biology, not your subjective "feelings"

[glassjester]

Just let them ride out their mental illness the way they want to.

That's freedom!

 

[Tambora]

Are you enthusiastically placing win/place/show wagers or rather genuinely concerned? lain:

I'm just telling what I heard the statistics to be.
Schizophrenics rated the highest.
Slightly under them were transgenders.

Percentage wise, the statistics show that all other groups fell well below those top 2.

 

[Lon]

The difference is that we know that smoking causes damage to the body, qua smoking. We know why it is causing it as well. The correlation would not be enough, since it could be other factors contributing heavily to that correlation. See the "not shaving and coronary disease" example. I've offered such other explanations for high HIV/AIDS rates in homosexual men, and those factors are not an inherent part of homosexuality. So if the disease rates are the concern, I should be advocating against promiscuity and for usage of condoms for homosexuals, not advocate against homosexuality as such.

:nono: We do know, per fact, that colon diseases happen due to wrong activity (in all people). We do know that promiscuity also carries exponential exposure to STD's. We know that going against society causes stress and is a choice (talking about outward actions at this point). Etc.

I believe it unconscionable to support risk behavior, now matter how many times they march against it. Get tired of the banging on the door? Sure, but I will not relent toward any right, shown to shorten your life significantly NOR advocate it to children as acceptable and viable.

Enter my Christianity and understanding of why God says no, and it is still a big no BUT these former are viable reasons for being pro-active against harm as a society. It is NOT okay.

 

[Tambora]

That's freedom!

And telling them they are sick would be hateful.

 

[ok doser]

:nono: We do know, per fact, that colon diseases happen due to wrong activity (in all people). We do know that promiscuity also carries exponential exposure to STD's. We know that going against society causes stress and is a choice (talking about outward actions at this point). Etc.

I believe it unconscionable to support risk behavior, now matter how many times they march against it. Get tired of the banging on the door? Sure, but I will not relent toward any right, shown to shorten your life significantly NOR advocate it to children as acceptable and viable.

Enter my Christianity and understanding of why God says no, and it is still a big no BUT these former are viable reasons for being pro-active against harm as a society. It is NOT okay.

didja notice how sela kept claiming i was making a religious argument even though i wasn't making a religious argument? :chuckle:


wot a tard

 

[Arthur Brain]

didja notice how sela kept claiming i was making a religious argument even though i wasn't making a religious argument? :chuckle:

What Sela did was dismantle the position you hadn't even managed to build. So in true troll like manner you follow this crap with:

wot a tard

What wonderful Christian witness...

lain:

 

[ok doser]

What Sela did was ...

... claim i was making a religious argument when i wasn't making a religious argument


wot a tard! :darwinsm:

 

[quip]

You have curious ideas about compassion and humility :think: I don't think these words mean what you think they mean.
You are correct I don't accept your world view. Politically, you can be ignorant. Theologically, it is my responsiblitiy to point you to the right way.



I was speaking of yourself. You might not wish us ill-will, but you do detest us. Imho, that is ill-will, no matter a fancy dance.


Nope. I just think you need the kid-gloves off. You can try and psycho-babble that all you like but you are wrong on this point too. You need to realize you are a bent broken fraction of a human. Jesus came for the sick, not the healthy. As long as you feign the latter, you will never come to terms with your actual problems. I used to be you. You need a Savior.
Telling you the truth may seem hostile to you, but I have more of your best interests at heart in the conversation than you realize. I've been praying for you.







Um, I'm NOT on a Buddhist website. My moniker would be something different. You hang out with us. You really need to self-analyze more accurately than you currently do.

Yes, which is why I asked the question. If you are no more than the sum of your parts, you are a nothing, even to yourself.





It is to the extent I lived without realizing there is an eternity. Literally, learning to think cured me of shortsightedness and dare I say, ignorance and pride.


:nono: It is prideful arrogance. You, a pea-ant of the universe trying to actuate beyond your means? It's dumb and prideful. If I can get you to see that, you'll be on your way. Sound like a guy hostile to you? No, I'm accosting your world view. To the extent you embrace that false belief system, it will be hostile, but that guy is not you, whether you believe it or not.

Compassion and humility? :think:

If we're to review this discussion we'd read where I'm a "putz" a non-human with a "dried up soul....like a raisin".

The difference between our views is I've no need to personally disparage you in order to sufficiently represent my view.
Your irrational attachment and blatant animosity in relation to your partcular belief system is sufficient criticism unto itself.

Perhaps, you lack tact, compassion or humility. Either way it's not successful.

 

[Angel4Truth]

No, you didn't. Saying it is wrong because it is perversion is a circular argument. It is tantamount to saying 'It is wrong because it is wrong', or saying 'It is wrong because it is perverse', but you haven't established that it is perverse.

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.…

If that doesn't establish it for you, you really shouldnt be calling yourself a christian.

http://biblehub.com/topical/f/filth.htm - 1. (n.) Foul matter; anything that soils or defiles; dirt; nastiness.

2. (n.) Anything that sullies or defiles the moral character; corruption; pollution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_(Bible)

Homosexual relations are literally called filth, vile, disgusting, perverse and pollution and many other things in scripture.

 

[Selaphiel]

:nono: We do know, per fact, that colon diseases happen due to wrong activity (in all people). We do know that promiscuity also carries exponential exposure to STD's.

So argue against promiscuity then. Promiscuity is not an inherently homosexual behavior. It is possible to be a homosexual and not be promiscuous.

We know that going against society causes stress and is a choice (talking about outward actions at this point). Etc.

If homosexuality is biological (which it seems to be given it exists across the animal kingdom), then it is not a choice. If they experience stress for having to supress their identity due to ignorance and bigotry, then that is the fault of the ignorant and the bigot.

I believe it unconscionable to support risk behavior, now matter how many times they march against it. Get tired of the banging on the door? Sure, but I will not relent toward any right, shown to shorten your life significantly NOR advocate it to children as acceptable and viable.

No one has argued against your right to be against it, we're disputing the validity of your arguments for being against it.

 

[Selaphiel]

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.…

If that doesn't establish it for you, you really shouldnt be calling yourself a christian.

http://biblehub.com/topical/f/filth.htm - 1. (n.) Foul matter; anything that soils or defiles; dirt; nastiness.

2. (n.) Anything that sullies or defiles the moral character; corruption; pollution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_(Bible)

Homosexual relations are literally called filth, vile, disgusting, perverse and pollution and many other things in scripture.

Way to misunderstand what I'm talking about. You may very well claim that Paul was against it (although the theological dispute is quite a lot more complicated than this simplistic nonsense), but that only shows that Paul was against it, which in itself is not an argument of general reason which everyone can relate to.

Believe the same person says something about women being silent, and that they shouldn't be teaching men.

 

[Right Divider]

Way to misunderstand what I'm talking about. You may very well claim that Paul was against it (although the theological dispute is quite a lot more complicated than this simplistic nonsense), but that only shows that Paul was against it, which in itself is not an argument of general reason which everyone can relate to.

Believe the same person says something about women being silent, and that they shouldn't be teaching men.

You're very wise in your own eyes.

 

[Selaphiel]

You're very wise in your own eyes.

How so? For presenting arguments and criticizng faulty ones? Or because I say the theological discourse around the subject is more complicated? Well, it is. I have a 6 year university degree in theology, so I'm familiar with it. If speaking from a qualified position is the same as being 'wise in your own eyes', then that is a lousy saying. I would rather say that those who speak from an unqualified position as if what they were saying were the absolute undisputable truth are the ones that are wise in their own eyes.

 

[Right Divider]

How so? For presenting arguments and criticizng faulty ones? Or because I say the theological discourse around the subject is more complicated? Well, it is. I have a 6 year university degree in theology, so I'm familiar with it. If speaking from a qualified position is the same as being 'wise in your own eyes', then that is a lousy saying. I would rather say that those who speak from an unqualified position as if it was the absolute undisputable truth are the ones that are wise in their own eyes.

That would explain the arrogance and the lack of respect for the Word of God.

 

[Selaphiel]

That would explain the arrogance and the lack of respect for the Word of God.

Being qualified is a form of arrogance? And committing 6 years of your life to engage and study something critically is a lack of respect? Interesting defintion of those words, and by interesting I mean ridiculous.

You are the one who is wise in your own eyes. You think your uncritical spouting of opinions based on something you haven't even bothered to understand is the absolute truth. That is arrogance and being wise in your own eyes. If your beliefs are so weak they cant stand critical engagement, then those beliefs are not worth much.

 

[Right Divider]

Being qualified is a form of arrogance?

No, and your rhetorical tricks don't impress me either.

And committing 6 years of your life to engage and study something critically is a lack of respect?

Nope, once again some faulty logic and rhetorical mumbo-jumbo on your part.

Interesting defintion of those words, and by interesting I mean ridiculous.

You are the one who is wise in your own eyes. You think your uncritical spouting of opinions based on something you haven't even bothered to understand is the absolute truth. That is arrogance and being wise in your own eyes. If your beliefs are so weak they cant stand critical engagement, then those beliefs are not worth much.

I understand it perfectly well. You reject the God given order for the relationship of the man and the woman. It's as simple as that, but you try to make a complex argument out of it.

 

[Lon]

So argue against promiscuity then. Promiscuity is not an inherently homosexual behavior. It is possible to be a homosexual and not be promiscuous.

Er, some promiscuity is worse than other types. You must have missed the part of colon disease? You missed the 'exponential' point? 50% of all STD's comes from less than 1% of the population. That is a giant number. Don't be blind to it. Besides, if you agree with promiscuity, without realizing it, if you promote it, you wipe out homosexuality in the process because it is 'sexuality.' No sex = no homosexuality or hetero for that matter.

If homosexuality is biological (which it seems to be given it exists across the animal kingdom), then it is not a choice. If they experience stress for having to supress their identity due to ignorance and bigotry, then that is the fault of the ignorant and the bigot.

1) This is a transgender thread, so I 'think' we are still a bit off track.
2) "If" is exactly right. That community has been afforded the benefit of the doubt before anything exists. I am absolutely sure, we can choose not to have sex. Abstinence is a choice.

No one has argued against your right to be against it, we're disputing the validity of your arguments for being against it.

We? The arguments are valid because they cause action toward health and well-being of another and insist that harmful activity that significantly reduces life, should be of great concern and likely curtailed. When we are talking about percentages, if it is true they do not and have not change[d], I believe we should act upon that information in a positive and caring manner. The stats are important. If they weren't currently being censused by national registry, you might question them, but I don't believe you can. They are non-biased stats.

 

[Lon]

Compassion and humility? :think:

If we're to review this discussion we'd read where I'm a "putz" a non-human with a "dried up soul....like a raisin".

All true. How could I soften those for you? Not say them? As I said, one of your greatest needs, is to realize you are one of the sick Jesus came for. Do you disagree you are often a putz? Do you disagree that your soul is a dry husk? That you cheapen your own human existence by voting for death of lives, every bit as viable? :nono: I cannot repeal any of these.

The difference between our views is I've no need to personally disparage you in order to sufficiently represent my view.

Uhm, you've been banned more than I (me not at all). I realize there is deference here, but you have often been ejected for being a putz (purposefully disagreeable, rude, and taking cheapshots).

Your irrational attachment and blatant animosity in relation to your partcular belief system is sufficient criticism unto itself.

Seldom if at all. You don't think or dwell deeply enough to actually care. You are the one that comes here to TOL, 'a stranger and afraid.'

Perhaps, you lack tact, compassion or humility. Either way it's not successful.

:nono: No attempts work with you. You DO have people who have been kind to you. IT doesn't work. You are simply looking for excusing behavior and you know it. Reread your own motives here in this post. You likely won't, but it has all the sentiments of a person who emotes more than he thinks. ANY response is working, however. It has a degree of success whether you can ascertain it or not. -Lon

 

[quip]

:nono: I cannot repeal any of these.

Of course you can't...your view demands adversaries. You must first elevate yourself by dividing people between "them vs. us". The sooner you realize this the better everyone will be.

Uhm, you've neen banned more than I (me not at all). I realize there is deference here, but you have often been ejected for being a putz (purposefully disagreeable, rude, and taking cheapshots).

Yes, after fielding my fair share. You do realize ToL is hostile territory for me?

Seldom if at all. You don't think or dwell deeply enough to actually care. You are the one that comes here to TOL, 'a stranger and afraid.'

If so, then why stay around for nearly 14 years? On the contrary, I originally came here to challenge the veracity of my belief; forge it in fire....so to speak.
I've yet to hear a convincing argument to change.....quite the opposite in fact.

Yet, this begs the question why someone would vehemently post on a forum which disproportionately agrees with them? Are you too spiritually craven to test your faith...perhaps you seek solace were you're positioned comfortably within the confines of the majority structure.

Food for thought Lon.

 

[Lon]

Of course you can't...your view demands adversity. You must first elevate yourself by dividing people between "them vs. us". The sooner you realize this the better everyone will be.

:nono: Look at your Houseman quote again. You are the broken. I live here as it were.

Yes, after fielding my fair share. You do realize ToL is hostile territory for me?

Yes. I realize. You came here with your sig all ready and catered. Think about this: You literally (think about that adjective) are against a story, a message of sacrifice. A message of love that goes beyond indifference, ignorance, rejection and pain. How in the WORLD did you find Houseman and where in the weird wide world, did he get off? Look, I defend truth, no apology BUT we Christians don't wind up in prison for our beliefs. We outgive, as a result of our faith, we build tight community as a result of our faith, we cherish life, even the life of those who reject us, more than you do. Try that again: I believe I cherish your life more than you do. I did have to come to grips with my selfishness as an unbeliever. I was egocentric. Look, all around me are divorces. In the last class I taught, out of 45 kids, two had married parents. I immediately attribute my marriage longevity to Christianity. I immediately attribute my children's incredible love for me, to Christianity. I realize we aren't, as communities, accepting of Buddhism per say. When you and I first communicated, you advocated strongly, abortion. Worse? For no better reason than personal convenience. I've watched abortion videos. You will not and can never, after seeing that, erase what I've seen. They are people. Your stance is shockingly atrocious. Whether I was a Christian or not, I'd always take this stance against you. Jesus died for sinners. You are a sinner. This much is clear.

If so, then why stay around for nearly 14 years? On the contrary, I origanally came here to challenge the veracity of my belief; forge it in fire....so to speak.
I've yet to hear a convincing argument to change.....quite the opposite in fact.

:doh: (not necessarily at you, just frustration). I've told you that TOL is unique. It exists primarily for the argumentative. You know this. As a reminder, not one of my Christian friends or family posts here. You CANNOT expect TOL to reflect all of Christianity in this sense. Please also note, I am a particular person on TOL specifically because of its tenor. It is supposed to be about debate (and not in the classic scholastic sense). In some ways, I'm thankful for that, but please realize it is a microcosm. Christianity is in an adjustment period because, for the first time in about a half a century, we are being challenged. Such takes a lot of trial and error, and prayer.

Yet, this begs the question why someone would vehemently post on a forum which disproportionately agrees with them? Are you too spiritually cravem to test your faith...perhaps you find solace were you're positioned comfortably within the majority structure.

:nono: 1) I am here for you and others. It is a service, and whether I'm good at it or not, it is fraught with care and concern. 2) I do appreciate some insight at times. TOL has helped hone some of my theology and for that I'm appreciative and thankful. 3) I, probably like you, enjoy some people here. I've given you pos reps at times, lest you forget. You to me? :nono: It isn't a necessity, I'm just trying to help you view me in balance.

Food for though,t Lon.

Thanks