New conversion therapy bill gets OK from Church

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

Thanks, very interesting.  It's good to know it's not completely hopeless for a gay member of the church who wants to remain a faithful member.  How do you convince someone it's not as bleak as Ed Smart claims?

"I was praying that I was not [gay]. I didn’t want to believe that I was," Smart said. "But how do you cure being gay? There is no cure. And for all of those out there that are struggling in the same spot, there is no cure."

I would tell Ed, if he was here, (Where is he?) that it is cured by realizing it is not good for you, even if you like and get some pleasure from having same sex sexual relations.

When a man says he is gay what he is basically saying is that he is sexually attracted to men and enjoys having sexual relations with men when he does. That's it.  He likes it!  He wants it!  And often it means he doesn't enjoy having or want to have sex with women, but only men.

Once he realizes that isn't a good thing for him to do, that it is wrong and evil for men to have sexual relations with men, he then must choose whether he wants to do it anyway or if he should find some way to stop and replace that desire with something good, instead.

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

All I am saying whenever I bring this up is that it is a legitimate question (rather than a blanket presumption) and the existence of the question should not be ignored or suppressed or silenced.  A key diagnostic feature of sex addiction (regardless of where it points, whether a person is married, single, or partnered) is the conviction that "sex is my most important need."  A key gain of recovery is the realization that "sex is optional," that is, "not my most important need," is indeed, something that a person can do without (whether, single, married, or partnered) and can therefore place other things, such as faith and family first, rather than as impediments to what is most important for human happiness.  Another key diagnostic feature is the tendency of addicts to justify themselves via grievance stories, whereas as those in recovery go through a process of dismantling the grievance story, and instead, focus on removing the beams from their own eyes, and on gratitude.  It is not hard to find gatherings of people who define themselves in terms of sexuality and who are constantly voicing grievances.  Of course validation and acceptance are important, but they can also be found in recovery communities.  The last thing an addict needs is an environment in which they are told that this is just the way you are, and those who do not accept that fact are themselves sick and deluded and should be shunned and shamed.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Well said.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

All I am saying whenever I bring this up is that it is a legitimate question (rather than a blanket presumption) and the existence of the question should not be ignored or suppressed or silenced.  A key diagnostic feature of sex addiction (regardless of where it points, whether a person is married, single, or partnered) is the conviction that "sex is my most important need."  A key gain of recovery is the realization that "sex is optional," that is, "not my most important need," is indeed, something that a person can do without (whether, single, married, or partnered) and can therefore place other things, such as faith and family first, rather than as impediments to what is most important for human happiness.  Another key diagnostic feature is the tendency of addicts to justify themselves via grievance stories, whereas as those in recovery go through a process of dismantling the grievance story, and instead, focus on removing the beams from their own eyes, and on gratitude.  It is not hard to find gatherings of people who define themselves in terms of sexuality and who are constantly voicing grievances.  Of course validation and acceptance are important, but they can also be found in recovery communities.  The last thing an addict needs is an environment in which they are told that this is just the way you are, and those who do not accept that fact are themselves sick and deluded and should be shunned and shamed.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

What you say is very true, but it sounds like you are saying that while we shouldn’t presume, it is fair to question anyone who leaves the church because of issues surrounding their sexual orientation .  I don't know if we have enough information to make it a legitimate question of diagnosis in this case, and I think it is unfair to do so.  I don't know that Ed Smart or other gay members who struggle to find their way in the church claim tat "sex is a most important need."  Even if he did leave the church and his marriage partly because he wanted to live a sexual life that felt authentic to him, doesn't mean that he is a sex addict. I don't necessarily agree with his choice, but it is not indicative to me in any way that he is an addict. We simply don't know the condition of his marriage, the condition of his testimony, etc. to judge or even question if he is a sex addict.  We do know that he felt like he was living an inauthentic lie. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by pogi

[Kevin Christensen]

I'm not presuming to make a diagnosis in this case.  I'm raising questions about the social environment that doesn't bother to mention the existence of the question.  Answering the question is up to the individual, looking at their own circumstances and behavior, hopefully in light of the best information available, including reading the best books, consulting trained professionals, and even participating in meetings with addicts and hearing their life stories face to face to see whether it resonates.

But as far as the question of "authenticity" goes, in "A Mormon Rashomon" I noticed how often several different people in the stories invoked famous Polonius's line in Hamlet, "to thine own self be true."

While I still mention it in the published version, I originally had a longer discussion:

Quote

After all, as Steven Fales reminds us,[1] Shakespeare says, “To thine own self be true.” The quote continues beyond what Steven gives, adding: “And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.”

Though, of course, this is not Shakespeare speaking for himself to humanity in the role of enlightened sage, but as a dramatist in Hamlet, giving lines to Polonius, the King’s counselor, who cynically aligns his own self-interest with his political career.  So in being true to himself, Polonius doesn’t ask politically unhealthy questions about the succession from Hamlet’s father to Claudius or Gertrude’s hasty marriage to the new king. He gives Laertes advice designed to ensure that while at school the boy does nothing to embarrass his father’s career. He sets a man spy on his son to make sure, and conspires with the King to set his own daughter, Ophelia to spy on Hamlet. And in being true to himself, he decides to hide behind a wall hanging in Gertrude’s rooms, hoping to hear something useful by spying on the apparently mad Prince Hamlet, a fateful decision that does not go well for either his personal aspirations, his mortality or the welfare of his son and daughter. And Hamlet, in the name his own sense of being true to himself, pretends madness (that is, he deliberately becomes false to everyone except Horatio and Marcellus). In being thus true to himself, he treats Ophelia badly, stabs blindly through a wall hanging and unintentionally kills Polonius, whose death has the effect of driving Ophelia past the heartbreak and rejection he had already given her and on to madness and drowning. And of course, Hamlet’s unintentional murder of Polonius gives Laertes exactly the same moral justification that Hamlet thinks he has. And in meeting Laertes before the fatal duel, Hamlet blames the actions that harmed Laertes on his madness, and asks to be excused, since Hamlet claims to also be a victim of that same madness, that is, the feigned madness. Hamlet’s choices lead to the subsequent deaths of Polonius, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern,[2] Laertes, Gertrude, Claudius, and finally, Hamlet himself.  And Claudius and Laertes, in being true to themselves, feel justified in lying to Hamlet about the non-friendly nature of the fatal duel. The course of the plot in Hamlet vividly raises the question of what it means to say, “To thine own self be true” and constantly displays such a notion as justifying false and destructive behavior by those who adopt the premise. Was Claudius being true to himself when he poured poison in the King’s ear as a means to secure the throne and Gertrude for himself?  Was Claudius being true to himself when he tried to poison Hamlet during the duel, or when he knowingly allowed Gertrude to drink the poison meant for Hamlet?  And when the dead and damned King’s ghost meets Hamlet in the first act, what was the ultimate effect and benefit of those sincerely felt, passionately delivered, and honestly believed words that encourage young Hamlet to take revenge?  What exactly did the ghost pour into Hamlet’s ear?  Truth and wisdom? A divine commission to seek justice and revenge, as if a demand for bloody revenge is just what to expect in a divine commission? As if God typically sends messengers who are by day, “confin’d to lasting fires, till the foul crimes done in the days of nature are burnt and purg’d away” to send such glad tidings of peace and joy and personal redemption?  Doesn’t it seem obvious that what the ghost pours into Hamlet’s ear is just more poison?

---

[1] Fales, “Confessions of a Mormon Boy,” Sunstone 130 (December 2003), p 52. Also see Dancing with Crazy, “They’re Here, They’re Queer, Get Used to It”, Gerald tells a young Emily, “I’m finally being true to myself. I denied who I was for so long.”  Notice that Mario too, in talking to Carol Lynn had alluded to the same thought from Hamlet. Incidentally, Steven quotes from the email he was writing to the friend when Emily caught him, and there he describes his post binge behavior as “being true to myself the past six months.” Which self? The definition controls what it means to be true to self.

[2] Which Hamlet dismisses as morally negligeable collateral damage, as becomes any who come between “mighty opposites,” meaning, himself and Claudius. No one else matters much, being pawns between dueling kings

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The last thing an addict needs is an environment in which they are told that this is just the way you are, and those who do not accept that fact are themselves sick and deluded and should be shunned and shamed.

It’s not terribly helpful for nonaddicts either. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I'm not presuming to make a diagnosis in this case.  I'm raising questions about the social environment that doesn't bother to mention the existence of the question. 

Ok, thanks for clarifying. 

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

But as far as the question of "authenticity" goes, in "A Mormon Rashomon" I noticed how often several different people in the stories invoked famous Polonius's line in Hamlet, "to thine own self be true."

While I still mention it in the published version, I originally had a longer discussion:

Polonius's line can indeed be a double edged sword. While seeking to live an authentic life and being true to oneself can often lead into dangerous roads, it should not be discouraged and is considered a virtue in the gospel and is really the only way back to God.  It is a critical journey and central feature of the gospel which we are encouraged to follow in eternal progression.  A successful outcome in being true to oneself first  requires knowing who you really are.  Perhaps a more helpful line would be, "to thine own self be true...but forget not whom thou art."   

To thine own self be true, a.k.a follow your conscience.

Edited December 11, 2019 by pogi

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Ok, thanks for clarifying. 

Polonius's line can indeed be a double edged sword. While seeking to live an authentic life and being true to oneself can often lead into dangerous roads, it should not be discouraged and is considered a virtue in the gospel and is really the only way back to God.  It is a critical journey and central feature of the gospel which we are encouraged to follow in eternal progression.  A successful outcome in being true to oneself first  requires knowing who you really are.  Perhaps a more helpful line would be, "to thine own self be true...but forget not whom thou art." 

Being a child of God doesn't necessarily mean we are good or were good before we came here.  Unless maybe you're referring to the fact that we agreed to come here and to be tested here and that we accepted the fact that Jesus was chosen by our Father to be our Savior here.

But who knows what kind of spiritual baggage we brought with us.  I think most of us still had a whole lot to learn and a whole lot of growing to do if  our standard of measure was to be as good as our Father in heaven.  Jesus is the only one I know who showed that he was pretty much as good as our Father in heaven when he came down here.  The rest of us have problems with being that good and we show what kind of problems we have by how we act and what we do in our lives.  And most of us need to do a whole lot of repenting even when we want and are trying to be that good.

To our own selves be true?  That doesn't sound nearly good enough to me in my perspective. I'd rather say we should be as perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, even if we need to change ourselves and our desires to become as good as he is.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

Polonius's line can indeed be a double edged sword.

Given the quality of the man who counsels this, I have always been surprised at the popularity of the line.  Seems a classic case of do what I say, not what I do.  Got to wonder if Shakespeare was making fun of such advice as clichéd or superficial.

https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/literature/hamlet/polonius

Edited December 11, 2019 by Calm

[Kevin Christensen]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok, thanks for clarifying. 

Polonius's line can indeed be a double edged sword. While seeking to live an authentic life and being true to oneself can often lead into dangerous roads, it should not be discouraged and is considered a virtue in the gospel and is really the only way back to God.  It is a critical journey and central feature of the gospel which we are encouraged to follow in eternal progression.  A successful outcome in being true to oneself first  requires knowing who you really are.  Perhaps a more helpful line would be, "to thine own self be true...but forget not whom thou art." 

Shakespeare's real point in Hamlet, was to contrast the different choices, not of whether to live, or to die, but rather, of how to live.

Quote

“To be, or not to be? That is the question—Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And, by opposing, end them?”

"To be" (which, as Eugene England explained in detail in "Shakespeare and the At-one-ment of Christ") really means "to live in readiness to meet God", as expressed in by Edgar in King Lear, "The readiness is all, let be".  It is not, as often played (for example, the Gibson Hamlet), a debate about suicide.  The other choice, "not to be" that is, do what Hamlet and Claudius and company tragically chose, to not worry about the soul and eternity but only the here and now, and take arms against his personal troubles and frustration, which led to tragedy for all.  The Branaugh Hamlet shows this by having Hamlet facing a one-way mirror behind which Claudius is hiding, showing that the characters mirror one another, and that Claudius must have chosen "Not to be" when he decided to take throne and the queen for himself rather than just be the frustrated brother.  Hamlet chooses "Not to be" when he blindly stabs Polonius, the blind thrust leading to all sorts of unforeseen and undesired consequences.  Nibley pointed out that the real tragedy in life is not in what happens to us, but what we become.

Choosing "to be" that is accepting the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, which include, as everyone discovers sooner or later, personal frustration, hurt and disappointment, is done best when one sees one's self as an eternal child of God, rather than as a temporary accident of nature.  "Not to be" in which the readiness to meet God is not a consideration, but following one's own ego is all, regardless of risk or consequence to others, or self.  As a child of God, I have a context in which my suffering and frustration can have a meaning best expressed in the Letters from Liberty Jail.  As an accident of nature, nihilism offers no restraint other than fear and powerlessness.  That is the way of Korihor and Ayn Rand.

FWIW, from an aging English Major,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Being a child of God doesn't necessarily mean we are good or were good before we came here. 

It means that we are literal children of the Most High God and have the inherent potential and ability to become like Him.  To me, being true to oneself means seeking one's best good and fulfilling one's highest potential.  For a race car to be true to itself and it's purpose would require it to be pushed to it's max potential and not simply be used as a commuter car taking the back roads to work.  It means being true to what is inherent within me.  That may not be what Polonius had in mind, but from my perspective and spin on it, it is sound advice.  

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given the quality of the man who counsels this, I have always been surprised at the popularity of the line.  Seems a classic case of do what I say, not what I do.  Got to wonder if Shakespeare was making fun of such advice as clichéd or superficial.

https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/literature/hamlet/polonius

I'm not really surprised at the popularity at all.  Despite who said it or how it was intended, I think it speaks to a deep inner human desire to live authentically.  I personally feel it is a worthy and noble pursuit, and if pursued with pure intent in seeking the highest good, and being true always to one's own conscience, it can only lead to one place - God.

Edited December 11, 2019 by pogi

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

It means that we are literal children of the Most High God and have the inherent potential and ability to become like Him.  To me, being true to oneself means seeking one's best good and fulfilling one's highest potential.  For a race car to be true to itself and it's purpose would require it to be pushed to it's max potential and not simply be used as a commuter car taking the back roads to work.  It means being true to what is inherent within me.  That may not be what Polonius had in mind, but from my perspective and spin on it, it is sound advice.  

I see our inherent potential a bit differently than you do.  Nice as what you said sounds, considered.  I see our potential as enabled to choose how we want to be and to what extent we want to be that.  Either good or evil, or somewhere in between ultimate good and ultimate evil.

To borrow from your analogy, we can either be a race car or we can be a pickup truck.  Or a nice family sedan, or van, or SUV.

Not everybody wants to be a race car, you know.  Some are perfectly fine with becoming what you might consider less than their full potential.  Even if they are the best family vehicle while you consider nothing better than to be a race car.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Shakespeare's real point in Hamlet, was to contrast the different choices, not of whether to live, or to die, but rather, of how to live.

"To be" (which, as Eugene England explained in detail in "Shakespeare and the At-one-ment of Christ") really means "to live in readiness to meet God", as expressed in by Edgar in King Lear, "The readiness is all, let be".  It is not, as often played (for example, the Gibson Hamlet), a debate about suicide.  The other choice, "not to be" that is, do what Hamlet and Claudius and company tragically chose, to not worry about the soul and eternity but only the here and now, and take arms against his personal troubles and frustration, which led to tragedy for all.  The Branaugh Hamlet shows this by having Hamlet facing a one-way mirror behind which Claudius is hiding, showing that the characters mirror one another, and that Claudius must have chosen "Not to be" when he decided to take throne and the queen for himself rather than just be the frustrated brother.  Hamlet chooses "Not to be" when he blindly stabs Polonius, the blind thrust leading to all sorts of unforeseen and undesired consequences.  Nibley pointed out that the real tragedy in life is not in what happens to us, but what we become.

Choosing "to be" that is accepting the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, which include, as everyone discovers sooner or later, personal frustration, hurt and disappointment, is done best when one sees one's self as an eternal child of God, rather than as a temporary accident of nature.  "Not to be" in which the readiness to meet God is not a consideration, but following one's own ego is all, regardless of risk or consequence to others, or self.  As a child of God, I have a context in which my suffering and frustration can have a meaning best expressed in the Letters from Liberty Jail.  As an accident of nature, nihilism offers no restraint other than fear and powerlessness.  That is the way of Korihor and Ayn Rand.

FWIW, from an aging English Major,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Yes, that is exactly my point.  Being true to oneself can lead to good when lived in the proper eternal context as a child of God, and not a "temporary accident of nature".

Edited December 11, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I see our inherent potential a bit differently than you do.  Nice as what you said sounds, considered.  I see our potential as enabled to choose how we want to be and to what extent we want to be that.  Either good or evil, or somewhere in between ultimate good and ultimate evil.

I don't disagree with you, so I don't think you do see it different from me.  I said,  "It means that we are literal children of the Most High God and have the inherent potential and ability to become like Him."  You aren't going to tell me that isn't true are you?  I didn't say it was our only potential.  I said it was our highest potential and ultimate good. Being true to oneself, to me means seeking ones best and highest good and potential - not selling oneself short for instant gratification or temporary pleasures, etc. 

24 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 

To borrow from your analogy, we can either be a race car or we can be a pickup truck.  Or a nice family sedan, or van, or SUV.

Not everybody wants to be a race car, you know.  Some are perfectly fine with becoming what you might consider less than their full potential.  Even if they are the best family vehicle while you consider nothing better than to be a race car.

We cannot be a race car or a pickup truck.  We are all the same type of being - literal children of God.  We can either reach our full potential as a race car or not, but we can't chose to be something other than what we inherently are. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by pogi

[Ahab]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't disagree with you, so I don't think you do see it different from me.  I said,  "It means that we are literal children of the Most High God and have the inherent potential and ability to become like Him."  You aren't going to tell me that isn't true are you?  I didn't say it was our only potential.  I said it was our highest potential and ultimate good.

If you're into that kind of thing, sure.  IF you want to be good, then there is no better way to be than to be like our Father in heaven, and his wife, and our Lord, and other people who are as good as they are.

Quote

Being true to oneself, to me means seeking ones best and highest good and potential - not selling oneself short for instant gratification or temporary pleasures, etc. 

Being true to one's self actually means to be true to what your self is.  What or who you are or want to be like.  If you want to be like somebody else then you should say that, because how they are may not be how you are or what your self is.

Quote

We cannot be a race car or a pickup truck.  We are all the same type of being - literal children of God.  We can either reach our full potential as a race car or not, but we can't chose to be something other than what we inherently are. 

Vehicles, was the idea. Automobiles. Imagine that we are all some kind of automobile and that we can be any kind of automobile we want to be.  Not all of us are race cars.  Where did you get that idea?  Some of us are pickup trucks or family sedans or vans or SUVs.  Or some other kind of automobile, if there is some other kind of automobile.  So the question is what kind of automobile do you want to be?  If you want to be a race car, you can be.  And you can be as good or as bad at being whatever kind of automobile you want to be.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Ahab

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Being true to one's self actually means...

It can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  I have explained what it means to me and if you don't like it...oh well.

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Vehicles, was the idea. 

Actually, it was my idea and my analogy, and you are trying to hijack it.  I like my version better because our type of being doesn't change based on our desires like you seem to pretend.  We are born one type of being (child of God) and we die one type of being (child of God), our desire doesn't change us, and can't change us, from a Chevy Silverado pick up truck to a Hyundai Sonata or to a Lamborghini.  We are what we are, and either we reach our full potential in our measure of creation or we don't, but we can't re-create ourselves into something other than what we are.

 

  

Edited December 11, 2019 by pogi

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

I would tell Ed, if he was here, (Where is he?) that it is cured by realizing it is not good for you, even if you like and get some pleasure from having same sex sexual relations.

When a man says he is gay what he is basically saying is that he is sexually attracted to men and enjoys having sexual relations with men when he does. That's it.  He likes it!  He wants it!  And often it means he doesn't enjoy having or want to have sex with women, but only men.

Once he realizes that isn't a good thing for him to do, that it is wrong and evil for men to have sexual relations with men, he then must choose whether he wants to do it anyway or if he should find some way to stop and replace that desire with something good, instead.

Please refrain from saying things that lead one to believe it's all about sex. It isn't. Not everyone is over sexualized like that. They desire companionship as well. And a whole host of other things you will get from loving your soulmate. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by Tacenda

[pogi]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

I would tell Ed, if he was here, (Where is he?) that it is cured by...

The church does not condone referring to it as a disease.  In fact, they actively encourage us to refrain from doing so.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

It can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  I have explained what it means to me and if you don't like it...oh well.

Actually, it was my idea and my analogy, and you are trying to hijack it.  I like my version better because our type of being doesn't change based on our desires like you seem to pretend.  We are born one type of being (child of God) and we die one type of being (child of God), our desire doesn't change and can't change us from a Chevy Silverado pick up truck to a Hyundai Sonata.  We are what we are and either we reach our full potential in our measure of creation or we don't.  

Right, no matter what we do or what kind of person we become we are and will always be a child of God.  Even if we are an evil child of God.  So whether good or evil, we will always be children of God.

I really don't think I want to reach my full  potential toward evil.  I've had some experience being evil and personally I don't want to be that way again.  Reaching our full potential includes being totally evil, too, don't you know.  We can go either way, either fully or only part of that way.  Either totally evil or totally good or somewhere in between.

Or do you just get around that idea by supposing that reaching our full potential meas to only become perfectly good?  From wherever we are in that spectrum.  Even if we are not starting from the point of being totally evil.

Do you know what a potentiometer is?  The range in power is not from 0 to whatever the highest potential is.  It is also possible to go the other way and have just as much power in the opposite side of the spectrum.  Not just 0 to 100, for example, but 0 to 100 or -100.

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Please refrain from saying things that lead one to believe it's all about sex. It isn't. Not everyone is over sexualized like that. They desire companionship as well. And a whole host of other things you will get from loving your soulmate. 

Sex is either male or female, and what gay people want is everything they can get from someone of the male sex.  Please refrain from saying things that lead one to believe it is not about sexual relations at all. That is the main driver.  A woman can also be a man's companion.

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

The church does not condone referring to it as a disease.  In fact, they actively encourage us to refrain from doing so.

I think that's because they don't want to make it sound like something we can not control, but there is a reason we refer to our Lord as the great physician.  Personally I would rather just call it evil and tell people who commit sin to just stop it.  They can if they want to.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Right, no matter what we do or what kind of person we become we are and will always be a child of God.  Even if we are an evil child of God.  So whether good or evil, we will always be children of God.

I really don't think I want to reach my full  potential toward evil.  I've had some experience being evil and personally I don't want to be that way again.  Reaching our full potential includes being totally evil, too, don't you know.  We can go either way, either fully or only part of that way.  Either totally evil or totally good or somewhere in between.

Or do you just get around that idea by supposing that reaching our full potential meas to only become perfectly good?  From wherever we are in that spectrum.  Even if we are not starting from the point of being totally evil.

Do you know what a potentiometer is?  The range in power is not from 0 to whatever the highest potential is.  It is also possible to go the other way and have just as much power in the opposite side of the spectrum.  Not just 0 to 100, for example, but 0 to 100 or -100.

I have already addressed this.  I have made it abundantly clear that by “full potential” I am speaking of our potential for good.  You seem to be arguing obvious points simply for the sake of arguing.  I don’t want to play.  

Once again, to me, being true to oneself means pursuing our best potential self.  If not we are selling ourselves short - that to me is not being true to oneself.  If I am being true to a friend for example, I don’t sell him short, but seek his best good and intervene if he self-sabotages. Being true to oneself is being a friend to yourself in that way.

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think that's because they don't want to make it sound like something we can not control...

Or, maybe, just maybe, it is because it is not considered a disease and to call it such is viewed as derogatory to those who identify as gay.  Why offend them in something that is not true and discouraged by the church?

Edited December 12, 2019 by pogi

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Or, maybe, just maybe, it is because it is not considered a disease and to call it such is viewed as derogatory to those who identify as gay.  Why offend them in something that is not true and discouraged by the church?

i was not the one who used the word "cure" to start with.  I was just working with the word that a gay person used when asking what he could do to be cured. But, okay, maybe I should not have used his word and instead used some other, better, word.

And those who don't want to change to become as "good" as they can be are going to feel offended just by the idea that we are suggesting there is something they need to change to become as good as they can be, so you can forget about trying to not offend them if that is what you are suggesting.  And for heaven's sake don't avoid telling them that they do need to change sinful behavior, because they do need to hear it at least once in their lives and you should at least try to say something to try to get them to be as good as they can be.  They need to know the difference between good and evil if they don't know already and if they do know they just need to repent and stop doing things they know are evil, otherwise they won't ever reach their full potential toward what is good.

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, Ahab said:

i was not the one who used the word "cure" to start with.  I was just working with the word that a gay person used when asking what he could do to be cured. But, okay, maybe I should not have used his word and instead used some other, better, word.

Ok, thanks for acknowledging that.

41 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And those who don't want to change to become as "good" as they can be are going to feel offended just by the idea that we are suggesting there is something they need to change to become as good as they can be, so you can forget about trying to not offend them if that is what you are suggesting.

It’s not.

41 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And for heaven's sake don't avoid telling them that they do need to change sinful behavior, because they do need to hear it at least once in their lives and you should at least try to say something to try to get them to be as good as they can be.  They need to know the difference between good and evil if they don't know already and if they do know they just need to repent and stop doing things they know are evil, otherwise they won't ever reach their full potential toward what is good.

They know how we feel already, it is not helpful to be annoying about it.  I find it less effective to force my beliefs on ears that are not open, or to simply say “stop it”.