Has The Pope Hit The Bottom Of The Pool?

[CV75]

The post you just posted is much more clear if that was your point.

That post was answering your very simple question with a very simple point. I think I've made many more points than that, but you haven't recognized and/or asked about them.

[california boy]

Baloney!  (I can't believe I'm actually engaging you on this topic, since you flamed me with absolute impunity the last time I did so ... What do you have on the Mods?  Are you shaking them down?  Extorting them?  Do you have pictures of them in compromising situations or something?!) The standard is no sex outside of marriage, and marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.  It doesn't matter if you're gay or straight: the standard is no sex outside of marriage, period.  And if one never gets married, one never has sexual relations, period (even if straight).

Lol I liked the "I have photos of them in compromising situations the best."  Let's go with that one.  And once again your humor endears you to all of us.

[california boy]

That post was answering your very simple question with a very simple point. I think I've made many more points than that, but you haven't recognized and/or asked about them.

You are right.  I have tried to apply them to both sexual orientations and can't seem to make it work.  I am sure it is a failure on my part to grasp the point you are making.  Sorry.

[Gray]

Your observation has far, far more complex dynamics than the Church's policy.

 

It's actually not specific to the church, but would apply to any system where gay people are not in an accepting environment.

[CV75]

You are right.  I have tried to apply them to both sexual orientations and can't seem to make it work.  I am sure it is a failure on my part to grasp the point you are making.  Sorry.

Just read my remarks as if I'm applying them to gay people only.

[pogi]

It's actually not specific to the church, but would apply to any system where gay people are not in an accepting environment.

 

Are you talking about accepting the person or the sin?

[CV75]

It's actually not specific to the church, but would apply to any system where gay people are not in an accepting environment.

But you are focusing on Church policy. List all the policies that inform its environment and then we can evaluate where and how those policies themselves contribute (both individually and in interaction with each other) to either an accepting or non-accepting environment for gay people. And in order to lay it all on policy, the analysis has to be without regard to how a gay person might interpret or respond to those polcies or that environment.

[Kenngo1969]

Lol I liked the "I have photos of them in compromising situations the best."  Let's go with that one.  And once again your humor endears you to all of us.

Thank goodness for that!  Does this mean, at least for the time being, that I'll be spared the "spiritual ministrations and burning in the bosom [as well as elsewhere]" administered by your Ultra-Mega-XML-7000 Flamethrower?

 

P.S.: And for the record, yes, I can fully understand (at least, as much as anyone who's not gay) why someone who is gay might believe, in good conscience and good faith, that there's more fulfillment (and other good things) to be found outside the Church of Jesus Christ and its teachings than within them. But again, I also think that perspective comes from believing that this second act is as good as it gets.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Gray]

Are you talking about accepting the person or the sin?

 

If you think it's a sin, you're not accepting the person.

[Gray]

But you are focusing on Church policy. List all the policies that inform its environment and then we can evaluate where and how those policies themselves contribute (both individually and in interaction with each other) to either an accepting or non-accepting environment for gay people. And in order to lay it all on policy, the analysis has to be without regard to how a gay person might interpret or respond to those polcies or that environment.

 

A non-excepting environment would be any where same-sex relationships are not approved of

[theplains]

This thing about SSM bothers me; conflicts me because on one level they are wrong, but on another level, what if the science eventually proves this whole business is genetic and by definition not voluntary? Good heavens, this whole thing has me sitting in the corner dithering.

 

I wonder if 'science' will ever say that someone is born a drunkard, drug addict, killer,

sexual molester, etc.  Seems to take sin out of the equation.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Kenngo1969]

If you think it's a sin, you're not accepting the person.

Do you have any children?  If so, does the fact that you love them mean that you approve of absolutely everything they do? Or, notwithstanding the fact that you love them unconditionally, do you feel bound to train and guide them according to principles that will enable them to be happy, successful, well-adjusted adults?  Why do you think God is any different? 

[pogi]

If you think it's a sin, you're not accepting the person

 

What if I thought that sex in general was sin, would you accuse me of not accepting anybody who participates?

 

There is a difference between accepting a person and approving what they do.

 

My gay friends would never accuse me of not accepting them.  

[Calm]

Gay people who try to live by the church's standards are typically miserable, not joyous. That's why the church's current policy cannot be right.

Since typically in any situation those who are okay with the situation feel no need to speak out, negative experiences are the ones that are publicised.

A nonbaggaged example....I belong to an elist for those with a neurological disorder. It is constantly getting newcomers who introduce themselves in a panicked voice with a "help me, I don't know what to do". Educational information is given, suggestions on how to deal with doctors and a lot a reassurance that there is hope and if not hope, at least there is this group who is listening to them. Most after a few appts. with the doctor disappear because their issues have been solved, not cured (that is impossible at this point) but they are able to cope with the balancing act. The ones that stick around are the ones who still suffer greatly or for whom the balancing act is so tricky they need continual support or they are those who made it through a very traumatic time and stuck around to help others though generally after a few years they stop showing up as much. Coping requires being able not to be obsessive about the problem, even in a positive way.

It is obvious why we hear from those who are suffering. It is a good thing because that is the only way we may be able to find a way to help them. With this issue it is obvious why at times we don't hear from those that are suffering due to the negative stigma that has been attached unfortunately. Even with my disorder we gets reports of people being told they were mentally ill when they tried to get help or told to shut up because no one wanted to listen. Both happened to me. It was devastating. I cannot imagine how much worse it would be for those whose problems were also seen as significant moral sins (as even the attraction was in the past and still is by too many now). It should also be obvious why we don't hear much from those in the gospel who are successful in being gay and living the standards, because they don't have the need save for some who have decided to speak out to help with understanding and hope and motivating those not struggling with the issue to be compassionate to those who do.

Anyway, all this to say we can't judge what is typical of gays trying to follow the standards of the gospel based on what those who are having difficulty with living them are saying. It may be typical, it may not be. There may be many more success stories that don't feel the need to become public and may even feel strongly that it is no one else's business.

Edited March 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[Gray]

Do you have any children?  If so, does the fact that you love them mean that you approve of absolutely everything they do? Or, notwithstanding the fact that you love them unconditionally, do you feel bound to train and guide them according to principles that will enable them to be happy, successful, well-adjusted adults?  Why do you think God is any different? 

 

I have one. And I wouldn't judge him for being gay (if he turns out to be gay), because I'm more concerned with him surviving adolescence and remaining psychologically healthy than I am in enforcing this particular church policy. 

 

Jesus taught how we can recognize true doctrine - by trying it out. This one fails the test. 

Edited March 6, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

What if I thought that sex in general was sin, would you accuse me of not accepting anybody who participates?

 

There is a difference between accepting a person and approving what they do.

 

My gay friends would never accuse me of not accepting them.  

 

You can't reject someone's innermost feelings of love and still accept the person. 

[pogi]

You can't reject someone's innermost feelings of love and still accept the person. 

 

Who said anything about rejecting someones innermost feelings?  If you read church policy regarding this issue, you will find that it never rejects a persons inner most feelings, and neither would I.

[wenglund]

Gay people who try to live by the church's standards are typically miserable, not joyous. That's why the church's current policy cannot be right.

 

Adulterers aren't so happy in the Church either. So, by your "reasoning" the Church is wrong there also?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 7, 2014 by wenglund

[Calm]

Adulterer aren't so happy in the Church either. So, by your "reasoning" the Church is wrong there also?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Adulterers aren't trying to live the Church's standards last I checked.

[wenglund]

Not the same thing. Alcoholism is a disease whereas sexual orientation is not.

 

The disease/not-disease distinction is irrelevant to the principle conveyed by the analogy--which, in case you missed it, is that genetic disposition doesn't necessarily render behaviors as sinless.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Storm Rider]

You can't reject someone's innermost feelings of love and still accept the person. 

 

You are equating love with sex.

[wenglund]

Adulterers aren't trying to live the Church's standards last I checked.

 

In this upside-down world, where the lines of sin are fast becoming non-existent, some adulterers may believe they are living the standards while they really are not, and some may even be trying to actually live the standards but are unhappy because the can't fully consume their lusts.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

[wenglund]

You are equating love with sex.

 

Exactly. This is one of the confounding falsehoods of this generation.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 7, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

A non-excepting environment would be any where same-sex relationships are not approved of

 

A society that becomes accepting (i.e embraces and celebrates and promotes) deleterious sexual relations, as opposed to tolerating and not disallowing them, is a society that has lost its mind, and with all the best of their hearts intents, will end up making things worse for all parties.

 

Is it any wonder that AIDs and STD's have spiked in the last decade, while marriage and birth rates have declined?

 

People may feel that they appreciate an indulgent society that is accepting of their sexual perversions, but tend to stop feeling the love when they end up sick and dying from their perversions.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

In this upside-down world, where the lines of sin are fast becoming non-existent, some adulterers may believe they are living the standards while they really are not, and some may even be trying to actually live the standards but are unhappy because the can't fully consume their lusts.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

I don't think it is appropriate though to equate gays who may simply have felt sexual attraction to their own gender and tried their best to control those impulses and in many cases succeeded to those who have actually sinned.