Strange, I would never want to be pitied by anyone.
I disagree profoundly. Feelings can and do change if you are willing to let them.
I'm not closed minded. I read and watch everything people post.
I can't imagine why you feel sorry for me. I have great friends, a lot of love in my heart for this world, and a great appreciation for who I am as a person.
I've pointed out exactly why we see things differently, but some people close their minds off to that which scares them.
It is typical that people who have misconceptions will see problems that don't exist.
If everyone was a Catholic priest, then there would be no future generations either. What is your point?
This is but a response to these statements to clear up any "misconceptions" regarding my feelings.
The word
"rather" is a word easily understood by those who try.
First example: "May I go to the movies tonight with my friends?" A simple question to most teenagers expecting it be alright to go by their Mom or Dad they would be asking. "I would
rather you didn't go tonight." A simple reply that states the parent's stance regarding the matter. Often this will lead to another question. This could be a simple "Why not". The simple answer could be something like "because it is a week night and you have school tomorrow. I haven't seen you do any homework, and your room is a mess. Ask me again over the weekend and maybe then I will let you go if your room is cleaned first."
Second example: "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but
rather that ye may prophesy." It gets into an explanation afterwards, but I do not feel the need to copy all that here. I stated "
rather" clearly with no obvious way to me anyone could have any misconceptions of what I meant when I said," I would
rather be pitied by Satya(who personally, in earlier words, basically stated he pitied people like me; thus, inferring he pitied me), than to be raised by Satya. This is not a personal attack on Satya, but a basic generalization based on what he said to show how I felt. The word
"rather"
is easily understood by most to be somewhat of a comparative word. If I stated I would
rather jump out of a two story building than stay in it and burn to death in a fire, one should not have the misconception I like jumping out of two story windows. I personally have a hard time believing someone here cannot understand the difference in this comparison being used. Please do not infer, out of context, that I would want to be pitied by anyone. It just is not true. Looking at what I said that way is a misconception.
I also would like to clarify I was incorrect in saying "our feelings are etched in stone". What I could have said much better and did not because I felt the conversation was more personal at the time (between myself and Satya) would be more on the lines of " Satya, I am not going to change my stance regarding my feelings on this matter. My feelings regarding this matter are grounded and rooted and will not change. Over the years I know my true feelings regarding this matter to be unmoveable and for the best interests of my self. Therefore, my feelings regarding this matter are etched in stone. I made an observation regarding Satya that his feelings regarding this issue are also etched in stone. I do not feel it a misconception.
Hence, "our feelings are etched in stone", in the context I used it in, should not be misconceived.
As for your statement that you are not close-minded and read or watch everything people post, I find that most likely to be true. You did try to use reason regarding that about my not watching a video you placed onto the thread as reason for your not watching or reading what I placed on the thread in another thread somewhere. I will not look at certain things. I am honest about it and also do not feel it anyone's right to question that. Maybe that is why you stated you pity people like me; which, in effect, states you pity me. The fact you pity me is my grounds for feeling sorry for you. I, like you, am surrounded by family and have friends. I have pets that love me and I love them, though I certainly would not want to love them in any unnatural way. I help care for my parents daily and my wife. I get blessed every day by doing so. I try and do what I can to help take care of them. The need is there and I have made myself available to do so. They come first in my life before that of myself. You can with my blessings contribute my Christian upbringing to that should you want to blame something in my life on Christianity. I feel I am doing what any good son or husband should do.
I sometimes question your pity for me. Why? I really cannot understand it. Sometimes when questioning it, it almost makes me feel as if you are merely trying to get me to lose my self-control and become either angry or maybe just throw my hands up and leave. If you were or even are expecting anger or loss of self-control from me, you did not get that; you will not get that; you shall not have that. You can blame my Christianity for that, too, should you like.
I have noticed over the years some people that have problems lash out at others to try and make themselves feel better or less miserable. I hope this is not the case with you. Puny remarks made to lash out against someone else's feelings and emotions to hide one's misconceptions is like unto a wounded dog. One may try to help a dog that has been hit by a car, only to be bitten by the same dog that would never naturally bite anyone.
"Closing one's mind off to that which scares them" is another puny remark regarding our conversation. It implies I am scared. I am rather seasoned than scared. I am like unto a piece of driftwood weathered by the sun and the waters; greyish in coloration, much of the outer shell gone with time. Someone to make such a statement, if it was aimed at me, reminds me of a new board that has fallen off a ship and has not even found its way to its final resting place; tossed about to and fro in the waters and the weather where I have once been long ago. Yes; I was there once.
Your inane way of using the word "misconceptions" is not an attack, but rather a shield for your own beliefs to make them sound alright to you. I do not take that word as being used offensively; maybe more defensively. I take no ill feelings toward your use of it and we therefore have nothing to discuss about it. I try to refrain from using words I could use regarding your stance; such as "misguided" and the likes. I see no profit in it when attempting to find truth. It only serves the user.
In an attempt to state the fact complete homosexuality in the world would have mankind or humankind end in a few generations, basically because they cannot procreate and indeed they are not made to, as it is unnatural: you threw a smokescreen at me with the use of a Catholic Priest. Most of these guys are celibate, and that was chosen to be not talked about regarding abstinance because of its religious connotations, and it has nothing to do with whatsoever homosexuality. My statement is easy enough for those without misconceptions
( may I use the word, too) to understand. Maybe I should elaborate. If all men were to have sex with just men(if you want to call it sex), and all women were to just have sex with women(if you want to call it sex), there would be no children. How difficult is that to understand?
Catholic Priests are far from the only people that have practiced celibacy in part of their life in an attempt to further understand things. Fasting is another way to seek wisdom from above. There are many ways. I feel certain enough priests would marry and have children should all men be Catholic Priests. That smokescreen was an attempt to make one look away from the truth that homosexuals cannot have children because it is unnatural. They were not born from it and they cannot have children from it.
I would like to end my "clearing up of things" with a disclaimer. I did not start this thread. I stepped into another one to show a friend was not alone in regards to the way he felt. Someone became so sensitive to that he felt the need to mediate. In the mediation, which I entered only because Christianity was the issue, homosexuality was brought up by Satya because of ONE statement I had said and now feel have explained to the best of my ability today. I may be able to better explain it at another time, but this is where it stands today.
I stand for the rights of children that cannot stand for themselves. Homosexuals can do what they choose in my opinion as long as it does not infringe on my space in this world. I do not care for it. Please do not turn this into anything but a disagreement.
Is it natural for a young man to walk into a church and want to have sex with every woman in there that looks good? Is it natural for him to do so? Is adultery natural? We could have a discussion on the differences of what is natural and what is moral, but where would that go?
I remember having seen many times a dog throw up, only to have the dog eat his own vomit.
Taking a video of that and placing it on the web would serve no purpose whatsover to me; it is only a dog returning to his own vomit.
