Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
What is the times coming to?


When have 'the times' ever been better and why?
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.


Has anything like this actually happened?  Yes they put chips in pets, but the chip is not 666 and pets do not carry out financial transactions.  Yes, money and goods can be micro-chipped for tracing, but that is not 666 and it is not the same as marking people with a number. Yes, people can be micro-chipped if they are loopy enough to desire such a thing, but hardly anyone does; most people don't like the idea, and it is still not 666 and it is not required for trade.

You do know that the clip in the middle of the first video and the clip from Demolition Man at the end, and the two last video clips are all fiction, don't you?

This is rubbish.  Sure, we have the technology to implant a chip or code in people with the number 666 which is the only means by which people can carry out transactions, but this hasn't happened, neither is it likely to happen, after all people aren't exactly unaware of the prophecy; to implement it would be political suicide.
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
So I was not implying that the films were correct. Even I can see they have a long way to go before convincing anyone of that.


You posted the video clip, which as far as I can see attempts to make a connection between micro-chipping of pets, money, goods and people and the prophecy in Rev 13:17-18. I think there is no such connection, and you seem to agree with me. If you agree with me, why did you post the clip?

Quote:
I asked in changes were being implemented for the end times?


What changes?  If you mean the micro-chipping of pets, goods and some eccentric people then no, I don't think these things have anything to do with 'end times'; why should they?
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
Did you watch all of the first video where the man and woman were chipped?

Yes, I watched it. I don't know why the couple wanted to be chipped, but it seemed to be for security (and probably just for novelty) rather than for trade; the idea is neither popular nor widespread. As I said, technology makes a lot of things possible, but possible it not the same as desirable, sensible or economic.  I may be wrong, but I don't think the practice will catch on.
Quote:

The use of the cards so eventually not money transactions, all done by card?


Yes, that's quite likely I suppose, unless world economy crashes and we have to go back to bartering using goats,  which isn't exactly impossible.  I don't see what this has to do with Rev 13:17-18 and the so called 'end times' though.  Money is just a symbol; a metal token or a piece of paper, it has no value in itself. So what if that token evolves into a card?  That's still nothing to do with “a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name”.  How is a card closer to this prophecy than traditional money is?  People didn't used to be able to buy or sell without the metal token or the paper note; how is that different from the plastic card?  It's all just tokens and symbols representing value, that's a monetary system for you; it's not new, it's been around a long time.
Leonard James

What a lot of nonsense. There is no such thing as "end times".
Farmer Geddon

Oh yes there is Len - it's called death!
Leonard James

Lucifers Duck wrote:
Oh yes there is Len - it's called death!

I'm sure that's not exactly what "end times" was meant to imply. Death has been around every since life began, so that would mean "end times" could equally be called "beginning times".  
Farmer Geddon

True True...  I'm sure maggots, bacteria ect bless death!!
Leonard James

Lucifers Duck wrote:
True True...  I'm sure maggots, bacteria ect bless death!!

Death is absolutely indispensable. If nothing had ever died, the earth would now be a dense ball of writhing life ... not a pretty prospect!
Dave B

Leonard James wrote:
Lucifers Duck wrote:
True True...  I'm sure maggots, bacteria ect bless death!!

Death is absolutely indispensable. If nothing had ever died, the earth would now be a dense ball of writhing life ... not a pretty prospect!
Don't worry about the mass of writhing life, worry about the hundreds of miles thick (and growing) layer of crap that all that life would produce!
Leonard James

Dave B wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Lucifers Duck wrote:
True True...  I'm sure maggots, bacteria ect bless death!!

Death is absolutely indispensable. If nothing had ever died, the earth would now be a dense ball of writhing life ... not a pretty prospect!
Don't worry about the mass of writhing life, worry about the hundreds of miles thick (and growing) layer of crap that all that life would produce!

You say the sweetest thing, baby!  
Dave B

Actually I suppose life would have developed to live entirely on the crap of one level above - gotta build all those bodies out of something.

The final stage might be something that turns it all back into oxygen, nitrogen and carbon again.
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
The difference between Christians and atheists.


What is the difference between Christians and atheists?  I mean I know what the difference is, but what are you saying here?  That we are all dead inside?  That's nice sentiment.
Dave B

Thanks. Lynne, excellent link - brought back good memories  
Leonard James

Judders Lady... wrote:
Lucifers Duck wrote:
Oh yes there is Len - it's called death!


To some it is a... living death.

They kill themselves off from the inside because others have hurt them or fear of being hurt, so exist as a shell. Filling their hours with anything to fulfill their lives.
To all intents and purposes they still move and breath, they are just dead to everything else. The difference between Christians and atheists.

Zombies, probably give and take more than these people do.
It is just so obvious like living with a dead person almost.

The true difference between Christians and atheists, my dear girl, is that atheists live in the real world, Christians live in a dream world filled with colourful, fictitious characters whom they believe really exist.

God, Satan, saints, angels and evil spirits, and then everlasting life in heaven thrown in for good measure! It never ceases to astonish me that they can kid themselves it is all true.
Dave B

Judders Lady... wrote:
Lucifers Duck wrote:
Oh yes there is Len - it's called death!


To some it is a... living death.

They kill themselves off from the inside because others have hurt them or fear of being hurt, so exist as a shell. Filling their hours with anything to fulfill their lives.
To all intents and purposes they still move and breath, they are just dead to everything else. The difference between Christians and atheists.

Zombies, probably give and take more than these people do.
It is just so obvious like living with a dead person almost.

Love Jl.xx

Some of those "damaged" people also join the churches, and it does not always work for them. I know, I have met some, despite all their praying and singing and professing their faith they are just as damaged inside.

I have also met people, much as you describe, who do a multitude of small actions, every day, to try to make the world a slightly better place. They do not need religion to motivate them, they just realise that the world needs balance and it is up to all of us, believers and unbelievers, to provide this because there is no-one else capable of doing it.

Whatever you put your motivation down to is totally irrelevant, so long as the end result is the same.
Pukon_the_Treen

Lynne,

Quote:
Are the atheist alive to God?

You must know what the bible teaches, surely?
And if you do, why the false indignation?


I'm not indignant, I'm laughing at you because your point of view is so typically morally flawed.

I don't really care if we are 'alive to God' because I don't believe God exists.  If you, as a human, say that to you certain other groups of humans are 'dead inside' because they don't share your beliefs then I think that's a pretty unhealthy concept.

When we start labelling other groups of people as less than human, deficient and 'dead' then we are dehumanising them, making them 'other'. By those age-old means you can create the justification for murdering, subjugating, enslaving and tyrannising them; “oh they aren't real humans, they are dead inside”.

When you use this kind of reasoning you join those who used the same ideas to justify enslaving the Africans and exterminating the Jews. How does it feel to be in their company?
Spengler

In response to:

The true difference between Christians and atheists, my dear girl, is that atheists live in the real world, Christians live in a dream world filled with colourful, fictitious characters whom they believe really exist.

God, Satan, saints, angels and evil spirits, and then everlasting life in heaven thrown in for good measure! It never ceases to astonish me that they can kid themselves it is all true.


Firstly I would say that Christians believe that these entities exist, but Atheists, they interact with these entities (the evil ones) and this explains the extent to which
1) they are content to disbelieve in God because they are receiving some form of spiritual satisfaction, but not the spirituality that they should be receiving (they live in a dream world that exists in a real one). They are the ones who live in a world of fantasy, like Alice in Wonderland for example.
2) that they are deceived and hardened in heart to believe in God. They don't want to leave that dreamy world in exchange for a boring real story written by God who wants to take them out of dreamy wonderland and place their extistence into the context of the real story.

In short, they are arrogant in heart and time wasters.

An atheist is not an atheist because they don't happen to believe in a God. Rather, they are an atheist because, they have firmly acknowledged that there is a God, but that they themselves have the right to refuse in him and spend the rest of their lives working against him to prove their point. All the while, they are actually serving all those negative biblical characters, Satan, Angles (fallen ones) etc.. whilst receiving all the earthly gifts such service provides, but yet, pretending it's not really happening HAHA [/quote]
Pukon_the_Treen

Strange idea. Utter bollocks of course, but quite funny.
Leonard James

Judders Lady... wrote:
To be perfectly honest, the only thing that has kept my faith going is my relationship with God.

Which I believe is auto-generated.
Dave B

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Strange idea. Utter bollocks of course, but quite funny.
Seconded.

Spiritual peace and fulfilment can be the product of the contemplation of nature, the appreciation - or even practice - of the arts, the love of another person and many other things.

Do I need belief in a supernatural entity, of any polarity, to do these things?

Not in my lifetime experience.
Pukon_the_Treen

But we atheists believe God exists, we just choose not to, in order to consort with demons and reap the rewards thereof.  Classic.  How do you choose not to believe in something?
Leonard James

Spangler wrote:
In response to:

The true difference between Christians and atheists, my dear girl, is that atheists live in the real world, Christians live in a dream world filled with colourful, fictitious characters whom they believe really exist.

God, Satan, saints, angels and evil spirits, and then everlasting life in heaven thrown in for good measure! It never ceases to astonish me that they can kid themselves it is all true.


Firstly I would say that Christians believe that these entities exist, but Atheists, they interact with these entities (the evil ones) and this explains the extent to which
1) they are content to disbelieve in God because they are receiving some form of spiritual satisfaction, but not the spirituality that they should be receiving (they live in a dream world that exists in a real one). They are the ones who live in a world of fantasy, like Alice in Wonderland for example.
2) that they are deceived and hardened in heart to believe in God. They don't want to leave that dreamy world in exchange for a boring real story written by God who wants to take them out of dreamy wonderland and place their extistence into the context of the real story.

In short, they are arrogant in heart and time wasters.

An atheist is not an atheist because they don't happen to believe in a God. Rather, they are an atheist because, they have firmly acknowledged that there is a God, but that they themselves have the right to refuse in him and spend the rest of their lives working against him to prove their point. All the while, they are actually serving all those negative biblical characters, Satan, Angles (fallen ones) etc.. whilst receiving all the earthly gifts such service provides, but yet, pretending it's not really happening HAHA

Oh dearie me! There isn't much I can say in response to such rubbish.

However, I will just point out that I was once a devout Christian who accepted God into his life and loved and served him ... until my ability to reason matured enough to see through the whole silly con.
Pukon_the_Treen

Yeah, that settles, it; the creature is just a Lynne-clone or similar, trying to be provocative, with a fake picture he / she has found online.  I had my doubts from the first.
Dave B

Looks like a nice boy though.
Pukon_the_Treen

Ahh, look at her getting stroppy, trying to get attention and stir up trouble. What a sour little toerag.
Spengler

Thanks Lenny

You have proved my point. But my question would be, if what you said was true, and you once had a genuine faith in God, how could you have abandoned it? If you have faith in God, which must come from God, how can you stop believing in it? Even more worrying, if you once genuinely had some comfort in believing in God, what comfort or hope do you now have?

I am not a clone of anyone Pukon, these are my own thoughts. I am not here for confrontation, although my email may have seemed that way. I do find however, christian or not, atheists are quite dangerous people. They do everything people hate about Christians do, they project their opinions and force them down people's throats.  
Spengler

Anti-Bullying Campaign

Come now Treen, let us maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect, and not fall into a culture of bullying!
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
So as far as I am concerned I have every right to tell you that you are a dipstick.


You have every right to call me whatever you like, I don't mind a bit; sticks and stones etc.  I still think it's funny, all this stropping and stirring you go in for and calling people stupid; it's all very childish.

Ok, I may be wrong about spangler, and if I am I apologise to him.  I have no idea really if he is a sock puppet of yours, one of the other suspiciously similar characters that pop up from time to time or a brand new character.

Quote:
I am not here for confrontation, although my email may have seemed that way. I do find however, christian or not, atheists are quite dangerous people. They do everything people hate about Christians do, they project their opinions and force them down people's throats.


Atheists don't believe in God.  I may be wrong not to believe in god, but to date I have not seen anything to persuade me that God exists, so I continue not to believe in Him. This takes no effort of will, no act of denial, I just have heard the theory and decided I don't believe it, much like I heard about crop circles being aliens trying communicate with us and decided I didn't believe that.  As far as I can tell, not believing in God does not make me any different in behaviour from any other human being, I still have to make the same moral choices that everyone else has to make, and deal with the same emotions and situations.  I am not aware of receiving any unique earthy gifts from Satan and his demons.
Leonard James

Spangler wrote:
Thanks Lenny

You have proved my point.  

Only in yur own mind!  
Quote:
But my question would be, if what you said was true, and you once had a genuine faith in God, how could you have abandoned it?

I didn't abandon it, my ability to reason eroded it.
Quote:
If you have faith in God, which must come from God, how can you stop believing in it?

No my dear, faith is something generated in yourself. People have always had faith in all kinds of different gods ... surely you are not suggesting that their faith came from the gods they believed in?
Quote:
Even more worrying, if you once genuinely had some comfort in believing in God, what comfort or hope do you now have?

I assure you there is an enormous comfort derived from knowing where you stand in this life without having to wrap yourself in cosy beliefs of another one.

My hope lies in the ability of humanity to finally rid itself of daft superstitions.

Next question?
Leonard James

Back to St Trinian's, Lynne!  
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
What you mean is that your embarrassed for opening your mouth and showing that your brain wasn't in gear


No Lynne, that isn't what I mean. I still have my suspicions but I don't really care one way or the other.  Everyone can pretend to be whoever they like, that's the beauty of the internet I suppose.

I still think your behaviour is childish. I don't mind arguing with people, it's fun, even when that arguing gets personal, but you don't offer genuine criticism, you just fall back on straightforward playground insults (“idiot, ass, dipstick”); I've honestly never heard an adult talk like this in real life.  You also try to stir up trouble as soon as possible; rather than just attacking me you immediately try to involve other people, LD and SV in this case; what's that about?  “So and so says they don't like you either” I mean really; it's incredible to see an apparent adult trying to employ such tactics - incredible and very funny.
Spengler

Hi Lenny
Ok that's fine. Well from my own experience, my faith came from God coming into my life (un-invited but very much needed) and my willingness to receive his hand of friendship (step of faith).

What I am trying to acsertain is whether you ever had any personal experience of God being real. I'm not referring to drawing conclusions from what we read, but from what we experience, and consequently, how we put what we experience into perspective using written material. When I first experienced God in 1996, I had no doubt that it was God of the bible. I could have decided to find more information in the Quran or Torah or other scriptures, however, I knew the God I was experiencing was the God of the bible. I needed no confirmation of this, it was more than obvious and there was and never has been any doubt since.

PukonI really think it is a waste of energy to launch attacks and prolong them. You wont win, you will just get tired. I would suggest that you invest your talent into more creative writing.
  [/u]
Pukon_the_Treen

It isn't about winning sunshine; there is no victory on the internet, it's just about taking part.
Leonard James

Spangler wrote:
What I am trying to acsertain is whether you ever had any personal experience of God being real.

Yes, of course. I felt his presence, warmth and guidance on many occasions in my life.

It was only later that I realised the experiences were simply auto-suggestion.
Spengler

Oh Leonard,

That was a lovely thing to say. How can those things possibly be Auto-Suggestion?  It's a taste of what is to come Lenny. God Bless you again. I will be praying for you and your wife you can be sure.

Spanny
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
But what she says is true, isn;t it.

Very seldom. Maybe once or twice by accident.

Quote:
You are just trying to reflect your own guilt onto a third party.

Guilt; what do you imagine I'm guilty of?  I think the 'guy' was probably some kind of sock puppet for someone already registered. I may be wrong, I may be right. Who cares?

Quote:
FFS shut up.

You see the irony of telling someone to shut up on an internet forum is that you pretty much guarantee that they will respond, whereas if you had not chimed in with your erudite little tuppence, then the discussion probably would have ended there.
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
Since when did you get a wife?  
Well now I know it isn't Lynne

Nonsense, the creature was getting clumsy; that was a deliberate effort to demonstrate that he / she knows nothing about LJ, but it jarred as it is such an unlikely thing to say to a 'stranger'.
Leonard James

Spengler wrote:
Oh Leonard,

That was a lovely thing to say. How can those things possibly be Auto-Suggestion?  It's a taste of what is to come Lenny. God Bless you again. I will be praying for you and your wife you can be sure.

Spanny

Erm, it's husband actually.
Dave B

(Wonderin' how you would handle that one Len   )
Pukon_the_Treen

Come on! No stranger would say “I'll pray for you and your wife” just out of the blue; it was a deliberately contrived line by this individual to try to demonstrate that he / she doesn't know young Leonardo's sexuality and is thus new to the forum, when in fact he / she already does, on account of being a sock puppet.
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
You are so desperate. Come on Admin check my ip address and tell them I am no one else.


Desperate?  I think the guy is probably a sock puppet, and I think this contrived “I will pray for you and your wife” comment is indicative of that.  It might not necessarily be your sock puppet (actually he seems a bit clumsy to be one of yours), it could be anyone's; I really don't care either way, I just watch with amused interest.  In any case, there are ways around the IP address.
Spengler

The creature

No Puke - I is not a creature

In an earlier post Len said he once was a believer and his family and wife I thought he'd said. It's there somewhere unless I've read it wrong.

 
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
No Puke - I is not a creature


We are all creatures, I'm just unsure of your gender.  Oh, all right, I'll stop implying that you are a sock puppet, regardless of my suspicions.  I promise I won't mention it again.
Farmer Geddon

See I told you we had already met Spangly....
Lexilogio

Judders Lady... wrote:



You are so desperate. Come on Admin check my ip address and tell them I am no one else.

Love Lynne.xx


Interestingly your IP address is one which constantly changes - as if the connection is lost / stopped, and re-established.

This also happens to Sam Harris, and to Spengler.

It does not happen to Rick - whose posts are consistently from the same IP.
Leonard James

Re: The creature

Spengler wrote:
No Puke - I is not a creature

In an earlier post Len said he once was a believer and his family and wife I thought he'd said. It's there somewhere unless I've read it wrong.

 

I have never referred to my partner as my wife, and if ever I have mentioned my family I would have meant my parents and siblings.
Ketty

Lenny, the MO is very familiar - same tactic was used with me too; totally fabricated 'facts' supposedly taken from things I was supposed to have written.      

Isn't it a full moon this week?
Leonard James

Morning Lynne,

I have been with Hugh for 50 years, which I mentioned recently, and I have certainly not removed the post.

We got married a couple of years ago simply because our solicitor advised it to avoid possible unfair inheritance tax laws when either of us dies.

I am mildly surprised that God didn't tell you these facts, and I am sure that Dave B is falling about with laughter at your "wonderings".

Incidentally, my conscience is fine, and a lot more active than many people's.
Spengler

Ok Lenny,

This is like Crown Court where all transcripts are recorded.

Yes, I knew you'd referred to being in a relationship for 50 years, which, I assumed was a marriage. My mistake was to make that assumption, but it was based upon something you'd written.

It really isn't a big deal is it everyone?
Spengler

Lexi,

All the posts I've made have been from the same computer, so I cannot see how the IP address has changed each time?

Furthermore, I am a little worried that you have taken the step to make an investigation like that?

Why are people acting so suspicious? What are you afraid of? This is only a forum. Anybody could be posting anything from anywhere, why does it really matter?
Leonard James

Judders Lady... wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Morning Lynne,

I have been with Hugh for 50 years, which I mentioned recently, and I have certainly not removed the post.

We got married a couple of years ago simply because our solicitor advised it to avoid possible unfair inheritance tax laws when either of us dies.

I am mildly surprised that God didn't tell you these facts, and I am sure that Dave B is falling about with laughter at your "wonderings".

Incidentally, my conscience is fine, and a lot more active than many people's.


This clears the matter up...

I note you do as all men do when you tell them something or ask them something.  They automatically add to it...

You said...



I am mildly surprised that God didn't tell you these facts, and I am sure that Dave B is falling about with laughter at your "wonderings".


You said the other day that you always try to be honest.
Why would God need to tell me that Hugh was not Dave?
Do you suggest I should have believed the worst of you?
I figured that out all by myself because I chose to trust in the things I thought I knew about you.  If you were as honest as you profess, then why would you be telling your partner what he would already know...
:smt090

You show that in reality you mock me and believe the worst of me.
If you really believe as you say,"No one can know if there is a God" but you haven't yet found proof to your own satisfaction to say there is. You have said many times that you believe my faith is sincere and yet you mock me?
If you sincerely believe my faith to be sincere then why not do as I did with you and treat me with the benefit of that?


I recently told someone what God had told me would happen, had come true. I never told this person anything beyond that which God had said would happen which already had. They then started acting very strangely.
What God had said would happen had already happened, nothing they did now would change that. No matter how they behave what has happened cannot be changed. And nothing they did from then on could affect it, either.

I am saddened Leonard, I feel you have shown that you are not as sincere as you make out to be, when it comes to believing the best of me.
You said many times you believed my faith to be sincere. Does that belief look sincere when you mock me for it?:smt090
Actions speak louder than words... I never voiced my opinions at the time and I did not need to ask God that which I deemed to be able to know for myself, simply by believing the good about you.

I chose to believe that you would never be dishonest in that way.
I showed I sincerely believed the best about you. Would have been nice had you been able to return it and show your own sincerity.
Whilst you say you try personally to be honest about yourself. You do not believe that about me, do you. even though you stated many times you believed me to be sincere?

Love Lynne.xx

Of course I believe you're sincere, Lynne. I know that you believe God exists and that he talks to you, but you also know that I am amused by it, and think it is all autosuggestion, so my posts shouldn't surprise or sadden you.

If I have offended you, I'm sorry, but I'm a tad old to change my ways now.

Love,
Leonard.
Dave B

Leonard James wrote:
Morning Lynne, . . .

I am mildly surprised that God didn't tell you these facts, and I am sure that Dave B is falling about with laughter at your "wonderings".

Incidentally, my conscience is fine, and a lot more active than many people's.


I seem to have missed some posts here somewhere  

Never mind.

Not falling about with laughter, I consider Lynne's beliefs far too serious a matter for that kind of lol-ing.

Something about me being a "sweetie"? A gay fellow student once called me (at age 60) a tease and a tart - I took it as a kind of back-handed compliment! There was been once in my life when my knees went wobbly when a young man smiled at me, but I am not bothered by such things these days - I just appreciate the aesthetics of beauty in others, regardless of age, gender or colour.
Leonard James

Hi Dave,

Lynne said that she had wondered if you were my partner, and as I assume you are hetero I thought you would find that highly amusing.
Dave B

Leonard James wrote:
Hi Dave,

Lynne said that she had wondered if you were my partner, and as I assume you are hetero I thought you would find that highly amusing.
Hmmm, interesting.

Though never batted on the other side of the wicket I have entertained the idea that I might be at least bi.

Back in my RAF and climbing days, when close emotional relationships were common if not voiced as such, when your life depended on how important you were to the other guy brotherly love was a strong bond. The divide between that and other kinds of love was tenuous, but in my day you repressed it. But I cried in private when my best buddy was posted away . . .

When it comes to the basics, leaving out the physical side, love is love and ever more shall be so - gender is irrelevant IMHO.
Leonard James

Dave B wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Hi Dave,

Lynne said that she had wondered if you were my partner, and as I assume you are hetero I thought you would find that highly amusing.
Hmmm, interesting.

Though never batted on the other side of the wicket I have entertained the idea that I might be at least bi.

Back in my RAF and climbing days, when close emotional relationships were common if not voiced as such, when your life depended on how important you were to the other guy brotherly love was a strong bond. The divide between that and other kinds of love was tenuous, but in my day you repressed it. But I cried in private when my best buddy was posted away . . .

When it comes to the basics, leaving out the physical side, love is love and ever more shall be so - gender is irrelevant IMHO.

I am of the firm opinion that nobody is 100% one way or the other ... it's a sliding scale depending on your nature/nurture.
Dave B

Leonard James wrote:
Dave B wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Hi Dave,

Lynne said that she had wondered if you were my partner, and as I assume you are hetero I thought you would find that highly amusing.
Hmmm, interesting.

Though never batted on the other side of the wicket I have entertained the idea that I might be at least bi.

Back in my RAF and climbing days, when close emotional relationships were common if not voiced as such, when your life depended on how important you were to the other guy brotherly love was a strong bond. The divide between that and other kinds of love was tenuous, but in my day you repressed it. But I cried in private when my best buddy was posted away . . .

When it comes to the basics, leaving out the physical side, love is love and ever more shall be so - gender is irrelevant IMHO.

I am of the firm opinion that nobody is 100% one way or the other ... it's a sliding scale depending on your nature/nurture.
And, to a degree, circumstances and opportunity. One could be a frustrated whatever without even admitting it to oneself if life's circumstances get in the way.

Now, was it in "My Beautiful Laundrette" that the racist, leather jacketed, gang leader when confronted face to face with the Pakistani laundry owner, realised he actually loved him? OK, fictional story, but it had the right mix of ingredients. Good film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091578/
Leonard James

Haven't seen the film, Dave, but sexuality is an interesting subject, and as you say, circumstances can be very conducive to straight men indulging in gay activity.
Spengler

[b]Dave B Wrote:Back in my RAF and climbing days, when close emotional relationships were common if not voiced as such, when your life depended on how important you were to the other guy brotherly love was a strong bond. The divide between that and other kinds of love was tenuous, but in my day you repressed it. But I cried in private when my best buddy was posted away[/b]

I am also gay. I had a friend at school who I adored, but I was not in love with. I loved him as a friend, despite being gay, my love was not sexual attraction. I knew he was straight (possibly bi), but, I also knew he loved me in the same way I was loving him. It was a male bond, a friendship love, which, is possible for gay men also to have with straight men. I never expected any more from him other than pure friendship that we had, although I think he thought I did.

As someone who is gay, and gay people will understand this, we don't actually pursue relationships with straight men. We seldom pursue them at all because of the pressures that are against gay men being in a loving relationship. We don't pursue relationships we know are futile. I should use the word I. I don't. I can admire beauty and good looks in any person, man or woman, but that doesn't mean I want to jump into bed with them.

Beyond simple curiosity and experimentation, if a man has sex with another man, then he isn't straight. I don't care what anyone says. He is either bi or gay or transgender. Most people will experiment in life, whether with same sex or opposite sex. This is part of finding out who you are, but, usually, people know where there sexaulity is polarised.

The main point of what I'm saying here today is that people can have a deep love for one another that is not a partnership love. I knew that I would never have this person as my partner, and I never wanted it that way anyway. I still loved this person because he was a fantastic friend and a lot of fun, and I know he felt the same about me. He was one of the few people who was hung up on the fact because he was sure of his own sexuality and respected me enough not to turn it into something that looked like it was wrong. I would suspect that he might be bi, but that still wouldn't have brought us together. Can you understand what I'm saying.

Same sexuality doesn't mean that people will jump straight into bed with one another. Admiration of another does not mean that you have to have sex with them. I admire Matt Damon but I know I'm never gonna be in his bed and if he were in front of me I wouldn't be putting pressure on him to have sex with me. I admire Ellen Denegres, Opera Winfrey, Whitney Houston, but I would never be in bed with any of these people.

Friendship is one of the greatest gifts we have, because it doesn't involve intimacy. You have dignity in friendship. In relationships, that's far more difficult. Both involve love but the love is a different type of love. From the experience I mentioned earlier, my love for my friend was so strong I would have died in his place, but I was not in love with him.
Dave B

Leonard James wrote:
Haven't seen the film, Dave, but sexuality is an interesting subject, and as you say, circumstances can be very conducive to straight men indulging in gay activity.
Where does one draw the line, Len?

When does a "straight man" indulging in gay activity become a "gay man" I wonder? Though, for some reason, the straight man indulging in "gay sex" on occasion seems, to be, less strange than the gay man indulging in straight sex.

Or is bisexuality, in the sense of indulging in purely physical experiences without emotional bonds, actually more prolific than we think?
Dave B

Dave B Wrote:Back in my RAF and climbing days, when close emotional relationships were common if not voiced as such, when your life depended on how important you were to the other guy brotherly love was a strong bond. The divide between that and other kinds of love was tenuous, but in my day you repressed it. But I cried in private when my best buddy was posted away

I am also gay. . . .

Er, I didn't actually say that I was gay Spengler, just implying that sexuality is not always as sharply delineated as some might think.

This has been the subject of several films in the last decade or so - in an age when that blurriness is becoming to be seen as not something to be feared.

Well, there are those who will be afraid of it and probably feel that they need to beat up all the softies just to prove how virile and masculine they are . . .

On an angle to this subject: some months ago I went back onto the Beeb boards after about a year of not forumming at all. Some mischievous part of me decided on a new pseudonym from my previous "Humanist". It was "Sue Donimm".

I found that it actually altered my approach to certain things, I felt more prone to conciliation, happier to get other to explain things I did not understand rather than jumping down their throats.

Not quite a total change of character though, one poster, an American, was obviously a good style monitor and recognised mine after a whole year!

I had to admit who I was in the end and felt really bad because that disappointed another male poster who seemed to have developed a crush on Sue! Had I known that would happen I would never have tried the prank.
T8-eh-T8

It is a curious phenomenon and one which is symptomatic of the occidental drive to categorise and define all things, in order that they be understood. A bit like disecting a rabbit to find out how it's heart works, and therefore killing the bunny in the process.

It applies across the board and across history. Theologically it accounts for the seemingly threadbare ability of Latin to describe rich and sophisticated Greek concepts.

I tend to lean toward the Greco understanding of sexuality as well. To our eyes it may seem as if homosexuality was not only around in Ancient Greece, but it was practically mandatory. In reality there just wasn;t the need or drive to classify sexuality into little boxes. Sex was just sex and desire was desire. I have long thought that indeed we are none of us hetrosexual or homosexual, in the narrow sense of the terms. Moreover we are, most of us, simply sexual. Perhaps bi-sexual is a term which would suffice, but I do not want to get bogged down in description.

Some may have a strong leaning for same sex attraction, some for opposite sex, and a whole spectrum in between. This may even change through different periods of our lives. it is common knowledge that otherwise straight people will practice homosexuality when they are in a single sex environment, say prison or navy. And then return to hetrosexual practice when they are in a mixed environment.

Some people have no great sexual urge at all. Quite happy to go through life with no form of sexual expression required.

In short, I am more comfortable with the Ancient Greek ability to accept sexuality rather than start classifying it, moreover start claiming that some is right and some is wrong. And yet perhaps I am a child of my generation, that tolerance has lead to indifference. I have always been rather flattered by advances from other men, albeit not somethign I have persued, and as Spengler points out, where my gay friends know I am straight that boundry is not crossed as it were. Mind you I am a married man now, so I get propositioned far less often than I did in my heady days of youth.  
Ketty

I don't see the need to define anyone by their sexuality, plus I don't see the need to declare it.  
Leonard James

Ketty wrote:
I don't see the need to define anyone by their sexuality, plus I don't see the need to declare it.  

If you fancy somebody, knowing their sexual inclinations can avoid embarrassment.
Lexilogio

Spengler wrote:
Lexi,

All the posts I've made have been from the same computer, so I cannot see how the IP address has changed each time?

Furthermore, I am a little worried that you have taken the step to make an investigation like that?

Why are people acting so suspicious? What are you afraid of? This is only a forum. Anybody could be posting anything from anywhere, why does it really matter?


I'm not some kind of weird person checking up where everyone lives - if that's what you are worried about.

Sock puppets (signing on as more than one person) is against the rules of this forum. Where a suggestion has been made, I check it out. Sometimes I'm able to rule it out - and hopefully (but not always) stop the rumours.

However, this isn't always possible. Some IP addresses fluctuate. It could be this happens if routers drop the signal for example.
Farmer Geddon

Just out of curiosity Lexi does my IP addy fluctuate?

I use a 'dongle' and a static/router broadband connection, depending on where I use my lap-top...  so must have two different ways/proxy servers when I connect to t'net..
Spengler

Hi everyone,

Thank you for your posts. It is interesting to see the responses and how they vary from person to person.

I myself think that it is better to be honest to others about myself, who and what I am, and I have always held this view. I am 37 (last week) and I have been 'Out' for 20 years.

I came out to my mother when I was 17. I felt I had to because lying and pretending to have girlfriends was not sustainable, there were inevitably cracks emerging in the lies. I am not a rebellious or defiant person, but, when it comes to being gay, I am not going to make excuses for it, not going to accept I am wrong or guilty, I do not even accept that being gay is a sin. If I met a man and fell in love then I would have a relationship with that person no matter.

Ketty, I appreciate your point of view and I'm not going to attack you for it. However, I do feel that it is important for gay men to 'come out' when they feel comfortable to do so. By doing so, gay's lesbians and transgender people are addressing the misconceptions that people have about them, they are making a stand against homophobia and all the negative social exclusion and violence that brings against them, and they are making a justifiable claim for an equal right to love, to work, to be accepted by society irrespective of their difference. On the other hand, I do acknowledge that some gays do offend others and do promote a lifestyle that isn't necessarily safe. This is a fact of life. You will get good and bad people whatever their sexuality and the gay community is no different to any other in this respect. Nonetheless, it is important for gay people to be able to love and be loved in life and have access to the same opporunities as non gays, and in order to achieve that, it is necessary to educate non-gays what being gay really means, and to create a positive role models for gay children who are struggling with their sexuality and position in society. There is a higher rate of depression, suicide, bullying, violence and harassment against gay people than average and it has to stop. This is an issue that needs to be discussed. What I would like to say to any person, straight, christian, atheist or whatever, is that, gay people are gay and there is nothing that can change it so for the sake of being fair, just accept it.
Leonard James

Well said, Spengler. I think society is slowly realising the truth of what you say, but it will still be a long time before the bigots disappear.
T8-eh-T8

Quote:
I felt I had to because lying and pretending to have girlfriends was not sustainable, there were inevitably cracks emerging




<snigger>

Quote:
it is necessary to educate non-gays what being gay really means, and to create a positive role models for gay children who are struggling with their sexuality and position in society


One of the things which I like about Dr Who/Torchwood is the acknowledgement of homosexuality, and in the case of Cap'n Jack - omnisexuality. It is the first high profile programme I can think of which has a hero who is openly gay. Certainly the first which is aimed at children. Yet to my mind nobody has thought anything wrong with this, I'd have at least expected certain newspapers to have whined a bit. Mind you I never read those papers so maybe they did.
Spengler

[quote]It is the first high profile programme I can think of which has a hero who is openly gay. Certainly the first which is aimed at children. Yet to my mind nobody has thought anything wrong with this, I'd have at least expected certain newspapers to have whined a bit[/quote]


What exactly is wrong with having an openly gay character playing Dr Who? I don't get what your point is because it is so veiled. perhaps you could spit it out instead of hiding behind the 'Im hoping the newspapers will write an article of being out-raged that someone gay is on a programme which incidentally, is not aimed at children.
Spengler

Yes but the point he was making Lynne was still the same.

He was saying that he's surprised the newspapers haven't ran a few stories about 'an openly gay man taking the lead role in a programme aimed at children'. I think it is clear what can be inferred from such a comment.

Same old homophobic bull shit.

This was in response to my point about creating positive gay role models so that children struggling with their sexuality in a predominantly heterosexual environment, who are usually being targetted for bullying t as it goes, have some kind of reassurances from adults who have survived it.
T8-eh-T8

Spengler

I fear you may have misunderstood what I wrote.

I started by saying that one of the positive things about the programmes was that they were overt about homosexuality, compared to others who have not had an openly gay leading character, particularly programmes aimed at children. And that I couldn't recall any others.

My surprise at not seeing any disapproving newspaper articles was not a lament. It was a weary comment upon the style of newspapers we have and the expectation that they would use these programmes to promote their own homophobic agendas.

Not something I would welcome, but something which I would expect, a la the disgraceful Ms Moir and Stephen Gately.

I think you will find I have a history of posting rather liberal messages on messageboards, often criticied for it in fact. I apologise if that liberal and tolerant sunbeam didn't shine through my post.
Spengler

T8 et T8

No I think I should apologise, I have obviously mis-understood. I did think your post began with a positive reflection on the matter but then it seemed to confuse me a little. Lynne did try to explain.

Spen
Dave B

T8, I am not a Dr Who fan but have seen a couple of progs at a friend's.

I think there are three "degrees" of presentation of homosexuality in the media:

a) Plainly anti, even if only in ridiculing gays ever-so politely.

b) Positive support, making sure that the audience knows for sure that the producer has a message.

c) Just accepting that gays exist, no overt pro or anti.

Would I by right in thinking that Dr W. came into the last category - don't make a fuss about it, just allow it to appear where appropriate?
Lexilogio

Lucifers Duck wrote:
Just out of curiosity Lexi does my IP addy fluctuate?

I use a 'dongle' and a static/router broadband connection, depending on where I use my lap-top...  so must have two different ways/proxy servers when I connect to t'net..


Want to tell me how you did that?......
Ketty

Leonard James wrote:
Ketty wrote:
I don't see the need to define anyone by their sexuality, plus I don't see the need to declare it.  

If you fancy somebody, knowing their sexual inclinations can avoid embarrassment.


 

I guess having only ever had the one relationship since I was 14, that didn't occur to me.  

========

Re Cap'n Jack - I adore John Barrowman.  Torchwood and Dr Who are on my 'don't miss' list.



How can anyone NOT find that aesthetically pleasing?
Leonard James

Judders Lady... wrote:
If you look at a man and want them you are guilty of adultery.
You may have had one man since 14 but you have committed adultery more than once...
Did you forget that bit????

Now that is tha sort of idiotic remark that irritates people, Lynne. If you can't see the difference between finding somebody attractive and actually having it off with them, then your perceptive powers are sadly lacking.

Or was it just another 'joke'?
Ketty

Judders Lady... wrote:
.
You may have had one man since 14 but you have committed adultery more than once...
Did you forget that bit????



 

Once again Lynne, you're practising your habit, now honed to perfection, of reflecting onto others what is in your own heart.  

How odd that it offends you, the fact that I've only ever known my husband.
gone

Is Billy your ex?
Lexilogio

Leonard James wrote:
Judders Lady... wrote:
If you look at a man and want them you are guilty of adultery.
You may have had one man since 14 but you have committed adultery more than once...
Did you forget that bit????

Now that is tha sort of idiotic remark that irritates people, Lynne. If you can't see the difference between finding somebody attractive and actually having it off with them, then your perceptive powers are sadly lacking.

Or was it just another 'joke'?


One of the things Jesus taught, was that what is in our hearts and minds is as important as what we actually do.

So for a married person - looking at another with desire, is the same as committing adultery, because they are doing it with their heart.

The important lesson for Christians, behind this, is that when you spend time thinking and desiring something, you are beginning to work towards it, and away from what you should be paying attention to.

I think this is what Lynne was referring to here.
Leonard James

Hi Lexi,
Lexilogio wrote:

One of the things Jesus taught, was that what is in our hearts and minds is as important as what we actually do.

So for a married person - looking at another with desire, is the same as committing adultery, because they are doing it with their heart.

I'm afraid I find that absolute nonsense! What your heart feels has nothing to do with finding someone sexually attractive, which is usually just a physical reaction ... no deeper sentiments are involved.
Quote:
The important lesson for Christians, behind this, is that when you spend time thinking and desiring something, you are beginning to work towards it, and away from what you should be paying attention to.

Spending time thinking about them is a lot different from simply being attracted physically when you see them, and for that reason is more worrying. However, to compare it with actually being unfaithful is quite silly, imo.
Ketty

Lexilogio wrote:
I think this is what Lynne was referring to here.


No Lexi, Lynne set herself up as judge and jury and was accusing and finding me guilty of committing the sin of adultery.
Lexilogio

Ketty wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
I think this is what Lynne was referring to here.


No Lexi, Lynne set herself up as judge and jury and was accusing and finding me guilty of committing the sin of adultery.


Ah....

I should have read back a bit.
Ketty



Lexilogio

Leonard James wrote:
Hi Lexi,
Lexilogio wrote:

One of the things Jesus taught, was that what is in our hearts and minds is as important as what we actually do.

So for a married person - looking at another with desire, is the same as committing adultery, because they are doing it with their heart.

I'm afraid I find that absolute nonsense! What your heart feels has nothing to do with finding someone sexually attractive, which is usually just a physical reaction ... no deeper sentiments are involved.
Quote:
The important lesson for Christians, behind this, is that when you spend time thinking and desiring something, you are beginning to work towards it, and away from what you should be paying attention to.

Spending time thinking about them is a lot different from simply being attracted physically when you see them, and for that reason is more worrying. However, to compare it with actually being unfaithful is quite silly, imo.


Hi Len

I didn't reply straight away - because I wanted to think a bit about this.

I think there are possibly three types of "attraction".
There is a simple physical observation eg. I can see he is attractive (but without any physical reaction in oneself).
There is physically attraction - often with pheremone reaction
Then there is the obsessing, thinking about type.

There is nothing wrong with a simple observation. And I don't think any of us can control the physical reaction. Sometimes we are just faced with people who our bodies seemed programmed to find attractive.

But we can do something about the obsessing / thinking about. I suspect it's a sin that the vast majority of people are guilty of from time to time. The key is to be aware of the dangers inherent in the behaviour, and draw it to a close.

But there is a vast difference between observation, physical attraction, and different levels of thinking about ...going into obsession.  For example - I can look at the photo of John Barrowman, and acknowledge that he does appear to be symetrically attractive.
He doesn't do anything for me though. I think I'm programmed not to physically respond to gay men...
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
But there is a vast difference between observation, physical attraction, and different levels of thinking about ...going into obsession.  For example - I can look at the photo of John Barrowman, and acknowledge that he does appear to be symetrically attractive.
He doesn't do anything for me though. I think I'm programmed not to physically respond to gay men...


I find his coat physically attractive. Wish I could find an authentic grey wool RAF greatcoat.

What's lust then; the obsession or the physical attraction?
Leonard James

Hi Lexi,
Lexilogio wrote:
 For example - I can look at the photo of John Barrowman, and acknowledge that he does appear to be symetrically attractive.
He doesn't do anything for me though. I think I'm programmed not to physically respond to gay men...

Unless you have previous knowledge that a guy is gay, I don't see how you can know that! Certain types attract me irrespective of whether they are gay or not.

I shall stop now or my BP will get out of hand.  
Lexilogio

Leonard James wrote:
Hi Lexi,
Lexilogio wrote:
 For example - I can look at the photo of John Barrowman, and acknowledge that he does appear to be symetrically attractive.
He doesn't do anything for me though. I think I'm programmed not to physically respond to gay men...

Unless you have previous knowledge that a guy is gay, I don't see how you can know that! Certain types attract me irrespective of whether they are gay or not.

I shall stop now or my BP will get out of hand.  


Neither do I. But I've never felt attracted to a gay man. Or...woman for that matter. Although I couldn't say if some of the "apparently straight" ones swing both ways.
Lexilogio

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
But there is a vast difference between observation, physical attraction, and different levels of thinking about ...going into obsession.  For example - I can look at the photo of John Barrowman, and acknowledge that he does appear to be symetrically attractive.
He doesn't do anything for me though. I think I'm programmed not to physically respond to gay men...


I find his coat physically attractive. Wish I could find an authentic grey wool RAF greatcoat.

What's lust then; the obsession or the physical attraction?


It depends whether you spend your time dreaming about it or not.....
Leonard James

Lexilogio wrote:
 Although I couldn't say if some of the "apparently straight" ones swing both ways.

Nor can anybody else, given the right circumstances ... not even the guy himself! I had quite a few surprises when I was young and attractive!
Farmer Geddon

Awww Len - You're still young and attractive!

Leonard James

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Awww Len - You're still young and attractive!


They don't come any younger at heart, Duckie ... it's just the facade that's crumbling a bit.



Good to see you back!  

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum