# Ruh Roh Raggy



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 2, 2016)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...comes-out-in-moving-letter-to-fans/?tid=sm_fb

A) He says he didn't choose it. Some would have us believe it's all a matter of choice. 
B) What are the odds that this doesn't kill his career?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 2, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> B) What are the odds that this doesn't kill his career?





> He said he expects that some churches where he has performed before won’t invite him back. But there will be new opportunities, too: He’s already lined up his first gig at a gay-pride festival.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 2, 2016)

zero percent chance that it doesn't kill his career as a Christian musician.  

Some will be supportive, but not enough and his label has to think about the other artists on their agenda.  They won't be able to afford being associated with an artist living in open sin.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 2, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> A) He says he didn't choose it.



The technical term for that is "rationalization".


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 2, 2016)

"He was never REALLY a Christian"

"This is his particular burden to bear but with the help of God he can suppress his urges to commit abominations."

"Evil desires BEGONE!!!!!"


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 2, 2016)

If he truly has musical talent there are other jobs beside Christian music. Might be a whole new career path with the added benefits of being honest with himself and as he said being freer than he ever has been.
Might be some confusing times ahead for his kids though as I would imagine they have been Iindoctrinated same as he was.
And a fist bump to his dad.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 2, 2016)

centerpin fan said:


>



That's the career I was referring to. He may find a new one, but this one is toast. 



centerpin fan said:


> The technical term for that is "rationalization".


One of many. But then again I know people who were born gay, so I don't doubt his claim. It could be a fabrication, but I have no way to prove either side.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 2, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> If he truly has musical talent there are other jobs beside Christian music. Might be a whole new career path with the added benefits of being honest with himself and as he said being freer than he ever has been.
> Might be some confusing times ahead for his kids though as I would imagine they have been Iindoctrinated same as he was.
> And a fist bump to his dad.



I wonder if his parents "already knew".


----------



## welderguy (Jun 7, 2016)

Striperhunter,
What are your thoughts about this guy's actions in light of his marriage vows?Do you think for the sake of his vows to his wife,he should have rejected his personal desires and impulses for her sake?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Striperhunter,
> What are your thoughts about this guy's actions in light of his marriage vows?Do you think for the sake of his vows to his wife,he should have rejected his personal desires and impulses for her sake?




I hope you don't mind if I interject but, it seems to me by my understanding of scripture that a Christian must not commit gay acts.  They shouldn't even think about them.  Like an alcoholic, they may carry the burden of their evil impulses for the rest of their lives but they must rebuke them and focus on Jesus.  Did I interpret scripture correctly?  Was I given proper discerning abilities, if not only momentarily?

Boy, that would suck to try to focus on Jesus and possibly get aroused.  What a terrible cross to bear.  And the constant guilt.....Oi Vey!


----------



## welderguy (Jun 7, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I hope you don't mind if I interject but, it seems to me by my understanding of scripture that a Christian must not commit gay acts.  They shouldn't even think about them.  Like an alcoholic, they may carry the burden of their evil impulses for the rest of their lives but they must rebuke them and focus on Jesus.  Did I interpret scripture correctly?  Was I given proper discerning abilities, if not only momentarily?
> 
> Boy, that would suck to try to focus on Jesus and possibly get aroused.  What a terrible cross to bear.  And the constant guilt.....Oi Vey!



Wow nevermind.
I addressed it to Striper because he seems to try to be more civil-minded and the fact that he showed he took his marriage vows seriously.
But you...


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Wow nevermind.
> I addressed it to Striper because he seems to try to be more civil-minded and the fact that he showed he took his marriage vows seriously.
> But you...



But is what I said about scripture correct?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 7, 2016)

I have gay people in my family. They say they were born that way. I'm no one to insist differently.

Meager though my attempts may be, I love and respect them as best I know how. It is, after all, the goodness of God that leads to repentance.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I have gay people in my family. They say they were born that way. I'm no one to insist differently.
> 
> Meager though my attempts may be, I love and respect them as best I know how. It is, after all, the goodness of God that leads to repentance.




Is this correct?:

"by my understanding of scripture that a Christian must not commit gay acts. They shouldn't even think about them. Like an alcoholic, they may carry the burden of their evil impulses for the rest of their lives but they must rebuke them and focus on Jesus."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 7, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Striperhunter,
> What are your thoughts about this guy's actions in light of his marriage vows?Do you think for the sake of his vows to his wife,he should have rejected his personal desires and impulses for her sake?



I think, since he knew before he was married, that he should have been honest about his desires and not married her. 

He married her under duress and now she's going to have to live with his newly embraced identity and they'll have to explain all of it to their kids. The amount of duplicity in his choices is going to be the hardest to square with them, especially on anything to do with lying and deceit. 

But if we leave it as it is and he's dealing with not being attracted to her, and wanting to be somewhere else in his life, then he also owes it to her to be honest about that as soon as he knows it himself. Whether they decide to stay together or go their separate ways isn't my concern, and neither is what happens with their children, really. I don't know them, and I don't even know anyone who knows them personally so I'm just a spectator to all of this. 

Being gay isn't like being a smoker, to me. You can't suppress something that's in the core of your mature identity and still remain true to yourself, much less anyone else. If he did she's not in love with the real him, and really in love with the facade. Which is basically what he's been doing thus far. One could make the argument that since he's been doing it for this long that he obviously has the will to continue doing it, but which is better for the kids? I personally believe that teaching them to be true to self, first, is the most important message here. There are limits, because one should seek help for pedophile urges, or murderous urges, but in so far as just being gay (not a crossdresser who wants to use the women's bathroom) that's no different to me than being comfortable in your own skin as a heterosexual, or liking redheads over brunettes, or wanting to play the accordion even though you'll be ridiculed for it. 

Sorry for being so long winded


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think, since he knew before he was married, that he should have been honest about his desires and not married her.
> 
> He married her under duress and now she's going to have to live with his newly embraced identity and they'll have to explain all of it to their kids. The amount of duplicity in his choices is going to be the hardest to square with them, especially on anything to do with lying and deceit.
> 
> ...




Why is being gay different than wanting to cross dress?  Could the desire to cross dress be part of one's mature identity?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 7, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Is this correct?:
> 
> "by my understanding of scripture that a Christian must not commit gay acts. They shouldn't even think about them. Like an alcoholic, they may carry the burden of their evil impulses for the rest of their lives but they must rebuke them and focus on Jesus."



Yes.  To a large degree you are correct.  I assume that's the answer you are looking for so that you can drop the proverbial other shoe.  So, drop away.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 7, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think, since he knew before he was married, that he should have been honest about his desires and not married her.
> 
> He married her under duress and now she's going to have to live with his newly embraced identity and they'll have to explain all of it to their kids. The amount of duplicity in his choices is going to be the hardest to square with them, especially on anything to do with lying and deceit.
> 
> ...



Ok.I wasn't sure how much importance or priority you put on being true to a marriage covenant versus being true to "self identity".
You cleared that up pretty good.I was under the wrong impression.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 7, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Ok.I wasn't sure how much importance or priority you put on being true to a marriage covenant versus being true to "self identity".
> You cleared that up pretty good.I was under the wrong impression.



Before one can be in love with someone else, they have to first know, and then love, themselves. 

If they can't do that they have no place getting married, IMO. 

As to being true to the covenant I would say that it should be inviolable as far as cheating, lying, etc., but should be able to be broken by two people who grow apart, for whatever reason. Life is too short to spend it miserably with someone you don't love, or love less than someone else and entertain notions of infidelity or even what-ifs about being with person #2. In this case he went in to the marriage lying, and for me that's far worse than just now realizing he's more attracted to men. Still, he shouldn't have to bear the punishment, nor should she, of staying together knowing that neither want to be there. However, comma dot dot dot, they ABSOLUTELY need to work out a way for both to still be active, and healthy, in their children's lives and development. How they're going to accomplish that with Daddy having lied to Mommy from day 1, I have no idea, but I really do hope they find a way. I wish that my ex would have been able to only use her vindictiveness on me instead of the kids and found a way to work with me so I could stay in their lives. I hope that this woman finds that herself, after being lied to for so long by someone she thought loved her.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2016)

Huntinfool said:


> Yes.  To a large degree you are correct.  I assume that's the answer you are looking for so that you can drop the proverbial other shoe.  So, drop away.



We are in agreement.   By yours and my understanding of scripture, one can't be a Christian and practice gayness.  I don't think Universalists or even the UCC folks are proper Christians.  They aren't following the scripture.  And for that I'm grateful.  And I'm grateful that the population is moving that direction, with the help of this gay singer.

If there's another shoe to drop it would be the realization that an unrepentant and carnal mind (mine) can rightly discern scripture.  I'm sure the response is that Jesus is using me, a vessel of wrath, for His purpose. Where does that leave the idea that the unrighteous cannot discern?  I suppose the answer is "Well, sometimes they can...if God lets them."


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 7, 2016)

I wouldn't say that what you did was discern so much as read.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2016)

Huntinfool said:


> I wouldn't say that what you did was discern so much as read.



People who call themselves Christains (UCC and the like)  read those parts differently than we do.  When is it discernment and when is it merely comprehension.  Am I discerning that they aren't proper Christians correctly?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 7, 2016)

Maybe let's go back to the claim that the unrighteous can't discern.  Can you explain that one to me?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2016)

Huntinfool said:


> Maybe let's go back to the claim that the unrighteous can't discern.  Can you explain that one to me?




_1 cor 2:14

King James Bible
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned._

then again, I'm just reading the words.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 7, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> _1 cor 2:14
> 
> King James Bible
> But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned._
> ...



The question is...do you think those things are foolishness?....yes.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 7, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Before one can be in love with someone else, they have to first know, and then love, themselves.
> 
> If they can't do that they have no place getting married, IMO.
> 
> As to being true to the covenant I would say that it should be inviolable as far as cheating, lying, etc., but should be able to be broken by two people who grow apart, for whatever reason. Life is too short to spend it miserably with someone you don't love, or love less than someone else and entertain notions of infidelity or even what-ifs about being with person #2. In this case he went in to the marriage lying, and for me that's far worse than just now realizing he's more attracted to men. Still, he shouldn't have to bear the punishment, nor should she, of staying together knowing that neither want to be there. However, comma dot dot dot, they ABSOLUTELY need to work out a way for both to still be active, and healthy, in their children's lives and development. How they're going to accomplish that with Daddy having lied to Mommy from day 1, I have no idea, but I really do hope they find a way. I wish that my ex would have been able to only use her vindictiveness on me instead of the kids and found a way to work with me so I could stay in their lives. I hope that this woman finds that herself, after being lied to for so long by someone she thought loved her.



In response to your first statement,it seems to me that people love themselves too much.And I think selfishness is the core of most broken homes.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 7, 2016)

welderguy said:


> In response to your first statement,it seems to me that people love themselves too much.And I think selfishness is the core of most broken homes.



Yep, and a host of other problems.

Selfishness is why we have abandoned children, aborted children, drug addicts and alcoholics.  

They all want what they want, right now, and the costs to themselves and others don't enter the equation.  Just give me what I want.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 7, 2016)

welderguy said:


> In response to your first statement,it seems to me that people love themselves too much.And I think selfishness is the core of most broken homes.



Wisdom and moderation my friend, and they don't always go hand in hand with age. To a certain extent, yes, you're right that is the cause. 

However, there is a healthy amount of selfishness, too.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 7, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Is this correct?:
> 
> "by my understanding of scripture that a Christian must not commit gay acts. They shouldn't even think about them. Like an alcoholic, they may carry the burden of their evil impulses for the rest of their lives but they must rebuke them and focus on Jesus."



Essentially, but "must not" is poor choice of words.



ambush80 said:


> We are in agreement.   By yours and my understanding of scripture, one can't be a Christian and practice gayness.  I don't think Universalists or even the UCC folks are proper Christians.  They aren't following the scripture.  And for that I'm grateful.  And I'm grateful that the population is moving that direction, with the help of this gay singer.
> 
> If there's another shoe to drop it would be the realization that an unrepentant and carnal mind (mine) can rightly discern scripture.  I'm sure the response is that Jesus is using me, a vessel of wrath, for His purpose. Where does that leave the idea that the unrighteous cannot discern?  I suppose the answer is "Well, sometimes they can...if God lets them."



You still have not discerned it, but it's good to see that you're trying.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 7, 2016)

There are a lot of positives to being selfish. Healthier and happier to name a few.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 7, 2016)

660griz said:


> There are a lot of positives to being selfish. Healthier and happier to name a few.



But like anything, too much of it can also be destructive, as the above members are illustrating.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 7, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But like anything, too much of it can also be destructive, as the above members are illustrating.



Could be.
Destruction to some may be happiness to another. 
Depends on one's perspective. 
Live in misery or break up a home? hmmmm

Some of us don't have a Shangri-La to count on. We have to make the most of our life now.

But, like my Daddy use to say, "Everything in moderation son."

To make a blanket statement the "selflishness is why we..." is just wrong. No one knows why others do what they do. 
I just watched 'Pan'.(A documentary ) Peter was abandoned for the sake of the child not the mother.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 7, 2016)

660griz said:


> Could be.
> Destruction to some may be happiness to another.
> Depends on one's perspective.
> Live in misery or break up a home? hmmmm
> ...



Exactly. I left my first wife because I was severely depressed and angry all the time. I was not a good person with her and even my parents told me that their old son (the happy go lucky person I was) came back when I left her. Yeah, I broke up a family for myself, but I was also no good to the family by staying there. Once I realized what was going on I told her about it, and she begged me to stay, so I did for her. The next time I got fed up it was for the kids. After that it was because her dad called me in tears. I told him that his counted for her whole family, so there would be no more chances given and asked him to pass the message on to her so she knew I had told him, too. The next time was the last time, she didn't believe that I'd do it, and that's when she got vindictive and used our kids as weapons against me.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 7, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> If he truly has musical talent.....



Given the genre, I am not optimistic.  There are a few who do, maybe he's one of em.  Then again, there's not a lot of musical talent being expressed in any type of music these days, or maybe I'm just gettin' older.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 7, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Given the genre, I am not optimistic.  There are a few who do, maybe he's one of em.  Then again, there's not a lot of musical talent being expressed in any type of music these days, or maybe I'm just gettin' older.



If you are then I am, too. Music today stinks.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 7, 2016)

Selfishness. What a funny word. Used here like it is a quality to be shunned. We are ALL selfish. We are ALL driven by our own needs.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 7, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Selfishness. What a funny word. Used here like it is a quality to be shunned. We are ALL selfish. We are ALL driven by our own needs.



Exactly. Uncheck and unabated selfishness is bad. Being mindful to live your own life is not.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 7, 2016)

What a sad world.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 7, 2016)

Huntinfool said:


> What a sad world.



How so?


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 7, 2016)

Huntinfool said:


> What a sad world.



What a sad way to perceive the world.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 8, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...comes-out-in-moving-letter-to-fans/?tid=sm_fb
> 
> A) He says he didn't choose it. Some would have us believe it's all a matter of choice.
> B) What are the odds that this doesn't kill his career?



I didn't choose to be attracted to and have my head turned by pretty ladies.  It's not a trait that my wife appreciates and my life would be so much better without that tendency, but I don't act on it.  See the difference?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 8, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How so?



Selfishness being celebrated.



Question:  It's clear there are several here who believe selfishness is a good, positive and constructive thing...to a degree.

Who decides where the line is between good and bad on this one?  Can it really be good for one person to one degree and good for another to another degree?  Or does there have to be some objective way to know when you've got too much selfishness in your life?  Noodle through that for me.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 8, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> What a sad way to perceive the world.



So we agree.  Glad we agree on something then.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 8, 2016)

Is monogamy not natural?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 8, 2016)

Selfishness. The root of all evil.  Goes hand in hand with pride.  Not suprising many today see it as an attribute.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 8, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Selfishness. The root of all evil.  Goes hand in hand with pride.  Not suprising many today see it as an attribute.



No, lack of moderation is the root of all evil. Unless you can honestly tell me that there's nothing you do, ahem hunt and fish, purely for your own enjoyment of it.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 8, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is monogamy not natural?



Even though I choose to live under that construct, I do not believe it is natural.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 8, 2016)

Huntinfool said:


> Selfishness being celebrated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The way we live our lives is a constant work in progress.  

I believe we are all selfish, in that everything we do fulfills an inner desire, whether that is feeding the poor or hoarding your millions like Scrooge McDuck. In other words, there is no such thing as "selflessness". 

I am not concerned with policing selfishness.  It tends to work itself out.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 8, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Selfishness. The root of all evil.  Goes hand in hand with pride.  Not suprising many today see it as an attribute.



I know right?

  You just keep wallerin' in the mud, proclaiming your unworthiness, wailing and gnashing your teeth while choking on ashes and guilt, and the rest of us will go right on living our lives. 

Selfishly.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 8, 2016)

Huntinfool said:


> So we agree.  Glad we agree on something then.



We don't agree, but you know that. No winks needed. 

Why do you proclaim that the world is sad?  Because there are people out there with different viewpoints than yours? Different ways of approaching life?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 8, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Even though I choose to live under that construct, I do not believe it is natural.



Depends on the frame of reference. Natural to humans, yeah seems to be. Natural to all living creatures of moderate to high intelligence, not necessarily. But those also practice homosexuality, too, as has been established.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 8, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Depends on the frame of reference. Natural to humans, yeah seems to be. Natural to all living creatures of moderate to high intelligence, not necessarily. But those also practice homosexuality, too, as has been established.



I disagree. I think we make it work, and it has been a societal norm for hundreds of years, but I do not think we are built to be monogamous. I think we have to work at it.

And I am talking about humans. Don't care what wolves and dolphins do.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 8, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> I disagree. I think we make it work, and it has been a societal norm for hundreds of years, but I do not think we are built to be monogamous. I think we have to work at it.
> 
> And I am talking about humans. Don't care what wolves and dolphins do.



It's a struggle, that's for sure, but the innate need to be with one person seems to be common enough to call it natural to our species. Sure, the deeper primitive brain still wants to sow as many fields as possible, but the more evolved brain, in most people, seems to prefer the stability and intimacy of monogamy.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 8, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> I disagree. I think we make it work, and it has been a societal norm for hundreds of years, but I do not think we are built to be monogamous. I think we have to work at it.
> 
> And I am talking about humans. Don't care what wolves and dolphins do.



Google "women are monogamous but men aren't"


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 8, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's a struggle, that's for sure, but the innate need to be with one person seems to be common enough to call it natural to our species. Sure, the deeper primitive brain still wants to sow as many fields as possible, but the more evolved brain, in most people, seems to prefer the stability and intimacy of monogamy.



Your wife must read your posts...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 8, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Your wife must read your posts...





Nope.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 8, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Google "women are monogamous but men aren't"



looks like there is much info out there on this subject.  What's your take?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 8, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> looks like there is much info out there on this subject.  What's your take?



It makes sense to me that men want to cast their seed far and wide since we can remain potent with a supply of sperm sometimes past 70 years of age.  It also make sense that women, with finite ovum and a relatively short breeding window would be more selective of who they breed with.

I buy the notion that a male will choose females that are pretty and that seem healthy and that women will choose a man that's a physical specimen.  But there's a wrinkle.  Now a days, being diesel doesn't always equate to being the best provider.  Maybe the best resources for your offspring come from a guy with an inhaler, bad skin and a Ferrari.  This implies that the a strategy a woman might use to maximize the advantage of her offspring is to breed with the pool boy and make her programmer husband think it's his.  

The only reason a man might want to be monogamous, evolutionarily speaking, is........well, I don't know one off hand.  Which makes a great case for the utility of institutions like marriage and sacred vows.  I think a man wants to breed as many women as he can afford. I don't think they would be comfortable knowing that their offspring might be suffering or dying because of lack of resources.  

It takes alot of resources to raise a useless, helpless infant. A team effort between man and woman gives the infant the best chance.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 8, 2016)

I remember this book being popular;

The Naked Ape
"Zoologist Desmond Morris considers humans as being simply another animal species in this classic book first published in 1967. Here is the Naked Ape at his most primal in love, at work, at war. Meet man as he really is: relative to the apes, stripped of his veneer as we see him courting, making love, sleeping, socializing, grooming."

https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Ape-Zo...16454-6055018?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

He describes how man evolved into being monogamous because that is what man needed in order to adapt to social living. It was also needed to help the family stay together for child rearing.

That's a scientist's outlook on man evolving into monogamy. It was my thoughts when SemperFiDawg said he didn't have a choice being attracted to pretty ladies but that he didn't act on it.

The biblical prospective is that we are born to be monogamous as God made Adam & Eve. At least a man isn't to commit adultery even if he has multiple wives. A man isn't suppose to even lust after other women.

SemperFiDawg was using his ability/faith/obedience to God to stay monogamous. 
I'm assuming to show that a person born with gay tendencies could and should do the same if he wants to be a Christian. 

Now assuming that God made Adam and Eve monogamous, did man eventually lose this trait due to his selfishness?

Then again why would God make a man to be monogamous and straight then give him animalistic and/or selfish traits to desire other women or even other men?

Is it one of those things he did to show us that we couldn't keep the Law and thus needed another way to eternal life? Something like "I'll make man to be married but give him desires to lust and have adultery to show him that he is weak and can't do that thus needing another way to salvation"


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 8, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I remember this book being popular;
> 
> The Naked Ape
> "Zoologist Desmond Morris considers humans as being simply another animal species in this classic book first published in 1967. Here is the Naked Ape at his most primal in love, at work, at war. Meet man as he really is: relative to the apes, stripped of his veneer as we see him courting, making love, sleeping, socializing, grooming."
> ...



We are what we are. No fairy tales needed.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 8, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> We are what we are. No fairy tales needed.



Would you consider Zoologist Desmond Morris' study a fairy tale or is it believable? He describes how woman developed larger mammary glands to replace buttocks. This was necessary to make the male partner more familiar with his female partner's face during intercourse. In this way man evolved into a more intimate and monogamous group of naked apes. Seeing his partner's face during intercourse helped him develop into this monogamous individual. In that way he would stay with his mate until the child was born and help raise it.

Other species of primates ensure an abundant milk supply for their offspring without developing swelled well-defined hemispherical breasts.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 8, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Would you consider Zoologist Desmond Morris' study a fairy tale or is it believable? He describes how woman developed larger mammary glands to replace buttocks. This was necessary to make the male partner more familiar with his female partner's face during intercourse. In this way man evolved into a more intimate and monogamous group of naked apes. Seeing his partner's face during intercourse helped him develop into this monogamous individual. In that way he would stay with his mate until the child was born and help raise it.
> 
> Other species of primates ensure an abundant milk supply for their offspring without developing swelled well-defined hemispherical breasts.



There are many different theories of our development, social and physical.  Your above example sounds like the author is trying to make monogamy fit into the natural world. I don't buy it.  I don't care how well defined the proportions are, somebody is tired of looking, and desires to look elsewhere. 

We make monogamy work.  Kinda..  Cheating, divorce, porn, that stuff shouldn't exist if we evolved to love just one person forever.  We are fickle.  We bore easily. Our eyes and thoughts stray, but MOST of the time society and convention keeps us in line.  It's a hot mess.  And it's fun.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I remember this book being popular;
> 
> The Naked Ape
> "Zoologist Desmond Morris considers humans as being simply another animal species in this classic book first published in 1967. Here is the Naked Ape at his most primal in love, at work, at war. Meet man as he really is: relative to the apes, stripped of his veneer as we see him courting, making love, sleeping, socializing, grooming."
> ...



a Just and Loving God?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> He describes how woman developed larger mammary glands to replace buttocks.



Sir Mix-A-Lot says nothing replaces buttocks.

(This is one time where I will not embed the video.)


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 9, 2016)

centerpin fan said:


> Sir Mix-A-Lot says nothing replaces buttocks.
> 
> (This is one time where I will not embed the video.)



I swear I thought about that song as well.

I don't know which theory is most accurate, but that idea sounds like it came about before integration, and before we knew much about Brazil.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I remember this book being popular;
> 
> The Naked Ape
> "Zoologist Desmond Morris considers humans as being simply another animal species in this classic book first published in 1967. Here is the Naked Ape at his most primal in love, at work, at war. Meet man as he really is: relative to the apes, stripped of his veneer as we see him courting, making love, sleeping, socializing, grooming."
> ...



I loved Desmond Morris' series The Human Animal on PBS.  Some of his conclusions seem made up.  I've heard that the reason that human mammaries are large and round all year long as opposed to just when the woman is ovulating like in other primates is to confuse the male into thinking that she is either:

1.) ovulating and receptive to breeding.  In fact, women's breasts do get bigger during ovulation.  Or

2.) with child and needs to be attended to and protected. Or

3.) thirsty and needs you to buy her a drink (My theory).

either way it helps to keep a man around. 

Morris, in his book, talked about how when we were on all fours our sense of smell was more important to us for breeding purposes, since we were closer to the source of a pheromone producing region of the body.   After we started walking upright, visual clues became more important.  I notice that after a long period of hunting where I use my senses alot that they become hyper acute, most noticeably for me is my sense of smell.  Sometimes after hunting I can tell in passing that a women smells "right".  She doesn't have to be the type that I find attractive.  She may indeed be fairly unattractive.  It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Praise be to Allah.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 9, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I loved Desmond Morris' series The Human Animal on PBS.  Some of his conclusions seem made up.  I've heard that the reason that human mammaries are large and round all year long as opposed to just when the woman is ovulating like in other primates is to confuse the male into thinking that she is either:
> 
> 1.) ovulating and receptive to breeding.  In fact, women's breasts do get bigger during ovulation.  Or
> 
> ...



Smelling pheromones sounds sinful, sinner.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Smelling pheromones sounds sinful, sinner.



Do you recommend a flogging?  Oh please, oh please.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 10, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Even though I choose to live under that construct, I do not believe it is natural.



I think the term I've heard that I like the most concerning typical human sexuality is 'monogamish'. We do tend toward pairing off with other people, but the 'mate for life' that is encouraged by our institution of marriage is not really our natural state, as evidenced by the divorce rate (Which do to the nature of this forum I will point out is the same or higher among religious people as it is among non-religious).

Personally I'm happily married and hope it is until death do us part, but attraction is a powerful thing among women as well as men, and sometimes couples simply drift apart as they grow in different directions.

There are all kinds of possibilities as to where our mating habits could go as STI's become less of a problem and religious groups stop trying to control it.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 10, 2016)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I think the term I've heard that I like the most concerning typical human sexuality is 'monogamish'. We do tend toward pairing off with other people, but the 'mate for life' that is encouraged by our institution of marriage is not really our natural state, as evidenced by the divorce rate (Which do to the nature of this forum I will point out is the same or higher among religious people as it is among non-religious).
> 
> Personally I'm happily married and hope it is until death do us part, but attraction is a powerful thing among women as well as men, and sometimes couples simply drift apart as they grow in different directions.
> 
> There are all kinds of possibilities as to where our mating habits could go as STI's become less of a problem and religious groups stop trying to control it.



Whew!  Thank you for stepping in.  Ambush was making me nervous with the flogging line.....

I agree with the monogamish concept.   Isn't it funny how we feel the need to qualify that we are happily married, it's just what we have read about other people that we are discussing.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Whew!  Thank you for stepping in.  Ambush was making me nervous with the flogging line.....
> 
> I agree with the monogamish concept.   Isn't it funny how we feel the need to qualify that we are happily married, it's just what we have read about other people that we are discussing.



It's how you drive out evil spirits.


----------



## Israel (Jun 11, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Whew!  Thank you for stepping in.  Ambush was making me nervous with the flogging line.....
> 
> I agree with the monogamish concept.   Isn't it funny how we feel the need to qualify that we are happily married, it's just what we have read about other people that we are discussing.


Who knows that?


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 11, 2016)

Israel said:


> Who knows that?



Not sure what you mean.  Anything but monogamy is still mostly taboo in our culture.  I thought it funny that we both stressed we were married before going too deep into the subject.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 11, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Whew!  Thank you for stepping in.  Ambush was making me nervous with the flogging line.....
> 
> I agree with the monogamish concept.   Isn't it funny how we feel the need to qualify that we are happily married, it's just what we have read about other people that we are discussing.



Haha yeah I think its just to show that we aren't saying people are 'monogamish'  because we are biased against marriage or monogamy in any way (since we are currently happy in a marriage). 

I don't think i'm above it or anything, and I'm certainly attracted to women I'm not married to just as my I'm sure my wife is attracted to men she isn't married to. We just mutually agreed not to act on it, not because that's the only way to handle a sexual relationship, but because it is what we agreed to and are comfortable with.

Different strokes for different folks, and if we were in a society that valued open relationships things may well be different.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 11, 2016)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Haha yeah I think its just to show that we aren't saying people are 'monogamish'  because we are biased against marriage or monogamy in any way (since we are currently happy in a marriage).
> 
> I don't think i'm above it or anything, and I'm certainly attracted to women I'm not married to just as my I'm sure my wife is attracted to men she isn't married to. We just mutually agreed not to act on it, not because that's the only way to handle a sexual relationship, but because it is what we agreed to and are comfortable with.
> 
> Different strokes for different folks, and if we were in a society that valued open relationships things may well be different.



I think we are headed toward a more open society. The bible thumpers will keep preaching the endtimes and pointing fingers, the rest will go on living their lives.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Jun 11, 2016)

Where does all the chemical imbalances topics begin at in this post..? Brain receptors can be self defeating.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> I think we are headed toward a more open society. The bible thumpers will keep preaching the endtimes and pointing fingers, the rest will go on living their lives.


That was always my peeve when I went to church. The people that praised the loudest, thumped the hardest and pointed their fingers at others the most were also sleeping around, swindling money and were the most perfect examples of do as I say not as I do. The worst offenders protest the most.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> That was always my peeve when I went to church. The people that praised the loudest, thumped the hardest and pointed their fingers at others the most were also sleeping around, swindling money and were the most perfect examples of do as I say not as I do. The worst offenders protest the most.



I'll play the other side- Those people aren't real Christians.(which I have to agree). 

I grew up in the church and most of the people with which I interacted we caring loving people. They had nothing but the best intentions for us yoots.  But I grew up. I went way and learned other things. And all that stuff that surrounded me as a kid just didn't add up. Those people are still good people, but I can't live a fairy tale.


----------



## Israel (Jun 12, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> I'll play the other side- Those people aren't real Christians.(which I have to agree).
> 
> I grew up in the church and most of the people with which I interacted we caring loving people. They had nothing but the best intentions for us yoots.  But I grew up. I went way and learned other things. And all that stuff that surrounded me as a kid just didn't add up. Those people are still good people, but I can't live a fairy tale.



Perhaps they were not surrounded as adults of the things you could merely perceive in your yoot.

A rubber band gun given a child is as much for his own safety as for others, in every way. Adults are entrusted with what yoots can never perceive rightly.

But the perception now of "good intentions" (have you discovered their rarity?)...may well be a bread crumb to lead home.

It is good to not speak ill of those you know have loved you.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> I'll play the other side- Those people aren't real Christians.(which I have to agree).
> 
> I grew up in the church and most of the people with which I interacted we caring loving people. They had nothing but the best intentions for us yoots.  But I grew up. I went way and learned other things. And all that stuff that surrounded me as a kid just didn't add up. Those people are still good people, but I can't live a fairy tale.


Is there any such thing as a "real" Christian except in an individual's own mind? 
As far as caring loving people, sure the church is full of them, but it is how they conduct themselves outside of church in all other aspects of life. There are certainly exceptions to every rule that swings to extremes either way.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 12, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Is there any such thing as a "real" Christian except in an individual's own mind?
> As far as caring loving people, sure the church is full of them, but it is how they conduct themselves outside of church in all other aspects of life. There are certainly exceptions to every rule that swings to extremes either way.



I think a "real" Christian is a "real" sinner who has been made to realize he's a real sinner by the revealed goodness of God.

There is a whole spectrum of maturity levels for a "Christian" that must be realized.
There's hot,there's cold,and there's the most dreadful lukewarm.

I think all Christians find themselves in each category from time to time in their lives,but here's the promise:

Hebrews 12:6

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I think a "real" Christian is a "real" sinner who has been made to realize he's a real sinner by the revealed goodness of God.
> 
> There is a whole spectrum of maturity levels for a "Christian" that must be realized.
> There's hot,there's cold,and there's the most dreadful lukewarm.
> ...



Maneth Madeth Nonsenseth


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 12, 2016)

Israel said:


> Perhaps they were not surrounded as adults of the things you could merely perceive in your yoot.
> 
> A rubber band gun given a child is as much for his own safety as for others, in every way. Adults are entrusted with what yoots can never perceive rightly.
> 
> ...




Did I speak ill of someone???


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 12, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Is there any such thing as a "real" Christian except in an individual's own mind?
> As far as caring loving people, sure the church is full of them, but it is how they conduct themselves outside of church in all other aspects of life. There are certainly exceptions to every rule that swings to extremes either way.



Yes, real by their own definition.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 12, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Maneth Madeth Nonsenseth



That is annoying isn't it.


----------



## Israel (Jun 12, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Did I speak ill of someone???



No, not at all. But, do you believe "good intentions" can really come from a fairy tale?


----------



## welderguy (Jun 12, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> That is annoying isn't it.



What exactly do you find annoying about it and why?


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 12, 2016)

welderguy said:


> What exactly do you find annoying about it and why?



And boring. I forgot boring.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 12, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> And boring. I forgot boring.



At least its not page after page of cut and paste that nobody(except Ambush) reads.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2016)

welderguy said:


> At least its not page after page of cut and paste that nobody(except Ambush) reads.


Everyone that can read and comprehend has read it.
Everyone that could refute it....oh wait...that was 0.
Put your knowledge where your wise cracks are. Go on over back to that thread so you do not spin this one off into oblivion too.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 12, 2016)

welderguy said:


> At least its not page after page of cut and paste that nobody(except Ambush) reads.



When you quote the bible are you not in a sense cutting and pasting as well?  You wouldn't call translations of the bible cut and paste?  What is it about gathering info from the internet that threatens you guys so much?  Where besides the Internet should this information come?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> When you quote the bible are you not in a sense cutting and pasting as well?  You wouldn't call translations of the bible cut and paste?  What is it about gathering info from the internet that threatens you guys so much?  Where besides the Internet should this information come?


They (mostly welder) want to discuss things and tell us they don't believe what we are talking about.  So when I say my thoughts and make claims I try to back them up with sources that possibly say it a little more clearly and list their sources too.
Then, when what is said is irrefutable, they (mostly welder)whine about having to read facts and evidence...or admit to not reading it at all...and then fall back to the original cut/paste and drop more scripture, but without anything to back it up.
Nothing original and less that backs it.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 12, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> When you quote the bible are you not in a sense cutting and pasting as well?  You wouldn't call translations of the bible cut and paste?  What is it about gathering info from the internet that threatens you guys so much?  Where besides the Internet should this information come?



Wow
Yall can sure hand out the
But not so good at taking the


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Wow
> Yall can sure hand out the
> But not so good at taking the


I'm just asking. No hurt feelings here. Trouble with emails, texting, and posting, is humor, sarcasm, and lightheartedness does not translate. 

As far as my questions go, I'm referring to not just your post, but to all the times someone mentions googling or copying links in a negative light.  This is done to cheapen or weaken the opposing view.  Truely, in this modern time, where else should the info come from?  Should we not post unless we have an original thought? Should we dust of ye olde Encyclopedia Britanica and see what 1975 had to say about it?  The Internet houses the history of man and all the knowledge we have gained( and boobies).  It's a beautiful thing. 

In SFDs 47,000 page apologists quote thread, did y'all ever chide him for cutting and pasting??


----------



## Israel (Jun 13, 2016)

Who can escape the accusation "you have only used that which is seen of advantage to you?"


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 13, 2016)

Israel said:


> Who can escape the accusation "you have only used that which is seen of advantage to you?"



You're exactly right my friend. We are all guilty.


----------



## Israel (Jun 13, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> You're exactly right my friend. We are all guilty.



Your "my friend" touches me.
May I speak to you then, as friend? Is it possible to escape our labels, even those we may think "serve us" well? Christian, atheist, agnostic...we either take to ourselves, or hang upon others...for advantage. All of us seeking to be squared away in our own minds to a thing...to find peace. A bin for everything...and everyone. We seem very ill equipped to live in inner dissonance. 
Voices, words, opinions come in, some of "like" some of "unlike"...and we scurry to either find defense, as suitable offense, or receive...as of "like". Facial recognition software is built in...to us. What smile is true, and what smile is pasted to hide the blade unseen? We graduate to such subtleties. What eyes are open to inquiry, and what dance and glance away, in the merest flicker of time, to hide the lie? But it is in such that life and death are found of us...the tiniest of subtleties...and may hold for us either salvation (being free to say survival is of no offense), or loss.

We may even say, if we _dare to_ "I know men are all cunning..._for I am_". To learn to hide our cunning seems a benefit in this place we occupy, how much is seemingly gained by those who have mastered it! It is a harsh school, this world. Where words are used best as camouflage. And where bait is set to bring prey to within range. We may escape with wounds, and loss, or even limbless...but then, even our cunning if seeminlgy too late learned, may still be applied to capitalize upon such. We can now write, convincingly, about traps! We can present ourselves as "helper" (look, the truth of my lost limb testifies of my sincerity!)...and, as helper (a great camouflage if mastered) bring others, to our advantage, within range.


What then to do with the only man who has ever spoken truth to me? In the trap of all? He did not lie when he said "I shall release you from this trap, and as I do, I shall eat you, whole".


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> You're exactly right my friend. We are all guilty.



Now you did it


----------



## welderguy (Jun 13, 2016)

For the record,let me say,I really don't mind cut n paste or internet or whatever.I only said those things to try to get a rise out of bullet.Its just what he and I do because we like to pick at one another.Speaking for myself,its all in fun.So...paste on!


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 13, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Now you did it



I sure am glad I didn't have a mouthful of coffee


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 13, 2016)

Israel said:


> Your "my friend" touches me.
> May I speak to you then, as friend? Is it possible to escape our labels, even those we may think "serve us" well? Christian, atheist, agnostic...we either take to ourselves, or hang upon others...for advantage. All of us seeking to be squared away in our own minds to a thing...to find peace. A bin for everything...and everyone. We seem very ill equipped to live in inner dissonance.
> Voices, words, opinions come in, some of "like" some of "unlike"...and we scurry to either find defense, as suitable offense, or receive...as of "like". Facial recognition software is built in...to us. What smile is true, and what smile is pasted to hide the blade unseen? We graduate to such subtleties. What eyes are open to inquiry, and what dance and glance away, in the merest flicker of time, to hide the lie? But it is in such that life and death are found of us...the tiniest of subtleties...and may hold for us either salvation (being free to say survival is of no offense), or loss.
> 
> ...



I'm quite certain if I met you we would get along fabulously.  

We come at this existence thing from different angles.  I agree with most of what you said above, I just don't agree with the 'I was lost, but now I'm found' aspect of your philosophy.   I just don't buy it.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 13, 2016)

welderguy said:


> For the record,let me say,I really don't mind cut n paste or internet or whatever.I only said those things to try to get a rise out of bullet.Its just what he and I do because we like to pick at one another.Speaking for myself,its all in fun.So...paste on!



cool


----------



## Israel (Jun 13, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> i'm quite certain if i met you we would get along fabulously.
> 
> We come at this existence thing from different angles.  I agree with most of what you said above, i just don't agree with the 'i was lost, but now i'm found' aspect of your philosophy.   I just don't buy it.



ok.


----------



## OwlRNothing (Jun 13, 2016)

1. Never heard of him. Sure he's real? 
2. He's concerned what God would think of him? Easy. His sin, is quite clearly stated as an abomination.
3. Next.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 13, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, lack of moderation is the root of all evil. Unless you can honestly tell me that there's nothing you do, ahem hunt and fish, purely for your own enjoyment of it.



Doing something for my own enjoyment isn't per se selfish unless it's at the expense of others or detracts from my relationship with Christ,  but you already knew that so why the red herring?


----------



## Israel (Jun 15, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> I'm quite certain if I met you we would get along fabulously.
> 
> We come at this existence thing from different angles.  I agree with most of what you said above, I just don't agree with the 'I was lost, but now I'm found' aspect of your philosophy.   I just don't buy it.



I once was lost, but now I'm found...out.
Hews closer.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 15, 2016)

Israel said:


> I once was lost, but now I'm found...out.
> Hews closer.



I get it, you're not worthy.  You're whale scum. You're a big ole ball of sinning sinfulness. But you have a savior, and he washes away that sin.  He makes you whole. 

Do you think everyone should feel that way?  Do you think if we don't we are living in denial?  Do you accept that there are people in this world that do not share your world view?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 15, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Doing something for my own enjoyment isn't per se selfish unless it's at the expense of others or detracts from my relationship with Christ,  but you already knew that so why the red herring?



No red herring:

 [sel-fish]

    Synonyms
    Examples
    Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2.
characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: 

You're taking the negative of the definition weighted more heavily, and look where it falls, 3rd caveat and 2nd definition. I was always told the more accurate definition was the first one when look at the dictionary, but that's okay. 

Society has a stigma around the word selfish so that is almost universally negative in connotation, but that doesn't change the actual denotation. 

Then there's the fact that serving God, even if you proclaim selflessly is a feedback loop of doing something for yourself. 

You do it because God says you should, and in doing so it makes you feel good to do God and do it with the mindset that God says you should. I wonder would you be so inclined if you didn't believe in Him and if you didn't get that positive feedback. I doubt it. 

It's been discussed before, at length, but everything anyone does can be reduced to doing it for themselves and because it makes them happy to do so. It may be that it only makes them happier than the alternative condition, like paying your taxes versus not, but that's the truth of the matter. 

Yes, Mother Theresa on the surface was selfless. She did great works for the needy. But she enjoyed doing it, and it made her happy to serve God through it, and the joy that it brought to those she touched. She acted off of self-interest, i.e. selfishness, but there was no negativity in it. 

Show me an altruistic person who's completely miserable in what they're doing and I'll consider the opposite viewpoint. Until then, everything I've seen, even from people of faith, comes down to them acting because it makes _them_ happy to do so.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 15, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No red herring:
> 
> [sel-fish]
> 
> ...



I've said this on here as well. It's like shouting at a wall.  It just don't get through.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 15, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No red herring:
> 
> [sel-fish]
> 
> ...



There's a lot of truth in this.
The closest one I could show you would be Jesus,but even He did it for the joy.

Hebrews 12:2
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 15, 2016)

welderguy said:


> There's a lot of truth in this.
> The closest one I could show you would be Jesus,but even He did it for the joy.
> 
> Hebrews 12:2
> 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.



Exactly.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 15, 2016)

welderguy said:


> There's a lot of truth in this.
> The closest one I could show you would be Jesus,but even He did it for the joy.
> 
> Hebrews 12:2
> 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.



But....now that Ive given this more thought,I believe this joy that was set before Him was for us,not Himself.The cross was for our sakes,not His.He is the giver of joy.


----------



## Israel (Jun 15, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> I get it, you're not worthy.  You're whale scum. You're a big ole ball of sinning sinfulness. But you have a savior, and he washes away that sin.  He makes you whole.
> 
> Do you think everyone should feel that way?  Do you think if we don't we are living in denial?  Do you accept that there are people in this world that do not share your world view?



Do I think everyone should feel...what way? I feel many things throughout my days. Since I am unable to determine how or what "I" should feel...at any given time...you could probably see that to be concerned with what anyone else _should feel_ would be not only silly, but fruitless.

As to the denial thing...the same. I don't know what anyone _is denying_, till they do. And even then, I am not sure of much. Today's denial...well...tomorrow is not today. Yet. Can I say of myself...and for myself, things change? I believe so, all but one. He is the changer of things.

I am having a little difficulty with the very last question. 



> Do you accept that there are people in this world that do not share your world view?



What would  such acceptance look like? What would be the sign of its negation?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 16, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No red herring:
> 
> [sel-fish]
> 
> ...



While I know it's outside of the point of this.. Mother Teresa was a wretched old hag who frequently did more harm to those who came to her than good.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/05/mother-teresa/


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 16, 2016)

MiGGeLLo said:


> While I know it's outside of the point of this.. Mother Teresa was a wretched old hag who frequently did more harm to those who came to her than good.
> 
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/05/mother-teresa/



Pick your altruist and it still holds true.


----------

