Vermont legalises gay marriage

What a sad story... US is becoming more and more like Sodom and Gomorah.. God, have mercy on US!

Joseph "Jazz Piano" Park

William:
It is good news for the State of Vermont in regards of Legalized of gay marriage...

~Dennis Junior

I respect the rights of citizens and if the lifestyle is approved by the majority of citizens it should be OK. Though my beliefs are against this behavior I respect the law.

Tony

Sports Betting Picks

Free Sports Betting Picks

This isn't as surprising as the overruling of the ban on same-sex marriage by the Iowa Supreme Court. (Regardless of whether you are pro or anti or ambivalent, you could see this coming in Vermont...not Iowa...)

Forget widows.

Forget orphans.

Forget the destitute and starving.

Forget 21st century slaves.

Forget new testament ethics.


In 21st century BBC ethics, only oppressed homosexuals always have a presence in the W&T "Recent entries".

superoscarfan

The population of the United States currently spends more on dieting and slimming (tackling obesity) than India spends on food.

Hundreds of thousands of people across the world have been killed or live in misery as a result of US aggressive foreign policy.

Billions of dollars are poured into the military while millions of its own citizens live below the poverty line.

Thousands of Americans die or are maimed each year as a result of its refusal to ban the sale of guns.

America is also at the top end of the list of countries which execute their own citizens.

It would seem to me that if God is indeed going to have mercy on America, there are far more urgent matters requiring his mercy than people being able to publicly declare their love for each other.

OT get over yourself. Oppressed PMS investers, oppressed daily telegraph reporters, blogging moderators, new catholic leaders, Harvard researchers defending the pope, the quest for the historical jesus ... that's just this week.

Will I was listening to Mike Davidson on Radio 4 recently and he made the comment that being gay was a concept that had recently been invented by society, ie within the past 100 years or so.

Got me to asking if the whole gay marriage concept is not a bit misleading.

The Govt research before civil partnerships found that only about 3 per cent of the gay community were interested in lifelong committment to a single partner (civil partnerships).

Doesnt this support Mike Davidson's idea that we have constructed a concept of homosexuality that has little to do with the reality?

In other words, so far as I can see there has never at any time in history been an epoch when same sex marriage (ie I mean only sex with one partner during a lifetime) has been a norm in same sex relations.

The norm seems to be promiscuity or serial promiscuity. ( This has been very common for heterosexuals too but in judeo christian culture, marriage existed in sharp contrast).

A post-gay friend of mine, now starting a family, says that physical monogamy in gay culture is "very very rare" - please note serial monogamy is not marriage!

So is it not accurate to say that gay marriage is a bit of a red herring, ie that only around 3 per cent of the gay community are interested in it, but its existence serves a primary purpose as an idealogical battering ram to equate gay relationships to marriage in the public mind.

Perhaps its secondary purpose is for the 3 % of gay couples who have a genuine interest in it?

I recognise the question may hurt feelings of some gay people reading this, and this not my intention. But please understand the fair question and if you want to respond, I would appreciate some fair answers.

sincerely
OT

PS Mike Davidson makes a clear distinction between accepting that he has same sex attraction and what he sees as a totally different matter of taking on the identity of "being gay" which he believes is a modern social contruction.

History does seem to support him in this, but if anyone has evidence otherwise would be interested to read it...

thanks

OT:

Maybe you should take your own advice (post 5). Stop obsessing on anti-homosexuality and the Bible and get out more and get a life, helping the widows, the destitute and starving, the 21st century slaves, etc.

Some of you spend so much time astride your biblical hobbyhorses, Canute-like on the shores of modern civilisation, that it is impossible for you to be actually doing enough to put your 'New Testament ethics' into practice.

And, as has been pointed out, there are some teachers on this blog who must have the inspectors after them. I would never have had the time during the day to post long exegeses of obscurantist, obsolete, contradictory Middle Eastern tall stories in a desperate effort to convince sceptics, atheists, agnostics and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all that it really happened - angels, earthquakes, fish, honeycomb, nail wounds and the rest (including gay-bashing along the way).

...as I was saying, interested to hear any fair answers to the fair questions....


Brian, rather quick of you to judge me without sight of my diary or year planner.... ;-)

Perhaps you mean to say it only ethical for athiests to post lengthy comments on these threads?

Couldnt let you have all the fun...

;-)

also Brian, seeing as you lay down the challenge...

perhaps you can name a few projects around the UK which have been set up by humanists for orphans, widows, poverty stricken at home and in the developing world and 21st century slaves.

I wont mention the church's influence in creating our modern welfare state either, honest.

;-)

POST #10
Regurgitated humanist drivel or is it vomit.

Post #8

Being gay is not a recently "invented" concept by society. It is a recently "acknowledged" concept by some societies. Big difference!!

Homosexuality was never defined until Freud.

Many gay couples dont have an interest in publicly declaring their love, admittedly, but most, if not all, do have an interest in being treated fairly by government tax laws.

Peter K, Helio, Dylan Dog:

See post 11.
It's official - OT thinks gaybashing is fun!

My God

its also official - the leader of humanists in Northern Ireland thinks it acceptable to answer a serious question with a call to other humanists for a barrage of ad hominem attacks.

go Brian!

(was the question too hard for you?)

Augustine

Sorry you are quite factually wrong.

Homosexuality is the most common subject on this thread and rarely if every off the front page of it.

No emotion.

No value judgements.

No condemnation.

Fact.

OT

RJB

Thanks for the serious attempt at an answer.

But are you sure this is correct?

There certainly seems to have been alot of situational and temporary homosexuality in cultures gone by, but how do you ascertain that "being gay" is not a recent invention.

Can you ever point to a time when lifelong gay "marriage" existed in history?

There seems to be a lot of special pleading by pro-gay academia.

Here are a few gems you will recognise but which are never justified are supported by evidence when used, in my experience;-


1) People who reject their homosexuality are disordered with internalised homophobia.
It is never explained why these people are not simply listening to their conscience.


2) People who change orientation were always bisexual, so they have not really changed at all. It is never explained with evidence as to how the academic or advocate proves that he is correct nor why there has not been true change.


3) Men who have families and later come out as gay were always gay. The way they managed to have a family was to have gay fantasies while impregnating their wives. I have never heard anyone cite any evidence to support such radical claims. How do we know the men did not just feed and cultivate a curiosity in same-gender-sex until it dominated them?


4) Yes, we acknowledge that some gay people do change their sexuality but that does not mean that everyone can do it. The advocates of this position seem to strongly reject any suggestion that we should make firm efforts to understand the causes of homosexuality and the dynamics of what happens when someone actually does change (all very well documented in scientific papers of the past 80 years). There appears to be a fear that this could shed light on how change might be accessed more easily for those that want it and that change could be argued to be a moral imperative.


5) All the existing studies which show change in a person are irrelevant because they do not deal with randomized studies. The problem is, with any therapy only subjects who wish to change have any possibility of doing so. Picking people at random who have no interest in change is spiking your study from the start. So this seems like a deliberate red herring to discredit the legion of scientific papers showing change from the past 80 years or so.


If anyone can enlighten me on any of these points I will be glad to be wiser than when I started.

For the record, I am not singling out people with same sex attraction for attack, because in my view every human is fallen with a fallen sexuality and every Christian must battle to master this and live the holy life of a disciple. "Straight" people do not have a bye ball - even looking at someone with lust is harmful, by Christ's standards.

OT

OT

What comes across, and possibly why you receive bric-bats, is that you have an agenda on this particular subject.

I would suggest that answering your five points would ultimately have absolutely no effect on your outlook.

One of the central beliefs I have as a trying-to-be-Christian, is that we should attempt, and be allowed, to be exactly who we are.

The pressure exerted on gay men to be something other than gay is considerable. (The ludicrous stuff about changing your sexuality etc.. but you really have to want to, is one example.)

I wonder if there are any older left handed people out there who can recall the horrible treatment meted out to them by teachers who saw their condition as disordered and tried cruel, corrective remedies to make them right handed?

Gay men have been forced to lie to others, deceive themselves, live in fear, be unhappy etc...

All these things are anti-Christian.

"The truth will set you free" not "Do everything possible to avoid an unpallatable truth and it will set you free."

I know a nun who has tremendous compassion for alcoholics. When asked why, she replied that she herself might be alcoholic. She said she had no way of knowing because she had never had a drink before.

I think if you approached homosexuality in the same way as she approaches alcoholism, you might find that you'd actually be able to answer your own questions on this subject.

(I accept that it is perhaps a bad analogy.)

RJB

I welcome your serious answer though I have to disagree in parts.

What possible agenda do you think I might have....that differs from traditional Christianity on this matter?

When I ask for alternative views to the points listed, be assured I am not asking for your opinions. I am actually asking if there exists any credible evidence to support these commonly made and rarely challenged assertions.

Very fair question.

Finally, the suggestion that I might be gay is in one sense quite laughable.

In one sense I certainly consider myself capable of this... and many other practises which God has said would be harmful to me.

But the possible implication that I am struggling with same sex attraction is nonsense.

If you wonder why I challenge the posts here on homosexuality, it would be prejudice not to wonder why there are so many posts here on the subject in the first place!!

A little equality please!

The other point is, I dont really believe this debate is in the big picture about homosexuality at all... for many people and spiritually speaking it is an ideological battering ram to destroy the Christian worldview/authority of the bible/church in the west (or the remains of it) and to "free" us into a neo-paganism which while proudly felt to be avant-garde is on closer inspection a simple reversion to good old fashioned paganism.

ie worship of nature/enviroment, sexual abandon of all types, moral relativism, any God will do..., the worship of physical strenght and violence, sorcery (drugs), occult practises such as fortunetelling and use of mediums etc etc etc.

This is not a rejection of care of the environment but rather a challenge to the scientism aspects of it which veer into religious fervour without care for evidence.

Remember, Sunday Sequence/W&T has previously given platforms to those advocating incest and bestiality and group sex. These were all forbidden to the Israelites and condemned as practises of Canaanite paganism.

So the real agenda is to expose the undermining of biblical authority, it is not primarily about sexuality.

OT

BTW RJB

I would not want anyone to think for a second that I believe vercoming same sex attraction is easy.

I would certainly rather people were open about identifying as gay rather than hiding it, and I would also advocate and, i think, practise unconditional love to such people.

But I would like to emphasise, I am not primarily being down on homosexual practise, I am pro-Christian sexual practise.

An excerpt from CS Lewis in MC, makes it clear that none of us get a bye ball in this matter;-



...There are people who want to keep our sex instinct inflamed in order to make money out of us. Because, of course, a man with an obsession is a man who has very little sales-resistance. God knows our situation; He will not judge us as if we had no difficulties to overcome. What matters is the sincerity and perseverance of our will to overcome them.
Before we can be cured we must want to be cured. Those who really wish for help will get it; but for many modern people even the wish is difficult. It is easy to think that we want something when we do not really want it. A famous Christian long ago told us that when he was a young man he prayed constantly for chastity; but years later he realised that while his lips had been saying, "Oh Lord, make me chaste," his heart had been secretly adding, "But please don't do it just yet." This may happen in prayers for other virtues too; but there are three reasons why it is now specially difficult for us to desire-let alone to achieve-complete chastity.
In the first place our warped natures, the devils who tempt us, and all the contemporary propaganda for lust, combine to make us feel that the desires we are resisting are so "natural," so "healthy," and so reasonable, that it is almost perverse and abnormal to resist them. Poster after poster, film after film, novel after novel, associate the idea of sexual indulgence with the ideas of health, normality, youth, frankness, and good humour. Now this association is a lie. Like all powerful lies, it is based on a truth-the truth, acknowledged above, that sex in itself (apart from the excesses and obsessions that have grown round it) is "normal" and "healthy," and all the rest of it. The lie consists in the suggestion that any sexual act to which you are tempted at the moment is also healthy and normal. Now this, on any conceivable view, and quite apart from Christianity, must be nonsense. Surrender to all our desires obviously leads to impotence, disease, jealousies, lies, concealment, and everything that is the reverse of health, good humour, and frankness. For any happiness, even in this world, quite a lot of restraint is going to be necessary; so the claim made by every desire, when it is strong, to be healthy and reasonable, counts for nothing. Every sane and civilised man must have some set of principles by which he chooses to reject some of his desires and to permit others. One man does this on Christian principles, another on hygienic principles, another on sociological principles. The real conflict is not between Christianity and "nature," but between Christian principle and other principles in the control of "nature." For "nature" (in the sense of natural desire) will have to be controlled anyway, unless you are going to ruin your whole life. The Christian principles are, admittedly, stricter than the others; but then we think you will get help towards obeying them which you will not get towards obeying the others.
In the second place, many people are deterred from seriously attempting Christian chastity because they think (before trying) that it is impossible. But when a thing has to be attempted, one must never think about possibility or impossibility. Faced with an optional question in an examination paper, one considers whether one can do it or not: faced with a compulsory question, one must do the best one can. You may get some marks for a very imperfect answer: you will certainly get none for leaving the question alone. Not only in examinations but in war, in mountain climbing, in learning to skate, or swim, or ride a bicycle, even in fastening a stiff collar with cold fingers, people quite often do what seemed impossible before they did it. It is wonderful what you can do when you have to.

We may, indeed, be sure that perfect chastity-like perfect charity-will not be attained by any merely human efforts. You must ask for God's help. Even when you have done so, it may seem to you for a long time that no help, or less help than you need, is being given. Never mind. After each failure, ask forgiveness, pick yourself up, and try again. Very often what God first helps us towards is not the virtue itself but just this power of always trying again. For however important chastity (or courage, or truthfulness, or any other virtue) may be, this process trains us in habits of the soul which are more important still. It cures our illusions about ourselves and teaches us to depend on God. We learn, on the one hand, that we cannot trust ourselves even in our best moments, and, on the other, that we need not despair even in our worst, for our failures are forgiven. The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection.
Thirdly, people often misunderstand what psychology teaches about "repressions." It teaches us that "repressed" sex is dangerous. But "repressed" is here a technical term: it does not mean "suppressed" in the sense of "denied" or "resisted." A repressed desire or thought is one which has been thrust into the subconscious (usually at a very early age) and can now come before the mind only in a disguised and unrecognisable form. Repressed sexuality does not appear to the patient to be sexuality at all. When an adolescent or an adult is engaged in resisting a conscious desire, he is not dealing with a repression nor is he in the least danger of creating a repression. On the contrary, those who are seriously attempting chastity are more conscious, and soon know a great deal more about their own sexuality than anyone else. They come to know their desires as Wellington knew Napoleon, or as Sherlock Holmes knew Moriarty; as a rat-catcher knows rats or a plumber knows about leaky pipes. Virtue-even attempted virtue-brings light; indulgence brings fog.
ENDS



Why do we never hear "Christian" advocates of homosexal practise urging chastity before gay marriage?


It is because they are attempting to impose a neo-pagan worldview onto Christians, they are not discovering a forgotten knowledge of the church or a more correct understandin of scripture.

OT

..also RJB, the recent survey in the news found that 1 in 6 mental health practisioners in the UK has been asked by clients to help them control or change their same sex attraction.

ie many many people with these feelings want to change. it is a violation of their rights as clients to deny or reject such requests and a violation of mental health professionals code of ethics.

There is also the problem that mental health problems to do with rejecting homosexual feelings persist very strongly among the gay community in countries where gay marriage has long been legal.

Jeffrey Satinover says there is no evidence that external pressures are the main mental health problem, but that the internal pressures are the real problem.

Also, many Christians in the church with SSA strongly reject any attempt to reconcile them with SSA.

I am not professing to be an expert, but it is just too facile, patronising and dangerous to deny all the people in this category the respect and freedom to have a free voice, freely understand the historical research and makes free choices in this area.

OT

OT

When I suggested you had an agenda, I was not meaning that you are gay!!

I meant that the stance you are arguing from is anti-gay, therefore you are unlikely to be completely open minded on the subject.

ok RJB point taken, sorry.

but please note I am not "against gays", I am arguing a traditional biblical perspective on sex outside of traditional marriage.

there is quite a difference.

OT sometimes you make me despair. Homosexuality is the most debated topic in religion in britain and america today. FACT. Why shouldn't a religion/ethics blog reflect that? Similarly, with creationism, climate change, etc. They're all big debates in religion, but I've never known a debate as big as the sexuality debate in religion in the past 30 years.

JovialPTL

I never said the issue should not be discussed.

I am just setting down a marker - dont let anyone kid themselves that the attention given to this debate on this blog in any way reflects the priorities of God as reflected in the New Testament.

OT

OK, OT, I know I will regret asking this ... but, if Will were to post here on subjects that reflect the priorities of God in the Bible, what subjects would he most be writing about. Give us the top five!

1. Mercy.
2. Forgiveness.
3. Compassion.
4. Truth.
5. Charity.

and

6. Kicking the stuffing out of religious stuck up sticky beaks who love condemning others and using Him to do it.

Augustine,

look if you consider your opinion as highly as you appear to then why dont you give your own suggestion to this question.

Are you seriously saying you dont know the typical groups of people in the world that are given the highest priority in the NT???

These are not really matters of debate. Just read the epistle of James through once for a start.



Also RJB

May I take it you might be suggesting me as one of the sticky beaks?

Sure it is only easy too easy to take pleasure in being on the "right" side of spiritual arguments all the time, no doubt. No question.

But why did Christ say what he did about adultery and divorce and about mental adultery?

Did he really mean us never to actually try and obey him on these matters? Did he really mean us never to mention them again?

You have completely missed my point if you think I love condemning others.

Read the excerpt from CS Lewis and you will actually see it is actually all about empowering people to live Godly lives, not condemning them.

Have you missed my repeated references which equate the fallenness of me and my sexuality with any gay person?

You appear to be projecting your prejudices onto me.

Do the directions from CS Lewis apply to;

1) Only straight people?
2) Only gay people?
3) All people?

I say point 3.

OT

OT - I have nothing particularly new to add to my previous postings on the subject but I think I should say that, if the concept of a person's being gay is relatively new (and I would tend to agree that it is) then so is the concept of being straight.

Also OT, your post # 23, tends to assume that mental health patients always know what is best for them and have a right (not actually recognised in law or ethics) to determine what constitutes appropriate treatment for their condition. I would love to know if you believe that psychiatrists should prescribe barbiturate overdoses for the suicidal?

I believe that inability to accept SSA is in all essential aspects similar to body dysmorphic disorder and it is no more ethical to cede to a request to cure SSA than it is to agree to amputate a healthy limb from an obsessive patient.

Well, post 29 is going to be pretty difficult to argue against.

OT

There you go putting words in my mouth again. Just as I didnt accuse you of being gay in an earlier posting, neither did I accuse you of being a stuck up sticky beak in my last one.

Turn the pages of the gospels one by one and here and there you will no doubt find comment on sexual behaviour/misbehaviour.

But on practically every page you will find outright condemnation of religious people who judge and condemn others, especially those who are guilty of the very thing they are condemning. Hypocrasy.

On a bar chart of subjects which Jesus spoke on, hypocrasy, corruption, abuse of power, judgemental attitudes would all be the size of the Twin Towers.
Sexual transgression bars would be the height of a bowling green in comparison.

While I am not claiming that Jesus was laissez-faire in terms of sexual immorality, there were certainly other more pressing matters in his heart.

Its a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Maybe a good exercise would be to look at gospel themes instead of individual gospel texts. I'm sure this would provide much needed perspective.

Ok here goes.

We are talking people groups here, not abstract themes.

Think good samaritan story with real people, not theological themes.

The NT clearly advocates for a number of groups, no particular order.

1) The poor
2) Widows
3) Orphans
4) The disabled
5) Prisoners
6) The sick
7) Slaves (Paul told Timothy now slave traders would get into heaven etc, also read Philemon).

The common thread is people who for whatever reason were too weak and vulnerable to speak up and act for themselves against abuse.

We can think of those too young or too old to protect themselves from physical, mental, sexual abuse and/or neglect.

Elder abuse has hit the headlines big time in recent months in NI for example.

What about children who are only getting ready to be born?

What about the court cases day in and out in NI where relatives sexually abuse their children?

What about children in care? What about the physcial and sexual abuse they are vulnerable to?
What about children being dragged up as feral on our estates?

What about the police raids recently in NI where senior officers said they were now certain that foriegn nationals were now being held in sexual servitude across NI ie forced prostituion?

What about the extreme poverty of eastern europe, parts of africa and asia?


I am not saying homosexuality should not be discussed, I repeat, I am just asking about what the priorities should be if we are not all to become levites and scribes who pass by on the other side of people in need while on our way to a stimulating and guilt free intellectual discussion.


OT

Portwyne

I am not assuming anything about how mental health patients should be treated. That is for others qualified in the field.

I am simply explaining the FACT to you that psychiatrists for example are ethically obliged to recognise and treat somone who says they have SSA and want rid of it.

No need for a massive debate, it is simply a fact.

Also... why is it that I get repeatedly slammed for taking W&T up on its frequent posts about homosexuality in that I am obsessed and missing out on God's bigger picture... but the same accusations are never thought to apply to the blog that so frequently puts the issue on the agenda for us to discuss?

This is a real elephant in the room, but perhaps the answer lies in the fact that my supports see the same problem and my detractors tend to want to have Christian faith endorse homosexual practise.

(Sorry RJB, can I please ask you to be more specific if you are talking to me or not, it is very hard to assume you arent as I am the only one you are opposing in this debate here).


OT

I'd say within ten years, marriage between people of the same sex will be legal in every state. Right now the death penalty is legal in I think 38 states and as punishment for violation of federal law. America leads Europe by far in both areas.

RJB

Maybe we are getting to the same hymnsheet here. You said:

"While I am not claiming that Jesus was laissez-faire in terms of sexual immorality, there were certainly other more pressing matters in his heart. "


Exactly my point about this blog - why is sexuality perhaps the most common theme on it?

I think we would likely agree there is a large overlap between posts 29 and 34 rjb???

Also, I welcome the affirmation from Portwyne that "being gay" is a very modern concept. Perhaps the reason that "being straight" is too Portwyne might be because it was the universal default understanding before sexual orientation was invented as a concept.


Just for the record, I certainly reject any suggestion, again that I am anti gay.

Just pro-biblical sexuality and worldview.

I was actually speaking to an NI pastor tonght who knows some 2 dozen gay people he grew up with. He would describe himself as fundamentalist baptist and he was telling me the story about how at a gay pride parade one of his gay friends came over and threw his arms around him for a mutual hug.
The gay chap knows only too well the pastors outspoken views on this matter. The other gay paraders were dumbstruck but I am not at all.
There was unconditional love and mutual respect present.

I dont see any conflict at all between disagreeing with someone in principle without assuming that you have to become disagreeable in person.

A rejection of this as intolerance or prejudice is an assault on freedom of thought, speech and expression.

OT

OT I thought you considered gay people disabled and in need of help, in which case that's one of your categories taken care of already. You certainly consider gay people imprisoned in their sin, right? So that's a second category ... and I could go on.

A better question is why OT seems to think this blog's content should be determined by a few passages in the new testament (even excusing his bizarre readings of those passages). Why not the Koran? Why shouldn't Buddhist literature shape the content of Will's blog? Or the collected works of Bertrand Russell?

As far as I can tell, this blog is a diary of Will's thoughts on various topics, related to the programmes he does. He writes about arts and culture and about politics and books and about religion and morality. I hope he doesn't feel like he has to check the New testament before he can write about anything.

Augie

7 out of 10 of W&T's recent posts are explicitly about Christianity and or the church.

Ask W&T why this should be so, not me.

It is not my place to tell the BBC what to write.

But they have invited me to pen my views on what they write, which is what I have done.

I simply say the preoccupation with homosexuality here is strongly at odds with the NT.

It seems that many/most posters on this thread agree with me in varying degrees even if they do not agree with my motivations or overall worldview.

OT

OT

I could hardly be more specific. I'm reduced to drawing bar charts, for Gawd's sake!!

If the basis for anyone's morality is what it says in a book, be it the Bible or Mauve Binchy, such a morality will be biased, prejudiced, limited, insensitive, conditioned and more than likely, oppressive.

I also believe that there is a direct link between the way we envisage God and the way we treat people. If we see God as a God of Wrath, judgement, exacting, vengeful, law enforcer, etc.., we give ourselves permission to behave accordingly to those around us.

I'm tired of this calvanistic overview of the world where humanity's brokenness, sinfulness and original sin is emphasised almost to the exclusion of everything else. What about original beauty?

Earlier you even spoke of your own sexual guilt and sinfulness. What kind of power is at work to exert that amount of influence over us?
I refuse to live in the invisible police state errected by religiophiles anymore.

As for the frequency of the debate on homosexuals, maybe your book holds an answer. Jesus continually uses people who are frowned upon or even stigmatised and despised to expose the false morality of some of his listeners. The Good Samaritan, the woman at the well, the woman caught committing adultery, the Roman Centurion, the Prodigal Son, the tax collector, the leper, etc..

Is it possible that the God of all these beautiful people is presently using homosexuals to expose the hypocrasy of our present day Pharisees?

RJB

You are clearly debating me and you make repeated criticial remarks about types of people involved in this type of debate.

It is not unreasonable at all to assume you are speaking to me at least indirectly when you dont specifically address any other points to me.

Also, if you reject the bible as God's plan of salvation to man, lets be clear about that, but what standard and guide do you then use?

You know you cant have it both ways.
You cant agree that Christ was specific about how sex was to be used.

And then you cant go into a debate when W&T and I debate such issues, when raised by W&T, and only go on to castigate me.

Also, please dont misunderstand me, I am not advocating a life of guilt. Exactly the opposite.

Your line of argument suggests you have not read the CS Lewis excert above, from Mere Christianity.

Have you? I wonder how many people with SSA who say change is not possible have been empowered with such guidance AND HAVE ACTUALLY TRIED IT before discarding it. I dare not make assumptions one way or the other, because I just don't know.

As CS Lewis says, it is only too possible to pray with our lips that we want to change when our heart has no real intention to do so. The heart is desperately wicked above all things, who could know it? I can speak of my own here.

You are mising the ENTIRE crux of my argument;-

Christ came so that we need not be imprisoned by guilt any longer.

He came to give us grace to overcome sin.

Only he gives me a clean slate for my past, and my very nature. Only he gives power and grace to live a life which meets the standards he sets. There is no pride possible in such a state, only gratefulness.

That is my entire point, that while many people are arguing that Christ's grace is not only not sufficient in these matters, but that it is completely irrelevant.

Mike Davidson, who has SSA, strongly disagrees for one;-https://mike-core-issues.blogspot.com/

One of my keys points is that people with SSA are not second class Christians because of their struggle; but that EVERY Christian is fighting the same battle with the world the flesh and the devil.

But as Paul wrote, there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.

And as CS Lewis points out, this is not conditional on the fact that we never sin and never fall; God wants to see sincere efforts to follow him.

OT

Also RJB

From chatting to you in recent months, I have gather the following about your viewpoint. I am not being negative when I say this, I just wish to highlight why we see such matters so differently.

I understand you are a former priest who has quite a strong sympathy primarily with liberation gospel type beliefs and after that the bible.

It does appear that the bible texts you refer to reinforce the liberation gospel perspective. But it appears quite clearly that you do not look to the bible as the primary informer of your worldview.

Of course I would aspire to the bible first, in contrast.

But may I ask you to comment on this point;- do you not think that there is a strong overlap between the NT priorities we have both listed? I think so.

That being the case I am also saying that abuse of power against the weak is a top priority for God. We both appeal to scripture on this, but for you it appears to be your second authority.

Where we part company is that you then seem to move on to approve of homosexual practise or at least to imply that God is not in the least concerned by it.

At that point you discard the scriptural standard for setting the values on this debate and seem to have no reference point.

There appears to be a lack of consistency.

Otherwise it would be quite logical for you to agree with me in calling for more NT priorities on this blog.

Instead you repeatedly criticise people who "judge" other people for sexual misconduct, but of course even though I am the only person on the blog who is questioning this point, none of your comments refer to me at all.

;-)


OT

OT - your comment # 35.

I think you have every right to question the volume of gay-themed posts on the blog - just as you have every right to prolong any ensuing debate by your vigorous responses.

I want to take issue, however, with your contention "that psychiatrists for example are ethically obliged to recognise and treat somone who says they have SSA and want rid of it".

SSA is not a disease nor is it a disorder - it can not therefore be treated.

A person who persists in denying SSA or who experiences it as an unwanted or unacceptable part of his or her makeup is, however, likely, over time, to develop recognised mental health problems which can and should be treated. I would suggest such treatment should be in terms of facilitating the person's self-acceptance.

This may be controversial but I remember a discussion with a friend once in which he told me that he was praying that "God would make a particular person love him". I was horrified and told him so: the only medium in which such a prayer communicates is Satan. It is the same with prayer for release from homosexual feelings - it can do nothing but feed wrong. In touching the being of God we find acceptance and wholeness; only there do we come truly to know ourselves; we find resources there to transform our interactions with others and with society. The knowledge of God does not change who or what we are - it does change, and that radically, how we act and what we do.

Hi Portwyne

it appears to be that you are simply expressing your sincerely held opinions.

However do a little googling on the term ego dystonic sexuality and you will find that unwanted homosexual feelings are still a recognised diagnosis.

The WHO says it is where "the gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it".

True Freedom Trust, a group of Christians with SSA disagree with you. In fact they have previously said there are at least as many Christians inside the church who reject their SSA as their are outside (or inside) the church who accept their SSA.

On what do you base your opinion that treating this will cause harm?

Mike Davidson certainly disagrees too.
https://mike-core-issues.blogspot.com/

Portwyne, you have, i think previously acknowledged that is is only very recently (recent decades) that some people have argued that homosexual practise is compatible with Christian faith.

You dont provide any evidence for your arguments. You will note that when the RCP says such treatment may be harmful they are actually spinning. There is no recognised evidence to support this claim. Check it out. The Prof Michael King from UC London made this point on R4 2 Sundays ago when he was condeming 1 in 6 counsellors for offering such treatment.

I dont dispute that poor medical treatment for any condition can cause harm, but the spin buries the actual evidence on this point.


If you check, you will see that ref the Iris Robinson/Paul Miller row, the NI Assocation of Mental Health issued a press release last year to clarify the fact that Dr Miller was no longer a director.

What was missed by most people was that NIAMH also issued a low key defence of Dr Miller within the statement. they concluded the statement by defending the right of patients to get counselling for SSA;-

"The Association believes that every person has the right to chose where and how they get emotional and psychological support, personally or professionally."

https://www.niamh.co.uk/train.php?content=20080609PressRelease&parent=Training/Events&submenu=News%20&%20Events

If you think I am reading that into the text give them a call and you will find that I am correct.

sincerely
OT

The assumption from my opponents on this thread is that it is wrong to suggest that people can change their orientation IF THEY WANT TO.

But if you put yourself in the shoes of the many Christians with SSA who want to change, it is putting false information onto them to suggest that they cant change and that to attmept to is harmful.

OT

The "types of people" I have been critical of on this thread and others are the types of people Jesus himself criticises over and over and over again in the gospels, not you specifically. I'm simply reflecting Christ's teaching back to you, since you claim it to be the cornerstone of your morality.

I never rejected Christ's teaching in the Bible, I simply approach it more cautiously than fundamentalists do. (You admit that you are a sinner. What caused you to sin, your eye? Did you pluck it out? Your hand? Did you chop it off?) What happened to Christ's words there, OT? You cant have it both ways, as you say. Christ is quite specific here, but you quietly sneak away from that one and a myriad of other Biblical texts.

I have never said that I am a former priest, someone else on this site stated that they "assumed" I was a former priest.

I do not see liberation theology as a higher self revelation of God than the Bible. I stated that liberation theology states that human experience is the pinnacle of God's revelation, not the Bible. I happen to agree with that.

What forms my moral compass? Loads of material from the Bible, especially the Gospels. Philosophy, ethics, sociology, the Koran, libraries, politics, my parents, teachers, priests and ministers, the man in the pub, newspapers, The Tablet, the outlook of children, the drug addict, the prostitute, the homosexual, the media...... There isnt a day goes by where I dont learn something about God from the most unexpected of sources.

I'll give you a specific. I learned something powerful about God the day that the father of the girl killed in the Enniskillen bombing stated that he forgave her killers. I learned something more powerfully in that moment than I ever learned from any book, including the Bible!!

My point of contention with "the type of people" who take the Bible literally is:

- They actually dont take it all literally, they tend to pick and choose passages which reinforce their own deeply held prejudices.

- They have a tendency to recognise expertly the splinters in other people's eyes, while conveniently ignoring the plank in their own.

- They refuse to grapple with moral and ethical issues and hide behind, "The Bible says.... therefore..."

- Their claim that they follow the Bible allows them often to treat their neighbour in the most callous manner because they do so with the full approval of their malignant consciences.

OT, get over yourself. Bloggers can write about anything they want and they don 't need to check with you or your statistics about the Bible before they write.

OT

I think you are pretty much aware of my views on the topic of this thread, I do not plan to rehearse them here again, however, whether we agree with him or not, I have a sneaking suspicion that portwyne, has a, what shall I say, reasonably good grasp of issues related to mental health.

Please do not ask me how I know this, I'm not sure I do know this, but I do suspect that I am correct.

OT

I see that you are giving out yet again on your favourite topic eg., gay sex

To RJB and other posters on the topic of debating OT, I would like to remind you of the maxim

Never debate an idiot, as the best you can say is...that you beat an idiot.

Kindest regards

DD

DD

I'm fully aware of that maxim and here's another one:

The trouble with people who are extremely self righteous is that no matter what you say or what you do - you simply serve to prove them right!!

Check back, although I've a feeling you wont need to, can you find any example on any of these threads where OT has said to PM,GV, AOC, PW or yourself or myself, "Actually lads, good point, I never thought about that before." Or, "Well that certainly gives me food for thought."

You wont find any.

Logic or even the balance of probabilities tells me that at least one of us has to have made a half decent point somewhere along the line. Apparently not so.

When it comes to Biblical inerrancy, even the Bible itself would appear to come a poor second to OT.

RJB m46

Like your post! whilst not agreeing with you about 'god', you are spot on about fundamentalists.

Just saw your response RJB!

Damn it I am liking the cut of your suit!

Spot on about the maxim.

"Check back, although I've a feeling you wont need to"

You are right I won't need to-I have been on these blog for about 3 years and have never heard OT say that. OT as you have no doubt discovered is an absolutist, Protestant fundamentalist and as such is never wrong-even when they are invariably nearly always wrong.

OT is always right about the Bible(and goodness help you with the invective that will befall you if you happen to disagree with them) and about biology, physics-especially quantum physics-evolution, palaeontology, chemistry indeed all the sciences!However OT only makes his startling on this blog! the entire world scientific community and natural resource/pharmaceutical companies are stupid and/or corrupt!

If you are interested/bothered here are some old threads with OT(or PB as he/she was known then)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/01/the_thermodynamics_of_andy_mci.html

and

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/03/the_dawkins_debate_continues.html

Worth a quick look perhaps...just even to illustrate how little OT/PB has changed and is highly unlikely to change...

maybe another maxim to finish...

Never enter a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent...

Regards

DD

OT

"It is not my place to tell the BBC what to write."

But you do...continually!

Maybe you should start off your own blog? do you have one?

Thanks Peter

Not sure what your position is on this matter at all, sorry.

I will accept your point that Portwyne has some knowledge of what he is talking about, but that appears to completely ignore the actual evidence I refer to in post 44.



RJB

Sorry, I didnt in any way mean my last post to be patronising.

IF I found that I could not stop sinning in a particular way, I think I would certainly have to consider plucking my eye out and cutting my hand off.

That has thankfully not yet been the case.

Even if Christians avoid implementing inconvenient parts of scripture, which is a reality, it does not follow that the traditional view of the church on homosexuality - and the traditional view of mental health professionals - is wrong.

OT

OT

It is heartwarming to see that in this thread that your fellow Christians have seen right through you and the utter futility in attempting to debate you.

RJB, Peter M, Portwyne

May I refocus here a bit.

I started out on this thread pointing out the disproportionate amount of coverage given to homosexual issues, which a number of posters concurred on.

I have since moved on to major on the rights of individuals who reject their SSA to receive counselling for same.

As part of this I challenged common arguments used to undermine the views of SSA strugglers such as Mike Davidson (his blog link is given above).

Alot of copy has been written above about judgemental people criticising others on sexual matters.

This is a criticism bears virtually no relevance to the points I am raising.

I am merely echoing the arguments from Mike Davdison and people like him. Is he being judgemental?

I am arguing that folk like Mike Davidson and True Freedom Trust have every right to get counselling for SSA if they so wish.

Are you, RJB, Peter M and Portywyne saying that you dont think they should have such a right and/or that mental health professionals should be forbidden from offering such counselling?

That is the crux of my argument here.

At no time have I suggested that people who do not wish to change be pressed to undergo such counselling.

Interested in a view from RJB, PM and Portwyne.

Should people have the right to access such counselling or not? (suggesting that no counselling works will be a cop out as TFT and Mike Davidson attest that it does, to varying degrees).

cheers
OT

OT

It is you who is the major poster on homosexual issues.

Some people are gay, so what, deal with it and get a life.

I am not happy at the amount of fundamentalists about-I would love them to change, however I do believe that it is to a large degree fixed.

Look at the danger they cause to society. Personally I classify them as perverts because a large number of them want to pass fundamentalist, religious dogma off as science. As you are no doubt aware OT science at it's heart is about explanations-explanations that produce results. What is so strikingly perverted and stupid about the creationists position is that they are pushing to introduce an "explanation" that is that stupid and useless that even they do not use-when one stops to consider this, it is quite mind-boggingly stupid!

Kindest regards

DD

OT

Bit of clarification needed here.

(1) My view of human sexual relationships follows the traditional Christian one in terms of husband, wife and marriage.

(2) On the issue of counselling, I wasn't expressing a view on this when I mentioned portwyne. I merely get the impression that he has first hand knowledege, although I could be wrong.

If it interests anyone I did complete a one year introduction to counselling course a number of years ago. However all this course succeeded in doing was to demonstrate to me the limits of my knowledge and the dangers involved in well intentioned yet low trained volunteers seeking to offer any kind of mental health advice to anyone. I have stayed away from all such situations and organisations ever since. What would I say to someone trying to deal with SSA, I have no idea, I'm glad I have no idea, but my best guess is that it might be best to begin by being their friend.

OT - your comment # 44

I did not in my posting deny that unwanted feelings of SSA can (and frequently do) lead to "associated psychological and behavioural disorders" nor did I dispute that such disorders should be treated. It is, however, the associated disorders which require treatment - not the SSA.

I do not believe that there is any safe, proven, and durable conditioning process (I refuse to use the word treatment) to reverse SSA. I believe that is the general consensus of the vast majority of those involved in the care of people facing mental and emotional health challenges.

You accuse the RCP of Spin but accept the TFT's stance as gospel - something it may well be but it is certainly not scientific!

I do not know if you attended the Jeremy Marks talk at Changing Attitudes recently. I did. Jeremy is an excellent and willing example of the failure of Christian counselling to permanently alter SSA - if I needed additional evidence for my understanding of the situation I would have found it there aplenty.

If it were possible for a person to redirect their deep-seated sexual proclivity I would have no objection to their attempting to do so - but, in the absence of convincing evidence, I think it grossly irresponsible to encourage a person to embark on a process which may leave, not one, but two people desperately unhappy.

A religious person with unwanted homosexual feelings has the option of celibacy - I would consider that a needless denial of one of the joys of life but recognise it as a valid and responsible choice.

A person who seeks to reprogramme his or her sexuality risks bringing the gravest distress and heart-break to a person they profess to love. Can you conceive of the humiliation, rejection, and loss of self-worth, the questioning, the inversion of the shared story, the revulsion and the pain which a person can experience when rejected in favour of a partner of different gender? What does the success rate of attraction-redirection have to be to risk that outcome? I question the motivation and maturity of any person willing to take that risk as I question the understanding and empathic ability of anyone who would encourage them to do so.

When we turn to Christianity, what I previously acknowledged was that acceptance of homosexual activity has not been the stance of main-stream Christianity historically. I did not say that it was "only very recently (recent decades) that some people have argued that homosexual practise is compatible with Christian faith". That belief has been a minority opinion practically throughout the entire life of the Church - witness the Adelphopoeia rite of the Eastern Orthodox churches.

The idea that God will answer prayer to cure SSA can only come from a misunderstanding of both the nature of God and the nature of prayer.

Peter

;-)

Portwyne

In the interest of openness, what does


Peter

;-)


mean?

RJB - if any of the asses to which reference is made on another thread happened to suffer from severe visual impairment they could probably elucidate...

That's about as open as I'm prepared to be!

LOL

Is that one ass or two?
;-)

Portwyne

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Sorry but you have got me completely wrong again. I dont accept TFT's position as gospel.

You actually NEVER hear me present my beliefs here as absolute truth. I leave that to the athiests.

;-)

But I do argue that TFT and Mike Davidson have a clear right to the counselling they request.

I am acutally suggesting a win/win situation for both sides of this debate.

Those who dont believe in counselling for SSA leave it alone.

Those who do believe in counselling for SSA take it up.

That is tolerance and freedom of choice.

The other way forward is the unbending imposition of your values on an unwilling minority.


With all respect, Jermey Marks has plenty of experience in this field and has every right to speak his mind - AND BE HEARD BY THE CHURCH AT LARGE!!!

Would you agree that Christians who reject their SSA have the same right?

You are in danger of losing all credibility if you are suggesting that you have a broad understanding of the issues by only listening to Jer Marks though.

You also appear to be misreading the WHO statement - and misreading me.

You are quite correct to state that the WHO statement does not identify the SSA as the disorder.

But the point is that the WHO is saying that people who have unwanted SSA should be given professional support "AND MAY SEEK TREATMENT IN ORDER TO CHANGE IT".


You say there is an absence of evidence to show that change is possible but this is completely wrong.


There are some 80 years worth of peer reviwed articles with clear evidence of change which you can read.

Can you suggest exactly which papers you have read and why you dont consider them proper evidence?


Have you read any work by Spitzter, Jones and Yarhouse???







RJB

You need to check your facts before speaking so critically.

Just check into my profile and you will see two or three times in the past week where I have commended points made by PM.

I have also commended points by GV previously, which are also on record.

As for Helio, he has certainly made some very good points on Matthew which have caused me to test my understanding in areas I have not done so before. I have checked them out and I am happy that none of the authorities I am aware of on his side even make the absolute statements on the subject that he dares to.


It reminds me of an earlier point I made. Only the people who reject the idea of absolute truth on this thread speak to others as though they were in possession of it.

Why are you so absolutely certain that *I* and the one who is wrong and should change his views.

A soldier going out to battle should not boast as though he was a soldier who has already won the battle.

None of my critics here are acutally engaging with the actual evidence. Ad hominem attacks are always a sign of insecurity in your arguments and a last refuge of scoundrels who cant stand up to the debate.





Peter M

Sorry, the question was, would you support Mike Davidson's position that he has a right to access counselling for SSA?

Mike takes a very firm position on this?

Nobody disputes that we should be a friend to anyone with SSA.

This point is a given, see post 22.

OT

Also Portwyne

I am not suggesting for a second that TFT's views are scientific. I am suggesting that they have a right to be heard and that their views should be respected as much as Jer Marks' in ref to whether they should have access to professional counselling of their choice and which 1 in 6 counsellors is apparently currently providing.


You are completely denying the reality of the testimonies of many people who have left the gay lifestyle and have got married and started families.

Portwyne

I suggest that Peter Ould and James Parker have the right to the same hearing and respect as Jer Marks;-


https://www.peter-ould.net/2007/03/23/james-parker-on-bbc-today/


They have both come from a gay lifestyle are now married with children.

Are you going to suggest they are delusional or liars in saying that have made a real journey that many other people with SSA wish to make?

I have to say that I think that Jer Marks should be given a very fair hearing regarding his criticism of the church.

While I dont agree with his conclusions that does not mean he doesnt make a lot of valid points ie about realism, failure, honesty, transparency, forgiveness, grace, mercy.

You have not yet cited any formal evidence to support you statment that SSA counselling carries grave risks.

As I recall the RCP's statment on the matter (which was drafted by an internal gay advocacy special interest group) is very careful NOT to say such counselling is damaging, while being also careful to give the impression that it might be.

Also I never suggested that SSA could be changed by a simple prayer, if that it what you are saying. I dont think anyone who argues that it can be changed would say this.

Also Portwyne


ref Adelphopoeia the Greek Orthodox Church totally rejects that this has ever been about homosexuality, so it appears.

OT

OT

I'm not sure why you are pushing me on this one. I simply made a couple of comments (1) to clarify my position on marriage and (2) to try and alert you to the possible experience of another.

My view on (access to) counselling is, I now know that I don't know enough about the breadth of issues which might impinge on another, and, as a result, am hesitant to offer opinion on the matter.

However what I will say is this. It is my view that unless a person's inmost being is handled with the utmost care then there is the possibility of more harm than good being done. (and this applies to any issue, not just SSA)

Beyond that, please see the first two lines of my post 48.

Hello pastor Orthodox-tradition,

You're being dishonest for jesus again, aren't you? Again claiming your views to be supported by peer reviewed literature:

"There are some 80 years worth of peer reviwed articles with clear evidence of change which you can read. Can you suggest exactly which papers you have read and why you dont consider them proper evidence?"

Oh its classic OT (or classic PB rather, your old embarrassing identity still haunting you)! I've called you out over your dishonesty in claiming peer reviewed literature in support of your views. Remember that you claimed this before, but had nothing to show but wikipedia links:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/02/jeremy_marks_and_the_exgay_mov.html

Come on OT, it's no use trying you divorce yourself from your old identity if you gather the same reputation for dishonesty in your new identity.

greets,
Peter

Religions certainly are obsessed with sex. Too bad they don't focus on the real issues of the human condition...such as the fact that there are far too many people alive in the world for the planet to sustain and the number keeps growing. If it goes on much longer, the consequence could be the extinction of much or all of the human race. There will be nobody left around to save...and no one around to do the saving either. Pastorphillip, how about a sermon on the evils of overpopulation in the world and the fact that the viscious cycle of charity that has saved so many lives has resulted in creating far more of them who are just as desperate and if also saved will just exascerbate the problem more. Where are the four horsemen of the apocalypse when you need them, sowing their own wild oats?

OT

"You need to check your facts before speaking so critically."

LOL coming from you!

You don't get the point that RJB is attempting to make.

"I have also commended points by GV previously, which are also on record. "

You also ate the face of GV for having the temerity for disagreeing with you-which is also on record.

"None of my critics here are acutally engaging with the actual evidence. Ad hominem attacks are always a sign of insecurity in your arguments and a last refuge of scoundrels who cant stand up to the debate."

talking about yourself again OT? I have attempted to engage with you in actual debate. However yiu have shown how fruitless it is to attempt to debate an absolutist religious fundamentalist. We have tried and failed miserably to try and get you to engage but to no avail. I and others have attempted on many occasions for you to back up statements you have made but on every occasion you have ran away in a pique of prevarication and bluster.

Did you ever answer the point that you raised about "QM undermining evolution"? did you ever give us the peer-reviewed evidence(that you love so much now-but so casually dismissed out of hand before!). Or your thoughts on radiometric dating eg., "very few labs do it" and "very, very few people are qualified to do radiometric dating". These are easily demonstrable lies, lies that we have attempted for you to address. Lies which your fundamentalist faith forced you to tell.

Please OT lets talk about it! come on I am calling you out again(!).

It is heart-warming to see that other posters have worked you out.

Kindest regards

DD

OT

I checked back. The only time you ever, ever, ever make a concession to anyone, ever, is only to say "Thanks for debating with me/taking my point seriously/answering me."

It is always followed up by a statement saying, "However, I have to disagree with you about....."

You have never once, as far as I can see, stated, "Actually, your argument has totally changed my mind...."

Thanks RJB

Have you every made such an admission on this blog?

Have any of my opponents for that matter?

My views certainly have expanded/changed while using this blog because people from a wide variety of spectrums have helped inform memore widely about a wide range of issues.


sincerely
OT

Some pretty respectable work on SSA has been done by Spitzer, Yarhouse and Jones, and Masters and Johnston, if anyone wants to google them.


Peter M, you said;-

"..unless a person's inmost being is handled with the utmost care then there is the possibility of more harm than good being done."

I have to agree with you on this PM, of course.

But to allow, by default us to come to a position, in mental health across the board, where we outlaw professionals given counselling for SSA to those who request it is a massive step.

I certainly dont suggest that such counselling works for everyone that asks for it, nor that it should be given to those who dont want it, nor do a I suggest that work of Spitzer, Yarhouse and Jones and Masters and Johnston is flawless.

But I do suggest that there is enough of a credible debate on both sides of the argument for us to say that it would currently be a gross breach of freedoms and rights to outlaw SSA counelling to those who request it.

Understand my point? I am not asking anyone to agree with everything that I say, I am asking if you think it reasonable that such counselling should still be made available for those who want it.

sincerely
OT

..ps rhetorical question....signing off...

OT

I only want to say a couple of things,
but they might be helpful.

First, purely at the level of debate on this thread, I have not sought debate about the issue of counselling, I have no particular point to make and, for personal reasons, I am reluctant to make any particular point on the subject.

Second, and probably more importantly, whatever else has been said on this blog, I am not against you.

Regards

Peter

OT #74

"Have you ever made such an admission on this blogg?"


Yes. A few weeks ago I asked why nobody seemed to answer on subjects which seemed to be particularly catholic in content.

I wondered whether it was because guys might be accused of being sectarian if they were seen to be critical of the catholic church.

There was then an outpouring of brilliant stuff by numerous guys which informed, educated, enlightened me about christianity (and sometimes the lack of it) in Northern Ireland.

I couldnt help but post a comment at the end of it thanking everyone concerned for teaching me things which, up to that point, I never knew. I was actually enthralled at learning so much and that people took the time to educate me.

OT, for God's sake grow up!!!!
You are like a bairn in the playground. I comment that you have never acknowledged learning anything from the contributors to this site and the first thing you come back at me with is -

Well I bet you havent either!!!

OT, I'll bet my dad can beat your dad!

Come on, how can you maintain that you love your neighbour, when you can never even concede at least one argument to them?

The best christians I ever met were drawn to God. You strike me as being 'driven' by him.

I'd still love to have a pint with you one day, my friend, but would we only be allowed to talk about things where you can win the argument?

God doesnt need you to be so protective of him. He's a big boy and can survive without your, at times, silly support.

thanks RJB

Interesting line from William in a recent post about a new RC leader;

"....who wouldn't welcome the arrival of a church leader who speaks clearly, says what he thinks, means what he says, and makes no apology for having a view with which others might disagree?"

Hmmm. William are we really reading the same blog here?

;-)

Just for the record RJB , I try not to post about anything unless I have taken the trouble to inform myself about it somewhat.

After that I am generally quite careful not to stray any further in my conclusions or observations than which I feel I can reasonably defend.

Small wonder then that I do not frequently have to repent of views I forward.

To suggest this as a moral or intellectual weakness appears to me to be mystifying.

I have presented a wealth of evidence to support my views on the posts above and it would appear that my opponents are artfully dodging any meaningful discussion about this evidence , preferring instead to land laughable personal attacks on me.

Note my argument here is not that I am right and the other side is wrong, just that "my side" is right enough to justify some credibility and respect in the debate on this matter.

Regarding your example of open-mindedness RJB, you never changed your mind about anything, you canvassed people's opinions and thanked them for same. I hope you dont think this was a display of open mindedness. I too often thank people for their contributions here, so how are you any different to me on this score?

Sometimes my jaw drops at the apparently completely unconscious fundamentalism here from many of my opponenets. They think they are debating with an open mind but in reality they enter every discussion with me with the subconsciious expectation that I am under a moral obligation to fall into line with their viewpoints, regardless of whether they even TRY to present a convincing argument.

A loss of basic manners and a slew of personal attacks often follow.

WC quote again: "....who wouldn't welcome the arrival of a church leader who speaks clearly, says what he thinks, means what he says, and makes no apology for having a view with which others might disagree?"

I venture to say that generally none of the regular posters here, shall we say, make a habit of conceding points to their opponents.

Why single me out for special criticism unless you feel that I am the only one that is regularly wrong? And if that is what anyone means to say, then do your work first and refute the evdidence and/or arguments I present rather than the lazy pack of rabid laughing hyenas approach?

;-)


Peter M

I never for a second thought you were against me, but bearing in mind the centrality of the subject to the church and current affairs in recent years I am a little suprised you are not better up to speed, but no offence meant or taken!


OT

Hello pastor OT,

"Just for the record RJB , I try not to post about anything unless I have taken the trouble to inform myself about it somewhat."

That is once again an utterly untrue statement from you isn't it? Shall we look at what you said about e.g. things touching on science? DD has asked you numerous times about your statements on quantum mechanics and evolution. Your statements about labs doing radiometric dating also need elaborating. Your statements about flood geology and other young earth geology were so ludicrous that even you try to divorce yourself from your past identity in which you held up that hogwash. Etc.

Face it OT, christianity is a powerful catalyst for dishonesty in you. And that dishonesty definitely includes making statements about things you haven't got the slightest clue about.

Ha ha ha! bleeding Norah! I almost fell off the chair on that one!

Errr OT I posted two old links for the perusal of RJB(and anyone else) which show you doing the *exact* opposite of what you claim here! you really shouldn't tell lies OT-that's what the Bible says.

Unbelievable OT!

Well Ot since you called it-
here is another link

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/09/the_evolution_of_a_debate_at_s_1.html

here you say re: radiometric dating "It is also worth noting that there are very very few people qualified to carry out this process around the world" you also said previously "very few labs" carry out this radiometric dating. Now I have asked you to back this up on many, many occasions to back these statements up but you ran away.

This is very strange from someone who claims...

"I try not to post about anything unless I have taken the trouble to inform myself about it somewhat.

After that I am generally quite careful not to stray any further in my conclusions or observations than which I feel I can reasonably defend.

Small wonder then that I do not frequently have to repent of views I forward."

I can give scores of examples of you doing precisely the opposite-indeed there are scores of examples in the three links I have given.
Let RJB or anyone else for that matter look at them and make up their own opinion.


And Ot you do perfectly illustrate the dangers and pitfalls of attempting to debate a fundamentalist-since you are of course always right even when you are invariably always wrong.

Most of the other posters have worked out the utter futility in attempting to debate you-they see through you to what you really are-an empty sepulchre full of dead men's bones.


Peter Klaver

In the link I give above-PB/OT again dismisses the peer-review process, strange now that OT should embrace the peer-review process now :-/

Hi DD,

"In the link I give above-PB/OT again dismisses the peer-review process, strange now that OT should embrace the peer-review process now"

His embrace of peer-reviewed literature seems mostly a matter of throwing the term 'peer-reviewed' about when it seems he hasn't actually read any. Look at his rather pathetic showing here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/02/jeremy_marks_and_the_exgay_mov.html

Claiming in that thread that his views are based on solid peer-reviewed literature, when he has nothing but a few wikipedia links.

Yup, OT is once again a fine example of religion (in his case fundamentalist christianity) being the cause of great dishonesty.

Hi Peter,

But we are the "scoundrels", we are "hyenas" etc etc good to know that OT does not indulge in ad hominens.

It appears that OT sees themselves as someone like this..."who wouldn't welcome the arrival of a church leader who speaks clearly, says what he thinks, means what he says, and makes no apology for having a view with which others might disagree?"

I think you would agree Peter, that no-one would have any problem with this but what we have a problem with is someone ho is a liar and a hypocrite.

Strange that OT should say this...

"Just for the record RJB , I try not to post about anything unless I have taken the trouble to inform myself about it somewhat.

After that I am generally quite careful not to stray any further in my conclusions or observations than which I feel I can reasonably defend.

Small wonder then that I do not frequently have to repent of views I forward."

When I have repeatedly asked them to back up their views on radiometric dating but always ran away-very odd for someone who says they defend their posts :-/

The problem is of course that OT is a hard-core Biblical fundamentalist creationist and as such is never wrong. Hence the reason why the world scientific community (and by extension the worlds natural resource and pharmaceutical companies-which Ot uses every day)are stupid, corrupt and liars.

Indeed Peter, here is another link with OT giving their views of fossils-I personally do not see much or any evidence of "I try not to post about anything unless I have taken the trouble to inform myself about it somewhat."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/12/are_religious_politicians_nutt.html

In fact we get the exact opposite, indeed in all the links I gave we get the exact opposite.

Regards

DD