These days I am somewhat inclined to agree with Mel White, having exhausted the alternative possibilities.
sirguessalot
quote:2) I think the true deep sin of male homosexuality is when masculine spirituality gets together and virtually excommunicates feminine spirituality (regardless of personal gender or physical sexuallity). The endless wars and aggressions of humanity are the result of this spiritual man-to-man.
You are certainly guessing here! The man man thing is down to masculine machismo not sexuality. Homosexuals are more likely to be in touch with their feminine side than many heterosexuals.
Socks, cool cat stuff. I live with 2 males and 2 females (cats).
Trefor, sorry. I did not make myself clear enough.
I agree with you more than you can possibly know.
Maybe I should have written, "the kind of homosexuality that does harm is when a spiritually masculine (machismo-aggressive-right-mind "all that is holy must be male") entity (be it a nation, religion...whatever) partners with ONLY other spiritually masculine entities/mindsets, and together, they try and subject/banish all thoughts and virtues that are spiritually feminine because they are erroneously perceived as weak, deceived, give away too much of our stuff, etc...
I suppose one might even say that most homosexual men do not necessarily have the true problem of biblical homosexuality (though we all may have our share of other problems). But warmongering right-wing polito/religious "fatherhoods/brotherhoods" do (such as TWI's). The religious male-only clubs, with minds hell-bent on possessing things such as truth, flesh, real estate, etc.... Sure, man-only-clubs can also be homo in the flesh. But relationships of the heart are what counts, right?
Sexuallity of the flesh is only skin deep, IMO. There IS sexuallity of the soul, AND of the spirit. Then, in light of these deeper things, there are also marriages, offspring, microcosms and macrocosms to consider.
Sorry if this is still unclear.
I have enough material to write a few books on the subject, so it is hard to summarize without going off in a million directions (and so its no wonder I haven't written the thing yet - I post here too much ;)--> ).
peace
Todd
[This message was edited by sirguessalot on September 25, 2003 at 14:08.]
I'm seriously trying to work out the meaning of what you say Todd.
But I still think its the male bonding thing, the membership of the male club, the machismo, that is the destructive element. Men have always sought to dominate politics and religion and affairs and business but in sexual matters, no matter how huggy and back clappy they get it's the women they go for. They protest their abhorrence of men having sex with men whilst happily watching porn showing women having sex with women. That's why lesbianism has never be considered worth making illegal, because such men are stimulated by that and not threatened.
But they see the idea of men loving men sexually as a threat, a surrender of that machismo masculinity, "letting the side down" if you will and will find all kinds of religious, ethical and social reasons for condemning it.
They think of it in terms of acts rather than an orientation that has mental and spiritual connotations - "backs to the wall guys, there is a queer about" etc. They flatter themselves that the queer guy actually is attracted to them even though it is statistically unlikely just as they don't fancy every woman they see.
Such a book would no doubt make interesting reading. I think it's a topic that needs covering in greater depth, hopefully in order to correct the many misunderstandings and misapprehensions that pertain.
quote: But I still think its the male bonding thing, the membership of the male club, the machismo, that is the destructive element.
In essence, this is exactly what I am saying too. And its because the brunt of the destructiveness of homo-masculine possessiveness hits feminine energy squarely between the eyes, and the puts "her" out on the street.
Again, I apologize. I probably should clarify my strange position a bit further. When I speak of "him" and "her" in conversations like this, I speak of two universal planes of force that we all exist on. What we perceive as our personal individual physical gender is but a thin veil. Every line of energy and dot of matter in the universe is involved in a relationship of sexual exchange (or wishing it was). ;)--> ewwwww!
And so maybe its my broader application of the H-word that is making things difficult for me.
Todd
btw - thanks a million for at least trying to work out the meaning. That means a lot to me.
oops. I would go back and edit "dot" to "point" but then your post would not make much sense now, would it? And now that I've written this, you would have to go back and edit your post to something else, but then...
Trefor: Why is it that we never hear about women having a "masculine side?" They know what they are and they're not ashamed of it. It is demeaning to men to suggest that they need to have a "feminine side" in order to be complete. I'm complete in Christ; I don't need a feminine anything.
Also, if you were to start a TGI you wouldn't have to go far for a security force. You could probably recruit a "GayGB" from this thread alone.
Trefor will be gay as long as he wants to be gay or forever if he wants to. He is gay wether you like it or not.
I haven't seen him trying a campaign to convert anyone here. Unless i missed it. He's offering his opinion like everyone else from his point of view.
I just don't see any good coming from beating someone up with the bible. You cetainly are not changing his mind! You don't beleive from the bible being gay is right - well ok we got it.
Sir Guessalot: The idea of spiritual beings having sexual orientation and desire is a bit far-fetched. While I am no longer of the "It is Written!" persuasion, I do think there's a lot of truth in the Bible. Most of it depicts spiritual beings as sexless. Jesus said that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of heaven. Paul said that in Christ, there is neither male nor female. So it seems gender and sexuality are physical, not spiritual
Although, there is the controversial record in Genesis chapter six about the sons of God making whoopy with the daughers of men, which some interpret as an instance of fallen angels impregnating women. And I know of someone who has had a very weird experience with spirits wanting to have sex with her. BUT those would both fall into the category of demonic spirits, and so wouldn't necessarily apply to angelic beings or the spirit of Christ in you.
KnowwhatImean?
Trefor: I disagree that men are afraid of "queers". That's a myth used to ridicule those who object to homosexuality. The term "homophobic" is dishonest and elitist. Most men are not so much afraid of male homosexuals as they are repulsed by them. Sorry, it's true. Now let me make a distinction. It's not the very presence of a homosexual male that's repulsive, but the idea of two men actually having sex, or the presence of an effeminate male. Allow me elaborate on both of those if you please.
Demonstrative male homosexuality: Studies have shown that when gay men are demonstratively affectionate, anti-gay violence rises. We don't mind the fact that some men like to kiss other men, but if we're forced to witness such an event, it's just as disgusting a spectacle as...well, as bestiality. The reason Johniam mentioned incest, rape, and other "perversions" in his initial post is that the sight of male homosexual behaviour produces the same gut reaction as those acts. So it's not that we're afraid of male homosexuals, we just find their behaviour incredibly appalling.
Effeminate men: I've been considering this point as I watche this converation develop and I think perhaps this should be considered as a separat issue. In I Corintians, Paul lists effeminate as a separate vice from homosexuality ("abusers of themselves with mankind"). I used to think these temrs meant the same thing, but everything else in the list is a specific vice, so it makes more sense to think of these things as seperate too. One of the reasons I think this may be the case is related to the point above. When male homosexuals are not being demonstratively affectionate towards each other, I have no problem being around them if they're not effeminate. The mere presence of an effeminate man is almost as unsettling; uncomfortable, unpleasant,etc, as the sight of two men kissing. Don't know why. Even my wife hates being around effeminate men. And as we all know, not all homosexuals are effeminate and not all effeminat men are homosexuals. So I posit that being around a homosexual man who is not effeminate and is not demonstratively gay is not upsetting for most guys. But being around men kissing men or men who walk and talk like women is just really unpleasant and unsettling. It's not fear, it's just basic repulsion.
Please try not to take offence to this. I'm just being honest and trying to set the record straight about the difference between "homophobia" and objectionable behaviour.
Johniam-it just seems like you want to drum up a very heated fight over this particular subject. It's not necessary. I'll bet trefor knows the verses that you mentioned. Hell we all know 'em.
I do know what you mean. And I understand why you would consider what I wrote far-fetched. But we are obviously writing from fundamentally different places, so I'll just let it go at that to avoid the common tussle. But thanks for the stray comments my way.
I don't know, Jerry. Without disagreeing with all of what you said, I still believe there is such a thing as "homophobia" and that it's not merely a philosophical disagreement over the nature of homosexuality.
I mean, way too often I hear people say, 'I don't care if htey're gay, as long as they don't try anything with me!'
That's not just revulsion. That's FEAR. "Homosexuals don't reproduce, they recruit." That statement is one of FEAR. Guys are afraid they're going to get recruited.
I was there. I understand it. I used to think the same way, and there was fear there. Sure, there was revulsion and "righteous" indignation. But there was fear.
I eliminated the fear with one realization:
In order for a gay guy to have a shot with me, I have to be interested.
!
Now I have no fear-based discomfort around gay people. Revulsion? Sort of. I've been around gay couples who were obviously into each other, but no, they did not kiss.
Have I been approached? Sort of. Guy was coming onto me and I was oblivious. I had no idea. It was a few hours later before I realized what was going on.
Reminds me of a male stand up comedian's comments: "Oh no! I'm on a date! And I'm the woman!"
Anyway, without disagreeing with you, Jerry, there is such a thing as homopohobia. It's not just a construct of the politically correct.
I think the gay community sometimes acts in an outrageous manner and when the straight community objects they are called "homophobic"
Case in point:
My hubs and I went to San Francisco. We walked hand in hand, ran to get the trolley, hugged -- we were obviously together.
The gay men would walk right up to us and "hit" on him. One man asked him, "Would you rock my world?"
Another, "Mmmmm, honey would you like to be the queen of my castle?"
Yet another, "I could make you squeal with delight..."
Mind you we were minding our own business and they walked up to an obvious couple and acted like that. The first time the hubs said he was not interested. The second time he said, "Look I am with my wife, I am not interested."
The response, "You don't have to be homophobic, it won't rub off."
My response, "We are not homophobic but shocked at how rude you are to approach him while we are together and make a sexual offer."
The third encounter was similar. The homosexual that approached us was "indignant over his decline of the offer."
If these had been women approaching him while we were together, society would have seen those actions as "wrong". But because we now have to tip toe around everyone's feelings we were suppose to just blow off the advances. We were not MAD because they were homosexuals we were MAD because they were rude.
But rather than admit they were wrong, they accused us of homophobia. I think the homosexuals use that word to make heterosexuals feel guilty about how they act around homosexuals, even when their behavior clearly warrants chastisement.
Thanks for the footnote. I didn't mean to imply that homophobia does not exist; merely that not all objections to homosexuality should be dismissed as such.
Vertical limit: I'm not trying to drum up anything. Besides, I play guitar, not drums. A few pages ago, the last sentence in my post to Trefor said 'all we can do now is agree to disagree'. That was an open invite to drop the subject altogether. He responded, not angrily, that it was OK to have different views, yet that he reserved the right to challenge my views. That's OK with me. It does also give me the right to challenge his challenges. Oddly, he's not getting sensitive on me like some of you are.
Much of what I've posted on this subject is stuff I've run through my mind once or twice. It's not intended to be received as "the gospel according to Johniam"; this isn't a TWI fellowship. I DO believe there is a difference between factual knowledge and spiritual truth.
I'm just throwing my views out here. I've posted opinions before that have gotten chewed up and spat out quite cleanly so that I HAD to rethink them. Whether or not I do that after reading feedback to my posts on THIS thread is my business. I'm not obligated to give you or anybody else a running tally about that.
Another advantage to being honest or blunt on these forums is that anybody can let their thoughts run and think "damn homos" or something like that, but here, maybe I DON'T have to look Trefor in the eye while I'm posting, but he can respond to me. There's a person behind those posts. This is mutual confrontation. A lot can be learned under these circumstances.
His last post contained the phrase "feminine side." I responded to it. That's not drumming up a heated fight. It's probably as heated as it's going to get: at least between myself and Trefor. You and Rascal can get heated if you want.
quote: I'm just being honest and trying to set the record straight about the difference between "homophobia" and objectionable behaviour.
I'm not going to judge your efforts to do this, except to say you got too philosophical. Examples are always more effecient an illustration. If an ex-Way person wants to illustrate the difference between homophobia... and believing that homosexuality is not Godly, I do believe there is one example that stands out.
Dot, that stuff that happened in SF is appalling. It seems to me that those particular homos are like others who society considers to be victims in some way. Their speech is not intended to communicate anything; they just want you to jump through the hoops they want you to jump through and if you don't, they throw all the guilt at you they can and if you have any guilt in your mind, deserved or not, they will probably be able to manipulate you. That's what those guys were trying to do. Slugs.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
39
66
34
Popular Days
Sep 20
84
Sep 19
78
Sep 22
63
Sep 21
53
Top Posters In This Topic
RottieGrrrl 32 posts
excathedra 39 posts
Dot Matrix 66 posts
WhiteDove 34 posts
Popular Days
Sep 20 2003
84 posts
Sep 19 2003
78 posts
Sep 22 2003
63 posts
Sep 21 2003
53 posts
Trefor Heywood
exousia
These days I am somewhat inclined to agree with Mel White, having exhausted the alternative possibilities.
sirguessalot
You are certainly guessing here! The man man thing is down to masculine machismo not sexuality. Homosexuals are more likely to be in touch with their feminine side than many heterosexuals.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Socks, cool cat stuff. I live with 2 males and 2 females (cats).
Trefor, sorry. I did not make myself clear enough.
I agree with you more than you can possibly know.
Maybe I should have written, "the kind of homosexuality that does harm is when a spiritually masculine (machismo-aggressive-right-mind "all that is holy must be male") entity (be it a nation, religion...whatever) partners with ONLY other spiritually masculine entities/mindsets, and together, they try and subject/banish all thoughts and virtues that are spiritually feminine because they are erroneously perceived as weak, deceived, give away too much of our stuff, etc...
I suppose one might even say that most homosexual men do not necessarily have the true problem of biblical homosexuality (though we all may have our share of other problems). But warmongering right-wing polito/religious "fatherhoods/brotherhoods" do (such as TWI's). The religious male-only clubs, with minds hell-bent on possessing things such as truth, flesh, real estate, etc.... Sure, man-only-clubs can also be homo in the flesh. But relationships of the heart are what counts, right?
Sexuallity of the flesh is only skin deep, IMO. There IS sexuallity of the soul, AND of the spirit. Then, in light of these deeper things, there are also marriages, offspring, microcosms and macrocosms to consider.
Sorry if this is still unclear.
I have enough material to write a few books on the subject, so it is hard to summarize without going off in a million directions (and so its no wonder I haven't written the thing yet - I post here too much
;)--> ).
peace
Todd
[This message was edited by sirguessalot on September 25, 2003 at 14:08.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I'm seriously trying to work out the meaning of what you say Todd.
But I still think its the male bonding thing, the membership of the male club, the machismo, that is the destructive element. Men have always sought to dominate politics and religion and affairs and business but in sexual matters, no matter how huggy and back clappy they get it's the women they go for. They protest their abhorrence of men having sex with men whilst happily watching porn showing women having sex with women. That's why lesbianism has never be considered worth making illegal, because such men are stimulated by that and not threatened.
But they see the idea of men loving men sexually as a threat, a surrender of that machismo masculinity, "letting the side down" if you will and will find all kinds of religious, ethical and social reasons for condemning it.
They think of it in terms of acts rather than an orientation that has mental and spiritual connotations - "backs to the wall guys, there is a queer about" etc. They flatter themselves that the queer guy actually is attracted to them even though it is statistically unlikely just as they don't fancy every woman they see.
Such a book would no doubt make interesting reading. I think it's a topic that needs covering in greater depth, hopefully in order to correct the many misunderstandings and misapprehensions that pertain.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Again, I apologize. I probably should clarify my strange position a bit further. When I speak of "him" and "her" in conversations like this, I speak of two universal planes of force that we all exist on. What we perceive as our personal individual physical gender is but a thin veil. Every line of energy and dot of matter in the universe is involved in a relationship of sexual exchange (or wishing it was).
;)--> ewwwww!
And so maybe its my broader application of the H-word that is making things difficult for me.
Todd
btw - thanks a million for at least trying to work out the meaning. That means a lot to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
T, don't let "dot" here you say that
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
oops. I would go back and edit "dot" to "point" but then your post would not make much sense now, would it? And now that I've written this, you would have to go back and edit your post to something else, but then...
So, shhhhhhhhh....
:P--> 
:D--> 
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Trefor: Why is it that we never hear about women having a "masculine side?" They know what they are and they're not ashamed of it. It is demeaning to men to suggest that they need to have a "feminine side" in order to be complete. I'm complete in Christ; I don't need a feminine anything.
Also, if you were to start a TGI you wouldn't have to go far for a security force. You could probably recruit a "GayGB" from this thread alone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Every line of energy and dot of matter in the universe is involved in a relationship of sexual exchange (or wishing it was). ewwwww!
What I am having sex with the universe? I should be exhausted.
Life is too short for bad coffee!
Dot Matrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Better *Gaygb* than someone who uses the bible to excuse their rabidly venomous attitudes I suppose.........
Have you not ever heard of *butch* women?
I have known women that are very masculine.....some gay some are not....your observation makes no sense.
[This message was edited by rascal on September 25, 2003 at 16:51.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
lol, Dot.
Or "wishing you were" exhausted. lol
And did you know that Dot is Todd in reverse?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
So we are transworded? I should start a group other members would be God and dogs.
I should go take some vitamins, the universe is at my door....
Life is too short for bad coffee!
Dot Matrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Sheesh - johniam.
Trefor will be gay as long as he wants to be gay or forever if he wants to. He is gay wether you like it or not.
I haven't seen him trying a campaign to convert anyone here. Unless i missed it. He's offering his opinion like everyone else from his point of view.
I just don't see any good coming from beating someone up with the bible. You cetainly are not changing his mind! You don't beleive from the bible being gay is right - well ok we got it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
we got it a long time ago
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
A few stray comments;
Sir Guessalot: The idea of spiritual beings having sexual orientation and desire is a bit far-fetched. While I am no longer of the "It is Written!" persuasion, I do think there's a lot of truth in the Bible. Most of it depicts spiritual beings as sexless. Jesus said that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of heaven. Paul said that in Christ, there is neither male nor female. So it seems gender and sexuality are physical, not spiritual
Although, there is the controversial record in Genesis chapter six about the sons of God making whoopy with the daughers of men, which some interpret as an instance of fallen angels impregnating women. And I know of someone who has had a very weird experience with spirits wanting to have sex with her. BUT those would both fall into the category of demonic spirits, and so wouldn't necessarily apply to angelic beings or the spirit of Christ in you.
KnowwhatImean?
Trefor: I disagree that men are afraid of "queers". That's a myth used to ridicule those who object to homosexuality. The term "homophobic" is dishonest and elitist. Most men are not so much afraid of male homosexuals as they are repulsed by them. Sorry, it's true. Now let me make a distinction. It's not the very presence of a homosexual male that's repulsive, but the idea of two men actually having sex, or the presence of an effeminate male. Allow me elaborate on both of those if you please.
Demonstrative male homosexuality: Studies have shown that when gay men are demonstratively affectionate, anti-gay violence rises. We don't mind the fact that some men like to kiss other men, but if we're forced to witness such an event, it's just as disgusting a spectacle as...well, as bestiality. The reason Johniam mentioned incest, rape, and other "perversions" in his initial post is that the sight of male homosexual behaviour produces the same gut reaction as those acts. So it's not that we're afraid of male homosexuals, we just find their behaviour incredibly appalling.
Effeminate men: I've been considering this point as I watche this converation develop and I think perhaps this should be considered as a separat issue. In I Corintians, Paul lists effeminate as a separate vice from homosexuality ("abusers of themselves with mankind"). I used to think these temrs meant the same thing, but everything else in the list is a specific vice, so it makes more sense to think of these things as seperate too. One of the reasons I think this may be the case is related to the point above. When male homosexuals are not being demonstratively affectionate towards each other, I have no problem being around them if they're not effeminate. The mere presence of an effeminate man is almost as unsettling; uncomfortable, unpleasant,etc, as the sight of two men kissing. Don't know why. Even my wife hates being around effeminate men. And as we all know, not all homosexuals are effeminate and not all effeminat men are homosexuals. So I posit that being around a homosexual man who is not effeminate and is not demonstratively gay is not upsetting for most guys. But being around men kissing men or men who walk and talk like women is just really unpleasant and unsettling. It's not fear, it's just basic repulsion.
Please try not to take offence to this. I'm just being honest and trying to set the record straight about the difference between "homophobia" and objectionable behaviour.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Good points JerryB-I agree.
And a good way to communicate your opinion.
Johniam-it just seems like you want to drum up a very heated fight over this particular subject. It's not necessary. I'll bet trefor knows the verses that you mentioned. Hell we all know 'em.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Jbarrax,
I do know what you mean. And I understand why you would consider what I wrote far-fetched. But we are obviously writing from fundamentally different places, so I'll just let it go at that to avoid the common tussle. But thanks for the stray comments my way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't know, Jerry. Without disagreeing with all of what you said, I still believe there is such a thing as "homophobia" and that it's not merely a philosophical disagreement over the nature of homosexuality.
I mean, way too often I hear people say, 'I don't care if htey're gay, as long as they don't try anything with me!'
That's not just revulsion. That's FEAR. "Homosexuals don't reproduce, they recruit." That statement is one of FEAR. Guys are afraid they're going to get recruited.
I was there. I understand it. I used to think the same way, and there was fear there. Sure, there was revulsion and "righteous" indignation. But there was fear.
I eliminated the fear with one realization:
In order for a gay guy to have a shot with me, I have to be interested.
!
Now I have no fear-based discomfort around gay people. Revulsion? Sort of. I've been around gay couples who were obviously into each other, but no, they did not kiss.
Have I been approached? Sort of. Guy was coming onto me and I was oblivious. I had no idea. It was a few hours later before I realized what was going on.
Reminds me of a male stand up comedian's comments: "Oh no! I'm on a date! And I'm the woman!"
Anyway, without disagreeing with you, Jerry, there is such a thing as homopohobia. It's not just a construct of the politically correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
HOMOPHOBIC
_________________________
I think the gay community sometimes acts in an outrageous manner and when the straight community objects they are called "homophobic"
Case in point:
My hubs and I went to San Francisco. We walked hand in hand, ran to get the trolley, hugged -- we were obviously together.
The gay men would walk right up to us and "hit" on him. One man asked him, "Would you rock my world?"
Another, "Mmmmm, honey would you like to be the queen of my castle?"
Yet another, "I could make you squeal with delight..."
Mind you we were minding our own business and they walked up to an obvious couple and acted like that. The first time the hubs said he was not interested. The second time he said, "Look I am with my wife, I am not interested."
The response, "You don't have to be homophobic, it won't rub off."
My response, "We are not homophobic but shocked at how rude you are to approach him while we are together and make a sexual offer."
The third encounter was similar. The homosexual that approached us was "indignant over his decline of the offer."
If these had been women approaching him while we were together, society would have seen those actions as "wrong". But because we now have to tip toe around everyone's feelings we were suppose to just blow off the advances. We were not MAD because they were homosexuals we were MAD because they were rude.
But rather than admit they were wrong, they accused us of homophobia. I think the homosexuals use that word to make heterosexuals feel guilty about how they act around homosexuals, even when their behavior clearly warrants chastisement.
(IMHO)
Life is too short for bad coffee!
Dot Matrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Hi Raf.
Thanks for the footnote. I didn't mean to imply that homophobia does not exist; merely that not all objections to homosexuality should be dismissed as such.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Jerry
That was my point!
Life is too short for bad coffee!
Dot Matrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Vertical limit: I'm not trying to drum up anything. Besides, I play guitar, not drums. A few pages ago, the last sentence in my post to Trefor said 'all we can do now is agree to disagree'. That was an open invite to drop the subject altogether. He responded, not angrily, that it was OK to have different views, yet that he reserved the right to challenge my views. That's OK with me. It does also give me the right to challenge his challenges. Oddly, he's not getting sensitive on me like some of you are.
Much of what I've posted on this subject is stuff I've run through my mind once or twice. It's not intended to be received as "the gospel according to Johniam"; this isn't a TWI fellowship. I DO believe there is a difference between factual knowledge and spiritual truth.
I'm just throwing my views out here. I've posted opinions before that have gotten chewed up and spat out quite cleanly so that I HAD to rethink them. Whether or not I do that after reading feedback to my posts on THIS thread is my business. I'm not obligated to give you or anybody else a running tally about that.
Another advantage to being honest or blunt on these forums is that anybody can let their thoughts run and think "damn homos" or something like that, but here, maybe I DON'T have to look Trefor in the eye while I'm posting, but he can respond to me. There's a person behind those posts. This is mutual confrontation. A lot can be learned under these circumstances.
His last post contained the phrase "feminine side." I responded to it. That's not drumming up a heated fight. It's probably as heated as it's going to get: at least between myself and Trefor. You and Rascal can get heated if you want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Nope no heated fight from me. I said what I thought. I'm probably done with this subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Jerry posted...
I'm not going to judge your efforts to do this, except to say you got too philosophical. Examples are always more effecient an illustration. If an ex-Way person wants to illustrate the difference between homophobia... and believing that homosexuality is not Godly, I do believe there is one example that stands out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Dot, that stuff that happened in SF is appalling. It seems to me that those particular homos are like others who society considers to be victims in some way. Their speech is not intended to communicate anything; they just want you to jump through the hoops they want you to jump through and if you don't, they throw all the guilt at you they can and if you have any guilt in your mind, deserved or not, they will probably be able to manipulate you. That's what those guys were trying to do. Slugs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.