|
|
|
|
>Being gay does not insure safety
No, but I'm sure Lloyds of London would, if you ask them nicely.
Seriously, though: Uncle Jim, it would appear that you are feeling rather put out by the recent discussion of politics and religion on this board. And yet, you have said nothing except to complain about the fact that politics and religion are not prohibited subjects! There is nothing to stop you from explaining your own position, explaining why we are wrong, and discussing it with us. Bottling it all up just breeds resentment.
Personally, I have no problems with being mentally caned on a discussion board, as long as it is not done maliciously. Actually, I wish people would challenge me more!
And yet, if you would rather see this board clearly labelled as "A PLACE OF SAFETY For Atheistic/Agnostic British Liberials" [sic] that would imply that it's not for you (I assume you are neither an atheist, agnostic or a liberal). In that case, why do you bother to stick around?
As it is, it's labelled "A Place of Safety", and it includes you if you want it to. If you would rather exclude yourself in the board's definition then you are basically asking to leave. It would be rather simpler for you just to leave without getting the title changed. Though I see no good reason for either.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Jim
ive only seen you post in here a few times, but I dont recall you ever being talked down to in here. IM not old enough to be this wonderful old sage with the wisdom of the world, but I do know that this is a place where you can present your ideas and get different sides to the issue. If I got upset everytime Cossie or Deej corrected me about something or dissagreed with me, I would feel misserable all the time and quit coming in here. Is there something wrong with being agnostic? I refuse to believe in a god that hates what he created and says Im going to hell cause he created me gay. I dont know where the liberal part comes in, cause ive seen opinions in here that go all accross the board extreme liberal to extreme conservative. Are you upset cause everybody isnt a carbon copy of what you believe? Did someone tell you you were damned for believing what you do? does what other people think upset you cause its different from what you think? Not very tolerant. Isnt that waht christians are supposed to be about?
If I didnt like and love the people here, I wouldnt be here. Instead I adopted a granddad (he was kicking and screaming, but had to give in) and great friends who arnt afraid to set my butt straight about things. Being British, ok show me how.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Uncle Jim,
I am neither an agnostic or an atheist but believe in a God who loves everyone, including gay people like myself. And I am sure that this God is the true God, as represented by Christ. At the same time I understand how and why many people, gay and straight, find it difficult or impossible to identify with a church that so often and in so many ways have chosen to offer condemnation instead of love and forgiveness, and to represent bigotry instead of acceptance and inclusion.
I feel at home here, and I can't see why you should leave.
Sometimes arguments are blunt and without sweetening, but that is also the case within families where people have sincere love and respect for each other. I haven't been here for very long, but it didn't take long for me to realize that people who meet here are part of a big family, trusting each other enough to tell when they are happy or miserable.
Yes, I enter at my own risk. Of course I do, and did, when presenting myself. What I discovered was that people care, a lot. I am not sure what 'you may be mentally caned by the ruling class' means, or who constitute 'the ruling class'. My language should reveal that I'm neither British nor American, but I still don't feel particularly vulnerable, or exposed to any special hazard. Even haggis or fierce southern baptists, or their sons, don't seem to pose much of a threat. I feel safe here.
To me the word 'liberal' has a lot to do with the words 'liberté, egalité, fraternité', that all people are born equal, with equal rights, each and everyone with a unique value, which is independent of skin colour, faith, gender, sexuality, economic and social status, et cetera, in opposition to a nation or community where education and health care are dependent on the thickness of your wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... business about Religion and Politics, so I suppose a little clarification is in order.
You say that the board should make it clear that it is safe only for Agnostic/Atheistic British Liberals. That fits me, and I'll start by explaining why.
Personally, I would find it impossible to be a card-carrying atheist, simply because there is so much I do not know, and I cannot therefore make a reasoned decision. So as far I am concerned, there may well be a God. But I have had a lifelong interest in history, and perhaps especially in Western religious history. I was an active participant in what is known in America as the Episcopalian Church, and I still have an affection for it and enjoy its ritual. My problem was that the more I learned about religious history, the less comfortable I became with the Church's position. From an academic standpoint, there is little doubt that the Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions originate from the same root, but they have repeatedly divided to give the multipicity of monotheistic cults we have today. Christianity diverged from Judaism, the Christian Church divided into Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions, the Protestant tradition split from the Catholic Church, the Methodists and Baptists split from the Protestant tradition - and so it goes on. Almost every schism has arisen from conflicting interpretations of the Bible. Logically, assuming the existence of a God with an agenda, only one set of beliefs can be right; all of the others must be wrong. I find it much easier to believe that God played no part in these divisions - they were the result of human disputes. I suppose that God, if he exists, is sitting up there wryly contemplating His creation, but loving us all because he is our creator. But I don't know, so I am an agnostic. Nevertheless, I see great strength and beauty in the basic tenets of Christianity (before St. Paul got his oar in!) and I can see no better pattern for life than the example of the Good Samaritan - and that's what I try, within my capabilities, to emulate. Incidentally, did you know that Joseph of Arimathea, in whose tomb Jesus was reputedly buried, was also a Samaritan? Arimathea was a city in Samaria.
Obviously, as a bagpipe-blowing Scot, I can't deny that I'm British - and indeed why should I? But I'm not a jingoistic nationalist - I believe my future and that of my children depends upon an increasing unity between European nations. This is, of course, a British-based board, but I don't think that we have more than half-a-dozen regular British-based posters. EVERYONE is welcome here, as long as they are prepared to join in on equal terms - and there are plenty of American posters who are happy to do so.
I am certainly an instinctive liberal - though my political allegiance is somewhat to the left of the British Liberal Democrats. I suspect that the word 'liberal' has different connotations East and West of the Atlantic. I've heard the US phrase 'namby-pamby liberal' many times, but the word certainly has no 'namby-pamby' implications here. To me, the liberal ideal is freedom and tolerance - but of course that means that my views need to be tolerated, too!
Right. That's where I stand. I don't for a moment expect anyone else to line up behind me. I feel free to explain my views, and the reasons for them, on this board. I think that Timmy is perfectly willing to extend the same freedom to anyone else. I certainly don't advocate censorship of topics involving religion or politics. What I DID object to was having one person's interpretation of God's intentions presented, not as a point of view, but as a fact - and, subsequently, I objected to the condemnation of another religious persuasion as Satanic.
Condemnation of a human being in the name of God is surely the ultimate arrogance. We are all free to choose our belief system, but no system entitles us to believe that we, and only we, know the will of God.
Comments?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn I lost my first writting of this post to Bill Gates. I had made some real profound statements that are now lost forever in the ethernet.
I want to respond to your comments Cossie as I tend to agree with the spirit in which they were written. I must say that if everyone had the tolerance for what other people think as you do, we would have a much better world.
I happen to feel that God is really there for a number of reasons. The first thing is, I am an engineer and tend to think analytically and for me it is nearly impossible to believe that everything just sprang out of nothing without God there to make it happen. There is no logic to account for how it all began and there being a God is just as good as it can be as far as I can tell. Now the second thing is that if there is no God, then evolution MUST be the way things all occured and evolution takes some real leaps of faith for me to believe it. I try to keep an open mind, but it is hard to accept that those who take evolution as so much of a given have forgotten it is still only a theory and not a law. I have read some real misconceptions about what constitues a theory but it is not something that it already confirmed by observation and replication of the process. The theory of gravity became the law of gravity when the theory was subjected to observation and a rigorous testing of it which concluded it should be considered a law. Not so with evolution and I will concede that there are a number of things we accept as fact which cannot be seen or verified but which we know are obviously true. I can show you where many of the things used by evolutinary proponents to prove their point are based on some very flimsey facts. Now if you consider "Lucy" who is the evolutionist's answer to the proof for a missing link, we find that this skeleton which is used to prove this point consists of a piece of a jaw bone. The first thing that came to my mind on hearing that was the story from the bible about Samson defeating those guys using the jaw bone of an ass.
I also realize that there is little proof of God but I dont feel I need as much faith to believe in Him as I would to believe in evolution.
There is another thing I have to point out since most people I meet on gay sites have seemed to conclude that there either is no God; and if there really is a God, then he made me gay and he must not be a God I need in my life if that is all he feels for me. Well, you know, I just feel that is a wrong way to look at it. Now in my mind I went thru all that about being gay and that God must have had it in for me to make me this way; and if he didnt and something went wrong in my genes, then why cant he fix this for me? I agree these are all valid questions and I cant blame any of you for asking. I still maintain God doesnt hate me and that He didnt make me this way. If you look into things a little you can find all kinds of people (some of whom are quite brillian) who will say we are formed into what we are by all the many and myrid things that happen to us and some of them happen even before we are aware. I tend to go along with that myself. I fully think that I could have been a regular hetro but maybe just a few times at just the right moment, there were some things that went wrong for me and I got this little thing called same sex attraction. In my case, it is an attraction for younger looking guys who just happen to be somewhat feminine in their features (but surely not girls actually) and also for girls who do not look too terribly feminine. No I dont get attracted to the dykes I meet either, but only to some I would think of as being immature as women and more like boys in nature. It is hard to explain but I think that resonates with at least some of you, including my friend Comicality who I had the pleasure of meeting on line about 6 years ago. I know that a lot of you have never had an attraction to a girl or woman and that it was that way in your head for as long as you could ever remember. Yeah but things could have affected you so that you didnt proceed along the right track and you might not have ever been aware of them. Now I personally feel that something interfered with my becoming mentally sexually mature and that even now I am stuck back as a teenager in my sexual attractions. Cant you all remember, and of course just look around you next time you are in a group of younger teenagers, that most young teen boys and girls can have almost the same features about them? I once challanged the members of my scout troop to go look at this kid standing in line at Dairy Queen (yeah the significance of that name doesnt escape me either) and tell me what "it" was. Well none of my younger scouts could really be sure and were contemplaing a pecker check to find out. This kid looked asexual and I know you have seen some like him/her before. So it is easy to see how the attractions can get to be confused and I guess that is what went wrong with me. I know I got kissed by this girl when I was maybe 12 or 13 and I went on to regret not having that experience again while thinking more and more of myself as attracted to boys only.
I want to give another example of this to you. I was a very brave and daring kid once. When I was perhaps 7 or 8 years old, I used to roam the neighborhood with my pals and in the summer, steal apples. We would climb into this one friendly tree that sloped off so it was easy to climb. We woudl sit high up on the branches and eat our green apples. I would climb much higher than the others because I was so small for my age and one day I slipped and fell to grab another branch and pull myself back up to safety. I knew of course that I could have always fallen, but at that age it never really scared me; until then. I went down from the tree and just could never really climb again without being almost terrified of falling. I was now "afraid of heights" whereas before I was nearly fearless. I knew exactly what caused me to be afraid but no amount of rational thinking could change things back to what they were before. I have thought to myself that my attractions and my being gay can be much like that too. I can fully well know exactly what gave me this attraction, but it is probably going to be impossible to remove it. I would appeal to the younger guys who may read this to not totally give up on the idea you could lead a happy hetrosexual life. I can still climb a tree and go up on my roof of my house. I have learned to overcome the fears. I have always felt how different my life could have been if I had some counsel by someone who would have pointed that out to me.
Ok so now you guys all know how I got my other nick name....Sir Blabby
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electroken
Im sure that what you feel is right for you, however I dont see it. Im not gonna give up hope of ever becoming Hetro, because I have never wanted to. I am absolutely, without question, NOT attracted to girls. In fact I actually dont care much for them at all. I have from the first day I can remember been attracted to boys. Course you can say that im young and dont really know, but I do know myself pretty good. I believe ther is a god, just not exactly who hes is or what he is or even if its a he. But I do know this, it aint the Christian god.
You said for us younger ones to not give up on being a happy hetrosexual. I hope I never have this attitude as I grow up, cause that is the same attitude that the Southern Baptist Conversion people have. They are the ones who say"oh you can be changed and made hetrosexual, normal" thats when they attach electrods to your penis and shock you everytime you have a reaction to a nude male, or other forms of diversion therapy, which pretty much boils down to torture and mental abuse. Im perfectly content to be what I am and what god made me. the people who want to change and agonize over it are the ones who hate themselves. I might not be happy all the time, but I dont hate myself.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Ken,
I hope you don't mind if I raise a few points.
Firstly, I'm very surprised that as an engineer you say that God is the best solution to the question of where we came from. I've looked at exactly the same data as you and come to the opposite conclusion.
You say,
>it is nearly impossible to believe that everything just sprang out of nothing
I agree with you there. It is nearly impossible to believe! But -- and this is a big but -- we are here already. So this billion-to-one chance has already happened. Instead, we should be asking:
i. can we explain it with what we can see at work today? (evolution and other scientific thought)
ii. or do we have to invent a magical, beyond-all-comprehension device because we can't?
The fact is that if we go with the second, we might as well throw in the towel completely. It voids all known science -- why bother working out a system that is totally self-consistent and logical, if God can just wave his magic wand and circumvent it?
Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is usually the correct one -- and I'm afraid it is much simpler to propose a solution such as evolution than it is to invent a God who does not have to obey any of the scientific rules. You say there is not a lot of evidence for evolution? Well, there is a hell of a lot more scientific evidence for evolution than there is for God!
And, by the way, Newton's theories on gravity and mechanics are STILL theories, not fixed-in-stone laws. Einsteinian relativity disproves many of them -- though they remain good approximations in most cases. There is really no such thing as a law in science, because scientists are always ready to accept that hitherto accepted laws are wrong. Unlike religious people.
>Now the second thing is that if there is no God, then evolution MUST be the way things all occured
I'm sorry, but I have to say it: that is a really stupid error of logic. You mean to say that before anyone knew about evolution, it simply didn't exist? It is perfectly possible that a new theory will come along in a few years that fits the facts better than evolution. In fact, as a scientist, I would welcome it. If that's the logic you are using to justify your faith in God, I would seriously recommend you rethink it.
Scientists are ALWAYS looking for better ways to describe the universe. If a theory is suspect, then they will look for a better one. Just because they don't accept a theory doesn't mean that the alternative (especially where it is a very strange alternative that contradicts all known science) is correct.
Incidentally, I read an article in the newspaper a couple of days ago about how the Archbishop of Canterbury, to his credit, does not think that creationism should be taught in schools.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1735731,00.html
I wonder if you have bought the propaganda that evolution and religion are polar opposites? Or the propaganda that you have to believe in evolution to accept science? Because nothing could be further from the truth -- scepticism is the root of all good scientific thinking.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HI Brian,
If you read carefully what I have written you will notice that I never said that you can be changed and made hetrosexual. I happen to believe that I would have led a happier life if I could have just adjusted enought to be with a girl. I told you I became afraid of heights when I was a boy of maybe 8 years old and I have never been able to change that although I surely wished I could have done so. I do however go into tall buildings and fly on planes but I am still a bit afraid of climbing a ladder. There is a saying that pertains to this: God grant me the ability to to see the things I need to change and the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. (It is something like that and this is probably not the exact quote, but you get the idea)
Of course there are always those in any religion who will atempt to impose thier will upon you and the Southern Baptists and Lutherans and alike in that respect as are the Catholics, but someone who truely believes in God will realize that it is only God's will we must try to obey. I came as close to crying that I ever have since I was a little boy when I read Marc's story here many years ago. Please dont judge God by what people do in His name!
You see, I dont hold bitterness towards God for making me gay because I dont believe He did that; it was more a result of something others did to me and not something God would want for me to experience. If you think that God makes you this way, then it is no surprise you would not embrace anything to do with Him.
I recognize how you can feel bitterness towards Christians but the Christ I read about in the New Testament is not the one I hear mostly about from many so-called Christians. You should read it with a bible that has all the words attributed to Christ in red print. I did that about 30 some years ago and it changed my mind on a lot of things I was taught; I stayed away from my church for over 25 years. For instance, why do we have churches named "Prince of Peace Lutheran Church" when Christ can be quoted as saying, "Think not I have come to bring peace, for I have brought a sword. And I shall put father against son and mother against daughter and there shall be wars and rumors of wars; and this they will do in my name........etc" Does that sound like the Christ preached about at church? I went back to my church I grew up with and do it mainly to get communion and feel a bit better about myself. I would never condemn anyone and I dont think God does that either. I think that mainly his day is spent looking down at us and crying!
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken,
Just a couple of quick comments:
A phobia is an entirely different thought process to sexuality. A phobia can generally be overcome through counselling and exposure therapy.
On the other hand, I have yet to see any satisfactory study that shows that sexuality can be "remedied" in this manner. So it doesn't really help to consider it in the way: as something that can be fixed.
You may well be right that sexuality is a learned process after birth. But if it is not possible to control it, what difference does it make whether or not it is predetermined? If it is simply an ailment, why does God let it happen so frequently?
I don't understand how your post about Christ and peace helps us feel less bitter about the Church. If Christ intended all along to kill millions through holy wars, surely that makes him far more terrible and less worth following? Are you sure you're not taking it out of context?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Dave
I read what you posted and I must disagree with you in part. You stated this:
And, by the way, Newton's theories on gravity and mechanics are STILL theories, not fixed-in-stone laws. Einsteinian relativity disproves many of them -- though they remain good approximations in most cases. There is really no such thing as a law in science, because scientists are always ready to accept that hitherto accepted laws are wrong. Unlike religious people.
Now I have talked with someone who has two phd's and one is in physics and the other in electronics and he used to teach at the U of Minn for many years and he agrees with me. In fact he thinks that to teach evolution as the same fact as the law of gravity is wrong. Now we may not have all the mathmatics to show the vagarities of the law of gravity, but you better not try to disobey it.lol
He and I both admit that when you subject some things in physics to extreme points, there can be some problems but that is with the assumptions made about the problem in the first place. Many times the problem involves more than one frame of reference and unfortunately the first thing you will read in your physics book is that all of the following equations etc depend on the words "in a single frame of reference" and that is crutial. Sometimes we get too smart for our own good and try to make ourselves into God.
Also, you state that evolution has overwhelming proof and that I am being very deficient not to see it as such. Well I disagree with this statement and contend that a lot of evidence in defense of evolution is quite weak and makes all kinds of assumptions. Carbon dating is one of them which assumes that the carbon started with a certain condition and has uniformily gone from there over time and that is subject to major error if that original condition is not true.
You state too that those laws in physics are not fixed in stone but I bet you agreed with them when you took your physics classes or you didnt pass. I am like most of the engineers and others whom I know ready to look at something which can disprove that which we accept as law or fact but we dont jump to any conclusions. Look at all the controversy about cold fusion. I dont go along with those who would state that there are no absolutes; we may not have the knowledge of the real truth or fact and our math might not be correct, but it wont change a fact as such. Phylosophy(sp?) doesnt have much place in science as that is speculation and goes against what you are trying to tell me as a fundamental truth. Lets just both admit we dont really know all the anwers and to from there. I might ask if you can prove absolutely that God does not exist? A person with an open mind will question with great vigor all that is around him and I do that. I am not so stubborn so as not to see your point of view, but I dont have to agree with it unconditionally as most would see to it that being the way evolution is taught in the schools. I think it should be held up as the best answer we have other than some kind of creation. Now what is so evil about saying that and why does that seem so threatening to you? I would not want to have some religious doctrine forced upon students in school either, but I dont want them to be called "stupid" for not taking evolution as a fact! Now isnt that what tolerance is supposed to be all about?
I will close my post by stating that although I know all about the intolerance of groups like the KKK and southern baptists, some of the most vindictive and intolerant people I have met have been those who would force everyone else to accept being gay as normal and right. All I want for me is to be left alone and not persecuted for it. Many times I have expressed my belief that I am not born gay and many times meet up with some very hostile attitudes from those who are asking for everyone to be tolerant of their relationships. Tim knows my past and believe me, if I made that a point of discussion here, I would be condemned by most of you. I have learned to be tolerant of others no matter what I thought of them, but I know it is not always the same thing in the other direction. *sigh*
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Dave,
Well if God didnt make you that way then doesnt it mean he is not as bad as you would think he is? Yes it does make a difference if God didnt make me this way because if I think he did make me gay, then how could He have loved me? I could never reconcile those two things and I think that is why most gays dont believe in God.
If you read carefully, Christ never says HE will make those wars! Man will do it in His name. We are all so quick to make God the brunt of all that is wrong when all He did was give us the free will to be mean and nasty to each other if that is what we choose to do.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken, you do realize that the trouble with being gay does not stem from the phenomenon in itself, but from the society's persecution and harassment?
And nevermind god - christianity and the prescriptive parts of the bible have more problems than healthy.
And at last, a quote. "The mode of the religious is faith; the mode of the mystic is expirience" - ESR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God, Please save me from all of your followers! - Unknown
*
If God did not exist, man would have to invent Him. (Voltaire, 1694-1778)
*
Is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's blunders? (Friedrich W. Nietzsche, 1844-1900)
*
Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning... –C.S. Lewis
-
Attachment: girotto4.JPG
(Size: 369.74KB, Downloaded 400 times)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Ken,
Please don't take any of these points personally. The last thing I want is to be classified as vindictive and intolerant!
>Now I have talked with someone who has two phd's and one is in physics and the other in electronics and he used to teach at the U of Minn for many years and he agrees with me. In fact he thinks that to teach evolution as the same fact as the law of gravity is wrong.
Did I say otherwise?
Nothing in science can ever be absolutely proved. But some things are more likely than other things; and when a certain threshold has passed, they can be accepted as laws. That does not mean they are all equally likely. He is right.
>but I bet you agreed with them when you took your physics classes or you didnt pass
In physics classes you have to accept what you are being told as fact, as you are generally not experienced enough in the subject to know whether what is being said is right or not. However, this does not mirror the real world: everything comes in degrees, even things like Newton's Law of Gravity. And, as a matter of fact, I did not always accept everything I was told as fact. I don't know about American schools, but at the schools I was taught at intelligent discussion was highly valued -- even constructive disagreement.
I think, actually, you have raised a very important point: nothing should be taught as absolute fact in schools. It's a pity things often are, but that is usually because of ignorant and dogmatic teachers -- or (worst of all) politics.
>I would not want to have some religious doctrine forced upon students in school either, but I dont want them to be called "stupid" for not taking evolution as a fact!
As I said before, religion and science are not opposites! I would not call anyone stupid for not accepting evolution as fact (though I would expect them to justify why). However, I would call them stupid if they reject a scientific theory (evolution) in favour of a non-scientific religious one (intelligent design), thinking them somehow equivalent. It is perfectly possible to reject both of them.
>Now isnt that what tolerance is supposed to be all about?
Tolerance is allowing other people to believe what they want to believe. But it doesn't -- and shouldn't -- prevent people from disagreeing.
>Many times I have expressed my belief that I am not born gay and many times meet up with some very hostile attitudes from those who are asking for everyone to be tolerant of their relationships
I don't have any problem with you believing that you were not born gay. I don't think there is enough scientific data to say one way or the other. I don't care if you aren't tolerant of other people's relationships, either, but if you start telling other people what to do then you then you should expect them to react. It's simply not polite.
>Lets just both admit we dont really know all the anwers and to from there.
I most certainly don't have all the answers, and I never said I did. But saying that God is the answer is really a cop-out. I do hope you're not saying that.
>I might ask if you can prove absolutely that God does not exist?
No. Can you prove absolutely that the moon is not made of cheese? Religious people are the ones with the "theory" that God exists -- so they should be able to provide the proof. But, so far, they haven't.
Best regards,
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow you caught hell for your idea didn't you? i tended to agree with you, but evidence is to the contrary. at first it could appear to be that way, but we must all struggle not to paint with too broad a brush. everyone.
you'll find some caring but opinionated guys here, myself included. as deeej said, you read a bunch of stuff that had just been stirred up by yours truly. just duck if you say something..& be prepared to back up your statements.
i've hardly met a conservative here, which isn't surprising as they are more judgemental perhaps than liberals.. but again we shouldn't lump folks together. each may consider the options & choose his own ideals.
it's an interesting place to be & can take up much time when you get into it.
Ted
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly hope all you guys don's think I am some kind of right wing asshole who is trying to make problems for you here as that is the furthest thing from my heart and mind. I respect your opinions on this but I only want you to know that I see your reaction to all around you as being reasonable considering all the many things that reliegous people have done or do to you in the name of their religion. You dont have to listen to all that crap they espouse to show you are damned and going to hell if you dont change or embrace their brand of things. I agree with that more than you can know; I just dont blame it all on the God I know. I believe He loves me, but I am not sure he has actually been able to forgive me. There is a great difference in those two things for me.
I am going to tell you that I didnt have abuse in my childhood where I had a bunch of things done to me or anything like that. I guess I was pretty much ok with things but just had to avoid the bullies and teasing as much as I could. I was very small for my age and was only about 70# when I was 12. I looked like I was in Jr high when I graduated and I was only about 130# by then. I can tell you that some of the kids in my scout troop who were about 11 or 12 years old at the time discussed my age and figured me to be about 18 or 19 at the most when I was probably more than 30 at the time.
All thru school I perved on other boys and would do things with them when we slept over. It was always at night so none of them even had to acknowledge it was happening and do anything in return to me. Yeah it was probably a real bad time for me and I could hardly wait to get out of school so I could escape the teasing and stuff. I didnt have anything really bad happen to me but it was not fun either. I know if I could have had some better experiences in school with my peers I could have led a different life maybe. We all have such great hindsight you know and I am no different in that. I live with many regrets and the greatest is to have never loved in the sense that guys fall in love etc. Never felt it and yearn for it yet. My goal is to see if there is anyone around like I was back then and tell them to not make the same mistakes I made.
If you wish to email me and talk more about things I would be happy to do so and btw one of the stories on ASSGM which I am following is called the Juvenile Deterrance NEWDD story which is up to ch 20 now. If you need to see the early parts and cant find them on Nifty or Assgm then let me know as I have them copied. Well this series gives me an emotional experience that makes me think about how I felt in my life especially as a boy. It is hard to explain but the story really gets to me as they say.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
well uncle jim, you have been a littel bit naughty but i feel you have got the reaction you wanted.
(edited a line out. I am so not going to have flames here. timmy)
[Updated on: Thu, 23 March 2006 21:20] by Moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Ken,
Just to make things clear, these are questions, not rebuttals, from the point of view of an atheist.
Ken, you said:
>If you read carefully, Christ never says HE will make those wars! Man will do it in His name.
Christ:
>Think not I have come to bring peace, for I have brought a sword.
Christ has brought a sword, and he doesn't want to bring peace, but he doesn't intend to use it? It sounds a bit illogical to me. Could you give the context? (Or even the original Greek?)
>We are all so quick to make God the brunt of all that is wrong when all He did was give us the free will to be mean and nasty to each other if that is what we choose to do.
Why would God make such a mean and nasty creature in the first place? What is so valuable about free will?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack, please -- let's not let it get personal.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
> Jack, please -- let's not let it get personal.
>
> david i am sorry that you read everthing in a black and white way.
if uncle jim is offended then let him say so on board, it is quite obvious
that he wanted to get a reaction and he did that.
(sentence Removed. I will not have flames here. Nor taunts. They simply will not happen. timmy)
[Updated on: Thu, 23 March 2006 21:22] by Moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
good post cossie
sorry i'd offended you.
i appreciate all you said here. i believe you have a very balanced view of things from the above post. it's nice to know people try as hard as you to be correct
it's my belief that all so called christianity from catholicism on down is misguided. they don't follow the holy scripture. i try to follow the church christ started & teachings he taught. yea i know they all say they do, but most of them won't keep basic tennants of the bible such as sabbath observance. then they do what the bible says not to do such as worshipping god the ways the heathen nations worshipped their god: example christmas. a pagan celebration so-called christianized by the catholic church.
i suppose i preach too much. i suppose i was wrong to state my beliefs as fact. i suppose i shouldn't have been so dogmatic. i appreciate your understanding & forgiveness. your post shows your good heart.
thanks again & i'm sorry. I suppose you're my elder. i respect you & strive to treat you as such. and in that vein, you have the right to respond to me as you did because of my relative youth. i'm sorry i couldn't handle the flack any better.
you guys are good though. an intelligent & thoughtful group, young & older included.
Thanks for your patience, ted
.
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hello ken, i'm ted
i also feel as you do about my sexual orientation. with outside help i have been able to train myself back to the point where i actually have an attraction for girls & my male attraction is diminished. most recently i've had to develop an attraction for the female breasts. other hurdles have been crossed.
absence of a caring same sex role model seems the root of mine & my brothers struggles. my mom agrees, who saw how we were treated & tried all her life to make up for dad by being an over sweet mom.
regardless i was quite suicidal & emotionally unstable even thru my 20s in age. and i believe if it were no for god's intervention in my life i wouldn't be here today.
i also share your opinion about creation being more believable than evolution. i had thought to raise this question on the forum but i couldn't see thru the dust cloud that was left in my wake. i bowed out a few days.
genetic research has shown the existance not only of matter & energy, but information in the cells of living organisms. Information on a higher level than we human could create. stored & processed in amazingly efficient ways that we've not begun to approach. from whence came this information?? & what it's intended purpose??
thanks for sharing your intelligent, logical views.
your brother, ted
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OH THAT'S SICK ABOUT THE SHOCK THERAPY! THEY DON'T REALLY DO THAT DO THEY?? GOD HELP US!
I also didn't care for girls at all. but i did have a little attraction. who's to say you're wrong?? we can accept everyone the way they are. yea, christianity has gotten a bad name for itself in many ways. can't argue that.
Ted
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote:
> Jack, please -- let's not let it get personal.
Jack wrote:
> david i am sorry that you read everthing in a black and white way.
>if uncle jim is offended then let him say so on board, it is quite obvious
>that he wanted to get a reaction and he did that.
Yes, I should think he wanted a reaction and I have no problem with the first part of your post:
>well uncle jim, you have been a littel bit naughty but i feel you have got the reaction you wanted.
However, the second paragraph is most certainly personal and very rude. Would you say that to a person in real life?
>I wonder do you have any freinds or are they all in prison camps.
It also undermines the first part of the post, which was relatively understated.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dear ken
i agree with you on this post two.
can't judge god by the (little"g") god some worship. Some of the nicest people don't go to any church but stay home & read the bible.
brian is young but not dumb. his views will mature as ours did. we can all only do what seems best at the time.
i'd guess his bitterness is but youthful zeal applied to things as he's seen them.
it's nice to have you here on the forum.
ted
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bravo ken, i agree with you.
and you could've answered deej's point ii) by pointing out that the statements of the bible are not invented or magical, or beyond all comprehension. it takes much reading & study to even discern the meaning of the book as a whole. but when done & compared with all the evidence extant i believe as you that logically it is more believable than the thin evidence for evolution
of course macro evolution has been shown numerous times as fact, but i think evolution as a theory isn't sufficient to explain how the creatures came into existance initially.
i was beginning to think i was alone here in these views.
thanks, ted
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello deej. you are surely a thinking man & intelligent.
a few things i thought as i read your post.
if there is a creator god as the bible describes, he doesn't have to obey any scientific rules. he makes the rules. men made scientific rules.
the holy bible states that God is spirit. By what means does science go about testing for that? What tools do they have to measure it? they cannot quantify it. yet according to the Bible it exists.
The bible says God's holy spirit is his power, by which he created the heavens (the universe). Has science discovered the foundations of the world or the universe so as to either prove or disprove what God says?
you are an intelligent young fellow, & we admire that in you, but a study of all the resources gives a more balanced view. in quoting noted people's views & research, still you're focusing far down the food chain from the possible explanation of a creation. science tends to rule out things it cannot see or detect. in doing so the thorough study is done within restricted parameters that disallow other possibilities.
many ancient tribes share remarkably similar tales of the beginning of the world. similar to the creation account in the bible, some even to & including the noachian flood.
as usual my posts aren't scholarly, exhaustive treatises. sorry to not provide sufficient fodder for your intellectual mind. but i have proved to my satisfaction they're facts. unfortunately i haven't committed all to memory & cannot argue them well. you are doing your level best i assume. some more bible knowlegde would allow you to argue more convincingly those who also have the same.
best regards,
Ted
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ted,
>logically [the bible] is more believable than the thin evidence for evolution
Okay, okay, I know we've been through this before... but believable in what sense? Believable in that it appeals to your heart more than evolution does?
>the statements of the bible are not invented or magical, or beyond all comprehension
Miracles? The existence of heaven and hell, outside space and time? An omnipotent, omniscient God? These may not, according to Christianity, be invented, but they are certainly magical.
I'm the first to admit I don't understand your point of view, but perhaps that's because I'm European, and in Europe practically no-one believes in creationism or intelligent design. The Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church both lend full support to evolution as a scientific theory. Whether it is a valid theory or not, they see no conflict with their faith.
I think it's an eminently sensible view: leave science to the scientists, and religion to the clerics. It really, honestly, makes things much simpler in the long run.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Jack,
Black, white, green, puce..... Whatever color you paint it your post was rude.
You may have a thick skin.... but don't assume everyone does.... Some people are sensitive and others are doun and out fragile....
Post your point of view of course....
but flamings and personal attacks realy are bad form.....
Marc
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>if there is a creator god as the bible describes, he doesn't have to obey any scientific rules
Absolutely right. But, essentially, that is throwing in the towel. Giving up on science. It's your right to do that, but it'll never convince me. Science has always worked for me, and it is much more precise than religion.
I know from that sentence it sounds like science and religion are opposites, but they only are if you make them. Some of the greatest scientists we have ever had have also been Christians.
You're looking at it from completely the wrong angle, I'm afraid. There is no way you are going to convince anyone who is not already Christian by the argument "it's all in the Bible". We need proof outside the Bible, because the Bible has been copied out, translated and rewritten so many times, and there is no way of verifying whether the events it documents actually happened or not.
>yet according to the Bible it exists.
Exactly. You have it in a nutshell.
Leave the Bible out of this and there is no evidence. If you assume the Bible is correct in all circumstances, then nothing we say to you will change your mind.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
There are people here who have been given electrical "aversion therapy" who could, if they were so minded, testify to the deeply unpleasant processes they were subjected to.
Others received "Insulin Therapy" for the same reasons.
Still others were given massve doses of oestrogen.
Others were "treated" with lobotomisation.
We are, you see, viewed as subhuman because we are not, allegedly, as their god made us, and were thus "animals" and were to be treated in any way they wished.
Today you see an abuser and say "That is an abuser". But people still allow and snction to torture of gay children in religious establishments.
It is time to wake up and smell the ordure.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
I absolutely will not tolerate flames here, nor personal rudenes. I have edited some posts that I have deemed to be over the line. I will noyt allow any further posts of that nature.
Jack: This is a serious warning.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Deeej, This isnt meant for you, yours is just the last post I got to befor I got mad.
Im young yeh, Ill agree with that, but im not stupid. I also tested in the top 2% in the nation (that might be why the dean of admissions at Harvard came to my school to talk to me). Ive talked to guys with multiple degrees, I even had the oportunity to talk to Steven Hawking, I really admire him, but as smart as all of them are, that doesnt mean they have common sence. Outside of mathamatics Einstein was dumb as a hand full of rocks. I said Im agnostic, I believe in God, just not the Christian one. Whoever god is, whatever he is, hes not a friend of the Christian churches. Ive read the bible and yeh I have one with red print whoopti do. Are yo uaware that none not one of the books of the new testament Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were written by anyone who actually knew Jesus? The earliest was written 60 years after the death of Jesus. Are you aware that there are other books that have just as much clam to be in the bible as the ones that are there. did you know that the bible wasnt even a bible till around 300AD? It was put together at the council of Nice, ordered by Constantine. Im young but im not ignorant.
I dont believe for a minute that somehting happened to me when I was 2 months old and made me gay. That is a bit bizzar period. I sure dont want some religious Zelot, deciding that with some shnock treatments and prayers Im gonna be set str8t. that has been provben over and over not to work. Its nothing but pure torture for some kid whoes forced to undergo it. Because you wernt a true homosexual (bi or whatever), you could make a choice, but dont think thats for everyone. Someone wanna make me not gay, kill me, cause thats the only way your gonna stop me.
Sorry Deeej, guys, I need to go sit down.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian,
As that post wasn't intended for me I can't do much except respond very generally.
You are one of the most intelligent and interesting people, of any age, I have met online and I always value the content of your posts. You have been through a lot, you have a difficult life and I respect you enormously for coming through with your reason and sense of humour intact.
There's a reason I have tried to respond to every post countering mine, even if it drives me up the wall: I dislike being patronised, and I dislike being told I am wrong, without any useful evidence being given as to why I am wrong. I dislike the hypocrisy of being told on one hand that one must obey every single word in the Bible, as it is impossible that a single mistake could have crept in over centuries of copying, hearsay, translations, editing and so on -- even assuming that the original writers were genuine, which itself is pretty questionable -- and yet, peer-reviewed, impeccably researched, self-consistent and eminently sensible studies are discarded out of hand because they contradict what it says.
As for being "made" gay or not -- I don't believe for a second you chose it. I certainly chose nothing -- it just "happened". The machinations of the human brain are firmly within the domain of science and religion should have nothing to do with them. Whether science concludes that it is predetermined genetically or through environmental factors (and it may never be able to do either), the fact remains that many studies have already been done that conclude that it is not possible to change most people's sexuality. Anyone who states that it can be achieved for anyone (unless backed up by fantastically reliable evidence, which religious people themselves will never be able to provide as the results will be tainted by self-interest) is self-deluded or wrong.
Best wishes,
Deeej
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
I chose my sexuality as soon as I knew I had an orientation that was "unacceptable". I am choosing to define sexuality as the outward expression of my orientation in precisley the same manner that religion is the outward expression of faith.
No-one ever said they have to match!
So, at 13, when I was finding to my horror that my orientation was gay, I made sure that my sexuality was wholly heterosexual.
I chased girls while wanting to chase boys. I seduced them, I made love to them (Actually I had sex with them, but they seemed to enjoy it), and I married one (out of love, but not out of orientation).
I express my sexuality to almost everyone as heterosexual. I have chosen my sexuality.
My orientation is widely apart from my sexuality. I have been unable to choose my orientation. My orientation is best expressed by what arouses me, both as porn and as erotic thoughts, anbd by what does not arouse me as porn or attempts at erotic thought.
I can become aroused by any story about sex, even heterosexual sex if well written, but not by pictures of naked female bodies, however well presented and beautiful.
I am aroused by pictures of attractive male bodies and by pretty much any story about homosexual sex, even if written badly.
My orientation is homosexual. But I have chosen my sexuality, the outward expression, as the sexuality diamttrically opposite to homosexuality. I need, want and crave male embrace, male company and male penetrative sex. I have no interest in female embrace, though enjoy company, and am uninterested in heterosexual penetrative sex.
None of my heterosexual experiences has been a bad experience. All have been pleasant, some erotic. I have not been "put off women"
So I am able to argue that "homosexuality is a choice" as far as my sexuality goes, but absolutely not as far as my orientation goes.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
So, Jim, what was that all about? Some interesting viewpoints, some flames, decent discussion, yet you are silent.
I don't think you left. And I know you are not a bigot. So what was it all about? What is wrong and what do you need?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Yes.....
They do.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silfer wrote:
>(snip)
> And at last, a quote. "The mode of the religious is faith; the mode of the mystic is expirience" - ESR.
This quote intrigues me so much that I'm gonna have to think it over some more - I may start a new thread based on it.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I can't stay silent in the face of intellectual provocation!
First, Deeej is absolutely right in arguing that the words of the Bible cannot in themselves prove anything. Fundamentalists argue that it is the word of God and is thus literally true, but that is about as meaningful as insisting that the moon is made from cheese. If there is a God - and you'll remember that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist - then he certainly didn't pop down from Heaven one wet Friday afternoon and write it himself. It was written by men. Literalists will say that the writers were inspired by God - but where is their evidence for that? No doubt among the Biblical texts there are many which are the work of writers who believed themselves to be inspired (which doesn't of course mean that they actually WERE inspired) but equally many texts may not be the product of inspiration. It has to be remembered that the Jewish nation was led by a triumvirate comprising Prophet, Priest and King. Prophecy was a path to power, and it is impossible to believe that some individuals did not take that road with power in mind - just as it is equally obvious that some leaders of the religious right are using religion as a power base. It is also difficult to believe that both prophets and priests were not on occasion influenced by political necessity. Taking a philosophical view, the Bible can only be seen as an imperfect source, representing the best efforts of a particular religious group to explain their place in the world in which they lived.
Handyman has cited the fact that parallel stories - especially tales of a great flood - exist in other religions, in a contect which implies that this is evidence of the accuracy of the Bible. It isn't. As I have already pointed out in a previous post, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all stem from a proto-religion which underlies all of the Old World monotheistic traditions. Whether a given tale is part of the canon of a particular religion depends largely upon the time at which that religion split off from its root. The popularity of the flood story makes it extremely likely that a massive flood did occur, and there has been much speculation about when and where - but since it occurred early in the monotheistic tradition it need not have been 'universal'; it need only have affected the relatively limited area in which the early believers were living.
Navyone aptly quoted Voltaire. It is, to my mind, extremely significant that almost every ethnic group down the centuries has adopted some form of religious belief to explain the otherwise inexplicable. Man is a thinking creature; he NEEDS explanations. Why should Jews, Christians or Muslims be right, whilst Hindus, Buddhists and Zoroastrians are wrong? Because we say so?
I don't regard science as infallible - history clearly demonstrates that it would be very unwise to do so. Nevertheless, the scientist tends to adopt a more rigorous approach than the fundamental theologian. Carbon dating may not be infallible, but science does show that isotopes decay at an absolutely regular rate, and where historic dating evidence for archaeological remains is available (and historic evidence goes back for around three thousand years) the results of carbon dating are remarkably consistent. There are thus good scientific grounds for believing that the method is valid. To say that it is invalid because it conflicts with the Bible is NOT logically tenable, because no evidence has been adduced to demonstrate the accuracy of the Bible. Mere belief is not evidence.
Current scientific thinking assumes that the universe began with a 'big bang'. As that thinking is largely theory-based, I am not absolutely convinced that it is correct. But, even if it IS correct, what was there before the 'big bang', why was it there, and why did the 'big bang' happen? There will always be questions, and I see no reason to deny the possibility that the ultimate answer may be the will of God. But I see every reason to treat the Bible for what it undoubtedly is - a 'best guess' explanation for the people living at the time it was written.
And finally - I have to say that I rather resent the attempt to patronise Brian. He is one bright guy, and I see no reason to believe that time will change his core beliefs. I know that we all (well, at least some of us!) become a little wiser with age, but the principles in which I believe are those in which I believed when I was Brian's age - the only thing that has changed is that experience helps me to argue more cogently!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mwahhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Your so cogent! ;-D
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: I think I was the one who started all this .... 
I am reinforcing Marc's and Deej's post 
