ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 537
Aug 23 07 1:27 PM
Posts: 113
Aug 24 07 12:52 AM
Posts: 901
Aug 25 07 1:55 AM
Posts: 86
Aug 25 07 2:52 AM
Aug 25 07 7:32 AM
Posts: 1119
Aug 25 07 8:08 PM
Aug 25 07 10:51 PM
I think that we'd also agree that factor number 1 is something over which we have absolutely control.
As for factor number 2, we certainly have no control over our immediate circumstances and there are certainly going to be a lot of circumstances, such as where we were born, that can be extremely difficult if not impossible to change. However, at least some of our circumstances can be changed for better or for worse by number 3 over which we have total control.
So, the key is what we do with number 3 and how do we make those life choices? Do we consciously decide to do something and then do it or is the process more complicated than that. Well, in day to day decisions that we don't think will have a major impact on our lives, we probably do exactly that.
However, when it comes to major decisions, the process seems to be a lot more complicated. This is not my own opinion but it makes a lot of sense to me and it comes from research in both psychology and marketing and marketing and sales people are taught this when they're attempting to sell major products such as automobiles, homes, insurance policies, etc. You'd think that, because these things can consume a sizeable percentage of our budget, that we'd be cold and logical about those kinds of purchases or about major decisions. However, the research has shown rather convincingly that this is not the case.
Basically, we make these major decisions based on emotions, not on logic. That also would include more obviously whom we might be attracted to as a life partner or whether or not we're going to be attracted to a member of the opposite or the same sex. So, if you want to say aha, that proves that homosexuality is not a conscious choice, then go ahead and gloat except that I don't believe that it is either. However, I think that we need to ask what controls our emotions.
Certainly, part of our emotional makeup is controlled by hormones, and other than eating certain foods or, in some extreme cases, taking hormonal supplements, we have little control over our hormones although maybe a lot more than most of us realize. However, what the research has shown is that how and what we think does have a huge influence on our emotions. This is the basis of cognitive therapy and is also used by advertisers and salesmen as well as those who might want to sway us to a particular point of view.
So here's what we have as far as making major decisions. We think a certain way. That thinking influences our emotions and our emotions cause us to act the way that we do. If we manage to associate our actions with particular outcomes, it can change our thinking and that is one of the ways that people have been able to make major behavior changes. This is a process and it doesn't happen overnight. Organizations like AA have been using this technique for years with a great deal of success. In fact, it's what they call their big book where I got most of this information.
Hopefully, we won't have much disagreement on the above because it will at least give us some common ground as a basis for further discussion of your last post. In fact, while I do plan to answer some of the specifics in your last post, I need to take a break and do other things and that will give you a chance to respond to the above if you do disagree.
Aug 26 07 4:48 AM
Aug 26 07 5:35 PM
Aug 27 07 4:46 PM
Aug 27 07 9:04 PM
For this, I owe you an apology. When I first went to Philemon, the verse that you cited or that I thought that you cited seemed to have nothing to do with slavery. After reading the entire chapter, I could see how some people might have tried to use that particular chapter to try to justify slavery. However, if you read the passage, which I gave, you can see that it hardly justifies slavery. I had originally meant to delete that sentence after that. However, I would still maintain that citing Biblical passages that have absoutley nothing to do with homosexuality don't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
Straw Man. Your attacking I position I have not represented. I never said that this was your position. However, if you go to the websites that you cited, at least the ones that I can access, do exactly that and I've already presented evidence on the other thread to show this to be so, which you are more than welcome to try to refute.
First, you said that their agenda was religious tolerance. Now, you're saying that they had no agenda. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. What I said was that the only agenda of almost all the translations, except the KJV and the last two, that I cited, had no agenda other than rendering an accurate translation. If you have evidence to the contrary, you're more than welcome to provide it.
since you've consistently refused to argue the information they've presented
Justin, I spent a lot of time doing exactly that, arguing the information that they presented, at least the sites that I was allowed to access, or did you not bother to read what I wrote?
"Secondly, for those who actually do read the Bible, and I'd prefer to discuss this on a separate thread I'd started, it would be very difficult and dishonest to say that practicing homosexuality is not a sin." Appeal to Belief. Simply because "most" people believe something doesn't make it true.
Except that I did present quite a bit of evidence to back up the above statements and, again, you're more than welcome to attempt to refute that evidence.
And you still haven't provided anything to back up the statement that you quoted that states something like, if the Bible is interpreted properly, it shows something like that homosexuals and heterosexuals should live separate lives or something like that. You cited a website which I'm unable to access. If you're going to quote statements like that, it seems to me that you need to at least tell us on what this statement is based.
You contradicted yourself. First you say marriage is not a right, then you say the government can't bestow rights anyway. You're correct... the government can't bestow rights, it can only remove them. As such, the moment marriage became legally defined as "between a man and a woman" the government did, in fact, take away the right for homosexual couples.
You totally lost me here. Where did I contradict myself, particularly since you seem to agree with me? In fact, if you'll reread your paragraph, I think you'll see that you contradicted yourself. First, you state that you agree that marriage is not a right and then you say that they take away the right for homosexual couples. In any case, if you read what I said about this, as far as granting any couples the same privileges as those, who are married, providing that they also accept the same responsibilities, I believe that you'll find that we're essentially in agreement on this.
What is the DPA and where was there any discussion at all of "separate but equal"?
As far as the scientific evidence that you discussed, what is your source for this? It's not my intention to necessarily refute it, but instead of making such statements, it might be helpful if you'd cite your source, and that would benefit everybody.
Aug 28 07 2:47 AM
Aug 28 07 9:58 PM
Posts: 593
Aug 28 07 10:30 PM
Share This