Athiests and homosexuals

@InfraBlue,

This is how it always unfolds:

"I am interested in people's actual views on things and what they understand as the deeper purpose of yadayadayada."

This follows next:

"It seems, however, you are person who likes to confront (your pick) with a part of the (your pick) you think will force them to accept liberal sexuality (or something else she thinks is creepy) as somehow being validated in (your pick)."

Then lastly:

"I didn't want to assume the worst, (oh you know she does) so I asked (challenged) you to explain your deeper interpretation (you sad sack) and motive in posting it (translation: what the hell are you talking about you illiterate peasant)"

She lives to let you know she is more intellectual than you...it's a great dodge, she doesn't really add anything...she just knit-picks your statement and attempts to invalidate it for God only know why. (Here's a hint: when you are talking to an invalidator they might say, I was stunned to hear you were promoted..I didn't think you had a prayer....oh, and congratulations.)

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

You didn't want to assume "the worst," but yet you guessed that I am a person who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible to accept and reject, depending on whether they suit my personal values and preferences, and then go on to ask if it is just a way for me to be confrontational toward religious people about sensuality, or if I actually reflect on why I would post it.

Yeah, right.

I am just trying to be upfront with you about my first impression while remaining open to the possibility I'm wrong.

I don't like trusting people to be honest and then having them couch their weak, biased, superficial views in language that inflates it to try to to sound like more than they are.

Probably you are not like the type of person I described in my last post, you will recognize that it is a common pattern and you would also dislike it. It doesn't make for interesting discussion when someone looks for parts of the Bible to quote just because they expect it to have an undermining effect on religious people's confidence in the Bible as a moral compass.

In short, I just want to know if you have any deeper moral perspective to share, or if you're just trying to undermine any morality that regards restrictive sexuality as a positive thing by posting a passage that uses sensual description.

Ultimately morality goes beyond the Bible. The Bible is a collection of valuable texts that serve as a faithful companion to Holy Spirit for seeking divine guidance. However, you may notice how many people twist and pervert Bible quotes to undermine morality instead of supporting it.

So when you read this passage, I'm asking if you are actually trying to decipher some input into your process of struggling with morality or have you already just chosen some kind of hedonistic morality that validates sensuality and you post this passage because you think it validates hedonism as a legitimate form of morality?

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

This is how it always unfolds:

"I am interested in people's actual views on things and what they understand as the deeper purpose of yadayadayada."

This follows next:

"It seems, however, you are person who likes to confront (your pick) with a part of the (your pick) you think will force them to accept liberal sexuality (or something else she thinks is creepy) as somehow being validated in (your pick)."

Then lastly:

"I didn't want to assume the worst, (oh you know she does) so I asked (challenged) you to explain your deeper interpretation (you sad sack) and motive in posting it (translation: what the hell are you talking about you illiterate peasant)"

She lives to let you know she is more intellectual than you...it's a great dodge, she doesn't really add anything...she just knit-picks your statement and attempts to invalidate it for God only know why. (Here's a hint: when you are talking to an invalidator they might say, I was stunned to hear you were promoted..I didn't think you had a prayer....oh, and congratulations.)

You could just take the information as honest and respond with your point of view instead of knee-jerking into defensiveness about being 'invalidated.'

If you cxpect everyone to validate you in posts, you need to realize that there are different POVs and people can't honestly validate something they disagree with. So in order to have mature discussions between people with differing views and values, you cannot get upset about someone with a different POV not validating yours.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

the interesting thing that you seem to totally miss is that usually your first discussions regarding someones initial posting are rife with ,almost,ridicule. Then when someone, irked at your inability to start with a more reasonable entry , will open with insult. Then you start whining about how folks are attacking you or "feigning xpertise" or some other bullshit. If I were you Id look into a mirror and do a files review because almost everyone with whom you interact, you turn yourself into this whining victim when its you whose drawn it on . Do you even recognize that??

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You seem to think you simply have a different point of view. Whatever your point may be is, it's impossible to determine since your comments are always dripping with scorn and incredibly school marm'ish. It seems to be impossible for you to simply respond/comment without characterizing others as blithering idiots. It's annoying, but rest assured no one on this forum relies on your 'approval' in order to get thru the day......in other words, you are the turd in at the punchbowl.......

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

the interesting thing that you seem to totally miss is that usually your first discussions regarding someones initial posting are rife with ,almost,ridicule. Then when someone, irked at your inability to start with a more reasonable entry , will open with insult. Then you start whining about how folks are attacking you or "feigning xpertise" or some other bullshit. If I were you Id look into a mirror and do a files review because almost everyone with whom you interact, you turn yourself into this whining victim when its you whose drawn it on . Do you even recognize that??

When you see something I say that looks like ridicule to you, please make sure and cite it so I can see what my purpose was for posting it. I may say things that don't hesitate to be critical, but the difference between how I think and how people think who ridicule others to condemn them is that condemnation isn't my goal. My goal is to elucidate and explain my thinking, and thus discuss the reasoning further; not just insult and slam people or coerce them into submission by telling them they aren't experts the way someone else might be.

You have to look at the censorial intent in the posts that just insult and ridicule others. They are not explaining anything in a way that invites further discussion. They are just trying to close off discussion by slamming people and/or telling them whatever they're talking about is totally invalid. If you think something someone says is invalid, you explain why/how and when/if they respond with further discussion that's not just aggression/hostility against your critique, then discussion is actually interesting and elucidating and not just a battle to establish winners and losers.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

You seem to think you simply have a different point of view. Whatever your point may be is, it's impossible to determine since your comments are always dripping with scorn and incredibly school marm'ish. It seems to be impossible for you to simply respond/comment without characterizing others as blithering idiots. It's annoying, but rest assured no one on this forum relies on your 'approval' in order to get thru the day......in other words, you are the turd in at the punchbowl.......

I think you're projecting your feelings onto my posts. You are probably a person who lives in a shadow of scorn unless someone fawns and validates whatever you say. All I do is explain when I think people are wrong and I don't sugar coat it, so if you think anything that isn't sugar coated is "dripping with scorn," then you're never going to be able to engage in emotionally-neutral discussion without experiencing it as scornful.

It's the same reason you can't talk about sin with non-Christians without them calling you 'judgmental.' They don't understand that sin is forgiven and that allows us to talk about sin without hating sinners. They assume hate and judgment is implicit in even the mention of sin, so if you so much as mention sin and/or that people are sinners, they experience that as judgment, when it's really just objective awareness of sin that is already forgiven through Christ.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

you could not have made glitterbag's point any better

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

you could not have made glitterbag's point any better

You say so many things without explaining. Your post is nothing more than a downvote of mine. Why waste thread-space?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

then why ask? I understand it, thats all that matters .Maybe I should have spoken in serpentinistic tongues like you.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

then why ask? I understand it, thats all that matters .Maybe I should have spoken in serpentinistic tongues like you.

You call it 'speaking in serpentinistic tongues' to explain your claims explicitly?

Apparently you think your authority is so absolute that you can just state your conclusions and everyone is just supposed to accept them as true without understanding what you are saying based on you explaining it.

You're just so authoritarian in that way. You want to just make statements and have them honored as true. Why should anyone accept your authority without understanding what you are saying?

The irony of this to me is that when I explain my reasoning so people can think about it critically for themselves, they will question my authority, as if I was asserting something opaquely. It's like people refuse to think for themselves, so when you explain something they don't trust their own minds to think through what they're reading.

Is this all truth comes down to for you? Accepting what is said by trusted authorities without understanding it? Is that really the level of sub-enlightenment you want people to live at?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

well there is a difference tween us Ll. The only orifice from which I choose to speak is my mouth. You instead,are bi-orificial. Congrats, I suppose.

0 Replies

Athiests and homosexuals

Quick Links

My Account

able2know