Discussion:
Learning things first hand
(too old to reply)
Jacob
2008-04-07 02:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Psychologists have discovered that we learn most of our behaviour
patterns in our childhood itself, by observing our parents or others
around us. Since we do not have much sense in those days to judge
things for ourselves, we simply imitate what we see, and these become
deeply ingrained in our psyche. Unfortunately, even for those of us
who can think that we have had the best of parents the fact is that
they, just like us, were imperfect people, who did not always know the
best things to do or tell us. And others who have had a troubled
childhood have much more baggage from their past. Isn't it necessary
for us to think for ourselves now, understand whether we are behaving
in the best possible way, and make changes wherever necessary?

Certainly times have also changed from the days of our parents, and
what was 'good' for them is not necessarily what we can do now. I am
not talking about the eternal truths, values and principles that we
have from the Bible, but practical things of daily life. We know that
our music, clothes, hairstyles, etc., are different. Also our jobs are
different, as are vocabulary, communications, money transactions,
travel, food habits, etc. Each of us has to keep adjusting ourselves
to the changing times, within the boundaries of godly values, if we
are not to be out of sync. Though 'change' always takes thought and
effort, it is something we cannot afford to neglect.

The parents' hearts may ache to see their children take different
paths than what they are used to. But godly parents will rejoice when
their children come around to the place of maturity even if they have
had some struggles on the way (3Jn.1:4). Wise parents will allow their
children to be different, as long as they know that the children's
hearts are right, even if their heads may be a bit confused for a
short while as they struggle with the choices.

Think of the situation in churches too. Each of us has to learn for
ourselves what it is to trust and follow the Lord. It is not good for
us to accept what someone else teaches without examining and
understanding it for ourselves. A wise pastor will encourage
individual development of those in the church (and also as a group)
because they know that when they grow up they would be assets to the
church.

Going along with the crowd without any thought as to what God wants,
is what most people choose as a compromise, because this saves them
the trouble of thinking for themselves. For those who commit
themselves to obeying God in everything, life can become a big
struggle at times because we are unsure of what we should do. But this
struggle pays much at the end because we become wiser and more mature
as we exercise discernment (He.5:14). The testing of our faithfulness
will lead us to the 'crown of life' (Jas.1:12). Such people learn how
to stand on their own feet with God and walk with Him, and not be
dependent on others. Finally they will be able to help others too.
B
2008-04-08 02:38:16 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 6, 7:27 pm, Jacob <***@gmail.com> wrote:

**snip
short while as they struggle with the choices.
Post by Jacob
Think of the situation in churches too. Each of us has to learn for
ourselves what it is to trust and follow the Lord. It is not good for
us to accept what someone else teaches without examining and
understanding it for ourselves. A wise pastor will encourage
individual development of those in the church (and also as a group)
because they know that when they grow up they would be assets to the
church.
B - absolutely. I learn for myself what to trust and accept by using
what I call "the God within" or the higher or deep self or the Christ
self. If one thinks of God as a lightbulb..the rays that shine are the
higher self in all of us. It directs me to truth and love and I find
this in many faiths...both book and non book religions. Point being
truth is truth and that is God as is love and this is despite a
specific faith. My Christianity is a non-traditional Christianity if
you consider Paul and the literal take on the Bible as
traditional...but still it is deep and powerful and strong. I won't be
swayed by anyone telling me to go THEIR way for God speaks strong in
me...a strong whisper that speaks to me more than any one book could.
I've never been one to follow the crowd..never got into drugs as a
child...or teenager...never bullied anyone..stood by those that were
bullied despite what is might do to my reputation as someone "kinda
cool" infact maybe it helped my rep but I don't know..that never
really mattered. I searched all religions from Christianity as a
child..in all traditions....both conservative and liberal...to Taoism
to the faith of some of my ancestors 'Native Spirituality' to Wicca
and now a belief in truth in where it is to be found is what I lean
to. I've had people on all supposed sides try to tell me to go their
way...to follow them...when in my heart I've always listened to Christ
and followed him. Christ has made me strong to resist those that would
pull me into a way not his way (in what I believe) and I am in
gratitude to him immensely. I do not wobble or cling to anything that
comes my way..but am held fast by truth.
In my opinion.
love Bren
shegeek72
2008-04-10 03:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jacob
Going along with the crowd without any thought as to what God wants,
is what most people choose as a compromise, because this saves them
the trouble of thinking for themselves.
The problem is what one thinks 'God wants,' which can vary widely from
person to person. For example, if one has a child who's gay, a parent
may think 'God wants' the child to 'stop being gay,' which is
impossible. It's the same as trying to get someone to stop being
heterosexual. Whereas, another parent may understand that the
homosexuality in the Bible doesn't refer to the longterm, loving
relationships of today and what God wants is for the parent to love
the child just as they are.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-11 02:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
Post by Jacob
Going along with the crowd without any thought as to what God wants,
is what most people choose as a compromise, because this saves them
the trouble of thinking for themselves.
The problem is what one thinks 'God wants,' which can vary widely from
person to person.
Well of _course_ it is a 'problem'. But that is _why_ people like Aquinas spent
so much effort on thinking about and describing what "God wants".

You, however, are quick to pour forth your opinion, without ever showing the
fruit of such effort. Bad idea.
Post by shegeek72
For example, if one has a child who's gay, a parent
may think 'God wants' the child to 'stop being gay,' which is
impossible.
This is a perfect example of you shooting off your mouth without knowing what
you are talking about. Of _course_ it is possible. In some cases, it may be very
difficult, but that it is _possible_ was proved by many cases throughout the
history of the Church.

You, no doubt, will dismiss that history as legendary, which is ironic, since
you accept the _clearly_ mythological belief in the effectivity of astrology.
Post by shegeek72
It's the same as trying to get someone to stop being
heterosexual.
No, it not the same. You keep repeating this with no more evidence than you can
show for astrology.
Post by shegeek72
Whereas, another parent may understand
There's that favorite fallacy of yours again: you state as if proved what is
doubtful, or even disproved. Here, you do it by presuming to say 'understand'.
Post by shegeek72
that the
homosexuality in the Bible doesn't refer to the longterm, loving
relationships of today
And here is another of your favorite fallacies. Yes, it _does_ refer to the
_so-called_ 'loving' relationships of today. We know this because it refers to
_any_ homosexual act.

I have given you the detailed proof of this, your response was not even a
rebuttal. You had no counter-argument at all.
Post by shegeek72
and what God wants is for the parent to love
the child just as they are.
No, that is not the 'love' commanded in the Bible: not even for people without
this terrible burden of homosexuality. Yet again, you are completely off-base.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
RP
2008-04-14 00:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
This is a perfect example of you shooting off your mouth without knowing
what
you are talking about.
Can we cut the personal attacks?

I don't know how anyone can interpret the above than anymore that a personal
slam.
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-17 00:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
This is a perfect example of you shooting off your mouth without knowing
what
you are talking about.
Can we cut the personal attacks?
I don't know how anyone can interpret the above than anymore that a personal
slam.
Two important points you missed: 1) not every 'personal attack' is fallacious,
2) it _can_ be intepreted as more than a "personal slam". And it should be.

BTW: you really need to change the configuration of your newsreader. There is no
indication of which thread you are replying to or who you are addressing.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
shegeek72
2008-04-18 04:49:36 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 10, 7:20 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
It's the same as trying to get someone to stop being
heterosexual.
No, it not the same. You keep repeating this with no more evidence than you can
show for astrology.
I've stated the evidence several times: the dismally poor 'success
rates' of the so-called 'ex-gay' programs, which hovers around one
percent and even in these 'success stories' the individuals never
consummate their marriages and/or still have fantasies and urges of
gay sex. Their 'straightness' is merely a fallacy. But the scholarly
evidence, that you continue to ignore, can easily be found from the
American Psychological Assoc. and American Psychiatry Assoc., or by
asking most any sexologist or licensed therapist experienced in sexual
relations. The vast majority will tell you that sexual orientation is
unchangeable and not a choice.
Post by Matthew Johnson
And here is another of your favorite fallacies. Yes, it _does_ refer to the
_so-called_ 'loving' relationships of today. We know this because it refers to
_any_ homosexual act.
You may_think_this, but 'we' certainly do not agree. Don't pretend to
speak for everyone in this forum.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org
RP
2008-04-21 02:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
And here is another of your favorite fallacies. Yes, it _does_ refer to
the
_so-called_ 'loving' relationships of today. We know this because it
refers to
_any_ homosexual act.
No, it refers to the only homsexuality that was known at the time.

Jusat like the slavery issue was refering to the slavery known at the time.

Just like menstration was a taboo....limited by their understanding at the
time.


It was not thought that a homosexual could live a responsible productive
life of Christian service.
RP
2008-04-21 02:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
It's the same as trying to get someone to stop being
heterosexual.
No, it not the same.
I've stated the evidence several times: the dismally poor 'success
rates' of the so-called 'ex-gay' programs, which hovers around one
percent...
It is said that insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expect
diferent results.

The "ex-gay" programs do indeed have a dismal sucess rate, yet they continue
to claim "change is possible".

Even the so-called leaders of these groups have had public failures of the
very thing they hope to impose on others.
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-23 01:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
And here is another of your favorite fallacies. Yes, it _does_
refer to the _so-called_ 'loving' relationships of today. We know
this because it refers to _any_ homosexual act.
No, it refers to the only homsexuality that was known at the time.
Not true. It makes statements of general principles that allow us to
understand why the prohibition applies to _all_ conceivable form of
homosexual behavior. See, for example, Proverbs, esp. chapters 5-7.
Post by RP
Jusat like the slavery issue was refering to the slavery known at the
time.
No, not like that at all. This is another popular fallacy of the
pro-perversion crowd.
Post by RP
Just like menstration was a taboo....limited by their understanding
at the time.
Nonsense. Why, even your choice of word, 'taboo', already reveals
a mistaken view point that biases you against understanding what was
really going on. Menstruation was never a 'taboo'.
Post by RP
It was not thought that a homosexual could live a responsible productive
life of Christian service.
And they were right. It is still true that a "practicing homosexual"
cannot live a responsible productive life of Christian service. Pro
5-7 referred to above does much to explain why.

Why, this is being _confirmed_ by the posts in these threads, since it
is precisly those who _think_ they are leading such a life who sink to
such irresponsible fallacies in their posts.

Such fallacies are not compatible with a responsible productive life
of Christian service. Especially not when people are being deceived
into avoiding repentance because of them.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-23 01:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
It's the same as trying to get someone to stop being
heterosexual.
No, it not the same.
I've stated the evidence several times: the dismally poor 'success
rates' of the so-called 'ex-gay' programs, which hovers around one
percent...
It is said that insanity is continuing to do the same thing and
expect diferent results.
And yet here you are, continuing to do the same thing, and expecting
_what_ result?
Post by RP
The "ex-gay" programs do indeed have a dismal sucess rate, yet they
continue to claim "change is possible".
And rightly so. The reason their success rate is poor has _nothing_ to
do with whether or not it is possible at all.
Post by RP
Even the so-called leaders of these groups have had public failures of the
very thing they hope to impose on others.
Have they? Or are you just confusing different people prominent among
the conservatives you hate?
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
A Brown
2008-04-24 03:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
And here is another of your favorite fallacies. Yes, it _does_
refer to the _so-called_ 'loving' relationships of today. We know
this because it refers to _any_ homosexual act.
No, it refers to the only homsexuality that was known at the time.
Not true. It makes statements of general principles that allow us to
understand why the prohibition applies to _all_ conceivable form of
homosexual behavior.
So the references to menstrating women being unclean are "statements of
general principles that allow us to understand why the prohibition applies
to _all_ conceivable form of menstration"?
Post by Matthew Johnson
See, for example, Proverbs, esp.
Yes, please see ALL the OT references to something so natural as menstration
making a woman "unclean"...and unfit to appear in the temple.

Puh-leese.

And when we call eating shellfish an abomination, I suppose those are
"statements of general principles that allow us to understand why the
prohibition applies to _all_ conceivable form of eating shellfish?

Pick and choose.
RP
2008-04-24 03:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
And here is another of your favorite fallacies. Yes, it _does_
refer to the _so-called_ 'loving' relationships of today. We know
this because it refers to _any_ homosexual act.
No, it refers to the only homsexuality that was known at the time.
Not true. It makes statements of general principles that allow us to
understand why the prohibition applies to _all_ conceivable form of
homosexual behavior. See, for example, Proverbs, esp. chapters 5-7.
Post by RP
Jusat like the slavery issue was refering to the slavery known at the
time.
No, not like that at all. This is another popular fallacy of the
pro-perversion crowd.
You make a claim "No, not like that at all":....yet with nothing to back it
up....except to resort to name calling (which I thought we were not going to
do in this newsgroup anymore...)

BTW....I'd rather be called part of the "pro-love" crowd. ;-)
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Menstruation was never a 'taboo'.
It was considered unclean spiritually, as a menstrating women wasn't welcome
to worship in the temple.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
It was not thought that a homosexual could live a responsible productive
life of Christian service.
And they were right. It is still true that a "practicing homosexual"
cannot live a responsible productive life of Christian service.
So, if a monogamous gay Christian feed the hungry, shelters the homeless and
helps the poor....I guess God just closes his eyes in indifference?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Why, this is being _confirmed_ by the posts in these threads, since it
is precisly those who _think_ they are leading such a life who sink to
such irresponsible fallacies in their posts.
Calling them irresponsible, fallacies and otherwise puffing around your
indignation, does nothing to prove your point.

It only proves *you* feel strongly about something...nothing else.
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-25 01:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
And here is another of your favorite fallacies. Yes, it _does_
refer to the _so-called_ 'loving' relationships of today. We know
this because it refers to _any_ homosexual act.
No, it refers to the only homsexuality that was known at the time.
Not true. It makes statements of general principles that allow us to
understand why the prohibition applies to _all_ conceivable form of
homosexual behavior. See, for example, Proverbs, esp. chapters 5-7.
Post by RP
Jusat like the slavery issue was refering to the slavery known at the
time.
No, not like that at all. This is another popular fallacy of the
pro-perversion crowd.
You make a claim "No, not like that at all":....yet with nothing to back it
up.
Newflash: you had nothing to back up your claim that they were similar
issues. And I _did_ give the evidence before, but you ignored it. You
should read more in a thread before you but in.
Post by RP
...except to resort to name calling (which I thought we were not going to
do in this newsgroup anymore...)
What name calling? Do you mean to tell us that you don't even know
what 'name-calling' really is? Or are you referring to my use of the
term "pro-perversion crowd"?

If you are, then the right course of action for you is really simple:
stop posting gross fallacies in support of grosser perversion. Pay
attention instead to the Moderator's latest post on the topic, msg-id
<KYSPj.6063$***@trndny06>, where he too outlines how unreliable
certain of those fallacies are.

Or are you going to complain about his use of "not credible" or
'disingenuous' and call that "name-calling" too?
Post by RP
BTW....I'd rather be called part of the "pro-love" crowd. ;-)
No doubt you would. But don't hold your breath. Those of us who
_respect_ the word 'love' will not call you that.
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Menstruation was never a 'taboo'.
It was considered unclean spiritually, as a menstrating women wasn't welcome
to worship in the temple.
And why haven't you noticed yet? This does not support your point at
all, nor is it correct to call that 'taboo'. You are trying to rely
on labeling to make your point.

What is worse, you have made a major error here: it was considered
_physically_ unclean, not _spiritually_ unclean. Why you confuse the
two is a mystery to me.
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
It was not thought that a homosexual could live a responsible productive
life of Christian service.
And they were right. It is still true that a "practicing homosexual"
cannot live a responsible productive life of Christian service.
So, if a monogamous gay Christian feed the hungry, shelters the homeless and
helps the poor....I guess God just closes his eyes in indifference?
If you knew anything about leading a Christian life, you would not
ever dare to express such blasphemous words, not even
hypothetically. No, of course He _never_ "just closes his eyes in
indifference".
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Why, this is being _confirmed_ by the posts in these threads, since it
is precisly those who _think_ they are leading such a life who sink to
such irresponsible fallacies in their posts.
Calling them irresponsible, fallacies and otherwise puffing around
your indignation, does nothing to prove your point.
My point was proved long ago. You are simply continuing to shut your
eyes to that proof, responding instead with exactly that kind of
irresponsible fallacies.
Post by RP
It only proves *you* feel strongly about something...nothing else.
It doesn't _prove_ it, it _states_ it; it states that you and your
allies are responding with exactly that kind of irresponsible
fallacies. The proof is too easy, so I leave it to the readers. Most
will find it easy, since you never prove what you state, you simply
repeat fallacious claims.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
A Brown
2008-04-27 23:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
And here is another of your favorite fallacies. Yes, it _does_
refer to the _so-called_ 'loving' relationships of today. We know
this because it refers to _any_ homosexual act.
No, it refers to the only homsexuality that was known at the time.
Not true. It makes statements of general principles that allow us to
understand why the prohibition applies to _all_ conceivable form of
homosexual behavior. See, for example, Proverbs, esp. chapters 5-7.
Post by RP
Jusat like the slavery issue was refering to the slavery known at the
time.
No, not like that at all. This is another popular fallacy of the
pro-perversion crowd.
You make a claim "No, not like that at all":....yet with nothing to back
it
up.
Newflash: you had nothing to back up your claim that they were similar
issues.
Are we back to the "I know you are but what am I" defense?
Post by Matthew Johnson
And I _did_ give the evidence before, but you ignored it. You
should read more in a thread before you but in.
Was this evidence the website in Russian? Or was this evidence this
"someone you know"?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
...except to resort to name calling (which I thought we were not going to
do in this newsgroup anymore...)
What name calling? Do you mean to tell us that you don't even know
what 'name-calling' really is? Or are you referring to my use of the
term "pro-perversion crowd"?
Well, it's hardly an aknowledgement that another brother or sister,
following Christ came to a different conclusion than you.

It an attempt to discredit with some sort of
indignation....i.e...name-calling.
Post by Matthew Johnson
stop posting gross fallacies in support of grosser perversion.
I do not support gross perversion. I advocate Christian love and acceptance,
responsibility and monogamy.

This is a free an open newsgroup....with lots of different people with lots
of different views.

This may come as a shock, but you are not the arbiter in the newsgroup of
what is a fallacy. You keep tryingt to build yourself up as some authority
on something.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
BTW....I'd rather be called part of the "pro-love" crowd. ;-)
No doubt you would. But don't hold your breath. Those of us who
_respect_ the word 'love' will not call you that.
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Menstruation was never a 'taboo'.
It was considered unclean spiritually, as a menstrating women wasn't
welcome
to worship in the temple.
And why haven't you noticed yet? This does not support your point at
all, nor is it correct to call that 'taboo'.
No I'm trying to make the point that the scripture is to be read in context.
Post by Matthew Johnson
What is worse, you have made a major error here: it was considered
_physically_ unclean, not _spiritually_ unclean. Why you confuse the
two is a mystery to me.
No...sorry. People who were dirty, not washed, etc....were allowed in the
temple.

(And what kind of ritual would not let someone who was physically dirty not
enter a temple?)

Women who were menstarting were not. It had nothing to do with phycical
cleanliness.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
So, if a monogamous gay Christian feed the hungry, shelters the homeless
and
helps the poor....I guess God just closes his eyes in indifference?
No, of course He _never_ "just closes his eyes in
indifference".
There ya go.... Bingo...We have a winner! Thats the answer!
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Why, this is being _confirmed_ by the posts in these threads, since it
is precisly those who _think_ they are leading such a life who sink to
such irresponsible fallacies in their posts.
Calling them irresponsible, fallacies and otherwise puffing around
your indignation, does nothing to prove your point.
My point was proved long ago.
To who? Who did you convince? Yourself?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
It only proves *you* feel strongly about something...nothing else.
The proof is too easy, so I leave it to the readers.
Another cop out....

If you would like to discuss this like an adult...with civility and
respect...that would be refreshingly change.
A. Nonny Moss
2008-04-27 23:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
And I _did_ give the evidence before, but you ignored it. You
should read more in a thread before you but in.
So, you gave some website and someone you know as proof?

those are simply things that make you feel the way you do....not proof.

it doesn't pass muster with anyone cept u.

Loading...