Thread for Artie's question.

[Arthur Brain]

Oh, was this all a trap? How CLEVER you are, Artie!

Pardon me while I spring it from a safe distance.

A man being aroused - actually desiring and contemplating - sex with another man (or woman/woman) is very different from an opportunity presenting itself and a person momentarily considering it BUT PASSING BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONTINUE TO ENTICE PAST THAT INITIAL MOMENT.

See the difference?

You're not dumb, I know that you do but you do but will pretend you don't.

If it was it was one set by your very own words. If salvation itself doesn't actually play any part then you were obviously tempted given that you weren't 'viscerally repulsed' and entertained the prospect even if you didn't act on it.

You're the one who defined what a homosexual is:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?124124-They-Made-Me-Gay&p=4974888&viewfull=1#post4974888

:e4e:

 

[musterion]

If salvation itself doesn't actually play any part then you were obviously tempted given that you weren't 'viscerally repulsed' and entertained the prospect even if you didn't act on it.

And?

Get to the point.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And?

Get to the point.

The point is you've contradicted yourself all ends up.

You can pull the wool over a peanut gallery but not much else doofus.

:e4e:

 

[musterion]

The point is you've contradicted yourself all ends up.

You can pull the wool over a peanut gallery but not much else doofus.

:e4e:

Are you able to point out in one sentence exactly how I contradicted myself?

 

[Tambora]

A man being aroused - actually desiring and contemplating - sex with another man (or woman/woman) is very different from an opportunity presenting itself and a person momentarily considering it BUT PASSING BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONTINUE TO ENTICE PAST THAT INITIAL MOMENT.

See the difference?

That's how I see it.
I'm a woman.
If another woman came up to me and offered to "touch" me in a certain way .................. My brain might momentarily be thinking "That would feel good"; but I still decline because even though the thought of pleasure is there, the thought of what I would actually be participating in to receive that pleasure would disgust me.
In other words, you'd be thinking strictly of the pleasure for a fleeting moment and not the act itself.

 

[musterion]

That's how I see it.
I'm a woman.
If another woman came up to me and offered to "touch" me in a certain way .................. My brain might momentarily be thinking "That would feel good"; but I still decline because even though the thought of pleasure is there, the thought of what I would actually be participating in to receive that pleasure would disgust me.
In other words, you'd be thinking strictly of the pleasure for a fleeting moment and not the act itself.

Exactly.

Are you seeing where AB thinks I contradict myself? Unless he's just trolling me and lying, he is seeing a disconnect somewhere that I'm not. So either he's dumb or I am.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Are you able to point out in one sentence exactly how I contradicted myself?

You railed against your own definition of what constitutes a homosexual by alluding to your faith and how any earlier temptations were no longer valid, and yet here you concede that lack of faith doesn't necessarily make a person who had similar experiences to yourself a homosexual.

 

[musterion]

You railed against your own definition of what constitutes a homosexual

...which is a man who is AROUSED/DESIRES sex with another man, even without engaging in it...

by alluding to your faith and how any earlier temptations were no longer valid,

...according to the Bible, that is true...

and yet here you concede that lack of faith doesn't necessarily make a [lost] person who had similar experiences to yourself a homosexual.

Right, it doesn't. Just like anyone with the opportunity to steal, considers it, but doesn't, isn't a thief. An unsaved person who is momentarily presented with the opportunity for homosexual activity, and considers it but declines, would not strike me as a homosexual.

AND???

Where is the contradiction or inconsistency here?

There's definitely a disconnect here but it's somewhere on your end, I'm just not sure where.

 

[ok doser]

...which is a man who is AROUSED/DESIRES sex with another man, even without engaging in it...

he's ignored this part from the beginning

 

[Tambora]

Exactly.

Are you seeing where AB thinks I contradict myself?

Yes.
I think it is because of the way it was said.
The words you used may have not been definitive enough to express your thoughts, and there might be a better way to say it.

So I kinda like discussions like this because it can help all of us refine how we say things.
Sometimes I will see someone say something in a much better way than how I describe it, and I learn from that to refine my words so they won't appear as ambiguous or too broad as I had once tried to describe it.

But I can see that if you kept on saying it the same way, then it will remain ambiguous to many as to what you actually mean.

 

[musterion]

he's ignored this part from the beginning

Okay, you know the guy better than I do.

For argument's sake, he's trying to make some kind of point at my expense...I have no idea what.

Seriously, what's his point with all this? I have an idea but would like to hear yours first.

 

[Arthur Brain]

...which is a man who is AROUSED/DESIRES sex with another man, even without engaging in it...

Which you once entertained no matter how fleetingly...

...according to the Bible, that is true...

Yet you go on to say...

Right, it doesn't. Just like anyone with the opportunity to steal, but doesn't, isn't a thief. An unsaved person who is momentarily presented with the opportunity for homosexual activity, and considers it but declines, would not strike me as a homosexual.

AND???

There's definitely a disconnect here but it's somewhere on your end, I'm just not sure where.

It's at your end. Here it is again.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?124124-They-Made-Me-Gay&p=4974888&viewfull=1#post4974888

Specifically this:

"But if a man can also be aroused by the thought of homosexual contact, rather than be viscerally repelled at the thought, he is a homosexual."

Your words dude.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Okay, you know the guy better than I do.

For argument's sake, he's trying to make some kind of point at my expense...I have no idea what.

Seriously, what's his point with all this? I have an idea but would like to hear yours first.

That festering troll doesn't know me at all.

 

[musterion]

Yes.
I think it is because of the way it was said.
The words you used may have not been definitive enough to express your thoughts, and there might be a better way to say it.

So I kinda like discussions like this because it can help all of us refine how we say things.
Sometimes I will see someone say something in a much better way than how I describe it, and I learn from that to refine my words so they won't appear as ambiguous or too broad as I had once tried to describe it.

But I can see that if you kept on saying it the same way, then it will remain ambiguous to many as to what you actually mean.

Okay, that's probably it.

I've said from the start that a homosexual is someone who CAN BE (by which I meant IS ABLE TO BE) interested in...desirous of...aroused by...lusting after...someone of the same sex, whether they act on it or not. That would exclude someone like the example you gave..."Hm, I know this could be pleasureful. Should I...? Nah. Pass."

Does that help, Artie?

 

[musterion]

Which you once entertained no matter how fleetingly...

And such as it was, it passed as fleetingly as it arrived and never returned.

That was your whole case right there.

Now what?

 

[Arthur Brain]

And it passed, and never returned.

That was your whole case right there.

Now what?

It was never my 'case' to start with. You provided a definition that made no sense. When called on it you decided to make it about faith as to why your own definition couldn't be applied to you. Then you argue that faith itself isn't necessary and completely upended your own entire definition to begin with.

Like seeing a chimney implode.

:AMR:

 

[ok doser]

Okay, you know the guy better than I do.

For argument's sake, he's trying to make some kind of point at my expense...I have no idea what.

Seriously, what's his point with all this? I have an idea but would like to hear yours first.

i think his chronic alcoholism has rotted his brain :idunno:

Which you once entertained no matter how fleetingly...

nope

he didn't entertain being aroused and desiring sex with another man

he entertained the idea of engaging in sex and rejected it

prolly 'cause he realized he wasn't aroused or desirous of it

not sure how to make you see that

tam?

You provided a definition that made no sense.

only 'cause you willfully and stubbornly chose to misunderstand it, despite attempts at correction


i suspect a lot of what happens around you makes no sense

 

[musterion]

Artie, is there something else going on here?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Artie, is there something else going on here?

No.

Answer or don't. Or go play troll about with SOD.

 

[ok doser]

oh


now he's sulking again