A re-examination of nothing

[Chaplain David]

Back off? I have a right here.

Why do you think you know what Jesus would do? When He walked among men, He was pressed in on all sides by throngs of people who were repenting of their sins.

Somehow I don't think that many homosexuals today would be at His feet in prostration confessing their sin. Their hearts are hardened to that fact. In Jesus' day, it was a known sin and people were tender toward it. Those who were callous about it, well--they weren't around Jesus! They would head for the hills!

Anyone who would stand toe-to-toe to Jesus and defend their sin would be crazy to do so. In fact, the only unrepentant people who were healed and forgiven were the demoniacs who were delivered and made right by Jesus---because of the faith of others who believed.

Also, when Jesus presented a deeper commitment to many of his hundreds of disciples, many of them abandoned Him. Guess what? He simply allowed them to go. This tells me that a homosexual who is brazen enough to present themselves before Jesus Christ and His people as unrepentant, they should be given the truth and allowed to walk away. Jesus mourns the lack of belief in His truth, as do I, but you are entitled to make the decision to deny His ways.

Time for a sandwich. Be right back. Back off? Hmmm

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Actually, it is savedandhappy1 who is being charged with presenting propaganda, sacerdote.

even to your own kith you mortals all alike appear!!!

 

[Floatingaxe]

What you regard as the "truth" is just your beliefs. It's not the "truth," but rather your beliefs about truth.

The term "homosexual offenders" is an inaccurate translation of the Bible. The term "homosexual" did not exist at the time the various books of the Bible were written.

Homosexuals existed just the same. They were offenders as I have explained earlier. There is no point in quibbling with semantics.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Anyone who would stand toe-to-toe to Jesus and defend their sin would be crazy to do so. In fact, the only unrepentant people who were healed and forgiven were the demoniacs who were delivered and made right by Jesus---because of the faith of others who believed.

bes this true?

 

[Ohioprof]

I posted one post in response to a post that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone so it is ok with God.

It wasn't about mental illness, but physical findings of illnesses and how they related to homosexuality.

Then I posted one post in resonse to a post that stated that suicides in homosexuals is due to intolarance and non-exceptance.

I posted the link to where I got the information, but never once commented on mental illness, because that wasn't what I was posting about.

You brought up mental illness not me. NONE of my post had anything to do with it. So why do you want to make it about mental illness? If I read someones link and started bringing in things that have nothing to do with the origin post you were responding to I would be told it was a red herring, or strawman, etc.

So again, I wasn't posting about mental illness, and never brought it up, that was you. Again, if you have information that the sites given are putting out false information let them know.

I will only comment on what I was posting about, which again wasn't and isn't mental illness. So I am attacking no one, and no matter how many times you say it will not make it so.

Your post was about mental illnesses, as you brought up depression and substance abuse and the other disorders named in the study to which you linked. Those are in the DSM-IV, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders. The study to which you linked looked at the rates of various mental illnesses among gay people in comparison to those rates among heterosexuals.

My issue with your post was not the data; it was your spin on the data. The study you linked makes no claim about why gay people may be at greater risk for these various mental illnesses. It just says that we are. You suggested that the study challenges the notion that gay people are at higher risk because of homophobia and social ostracism, etc. But the study shows no such thing.

Your post read to me like a gratuitious slam at gay people. If that was not your aim, then that's good. It sounded like it to me.

 

[Ohioprof]

Back off? I have a right here.

Why do you think you know what Jesus would do? When He walked among men, He was pressed in on all sides by throngs of people who were repenting of their sins.

Somehow I don't think that many homosexuals today would be at His feet in prostration confessing their sin. Their hearts are hardened to that fact. In Jesus' day, it was a known sin and people were tender toward it. Those who were callous about it, well--they weren't around Jesus! They would head for the hills!

Anyone who would stand toe-to-toe to Jesus and defend their sin would be crazy to do so. In fact, the only unrepentant people who were healed and forgiven were the demoniacs who were delivered and made right by Jesus---because of the faith of others who believed.

Also, when Jesus presented a deeper commitment to many of his hundreds of disciples, many of them abandoned Him. Guess what? He simply allowed them to go. This tells me that a homosexual who is brazen enough to present themselves before Jesus Christ and His people as unrepentant, they should be given the truth and allowed to walk away. Jesus mourns the lack of belief in His truth, as do I, but you are entitled to make the decision to deny His ways.

Back off from attacking gay people, please. You have a right to post, but it's wrong to attack others simply for being themselves.

 

[Ohioprof]

Homosexuals existed just the same. They were offenders as I have explained earlier. There is no point in quibbling with semantics.

Here you go attacking gay people again. We are not "offenders" by being ourselves.

This is not just a semantic issue; it's an issue of people using the Bible to denigrate gay people, which is immoral.

 

[Ohioprof]

Time for a sandwich. Be right back. Back off? Hmmm

Yes, I told another poster to back off from attacking gay people. I am not going to sit back and let people put us down without a response.

So to those who would attack innocent gay people and who would beat us over the head with their Bibles, I say back off.

 

[Ohioprof]

Back off? I have a right here.

Why do you think you know what Jesus would do? When He walked among men, He was pressed in on all sides by throngs of people who were repenting of their sins.

Somehow I don't think that many homosexuals today would be at His feet in prostration confessing their sin. Their hearts are hardened to that fact. In Jesus' day, it was a known sin and people were tender toward it. Those who were callous about it, well--they weren't around Jesus! They would head for the hills!

Anyone who would stand toe-to-toe to Jesus and defend their sin would be crazy to do so. In fact, the only unrepentant people who were healed and forgiven were the demoniacs who were delivered and made right by Jesus---because of the faith of others who believed.

Also, when Jesus presented a deeper commitment to many of his hundreds of disciples, many of them abandoned Him. Guess what? He simply allowed them to go. This tells me that a homosexual who is brazen enough to present themselves before Jesus Christ and His people as unrepentant, they should be given the truth and allowed to walk away. Jesus mourns the lack of belief in His truth, as do I, but you are entitled to make the decision to deny His ways.

So let gay people walk away, away from this toxic misinterpretation of the message of Jesus. Jesus never said anything against gay people. Others should follow his example and do likewise. Attacking innocent gay people is against the message of Jesus. Attacking any people is against the message of Jesus.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

What you regard as the "truth" is just your beliefs. It's not the "truth," but rather your beliefs about truth.

Normally this one has that line, and agrees with it.

But lately it bes losing its faith in that.


Bes that line itself equally subject to its own constraints? In other words, take it up one level. We start with:

What you regard as the "truth" is just your beliefs. It's not the "truth," but rather your beliefs about truth.
​

Move it up one level and call it "statement X":

"Statement X" that you regard as the "truth" is just your beliefs. "Statement X" bes not the "truth," but rather your beliefs about truth.
​

Thus:

The statement that "what one regards as truth bes only one's beliefs, not the truth itself but merely one's beliefs ABOUT truth" bes not the truth, but only what you believe about the truth.
​

Therefore technically that statement itself has no greater "truth value" than any other statement one makes as "the truth". To state that it does would be to violate or contradict the very "truth" it purports to set forth. Which means it bes NO MORE TRUE to see everything stated as truth as merely being ppls' BELIEFS about the truth than it would be to see those statements AS constituting truth itself.

It bes an inherent contradiction and begging of the question itself otherwise. Kind of like saying "change bes the only constant". Well if change bes the only constant then at some point change will have to change into what bes not-change. Then what?

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Ssshhh! You didn't see that. You didn't hear her. Move along!

 

[Ohioprof]

Actually, it is savedandhappy1 who is being charged with presenting propaganda, sacerdote.


Yes, you are correct. Our motives are only to present the truth of Scripture--God's message to humanity. It is law for everyone, but not everyone accepts it as law, and so they violate it...which is why in scripture, homosexuals are referred to as "homosexual offenders."

This other poster DID present propaganda, by trying to spin the results of a study to say what the study did not say. And the point seemed to be nothing but a gratuitous slam at gay people.

 

[Chaplain David]

You are the one who decided to talk on and on about the alleged mental health problems of gay people, suggesting, with no clear reason, that gay people suffer from mental health issues not because of how we are treated, but for some other reason that you failed to state.

The article to which you link simply says that gay people, according to the study, are at greater risk for depressive disorders and substance abuse than are heterosexuals. It does not say why. The article to which you link does not challenge the idea that gay people suffer more from depressive disorders because of how we are treated.

Maybe if people stopped attacking gay people and let us live our lives as full human beings, our risk of depressive disorders and risk of substance abuse would lessen.

If you want to get an idea about why gay people might get depressed, try living for a year as an openly gay person. That doesn't mean you have to go out and have sex. Just tell people around you that you are gay, and see how people treat you. Try walking down the street holding hands with a woman, and see what happens to you. Then, after a year, come back and report on this experience. I have no doubt it would be eye opening for you.

Posts can be offensive without violating the rules of the forums. Your post was offensive, because it was obviously aimed at nothing more than attacking gay people. You showed no compassion for gay people in your post whatsoever. It's not even clear why you think gay people may be at higher risk for depression, if you question the argument that it's because of how we are treated. At any rate, you seem to have the desire to attack gay people, not to show the love of Jesus to all.

So if a person posts something you don't agree with and even has scholarly evidence for proof, it is offensive and Jesus wouldn't like it?

 

[David Brider]

The propoganda is that homosexuality is perfectly harmless to all.

Well, it certainly doesn't harm you, or anyone else who isn't homosexual.

And whilst it's true that people who engage in unsafe sex are at risk of STDs, that's true regardless of sexuality.

So aside from those homosexuals who decide to engage in unsafe sex, which homosexuals are harmed by being homosexual? I can't think of any.

David.

 

[Ohioprof]

Normally this one has that line, and agrees with it.

But lately it bes losing its faith in that.


Bes that line itself equally subject to its own constraints? In other words, take it up one level. We start with:

What you regard as the "truth" is just your beliefs. It's not the "truth," but rather your beliefs about truth.
​

Move it up one level and call it "statement X":

"Statement X" that you regard as the "truth" is just your beliefs. "Statement X" bes not the "truth," but rather your beliefs about truth.
​

Thus:

The statement that "what one regards as truth bes only one's beliefs, not the truth itself but merely one's beliefs ABOUT truth" bes not the truth, but only what you believe about the truth.
​

Therefore technically that statement itself has no greater "truth value" than any other statement one makes as "the truth". To state that it does would be to violate or contradict the very "truth" it purports to set forth. Which means it bes NO MORE TRUE to see everything stated as truth as merely being ppls' BELIEFS about the truth than it would be to see those statements AS constituting truth itself.

It bes an inherent contradiction and begging of the question itself otherwise. Kind of like saying "change bes the only constant". Well if change bes the only constant then at some point change will have to change into what bes not-change. Then what?

True! But we have to live in a world of such contradictions and paradoxes, don't we?

My argument is not that no higher truth exists, but that our conceptions of that truth are always partial, always distorted. We always see "through a glass darkly," so long as we are human beings.

Is my argument "true?" Only partially, and only incompletely true. But it's a useful take on truth, for me, because it enables me to accept that other people see the truth differently from me. Ultimately I have no interest in changing anyone's theology, in changing what they believe about God. My interest, my agenda in posting here, besides learning from other posters, is urging people to treat lgbt people with respect, as equals. I am here in part to challenge the belief of some that it's okay to look down on gay people or to denigrate gay people or to discriminate against gay people because of their belief that homosexuality is a "sin."

 

[savedandhappy1]

You do not bother to take time to read properly, do you. Did Moriah say "support and nurture sin"? No, Moriah did not. MORIAH's ACTUAL FREAKING WORDS BES THIS: support and nurture ONE ANOTHER.

Do NOT ... it repeats:

DO ***NOT***
ever
under ANY circumstances WHATSOEVER
presume to make it appear Moriah bes saying something it bes NOT SAYING. THAT BES A LIE AND THEM WHAT DOES THAT BES LIARS. END OF ISSUE.

The rest of your STRAW MAN RED HERRING NONSENSE bes IGNORED. When you bes ready responding to MORIAH what MORIAH bes talksy about THEN answer Moriah. Do not EVER presume to pull that nonsense AGAIN. This goes for every one of you mortals reading this as well on this and EVERY other thread, it WILL be addressed and you WILL be called out on it so do not waste YOUR time OR MORIAH's even ATTEMPTING those games. You want to disagree? FINE, YOU BES ENTITLED -- just make certain you bes disagreeing with WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS NOT SOME TWISTED MISREPRESENTATIONAL **LIE** invented on the fly!!!!!!!

This will be my last post to you.

Twisting words and falsehoods, are said to come from the GREAT DECEIVER, which you claim to be part of you, from what I understand you to claim. (could be wrong but is what I understand)

You can't have the Holy Spirit in you and a demon, so I have several thought on what is going on. You want to say I am playing games, I don't process to be a Christian and a demon.

Anyhow, I choose to no longer speak to either of the things you say you are.

Have a good day.

 

[Floatingaxe]

even to your own kith you mortals all alike appear!!!

Don't kid yourself, Moriah. You are mortal like the rest of us. Don't be hiding behind your demonspeak about that.

It is in Jesus Christ that we put on immortality. Glory!

 

[Floatingaxe]

bes this true?

Yes, the demoniacs didn't repent until they were delivered and in their right minds again.

I'm not saying that they cannot repent until delivered. They certainly can and do.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Back off from attacking gay people, please. You have a right to post, but it's wrong to attack others simply for being themselves.

Stop that. I am not on the attack. I am presenting the truth of Jesus Christ on a (so-called) Christian forum.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

This will be my last post to you.

Twisting words and falsehoods, are said to come from the GREAT DECEIVER, which you claim to be part of you, from what I understand you to claim. (could be wrong but is what I understand)

You can't have the Holy Spirit in you and a demon, so I have several thought on what is going on. You want to say I am playing games, I don't process to be a Christian and a demon.

Anyhow, I choose to no longer speak to either of the things you say you are.

So instead of admit you bes wrong in what you did, you throws it back on daimonizomai and casts aspersions on it. How very classic. How very typical. How very MORTAL and HUMAN and alas, ..........................

........................................

.................................................how very CHRISTIAN.