Why "Conversion Therapy" Should Be Illegal

[Rosenritter]

Look dude, I've told you already, I'm not an atheist, I believe there's a God. I don't ascribe to any belief system or denomination and labels mean absolutely nothing to me. If that defines me as non Christian in your view then fine with me and if this still doesn't meet your expectations then I'll live with it.

:e4e:

You do have a belief system, even if it is one that is constantly changing and not shared by others. Perhaps you've never applied enough introspection to be able to define what you believe (or why) to someone else?

 

[ok doser]

You do have a belief system, even if it is one that is constantly changing and not shared by others. Perhaps you've never applied enough introspection to be able to define what you believe (or why) to someone else?

have you noticed that it's really really important to him that you understand that "labels mean absolutely nothing to (him)"?

obviously labels mean quite a lot to him

 

[ok doser]

... you tried to equate male on male rape as homosexuality ...

male on male rape isn't homosexuality?

do you know any heterosexuals who would rape another man?

 

[ok doser]

the rantings of racists are indistinguishable from the rantings of homophobes

which are indistinguishable from the rantings of those opposed to child molestation

 

[Arthur Brain]

You do have a belief system, even if it is one that is constantly changing and not shared by others. Perhaps you've never applied enough introspection to be able to define what you believe (or why) to someone else?

Anyone's "belief system" isn't going to be shared by others no matter what it is. As I answered to Kit, I don't ascribe to any church or any form of "organized" religion or doctrine after formerly being a member of the Pentecostal church. No time for typical "evangelical" denominations and after those experiences I practically became an atheist for a while so where it comes to introspection you are way off the mark.

 

[ok doser]

Anyone's "belief system" isn't going to be shared by others no matter what it is. As I answered to Kit, I don't ascribe to any church or any form of "organized" religion or doctrine after formerly being a member of the Pentecostal church. No time for typical "evangelical" denominations and after those experiences I practically became an atheist for a while so where it comes to introspection you are way off the mark.

you don't spend very much time talking about what you do believe :think:

you do, however, spend a lot of time talking about what you don't believe - obviously it's important to you to distance yourself from beliefs (and those who hold them) that you reject

and for some bizarre reason, you seek out those on this site who hold those beliefs, often in order to belittle them, to mock them and their beliefs

i wonder if you're as secure in your rejection of your past affiliations as you pretend to be :think:

 

[Rosenritter]

male on male rape isn't homosexuality?

do you know any heterosexuals who would rape another man?

It's possible you were missing my point also. Heterosexuals can rape other men, but this in itself requires a homosexual act, and as such would transition that person towards homosexuality regardless of self-delusion on the part of the rapist.

There's an internet person who said the most bizarre thing: he said "I am gay but my boyfriend isn't." Just an example of the level of delusion that floats around on these subjects.

 

[ok doser]

It's possible you were missing my point also. Heterosexuals can rape other men, but this in itself requires a homosexual act, and as such would transition that person towards homosexuality regardless of self-delusion on the part of the rapist.

There's an internet person who said the most bizarre thing: he said "I am gay but my boyfriend isn't." Just an example of the level of delusion that floats around on these subjects.

yeah, and it's often difficult to nail people down on what they mean - I give you a lot of credit for your patience.

as I said elsewhere, there are some people who will deny that rape is a sexual act - they insist that it be viewed as an act of violence

often they're easy to catch in contradiction :chuckle:

not that I'm not a mess of contradictions myself :banana:

 

[Rosenritter]

Anyone's "belief system" isn't going to be shared by others no matter what it is. As I answered to Kit, I don't ascribe to any church or any form of "organized" religion or doctrine after formerly being a member of the Pentecostal church. No time for typical "evangelical" denominations and after those experiences I practically became an atheist for a while so where it comes to introspection you are way off the mark.

You don't seem to have introspected enough to be able to (or to feel confident in being able to) articulate what you believe when asked. If you really have very few assumptions, then it should be clearer to state on whatever is left over. I'll try to give an example,

I believe that there is a single Creator (God) of all that exists.

That would be a starting point, but given only that it could also mean that it is an invisible God that no one has ever seen, heard from, in knowledge of his will, or that he even perished and is gone for ever. It also says nothing of what the character of this believed God would be, which could range from our ultimate standard of goodness to capricious random acts of whimsical evil.

I'm not saying that defining what we believe to others is always an easy task. A lot of people take shortcuts such as "I believe in the JKL and XYZ creed and confession of faith" (yet they may not be able to explain or defend these complex statements if asked.)

If I were being asked for a summary of what I believe, I would also say that I believe that God was manifest in the flesh and we called him Jesus, and that he intended for us to have his words in this day through what we call our scriptures. More definition might be provided depending on who was asking and for what reason. The particular reason I had in asking was to determine if there was any point of authority upon which we might already agree.

For example, if you reject the Bible then I can only use scripture to explain my rational, rather than as a basis for your own. If you believe you have revelation from a personal vision, that would also be helpful to know. I remember a TOL member who did claim revelation from personal visions...

 

[Rosenritter]

yeah, and it's often difficult to nail people down on what they mean - I give you a lot of credit for your patience.

as I said elsewhere, there are some people who will deny that rape is a sexual act - they insist that it be viewed as an act of violence

often they're easy to catch in contradiction :chuckle:
not that I'm not a mess of contradictions myself :banana:

Something can be a sexual act and a violent act at the same time: these are not mutually exclusive terms. As for contradictions, human nature often seems to have a mess of contradictions that we don't always realize. The right way to handle contradictions is to address and resolve them, as they are usually an indication of a mistake in understanding further up in our assumptions.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You don't seem to have introspected enough to be able to (or to feel confident in being able to) articulate what you believe when asked. If you really have very few assumptions, then it should be clearer to state on whatever is left over. I'll try to give an example,

I believe that there is a single Creator (God) of all that exists.

That would be a starting point, but given only that it could also mean that it is an invisible God that no one has ever seen, heard from, in knowledge of his will, or that he even perished and is gone for ever. It also says nothing of what the character of this believed God would be, which could range from our ultimate standard of goodness to capricious random acts of whimsical evil.

I'm not saying that defining what we believe to others is always an easy task. A lot of people take shortcuts such as "I believe in the JKL and XYZ creed and confession of faith" (yet they may not be able to explain or defend these complex statements if asked.)

If I were being asked for a summary of what I believe, I would also say that I believe that God was manifest in the flesh and we called him Jesus, and that he intended for us to have his words in this day through what we call our scriptures. More definition might be provided depending on who was asking and for what reason. The particular reason I had in asking was to determine if there was any point of authority upon which we might already agree.

For example, if you reject the Bible then I can only use scripture to explain my rational, rather than as a basis for your own. If you believe you have revelation from a personal vision, that would also be helpful to know. I remember a TOL member who did claim revelation from personal visions...

Introspection doesn't equate to whatever you find acceptable as to what somebody else should say to satisfy you. I don't disregard the bible but that depends on which version it is and how close it translates to the original texts. I've no time for doctrines that promote eternal suffering and having been disillusioned with evangelical sects I became a practical atheist. Whilst in the Pentecostal church and in a very bad place of mind I stumbled across a book in its library that argued for universalism. It gave a sense of hope
but I couldn't reconcile the message with passages in the bible translations as I wasn't clued up in anything regarding the original texts so I left the church and pretty much religion altogether. It was only years later that I encountered the support on forums like this for a God who didn't fry creations forever or snuffed them out, and from people far better versed than me so if you want my position then there you have it. That still ain't good enough then meh.

 

[Rosenritter]

Introspection doesn't equate to whatever you find acceptable as to what somebody else should say to satisfy you. I don't disregard the bible but that depends on which version it is and how close it translates to the original texts. I've no time for doctrines that promote eternal suffering and having been disillusioned with evangelical sects I became a practical atheist. Whilst in the Pentecostal church and in a very bad place of mind I stumbled across a book in its library that argued for universalism. It gave a sense of hope
but I couldn't reconcile the message with passages in the bible translations as I wasn't clued up in anything regarding the original texts so I left the church and pretty much religion altogether. It was only years later that I encountered the support on forums like this for a God who didn't fry creations forever or snuffed them out, and from people far better versed than me so if you want my position then there you have it. That still ain't good enough then meh.

To try to summarize (and demonstrate my understanding of what you said) in fewer words, you would like the Bible to be authoritative but because of how it has been represented and because of unresolved conflicts and/or questions you aren't certain that you have scripture that can be trusted, you have to consider the possibility that any (or all) of it might have been misrepresented.

To me that doesn't sound like an anti-God or anti-authority stance, rather a desire for righteous authority and right understanding, but you have high enough expectations that you cannot accept high-handed contradictory explanations, at least on the more important issues.

Thank you, I'll try to work from that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

To try to summarize (and demonstrate my understanding of what you said) in fewer words, you would like the Bible to be authoritative but because of how it has been represented and because of unresolved conflicts and/or questions you aren't certain that you have scripture that can be trusted, you have to consider the possibility that any (or all) of it might have been misrepresented.

To me that doesn't sound like an anti-God or anti-authority stance, rather a desire for righteous authority and right understanding, but you have high enough expectations that you cannot accept high-handed contradictory explanations, at least on the more important issues.

Thank you, I'll try to work from that.

I'm an anti cruelty/hopelessness stance if that helps any...

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm an anti cruelty/hopelessness stance if that helps any...

So are the scriptures.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So are the scriptures.

I think so too.