, I would go mad. For better or for worse, I've thrown my lot in with the likes of C.S Lewis and Billy Graham. I rise and fall with them; I've invested all my spiritual identity in this. I cannot imagine what it would take to break me of it, to convince me there's no God and no eternal reward for anyone or anything. That it's all just dust and ashes.

I hope it never happens. While I might hold on to some shred of my morality... as a writer, I've already gotten a pretty good look at what would happen if I were driven to that particular bit of madness.

......I think I need some chocolate now.....

Actually, it's likely Rand disliked them because they went too far. Rand definitely believed that some sort of government and military is necessary, for example, and that that which is directed against enlightened self-interest to be evil, while libertarians as a rule tend to be more anarchist and, not necessarily anti-military but anti-governmental military, and they also tend to be more libertine and open to subjective values (the non-aggression principle notwithstanding). Hence why Objectivists tend to see altruism (i.e. utter self-sacrifice without expectation of return) to be evil while libertarians don't. Though you have called yourself libertarian, but I don't know if you hold those values so eh.

Though I did state I didn't want to talk about religion, I... yeesh, I honestly don't want to offend you, but I am severely perturbed by what you wrote. Actually, I'm going to see if I can continue that line of thought in response to the below poster. If it's alright with you, shall we continue the conversation from there?

If you wish. I have to respond to him eventually.

Minor correction: American Academy of Pediatrics, not Pediatricians.

Take a look at my icon, my username and you'll probably be able to see where I'm coming from like a sniper watching his target through a 12-power scope. XD

God and the devil are concepts I don't necessarily deny, but I question. There's no point saying much more than "what cannot be proven, should never be taken as fact." I would never presume a scientific theory to be taken as fact, and yet science has done more for humanity in the last two centuries than Christianity ever did in nine times that time, so if I won't even take scientific theory at face value, why on earth would I take religion at face value? What is unproven should never be followed blindly, lest it be wrong, or worse, a lie. So hence I discard most of the arguments about sexual orientation involving being gay as a sin, especially when, having been a former christian who read the bible heavily, I recall Jesus actually hung out with a gay guy, never said anything homosexuality being either good or bad, and also stated that the laws of the old testament were no longer valid, so the entire argument that homosexuality is a sin is a complete and total falsehood even amongst the Christian community, let alone those of the scientific one. I mean, if homosexuality is a choice, I should point out that animals, incapable of sentient or sapient choice, can display bisexual and homosexual characteristics. So are they somehow choosing to be gay, despite not having self-awareness? Makes no sense, right?

Either way, what you describe is not necessarily addiction in the 'traditional' sense. You've been indoctrinated into believing that somehow looking at porn or partaking in it is somehow wrong. By what effect, exactly? What wrong does it bring? Pornography is not done against the will of the participants, it is a willing affair, so watching it does not enable rape. The actors made the choice to partake in that movie; even if all the people in the world stopped watching porn, bet your ass that people would still make home-made movies to watch themselves, which would eventually be seen by others and it'd start all over again. The bible has never said anything about pornography, and if you think that the Romans somehow did not have live shows of erotic displays, you don't know much about Rome...or human nature for that matter. It's not like it didn't exist, the only times we hear from Christians that pornography is bad is by preachers trying to shove their own PERSONAL views upon others. It has no biblical, Jesus-taught basis, and therefore you shouldn't regard it as bad. If your messiah didn't give a damn about it, you probably shouldn't, either.

You are more likely jaded. The interesting thing to note is that I've been watching porn since I was 12, sneaking glimpses at videos, and I still look at porn maybe once every other day at most. There's been times where I'll look at porn repeatedly. There's been others I won't even think much about it. I see naked pics on the net of some woman I don't know, I think the same thing: "oh. A naked girl. ...ok." But I see one of a girl I DO know (personally) and suddenly that elicits interest. See a naked girl in real life and that's a whole new ball-game.

You are only a victim if you choose to think of yourself as a victim. As a man who has beat heroin, cocaine, and crack addictions (all REAL addictions, not these puss-out mental ones people keep claiming) not by "surrendering myself" to anybody but rather by my efforts and the help of my friends, I can tell you this very easily; if you lack the will to overcome your own defects, it is only because you consider yourself too weak. Every human being has the power to do right or wrong by themselves, and they can find either the strength in themselves or in others like them to make their lives better. To quote Dan Barker, a preacher-turned atheist: "I have something to say to the religionist who feels atheists never say anything positive: You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil--you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself."

These words need not clash with your beliefs. But I can tell you are NOT a happy individual. You remind me of who I used to be once upon a time. Either your beliefs need restructuring...or they need to be discarded, but either way you are clearly burdened by your faith rather than uplifted by it. "I do understand what love is, and that is one of the reasons I can never again be a Christian. Love is not self denial. Love is not blood and suffering. Love is not murdering your son to appease your own vanity. Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of people to eternal torture because they have offended your ego or disobeyed your rules.
Love is not obedience, conformity, or submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being."

Consider what I've said. You need not believe like me in thinking there is no God but perhaps you should think that, if there is a God, a being capable of creating something as miraculous and awe-inspiringly huge and vast as the universe, do you REALLY think he'd be a being capable of us TRULY understanding him? We humans who do not even understand ourselves, capable of understanding God?

Don't take your beliefs from other people. Find your OWN way. If I am not mistaken, we were given free will, and I am sure that if you did good deeds, if you did what was necessary to make you happy if it cost nobody else anything, and died having made the world better by you and your own, God would have likely appreciated it that you would do so much with the life he allowed you to have rather than just falling in line and doing the same old thing everyone else told you to do.

Look into humanism...it's a very optimistic way of looking at things, and the world in general. Don't believe what's been spoonfed to you by your parents or your community; do what YOU feel is right.

As a rule of thumb, I personally don't like to... I guess you could say "proselytise" atheism or antitheism as a sort of example setting maneuver. I think that proselytisation is one of the most virulent aspects of Christianity and Islam (and religions like Scientology). It's actually why if I were to enter into a religion, I'd probably go into Judaism or one of the flavours of neopaganism. Without the dualistic, eschatological/soteriological impetus that influences the former religions, I think they tend to be far less toxic in terms of societal negative effects. Not to mention they don't place as much emphasis on pure belief or faith. Heck, you can apparently be an atheist Wiccan and few other Wiccans will give you shit for it (or so I've read).

This segues into what I mentioned I wanted to talk about above. Bandit, the reason I was perturbed was because it seems you have morality tied into obedience to authority. An essay I read some time ago (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/killer-myth.html) convinced me that this is a perilous situation to be in. This is why I'm continuously wary of Christianity even in this post-Enlightenment Freedom of Conscience world we live in. Despite claiming that such freedom is supported by the Bible, it still took almost two millennia for it to come to pass.

Ugh, I really don't want to continue because I severely hate attacking other people's beliefs, but I would urge you to at least keep in mind that it's highly unlikely you are evil by default and that you'd become utterly immoral without religion.

Very much agreed here.

I thank you for your concern. I have struggled with issues of legalism, and even have attacked non-believers from such a viewpoint. Hell, I used to think certain games and such were "of the devil". That violent media cause violence. Now, I realize it's a little more complicated than that, and prefer to use just discernment over whether something has a bad influence (I'm unlikely to put any of the SAW movies on my shelf because of the poisonous philosophy held within, though the "gorn" certainly doesn't help).

As for me being evil by default, well... no, I don't think the Bible teaches that. "Sinful" isn't exactly the same thing as being "evil". Certainly, it can lead to that, and I've seen evidence that certain sinful behaviors and activities can have a negative effect upon a person's character. And I do try to remind myself that, because I am a Christian, I am a Saint who sins, not a sinner who's saved. The difference is quite important.

However, please let me be the judge of my own soul, at least as well as I can be. I know the dark places my mind has been. I would never wish such things to be inflicted on anyone. Thankfully, I'm getting clear of it, and hope to learn something of the whole mess. At the very least, I may have gotten a real sense of what evil is truly like.

Also, I apologize for my fellow Christians if any of them have insulted or personally hurt you in any way. I may not exactly be responsible for them, or have any control, but I do realize that Christians have done a pretty piss poor job of living life as we should. We've promoted legalism quite a bit, and it hasn't helped anyone. So, consider this a formal apology from someone who knows the poison that's taught in his own faith. I'll do what I can to erase the doctrines God calls me to fight against.

Oh good grief. I was not prepared for a Wall of Text to hit my comments. D= I think I will need a little time to digest this.

Wurf... even the first paragraph is startin' to give me fits... but I really should read it all before I reply...

Give me a few, kay?

*reads*

Erf. I'm sorry, but I see little use in any conversation with you. You seem to hold views and beliefs that are quite contrary to my own, and I somehow doubt you'd be inclined to listen to me. We'd likely be "talking past each other", each insisting the other listen to his view as if he were right. And hey, in our own minds, we each believe ourselves to be right. Isn't that human nature? I may admit the possibility that I'm wrong, yet I still hold to my views. And I don't expect any different from you; sticking to your guns is admirable.

However.

One thing I take issue with is your insistence that mental addictions (I know you will not consider spiritual ones) are "pussy" ones. My experience is that they are not. If you consider me "weak" because I struggle to stop looking at porn, that is your view. However, expressing such an opinion does little to convince me to listen to your view of things. It's kind of insulting. There are people out there who have a purely mental addiction to things. If it were not an addiction, they could have stopped. They could have given it up. Me, I'm finally managing to beat it. To slip away. Would you scorn me for a lack of "strength", or congratulate me for taking control of an aspect of my life?

We all have struggles. I don't pretend mine are as great as those of others. And though perhaps it's indecent and selfish of me... something in me insists that my own struggles be acknowledged, that they be considered at least difficult for me. Heh. Might be silly. On the other hand, some of it may very well be the symptoms of a wound in my heart (spiritually speaking; I don't have any known medical syndromes or diseases). I cannot know for certain unless I search it out.

I doubt I will ever be a humanist, least of all the secular kind. And I am developing my own way. Don't assume that just 'cause I may sound like others you've heard before means I'm "just like them". Maybe I am, in some ways, good and bad. But to me, it is far better to have all the flaws of a Christian apologist if I also get all the strengths. To me, the Way of the Wild Heart is far more satisfying than any other path I've seen.

I am a Christian. It has always sustained me, given me strength. Why give it up now? My only wish is to understand the faith better, so I might be a better Christian, and therefore, a better person. Can you fault me for that?

If so, then we likely have no more to speak about on any of these matters.

Ah, I had meant to touch on that. Yeah, I think, Creed, you're not giving enough credit to non-physical addictions. When people practically play themselves to death in MMOs, it's clear to me that drugs aren't the only thing that can cause addictive behaviour.

On that note, though, I still think there's a world of difference between overcoming something like porn addiction and overcoming same-sex attractions. I just read in another forum an anonymous post that brought me to tears. I'll copy-pasta it here.

"Im new here and i need help desperatly.

I feel as if I've been pushed over the edge. Before I was questioning myself at all I already was not OK with myself. I was awkward, I was klutzy. I wasn’t popular, fit, good looking, I Don’t think of myself as smart, funny, or any other positive adjective. I have friends but I'm never true to anyone 100% and sometimes I think they are my friends because they pity me. But now after all this headache inducing confusion I’m starting to really dislike everything about me. Why can I not just fit in once?

I've done research and read so many articles that all say the same thing. Being LGBT is not wrong, it's perfectly normal; it’s going to take time to get over it. Etc. However I don’t believe I can ever get over this. I want to take a hammer to my skull. I've never considered self harm before but it has become way to often a thought in past days. I don’t want this. I would rather not feel love toward anyone than those that society has deemed wrong. I want to try to convince myself I’m straight, I want to go to reparative therapy, it feel like this is something I could fix (I know it does not work but I'll try anything at this point) I want to love the opposite sex and I do, just not on a physical level. Why the hell not. Please don’t say there is nothing I can change. Please don’t confirm my worst fear and nightmare. It is said it is something you are born with but plenty of people dye their hair or remove imperfections from themselves. Why not this? I’m not a religious person in the slightest but I actual found myself asking God to change me back. I feel so desperate. I feel like I’m going to hell and should just save everyone the time and money and get it over with. I want to tell my close friend but then it will become a reality, a reality I just can’t handle. I think someone is onto me and I think had been dropping hints and its pissing me off as well as scaring the shit out of me. I fear of how my family and friends will treat me and I don’t want to lose my best friend but I feel as if I’m pushing people away. I just want to be isolated for the rest of my life. I don’t want this I don’t want this I don’t want this. Why won’t it just go away? What did I do to deserve this at all? People hate LGBT. I can’t handle being decimated against. Maybe I should just get a girlfriend. Maybe I just need to change myself. My life is already difficult. Why is this happening???I just want to be normal."

This... is the first time I think I've seen a genuine "self-hating" gay. Certainly, the poster seems to have an already existent self-image problem, but it seems massively amplified by his recognition of attraction to the same sex. What's worse is the origin of this fear and loathing: other people. People hate LGBT, he says. He's afraid of the reactions of his friends and family. He can't handled being discriminated (I assume he's trying to write) against. He would rather feel love to no one rather than to those society deems wrong.

Erf, this is going back to the argument above which we agreed to end, but I wanted to put it out there to sort of contrast between what causes distress in something like a drug addiction and what causes distress in someone who has same-sex attractions.

Ouch. Man, my heart goes out to that guy (girl?). =\ Nothing is worse than being caught between your urges (whether unnatural or not) and what you feel is the "right way" to live life. Seems to me that this young man is in a struggle between desire and duty. Feeling a fire within, a hunger for something, yet having it stuck in his mind that this desire is wrong and should be stamped out. *sigh* Worse, seems to be isolating himself out of fear of being discovered and exposed.

Ye gods, I know how that feels. One of the worst feelings in the world.

Now. If you'll allow me to speculate, I imagine what you and I would say to him are quite different. From your previous comments, I'd wager you'd at least attempt to convince him that his attraction to the same sex isn't wrong at all. That it's, if you'll pardon the phrase, "okay to be gay". I refuse to speculate on how well that'd go; I'd only note that he claims not to be religious yet has guilt from somewhere. It's possible there's some spiritual warfare going on, yet I can assume nothing without getting to know him and the situation better.

As for me, my advice would be quite different. Again, I've read a lot of John Eldredge's books, and the one on desire comes to mind. See, we've kinda lost a necessary skill. Few people take the time to stop and listen to their desire. When it comes, most people either deny it or try to fulfill it. The first is often disastrous (it's why so many pastors have affairs; perhaps why Catholic priests turned to altar boys), yet the second doesn't always work either. After all, if you don't bother taking the time to examine and analyze your desire, how can you fulfill it? You'll likely grab the first thing that seems to help and keep using it until it no longer works. And then go for more. I think that's how most addictions start: as an attempt to fulfill some misunderstood desire within one's heart. Thus, my advice to this young man (or young woman, as the case may be) is to stay in that desire. To acknowledge it, to let it sit, and see if he can't figure out what's really behind it.

Hmm. This is kinda segueing into something else I've had on my mind. But instead of posting here, I think I should type it up and post it as another HISI Fit. I think it deserves its own entry, and it might help rekindle new discussion with others. Feel free to invite others of all different walks of life. That should increase the potential for greater discussion.

I just hope I can be quick to put out any flames that result. =P

Yeesh. When am I going to learn how to post short replies to these things? Gonna fill up the page at this rate!

Heh. Sounds a bit like you're almost... what was the word? Hang on...

*google*

Ah, right. Pansexual. Someone who doesn't necessarily regard gender important when it comes to sexual attraction. They're more interested in the other person's personality and character. After all, what's the point of having sex with a complete bastard or bitch? Sure, you get to have sex, but at the emotional and spiritual price of having to deal with a harmful person.

Eheh. I have a somewhat odd definition of "religion". To me, it's defined as any set of rules, rituals and/or moral teachings that attempt to tame the soul, usually through rigorous obedience to said rules, rituals and/or moral teachings. It doesn't work though. Ties people up in legalism and makes them deny their desires; it forces them to kill their heart, the best part of who they are. I have no use for such "religion", least as I've defined it.

I consider myself a person of faith though. "Now faith is the certainty of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen." I don't believe in following a moral code so much as becoming intimate with God. And I believe that, when that happens, you begin to get transformed, to be restored to the condition of the human soul before the Fall. Wounds get healed, hope is rekindled, joy fills your heart. It's not easy, but it's a damn sight better than killing your heart or numbing it with little addictions.

As for making a better world, be careful. You run the risk of trying to better people from the outside, to force them to be better. Not saying that you'd want to. However, I remember the movie "Serenity". Ever seen it? Then you'll know what this quote means.

"They'll swing back to thinkin' they can make people 'better'."

Good intentions do indeed pave the way to hell. Don't forget that sometimes making a better world means helping people get fixed. Both feed into each other. A better world gives hope. Better people can improve the world. Do what you can to help both sides, is my advice.

Whatever you choose and wherever you go, I pray God finds you and heals your wounds. And I hope that, when He makes you better, you'll find yourself making a better world for all those around you.

Go get 'em, bud. =)

Erf. See my views on "religion" above.

Speaking logically though, if we are created by some Supreme Being, then it's likely that said Being designed every part of our bodies, right down to the cell nucleus. So, I would say that this Supreme Being would know best how to seek pleasure and fulfill our desires, seeing how It made us what we are. (Or He, if you prefer.)

This sheds no light on said Supreme Being's character though. For that, we'd have to look at all of Creation, to seek the little God Touches that will tell us whether we live under a Just God, a Wrathful God, an Apathetic God... or a Passionate God. Perhaps even a combination of some of these, and others.

I'll tell ya one thing, though. If God really was a first-class bastard who wanted us all to suffer... why the hell would He make sex feel so gosh darn good? =P Seems a little too nice for a Sadistic Creator.

If God really was a first-class bastard who wanted us all to suffer... why the hell would He make sex feel so gosh darn good? =P Seems a little too nice for a Sadistic Creator.


well considering he sends people to hell simply for not believing in him no matter how much good they have done.

what proof is there that we were created by some intelligence and even more so that intelligence was your interpretation of god and not the countless others ?

Heh. Proof? And what good would said proof do you?

Tell me. If God actually did all the things you'd want Him to do to prove His existence... what then? Would you kneel and bow? Would you praise Him and declare yourself a fool for your disbelief? Would you beg mercy for all your sins, to be spare His wrath?

What good would proof do you? Do you honestly think it would change anything? Sure, it might prove that there is a God, and that He is powerful beyond reckoning. But what good would that do you? You're hostile to Him. Aren't you? Aren't you set against everything in the Bible, believing it nonsense?

If you are hostile to God, and especially the God of the Bible, then "proof", even if I could give some that were undeniable by anyone (and I am too cynical of the human race to believe in that), what good would it do?

Unless you already believe God is good, that His heart toward all life and especially us really is and ever will be good, then any "proof" I gave you would do no good at all. You'd continue to believe against Him. Even if you could no longer deny He existed, if the evidence was thrust into your face day after countless day... what would change?

What is your heart towards God? Is it love? Is it hatred? Is it something else? The wounded cry of a broken heart who cannot believe God is good, not with so much pain in the world?

Who are you? Are you a man or woman open to God? Or have you closed yourself off long ago?

If you're open to Him, we can proceed. If not, there is no sense in continuing. I intend to speak on such matters as this from the basis of my own poor understanding. And I will never stop believing in Jesus. You cannot convince me to let go of my faith. If you've heard stuff like this before, then my apologies. I don't wish to echo the empty "Gospels" of empty-hearted men who've lost the way. And forgive me if I speak more like a bard or a story-teller than an intellectual. I know the language of Myth best; it's the easiest way for me to speak. But it may only frustrate you. You may perceive me as a mere dreamer and nothing more. And you may be quite right.

So, I leave the ball in your court. Shall we continue, despite the chance of frustration? Or will you let the conversation die and condemn me to your list of fools like so many others?

It's your choice. I only ask you take a step back and consider before you make it.

Heh. Proof? And what good would said proof do you?

It would prove me wrong therefore if you provided solid evidence of your god(you'd be the first BTW)...therefore I would believe....becuase so far no theist has ...so any one of those gods out there MIGHT be correct....or might not be ....which one is morally superior is another issue

You're hostile to Him. Aren't you? Aren't you set against everything in the Bible, believing it nonsense?

No I'm not hostile to a fictional character , just criticizing his sadomasochistic personality...whats nonsense is people believing it to be true...but I feel sympathy because I know what it's like.


So, I leave the ball in your court. Shall we continue, despite the chance of frustration?


sure I guess...

So... you're saying you'll believe in God when He or one of His followers gives you "solid proof" that He exists?

Then I cannot satisfy you. Even if you give me a firm definition of this "solid proof" that you want, and you stick to it instead of "moving the goalposts" as others have done, I can tell you now that you won't get it.

Look, you're kinda putting me in an awkward position. Assuming that what I believe is true, and that the God of the Bible does exist and has ransomed me from sin and death, and really did do all those things in the scriptures... then I have no authority to grant you what you desire. In effect, it's not up to me. The most I can do is ask God to give you that proof, or at least something He knows would prove His existence to you. Other than that, all I have to offer is a lot of poetic statements about how I see God in every good thing in life. I get the feeling you wouldn't be very impressed by that. But then, one never knows, so if you ask, I'll list what I consider "proof" of God.

And to be honest, I do feel like you're hostile. "Sadomasochistic"? That doesn't fit my understanding of God at all. From my viewpoint, I feel like you're ascribing blame to God for all the bad things in the world. And if that's so, I would not blame you for being an atheist. Far better to believe in oblivion than to accept a reality where the only supernatural being is a bastard, and a sadistic one at that. Only worse option would be H.P. Lovecraft's world, where the gods aren't sadistic, just alien and prone to killing people on accident. But that's getting off on a tangent.

Even if you're not hostile though, I get the impression that you're not very open to the possibility. Why, I can only speculate. And I don't wish to insult you by bringing up wild theories. I don't know your story.

Perhaps that would help a little. Tell me what happened. Either here or in a note. Show me where your faith died and why, and what things were like before and after. Then I may have a better feel for your reasons, although time will tell if that makes my arguments any more effective.

And to be honest, I do feel like you're hostile. "Sadomasochistic"?

Yes
Sadistic because of the sanctioned violence and genocide as found in the Old Testament.
also his twisted standards on good and evil.
As seen in the story Sodom and Gomorrah he Believes a city is worth to be burned for its Immorality...yet he saved only a "righteous" man who offered his daughters to be raped by a group of men and allowed the daughters to perform incestuous acts with their father.

Masochistic because the only way he can forgive is to come down(as Jesus) to sacrifice himself ...to himself in an extremely painful way...because of his rules.

I feel like you're ascribing blame to God for all the bad things in the world.
when I say these things it's not because I don't "blame" god for the worlds problems..it be silly to blame something you don't believe exist.I'm merely pointing out the tangible fallacy with in the bible.

Even if you're not hostile though, I get the impression that you're not very open to the possibility
It be unfair of me to be open only to your god though.
tell me , are you open to the possibility that your god might be the wrong god,and in fact that one of the countless other gods may be the right one?...

Show me where your faith died and why, and what things were like before and after.
I simply became curious, merely questioned myself and my beliefs.
the whole..."If you're a good christian and something good happens its God Rewarding you. if something bad happens it's him testing you."
"while if you're an atheist and something bad happens it's god punishing you are trying to call you..if good happens...well your still gonna suffer in hell."

the illusion in that common mentality among some theist is obvious ...correct?

Yes
Sadistic because of the sanctioned violence and genocide as found in the Old Testament.
also his twisted standards on good and evil.
As seen in the story Sodom and Gomorrah he Believes a city is worth to be burned for its Immorality...yet he saved only a "righteous" man who offered his daughters to be raped by a group of men and allowed the daughters to perform incestuous acts with their father.

Masochistic because the only way he can forgive is to come down(as Jesus) to sacrifice himself ...to himself in an extremely painful way...because of his rules.

Before we go any further, I think we need to clearly define the term we're using here.

Sadistic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/ - Adjective. Pertaining to or characterized by sadism.

Sadism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/ - Noun. 1. Psychiatry. The condition in which sexual gratification depends on causing pain or degradation to others. Compare masochism. 2. Any enjoyment in being cruel. 3. Extreme cruelty.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/ - Noun. 1. A sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others (as on a love object). 2. a. Delight in cruelty. b. Excessive cruelty.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ - Noun. 1. The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others. 2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty. 3. Extreme cruelty.

I'm not sure how genocide is cruel, though wiping out entire nations and peoples is rarely a good thing. The explanation I've heard is that these people that God marked for genocide were so morally bankrupt and cruel themselves that it was better just to do away with them. After all, if you're sacrificing infants by burning them alive, it tends to make people question your society's right to exist.

But if you're going to accept that, you have to accept it on the authority of men who have studied the matter and down the fieldwork needed to prove such cruelty existed amongst those people. If you find that too hard, then you may have to be content in knowing very little; almost everything we believe and accept is on someone else's authority. Empirical data can only tell you so much.

As it is though, I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where God calls for outright cruelty. Death and genocide, yes. But I have yet to read anywhere that God has called for something that strikes me as cruel or sadistic. Granted, I have not read the whole Bible; I'm toward the end of Exodus and making my way forward (who knew the specifications for the tent God lived in were so detailed?). So, perhaps you could point out a place to me and I shall go and read it, in multiple translations even.

And... frankly, I'm not touching the whole "masochistic" thing. If you think Jesus somehow got a kick or something outta being torn to shreds, beaten, crowned with thorns a few inches long, spat upon and then publicly executed in a slow, suffocating manner...

...I don't know what I can do to correct such an error in thought. It is a complete 180 from the Spirit of the Scriptures.

when I say these things it's not because I don't "blame" god for the worlds problems..it be silly to blame something you don't believe exist.I'm merely pointing out the tangible fallacy with in the bible.

Um. You do know what "tangible" means, yes? I'm not sure how one can have a "tangible fallacy".

*headtilts* Then again, it has been a while since I learned that term. Perhaps I'm imagining the wrong definition.

It be unfair of me to be open only to your god though.
tell me , are you open to the possibility that your god might be the wrong god,and in fact that one of the countless other gods may be the right one?...

Fair point. And I am willing to admit that I could very well be wrong. The only way to find out is either to try every religion or god you can, or to simply continue with one and see where that takes you.

So far, the latter option has proven beneficial to me, though only in the last year or so have I begun to understand the faith so well.

'Course, for all I know you're equally open to all possible gods. Which may mean you're not open at all. I suppose it would depend.

However, if you insist on seeing God as sadomasochistic, then I believe this part of our conversations may be at an end. I refuse to believe God is cruel. If you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that He's kind and admit you don't know what all was going on back in the Old Testament... then there's no point in continuing. You will simply frustrate me under the pretense of wishing to learn. It doesn't matter if you think you're willing if you're not. 'Cause part of learning is being willing to consider yourself wrong on at least a few points.

I learn because I know I am still young, even at 28, and that others know more about things than I do. I would suggest that you try to keep this in mind yourself, even if you have to drill it into your head every morning. If nothing else, it will keep you humble. And that's important. For the worst sin, according to the Bible, is Pride. With that sin firmly in place, you will never be open to Christianity. I guarantee it.

Now, let's see if I can tackle these other comments of yours...

Before we go any further, I think we need to clearly define the term we're using here.

Sadistic.

I was going for the extreme cruelty definition
---
Being all knowing
present everywhere
and all powerful
as described in the bible many times.
god knowingly allowed evil to happen...knew Lucifer would become evil, knew certain people would grow up to do evil or allowed for mentally sick people such as psychopaths or schizophrenics to be born, now this goes into the problem of freewill but think..god supposedly knows every detail of the universe(being the creator and all) and yet still allowed for a flawed world filled with evil and natural disasters. and the defense for that is because it's the fault of Adam and Eve despite being completely naive of good and evil made ONE mistake because they were tricked by Satan disguised as a talking snake whom god irresponsibly allowed near them...

the cruelty of man cannot compare to that of god considering the punishment for simply not believing in him is equal to all evils except blasphemy against the Holy spirit which is considered so evil it cannot be forgiven and the penalty for that is being eventually thrown into a lake of fire to burn forever.
I'm not sure how any moral person could enjoy heaven knowing BILLIONS which may include many people they've known and loved are suffering whether by fire or any other form for ever and ever......and ever.



Fair point. And I am willing to admit that I could very well be wrong. The only way to find out is either to try every religion or god you can, or to simply continue with one and see where that takes you.

So far, the latter option has proven beneficial to me, though only in the last year or so have I begun to understand the faith so well.

the same as I mentioned before can be said by people of different faiths just ask members of a different faith such as
that is one thing all faiths have in common.


However, if you insist on seeing God as sadomasochistic, then I believe this part of our conversations may be at an end. I refuse to believe God is cruel. If you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that He's kind and admit you don't know what all was going on back in the Old Testament... then there's no point in continuing. You will simply frustrate me under the pretense of wishing to learn. It doesn't matter if you think you're willing if you're not. 'Cause part of learning is being willing to consider yourself wrong on at least a few points

I stated my reasons for that possibility based on his contrasting personalities...I might have to ad schizophrenic, of course since I don't believe in any man made gods...it makes more sense why god can have the personality of a Bronze age war lord in the old testament..and a more loving father figure in the New...because it was written out of the imagination by men during their times...God was made in Mans image...

and that still happens today..for any religious figure
for example Jesus.
you have Conservative American Jesus
the catholic 8 pound baby Jesus in arms of the Virgin mary
White Blonde haired blue eyed Aryan Jesus
Hippy Jesus
and my personal favorite BLACK JESUS.

*sigh* I do not see the profit in continuing this conversation. You have now blamed God for everything evil in the universe. Congratulations. This is probably the theological equivalent of Godwin's Law.

You have a very simple view on things. I'm not sure you're quite willing to accept that any of your ideas of God are wrong.

But hey, if you are still really open to Him, wait until October. There's a book coming out by John Eldredge on what Jesus is really like. Perhaps you should give it a look.

As for me, I will search the other comment threads and see if anything can be done further there. I won't reply to this one anymore. Perhaps your other replies will prove more encouraging.

*sigh* I do not see the profit in continuing this conversation. You have now blamed God for everything evil in the universe. Congratulations. This is probably the theological equivalent of Godwin's Law.

You have a very simple view on things. I'm not sure you're quite willing to accept that any of your ideas of God are wrong.

quote me were I blamed god for everything please, How can you blame something you don't believe to exist at all.
I refuse to believe a god is all loving ,all knowing, and all powerful when these characteristics contradict with each other and the fact he has never been proven to exist at all .

you have a hard time even doubting your god because that in itself is a sin, you give credit to something that is only believed solely on faith.its basically the "i dont know, therefore god did it" mentality... and that mentality is shared by muslims jews hindus...etc

The point I was trying to make is peoples gods are a projection of their culture.

But hey, if you are still really open to Him, wait until October. There's a book coming out by John Eldredge on what Jesus is really like. Perhaps you should give it a look.

If he existed I doubt he was god or was resurrected ( just as I doubt Muhammad flew into heaven) .

Mmm, nope. No openings here.

This conversation thread is dead. If you can't see the plank in your eye, or admit it exists, it's not much use for me to try and remove it. And I'm tired of ducking.

Perhaps one of the others will bear fruit.

the plank in my eye is what exactly?
pointing out flaws in religion right down to their holy books?

here's my stance on religion in a nutshell

the holy books are not infallible as most claim(not saying you are one of them)
there are good and bad religious people who cherry pick good or bad verses to form their own morality.
the claims of religion without proof can be disregarded without proof, but that goes for anyone.

"How can you blame something you don't believe to exist at all?"

Well, that's easy. You just have to be human.

People have all kinds of illogical and ridiculous beliefs. And they don't always see the flaw in those beliefs or arguments because... well, I guess that's how we're wired. It's impossible for us to take a fully objective view of our own stuff. This is why the best creative and scientific minds still look for critique. They don't think their stuff is bad, but when viewed by those who didn't come up with it many of the flaws will come up in the conversation.

This is why Jesus' metaphor is so brilliant! We literally cannot see the plank in our own eye, nor the speck if it's a more minor flaw. We have to have someone with clearer vision come along and tell us, "You idiot! Pull that out before you hurt somebody!" And, no offense, but I think you do have a plank in your eye regarding religion. And until you or someone else pulls it out, you won't be able to criticize any religion, or the people who believe it, without being very unfair to them.

Sometimes, you develop a habit or compulsion, and you can't control your behavior. Whether psychological or spiritual, it is not healthy, and you need to get it taken care of as soon as possible. Otherwise, you will cause others, and perhaps even yourself, a bit of harm.

I disagree about the scriptures, but then I don't know if we'll ever agree on that. I take it on faith that God has kept a hand in it and prevented them from being corrupted. Some traditional views on what the scriptures say are up for debate, but I take the Bible as God-inspired, and won't part from that.

Agree on the religious nit-pickers, whom God takes a dim view on as well. You're supposed to take all of it, not just the parts you like!

As for the "claims of religion", I suppose that depends on how much you depend on "proof" and how much you trust people who make those claims. "Proof" can only take ya so far y'know.

Ah, missed the last part, sorry.

I simply became curious, merely questioned myself and my beliefs.
the whole..."If you're a good christian and something good happens its God Rewarding you. if something bad happens it's him testing you."
"while if you're an atheist and something bad happens it's god punishing you are trying to call you..if good happens...well your still gonna suffer in hell."

the illusion in that common mentality among some theist is obvious ...correct?

It's not merely an illusion, it's heresy. It's in direct conflict with at least the book of Job. And I'm sure there's a verse about how God "sends the rain on the just and unjust".

It's also too simplistic. If you are a good Christian (though some people have the wrong idea about that), then you are likely to have good things given to you by God. He may even work indirectly by moving others to give to you generously, out of their love for you, if not for Him. But if something bad happens, it's not always a test. Sometimes, it's random chance. An earthquake or tsunami happens when you're on vacation somewhere. Or maybe a riot happens and your car is in the way. There's also the devil to consider, which the Bible warns against. He has opposed and persecuted Christians before, and God prefers to arm us to fight them instead of just making them go away. He wants courageous hearts in heaven, not cowards or "wimps". And though it may seem unkind, having us go through temptation and spiritual warfare can be a good way to forge character. Yet we should never assume every bit of misfortune is a test. As Christians, we have an Enemy, and he is quite able and willing to do us harm.

As for the bit on atheists, I have noticed a troubling belief floating among many Christians. Focus on the Family seemed to promote it a lot, particularly in their radio series, Adventures in Odyssey. Much as I loved the series, there were many points where they glossed over important points. And they later developed a tendency to portray non-Christians as Always Evil. Not always Chaotic, mind. Some of the villains used the law and political power to force their agendas on the town. But it seems like they lost something, and started to push this "Unbelievers = Bad People" doctrine. It leaves a sick taste in my mouth. More so because I may have even believed it at some point.

Thankfully, my honesty as a writer saved me from that. People are complicated. Best to show how messy things can be rather than gloss over it.

Please do keep in mind though that I'm not "those people" that you've met. =P I am a different person, and you may find I am not quite the same.

Though your offer was to Paletero, I hope you don't mind me offering my story. At the very least it'll make for some entertainment.

Little note before I begin: I was actually contemplating replying to this for the last few days and went over in my head a few times how I should post this. I am going to try as much as I can to keep the ranting and preaching to a minimum, keep it as descriptive as possible. There are a couple of points I feel rather rantish about, though, so I may become a bit more... heated there. It's not directed at you, per se, so I hope you're not offended by it.

Hoo boy, here we go.

It all started at the age of 14, when a Zoroastrian named Vilmer ritualistically shaved my testicles.

No, wait, wrong character.

OK, seriously. I was raised Roman Catholic from birth. Attended Catholic Church, went to a Catholic primary and high school, the whole shebang. Nothing particularly extraordinary happened throughout most of my childhood. I was baptised, received the Holy Eucharist at 7, was confirmed at 14. I believed in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. I believed in Jesus Christ, who died for our sins. I occasionally served as an altar boy, I did the Stations of the Cross, etc. I can still pray the Salve Regina from heart. I remember enjoying one particular version of the Kyrie Eleison in mass, I can remember the melody to one English version of the Agnus Dei, I can hear in my head with perfect clarity how the priest chanted the Eucharistic Doxology. I'm actually getting a bit nostalgic thinking about it.

Anyway, I went through my life blissfully going with the current. Of course I thought God existed, it'd be silly not to think so! I thought everyone believed in God. But I definitely recall two related aspects of my faith that sort of niggled me. The first one was the idea of "Jesus died for our sins". I actually remember being very confused by this as a young child, with no resolution to it even up to my teenage years. I can't say for certain what I thought of it, but I think I may have just taken it as metaphor. "Jesus died for you because he loves you" just like, for example, your parents would die for you because they love you.

The second aspect is one which I, again, never really considered until later in life: that pernicious place known as "hell". Again, I can't say for certain what I must have thought, but I don't think the concept of hell really struck me at that time. It was just a "bad place" that you went to if you committed a mortal sin and died without repenting. I get the impression I thought that only really, really bad people went to there so they couldn't hurt anyone again, but not much beyond that. I took it for granted that everyone I knew was going to heaven. That's what they always say at funerals, after all. "They're home with Jesus" and all that.

Little did I know what threads would unravel as I grew up and learned more. As I grew, I would encounter other denominations of Christianity. I knew they existed as a child and young man, but I thought the differences between us were... I guess mundane, perhaps. Like "why do you have to confess to a priest" or the entire transubstantiation debate. I came to find out the differences were far greater. Or perhaps it would be better to say that the differences between what they taught and what I thought I knew at the time.

In addition to this, the horror of hell would come into full bloom. The descriptions of it, the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" and the concept of sinners burning eternally were something that came into view for me for the first time after I left high school. Not only that, but I came to realise the common view wasn't "only really, really bad people go there", but instead was "you'll go there if you don't believe in Jesus". It was the first time the injustice of hell truly struck me.

Really, I can only blame the internet for this, since I tended not to find the finer points of doctrines being discussed as a general conversational topic where I live. But boy, you'll find a lot of stuff on the internet about it. And speaking of the internet, this is where I first encountered that which truly shook my faith for the first time: <rant>that filthy, wretched, cesspool of shit whence all evil in Christianity arises, Calvinism</rant> Really, if you've never had a conversation with a Calvinist, consider yourself lucky. Their ideas about the nature of God were so utterly alien to mine that I couldn't believe they could call themselves Christian.

OK, mini-sideish-rant time: it amuses me now, looking at it, how Christians consider themselves a monolithic group as long as they believe in the "essentials", while everything else is minor doctrinal disputes. And yet depending on how you view those "minor doctrinal disputes", the nature of God wholly changes. In Roman Catholicism, I was taught God loved all people. You know, "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world " accompanied by what may these days be considered racially insensitive descriptions. And he wants to save everyone (actually, the idea of being "saved" was another idea that was fuzzy when I was little. Saved from what? Anyway...) While in Calvinism...

You get this: http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/doesGoddesire.htm

That God is not the God I knew.

The worst part about Calvinism, though, is that... well, after reading their apologetics and reasoning, they struck me as right. They struck me as the most faithful interpretation of the Bible. If their premises were true, their assessment of the nature of God is correct. We have no free will and God saves and damns who he pleases. He loves who he saves and hates the reprobate (and it isn't like the hate of man, oh no! It's a holy and righteous and just hate because God is a not just a God of love, he's a God of justice!)

Basically, if I had to accept the Bible as true, I had to accept that God willed the harm of the damned, but that this wrath was holy and just. That God doesn't love everyone. Furthermore, I had to accept that those outside the fold of Christianity were intrinsically evil.

I couldn't accept that. It contradicted everything I ever experienced and was taught in my life.

So I rejected the idea of hell for a while, though I wouldn't really think about it that much and just went along my merry way as what you could call a "lapsed Catholic". Nominally Catholic, but not really feeling it anymore. Stopped going to Church in college, but started up again when I came back home. Eventually, I stopped again.

At one point, I came across the idea of Universalism. I caught onto this like a fish on bait. It was so extraordinary, so wonderful! "As in Adam all men died, so to in Christ are all men made alive." I could square it with the concept of a sovereign God, where God's will is never frustrated and all men are saved. Though I rejected it at first because my first experience with it denied the concept of free-will, I eventually read other interpretations and took it as merely descriptive. If people were sinful because of the Fall, then Christ freed all from the burden of sin. This would lead inexorably into universal salvation, though not all will come to God in this life. I took in the idea of "aionious" life and death (the word usually translated as "eternal") not to describe length, but quality so I could reject the idea of eternal damnation.

Time passed and I was happy with this paradigm. Sure, Christianity was the [b]right[/] way, but everyone would eventually see that even if they belonged to a different religion. Ah, how arrogant I was then. And I find myself astonished and ashamed with how much evil such a paradigm made me accept; even though hell wasn't eternal, I could still believe it was severe, that it was a "purifying fire" that would bring people to God like in Niven and Pournelle's Inferno. And it offered the perfect theodicy: even grievous evil could be forgotten and the worst of wounds healed when all would return to our heavenly father. So it was "all right" that people suffered greatly both in this life and the next as long as they eventually became good. It wasn't a punishment, it was a cauterization, a healing. I find I detest such a mindset now (the reasons for this are related to the trouble of taking "obedience" as a virtue, of which I linked an explanation of some posts ago).

But the next stage of my journey. I found even this couldn't satisfy me. The Bible still had a lot of things that didn't make sense. Why would God order the genocide of people in the Bible? Why all the rules mandating the death penalty for their violation in Leviticus, especially in cases like homosexuality (this was around the time I started to accept that I was gay, though I held exclusive same-sex attractions for a long time before that). Why are their contradictions between parts of the Bible and the real world? I couldn't reconcile that with my idea of a loving God and the rather unloving behaviour and demands that appeared in the Bible, and the explanations offered for them seemed ad-hoc, and were unsourced and full of assertions (the most common you'll probably hear is that the people who were... genocided? were jackasses, but that's never really established with anything outside the Bible, and the Israelites were the aggressors either way.) And of course there's the issues with the physical/geographical/etc. problems with the Bible. like the creation story and the flood (which weren't problems for me when I was Catholic since we can take them as metaphorical, but later on this struck me as silly. I highly suspect that many creationists insist in the literal creation story because without it the entire idea of the fall and the necessity of a saviour sort of falls flat.)

So it was at this point I couldn't trust the Bible as either a source of morality nor as something that was reliably factual. I decided that it was not divinely inspired: it was created wholly by man. However, I was still in the habit of believing in God and sought validation in philosophical arguments for his existence such as the Teleological argument, becoming, essentially, deist. I believed in God, but not the need for a divine human saviour. I thought I could do so purely through reason and nature.

Actually, let me break here a second because though I presented you with a seemingly neat timeline above, the truth is that I was constantly seeking during this time and probably changed myself back and forth between Universalist Christianity and Deism. The reason I say that is because it explains what comes next. It was during one of my "Deist" phases that I was found myself disturbed by the implications of the Crucifixion. Why was it necessary? The idea of Substitutionary Atonement struck me as utterly unjust. It made no sense to punish one person for the sake of another. And I couldn't understand why most Christians couldn't see that (incidentally, this was around the time I abandoned the concept of "desert" as a meaningful characteristic of the requirements of justice, but that's something for another time.) I was seeking for some way of making sense of the death of Christ, and I found it through the concept of "Christus Victor". It wasn't that God needed to punish someone to make amends to forgive humanity, it was that God had (mystically) destroyed evil in his death. That though he died he was victorious over evil.

I had a gorgeous religious experience the night I accepted this. I wept, I prayed to God how thankful I was that he died so that I could love him. I didn't have to believe in that incessantly circular reasoning that God had to sacrifice Christ to satisfy himself, but instead that he died to satisfy ME! That he so utterly and selflessly died solely that I could overcome sin.

Looking back on that day, I feel foolish. If I had known then what I know now about religious experiences, I wonder if I would have been so accepting. Anyway, this phase lasted for a while. I was pretty happy with my views.

However, as I still found myself at odds with most of Christiandom. I found myself more and more in agreement with atheists over certain things. I found their arguments more persuasive and those like arguments from design less tenable. I remembered that wonderful religious experience I had; surely that was proof God existed, even if I couldn't prove he existed through other means! However, I felt less and less like God was listening to me as I was praying.

The following isn't by far the only, or even primary thing that turned me atheist, but it was the last thing I saw before I became atheist: http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc.....C3C1D163BE880A

I watched for those series of videos and recognized how some, though not all or even most, of his experiences applied to me. At the same time, though, I deeply empathised with him in his struggles in faith. I realised that he used similar rationalisations for believing that I did. And I realised those rationalisations weren't sound reasons for believing.

When I finished watching it, I sat down in silence and prayed to God. I begged him to answer me, to let me know he was listening. To give me something, anything that I could know he was there.

I sat in silence for around 10 minutes, waiting in earnest. I heard nothing. I saw nothing. I felt nothing.

I prayed for a response and none came.

I took a deep breath, and with nothing to justify my belief in God, my faith vanished. I no longer believed in God.

Since then, I found out how religious experiences had neurological explanations. How even atheists continue to experience them but outside of Christian contexts (e.g. http://roguepriest.net/2011/08/08/w.....s-believe-too/ or http://catb.org/~esr/writings/dancing.html. The second link especially threw a monkey wrench in how I view religion.)

At the moment, I'm very apathetic with regards to religion. Though I'm curious in exploring again along the lines of the two posts up there, I'm satisfied at the moment. Having been severed from Christianity, I try not to act as the "bitter ex-Christian" so to speak, but I can't help think how damaging Christianity has been. So in a way, I could be called a "militant atheist" instead of one of those "I'm an atheist just because I don't believe" type deals, though I don't go into religious arguments much. Posts like this aren't typical for me. :3

***

So anyway, that's my story, as best as I can remember it. It didn't come out quite as near as to how I was planning it over the last day or so as I wanted it to, but there you go.

Erf. I don't think I could respond to all that. *sigh* In fact, I'm not sure what I could do to push or guide you back to the faith, except to point you to those who've helped me keep it. 'Course, keepin' it never was hard for me. I just can't seem to turn my back on God, no matter what.

A lot of the stuff I could say is better said by C.S. Lewis and John Eldredge. The former has some good logical arguments for the faith; the latter helped me understand what it's really about. I owe them both a debt for helping me to see how things really are, or at least to keeping my mind sharp and my heart open.

I fear I could not make an adequate case for faith. You seem to have gotten a lot of "fire and brimstone" stuff, which I rather detest. It's really not about "being good" anyhow; that's not the focus. You don't seek to be good so you can get into heaven. You seek it so that you can please God and so you become a better person. That's all God is after. Making us better, though never against our wills as some men would do to us. To have an intimate and personal relationship with Him. To walk with Him and talk, and hear Him. For real.

However, if you base your faith on experiences, that won't work. God speaks to use how He chooses, and usually in some way that is unique. Though from what I've read, the Bible is usually what He uses to speak to us.

If you ever wanted to come back to the faith though, I can tell you a couple important things:

1. Desire is vital to Christianity. Don't listen to the Pharisees who tell you to bury or kill it. And while tempting, don't take the advice of those who suggest you try to fulfill it with this or that. You need to understand your desires and free them from over-zealous laws and soul-numbing addictions. Jesus will help you with that, if you let Him.

2. You must be willing to be vulnerable. True, life is hard, and it's easy to get hurt when you're just a dreamer and a kid. The world will kill your heart quick when you're vulnerable. But you can't be intimate with God unless you drop your defenses. I experienced my best worship last Sunday because I ended up wasting time Saturday night and was distraught that morning. I wept and was rather weak and weary. But I submitted to God's will and went to church. Who knew it would be the best time I'd ever spent there? I even tried to socialize a bit.

3. We're all part of an Epic. And when I say that, I mean like the really good ones from ages past (not just Tolkien), the ones with heroes, villains and grand adventures. We're in a story being written by God. And the only way to understand your place and what all is happening (and has happened) is to know the Story and know that it's not about you. It's about God, His creation, and what lengths He's willing to go to in order to save those He can. Funny thing is, from what I've heard, a lot of the Bible was meant to be read as metaphor and poetry, not historical documents. Try reading it like a novel (skipping the boring parts when you like) and see what that does for ya.

4. People have screwy ideas of heaven. I'm not leaving out anyone here. Christians and non-believers alike have some really silly and sometimes messed up ideas of what the Christian heaven is like. Some think of an endless worship service. Others imagine we'll do whatever we like, and some sins will be permissible up there. Both miss the mark. Heaven is nothing more or less than the fulfillment of all your desires, even the ones you may not know you have. Many will not understand their true desires until they get to heaven. And every truly good thing in this life is magnified and expanded up there. Hell, I bet there are even a few fur meets and discussions on anthro-morphs, or whatever you call them. I'll have to post that article on heaven; I think some may be surprised.

That's all the help I can think to give. Any better help will require an intimate knowledge of your wounds and heartache, to figure out how best I can help. In any case, I will pray for you, that God will speak to your heart and perhaps give you what you need to accept Him.

In all things, I wish you good luck in life, and that you may find what it is you're really looking for.

I appreciate your reply. I think I'll end the conversation here for sure now, though. Couple of things the past week has soured me on the prospect of further religious discussion. I wish you good luck in life as well.

no um I went to a fairly moderate church and other churches ,of course even when seeing radicals I used to think they were not doing it right...but the fact is all religious people think the same of each other when it comes to worship..

despite my age I've seen fucked up shit and had my share of good and bad experiences that strengthened or weakened my faith

but it was my curiosity that killed it not a bad or good experience at church.

the bad things in life make me cherish the good things even more.
and I'm able to think for myself..and have confidence in myself balanced by the humility to review myself critically.

Humility is only possessed by those who don't think they have it. =P You just killed yours.

Talk about humility when you're 80 and have seen the world. By then, you'll either have it, or become the sort of person nobody wants to be around for long.

'Tis a strange thing though. My curiosity only makes me more fully aware of how God works, what He's like and the situation the world is in. And the more I learn, the more I feel the urge to praise Him for all He has done.

*headtilts* Curious that our curiosity should lead us in different directions, no?

Humility is a modest or low view of one's own importance; humbleness.

little factoids( summed up here in this journal http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2537530/) that show my and humanity insignificance compared to the vast universe and the odds we have beaten by just being alive today....when you realize it all together...it really is humbling .

yeah but the thing is you only give credit to the good things in life to god what about the bad things?

The devil, human beings and misfortune. Perhaps even a broken, fallen world brought about by mankind's sin, since we were put in charge of creation and given dominion over it.

But what do you care? You don't believe. And you seem pretty determined not to. If you want to see good or bad in the Bible, you will.

As for humility, it's like The Game, I'm afraid. The moment you think you have it, you've lost it. End of story. You can post all you want about stuff that makes you feel humbled, but does that mean you are humble? I don't think one can be humble without a full lifetime of practice at it. So, you should master it when you're an old man, and not far from death.

Right now? I would not advise you to make any statements regarding how humble you are. Both of us, in my view, are far too young to claim humility yet. I'm still got some of the fires of youth, and assuming you're younger than me (20, was it? I sometimes forget), then you've probably got it worse.

Humility is not something you claim. A truly humble person just is. It's a bit Zen-like. Thinking or saying that you're humble pretty much destroys it. And listing off the facts as to why you think you're humble really doesn't help your case. It's just something you are or are not. Claiming it does little good, and may even piss people off who know you're not humble.

Of course, the only people pissed off by attempts to claim humility probably think they're humble themselves. Pride is the only competitive sin; it will have no friends, only underlings. Many other sins, at least, can bring you companionship, even if it's a bad sort in God's eyes. But pride? Selfish, all the way.

I guess the fact that you trying to convince me you're humble bugs me so much is proof I am not very humble myself. =P Thanks for the heads up. I'll see what I can do to work on that pride.

the argument of what humility varies
because there are different religious and philosophical views on it
just like other characteristic such as good and evil (christian interpretation dose decree me and all other nonbelievers as evil
why do you think your god will send us to suffer for billions and billions...infinity years ).
some Christians say humility is total absolute loyalty to god
or based on hoe


but I will not say I'm humble or have humility
but what do you call acknowledging the fact that there's a chance I might not live to be old or even see tomorrow
there are billions of ways I could die sooner then expected, yet I continue to live without constant fear or paranoia.


about pride well of course , but I think pride comes is good in the form of confidence to do something
Is a parent sinning when showing pride for their child by or a student showing pride in their accomplishments?


and of course I don't take the bible as being infallible because the bible itself is not perfect it was written by imperfect men like everything.

Ehhhh, that's semantics. "Having pride in someone" is kind of an iffy thing. Many people say God is proud of us, though I don't think He has pride. *scratches head* After all, being born a human and having to relearn the basics of life, words and all that, is kinda humbling for a being of phenomenal cosmic power. It'd knock most gods on their asses and teach 'em humility. Heh. And He did it on purpose. Crazy guy.

I don't know if humility is total obedience to God. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that total obedience to God leads to humility. I'm pretty sure a lifetime of walking close to Him would humble most people. I'm still amazed He puts up with my wandering. I would think He'd get tired of me by now.

And as I said on AIM, the Bible doesn't teach that unbelievers are "evil". Least, not anymore than many Christians were, and some "believers" who are worse. The less said about the idiots using the faith for their own bigotry, the better. They fell into a trap set by the devil and there's no use in arguing with them. But yeah, unbelievers? Evil? No, I think that's a generalization, and an unfair one at that. Don't know where you're getting it. Even if the Bible calls them "evil" or "wicked", you'll often find God lamenting that they will not turn to Him. Even in the Old Testament God declared His desire that all the "wicked" might turn to Him and be saved from the sin nature. From the spiritual cancer eating away at them.

That's all Christianity is about, really. Transforming people into something new. To remove the spiritual sickness of sin so that we may be free of its damaging influence. That we can live life without bothering about rules and regulations, without religion or ritual (or at least the human version of "religion"), because we'll live according to God's Law without even trying. In effect, God is after perfect people, but He's pleased with honest submission and attempts to please Him. If you focus on happiness or obedience as a Christian, you won't get the life God offers. You may even end up in hell despite claiming His Name over you. But if you focus on knowing God and listening to His instruction, happiness and obedience will come much easier. Least, that's my understanding of it. *sigh* Not always that good at walking with Him.

I'd suggest we drop the matter of the Scriptures, as I find it unlikely the two of us will agree on that. I have faith God has managed to keep a Hand in their creation, both in the writing and the... what's the word... compiling done by the early church. The Bible may not have all the scriptures worth reading, yet I believe it has all the right ones, and anything that goes against them needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Illogical? Perhaps. But I suppose such a thing is hard to believe for those who don't believe in God. I don't think I could accept it myself in your shoes.

Erf. Indorri pointed out something important. God's personality and His existence are two separate points. I'm getting ahead of myself! Once God is proven to exist, then one can argue about His nature. I'm sorry for mixing this up; I'm still a little new at this. Plus, the two points have been intertwined for me for so long, it's hard to see otherwise. I believe God exists and that He is good, in fact the Ultimate Good, from which all other good things flow. So, you'll pardon me if I overlooked the fact that God's character, whether good or evil, really has little to do with whether He exists.

I'll try not to do that in the future. Though again, I still think C.S. Lewis did a better job than I ever could. Seriously, give Mere Christianity a read, even once. Even if it doesn't convince you, it may give you a better idea of what Christianity is about, minus all the confusing stuff like denominations and conflicting doctrine.

If you have read it... then I'm not sure I can do a better job than him. ^.^;; I'll still talk to ya, but obviously my chances of convincing you have probably gone way downhill.

no ,
I don't see why I should be restricted to questioning the judeo-christian gods nature, simply because theist have failed to prove his existence....

To me its no different then judging Zeus's character based off of classical Greek religions..

I acknowledge that there are verses that portray god as good but you cannot use that as an excuse for the ones that don't...well you can if you want to.

but that's another reason on how holy books like the bible are inconsistent.

I'll still talk to ya, but obviously my chances of convincing you have probably gone way downhill.
well keep trying, as you might believe my soul is on the path to everlasting torment and suffering..it is your duty .

You are free to question His nature all you want; I was merely admitting I was blurring the two together. So, no, you're not restricted from asking about God if you don't believe in Him. Sometimes, you have to learn a bit about what God's really like before you can learn to see Him. Or at least His influence.

As for the Scriptures being "inconsistent"... frankly, you are not the first to make that claim. And you will not be the last. It hasn't stopped people from believing nor has it stopped the Bible from being used to save people from sin and death.

Hell, even if it is as messed up as you're claiming, doesn't that just magnify God's glory? That He could use a book that's so "inconsistent" to continue to save and transform people's lives around the world? That it still gives hope and strength and peace to many who seek its advice?

You can protest all you like about how the Bible conflicts with itself. But I doubt you will make a dent in its power or its influence. You will only close off its power in your own life and deny what God has for you.

And please don't talk about my "duty", okay? Jesus also said not to "throw pearls before swine". I'll make an effort so long as He calls me to. But if you're already closed to this, then I'll just go on my merry way. God has much better teachers for you anyhow. I would still suggest you seek out Mere Christianity. It explains the faith so much better than I can, without going into the muddy waters of doctrines and denominations.

Besides, if C.S. Lewis can't change your mind, what chance do I have?

OK, I have to reply to this because it's an argument theists often employ against atheists and it's a horrible, illogical argument.

Whether we agree to the commendability or morality of the Christian god or not is irrelevant to whether or not he actually exists. Yes, some atheists to think that god as described in the bible and traditional Christian theology is a psychopath, others may not, but that is a separate issue from whether or not god exists.

Really, this is just a variation on Pascal's Wager. Would it make any sense for Celtic Reconstructionist to ask you, similarly, "What if the Celtic gods exist? What if they came to you, spoke to you, demanded that they provide you with an animal, or even human, sacrifice? Would you cease this foolish disbelief of the gods and provide them their holocausts?" [Note to any Reconstructionists: I know human sacrifice is forbidden under modern systems, but the ancient Celts did, rarely, sacrifice willing or criminal humans.]

Ah, thank you. That is a bit of an unfair thing to say, isn't it? I'm getting ahead of myself. God's existence comes first, then you talk about His nature.

Still, if someone's hostile to God, for whatever reason, then proving His existence (even if such a thing could be done, and I'm not so sure about that) would be a bit of an uphill battle. Yeesh, I should've read this before typing up that lengthy thing above in response to Paletero's comment. I feel like a bit of an ass now. Part of growing up, I'm sure.

And ye gods, I'm not touching the Celts! The author of Tales of the Questor started a lengthy and heated debate over whether they sacrificed humans or not simply by having his druids (which, iirc, were Celtic holy men of a sort) do just that. It raged back and forth quite a bit. And completely missed the point that this was his universe, and thus went by his rules. If the druids and Celts in another reality sacrificed humans, arguing about what they did in this reality is kinda silly.

As for the Celtic gods, I would not demand proof of existence so much as proof that they were mightier and better than my Alpha. If they exist, I cannot help that, and I am too much of a dreamer to deny the possibility. But I'll be damned if I turn my back on the One who ransomed me from sin and death to follow a bunch of backwater, blood-thirsty gods who think they can put demands on me just 'cause I'm part Irish! If they expect me to sacrifice to them, they got another thing coming.

Screw, FA really needs an edit button.

"[...]demanded that you* provide them*[...]" etc.

Tell me about it. Don't think DA has one for comments either! >.< Ends up providing a lot of "D'oh!" moments.

first off the whole justice system of the nonexistent god has is flawed through the promotion of thought crimes and cruel and unusual punishment.

The whole issues of sexual orientation is a result of peoples ignorance and religion...who someone may be a attracted to as being a choice is completely absurd...Is a heterosexuals impulse to be a attracted to women a choice as well?

Perhaps not. But I can choose to follow one impulse or another. I don't intend to be ruled by the whims and urges that pop into my head from time to time. I know I'm better than that.

If other people wish to follow urges toward homosexuality, that's their choice. It's also their choice to say it's not a choice, to believe they have no choice in this matter.

Are they right? Am I right? Who can say? We won't really know until the end of time and all is laid bare... or we're all dust and ash and the universe goes on spinning toward heat death, oblivious to that small speck of dust that used to be infected.

Me, I'm going to follow God. That is my choice. And if I'm wrong, so what? I'll pay the price for believing the wrong thing. Such is life. And if I'm right, it'll all be worth it.

Do you think you're able to convince me otherwise?

Perhaps not. But I can choose to follow one impulse or another.

controlling sexual impulses are different from choosing what sex you are sexually attracted to and the issue is shared with both heterosexuals ,homosexuals and bisexuals... .

Have you as a heterosexual had an impulse had ,a sexual urge toward men....probably not becuase its not a choice you made as a heterosexual your brain is wired to be attracted to a female .likewise a homosexual dose not chose to resist the urge of being attracted to the opposite sex...because their brain is wired to be attracted to the opposite sex....how sexually promiscuous one can be ,...that's where the chose can be made..


Are they right? Am I right? Who can say? We won't really know until the end of time and all is laid bare..

actually no , Humanity has progressed enough already through skepticism and curiosity ...its why we no longer believe diseases are the result of evil spirits or other superstition....self-imposed ignorance having a stubborn closed mind is what holds humanity back whether its from religious or political dogma.

the price you pay for not being able to use reason or being able to ask a skeptical question on your own beliefs ,you put your self at risk of being mentally used by someone or some people. which may in turn cause you to believe things that may harmful to others ....


Do you think you're able to convince me otherwise?
I don't know , what you choose to believe in ,is up to you....I still have the right to question your believes just as you have the right to question mine.

made a mistake


likewise a homosexual dose not chose to resist the urge of being attracted to the opposite sex...because their brain is wired to be attracted to the opposite sex same sex.

controlling sexual impulses are different from choosing what sex you are sexually attracted to and the issue is shared with both heterosexuals ,homosexuals and bisexuals... .

Have you as a heterosexual had an impulse had ,a sexual urge toward men....probably not becuase its not a choice you made as a heterosexual your brain is wired to be attracted to a female .likewise a homosexual dose not chose to resist the urge of being attracted to the opposite sex...because their brain is wired to be attracted to the opposite sex....how sexually promiscuous one can be ,...that's where the chose can be made..

You're assuming that there is a difference between the brain of a homosexual and a heterosexual, and that said difference is not an abnormality, or at least not one that is harmful. If this is true, then there really is little that can be done; to fit into the accepted status quo they'd have to deny their true feelings. It would take something medication or mental instability to "fix" it.

However, if either part of it is untrue, then we have a problem.

If there is no real difference between the brain of a homosexual and a heterosexual, then the reason for their behavior must be caused by something else. If not physiological (I hope I have the right term), then perhaps it's a psychological or spiritual matter. One would have to study this closely to be sure only the most plausible causes are found. Even so, this does not mean their behavior is harmful, but merely out of the norm. Only if the reason for the behavior were known to cause mental disorder and emotional turmoil could we say that.

If, on the other hand, there is a difference and this difference is an abnormality, and one that is harmful to the individual, then there is much cause for finding a "fix" or "cure" for this behavior. It would be a disorder of some kind, something that needs treatment and perhaps therapy. Perhaps even drugs. If harmless though, then it's nothing more than eccentricity, a bit of "quirkiness" on the edges of human behavior. Again, one would have to examine it closely to be sure of whether it was harmful or harmless.

I cannot begin to state my inadequacy for such a task, and I deplore false humility. So I'll leave the matter at that.

actually no , Humanity has progressed enough already through skepticism and curiosity ...its why we no longer believe diseases are the result of evil spirits or other superstition....self-imposed ignorance having a stubborn closed mind is what holds humanity back whether its from religious or political dogma.

I find intellectual arrogance can be a worse condition. It is a mind closed not out of having not enough information but of having too much, and placing all confidence in that information. The arrogant man who fills his mind with fact after fact, sure that he has life "figured out", that if he only holds to his facts and his figures, then everything else will work out fine. Trouble is, he's really building himself a tower of sticks, and all it takes is one or two key facts proven to be lies and the whole thing collapses upon itself. His only options then are to make-believe and thus go mad by his refusal to accept life on its terms, or to humble himself, if life has not already done it, and seek to know the truth, in order to have a more sure foundation.

These people can hold humanity back as well, and perhaps more so, because they're so convinced that they know the way the world works that they cannot and will not accept new facts or evidence proving otherwise. You might know them as the "Old Guard", those stuffy professors or men of learning who don't take kindly to young pups rocking their towers. Of course, the "Old Guard" isn't always wrong, and I find that people are not always wrong about everything they believe.

After all, we all believe in being good, right? We may disagree on the standard or where or Who it may come from, yet I doubt you will find many people on this world who don't believe in some moral code. Even psychopaths and serial killers may hold to one, even if it is alien to us, or twisted in nature. Although the majority isn't always correct, this is probably one of the few times it is. We all want to do good. We're just in disagreement about which actions are good and which are evil.

Erf, sorry. I've been reading my C.S. Lewis again. I swear, I channel people's styles when I read them. On the other hand, he seems to prepare my mind for these arguments; it helps to clear my head and make my arguments more concise.

Or perhaps just longer. =P I'll let Eternity decide that.

(Also, I wasn't trying to implicate you in any of that up there. Was just speaking in general.)

the price you pay for not being able to use reason or being able to ask a skeptical question on your own beliefs ,you put your self at risk of being mentally used by someone or some people. which may in turn cause you to believe things that may harmful to others ....

I would hope you don't assume that of me simply because I am a Christian. If I show tendencies toward that, please point it out and I'll do my best to correct it. Otherwise, please consider whether or not you're holding a bias against me and my faith. I would like to continue the conversation without a plank in either your eyes or mine. =P Helps us see a bit more clearly, no?

As for putting myself at risk for being "used"... well, frankly, I have done that a lot in all the wrong places. Not as bad as I could have, and never in real life... but enough to color my psyche in ugly tones. Still, I am willing to risk being a fool or to be "used" by others if it means keeping my heart alive. Heartache comes for us all; I know that quite well. The difference lies in what path you take once you're wounded.

I can only hope I find the right path.

"I find intellectual arrogance can be a worse condition. "

really I didn't realize the rejection in the idea that the universe was created for us..that we're not the center of the universe. could be considered "arrogant" .

Most of those stuffy professors or whatever have the Humility to claim that we don't know everything..that is the whole point behind science , Through the curiosity of many and the pursuit of answers to the many mysteries and problems presented in life, the quality of life through technology and medicine for many including you and I has Improved in finding those answers.

because of that the more I acknowledge how far humanity has come the harder it is for me to complain or bitch about any inconveniences that may come my way...

Most religious people on the other hand...do claim to know everything that all the answers can be found in their holy books...with limited or no skepticism..

I would hope you don't assume that of me simply because I am a Christian. If I show tendencies toward that, please point it out and I'll do my best to correct it. Otherwise, please consider whether or not you're holding a bias against me and my faith. I would like to continue the conversation without a plank in either your eyes or mine. =P Helps us see a bit more clearly, no?

No that warning could go to any type of religious person..

really I didn't realize the rejection in the idea that the universe was created for us..that we're not the center of the universe. could be considered "arrogant" .

e_e I was speaking in general, you goof. =P

And to be honest, you have it backwards. The teachings of the times was that earth was the center of the universe... because it was too lowly or sinful to be up there with the rest of the heavens. You ought to look up the papers on how Christianity paved the way for modern science. They make for some fascinating reads, and dispel quite a few myths around the Catholic Church's stance back then.

Most of those stuffy professors or whatever have the Humility to claim that we don't know everything..that is the whole point behind science , Through the curiosity of many and the pursuit of answers to the many mysteries and problems presented in life, the quality of life through technology and medicine for many including you and I has Improved in finding those answers.

Indeed. And I do not deny that. Yet Pride is one of the most troubling sins, especially since it leads to the most conflict. Most of the others can lead to a sense of camaraderie and companionship. But Pride will have no rival and few friends. Does being a scientist make one more susceptible to Pride? I've no idea. It might, but then so will any profession where your work can earn you fame and recognition, and a nice paycheck to boot. Men will seek out their own monuments to themselves if they can. I doubt I'm immune myself; otherwise arrogant people wouldn't bother me so much.

*headtilts* Though I think they bother me less now. I'd have to double-check.

*chuckles* Funny how I pick up mannerisms from others. I got that last one from someone I know who does it a lot on the RHJunior Forums, mostly to suggest he's thinking. Seems to work, so I borrowed it.

Anyway, if I implied scientists were alone in that, it was not my intent. And I certainly hope you didn't read that if it wasn't there. That'd suggest you're likely in that group, thinking yourself "too smart" to "fall for" anything I have to say. And if that's so, and I hope it is not, then we might as well end all our conversations. Besides, you continue to give me the impression that you are a "tough nut to crack", almost as if you're trying to provoke me somehow. Perhaps I am wrong, yet this is the impression you give.

Well, I hope that's not the case. I would like to help you know God, in the personal, intimate sense instead of just knowing the facts. But that's only possible if you're open to it. And if you're not, you're not, and there's little I can do but pray.

Besides, I'm not like other "religious people". I don't have all the answers. That's not the point anyway. It's not to know what all is going on with God and heaven. If you ask or demand an answer on something, He may very well reply, "What does that matter to thee? Follow thou Me."

Also, drop these snipes at "religious people". An atheist can have a plank in his eye just as surely as any die-hard Pharisee. And they can both be just as stubborn when it comes to removing it, or even acknowledging it is there. I won't waste time trying to help people if they refuse it. Not unless God directs me to do so for some reason. And chances are I'll only know the reason after the fact.

It's about trust. About stepping out without knowing if the water is going to hold you up. Because without trust in God, Christianity is useless. The faith cannot help those who will not accept God's hand, or trust in His direction. Even those going to church every week.

If you're determined to mistrust God, then nothing I do will help you. You have to be willing to accept that what you think you know about Jesus and God may very well be wrong, perhaps not just in part but in whole. Until you're willing to do that, and that you prove you're willing by actually listening instead of saying you are, then all this will have been for nothing.

'Course, you could be trolling me too, trying to frustrate the Christian for shits and giggles. I wouldn't advise it. We all have to answer to God someday. I don't think He looks kindly on those who harass Christians, or Jews, for fun. Or harassing anyone, for that matter. "Lovers of Contention" are on the Naughty List y'know. =P

e_e I was speaking in general, you goof. =P

And to be honest, you have it backwards. The teachings of the times was that earth was the center of the universe... because it was too lowly or sinful to be up there with the rest of the heavens. You ought to look up the papers on how Christianity paved the way for modern science. They make for some fascinating reads, and dispel quite a few myths around the Catholic Church's stance back then.

it was people regardless of their faith because one could say how our society today is influenced by different cultures and faiths not just Christianity...Roman Catholicism itself was influenced by the pagan Roman culture in many aspects and traditions..society has also benefited from the Mideastern culture for example in mathematics Arabic numerals(1,2,3,4)...and plenty more examples...but you cannot just give all the credit to one particular major faith..
People will continue to do good or evil with or without faith.


Indeed. And I do not deny that. Yet Pride is one of the most troubling sins, especially since it leads to the most conflict. Most of the others can lead to a sense of camaraderie and companionship. But Pride will have no rival and few friends. Does being a scientist make one more susceptible to Pride? I've no idea. It might, but then so will any profession where your work can earn you fame and recognition, and a nice paycheck to boot. Men will seek out their own monuments to themselves if they can. I doubt I'm immune myself; otherwise arrogant people wouldn't bother me so much.

well the same can be said for a religious leader ,humility could come from the fact you are lesser then a higher power....However arrogance can come from the fact you may believe god has given you leadership over your followers that said leader is the representative of his god...and speaking of money...just look at the pimped out Vatican , wallmart-like megachurches or gold plated mosques.

one dose not have to be a certified scientist to be secular any more then believing in a god requires a degree in Theology .

it was people regardless of their faith because one could say how our society today is influenced by different cultures and faiths not just Christianity...Roman Catholicism itself was influenced by the pagan Roman culture in many aspects and traditions..society has also benefited from the Mideastern culture for example in mathematics Arabic numerals(1,2,3,4)...and plenty more examples...but you cannot just give all the credit to one particular major faith..
People will continue to do good or evil with or without faith.

There were many other cultures and kingdoms and empires who had all the same conditions as those of Medieval Europe. China, Egypt, India. All of them had great wealth and prosperity, and some important advances in technology as well. Yet none of them developed any sort of science such as we have today. The modern scientific method and those who practiced it only appeared in Western Europe. Unless there were other factors involved, the only thing that could have hindered and prevented modern science from developing in these countries would be ideological and theological concepts that strangled and discouraged it.

There are quite a few articles on it. I should link you some so you can read them and see the arguments they make. It's quite fascinating, really.

well the same can be said for a religious leader ,humility could come from the fact you are lesser then a higher power....However arrogance can come from the fact you may believe god has given you leadership over your followers that said leader is the representative of his god...and speaking of money...just look at the pimped out Vatican , wallmart-like megachurches or gold plated mosques.

*sighs* I don't recall denying arrogance exists among religious leaders.

See, now, it's things like this that make me think you're just hostile to all things religious. You always bring it back to this. You keep pointing out how "religious people" do this or that wrong.

I'm quite aware of it, pup. Your continued insistence on bringing it up only annoys me and makes me wonder if you're actually processing my comments. If you're really thinking about what I'm saying... or just rearranging your prejudices.

You will stop this irritating habit or I will cease this conversation, since you will have proven you are biased, and quite passionately. To the point where you cannot stop yourself. And I see no point in continuing a conversation where I am constantly reminded that I am to be grouped with people whom I've never met who claim to share my faith. It aggravates me.

Please. Prove me wrong.

one dose not have to be a certified scientist to be secular any more then believing in a god requires a degree in Theology.

This is rather pointing out the obvious. I do not see what relevance it has to this conversation. But then, perhaps I should not have detached it from the paragraph above. For some reason, my mind considered them separately.

*sighs* I don't recall denying arrogance exists among religious leaders.

See, now, it's things like this that make me think you're just hostile to all things religious. You always bring it back to this. You keep pointing out how "religious people" do this or that wrong.

I'm quite aware of it, pup. Your continued insistence on bringing it up only annoys me and makes me wonder if you're actually processing my comments. If you're really thinking about what I'm saying... or just rearranging your prejudices.

You will stop this irritating habit or I will cease this conversation, since you will have proven you are biased, and quite passionately. To the point where you cannot stop yourself. And I see no point in continuing a conversation where I am constantly reminded that I am to be grouped with people whom I've never met who claim to share my faith. It aggravates me.

Please. Prove me wrong.

I could easily voice my offense or annoyance on how you believe or conceive of the possibility that I have an abnormality(since you know I'm homosexual) solely based on assumption ...

but I apologize if you were offended
but I will not retract my statements on all religion being dogmatic and faith based despite differences in beliefs.

Fair enough. If you truly believe in that, I won't ask you to lie to me, only to consider that you're wrong. If you can't or won't reconsider, then the conversation has reached a stalemate. Except for convincing those who read this (which seems to be few indeed), there's little reason to continue an argument with you on these matters. We'll just talk past each other, if we haven't been doing so already.

As for the matter of your own offense... honestly? Why didn't you just say so? I'm not against people saying they're offended. And I realize my comments and this post aren't going to win me friends among many social circles. So, I don't mean to offend... yet like you, I don't intend to retract my own statements about homosexuality.

Sin is sin. If having sex with another man is, in fact, wrong by some higher standard, then claiming it as part of your identity won't change the facts.

Again, I don't mean to offend anyone. Yet I won't back down on my beliefs. In a sense, we're not so different. We just have very contrasting beliefs, and it's hard to tell if we could get along. Real life is different from online, but judging from these conversations? =P I hope you're not offended if I don't choose you as a friend. I think we'd rub each other raw.

Now... as to all religions being "dogmatic" and "faith-based"...

...I'm afraid that's probably true. I don't know if it's limited to religion (hell, you have entire fandoms who are pretty dogmatic, and seem to prefer "faith" in their favorite creator(s) rather than an objective review), yet I don't know if you could find a religion that isn't a little fragmented and which isn't done on faith.

After all, the idea that every belief need be based on empirical, science-based data is a modern one. Hell, nothing like modern science even existed until Europe, and there's much debate and research on why. And besides, wherever you find religion, you'll find people. People who have their own views, opinions, beliefs and sometimes Sacred Cows (i.e. the Most Important Things that they won't ever accept as false). With human beings, disagreements, and heated ones at that, are inevitable. So, you're going to have to accept that, yes, a lot of religion, if not all of it, is going to have dogmas and will be based on faith.

That doesn't mean they can't also be based on logic and reasoning. Or that several cannot exist together based on alternate logic paths. However, that doesn't mean they're all true. Some could be nearer to the truth than others. Or nearer to the "Tao", if you will. The Standard of Standards, by which all faiths, moral codes and religions are measured. Even you believe in it, I'd wager, if only because you don't think people should be selfish, or because you believe in some kind of morality, God-based or not. I confess, I'd have a hard time accepting a moral code without some kind of eternal Something to back it up... but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who truly disbelieves in the "Tao". If you find someone who claims it, wrong them and see how they respond. People get very touchy when it comes to their own person.

...yeesh, I do go on.

Anyway, I doubt you'll find a religion that isn't full of dogmas and isn't based on faith. Only young, simple religions which have yet to stand the test of time will be devoid of dogma, and that's because its founders have yet to bother about the facts, or have thought very hard on things. Even Mormonism, a rather young religion in its own right (its status as a "Christian denomination" is in much dispute), has quite a few dogmas by now. But this is because many intelligent and devout people have sat down and thought things through, based on what they know of the Bible and God (and too often, based on their lack of knowledge on these things), and thus have made arguments regarding this practice or that in the faith.

Dogmas are not the essence of Christianity though. They're just arguments over certain rituals, practices and teachings (unless I've got the wrong definition). But the faith itself? I'm certain, save for a few fringe elements who are no longer Christian, all are in agreement about the faith itself, and its core beliefs and principles. C.S. Lewis lays them all out in Mere Christianity, so well that people are still recommending his book to others. As I do now, to you, if you wish to learn what this mess is all about.

As for faith, do you not take very many things on faith already? Is there nothing in your life where you do not know for certain but accept as truth anyway? At the very least, I'd imagine you'd have faith in the universe and how it works, and that it will be there tomorrow and tomorrow, for a good many eons. You could be wrong, but your belief is based upon trusting those who've studied these things, and that these people of authority know what they're doing and what they're talking about. Their logic is sound, they have some pretty good proof to go with it, and the universe seems to agree just by being around for you and everyone else every sunrise.

Religion is much the same, minus the empirical proof. But then, that's a bit of God's graciousness. If many people got the "proof" of God they so demand, they would not take it half as well as they imagine.

You're assuming that there is a difference between the brain of a homosexual and a heterosexual, and that said difference is not an abnormality, or at least not one that is harmful. If this is true, then there really is little that can be done?

Exactly, homosexuality is no more harmful then heterosexuality


to fit into the accepted status quo they'd have to deny their true feelings. It would take something medication or mental instability to "fix" it.

So one would have to attempt to alter ones natural self to appease the prejudices of intolerant ignorant people?

If, on the other hand, there is a difference and this difference is an abnormality, and one that is harmful to the individual, then there is much cause for finding a "fix" or "cure" for this behavior.

Your throwing a lot of if's...without providing any real dangers of homosexuality outside of offending relegion...the real dangers come from the intolerance of it by homophobic people...those are the people that need to be "fixed".

Well, now I know where you stand.

And yeah, they would have to alter their natural self to fit in. A cruel fate, but if that's how it is, that's how it is. They can only hope the majority see reason and don't try to pressure them against their natural impulses. And be thankful they don't live where they can be hanged, tortured or burned alive for daring to lust after other men. Most Western nations are rather tame when it comes to "persecution" of gays, barring the occasional extreme case.

I'm throwing a lot of "if's" because I'm using logic. I, of course, believe that homosexuality is an abnormal condition, though I don't pretend to know why it happens or what's to be done about it. I said "if" in those sentences to show the two possibilities. Since you assume homosexuality is natural and okay, then of course you'd take the first route in the logic path. And since I disagree, I take the second path. That's logic. We have to start at the beginning and figure out what our options are; only then can we proceed.

Also, don't use "homophobic" around me. It was invented by people who are either ignorant of language or who wanted a term to toss around and bully others with (though excuse me the bit of pride about the language part; I'm a writer and therefore a Grammar Cop if not Nazi =P). There is no good philological root for this word. "Homo" can either mean "the same" or "man" depending on whether you use Greek or Roman. I don't know which is which though. And while "phobe" does mean "one who fears" (pardon my hackjob on this; I'm doing this very loosely), I find the term is often used to describe those who either hate gays... or those who are just opposed to their political and social policies. A true "homosexualphobe" would go into a panic attack whenever a Pride Parade marched down his street, or even in his town. And anyone who was flaming gay would make him cross the street, even in front of traffic, just to avoid that person! Not out of hatred but abject fear!

If you wish to talk about this in an open and honest matter, please drop that buzz word. It has no value and I will not respect its use. Please try to find a replacement instead if you must talk about such people. One that's more accurate if a bit lengthy. Or just "anti-gay bigots" will suffice. "Homophobe" is not only made up, it's inaccurate, and I'd prefer we stick to actual language.

As for "real dangers" of homosexuality... besides the spread of STD's and AIDS by gays who can't be bothered to reign in their lust long enough to practice safe sex, there's also anal sex. Granted, it's not exactly "gay-only" territory, and I may have some misconceptions about how widespread it is. However, it is rather risky, and some gays won't listen to their doctors. When the doc tells you to stop having anal sex, you've only yourself to blame when you find yourself with a damaged rectum ("Rectum? I hardly know him!").

The only other dangers would be mental, emotional and spiritual, and I don't know if I can find any sources for that. Least, none I can be sure you wouldn't toss away. And I somehow doubt you'd take the word of a homeschooling mother, even if she has done a lot of research on the subject.

I, honestly, am not interested in the politics at all. So long as I'm not forced to be silent about my beliefs on homosexuality, I'm fine with letting them live free. I'm a little uncertain about marriage, but then I don't think anyone should marry until they're stable and can handle the pressures of it. So, ultimately my goal is to help anyone I can to become a more stable, healthy individual. Even if that means doing and saying things that piss off those who disagree with my views.

My interest is in helping people, not fighting over silly things like anti-sodomy laws. And I will help them as God directs. If people don't like it, tough. I'm free to do as I see fit, so long as it's legal and doesn't hurt others.

Well, now I know where you stand.

And yeah, they would have to alter their natural self to fit in. A cruel fate, but if that's how it is, that's how it is. They can only hope the majority see reason and don't try to pressure them against their natural impulses. And be thankful they don't live where they can be hanged, tortured or burned alive for daring to lust after other men. Most Western nations are rather tame when it comes to "persecution" of gays, barring the occasional extreme case

It is how it is
no it's not, racist and other close minded people used the same logic to say that all minorities should go back from whence the came in order to appease the Majority despite it not being their fault they were born different from the majority.
speaking of racism it not exclusive to one race...just to clarify. I speak out against racism in all forms whether it's some of my relatives talking bad about whites or blacks or Asians.

I'm throwing a lot of "if's" because I'm using logic. I, of course, believe that homosexuality is an abnormal condition, though I don't pretend to know why it happens or what's to be done about it. I said "if" in those sentences to show the two possibilities. Since you assume homosexuality is natural and okay, then of course you'd take the first route in the logic path. And since I disagree, I take the second path. That's logic. We have to start at the beginning and figure out what our options are; only then can we proceed.

the thing is abnormal to what?
a lot of things can be or were considered abnormal
ranging from interracial marriage to women wearing pants
deeming something abnormal is no reason to try and "fix" or suppress when no dangerous consequences outside of offending anyone.
the term normal itself constantly changes and may become obsolete.

Also, don't use "homophobic" around me. It was invented by people who are either ignorant of language or who wanted a term to toss around and bully others with (though excuse me the bit of pride about the language part; I'm a writer and therefore a Grammar Cop if not Nazi =P). There is no good philological root for this word. "Homo" can either mean "the same" or "man" depending on whether you use Greek or Roman. I don't know which is which though. And while "phobe" does mean "one who fears" (pardon my hackjob on this; I'm doing this very loosely), I find the term is often used to describe those who either hate gays... or those who are just opposed to their political and social policies. A true "homosexualphobe" would go into a panic attack whenever a Pride Parade marched down his street, or even in his town. And anyone who was flaming gay would make him cross the street, even in front of traffic, just to avoid that person! Not out of hatred but abject fear!

a phobia is basically having an irrational negative feeling towards something ...
just as I myself have heard some idiots here spew "heterophobic" nonsense
as seen in this submission comments here http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4148224

but I get were you are coming at and I'll admit perhaps a more fitting word to describe sexual prejudice would be what you mentioned or Homoerophobia and heteroerophobia .

As for "real dangers" of homosexuality... besides the spread of STD's and AIDS by gays who can't be bothered to reign in their lust long enough to practice safe sex, there's also anal sex. Granted, it's not exactly "gay-only" territory, and I may have some misconceptions about how widespread it is. However, it is rather risky, and some gays won't listen to their doctors. When the doc tells you to stop having anal sex, you've only yourself to blame when you find yourself with a damaged rectum ("Rectum? I hardly know him!")

the same can be said for anyone who is irresponsible in their sexual life regardless of their sexual preferences .
and that goes back to my point of Homosexuality being no more harmful then heterosexuality even mentally since men and women can become mentally distressed for or by their partners...
also what about lesbians? :D



.

It is how it is
no it's not, racist and other close minded people used the same logic to say that all minorities should go back from whence the came in order to appease the Majority despite it not being their fault they were born different from the majority.
speaking of racism it not exclusive to one race...just to clarify. I speak out against racism in all forms whether it's some of my relatives talking bad about whites or blacks or Asians.

Well, that settles it. We disagree. And I don't think you're likely to see things my way. And while I may be able to see things your way, I don't think that's the way things are. So, I don't know if we can go any further down this path.

the thing is abnormal to what?
a lot of things can be or were considered abnormal
ranging from interracial marriage to women wearing pants
deeming something abnormal is no reason to try and "fix" or suppress when no dangerous consequences outside of offending anyone.
the term normal itself constantly changes and may become obsolete.

Which may not always be a good thing.

And again, I'm merely working on the assumption that it's abnormal from how God or biology or whatever intended us to function. Heck, bisexual behavior has been around for centuries. It's only in modern times that homosexuality has popped up. Of course, I'd have to contact the people I've discussed this with to get their sources on that. It's the first I've heard of it.

It's only logical though. Perhaps a bit heartless in some ways, but logical. If homosexuality is indeed abnormal to how things are supposed to work, then and only then can you proceed to "fix" or "cure" it somehow.

Since you don't believe it is abnormal, of course you don't believe in "fixing" it. I'm only trying to show you the logic here. That's all.

a phobia is basically having an irrational negative feeling towards something ...
just as I myself have heard some idiots here spew "heterophobic" nonsense
as seen in this submission comments here http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4148224

but I get were you are coming at and I'll admit perhaps a more fitting word to describe sexual prejudice would be what you mentioned or Homoerophobia and heteroerophobia.

Hmm, perhaps. I would prefer to contact a Professor of Language Studies, or what was known as a Philologist in C.S. Lewis' time. Hell, he knew one. How do you think Tolkien managed to create an entire language? The man knew the quirks of language inside and out.

If we could get a hold of someone like that, we might find a proper term for it.

Or he would simply use the term "bigot" and wonder out loud why we would possibly want or need a completely new term. =P I can imagine Tolkien giving us a stern look before going into a lecture on leaving English (the "real English", mind you, not our "Yankee slang") the hell alone!

the same can be said for anyone who is irresponsible in their sexual life regardless of their sexual preferences .
and that goes back to my point of Homosexuality being no more harmful then heterosexuality even mentally since men and women can become mentally distressed for or by their partners...
also what about lesbians? :D

Okay, I'll admit, I'm not sure I was on real solid ground there.

I think I'd have to do a lot of research on this to give any satisfactory answer. You'll have to pardon me if I "cheat" by asking some of those I've talked with for resources. I have a lot of homework to deal with, and not a lot of time to spare.

...in fact, why the hell am I up this late responding to you? I should be in be--*THUMP*

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Well, that settles it. We disagree. And I don't think you're likely to see things my way. And while I may be able to see things your way, I don't think that's the way things are. So, I don't know if we can go any further down this path.

Oh I know it's based because on the laws of your god which written by iron age men thousands of years ago. it's how you base your views on homosexuality being a disease or abnormality.
I thought of consequences outside of offending some invisible man with personality disorders...and realized the same can be shared by all sexual orientations except for asexuality....most of the problems are based on dogma,ignorance and religion

Ignorance I'll agree on. The rest? Well, that's a rather narrow point of view, isn't it? Blaming the ones who believe in something beyond this world, some kind of god or eternal Something that judges us, and hands out rewards and punishments. What good does that do you?

Now, if we're talking about bigots who use their religion as an excuse, that I can understand. I won't sit down and eat with such any more than you would. But don't lump in everyone just 'cause one group pisses you off. That's as fair as saying all blacks are lazy, good-for-nothing slackers. It's just not true, and suggests a bias in your own worldview.

On the other hand, if you're against all religion in general because you refuse to consider that you're wrong about whatever God or Gods exist, and what He or She or They are really like, then there's no use talking to you, or with you. All I'll get is a headache, and you? Well, I can't imagine how you'd feel. My best guess is you'd feel proud of "showing up another ignorant Christian", and for your sake I hope I'm wrong.

As it is though, I am rather weary of our conversations. While I can say I've done my best (or at least hope I have) to answer you and make some counter-points, I see my chances of convincing you of my own views to be dwindling down to none.

Perhaps there are those better than me who'd have more luck. But then, for all I know, "more luck" would be defined in a tenth of a percentile with you.

Good luck in life and try not to piss off anyone within arm's reach of something heavy. =P There's a good chance one of them will have a short temper and good aim.

I just recently watched a movie called “For the Bible Tells Me So.” It’s a documentary that tells the stories of five Christian families, each with a gay family member, and how that has affected them. It also explores the passages in scripture that are used against homosexuality. It’s really very insightful and compassionate, and I think you might benefit from seeing it.

I can’t help but compare and contrast your story with mine. Born and raised and lived like a good Christian, still go to church most weekends, though sometimes I don’t always get a lot from it, depending on my mood, the sermon, and the priest giving it. You sound like your Christian heritage is much more valued to you and your identity than the credit I might give to me and mine. You mention that you have turned away from God at times, but clearly returned later, which, while I can’t say for certain, sounds like you may have stopped believing in God altogether for a while, which I can’t claim to have done outright, yet in recent times I could admit to having not so much a lack of faith in God, but more a lack of faith in faith, if you follow me.

And now to dramatically change gears: I discovered furry art when I was in high school and found I enjoyed nearly every variety of it. Of course at first I recoiled and said I’d not look at that stuff e’er again, but of course my curiosity dragged me back for more, time and time again. I took long hiatuses from it; once I refrained from it for more than a year, as a New Year’s resolution. Even now I may still hold back during Lent. But in the end, despite my protests that it wasn’t relevant to me, it got me. Also even though I enjoyed the adult art of near every kind, I was of the opinion that anything not straight I enjoyed only because it was just a fantasy to me; it wasn’t real. It was eight years later when I began to wonder if maybe there was more to it than that, and when I began to question my sexuality. Until that point, I had had very little interaction with other furries; also, I have never engaged in cybersex of any kind; it simply hasn’t interested me. Still a virgin, too, thanks. Yeah I get lonely and horny like everyone. I even had an opportunity or two to lose my V-card, but I didn’t. It didn’t feel like the right time, or the right person.

It sounds like you have much stronger beliefs than I do. I admire that. I can admit that I am wishy-washy about a lot of things. I still feel guilt about looking at (and getting off from) furry art at times. However I think the problem that I have with it the most is that it seems antisocial to me, when I should be aspiring and trying to engage with others socially. For a while, I too was worried that I was addicted to furry porn, in fact. But I guess I’d like you to answer me this: have you spent considerable amounts of money on it?

You sound like someone struggling a lot in his faith and beliefs. Trust me, I've been there. Though to be honest, I never stopped believing in God. I just got to the point where church wasn't important to me, and all I felt was guilt and shame in relation to God. There was even a point where, in the midst of looking at porn on the computer one night, I felt God come down on me like a loving father, and asking me, in a sorrowful, loving tone, "Why are you doing this to yourself?"

My reply was to ask him to leave, though not without swearing I'd come back to him someday. And I have.

Also, I wouldn't abandon the fantasy theory on gay porn. I think that's the reason I find it tempting too. Besides the fact that it was everywhere online and I was lonely and horny. But I can say that there are very few male humans I would consider having sex with. I just don't find the humans behind the furries that attractive. With women I'm a little more forgiving, but then I pretty much was always hot for the opposite sex. Furry porn bent me a little. In any case, just because your attraction to gay furry porn has persisted doesn't mean you're gay. There are people who insist this is the case, but I think they're just being narrow-minded, and a few are more interested in their agenda then helping you. Whether said agenda is political maneuvering or just trying to get into your pants kinda varies from idiot to idiot. =P

As for spending money, I read a book once that gave a few signs of porn addiction. One of them was spending large amounts of money on it. Funny thing though, with furry that's never a requirement. People put up all kinds of free porn everywhere. And the stuff that's not free tends to end up on the right sites if you know where to look. That is until the owners implement a Do Not Post policy and nuke several images. Or maybe they won't; you can never tell. But in any case, I have found my oath never to buy porn to be much easier to uphold with furry stuff, if only because so much of it is free. And I believe I've only broken it a couple times, once on accident. The devil has tried to argue "you've broken it once, you might as well do it again and get some enjoyment out of it", but he forgot I'm a bit of a "tightwad" as my mother called me. Even if I were employed and raking in lots of cash, I have come to a point where I'm still young enough to Want Things, but I'm just mature enough to Think Twice. As such, I have yet to fulfill my fantasy of owning a PS3 and the games I wish to play on it.

So, no, I haven't spent considerable amounts of money on porn, and doubt I ever will. I don't commission it, I don't buy it in auctions and I generally have little need to do so.

As for that video, I have found much more help in the writings of John Eldredge. He's a Christian man with a bit of a broken past, yet he's become something much more these days. He's written books that, at least to me, hit home on the very issues that are at the core of humanity and our role in the grand story God is writing. Like how men need to know their strength and women must not hide their beauty. Reading "Wild At Heart" felt like having someone take a good, hard, honest look at my life and finally giving me the reason why I was so damn messed up. And then offering a cure.

Now, to be fair, these are not "Self Help" books. John is a major critic of Church Culture and the "Christianity of Tips and Techniques". He emphasizes that we need to get back to the basics, to remember that this is a world at war, and that we have a role to play in this grand fairy tale we've been caught up in. That we need Jesus for healing and restoration, not another Twelve Steps program. To know Jesus intimately, as one would a friend or a brother, and to abide under his wings to be protected from Satan and all his evil forces. And ultimately, to become the men and women God meant us to be, alive and free, so that we might shine his glory on others, and go to them to free them from sin and bondage.

I don't know if that video would help me any. I have a tendency to view just about everything through the teachings of John Eldredge, for better or for worse. Yet so far, I haven't seen anything to make me think he is wrong. When someone comes up with a solid argument as to why he is, maybe I'll consider it. But I doubt it'll work. My life is so much better since I met this man's teachings. I'm more free now, and part of my heart was restored on a trip to one of his retreats. And so long as I hold tight to Jesus, the rest seems to work itself out just fine. My faith's never been stronger, and temptation is a little easier to handle, though I still give in at times.

Give him a read. Who knows? Maybe it'll help you.

After reading all of this my statement is simple:

Having grown up in a christian family, and even under a pastor grandfather.... all statements like this (journal) do is make people not want to listen to Christians. The God of the tora/bible states that he is the judge of things does he not?

I personally left Christianity because of bickering like this, and nothing has changed since I left.

...this is bickering? Which part? The post, the comments, or all of it?

Mostly the commentary. The post itself makes me gaff a bit, as I identify as lesbian. Then again, everyone has a right to an opinion just as everyone has a right to ignore it.

Heh. True enough.

Well, if I can't interest you in conversation, I guess this one's over. =) Thanks for commenting anyhow!

I chose to be gay the same way I chose to be a white, male human who was born in America.

This isn't a matter of 'free will' or 'Libertarianism.' It just is. :3

If that's what you believe, that's fine. I'm not really here to tear down other people. Just giving my thoughts and maybe an alternate way of looking at things.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Perhaps it's time to stop lying to our hearts. Perhaps it's time to be honest. Just this once.

So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. -- Rev 3:16

Heh. Something like that, yeah. Honesty to yourself is one of the most vital things in life. Without it, we can delude ourselves into anything.

Also, one of the hardest things to obtain sometimes. :)

No kidding. It's not exactly the most comfortable thing to achieve, or even attempt. Even less so when you get there and find out you're not as good or awesome as you were telling yourself.

So, I'm totally late to this, but I'd like to tell a funny(?) story.

With one exception, every girl I've ever had a crush on turned lesbian.



This bugged me a little, but hey- fish in the sea. Whatevs, I wish them happiness. I know it wasn't me, because I'm darn good at bein a social recluse. DARN GOOD MOTHA- Anyway, the crush that didn't turn les? She did- for a while. Then she met a gay friend of mine. And after a few months? They turned straight for each other.

Make no mistake, she wears the pants. But this total sissy boy got with the soccer girl of macho, and they've dated for like, 2 years? Somethin like that.

I'm not sayin all gay guys just need butch women and vice-versa, but heck- it was true for at least two people. It wasn't the gender they wanted, it was the masculinity/feminity.

The story isn't meant to address the issue, just figured this was relevant enough and may interest some people.

I will say this: sexual attraction is a chemical thing. Our thoughts stem from neurological chemicals. Without a brain, you don't think. A brain is made of chemicals. But you don't control every chemical. The debate is whether or not these chemicals are ones we control. Funny thing? If it IS something people can choose, they usually won't after they've made a decision. After all, they have somethin they like already.

Here's two cents. Spend 'em before they're worthless!

Even if it's chemicals and hormones involved, that doesn't address the question of souls and how they may influence the situation. And you still have to choose what to do with the urges and feelings that come up. But people like what they like, and sometimes it's easier to choose a simple explanation ("I'm gay") then admit it's complicated and you don't know what the hell you are. You've got to base your identity on something, and quite a few choose their sexuality. I personally think it's kinda sad when they do, or at least when they make their whole personality based on it. You don't see straight people basing their identity on the fact that they screw the opposite sex.

Oh, wait. Forgot about Tucker Max. e_e What a wonderful example to hold up for our young people.

Anyway, I think this is one of the reasons suggesting it's more a matter of choice rather than something out of your hands is offensive to people. They've built their identity on it, and suggesting it's "not natural" or "curable" implies their identity is built on a mental disorder. (And that's before going into the fact that it was considered a mental disorder once.) People don't like being told they're insane when they're convinced otherwise. Or that the one thing they've based much of their life on may be false or even bad for them. This isn't limited to gays. Quite a few religious people refuse to back down on their beliefs even when it's clear that said beliefs are having a negative impact on their personality. Hatred runs deep, and it's hard to cure it once it sets in.

Either way, people are people, and you have to treat them as such. Give them a break once in a while, yet be sure to be firm when it's needed. But most of all, it's important to remember that no formula will work for everyone. Take it on a case-by-case basis.

As for your story... I admit, I find that a little hot. XD I kinda have a thing for couples who don't fulfill the normal gender roles, at least when it comes to the bedroom.

What can I say? The strange and unusual attracts me.

yea, Ash and Tay are definitely not "normal." She was the best mechanic in high school (I claim best carpenter) and he was the biggest emo sort of fella I've ever met. you know, if emos are happy, frenzied people who focus on nazi levels of efficiency when doin their art instead of dark poetry.

*chuckles* Just means he's a writer. We can be an eclectic sort. And also half-crazy.

You don't have to be; plenty of writers are sane. But it can help.




.........I think. <.< >.>

'Take someone who's just come out of years of psychological and emotional torture at the hands of his peers, with a deep, ingrained sense of legalistic religion... and then have them turn 18 and be a recluse on the internet.'
Frankly, I thought the result would have you be a holy-war fighter on the Internet. I mean, you were brought that snners are evil, while the people who bullied you were definitely not Christian (at least I think they are not), thus, when you have the freedom to be on the Internet, you [i]might[/i[ develop a holier-than-those-atheists-that-bullied-me attitude.

Heh. I have turned out better than I could have been. I will take struggles with lust over self-righteous pride any day. At least that's just the urge to mate. The latter comes from having a very noble desire to spread the Gospel twisted into something evil.

As C.S. Lewis pointed out, you don't make a devil from a gnat or a flea. You make him out of an arch angel and bend all his terrible might and glory toward making evil.