Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pray the Gay Away Marries Gay
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 46 of 58 (744459)
12-11-2014 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
12-10-2014 12:58 PM


Re: What Are YOU Looking At?
Phat writes:
Whichever gender be the object of our sexual attraction, the issue is objectification and seeking only what you can get out of a person versus a desire to commune, learn from, love, and nourish that person.
My point is about people saying that homosexual feelings are "okay" as long as you don't act on them. Jesus said that having them is the same as acting on them.
So you're damned for both or you're not damned for neither.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 12-10-2014 12:58 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2014 11:53 AM ringo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 58 (744469)
12-11-2014 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by ringo
12-11-2014 10:57 AM


Re: What Are YOU Looking At?
My point is about people saying that homosexual feelings are "okay" as long as you don't act on them. Jesus said that having them is the same as acting on them.
I don't read "looking on a person to lust after them" as being the same as "having a feeling".
I think Jesus was talking about objectifying the person as a sex object rather than the innate sexual desires that we cannot control.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ringo, posted 12-11-2014 10:57 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 12-11-2014 12:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 48 of 58 (744474)
12-11-2014 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2014 11:53 AM


Re: What Are YOU Looking At?
Catholic writes:
I think Jesus was talking about objectifying the person as a sex object rather than the innate sexual desires that we cannot control.
There may be a distinction there - but Jesus was clearly pointing out that no overt action is necessary. That's diferent from the typical fundie line that homosexual actions are taboo but maybe homosexual feelings are okay because they "can't be helped".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2014 11:53 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2014 12:41 PM ringo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 58 (744476)
12-11-2014 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by ringo
12-11-2014 12:30 PM


Re: What Are YOU Looking At?
There may be a distinction there - but Jesus was clearly pointing out that no overt action is necessary.
Agreed.
That's diferent from the typical fundie line that homosexual actions are taboo but maybe homosexual feelings are okay because they "can't be helped".
What's the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 12-11-2014 12:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 12-11-2014 1:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 50 of 58 (744478)
12-11-2014 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2014 12:41 PM


Re: What Are YOU Looking At?
Cat's Eye writes:
ringo writes:
That's diferent from the typical fundie line that homosexual actions are taboo but maybe homosexual feelings are okay because they "can't be helped".
What's the difference?
It just seems to me that they're backing off from outright condemnation of homosexual feelings but still giving themselves an out as long as they don't act on those feelings. What Jesus said was somewhere in between.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2014 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
faceman
Member (Idle past 3385 days)
Posts: 149
From: MN, USA
Joined: 04-25-2014


Message 51 of 58 (744802)
12-15-2014 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
12-09-2014 9:55 AM


More likely, he was always gay and just said that he was straight to hide it.
Right, that's more or less what I said.
How many of the pray-the-gay-away camps do you think are run by homosexuals and therefore destined for failure?
Not sure, but if a "pray-the-gay-away" camp is run by a homosexual, then it will Shirley fail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-09-2014 9:55 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2014 9:35 AM faceman has replied

  
faceman
Member (Idle past 3385 days)
Posts: 149
From: MN, USA
Joined: 04-25-2014


Message 52 of 58 (744803)
12-15-2014 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Theodoric
12-10-2014 4:48 PM


Spoken like a true cheesehead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 12-10-2014 4:48 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 58 (744823)
12-16-2014 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by faceman
12-15-2014 9:31 PM


More likely, he was always gay and just said that he was straight to hide it.
Right, that's more or less what I said.
Well, except, in the way I phrased it his sexuality didn't flip-flop back and forth.
Not sure, but if a "pray-the-gay-away" camp is run by a homosexual, then it will Shirley fail.
Now you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that you don't doubt the power of prayer at all.
Now you're doubting it if it is done by one of them gays?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by faceman, posted 12-15-2014 9:31 PM faceman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by faceman, posted 12-16-2014 8:19 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
faceman
Member (Idle past 3385 days)
Posts: 149
From: MN, USA
Joined: 04-25-2014


Message 54 of 58 (744910)
12-16-2014 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2014 9:35 AM


Now you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that you don't doubt the power of prayer at all.
Now you're doubting it if it is done by one of them gays?
No that's not what I said. This is what I said (note the "when done by believers" part):
I don't doubt the power of prayer at all, when done by believers, but when a guy like that's leading the charge, then they're destined for failure.
Man... that sounds even better the second time around, doesn't it? And yes, I'm suggesting that he might not have been a true believer all along. The Bible warns of those that believe in vain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2014 9:35 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 12-16-2014 8:50 PM faceman has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 55 of 58 (744911)
12-16-2014 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by faceman
12-16-2014 8:19 PM


do true believers put sugar on their porridge?
Man... that sounds even better the second time around, doesn't it? And yes, I'm suggesting that he might not have been a true believer all along. The Bible warns of those that believe in vain.
Still really unsure of what you are saying. Are you saying gays cannot be true believers or that a gay could not truly believe it possible to pray the gay away or a true believer cannot pray the gay away or a believer cannot truly pray or ...?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by faceman, posted 12-16-2014 8:19 PM faceman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by faceman, posted 12-16-2014 9:02 PM jar has replied

  
faceman
Member (Idle past 3385 days)
Posts: 149
From: MN, USA
Joined: 04-25-2014


Message 56 of 58 (744916)
12-16-2014 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by jar
12-16-2014 8:50 PM


Re: do true believers put sugar on their porridge?
I'm saying I doubt the convictions of someone that flirted between gay and straight so many times. At best they seem very confused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 12-16-2014 8:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 12-16-2014 9:52 PM faceman has not replied
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2014 1:41 AM faceman has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 57 of 58 (744932)
12-16-2014 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by faceman
12-16-2014 9:02 PM


Re: do true believers put sugar on their porridge?
No doubt they were. And extremely guilty. But now it appears that the person is trying to deal with both the confusion and the guilt as well as the addiction to the Christian Cult of Ignorance.
That certainly seems encouraging.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by faceman, posted 12-16-2014 9:02 PM faceman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 58 of 58 (744942)
12-17-2014 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by faceman
12-16-2014 9:02 PM


Re: do true believers put sugar on their porridge?
It's far more likely that he was never really straight but sometimes managed to fool himself into thinking that he was. We're talking about someone highly motivated to stop being gay and convinced that his method should work.
I guess that he should have doubted the power of prayer, because it didn't work for him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by faceman, posted 12-16-2014 9:02 PM faceman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024