Changing Sexual Orientation Is Possible, New Research Says

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Bob!

I want to begin by apologizing to you if anything I said seemed untoward. I am very much aware that paedophilia and homosexuality are two completely different issues, and I can see where what I wrote could be taken out of context, as it was deliberately by Andrew.

Not all gays are paedophiles, not all paedophiles are gay. In point of fact I used the term paedophile for the shock value, because such behavior is generally viewed as reprehensible by the majority of western civilization, both gay and straight.

They are "Christians" every bit as much as Palestinian "freedom fighters" or Iraqi "insurgents" are Muslims.

If my memory serves me correctly, this was about equating Christians with criminals, specifically the criminals that attacked you? Let me be clear, what those people did was reprehensible. It was not something I encourage, it is not something I advocate, it is something I find disgusting and morally reprehensible.

I can understand why you feel the way you feel, and it is certainly not my place to try to change that. But may I remind that when an organization such as NAMBLA exists, is it then correct and fair for anybody to assume that gays equivocate with paedophiles? It would seem to me just as unreasonable to equate Christians with criminals.

If you want to tell me they have little resemblance to what Jesus had in mind, I would agree with you (but then, I think very little of the New Testament has much resemblance to what Jesus had in mind).

Would you find surprize that I agree with this?

However, I need a generic word for "members of that prominent two thousand year old movement that now has about two billion members", and like most speakers of the English language, I call such people "Christians". They didn't get this notion that we are all child molesters from the Buddhists: they got it from "good Christians" like Juan here. (if only… -jt3) And they got the notion that we deserve death from the Bible, not from the Bhagavad Gita.
You, as an insider to the movement, would like to reserve the word "Christian" (in a version of the "No true Scotsman..." game) for your own particular subtype, but I have no interest in your private definitions. To me it is a "faction membership" word, for anyone who considered "Christ" (however they conceptualize "Christ", and however much or little their concept of "Christ" has to do with the historical Jesus) central to their world-view. It is, as I use the word, analogous to "Cub fan": anyone who says they are a Cub fan is, just by saying they are rooting for the Cubs, by definition a "Cub fan".

OK, I understand. Even though I think labelling individuals collectively is not a proper way to conduct a valid assessment, as it tends to lead to gross errors with all kinds of civil rights implications…

Juantoo, when you say that I am the same kind of person as a child molester,

With all due respect, if you go back and read without an emotional veil, I think you will find that is not what I said at all, and I can assure it is not what I meant in spite of the livid accusations by Andrew. Like I said earlier, I used it for the shock value considering Andrew was doing his best to get my goat. He loves to antagonize me, it’s an old game we play with each other.

The point there was that anybody can get along with those they agree with…but he wanted me to get along with those I disagree with (which I make sincere effort to do in real life) but that he by his own admission was apparently completely and evidently unwilling to do himself. Where I come from, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do not ask of me what you are unwilling to do yourself. Do unto others, and all that jazz… If you want respect, you must be willing to give respect. Respect, the genuine kind, is earned. You can take or buy false respect all day long, but it is worthless. Earned respect is priceless. I respect you Bob, and I respect your opinions on many things. And there are times we have disagreed, the one time was to make a specific point. In this instance, I have no ulterior motive, just a simple choice of lifestyle that does not conform to yours.

that is not at all being a friend. It is foul, and utterly uncalled-for. I do not understand how you can fail to see how profoundly you are my enemy when you speak in such a way. Accusing us of being child molesters is the customary way to incite our murder (the equivalent of "Jews bake their Passover matzohs with Christian babies' blood"). You want to pretend you have nothing to do with the thugs, but the words you utter are the very air they breathe.

Once again, to you and others except Andrew, I apologize if what I said was read otherwise than what was actually meant.

One more time, I didn't get to DECIDE. It's my life, that's all.

On the one hand, I am not standing in your shoes. On the other, all I have to go by is the genetic research I have looked at, research lead by such as Craig Ventor and Francis Collins. Research that indicates that there is no direct genetic link to behavior…in other words, there is no “gay” gene. I would not be surprised if you disagree, and that is your right, but I am of the opinion that the vast majority of our behaviors are internally willed. We choose to become addicted to nicotine, we choose to become addicted to alcohol, we choose what way we prefer to get our rocks off.

There are two very different pictures of who "Christ" was, and what he taught, in the New Testament. There is the synoptic Christ, who taught a morality of "reciprocity", based on the principle of treating others as if they were people like yourself (which they are).

And this is that to which I have been constantly pointing in this thread.

Then there is the Christ in the Pauline epistles and the gospel of John, whose morality is based on "faith" (believe the right things about him) and "faction membership" (join the in-group fellowship). The latter has always been dominant. An in-group, of course, needs an out-group to define itself against: traditionally, this role was played by the Jews (because they don't believe), but since Auschwitz,

Scapegoating is not unique to Christianity nor even monotheism, even though it is a formal rite in Judaism in antiquity. I also believe your assessment is a bit simplistic, the truth is a bit more complex. Need I remind that along with the Jews who died at Auschwitz and elsewhere, were gays, Poles, criminally insane and retarded persons? It is also a matter of fierce debate whether or not Hitler was attempting to represent the Christians…I for one do feel he was being groomed as the next Holy Roman Emperor. But to lay the entire of Christianity at his feet? Perhaps that is something Christianity is not willing to look at, perhaps like gays are less than willing to consider the ramifications of free will on their behavior?

since Auschwitz, that has become unfashionable (Christians leave it to the Muslims to define themselves by murderous hatred of the Jews), so gay is the new Jewish. Christians believe, by an act of "faith", absurd things about us, starting with the notion that we "choose" what we find sexually attractive, because it is impossible for us to share that belief (we know, as directly as Descartes knew cogito ergo sum, that it just isn't so), and so we can be demonized as the people who just won't believe.

I see what you are saying even if I see it differently…does this position then justify unecessary and unwarranted aggression toward innocent bystanders?

Matthew Shepherd, as I recall (didn’t look it up, going by memory here, so the spelling may be off), was the name of the young man in Wyoming that was brutally treated by a couple of idiots. It was a tragic thing that happened, and the gay political lobby has turned this senseless tragedy into a billy club and young Matthew into a martyr. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but let us consider in context…how many other tragic murders took place that year, and how many people remember any of their names?

How many people remember the name of a middle aged dirt poor Mexican who was beaten to a bloody pulp with a baseball bat, then had his throat slit from ear to ear…in his own living room? They caught the murderers who killed young Matthew, the powers that be hardly tried to catch the murderer who killed an otherwise ignored socially worthless old man. I remember that man’s name though, and so do my brothers. That old worthless man meant the world to me…it was my step father. To this day some 15 or so years later the perp that killed him is still roaming the streets. What overarching prejudicial presumptions should I make in vengeful hatred??? I choose not to hate a group, only that specific individual for what he stole from my stepfather.

Tragic losses happen all the time, not to trivialize, but the proximity is what makes them relevant. It is sad what happened to Matthew, but I didn’t know him. On the other hand I would gladly kill the son of a bitch that took my stepdad’s life, even if it meant rotting in hell for eternity. I have little doubt you feel much the same about the idiots that attacked you, and I would not dissuade you. It is one thing to disagree, a point I tried desperately to make to Andrew. It is quite another to take disagreement to the level of hatred that causes one to harm or kill. Cannot a father or mother still love a child that behaves in complete opposition to what they have tried to instill? They may show dismay, but they would not kill their own. That is about how I feel on the matter, I disagree with certain behaviors, but I don’t live your life for you, I don’t live his life for him, I don’t live her life for her, and I damn sure ain’t gonna let Andrew live my life for me.

 

[bob x]

"You can't be heterosexual if you don't have the right feelings or emotional needs."
Exactly. I am not a Kinsey-scale "6" (utterly impotent with women) but a "5", capable of mechanical sex with females but not capable, apparently, of getting any emotional response to go with it. Among gay men I think 5's are much more common than 6's, although I have met some; and I suspect at the other end that a "2" (capable of "situational" homosexuality, if stuck in prison or at sea for long enough) is more common than a "1" (utterly and thoroughly repulsed at the very thought). What seems to be rarest among males, however, although more common among females, is the true "bisexual" ("3" or "4", depending on a slight lean one way or the other) with attractions both physical and emotional in both directions: but for those who are built that way, that is not something they "chose" about themselves either, although it gives them more choices about how to lead a fully satisfying life.

 

[pattimax]

Would you find surprize that I agree with this?

May I have chapter and verse?

 

[bob x]

patti:

IF what you say about the crime is true, the law (and the Lord) is on your side, even if the police are not.

"The law is not what men should do; the law is not even what judges should do; the law is what judges DO... Let us clarify this by viewing it from the perspective of our old friend, the bad man: he does not care whether it says in the law books that he should not do something, or even whether it says in the law books that a judge should put him in prison for doing it, but only about whether, in fact, a judge actually will put him in prison for doing it." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

“Useless lawsuits?” hmmm…

It is thoroughly useless to sue "John Doe" defendants whom I cannot identify, and thoroughly useless to expect to identify them without co-operation from law enforcement: it would probably be hopeless to track them down, even if I had such co-operation, but without it, the case is quite moot.

but then, I think very little of the New Testament has much resemblance to what Jesus had in mind). Please list chapter and verse, and don’t make any type of blanket statement. I want specifics.

The entirety of the gospel of John, and the epistles of Paul. Not specific? "No man comes to the Father except through me" and "Let it be on our heads, ours and our children's" are the verses in John I find most repugnant.

However, I need a generic word We have already covered this: People who commit crimes are criminals.

The word I need is for those who follow the Biblical ideology, in some variant; particularly when their crimes are motivated by that ideology.

and like most speakers of the English language, I call such people "Christians". You are not alone in your problem. But your statement about Christians is very wrong.

A definition can't be "wrong": I am explaining to you my word-usage, which you ought to be familiar with (even if you yourself use words differently) since it is the standard usage in the English language, which I believe you are a native speaker of.

And they got the notion that we deserve death from the Bible, not from the Bhagavad Gita. The entire Bible concerns all of human life, warts and all.

Do you consider the death sentence passed on me in Leviticus to be one of the "warts" in life, or to have been written by God?

juan:

I am very much aware that paedophilia and homosexuality are two completely different issues, and I can see where what I wrote could be taken out of context

I read it WITHIN context. It was pretty f***ing ugly.

Let me be clear, what those people did was reprehensible. It was not something I encourage

You DO encourage it, by the way you speak.

But may I remind that when an organization such as NAMBLA exists, is it then correct and fair for anybody to assume that gays equivocate with paedophiles?

No. The members of NAMBLA are not gays, they are paedophiles. There you go again.

It would seem to me just as unreasonable to equate Christians with criminals

SOME Christians are criminals. Other Christians supply them with their motivation.

With all due respect, if you go back and read without an emotional veil, I think you will find that is not what I said at all

Yes it is.

I have no ulterior motive, just a simple choice of lifestyle that does not conform to yours.

And there you go again. You did not make a "choice" to find women attractive, any more than I chose to find men attractive. It is just who you are, which is different from what I am. Did you make a "choice" to be male rather than female?

On the one hand, I am not standing in your shoes. On the other, all I have to go by is the genetic research I have looked at, research lead by such as Craig Ventor and Francis Collins. Research that indicates that there is no direct genetic link to behavior…in other words, there is no “gay” gene.

I do not know what the mechanism is. I am not committed to any particular theory (but you are making an unjustifiable link from "absence of evidence" to "evidence of absence" here).
All I CAN tell, with the same absolute personal knowledge as Descartes telling you cogito ergo sum, is that your "choice" theory is utterly false. You can call me a liar, if you want to, but don't be so metaphysically absurd as to tell me what is in my own head.

It is also a matter of fierce debate whether or not Hitler was attempting to represent the Christians…

Hitler did not, personally, kill any of those people. The interior lunacies of his head are less interesting to me than the question of why the German nation as a whole believed in murdering Jews, gays, and "inferiors". Two thousand years of Christian history had everything to do with that.

I see what you are saying even if I see it differently…does this position then justify unecessary and unwarranted aggression toward innocent bystanders?

I don't consider you "innocent".

That old worthless man meant the world to me…it was my step father. To this day some 15 or so years later the perp that killed him is still roaming the streets. What overarching prejudicial presumptions should I make in vengeful hatred??? I choose not to hate a group, only that specific individual for what he stole from my stepfather.

What if there was a large and powerful movement, only a few of whose members actually turned to violence mind you, constantly talking about how old Mexicans are worthless? Would you fight against that group?

I would gladly kill the son of a bitch that took my stepdad’s life, even if it meant rotting in hell for eternity. I have little doubt you feel much the same about the idiots that attacked you, and I would not dissuade you.

Those guys? They, personally, are not important to me. I do want to prevent, so far as I can, others from being poisoned by such idiocy.

 

[taijasi]

juantoo3, I for one, hope that others on this thread will not let you off the hook the way I did. They can see as well as I, what you are up to, and why. You are shoveling the **** pretty heavily at this point, and with every shovel-full it's getting a little bit harder to smell the roses.

 

[Saltmeister]

juantoo3, I for one, hope that others on this thread will not let you off the hook the way I did. They can see as well as I, what you are up to, and why. You are shoveling the **** pretty heavily at this point, and with every shovel-full it's getting a little bit harder to smell the roses.

I think part of what happens between Christians and homosexuals (who may also be Christian) is a vicious cycle. Nobody likes the idea of being seen as sick-minded. When one is vilified as "sick-minded" one feels like a victim. When Christians are taken to task for beliefs unfavourable to homosexuals, they feel like the victims, that they've been wrongly vilified. Their response is an attempt to vindicate themselves.

The problem is that in the end, even if one is vindicated for one's views about homosexuals, and even if that person was misunderstood and felt like a victim because of their beliefs, there is still a residual victim: the homosexual. Even if we were to defend ourselves by saying that we are not one of the people involved in their persecution, and that we've been wrongly placed in that category, the problem is still there.

The vicious cycle starts all over again. This is what I saw in the earlier posts.

The homosexual feels that the problem is being ignored. It's like his/her personal feelings don't matter. Someone else was vilified, victimised and their problem was resolved. They were vindicated. Someone else had been rescued. The homosexual was left behind.

“Useless lawsuits?” hmmm… maybe you are “wallowing.”

When homosexuals assert themselves, it sounds like they're self-absorbed and self-centered, that's it's a group of people thinking they're so important. To me it's reasonable behaviour. They're missing out on what the rest of society enjoys: acceptance and normal healthy relations. It just sounds unfair. From my own personal life experiences, I think I understand now why people sue for emotional damage.

Bob_x's case isn't entirely emotional. He was robbed. Assaulted. What if it happened again by someone else's hands? His point is this: everyone else gets justice. Why does he miss out?

No. The members of NAMBLA are not gays, they are paedophiles. There you go again.

I see what you mean . . . NAMBLA = North-American Man/Boy Love Association. "Man/Boy" implying "not necessarily man-to-man"

 

[bob x]

"When Christians are taken to task for beliefs unfavourable to homosexuals, they feel like the victims, that they've been wrongly vilified."
Conservative Christians insult us foully, and don't even notice that they are doing so, because they take it for granted that we deserve to be foully insulted. Then they blame us for reacting to it. If Juan had just said "I'm sorry for what I said, I didn't mean it to come out like that", as he started out, I would have accepted that (I am not God, so I cannot know what he means, only what he says), but then he goes on to claim that what he said was not terrible, and asks me to read it without emotion.
Well Juan, try reading this without emotion: "Do you know why I don't care what happened to that old Mexican? The best analogy I have is this: how would you feel if a filthy garbage-covered rat was in your living room? Wouldn't you wish it dead?" Notice that, of course, I didn't say your stepfather was a rat, no no, I wasn't saying anything like that at all... You come out with "pedophile" with your first analogy, and then go on to compare us with criminals, because that is what conservative Christians just about always come out with (when they aren't telling us that what we do is just like screwing dogs), and you have come to think that such a way of speaking is perfectly normal and acceptable.


" "Man/Boy" implying "not necessarily man-to-man" "
Meaning, NOT AT ALL man-to-man. About half of all pedophiles, and apparently all of the members of NAMBLA (although it is, of course, difficult to get the full facts on that now-defunct organization), are "obligate pedophiles", which is to say, they have no attraction to adults at all; most of these have no gender preference, so that whether they molest boys or girls is a matter of opportunity rather than a decision on their part. Those pedophiles who have adult relationships as well as an attraction to children are overwhelmingly heterosexual (regardless of whether or not their victims include boys as well as girls); the proportion of gays among pedophiles is too small to measure, under 1% (though we are not as under-represented among pedophiles as women are: pedophiles are almost all male).

 

[pattimax]

patti:

"The law is not what men should do; the law is not even what judges should do; the law is what judges DO... Let us clarify this by viewing it from the perspective of our old friend, the bad man: he does not care whether it says in the law books that he should not do something, or even whether it says in the law books that a judge should put him in prison for doing it, but only about whether, in fact, a judge actually will put him in prison for doing it." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

He also said:

"While the courts must exercise a judgment of their own, it by no means is true that every law is void which may seem to the judges who pass upon it, excessive, unsuited to its ostensible end, or based upon conceptions of morality with which they disagree. Considerable latitude must be allowed for difference of view as well as for possible peculiar conditions which this court can know but imperfectly, if at all. Otherwise a Constitution, instead of embodying only relatively fundamental rules of right, as generally understood by all English-speaking communities, would become the partisan of a particular set of ethical or economic opinions, which by no means are held semper ubique et ab omnibus." (what has been believed always, everywhere and by all)
[QUOTE]

It is thoroughly useless to sue "John Doe" defendants whom I cannot identify, and …
[/quote]
Now you wouldn’t suppose you are thoroughly useless as a lawyer? (just blame Christianity, just like all your other friends- Oh, woe is me! What a cop out!)
Have you ever thought of going after those who won’t cooperate? I’m sure you can identify them.
That is, IF you have a case.

The entirety of the gospel of John, and the epistles of Paul. Not specific? "No man comes to the Father except through me" and "Let it be on our heads, ours and our children's" are the verses in John I find most repugnant.

I never asked what you found repugnant; I asked what Jesus didn’t teach. I should think there is a lot in the bible you don’t like. Nor understand.
Here is one of the Pauline epistles you probably have a problem with:

Romans 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
Just because YOU don’t like it doesn’t mean much.

The word I need is for those who follow the Biblical ideology, in some variant; particularly when their crimes are motivated by that ideology.

I shall never tire of making my point, crimes are motivated by criminal minds.

A definition can't be "wrong"

Wrong definitions can be wrong.

Do you consider the death sentence passed on me in Leviticus to be one of the "warts" in life, or to have been written by God?

You are not dead yet, and God definitely does not consider you a wart. More like a challenge.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, BobX!

Took a little time to respond to your concerns, I hope you will receive them as peaceably as they are sent.

My philosophy is formed by my knowledge and understanding. My knowledge is formed by my scholarship, which I cannot allow to be held hostage to politics or emotion (to genuinely be considered scholarship). Funny, how employment contracts and grant monies can sway the interpretation of data, would you not agree? The suggestion that my only source on this matter is a sacred text is not correct, although on a personal level it does have an influence (certainly *not* to the point of violence!). My arguments are not metaphysical, or at least not solely metaphysical; my arguments are ultimately philosophical, the only gross presumption on my part being that of mind over matter. Even so, I hold no illusions of changing any minds one way or the other. Perhaps the foolishness on my part is in daring to tap dance in a minefield without a flak jacket or an umbrella.

I realize this is a sensitive subject, but even sensitive subjects need to be looked at with forthright reality, even brutally if necessary. Perhaps not always so, perhaps tinting the findings to assuage those of tender sensibilities is proper, I don’t know. That is not my forte, and certainly not one of my strong points. When I write academically, I suppose I näively expect to be received academically. Emotional blackmail is not in my mind an appropriate academic response.

I find it interesting how I am lumped with Christians and painted with a huge brush by “others” when on the outs, when to the Christians I am far too often an “other” myself. Once again I am too Christian to be other, and too other to be Christian. I live my life between a rock and a hard place. By now I’m used to it. To be sure, there are matters with the Christians I have been lumped with which I agree, and there are matters with which I disagree.

I looked back at what I wrote, I am sorry if you see what I wrote as equating homosexuality with paedophilia, but the truth is I did not mention them together earlier, and made no such equation. Look again, without a jaundiced eye. I made no such equation. Even in bringing up NAMBLA, the point was (as usual, I’m afraid) avoided in favor of seeing insult where none existed nor was intended. The point there was that if Christians are criminals because of an organization, then what kind of presumptions should be made when an association such as NAMBLA exists? I could dare go so far as to mention the victimization of young boys by clergy, so are all clergy paedophiles? These are unfair presumptions to make on all sides…including that of Christians being criminals. The suggestion that the Christian institution teaches such criminality on a wholesale level bears some degree of merit, but only when in close cooperation with the political machinations along with political expediency. I do agree with you that what the teacher commonly known as Jesus taught is not the type and kind of violent cultural isolation that led to such as the Crusades or the witch hunts. That agreement however does not preclude Jesus’ disagreement with the behavior of some who sought his favor. I’m sorry if the terminology of “love the sinner, hate the sin” holds some contrary meaning, and I do agree it is discouraging among other things that there are some who take license to emphasize the term “hate.” But the essential concept bears some merit in my mind, even though I do not like and seldom use the term “hate” myself. Therefore, until now, you have not seen me specifically use this term, in spite of what has been attributed to me.

This really is about freedom. You want it, I want it. I am not denying you yours, why deny me mine? I am denied because I view things differently? Oh my! What a world this would be, if only we all agreed…with whom? You have no desire to live in my world, I have no desire to live in yours. I have said all along since I arrived here over 3 years ago, “live and let live.” Now, I am to be denied that because I disagree? Shall we carry that philosophy out into the “real” world? I thought all “enlightened” people were moving away from that paradigm, of forcing others into the popular mold or forcing them out as an “other.”

There are obviously matters and nuances with which we will not find agreement, you prefer to see things your way and I mine. You seem to feel there is absolutely no control, from my research I am inclined otherwise to believe that I do have control over my body and I have choice in how to guide myself. Perhaps I am predisposed to nicotine addiction, but I will not surrender my will in order to use that as excuse to continue smoking cigarettes. One day I will quit, then again perhaps not. I drift back and forth like a yo-yo sometimes. And I am fully aware a person’s sexuality is not equal to an addiction, but there are so few examples that can rightly be contrasted with sexuality (I also think it unfair when trying to hold an intelligent conversation that the first knee-jerk reaction is an explosive emotional diatribe). How about simply considering what point is however feebly trying to be made, rather than taking exception to every letter of text? It tends to promote the underlying feeling that the gay political lobby feels so threatened as to shout “prejudice!” because they have nothing more intelligent really to be said in response. If we are going to be on about emotionally charged perceptions, then that is the opposite emotionally charged perception.

Back to the cigarette: so I’ve been smoking for far too many years now. Does that imply I am genetically predisposed? I don’t think there is a smoking gene, according to the genetic researchers I have looked into there is no smoking gene. I am of the opinion, for all that is worth, that I may have some epi-genetic predisposition to smoking, as well as “training / indoctrination” from my father and other significant people in my life. But it was my choice to light up that first cigarette, and every cigarette since. My choice has been to cut down drastically, and for several years now I have been able to get by with 1 or 2 a day (occasionally more) and it is my choice to deal with the genes I have been dealt and the life I have been born into.

I’m not saying “right or wrong.” I feel the need to make that explicit. One person interprets life through one set of lenses, the next person through another set, and no two lenses are identical. Gay people and straight people have the same “feel good” nerve endings in the same places (gender specific). I cannot account for personal appreciation of “beauty” anymore than you can other than it is a random proclivity. I can appreciate the beauty of a goat, but that doesn’t mean I wish to sleep with it. Perhaps there may be some underlying motivator that inclines us toward our proclivities, but the choice to act upon it is another matter altogether, and I sense that cultural and social taboos weigh heavily in that influence. I might have overwhelming thoughts of taking an AK47 and blowing away the staff at the local IRS office (I don’t!), but I don’t because it is socially and morally not the right thing to do. We all have to make these decisions; about what is right and wrong, and we make these decisions based on what we know and how we are raised and how we choose to interpret the data.

In my view, a “gay act” if that can please be accepted as a polite term (or please offer one more acceptable) is no more or less a “sin” in Christian parlance, than fornication (unmarried sex). I don’t see many people getting stoned to death for unmarried sex unless they happen to be married to someone else. Historically though, there is merit to your concerns and fears, because there is a disproportionate weight placed upon this historically by others (not all of them Christian). Yet, the 10 Commandments of my chosen faith do not say “Thou shalt not have sex with one of the same gender,” but it does say “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Curious, I also do not see Christians rushing out to stone adulterers to death, although there are times in historical past where this too is true. Regardless, (and I am sure you are aware there are other verses often pointed to, predominantly Paul’s *suggestions*), Jesus himself taught to treat others as we wish to be treated. At the same time he also taught that we should be wise (or at least try to be) in our earthly and bodily affairs. I can disagree with the gay lifestyle, and simultaneously disagree with an adulterous lifestyle, and to further complicate matters I can freely forgive! Obviously you do not see the gay lifestyle as sinful, and that is between you and G-d, but to me it is *for me*, and that is what G-d has laid on my heart in my attempt to walk in wisdom. Likewise, smoking cigarettes for some Christians is sinful, and in their eyes because I smoke I’m sinning. But I do not answer to them, any more than you answer to me. Their attitude and point of view in the end is meaningless, it is between me and G-d to work it all out. In short, I do not *hate* because I disagree, I simply disagree. I cannot speak for others, and I do feel it to be unjust to imply that I do, or that others speak for me. My attitudes have no bearing on what some young idiot does elsewhere, he is responsible to G-d and society for his own idiotic interpretation.

I want to go on, but I guess this is more than enough. Hopefully this will be received in the manner it is sent, if not I don’t know what else to offer. I am merely me, I will not pretend to be anybody else.

 

[bob x]

Patti:

"Now you wouldn’t suppose you are thoroughly useless as a lawyer? "
I burned my license to practice years ago. This was after a police beating case, in which judges took the pure fascist position, that whatever the police do is legal by definition, and my client committed suicide. My license came up for renewal, and I would have had to take an oath to support the laws of that state, which I did not feel I could do in good conscience.
"Have you ever thought of going after those who won’t cooperate? "
Ask judges to go against the police? See above.

"I never asked what you found repugnant; I asked what Jesus didn’t teach. "
I do not believe that Jesus taught such things. If you did persuade me that Jesus said them, you would only destroy my respect for Jesus.
"I should think there is a lot in the bible you don’t like. Nor understand."
It is BECAUSE I understand what comes of it that I detest it.
"Here is one of the Pauline epistles you probably have a problem with:"
Note that Paul does not teach the absurd modern-Christian theory that we "choose" to be gay. He agrees that God *makes* us gay, but says it is a punishment for worshipping heathen idols. Well, we have some experimental evidence on that theory now: the Greek gods haven't been worshipped for many centuries, and yet there are as many gay people as ever.

"I shall never tire of making my point, crimes are motivated by criminal minds."
Christianity MAKES some minds criminal.

"Do you consider the death sentence passed on me in Leviticus to be one of the "warts" in life, or to have been written by God?
You are not dead yet, and God definitely does not consider you a wart"
Then you believe the author of Leviticus was not speaking for God? Do you believe that author was a hateful evil man?

 

[bob x]

Juan, I don't have the time to respond to you, but will get back to you.

 

[bob x]

OK Juan:

the only gross presumption on my part being that of mind over matter

Can you, by taking thought, add one inch to your stature?

even sensitive subjects need to be looked at with forthright reality, even brutally if necessary

I see the brutality. I do not see the reality.

When I write academically, I suppose I näively expect to be received academically

Choosing analogies for "shock", without any factual points of similarity, is not writing "academically", it is writing provocatively. And when you get a reaction to your provocations, you then pseudo-apologize ("I am sorry you are such a baby as to feel offended" is not an apology).

Look again, without a jaundiced eye. I made no such equation. Even in bringing up NAMBLA, the point was (as usual, I’m afraid) avoided in favor of seeing insult where none existed nor was intended. The point there was that if Christians are criminals because of an organization, then what kind of presumptions should be made when an association such as NAMBLA exists?

I did not AVOID your point, I showed you that you do not have a point unless you are operating under the false assumption that NAMBLA members were "gay": you are taking for granted the equation of pedophilia with gayness so deeply that you cannot even see it when you are making the assumption.

I could dare go so far as to mention the victimization of young boys by clergy, so are all clergy paedophiles?

I did not say the equivalent of "ALL clergy are pedophiles" (I never said "ALL Christians are criminals"), rather "SOME clergy are pedophiles" (Patti is denying that, analogous to "anybody who is a pedophile is, by my definition, not a clergyman"). And: those clergy who are not pedophiles have more of a duty than just to say "Oh, we're not in favor of that" while continuing to foster the conditions that gave rise to the problem; I do not at all let the Catholic church off the hook. And the analogous point applies here: just saying "Oh, we don't favor violence" while continuing to spew the venom that motivates the violence is not going to get you off the hook.

I’m sorry if the terminology of “love the sinner, hate the sin” holds some contrary meaning, and I do agree it is discouraging among other things that there are some who take license to emphasize the term “hate.” But the essential concept bears some merit in my mind

No, it doesn't. It is my very heart that you are hating (and whether you use the word "hate" or not, that is what it is), while the "love" is all directed to a completely imaginary person who has no resemblance to me.

This really is about freedom. You want it, I want it. I am not denying you yours, why deny me mine?

??? How in the world do you think you are being "denied freedom" here? Are you one of those people who thinks "freedom of speech" means that nobody is allowed to express disagreement with or distaste for whatever you choose to say?

you prefer to see things your way and I mine

I have firsthand knowledge, you do not. I cannot make myself believe your theories about what I am, even if I preferred to, because I directly know them to be false. Now you can prefer to accept what I say or to believe that I am lying to you, but don't pretend that there is some other option.

And I am fully aware a person’s sexuality is not equal to an addiction, but there are so few examples that can rightly be contrasted with sexuality (I also think it unfair when trying to hold an intelligent conversation that the first knee-jerk reaction is an explosive emotional diatribe)

There are lots of examples you could use, but you only choose the nastiest. I choose the examples of taste in food: I enjoy blue cheese and garlic (some find them repulsive) and cannot stand mushrooms or olives (some find them delectable). Or: some find classical music thrilling, others find it boring; some enjoy rap, while others find it repugnant.
When you choose analogies for their "shock" value, don't act surprised when the reaction is shock.

it was my choice to light up that first cigarette, and every cigarette since

But the way that your brain reacted to that first cigarette, and every cigarette since, is not something you choose. Some people don't get much of a kick from nicotine. Others do, but don't get the compulsive reaction (my Mom smokes one or two cigarettes a week, and drinks a glass of wine with dinner once in a while, and doesn't always even bother to finish it: "how can I be genetically related to such a person?" I often wonder)

Gay people and straight people have the same “feel good” nerve endings in the same places (gender specific).

But not the same emotional reactions. Is the problem here that your sex life has always been purely "mechanical", and that you have never experienced passionate love? If so, I am sorry for you, but I expect, rather, that you think that only *you* know love, while *we* have only squirting genitals.
Do you, in fact, have a wife or sweetheart whom you feel deeply about? If so, what are your feelings most analogous to: is it more like a child molestation, or like a fraud, or like a drug addiction?

I can disagree with the gay lifestyle

It is not my "lifestyle", it is my LIFE. While not as offensive as other things you say, that word (given its usage as a code-word among militant Christians indicating to the audience an agreement with a whole package of attitudes) irritates me exceedingly. My "lifestyle" is that of a slovenly housekeeper and poorly-paid professor; I tried the "lifestyle" of a sharply-dressed practicing attorney but it did not suit me.

 

[pattimax]

Patti:

I burned my license to practice years ago. This was after a police beating case, in which judges took the pure fascist position, that whatever the police do is legal by definition, and my client committed suicide. My license came up for renewal, and I would have had to take an oath to support the laws of that state, which I did not feel I could do in good conscience.

So get a lawyer. You are giving up and you don’t have to. Your training in the law should work to your advantage. I realize that what I’m saying is not easy…but it makes more sense than blaming Christianity.

Ask judges to go against the police?
If these problems are real with the law enforcement, I’m sure you’re not the only one affected.

I do not believe that Jesus taught such things.
I did mis-read you, but Jesus DID teach that the ONLY way was through Him. And of course you don’t believe it, for “the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 2 Corinthians 4:4
If you did persuade me that Jesus said them, you would only destroy my respect for Jesus.
Your respect is useless without honor.

It is BECAUSE I understand what comes of it that I detest it.
See above.

Note that Paul does not teach the absurd modern-Christian theory that we "choose" to be gay. He agrees that God *makes* us gay, but says it is a punishment for worshipping heathen idols. Well, we have some experimental evidence on that theory now: the Greek gods haven't been worshipped for many centuries, and yet there are as many gay people as ever.
It’s all fairly absurd, but it is just as absurd to suggest that God made you gay. Where does Paul agree to that?

Christianity MAKES some minds criminal.
Lack of Christianity is what makes a mind criminal. Go to a jail and ask around.

Then you believe the author of Leviticus was not speaking for God? Do you believe that author was a hateful evil man?

The author of Leviticus was Moses, it was written about 1440 b.c. (that was a while before Christ and His teachings)
He was speaking for God and Moses was definitely not a hateful or evil man.
It is a legal document. When you did practice law, if a client came to you and said something ridiculous, but yet you knew on very good authority that it wasn’t so, did you take the case? My authority is God and the lord Jesus Christ. And no, I am NOT saying that Christ invalidated the law, but I am saying that, among other beautiful things, Christ fulfilled the law, taught mercy, and forgiveness. (and the way to the Father was through the Son.)

 

[bob x]

You are giving up and you don’t have to. Your training in the law should work to your advantage.

I don't need to wallow in a useless fight. I was past it long ago, and regret having even brought it up again-- but I was asked.

I realize that what I’m saying is not easy…but it makes more sense than blaming Christianity.

Christianity IS to blame.

Jesus DID teach that the ONLY way was through Him.

That belief of yours, right there, is the source of all the evil and criminality that Christianity has motivated in so many people over the years. No, I do not believe that Jesus intended any such thing.

it is just as absurd to suggest that God made you gay. Where does Paul agree to that?

Read the text.

The author of Leviticus was Moses, it was written about 1440 b.c. (that was a while before Christ and His teachings)
He was speaking for God and Moses was definitely not a hateful or evil man.

So, you do believe that God wants me killed?

When you did practice law, if a client came to you and said something ridiculous, but yet you knew on very good authority that it wasn’t so, did you take the case?

LOL, I see you have never practiced law. Clients are always saying the most ridiculous things. In law, you deal with people in the grip of stupid emotional conflicts.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

Christianity IS to blame.

no, people are to blame. christianity isnt bad, its how people abuse it; wealth isnt bad, its how people abuse it; law isnt bad its how people abuse it; love and marriage, and the natural order and structure of the family that god has made isnt bad, its how people abuse it. the common thread: people not following what god has laid out.

 

[bob x]

the common thread: people not following what god has laid out

People following what *people like you and patti* claim that God has laid out is what turns Christians into criminals.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

yes, people on the outside of christianity will see that, people on the inside of chrisitianity denounce it. basically wolves in sheep clothing. you have to remember, satan was an angel of light, and he makes sin attractive, and he is not stupid, he is crafty, so he does evil from within. so these bad people may be among us, but they are not of us.

 

[bob x]

These "bad people" learned their evil from you, and from no-one else. Stop blaming invisible demons for what you bring about.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

These "bad people" learned their evil from you, and from no-one else. Stop blaming invisible demons for what you bring about.

no, evil is already in the hearts of men, religion is just a guise for whom they really are, and the agenda they already have. for you to think otherwise is naive.

 

[pattimax]

I don't need to wallow in a useless fight. I was past it long ago, and regret having even brought it up again-- but I was asked.

Oh no… what if you won? Well, there goes that argument.

Christianity IS to blame.

Lack of Christianity is to blame.

That belief of yours, right there, is the source of all the evil and criminality that Christianity has motivated in so many people over the years. No, I do not believe that Jesus intended any such thing.

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Peter 2:2
They saw this coming a long time ago.

Read the text.

God makes you gay? Point it out to me.

So, you do believe that God wants me killed?

God loves you more than you will ever realize. You don’t really know anything about Christianity do you? Probably everything you have come in contact with has its own anti-Christianity spin on it. Tell me something, why did Jesus come to earth?

LOL, I see you have never practiced law. Clients are always saying the most ridiculous things. In law, you deal with people in the grip of stupid emotional conflicts.

You are absolutely correct; I have never practiced law. I hope you realize that this is not a stupid emotional conflict or think that I have a ridiculous need to be right. Being wrong at the end of my time on earth will not be a big deal. Can’t say the same for you.