gadgetlady

I am not going to go through a long, detailed response to everyone, but I will say this. I have a friend who I've known for a very long time who, at one point chose relationships (sexual) with women over relationships with men. She turned away from that lifestyle and is now happily married with children. She and I have had long discussions about this issue and whether sexuality is a choice. She tells me, and I believe her based on experiences that I've had, that it is completely possible to get overcome with attraction and emotion to the point where you fully believe your sexual decisions cannot be overcome and are a part of who you are. And yet, when stepping back from the situation and understanding passions and drives for what they are, can be redirected. So that's the experience that she (and many others) have had. I'm sure others of you don't know anyone like this and have had other experiences. I choose to make my decisions based on what I know, so I don't consider homosexuality something you're born with; I consider it a choice.

My understanding of civil rights is that they apply to characteristics of people that cannot be changed (color, national origin, gender, etc.), not to actions they choose to participate in. That being said, I would never, ever deny the right of one person to engage in whatever activities that person chooses to engage in (whether it's sexual or otherwise) so long as that activity does not infringe on the rights of another (which, btw, is why I'm pro-life or anti-abortion, whichever term you prefer -- because abortion infringes on the rights of the baby). I just don't see gay marriage as a civil rights issue. I know others will disagree; that's just my opinion.

So now I'm pretty well exhausted. I know there are a few others who responded to me and asked me for a response, but quite frankly with 2619 posts on this thread and a lot of yelling and screaming, I don't have the energy to go back, wade through all of the crap flying all over the place, and figure out who asked what and when. I am a believer in reasonable discourse and discussion, so if anyone wants to ask anything of me on any of the subjects discussed herein, or if anyone feels I dissed them because I didn't answer them, please either re-ask or just direct me to the post # and I will answer tomorrow. Peace, love, and blessings to all!

OK, I am NOT losing my mind. Yes, you did answer in 626. I responded in 630 asking whether you believed if the Bible was literal. You responded to that question in 635 saying, "I've never said one way or another." So I considered that response, or really lack of response, to be a non-answer to the question. I couldn't continue my line of reasoning with you because you didn't really answer the question. You answered that you believed Jesus is Lord, but you didn't answer the prefacing question of whether the Bible was literal or not. And so we get to my real question, which is this: by what criterion do you determine what in the Bible is fact and what is fable? What doctrine(s) do you dismiss because you don't like it, don't believe it, or don't think it should apply to you? What happens if you dismiss something that should be a central doctrine? How do you reconcile a belief that the account of Noah's ark didn't really happen when Jesus spoke about it as a real and true account? It just seems to me that Christianity isn't a salad bar, where you take what you like and leave the onions behind. I had a friend in high school who pieced together her own religion based on what she liked. She liked the idea of reincarnation, so that was part of her belief. She liked this thing from this religion, and that thing from that religion. The whole thing just never made sense to me, because she wasn't justifying or basing her faith on anything other than "I like it" (now before I start getting hate PM's and flames, she had and has a perfect right to believe whatever she wants to believe -- with that I have no quarrel). And if what she liked changed tomorrow, so did her religion. I don't think life (and afterlife) is like that. I think life and afterlife just plain IS, and whatever we think about it doesn't affect the reality of what it IS. So if I care about the afterlife, it's really in my best interest to determine what it IS and not what I would like it to be. You can sit under a tree looking at a present hoping and hoping it will be what you want it to be, but when you unwrap it, it is what it is and it may not be what you thought it was. I know some of you are saying, "But the present might not be what YOU think it is; don't you see that?" Of course I do. And here's where I'm going with this. I don't choose to base my life on a book that I think is partially true. It's either true or it's not, and if it isn't I'd darn well better start searching for the thing that is.

Is it safe to post in this thread yet? I wanted to answer some of the legitimate questions and/or answers that were posted directly to me earlier but there's just so much time in a day. I came back to the thread just now to catch up and I'm a little concerned about getting, well, for want of a better term, :flame:flamed.

You're pretty careful with your words, so I'm surprised you'd say something you didn't mean. "I hate the practice, I wish it was never needed." I keep looking back at it. It's a very strong statement, "hating" combined with "wishing it were never needed". I believe you would say "I hate pears" when talking to a friend, but looking at your prior posts as a whole, I don't think you would write something like that on this board. I rather see you writing something like "I don't care for pears" or "I don't like pears." But putting the hating and the wishing together makes it even stronger. I don't think you would ever say "I hate pears and I wish all pear trees would die." Semantics? Yes, but words tell us a lot.

Yes, I know, but that's a tedious process. Open it up, look at it, decide if I want to save it, remember which one it is, delete it. I do my best but I'm not perfect and my time is limited.

Hate is a pretty strong word for something that you just would be better handled differently. The stuff I hate is pretty awful stuff (infanticide, genocide, rape, terrorism, abuse). The rest of the stuff that I just think should have a better method (laporoscopic banding instead of open banding, mechanical pencils instead of endless sharpening with the associated pencil shavings, inhaled 'flu vaccine instead of injections) doesn't inspire my hatred. I'm right there with ya'.

Thanks, Wheetsin. That really does help me to understand where you're coming from. I am a bit surprised, though, because you seem, in prior posts, to have relied heavily on science and scientific proof. I've never known someone who doesn't believe in absolute reality that also believes in scientific proof. But that's a topic for another thread :biggrin1:.

I told you up front that my PM's were very limited (I'm up to 248 out of 250 right now). You also responded to me at 11:55pm. And my time has been devoted today to a very vocal and public group of attacks. I apologize that your PM was not my first priority. Maybe I'll have time to get to it tonight.

I disagree. If it's a morally neutral act, if there's nothing wrong with it, if it's just a woman messing with her own body, why do you hate it? I don't hate people who have kidney transplants. I don't hate people who get tattoos. Morally neutral acts don't inspire my hatred. I don't care what people do with their own body. The only time I hate an action is when it hurts (or kills) another human being.

Wow -- that's a surprise. I want to make sure I'm understanding that you are talking about yourself here. You don't believe in free will and you don't believe in absolute reality? If that's the case then I completely understand why beliefs don't make a difference. (Lest you misinterpret, I am not judging you with my last statement. It actually helps me to understand you more.)

Could it also mean that I'm busy? What have I done that's hateful? Actually, I don't say pro-choice because I don't think it accurately conveys what the choice is. I will be happy to call myself anti-abortion if you prefer. But people who believe abortion is an acceptable thing to do are pro-abortion, just like people who believe terrorism is an acceptable thing to do are pro-terrorism.

I do believe everyone should be able to believe what they want to believe. I never for a INSTANT said people have to believe what I believe! Can we stop the yelling now? What I said was the when we die, something will happen. So either the athiests are right, or the people who believe in an afterlife are right. Believe in everything, believe in nothing, believe that everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe -- whatever! But SOMETHING will happen when you die, even if that something is nothing.

Not by me. What I said specifically was: So the answer to your honest comment (thank you for that) is: not everyone who has faith in Jesus has read the Bible. But somewhere down the line, the person who initially brought them to faith had to have some knowledge of Jesus from the Bible. They didn't make it up (or if they did, they got a lot wrong, because not everything about Christianity is intuitive.). If someone who claims to be a Christian hasn't read the Bible, my question would be, "Why?" Is it because there are no Bibles available in their part of the world or because they don't know how to read? Because those I understand. But if it's because they don't care enough to crack open the Book, I would question their dedication to the One they call Lord. And if it's because they believe it's a Book full of fairy tales, I would ask then why they believe the whole part about Jesus being the Son of God isn't also one big huge fairy tale.

That's very PC, but let me ask you a question. You believe when one dies, there is no afterlife and one's body is simply going to rot in the ground. I believe when one dies, there is an afterlife and one's body is going to rot in the ground, but ones spirit is going to live eternally. Either you believe A) one of us is right and the other is wrong, or for those who believe there is no afterlife, there is no afterlife, and those who believe there is an afterlife will live eternally. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you are a "Camp B" person. I don't disagree with you on ANY of these points. I do not run around this board or my personal life pointing out where other people are wrong, and I don't think anyone who knows me IRL accuses me of disrespecting other beliefs. I am simply trying to point out that Bible-believing Christians are regularly attacked because they believe the way to heaven is narrow, which non-Christians believe is wrong, yet no one ever criticizes the non-Christians because they are attacking a belief THEY believe is wrong.

I didn't say one side was RIGHT and the other side was WRONG. I said that if a person believes one thing and that one thing is diametrically opposed to another thing, he must LOGICALLY believe that the other thing is WRONG. I don't go around telling people, "I think you're wrong". Humorously enough, aren't you telling me I'm WRONG in this post? (Which is fine, BTW, because that's what you believe). Although, when it comes to the "you're going to Hell" crap, I ONLY hear that from Christians. Other religions don't believe in hell, so why would they use that as an attempt to scare someone? Talk about crap. Christians -- real Christians -- don't believe it's OK to kill abortionists. Pro-aborts wave that flag like it's the mantra of pro-lifers and it just plain isn't. Yup, and everyone wonders why I call "foul."

That's ridiculous. I don't think anyone is refusing to engage in debate (discussion is a better word, I think), and certainly no one is refusing to recognize anyone's civil rights!

Gosh, I got the DISTINCT impression that *I* was being talked about here. And I am not a gun-totin' extremist out looking for a kill. Don't we all just love the labels that we like to impose on others!

I am asking because I truly, truly don't understand how someone can believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he was crucified, died, and was resurrected on the third day UNLESS they acquire this knowledge from the Bible. And if they DO acquire this knowledge from the Bible, why do they not believe the other claims of the Bible? No one comes to faith in Jesus through anything other than the Bible. It's not something you dream about or make up. You cannot know about Jesus unless you are told about or read about Him, and the text from which you read or from which the person telling you read is the Bible. The claim that someone is the Son of God and that He was resurrected after death is a rather fantastic one and does require faith to believe. I acknowledge that. My question is by what logical, consistent grounds does one accept this particular fantastic belief but not the rest of the text from which it came? I'm sure I'll get accused of attacking, beating a dead horse, telling people they have to believe my way or they're going to hell, and a host of other things. Please note I have said none of these things. I am HONESTLY asking the question because I DON'T GET IT. So please, please, would someone explain it to me? I WANT to understand.

Can you direct me to the post number?

OK, coming in late today, but I missed this response, too. A WHILE back, I asked the question of those who call themselves Christians but don't believe the Bible is literal. The question I asked, and I'll ask it here again, was: "Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God. Do you believe He was crucified, died, and was resurrected on the third day". I got two answers that I can remember, both from people who misunderstood the question (ousooner and leatha_g, as I recall); they didn't realize I was qualifying the question to be asked specifically of Christians who don't believe the Bible is literal. I was also specifically told by at least one person (possibly more) that he refused to answer the question and didn't have to explain his beliefs to me. Several ignored the question and at least one (TommyO; there were possibly more) chastised me for suggesting that people should have to answer me (which I never suggested -- I was just amazed that with all of the attacking and pontificating, that no one would answer). So I'm asking again, because if you answered I didn't see your response. If you profess to be a Christian and do NOT believe the Bible is literal, do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He was crucified, died, and was resurrected on the third day?

Amazing. Liberals never kill for their cause? So I guess Communists, Marxists, and Socialists are all peace-loving and never instituted any genocide on their own people. BTW, just for those of you who are freaked out about fundamentalist Christians and really believe your own rhetoric, I am about as fundamentalist as they come. Yet I abhor violence and I would never, ever, for a freakin' instant consider killing someone because they don't believe what I choose to believe. I am also a libertarian. One other thing. Don't those of you who are athiests believe people of faith are WRONG? Just like those of us who are Christians believe athiests are WRONG? Why is it OK for you to believe that we're wrong and not the opposite? I have never, ever told anyone they're going to hell. It's not my decision to make. And it certainly isn't good ammunition in a debate against someone who doesn't believe in hell! I will most certainly share my beliefs with them, but I have a right to my beliefs and I have a right to share them. I'm constantly amazed that liberals preach tolerance and yet are intolerant of Christians.

Truly, truly amazing. Along with everything that preceeded it, which I don't have the time or energy to comment on.

Sorry, can't leave this one alone. No, a liberal Christian wouldn't blow up an abortion clinic. But I wouldn't put it past a liberal Christian to blow up a pro-lifer. Of course, that's just my opinion. It's also my opinion that a conservative Christian wouldn't blow up an abortion clinic. The only ones who would blow up abortion clinics are whack-jobs. NOW I'm done.