Girlie-men

[al Hartman]

The following was first posted on another thread, and is NOT in direct response to any of the most recent posts on THIS thread.  But it is applicable here, and so I present it...

al




     It amuses me that the title of (the) thread, "Control Room," and its initial post, have never been responded to.  I personally have not seen the film, but I have glanced at viewers' comments, addressing various and conflicting viewpoints, enough to know that I won't be watching it in the near future.  Those who have seen it seem as divided and controversial as commentors on M.Moore's work.

     However, the title word "Control" seems quite appropriate for the "Any and All Topics" thread of this board, as there seem to be some prominent issues of control at present.

     It is common these days to speak of individuals "having control issues."  Pop psychology, don'cha know.  But the issue of control is really HUGE.  Think about it:  In everything from politics to road rage, great turmoil is traceable to discontent over questions of whether or not one is in control of one's own destiny, whether immediate or long-term.

     Those agnostics and atheists who post here in hope of proselytizing from among the redeemed, please indulge me for a moment while I point out that personal control is the fulcrum upon which our eternal destinies are levered:  Don't you know that you are not your own?  You have been bought with a price.  We who accept this fact rejoice in it, realizing that we lack the wherewithal, both in wisdom and power, to know, choose, and implement all the decisions life requires-- We are eternally grateful to be owned by Someone who can, will, and does control these things for us.

     You who neglect so great salvation are left in the unenviable position of having to attempt to effect the impossible: know the unknowable and do the impossible, or else founder hopelessly at the mercy of the elements.  But I am among the first to admit that the inner urge to self-determine is powerful:  It ruled me for much of my life, and still attempts to insinuate itself at every opportunity.

     As applies to posting on this BB, the distinction of control is a little clearer:  This board exists for a specific purpose, and is moderated by certain individuals to protect those who use it from abuse.  Those individuals are called "Moderators," and THEY are in control, which is to say that, in any dispute THEY have the final authority, which they have exercised faithfully.

     I speak from personal experience in saying that relinqhishing control to someone with whom you disagree can be frustrating, distressing, exasperating.  But in a situation such as this, it is also necessary, and is a good discipline to learn.  If a moderator instructs you regarding your posts, follow the instruction.  These men can be approached through other channels to discuss anything not permitted in the public forum.  Before you even think about controlling your destiny, learn to control yourself.

God bless us all,
al Hartman

[summer007]

Shin,  Not to be too technical,  but Jacob was Married to Rachel. She's the one who stole the Family Idols, interesting. And when Laben catches up to them she's sitting on them lying to his face. And Jacob says the one who stole them will die, and she later dies in childbirth. And then Jacob ends up buried in the Family Seplecure with Leah the un-loved one. Don't forget when you mentioned David that he did have Uriah killed in battle. It always seemed like David would of just let Uriah think that was his child, and that would of been the end of it, but because he would'nt go down to visit his wife David felt he had no other choice but to have him killed. Interesting to me that Soloman is born of this union. and yes 700 wives and 300 concubines, I'm sure a few others that did'nt make it. Yet It does say his wives turned his heart away from the Lord. Wine and Harlotry take away the heart.(somewhere in I think chronicles) Proverbs 6 Six things the lord hates,Seven are an abomination to him...A proud look, A lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood....I wont type it all out because anyone from the assm probibly knows it all by heart... Just shows we've 'All sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God' and there is no one  Rightous no not one...I myself am on the Grace and Mercy Plan...I have a Story to tell you sometime of my Employer who was Gay...He was a Good Boss I was with him almost 3 years and ran his business one of the best jobs I ever had...Summer

[summer007]

Forgot to mention it is thought that King Cyrus was from the union of King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) and Queen Esther the one that helped bring back the captivity re: Ezra and Nehemiah. God does work in Mysterious Ways.

[shinchy]

Hi Summer
Concerning Jacob--oops! I am rusty on my OT and I looked it up too quickly. And Bathsheba's case is interesting. From what I understand, David tried to send Uriah home from his post so he would lie with his wife and believe the child was his. Somehow, I have the feeling the child would have had some give-away trait of David's. Nonetheless, Uriah refuses to leave his post so David resorted to that. Is Solomon one of the youngest of David's children?

These people's stories would make good plots for novels. Or tragedies in the style of the ancient Greeks. That's my perspective as a writer. When I taught creative writing last semester, I used an excerpt from the Song of Solomon to teach imagery in the poetry section. I also taught a couple of stories by Flannery O'Connor. Some of my students could not relate to any of that all (there is a lot of Christianity in her work). I also had some gay writers and poets in my curriculum and they didn't really connect with that either.

I'd like to hear about your boss sometimes.

Shin

Shin,  Not to be too technical,  but Jacob was Married to Rachel. She's the one who stole the Family Idols, interesting. And when Laben catches up to them she's sitting on them lying to his face. And Jacob says the one who stole them will die, and she later dies in childbirth. And then Jacob ends up buried in the Family Seplecure with Leah the un-loved one. Don't forget when you mentioned David that he did have Uriah killed in battle. It always seemed like David would of just let Uriah think that was his child, and that would of been the end of it, but because he would'nt go down to visit his wife David felt he had no other choice but to have him killed. Interesting to me that Soloman is born of this union. and yes 700 wives and 300 concubines, I'm sure a few others that did'nt make it. Yet It does say his wives turned his heart away from the Lord. Wine and Harlotry take away the heart.(somewhere in I think chronicles) Proverbs 6 Six things the lord hates,Seven are an abomination to him...A proud look, A lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood....I wont type it all out because anyone from the assm probibly knows it all by heart... Just shows we've 'All sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God' and there is no one  Rightous no not one...I myself am on the Grace and Mercy Plan...I have a Story to tell you sometime of my Employer who was Gay...He was a Good Boss I was with him almost 3 years and ran his business one of the best jobs I ever had...Summer

[M2]

Marcia -
...
But I do have to ask you one question not on these two topics.

Assuming FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION ONLY that homosexual impulses become sin when acted upon, would you not agree that the betrayal element of heterosexual adultery makes it far worse a sin than homosexuality acted upon with a single partner and non-promiscuously, i.e. a sin which when acted upon BETRAYS noone ?  This is why I find your simple equation of homosexuality and adultery so very odd - it eliminates entirely the difference between sins against one's self and sins against others (assuming, again, for the sake of discussion that acted-upon homosexuality is a sin against one's self because it keeps one from participating in Grace.)

Warning: this is a blunt answer.  Homosexuality is an abomination.  God created us male and female for a very good reason.  This is not just about not hurting another individual, rather it is an offense to the human race.  Even the animals do not have same-sex partners.  I know that many marriages have problems, but that is a separate issue from the homosexual one.

Marcia

[Oscar]

Marcia -
...
But I do have to ask you one question not on these two topics.

Assuming FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION ONLY that homosexual impulses become sin when acted upon, would you not agree that the betrayal element of heterosexual adultery makes it far worse a sin than homosexuality acted upon with a single partner and non-promiscuously, i.e. a sin which when acted upon BETRAYS noone ?  This is why I find your simple equation of homosexuality and adultery so very odd - it eliminates entirely the difference between sins against one's self and sins against others (assuming, again, for the sake of discussion that acted-upon homosexuality is a sin against one's self because it keeps one from participating in Grace.)

Warning: this is a blunt answer.  Homosexuality is an abomination.  God created us male and female for a very good reason.  This is not just about not hurting another individual, rather it is an offense to the human race.  Even the animals do not have same-sex partners.  I know that many marriages have problems, but that is a separate issue from the homosexual one.

Marcia

 Marcia.

Animals do have same sex partners sometimes.  Chimps and baboons do it at times.  Homosexuals sometimes attempt to argue that since chimps do it, it is normal primate behavior. And since people are primates too, it is normal human behavior.

When I encounter this I usually answer in three ways:

1. So you believe that whatever animals do should constitute morality for human beings?  How do you know this?

2. In primate societies the dominant male beats up all the other guys and has sex with all the females.  You feel that we should use baboons as our moral guides, so therefore in favor of all the females being forced to have sexual relations with the strongest male.  Would you vote for such a law?

3. Chimps and baboons occassionally murder and eat weak members of their groups.  Do you believe that we should do this as well?

For some reason they never bring this one up again.  

Thomas Maddux

[moonflower2]

Al,
I agree

  Having been personally acquainted with a number of homosexual individuals over the years, I can attest that there are those who definitely do NOT choose to define themselves by their sexual choices, just as there are promiscuous heterosexuals who do not define themselves by either their heterosexuality nor their promiscuity.  While the passage of time has made American homosexuals more open about discussing their orientations, many, perhaps most, appear to think of themselves in terms of  their individuality, their skills & talents, their enjoyments of arts, sports & other recreation, their politics, etc., while their sexual practices are personal & private as should befit the social sensitivities of any rational person.

I made that distinction in my post because, if one does not choose to identify themselves as gay, then it definitely makes it much easier to see them for who they are beyond that.  It is when someone makes their individuality based on the fact they engage in homosexual acts that I find it much harder to get beyond that and see the person God loves.

It is the same with heterosexual fornication.  I have a friend who at times has seemed to be defined by the number of girls he can bed.  It makes me sad, because I have to really look hard just to see the remnants of who he really is, instead of the testosterone infused predator that he seems to be.

Joseph

Joseph,
I appreciate your posts regarding homosexual behavior and promiscuous heterosexual behavior, but I find your choice of words "testosterone infused predator" to be rather offensive.  

It's hard to imagine that any man could be considered to be a "predator" in these days. Women just simply are not victims that are "preyed" upon by men; most are willing participants, if not "predators" themselves.

It's a shallow way of life, but there are many factors behind that kind of behavior, just as there are for homosexual behavior.

Moonflower2

[Joseph Reisinger]

moonflower,
I realize that there are many reasons for such promiscuous behaviour, but my words were chosen carefully and from specific examples.  I am glad you find it hard to imagine, perhaps you have other experiences or knowledge of examples that cause you to think otherwise.  However, while many situations exist where women have gone on the offensive, the man(men) I speak of are predators nonetheless.
you were offended?  I am sorry for offending you.  Are you male or female? just curious.  do you know me?  I wish I had some better reference by which to gauge where you were coming from.
Joseph

[moonflower2]

I'm a woman, not a predatory one.  

Testosterone is the difference between men and women, and the levels of such also make for differences in men.

Your choice of words, although descriptive, is derogatory.

[Joseph Reisinger]

Moonflower2,
please explain - i'm not sure i understand how my choice of words is derogatory.
Joseph

[Arthur]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/oukoe_crime_necrophilia

Arnold signed a bill to outlaw necrophilia.  The reason I put this link here in "Girlie-men" is to ask the question, "If gay is ok, then why not this?"

There were two instructors for the sex-ed classes at the local junior college I went to.  Both were gay, one was a man the other a woman.   The class I attended was taught by the gay man.  His philosophy was so amoral that he told the class that if some people want to include feces and urine in their sex we can't judge them.

See where no morals leads you?  Who in their right mind would eat their own poop--or have sex with a dead person?  Likewise neither would a sane person have sex with another person of the same sex--do you think one guy doing things which I'd rather not mention or think about with another guy is ok?  You're sick.  Homosexuality is as morally wrong as necrophilia, pedophilia and beastiality.

Arthur

[al Hartman]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/oukoe_crime_necrophilia

Arnold signed a bill to outlaw necrophilia.  The reason I put this link here in "Girlie-men" is to ask the question, "If gay is ok, then why not this?"

There were two instructors for the sex-ed classes at the local junior college I went to.  Both were gay, one was a man the other a woman.   The class I attended was taught by the gay man.  His philosophy was so amoral that he told the class that if some people want to include feces and urine in their sex we can't judge them.

See where no morals leads you?  Who in their right mind would eat their own poop--or have sex with a dead person?  Likewise neither would a sane person have sex with another person of the same sex--do you think one guy doing things which I'd rather not mention or think about with another guy is ok?  You're sick.  Homosexuality is as morally wrong as necrophilia, pedophilia and beastiality.

Arthur

Arthur,

     With all due respect, Brother, while I agree with your conclusions, you are spitting against the wind with your post...  See Matthew 7:6.

     The lost are already condemned; what good to torment them before the time?  Perhaps through love and prayer, some may be won into the kingdom... See Matthew 7:7-8.

God bless,
al

[outdeep]

I have a question that I have been entertaining of late that I was wondering what folks thought.

First, I think if you walk into any conservative, take-the-Bible-for-what-it-says church in America, most everyone in the room will affirm that homosexuality is a sin as with any other sin.  So, we don't need to keep beating that one to death.

Second, I don't want to get into the "is it psychological vs. choice vs. genetic" debate because there is no hard scientific evidence proving either way and if there were folks would continue to believe what they want to anyway.

Third, I think the church may be right concerning homosexuality, but is ultimately losing the argument.

So I began to wonder about a different tact.  It seems to me that homosexuality is a thirst for intimacy.  I'm not talking about kinky-weird stuff.  It is a desire for deep, human relationship that motivates us deep within our being to get married, have affairs, look at pornography, hang out at bars or visit prostitutes.  While many of these things I mention are illegitimate means to that end, this primal longing is much deeper and more powerful than intellectual arguments.

I am convinced that God in Christ has met my entire intellectual needs.  I have read many books on the subject and feel I have some grasp on a world view that, for the most part, works.  But does Christ meet our intimate needs as well?  Is God indeed the great lover of our soul?  Do we truly live that almost-sensual song we used to sing, "loved with everlasting love" where we are "pillowed on his loving breast?"   What do we have to offer the homosexual?  Does God offer a deep experience of intimacy that will transcend the broken cisterns?  Or is Christianity merely intellectual (don't do that because the Bible says so)?

----
Disclaimer:  This is not a response to any particular post.  I have been questioning the whole tact we take to gay marriage, homosexuality, etc. for some time now.

[M2]

Dave S, you said, "Does God offer a deep experience of intimacy that will transcend the broken cisterns?  Or is Christianity merely intellectual (don't do that because the Bible says so)?"

This is a good question re. any issue we face.  The churches that fail, fail when the Bible becomes a 'rule book' apart from reality with God.

Specifically re. homosexuality and adultery, they are sins that arise out of 'passion' and a desire for intimacy.  Passion fades in time and people find themselves entangled in an immoral relationship that they wish they had never gotten in to.  OR they keep the flames going and keep themselves entangled not caring for the harm and destruction it does to their lives and to those around them.  That is why the Bible as God's Word can keep us from wrong choices.  However, there is grace for the repentant sinner.

Arthur did raise an important point in that the gay 'teacher' will promote his bias in the way he presents the subject he is teaching.  I do not believe that churches should focus on addressing the homosexual issue, however the truth needs to be told, especially when asked.  The Christian who loves God will be sensitive yet truthful.  Sometimes the 'fire and brimstone' type message might actually help some poor sinner wake up from his reverie.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[vernecarty]

Specifically re. homosexuality and adultery, they are sins that arise out of 'passion' and a desire for intimacy.

Do they always? According to Romans 1 (and I realise that it does not say there are no other reasons), those who fall prey to the sin of homosexuality do so because of a rejection of the truth. The sense I get from the passage is that God removes His restraint and allows fallen human nature to take its desired course...
I strongly agree with you Marcia that we do need to excercise great wisdom as we tackle this issue. I am personally quite conflicted about the entire matter.
One almost gets the impression from reading Romans 1 that God is saying to leave this alone.  "God giving them up" is pretty terrifying to me but does that mean the believer takes the same posture?
Clearly we cannot entirely avoid the issue as we are all affected, and we have a responsibility to raise our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
Sadly, a Biblical perspective on this subject will today earn you the label of "hateful" or "homophobe".
As to Dave's question reagarding intimacy, God invented it!
Just read the song of songs.
As with every kind of sin, sexual sin is the perversion and or misuse of a God given faculty...

Verne