Could We Discuss The Podcast In My Post After Listening With Open Minds?

[Damien the Leper]

Nor did I accuse you of having done so.

Specifically, I was charging that you and the others did not rush to piously lecture those critics that they "should not judge".

My point was that this tactic is reserved for those decrying, rather than supporting, sinful behavior.

A point you have now conceded.

Thank you.

When did I ever say anything about anyone 'judging'? Can you please cite where I have done so? If you are unable to cite such...would you then clarify which point I have conceded?

This would be a salient comment- if in fact, I had ever made such an argument. I have not- but then again, I understand the distinction between "contradiction" and "persecution".

Nor did I accuse you of such. This explicitly shows your understanding of the distinction...

Setting aside the deeply personal (and wholly unsubstantiated) nature of this attack, board rules stipulate that attempting to diagnose the mental health of others is forbidden.

Of course. You and I both know that you nor I are ignorant to conclude that the statement above is any attempt at clinical diagnosis.

I do think it ironic that you, as a practicing homosexual, are attempting to insinuate that dissent from your orthodoxy is a form of mental illness.

Wow...you have overstepped your place, Selek. I have NEVER acted on any sexual inclination. I am, happily I might add, a 28 year old virgin. However, whether someone is sexually active or not does not necessarily mean they are a 'practicing' anything, right?

Again, you make a baseless claim concerning anything clinical.

[selek1]

hate·ful/ˈhātfəl/

Adjective:

• Arousing, deserving of, or filled with hatred: "hateful letters of abuse".
  
• Very unpleasant: "this hateful place".
  

[KevinG]

When did I ever say anything about anyone 'judging'? Can you please cite where I have done so? If you are unable to cite such...would you then clarify which point I have conceded?

I think we need to be careful not to cross the statements of others with those of us here on the boards.

I have found Valentinus to be very rational and respectful in discussing what must be a very difficult issue. Lets not get into hasty responses to those who do not deserve our offense.

(now retreating from board nanny status)

[wenglund]

As they got older their homosexual friends found them an unusual source of friendship and support if someone picked on them. Without condoning their actions they were still stalwart friends.

This is crucial. We are to love and support the person while not condoning, and perhaps because of our love and support condemn destructive actions. This, to me, is true love and charity.

The counterfeit, on the other hand, suggests that we love and support both the person and their harmful actions. This is inane and unwittingly destructive compassion, though quite the rage among the denizens of pop culture (some of who are posting here), where down has become mistaken for up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

I came across this quote recently. It seems relevant.

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies:

The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them.

The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do.

Both are nonsense.

You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

-Rick Warren

Regards,

Pahoran

I think I gave you rep points for this in another thread. Thank you for the chance to do so again.

[selek1]

Wow...you have overstepped your place, Selek. I have NEVER acted on any sexual inclination. I am, happily I might add, a 28 year old virgin. However, whether someone is sexually active or not does not necessarily mean they are a 'practicing' anything, right?

My apologies....I misremembered some of our earlier conversations, and coupled them with your ongoing advocacy to reach an incorrect conclusion.

I will qualify and restate my positions: It is deeply ironic to me that you- as a sufferer of SSA and a pro-homosexual activist- consider dissent from your political orthodoxy to be a form of mental illness.

Again, you make a baseless claim concerning anything clinical.

There was nothing "clinical" in the irony of your statement.

Homosexual activists point with great glee and schadenfrued towards the fact that the APA "de-listed" homosexual attraction and conduct as disorders.

You, however, have implied that conscientious dissent from the homosexual agenda would serve as a replacement on their list.

[CASteinman]

I have asked God. I get completely different answers from some of those here.

You have asked God why His Spirit does not always strive with Man? Really?

Forgive me if I don't take that at face value. I don't think I know of any "very accepting societies" on this whole planet. Some places are certainly becoming more accepting (which is good), but most still have a long way to go.

Its OK with me if you don't know of any. But Denmark is very accepting. That you have not been there could be a reason you are not aware -- and would be expected. But your lack of awareness does not change Denmark -- and they are extremely accepting and tolerant.

Nevertheless, even in Denmark, homosexuals commit suicide at rates (as I recall) 3 times the normal population rate.

P.S. Denmark is so "tolerant" (so to speak) that if a gay person wants to get married -- in any Church -- the Church must marry them. The Church has no choice in this matter.

That's the tolerance of liberalism.

Edited August 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I think I gave you rep points for this in another thread. Thank you for the chance to do so again.

And now you have one more!

[Damien the Leper]

My apologies....I misremembered some of our earlier conversations, and coupled them with your ongoing advocacy to reach an incorrect conclusion.

I'm glad we cleared that up. No harm, no foul.

I will qualify and restate my positions: It is deeply ironic to me that you- as a sufferer of SSA and a pro-homosexual activist- consider dissent from your political orthodoxy to be a form of mental illness.

It would do both of us well not to assume that I'm suffering from anything. Selek, I sincerely apologize. I forgot that sarcasm doesn't carry through message board posts.

There was nothing "clinical" in the irony of your statement.

Homosexual activists point with great glee and schadenfrued towards the fact that the APA "de-listed" homosexual attraction and conduct as disorders.

You, however, have implied that conscientious dissent from the homosexual agenda would serve as a replacement on their list.

You are correct here. It is audacious and presumptuous to assume that based on a few scripture citations, 'modern revelation', and a history of 'traditional' behavior and marriage as a reasonable and rational argument. These are one-sided predilections that not only you and others cite as valid but they seem to personify themselves in some odd fashion so that they are able to assert their own 'authority'.

I understand that you may disagree with the APA 'de-listing' homosexual attraction and conduct as disorders. Great! By all means...do so! But none of the things listed in my above paragraph sways the argument.

Both sides have an agenda, Selek. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that part of your agenda may be to label me as an apostate because I disagree with the church leadership on this matter. Remember that I said I may be wrong. But I have never been given the impression by the church leadership that it is wrong to disagree with them. As I said before, it is much more difficult and rewarding to follow educated, individual Christian conscience than it is to follow a prescribed path. I'm not looking for a faith home that tells me what to do and thankfully the LDS church doesn't tell me what to do.

ETA: This is an official CFR concerning my response to you in an earlier post:

When did I ever say anything about anyone 'judging'? Can you please cite where I have done so? If you are unable to cite such...would you then clarify which point I have conceded?

Edited August 15, 2012 by Valentinus

[DBMormon]

Listened to it tonight while mountain biking with my son. I too must say I learned nothing new. What I would say is that I haven't thought SSA was a choice for a long time for most SSA individuals. I also disagree that tramatic life experiences (abuse, neglect) have no correlation to SSA as I have seen studies indicate as much in at least some cases. I think they have an absolute battle if they want to refrain from SSA but I also think those struggling with pornography, Alcoholism, and drug addictions do as well. While I think there is a difference. The latter do not have a issue until they encounter the substance that triggers the addiction, and SSA individuals are, in a majority of cases, born that way. If LDS and believers... they have difficult choices to make, ones I do not envy. I wish them well but also know this life is about overcoming the natural man and that each of us has challenges tailor made to our needs for progression.

[Libs]

You have asked God why His Spirit does not always strive with Man? Really?

Its OK with me if you don't know of any. But Denmark is very accepting. That you have not been there could be a reason you are not aware -- and would be expected. But your lack of awareness does not change Denmark -- and they are extremely accepting and tolerant.

Nevertheless, even in Denmark, homosexuals commit suicide at rates (as I recall) 3 times the normal population rate.

P.S. Denmark is so "tolerant" (so to speak) that if a gay person wants to get married -- in any Church -- the Church must marry them. The Church has no choice in this matter.

That's the tolerance of liberalism.

I looked at some information on the Denmark study. The conclusion is that more studies need to be done.

Tolerance, generally speaking, is a good thing, but not so good when we tolerate behavior that is hurting people.

[Hestia]

I don't understand the hatefulness towards the gays and the presumed lifestyle.

You seem to be assuming a lot and you need to stop assuming motives to people who disagree with you.

[rodheadlee]

Tacenda thanks for preparing a summary of the video. I really appreciate it. I'll comment later.

[Calm]

P.S. Denmark is so "tolerant" (so to speak) that if a gay person wants to get married -- in any Church -- the Church must marry them. The Church has no choice in this matter.

I believe you are wrong on this. It is only the state sponsored Church...the one paid for by taxes of everyone IIRC....that must marry those who come to them to be married. Makes sense to me in that if someone has been taxed to support a church that the church is required to represent all those who were taxed.

A great reason not to accept tax dollars.

[Calm]

I admit I did that but without malice or intent to hurt.

So it was just manipulation....

[Damien the Leper]

I believe you are wrong on this. It is only the state sponsored Church...the one paid for by taxes of everyone IIRC....that must marry those who come to them to be married. Makes sense to me in that if someone has been taxed to support a church that the church is required to represent all those who were taxed.

A great reason not to accept tax dollars.

I think you are right on this one, Cal.

[CASteinman]

I looked at some information on the Denmark study. The conclusion is that more studies need to be done.

Ooops.. my mistake. Not 3 times more suicides... 8 times more. And I don't think that their summary conclusion was that more studies need to be done to validate their results but rather that more needs to be done to help homosexuals not kill themselves. Or in other words, they were pretty sure that they were right and because they were right, something needs to be done to further help this group of people.

[CASteinman]

I believe you are wrong on this. It is only the state sponsored Church...the one paid for by taxes of everyone IIRC....that must marry those who come to them to be married. Makes sense to me in that if someone has been taxed to support a church that the church is required to represent all those who were taxed.

A great reason not to accept tax dollars.

You may well be right. I may not have my facts right because I do not know the law, only what some press have said -- and press is notorious for mal-reporting. I accept your correct -- to the extent that I don't learn something even more detailed.

However, there is something about taxation in Europe that you may want to be aware of -- I don't know how it works in Denmark, but in Germany you are forced to pay taxes that support the Churches. Or I should say -- that's how it used to be -- and maybe it still is. You did not have any choice to opt out.

Which is an egregious policy and it results in these sorts of egregious state intrusions into Church policies.

By the way, I don't know to what extend the Catholic and Lutheran Churches supported those policies of taxation -- or were merely beneficiaries/victims of them.

[TAO]

1. Bio Chemical evidence that gays/lesbians are born that way (shown below are the references in the links below)

Nah, this is too much reading into the research. It says they are susceptible (aka, that there is a correlation), not that they are born that way (though they are correlated, the first does not necessarily cause the second). That is, there are those with the changes late pregnancy who do, turn out, not to have any homosexual inclinations.

In any case, this is going to be a long issue... both sides make quite a few fallacious arguments =p.

Edited August 15, 2012 by TAO

[Calm]

However, there is something about taxation in Europe that you may want to be aware of -- I don't know how it works in Denmark, but in Germany you are forced to pay taxes that support the Churches. Or I should say -- that's how it used to be -- and maybe it still is. You did not have any choice to opt out.

I am already aware of it, which is why I said what I did about taxes, the state supported Church and not accepting tax dollars for funding... Edited August 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

I know you asked this of Tacenda, but I just wanted to say that I would strongly disagree that the "shame" is coming from God or any internal spiritual feelings. It seems obvious to me that those feelings of shame have been placed on the ss attracted, by other people. The burden comes from being taught that homosexuality is wrong...not from God.

Is that because all feelings of shame do not come from God or only the feelings of shame that homosexuals have?

[CASteinman]

Nowhere did I condone the actions of the critics of Dan Cathy. In fact, CFR. Also, I have not negatively criticized the church of its position.

I agree. You and I do not see eye to eye on some things, but you are not impolite nor unfair. I believe you were accused unjustly in this matter.

[CASteinman]

I'm not ashamed of doing that which the Lord has asked us to do and that is to not judge.

That's not exactly what He taught us. It might be the suggestion of a cherry picked quote from incomplete scriptures but harmonized accounts of the scriptures and taking all of his comments into account indicate that He was teaching us not to judge unrighteously.

Perhaps there is a thread idea -- what is righteous vs unrighteous judgment?

[Tacenda]

That's not exactly what He taught us. It might be the suggestion of a cherry picked quote from incomplete scriptures but harmonized accounts of the scriptures and taking all of his comments into account indicate that He was teaching us not to judge unrighteously.

Perhaps there is a thread idea -- what is righteous vs unrighteous judgment?

I believe I had a lesson similar to this in Gospel Doctrine, so I'm sure it would be an interesting topic to start a new thread on.

I recall not being too pleased when hearing some comments made in class and didn't like their definition of "righteous judging".

Edited August 15, 2012 by Tacenda

[CASteinman]

I recall not being too pleased when hearing some comments made in class and didn't like their definition of "righteous judging".

Hmmm... so did you judge them and their comments righteously?

There is a certain quality of fault finding that is inimical to the peace of the Gospel and to the Spirit of God. Also -- it does not make someone happy. Try! Really! All things work together for the good of them that believe.

Edited August 15, 2012 by CASteinman