# Grasping for straws?



## WaltL1 (May 26, 2015)

Or ignoring reality?


> http://news.yahoo.com/irelands-gay-marriage-vote-defeat-vatican-daily-191651518.html





> "The Church has to find a new language which will be understood and heard by people," Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin, a senior Irish cleric, told reporters after mass at the city's St Mary's Pro-Cathedral on Sunday.


Does the Church literally think the people haven't heard and don't understand?
And what possible "new" language can you come up with?


> "The margin between the 'yes' and the 'no' votes was too large not to be accepted as a defeat. It was the result of high voter turnout, notably among young people," the Vatican paper opined.


Darn young people, they always ruin everything thinking for themselves.
Its interesting though -


> The majority of Irish people still identify themselves as Catholic


Maybe change is a good thing. Moving away from religion might be removing the middle man.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 26, 2015)

Imperial Rome was no less decadent than what we see today, and the church flourished.  

The church will be fine.  The churches that are hemorrhaging members are the ones who have embraced this nonsense.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 26, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Imperial Rome was no less decadent than what we see today, and the church flourished.
> 
> The church will be fine.  The churches that are hemorrhaging members are the ones who have embraced this nonsense.


I'm not sure your focus on the church is the issue.


> The majority of Irish people still identify themselves as Catholic


That's an important statement. The majority identify as Catholic and the majority voted in gay marriage.
Its not a rejection of their faith its a rejection of that doctrine. Or at least how that doctrine is applied versus rights of people etc. So the questions remain -
The church views this as the solution -


> "The Church has to find a new language which will be understood and heard by people,"


What new language is going to make a difference?

Edit - added the sentence in red which may be the most accurate assessment of whats happening.


----------



## welderguy (May 26, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Imperial Rome was no less decadent than what we see today, and the church flourished.
> 
> The church will be fine.  The churches that are hemorrhaging members are the ones who have embraced this nonsense.



^^This^^

Jesus said "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored shall not prevail against it."


----------



## centerpin fan (May 26, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The majority identify as Catholic ...



"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."




WaltL1 said:


> Its not a rejection of their faith its a rejection of that doctrine.



Being a Christian is not the same as ordering a pizza.  You don't get to pick only the toppings you like.




WaltL1 said:


> What new language is going to make a difference?



I'm not sure what he's talking about.  There's no way to sugarcoat "the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God".


----------



## WaltL1 (May 26, 2015)

welderguy said:


> ^^This^^
> 
> Jesus said "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored shall not prevail against it."


The subject was the approval of gay marriage in a Christian dominated country and the Churches view of that "problem".
Got any thoughts on that?
Hint - it will require you to think not regurgitate.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 26, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah that's somewhat my point. So if the Church thinks new language is what is needed how are they going to say the same thing yet different?
My point being they are wishful thinking and ignoring reality in my opinion.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 26, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
> 
> Being a Christian is not the same as ordering a pizza.  You don't get to pick only the toppings you like.
> 
> I'm not sure what he's talking about.  There's no way to sugarcoat "the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God".



But they still consider themselves Catholic even if God doesn't. They aren't leaving the Catholic Church for other Churches as is the case here in America.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 26, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> But they still consider themselves Catholic even if God doesn't. They aren't leaving the Catholic Church for other Churches as is the case here in America.


Correct.
And like it or not those people are a part of "Christianity".
Note the Church didn't say we want to know every Christian who voted yes so we can throw them out.
Instead the Church is trying to figure out how to change the language.


----------



## welderguy (May 26, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The subject was the approval of gay marriage in a Christian dominated country and the Churches view of that "problem".
> Got any thoughts on that?
> Hint - it will require you to think not regurgitate.



Basically the same thing that's happening in America.And we know what God thinks of homosexuality from the destruction of Sodom and Gamorah.He instituted marriage as the sacred covenant between a man and a woman.
There is no other language that will fix the problem.Only "go and sin no more".


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 26, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Basically the same thing that's happening in America.And we know what God thinks of homosexuality from the destruction of Sodom and Gamorah.He instituted marriage as the sacred covenant between a man and a woman.
> There is no other language that will fix the problem.Only "go and sin no more".



I think you need to re-read why Sodom was destroyed.

No other language? What about this language from Paul?

And all this describes what some of you were. But now you have had every stain washed off: now you have been set apart as holy: now you have been pronounced free from guilt; in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and through the Spirit of our God.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 26, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Basically the same thing that's happening in America.And we know what God thinks of homosexuality from the destruction of Sodom and Gamorah.He instituted marriage as the sacred covenant between a man and a woman.
> There is no other language that will fix the problem.Only "go and sin no more".


Actually its a much larger scale than here in America.
Ireland is a Catholic dominated and I mean DOMINATED country.
That's what makes this change of thought so significant.
What is the same as here is it appears that "rights"/"equality"/"inclusion" are starting to win out over "doctrine" when a short time ago it was the opposite.


----------



## welderguy (May 26, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think you need to re-read why Sodom was destroyed.
> 
> No other language? What about this language from Paul?
> 
> And all this describes what some of you were. But now you have had every stain washed off: now you have been set apart as holy: now you have been pronounced free from guilt; in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and through the Spirit of our God.



He's speaking to people who had repented.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 26, 2015)

welderguy said:


> He's speaking to people who had repented.



He's speaking to people who  have had every stain washed off. I agree they have repented or changed their mind. Perhaps something God has a hand in performing.
I recall something about God being able to elect whomever and this isn't based on anything the individual does.

Titus 3:5
 He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 26, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually its a much larger scale than here in America.
> Ireland is a Catholic dominated and I mean DOMINATED country.
> That's what makes this change of thought so significant.
> What is the same as here is it appears that "rights"/"equality"/"inclusion" are starting to win out over "doctrine" when a short time ago it was the opposite.



I do understand this difference you are presenting. Here in America the individuals upset with liberal Churches are leaving the Churches. This isn't happening in Ireland, they are staying with the Catholic Church and to the point the Church must come up with new language to reach these individuals.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 26, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I do understand this difference you are presenting. Here in America the individuals upset with liberal Churches are leaving the Churches. This isn't happening in Ireland, they are staying with the Catholic Church and to the point the Church must come up with new language to reach these individuals.


Right.
But Im also contending this -


> Church must come up with new language to reach these individuals.


Is a day late, a dollar short and just isn't going to happen.
All those folks, know exactly what the Bible says, know exactly what they have been taught, and know exactly that their yes vote went against that.
They are also going to know any new language is saying the exact same thing just packaged differently.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 26, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Right.
> But Im also contending this -
> 
> Is a day late, a dollar short and just isn't going to happen.
> ...



Will the Catholic Church change as it's members such as these change? Suppose it's just young members in Ireland today and young members in the rest of Europe tomorrow? Soon the young will be old yet God stays the same. Will the young people re-write Catholic dogma?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 26, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Will the Catholic Church change as it's members such as these change? Suppose it's just young members in Ireland today and young members in the rest of Europe tomorrow? Soon the young will be old yet God stays the same. Will the young people re-write Catholic dogma?


See now you are getting at the part that's interesting to me.
What does Christianity do as society changes?
There are already lots of small changes like wearing jeans, having a band, women preachers etc etc.
How far will Christianity go to try and keep members?
And yes the Bible isn't going to change just how what is in the Bible is being practiced.
Its pretty obvious what direction young folks are going.
Seems to me the direction is moving to the Bible being a "guideline" - take whats good, reject what society is coming to believe is bad.
Maybe the future holds being "spiritual" as opposed to being "religious".


----------



## JimD (May 26, 2015)

They have a real conundrum then dont they? They dont want the people to leave the church because that is a loss of money and they cant say its ok, because the Bible says it is not. On another note the pope says we need to worry about global warming.....


----------



## WaltL1 (May 26, 2015)

JimD said:


> They have a real conundrum then dont they? They dont want the people to leave the church because that is a loss of money and they cant say its ok, because the Bible says it is not. On another note the pope says we need to worry about global warming.....


I think the conundrum was inevitable.
The Bible doesn't allow for change of thought/perspective.
Both of which are very human qualities.
Without trying to be insulting I think much of it is a charade anyway. Lots of things in the Bible people don't do, lots of things in the Bible the Church pretends is followed.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 26, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> What does Christianity do as society changes?



Nothing.

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."




WaltL1 said:


> Seems to me the direction is moving to the Bible being a "guideline" - take whats good, reject what society is coming to believe is bad.



Churches have been doing that for years ... and they're dying.

We are to "earnestly contend for the faith", not bend to every whim of popular culture.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 26, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Nothing.
> 
> "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."
> 
> ...





> "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."


You just made the case that Jesus Christ doesn't change but the question was about Christianity.
Which can hardly be denied is changing.


> Churches have been doing that for years ... and they're dying.


Was talking about people not the churches. The people ARE Christianity.


----------



## welderguy (May 26, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Was talking about people not the churches. The people ARE Christianity.



Heb.4:2 "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them:but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."


----------



## centerpin fan (May 26, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You just made the case that Jesus Christ doesn't change but the question was about Christianity.
> Which can hardly be denied is changing.



I don't deny that, for many, _People_ magazine > Holy Bible. 

They are abandoning the faith for a new (false) faith.  That's been going on for 2,000 years.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 26, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Heb.4:2 "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them:but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."


Im just going to start ignoring you. Ive done my best to try to engage you in THOUGHTFUL conversation but you either are not capable or you get your jollies regurgitating scripture.
Im not interested in either.
While I don't agree with this, but you know how some people say Christians are stupid and cant think for themselves?
Guess where they get that idea?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 26, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't deny that, for many, _People_ magazine > Holy Bible.
> 
> They are abandoning the faith for a new (false) faith.  That's been going on for 2,000 years.


At some point, maybe happening right now, the old faith may be viewed as the false faith. Or at least parts of it.
I think that's exactly what we are seeing coming from the new generation.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 26, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> At some point, maybe happening right now, the old faith may be viewed as the false faith. Or at least parts of it.



That view is being actively promoted right now by "progressive Christians" and their allies in the media.  They have a lot of influence in the mainline denominations.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 26, 2015)

One change I see is Christians abandoning a false works based(physical) salvation based on something man is capable of doing to accepting the true Gospel of God's free gift.(spiritual)
This has nothing to do with righteousness as we are all as filthy rags and many are beginning to realize it's all from God and the free gift of his Son's blood. 
I'm so glad this is true because I'm not a very righteous person. My righteousness is the gift of salvation. Believing this is how I "get right with God."
Now will Catholicism  ever accept this "easy believism" and Salvation being "all from God?" Probably not but they will change and cave as they did with birth control. They'll probably eventually let priest marry. Maybe even one day allowing women to the priesthood.
It's all based on how we pick and choose our biblical pizza toppings as already happens. I wonder if they'll ever get rid of confession?
It's not just the Catholic Church that has changed. 
God hasn't changed but he has given "enlightenment" at different intervals to various individuals.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 26, 2015)

The "change" I would like to see is for every Christian to finally realize the "Law" in written in our hearts and that this "Law" is love.
It would make our physical life more spiritual and way more easier to live by. We'd be more concerned with our brothers than who we choose to eat shellfish with wearing two different types of cloth.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 26, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> At some point, maybe happening right now, the old faith may be viewed as the false faith. Or at least parts of it.
> I think that's exactly what we are seeing coming from the new generation.



I'm 59 and and now view my old works based faith as the false faith. I'm ashamed that it took me over half my life to realize salvation is from God. I've repented the real repentance which is my witness.
I am a filthy rag. I make homosexuals look like saints.
It's all about that grace, bout that grace.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 26, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> The "change" I would like to see is for every Christian to finally realize the "Law" in written in our hearts and that this "Law" is love.



Oh, I realize it.  Now shut your pie hole, hippie!


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 26, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Oh, I realize it.  Now shut your pie hole, hippie!



No not really, I was a little too young for that concept. They had some good ideals but too fiscally liberal for me. I've never accepted dropping out until you need a cop or a doctor. Then it's Ok to tune in at someone else expense.

If the law is written in our hearts, murder is extended to include anger and adultery is extended to include lust.
One understands right from wrong based on love instead of written laws. If I look deep within my heart I don't feel eating shellfish while wearing wool and cotton is wrong. I do feel that as a married man, having gay sex for me is wrong.


----------



## welderguy (May 26, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Im just going to start ignoring you. Ive done my best to try to engage you in THOUGHTFUL conversation but you either are not capable or you get your jollies regurgitating scripture.
> Im not interested in either.
> While I don't agree with this, but you know how some people say Christians are stupid and cant think for themselves?
> Guess where they get that idea?



Well, I guess I've been called alot worse things than stupid.Sorry you feel that way.
But, if you saw a blind man unknowingly  headed straight for a dropoff, wouldn't you try your best to steer him clear of it?
Life is not a game.
Whatsoever things are loosed on earth are loosed in heaven.And whatsoever things are bound on earth are bound in heaven.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Well, I guess I've been called alot worse things than stupid.Sorry you feel that way.
> But, if you saw a blind man unknowingly  headed straight for a dropoff, wouldn't you try your best to steer him clear of it?
> Life is not a game.
> Whatsoever things are loosed on earth are loosed in heaven.And whatsoever things are bound on earth are bound in heaven.



Are you saying that in the situation in Ireland the Pope has the authority to loose and bind?
If so then couldn't the Pope loose the homosexuality written law and replace it with the law of love within our heart?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> At some point, maybe happening right now, the old faith may be viewed as the false faith. Or at least parts of it.
> I think that's exactly what we are seeing coming from the new generation.



I can see this. It used to be that folks used biblical arguments to promote slavery. This is more understandable since the bible doesn't come out, explicitly for or against slavery. I think it's more difficult to try and build an argument for something the bible clearly says is aberrant, but folks are doing it anyway.

This is where, "the Bible is like any other text, and can therefore be misinterpreted," and "There are some things that the Bible has a rigid stance on," meet to make things like the spiritual forum possible. This, I think, is how "Christianity" (if you want to throw in the cloths someone wears and the food someone eats as Christian) changes over time: The words in the Bible do not mean the same to me as they once did...


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Im just going to start ignoring you. Ive done my best to try to engage you in THOUGHTFUL conversation but you either are not capable or you get your jollies regurgitating scripture.
> Im not interested in either.
> While I don't agree with this, but you know how some people say Christians are stupid and cant think for themselves?
> Guess where they get that idea?



I quote scripture all the time, though, admittedly, it isn't verbatim, but is, none-the-less, quoted: It's written in my heart: I can't seem to help myself: I don't think I would, even if I could.

Of course, I could be counted in the camp of the stupid  ; far be it from me to speculate how I'm perceived here.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I can see this. It used to be that folks used biblical arguments to promote slavery. This is more understandable since the bible doesn't come out, explicitly for or against slavery. I think it's more difficult to try and build an argument for something the bible clearly says is aberrant, but folks are doing it anyway.
> 
> This is where, "the Bible is like any other text, and can therefore be misinterpreted," and "There are some things that the Bible has a rigid stance on," meet to make things like the spiritual forum possible. This, I think, is how "Christianity" (if you want to throw in the cloths someone wears and the food someone eats as Christian) changes over time: The words in the Bible do not mean the same to me as they once did...



Looking at the attitudes of Christians in regards to women's rights that have changed over the years is another example. Some Churches even allow women preachers and women teachers teaching men. I wouldn't say the Bible calls this aberrant but it does say it is wrong in "written Law." The Bible hasn't changed in regards to slavery, women, or heterosexuals having gay sex. 
Christians become "enlightened" about written laws as they become more spiritual. In this process they learn about what "love" is all about as written in their hearts. Written law becomes less important when we understand what's written in our hearts. It's a knowledge process that we as humans are getting better at as time goes by.
The Bible calls it "love God and neighbor." Other religions have revisions for this process. The world will become a better place as we progress.

Hey, perhaps this is "hippie talk!" Far out, right on man, this is some heavy stuff I'm casting your way. 
Remember Brother Dave Gardner? Rejoice, dear hearts!


----------



## 660griz (May 27, 2015)

I could see how they may 'interpret" the Bible differently. They could consider the time in which the Bible was written where hetero men would commonly take boys as 'partners'. They could say the Bible was written to stop that practice. 
Maybe they didn't realize that some folks could be born to be attracted to the same sex. Just like that didn't know about micro-organisms, etc.


----------



## JimD (May 27, 2015)

Just an observation of mine and before I begin I'm straight and love women!

I work in a school and through the years have seen kids as young as 3, that you can already see are probably going to be gay. I've seen kids who at 5 wanted to wear moms high heels and are now gay. These kids came and come from straight homes. The only thing that makes sense to me is that came out of the womb gay. Now if they indeed were created with these attributes, then I do not believe they are CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoreded to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored from birth, or then why would God (if you believe in God) have created them? Ive discussed this with "religious" people and some agree with me, but most do not and say things that really don't make sense from my point of view. I look at myself, and from the time I was born, I knew when I looked at the opposite sex, I liked what I was looking at. I don't understand it, but I just don't buy that gay people are CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoreded to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored if many were created that way. Thoughts?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 27, 2015)

JimD said:


> Just an observation of mine and before I begin I'm straight and love women!
> 
> I work in a school and through the years have seen kids as young as 3, that you can already see are probably going to be gay. I've seen kids who at 5 wanted to wear moms high heels and are now gay. These kids came and come from straight homes. The only thing that makes sense to me is that came out of the womb gay. Now if they indeed were created with these attributes, then I do not believe they are CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoreded to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored from birth, or then why would God (if you believe in God) have created them? Ive discussed this with "religious" people and some agree with me, but most do not and say things that really don't make sense from my point of view. I look at myself, and from the time I was born, I knew when I looked at the opposite sex, I liked what I was looking at. I don't understand it, but I just don't buy that gay people are CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoreded to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored if many were created that way. Thoughts?



I agree. There are many, though, who still believe it is a choice because you could choose to go against what you feel is attractive, just to fit into their world view of what is right. 

I don't buy that, either.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

JimD said:


> The only thing that makes sense to me is that came out of the womb gay.



As a Christian, I believe that no one is born gay, just as no one is born an adulterer, a liar, a drunkard, etc.  We all face different temptations, but we must respond to them in the same way:  repentance.


----------



## JimD (May 27, 2015)

Centerpin, I know what most Christians say, but a 3 year old liking to play with girls and liking girly things is not making a choice to be gay. That doesn't explain it for me.


----------



## 660griz (May 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> We all face different temptations, but we must respond to them in the same way:  repentance.



I have absolutely no idea how another man can be a temptation to me, or any heterosexual man.


----------



## ambush80 (May 27, 2015)

JimD said:


> Just an observation of mine and before I begin I'm straight and love women!
> 
> I work in a school and through the years have seen kids as young as 3, that you can already see are probably going to be gay. I've seen kids who at 5 wanted to wear moms high heels and are now gay. These kids came and come from straight homes. The only thing that makes sense to me is that came out of the womb gay. Now if they indeed were created with these attributes, then I do not believe they are CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoreded to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored from birth, or then why would God (if you believe in God) have created them? Ive discussed this with "religious" people and some agree with me, but most do not and say things that really don't make sense from my point of view. I look at myself, and from the time I was born, I knew when I looked at the opposite sex, I liked what I was looking at. I don't understand it, but I just don't buy that gay people are CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoreded to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored if many were created that way. Thoughts?





centerpin fan said:


> As a Christian, who doesn't believe in predestination, I believe that no one is born gay, just as no one is born an adulterer, a liar, a drunkard, etc.  We all face different temptations, but we must respond to them in the same way:  repentance.



Red part added by me.

For those that believe in predestination, being born gay (or Hindu for that matter) is all part of the plan.  Some people were simply made to go to He11.  It's the only answer that makes belief in God possible.

An omniscient, omnipotent God demands predestination.  No way around it.


----------



## ambush80 (May 27, 2015)

JimD said:


> Centerpin, I know what most Christians say, but a 3 year old liking to play with girls and liking girly things is not making a choice to be gay. That doesn't explain it for me.



Does being a "Vessel of Wrath" explain it for you?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I quote scripture all the time, though, admittedly, it isn't verbatim, but is, none-the-less, quoted: It's written in my heart: I can't seem to help myself: I don't think I would, even if I could.
> 
> Of course, I could be counted in the camp of the stupid  ; far be it from me to speculate how I'm perceived here.


Of course the usage of scripture fits in to some conversations. I use it myself on occasion.
However when its used as a replacement for thinking it gets pretty old. 
Ive read the Bible. Im here to discuss, learn, see other viewpoints, have my position challenged, think about something I haven't yet thought about etc etc.
Having said that, I don't make the rules. If someone wants to regurgitate scripture I certainly have no right to tell them they cant.
But I don't have to participate in it.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

JimD said:


> Just an observation of mine and before I begin I'm straight and love women!
> 
> I work in a school and through the years have seen kids as young as 3, that you can already see are probably going to be gay. I've seen kids who at 5 wanted to wear moms high heels and are now gay. These kids came and come from straight homes. The only thing that makes sense to me is that came out of the womb gay. Now if they indeed were created with these attributes, then I do not believe they are CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoreded to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored from birth, or then why would God (if you believe in God) have created them? Ive discussed this with "religious" people and some agree with me, but most do not and say things that really don't make sense from my point of view. I look at myself, and from the time I was born, I knew when I looked at the opposite sex, I liked what I was looking at. I don't understand it, but I just don't buy that gay people are CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoreded to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored if many were created that way. Thoughts?





> knew when I looked at the opposite sex, I liked what I was looking at.


To me its basically as simple as that. You didn't make a choice, you didn't go think about it for a while, there was nothing to ponder. You looked at the opposite sex, the chemicals in your brain fired off and interacted and said to you, "yes I want one of those".
Of course it can get more complicated than that depending on circumstances etc.
To me its all about chemical reactions in the brain.


----------



## ambush80 (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Of course the usage of scripture fits in to some conversations. I use it myself on occasion.
> However when its used as a replacement for thinking it gets pretty old.
> Ive read the Bible. Im here to discuss, learn, see other viewpoints, have my position challenged, think about something I haven't yet thought about etc etc.
> Having said that, I don't make the rules. If someone wants to regurgitate scripture I certainly have no right to tell them they cant.
> But I don't have to participate in it.



What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others.

    -Confucius


I wonder if one can carry on a conversation using only Confucius quotes.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others.
> 
> -Confucius
> 
> ...



Confucius Say Gay man in Chinese restaurant will order "sum yung guy".


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I can see this. It used to be that folks used biblical arguments to promote slavery. This is more understandable since the bible doesn't come out, explicitly for or against slavery. I think it's more difficult to try and build an argument for something the bible clearly says is aberrant, but folks are doing it anyway.
> 
> This is where, "the Bible is like any other text, and can therefore be misinterpreted," and "There are some things that the Bible has a rigid stance on," meet to make things like the spiritual forum possible. This, I think, is how "Christianity" (if you want to throw in the cloths someone wears and the food someone eats as Christian) changes over time: The words in the Bible do not mean the same to me as they once did...


Could it be as simple as a vote like this reflects Christians standing up for gays right to be aberrant?
The Bible doesn't specifically state gays CANT get married. Only who are supposed to be married - a man and a woman.
Could it be viewed as a church having a bake sale and selling a cake to an obese fellow Christian?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 27, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Confucius Say Gay man in Chinese restaurant will order "sum yung guy".


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> As a Christian, I believe that no one is born gay, just as no one is born an adulterer, a liar, a drunkard, etc.  We all face different temptations, but we must respond to them in the same way:  repentance.



The problem with that concept is just how much repentance or righteousness is needed to gain salvation?
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
I'm not sure a human can be righteous enough to work his way into the Kingdom.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Confucius Say Gay man in Chinese restaurant will order "sum yung guy".


That's just wrong


----------



## ambush80 (May 27, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Confucius Say Gay man in Chinese restaurant will order "sum yung guy".



When we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves.

   - Confucius


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Does being a "Vessel of Wrath" explain it for you?



God knew that three year old when he was a heterosexual fetus.


----------



## ambush80 (May 27, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Confucius Say Gay man in Chinese restaurant will order "sum yung guy".



By nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart.

    -Confucius,


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2015)

Maybe God made homosexuals to see how Christians would react. To see if they had abandoned the written law and have moved on to the law of love written in their hearts.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> The problem with that concept is just how much repentance or righteousness is needed to gain salvation?
> Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
> I'm not sure a human can be righteous enough to work his way into the Kingdom.


Another problem with that concept is it isn't based on fact its based on what Christianity tells you that you have to believe.
Same as at one point we were told to believe black men weren't physically/mentally able to fly airplanes..


----------



## ambush80 (May 27, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> God knew that three year old when he was a heterosexual fetus.



Created with purpose.  To burn.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> By nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart.
> 
> -Confucius,



When we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves. (Confucius)


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Could it be viewed as a church having a bake sale and selling a cake to an obese fellow Christian?



Of course. It's all the same so far a scripture, and therefore myself, is concerned. Some people want to promote laws against certain groups of people, others the contrary; I'm guy in the middle saying everyone, on either side, is equally wrong. We, (Christians) myself included, like to pick most on those sins that may not apply to us.


----------



## ambush80 (May 27, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> When we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves. (Confucius)



Beat ya to it.   Post#54


----------



## ambush80 (May 27, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Of course. It's all the same so far a scripture, and therefore myself, is concerned.



Do you lovingly tell the fat Christian he can't have any and to stop eating cake?  In other words, repent.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

JimD said:


> Centerpin, I know what most Christians say, but a 3 year old liking to play with girls and liking girly things is not making a choice to be gay.



How many choices does a three-year-old make?  The choice to act on same sex attraction is made later in life.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

660griz said:


> I have absolutely no idea how another man can be a temptation to me, or any heterosexual man.



Me neither.

However, as someone who has tasted alcohol, I have no idea how anybody could become a drunkard.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Of course. It's all the same so far a scripture, and therefore myself, is concerned.


I think you are certainly in the minority.
Don't see the Vatican trying to figure out "new language" to get folks to understand not to enable obesity.
But homosexuality? Oh Lord the world is coming to an end.
Lots of folks are catching on to the hypocricy and their votes are reflecting that.


----------



## ambush80 (May 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Me neither.
> 
> However, as someone who has tasted alcohol, I have no idea how anybody could become a drunkard.



I used to not like cake or olives.  Should I be concerned?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Do you lovingly tell the fat Christian he can't have any and to stop eating cake?  In other words, repent.



Yes. I say as nice as I can think to say, but I also cannot stop them from having their cake and eating it too.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you are certainly in the minority.
> Don't see the Vatican trying to figure out "new language" to get folks to understand not to enable obesity.
> But homosexuality? Oh Lord the world is coming to an end.
> Lots of folks are catching on to the hypocricy and their votes are reflecting that.



Nor will we see the Catholic Church doing away with Confession because it gives one a false sense of repentance. The drunkard may confess often but never repent.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you are certainly in the minority.
> Don't see the Vatican trying to figure out "new language" to get folks to understand not to enable obesity.
> But homosexuality? Oh Lord the world is coming to an end.
> Lots of folks are catching on to the hypocricy and their votes are reflecting that.



I've heard many a Sunday mornin' sermon blasting the gay croud, but I have NEVER heard a sermon against obesity. You'd loose half the congregation if you did; I might have even been one of the folks to leave...125 pounds ago.

I don't think a "new language" is needed, just a renewed respect for the old. It's all there, written fairly plainly.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2015)

The vote should have been presented to the Irish as; you can have gay marriage or alcohol but not both.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

JimD said:


> The only thing that makes sense to me is that came out of the womb gay





WaltL1 said:


> To me its basically as simple as that. You didn't make a choice, you didn't go think about it for a while, there was nothing to ponder. You looked at the opposite sex, the chemicals in your brain fired off and interacted and said to you, "yes I want one of those".



I’m not trying to single you guys out.  This is for anybody in the “born that way" camp:

Can somebody explain Bill de Blasio’s (NYC mayor) wife to me?  And Sheryl Swoopes (former WNBA star)?

The former wrote an article years ago boldly saying “I am a lesbian.”.  Now, she is married … to Bill de Blasio.  The latter married her high school sweetheart … then became a lesbian … then split up with girlfriend and got engaged … to a man.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 27, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Nor will we see the Catholic Church doing away with Confession because it gives one a false sense of repentance. The drunkard may confess often but never repent.



I'm curious, how does the Bible characterize a drunkard? What are the criteria?


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I used to not like cake or olives.  Should I be concerned?



It's not a sin to like cake or olives.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Nor will we see the Catholic Church doing away with Confession because it gives one a false sense of repentance. The drunkard may confess often but never repent.


Of course you are assuming that your view of what repentance is, is the right one.
Which came first? Did Baptist/whoever just change the original view and called their new one right and the old one false?
Wouldn't that be exactly the same as voting yes for gay marriage?


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Same as at one point we were told to believe black men weren't physically/mentally able to fly airplanes..




Only a fool would believe that.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm curious, how does the Bible characterize a drunkard? What are the criteria?



I'm not sure it does but maybe equal to the modern day alcoholic. The important thing about these old laws is they are now written in our hearts. This means we don't follow the written law but we now follow our hearts. If you feel it in your heart that you are drinking too much to the point that it interferes with your worship of God, families well being, and your own health, then you know God doesn't approve. 
Christianity is no longer based on laws. Paul said; and such were some of you but you were washed. This means that even if I drink too much or even if I never overcome, I'm still saved. Knowing this is my repentance.
I could never be righteous enough to work my way into Heaven. If repentance of sin is required then none of us are saved as repentance means to turn from sin and stop sinning. Repentance from sin isn't just knowing it's wrong but actually stopping.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not sure it does but maybe equal to the modern day alcoholic. The important thing about these old laws is they are now written in our hearts. This means we don't follow the written law but we now follow our hearts. If you feel it in your heart that you are drinking too much to the point that it interferes with your worship of God, families well being, and your own health, then you know God doesn't approve.
> Christianity is no longer based on laws. Paul said; and such were some of you but you were washed. This means that even if I drink too much or even if I never overcome, I'm still saved. Knowing this is my repentance.
> I could never be righteous enough to work my way into Heaven. If repentance of sin is required then none of us are saved as repentance means to turn form sin and stop sinning. Repentance from sin isn't just knowing it's wrong but actually stopping.



AD, do you like movies about ... gladiators?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> I’m not trying to single you guys out.  This is for anybody in the “born that way" camp:
> 
> Can somebody explain Bill de Blasio’s (NYC mayor) wife to me?  And Sheryl Swoopes (former WNBA star)?
> 
> The former wrote an article years ago boldly saying “I am a lesbian.”.  Now, she is married … to Bill de Blasio.  The latter married her high school sweetheart … then became a lesbian … then split up with girlfriend and got engaged … to a man.


Possibilities -
1. they are actually bisexual and not lesbian regardless of what they call themselves.
2. being gay doesn't mean you cant mentally love the opposite sex and want to live life with them.
3. they love each other and have worked out a deal to accommodate their sexual preferences.
4. on and on.....


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Only a fool would believe that.




On a serious note though that's exactly what was believed based on nothing but being told it was true.


----------



## 660griz (May 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Me neither.
> 
> However, as someone who has tasted alcohol, I have no idea how anybody could become a drunkard.



You had to taste it. 
I don't have to ....ewww! Nevermind.

Oh, and some folks are prone to getting 'hooked' on anything.


----------



## JB0704 (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> That's an important statement. The majority identify as Catholic and the majority voted in gay marriage.
> Its not a rejection of their faith its a rejection of that doctrine. Or at least how that doctrine is applied versus rights of people etc.
> 
> Edit - added the sentence in red which may be the most accurate assessment of whats happening.



I think your edit is more likely the case.  Removing doctrine from law is not a totally "unChristian" thing to do.  It just seems that way.  A person can believe as they wish, and refuse to force that belief on others, and still be a Christian.

It would be nice if such libertarian thought were a two way street.  The only way to that point is to remove gov't from marriage so there are no winners and losers, only what an individual chooses to recognize and what he does not, and no attempts to force him to accept things he does not wish to accept.  Then, it becomes striclty a personal/religious thing.

That's kind-a how I feel it ought be.


----------



## JimD (May 27, 2015)

Centerpin,

I'm not saying all gay people popped out gay, but some absolutely have IMHO. Like I said before, I've seen repeated instances of young boys from straight families that appeared gay at 3 and 4 and of course ended up "coming out" later. I've spoken to gay guys about this, and all the ones I've spoken to said the same-they were always attracted to men. I don't understand it either, but I do know what I have witnessed so can only make a conclusion of some, based on what I've seen. Now the exames you gave I assume would be someone not knowing what they are and I'm not referring to that. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm just stating what I've seen and my thoughts on it. I was raised as a Christian so I know what the problem is with my observation. I also agree as was stated above, folks will talk about other "sins" but won't talk about their own. How many obese preachers are there speaking against gluttony??


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I think your edit is more likely the case.  Removing doctrine from law is not a totally "unChristian" thing to do.  It just seems that way.  A person can believe as they wish, and refuse to force that belief on others, and still be a Christian.
> 
> It would be nice if such libertarian thought were a two way street.  The only way to that point is to remove gov't from marriage so there are no winners and losers, only what an individual chooses to recognize and what he does not, and no attempts to force him to accept things he does not wish to accept.  Then, it becomes striclty a personal/religious thing.
> 
> That's kind-a how I feel it ought be.


Just shooting from the hip here but considering whats happening, in the not too far future there is going to be a church in every town who will gladly marry gay couples.
That's going to become the norm and "traditionalists" will claim they aren't real Christians and the circle will go round and round until traditionalists die off and become such a minority that they are basically ignored.
Its already started and picking up steam.
I see that happening before the government gets out of it.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

JimD said:


> I've seen repeated instances of young boys from straight families that appeared gay at 3 and 4 and of course ended up "coming out" later. I've spoken to gay guys about this, and all the ones I've spoken to said the same-they were always attracted to men.



... and I know guys who have lived as gay men for years and have since repented.  Their experience agrees with what the Bible clearly teaches:  "... and such were some of you."




JimD said:


> I also agree as was stated above, folks will talk about other "sins" but won't talk about their own.



I've said this multiple times in multiple threads, but here it is again:  the OP is not the case of an adulterous Baptist minister walking into a gay bar and whacking everybody over the head with a King James Bible, all the while yelling, "Turn or burn, sodomite!"

This is an issue of a certain group of sinners wanting their sin declared "not a sin".


----------



## JB0704 (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Just shooting from the hip here but considering whats happening, in the not too far future there is going to be a church in every town who will gladly marry gay couples.
> That's going to become the norm and "traditionalists" will claim they aren't real Christians and the circle will go round and round until traditionalists die off and become such a minority that they are basically ignored.
> Its already started and picking up steam.
> I see that happening before the government gets out of it.



Perhaps, but the issues are completely seperate.  One is an issue within the Church about the Church, the other is the manner in which we as a country determine to force our morality on everybody.......and forced morality is a two way street, the pendulum is just over correcting right now.

The gov't next step I see is recognized polygamy, then, other alternative arrangements.  The reason for this is that there is no ideological reason to recognize one configuration over another if the standard configuration is no longer the standard.   Or, why must the gov't recognize hetero and homo but not quatro (or whatever 2 dues and 2 ladies would be called as a relationship).

At which point, folks will start seeing the light, and think we were either better leaving things well enough alone, or just doing away with the whole mess, and, I think we know which of those choices the public will more likely accept at this point.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 27, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> *I'm not sure it does but maybe equal to the modern day alcoholic.* The important thing about these old laws is they are now written in our hearts. This means we don't follow the written law but we now follow our hearts. If you feel it in your heart that you are drinking too much to the point that it interferes with your worship of God, families well being, and your own health, then you know God doesn't approve.
> Christianity is no longer based on laws. Paul said; and such were some of you but you were washed. This means that even if I drink too much or even if I never overcome, I'm still saved. Knowing this is my repentance.
> I could never be righteous enough to work my way into Heaven. If repentance of sin is required then none of us are saved as repentance means to turn from sin and stop sinning. Repentance from sin isn't just knowing it's wrong but actually stopping.



My drankin' don't interfere with worshiping God. My brain is responsible for that, but that's been covered before. 

Bingo, you don't know because it doesn't say, at least so far as my research has shown thus far. Answers vary from any consumption of alcohol all the way up to spotted liver. So, which is the safest bet if a gay person is supposed to abandon their interests and engage in heterosexuality despite themselves because the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong? 

To me, that says that every adherent to the Bible had better be stone sober 100% of the time.


----------



## JB0704 (May 27, 2015)

Consider this.......those of you who wish to stand up and fight for the right of two fellas to be married, why wouldn't you also stand up and fight for the same right to be extended to a communal relationship?  What is the philosophical difference?  We are discussing freedom, right?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> ... and I know guys who have lived as gay men for years and have since repented.  Their experience agrees with what the Bible clearly teaches:  "... and such were some of you."
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> ... and I know guys who have lived as gay men for years and have since repented.  Their experience agrees with what the Bible clearly teaches:  "... and such were some of you."


To me that's all part of the charade.


> "... and such were some of you."


They are still gay. They just aren't practicing it.
So its not that "such WERE some of you".
Its all about appearances. Its a façade and as long as the façade is kept up everybodys happy.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 27, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Consider this.......those of you who wish to stand up and fight for the right of two fellas to be married, why wouldn't you also stand up and fight for the same right to be extended to a communal relationship?  What is the philosophical difference?  We are discussing freedom, right?



For me it's the fact that a relationship with 3 people in it has a 50% increased chance of some sort of family legal scenario as a result. I.e. divorce, custody, property, etc. With 4 it would be a 100% increase in chance, so on and so forth. If divorce were common to 40% of all marriages, and presuming that homosexual marriages, and polygamist marriages, followed suit then having a 3rd person means that there's a 60% chance that one of them will get tired and want to leave. With 4 it's 80%, assuming spitball numbers and a proportional increase relative to size. 

As the adults go, if you want to do that, fine. But if there's kids in the mix then I can't abide that, based on my logic above. 

As to why it's okay for two men, or two women to have charge of a child, well, there's nothing to say that one of the pair can't be the maternal figure with other being paternal. Unless you also argue that the child of a widower, or widow, is somehow less than a child of two parents. Two parents do not equal a great kid all the time. The conditions have to be just right, and that depends on the character of the people, not their "wedding tackle."


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Perhaps, but the issues are completely seperate.  One is an issue within the Church about the Church, the other is the manner in which we as a country determine to force our morality on everybody.......and forced morality is a two way street, the pendulum is just over correcting right now.
> 
> The gov't next step I see is recognized polygamy, then, other alternative arrangements.  The reason for this is that there is no ideological reason to recognize one configuration over another if the standard configuration is no longer the standard.   Or, why must the gov't recognize hetero and homo but not quatro (or whatever 2 dues and 2 ladies would be called as a relationship).
> 
> At which point, folks will start seeing the light, and think we were either better leaving things well enough alone, or just doing away with the whole mess, and, I think we know which of those choices the public will more likely accept at this point.





> One is an issue within the Church about the Church, the other is the manner in which we as a country determine to force our morality on everybody.......and forced morality is a two way street, the pendulum is just over correcting right now.


Its IS a 2 way street.
On one side of the street is folks saying you are forcing your morality on me.
On the other side of the street is the folks saying we are fighting to get rid of the morality you forced on me.


> The gov't next step I see is recognized polygamy, then, other alternative arrangements.  The reason for this is that there is no ideological reason to recognize one configuration over another if the standard configuration is no longer the standard.   Or, why must the gov't recognize hetero and homo but not quatro (or whatever 2dues and 2 ladies would be called as a relationship).


I think you give the gov't too much credit. Unless there is a polygamy movement like the civil rights movement and the gay marriage movement etc the gov't isn't going to do squat.
Now if that movement actually happens that's when your point about who the government recognizes is going to come into play. And yes exactly what would the argument be for denying it based on what we already recognize.


----------



## JB0704 (May 27, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> For me it's the fact that a relationship with 3 people in it has a 50% increased chance of some sort of family legal scenario as a result. I.e. divorce, custody, property, etc. With 4 it would be a 100% increase in chance, so on and so forth. If divorce were common to 40% of all marriages, and presuming that homosexual marriages, and polygamist marriages, followed suit then having a 3rd person means that there's a 60% chance that one of them will get tired and want to leave. With 4 it's 80%, assuming spitball numbers and a proportional increase relative to size.
> 
> As the adults go, if you want to do that, fine. But if there's kids in the mix then I can't abide that, based on my logic above.
> 
> As to why it's okay for two men, or two women to have charge of a child, well, there's nothing to say that one of the pair can't be the maternal figure with other being paternal. Unless you also argue that the child of a widower, or widow, is somehow less than a child of two parents. Two parents do not equal a great kid all the time. The conditions have to be just right, and that depends on the character of the people, not their "wedding tackle."



How could you justify punishing the whole based on probabilities?  There are entire communities already where the standard 2 parent home is the minority?

If you want this fella to be free, you gotta let the other guy be too.  You can't remove a person's freedom based on what you predict will happen.

Even then, why in the world would we recognize any marriage given how high divorce rates are amongst those who are already allowed to be?

"For the children" has been a primary argument against gay marriage which has not worked, at all.  As soon as that argument pops up somebody will counter it with photos of happy kids living in group homes.


----------



## JB0704 (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> On the other side of the street is the folks saying we are fighting to get rid of the morality you forced on me.



And in doing so, forcing side one to accept things they otherwise do not wish to accept.  In our country, the gov't recognizing anything is by default the people recognizing it.  Add in folks like the Colorado baker, and I think  you see where I am going with that.



WaltL1 said:


> I think you give the gov't too much credit. Unless there is a polygamy movement like the civil rights movement and the gay marriage movement etc the gov't isn't going to do squat.
> Now if that movement actually happens that's when your point about who the government recognizes is going to come into play. And yes exactly what would the argument be for denying it based on what we already recognize.



I think it will only require one case, and the legal system will be left scratching their head.  I do not see how a public outcry will be required once the precedent is set.

Fwiw, my position is that I am against the gov't recognizing any marriage.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 27, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> How could you justify punishing the whole based on probabilities?  There are entire communities already where the standard 2 parent home is the minority?
> 
> If you want this fella to be free, you gotta let the other guy be two.  You can't remove a person's freedom based on what you predict will happen.
> 
> ...



No, I don't gotta do anything. If I'm being asked to vote on the matter then my criteria for determining which I support and which I don't are my own. 

You asked the question, and I answered it. You may not like it, or may think that it doesn't point where you think it should, but that matters not. It is what it is. 

Everyone has a "here, and no further," point to any argument. In the "non-standard" relationships category it's human couples, not of blood relation, and both of the age of consent for their jurisdiction for me. I don't support familial relationships, nor animal, nor inanimate object, nor polygamy, as far as legal "civil union" status goes. Note that every objection of mine has a real, risk-based, foundation. 

Familial relations: increased genetic risk to fetus.
Inanimate object: Risk of potato owning a land lot ad infinitum
Polygamy: Increased risk of instability of household, and more importantly children's lives
Animal: No possibility of consent, not to mention disease vectors, and it's just plain cruel to even think of, IMO. 

All of these are the case when compared with the current status quo. If you can show me, not speculate or theorize, but demonstrate where homosexuals have more casual relationships, or more divorces, than their hetero counterparts then you have a good chance of swaying me to "your side" of this argument. "God says.." isn't going to work, or it would have worked before now. 

But, the data isn't there. It's never been tried, and all indicators as to the transience of homosexuals falls within the same bounds as it does with non-committed heterosexuals. As far as divorce rates, heteros are actually more likely to get divorced. Why? Because gays have to fight for it. They're also, numerically speaking, excellent parents, when they can adopt, because they had to fight to have the baby. Mary Jane and Bobby Joe, however, can have one in the worst possible circumstances and there's nothing to stop them so they don't respect the risk they are running. No homosexual ever had a baby by accident. How many "accidents" are being born today to hetero couples, or even single parents? 

My point is that the difference between A (hetero) and B (homo) isn't all that much, and in some cases is actually better, on the surface and only due to incomplete or limited data. If we went full bore with it, I'd bet we fell pretty close in line between the two, as far as transience and divorce rates go. The natural limitations on babies, however, just means that, on average, homosexuals will appear to be better parents. If you compared potato to potato, though, and removed orientation as a criteria, I would bet you'd have a hard time finding a point against gays being at least as good parents as similarly prepared and equipped hetero couples. 

The distance to C, though, which are all the other couplings and groupings, is too great for me to cross. I can't support or justify any of them.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> ... and I know guys who have lived as gay men for years and have since repented.  Their experience agrees with what the Bible clearly teaches:  "... and such were some of you."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



^This...


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Consider this.......those of you who wish to stand up and fight for the right of two fellas to be married, why wouldn't you also stand up and fight for the same right to be extended to a communal relationship?  What is the philosophical difference?  We are discussing freedom, right?


Good question and to be honest, on the surface, you've got me stumped.
I do support the right for gays to marry. I don't stand up and fight for it but I would votes yes given the opportunity. I just cant justify them not having that right based soley on them being gay regardless of what I think about "gayness".
So how would I not apply that same thing to a communal relationship?
Good question. I need more information about the subject.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

> This is an issue of a certain group of sinners wanting their sin declared "not a sin".


So if voting yes on gay marriage makes them sinners because its against what the Bible says how do you avoid not being a sinner for voting for any elected official who does not govern straight from the Bible?
Your vote is supporting any and all of that officials policies that doesn't agree with the Bible. That would put you in the same boat as those you just deemed to be sinners.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> They are still gay. They just aren't practicing it.



They are still trapped in a human body and will be  subjected to temptation for the rest of their lives.  They do not, however, have to give in to temptation.

It's not a façade,  and it's not a charade.  It's actual changed behavior.


----------



## 660griz (May 27, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Consider this.......those of you who wish to stand up and fight for the right of two fellas to be married, why wouldn't you also stand up and fight for the same right to be extended to a communal relationship?  What is the philosophical difference?  We are discussing freedom, right?



I am not fighting for 2 dudes to marry. However, if folks ask my opinion, I'll give it to them. Debating the natural occurring homosexuality should not be confused with fighting for it.
If there was a, 'let gay folk' marry checkbox on the next ballot, I'll say sure. 
If there is a let 14 folks and a goat marry on the next ballot, I'll say sure. 
If there is a let only heteros marry and all others be called a legal union, I'll say sure. 
How could the possession of a piece of paper or lack of it possibly affect me. 
Whatever will make folks shut up about it. The more folks complain the more I have to hear about this stuff. 
I am not easily offended and even if I were, I don't believe I have a right not to be.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> They are still trapped in a human body and will be  subjected to temptation for the rest of their lives.  They do not, however, have to give in to temptation.
> 
> It's not a façade,  and it's not a charade.  It's actual changed behavior.


The scripture says "and such WERE some of you".
They aren't WERE gay, they ARE gay.
Do you literally believe they aren't gay any more?


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> So if voting yes on gay marriage makes them sinners because its against what the Bible says how do you avoid not being a sinner for voting for any elected official who does not govern straight from the Bible?



I am not holding my breath for an elected official who governs straight from the Bible.  And, as I mentioned before, the church did just fine with Nero and Domitian running the show.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The scripture says "and such WERE some of you".
> They aren't WERE gay, they ARE gay.
> Do you literally believe they aren't gay any more?



I literally believe they repented of their sins and are no longer doing them.  I have no doubt they are still tempted, but temptation is not sin.  Jesus was tempted, but He did not sin.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My drankin' don't interfere with worshiping God. My brain is responsible for that, but that's been covered before.
> 
> Bingo, you don't know because it doesn't say, at least so far as my research has shown thus far. Answers vary from any consumption of alcohol all the way up to spotted liver. So, which is the safest bet if a gay person is supposed to abandon their interests and engage in heterosexuality despite themselves because the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong?
> 
> To me, that says that every adherent to the Bible had better be stone sober 100% of the time.



I look at either issue as between the individual and God. 
Mainly because the Bible doesn't spell it out. We must know and base our lives on the commandment of love.
If not a Christian then base it on just knowing right from wrong. I would think most people know when they aren't loving their brother.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> I literally believe they repented of their sins and are no longer doing them.  I have no doubt they are still tempted, but temptation is not sin.  Jesus was tempted, but He did not sin.



What if they slip up and lie or steal or hate their brother? How much repentance is necessary for salvation to "take hold?"
Perhaps they still harbor gay thoughts and lust. Maybe 85% repentance? Personally I'm more at 50% repentance level.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> I am not holding my breath for an elected official who governs straight from the Bible.  And, as I mentioned before, the church did just fine with Nero and Domitian running the show.


You are side stepping the question.
If they voted for something against the Bible and that makes them sinners and you vote for something (an official) who has policies that don't coincide with the Bible then you did exactly what those sinners did.
No way around it other than not to vote.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The scripture says "and such WERE some of you".
> They aren't WERE gay, they ARE gay.
> Do you literally believe they aren't gay any more?



"Gay is an act, not a lifestyle," inbound your location, time imminent.


----------



## JB0704 (May 27, 2015)

660griz said:


> How could the possession of a piece of paper or lack of it possibly affect me.



Which is my point.  The paper does not impact me, my beliefs, or anything I do unless the gov't then forces em to recognize it.

We could draw hypothetical lines all over the place, as Striper points out, but, what if my line was for everybody except eskimos to be allowed to configure however they wish?

Whether I like it or not, I don't see it as my business to regulate it.


----------



## JB0704 (May 27, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, I don't gotta do anything. If I'm being asked to vote on the matter then my criteria for determining which I support and which I don't are my own.
> 
> You asked the question, and I answered it. You may not like it, or may think that it doesn't point where you think it should, but that matters not. It is what it is.



Right, but you are allowing your personal lines to motivate you to place such restrictions on others who do not share your morality.

You can vote as you wish.  I just try to "do unto others" when it comes to the ballot box.  I don't want folks taking my stuff or forcing their beliefs on me, so I don't do it to them, regardless of how I feel about their choices.  And, I assure you, big communal families seems awful icky to me.

If the gov't starts recognizing the arrangements, consider the impact to other things like insurance coverage and claims......the trickle down effect would impact everybody.  

I jsut think it's best to leave it well enough alone, or be done with it.  My wife and I are still married with or without the paper.


----------



## JB0704 (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> So if voting yes on gay marriage makes them sinners because its against what the Bible says how do you avoid not being a sinner for voting for any elected official who does not govern straight from the Bible?
> Your vote is supporting any and all of that officials policies that doesn't agree with the Bible. That would put you in the same boat as those you just deemed to be sinners.



I do not think it does.  Just because I think folks ought be free to do certain things doesn't mean I think it's cool they do them.  Whole conversations on many topics could be had relevant to this.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> ... and you vote for something (an official) who has policies that don't coincide with the Bible ...



1.  As far as I know, I've never done that.

2. "... the powers that be are ordained of God." (Rom. 13:1)


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> 1.  As far as I know, I've never done that.
> 2. "... the powers that be are ordained of God." (Rom. 13:1)


I have to take you at your word but I think it would be pretty naïve to think ANY politicans policies etc line up with the Bible. Odds are if they did they would have never made it to be up to vote for.
Although your use of "as far as I know" would be a get out of jail free card as opposed to the voters in Ireland who knew exactly what they were voting for.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> I literally believe they repented of their sins and are no longer doing them.  I have no doubt they are still tempted, but temptation is not sin.  Jesus was tempted, but He did not sin.


Wouldn't that then move on to the "lust in your heart" thing?
Although technically I think that only specifies a man lusting after a woman.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

To get back to the OP for a second, does anybody think this is accurate/the answer?


> "The Church has to find a new language which will be understood and heard by people," Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin, a senior Irish cleric, told reporters after mass at the city's St Mary's Pro-Cathedral on Sunday.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Wouldn't that then move on to the "lust in your heart" thing?



That is sin.  You have to move on from temptation to get to that point.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 27, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Right, but you are allowing your personal lines to motivate you to place such restrictions on others who do not share your morality.
> 
> You can vote as you wish.  I just try to "do unto others" when it comes to the ballot box.  I don't want folks taking my stuff or forcing their beliefs on me, so I don't do it to them, regardless of how I feel about their choices.  And, I assure you, big communal families seems awful icky to me.
> 
> ...



We all do that. You're doing the same thing based on your subscribed morality. 

I do do unto others. I vote my conscience, they vote theirs. It's equal. Unless they can demonstrate an equal or lower risk of the problems I laid out above, when compared with a coupled versus grouped household, I still hold tight to it being a higher risk. It's not about the ickyness of the situation. It's about the risk to the child, IMO, and a house with more spouses is of a higher risk to have one of them walk out. 

Recognizes what? What trickle down? You'll have to be more specific here. 

On this last we agree, at least in principle. It's a different matter, however, if you're on vacation in California and they don't recognize your GA union with all of the rights and privileges afforded.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> To get back to the OP for a second, does anybody think this is accurate/the answer?
> [QUOTE]"The Church has to find a new language which will be understood and heard by people," Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin, a senior Irish cleric, told reporters after mass at the city's St Mary's Pro-Cathedral on Sunday.



Here's another Catholic opinion:



> 'Not a defeat for Christian principles, it was a defeat for humanity,' Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin said in comments quoted by Vatican Radio late on Tuesday. 'I was very saddened by this result.'
> 
> Parolin, Pope Francis' most senior Vatican official, added that the referendum result showed the Church needed to improve the ways it preached the Christian message.
> 
> 'The Church must take account of this reality, but in the sense of reinforcing its commitment to evangelization,' he said.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...te-defeat-humanity-Vatican-official-says.html


----------



## welderguy (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> To get back to the OP for a second, does anybody think this is accurate/the answer?



Quote:
"The Church has to find a new language which will be understood and heard by people," Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin, a senior Irish cleric, told reporters after mass at the city's St Mary's Pro-Cathedral on Sunday.




I'm so glad you asked.

My opinion is they are doing exactly what Paul foretold  when he said this:

2 Tim.4:
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.


----------



## bullethead (May 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Quote:
> "The Church has to find a new language which will be understood and heard by people," Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin, a senior Irish cleric, told reporters after mass at the city's St Mary's Pro-Cathedral on Sunday.
> 
> 
> ...



Disrespectful and nauseating.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 27, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Disrespectful and nauseating.



How so and why?


----------



## centerpin fan (May 27, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Disrespectful and nauseating.



Attorneys at Law!


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Quote:
> "The Church has to find a new language which will be understood and heard by people," Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin, a senior Irish cleric, told reporters after mass at the city's St Mary's Pro-Cathedral on Sunday.
> 
> 
> ...


Your scripture describes what the problem is perceived to be while the question that was asked is if you agree that "finding new language" is the answer to the problem.
Or are you saying that scripture applies to "finding new language" as the answer to the problem?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Attorneys at Law!


Reminds me of - paging Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard


----------



## welderguy (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Your scripture describes what the problem is perceived to be while the question that was asked is if you agree that "finding new language" is the answer to the problem.



I do not agree.(I assumed you made that assessment)
I agree with Paul when he said this in the verse before that:

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

If more preachers would get more backbone and preach what's in the word instead of trying to please the world,they might see a difference.(that is, if God is in it)


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I do not agree.(I assumed you made that assessment)
> I agree with Paul when he said this in the verse before that:
> 
> 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
> ...


Nope wasn't my assessment it was the Churches assessment -


> "The Church has to find a new language which will be understood and heard by people," Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin, a senior Irish cleric, told reporters after mass at the city's St Mary's Pro-Cathedral on Sunday.


I think its ridiculous that they (he) thinks that's the answer to the problem.


----------



## welderguy (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I think its ridiculous that they (he) thinks that's the answer to the problem.



I agree.
What do you think a solution might be?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I agree.
> What do you think a solution might be?


Specific to this gay marriage subject I don't think there is anything the Church can say or do that's going to change people's minds. The Bible says what it says about the subject, the people know what the Bible says, the people know what the Church says.
I don't see any way the Church can repackage the same thing that will all of a sudden make it palatable to the majority. 
The biggest factor is its the young people driving this change and there is no stopping that.
In fact I think its a cop out if they even try to come up with "new language". It reeks of desperation.
If the Bible is supposed to be the word of God, trying to come up with "new language" is an admission that God's word isn't good enough and the Church thinks it can come up with something better.


----------



## JB0704 (May 27, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> We all do that. You're doing the same thing based on your subscribed morality.



 Would we be on equal footing if I was cool with all gay folks gettin' married except gay eskimos?  That is a natural progression of your thoughts.  The difference between my position and yours is that mine requires everybody to be free, yours allows for restrictions based on the whims of the population.  I prefer that not be the case where no victims are created.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Unless they can demonstrate an equal or lower risk of the problems I laid out above, when compared with a coupled versus grouped household, I still hold tight to it being a higher risk. It's not about the ickyness of the situation. It's about the risk to the child, IMO, and a house with more spouses is of a higher risk to have one of them walk out.



What are the odds of a 2nd and 3rd marriage ending?  A single parent can already introduce multiple partners into the equation, and the risk can increase exponentially as you demonstrated in the current arrangement.  I'm not sure what is accomplished by saying "these two but not them four."



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Recognizes what? What trickle down? You'll have to be more specific here.



A gov't recognizes a union.  Such a union must be recognized by businesses/industries who cater to unions.......we both know there won't be a "no gays insurance company."  If a company does not wish to cater to the gay or the quatro couple, will they be at risk of legal action?  I think so, the CO baker would agree.  The gov'ts recognition of the union has now forced private individuals and businesses to also recognize these unions they do not wish to.  We have now exponentially increased the amount of people who have lost their freedom because we have insisted the gov't recognize gay unions, quatro unions, polygamous unions, etc (there is no way the gov't can deny polygamous unions at this point......that's coming).  From there we have a plethora of ways these new unions can impact the local community and economy.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> On this last we agree, at least in principle. It's a different matter, however, if you're on vacation in California and they don't recognize your GA union with all of the rights and privileges afforded.



It wouldn't be different in California if Ga didn't recognize the union either.

That's all I'm saying.  The only way out of this mess is to get the gov't out of this business.  At the very most it is a state issue.  Not a federal one.  EVen then, the States should see the writing on the wall and walk away.


----------



## welderguy (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Specific to this gay marriage subject I don't think there is anything the Church can say or do that's going to change people's minds. The Bible says what it says about the subject, the people know what the Bible says, the people know what the Church says.
> I don't see any way the Church can repackage the same thing that will all of a sudden make it palatable to the majority.
> The biggest factor is its the young people driving this change and there is no stopping that.
> In fact I think its a cop out if they even try to come up with "new language". It reeks of desperation.
> If the Bible is supposed to be the word of God, trying to come up with "new language" is an admission that God's word isn't good enough and the Church thinks it can come up with something better.



I hope you don't think "the Church" in regards to this example is representive of all churches.


----------



## JB0704 (May 27, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> In fact I think its a cop out if they even try to come up with "new language". It reeks of desperation.



On this point we agree.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I hope you don't think "the Church" in regards to this example is representive of all churches.


No in this case the Catholic Church which is the largest by far.
If one thing is for sure you guys don't agree with each other on a lot of things.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 27, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> On this point we agree.


That it would even be suggested confirms in my mind my cynicism about organized religion.
Maybe Mr. Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin didn't actually think about the implications of what he was saying, I don't know.


----------



## Nerf Warrior (May 28, 2015)

Walt if I can put my two cents worth in.   I work with the youth at our church and I see numbers dropping on a regular basis.  Why I dont know although I have my own thoughts on the matter. The question is, how do I get them back?  Ive got to pray and come up with a new plan or a new language so to speak.  Not changing the  message or the written word but maybe a different way to deliver it.  To me its no different than throwing a plastic worm under a big ol log and reeling it in with no success.  Chances are I can change the delivery with something as simple as a twitch and entice a strike.  Same bait, same bass just different delivery.  I didnt read the article and I may be way off base but just from what I read in some of the post this is what I get by the phrase "using a new language".


----------



## WaltL1 (May 28, 2015)

Nerf Warrior said:


> Walt if I can put my two cents worth in.   I work with the youth at our church and I see numbers dropping on a regular basis.  Why I dont know although I have my own thoughts on the matter. The question is, how do I get them back?  Ive got to pray and come up with a new plan or a new language so to speak.  Not changing the  message or the written word but maybe a different way to deliver it.  To me its no different than throwing a plastic worm under a big ol log and reeling it in with no success.  Chances are I can change the delivery with something as simple as a twitch and entice a strike.  Same bait, same bass just different delivery.  I didnt read the article and I may be way off base but just from what I read in some of the post this is what I get by the phrase "using a new language".


1st - welcome Nerf, not sure I have seen you post here before.
2nd - You put me in a funny spot as I reject organized religion and you are asking me to suggest how to bring youths into organized religion 
Ive got an appointment at the VA this morning so let me think about it and I'll get back to you later today.
And maybe some of the other guys will chime in in the meantime.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 28, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> 1st - welcome Nerf, not sure I have seen you post here before.
> 2nd - You put me in a funny spot as I reject organized religion and you are asking me to suggest how to bring youths into organized religion
> Ive got an appointment at the VA this morning so let me think about it and I'll get back to you later today.
> And maybe some of the other guys will chime in in the meantime.



You have an appointment at the VA and expect to return today? Bizarre...


----------



## centerpin fan (May 28, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Reminds me of - paging Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard



A classic!


----------



## 660griz (May 28, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> To get back to the OP for a second, does anybody think this is accurate/the answer?



I think I have given one way to 'spin' it. Another would be for the church to say, "Listen, these folks are gay, science and nature proves it happens. Even if the act is a sin, which is worse in the eyes of the Lord, gay folks running around having gay sex willy nilly or, a gay couple in a committed, loving, legally binding ball and chain relationship like the rest of us?"


----------



## JB0704 (May 28, 2015)

Nerf Warrior said:


> I didnt read the article and I may be way off base but just from what I read in some of the post this is what I get by the phrase "using a new language".




The entire contemporary movement is an exercise in changing a delivery system.  My thoughts on the "new language" are that if you don't believe what you claim to believe, why would anybody else believe it with you?

Nothing wrong with changing a delivery system.  Lots wrong with changing principles.  My issue with the contemporary church movement is that they often reject Biblical leadership structure and replace it with something extra-Biblical and then create odd doctrine to support it.  This works, in that it elliminates some of the nasty church splits the traditional church is infamous for, and the contemporary delivery method has a broader appeal.  The problem is that it rejects what it claims to believe in order to exist in the manner it wishes, and in doing so, it is more like a business than a church.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 28, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> To get back to the OP for a second, does anybody think this is accurate/the answer?



No. There doesn't need to be a different "language," the old one is just fine. If you start trying to change things around, folks'll get suspicious: It all seems very desperate to me. If the message of Christianity is so powerful and consuming, as I know it to be, there is no need to "change" anything: Give the message as it appears, and let people respond as they will. God's word will accomplish that which he sent it to do...no change in language required.

For those that are afraid of Christianity falling behind in a changing world, think about the early Christians in Rome...they were not "welcomed" in many cases. Ever'thang's gon' be just fiine


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 28, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Would we be on equal footing if I was cool with all gay folks gettin' married except gay eskimos?  That is a natural progression of your thoughts.  The difference between my position and yours is that mine requires everybody to be free, yours allows for restrictions based on the whims of the population.  I prefer that not be the case where no victims are created.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It all depends in how you define victim. No matter what happens you're creating a victim. You're saying that by me not allowing incestuous couples, or polygamists, that I'm victimizing them for my own morality. I say you're victimizing the children born with genetic diseases to incestuous couples, and victimizing children who have to live in broken homes where Daddy#2 left in a huff because Daddy and Mommy #1 had more play time together. Look the child with genetic disease in the eye because they were born of that couple, or the kid who now has to be dragged through a custody triangle instead of a line, and tell them that at least you got to pat yourself on the back because you treated all couplings/groupings equally. See how far that gets you. 

If 50% of couples get divorces, adding a second couple doubles your odds of one of them ending in divorce. It's really simple math. I'm not saying that they can't be together, I'm just curious what additional legal benefits you would give a quad that you aren't already affording the couple? If there's none, then there's no point in going to the next level. If there are some, why would they get it and couples wouldn't? 

You're presuming that I'm okay with what happened to the baker. I'm not. So long as there are other businesses out there to cater to your needs there's no need to force this one to work for you. Go find someone who will do so willingly. There's a lot of ins and outs to that scenario, and they don't work well to discuss via text. We'll just have to save the full version for our AAA Boat Out and Cook Out. 

I hold being able to be beside your spouse as they lay in the hospital as a basic human right. You have the right to couple with, and share your life with, whomever you wish that is capable of consent, and provided no victims are created. It's complicated, but that's my view. Sharing your life means that when you go from GA to CA, to NY, to HI, you're "married" or "joined" whatever word pleases the religious folk these days to refer to the legal status of a union only. That's another matter that I'm sick of tip toeing around, but I'll save that for another discussion. The point being is that a couple, legally wed in GA, ought to be legally wed in CA. "All men (read: humans) are created equal..." Since there is no increased risk of victims, by which we could strip privileges from people, in a homosexual coupling versus a hetero coupling, I can't find a justifiable reason to forbid it. Any of the other non-standard couplings and groupings, though, and that goes up. I really am being equal here. I'm just using different criteria. 

Well, given that there are legal protections and privileges afforded to couples, you're unlikely to ever see that happen. If you want to get married in the eyes of the church, you can do that. It just won't be recognized outside of the, and likely that one these days, church. If you want to be married across state lines, and in the eyes of the law, well that's where you need the license.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 28, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> To get back to the OP for a second, does anybody think this is accurate/the answer?



Religion has been evolving since its inception in order to bring new members to the flock. This is nothing new. That's why it was mocked in _Dogma._


----------



## JimD (May 28, 2015)

Nerf, I'm not Walt, but here is part of it. http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=hwIpFNcXg2Q


----------



## JB0704 (May 28, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> We'll just have to save the full version for our AAA Boat Out and Cook Out.



We really need to get that on the calendar.  I have been gone several weekends here lately, and have another trip coming up in two weeks, I'm not really sure when I could do it until later this month or next month.  That's why I haven't sent the PM yet........it's coming, though.


----------



## welderguy (May 28, 2015)

JimD said:


> Nerf, I'm not Walt, but here is part of it. http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=hwIpFNcXg2Q



Excellent message JimD.
I agree 110%.

Salt.not sugar.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 28, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> We really need to get that on the calendar.  I have been gone several weekends here lately, and have another trip coming up in two weeks, I'm not really sure when I could do it until later this month or next month.  That's why I haven't sent the PM yet........it's coming, though.



Received and replied. I just wish group messaging worked better on here. There's no Reply All button.


----------



## JB0704 (May 28, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Received and replied. I just wish group messaging worked better on here. There's no Reply All button.



Yes, it'd s pain.  We have moved communication to email in the past.  Lets see what can be worked out


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 28, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, it'd s pain.  We have moved communication to email in the past.  Lets see what can be worked out



I'm looking forward to it. Yeah, I let my passions get the best of me at times, but there's no one here that I don't respect or don't think I could get along with. 

Alternatively we could also look at renting a campsite at the Islands, not he weekend of the 4th as I'm sure they're already booked solid, but during cooler weather and just do a bon-fire/cook-out up there, too.


----------



## JB0704 (May 28, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm looking forward to it. Yeah, I let my passions get the best of me at times, but there's no one here that I don't respect or don't think I could get along with.
> 
> Alternatively we could also look at renting a campsite at the Islands, not he weekend of the 4th as I'm sure they're already booked solid, but during cooler weather and just do a bon-fire/cook-out up there, too.



Id definitely be up for that.  LEts start small, and see if we can get something bigger on the calendar.

Everybody I have met from this forum, not just the AAA, but the others as well, have been real good folks.  Heck, one fella I used to argue with like crazy in the huntin' forum and the political forum is a good fishin' buddy of mine now.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 28, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Id definitely be up for that.  LEts start small, and see if we can get something bigger on the calendar.
> 
> Everybody I have met from this forum, not just the AAA, but the others as well, have been real good folks.  Heck, one fella I used to argue with like crazy in the huntin' forum and the political forum is a good fishin' buddy of mine now.



I hear ya.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 28, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> You have an appointment at the VA and expect to return today? Bizarre...


Apparently you've dealt with the VA 
But to be honest I deal with the VA hospital in Oakwood and they are pretty good.
Well maybe I should say at least I didn't come out any worse than I went in.


----------



## Nerf Warrior (May 28, 2015)

Walt, I have posted in the hunting forum before but manage to steer clear of the religious forums.  I have noticed that most of the ones that post in these forums are cool as heck but there are also the ones (in the Christian and Atheist) that sometimes tend to start some name calling and then making some pretty mean jokes about the others belief system.  I just dont go for that. I get aggravated when all that starts and it just drags me down. I respect anyones belief and enjoy conversations concerning such.  Cant learn if you dont look and listen.  Again I didnt read the article I was just giving my thoughts on what the term " a different language" meant to me.  Guess I need to go read the article.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 28, 2015)

> Originally Posted by Nerf Warrior View Post
> Walt if I can put my two cents worth in. I work with the youth at our church and I see numbers dropping on a regular basis. Why I dont know although I have my own thoughts on the matter. The question is, how do I get them back? Ive got to pray and come up with a new plan or a new language so to speak. Not changing the message or the written word but maybe a different way to deliver it. To me its no different than throwing a plastic worm under a big ol log and reeling it in with no success. Chances are I can change the delivery with something as simple as a twitch and entice a strike. Same bait, same bass just different delivery. I didnt read the article and I may be way off base but just from what I read in some of the post this is what I get by the phrase "using a new language".





> Waltl1-
> 1st - welcome Nerf, not sure I have seen you post here before.
> 2nd - You put me in a funny spot as I reject organized religion and you are asking me to suggest how to bring youths into organized religion
> Ive got an appointment at the VA this morning so let me think about it and I'll get back to you later today.
> And maybe some of the other guys will chime in in the meantime


. 
Nerf I said I would get back to you on this so......
First Im not wild about the indoctrination of youth. My opinion is they really don't understand what it is you are teaching them. And Im not convinced its done for the youths benefit as much as it is for Christianity's benefit. And part of what you are going to teach them or rather what Christianity is going to teach them is to look negatively at other people in this world who are different or believe different than them.
On the flip side, a youth group can also have a positive effect on troubled youths etc. and make a positive difference in a kids life.
So heres how I am going to answer which may or may not be worthless to you -
You have at least some kids in your group now. Use those kids to make a positive effect on the community. Have them clean up an elderly persons yard. Bring them to visiting day at the old folks home etc. Then through your church let everybody know the positive things they are doing. Get your youths to tell other youths how satisfying and "cool" it is helping people. Youths are going to listen to other youths before they are going to listen to an adult.  
You've got to make them want to participate. Reading out of the Bible wont to do that.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 28, 2015)

Nerf Warrior said:


> Walt, I have posted in the hunting forum before but manage to steer clear of the religious forums.  I have noticed that most of the ones that post in these forums are cool as heck but there are also the ones (in the Christian and Atheist) that sometimes tend to start some name calling and then making some pretty mean jokes about the others belief system.  I just dont go for that. I get aggravated when all that starts and it just drags me down. I respect anyones belief and enjoy conversations concerning such.  Cant learn if you dont look and listen.  Again I didnt read the article I was just giving my thoughts on what the term " a different language" meant to me.  Guess I need to go read the article.


In here we basically have a core group of AAAs who try and avoid the whole name calling and mean jokes thing. Our conversations can get a little heated for sure but at the end of the day I think we pretty much all like each other.
I think we do a pretty good job of respecting each other even if we don't agree on religion etc. Sounds like you would fit in here so I hope you continue to participate.
Now we do get the occasional drive by Atheist or Agnostic or Christian whos only intention is to insult other people. But I think we do a pretty good job of chasing them away.


----------



## welderguy (May 28, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Now we do get the occasional drive by Atheist or Agnostic or Christian whos only intention is to insult other people.



I really wouldn't consider bullethead a drive by.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I really wouldn't consider bullethead a drive by.


I assure you Bullet isn't here just to insult anybody.
He just has a low tolerance for doo doo.
If you would actually try to engage him in conversation (as opposed to posting scripture) I think you might be surprised.


----------



## welderguy (May 28, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I assure you Bullet isn't here just to insult anybody.
> He just has a low tolerance for doo doo.
> If you would actually try to engage him in conversation (as opposed to posting scripture) I think you might be surprised.



I know and I assure you I said that purely out of fun.I've really grown kinda fond of that guy, believe it or not.

I think that's why I hang around down here.Because I know you guys aren't going to mince words or give false pretence.I accept you for who you are, regardless of your beliefs.We get a little sideways from time to time but I think that's ok.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I know and I assure you I said that purely out of fun.I've really grown kinda fond of that guy, believe it or not.
> 
> I think that's why I hang around down here.Because I know you guys aren't going to mince words or give false pretence.I accept you for who you are, regardless of your beliefs.We get a little sideways from time to time but I think that's ok.


I'm glad to hear that and I agree.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 29, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Apparently you've dealt with the VA
> But to be honest I deal with the VA hospital in Oakwood and they are pretty good..



My Grandfather is...was...a vet. I really can't complain too much, they  did right by him.



WaltL1 said:


> Well maybe I should say at least I didn't come out any worse than I went in.



That's about all you can hope for.


----------



## welderguy (May 29, 2015)

WaltL1;9507640) (as opposed to posting scripture) [/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Your telling me to stop posting scripture is like a captain of a  ship trying to navigate treacherous fog radioing the lighthouse operator and telling him to turn that nuisance bright light off.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 29, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Your telling me to stop posting scripture is like a captain of a  ship trying to navigate treacherous fog radioing the lighthouse operator and telling him to turn that nuisance bright light off.



Perhaps it's not the lighthouse to him that it is to you.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 29, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Your telling me to stop posting scripture is like a captain of a  ship trying to navigate treacherous fog radioing the lighthouse operator and telling him to turn that nuisance bright light off.


Im not telling you to stop. Im telling you it adds nothing to the conversation. We are here to converse.
Of course you could post scripture that proves nothing and we could cut and paste from Atheist websites that prove nothing and that way none of us will have to think or get to know the other person or get a better understanding of each others views.
You know how Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US? There may come a time when you are going to need AAs support. Us knowing YOU instead of scripture might work in your favor.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 29, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I assure you Bullet isn't here just to insult anybody.
> He just has a low tolerance for doo doo.




Bullet was unforgettable in _Caddyshack_:


----------



## WaltL1 (May 29, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Bullet was unforgettable in _Caddyshack_:


  Yup that covers it.


----------



## welderguy (May 29, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Perhaps it's not the lighthouse to him that it is to you.



I get that.I really do.But I also don't believe I should hide my light for the sake of some who disagree with it either.I'm just being who I am, just like you guys are being who you are.Isn't that the most unhypocritical way to be after all?

I have to be honest, I don't like hearing a lot of the things yall say on here.But I hope I never get to a point where I harbor malice for you and wish you would not speak your mind.Sure, I'd love for everyone to totally agree with my view but that's not realistic.


----------



## 660griz (May 29, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I get that.I really do.But I also don't believe I should hide my light for the sake of some who disagree with it either.



Not hide 'your' light, just use YOUR light. Not a 2000 year old light.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 29, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I get that.I really do.But I also don't believe I should hide my light for the sake of some who disagree with it either.I'm just being who I am, just like you guys are being who you are.Isn't that the most unhypocritical way to be after all?
> 
> I have to be honest, I don't like hearing a lot of the things yall say on here.But I hope I never get to a point where I harbor malice for you and wish you would not speak your mind.Sure, I'd love for everyone to totally agree with my view but that's not realistic.



You're not speaking your mind, that's the point. You're regurgitating the Bible. We can read the Bible for ourselves. That's Walt's whole point. 

Does the Bible say, literally, 100% on every topic what you want to say? If not, we would like to hear your thoughts rather than the passages. But it's still your choice whether to oblige us or not.


----------



## welderguy (May 29, 2015)

660griz said:


> Not hide 'your' light, just use YOUR light. Not a 2000 year old light.



See the problem with that is that I'm not a super intelligent person with a lot of comunication skills.I'm just a welder.I can tell you just about all you want to know about welding but when it comes to apologetics or even complex speech, I'm way out of my league here.You guys put me to shame on intelligent conversing.

But....intelligence and wisdom might be two different things.agree?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 29, 2015)

welderguy said:


> See the problem with that is that I'm not a super intelligent person with a lot of comunication skills.I'm just a welder.I can tell you just about all you want to know about welding but when it comes to apologetics or even complex speech, I'm way out of my league here.You guys put me to shame on intelligent conversing.
> 
> But....intelligence and wisdom might be two different things.agree?



I don't mean to step on any toes, but there's not a single person that I've ever seen post in this forum that is "super intelligent." Don't get me wrong, we're all (you included) pretty smart folks in our respective subjects, but still no better than the average bear. 

Complex language is learned easily enough. If you can read and understand the Bible, you can certainly read and understand any post you might see around here: You might have to become well acquainted with a dictionary, but it's still very doable.

If anyone here were a super intellect, they'd write a book about this stuff rather than post it here.

And yes, there is a difference in Wisdom and Intelligence.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 29, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You're not speaking your mind, that's the point. You're regurgitating the Bible. We can read the Bible for ourselves. That's Walt's whole point.
> 
> Does the Bible say, literally, 100% on every topic what you want to say? If not, we would like to hear your thoughts rather than the passages. But it's still your choice whether to oblige us or not.



Indeed, you could; but do/have you? ... "have" I think, might have been the word you meant to use. 

Of course the Bible doesn't speak 100% on all topics literally, Welder has exhibited this understanding in his posts (the ones I've read); but inferences can be drawn from the Bible about any topic you'd like to discuss. Perhaps his inferences could be fleshed out a little more, but, as they stand now, they're no different than some other things I've posted in the past with, so far as I know, not a glance given in the direction his posts have been perceived.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 29, 2015)

welderguy said:


> See the problem with that is that I'm not a super intelligent person with a lot of comunication skills.I'm just a welder.I can tell you just about all you want to know about welding but when it comes to apologetics or even complex speech, I'm way out of my league here.You guys put me to shame on intelligent conversing.
> 
> But....intelligence and wisdom might be two different things.agree?


Welder we don't care if you can only use two letter words or have to send smoke signals or scratch what you are trying to say in the sand. That's not what matters to us.
Im a high school drop out my friend, I assure you my complex speech skills aren't out of your league.
When I'm here I also have a tab open with Websters Dictionary so I can look up half the darn words people use.
By the way I can't tell you the first thing about welding other than you wear one of those cool facemask helmet things. So I don't think you saying "Im just a welder" is very accurate. 


> But....intelligence and wisdom might be two different things agree?


Absolutely.
In fact in my travels Ive seen a lot of times where they are completely opposite.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 29, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Indeed, you could; but do/have you? ... "have" I think, might have been the word you meant to use.
> 
> Of course the Bible doesn't speak 100% on all topics literally, Welder has exhibited this understanding in his posts (the ones I've read); but inferences can be drawn from the Bible about any topic you'd like to discuss. Perhaps his inferences could be fleshed out a little more, but, as they stand now, they're no different than some other things I've posted in the past with, so far as I know, not a glance given in the direction his posts have been perceived.



The posts where he expounds on the scripture aren't the ones being discussed. The ones that are naught but the scripture are. 

Yes, it's have, but it's also can. I frequently cite the Bible in our discussions, but it's never just the citation and done. It's the citation, and the question I'm posing, or the point I'm trying to make. Which is what is being asked of welder to do. 

Personally I don't mind those posts, I'm just trying to facilitate the current discussion. I look at them and move on as we've shown that there are many ways to interpret the same scripture, so they don't really contribute all that much. 

John 3:16 is pretty straightforward, or is it? 

For God so loved _the world..._

Not just Christians, not just the elect, and not excepting the gays or other sinners. But that's not what some here would have us believe, so leaving the scripture, with no exposition as to the larger point you're trying to make, doesn't do as much, even between faithful people let alone agnostics or atheists, as you'd think it would.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 29, 2015)

welderguy said:


> See the problem with that is that I'm not a super intelligent person with a lot of comunication skills.I'm just a welder.I can tell you just about all you want to know about welding but when it comes to apologetics or even complex speech, I'm way out of my league here.You guys put me to shame on intelligent conversing.
> 
> But....intelligence and wisdom might be two different things.agree?



Yes. Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing that it doesn't belong in a fruit salad. 

I, like Evergreen, have multiple tabs open. I check my assumptions, and I check the words I use if I'm in doubt. I've been caught out more than a few times for having used a word that meant one thing when it really didn't. I don't have the Bible memorized as I abandoned it long before I did general faith, so I often research my passages that lead me to my conclusions. I've caught myself being wrong, and those are the posts you don't see because I don't make them, or I concede the point and move on. 

Florid prose is worth nothing more than the paper it's printed on here. Which is a humorous way of saying that it's worthless when compared to the meaning you're trying to convey.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 29, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The posts where he expounds on the scripture aren't the ones being discussed. The ones that are naught but the scripture are.
> 
> Yes, it's have, but it's also can. I frequently cite the Bible in our discussions, but it's never just the citation and done. It's the citation, and the question I'm posing, or the point I'm trying to make. Which is what is being asked of welder to do.
> 
> ...


Keep going, you are doing a much better job at explaining my position than I could 
You are hitting the nail square on the head.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 29, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Keep going, you are doing a much better job at explaining my position than I could
> You are hitting the nail square on the head.



I'm picking up what you're puttin' down, brother.


----------



## welderguy (May 29, 2015)

Well, thanks for the encouragement evergreen and Walt.
That's like a cold drink to a thirsty man.

I kinda feel like some of you on here perceive that I like to shove the scriptures down your throat.That is not what I'm about at all.I love Jesus and I love God and I love everything about them.I wake up thinking about them.I go to bed thinking about them.Its involuntary.I can't help it.If you guys had known me just 6or7 years ago before something changed in me, you wouldn't have recognized me or even wanted anything to do with me.God did something in me that I can't begin to make you understand with words, and the only thing that lines up with what may have taken place, I find explained in the bible.It's the only thing that makes sense out of it, even though it defies logic.That's why I love it so much.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 29, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Well, thanks for the encouragement evergreen and Walt.
> That's like a cold drink to a thirsty man.
> 
> I kinda feel like some of you on here perceive that I like to shove the scriptures down your throat.That is not what I'm about at all.I love Jesus and I love God and I love everything about them.I wake up thinking about them.I go to bed thinking about them.Its involuntary.I can't help it.If you guys had known me just 6or7 years ago before something changed in me, you wouldn't have recognized me or even wanted anything to do with me.God did something in me that I can't begin to make you understand with words, and the only thing that lines up with what may have taken place, I find explained in the bible.It's the only thing that makes sense out of it, even though it defies logic.That's why I love it so much.



I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think you're trying to shove them down our throats. 

I think they mean as much to you as you just said. The problem is that they don't necessarily mean as much, or even the same thing, here across the interwebz.


----------



## welderguy (May 29, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The problem is that they don't necessarily mean as much, or even the same thing, here across the interwebz.



But I want it to.sincerely I do.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 29, 2015)

welderguy said:


> But I want it to.sincerely I do.



I know, but that's out of your hands. For the most part there are few things you could post from the Bible that we haven't seen ourselves. Those of us who came from faith to not-faith have likely seen it. We "need" your exposition to possibly see a facet we may not have considered of that text. 

Only someone raised without faith and the Bible would be informed by your postings, but I bet if they're down here in this forum, they've probably googled most of it already. But I digress.


----------



## 660griz (May 29, 2015)

welderguy said:


> See the problem with that is that I'm not a super intelligent person with a lot of comunication skills.



You are probably way more intelligent than the folks of whom you quote.  Seriously. 
I am glad I am not super intelligent. It takes me long enough to go to sleep now.


----------



## welderguy (May 29, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I know, but that's out of your hands. For the most part there are few things you could post from the Bible that we haven't seen ourselves. Those of us who came from faith to not-faith have likely seen it. We "need" your exposition to possibly see a facet we may not have considered of that text.
> 
> Only someone raised without faith and the Bible would be informed by your postings, but I bet if they're down here in this forum, they've probably googled most of it already. But I digress.



Interesting points.

Even the bible states theres a time and place for it.I guess I need more wisdom about when and where that is.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 29, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Interesting points.
> 
> Even the bible states theres a time and place for it.I guess I need more wisdom about when and where that is.



It's all good.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 29, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The posts where he expounds on the scripture aren't the ones being discussed. The ones that are naught but the scripture are.
> 
> Yes, it's have, but it's also can. I frequently cite the Bible in our discussions, but it's never just the citation and done. It's the citation, and the question I'm posing, or the point I'm trying to make. Which is what is being asked of welder to do.
> 
> ...



A point well made, sir. 

Y'all have a good weekend. I hope your wishes of many great fishes come true.


----------



## Israel (May 30, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The posts where he expounds on the scripture aren't the ones being discussed. The ones that are naught but the scripture are.
> 
> Yes, it's have, but it's also can. I frequently cite the Bible in our discussions, but it's never just the citation and done. It's the citation, and the question I'm posing, or the point I'm trying to make. Which is what is being asked of welder to do.
> 
> ...



Without seeking to step on any toes but aware that "my own" seeking never precludes that happening, I realize that the presentation of what appears, or may seek to appear, as benign or beneficent motives can be a cleverness not lost on many of you. 

(Nobody ever sells snake oil by saying "First, I want you to know I don't really care at all about any of you")
But, I will mention something in the Bible.
Said by Jesus, about sheep and goats.
Since most of you already state a familiarity with much of what is written there, I'll forgo a direct quote.

The matter I consider often is this.
Obviously, the goats thought they already had an "in" with Jesus. (well, it's obvious to me, they call him Lord, and protest, in a fashion that if they hadn't seen him, it really wasn't much their fault)

The sheep are told to enter for doing the things they did, visiting the sick, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, and it would appear, blithely unaware of it was "to the Lord" that these were done. They simply did these things...again (obvious to me) they weren't "trying" to do anything to or for the Lord.

How different the world is, would be, when devoted to life, and not religion...(my thoughts). (Actually the "true religion" described in the Bible comes a bit closer to this than some of us can yet handle)

How it is not apparent to some that in this telling the sheep do not respond "Of course we knew to do these things...hey we read this very parable in Matthew 25! That's why we started the "Clothe the Naked Ministry International" the "First Church of Feed the Hungry LLC." etc.

There is, for me, only one who has ever shown me I know nothing, has stolen everything upon which I thought I could stand relative to "being right", and yet says..."it's OK, you stand on me".
I see the perfection of it, and cannot deny it. 
To, in the giving of himself also conceal a thief, not as quickly discerned, but absolutely beneficent, and in every way needful when discovered, a thief who steals self righteousness by showing it plainly for the hideously ugly thing it is, self aggrandizement in like fashion, in short...a poison sucker outer.

But that's who he is to me...the one who, as Striperr mentioned, came to demonstrate a love for the world by bearing in himself all the venom that saps and eventually kills us.

"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be lifted up"

I look to him, see the snake I have been, spewing venom and can do nothing beyond admit the truth.

If you care to see, or attempt to make of this small confession into a religion, a practice of ritual, a judgement of its nature being of everything which I know to me it is not...I cannot deny you.

Jesus is Lord.


----------



## bullethead (May 31, 2015)

Israel said:


> Without seeking to step on any toes but aware that "my own" seeking never precludes that happening, I realize that the presentation of what appears, or may seek to appear, as benign or beneficent motives can be a cleverness not lost on many of you.
> 
> (Nobody ever sells snake oil by saying "First, I want you to know I don't really care at all about any of you")
> But, I will mention something in the Bible.
> ...


Meaning: you are a sucker for a good book.
You feel that you know a character through the writings of others and feel that you experience that character. You claim you know a character without ever actually meeting him. You are so enamored with a character that you feel he is real and somehow is involved in your daily life. The goal of a good author is to captivate the readers and make their words believeable. In this case
Paul Sheldon and Annie Wilkes come to mind.


----------



## Israel (May 31, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Meaning: you are a sucker for a good book.
> You feel that you know a character through the writings of others and feel that you experience that character. You claim you know a character without ever actually meeting him. You are so enamored with a character that you feel he is real and somehow is involved in your daily life. The goal of a good author is to captivate the readers and make their words believeable. In this case
> Paul Sheldon and Annie Wilkes come to mind.



Yes, a sucker.
And a clinger.
I hope the Muscadines are fruitful this season.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 1, 2015)

Israel said:


> Without seeking to step on any toes but aware that "my own" seeking never precludes that happening, I realize that the presentation of what appears, or may seek to appear, as benign or beneficent motives can be a cleverness not lost on many of you.
> 
> (Nobody ever sells snake oil by saying "First, I want you to know I don't really care at all about any of you")
> But, I will mention something in the Bible.
> ...



It's my personal take on this, but I believe that God cares more about what we do each day, rather than that once a year trip to Guatemala to help build a new school. 

That's why I don't give money to the homeless when I see them outside the convenience store. I take them inside, and they get a sandwich, a bag of chips, and a bottle of water. Not gatorade, not soda, and not alcohol. 

But I may have missed the point you were trying to make.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 2, 2015)

Israel said:


> Without seeking to step on any toes but aware that "my own" seeking never precludes that happening, I realize that the presentation of what appears, or may seek to appear, as benign or beneficent motives can be a cleverness not lost on many of you.
> 
> (Nobody ever sells snake oil by saying "First, I want you to know I don't really care at all about any of you")
> But, I will mention something in the Bible.
> ...



Israel, 

Please tell us in simple language what all this means.I've read it probably 10 times and I can't seam to get it but I really believe there's a good lesson in there.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Israel,
> 
> Please tell us in simple language what all this means


----------



## welderguy (Jun 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's my personal take on this, but I believe that God cares more about what we do each day, rather than that once a year trip to Guatemala to help build a new school./QUOTE]
> 
> I agree with you on this, and I also believe He cares more about our motives for doing it even more.
> 
> StripeRR, you are doing a better job at that than I do. I perceive that you may have a tenderhearted kindness about you.I commend you for that and say keep up the good work my friend.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 2, 2015)

welderguy said:


> StripeRR HunteRR said:
> 
> 
> > It's my personal take on this, but I believe that God cares more about what we do each day, rather than that once a year trip to Guatemala to help build a new school.
> ...



Yeah, thanks. I do have a rough exterior, but that's only because it was developed over years as people took advantage of, mocked, and ridiculed me. I was picked on a lot in school because, while I was neither tall nor short, I was very skinny, and usually within the top few students of my grade level. That changed in junior high and high school as I used sarcasm and wit to deflect the razzing, where people found out I could be quite funny so they stopped picking on me so much, it also didn't hurt that I stopped outwardly being a "brain". I didn't rush to raise my hand, even though I knew the answers, and I didn't celebrate my A's as much as I used to. The few lower grades that I did get were discussed, as the weight of them was visible on my face, and palpable in my mood. 

Fast forward a few years after that, and I'm a 6'2" 275lb guy. Needless to say I don't get picked on or pushed around any more, but my life taught me to look out for those who do. 

I don't believe in deities, not in any personal way; but I do believe in what I call "the stream" and that's greatly impacted by the ripples we make. Small ripples, made frequently and in the right way, reinforce each other to make truly massive waves. While one huge ripple has flash, it lacks the ability to make long term change. 

Take a tsunami versus a river. The tsunami in 2004, ignoring the loss of life and man made structures, was able to be nearly completely recovered from so that if you looked there today, you'd see very little discernible difference to the landscape. But the Colorado river, with its relentless churning at relatively mundane speeds, has created an effect that can be seen from space. 

I'm not saying it did, but maybe someone saw me take that man into the store, or the time I bought the woman's sandwiches at a NM gas station because they wouldn't take a check, and thought about ways that they could help the less fortunate other than the norm. Everyone sees the guy at the stop sign holding out his pleading sign and very few give him cash, because that will either a) feed a bad habit, or b) is a scam to keep him comfortable. 

There was a guy in Fayetteville, NC, who had a luxurious home, a fancy car, and an awesome life. Every morning he would eat onions and oreos to make his perfect teeth look dirty, put on ratty clothes and go roll in the dirt after putting gel in his hair to capture the dust. That was how he paid for that life, by defrauding those who would help someone who looked like him. He was featured in the newspaper sometime around 2006, I believe. I got tired of ignoring the needy at stop signs. Now, if I happen to be able to do so, or if I have it in my car, when I drive up to them they'll get a bag of chips, or a bottle of water, or the sandwich I got for myself, instead of money. If they don't consume it then an animal eats it, and I get to know that I did attempt to truly help them, while not aiding them in fraud, or enabling an addiction. 

I know guys who get business cards from the most local VA counselor, and they give those to the guys holding "Disable Vet" signs, rather than cash. 

It's just my personal belief that loving thy neighbor starts closest to home, and happens every day. The flashy trips are, in my experience, more about making the person doing them feel good, rather than truly being about those they "helped."

Ya know who I respect the most? The guy who does those mission trips and doesn't take a picture. Who never tells the story, and won't, even if asked. They're the ones doing it for those they help.


----------



## JimD (Jun 2, 2015)

Great post stripeRR and I agree 100% its what we do when no one is looking and its the good we do, and tell no one that counts. Doing good and telling people about it means we did it for the wrong reason or for EGO. I know you don't believe in God, but a man I listen to says it stands for Edge God Out, which I think is appropriate.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, thanks. I do have a rough exterior, but that's only because it was developed over years as people took advantage of, mocked, and ridiculed me. I was picked on a lot in school because, while I was neither tall nor short, I was very skinny, and usually within the top few students of my grade level. That changed in junior high and high school as I used sarcasm and wit to deflect the razzing, where people found out I could be quite funny so they stopped picking on me so much, it also didn't hurt that I stopped outwardly being a "brain". I didn't rush to raise my hand, even though I knew the answers, and I didn't celebrate my A's as much as I used to. The few lower grades that I did get were discussed, as the weight of them was visible on my face, and palpable in my mood.
> 
> Fast forward a few years after that, and I'm a 6'2" 275lb guy. Needless to say I don't get picked on or pushed around any more, but my life taught me to look out for those who do.
> 
> ...



Thanks for sharing that.
I have to confess, I was usually the one doing the picking in school rather than being picked on.I was a pretty mean kid.

I hope I'm different now but I still have moments.You're an inspiration to me to try to do better.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 2, 2015)

JimD said:


> Great post stripeRR and I agree 100% its what we do when no one is looking and its the good we do, and tell no one that counts. Doing good and telling people about it means we did it for the wrong reason or for EGO. I know you don't believe in God, but a man I listen to says it stands for Edge God Out, which I think is appropriate.



That's a good acronym. 

I could adapt it to Edge Goodness Out, and it would still be just as applicable. 



welderguy said:


> Thanks for sharing that.
> I have to confess, I was usually the one doing the picking in school rather than being picked on.I was a pretty mean kid.
> 
> I hope I'm different now but I still have moments.You're an inspiration to me to try to do better.



Kids can be awful. 

Thank you for the compliment, but I don't feel like I'm worthy of it.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 2, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> but I don't feel like I'm worthy of it.



Attaboy Stripe!!


----------



## Israel (Jun 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's a good acronym.
> 
> I could adapt it to Edge Goodness Out, and it would still be just as applicable.
> 
> ...



The "goodness" you speak of, is it conscious?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2015)

Israel said:


> The "goodness" you speak of, is it conscious?



Is the act conscious on my part, or do I personify it? What are you asking here?


----------



## Israel (Jun 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Is the act conscious on my part, or do I personify it? What are you asking here?



Do you approve of "it"? Or does it approve or reprove you?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2015)

Israel said:


> Do you approve of "it"? Or does it approve or reprove you?



Do I approve of the goodness? Yeah, or I wouldn't do it. 

You lost me on the second half. Please pretend like you're speaking to a small child, so that I may understand you. You're speaking over my head, or I'm just not taking the meaning behind your questions.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 4, 2015)

Maybe he's trying to pin-point your motives for doing the goodness.What is driving you to do those acts of kindness, maybe? Is it something conscious in your mind or something unconsciously just part of who you are?

I could be way off though.maybe he will elaborate.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Maybe he's trying to pin-point your motives for doing the goodness.What is driving you to do those acts of kindness, maybe? Is it something conscious in your mind or something unconsciously just part of who you are?
> 
> I could be way off though.maybe he will elaborate.



It's just part of who I am, I guess. I don't sit around and think to myself that I need to do something good for someone. I just do it if the opportunity presents itself.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's just part of who I am, I guess. I don't sit around and think to myself that I need to do something good for someone. I just do it if the opportunity presents itself.



Have you ever shown kindness to someone who you know hates you and will not appreciate what you do, but you do it anyway just because something inside you said this is the right thing to do?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Have you ever shown kindness to someone who you know hates you and will not appreciate what you do, but you do it anyway just because something inside you said this is the right thing to do?



Yes, I have. I'm still missing the point that's obviously trying to be made here, though.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yes, I have. I'm still missing the point that's obviously trying to be made here, though.



Speaking for myself. There's no point I'm attempting to make.Just curious.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 4, 2015)

> Originally Posted by welderguy View Post
> Have you ever shown kindness to someone who you know hates you and will not appreciate what you do, but you do it anyway just because something inside you said this is the right thing to do?





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yes, I have. I'm still missing the point that's obviously trying to be made here, though.


You are a nicer guy than me 
Do me wrong and you had better hope you are never drowning in front of me.
The only exception would be at work. Lots of times have put the sake of getting the job done and done right above that.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You are a nicer guy than me
> Do me wrong and you had better hope you are never drowning in front of me.
> The only exception would be at work. Lots of times have put the sake of getting the job done and done right above that.



On average, I doubt it. 

I can't think of many instances where it's happened, but the glaring one is when I didn't tell my daughter the whole truth of why I was going away. A) she didn't need to know those details at that time, but B) that would have poisoned my daughter against my ex, and seeing as how that would make her unable to be an effective parent I did her the favor of leaving it vague and just saying we couldn't get along. It's more of a favor for my kid, but the favor for the ex is still in there, too.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> On average, I doubt it.
> 
> I can't think of many instances where it's happened, but the glaring one is when I didn't tell my daughter the whole truth of why I was going away. A) she didn't need to know those details at that time, but B) that would have poisoned my daughter against my ex, and seeing as how that would make her unable to be an effective parent I did her the favor of leaving it vague and just saying we couldn't get along. It's more of a favor for my kid, but the favor for the ex is still in there, too.


Unfortunately many parents wont take the high road like you did in that situation and the kids pay for it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Unfortunately many parents wont take the high road like you did in that situation and the kids pay for it.



Truth. That's what led to me having to do that in the first place. She couldn't coexist with me, and wanted the kids all to herself, and me under her thumb. When I resisted she got litigious.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Speaking for myself. There's no point I'm attempting to make.Just curious.



Have you done the same? 

I'm not talking about evangelizing to the unwilling, that's just expected by the Bible. Have you done something that no one, or nothing else, told you to do that would meet the same criteria?


----------



## welderguy (Jun 5, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Have you done the same?
> 
> I'm not talking about evangelizing to the unwilling, that's just expected by the Bible. Have you done something that no one, or nothing else, told you to do that would meet the same criteria?



I don't like telling my story because I'm so ashamed of alot of things I've done in my past and there's still open wounds that haven't healed.But I will tell you some of it.
As you might know, I haven't always followed the Lord.My past is littered with selfishness and pride and self-indulgence and foolishness.My marriage started out ok but became rocky after a few years and 4 kids later.I became unfaithful and did whatever I pleased.She stayed with me for a while and I'd "straighten" up for short spells but it wasn't for real.
Finally, she had enough and we split.Well, my world came crashing down.I went into deep depression.I didn't know what to do with myself.Those were the darkest times of my life.We stayed in contact with each other and occasionally when something needed done around the house, she would consent for me to come over and work.The kids hated me and most of the time she did too, but I was determined to try to show them I was sorry in some way.I believe the Lord worked a miracle in those long 3 years that we were apart, because we are now back together.Words can't describe how much I love my wife now.I can't do enough for her.I've still got a long way to go with the kids but we're making progress.God put us back together and is healing us and somehow He changed me into a different person also.I know that He loves me and I love Him.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I don't like telling my story because I'm so ashamed of alot of things I've done in my past and there's still open wounds that haven't healed.But I will tell you some of it.
> As you might know, I haven't always followed the Lord.My past is littered with selfishness and pride and self-indulgence and foolishness.My marriage started out ok but became rocky after a few years and 4 kids later.I became unfaithful and did whatever I pleased.She stayed with me for a while and I'd "straighten" up for short spells but it wasn't for real.
> Finally, she had enough and we split.Well, my world came crashing down.I went into deep depression.I didn't know what to do with myself.Those were the darkest times of my life.We stayed in contact with each other and occasionally when something needed done around the house, she would consent for me to come over and work.The kids hated me and most of the time she did too, but I was determined to try to show them I was sorry in some way.I believe the Lord worked a miracle in those long 3 years that we were apart, because we are now back together.Words can't describe how much I love my wife now.I can't do enough for her.I've still got a long way to go with the kids but we're making progress.God put us back together and is healing us and somehow He changed me into a different person also.I know that He loves me and I love Him.



I'm really glad it's worked out for you. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 5, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm really glad it's worked out for you. Thanks for sharing.



Thanks!


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I don't like telling my story because I'm so ashamed of alot of things I've done in my past and there's still open wounds that haven't healed.But I will tell you some of it.
> As you might know, I haven't always followed the Lord.My past is littered with selfishness and pride and self-indulgence and foolishness.My marriage started out ok but became rocky after a few years and 4 kids later.I became unfaithful and did whatever I pleased.She stayed with me for a while and I'd "straighten" up for short spells but it wasn't for real.
> Finally, she had enough and we split.Well, my world came crashing down.I went into deep depression.I didn't know what to do with myself.Those were the darkest times of my life.We stayed in contact with each other and occasionally when something needed done around the house, she would consent for me to come over and work.The kids hated me and most of the time she did too, but I was determined to try to show them I was sorry in some way.I believe the Lord worked a miracle in those long 3 years that we were apart, because we are now back together.Words can't describe how much I love my wife now.I can't do enough for her.I've still got a long way to go with the kids but we're making progress.God put us back together and is healing us and somehow He changed me into a different person also.I know that He loves me and I love Him.


Glad you got your family back Welder.
If belief in God is what it took for you to straighten out then Im glad you found that belief.
By the way that was a very articulate post and helps me/us to understand you as a person much better.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> He changed me into a different person also.



What took him so long? 
You don't give yourself enough credit.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 5, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Glad you got your family back Welder.
> If belief in God is what it took for you to straighten out then Im glad you found that belief.
> By the way that was a very articulate post and helps me/us to understand you as a person much better.



Thanks Walt.
I want you to know that it wasn't me that went looking for God.I had long  given up on the God that I'd learned about as a kid.He came to where I was at and picked me up and dusted me off.Not only that but He opened up doors for me that had been slammed shut and locked.He is a God of great mercy and kindness.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 5, 2015)

660griz said:


> What took him so long?
> You don't give yourself enough credit.



Credit for what Griz?
I don't deserve any credit.I made the mess.

As far as what took Him so long, I don't know but then again,He's not on our time schedule.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Credit for what Griz?
> I don't deserve any credit.I made the mess.
> 
> As far as what took Him so long, I don't know but then again,He's not on our time schedule.



You also had an active role in cleaning it up. You do deserve credit here. The change wasn't completely passive on your part.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 5, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You also had an active role in cleaning it up. You do deserve credit here. The change wasn't completely passive on your part.



I'm pretty sure that God had to fix me on the inside before I could try to clean anything up on the outside.He broke me down, then built me back up.I also believe He was working on her end also,softening her towards me and enabling her to forgive.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I'm pretty sure that God had to fix me on the inside before I could try to clean anything up on the outside.He broke me down, then built me back up.I also believe He was working on her end also,softening her towards me and enabling her to forgive.



So that change was completely unconscious on your part? 

Let's just forgo her for purposes of this discussion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Thanks Walt.
> I want you to know that it wasn't me that went looking for God.I had long  given up on the God that I'd learned about as a kid.He came to where I was at and picked me up and dusted me off.Not only that but He opened up doors for me that had been slammed shut and locked.He is a God of great mercy and kindness.


I wont argue because Im sure you believe that and that's fine. And maybe that's exactly what happened.
I'll just point out that people of different religions with different gods all say the same thing. And it always seems to come after a crisis in their life.


> I was determined to try to show them I was sorry


Interestingly enough, if you had enjoyed the single life instead of being sorry, your story would have a very different ending.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 5, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So that change was completely unconscious on your part?
> 
> Let's just forgo her for purposes of this discussion.



Maybe.not sure.I can't pinpoint when it actually took place.Maybe it was a gradual thing.I wish I knew.

I do know that I was working late one night all by myself.And I was crying so much I couldn't hardly weld.I threw down my welder and went to the floor and begged God to help me.I was at the end of my rope and felt like I could no longer go on.Maybe this is when it happened.Things did seem to start turning around little by little after that.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 5, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I wont argue because Im sure you believe that and that's fine. And maybe that's exactly what happened.
> I'll just point out that people of different religions with different gods all say the same thing. And it always seems to come after a crisis in their life.
> 
> Interestingly enough, if you had enjoyed the single life instead of being sorry, your story would have a very different ending.



I don't wish to argue about this either, simply because I don't have all the answers to give about it.All I know is something changed and I've never been the same since.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I do know that I was working late one night all by myself.And I was crying so much I couldn't hardly weld.I threw down my welder and went to the floor and begged God to help me.I was at the end of my rope and felt like I could no longer go on.Maybe this is when it happened.Things did seem to start turning around little by little after that.



You ever wonder why God helped you with your relatively minor self induced problem and let folks that are praying just as hard die a slow painful death from cancer? Do you ever think that maybe you should have done this on your own because God has bigger issues to deal with? 
Just curious.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I don't wish to argue about this either, simply because I don't have all the answers to give about it.All I know is something changed and I've never been the same since.



I call it 'growing up'. Generic term but, I did it too.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 5, 2015)

660griz said:


> You ever wonder why God helped you with your relatively minor self induced problem and let folks that are praying just as hard die a slow painful death from cancer? Do you ever think that maybe you should have done this on your own because God has bigger issues to deal with?
> Just curious.



I do wonder that sometimes.
But here's what I've learned: God uses all sorts of ways to draw His people to Himself. In my case, it was hitting rock bottom and losing my family.Others have sickness. Others have tragedies.It's all about bringing them to Himself.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Maybe.not sure.I can't pinpoint when it actually took place.Maybe it was a gradual thing.I wish I knew.
> 
> I do know that I was working late one night all by myself.And I was crying so much I couldn't hardly weld.I threw down my welder and went to the floor and begged God to help me.I was at the end of my rope and felt like I could no longer go on.Maybe this is when it happened.Things did seem to start turning around little by little after that.



It's okay not to know. I'm an agnostic, so it's kinda my default position. 

I've been in that same position as you, just in a different room. I was balling my eyes out in the closet of a rented room on Redan Rd. I think it would surprise people to find out just how dark that dark can be, and still have the person feeling it able to put on a facade to those around them so that they're almost clueless to the true depth of their suffering.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I don't wish to argue about this either, simply because I don't have all the answers to give about it.All I know is something changed and I've never been the same since.


That's really all that matters.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 5, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's okay not to know. I'm an agnostic, so it's kinda my default position.
> 
> I've been in that same position as you, just in a different room. I was balling my eyes out in the closet of a rented room on Redan Rd. I think it would surprise people to find out just how dark that dark can be, and still have the person feeling it able to put on a facade to those around them so that they're almost clueless to the true depth of their suffering.



^^truth^^


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 8, 2015)

Here's another head scratcher for the "born that way" camp:




> Was the marriage between Brittney Griner and Glory Johnson doomed from the start? While most can agree that getting married a few weeks after a domestic violence incident is a terrible idea, there were some other serious warning signs about the whole relationship in general.
> 
> For starters, Johnson, a two-time all-star with the Tulsa Shock, is straight, not a lesbian, and even Griner knew that. Griner even thought to herself that pursuing Johnson, who is straight, could end up being a bad idea....
> 
> ...



http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mor...-details-get-stranger/ar-BBkOkPO?ocid=DELLDHP


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 8, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Here's another head scratcher for the "born that way" camp:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When heteros have perfect relationships, we can then criticize homosexuals for their faults and oddities. 

See: Glass houses


----------



## 660griz (Jun 8, 2015)

Not really a head scratcher. Sometimes folks get confused or want to try something new. I believe nature has proven the 'born this way' argument. 

"She also seemed to question Johnson’s pregnancy, making us wonder how Johnson became pregnant." 

Immaculate conception?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 8, 2015)

> making us wonder how Johnson became pregnant


.
Is it just me or does that seem really stupid? I mean how do you think she got pregnant? Possibly in any of the same ways a straight woman can get pregnant maybe?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> .
> Is it just me or does that seem really stupid? I mean how do you think she got pregnant? Possibly in any of the same ways a straight woman can get pregnant maybe?



Well, in the universe of possibilities Occam says you would be right, but only statistically speaking.


----------

