# Girly girls and Tomboys



## Epiphany (Apr 28, 2006)

Ok...an idea rather trivial struck me the other day and I thought I'd throw it out there and see what everyone else thinks.

Since I've been pregnant, lots of girly hormones have been raging through my body and my nails and hair are suddenly growing at an alarmingly rapid rate. My nails are stronger than they've ever been and I am finally able to grow them like a real girl should.

This got me to thinking about the differences between girly girls and tomboys and whether it could be less about environment and upbringing and more often about hormone levels.

Since I've had these new-found nails, hormones etc, I have taken a more active interest in my appearance and wanting to look nice...I even said to my hubby yesterday that I need to learn to accessorise better. ACCESSORISE...since when? I wouldn't call myself a tomboy but I'm certainly no girly girl so this statement came as a bit of a surprise to me.

Could it be that the real girly girls have higher levels of oestrogen or progesterone or some other girly hormone than their tomboy counterparts?

Has anyone ever come across any studies done on this?

More importantly, does anyone really care?

Anyway, just a thought...dumb, trivial and superficial but killed a bit of time for me.


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

interesting observation, epiphany. my wife is pregnant right now and, of course, i've noticed all sorts of changes in her. if hormone levels can cause her to despise vegetables (which she normally loves) and love fruit (which she normally dislikes), why couldn't it affect taste and opinion in other areas? she HATES sour stuff, HATES it. yet one day i found her sucking on a LEMON--no sugar or anything. truly bizarre.

this of course, raises all sorts of freaky questions about the possibility of one day "medicating" ourselves to obtain exactly the sorts of personalities we want to have.... :shock:


----------



## Epiphany (Apr 28, 2006)

Yeah...the changes the pregnancy hormones can initiate are very bizarre and fascinating. The entire process at times to me feels incredibly foreign. I can say no to chocolate...NO to CHOCOLATE...but crave chips and gravy and anything else savoury. 
You really do become a hostage to your hormones and it opens a flood of questions for me about just how many different areas of our lives are controlled by hormonal levels.

One of the other observations I've made that I forgot to mention in my earlier post is that at times when you're pregnant (especially once all dressed up and ready to hit the town) you feel incredibly sexy which I'm attributing to an influx of these girly hormones (the rest of the time you just feel fat and heavy)...and as a result you are noticed by the opposite sex more than normal (until they notice you're pregnant then some guys interest peaks and others dissapears...very funny to watch). Maybe having more of the girly hormones makes girly girls feel more sexy and therefore dress, act and move more sexily.


----------



## Neko (Feb 18, 2006)

When I was younger I used to be a huge, I mean HUGE tomboy. All I wore were boy's clothes, didn't care about my image at all. As I got into adolescence, however, I began taking an interest in how I presented myself. Today I'm one of the most fashion oriented people in my class, I wear makeup (not enough to really notice though! That's the secret) and sometimes I do my hair (it usually looks ok just leaving it though). I don't have typical 'girl' interests, though, and as such I feel pretty alienated from the rest of girly girls.

I think my change to being focused on my appearance was more caused by self-esteem issues than anything, though. Once I started getting made fun of for the way I looked, I became ashamed and started dolling up. Now I quite enjoy looking nice, although a majority of the time I feel inferior in how I look, even when people tell me I look beautiful or whatever. I guess not much can penetrate the crappy self-esteem.

It's interesting what you say about pregnancy, though. Recalling every pregnant woman I've known personally, they all did have a certain air about them different than they usually did.

I do think hormones can contribute to somebody's interests or personalities, but there are many other factors like culture, self-esteem, experience, etc. that also form ya.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

I have no idea what I'm talking about, girly girls are far more attractive than tomboys. To be anyway. I kinda like the 'elegant-yet-not-too-blatant' look. The way certain women walk really does it for me.

And I'm not talking about the ones on all fours.


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Epiphany, 
I cannot emphasize enough how I feel that you've hit upon something that is so simple that psychologists, doctors, and us overlook it, or dont like to think its true - our self-image and our sexuality, even our orientation, is very influenced by hormones in my humble opinion. I cannot underscore this enough.

Certain vitamins affect certain hormone levels. My current girlfriend will feel differently when I give her certain vitamins. The story behind this is rather complicated, but here goes...

I have porphyria. Its a rough disorder, but I've combined alot of little known medicine to make a comprehensive treatment plan for myself. Most people with it are bedridden most of their life, but you really cant tell I have it. Now its kind of like walking a tightrope. I eat a VERY strict diet. I dont stay in rooms long that have chemicals, perfumes or fumes in them. Thats most modern buildings. I eat certain carbohydrates in large amounts, as it inhibits heme synthesis, the basis of my disease. If all else fails, I take an over the counter antacid called Cimetidine when I cant escape chemicals, get to a glass of orange juice, or down some fries. I dont take cimetidine (Tagamet is the brand name) for its acid reducing properties - I take it because it is one of the few pharmeceutical compounds that slows the liver down. This is a rarely known or used treatment for porphyria which I have adapted to my regimen. I had to speak at one point with the world expert on liver enzymes at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania. I lead a weird life.

Anyways, there are little known studies linking less severe forms of porphyria with people who suffer from chronic anxiety states, depression, anger, and even schizophrenia and bipolar. My friend from college suffered from most of these. I tended to notice that when she ate with me, she became happier, and when I would drive out in the countryside, which I love to do, she would also brighten up, as do I from the clean air we are breathing. So I put her on my diet. Immediately almost all of her mood swings dropped to zero. I'm currently trying to write a book about this.

Now here's the funny thing. We both eat a high carb organic diet, but we are putting on muscle like nobody's business. I have alot of theories about this, but one of them is that eating to be kind to one's liver, which is what my diet is designed to accomplish, increases the amount of circulating hormones. All of your different organs still make the same amount of hormones, but they first need to piggyback on "binding globulins" your liver produces. If you take care of it, it produces alot of them. Thus, from eating organic french fries and orange juice, my chest is getting huge. My girlfriend has lost 12 pounds eating organic carbs, and put on lean muscle. Its so odd. We do eat organic meat, but not that much. This is where it ties in with your observation.

I noticed when my liver wasnt working that I felt more girly. Sensitive, scared. I am normally very muscled, controlled, and bold in doing what I think is expected of me. Liver disease causes higher estrogens because your aromatase enzymes are found in the liver, and they transfrom testosterone to estrogen. This transformation happens more with liver disease. I had a blood test done on myself and my estrogens were high. I noticed that I felt less atrracted to girls, my personality felt more feminine. I even noticed that as I lost muscle mass, I became limp-wristed and to my embarassment, developed slight man breasts. It was easier for me to see how gay men must feel and women must feel so vulnerable. My hats off to all of them. I am very, very positive that a major part of the difference between gay and straight men is hormonal and more than likely gay and straight women. The strereotypes of butch women and feminine men emerged because these body types are very often found in people with homosexual tendencies, and I beleiveit is because there is a very huge biological and _hormonal _difference. We already know that when you are healthy and your sex hormones are high, you release pheromones that let the opposite sex know that you are "ready". Its possible that given a hormonal abnormality of a large enough difference, that you might even attract the same sex. I have no doubt these pheromones are what other men see and sense from you. We are more victims of ourselves than we are in control, I think. That is, unless you are smart enough, like me, to be able to micromanage your own body. I wont do that, of course. I'm simply interested in being whole and healthy and "me" with no changes. Eventually expect a book from me on the topic of porphyria's link to mental illness and fibromyalgia. I might even tip my hat to DPSelfHelp in it by using the pen name of Homeskooled.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

HS, you're way too ambitious. I always feel hopelessly inadequate after reading about your latest project.


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

fascinating, fascinating stuff. 



Homeskooled said:


> I cannot emphasize enough how I feel that you've hit upon something that is so simple that psychologists, doctors, and us overlook it, or dont like to think its true - our self-image and our sexuality, even our orientation, is very influenced by hormones in my humble opinion. I cannot underscore this enough.


to what extent is this influenced by the fact that there's little money in this angle on things? if a hormone is naturally occurring, it can't be patented and not nearly as much money can be made off of ways to supplement it or encourage the body's production of it. :x



Homeskooled said:


> Now here's the funny thing. We both eat a high carb organic diet, but we are putting on muscle like nobody's business. I have alot of theories about this, but one of them is that eating to be kind to one's liver, which is what my diet is designed to accomplish, increases the amount of circulating hormones. All of your different organs still make the same amount of hormones, but they first need to piggyback on "binding globulins" your liver produces. If you take care of it, it produces alot of them. Thus, from eating organic french fries and orange juice, my chest is getting huge. My girlfriend has lost 12 pounds eating organic carbs, and put on lean muscle. Its so odd. We do eat organic meat, but not that much. This is where it ties in with your observation.


death to the atkins diet! i did an atkins type diet for about two weeks once (no carb--except green vegetables--diet) and it seemed to induce mild dp/dr symptoms in me. interesting....



Homeskooled said:


> I noticed when my liver wasnt working that I felt more girly. Sensitive, scared. I am normally very muscled, controlled, and bold in doing what I think is expected of me. Liver disease causes higher estrogens because your aromatase enzymes are found in the liver, and they transfrom testosterone to estrogen. This transformation happens more with liver disease. I had a blood test done on myself and my estrogens were high. I noticed that I felt less atrracted to girls, my personality felt more feminine. I even noticed that as I lost muscle mass, I became limp-wristed and to my embarassment, developed slight man breasts. It was easier for me to see how gay men must feel and women must feel so vulnerable. My hats off to all of them. I am very, very positive that a major part of the difference between gay and straight men is hormonal and more than likely gay and straight women. The strereotypes of butch women and feminine men emerged because these body types are very often found in people with homosexual tendencies, and I beleiveit is because there is a very huge biological and _hormonal _difference. We already know that when you are healthy and your sex hormones are high, you release pheromones that let the opposite sex know that you are "ready". Its possible that given a hormonal abnormality of a large enough difference, that you might even attract the same sex. I have no doubt these pheromones are what other men see and sense from you. We are more victims of ourselves than we are in control, I think.


i was going to mention this stuff, but was timid (unusual for me :wink: ) because of the potential firestorm this might set off from both ultra-liberal and right-wing fundamentalist types. sexual orientation really seems to be just a name we give to a general trend in sexual attraction once it has been combined with self-identity. in other words, it's kind of arbitrary like race distinctions. we could have separated races out by other physical traits like hair color, eye color, etc. but instead humans focus on skin color much more. skin color + cultural identity = race. likewise, sexual attraction trends towards men or towards women + cultural identity = sexual orientation. yet there are many other sexual attraction trends that do not get combined with social/cultural identity and therefore aren't considered "orientation."

i think pregnant women definitely release a lot of pheromones and it affects both the way we respond to them and the way they move/dress, which also affects the way we respond to them. the whole pheromone thing is quite fascinating. i think i've definitely observed it most obviously with women who are not, in an objective sense, the most beautiful women you've ever seen. but somehow, these women manage to attract most guys in an amazingly powerful way.


----------



## Epiphany (Apr 28, 2006)

Wow...HS...how many projects do you have on the go at any one time? I just feel kind of special that I can pat my head and rub my stomach at the same time.

And did you have to mention fries? Now I feel like some which is kind of unfortunate for me seeing as it is 3:30am here.

I have always been aware of the influence that hormones (and pheromones) have on me and have always found it fascinating. When I was younger I would notice (with total despair) how weepy and irrational I would get at certain times of the month...but I suppose after years of it you largely just begin to accept it all without too much thought. Since my pregnancy however it has once again brought to forefront just how obvious the effect fluctuating hormone levels can have on the way you feel, think, act and look. Obviously environment, upbringing and other external factors also play their part but I have always noticed how much I am controlled by fluctuating hormone levels. I found your comments very interesting HS.

Oh...and can I ask what you mean by organic fries? Obviously you mean organically-grown potatoes but are they then baked or fried? If fried, in what? I would love to be able to eat more fries and put on lean muscle instead of obtaining the kind of larger body type that tends to accompany normal fries.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

It?s really good to be able to air things on this site sometimes...

Basically for a while now I haven?t been feeling "feminine enough". As well as a having unrelenting acne, I was quite surprised when I saw a photo of myself because I swear my face has masculinised slightly. I went to the doctors, since the acne hasn?t stopped as I expected it to, and mentioned I thought I was looking more masculine and everything. I asked to have my testosterone levels checked and they were normal apparently.

The thing is that I really don?t understand myself, maybe you have some advice on this Homeskooled? Sorry to always ask you but you really do seem to know a lot about these things.

I started taking dianette, which is a contraceptive pill that blocks testosterone receptors. My skin is less oily, but my sex drive is still extremely high and I almost find myself talking with a deeper voice. I have always worn make-up and loved men. But I don?t think of myself as being the type of feminine presence in my work team that most men want around. Occassionally I think people are attracted to me, but this contrasts a lot with how things were 6yrs ago when I was always the centre of attention and being told I was beautiful all the time. It is almost unimaginable that anyone would call me beautiful anymore. And to be honest I detest the thought. I don?t _want_ attention anymore. I try to hide from that at much as possible. The thought of only being valued for the way I look seems devaluing to me.

Sometimes I think back at the clothes I used to wear. I used to wear knee-high boots every day. Although I was never a girly girl, I didn?t have to worry that clothes would look too feminine for me, whereas now I feel I can?t wear a lot of what is in the shops because they would look stupid on me. Like if I try on a dress I have to make sure it is not too decorative or anything because I really would look stupid stepping out in something that screamed "look at me".

For quite a while I have had thin hair too, though i don?t know what that has to do with it.

Apart from all these things, I do regard myself very much as a woman in that my body feels designed to carry a child. I never doubt that side of myself. Plus I like to have a man around to carry things for me and protect me generally.

...still, I am quite envious of those women who have small chins, big lips, wide eyes, long hair, clear skin etc. because in my mind that is how a woman should be, not so masculinised as myself.

I am one of three sisters. My older sister was a tomboy when she was a kid, but then turned into a rather feminine adult. I was more feminine when I was a kid then something happened at puberty(10) and I started to feel less feminine. Then I started to feel feminine again at 13, till I went to university really. When I was younger I would have rated myself as more attractive than my older sister, but she had far over-taken me in the looks stakes and she is more "feminine" than me. My little sister was very feminine till she reached that middle childhood stage, like myself. Once when I was lodging somewhere else, she came round and was talking to my landlady on the stairs - she was 10 or 11 at the time - I could have sworn it was a little boy. She is now 14 and is starting to look really cute, much more feminine. But all three of us have what I would call "masculine elements" in our personalities, like my mum. We never had a man around to protect us or to have ambitions on our behalf. All of the drive to survive had to come from us. I wonder sometimes if this has effected my self-image?

Since I have moved to uni I?ve been stressed and also lived in another town which has an industrial past. It is nowere near as polluted now, but it must be worse than the place I grew up. I regret that I have to live here, but have little choice as I am due to continue my studies here for over 3yrs and for one reason or another would not be able to transfer to another university. I get out into the country each month, but I feel it isn?t enough.

On diet
When I was growing up I didn?t eat much meat. I have been eating meat regularly at uni, though I find protein rich food hard work and never crave it. Instinctively eating meat more than once a week doesn?t feel right to me, so I have it as little as I can without my roommate complaining he wants a meat or fish rich meal.


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Alright. For the benefit of *EVERYONE* on the site, I'm going to make a list of the good and the bad foods to eat if you experience anxiety, rage, or mood swings. There is a very good possibility that these conditions, as well as sufferers of fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue, share a gene that causes a sublclinical coproporhphyria or varigate porphyria. You guys really dont need to know that. But you do need to try what I am going to tell you:

Do not use cologne, aftershave, or makeup. Get rid of anything scented in your apartment.

Use natural body products without petroleum products. Petroleum is the bane of modern health, and more to the point, the bane of those with mental health problems. No PABA, no polyethylenes, propylene glycols, EDTA, etc...Get a natural salt deoderant.

Sulfates share the distinction of number one precipitator of porphyria attacks. DONT eat things preserved with them. Dont eat potato chips with preservatives, wines with them, cheeses (especially cheddar), and mashed potato chip mixes. They are very common in these and bread. In the old days, many people with porphyria actually died from taking sulfa antibiotics.

Now here are the lists. I will give safe medicines that do not induce the p450 enzymes in the liver, that precipitate attacks:

Safe psych meds for those with porphryia:
Neurontin
More than likely Cymbalta

Good but not perfect (uses some p450 enzymes, but smaller amount than usual):
Lamictal

Here are the SAFE foods. If you have porphyria symptoms, they will help to actually stop the attack. What are porphyria symtpoms? Glad you asked, because here they are:

Porphyria symptoms:
Raised heart rate
Raised body temperature
Sudden feeling of dread
Sudden feeling of hopelessness
Sudden feeling of rage
Sudden feeling of giddiness
Dead, Tired feeling
Joint aches
Cold sweat
Stomach Ache, Loose Stools
Orange or yellow stools
Craving food, severe hunger
Tingling of extremities

SAFE FOODS - Eat these when symptoms occur:

Ore-Ida French Fries - Not organic, but clean. Eat the simplest kinds, either microwaved or baked. They should only have one or two additives and be fried in canola or cottonseed oil.

Tropicana Orange juice, no pulp, in a plastic bottle. Cartons are treated with certain waxes that emulsify in the juice.

Simple breads without dough conditioners, sulfates, or corn starches or syrups. Ezekiel bread, which is a biblically based recipe sold in health food stores, is very natural. Recommended.

Musselman's unsweetened Apple Sauce

Organic Oatmeal

Honey

Cane Sugar

Shearer's Mesquite Barbeque Potato Chips (just an example of a fairly clean brand of chips)

Knudsen's Organic Cranberry Juice

Organic Rice, Brown or White

How do these help? Because carbohydrates distract the liver from begging the bone marrow for more heme. Suppose you walk into a freshly painted room. You begin to feel anxious about whatever - what your doing with your life, a book you are writing, whether you exist in the capacity you think you do - this is what your body is doing: Breaking down the paint fumes in the liver into harmless compounds using p450 enzymes. Unfortunatley for us, p450s (which are good) are made from heme (which is also good) which in turn is made from porphyrins (which are bad). As you use up your last p450 enzyme, the liver sends a chemical messenger to your bone marrow, screaming for more heme to make p450s from. Only here's the problem - the bone marrow must make porphyrins first, to make the heme. And in our bodies, we dont have enough of the enzyme to transfrom the bad (the porphyrins), into the good ( the heme). And porphryins are bad. REALLY bad. They travel nerve pathways in the body. To the fingers, making them tingle. To the stomach, making us nauseous or making us run to the bathroom. Or worse yet, they travel the nerve pathways to the brain, ending in a thought about why your life stinks so badly. Or what is normally the case, doing all three at once, plus stimulating the nerves around the heart causing an increased heart rate. And there you have it - an anxious, shrinking stomached, sweaty, cold fingered person in a freshly painted room wondering "Why me?". The carbohydrates simply distract the liver from doing what it wants to - make more p450s. The liver has two functions - glycogen (sugar ) storage, and the breaking down of chemicals with p450s. It can only do one at a time. So lets say you walk into the freshly painted room, but with an orange juice or a slice of bread in hand. As you munch on it, your liver patiently stores the sugar, waiting this time until you leave the room and stop munching, to break down the chemicals using its enzymes. You are anxiety free, and your body has plenty of stored energy.

Here are the foods to never eat, and why:

Soy (its an estrogen, and estrogens use up your p450s REALLY quick)
Corn (largest naturally occuring concentration of sulfates)
Corn syrup, starch, or any derivative, including B vitamins from corn
Broccoli (cruciferous vegetables are just bad - dont ask why)
Cauliflower (same as above)
Cabbage (ditto)
Tomatoes (natural sulfates)
Grapes (natural sulfates)
Caffeine from any source
Alcohol in excess of 2 lite beers- some may not be able to handle that 
Alcoholic drinks with sulfates preserving them
Mustard
Spinach
Anything rich in iron, including vitamins, spinach (works in a wierd way - uses up heme to make _hemoglobin_ or red blood cells, but to make the heme your body will once again produce porphyrins)
Eggs - Do NOT eat these. If one thing beats corn in the "naturally occuring sulfate" category, its these
Milk (uses up p450s to digest, and usually has antibiotics and hormones in it which in turn use up more)
Gelatin (animal sulfates)
Stay away from synthetic hormones - the pill, testosterone patches, shots

Here are some neutral foods. Not great for treating an anxiety attack, but necessary for other reasons:

Organic meats. Needed to repair cells, DNA. Amino acids are the only way things in your body get built. Eat chickens and pork (low in iron), but red meat is good a couple times of week. 
Romaine and Iceberg Lettuce
Watermelon
Green Beans
Cashews, Walnuts, almonds, not fried in peanut oil
Wild Alaskan Salmon (low mercury content, high Omega 3s). Only eat fish if it agrees with you. It doesnt usually agree with me

And here's one more tip - something that I do not know the "mechanism of action" for how it works, but it does. People with alot of the above said problems seem to warm up, think clearer, and feel generally better if they take a probiotic once a day. A safe one I've found is called PB-8 in a vegetarian capsule.

There are more tips, but I'll save some for my book. Try putting these into practice people. You'll probably find you are more cheerful, happier, thinner, and more muscular. Sounds like a snake oil cure promise, but this is all stuff I've actually done, and there is a LOT of my thought and science put into it. Interestingly enough, many cravings for food will disappear with this diet. First of all because sugars shut down the hunger receptors in the hypothalmus, but secondly, because many cravings are induced when we stress out the liver, and its stored glycogen, with porphyria attacks. The science gets much more complex behind what I've said, but I'll leave that to the book.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Oh, and miss starling, 
I wouldnt take the dianette for the reasons I elucidiated above. It _does_ sound like you are getting more testosterone. If you are taking a multivitamin stop for a little while. Individual vitamins like E (from a non-soy source) or C or B vitamins (non-corn source), are fine. I've seen women's hormones react strangely to random multivitamins, and its for reasons too complicated for me to list here. I would try the above diet and see if your mind calms a bit. And synthetic hormones, like the pill, are going to do a number on you from several angles. I'm really not very pro-pill, from a medical standpoint. Too many women trigger too many illnesses they never knew they had with the pill, and they are all severe or grotesque, ranging from clinical porphyria to pseudo-tumor cerebri, which is incredibly painful. I hope some of this makes you feel better, however - I've seen people's hormones sort themselves out with this diet before, and perhaps it will work for you as well! God Bless, and I wish you much of his

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

EEEEEK,

No makeup? That is quite hard the way I look without make-up these days.

I really hate being like this to be honest. I?m just not looking as I should. It?s not a matter of narcissism- I think it must say something about my health.

Another thing is that I have been using vaseline on my lips a lot. And i have been drinking quite a lot of tea. My milk intake has also been much greater.

I also forgot to mention above that my pubic hair and leg hair spread in the space of about 6months, and my body shape changed as well that time - I now have some fat on my tummy and an inch thicker waist. I don?t diet or anything, but considering how I?ve been eating recently, it is amazing my weight is so resistant to going below 10.5 stone. (147lbs). My breasts have changed for the worse too. god it sounds awful doesn?t it. Well it is! I gave up trying to convince my boyf something was wrong, though it might be telling that he has fallen out of love with me. In the end, I put these things down to my getting older or something, even though I?m only 23.

Don?t ask me what I think about life right now.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

What about the following?:

Tinned food
Beans, legumes
Couscous
Herbs and spices (to season food)
Oats, and other grains in muesli
Rice milk
Olives


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Tinned food is fine, depending on the brand and additives. Get one without preservatives, organic if possible, though that isnt necessary.

Beans are fine. Most nuts are fine. Watch the sauces they are packed in. Stay away from peanuts.

Not sure about couscous. Check its ingredients for the Unsafe food list.

Herbs and spices usually arent good. A little paprika is okay. Salt and pepper are fine. The spicier it is, the more the liver will use p450s to break it down.

Depends what grains. Yes, oats are fine. Wheat is fine. Soy protein is not, corn is not.

Rice milk has alot of additives. Check the Unsafe food list.

Olives and olive oil are, unfortunately, not good.

If any of these changes started with the Dianette, stop it immediately. If not, I would get my estrogens checked and still follow this diet. I'll give you another little known tip - when you dont have a good carb around but are feeling anxious, the liver slowing antacid I take, Cimetidine, will help you out. It also has a pro-estrogen effect on the body. Dont overdo it, dont take any caffeine or alcohol with it. Because it slows the liver, it will take a cup of coffee 18 hours to clear your system. Buy a brand with as little bad "inactive" ingredients, ie, binders, as you can. The great thing is that the pollution in the UK is much better than in the US where I am, and since you are on an island nation, you can live near the coast fairly easily. I would recommend finding a university near a small oceanfront or coastal town. I really envy you for that, actually, because living near a coast in the US, which is what I will end up doing unless I go to Montana (that would be the area in the Legends of the Fall, the movie with Brad Pitt), is the easiest way to get clean air and far too expensive because coastal areas make up a very small percentage of our real estate. I hate to have to move out to Montana, which has the US's cleanest air, because I love people and the entertainment industry, but I dont have a lot of choices if I want to reach my health potential, and push my intellect and body to its limits. I'm too young to feel old.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

hey homeskooled, i'm a little confused. are you saying that this is a general dpd/anxiety diet ANYONE should follow, or that it specifically applies to porphyria sufferers?

i find your post fascinating and have a ton of questions, but i figure i should get that first question cleared up before i ask any others....


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Dear Homeskooled, 
I am taking your diet seriously. Today I went without makeup at work which was very challenging after wearing it for 10yrs. But I did it and I am happy I have spent just one day without putting more chemicals on my skin. 
I do use the retinoid adapolene though...please don?t tell me that is bad, I really need it.
R

Ooh, just one thing. I don?t drink alocohol anyway because I have always had the worst hangovers. My mum is the same. 
...and now I think of it, my dad?s depersonalisation got worse when he was put on medication....
...are these signs of poor liver function?


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

I don?t know if it is the diet, considering I have only just started it in the last 48hrs, but I have been clear-headed today. Last night, I didn?t get the usual identity alteration in the evening - I felt like myself again. This morning, I work up without the usual feeling of pressure in my head, and was able to think clearly straight away. At work, I have been able to think much more clearly.. doing sums confidentally, and being able to speak without the usual anxiety that I might forget what I am saying before I reach the end of the sentence. I could also remember what I did a few moments ago, which is usually a problem that means I have to keep checking things. I have come home from work and I have plenty of energy and motivation left. I?ve also been more physically and mental relaxed.

Either this is the placebo effect or the diet is working for me. I am going to keep it up.

Incidentally I thought I would mention that I already had natural body and face products, including deodorant, from a fantastic company called Lush that originates from here in the UK. It?s my favorite shop. They list the ingredients for everything - I expect there are probably some unsuitable ingrediets?

http://www.lush.com


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Guys, 
Californian, you wrote that:


> hey homeskooled, i'm a little confused. are you saying that this is a general dpd/anxiety diet ANYONE should follow, or that it specifically applies to porphyria sufferers?


Here's the problem with us DPers - we want to be sure of everything. I'm not saying that this diet works on everyone with anxiety, and certainly not everyone with DP. Try the diet and find out. Porphyrins are proteins found in higher than normal amounts in studies on mental patients, so this diet/lifestyle approach has a good chance of healing some people. I dont know anything for sure, as I havent done any clinical studies, but do you really need to? Just stay away from the foods and eat the good carbs listed. At worst, you'll probably lose some weight. At best, you get to eat lots of potatoes and healthy baked/fried french fries. :wink: I've seen some good friends of mine with mental illness get well on this diet, so it certainly has the _possibility_ of helping. Its genuine science and you dont have to get to a doctor/healthfood store/pharmacy to make it work.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

I have to say it was a bit of a leap of faith to try this out, but it seems to be working - I have been able to to think clearly again at work today. The only thing is that I want this to be a longterm thing and a few things concern me:

-How do I get enough calcium if I dairy products are out?
-Am I risk of becoming anaemic?
-Which oils are okay?
-Are bread agents that bad...

I guess that it would be most convenient to know what the core principles of the diet are, and find a good resource on the internet so I wouldn?t have to ask you everytime I wanted to eat something.

Please, Homeskooled, if you are recommending a diet to people and they are willing to try it, give a bit more information.

All the best - I hope more people give this a go.


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Miss starling, 
The first thing that people usually notice with this diet is that the pressure in their heads go away, so thats a good sign. About your questions:

There is NO online resource for the diet, well, except me. I've compiled lists of sulfate containing foods from "sulfate allergy" websites. I've then cross-indexed it with foods people with clinical porphyria are told to stay away from. These are the cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, etc...Sulfates cause porphyria attacks through an unknown mechanism of action. But the rest of the foods work on this prinicple, including staying away from phytoestrogens: The more p450 enzymes they use to be broken down, the sicker they will make you. So stay away from things we KNOW use up lots of p450s, like phytoestrogens, hormone treated meat, alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine. Try to eat natural carbs, which STOP the body from using up p450 enzymes. Organic potatoes are a godsend. There isnt much else too it. My list is simply composed of these items. You can eat red meat, just not a whole lot. So no, you wont go anemic. Now about your other foods....

Calcium is a toughy. Minerals tend to use up p450s. I would recommend organic dairy or organic goats milk, but sometimes people with porphyria cant take even these, especially if they have milk allergies. Try them. You can also try cheeses without sulfates to see how you feel. If those dont work, buy a form of calcium which is, quote unquote "bioavailable", such as chelated calcium. This means it is already broken down and ready to work in the body. Most oils and fats are bad for porphyria, so drink skim milk if you do. Organic canola oil is pretty darn safe and so is cottonseed oil. Bread agents are bad, but not killer like corn or soy. Nevertheless, they are unhealthy for anybody, and for "porphs" they have the ability to make you that much foggier or irritable. Citrus fruit is fine except for lemons - sulfates - and bananas are no good for numerous reasons, not the least of which is their high pesticide residue due to fruit flies. Much of this I found out the hard way - by eating it, and figured out why later. Much of it I read about and compiled, which saved me alot of suffering. Ah, and I forgot one more thing - stay away from cherries. REALLY high sulfate content.

peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

I was going to ask about cherries - they have been my favorite food for a while. But I don?t buy them much anyway because they are so expensive.

My favorite food is now mango.

As with all the changes, I am having to do them at the rate I am able to. So far I have been eating organic bread. It still contains agents.

I have been eating muesli in the morning, non-organic, also. I always forget not to eat the raisins!

Still, I have had three clear-minded days on the trot, which is a remarkable change. The identity alteration has cleared significantly as well, which in a way is the most welcome side effect. If I can regain my identity and my ability to think straight in the long-term, then I can begin to have confidence again. I really hope that this is the result of the diet because it would be nothing short of a miracle to be able to be myself again and use my mind effectively in the lon-gterm future - it was always my most useful asset, but in recent times has been crumbling to pieces, causing me great embarassment and dissappointment, not to mention further anxiety.
--
I have also lost a 3lbs, though 1-2lbs of that is likely to be from coming off the dianette. Still, I am 145, which has been unreachable for over a year. I can?t emphasise how stubborn my weight has been, and now it seems to be dropping off. Although the diet is restrictive, I feel I?ve have been eating as many calories as usual, certainly more that usual during the day.


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

ok, homeskooled, you answered my first question, now please answer a few more. 

first, what do you know about the hormone pregnenolone? a naturopath recommended this for depersonalization. she knew what dpd was right away and said that it is often caused by hormonal imbalances and that she recommended pregnenolone supplementation. i've read about pregnenolone, what it does, and what supplementation with it is supposed to do, and it really makes sense that this could help dpd sufferers like myself. people who supplement with it report sharper, more powerful sensory experience and more vivid emotion, for example. however...

i can't find anything on this site or on the entire internet that talks about pregnenolone and depersonalization. as pregnenolone is a steroid, i'm a bit hesitant to start supplementing myself with it. especially since the side effects can include acne break outs and hair loss.  
also, i don't like the idea of simple supplementation. if pregnenolone is indeed insufficient in my body, i'd like to know what i could do diet wise to perhaps increase my body's production of it! of course, the literature i've read says that pregnenolone levels decrease when under periods of stress, so perhaps this IS in fact related to a lot of people's dp attacks. and perhaps temporary supplementation could restore balance.

i would especially appreciate your thoughts on the pregnenolone.

as for the diet, i'm assuming soybean oil, corn oil are out along with the soy and the corn, right? unfortunate, cause trader joe's sells "clean" fries, but cooked in soybean oil. almost every clean potato product in their store is cooked in either corn or soybean oil. non-hydrogenated at least, but still in corn or soybean.

as for cottonseed oil, my brother (a soil scientist) has told me to stay away from it as cottonseed has a propensity to store chemicals like few other substances. he says that in the case of cottonseed, it being organic is a must. what do you think?

will simply eliminating things like corn and soy (two of the biggest staples in my diet) produce a noticeable effect even if i don't follow the diet super-strictly? i ask primarily because green tea (which of course contains caffeine) is known to help with anxiety and with concentration, and i have had good results with it. as a result, i'm reluctant to discontinue it. if i kept drinking the green tea but tried to follow a lot of the rest, esp. the corn and soy...what do you think?

thanks in advance...


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Great Miss Starling! Sounds like the diet is working like it should. I would stop the muesli, because I think it has some corn and soy. I think that mangoes are okay. As for bread, look for Ezekiel 4:9 bread. Its based on the biblical passage that recommends 6 or 7 types of grain in a bread. It does have some soy, but it makes up for that by having no corn and no additives. You'll continue to improve. You need to eventually cut down your exposures during the day and up your carbs. You may want to try getting an air filter for your apartment like an Austin Air Filter, which uses activited charcoal to remove chemical fumes. If you completelely stay away from medicines, alcohol, and caffeine, you'll be able to try cimetidine as well. Stop using the retinoid - it is very porphy - and use glycerin soap and organic shampoos without PABA or sodium lauryl sulfate. Stay away from toothpaste with sodium lauryl sulfate as well. Trust me - you'll be a new person.

peace
Homeskooled


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

oops, looks like our posts crossed paths by a couple of minutes, homeskooled. please answer my questions too when you get a chance. thanks.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

I am getting better, miraculously. At first i was worried to have confidence in my mind again, just in case it popped out of my body again. But it?s 6 days in now and I am completely mentally relaxed. I am convinced that this diet must have something to do with it. I have also lost an inch off my waist, which is good! (and can?t be fully accounted for by the 3lb loss in weight.

It?ll take a while to implement all the changes. I just searched for health food stores in this town, and there seems to be a lack of them. So I am going to try and buy things online.

With respect to eating a diet of corn and soy, it?s probably easier to give up corn here in the UK - I get the impression that Americans use much more of it. It?s hardly used here at all.

Funnily enough though, last weekend gone, before I read and tried your diet I made a cake from corn flour (that?s a very random thing to do here) and had to lay down for a few hours afterwards because I felt so tired.

I have been suffering from tiredness and sometimes exhaustion since my DP went chronic - it is most inconvenient. Hopefully this diet will help with that.

- Is bicarb of soda okay as an alternative to toothpaste?

Very pleased
R


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Californian, 
If you have an adequate sex drive, you dont need pregnelelone. I would wholeheartedly recommend the non-porphy diet to you because you've lived in the two most polluted cities in the US according to the EPA for your entire life. It _could_ have alot to do with it.

I think that cottonseed is good depending on where its from. Organic is always good. Once you start this diet, you'll know if you eat something that is impure - you simply wont feel good. Staying away from corn and soy - and as its says in the list, all products made from them, including proteins, starches, syrups, and oils - will definitely help. Every little bit you can do will help, but if your going to go half a mile, why not walk a mile in full when it may positively affect your mental health, and wont cost anything, unlike pregnelelone. You can drink green tea - just make sure it doesnt have caffeine in it. As for soybean oil, stay away from it. The best fries I've found are Cascadian farm organic steak fries and Ore-Ida thin cut microwave fries.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Actually, HS, if you read this - have you any tips on what I can eat (meal wise especially)?


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Here are some non-porphy meal ideas. On a usual day, I eat

Breakfast
A bowl of cooked Irish oats with honey, 2 pieces of Ezekiel bread with cashew butter. Somtimes I eat dried cranberries from the health food store.

Lunch
Turkey sandwich (organic deli meat, Ezekiel bread), Shearer's Mesquite potato chips, Unsweetened Musselman's Applesauce

Dinner
Organic Steak with Ore-Ida French Fries and Green Beans, Peas, or Salad made w/Iceberg or Romaine lettuce

For dinner you can also make what my Mom calls "stuffed baked potatoes". You just bake a potato and put Steakums on it, which is just the kind of thin meat they use in steak sandwiches. As long as you use the safe foods, there are endless variations. I AM getting tired of not alot of morning variety, but its not that bad. I hear Kellog's just came out with Organic Rice Krispies. I might cheat a little and have a bit of milk in the mornings.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

thanks for the continued updates and ideas, homeskooled.

1)i have noticed that your diet also would have a propensity to up the level of omega-3 fatty acids while decreasing the number of omega-6s. the Western diet typically needs quite a bit of readjustment in this direction. i wonder if this plays some role in why your diet might be helpful to someone even if they don't have porphyria.

2) clif nectar organic bars seem to be largely good for this diet too, although watch the ingredients on individual flavors (but they're organic and soy free).

3) also, what does it mean to say that something is "responsible for the induction of the cytochrome P450 enzymes CYP3A4 and CYP2C9 by binding to the Pregnane X Receptor (PXR)." would this substance be good or bad for your diet?


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Hi Homeskooled,
You eat a lot. I have been having the following:

Breakfast
Organic porridge oats cooked in organic skimmed milk
Or Muesli (I?m going to make up my own)
Banana or organic apple or orange juice

Throughout day at work (I sit at a desk all day so I think I can justify it)
Organic pitta bread 
A few cashew nuts
Fruit

When I get home
Fruit (non-organic)

Organic chicken, vegetables and potatos/rice

To be honest I have been so full by the time it is dinner time I am really lazy and have been eating like a pidgeon. Being dumped doesn?t help.
----
I am having problems
Basically there is very little in the supermarkets that I can eat. What little there is of organic food is not advised for another reason. So I have been a bit down about finding a routine I can get into properly, even if it involves getting a delivery.

I went to an organic fruit and veg shop today, but it turns out that not everything is organic in the shop. I wound up with a non-organic vegetables and non-organic marscopone, some organic tortillas which I didn?t have time to read in the shop (turns out they?re full of raising agents etc), and guess what, the only organic thing I did buy, apple and mango juice, tastes like alcohol!

So I?m afraid I have had to cheat a bit this evening, by having non-organic cucumber and mascapone. 
----
I have to admit that part of the problem is that I realise that my improvement is likely to be the result of psychological factors (ie breaking up with boyfriend and having to find a place of my own). So I wondered if I had just stuck to this diet in order to feel things were under control. On the otherhand, I want to give myself the best chance possible of being dissociation-free in the future, so I am sticking to the diet for the time being. Drastic circumstances call for drastic measures. Apart from that my body feels very clean and fresh, for want of better words.
-----

Could you clarify something. I thought Bicarbonate of soda might make an alternative to SLS toothpaste, but I have subsequently found out it is also used as a raising agent. Does this mean that it would be particularly bad for me to brush my teeth with. It tastes disgusting but it don?t half make em shine.
-----
Just going to research how to make bread with my lovely organic flour I bought the other day.


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

> Hi Homeskooled,
> You eat a lot.


Well, I'm a growing boy. This diet has really made me much more muscular.

Your diet sounds absolutely superb, Miss Starling. Except for the Bananas. Those may not help you too much - but listen to what your own body tells you, and make sure your tortillas dont have corn in them. Pita is usually a good choice, especially unleavened bread for Passover. The jews have to eat incredibly healthy around passover and can ingest corn for this period of time, so around this time of year, even Coca-Cola will release in Jewish specialty stores a Coca-Cola made with cane sugar instead of corn syrup!

Its okay to eat non-organic. Its more important to buy vegetables that dont use up the p450 enzymes. For instance, eating green beans sold at Save-a-lot (a cheap American chain) would be more productive than eating organic broccoli. If you can get the green beans organic, then all the better. But dont feel guilty if you dont. Sometimes I find that non-organic brands work better, probably due to factory, processing, and pesticide conditions I'm not aware of with a particular brand. Raising agents are not in and of themselves bad - mostly they are bad because they are _ artifical_ raising agents, have heavy metals in them, or most commonly and most detrimentally, are a sulfate. You dont get much worse for the human body in sheer artificiality (or porphy-ness) than ammonium sulfate in your bread. Baking soda is slightly porphyrigenic, but I think its okay to use if it makes _you_ feel okay. I use Jason's natural Sea or Seaweed toothpaste with coenzyme q10 and fluoride. True, the fluoride is definitely porphy, but its necessary if you want to retain your teeth. Just go easy on yourself - the whole point of this diet is to stop worrying and anxiety!



> To be honest I have been so full by the time it is dinner time I am really lazy and have been eating like a pidgeon.


This is really good news, because it means the diet is working. You should feel satiated with smaller amounts of food, because your body is using them and storing its glycogen much more efficiently. The other people trying this diet with me report the same thing, or that they feel now that they are eating more but still losing weight. I find, however, that those eating the cleanest diet have to eat the least. I think that this also means, however, along with your weight loss and clear-headedness, that this is probably not a placebo affect or something psychological. And dont worry about losing your boyfriend - it sounds like it needed to happen. You'll be okay!

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Homeskooled said:


> And don?t worry about losing your boyfriend - it sounds like it needed to happen. You'll be okay!


I won?t argue with that.

But I just don?t know what to do with myself (do-do-do-do=)...

And comfort eating isn?t an option!


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Californian, 


> 1)i have noticed that your diet also would have a propensity to up the level of omega-3 fatty acids while decreasing the number of omega-6s. the Western diet typically needs quite a bit of readjustment in this direction. i wonder if this plays some role in why your diet might be helpful to someone even if they don't have porphyria.


No, this wouldnt be the mechansim which lessens anxiety and wouldnt show immediate improvement. _However,_ it is one of the longterm benefits which probably bears longterm fruit.



> 2) clif nectar organic bars seem to be largely good for this diet too, although watch the ingredients on individual flavors (but they're organic and soy free).


Yes, those are good bars if they are the ones I'm thinking of. Garden of Life organic apple are really good too.



> also, what does it mean to say that something is "responsible for the induction of the cytochrome P450 enzymes CYP3A4 and CYP2C9 by binding to the Pregnane X Receptor (PXR)." would this substance be good or bad for your diet?


Ah, well this is the technical stuff I wasnt going to go into. The p450 enzyme substrates are numbered like this - CYP1A, CYP3A4, etc... When a compound induces liver enzymes, it urges the creation of more p450s, and thus, porphyrins. That means it will be incredibly porphy. If it suppresses p450 enzymes, like cimetidine, then it will slow down porphyrin production (and the clearance of things like caffeine out of your system). Almost all psych meds induce p450 enzymes, thus making anyone porphy alot worse. Exceptions are Neurontin, because it isnt metabolized at all - just goes straight from the gut to the brain, and Cymbalta, that we know of , does not induce any enzymes, although it is metabolized by the liver. In other words, it simply uses the enzymes it needs, and thats it. I think your speaking of the the Pregnelelone metabolite, Pregnane, and its breakdown by the liver.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

What about

-red peppers
-chickpeas


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Miss Starling, 
No, Red Peppers are a red flag.....hahaha...I kill me.

Chick Peas are fine.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

What about other peppers? Yellow, green and orange.


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

Homeskooled said:


> Exceptions are Neurontin, because it isnt metabolized at all - just goes straight from the gut to the brain, and Cymbalta, that we know of , does not induce any enzymes, although it is metabolized by the liver. In other words, it simply uses the enzymes it needs, and thats it. I think your speaking of the the Pregnelelone metabolite, Pregnane, and its breakdown by the liver.


actually, i wasn't worried about pregnenelone ever since you mentioned the sex drive thing... :wink:

the reason i asked is that i use st john's wort. one of the active compounds in it induces p450s.  and i'm certainly not going to stop taking it. however, i still have been trying to follow your diet otherwise. i figure if green tea and SJW make my liver work harder, i might as well do some things to be nice to my liver too! so far, so good...

except, is it normal for this diet to give you diarrhea? :shock:


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Miss Starling and Californian, 
Red Peppers are the worst, green peppers are the best. Usually the spicier or hotter it is, the more of an active chemical is in it.

I wouldnt want to discourage people from stopping medicines that work. But if an opportunity ever presents itself to substitute with a non-porphy alternative, I do. No, this diet should absolutely NOT give you diarrhea. It should actually STOP irritable bowl and diarrhea. Look at what you are eating carefully to see if you are ingesting anything against the diet besides green tea and SJW. For instance, approved foods like potatoes and rice really shouldnt give anyone diarrhea, nor should organic meats (unless, of course, they are spoiled). Fruit might, but not usually non-porphy fruit. Carrots and green beans usually dont. Now porphy foods might. Onions, peppers, corn, soy, large doses of apples, herbs, cherries, tomatoes, eggs, dairy, cheddar cheese, etc....but these are the foods your trying to avoid either for their sulfate count or their phytoestrogen content. Look over your diet carefully and be careful with your over-the-counter meds and supplements!

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

Homeskooled said:


> Fruit might, but not usually non-porphy fruit. Carrots and green beans usually dont. Now porphy foods might. Onions, peppers, corn, soy, large doses of apples, herbs, cherries, tomatoes, eggs, dairy, cheddar cheese, etc....


i think i figured it out. i was eating 2-3 of those clif nectar bars a day. and then i realized that the primary ingredient in them is dates. eating a lot of dates will give anyone mushy poo.

so i backed off eating so many of those bars and started taking a probiotic and it looks like problem solved.



homeskooled said:


> be careful with your over-the-counter meds and supplements!


good advice. i am equally wary of the mainstream medical industry AND the alternative medical industry....in this country anyway. both are guided to some extent by science, but both are also slaves to billion dollar industries. and in both corners there are knuckleheads that have no idea what they are doing. so yes, i am careful and will continue to be so.

thanks for the concern and continued advice...

i have more thoughts on this diet (positive ones :wink: ) and diets in general (not as positive) that i'll share at a later time...


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2006)

I know Im replying to a post that was written a lonnnnnng time ago on this thread, but owell. I just happened to come across it and thought i should respond.

*Homeskooled,*

you wrote a post way back about your condition which you manage through a special diet etc etc. I noticed some of the comments that you wrote about hormones affecting attraction and personality etc. I just wanted to say that.......maybe i am an exception. But i am 20 and a guy, and ever since i was about 5, I can remember being attracted to other guys. It was extremely hard to accept, but its obviously not going away as i will have to learn to live with it. I am 6'3", 193 pounds, well muscled and athletic, and i am very masculine. I have always been interested in sports, wrestling, soccer, swimming, etc etc. There isnt a feminine bone in my body. So why the attraction to men? Like i said, maybe i am an exception possibly, but sometimes i think you stereotype too quickly and oversimplify the matter. 
Its even more confusing for me because I have liked girls at the same time. And also, i have to ask? What makes same sex attraction 'abnormal'? I was just interested in your answer to this question.

Oh yea and there is something else i think you should know. I just had my testosterone and DHEA levels tested. And my testosterone levels came back elevated, and the DHEA was off the roof high! Now that i think about it, I act more masculine than most guys i know. So does this make me the butch type instead of the femme type?! Im confused man.

Can somebody please tell he how this is all fitting together? Seriously this is something that has not made sense to me, ever.

respond please,

Eric


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2006)

--


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear jesusmyangsthasabodycount, 
Elevated DHEA occurs in our age group for several reasons : (1) The pathological - it could be an adrenal tumor, pituitary tumor, etc...I very much doubt any of these (2) Elevated stress. The stress hormone, cortisol, is a steroid, and all steroids are derived from each other. If your cortisol is high, so will DHEA, as I beleive DHEA is derived from it.

The theory I posited earlier in this thread is strictly my own, which is unusual for me. It stems from a Harvard study which studied in vitro exposure of fetuses to hormones, and its effect on orientation and bone mass. It found that the fetuses were exposed to more hormones of the opposite gender in-vitro, causing thinner bones in gay men and several other androgenous characterstics. I was positing that hormonal differences could continue _after_ the in-vitro period, but that is only my own, uneducated guess.

 There was a study done once that linked bisexual behaviour in women to higher than usual levels of testosterone. Perhaps it is the same for men - I dont know. Once again, I'm just mentally connecting some dots. That is a possible explanation. Make sure, however, that you stop taking ANY supplement designed to raise your DHEA or testosterone even more, as elevated levels have been linked to DP and DR. That would include supplements which have tribulus terrestris in it, an aromtase enzyme inhibitor which increases testosterone, and cut down on any zinc supplements. Beyond that, thank God that you have high levels, as testosterone at the right levels probably has neuroprotective qualities as well as antidepressant ones.



> So does this make me the butch type instead of the femme type?! Im confused man.


This doesnt make you _any_ type. Your you, and that is a complex thing that stereotypes cant, and shouldnt, be able to explain. There's grains of truth in stereotypes, but thats it - just grains.

And last, but not least, your most inflammatory (albeit, unintendedly so) question:


> What makes same sex attraction 'abnormal'?


Here's the conundrum - how can one say that God loves everyone, makes them in his image, and even that he is uninterested in sin (as I have said), and still say that a biological disposition is abnormal or flawed? I guess because I beleive that I have "flawed" dispositions. And I beleive in something called Original Sin, which allows for imperfections in God's creatures, because of the sin of Adam and Eve. And incidentally, I beleive that God is Love and could care less about these imperfections. Or sins for that matter. He cares about them insofar as they hurt _us_ - not Him, because He only cares about our happiness. Take another sexual "sin" for instance (which is Greek for "missing the mark" - it was cried out when archers missed their targets at the Olympics) - masturbation. It isnt a sin in the "your going to hell" sense. Its a sin because its imperfect - it leaves us feeling empty, or lonely. Its missing something - missing the mark. True, it contains pleasure, which is of God, but the act is imperfect. God wishes for more for human beings than for them to feel empty. He wishes for life in abundance for all of creation. We should stay away from sin not because God will be angry (which he wont be), but because we wish to be truly happy. We still have strong sexual appetites after the Original sin, but less self-control over it. We still have urges to have sex, but years in which it is imprudent (such as the teenage years). Thus masturbation becomes a common imperfection. But anyone who has done it knows that it is missing something beautiful and crucial - another human being.

In this way, homosexuality is more perfect. It includes another human being in the act. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, when asked why she was minstering to AIDS patients in New York City, most of which were gay men, said that "It is not our place to give blame, or guilt or judgement. God works in his own way in each person's heart. We must love and alleviate suffering." How can I say that a gay man falling in love is bad? It is imperfect as it cannot lead to a family, or children, or the happiness's that come from them. It "misses the mark". But certainly this is a deep appetite from within the person. If God gives them the strength or healing not to follow it, then so be it. But if God uses the good aspects of it, then who am I to judge? They must seek out God's will for them, and the ability to know what is right and wrong in their own life. For instance, Lance Bass of N'Sync is now in a committed gay relationship. Who am I to say that God will not use this relationship to teach him about love? I cant. I have no idea if this has answered your questions, but it is my current understanding of God's ways in this world.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2006)

Idk about the whole missing the mark thing or imperfect. You seem really intelligent which is why its kind of difficult for me to understand why you would fall back on Christian ideality. I used to be Catholic, but now I haven't gone to church in a very long time and after lots of anger and confusion turned away from it all. I'd just rather not think about it right now. I sort of turn a 'blind eye' to it all and ignore it sort of.

Yes the emptiness thing.......I have struggled with that for like the last half of my life. But i dont know if its inherent in homosexuality. I think thats kind of a stretch. As far as I know, me not included lol.......i hear about a lot of happy people in relationships together. And just look on tv, the 'guys' are always smiling and whatever...and happy. So your sayin that one cant be truly happy if they have a different sexual orientation? Idk man......i dont even know where i stand on this, like i said. Its kind of iffy.

Yeah as far as i know im not takin any supplements or anything which would increase the levels of testosterone/DHEA.......as far as i know. I just take a multi, and a B complex, every day. The high DHEA I think ur right comes from stress....... You won't believe this but about a year ago i had a doctor who was supposed to have this AMAZING rep and record. And he charged top dollar. But anyways i went, because well i was desperate. It turned out to be the mistake of a lifetime. He put me on all sorts of medications I dont even remember what they all were.* And he told me to take a DHEA supplement every day to raise my levels!!! *

Thank god i didnt take it......as the next week another doctor ran a blood test and informed me of the levels in my system. And then more good news....the original jerk off doctor said woops, and then he told me this might mean that I have some underlying psychotic condition, because of the levels. I was like, ok great, thanks....bye. It really made me mad, man. I trusted this guy with my health, and he totally basically had no idea what the hell he was doing.

And i might be psychotic on top of it?!?!?!? Well, anyways, thank you for your responses Homeskooled.

peace,

Eric


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Eric, 
I dont know if "emptiness" is something inherent to homosexuality, either. Certainly masturbation is a bit empty - a bit of a dead end, so to speak. I'm not saying that you cant be "truly happy", as you put it, practicing homosexuality, either. Who knows what means God may use in a person's life? I just know it too is a bit of a dead end because it can't by its nature lead to more life, which is a great gift to us. If you do decide to go to Church, choose a very non-judgemental non-denominational one. They exist. I think you just need more human contact. More of a social life, by itself, will probably fill your emptiness quite a bit. And accept yourself, just as you are, putting all questions aside. God loves all people just as they are, right now. His will for your life, and any changes you need to make, will spring forth from you accepting this fact. Dont worry - you'll be alright. Oh, and its just a crazy theory of mine, but the drug I take for my porphyria, cimetidine (Tagamet), lowers testosterone. You can try it to see if it takes the edge off of your DP and stress. Just dont use alcohol and caffeine with it, as it slows the liver. And if you have any allergies or heartburn, its also an antihistamine effective against heartburn. Love yourself and know that God loves you as well! Pray to him to guide you to accept yourself now, to provide for you, and to know His will for you. I wish you much of His

Peace
Homeskooled

PS- Thanks for all your posts on this forum. I know that you think that many times they are ignored, but I always read them, and you are a valuable contributor.


----------



## Epiphany (Apr 28, 2006)

> Thus masturbation becomes a common imperfection.


So common it is prevalent in majority of people? To me that's like saying that our sexual organs are an imperfection....or the nose on everyones face.



> Its a sin because its imperfect - it leaves us feeling empty, or lonely.


Not me...it *stops* me feeling empty and lonely. And it almost never "misses the mark" for me. :wink: Perhaps I'm abnormal.



> We should stay away from sin not because God will be angry (which he wont be), but because we wish to be truly happy.


It truly does make me happy...no doubt. I don't think I'm the exception to the rule here. I just can't agree with this HS. Masturbating isn't ususally something we are taught...it's instinctive. It's natural. It can't even be related to sexual orientation because it is so commonplace...more so than heterosexuality. Homosexuality in the sense that Eric has mentioned (knowing from the age of 5) could perhaps be a design flaw because it is isn't anywhere near as common...but it is obviously natural and very much a part of who he is (which I know is no different to what you have just said), so it's a case of accepting it for himself. But I just can't see how you can call masturbating an imperfection, when it is common to us all (with very few exceptions...ie religious, medical reasons etc).

Having said all that, it has just hit me why it could be viewed that way. Is it because for a male it results in a spillage of seed...life...wastage? Not much of a reason if this is why as the male body does this naturally anyway, without any intervention. 
Too much information, I know...but hey...once again you raised the topic, and once again I still just don't get it.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Homeskooled said:


> PS- Thanks for all your posts on this forum. I know that you think that many times they are ignored, but I always read them, and you are a valuable contributor.


I was thinking of writing something like this myself. More than anyone else on this board, for some reason I seem most to relate to you, JCMAHABC. But this board is a bit of an illusion, so don?t take that too seriously!

...For some reason reading your posts, to do with social things and body image, reminded me particularly of when I was anorexic and still battling to hold onto my image. I was very wound up in what I was, and what was expected of me.

Sometimes all you need is to learn how to feel loved, I think. Actually one little theory I have is that it is easier to believe in a loving God if you have had some love in your life, to help you to connect to that image of what a loving being is and what it feels like to be loved. If you have been loved very little, I think it is potentially harder to imagine what a loving being would be like. Although I also think we all instinctively know what love is, so its isn?t beyond the reach of anyone.

Even in the darkest nights of my soul, there was a little white light flickering. It wasn?t hope, just a deep sort of knowing that I _was_ alright. It took a long time to have the courage to stick by that.


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

jesusmyangsthasabodycount said:


> You seem really intelligent which is why its kind of difficult for me to understand why you would fall back on Christian ideality.


please allow me to make a suggestion in this area. it is helpful if we all cleanse our minds of notions that suggest that INTELLECT has *anything *to do with what kind of philosophical or religious outlook a person has. some of the most intelligent people in world and history and in the world today are christians. some are atheists or agnostics. some are muslims, mormons, whatever.

it has NOTHING to do with it because the intelligent mind can make an intelligent interpretation of ANY worldview. :wink:



epiphany said:


> So common it is prevalent in majority of people? To me that's like saying that our sexual organs are an imperfection....or the nose on everyones face.


i know this question was directed at hs, so forgive me for butting in. 

first, comparing the prevalence of actions with physical organs doesn't really work. second, simply because a great majority of people do something doesn't mean that it is good to do. the great majority of people have selfish tendencies in general and wish to get their own way--this is evident even in toddlers. this does not validate being selfish or always trying to get your own way.



epiphany said:


> Not me...it stops me feeling empty and lonely. And it almost never "misses the mark" for me. Perhaps I'm abnormal.


yeah, i think you are right that this feeling is more common for men. however, that doesn't mean that it doesn't miss the mark on some level. a sexual experience with another person that is loving and a mutual experience is more fulfilling than masturbation for both males and females. i know that many women have sadly never experienced this because of the selfishness of men (i'm not saying that this is the case with you, epiphany) but this does not mean that there is not a more fulfilling experience.



epiphany said:


> But I just can't see how you can call masturbating an imperfection, when it is common to us all (with very few exceptions...ie religious, medical reasons etc).


again, i'd say that the only reference point from which you can call ANYTHING an imperfection is from a religious point of view (and i don't just mean organized religion or theism). we all have a starting point or criterion from which we judge things, and this starting point is ultimately quite arbitrary, yet we place faith in it. thus, if love of God and others is the criterion by which we determine how to act, ANY act not done in love of God and others is an imperfect one...


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Epiphany said:


> > Thus masturbation becomes a common imperfection.
> 
> 
> So common it is prevalent in majority of people? To me that's like saying that our sexual organs are an imperfection....or the nose on everyones face.
> ...


Home, as always with all due respect,
I'm with Ephiphany on this one.

Again, if we weren't sexual beings, we wouldn't procreate and the species would die. Sexual excitement, desire, orgasm as I see it are "nature's way" to get us together to create new life.

This drive isn't going to switch on and off only when a man and a woman are alone in a dark room at night. It is ever-present. Men are easily excited at all of the "potential mates" out there; if they weren't there wouldn't be enough reproducing going on.

Again, I cannot help but reduce this to it's most primitive, evolutionary purpose as that is what it is.

So, if a man or woman has sexual feelings on and off during a day, and I understand men in particular think about sex very frequently (which again makes perfect sense), as humans it sometimes becomes unbearable if one does not "take care" of a 2 hour erection, lol, etc.

Also, as I understand it, medical research these days shows that for instance in men, frequent ejaculation is good for the prostate, and for women, masturbation/orgasm helps keep one ... well healthier in that department as well.

Sex/masturbation is a tension reliever as well.

I've also heard time and time again on this board that sex helps some feel less DP, more "connected." Both masturbation and sex make me feel more feminine and more alive.

How could we have these feelings and say they aren't purely instinctual and healthy?

Also, children "play with themselves" when they don't understand it has any sexual meaning. They also "play doctor" -- are curious about their bodies. Stifling that (of course it this has to be within reason), causes shame, etc.

And young boys wake up scared to death with their first "wet dreams". If a parent hasn't explained this to them they wonder if something is wrong, until they connect the pleasure dots ... and later connect this with sex.

I'm with Epiphany, Home. I do not see sexuality as abnormal. It can't be as without it we couldn't reproduce, and why weren't we made with a button that we press to turn this sexuality on only when it's needed?

This is so in the animal kingdom ... true females may be ready to mate only and certain times. But males are ALWAYS ready (correct me if I'm wrong, but in the main, I'd say). Why? If they weren't, again, the species would die off. So sexuality in other animals is a sin?

Doesn't make sense to me either that any form of sexuality is "empty" -- sexuality is bad only when someone is hurt by it -- rape, incest, pedophilia, etc., and these things are still are a reflection of the STRENGTH of sexual urges -- in those cases which become horribly distorted. That STRENGTH is necessary. It is one of our most important insticts along with eating, drinking, protecting our young and competing for "survival of the fittest."

And note the need to eat for example. Hunger, must be acted upon or the species would starve. When the hunger mechanism goes awry for any number of reasons, someone can become obese, etc. Or if someone can't eat when ill, they can die. Or in your case, a special diet is necessary for survival. Same for diabetics, etc. (This analogy is poor, but this is why quitting smoking is for some easier than losing 200 pounds when they are obese. One needs to eat to survive.)

Any normal function can go awry, especially in humans, as we are sentient beings imbuing instinct with meaning. As far as homosexuality, this is where I get a tad steamed about many religions. We can talk about the abuse of children by "celibate" clergy of all religions. Or sex amongst "celibate" clergy.

Also, we know many in the Church are gay. (Name a group, Episcopalian, Catholic, etc.)

What I find disturbing also, and I don't mean to pick on you Home, is how can someone counsel a couple about marriage when he or she (as a clergyperson) has never been married, never had a long-term sexual relationship.

I would say the same about a therapist. I wouldn't go to a marriage counsellor who wasn't married.

And true, a doctor doesn't have to had cancer to treat cancer, but I don't think you can compare the two. An arguement that has come up before.

OK, done.

Best,
D 8)


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Epiphany, 
First of all, I agree with your observation, Miss Starling. How can you know that God is loving if you cant feel it from the people around us first? It reminds me of the bible quotation Californian just used in the Spirituality forum- how can you love a God you cannot see, when you do not love the brother you can?



> It's natural.


Yes, Epiphany. I agree with you. But I *dont* think that everything that is natural is good, or else I wouldnt want to be a doctor. All kinds of inherited things are natural - not all of them are good. I honestly beleive that nature itself reflects the evil in the human heart. That's the idea of original sin - our hearts and nature are not as perfect as they once were when we were close to God, when we "walked with Him" in the "garden". So, yes, it _is_ natural. I dont think its "evil" either. Its an imperfection made at times almost necessary because of our imperfect world. But I wasnt just talking out of my arse, as Martin would say. Its based on a recent study that showed that those who masturbated released less of the sexual satisfaction hormone, prolactin, after masturbating then those who had sex with their loved one. And who wouldnt rather have sex with someone they love than with themselves? Now this was a heterosexual study, but it could possibly be true for homosexuals as well. One of my other problems with homosexuality is that I dont beleive it is all biological - I think the psychologically pathological plays a part. Not all of the homosexuals I know had problems with their parent of the opposite gender, but many did. I think that hurts an individual's perception of the opposite sex at a young age.

Back in the day, masturbation was considered to be evil because it was considered the wastage of seed. This was based on an Old Testament story, I cant remember the name of the gentleman (Enau?), who "pulled out" during sex, wasting his seed, after God told him to bear a child with his wife. I beleive in the story he dies as a result. I dont take this story at all literally, like most of the Old Testament. I think many of these stories were ways for the scribes to teach people that "evil" has consequences, like Aesop's fables. In any event, this was read to mean either that (a) he died because he was disobedient or (b) he died because he wasted his seed. The Catholic church commonly quotes this story to speak against masturbation. My gut tells me we arent using the story in context, and we're overreacting to this imperfection. But that's just me. In Medeiveal time, this theory morphed again, fusing with the ancient medical idea that the embryo itself was in the man's seed, and that when he impregnated a woman, he was simply giving it a place to grow. Masturbation was thought by theologians at the time to be akin to killing a life. This was more than likely one of the reasons Thomas Aquinas thought it so unnatural. It isnt one of his stated arguments, but I beleive this commonly held belief informed his reasoning.

Lastly, I want to add to what you said, Californian. Not only does INTELLECT have *nothing* to with a person's religion, but literally INTELLECT has *nothing* to do with holiness or getting closer to God. Sometimes it helps you weed through things, but sometimes it is an impediment. God reaches us through the silence of our HEARTS. You dont need to "know OF" God - you need to KNOW him. Not head knowledge - heart knowledge. I've known too many theologians who've gotten lost in head knowledge of God. What a waste!

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

One thing about spilling seed. Just occured to me, forgive, I've gone off the deep end. But isn't it a waste of gazillions of sperm when it takes only one to fertilize an egg?

Why not be designed another way. There has to be "excess" sperm to guarantee fertilization, so in theory all the sperm that are lost on the way are lost lives.

Again, I'm carrying this a bit far.

Also, the gay, transgender, etc. argument still continues, and like all things re: understanding the brain there are medical studies that clearly indicate differences in male and female brains. There are also gender studies that would seem to indicate that one is born gay.

Also in debating the socialilzation argument, there is a horrifying documentary about a famous set of twins born in the 1950s I believe. Two boys. Both were circumcised. During the circumcision of one of them that boy's penis was literally destroyed.

He was used as a social experiment ... by a psychologist named "Money" or something -- I'll find a link, the documentary was called "Sex Unknown". He was surgically "patched together" as a girl, though he was biologically a boy. The psychologist figured this would be the ultimate experiment twin study. His parents were told to raise him as a girl.

He KNEW from his earliest memories he didn't want the "girly" things given to him, what he was told to do. He didn't want to play with dolls, he literally wanted to do more masculine things, etc. He "didn't fit in". His true Self was never allowed to be expressed.

At any rate, the experiment was a catastrophe, a total failure. He tried living as a man for some time. Think he even got married. Buti in the end he committed suicide. Raised as someone he wasn't.

Also, as may have been mentioned before, for me as a woman, and other women here have said this, and many of my women friends say this ... we usually have our best, most intense, pleasurable ORGASMS with self stimulation. Sex is another amazing pleasure, but for me, the orgasm during sex is not what I love about sex.

So for me, an incredible orgasm comes from masturbation.
Incredible pleasure and joy and comfort comes from sex, even if the end product is not a child.

Well, now I've said far too much. And being depressed and miserable, I have NO sex drive. And I HATE that. I FEEL EMPTY because of that.

Best,
D


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

Homeskooled said:


> Lastly, I want to add to what you said, Californian. Not only does INTELLECT have *nothing* to with a person's religion, but literally INTELLECT has *nothing* to do with holiness or getting closer to God. Sometimes it helps you weed through things, but sometimes it is an impediment. God reaches us through the silence of our HEARTS. You dont need to "know OF" God - you need to KNOW him. Not head knowledge - heart knowledge. I've known too many theologians who've gotten lost in head knowledge of God. What a waste!


Preach it! Man, there are so many theologians here at my seminary who are brilliant academic theologians, but wouldn't know spirituality if it bit them in the... 8)

but to get back on topic...

i think i have to disagree with something HS said earlier that obscures this topic somewhat. i'm also inclined to believe that HS will agree with my disagreement with what he said earlier because i don't think he meant his words to give the impression that they did:

*God's primary concern is not our happiness*. obsession with being happy is one of the primary problems with Western, especially American culture. happiness is not EVER a permanent state of human beings. and our relentless pursuit of perfect uninterrupted happiness is the cause of much of our discontentedness.

God's primary concern is that we be what we were created to be--in his likeness and image--which is LOVE. we are to be people of self-sacrificial love for each other. and sometimes this means forgoing our happiness for the sake of loving others. not just sometimes--a LOT of the time. in so doing we can find peace and joy, but joy itself is not the same as the fleeting feelings of happiness that Western culture has made the end-all and be-all of existence.

masturbation is a form of self-indulgence. even the "apologists" for it on this forum admit as much through their statements. in my experience, and in the experience of everyone i know, the more a person practices masturbation, the more selfish of a lover they become. the more they become obsessed with their own orgasm, the more selfish of a lover they become. and the more selfish of a lover they become, the poorer they are at pleasing their partner.

i, for one, find it more fulfilling to give my wife an orgasm than to receive one. and when either one of us becomes obsessed with the issue of orgasm our sex life quality decreases. even a good number of sex therapists will counsel people to stop obsessing over orgasms because it is counter-productive.

and for reference, the name of the character is Onan, (Genesis 38:7-9), and i agree with HS that applying this to masturbation is quite weak. it has nothing to do with that.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2006)

--


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

Wendy said:


> I cant help it, but have to chuckle when I read your posts on homosexuality. I cannot understand why a seemingly intelligent guy like you can really believe crap like this. Sorry, I just think its crap. Thats why I tossed all theories in the garbage, because thats what it is: garbage :lol:


ouch wendy, a bit harsh, eh? i mean you KNOW that HS is intelligent from his other posts, so why say "seemingly" intelligent when that converys a bit of condescension? maybe i'm reading too much into that word, but it rubbed me the wrong way.  i still love reading your posts though! 

as for the theories, i think the main thing that is crap is our tendency to look at the pseudoscience that is psychology and see it as a hard science. there are no definite "causes" of any type of psychological profile of behavior patterns. take DP, for example--even hard scientific research like dr simeon's shows all sorts of various "triggers" or causes for DP in different people. we are a lot more complex than any simplistic theory.

that being said, some homosexuals DO identify with many of the different theories out there. some feel that it is definitely genetic, others think it is hormonal, others can point to relationships with a parent of the same/different gender. others cannot relate to any of these theories. the theories ARE garbage whenever they are made into generalizations that are seen as absolute answers.

in the end, we should remember that we still don't really have much idea what causes left-handedness either for that matter. that doesn't mean that the theories on what causes left-handedness have NO value. but it does mean that elevation of any particular theory to that of dogmatic truth will always find counter-examples that renders that theory ridiculous.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

californian said:


> masturbation is a form of self-indulgence. even the "apologists" for it on this forum admit as much through their statements. in my experience, and in the experience of everyone i know, the more a person practices masturbation, the more selfish of a lover they become. the more they become obsessed with their own orgasm, the more selfish of a lover they become. and the more selfish of a lover they become, the poorer they are at pleasing their partner.
> 
> i, for one, find it more fulfilling to give my wife an orgasm than to receive one. and when either one of us becomes obsessed with the issue of orgasm our sex life quality decreases. even a good number of sex therapists will counsel people to stop obsessing over orgasms because it is counter-productive.


I think that it makes sense for sex to be improved when man is less concerned about having a swift orgasm. By caring less about that, he can devote more energy to his partner, and that improves sex. And a man can give a woman an orgasm, that?s the best, most erotic, the most perfect sex in my opinion. But the reverse doesn?t ring true for me. While a woman shouldn?t "steal" an orgasm, I don?t think it is her duty to give her partner an orgasm. A man should come as a result of the joy of loving his partner. The woman should come as a result of receiving this love. Judging from experience, I agree that many women probably haven?t experienced this, as it is unusual to find a man that is able to take his attention off of his own interests, even his own insecurities over performance.

...and you have to come after having sex. It is necessary after being heavily aroused. I?m sorry, but it is!


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

wow, i was about to say that this thread is out of control and spiraling off topic: girly girls, tomboys, p450s, porphyria, DP, homosexuality, masturbation, orgasms. and then i realized that the original topic is about hormonal imbalances. THIS THREAD IS LIKE A HORMONALLY IMBALANCED PERSON, it's becoming very emotional and scattered all over the place! :lol:

anyhow...



miss_starling said:


> A man should come as a result of the joy of loving his partner. The woman should come as a result of receiving this love. Judging from experience, I agree that many women probably haven?t experienced this, as it is unusual to find a man that is able to take his attention off of his own interests, even his own insecurities over performance.


very well said miss starling. and your points about the differences in male and female sexuality are important to note.



miss_starling said:


> ...and you have to come after having sex. It is necessary after being heavily aroused. I?m sorry, but it is!


on this point, however, i have to disagree. i know what you mean--it is extremely frustrating for both genders to get worked up and not "come" to fulfillment.

but there is such a thing as self-control and self-denial that is too undervalued today. date rape is often justified by the same mentality of Necessity. i used to justify being a total jackass to my girlfriends when i was a teenager and things didn't come to fruition after i was all worked up. this is a potentially destructive mentality. if orgasm is viewed as a necessity by either gender, this attitude can lead to negative feelings and/or actions that harm the relationship


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

If only more men new how to love a woman whole-heartedly.

I just want to write little more on the philosophy of sex...

When man recognises a woman?s pleasure as his own, it all works wonderfully. As the man invests in the woman?s pleasure, she gets excited and as a result, he gets exited. A literal example is how when the woman is nearing orgasm, her vagina contracts ocassionally. This in trn excites the man, and as this positive feedback loop continues, they orgasm together. The real trick is that the man is loving the woman whole-heartily, and whole-bodily. His generosity, a gift to the woman, is matched by openess in the woman - only possible when she fully trusts him. Niether is superior to the other. It is not a case of the man giving and the woman just taking. The love is mutual but expressed in different ways.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Yipes, how can masturbation be "self-indulgent" and cause someone to be less giving during sex. I have NEVER found that to be true in relationships over some 30 odd years.

Also, it shows how open one can be if one can masturbate in front of one's partner. THAT is erotic in and of itself.

I know each of us our different.

Again, as I've read, re: women (being one), if you don't stoke the fire it can fizzle. *And as I've said for myself, I can't orgasm during sex. I simply can't, and I'm not the only woman who can't, and it isn't the man's fault. That's just me. But I can have a lovely orgasm with myself, and as I said, the ultimate in intimacy if one partner can masturbate in front of the other.*

Also, it depends on the man. Maybe I've been lucky, but I've never had a partner whose goal was to satisfy himself and only himself. I don't have one night stands as a rule so perhaps that skews my perspective.

Also, I think this is all very on point re: hormones. Why hormones? If we aren't supposed to be sexuallly charged and oriented, why have sex hormones. What is their purpose? And they are indeed critical in determining gender. There are babies born "intersexed" and there is this huge confusion about "how to raise the child"; surgeons are frequently ready to immediately "create the correct anatomy" which has now becme controversial. I believe there is a given gender/orientation and in many of these cases the growing child will discover it.

Bottom line, if we are to "go forth, be fruitful and multiply", well, I throw in the towel on all of this.

It seems in America we are more prudish than in other countries, but there are other countries that treat women like garbage and/or property.

How can answering to a normal, healthy instinct be "self indulgent" or bad. How can one "apologize" for enjoying pleasure?

Just doesn't make sense to me.

Sometimes I feel I'm a very lucky woman or live on another planet when I hear of the selfishness of memebers of the other sex. Yes, I've run into some nasty guys, but off they go. I won't be treated like garbage.

Orgasm isn't a goal! It happens to be the natural result of excitement which is an urge to mate and procreate.

Ah well.
D


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2006)

--


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2006)

--


----------



## Epiphany (Apr 28, 2006)

Woah...I was feeling a little antagonistic (and frustrated) yesterday when I wrote my post...selfish of me I know :wink: ...didn't realise it would create such a furor.



> But I dont think that everything that is natural is good, or else I wouldnt want to be a doctor. All kinds of inherited things are natural - not all of them are good.


OK...I concede here...perhaps the word I should have used in place of natural is "instinctual". I can't think of an example where something that is instinctual is not good.



> Its based on a recent study that showed that those who masturbated released less of the sexual satisfaction hormone, prolactin, after masturbating then those who had sex with their loved one. And who wouldnt rather have sex with someone they love than with themselves?


My reply to this is *of course*!!! More prolactin would be released after sex with a "LOVED" one because it is the intimacy that makes it more pleasurable. I feel there are two different types of sex being meshed together here...sex for intimacy and sex for pleasure. Sex for intimacy is always going to release more prolactin because of the feelings of love that go hand in hand. They should have done the study with a bunch of randoms...people meeting for the first time with no prior contact with each other. Compare that kind of sex with masturbation and the results may have been a little different. I don't desire sex with my husband for the sexual gratification...it's for the intimacy. If I strictly want the pleasure I "self-indulge". I'm going to have to refer to something that Dreamer said regarding this.



> And as I've said for myself, I can't orgasm during sex. I simply can't, and I'm not the only woman who can't, and it isn't the man's fault. That's just me.


Same is true for me...now imagine, if as a male, you could never reach orgasm during sex with another partner, but you could by masturbating. Would you then still see it is a selfish act or see it as a way to release sexual tension that also allowed you to let go of harbouring resentment toward your partner when you are not left feeling sexually satisfied. Every relationship is different and I have been with partners in the past who are very unselfish sexually who love to spend time just pleasing me...but found I still needed that release at some stage, not immediately after of course but it builds up...if I go for a looooong while without "self-indulging", I have something akin to a male "wet dream", without the wet part...I have woken during/after an orgasm, so my body obviously needs release. It is called sexual "frustration" for a reason...if I abstained from this "imperfect", "sinful" act altogether and waited for my release during sex it would never happen for me (I've tried this approach...it just makes me frustrated). Once again...too much information, I know, but I just can't see it the way you guys seem to. I think this has much more to do with our differing "theisms" than I realised.



> miss_starling wrote:
> ...and you have to come after having sex. It is necessary after being heavily aroused. I?m sorry, but it is!
> 
> on this point, however, i have to disagree. i know what you mean--it is extremely frustrating for both genders to get worked up and not "come" to fulfillment.


I'm actually with you on this one Cal...I don't even find it particularly frustrating most of the time to not "come" after sex (it's a gradual build-up for me before I get frustrated). I don't think it is necessary at all, to reach orgasm to enjoy sexual contact with your partner...but it depends on what your expectations were in the first place...sex for the intimacy or the pleasure.



> My gut tells me we arent using the story in context, and we're overreacting to this imperfection.


Good call...knowing what we know now about sperm etc it would be utterly ridiculous to believe that spilling seed is wasting life. Therefore could the thoughts that masturbation etc is imperfect not just stem from this kind of misinformed theory?

In relation to all the theories behind homosexuality...well, Wendy you can throw out all the theories except the ones you feel relate to you. If none do, then I agree...you just have to concede that you don't know the reasons and it's just right for you, end of story. It doesn't make the theories wrong per se, just wrong in your instance. Perhaps the theories that HS have put forth are quite accurate for certain others. There are so many varying reasons, that you would have to very broad when categorising what "could" have been the cause of your sexual orientation, ie biological, psychological, environmental etc. It's like saying green apples are the same as red ones...sure they are both apples, but there are so many differences.

Anyway...enough of my hormonally-imbalanced ranting for now. 
Some of my nesting instinct must have kicked in because I really feel as though I must go wash the dishes. Oh yeah...hormonal imbalances are really fun!!!


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

first post re: homosexuality.



Wendy said:


> No it wasnt meant condescending. It was a translation mistake and have looked for the proper one but cant find it. Closest to it comes 'visible', but that doesnt cover it too well either. But thanks for pointing that out.


ah, the nuances of language. maybe obvious was the word you were looking for. "i can't see why an obviously intelligent person like you would believe crap like this." yes, that certainly has a different tone. 



Wendy said:


> One point is that why I say it is 'garbage' is that noone person should identify themselves with any theories when it comes to homosexuality. It just IS. Why should anyone do that? Have you ever seen or heard a straight person identify themselves with 'I may be straight because of hormonal stuff'. I know, lame example, but if you look closer you can see the silliness of all the theories. It apparantly is very hard to NOT have any theory on it.


i'm kind of fuzzy on what you mean by "it just IS" or how this would be helpful to anyone to believe. having blue eyes, for example, isn't simply a matter of "just IS"--it's genetic. thus, a person who likes or doesn't like the color of their eyes can understand that it is something that wasn't under their or their parents' control. it's a trivial example, but it's relevance will come up again later.

your comment about straight people not wondering about hormonal stuff is interesting. one reason is that people wonder about exceptions to general rules. no one wonders about the origins of righthandedness either. the other thing is the problem of identity. i personally believe that sexual orientation identity is just as much a social construct as race is. some people feel attracted only to men, some only to women, some to both. some people feel attracted only to people within their race. some feel attracted to everyone except their race. i once went through a period in my life when i was only attracted to asian and latina women. there were clearly experiential and environmental factors that contributed to this. some guys only like blondes. but we don't make "blondosexuality" into an identity issue by marginalizing those people.



Wendy said:


> Also what is funny, is that I realized that me and my gay friends never speak about the origins of our homosexuality, I dont even know how they 'explain' their own homosexuality. I may ask them, could be interesting. This only tells me it is not of importance to 'us'. I notice I only talk about it here, with straight people!!!LOL Which makes me think (again). When Im with gay people, we dont talk about homosexuality, it is with the straight people, who have all kinds of questions (and other garbage..lol) etc. Funny.


in the media, anyway, homosexuals are quite frequently putting forth theories as to the origin of homosexuality. it is certainly of great political importance and psychological importance to many homosexuals.



Wendy said:


> So tell me then, what possible value could a theory on (origins of) homosexuality have?


theories on the origins of same-sex attraction (to move away from the identity loaded--homosexuality word) can have many values. the genetic theory can help some people accept the way they feel. it can help people without same sex attraction understand that no one "chooses" who they are attracted to. on the other hand, there ARE people who believe that their same-sex attraction had a component corrolated with issues with parents, early experiences, etc. some of these people experienced their same-sex attraction diminish or go away when they confronted these issues.

as epiphany said, this is certainly not going to apply to everyone. but, in short, the value of theories on the origins of same-sex attraction can be found in that it can 1) help people accept themselves and others; 2) help people who are uncomfortable with their same-sex attraction to deal with it.


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

2nd post re: autoerotic stimulation



Dreamer said:


> Yipes, how can masturbation be "self-indulgent" and cause someone to be less giving during sex. I have NEVER found that to be true in relationships over some 30 odd years.


by definition, it IS self-indulgent. you can take issue with whether or not self-indulgence is bad or not, but masturbation is a person indulging in sexual pleasure by him or herself. self-indulgent.

perhaps you have never found that to be true. but i must ask if you have compared lovers who regularly masturbate with ones who don't. i must also ask if you've compared your own sexual practices while regularly masturbating with a period in your life when you abstained from it.

if you do not have these points of reference, i don't believe it is possible to fairly evaluate it.



Dreamer said:


> Also, it shows how open one can be if one can masturbate in front of one's partner. THAT is erotic in and of itself.


this is potentially different. once another person is involved in any way, it is not necessarily self-indulgent in my opinion.



Dreamer said:


> How can answering to a normal, healthy instinct be "self indulgent" or bad. How can one "apologize" for enjoying pleasure?


who's asking you to apologize? and to whom?

as for your other question, learning to NOT be a person who has to scratch every itch that comes along is a good thing. it makes a person stronger and can help them quite a bit in interpersonal relationships.



Epiphany said:


> perhaps the word I should have used in place of natural is "instinctual". I can't think of an example where something that is instinctual is not good.


self-preservation is an instinct. in a burning building where other people need help it would be a good to override that instinct in order to help others. that's just one example out of many that i could provide.



Epiphany said:


> but found I still needed that release at some stage, not immediately after of course but it builds up...if I go for a looooong while without "self-indulging", I have something akin to a male "wet dream", without the wet part...I have woken during/after an orgasm, so my body obviously needs release. It is called sexual "frustration" for a reason...if I abstained from this "imperfect", "sinful" act altogether and waited for my release during sex it would never happen for me (I've tried this approach...it just makes me frustrated).


this again reminds me of two things:

1) male and female sexualilty are different and i (and HS) are speaking primarily from our experience as males

2) st paul says that "all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable." he also speaks at times as "yet there is a more excellent way." i'd say that yes, giving yourself that release is better, more profitable, than being a jerk to your spouse. i'd argue that learning the kind of self-discipline that allows your body to take care of that release itself is the most excellent way, but that doesn't mean i need to beat myself up if i find that another way, for the time being, is more profitable for me because i am not capable of the more excellent way.

yikes i've spent a lot of time writing this stuff today. i better go get some reading done.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2006)

--


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

californian said:


> 2nd post re: autoerotic stimulation
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, call it self-indulgent. But for example, as someone else noted, masturbation is not the same as sex. Would you say it is selfish of me to want an orgasm when I can't have one during sex and am among many women who are like me?

*Also, masturbation helps with menstrual cramps, and pregnant women can have sex, and often enjoy it with their husbands... depends on both. There is already a child conceived. Is that a waste of sperm?*

Also, it has NEVER affected my relationships with any man in my life. If anything men find it sexy that I am comfortable with my body this way.

Also, in terms of "spilling seed" -- I am nearing an age when I can't get pregnant. I also haven't had a sexual partner in more time than you'd care to know.

1. Is a woman who can no longer conceive not allowed to pleasure herself after menopause?

2. Again, this is an instinct. Why would we have this instinct? I can't believe it is a temptation to avoid. I simply don't buy that.

Right now I have no sexual drive whatsoever. It would take a loving man to help me bring it back right now. I'm scared it won't come back. Again, THAT makes me feel terribly empty and lonely.

For those with no partners, whose partners have passed away, say who never remarry, they are not allowed to experience pleasure.

I remembered last night that there was an ancient belief that sperm held the entire fetus in it. I don't recall when medicine revealed that life could only be created by both egg and sperm.

I have no guilt over what I do, and I don't judge. "Judge not lest ye be judged." I recall this. What I never understand is how certain individuals decide what is "good or bad" for others. Especially something this private (though at present I have exposed myself fully here) that hurts NO ONE.

I'm not sure you have read all of my posts that talk about my belief in evolution, adaptation, etc.

I'm not angry, I am mystified is all. This is where I say men hold a degree of power over women. In many countries, certain tribes in Africa, young girls' clitoris' are removed so that they can't experience pleaure.

There are other tribes (look up the Sambia) where men and boys are separated from women early on and boys ingest sperm from the adults to "gain strength".

So many cultures and so many organized religions have different rules.

Also, I'll have to go look up the 10 Commandments. I don't think it refers to not masturbating. It doesn't. And the Commandment "thou shalt not kill" in the Jewish translation is "thou shalt not murder" ... I suppose one could consider "spilling seed" as murder.

If we're all in trouble for autoeroticism and having sex without procreation, well the world as a whole has already gone to Hell in a handbasket.

I give up.
I am not angry, I am frustrated.
What else can I say.
And I have stuff to do too, OMG, but I enjoy these debates. I don't mean any insult to anyone. Also you said, "for those who are apologists for masturbation."

Again, I cannot believe that relious leaders of ANY religion who have no spouses do not engage in autoeroticism, and again, in intercourse with members of the same sex, with those of the opposite sex, and sadly with children.

I find that only illustrates again, by it's sheer magnitude, an effort to deny a normal instinct that somehow disturbs some people, and hence they find it sinful.

We often see that individuals who are homophobic are themselves gay.

Truly in the spirit of healthy debate.
Best,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Double post again! :shock: I guess I can't wait for the thing to post and press "Submit" several times.

One other odd thing. I read an article in the NYTimes re: there is a strange phenomena somewhere re: fish in streams apparently contaminated by various pollutants, but apparently BIRTH CONTROL PILLS, the hormones in them were found in the water.

Fish in that area ... male fish are developing eggs, and female fish are developing male characteristics.

I'll see if I can find a link.

Hormones and fish. Lord have mercy. :shock:


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

Wendy said:


> Ok, one last attempt at explaining what I mean, and maybe I havent explained myself well enough. The sun, just IS. The moon, just IS, the chair just IS, the street just IS. You can try to find explanations for why, their origins, put theories on it etc and that is what we people do. It is apparantly hard NOT to do it. To have something that 'just IS' be what it is.


thank you for your explanation, wendy. i think i understand what you are trying to say, but i also am not sure that the analogy completely works. to say that certain things just are is one thing.

but to say that attraction just is, isn't entirely the same. attraction has to do with how you relate to others, and it isn't all that odd to me to examine what might contribute to a person relating this way.

i think aversions ought to be viewed in the same way. would we say that homophobia just IS? that there aren't any factors that contribute to a person being homophobic? isn't it potentially helpful for a person to examine and understand what potentially contributes to their aversion to certain types of people?



Wendy said:


> What I mean to say is go BEYOND all the theories, ideas, opinions etc on homosexuality. One will find a dis-identification with all (sorry, garbage)that is put on homosexuality. This is so hard to explain. Read Pablo's very good post in one of the Spiritual threads, he says very well what I tried to say in this whole thread, but havent been very good at.


i very much like Pablo's post there too and have responded to it. i think that the ideas expressed there have a lot to do with what i've been saying about identity issues. people who have same-sex attraction and who are homophobic can both benefit from this perspective because it strips away the identity issues that we have generally constructed around same-sex attraction. both "homosexuals" and homophobics have a strong tendency to see same-sex attraction as a defining characteristic of identity, yet virtually no one does the same with opposite-sex attraction.

thus it is common for people to say i am A homosexual, not i am homosexual. the homophobic says, "you are A f-gg-t." there is a tendency towards nouns. heterosexuality, on the other hand, is usually seen only as an attribute, as adjective. "i'm heterosexual" or "i'm straight." i've never heard anyone say i am A heterosexual.

in short, i'm trying to say that we should try and see it for what it is, simply a way that certain people relate to others. some people might find answers for themselves as to why this is so that are helpful to them. others might not. equally important (or maybe more important), people who harbor hatred for homosexuals should also examine the reasons for which they relate to people the way they do.


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

dreamer,

an "apologist" is someone who makes a defense of the legitimacy of something, not someone who apologizes for it. 

i'm starting to feel like you aren't reading very carefully over my or homeskooled's posts. homeskooled already referenced the fetus in the sperm issue. neither of us are arguing anything based off of the "waste of seed" line of reasoning. both of us have stated that we don't think of this as some horribly "evil" act. and i've noted that female sexuality is a bit different than male. it seems like you are arguing against some straw man out there instead of against what we've said.

i'm sorry if i haven't communicated my points better. but please look over our posts again and see if you can see what we are really getting at.

other than that, i don't really have a response, because i don't feel like you are really arguing against what i've said. 

but i too enjoy the debate...have a good day, dreamer...


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear Californian,
OIY a lapse re: apologist. And there is so much discussion here it is virtually impossible to catch everything.

*But here is what I suspected, but learn something every day. How do you explain sexuality WITHOUT the intent to procreate, as well as homosexualty, autoeroticism in the animal kingdom?*

I simply Googled "animal sexuality" -- this research keeps me from going to sleep out of sheer worthlessness and misery.

Do animals sin? We are animals. Sentient beings. But animals nonetheless.

*Animal sexuality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

Sexual orientation
Part of sexology
Common classifications
Bisexuality
Heterosexuality
Homosexuality
Other classifications
Asexuality
Autosexuality
Kinsey scale
Klein Sexual Orientation Grid
The Storms sexuality axis
Monosexuality
Pansexuality
Paraphilia
Related articles
Affectional orientation
Biology and sexual orientation
Choice and sexual orientation
Demographics of sexual orientation
Non-human animal sexuality
Situational sexual behavior

*Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. Researchers have observed monogamy, promiscuity, sex between species, sexual arousal from objects or places, rape, necrophilia, and a range of other practices among animals.

Observers have documented behavior analogous to sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and situational sexual behaviour) in humans. Related studies have noted diversity in sexed bodies and gendered behaviour, such as intersex and transgender animals.*

The study of animal sexuality is a rapidly developing field. It used to be believed that only humans and a handful of species performed sexual acts other than for procreation, and that animals sexuality was instinctive and a simple response to the "right" stimulation (sight, scent).

*Current understanding is that many species believed monogamous have now been proven to be promiscuous or opportunistic in nature, a wide range of species appear to both masturbate and to use objects as tools to help them do so, in many species animals try to give and get sexual stimulation with others where procreation is not the aim, and homosexual behavior has now been documented in over 450 species."

How do we explain this, other than the power of the sexual drive?

Also, as you said, this discussion is all over the place. I will reread certain posts, but the bottom line argument here seems to be that anything other than human procreation is "unnatural". I am specifically discussing that.

Cheers
D 8)*


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2006)

--


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Wow....I cant keep up with this thread. I just sped-read it, and I want to agree and dispute with a couple of things....

First of all, Californian and Miss Starling, what you both said about couples having orgasms was very beautiful. Secondly, I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you Californian regarding happiness...If you are using happiness as a euphemism for pleasure, I think you are part right. God's highest purpose/gift for us is not pleasure, although it IS a gift of God, and in this way also an end. However, I do beleive that God's highest priority is our "happiness", as in "having life to the fullest" an "easy yoke" and a heart which is like "wine glass spilling over with joy" (I'm paraphrasing Bible quotes here :wink: ) Even the old Baltimore Catechism got _that_ right. Evil is synonymous with unhappiness and goodness is synonymous with happiness/joy. God cares so much about ours that he is willing to jeopardize his own wellbeing that we might be "happy with him in Heaven" (Baltimore Catechism). I think this is also what you meant, just want to clarify. Although suffering is used by God, it is not of him. Somehow we've turned the God of Love into a God of suffering and death, when these are the very things he came to free us from.

Wendy, the studies done, if they prove anything, prove that who homosexuals are, who heterosexuals are, are both determined by Nature AND Nurture. The physiological and psychological. That doesnt invalidate either one. Why do some people who smoke marijuana get DP and DR and many smoke it for 20 years and never do? Not all people will respond to abuse/neglect the same way. In my opinion, these sorts of things just push a borderline biological tendency over into an active one.

Epiphany, I can see this bothers you alot, so I'm going to respond in full to some more posts later. Right now I'm just typing off of the top of my head. It sounds to me like MANY women are not sleeping with very emotionally mature and giving men, and it says more about sexual partners and the character of contemporary men than it does to me about the merits of masturbation over consensual sex.

I have something spiritual I'd like to tack on. I'm not saying that you have to freak out over an "imperfection" Epiphany. You dont even have to stay away from it. Do what God empowers you to do. Our actions are simply empty vessels into which we just pour ourselves. It is our INTERIOR LIVES that count. If the INTERIOR is evil, then everything is evil. and if the INTERIOR is good, everything is good. And even when our interior is filled with lies and self-hate, God still Loves Us. So Love yourself, and Love God back.

peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Being an idealist, I view an orgasm as being the resolution of the sexual act. It is emotionally significant to share climax with a partner and gives way to relaxation and emotional bonding time. But I admit that almost everything I have written about this has been about what I perceive to be the ideal union between a male and female. Not many women can come in every position. And a good proportion of women never come during sex.
Ease of orgasm may be genetic?

Although an idealist, I think there is always going to be an aspect of necessity in sex - that the man must have at least x inchs, that the woman must be at least half attractive (flashback of a girl at work who is a very nice person but has a tooth or two missing and greasy hair). It?s a regretable side of it, but it is just how things work.

To be honest, I don?t think homosexuality is perfect, but no one chooses to be gay to begin with and it is not all about sex. I think homosexuality gets a large part of its bad name because of the high levels of promiscuity associated with the "gay scene".

Just one last thing on being gay - I read a study a while back on finger length ratio and exposure to testosterone in the womb. According to the paper, a number of gay men are hypermasculine.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Dreamer said:


> Also, it has NEVER affected my relationships with any man in my life. If anything men find it sexy that I am comfortable with my body this way.


My boyf has issues with this, but he?s conservative. He?s beginning to accept some of the things I own..

Which brings me onto an great anecdote about someone I know. It?s amazing how I accepted everything at the time without the bat of an eye-lid. I look back at things like this and realise how weird they are. This girl?s boyfriend ordered her dildo and when it arrived, it was monsturously big and realistic. So she sold it to a friend of a friend who she had never met before. They met in the town centre, and she passed over this huge secondhand thing wrapped up in a plastic bag!  Makes me laugh everytime.


----------



## Epiphany (Apr 28, 2006)

Wow...did I blink or something. Hard to keep up with everything here.

*Californian:*



> by definition, it IS self-indulgent. you can take issue with whether or not self-indulgence is bad or not, but masturbation is a person indulging in sexual pleasure by him or herself. self-indulgent.


I can agree with what you have said here Cal...I think that is where I take issue...the fact that I don't necessarily see self-indulgence to automatically associate with something bad. If I viewed it this way then I would feel that sex for anything other than procreation was self-indulgent and therefore bad which I obviously don't (I know this was touched on a while back in a whole other post which I don't wish to reopen...HS I can also see how viewed from that perspective how all the things mentioned in that post tied in together if you recall the topic).



> perhaps you have never found that to be true. but i must ask if you have compared lovers who regularly masturbate with ones who don't. i must also ask if you've compared your own sexual practices while regularly masturbating with a period in your life when you abstained from it.


I have Cal...and I found it to have no bearing on the quality of sex other than to increase pleasure. Ok...that kind negates my argument. What I mean is the best sexual contact I have ever had has been with men who actually masturbated regularly. They had drives that matched my own and my enjoyment levels were as important if not more so than their own. My hubby isn't a regular self-indulger...we have both abstained for periods to increase intensity levels. The resulting higher levels of anticipation and sensitivity were great but had no bearing on my comparisons. It is dependent on too many other factors. I would love to say that my sexual relationship with my husband is the best I have ever experienced...it distresses me that it isn't the case and oddly makes me feel ashamed and guilty at times for feeling this way. But the truth is that the levels of self-indulgence have never proved a defining factor of a good lover for me...if anything, the opposite so I'm with Dreamer on that one.



> who's asking you to apologize? and to whom?


My interpretation of what Dreamer was saying here is: Why should one "feel guilty" for enjoying pleasure? (rhetorical question?) I could be wrong.



> as for your other question, learning to NOT be a person who has to scratch every itch that comes along is a good thing. it makes a person stronger and can help them quite a bit in interpersonal relationships


Despite how I may have come across, I do actually agree quite strongly with this although may not have followed this very closely in the past.



> self-preservation is an instinct. in a burning building where other people need help it would be a good to override that instinct in order to help others. that's just one example out of many that i could provide.


Perhaps you could class self-preservation as an instinct...or perhaps in the example you provided you could class it as one half of the "fight or flight response". That is the instinct...fight or flight. If you chose self-preservation then you have responded by fleeing...if you chose to help then you fight. So the instinct results in the response which is chosen by the individual. Self-preservation would apply if the person flees but the actual instinct itself would be the "flight or fight response" wouldn't it?

When I say masturbation is instinctive I mean we instinctively know that it feels good...babies don't need to be shown this...it isn't "learned" behaviour.

*Dreamer:*



> Would you say it is selfish of me to want an orgasm when I can't have one during sex and am among many women who are like me?


You and I are on the same page here Dreamer...to think of it like this gives me thoughts that the male orgasm itself would also have to be self-indulgent (and no...I don't really think that...only if I try to look at it from the perspective that us females who can't orgasm during intercourse are simply being self-indulgent to reach an orgasm via masturbation, a self-indulgent/selfish/sinful act...seems rather cruel to me when it's the only way we can  ). Miss starling...you are indeed lucky.

*Homeskooled:*



> Epiphany, I can see this bothers you alot...(edit).


Yes...it bothers me. To be told, my orgasm...the only kind I have ever experienced...could be viewed as a sin, when for those of you who can orgasm during sex it is natural and beautiful. It smarts a little. It makes me feel as though I should have a degree of guilt and makes my orgasm sound "tainted" somehow. As Dreamer said before...as though I should apologise for something.



> It sounds to me like MANY women are not sleeping with very emotionally mature and giving men, and it says more about sexual partners and the character of contemporary men than it does to me about the merits of masturbation over consensual sex.


Perhaps...but emotional maturity is difficult to define. Someone can be emotionally mature in all other aspects and quite inadequate in the sexual arena. Yes...it does say more about these things than the merits of one over the other...but it all ties in together for me. Kind of irrelevant though to dwell on if you have chosen to stay with a partner despite these obvious incompatibilities...and there is only so long you can butt heads over a topic before you realise it makes you more miserable to fight it.



> I'm not saying that you have to freak out over an "imperfection" Epiphany.


I have freaked out...I know, sorry. Mainly because I have realised that this not only means that my method to reach orgasm is an imperfection, but my lack of ability to reach orgasm any other way is also an imperfection. And I thought I was just plain unlucky. :wink: 


> You dont even have to stay away from it.


If I could orgasm "normally" I probably could stay away from it...since I can't, no point in me running off to join the nearest convent, I say.

*Miss starling:*



> Being an idealist, I view an orgasm as being the resolution of the sexual act. It is emotionally significant to share climax with a partner and gives way to relaxation and emotional bonding time. But I admit that almost everything I have written about this has been about what I perceive to be the ideal union between a male and female.


I'm glad I don't share your view here miss starling...I would be in a permanent state of frustration if my ultimate resolution from sex was simultaneous orgasm (or even just orgasm). I have never experienced this and therefore have no idea what I'm missing out on I guess. I'm sure if I were talking about my "ideal world" though these would feature rather highly on my must-haves. :wink:



> I think there is always going to be an aspect of necessity in sex - that the man must have at least x inchs, that the woman must be at least half attractive


I wouldn't call these "necessities" at all...conditions or restrictions yes. But many people are capable of letting go of these insignificant details if they can see the person as a whole and love them for that...with casual sex of course then these restrictions may hold much more significance. Sex for intimacy or love between partners shouldn't feature these conditions.

To anyone who read all the way to the end of this...I think you and I need to find another pass-time.


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Dreamer and Epiphany, 
I'm not saying that masturbation is a sin. 95 percent of the time its an imperfection. Its not the action in and of itself that makes it a sin. Its the intent behind an action. When a man shoots a man who is about to kill him, its called self-defense. This action becomes noble because of its intent - you arent allowed to NOT defend the temple of the Holy Spirit which is your body. This is why I am so about healing and medicine. When the same man kills another man to exact revenge for slandering him in public, the intent (rage and vengeance) make the action evil. When a schizophrenic pushes a person into the path of a subway train ( a true story ) because he beleives that person is the devil and he is saving the world, the intent of the man's heart makes the same action good. In moral theology it is still _objectively_ wrong as life is a sacred thing, even in self-defense killings, but it is subjectively good/allowable.



> Yes...it bothers me. To be told, my orgasm...the only kind I have ever experienced...could be viewed as a sin, when for those of you who can orgasm during sex it is natural and beautiful. It smarts a little. It makes me feel as though I should have a degree of guilt and makes my orgasm sound "tainted" somehow. As Dreamer said before...as though I should apologise for something.


You've stated that it is sad that you cant achieve this during sex, and I agree. The world's imperfect, isnt it? Almost as if something like Original sin might have existed...Which is why you shouldnt stress out if your body isnt perfect. I understand what you are saying. Thats why I say its an imperfection. Imperfections are not sins, they are not "errors of the heart". They are things that could be done better, but for whatever reason, are not. Our genetics, our bodies, EVERYTHING has a degree of imperfection to it, and thats okay. God doesnt love us because we act "perfect" or because my brain's better than yours, or my body works better than yours , or whatever people judge themselve's and each other's worth on. He doesnt even love us because our hearts are perfect. We should want good hearts, whole and filled with Love, because its good for us, not because God will punish us. He doesnt, you know. We're just stuck with ourselves, including our unwell, or hopefully, well, hearts when we die. We should want whole and good hearts because they lead to goodness, happiness, and joy in our lives. And we should take care of our bodies because they house these hearts. Spirituality is about wholeness and wellness of the entire _human_. Both body _and_ soul - healing one always heals the other. They overlap so much that there really is no line seperating the two. Make the body a little healthier, and the spirit will be freer. Make the spirit a little freer, and disease begins to lose its hold. You can treat possessed people with antipsychotics and it helps. And you can treat the sick with prayer and it helps too. The devil is not limited to spiritual means, and neither is God. All things, spiritual and material, can be used by God for the good of an entire person. So have no fear, Epiphany and Dreamer and Wendy and Jesusangsthamybodycount. As Christ and Pope John Paul the II said "Be Not Afraid!"

peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Homeskooled said:


> And we should take care of our bodies because they house these hearts. Spirituality is about wholeness and wellness of the entire _human_. Both body _and_ soul - healing one always heals the other. They overlap so much that there really is no line seperating the two. Make the body a little healthier, and the spirit will be freer. Make the spirit a little freer, and disease begins to lose its hold. You can treat possessed people with antipsychotics and it helps. And you can treat them with prayer and it helps too. The devil is not limited to spiritual means, and neither is God. All things, spiritual and material, can be used by God for the good of an entire person. So have no fear, Epiphany and Dreamer and Wendy and Jesusangsthamybodycount. As Christ and Pope John Paul the II said "Be Not Afraid!"


I?ve always been confused by the relationship between the body and spirit (or heart). It?s hard to know what is good or bad anymore. That is why I just try and be physically healthy and to feel good in my soul. Anything more than that I feel I cannot be sure of. A universally moral life, to me, implies a willingness to die for a cause. That is why I am surprised that you write about protecting the temple of the holy spirit. Having said that, if you are doing good in the world, it makes moral sense to preserve yourself to enable youself to do more good.

The issue with the imperfections argument is that if everything is imperfect in the world, how can you single out imperfections so easily? I mean, a life without masturbation is not made perfect as a result? I don?t believe any life can ever be perfect, that is why I relate to the idea of original sin. It is very similar to ideas I cam across in Buddhism about the cycle of life and death being imperfect, as it is always "contaminated" and that perfection only exists in nirvana/heaven. It makes sense to me that the two cannot be compared. Here, if everything is contaminated, then is it possible to imagine a perfectly heavenly place? Isn?t philosophy great?


----------



## Epiphany (Apr 28, 2006)

I understand what you are saying HS...today I can even agree with it. 
I've said enough about it all anyway. 
I may have gotten on my high horse a little about it all but I do love a good debate.

Yes it is an imperfect world...and oh how boring it would be if things were perfect.



> We should want good hearts, whole and filled with Love, because its good for us, not because God will punish us. He doesnt, you know.


Agreed...I have never believed we are punished by God or any higher power and I have never been able to understand why children are taught in a lot of instances to fear God...I find that approach appalling and counterproductive.

I'm really not sure why I get invovled in a lot of these discussions as although sometimes I may come across as quite passionate about it all, I really don't mind either way. It doesn't sway what I believe and I'm not really trying to convince everyone that I am right and they are wrong...I rarely if ever am offended or annoyed by an alternative point of view (unless it is put to someone abusively), so unsure why I put forth my opinions in the first place. I have to admit I enjoy these discussions and others views on them. Maybe I am just an antagonist. Perhaps it is just a sport for me. A self-indulgent sport. :wink:


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Epiphany said:


> I'm really not sure why I get invovled in a lot of these discussions as although sometimes I may come across as quite passionate about it all, I really don't mind either way. It doesn't sway what I believe and I'm not really trying to convince everyone that I am right and they are wrong...I rarely if ever am offended or annoyed by an alternative point of view (unless it is put to someone abusively), so unsure why I put forth my opinions in the first place. I have to admit I enjoy these discussions and others views on them. Maybe I am just an antagonist. Perhaps it is just a sport for me. A self-indulgent sport. :wink:


The reason I write on this board is because the act of writing helps me to find my opinion more firmly. Other people?s opinions help in that process. It is a personal journey, done sort of publically. Sometimes I wonder whether I should really be writing some of the things I write, for reasons of anonymity. But letting go and throwing caution to the wind helps with the creative process. 
This site is all about self-exploration. It?s difficult to do that with people in my actual social life because most normal people I come across really find it rather strange that I should want to explore myself. But here, I feel I can write whatever I want. If it is really bad, it?ll get deleted. There is an aspect of the parental in the moderator role. This is a secure environment also, and it is easy to say what one truely means.

I dread the day that someone I know reads what I have written. I have already betrayed my sister by writing about her. Am I betraying myself by writing about myself? And yet there is a compulsive need to declare one?s existance on this site, and be connected to other people by recognising their anxieties and fears. In everyday life, people hide all that, including myself. You would think that the internet was a bad thing, false at best, but actually, could the anonymity facilitate self-actualisation?

Maybe self-actualisation isn?t good in some cases?!

I suppose I just saying that we must all learn something about ourselves from reading these pages. I feel strangely close to all of you, though I recognise I don?t know any of you at all, it?s all just part of my imagination, the way I interpret what is written.

They need to invent a rambling hippie smilie so I can post a little warning at the beginning of my posts.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2006)

--


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

Epiphany said:


> I have Cal...and I found it to have no bearing on the quality of sex other than to increase pleasure. Ok...that kind negates my argument. What I mean is the best sexual contact I have ever had has been with men who actually masturbated regularly. They had drives that matched my own and my enjoyment levels were as important if not more so than their own. My hubby isn't a regular self-indulger...we have both abstained for periods to increase intensity levels. The resulting higher levels of anticipation and sensitivity were great but had no bearing on my comparisons. It is dependent on too many other factors. I would love to say that my sexual relationship with my husband is the best I have ever experienced...it distresses me that it isn't the case and oddly makes me feel ashamed and guilty at times for feeling this way. But the truth is that the levels of self-indulgence have never proved a defining factor of a good lover for me...if anything, the opposite so I'm with Dreamer on that one.


i'm glad you wrote this epiphany. like miss starling, i like to refine what i actually think about things by exposing them to other people's criticism. you have reminded me of something very important here, especially if we also consider miss starling's quote:



miss_starling said:


> The issue with the imperfections argument is that if everything is imperfect in the world, how can you single out imperfections so easily? I mean, a life without masturbation is not made perfect as a result? I don?t believe any life can ever be perfect, that is why I relate to the idea of original sin. It is very similar to ideas I cam across in Buddhism about the cycle of life and death being imperfect, as it is always "contaminated" and that perfection only exists in nirvana/heaven. It makes sense to me that the two cannot be compared. Here, if everything is contaminated, then is it possible to imagine a perfectly heavenly place? Isn?t philosophy great?


this discussion hinges quite a bit upon reference points, and, as homeskooled has noted, motivations. for a Christian, the reference point for perfection, for the revelation of God, for everything, is Christ. more specifically, it is Christ crucified. i'm not going to go off on a treatise of how this is the focal point of the Christian faith, that's not my point here. what i'm trying to say is that there does have to be a reference point for defining "perfection."

furthermore, mere actions or suppression of actions does not make ANYONE more or less perfect. it depends upon the state of the person's heart--on their motivation. a good parallel example is fasting from food. if somebody practices this for reasons of emulating Christ crucified and drawing near to him, it can produce very beneficial results. if one does it for self-righteous reasons or just to "see what happens" it can have disastrous results.

the actions or lack of actions do not in and of themselves make a person good, holy, better, or perfect.



Epiphany said:


> Perhaps you could class self-preservation as an instinct...or perhaps in the example you provided you could class it as one half of the "fight or flight response". That is the instinct...fight or flight. If you chose self-preservation then you have responded by fleeing...if you chose to help then you fight. So the instinct results in the response which is chosen by the individual. Self-preservation would apply if the person flees but the actual instinct itself would be the "flight or fight response" wouldn't it?


i understand what you are trying to say (i think), but i don't think this is an accurate description of the fight or flight response. fight AND flight are both self-preservation responses. some animals self-preserve by fighting, others by fleeing. still other animals choose either flight or fight depending on what they feel offer the best chances of survival. helping others while jeopardizing the self is an overriding of the preservation instinct, both of flight or fight.



Homeskooled said:


> I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you Californian regarding happiness...If you are using happiness as a euphemism for pleasure, I think you are part right. God's highest purpose/gift for us is not pleasure, although it IS a gift of God, and in this way also an end. However, I do beleive that God's highest priority is our "happiness", as in "having life to the fullest" an "easy yoke" and a heart which is like "wine glass spilling over with joy" (I'm paraphrasing Bible quotes here ) Even the old Baltimore Catechism got that right. Evil is synonymous with unhappiness and goodness is synonymous with happiness/joy. God cares so much about ours that he is willing to jeopardize his own wellbeing that we might be "happy with him in Heaven" (Baltimore Catechism).


i think we might have a bit of disagreement here. while i think you are right that the biblical concept of joy is a very, very significant and important one, an ESSENTIAL one, it is not accurate to say that it is God's highest priority. deliverance from sin and death (which is his highest priority) of necessity produces joy in us. but joy is not the end, nor the priority. as long as we are seeking the joy, it will prove to be elusive. when we have true communion with God and are delivered from sin and death, joy will naturally flow in and through us--but this is a different statement than saying it is "God's highest priority." not only is it not accurate biblical or patristic language, but in our society which heavily tends towards a narcissistic pursuit of "happiness" it is a potentially very dangerous statement.

i taught evangelical Protestant high school kids for six years, and it is appalling how distorted their views on God and themselves were because they thought that God's primary function was to ensure their "happiness."

the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control. Joy is one aspect of the fruit--it is not the whole thing.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2006)

Well there ya have it! :wink:

*Birds and bees may be gay: museum exhibition By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent *
Thu Oct 12, 8:46 AM ET

OSLO (Reuters) - The birds and the bees may be gay, according to the world's first museum exhibition about homosexuality among animals.

ADVERTISEMENT

With documentation of gay or lesbian behavior among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural."

"We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear -- homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature," an exhibit statement said.

Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled "Against Nature," told Reuters: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them."

The museum said the exhibition, opening on Thursday despite condemnation from some Christians, was the first in the world on the subject. Soeli said a Dutch zoo had once organised tours to view homosexual couples among the animals.

"The sexual urge is strong in all animals. ... It's a part of life, it's fun to have sex," Soeli said of the reasons for homosexuality or bisexuality among animals.

One exhibit shows two stuffed female swans on a nest -- birds sometimes raise young in homosexual couples, either after a female has forsaken a male mate or donated an egg to a pair of males.

One photograph shows two giant erect penises flailing above the water as two male right whales rub together. Another shows a male giraffe mounting another for sex, another describes homosexuality among beetles.

BURN IN HELL

One radical Christian said organizers of the exhibition -- partly funded by the Norwegian government -- should "burn in hell," Soeli said. Laws describing homosexuality as a "crime against nature" are still on the statutes in some countries.

Greek philosopher Aristotle noted apparent homosexual behavior among hyenas 2,300 years ago but evidence of animal homosexuality has often been ignored by researchers, perhaps because of distaste, lack of interest or fear or ridicule.

Bonobos, a type of chimpanzee, are among extremes in having sex with either males or females, apparently as part of social bonding. "Bonobos are bisexuals, all of them," Soeli said.

Still, it is unclear why homosexuality survives since it seems a genetic dead-end.

Among theories, males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a pack by having homosexual contact. That in turn can help their chances of later mating with females, he said.

And a study of homosexual men in Italy suggested that their mothers and sisters had more offspring. "The same genes that give homosexuality in men could give higher fertility among women," he said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is why I say, don't bother with theories. It is natural, it will always be natural and the 'genetical dead-end' is also taken care of by nature itself. It is a perfect system.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061012/sc_nm/environment_homosexuality_dc_4


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Darn, Wendy,
I put up the same info from Wikipedia:

*Animal Sexuality
I didn't make this up this is from research. Home and Californian will you respond when you get a chance?*

"Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. Researchers have observed monogamy, promiscuity, sex between species, sexual arousal from objects or places, rape, necrophilia, and a range of other practices among animals.

Observers have documented behavior analogous to sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and situational sexual behaviour) in humans. Related studies have noted diversity in sexed bodies and gendered behaviour, such as intersex and transgender animals.

The study of animal sexuality is a rapidly developing field. It used to be believed that only humans and a handful of species performed sexual acts other than for procreation, and that animals sexuality was instinctive and a simple response to the "right" stimulation (sight, scent).

*Current understanding is that many species believed monogamous have now been proven to be promiscuous or opportunistic in nature, a wide range of species appear to both masturbate and to use objects as tools to help them do so, in many species animals try to give and get sexual stimulation with others where procreation is not the aim, and homosexual behavior has now been documented in over 450 species." *

How do we explain this, other than the power of the sexual drive?

Also, as you said, this discussion is all over the place. I will reread certain posts, but the bottom line argument here seems to be that anything other than human procreation is "unnatural". I am specifically discussing that.

*And this sounds terrible I suppose, but it sounds condescending sp? for, I think it was Home to say -- and Home I really respect you -- "don't be afraid".*

Afraid of what? I am not afraid of going to Hell or being punished for this, or that I'm bad. I used to be afraid of dying (high on my list in my younger years with intense DP -- I saw it as eternal isolation, like being buried alive in a coffin). I won't be happy when faced with death.. hope it comes later than sooner, but I don't fear some "judgement".

I am not a Christian ... I am not a spiritual person per se, but I have studied the Bible as history, OT and NT extensively -- in college and also as an office manager in a Synagogue I attended Shabbat, etc., but I still have a ragged Bible that is falling apart (with scholarly footnotes, annotations, etc. by theologians and others in it). I studied it in conjunction with other historical and literary works of the time.

I wonder about why we're here (another DP terror in the past), but I wonder now in a purely intellectual sense.

And as I've said before, if Christ, or God, or any being appeared to me, it wouldn't answer any questions for me. If anything, I'd be more mystified, as I'd say, "But where did YOU come from?"

I am not afraid, I am curous. I am also heavily into the concept evolutionary neuropsychiatry (V.S. Ramachandran, M.D., Ph.D.). I see so much pathology such as DP/DR as evolutionary adaptation getting short circuited somehow.

My greatest fear, being DP/DR the rest of my life. And due to the lengthy chronicity of it, essentially my whole life, MY prognosis (not saying this of ANYONE else) for "recovery" is not great.

I can only keep plugging along.

*Meantime, Home and Californian -- I lived in CA for 16 years, can you respond to these "imperfect" activities in animals, even the great apes who are so closely related to us it is astiybdubg. What, we share about 98% of DNA with these creatures.

And yes, I understand, we are sentient beings, far more complex. But God also created all the beasts of the earth as well. Why make animals "imperfect."? To what end? *

Honestly, this discussion started with Epiphanies hormones, lol, went to diet, then to religion. I'm back with the original question. Where does masculinity and femininity come from? I believe in instinct from long past. "The reptilian brain."

*Oh, and re: St. Paul, who really formed the basis of many of these ideas was pretty much asexual. There is a passage somewhere in Ephesians? where he says, "I wish others were more like me." referring to his asexuality. How could he have understood and judged something that he himself seemed to have not felt or enjoyed?

I'd find that passage, but it would take me a while.*

Cheers,
D - again the despised biological reductionist, oh well, just shoot me. 8)


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Ah, but Californian, you forget that there _was_ a time before sin and death, when man walked with God. And in that time, deliverance from sin and death was not concerning God. What then was? Once we are delivered from sin and death, then what is the point of existence? Its like finally getting your credit score back to acceptable levels - that isnt the end in and of itself of having credit. You dont get it just to maintain healthy levels of it. You've finally just got to the point where your credit is not unusually bad. You are no longer a bane to creditors everywhere. Deliverance is just the beginning of the spiritual journey.

The Baltimore catechism states that God created man to "know Him, Love Him, serve Him, and be happy with Him in Heaven". It was written for children, but simplicity really is the key to it all. Although love is also mentioned as a fruit of the Spirit, it is also known as an end in and of itself, because it is the Omega, it is God Himself. To the above catechism statement I would just add "to know Him, Love Him, serve Him, and be happy with Him in Heaven - which is all really the same thing. To know God IS to Love the infinitely Loveable, to serve Him IS happiness. None of these things exist outside of Him except as a mockery of this truth"

Then perhaps the point of it all is then to Love. Perhaps it is Agape. The word first appeared in the context which we now use it in the first translation of the Septuagint in the 3rd century. Other words could have been used for the Hebrew word of love, but happily, this was chosen. It is used to describe many types of love, but most important to our topic is that it is used to express Love of God and neighbor (which if I may say so, is also the same thing - one does not exist without the other, because God is mystically present in all humanity and we are all mystically present within Him). The only thing which is realer than love is its object - the human person. That which was made in the image of the Great I Am. Agape is the epitome of selflessness - it wants its beloved for its beloved's sake, and it wants what is good for the beloved even if it means dying to its own sake. Good for the beloved....what does that mean? For the sick and diseased, this means health and well-being. For the healthy creditors, what, then? I would guess to be happy with God in Heaven. But since the afterlife starts here, I would also guess being happy with God on earth as well. We are God's children. How many times has he wished to gather us to him, like a hen gathers her brood under her wing, but we would have none of Him? How is it possible that he could be so Good - can we really expect Him not to be the curmudgeon we've been taught He is? God is a lover, and he is constantly waiting to do good things to us. To give us material and spiritual gifts. To take care of us because we _are_ His beloved. It is this love that heals the diseased and enriches the healthy. It is this Love that both fulfills and wishes for the fulfillment of ALL of its beloved's needs. It is both the Beginning of the journey and the End.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Darn, Homeskooled we posted exactly at the same time.

OK, here are some comments by St. Paul:

Corinthians, Ephesians, I don't have everything IDd, I don't recall everything, but I actually have notes on St. Paul:

" .. he that is married careth ... how he may please his wife" [rather than] "how he may please the Lord."

".. in my flesh ... dwelleth no good thing" Romans, 7:18

"...it is good for a man to not touch a woman."

I don't have citations for all of this stuff, I've torn up notes, but could find this if I took some time. St. Paul was not too pleased with sexuality overall.

Don't have time to look more up, but could if given a few days, or if I could find a paper I wrote on some of this, from 1977, lol.

I don't mean to attack any religion, I guess, I feel defensive, and shouldn't. Since this is in "That's Life", I also feel more apt to debate, vs. in the religious forum. I am not the experts that you guys are. I realize that.


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Oh, and I'll add this appendix to my above post for Dreamer. I'm currently typing this from Montana, as I've gone on a hunt for "clean air" for my porphyria. I think I'll amend my above statement, by the way, Californian. I now beleive the end all and be all of existence is probably clean air. The heck with love.

Just kidding.....

Okay. Dreamer, I respect you too. So much so that I want to make clear to you that you need not be anxious because of anything I'm typing. I'm not sure if you said so or Epiphany, but one of the above mentioned feeling guilty, and I can just sense anxiety and guilt rearing its ugly head in the replies. So fear not. I dont want you guys to feel that way. God doesnt want you guys to feel that way. You dont need to defend yourself/selves. I'm not attacking. I never met anyone who was really internally changed by guilt. I dont think God uses it. He uses enlightenment and prayer to change people's minds and hearts so that they WANT to change. They feel FREE. And you can never tell just how He'll do it, or what He'll tell someone to do in prayer, which is why I'm really not into condemning people. Come to get to know God in prayer, and He'll teach alot better than old Homeschooled and his pedantic ravings ever could.

Yes, yes....I know that the animal kingdom is filled with all sorts of behaviours that would land one in San Quentin for life. Anyone for eating their babies? (Rabbits do, you know). Anyone for biting off their husband's head? And I dont mean figuratively. If you do, then you just might be responding to the X percent of your genes you share with preying mantises. No, this doesnt mean I'm equating homosexuality with eating our young, so lets *not* go there. Homey's tired and travel-weary. However, it does mean I think that (A) they arent held to our standards - they arent sentient, dont have culture, cant show self-restraint, most dont have lifelong family relationships, cant truly Love, and (B) they too would be imperfect from original sin. There ARE inefficient animal behaviours which have disappeared because they either destroyed the species (see the inability of Dodo birds to adapt) or were in and of themselves harmful. You are pointing out the existence of these behaviours as proof that they are good. But the way natural selection works is that Nature comes up with TONS of genetic good and bad variations, and time and the ruthless nature of this now imperfect universe see which ones are useful. We have the wierd ability, as sentient beings, to actually stop natural selection. Which is a good thing. I dont want to see us stop helping kids with down syndrome because its "genetically inferior". But it also means that we should evaluate our own behaviors, and not just justify them because its "in our genetics", you know? And dont worry about the genetic imperfections. So what? God loves you. Some of the things we think are imperfect ARENT, and some of the things we probably all think are just perfect probably need tweaking. Talk to God - He'll let you know which is which. He's a good old chap, that God fella....(Sorry, I slept three hours, so enjoy this while you can...)

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

PS - Dreamer, St. Paul was a good chap too. He actually prefaces the one passage where he recommends that all stay single to get to know God as he has with the statement that "this part is from him and not the Spirit". He was quite a mystical guy, so when he heard the small, still voice of God tell him things, he passed it onto the Christian community, and was very careful to leave disclaimers clarifying that some things in his letters were just his own viewpoints. Thats one of them. For St. Paul, that might be true. But why not have your cake and eat it too? Why not have sex AND God, eh? The two arent mutually exclusive - after all, God is a lover.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Homeskooled said:


> There ARE inefficient animal behaviours which have disappeared because they either destroyed the species (see the inability of Dodo birds to adapt) or were in and of themselves harmful. You are pointing out the existence of these behaviours as proof that they are good.


Oh, to be in Montana! How did you get away. But I just can't let this go...

1. You say animals aren't held to the same standard, but we know that the great apes, all of whom are surviving very well, have most of our qualities including warring against each other. And they are closest to us overall.

2. And if animals DO love each other as you mention, then how is that separate from human love. And how can you say they love each other? How are you separating love from a protective adaptation? Then perhaps that's all it is in the human species.

3. And I'm not pointing these things out as if they were "good", I'm saying,

a. God created these creatures. Why do they do some "unspeakable things" that we do too?

b. If these are adaptive behaviors in some way (and I could go into the theories) and they exist in humans as both adaptive and not adaptive, we as humans will (and do) experience "survival of the fittest".

Why haven't homosexuals disappeared from the earth? Why haven't those who engage masturbation disappeared?

I see these things as neither good nor bad. In humans, some instinctual behavior is outdated, or simply destructive obviously. But many sexual activities are perfectly normal, universal in fact, and do not harm, hence I see no reason for them to be "weeded out" in an evolutionary process which would take eons to accomplish anyway, seeing as how complex they are.

No I don't feel guilty. I think someone else said that.

I know this thread is virtually impossible to follow at this point! I can't keep up. I try to read everyone's posts. Sometimes I skim. Sometimes I don't understand everything.

At any rate.... MONTANA. I'd like to live there on a ranch and say goodbye to the hustle and bustle of everything. Although I'm enjoying nippy, SNOWY, blustery fall weather here in MEECHIGAN.

Best,
D
We posted at the same time again! Thank you for your excellent responses. I don't mind agreeing to disagree with you on things.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

This thread is so interesting - I haven't accessed the internet for a week and I have missed it!


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

> God created these creatures. Why do they do some "unspeakable things" that we do too?


No more skimming for you! (I feel like the Seinfeld soup nazi...) Good question - I'm now going to refer you back to the top of page eight, Homeskooled reply one, paragraph 3, point (B) for the exciting answer....

As for all behavours that exist right now having been selected - How do you know which ones are or arent on their way out the door? And I mean this about animals, not us. As I said, we can actually stop natural selection, so it literally cant touch us. If AIDS worked the same way in homosexual apes as it does in us, it would quickly die out. Luckily for us, we have time to change our behaviours and modify them. Often the only thing that we modify , however, is the disease itself. And its always good to save life - but what about our responsibility to reflect on our roles in nature and society? Animals cant adapt except for random mutations that arent under their control, so natural selection is almost necessary. Oh, and one more thing - I stated that animals DONT love in the same capacity that we do. God placed us above natural selection. He has selected US. Now we simply need to get to know his will......

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

I don't believe that God selected us over anything else. The trees can't help being the trees, and frogs can't help being frogs. I have a low opinion of myself as a human being and don't feel that I have been selected to watch over the genetic pook, I mean pool. Okay, so we are forced into the position of choosing now, and I admit that one thing that I cannot bear to think about is carrying a genetically weird child, no matter how much of a bigot it makes me to say that. Still, who is to say what characteristics people should and should not have? If people were left to decide that, the planet would be worse off for it because popular opinion would prevail, and we know already that the majority of the people that inhabit the world do not think for themselves. At best, people prefer what benefits them in some way, rather what fits in with their life intentions. It's regretable that human beings have so much technology and so little sense. I'm inspired to think about good hearts for the sake of good hearts, but how many people aspire to have a good heart? The world would be a different place...

Still, I'd vote for you Homeskooled, if you were a politician and I lived in your country. You really could be president.


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

homeskooled,

first and foremost, i agree heartily with your examples of how human beings generally reject that "normal" animal behavior constitutes "moral" human behavior.

as for the rest of our discussion, i apologize to everyone else for how off topic it is. nevertheless, i shall respond. 



Homeskooled said:


> Ah, but Californian, you forget that there _was_ a time before sin and death, when man walked with God. And in that time, deliverance from sin and death was not concerning God.


i see a number of problems here:
1) in taking this stance, you are temporalizing God. God is not subject to time, space, or circumstance. he does not change priorities. he is not surprised by new situations. and he does not move through history with us in a linear fashion.

2) in taking this stance you are coming close to literalizing the Genesis account and opening up a whole new can of worms. WAS there such a time when there was no human failing and no death of any kind? WHEN was this? and how does this reconcile with your view of the age of the earth, evolution, etc?



Homeskooled said:


> Once we are delivered from sin and death, then what is the point of existence? Its like finally getting your credit score back to acceptable levels - that isnt the end in and of itself of having credit. You dont get it just to maintain healthy levels of it. You've finally just got to the point where your credit is not unusually bad. You are no longer a bane to creditors everywhere. Deliverance is just the beginning of the spiritual journey.


no, deliverance IS the journey. deliverance and salvation are synonymous--just different English words for translating the Greek word "sozo." likewise, "soter" is savior or deliverer. in the 2nd century, st irenaeus, for example, taught that because the "savior" or "deliverer" (that is, Christ) existed, it was necessary that he who needed deliverance be brought into existence. this idea is echoed by Athanasius and other fathers.

i'm surprised at your looking at "sin," "death" and "deliverance" so statically. you have yourself defined sin as "imperfection"--so would not deliverance from imperfection be a process, a journey--THE journey, so to speak? salvation/deliverance is not a "point in time" (other than the crucifixion) and is worked out as a journey.



Homeskooled said:


> The Baltimore catechism states that God created man to "know Him, Love Him, serve Him, and be happy with Him in Heaven". It was written for children, but simplicity really is the key to it all. Although love is also mentioned as a fruit of the Spirit, it is also known as an end in and of itself, because it is the Omega, it is God Himself. To the above catechism statement I would just add "to know Him, Love Him, serve Him, and be happy with Him in Heaven - which is all really the same thing. To know God IS to Love the infinitely Loveable, to serve Him IS happiness. None of these things exist outside of Him except as a mockery of this truth"


although i could be nitpicky here, i won't because i recognize the Spirit of what you are saying as being 100% true (even if you are citing the *Baltimore* catechism :lol: ). this is all i was trying to get you to clarify in the first place.

God's highest priority is that we be what we are created to be--in his image and likeness, which can also be expressed as what you said above. but THIS is his highest priority, and it is THIS that is deliverance from sin and death. it is only this that gives eternal joy.

but it still seems dangerous to me to say that God's highest priority is our happiness for the same reason that i think it is dangerous to simply say "God's highest priority is that we serve him" or "God's highest priority is that we do his will." taken by themselves, these statements can imply that God's main desire is that I be his slave, or that he dominate over me. this is a damaging concept to be sure.

as a result, i was (and am) questioning both the accuracy and utility of your statement in light of the discussion going on here. the discussion was starting to go in the direction of an existential, "whatever makes me happy here and now" attitude. it is heard as happiness in the here and now as opposed to happiness "as an end." something may in fact produce personal happiness, contentment, joy, etc. right now in a person but not "as an end." conversely, suffering may in fact produce happiness as an end. thus, 
crucifixion--------------------------------->resurrection
conforming myself to his death--------->attainment of resurrection (Phil.3)


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Homeskooled the Soup Nazi said:


> > God created these creatures. Why do they do some "unspeakable things" that we do too?
> 
> 
> As for all behavours that exist right now having been selected - How do you know which ones are or arent on their way out the door? And I mean this about animals, not us. As I said, we can actually stop natural selection, so it literally cant touch us. If AIDS worked the same way in homosexual apes as it does in us, it would quickly die out.
> ...


 :shock:

My goodness, we don't know what's being weeded out, but that is a loaded statement. I'm going to not try to read anything into it, save that not only homosexuals have AIDS, but anyone who has exhcanged blood products with someone with AIDS or HIV will contract it (and there as some with HIV who have never gotten AIDS and we don't know why).

Also, it's leap from some form of monkey to humans is described as having occured when poverty stricken train workers/track construction workers in Africa frequently supplemented their diets with the flesh of infected chimps? (I can look that up, but it has been researched thoroughly). *So human survival at that time started the beginning of AIDS.* A woman treating an infected worker in a rural hospital at the time, a female doctor, was the first Westerner to contract the illness.

*Had that happened at an earlier time in human civilization, normal sexual practices, exchage of blood products would have decimated us perhaps, yes. I'll leave it at that. If this had happened at the turn of the 1900s instead of around the 1950s, there would not have been ANY medical advances to control the disease. Air travel wouldn't have spread the disease so easily and quickly. The great accomplishments of humans, would not have existed to help treat AIDS. We still haven't found a vaccine, we haven't found a cure.*

*The AIDS virus itself also mutates, evolves. There are various strains. It seeks to survive, to outwit in its own way.*

Women, children, hemophiliacs, the health workers infected by blood contact with patients by accident, those having received blood transfusions ... many of these people are dying of AIDS as well -- is that a good thing????

The world over. And yes, of AIDS, or the opportunistic infections that result of being infected. (I know there was an argument somewhere that AIDS is overblown -- I don't believe that.)

But for instance, in human nature, as in chimps and baboons and the great apes ... I'm not talking ameobae, amoeboe sp? here ... I'm waiting for an atomic bomb to drop from somewhere.

Home, that is a dangerous statement.

I'm waiting for a "home-grown" suicide bomber, some normal, U.S. citizen, perhaps a "survivalist group" from N. Michigan gone fundamentalist to expolde in the midst of some innocent people.

Yes, we make choices, but I agree with Miss Starling to avoid WW III here ...


Miss Starling said:


> I don't believe that God selected us over anything else. The trees can't help being the trees, and frogs can't help being frogs. I have a low opinion of myself as a human being and don't feel that I have been selected to watch over the genetic pook, I mean pool. Okay, so we are forced into the position of choosing now, and I admit that one thing that I cannot bear to think about is carrying a genetically weird child, no matter how much of a bigot it makes me to say that. Still, who is to say what characteristics people should and should not have? If people were left to decide that, the planet would be worse off for it because popular opinion would prevail, and we know already that the majority of the people that inhabit the world do not think for themselves.
> 
> * At best, people prefer what benefits them in some way, rather what fits in with their life intentions. It's regretable that human beings have so much technology and so little sense. I'm inspired to think about good hearts for the sake of good hearts, but how many people aspire to have a good heart? The world would be a different place...*


"At best, people prefer what benefits them in some way"

-- and that is indeed a survival instinct. Often when there is catastrophe, there is a break down in civil law. It's everyone for himself. I experienced this during the Rodney King riots in L.A. Folks in BMWs loading their trunks with fancy auto wheels.

I return to my theory that human beings are indeed animals. We harbor the same instincts we did as an evolving species. Such instincts don't die out so easily, especially now in a world of amazing (medical) and destructive (a ton of other stuff) technology.

The behaviors that exist in animals are ours.

This is too dangerous a topic. I hope you aren't saying AIDS is some "lesson" or a way to "cleanse" the population. :shock:

To lighten up, rabbits, who are exceptionally promiscuous ... well I don't think they'll be dying off soon, folks are gittin' them rifles out.

I think religion explains/defines our instincts as "the fall from grace", and I'll be damned if it isn't always a woman's fault, lol!

Movin' on here......... :shock: :shock:


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2006)

Homeskooled, Im sorry to say, but you are homophobic.


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

Wendy said:


> Homeskooled, Im sorry to say, but you are homophobic.


wendy, could you explain why you feel this way? i'm just curious. are you taking his comments on AIDS to say the same thing dreamer is taking them to say? because i don't see his statements as having much to say about AIDS as some kind of judgment. he was pointing out that animals can't do behaviour modification to escape disease (they way humans can) and that if HIV killed apes the way it does humans, the virus would have done itself in by now. i didn't catch ANY hint of him arguing for it being a judgment intended to kill human beings... yikes.

i think, wendy and dreamer, you are reading things into homeskooled's statements that he isn't saying...



Dreamer said:


> Animal Sexuality
> I didn't make this up this is from research. Home and Californian will you respond when you get a chance?
> 
> "Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. Researchers have observed monogamy, promiscuity, sex between species, sexual arousal from objects or places, rape, necrophilia, and a range of other practices among animals.


my response is simple and similar to homeskooled's. trotting out examples of behaviors observed in animals as legitimization or illegitimization of human behavior always amounts to arbitrarily picking and choosing which behaviors you want to legitimate/standardized and ignoring the ones you don't.

unless you are willing to state that because rape and necrophilia are "normal" in the animal kingdom and therefore "acceptable" practices for human beings, then there really isn't anything to discuss. it is just an ad hoc selection of certain practices in the animal kingdom to support your thesis.

if you are willing to accept this statement, then ultimately it leads to accepting the dictum of the marquis de sade, "What IS, is right." and he lived it out, complete with rape AND necrophilia.

LET ME MAKE MYSELF CLEAR. I AM NOT CONDEMNING ANYONE IN WHAT I SAID ABOVE. I AM MERELY POINTING OUT THE FAULTINESS OF FINDING MORAL DIRECTION FROM THE ANIMAL KINGDOM!


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear Californian,

Firstly, I was a tad concerned when Home used AIDS as an example. It jumped out at me. And it isn't the first time that Christians and other religious groups have claimed that AIDS is a punishment for homosexuality. I'm not imagining that. The statement truly startled me.

Then you said:


californian said:


> unless you are willing to state that because rape and necrophilia are "normal" in the animal kingdom and therefore "acceptable" practices for human beings, then there really isn't anything to discuss. it is just an ad hoc selection of certain practices in the animal kingdom to support your thesis.


I think you are misunderstanding my point and my POV. And you know I am not a spiritual person, I am something of a biological reductionist who tries to look at things in a logical manner. I've always tried to do that. And I refuse to be the vicious atheist my mother was.

You can't possibly believe I think rape and necrophlia are "normal" or acceptable -- you chose two words at the end of that sentence! But they DO occur in animals/mammals ... and as I keep emphasizing in ape and baboon populations. I also believe in evolution. I believe we have evolved over a great period of time.

We started talking about sexuality. I have no shame in my own sexuality, I don't see it as imperfefct. I see that which is not harmful to others behind closed doors (and that includes either party) is an expression of the power of sexual desire, which again stems from the need to procreate.

Any destructive deviations, these are not uncommon in either humans or animals. No what occurs in NATURE simply IS, and as I see it reflects what is buried deep within our selves, our brains. Yes, we need to control seriously destructive behavior as much as we can. But making all of sexual behavior "imperfect" is illogical to me.

Put 10 people in a room, and none of us will agree on what constitues "normal sexual behavior." We will generally agree on what is seriously deviant, and of course that includes rape and necrophilia.

Rape does not surprise me. Men rape. Women don't "rape". Males of most species are more sexual, more dominant for a reason. Rape in human males is an exaggeration sp? of an innate instinct to inseminate, to be dominant. But it is destructive, it is crimininal, it is unnacceptable . But we see it's roots, and I don't think we can deny those roots.

Many men also rape for other psychological reasons. But I see psychology tied with neurology, tied to instinct. I have the POV of a certain group of individuals who are interested in the study of behavior.

If anything I feel we should try to use anthropology, primatology, the study of animal behavior to understand ourselves better.

I feel you are misinterpreting what I'm saying.

I agree to disagree with the Christian interpretation of things. I suppose I dislike the decision that certain people are "less pure" than others, or again, more "imperfect" because they engage in the very things that have evolved in us over the ages. Things that are reflected in many other species in nature.

For instance is the work of Jane Goodall or Diane Fossey sp? all a waste?

Chimps/baboons go to war over territory. So do humans. There is insight there into our actions there that we can observe.

Yes, we have the ability to control our baser instincts. In theory. I believe religions of various sorts have evolved to help provide social guidelines, keep individuals "in check". Also, ritual is important. Community is important. I have found much knowledge and comfort in listening to a rabbi speak in Synagogue.

In Christianity, I hear more judgement.

I agree with what Miss Starling says. Yes, humans are sentient beings, and yet we still act like idiots. I'm simply saying, I see this as coming from our evolutionary past, not from a Fall from Grace.

It is on that point we will never agree upon.

But Good Lord, I am not advocating necrophilia and rape. That was taken directly out of Wikipedia. If you look at the article, I believe that's how it starts.

I don't need to explain more, and must get to sleep!

Meantime, I feel more condenscension from you, Californian. And that's OK, I have to deal with it. My cousin is a Baptist Fundamentalist who doesn't belive in mental illness and thinks mentally ill people are lazy.

How can I carry on a conversation with him. And he is a good God-fearing man.

I dont' know what else to say. I was surprised Homeskooled used AIDS as an example in the context of my comments. He probably meant nothing by it. Yet how can't that strike me in today's climate?

And no, I'm not a raging liberal. I'm a conservative, with some liberal beliefs, and even some libertarian beliefs.

Why not speak of other plagues that have ravaged humans throughout the centuries?

D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Errr, double posts.

And Californian, give me the credit of not being an idiot. Did I say I advocate rape and necrophilia!!!!!????????????

One fascinating point to me was that animals engage in auto-eroticism which is indeed not for procreation. THAT was the focus of part of this thread.

Again, I don't think we can ignore the power of our evolutionary past, the basic drive for survival. The absolute necessity for it.

And anything like that can go awry, but I also look at mental illness as evolutionary adaptations gone awry. I find that fascinating. I am looking at this in a scientific point of view.

We have to agree to disagree on certain things.
And I don't want to get into any arguments.
Again, I enjoy the debate. And it is something that doesn't lend itself to the internet. Again, this is something people need to sit down and discuss.

It is easy to misinterpret what somene is sayng.
OMG I do not advocate rape and necrophilia, lol. Come on! :shock:
8)


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

californiana said:


> trotting out examples of behaviors observed in animals as legitimization or illegitimization of human behavior always amounts to arbitrarily picking and choosing which behaviors you want to legitimate/standardized and ignoring the ones you don't.


Again you don't understand me, and I can do nothing about it. I am not "arbitrarily picking and choosing .... etc., and ignoring the one's I don't."

I am stating, my belief, that human beings are animals. Flat out. The difference is, we are the most highly developed (we have conscousness, we have a sense of the future, we have language, we know one day we will die.)

If we are indeed complex animals we have much in common with other animals... and again, I am not referring to Dodo birds (as Home did), single-celled animals, or insects. I refer more to advanced mammals, particularly the primates.

I believe we can learn from them, understand what makes us tick from seeing we have similar behaviors, both constructive and destructive.

*I am not trying to justify the destructive behaviors. Then so are primatologists, anthropologists, animal behaviorists, and many in the medical field who seek to understand how the human body works by studying animals. It really makes me uncomfortable when chimps are used in experiments. I feel a closeness to them for example. They are so like us in many ways.*

If you really believe this is what I'm saying -- justifying destructive, harmful behavior in humans, there is no need for further discussion.

Best,
D


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Californian, 


> 1) in taking this stance, you are temporalizing God. God is not subject to time, space, or circumstance. he does not change priorities. he is not surprised by new situations. and he does not move through history with us in a linear fashion.


I agree. God has always been constant. I still get the feeling that you are saying that God exists to "fix credit" rather than the fact that good credit exists because God is God. I feel that salvation is a fruit of God's goodness insofar as we are "Loved" enough by him that we are saved. But I see Love as the goal.

I have always had a hard time reconciling Genesis with a timeline. I prefer to beleive it in a mystical sense. Somehow what it presents was offered and then rejected by us. How it occured is sort of inconsequential. I have a physics theory on that, but I'll expound later.

I think we're saying the same thing, just using different sources and words. I just hate to change my own internal wordings to suit the world's misinterpretations.

Dreamer, 
You are reading the worst possible case scenario from my words. It is good to save life. Death does not come from God. AIDS is not a "chastisement". Its life. Make good choices.

Wendy, 
How do I respond? When people respond with this kind of reply to me, I almost feel that it is its own rebuttal. More later after Montana.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

homeskooled, please DO share your thoughts on Genesis, etc. i am very interested in this topic and have been thinking about it a lot lately. i'm very interested to see how physics plays into it.

as for the idea of "debt" cancellation. i think i've identified a major part of the problem in our discussion. although, Catholic and Orthodox are very closely related, they did grow into different emphases. "debt" is a concept much more prevalent in the West/Latin/Reformation theologians. you are hearing my discussion of deliverance against that backdrop. i am hearing your "highest priority is happiness" against the backdrop of my evangelical upbringing and experiences (and of American cultural phenomena in general).

anyway, i'll share my thoughts on Genesis more fully later. Suffice to say that I believe that both Biblically and patristically creation and salvation are a single action. this is how i see current science and genesis coinciding.

Dreamer!

i am truly sorry if you felt i condescended towards you. that was not my intent!  please accept my apology.

am i a little frustrated? yes. i feel like you don't really read my posts or homeskooled's *for what they are*, but read what *you expect to hear* from "fundamentalist" christians into our posts. you have admitted that you were doing that re: home and AIDS. please try and read us for what we are saying. i'm pretty sure your baptist fundamentalist relative wouldn't even think Home and I are Christians because we sound so "liberal."

you misread some of my posts earlier on this thread. and you've misread me again this last time. i never said that i thought you believed necrophilia or rape were acceptable. the force of my argument was predicated on my expectation that you did not think they were acceptable.

my point was, and is, that animal behaviors cannot be used to state what are acceptable human behaviors, because many animal behaviors ARE considered acceptable, and many aren't. that is ALL i said. pointing to evolution as a guide for human behavior is ultimately morally repugnant to the vast majority of human beings. natural selection and survival of the fittest are generally rejected as ways of running human society.

my question for you is: where do you derive the principle "so long as it doesn't hurt anybody else" from? certainly not from evolutionary principles. certainly not from the animal kingdom. i'd submit that this axiomatic prinicple in Western culture today is itself derived from Judeo-Christian principles. it would not hold up in every human society.

i'm not a liberal or a conservative either. as a christian and on a moral level i am very conservative and hold to traditional christianity. on a political level i believe in legalizing marijuana and same sex unions. i believe in helping the poor, the weak, the downtrodden with government policy.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2006)

californian said:


> Wendy said:
> 
> 
> > Homeskooled, Im sorry to say, but you are homophobic.
> ...


Dear Californian, Im basing my statement Homeskooled is homophobic on what he says about his (God's?) views on it. He says that, and this also comes from other posts I have read from him on this topic, he doesnt agree with homosexuality, and for example he thinks gay men and women shouldnt be able to get married. Also, that homosexuality is 'imperfect' because it cant lead to offspring (which is not true by the way).
Also, from his theorizing about homosexuality, it is clear he thinks it is unnatural and has its source in a 'hormonal abnormality'. He also 'pathologizes' homosexuality, saying some of his friends became homosexual due to a 'psychological pathology'.
This all can be classified as homophobic.

He says something like well 'God created them and maybe he has an purpose for them'. It is to me, a very condescending stance towards homosexuals, as if he looks from a place 'higher' than 'them', as if they are second class people. Then he says I dont know, I cant judge. But he DOES judge, also in the name of God.

I feel, homeskooled you take a very superior stance on many issues discussed here, your stance towards animals as an example and people being superior to them. I cant help but feel when I read your posts, you take a moral highground, based on what God says (bible says?) on issues and I often find myself wondering what your OWN opinions are (and not God's).

All this said, religion is at the basis of all homophobia (you can do some Googling on Religion and homosexuality). Im not implying ALL religious people are homophobic, but if they are, it usually comes from religion based 'truths'.

When I read what he said on AIDS etc, Californian, last night, and eventhough I misunderstood it, my feeling he is homophobic did fall in into place. Sorry Homeskooled, just my take on you.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

californian said:


> my question for you is: where do you derive the principle "so long as it doesn't hurt anybody else" from? certainly not from evolutionary principles. certainly not from the animal kingdom. i'd submit that this axiomatic prinicple in Western culture today is itself derived from Judeo-Christian principles. it would not hold up in every human society.


Apology accepted, and Home, etc., I see we have misunderstandings re: all of this as we are coming from different places. But both of you must see what took me by surprise, and californian you did accuse me of justifying necrophilia, lol. Don't see how that could come off any other way. S'ok however. And re: Wendy. She was angry. She is gay. And from her past posts, she has felt that way since childhood. It isn't a choice for her.

I derive "So long as it doesn't hurt anybody else" from what is determined as Civial Justice. In this sense I am not a Libertarian, I believe in a certain degree of government and state and local intervention, such as "Law & Order" (one of my fave TV shows ... actually SVU in particular :shock

There would be no laws -- and that includes the Ten Commandments -- if laws have not been broken, and we know that it is the Nature of humans to break these laws all the time.

Everything in the Ten Commandments is a "law" after the fact that what is socially deemed as a "crime" of one sort of another has been committed.

In that list of Ten, I buy them all (I have my own interpretation of the portions re: GoD). The rest are actually human CIVIL and CRIMINAL law and (yet another long post) and I do not like mixing Church and State, so some spiritual "moral laws" are in constant debate, but if you look at the manmade laws they are logical, created out of necessity, they are *reinforced* by the Bible (or other religions) by not only a community at large but by "a higher power" which in theory adds additional "power" to the law.

Note: Islam for instance incorporates not only the OT, but the NT. Muhammed believed Moses and Christ were prophets. They are part of the Q'uran.

But civilized societies can't function without these laws. And all cultures in one way or another have similar laws. We may not agree with all of them, but they "control society". One could consider communism a religion ... not spiritual ... but a set of philosophies and rules that keep people under control, and many Western countries, with laws are moving more and more towards the secular and away from spirituallity. "Secular Humanism" and the like. Which I don't particularly care for either! Things are complicated! Not simple.

The first three commandments are directly related to "God", and I could expound on that, but that would be a whole other post. They relate to how one should respect God.
1. No other Gods before me
2. No graven images
3. Don't take my name in vain
4. Celebrate the Sabbath

Well four, but one is mixed in with another. Oh, I forgot, forgive!

The rest are clearly manmade civil/criminal laws, on the books by necessity, IMHO:

4. Honor thy father and thy mother (keep the family strong as it is the basis of forming a strong cooperative community/society)
5. Thou shalt not kill (rather logical)
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery (yes that causes a multitude of problems) - however polygamy (if you want to call that a form of adultery is common in many cultures, and practiced by FUNDAMENTALIST Mormons)
7. Thou shalt not steal (I appreciate that one)
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (not a good idea to do that)
9. Thou shall not covet (a whole host of things including a man's house, his wife, his ox or ass -- I currently haven't got an ox, but I wouldn't want someone coveting it 8), no comment on the ass :wink: -- maidservant, manservant.

Too many Commandments, I screwed something up.

Anyway. I never attended any religious organization, Church/Synagogue/Mosque, though most of my peers did (98%). As noted, my mother was an atheist (psychiatrist, lol), and my father (a surgeon) never had any religions tendencies as far as I know.

I'm a WASP and attended a non-denominational private college prep school from K-12, where respect for authority was of the utmost importance. We were to respect adults and they in turn gave us praise and respect and not all of them attended Church, etc. We wore uniforms. We learned that respect for authority was paramount to success, to goodwill, etc. We called our teachers, Miss, Mrs., Sir, Maam. None of this was in the name of any religion, save the "religion of disicpline."

In my early years, we said "The Pledge of Allegiance", sang "Onward Christian Soliers", and said "The Lord's Prayer" every morning. My mother found these things ridiculous, but they only took up about 10 minutes from our studies.

I learned "moral things" out of fear of being screamed at by my mother (who again was an atheist), who screamed at me no matter what I did, as well as high expectations in my community.

I never feared God's retribution as God was not a part of my life becuase of my mother's insanity. But I was instructed and encouraged to learn about different religions, even by my mother, as these things were historical and "part of my cultural upbringing", my "cultural literacy" -- as important as seeing the Mona Lisa, and the tomb of King Tut.

This is getting too long again. But overall the Civil and Criminal laws on the books these days are based on maintaining law and order. I'd say the U.S. Justice system is pretty fair. Punishment is imprisonment or death. (I have some problems with the latter, but there are some people so evil ... at any rate.)

And even in the animal kingdom, particularly again amongst the more advanced animals, there are primitive "rules", "pecking orders", etc. which help maintain some order and again help maintain survival. Things such as altruism have been observed in animals. Why should a chimp be altruistic? It serves a purpose ... I will help you, maybe later you will help me. Or if I help you, it will benefit the group as you have something to contribute to our overall well-being.

So I even see good lessons in the animal kingdom.

I hope this again explains my POV.

And yes, my Fundamentalist Baptist cousin, would drive you crazy. He however is a very decent person. But he would find you having strayed from the true word of God. He takes every word of the Bible literally. He does not believe in evolution. He is also anti-semitic, anti-muslilm, etc, anti-Hindu, anti-name it. I find that rather odd.

Oh, yes, and he has been planning for the Apocalypse sp? since the millenium, but of course there was 9/11, the wars in the Middle East. We seem to keeping missing the correct year. Perhaps when Korea or Iran drop the atomic bomb he'll be right. He has to be right at some point I suppose!

OK, I could go on for hours. Again, I wish we could discuss this in person. Weekly meetings for goodness sake!

I have to eat something now or I'll faint.

Cheers,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

One last thought. Just ate something and have been mulling all of this too much.

Take the Amish for example. They have existed I believe since their origins somewhere in Europe (Germany?) in the 1800s and they moved to areas in the U.S. at some point, due to persecution? Or something.

At any rate, having gotten that all wrong, lol. They have determined that living a completely simple life, devoid of modernity is really the only way to live. They do give their teenagers a time to rebel, but if the teen decides to remain a part of the modern world, they are banned from the community for the rest of their lives.

They find, drinking and dancing immoral. Dancing? That is as far as I'm concerned a ritual that brings people together -- and a common tribal religous practice. They happen to find dancing immoral. The Mormans as well.

And what would we all do without our computers? Without the internet? Without phones? Electricity, autos are not acceptable.

I sort of like the concept of a simple Amish life. But would I lose my mind living that way? It's interesting that of those teens who are allowed that year? of freedom to choose, most decide to return to being Amish.

The is the only life they know. And indoctrination from childhood, that's tough to reject as one must reject one's family as welll as the entire community.

Who is "right"? Who has the "least imperfect" religion? Whose is the least imperfect "God" or spiritual path?

These questions trouble me, so I return to science. To nature.

OK, done.
For a while. 8)


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2006)

--


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2006)

And btw Epiphany, Im not a girly girl, nor a tomboy. Im somewhere in the middle. I was a bit of a tomboy when I was younger, but I have become much more feminine through the years and have come to enjoy it. 8)


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Californian, 


> think i've identified a major part of the problem in our discussion. although, Catholic and Orthodox are very closely related, they did grow into different emphases. "debt" is a concept much more prevalent in the West/Latin/Reformation theologians. you are hearing my discussion of deliverance against that backdrop. i am hearing your "highest priority is happiness" against the backdrop of my evangelical upbringing and experiences (and of American cultural phenomena in general).


Yes! Quite so. I was going to point this out earlier, but I was going to miss my connection to Whitefish, Montana. I think we're just fighting "straw men" so to speak.

Genesis? Well, there is this Quantum theory that at the beginning of the Big Bang, all matter, and thus time itself, was compacted into an infinitely dense ball which was not subject to the laws of physics until .0001 seconds into the Big Bang. At its precise specifications (of infinite density, etc...) the laws of physics break down. What was theorized in Scientific American was that all of time was also present in these milliseconds preceding the Big Bang. It was eternity. Time did not exist. It contained all that had happened and was going to. After the Big Bang and the fragmented peices of it took form as galaxies, so did eternity. We experience it now as linear fragments we quaintly call "time". But at one point is was present in its fullness. I wonder if the question to accept the Love of God was posed to humanity at this point. If a collective no was heard, the universe, including evolution, would unfold the way it has. Good but flawed. There are many permutations possible of this theory, but I try not to dwell too much on the "hows" of mine and the universe's existence. Its enough for me to know that I am here, and to know what is true right now.

Wendy, I truly beleive that Californian is right. You and Dreamer have read what you expect to hear from my post. I almost sense that there is anger simply waiting to latch onto something, whether or not it makes sense. I was pointing out that justifying any human behaviour based on the fact that natural selection hasnt removed it is foolish - we are smart enough to trump natural selection, and as Californian and I both said, cheers to that. It IS morally repugnant to run a society based on survival of the fittest. If I beleived that, a more fitting term for me would be a eugenist, not a homophobe.



> He says something like well 'God created them and maybe he has an purpose for them'.


No, I say unequivocally that he HAS a purpose for people, and that includes people who like the same sex and those who like the opposite. I dont soft-peddle this. I dont gloss over it. God Loves you. He has purpose for you. You dont need to change yourself to earn his love - its a gift. Be not Afraid. Relax about ANY "imperfections" in your life. And yes - I do think homosexuality is an imperfection. And so is masturbation. And so is the fact that my words have hurt you. This argument is such a red herring. Ultimately people want you to come down to one side or the other and make a value judgement about a behavior. Either to side with them that it is perfect, or to side against it and be demonized. BUT YOU CANT DO THIS WITH BEHAVIOR. There are two ways to judge behavior, and I've elucidated this earlier in the thread: Objectively and Subjectively. Juding an action objectively pretends it happens in a vacuum. It is an incredibly clinical way of judging an action's worth based on its efficiency at fulfilling the purpose and that purpose's usefulness to society. In this way, masturbation is imperfect. It doesnt completely fulfill certain purpose's of sexuality. But look at it subjectively - and this is the most important way to look at an action. In this way of judging, you look at things from the purity of a person's heart. Are they masturbating to spite their spouse? Or are they are lonely teenager or an unfulfilled married woman? Is the homosexual in love with another man? Or is he violating as many men as he can in order to satiate his narcissism? You CANT know these things, and thus, YOU REALLY CANT JUDGE. I'm quite sure that God uses homosexual relationships to teach some humans abou Love.



> your stance towards animals as an example and people being superior to them.


Yes, I truly beleive this. And depending on what criteria you use to gauge equality, it can actually be a science based conclusion. We are, in every way, slightly more developed and more precious than animals. And animals are very precious. I dont kill insects, not spiders, ants, bees. They are all God's creatures and recipients of His Love. Who am I to take it away? But if I have a good reason to, I would do so without compunction. When we start equating humans with the very general term "animals" we lose sight easily of how important our lives are. They are not cheap. We do not eat our young. We do not submit our children to survival of the fittest - or our old, our young, our sick, or our minorities - aye, even our criminals. We may kill a cow if he is carrying a disease - and I say good for that farmer - but woe to us if we ever begin killing humans who start epidemics. Or humans who break our laws. Or humans who kill other humans. Can we judge their hearts? Can you judge mine? Is it a homophobic heart? Can you 
_see_ mine, Wendy?



> cant help but feel when I read your posts, you take a moral highground, based on what God says (bible says?) on issues and I often find myself wondering what your OWN opinions are (and not God's).


I DO try to take the moral highground - but the Bible is almost never my principle source. To be honest, I'm only interested in the truth about things. Thats it.Medicine, God, whatever. I _want_ to know how God feels about issues - if he feels anything about them at all. And He does. My prinicple source for understanding God and interiorly viewing the world in divine light is prayer. God really can communicate through it. Anyone can do it. Just be interiorly still, talk to him, and then just listen internally in silence. If I have an opinion and then I realize that data is contradicting it, I admit my mistake and modify it. I cant afford to waste time in denial.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Californian, 


> think i've identified a major part of the problem in our discussion. although, Catholic and Orthodox are very closely related, they did grow into different emphases. "debt" is a concept much more prevalent in the West/Latin/Reformation theologians. you are hearing my discussion of deliverance against that backdrop. i am hearing your "highest priority is happiness" against the backdrop of my evangelical upbringing and experiences (and of American cultural phenomena in general).


Yes! Quite so. I was going to point this out earlier, but I was going to miss my connection to Whitefish, Montana. I think we're just fighting "straw men" so to speak.

Genesis? Well, there is this Quantum theory that at the beginning of the Big Bang, all matter, and thus time itself, was compacted into an infinitely dense ball which was not subject to the laws of physics until .0001 seconds into the Big Bang. At its precise specifications (of infinite density, etc...) the laws of physics break down. What was theorized in Scientific American was that all of time was also present in these milliseconds preceding the Big Bang. It was eternity. Time did not exist. It contained all that had happened and was going to. After the Big Bang and the fragmented peices of it took form as galaxies, so did eternity. We experience it now as linear fragments we quaintly call "time". But at one point is was present in its fullness. I wonder if the question to accept the Love of God was posed to humanity at this point. If a collective no was heard, the universe, including evolution, would unfold the way it has. Good but flawed. There are many permutations possible of this theory, but I try not to dwell too much on the "hows" of mine and the universe's existence. Its enough for me to know that I am here, and to know what is true right now.

Wendy, I truly beleive that Californian is right. You and Dreamer have read what you expect to hear from my post. I almost sense that there is anger simply waiting to latch onto something, whether or not it makes sense. I was pointing out that justifying any human behaviour based on the fact that natural selection hasnt removed it is foolish - we are smart enough to trump natural selection, and as Californian and I both said, cheers to that. It IS morally repugnant to run a society based on survival of the fittest. If I beleived that, a more fitting term for me would be a eugenist, not a homophobe.



> He says something like well 'God created them and maybe he has an purpose for them'.


No, I say unequivocally that he HAS a purpose for people, and that includes people who like the same sex and those who like the opposite. I dont soft-peddle this. I dont gloss over it. God Loves you. He has purpose for you. You dont need to change yourself to earn his love - its a gift. Be not Afraid. Relax about ANY "imperfections" in your life. And yes - I do think homosexuality is an imperfection. And so is masturbation. And so is the fact that my words have hurt you. This argument is such a red herring. Ultimately people want you to come down to one side or the other and make a value judgement about a behavior. Either to side with them that it is perfect, or to side against it and be demonized. BUT YOU CANT DO THIS WITH BEHAVIOR. There are two ways to judge behavior, and I've elucidated this earlier in the thread: Objectively and Subjectively. Juding an action objectively pretends it happens in a vacuum. It is an incredibly clinical way of judging an action's worth based on its efficiency at fulfilling the purpose and that purpose's usefulness to society. In this way, masturbation is imperfect. It doesnt completely fulfill certain purpose's of sexuality. But look at it subjectively - and this is the most important way to look at an action. In this way of judging, you look at things from the purity of a person's heart. Are they masturbating to spite their spouse? Or are they are lonely teenager or an unfulfilled married woman? Is the homosexual in love with another man? Or is he violating as many men as he can in order to satiate his narcissism? You CANT know these things, and thus, YOU REALLY CANT JUDGE. I'm quite sure that God uses homosexual relationships to teach some humans about Love.



> your stance towards animals as an example and people being superior to them.


Yes, I truly beleive this. And depending on what criteria you use to gauge equality, it can actually be a science based conclusion. We are, in every way, slightly more developed and more precious than animals. And animals are very precious. I dont kill insects, not spiders, ants, bees. They are all God's creatures and recipients of His Love. Who am I to take it away? But if I have a good reason to, I would do so without compunction. When we start equating humans with the very general term "animals" we lose sight easily of how important our lives are. They are not cheap. We do not eat our young. We do not submit our children to survival of the fittest - or our old, our young, our sick, or our minorities - aye, even our criminals. We may kill a cow if he is carrying a disease - and I say good for that farmer - but woe to us if we ever begin killing humans who start epidemics. Or humans who break our laws. Or humans who kill other humans. Can we judge their hearts? Can you judge mine? Is it a homophobic heart? Can you 
_see_ mine, Wendy?



> cant help but feel when I read your posts, you take a moral highground, based on what God says (bible says?) on issues and I often find myself wondering what your OWN opinions are (and not God's).


I DO try to take the moral highground - but the Bible is almost never my principle source. To be honest, I'm only interested in the truth about things. Thats it.Medicine, God, whatever. I _want_ to know how God feels about issues - if he feels anything about them at all. And He does. My prinicple source for understanding God and interiorly viewing the world in divine light is prayer. God really can communicate through it. Anyone can do it. Just be interiorly still, talk to him, and then just listen internally in silence. If I have an opinion and then I realize that data is contradicting it, I admit my mistake and modify it. I cant afford to waste time.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Epiphany (Apr 28, 2006)

DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER...I shall not be held resposible for the interpretations (or misenterpretations) of any individual who reads my posts on any of these topics.

Holy cow peoples...we really are a mixed bag of fruit here aren't we. :shock:

I really do agree that it is easy to read too much into what others are saying on these matters. I have read miseterpretation after misenterpretation here (not excluding myself from this) and seriously, people are picking a point and running away with it on their own agenda.

Back to the guilt thing Homey...I was the one who mentioned it. Not that I felt guilt about my own sexuality (ie masturbation etc), but that from the viewpoint of it being an imperfection or sin then I perhaps should feel guilt. I don't. I am also not afraid of punishment or judgement from God or fear of retribution for any of my actions (and I chose not to view what you said about "fearing not" as in any way being condescending...I understand that was not your intention HS). I have let go of many of my old fears and guilt and feel much freer and able to cope with the world. I do not fear my imperfections...nowadays I accept them (even embrace them).

I find it hard to believe you have not met anyone who has been internally changed by guilt though HS. I have...not always for the better but I have heard of many instances where people have turned their lives completely around with guilt for their actions being the driving force. I'm not one of these people...I was internally changed by letting go of my guilt.

Cal and HS...I do agree with what you were saying about not being able to compare the imperfections of any other species with ours. A lot of these issues being discussed contain moral and societal factors and as we have only our observations of the animal kingdom to go by we cannot ascertain exactly what other issues (moral and societal) may influence certain species. I am of the belief that we humans may be completely misled in believing that other species have no moral, existential understanding, or societal influences. We have no idea exactly what goes on in the mind of an ant, or a chimpanzee. We can observe and make reference to the human qualities we recognise but beyond that we haven't got a clue.

I understand the analogies you were both trying to make. Dreamer, I in no way believed that Californian was trying to pinpont that you are an advocate of necrophilia or rape. He was simply using that as an analogy as to how you cannot compare masturbation, homosexuality etc in the animal kingdom (even in the world of primates) as being instinctual without also considering that if these animals engage in necrophilia and rape as being the same thing. If you are saying that because it is present in the animal kingdom then it must indicate it is instinctual then you must also entertain the thought that the same applies to anomolies such as rape and necrophilia. That is what I took from what Cal was saying. Not that you advocate these things. Of course we all know you don't.

Wendy...I really do think you read the wrong things into what Homeskooled says about homosexuality. I can understand why you take things so literal and look for some underlying messages about a persons take on homosexuality but I think you have twisted a lot of what HS has said on the topic. I have questioned a few things HS has said regarding sexual orientation myself in a previous post and from his explainations did not derive that he is homophobic. I do believe he has put forth a view that it could be seen as one of life's imperfections based on God grand master plan for us all (but we have also ascertained that masturbation, and sex for purposes other than procreation may also fall under that category so don't feel singled out...that places practically everyone in the imperfect category and heck let's face it...we are all imperfect). 
I can accept why you feel so defensive, I have never had to live with the prejudices you have to face, but you should not try to interpret every conversation that is had on the topic of homosexuality as a potential breeding ground for hatred of, or fear of, or judgement of. It can simply just be a discussion of.

Oh and Wendy...BTW I am also not a girly girl or a tomboy...I'm also somewhere in the middle and I do not think this could ever be used as an indication of sexual orientation at all...my initial post was regarding hormonal changes and how I have noticed how being pregnant has affected the way I think, feel and act. I do think that hormonal levels affect many different aspects of our lives and in many ways we do not understand. When the discussion turned to the role hormonal levels play in sexual orientation, I have to agree that in some instances what HS was saying could be possible...it is a theory that cannot be discounted for many people. Who knows which hormones affect us in what ways. Science has very little explainations or knowledge on the interactions and roles of hormones and how we are affected by them. What little is known isn't enough to prove or discount any theories on these matters.

I'm not sure how sexual orientation can be defined anyway. Wendy, you obviously know you are gay and have always been. I know I am not. However, I have been sexually attracted to females in the past and would not discount having sexual encounters with a woman. This does not make me question my sexuality at all. I don't consider the possiblity I may be bisexual. I am not attracted to males and females equally, but do my thoughts of being able to engage in sex with another women make me question who I am? No...you are who you are. I could not ever see myself in an emotional relationship (partnership) with another woman...why? I really don't know...it's just how I feel.



> Rape does not surprise me. Men rape. Women don't "rape". Males of most species are more sexual, more dominant for a reason. Rape in human males is an exaggeration sp? of an innate instinct to inseminate, to be dominant. But it is destructive, it is crimininal, it is unnacceptable . But we see it's roots, and I don't think we can deny those roots.


Dreamer...women have been known to rape. It happens and it's possible. I don't agree that rape is an exaggeration of an instinct to inseminate in the human kingdom (you could argue that it is for certain species of animals but how can you compare species...sexual behaviours in the animal kingdom are so varied...some animals mate for life, others mate with as many different partners as pssible, some take by force and others engage in rituals that last hours on end). Men also rape other men. I agree its more often to ascertain a feeling of dominance but it is rarely to inseminate. I don't think most rapists, commit rape with the intent to inseminate as many people as possible. It is an immature inability to control a sexual urge. I see it more as a psychological response to a sexual urge gone haywire.

Anyway...babble babble babble. I do go on.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Whoa, 
I really am speachless. I wish I could contribute to the debate in a more concrete fashion, but what can I say? For some reason I just want to mention something to do with animals that made me look at things differently the other day...
All my life I have not been drawn to animals, cats, dogs or whatever. I don't like insects particularly, and have a phobia of butterflies...It's been hard for me to see that animals have feelings, thoughts, even intelligence. But right now, I wouldn't discount the possibility for the following reason. The other day I was watching a programme produced by the BBC called Blue Planet. I don't know if you have seen that in America and Australia? It's just a nature programme on sealife. They were shooting on coral reef and captured the behaviour of crabs and the like. To my amazement, these creatures appeared to be acting as if they could think conceptually. There were some crabs fighting for terrirory, under some other creature which happened to be holding a shell on one of its sides. The crabs are fighting each other, and without any warning, one discards his old shell, jumps up into the new one and runs off! The shell he grabbed was held high above his head. I wondered how he knew it was there and that it was a shell...turns out that crabs can also have eyes on their backs.

All I'm trying to highlight is that creatures are a little more intelligent than we sometimes think, and are miraculous things in themselves. (I know I am contradicting myself because in my last post I said people don't think for themselves, but I was feeling very pessimistic on Friday). I often think about how animals breed, and wonder to myself what is the difference between the way I started life (at conception), and how a sea creature starts life. There was also another programme on the tv recently about fish farms, where they showed pictures of fish embryos, basically looking very similar to human ones, only with fish shaped things in them. It freaks me out to be honest.

Californian's signature, about the wonder of anything existing, seemed to hit the nail on the head for me.

Whatever the purpose of our existance, we are here, we follow what appears to be an imperfect path - I have to agree on that one - and we are not at fault for being innately....inadequate, well that is how I feel.

The other thing that fascinates me about this thread, is indeed the mixed bag of fruit as Epiphany puts it! I dunno, maybe that sort of ties in with the whole debate about diversity in the animal kingdom and in human society?

I read all of your posts and nod my head because everything seems plausable and well thought out. But can we all be right? And what is the value of being right?...

I suppose if you are religious or believe that your moral life will impact on your future spiritual life, I suppose it matters to find what is right. But running through everything with a fine tooth comb seems ridiculous. And this actually brings me to Homeskooled point (again, but I couldn't possibly comment on that tendency), that subjective experience matters.

To me, the only real reason to not rape or what have you, is because it feels wrong. But then again, can we always go by our feelings? I suppose that is where you say God comes into it. But _really_, isn't internal perception of God a feeling? And therefore, can it be trusted?

I am really interested to know what peoples' views are on this. Sorry for not actually addressing what people have wrote, but I simply don't have the knowledge to present an argument. Right now, I don't have a view to argue, I am very lost but in a sort of liberating way. It's the impending madness.

All the best, look forward to the continuation of this thread. If this thread was an organism, it would be really cool, very genetically diverse.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Actually, if Californian could explain his point on creation and salvation being the same thing, that would be much appreciated. 
8) Take care


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Oh my,
THIS IS WAY TOO LONG. FORGIVE. I type quickly, lol.

This is the problem with the internet again. You can't hear the tone of my voice, I can't cite enouugh examples re: what I want to say, and I can't hear the tone of the comments of others.

Also, no one seems to understand here, that I am expressing my views which clearly do not reflect yours -- Home's, and californian's in particular. I am simply expressing my POV that I simply do not believe certain Christian teachings as they don't make sense to me, especially if I look to nature.

As I write this *I am not angry, I am simply rebutting what someone is saying and if I misinterpreted what californian said, well, again, perhaps it is the limitations of the internet, but that is how I read what he wrote.*

I also realize that the conversation going on with Home, californian, and Epihpany is geared more to theoligcal debate. Mine is a debate in which I argue against what appears to be an arbitrary designation of what is acceptable and unnacceptable human behavior. And I am saying "instinct", which are hard-wired, cannot be judged ... that is certain instincts -- not all of them, but those instincts good or bad lead us to understanding who we are, and perhaps illuminate how we can change behavior.



Ephiphany said:


> He (californian) was simply using that as an analogy as to how you cannot compare masturbation, homosexuality etc in the animal kingdom (even in the world of primates) as being instinctual without also considering that if these animals engage in necrophilia and rape as being the same thing. If you are saying that because it is present in the animal kingdom then it must indicate it is instinctual then you must also entertain the thought that the same applies to anomolies such as rape and necrophilia. That is what I took from what Cal was saying. Not that you advocate these things. Of course we all know you don't.


Correct, I do not support or advocate those things which are harmful and obviously deviant (and again I don't see masturbation for example as harmful or deviant at all -- in animals or humans, that is simply my firm belief), yet *again* I repeat, we do see behaviors in ourselves that we see them in other creatures that inhabit this planet. I don't see how we can arbitrarily dismiss them, and summarily ignore them. The "constructive" and "destructive" behaviors.

We use animals in scientific experiments to improve our medical health. Pigs for example are apparently very similar to humans ... their organs, etc. We take from other animals to improve our own health, and we learn about behavior from other animals. And no, not everything they do is the same, but I go back again to the concept that "constructive behaviors" as well as "destructive behaviors" (the latter which may be weeded out by natural selection) are frequently shared and if so, perhaps we can understand why these behaviors exist.

Perhaps we can learn to treat rapists for example. And it would seem pedophiles are "hard-wired", continual recidivists sp? They cannot stop. Perhaps we can find what has "gone wrong" and find a way to remedy it. I.E. I don't believe pedophiles can control their actions. (A few may). And we all agree that pedophilia is horrendous. Yet it is a human behavior.

I firmly believe that there are great similarities in the way we as humans have evolved over 6 million years, and the way animals have evolved. And sadly yes, I believe in "survival of the fittest", *but that also doesn't mean we should off those individuals who can't fend for themselves -- and yet we do, there is poverty we don't address, there are people that will die off in a time when "in theory" we could help! And of course there was Hitler's POV -- to "cleanse" -- he killed not only Jews, but homosexuals, mentally ill and retarded individuals, and Christians. And he didn't do it without help.

If we look at the animal kingdom and human culture we see tribalism, xenophobia ... these things are again based on preserving individual groups over others.*

*I'd be gone in a flash if I hadn't been born in the 20th century -- with medical discoveries, medications, etc. I am truly "unfit" in terms of survival. I have many emotional problems and physical ones. My "line" is dying off as I have no children, which may or may not be just as well.*

Perhaps it is "unnatural" that I am still alive? There are debates over whether or not it is "natural" (and even humate) to allow Alzheimer's patients to lie immobile in their beds for years as they die. And I can say, I question it myself, as my mother languished with no quality of life that *she* would have wanted for about ten years, and then was literally a babbling vegetable for another 5. *No* quality of life. None. Lying in a bed, babbling, and soiling herself for 5 years with no hope of recovery. That's it. That's all she did for the last years of her life. And yes she had a legal "DNR" and died at 84. In a century past she would have died far earlier, "naturally".

But no doctor could peacefully end her life. And the irony is, she was an atheist, and a (former) "friend" of mine who is Episocopalian said this was her "punishment" for treating me, my father, and others so badly, and for perhaps being an atheist!

*I include myself in my theories. I debate your statement that says, we can't observe animals and understand ourselves. I disagree. And I suppose I'd have to write a bibliography in support of my claims. I could, but it isn't feasible here.*



Epiphany said:


> Dreamer...women have been known to rape. It happens and it's possible.


Yes, but on a minisule scale compared to men. Men and women are biologically different obviously. I believe men and women are naturally hard-wired, again for the purpose of survival as are animals.

Males are more sexually agressive by nature. I am not seeing this as anything but a fact. And no, I don't mean that women aren't sexual, and that in modern times we have been able to express our sexuality more freely, but men and women ARE different, in both humans and the animal kingdom.



Ephiphany said:


> I don't agree that rape is an exaggeration of an instinct to inseminate in the human kingdom (you could argue that it is for certain species of animals but how can you compare species...sexual behaviours in the animal kingdom are so varied...some animals mate for life, others mate with as many different partners as pssible, some take by force and others engage in rituals that last hours on end). Men also rape other men. I agree its more often to ascertain a feeling of dominance but it is rarely to inseminate. I don't think most rapists, commit rape with the intent to inseminate as many people as possible. It is an immature inability to control a sexual urge. I see it more as a psychological response to a sexual urge gone haywire.


*We will simply have to agree to disagree here. The tendency for men to rape, again is far higher than that of women. Also, agression is higher in men. Why is it that prisons are filled with men? And why are their crimes more agressive, more destructive. The types of crimes statistically are different. This is not cultural, IMHO, this is biological.*

It is more than coincidence that I see behaviors in the animal kingdom, both destructive and constructive echoed in the animal kingdom.

And again, I see humans as animals.

There is then a fascinating question. Wherein comes Free Will? I suppose I have a dimmer view of humanity. And I sense that religious sanctions have to do with that very same realization. We are fearful of the deviant behaviors, we can see they are destructive, and so we have designated them (in religions) as "prohibitive".

And to *Home*, or I'll go on and on as well, lol. And I DO enjoy this debate very much. It is interesting -- and I saw this on an excellent Frontline documentary -- several parts on PBS about AIDS. In terms of actively controlling the disease in African countries, condoms have been heavily promoted, and shown to dramatically decrease the rate of disease.

Depending on religious beliefs in *different tribes and tribal leaders* some prohibit condom use and distribution, and others encourage it. Using a condom is a CONSTRUCTIVE choice in this case as I see it. There as so many children in certain areas of Africa who have NO parents as both have died of AIDS.

Those who wish to choose to use condoms are often condemned for their use, and hence more women die. Where do the men pick up AIDS from? They must travel maybe a hundred or miles away from their homes for work. They are gone for long periods of time. They do not abstain (you would see this as imperfect but it is common throughout history -- prostitution is "the oldest profession" and I think it is so because of powerful drives -- *I am not saying that making poor choices are right or wrong, I am simply trying to understand this destructive behavior.*

So, these men don't use condoms, they get infected by being with a prostitute.... not a gay man ... come home to their wives, infect them, and both die.

I am just trying to understand behavior in humans which I believe IS powered by natural instinct, is mirrored in varous ways in the animal kingdom, and then the choices we make -- by the way we interpret human behavior - ALSO contribute to our own survival.

I am simply trying to understand human behavior, and explain that which I find "natural" -- such as masturbation, and unfortunately male agressive behaviors which can become extreme and destructive, etc., etc., etc. -- by seeing some of it as hard-wired.

1. We disagree on some non-destructive behaviors in humans (imperfections I see as harmless)
2. And we disagree that we have aminal instincts that can explain both constructive and destructive behaviors. And no, not all animal species are the same, neither are all of humanity!

3. I agree humans have the ability to choose between right and wrong. I simply ask, "Where did this behavior come from?" And sometimes, do we wish to change everything about men and women, as they complement each other? And do we want to "judge" behavior which is both harmless and as I say "natural", a product of our roots which I believe are hard-wired from centuries past.

And I still don't think I have explained myself well.
Again, nothing is simple, and can be plopped into a general category.
We don't understand all of what creatures do, what humans do, and there are so many religions that are likewise in disagreement what is the most constructive path to take in improving the quality of life of all humanity?

Again, I have a dim view of humanity in many respects. And that is unfortunate. But I also see hope if I really search for it.

Best,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

P.S. -- and my not having children was never a choice. I so wish I had children. But there were many reasons this never happened including my inability to connect with a healthy man who could be a good father.

I couldn't raise a child alone, I don't have a supportive extended family ... there are many reasons. I couldn't adopt for the same reasons.

Not just my being ill.

And I'm sad about this, almost every day, especially when I see my friends' children. It is extraordinarily painful.

And oddly enough, a man can father as many children as he chooses, and not even take responsibility, leaving his gentic legacy all over the place. That comes from a deep instinct whether it is good or bad, it is an instinct.

Yes, a male has a choice, but we can understand why men do this and can do this.

What really creeps me out are sperm banks. Where men who gave in 20 years ago realize they have many children out there. And some of these men want to know these children, and many of these children want to know who these fathers are.

We could go on and on about medical advancements. We'd have an ethical discussion that fills up this entire board!

OK, I have reading to do!
Peace all,
Really.
D


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Dreamer, 


> I'd be gone in a flash if I hadn't been born in the 20th century -- with medical discoveries, medications, etc. I am truly "unfit" in terms of survival. I have many emotional problems and physical ones. My "line" is dying off as I have no children, which may or may not be just as well.
> 
> Perhaps it is "unnatural" that I am still alive


_Please_ do *not* think this way. This is the problem with reducing _yourself_ to biology. Yes, you are biological. But why does the biological exist? This mindset is hurting you. And NO - you would still be alive without medication. What if you were born in the 1800s and found out you didnt have DP, because like me, yours is somehow triggered by pollution? Perhaps you are perfectly fit and the human CHOICES being made to pollute are killing you. Only humans can make choices and trump natural selection by ACCELERATING it and removing people who are sensitive to chemicals. I call it UNNATURAL selection. You arent "unfit" for survival. You were placed in this time, with your genes, to fill a specific void in human history. Do NOT beleive a lie - that you are worthless, that your inferior genetics somehow make you unfit, that they make you unworthy of having children. Its almost like the ultimate perfectionism - you recognize your own limitations so severely that you beleive you are unworthy of having things- life or children - that I have seen far less "worthy" women have. Judge the tree by its fruits - the fruit of this tree of thought is death. The fruit of perfectionism is death. Allow the possibility of the seeds of Life and hope to grow in you, Dreamer. You are only as limited as the lies you allow yourself to beleive. You are a gifted woman!

Your mother's death, from a truly wholesome biological perspective, makes sense. But in a good way. Your mother showed many borderline characteristics and was filled with anger. We know that A) anger and the stress hormones which exist with it, cortisol, epinephrine, shrink the cortex of the human brain. This is what Alzheimer's does. If you dont take care of your brain health while you are young, it usually haunts you when you are old. B) The seat of most DP and anger seems to be the temporal lobes, and of course, this is where the seat of memory, the hippocampus is. Any pathology not treated while she was young would eventually have weakened it.You stand a better chance of NOT catching anything like that, Dreamer, because you take care of that lobe with thing like Lamictal that lessens brain cell death. In Christian circles, we also pray over people to be loosed from the demons that play off of or instigate anger and grudges in the human heart. A ministry called Theophostic (which I dont entirely agree with, but have actually gotten healing of my liver from , so it does work) counsels and prays with people at the same time to remove spiritual ills that manifest in bodily ways. They teach that one of the roots of Alzheimer's is anger. As I've said before, heal a person of a physical problem and the spiritual may be better. Heal a person of something in their heart, and their physical side improves. There's no line between the two. My health problem gets clinically better when I'm prayed over. Not usually when I pray - sometimes when I'm in deep states. But most of the time, something quick with a friend will give me permanent benefit. I'll feel a wieght be lifted off of my chest, and suddenly my liver, leg, or head pains diminish. And it lasts permanently. I dont discount the biological, but I wont discount the miraculous. Its almost hard to call it miraculous, it happens so easily. But the differnce after prayers is both seen in my bloodwork and my subjective experience. I'm sure God wished to free your mother as well. He is Good that way. She needed prayer, and counseling, and biological helps. I dont think she sought any. You have to respect that she made her choices to live her life in this way,that the fruits werent healthy, and that you are making better ones filled with hope. Dont let lies steal the gains you've made. Let go of your Mom. She made some lousy choices, but you arent her. Your YOU. Your the one who's alive. Be proud of that. Write that book! Take care of some kids! Reap the benefits of your life! The lie is that you dont deserve it - that you have to be like your Mom- but your YOU and you do!

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2006)

--


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Wendy, 
I only have a second to respond. So I will. This quote illustrates the current tone of the debate adequately.



> Or is he violating as many men as he can in order to satiate his narcissism?
> 
> Homeskooled, this is one example why I feel you have an anti-gay stance. Is this how you see homosexual men, or most of them?


No, it isnt. But its one of the ways in which I think the HEART can sin during homosexual sex. Its not the act that makes a person good or bad, its the heart. Judging people and judging actions are different. People are what count. But I think you would prefer to stereotype me as someone who _does_ see all homosexual men that way. It makes it easier to NOT debate logically. It makes it easier to stereoptype and polarize A)Religions B) Christians C) Me, and yes, D)Homosexuals. I wont give blanket approval. And I wont give blanket condmenation. And so I wont satisfy anyone. But I think its the truth, which is why i say it. And I wont give blanket approval or condemnation to things that heterosexuals do. So from now on, if I say it about homosexuality just subsitute the word "heterosexuality". It might help you to see what I'm saying and not just a stereotype of me. Maybe.

In Wikipedia, it explains what I mean about the use of the word, homophobia:



> Its usage is pejorative, and when the term is applied to political or religious opposition to specific sexual acts or political positions, it has been criticized as a loaded term intended to abuse and discredit or silence opposition to moral issues connected with homosexuality


I feel that this is what is happening here. No longer can we talk things out - people are just wrong, discredited and demonized by a slander issued by one side of the debate. The other usage of the term is "to hate homosexuals and homosexuality". I certainly dont. The least offensive term is to "fear homosexuals and homosexuality". I dont fear gay friendships of mine. What then of homosexuality? I'm not afraid of it overruning pop culture, etc....Do I have a fear of my own femininity? That is possible. Certainly I have straight desires. But is there really a "straight" person and a "gay" person, or does this happen on a continnuum because of circumstances we've gone through growing up, hormonal balances, and exposure to hormone in vitro? To reiterate what I've been saying this entire thread, yes, I think it does happen on a continuum for these reasons. I'd say I'm 80 percent masculine, 20 percent feminine. And thats more than you'll get any straight man who you ARENT attacking to admit. Because as I said before, I'm simply interested in the truth.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2006)

Look dear Homeskooled, I think you have some homophobic ideas/attitudes towards gay people. Im sorry you feel I attacked you, that wasnt my intent. I wanted to get the point across you have some homophobic thinking going on, and me saying that, I realize that can be perceived as an attack. My apologies for that. I was more being very passionate about getting my points across, trying to understand what people here have written (in all posts, not only on this subject) which is to me a hell of a job.

If you are gonna talk about homosexuality in the future, then be very clear what you mean to say and how it should be interpreted what you say. Ive seen ideas from you on the topic and can only conclude from those, you have some issues with homosexuality. I define that as homophobic and Im not trying to stereotype you. You have issues with homosexuality, judging from other posts youve written on this topic, but you dont mention them here. You dont have to, but I was wondering about that. Maybe they have changed?

So, for the future, if you write something like this down:


> Or is he violating as many men as he can in order to satiate his narcissism?


 then keep in mind how it may come across.
I in turn, will substitute the term homosexuality with heterosexuality, to try and understand what you are saying.

I also do think we dont have to agree, or come to talk things out, as Miss_ Staring mentioned in her post today. She said something like everybody is right and I agree with that. Everybody is. There is no good nor bad, people are dealing with and learning their own things due to these debates, I am one of them.

Take care,
Wendy


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

Dreamer, Epiphany read EXACTLY what i was trying to say, so i hope that clears that up. i never thought you were trying to justify necrophilia or rape--my whole point was based on the assumption that you did NOT justify those things.

thanks for clarifying whence you derive civil law ideas. too many people do not properly acknowledge the connection between law and religion.

dreamer, the one thing i'd say to your approach (which i am starting to understand better) is that ultimately using science to interpret things is an illusion. science isn't what is interpreting. there are other presuppositions that are interpreting the science. science describes how things appear to operate--it doesn't get at the ultimate WHY of anything...only the HOW. any WHY we derive is a result of other presuppositions we have (whether religious or otherwise) that we may or may not be aware of.

as home said, it sounds like this approach is part of what is causing you a great deal of sadness. and when you talk about death being something you fear, not judgment, well, biblically DEATH is JUDGMENT. so you do fear the thing that the Gospel is trying to liberate us from. just food for thought...you can do with it what you like! 

thanks for all of your ideas epiphany, dreamer, miss starling, homeskooled, wendy.

i'm going to try and be brief here and maybe write more tomorrow.

miss starling...i will write more about creation/salvation possibly starting tomorrow. i might make it a thread in the spirituality section, so as to simplify this thread a little. and hopefully home and others will participate in it. :wink:

wendy, i am so utterly sorry that you have suffered abuse over your sexual orientation. i am very, very sorry that this played a role in creating dp in you. this is not uncommon and has happened to many people struggling with their sexuality (either struggling with themselves, or with others, or both). i apologize on behalf of any Christians that have ever used their religious views to justify abuse towards homosexuals.

i am a traditional Christian and hold to traditional Christian "morality," however. and i hope that i am not gathering from what you are writing here that i am "homophobic" because of that. as i've said elsewhere, i am in favor of same-sex unions here in the states and believe that sexual orientation should have nothing to do with a persons civil rights. i don't use my morality to look down on people, to see them as having a pathology they can be "cured", or anything else. i don't know the origins of homosexual attraction...no one does. and i KNOW that you didn't choose to feel the way that you do. no one chooses who they are attracted to...it's ridiculous.

what i do know is what i believe about how my spirituality aims to handle any and all sexual urges that are not according to a particular "canon" or measuring standard. i'm not asking you or anyone else to do the same, regardless of what my personal convictions are on the issue.

what alarms me in your statements to homeskooled is that i'm feeling like you are saying that anyone who isn't an "affirmer" of homosexuality is homophobic. this may not be what you are saying...i don't know. i don't know what all of the other stuff in other threads you are referring to is. i'm just not a big fan of the cultural climate that has shifted yet again today. for a while, the key word was tolerance. we can all have different viewpoints, as long as they are not used to harm others and are all tolerant of them. today, "tolerance" doesn't seem to be good enough anymore--"affirmation" is necessary. if this is how you feel, it doesn't make me angry...but it does make me sad.


----------



## Epiphany (Apr 28, 2006)

I like what miss starling said as well.

We are all right...it just depends which eye we are looking out of at the time of writing.

I have always thought it strange how I can see everyones view as potentially correct and yet still enjoy debating it. When I was younger I used to think it was a flaw...that it made me a fence-sitter...now I think it's could be a talent that assists me with tolerance and understanding.

With every new post and each response I can see how all of our POV's are valid. I still enjoy it. I hope noone gets upset with anything I write. It is not my intention.

So many topics here I can't choose one, so no real response from me, except that you guys are all fantastic...thanks for helping me keep my mind active...the "baby brain" hormones are threatening to turn my mind to total mush and being on my own a lot lately means I don't get a lot of stimulating conversation. Besides, I find I don't get a lot of this sort of back and forth anyway...it tends to be more of your everyday gossip. It's great to find others who enjoy these discussions without it turning ugly. I find it frustrating as a lot of people out there just don't enjoy a good intelligent discussion. So thankyou all.

And you are right Wendy...we don't all have to agree. That's what I like about these posts. We can disagree and still see each others POV without getting cranky at each other. I still respect all of you as much (if not more) than I did before this post began.


----------



## Epiphany (Apr 28, 2006)

Cal...I missed your post. You just beat me to it.

I just want to respond to what you said to Dreamer about fearing death.



> when you talk about death being something you fear, not judgment, well, biblically DEATH is JUDGMENT


Death was always my biggest fear...my own death, and the death of those closest to me. When my Mum died a few years ago I had to face it...and it lead me here. Funnily enough the dp/dr has helped me finally work through that fear. My fear of death NEVER stemmed from fear of judgement. Dreamer seems to have some similar views to me on religion/spirituality and although I am in no way trying to speak for her here I just want to illustrate why I feel what you said has no real bearing on fearing judgement from my POV.

I don't fear judgement...Death is only Judgement if you view it from a religious standpoint. I don't see it this way at all, remembering that I am not well versed in the bible or religion. I don't believe a "higher power" judges us during life or after death. If you don't believe this then death cannot equal judgement, therefore this cannot be the reason you fear death.

I know I haven't explained myself well...sounds like a schoolkid wrote it, but best I can do for now. Can't think...need to eat...my brain is beginning to ooze out of my ears.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Epiphany said:


> I like what miss starling said as well.
> 
> *We are all right...it just depends which eye we are looking out of at the time of writing.*
> 
> ...


*What she said, lol. And Epiphany no you aren't a fence sitter. I love a free exhange of ideas. And I also don't mean to sound angry or bossy or crabby. Sometimes I get defensive. And I apologize for that.*

And my presense in this debate is for a similar reason. I enjoy exchanging ideas -- it does keep the neurons firing. And I swear, every morning I think I'm going to feel less depressed and I don't. So this keeps *my* brain from turning to mush.

And I also agree with Miss Starling ... sorry I missed your post with the crabs battling it out, lol (I love crabs, they make me laugh) ... I digress ... at any rate, I have comments on that I'm too tired to write out in full. My husband and I used to drive up the California coast every year (up to Washington and Vancouver as well), and we would make it a point to stop in Monterey sp?!, CA. We would spend the ENTIRE day at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. From the moment it opened to the moment it closed We'd have lunch there. Marveling at the creatures for 8 hours.

Adaptation. What killed me, and I could watch them all day, were fish living miles under the sea, in darkness, who have little lamps on their heads, that are phosphorescent sp? They carry lamps in the dark!

*And re: the crabs, we antrhopomorphhize creatures (at least I do) ... I don't know if they think, but it sure seems that they do. But then there's a question. We sure seem to think, but sometimes I wonder. I see us obviously as sentient beings, unlike those crabs, but it is more than coincidence that they go to war, and we do too. We have choice, and we have instinct. But sometimes, we don't have choice. If we are born gay, if we are born female, if we are born male ... we are guided by certain instincts we have no control over, or very little control, unless we live a lie.*

"Bless the beasts and the children, for in this world, they have no voice, they have no choice." -- don't think I'm not a sentimental fool just because I believe so strongly in biology/evolutionary adaptation. 8)

If those crabs aren't thinking, then what prompts them to act in that way? Surivial. What is that mysterious thing, the instinct for "survival"? Perhaps that is what I see as the mysterious "higher power", but I do not believe in the Christian concept of it. I suppose I see "God" more as Einstein or Ramachandran would. The world is amazing, miraculous, but I don't believe that any "higher power" is measuring us, judging us, or has ever done so. *We judge each other, and that is sad. Lesser animals don't judge each other.* Who is judging the crab who has gone to war?

*We are here to battle it out, to fight for our survival, and then we die, just as the crab does. But we are aware. Complicates things a lot!*

And californian or whoever said this, I'm sorry ... Home? ... *I do not equate Death with Judgement. It is again "natural".* All things die, even trees. The death of a tree, or a fish, or a dog, or a chimp is not the result of a "judgement", it is the way of nature. AGAIN, I see us as yet, merely more complex animals, NOT above the other animals, and we live and die as they do.



Epiphany said:


> I don't fear judgement...Death is only Judgement if you view it from a religious standpoint. I don't see it this way at all, remembering that I am not well versed in the bible or religion. I don't believe a "higher power" judges us during life or after death. If you don't believe this then death cannot equal judgement, therefore this cannot be the reason you fear death.


I agree here completely. And perhaps fear of death for me is, more, unhappiness that I won't see the many amazing things that will occur in the world after my death. Maybe it isn't fear. I would say, when I was younger and DP/DR and all that existential thinking was on my mind, and also a ton of hypochondriasis, I truly feared death. But I feared pain, loneliness, horrible medical procedures. Perhaps I should clarify that I fear the PROCESS OF DYING. (And in years past, I feared death was endless DP/DR at its very worst, for eternity -- that would be my definition of "Hell" -- DP/DR NOW is my definition of Hell.)

Say the way my mother died. In misery for really 15 years, unable to read, communicate, even understand what was on television.

My mother was a doctor and had many talents and interests. She ultimately could not even play ball in physical therapy! She would sit like a stone in her wheelchair -- couldn't walk at some point -- as the ball bounced off of her. One can laugh or cry, and fortunately the staff found humor where there was none. At least she was in a good nursing home. Not everyone has that luxury. And she paid for all of it herself, about 60% of her estate.

1. *Home, I don't feel like some mess, or am not thinking in a negative way when I say I am unfit... I'm saying, per natural selection, many people alive today (if it weren't for medical advances) would die and "naturally be seclected out of the gene pool."*

You could say, the advance of medicine is part of our evolutionary development, and that is also true. But what I'm saying is, I have many other illnesses besides my mental illness. I would be blind in one or both eyes due to a retinal problem I got due to being extremely nearsighted (back in 1983). Without the multiple surgeries I had at the time, I would be blind for example. In tougher times and without the medical insurance I have from my husband, and with my other problems, including mental, I might not be alive.

In another time, my mother would probably have died many years earlier, more "naturally" as for instance she broke her hip when she had her Alzheimer's. In times before medical advancements would allow her hip being replaced she would have died 10 years earlier than she did.

*2. And Home, again with all due respect, I also don't believe for a moment that Alzheimer's was caused by her personality, at least as you describe it. Yes the environment can change the brain. For better or worse.* But that doesn't explain why I saw many "nice" people on the Alzheimer's ward. Oddly enough, many people's personalities remained, despite the fact that they forgot who they were -- my mother could be extremely nasty, and others very sweet. And I know the parents of friends who have Alzheimer's who were the complete opposite of my mother in terms of being kind, generous, etc. and still are hit with the same scourge.

Also, there is all sorts of evidence that Alzheimer's has many causes and has existed before "modern pollution" -- one thing is we see more Alzheimer's as doctors believe it may be an inevitable part of the aging process. *People live far longer than they did even a generation or two ago. There is a concern in the medical community that in the future 50% of the elderly population will have Alzheimer's, unless we come up with better understanding of it and better treatment. As they say, there will be elderly couples, one caring for the other with Alzheimer's.*

I am more aware of that because of my researching/experiencing the disease in a family member, and also from being older and having my friends' parents dying from it.

There are other things I wanted to respond to.

Oh, re: the 10 Commandments and Church and State. I forgot who commented on this. And now I forgot my response ... part of it was, I believe these laws were written by men. (I won't go into the first 3? Commandments -- why do I get that so screwed up).

A sentient being has the ability to see that without law there is no order. Oddly enough, animals have their own laws to preserve order. Can't go into detail. Tired at noon here. Hell.

Perhaps depression is Hell. Sigh.

Shalom,
D 8)


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Cal, 
I am currently staying at a wonderful little hotel called the _Downtowner_ in Whitefish, Montana, so I finally have some time to write down thoughts of mine that 2 minute typings between bus transfers wouldnt allow. Now, far be it from me to disagree with good ole' Athanasius, a hero of mine, if you are referring to the student of Antony the Great, the monk whose life I made a short film on earlier in the year. In fact, everything you can research about him was written by Athanasius. I dont quite agree with all of his mystical writings, however. The idea that because the Deliverer exist that the Delivered must be brought into being always sounded more clever than true, to me. It just didnt ring in my heart, and in my head, which is a lousy organism for discerning truth, it always sounds like a function of God's love, deliverance, is made an end. And that we are created only to justify the existence of this attribute. Which would in the end, necessitate that we would be created imperfectly, which God cant do. Only we can muck things up. I do however, think that there is truth in the quote. For instance, it has struck me in prayer that God loves us more BECAUSE we are so imperfect - in heart and action - that we NEED Him. We are like toddlers to Him, that are always falling, scraping our knees, and crying. And of course to Him, our evil is not that great and our goodness is not that good, so he just laughs and picks us back up. What moral theologians would think destroy God's affinity for us just makes Him Love us more. Even to God it is good to be needed by His children. He's always willing to give to us.

On the other hand, Cal, its a blessing to have someone on here who can tell me I'm patristically incorrect - I love it! The Church Fathers are "where its at"! However, we all are called to be another Church Father, and if possible to improve what they saw of God. I dont pattern myself after anyone - although sometimes I feel paralells - but I find it easier to find God as he is if my mind is a blank template, free of preconceived notions. The only writer who I agree mostly with, and who I consistently feel the Holy Spirit from when I read simple quotes is Pope John Paul II. I feel we have a lot in common - both love the outdoors, skiing, theatre, acting and contemplative activities. Although I disagree with encyclicals of his like Veritatis Splendor - but I dont think I'm supposed to think otherwise. He was far too harsh with Fundamental Option theorists in my humble opinion.



> So, for the future, if you write something like this down:
> Quote:
> Or is he violating as many men as he can in order to satiate his narcissism?
> then keep in mind how it may come across.
> I in turn, will substitute the term homosexuality with heterosexuality, to try and understand what you are saying.


I'd like to do that, Wendy, but its literally impossible to do. Its a fallacy to think that you can write things to make people _perceive_ and _react_ to what you say in a controlled or predictable way. I would have to be in everyone's minds to do this. And on a mental health site, one person's affirmation is anothers hangup. CS Lewis once wrote on the impossibility of writing for other people, and so he decided to _*write for himself*_. Its the only way we can truly be honest. And so I do the same. I know that when I speak of narcissism being a bad trait in a homosexual relationship that I am _only speaking about homosexuals with narcissistic personality disorders, which are bad for ALL relationships_. If I want to say that all homosexuals are narcisists, I will phrase it as such, and include the word ALL. But I dont say that, because it isnt what I beleive. It isnt true. My posts honestly dont need a whole lot of "interpreting". I strive for honest transparency.



> You have issues with homosexuality, judging from other posts youve written on this topic, but you dont mention them here. You dont have to, but I was wondering about that. Maybe they have changed?


Are you referring to the debates about condom usage last year or earlier this year? I still beleive that sex between gay men is harmful from a pragmatic and medical POV. That has stayed the same. I dont, however, agree with the Catholic Church's moral "classifications" of sexual sin. Somehow, it got filled with a bunch of fear. I got deeper into prayer and could actually hear God in my soul. He taught me the ways of the heart, and that sin doesnt exist in the way we think it does - some sort of point system by which we rate our actions. Love exists, and lacks of it. And he isnt shocked by evil or won over by goodness - He just loves. And for our own sakes, our own happiness (sorry Cal), he wished to free us from any "lack ofs" in action and heart. Once our hearts are filled, the actions will blossom. Any lack of in our hearts will spring forth and hurt others. Yes, less perfect actions exist. But we cant do anything about them ourselves. God will deal with them by healing us. As for homosexuality, He really hasnt talked to me about it, so I take something that was revealed to me about masturbation being an imperfection and extrapolate on it for other things I used to classify as "sins". Lots and heaps of things in this life are lacking. It feels good to be filled. It will be nice when the whole world is "filled" again.

Miss Starling, you phrase your posts very well. Not to get "off topic" haha....but are you still on the porphyria diet? I agree with what you said about animals. They reflect us, who reflect God, in different ways. We are more complete reflections, but they deserve to be cherished as little beings in their own right. That story about the crabs was really cute. I had an image in my head of little cartoon crabs....

Epiphany and Cal, 
Thats a good point, Cal. Death IS judgement. Not only do I think we simply pass on as we are to God, but literally, death has nothing redeeming to it for those who lack beleif, and they admit as much. But to those who trust in God, it is Love and Life. I imagine this is what you meant, but I'd like to hear your extrapolation. The Amish, after the school shooting last week, said as much. They said that death was a much bigger deal than birth, because they would be passing on to Life and their Creator. It was the little girls' survivors that they pitied, not the girls. What a peaceful way to approach life and death.

peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Cal, 
I am currently staying at a wonderful little hotel called the _Downtowner_ in Whitefish, Montana, so I finally have some time to write down thoughts of mine that 2 minute typings between bus transfers wouldnt allow. Now, far be it from me to disagree with good ole' Athanasius, a hero of mine, if you are referring to the student of Antony the Great, the monk whose life I made a short film on earlier in the year. In fact, everything you can research about him was written by Athanasius. I dont quite agree with all of his mystical writings, however. The idea that because the Deliverer exist that the Delivered must be brought into being always sounded more clever than true, to me. It just didnt ring in my heart, and in my head, which is a lousy organism for discerning truth, it always sounds like a function of God's love, deliverance, is made an end. And that we are created only to justify the existence of this attribute. Which would in the end, necessitate that we would be created imperfectly, which God cant do. Only we can muck things up. I do however, think that there is truth in the quote. For instance, it has struck me in prayer that God loves us more BECAUSE we are so imperfect - in heart and action - that we NEED Him. We are like toddlers to Him, that are always falling, scraping our knees, and crying. And of course to Him, our evil is not that great and our goodness is not that good, so he just laughs and picks us back up. What moral theologians would think destroy God's affinity for us just makes Him Love us more. Even to God it is good to be needed by His children. He's always willing to give to us.

On the other hand, Cal, its a blessing to have someone on here who can tell me I'm patristically incorrect - I love it! The Church Fathers are "where its at"! However, we all are called to be another Church Father, and if possible to improve what they saw of God. I dont pattern myself after anyone - although sometimes I feel paralells - but I find it easier to find God as he is if my mind is a blank template, free of preconceived notions. The only writer who I agree mostly with, and who I consistently feel the Holy Spirit from when I read simple quotes is Pope John Paul II. I feel we have a lot in common - both love the outdoors, skiing, theatre, acting and contemplative activities. Although I disagree with encyclicals of his like Veritatis Splendor - but I dont think I'm supposed to think otherwise. He was far too harsh with Fundamental Option theorists in my humble opinion.



> So, for the future, if you write something like this down:
> Quote:
> Or is he violating as many men as he can in order to satiate his narcissism?
> then keep in mind how it may come across.
> I in turn, will substitute the term homosexuality with heterosexuality, to try and understand what you are saying.


I'd like to do that, Wendy, but its literally impossible to do. Its a fallacy to think that you can write things to make people _perceive_ and _react_ to what you say in a controlled or predictable way. I would have to be in everyone's minds to do this. And on a mental health site, one person's affirmation is anothers hangup. CS Lewis once wrote on the impossibility of writing for other people, and so he decided to _*write for himself*_. Its the only way we can truly be honest. And so I do the same. I know that when I speak of narcissism being a bad trait in a homosexual relationship that I am _only speaking about homosexuals with narcissistic personality disorders, which are bad for ALL relationships_. If I want to say that all homosexuals are narcisists, I will phrase it as such, and include the word ALL. But I dont say that, because it isnt what I beleive. It isnt true. My posts honestly dont need a whole lot of "interpreting". I strive for honest transparency.



> You have issues with homosexuality, judging from other posts youve written on this topic, but you dont mention them here. You dont have to, but I was wondering about that. Maybe they have changed?


Are you referring to the debates about condom usage last year or earlier this year? I still beleive that sex between gay men is harmful from a pragmatic and medical POV. That has stayed the same. I dont, however, agree with the Catholic Church's moral "classifications" of sexual sin. Somehow, it got filled with a bunch of fear. I got deeper into prayer and could actually hear God in my soul. He taught me the ways of the heart, and that sin doesnt exist in the way we think it does - some sort of point system by which we rate our actions. Love exists, and lacks of it. And he isnt shocked by evil or won over by goodness - He just loves. And for our own sakes, our own happiness (sorry Cal), he wished to free us from any "lack ofs" in action and heart. Once our hearts are filled, the actions will blossom. Any lack of in our hearts will spring forth and hurt others. Yes, less perfect actions exist. But we cant do anything about them ourselves. God will deal with them by healing us. As for homosexuality, He really hasnt talked to me about it, so I take something that was revealed to me about masturbation being an imperfection and extrapolate on it for other things I used to classify as "sins". Lots and heaps of things in this life are lacking. It feels good to be filled. It will be nice when the whole world is "filled" again.

Miss Starling, you phrase your posts very well. Not to get "off topic" haha....but are you still on the porphyria diet? I agree with what you said about animals. They reflect us, who reflect God, in different ways. We are more complete reflections, but they deserve to be cherished as little beings in their own right. That story about the crabs was really cute. I had an image in my head of little cartoon crabs....

Epiphany and Cal, 
Thats a good point, Cal. Death IS judgement. Not only do I think we simply pass on as we are to God, but literally, death has nothing redeeming to it for those who lack beleif, and they admit as much. But to those who trust in God, it is Love and Life. I imagine this is what you meant, but I'd like to hear your extrapolation. The Amish, after the school shooting last week, said as much. They said that death was a much bigger deal than birth, because they would be passing on to Life and their Creator. It was the little girls' survivors that they pitied, not the girls. What a peaceful way to approach life and death.

peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Cal, 
I am currently staying at a wonderful little hotel called the _Downtowner_ in Whitefish, Montana, so I finally have some time to write down thoughts of mine that 2 minute typings between bus transfers wouldnt allow. Now, far be it from me to disagree with good ole' Athanasius, a hero of mine, if you are referring to the student of Antony the Great, the monk whose life I made a short film on earlier in the year. In fact, everything you can research about him was written by Athanasius. I dont quite agree with all of his mystical writings, however. The idea that because the Deliverer exist that the Delivered must be brought into being always sounded more clever than true, to me. It just didnt ring in my heart, and in my head, which is a lousy organism for discerning truth, it always sounds like a function of God's love, deliverance, is made an end. And that we are created only to justify the existence of this attribute. Which would in the end, necessitate that we would be created imperfectly, which God cant do. Only we can muck things up. I do however, think that there is truth in the quote. For instance, it has struck me in prayer that God loves us more BECAUSE we are so imperfect - in heart and action - that we NEED Him. We are like toddlers to Him, that are always falling, scraping our knees, and crying. And of course to Him, our evil is not that great and our goodness is not that good, so he just laughs and picks us back up. What moral theologians would think destroy God's affinity for us just makes Him Love us more. Even to God it is good to be needed by His children. He's always willing to give to us.

On the other hand, Cal, its a blessing to have someone on here who can tell me I'm patristically incorrect - I love it! The Church Fathers are "where its at"! However, we all are called to be another Church Father, and if possible to improve what they saw of God. I dont pattern myself after anyone - although sometimes I feel paralells - but I find it easier to find God as he is if my mind is a blank template, free of preconceived notions. The only writer who I agree mostly with, and who I consistently feel the Holy Spirit from when I read simple quotes is Pope John Paul II. I feel we have a lot in common - both love the outdoors, skiing, theatre, acting and contemplative activities. Although I disagree with encyclicals of his like Veritatis Splendor - but I dont think I'm supposed to think otherwise. He was far too harsh with Fundamental Option theorists in my humble opinion.



> So, for the future, if you write something like this down:
> Quote:
> Or is he violating as many men as he can in order to satiate his narcissism?
> then keep in mind how it may come across.
> I in turn, will substitute the term homosexuality with heterosexuality, to try and understand what you are saying.


I'd like to do that, Wendy, but its literally impossible to do. Its a fallacy to think that you can write things to make people _perceive_ and _react_ to what you say in a controlled or predictable way. I would have to be in everyone's minds to do this. And on a mental health site, one person's affirmation is anothers hangup. CS Lewis once wrote on the impossibility of writing for other people, and so he decided to _*write for himself*_. Its the only way we can truly be honest. And so I do the same. I know that when I speak of narcissism being a bad trait in a homosexual relationship that I am _only speaking about homosexuals with narcissistic personality disorders, which are bad for ALL relationships_. If I want to say that all homosexuals are narcisists, I will phrase it as such, and include the word ALL. But I dont say that, because it isnt what I beleive. It isnt true. My posts honestly dont need a whole lot of "interpreting". I strive for honest transparency.



> You have issues with homosexuality, judging from other posts youve written on this topic, but you dont mention them here. You dont have to, but I was wondering about that. Maybe they have changed?


Are you referring to the debates about condom usage last year or earlier this year? I still beleive that sex between gay men is harmful from a pragmatic and medical POV. That has stayed the same. I dont, however, agree with the Catholic Church's moral "classifications" of sexual sin. Somehow, it got filled with a bunch of fear. I got deeper into prayer and could actually hear God in my soul. He taught me the ways of the heart, and that sin doesnt exist in the way we think it does - some sort of point system by which we rate our actions. Love exists, and lacks of it. And he isnt shocked by evil or won over by goodness - He just loves. And for our own sakes, our own happiness (sorry Cal), he wished to free us from any "lack ofs" in action and heart. Once our hearts are filled, the actions will blossom. Any lack of in our hearts will spring forth and hurt others. Yes, less perfect actions exist. But we cant do anything about them ourselves. God will deal with them by healing us. As for homosexuality, He really hasnt talked to me about it, so I take something that was revealed to me about masturbation being an imperfection and extrapolate on it for other things I used to classify as "sins". Lots and heaps of things in this life are lacking. It feels good to be filled. It will be nice when the whole world is "filled" again.

Miss Starling, you phrase your posts very well. Not to get "off topic" haha....but are you still on the porphyria diet? I agree with what you said about animals. They reflect us, who reflect God, in different ways. We are more complete reflections, but they deserve to be cherished as little beings in their own right. That story about the crabs was really cute. I had an image in my head of little cartoon crabs....

Epiphany and Cal, 
Thats a good point, Cal. Death IS judgement. Not only do I think we simply pass on as we are to God, but literally, death has nothing redeeming to it for those who lack beleif, and they admit as much. But to those who trust in God, it is Love and Life. I imagine this is what you meant, but I'd like to hear your extrapolation. Its occurred to me that those who die beleiving death is nothing will receive just that....but I dont think that is true either. I think we all get the Truth when we die. Some like it, some dont. The Amish, after the school shooting last week, said as much. They said that death was a much bigger deal than birth, because they would be passing on to Life and their Creator. It was the little girls' survivors that they pitied, not the girls. What a peaceful way to approach life and death.

peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2006)

--


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

Homeskooled said:


> The idea that because the Deliverer exist that the Delivered must be brought into being always sounded more clever than true, to me. It just didnt ring in my heart, and in my head, which is a lousy organism for discerning truth, it always sounds like a function of God's love, deliverance, is made an end.


three things here:

1) God knows all things and so creates with salvation already in mind. thus, creation and salvation are a unitive action. i still plan on writing about this more fully in the spirituality section. there are many aspects to this.

2) i understand what you mean about it seeming just clever. but i feel that this is due to our still being largely trapped by the pitfalls of western modernist thinking. i don't think everything about modernism is crap, but this is certainly one such area.

3) another thing is that you don't know if perhaps this is something that may ring true for you in prayer in the future. also, what we discover in prayer must always be measured against what has been revealed of the truth. it must be measured against the canon of truth. the desert fathers and mothers, as i'm sure you are well aware, caution us greatly against what often appears to be revealed to us in prayer...as does st. paul.



Homeskooled said:


> Which would in the end, necessitate that we would be created imperfectly, which God cant do.


this all depends on definitions of perfection. for example, the genesis account never says that we were "perfect" in some static sense from the beginning. it says "good" and "very good" about creation, but seems to indicate that we are to grow into something--we had/have work to do in progressing in perfection.

it also does not say we were created immortal in and of ourselves. immortality only exists insomuch as we were connected to the tree of life, which is the same situation as now.

oh well, i've started talking about the creation/salvation thing here...dang it. well, i'll keep to my promise and develop it more later.



Homeskooled said:


> The Church Fathers are "where its at"! However, we all are called to be another Church Father, and if possible to improve what they saw of God. I dont pattern myself after anyone - although sometimes I feel paralells - but I find it easier to find God as he is if my mind is a blank template, free of preconceived notions.


agreed, we should pattern ourselves after no one but Christ, which is all the church fathers are doing themselves. st irenaeus, for example, clearly improves on what st justin martyr was doing. the cappadocians improved on what origen was doing, etc.

however, it is really impossible to have a discussion unless we are operating with similar presuppositions. and there is no way to encounter God without presuppositions. as i said to dreamer, there are ALWAYS presuppositions. it is however, our duty to identify and challenge our presuppositions.



Homeskooled said:


> He just loves. And for our own sakes, our own happiness (sorry Cal), he wished to free us from any "lack ofs" in action and heart. Once our hearts are filled, the actions will blossom.


no sorry necessary, i have no problem with the phraseology here. 



Homeskooled said:


> Thats a good point, Cal. Death IS judgement. Not only do I think we simply pass on as we are to God, but literally, death has nothing redeeming to it for those who lack beleif, and they admit as much. But to those who trust in God, it is Love and Life. I imagine this is what you meant, but I'd like to hear your extrapolation.


this is exactly what i meant. and i'm glad you extrapolated. after seeing dreamer and epiphany's posts, i realized i really did a bad job of assuming that people would know what i meant here. thanks for clarifying. further, i'd like to add that i was intending to clarify that it is the *problem of death* --both spiritual and physical--that the biblical message of salvation is directed at, not salvation from a scary God who is "going to get you"--as some calvinists will argue. rc sproul, for example, argues that God is saving us from himself, from his wrath! yikes! boo to that!
\


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

californian said:


> this is exactly what i meant. and i'm glad you extrapolated. after seeing dreamer and epiphany's posts, i realized i really did a bad job of assuming that people would know what i meant here. thanks for clarifying. further, i'd like to add that i was intending to clarify that it is the problem of death --both spiritual and physical--that the biblical message of salvation is directed at, not salvation from a scary God who is "going to get you"--as some calvinists will argue. rc sproul, for example, argues that God is saving us from himself, from his wrath! yikes! boo to that!


See this is the sad part of Christianity that I have the most difficulty with. (Other religions as well, but obviously I know mainly Christians and Jews).

I had a friend, who took her own life in 2004. She was Catholic. There was a huge debate as to whether or not her own Church (Polish Orthodox Catholic) should give her a Memorial, and the Priest never spoke at a special family gathering at the cemetary -- they found a Priest from another Church (her parents' Church I believe). (There is more to the story but she was seriously depressed at the time.) But I never understood if the Church felt she "deserved" a proper memorial, burial, and where she was going to go ... in her "afterlife." There was some "concern" about this.

She and I were friends since college. 28 years or so. During that time, we would discuss religion. I attended her Church some holidays as she directed the Bell Choir, etc. And when she'd visit L.A. we'd go to beautiful churches or missions along the coast. At any rate, we had a few deep conversations about "salvation" -- long before she took her own life.

The bottom line to her was, "One would return to God, be resurrected, if one accepted Jesus Christ as his/her savior. If one did not accept that and that alone, one would not return to 
God."

And there was the usual discussion about, even if someone was imperfect, committed a crime, as long as they accepted Christ as their savior all was OK.

She was a very religious Catholic as were her parents.

She felt badly saying that to me. It didn't bother me. That is/was her belief, and she never felt anything negative about me, save that might hurt me or scare me. And said, "That is just what I believe." And "she didn't know what would happen to me when I died."

At any rate: 
Again, this is a non-theoligian speaking -- no kidding! For instance, with death I thought judgement was "Hell" -- which is "the Devil", and now I forgot where that concept came from ... that is one "punishment" a "bad" person might fear, not "returning to an evil God."

And then there is the talk of Purgatory (is this "not returning to God"), which I got confused about when I was very little attending a Convent school for the summer. I am not baptized and other children said I was going to go to Hell. Not a good choice of summer school (my mother was odd, lol).

*So, can anyone explain, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory and where that came from, and I'll note I'm not afraid of that.*

*But, as I've also said, where did my friend go? If she took her own life and yet accepted Christ as her savior (and I always believed her 100%) she was totally devoted to her church and Faith, and as I said, felt "guilty" that I would be "left behind." Where is she? I ask this in all seriousness. And sadness as it is a difficult thing to work through anyway.*

And then, briefly, re: Fundamentalist Muslims who commit suicide bombings, believing that killing in the name of Allah, means moving to a world far better than this .... well between that, and the Christian concept of wanting to be somewhere else than Earth ... then *what of our lives here? Is living on Earth, not important? Is it more important to prepare for somewhere else than make things here the best they can be? I'm sure that is not what the intent of the Church is, of many religioins, but it comes off that way, and seems completely illogical to me.*

I read a strange interpretation into all of that that bothers me which is, those who "don't belong", don't get to go and have the Love of God when they die if they don't accept Jesus as their savior. If that is so, where do the @50% of non Christians go when they die. (Sorry can't find my pie-chart of world adherents, but it's Islam 40%, Christianity 40%, and 20% other. -- anyway, approximately)

To be honest, currently my concept of after death is where my mother is, which in a sense comforting. I didn't know what to do with her cremains when she died. Her Will, and before that she did request cremation and no "silly service with her face to be gawked at." LOL. She was never associated with a Church save as a young girl -- Lutheran. So I'm in theory a Lutheran.

At any rate, I searched around my old community ... lovely, upper class by the lake. "Grosse Pointe Blank" 8) -- seriously!

I nixed the Convent of the Sacred Heart Catholic Church, where I'd been shot down at age 4, and eliminated a good number of lovely churches in the area. All WASP. I found a lovely Methodist Church very near the lake, explained my problem to the Minister there and he was great about the whole thing -- including her being atheist.

He said, "Don't worry, your mother will be accepted here. And I believe she has gone 'somewhere better'." I spoke to him about her love of the water and Northern Michigan.

He suggested she be "inhumed" in the Church garden. I'd never heard of that before, but it's something I suppose a good number know of.

We had a simple ceremony (my friends, my cousins, her attorney, lol) in the garden of the Church. The Minister was brilliant in that he had chosen passages from the Bible refering to the water. And then he took her ashes and buried them in the garden ... apparently along with a lot of other folks from that Church. (And the garden is tended by the church members year round)

*And I remembered (though he didn't say this), "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust."

Or as I'd like to think, back to make some more fossil fuel to grow the roses in the garden.*

It seems religion is so divisive sp? divides us, when bottom line it should be about looking after each other, and making our time here NOW better.

*Why are we looking at THEN, the FUTURE, and not at NOW?*

Peace,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

http://www.adherents.com/










*Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion*

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Wendy, 
I can see I'm only making things worse -I'm sorry you feel that way. I do indeed write my posts so that they can clearly express me, in my own words, and even stand on their own apart from threads. But I respect myself and my decisions to post in this manner. As I respect the manner in which you post. You can clarify your last question to me by post or PM - I dont understand its intent. When you asked if I had "issues with homosexuality", do you mean homosexual tendencies and not moral concerns?

Dear Cal, 


> another thing is that you don't know if perhaps this is something that may ring true for you in prayer in the future.


This is my reservation as well - I hold back from contradicting Church Fathers because of this (well, most of the time). I have great respect for Athanasius and Antony. But I usually end up disagreeing with most saints eventually.



> God knows all things and so creates with salvation already in mind. thus, creation and salvation are a unitive action. i still plan on writing about this more fully in the spirituality section. there are many aspects to this.


Yes, I agree with this. But not in the way that Athanasius makes clear.



> the desert fathers and mothers, as i'm sure you are well aware, caution us greatly against what often appears to be revealed to us in prayer...as does st. paul.


I would actually find this quote from St. Paul useful. Because of the differences between canons, and the lack of codified canons at the time of St. Paul, perhaps except the Council of Jerusalem, I dont really find that this narrows the field for prayer much. Unfortunately, I dont necessarily agree with St. Paul at all times, either.



> the cappadocians improved on what origen was doing, etc.


Thats not hard to do. I feel that Origen was one of the holiest, most brilliant, most tortured of the earlier Christian thinkers. Amazing train of thought, but he somehow illustrates the thin line between genius and sanity.



> it also does not say we were created immortal in and of ourselves. immortality only exists insomuch as we were connected to the tree of life, which is the same situation as now


As I said earlier, I dont take this account literally. I feel it was an eternal choice presented to mankind, rejected by mankind. The writer of the of Wisdom was thought to have a hand in the writing of Genesis, and it illustrates the "concepts" of sin and salvation in a figurative sense. Personally, I beleive Augustine's take on Original Sin to be mostly divinely inspired but still flawed. After all, he said he was sure of only two things - God and the soul. If he isnt sure of his own theory, I'm sure there's wiggle room there for me too.



> however, it is really impossible to have a discussion unless we are operating with similar presuppositions. and there is no way to encounter God without presuppositions. as i said to dreamer, there are ALWAYS presuppositions. it is however, our duty to identify and challenge our presuppositions.


Well, its impossible to have a *debate which has a conclusion* without an agreed on premise. As for discussions? I think we've illustrated that anything goes :wink: However, I disagree that scholastic presuppositions are in any degree necessary to encounter God. The Calabrian monk Barlaam, himself an Orthodox monk who practiced western scholasticism, used the same argument to (attempt to) invalidate hesychasm. When we use the head to inform the heart, we begin constructing walls around it. When we use the heart to inform the head (and by hearts I dont mean emotion), then truths can form words and thoughts. But the heart even has yearnings (and experiences) too deep for words.



> i'd like to add that i was intending to clarify that it is the problem of death --both spiritual and physical--that the biblical message of salvation is directed at, not salvation from a scary God who is "going to get you"--as some calvinists will argue. rc sproul, for example, argues that God is saving us from himself, from his wrath! yikes! boo to that!


I like this explanation very much.



> I found a lovely Methodist Church very near the lake, explained my problem to the Minister there and he was great about the whole thing -- including her being atheist.
> 
> He said, "Don't worry, your mother will be accepted here. And I believe she has gone 'somewhere better'." I spoke to him about her love of the water and Northern Michigan.
> 
> ...


 Thats a very beautiful story, Dreamer. I'm so happy you found someone like that to bury your mother! See, us religious arent ALL bad!



> It seems religion is so divisive sp? divides us, when bottom line it should be about looking after each other, and making our time here NOW better.
> 
> Why are we looking at THEN, the FUTURE, and not at NOW?


Listen to your gut, Dreamer. Its more right than you've been told. Someone who cares deeply about us worrywarts once said this:



> Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
> 28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.


I really hope that EVERYONE who participates in this thread gains something from it. I hope everyone loves themselves a little more, gets something more off of their chests, or just feels _heard_. I am tempted to think I am crying out "peace!" when there is no peace, but nevertheless, I am as eternally optimistic as I am stubborn, and so I wish everyone here

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

great questions, dreamer! i'll try and give my perspective point by point.



Dreamer said:


> Again, this is a non-theoligian speaking -- no kidding! For instance, with death I thought judgement was "Hell" -- which is "the Devil", and now I forgot where that concept came from ... that is one "punishment" a "bad" person might fear, not "returning to an evil God."


great question. for a good number of Christians this has sadly become the understanding. but looking at it this way is not only simplistic, but a fairly later development in the history of Christianity and was never a universal view.

the problem is that people read the English Bible and see the word hell over and over again and the perspective gets obscured. the word translated "hell" is actually Gehenna, which was a specific place outside of Jerusalem that was a trash dump, where fires were always burning up the trash. thus, it make a good metaphor for Jesus to use in reference to the final destination of the recalcitrant--the hopelessly wicked. but it is clearly a metaphor, not a literal "place." st paul, for example, never mentions the word at all. there is no direct reference to hell or a lake of fire or anything like that in his writings. in Revelation there is the lake of fire, but that too is a metaphor.

likewise, heaven is never mentioned as a place people go in the bible either. Jesus indeed mentions entrance into the kingdom of heaven, which is a synonym for his more often used, "kingdom of God." but this is not a place "up in the sky" either. Jesus at one point in Luke 17 even says that the kingdom of God is "within us." according to st paul in Romans 14, the kingdom of God is righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

this is hardly something that only has a reality after we die, and has no relation to the here and now. and for good measure, *proper Christian theology recognizes that the final perfected kingdom of God is eternal on a renewed earth no longer subject to decay*. it is not some other dimension or some place up in the sky out there next to the crab nebula or something like that.

but the fundamental problem of human existence is death. physical death as an end of life and as something we all fear (whatever we might say) and spiritual death, which encompasses all of our feelings of lack, sorrow, despair, etc. those who ultimately dwell in the kingdom of God are those who have been freed from all fo these things. those who dwell in the "lake of fire," "Gehenna," "hell" whatever you want to call it, have forged a path of eternally dwelling in spiritual death.

i know that is a lot to digest, but try and keep it in mind with the rest of what i'm going to say... 



Dreamer said:


> And then there is the talk of Purgatory (is this "not returning to God"), which I got confused about when I was very little attending a Convent school for the summer. I am not baptized and other children said I was going to go to Hell. Not a good choice of summer school (my mother was odd, lol).
> 
> *So, can anyone explain, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory and where that came from, and I'll note I'm not afraid of that.*


once Christianity became a given in society, the astounding proclamation of liberation from death became commonplace and ideas of heaven and hell were used to motivate people to acts of goodness. it is unfortunate that this happened to such a great extent, and that the message of Christianity became so tied to it.

as for Purgatory, and all of this stuff, check out what homeskooled and i wrote in response to sebastian in "maybe the bible is the answer"in the spirituality forum: 
http://www.dpselfhelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9245



Dreamer said:


> *But, as I've also said, where did my friend go? If she took her own life and yet accepted Christ as her savior (and I always believed her 100%) she was totally devoted to her church and Faith, and as I said, felt "guilty" that I would be "left behind." Where is she? I ask this in all seriousness. And sadness as it is a difficult thing to work through anyway.*


i don't have a feel good answer here, but i don't have a morose one either. quite simply...i don't know. only God knows. i don't believe that people automatically dwell in eternal death forever because they made a desperate mistake. and it makes me angry when i hear of Church officials that behave that way. we have no right to consign people to "hell" or anything like that.

one thing that i take comfort in in my tradition (Orthodox) and in Homeskooled's, is that we can pray for the departed. it is a way of still feeling bonded to them in love. but it is also a way to still participate in and have hope that a person's disposition towards God can still be affected after physical death.

st silouan the athonite says that we cannot TEACH that all WILL be saved, but that we should pray for all, and HOPE that all will be saved. st gregory of nyssa also hoped for the same, and i would argue that st paul at least entertained the idea as well. but they left the final answer all to God in the end, as we all should do.



Dreamer said:


> And then, briefly, re: Fundamentalist Muslims who commit suicide bombings, believing that killing in the name of Allah, means moving to a world far better than this .... well between that, and the Christian concept of wanting to be somewhere else than Earth ... then *what of our lives here? Is living on Earth, not important? Is it more important to prepare for somewhere else than make things here the best they can be? I'm sure that is not what the intent of the Church is, of many religioins, but it comes off that way, and seems completely illogical to me.*


yes, this is one of the worst things that has come of the heaven, hell, "pie in the sky when you die" philosophy. it all ends up being about deferred gratification.

*real Christianity should first and foremost be understood about truly building us into human beings who live an empowered, joyful, peaceful, authentic existence--now AND forever.*



Dreamer said:


> I read a strange interpretation into all of that that bothers me which is, those who "don't belong", don't get to go and have the Love of God when they die if they don't accept Jesus as their savior. If that is so, where do the @50% of non Christians go when they die. (Sorry can't find my pie-chart of world adherents, but it's Islam 40%, Christianity 40%, and 20% other. -- anyway, approximately)


this kind of exclusivistic Christianity really bothers me. the bible clearly teaches that those outside of Christianity will be judged according to the light they were given. it also indicates that those who were "Christians" and didn't LIVE it will be in the worst circumstance of all.

i can't stand that "country-club" christianity.



Dreamer said:


> It seems religion is so divisive sp? divides us, when bottom line it should be about looking after each other, and making our time here NOW better.
> 
> *Why are we looking at THEN, the FUTURE, and not at NOW?*


i hope i've done a decent job answering this question. i will address it more in the creation/salvation post that i'm aiming to put together on wednesday.

please ask any and all questions that this post i've written stirs up in you...


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

Homeskooled said:


> I really hope that EVERYONE who participates in this thread gains something from it. I hope everyone loves themselves a little more, gets something more off of their chests, or just feels _heard_. I am tempted to think I am crying out "peace!" when there is no peace, but nevertheless, I am as eternally optimistic as I am stubborn, and so I wish everyone here


Amen!

as for the rest of our theological discussion (which i am quite enjoying) i will write more tomorrow. time for sleep.

also, i have some questions about neurontin...

bye for now


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2006)

> Dear Wendy,
> I can see I'm only making things worse -I'm sorry you feel that way. I do indeed write my posts so that they can clearly express me, in my own words, and even stand on their own apart from threads. But I respect myself and my decisions to post in this manner. As I respect the manner in which you post.


I was afraid you would take my previous post as though I wouldnt respect the way you write your posts. I do. I only wanted to point something out to you and it wasn't meant with disrespect towards you. And I also didnt mean you were making things worse, I was more generally saying it looked to me the discussion you and me were haiving wasnt really going anywhere. And that said, I will leave it at that, for this whole thread for now. Californian, I may PM you an answer to your questions to me, and Homeskooled to you as well.

Take care all 8) 
Wendy


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Wendy, 
Thanks Wendy. Assumptions have caused many unnecessary flame wars on this site and the Internet in general. The insults sting a little, though. I simply am, was, asking that you give all posters the benefit of the doubt while reading hotbutton threads for you.Its a wise thing to do and has stopped or prevented many flame wars. I am not singling you out with this approach - I try to read all of your posts to me, even the ones that sting, with understanding and tolerance. Please simply show me the same courtesy/friendship.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

Homeskooled said:


> This is my reservation as well - I hold back from contradicting Church Fathers because of this (well, most of the time). I have great respect for Athanasius and Antony. But I usually end up disagreeing with most saints eventually.


absolutely. there is no single saint that either of our respective churches have accepted entirely with respect to their teachings. not even Augustine for the RC or the Three Holy Hierarchs (Basil the Great, Gregory the theologian, and John Chrysostom) for the Eastern Orthodox.



 Homeskooled said:


> > God knows all things and so creates with salvation already in mind. thus, creation and salvation are a unitive action. i still plan on writing about this more fully in the spirituality section. there are many aspects to this.
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree with this. But not in the way that Athanasius makes clear.


i agree in the sense that if Irenaeus/athanasius are introducing some idea of necessity in God to create/save then that is problematic. however, i don't think this is what they mean by these statements. rather, they are intended to correct the temporalizing of God that St Justin was doing (in Irenaeus's case) and Arius was doing (in Athanasius's case).



Homeskooled said:


> I would actually find this quote from St. Paul useful. Because of the differences between canons, and the lack of codified canons at the time of St. Paul, perhaps except the Council of Jerusalem, I dont really find that this narrows the field for prayer much. Unfortunately, I dont necessarily agree with St. Paul at all times, either.


terminology mixup due to internet communication. :shock:

i meant to indicate canon as in "canon of truth" or "canon of faith" that is the fundamental principle of Christian theology. not "canon law" which is derived from the canon of truth. this canon of truth is Christ crucified according to the Scriptures. all Christian theological reflection (that is sound) is according to this pattern.

Protestants, as i'm sure you are aware, generally confuse the term canon with a list of "inspired" books. this really makes no sense. the list of books were rather canonical...i.e. those that were according to the canon of faith, not the source of that faith.



Homeskooled said:


> As I said earlier, I dont take this account literally. I feel it was an eternal choice presented to mankind, rejected by mankind. The writer of the of Wisdom was thought to have a hand in the writing of Genesis, and it illustrates the "concepts" of sin and salvation in a figurative sense.


very true. in light of your comments it is significant to note that ALL of the books of the "old" testament were considered by the early fathers under one title, "the Prophets." the books of Moses, therefore, are not primarily read as "law" but as Prophecy. same with the psalms, etc. even in the Hebrew designation, the so-called "historical" books (1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Samuel, etc.) are called the "prior prophets." it is the message of all of these books (which according to Christian understanding IS Christ) that is important, not whether the things described in them "actually" happened.



Homeskooled said:


> Personally, I beleive Augustine's take on Original Sin to be mostly divinely inspired but still flawed. After all, he said he was sure of only two things - God and the soul. If he isnt sure of his own theory, I'm sure there's wiggle room there for me too.


here we probably have another disagreement. before i clarify, i would like to say that i generally really, really, really like and agree with 95% of what you write, hs. it's just in my nature to comment more on what i think is problematic than to redundantly say, "right on" over and over again. so i apologize if i'm coming off as some sort of theology nazi. :lol:

as you are probably aware, Orthodox have very ambivalent feelings about Augustine. we tend to really like his spirituality/morality, but aren't as big of fans of his theological speculation. one such area where we really, really tend to have a problem with him is in his doctrine of original sin. however, before i start fighting another straw man, i should probably let YOU explain what you like about his doctrine on it and what you don't. also, what, if anything, do you like better about it than the way the Greek fathers generally approached this issue?



Homeskooled said:


> Well, its impossible to have a *debate which has a conclusion* without an agreed on premise. As for discussions? I think we've illustrated that anything goes :wink:


Indeed! 



Homeskooled said:


> However, I disagree that scholastic presuppositions are in any degree necessary to encounter God. The Calabrian monk Barlaam, himself an Orthodox monk who practiced western scholasticism, used the same argument to (attempt to) invalidate hesychasm. When we use the head to inform the heart, we begin constructing walls around it. When we use the heart to inform the head (and by hearts I dont mean emotion), then truths can form words and thoughts. But the heart even has yearnings (and experiences) too deep for words.


i'm not talking about scholastic presuppositions. i'm talking about THE presupposition, Christ crucified according to the (OT) Scriptures, which forms the basis of Christian theology. a presupposition of this sort, embraced by faith, is necessary for making any sort of sense of our encounters with God. otherwise we are left to interpret them in whatever fashion strikes us as best (as the Gnostics did).

so what i'm suggesting is that any feeling, thought, etc, experience of God has to be measured against and interpreted by Christ crucified according to the (OT Scriptures). it can't just be a mystical vision trump card.

this is how St Gregory Palamas defeated Barlaam. Barlaam started from philosophical presuppositions. Gregory started from the revelation given in Christ crucified.



Homeskooled said:


> Listen to your gut, Dreamer. Its more right than you've been told. Someone who cares deeply about us worrywarts once said this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


excellent choice to put into your sig file homeskooled! and i would say in general that the sermon on the mount is a great place for people to look to understand what Jesus is really all about...of course, keeping in mind what i've said about what the terms "hell" and "kingdom of heaven" actually denote in that context. but the kind of liberated life he describes in matt 5-7 (the sermon on the mount) is what it is all about. it is the kingdom of God/Heaven...it IS the kind of life he came to bring us.


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Real quick, Cal, as I have to get going. No, I dont think your a theology nazi at all. I understand that you mean the canon of truth, but it still needs defined by councils, affirmed by tradition, etc..., unless your like me, and those really dont mean much to you. Even still, however, there was very little agreed upon at the time of St. Paul. Eventually Pauline Christianity won out, but it took time.

Honestly, I havent studied the Greek Father's interpretations of original sin beyond a very eclectic smattering. I was hoping you'd let me know what YOU think, as this has much to do with an interpretation of the point of Christ's suffering and the origins of man. Its also quite a thorny nest to decipher, and so it can bother my obsessive side.

Boy, I still think that people can know God even if they dont know or presuppose that he is Christ. It tidies it up a bit and helps us to know Him (God) better, but I beleive in the Scriptures because of the Holy Spirit, and not in the Holy Spirit because I beleive in Scriptures. I really think that a relationship with God, is, simply put, the elemental piece - it cannot be broken down any further than that. Be back later!

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2006)

--


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Wendy, 


> Look, Homeskooled (and I wanted to keep this off the board, but really feel I want to say something to you).


No. This needs to be said on the board. You are consistently drawing incorrect assumptions from my statments and making false and libelous statements about my positions and character which are not true. Examples:



> I know you feel that they (I) don't deserve the same rights as you.


If you "know" this, then you must have read my post late last year in which I stated that I was pro-civil unions, especially regarding tax law. Thank God you arent making blanket generalizations and assumptions. Those are, happily, only reserved to "homophobes" such as myself.



> Every poster gets the benefit of my doubt


Have you double-checked your posts to people other than myself lately? I am not the only person who you have "seen" evil personality traits in on the site. Look at your recent postings, and be honest with yourself.



> dont go telling me 'I should be carefull reading hot-button topics'


I wont warn you to be careful of anything, as if I am a guard issuing a threat or a school-marm - rather I'll ask "you give ALL posters the benefit of the doubt while reading hotbutton threads". I am thinking of other threads as well.



> I have every right to do so, and have every right to feel and express the way I feel about, towards someone who holds these views.


No, you dont. And this is where we disagree. Debating the origins of homosexuality is not a personal attack - its an intellectual discussion. It has nothing to do with invalidating homosexuality - the research is all done by pro-gay colleges, for that matter. You are not debating ideas, offering evidence, or just your take. You are tearing down people and THAT is not the purpose of the site. If you go back in the thread, this is my "intolerant" comment to jesusangstmybodycount which spurred on the "discussion". He asks if I think homosexuality is abnormal, then why, and comments on his feelings of emptiness. I responded by saying:



> I dont know if "emptiness" is something inherent to homosexuality. I'm not saying that you cant be "truly happy", as you put it, practicing homosexuality, either...Accept yourself, just as you are, putting all questions aside. God loves all people just as they are, right now.


Contrast this with what you've said. About the studies and my ability to think:


> I cannot understand why a seemingly intelligent guy like you can really believe crap like this.


About the world relgions:


> All this said, religion is at the basis of all homophobia (you can do some Googling on Religion and homosexuality).


You dont consider this remark incendiary or discriminatory? If I am homophobic for stating that homosexual actions equal common heterosexual actions, then what are you for equating studies with "crap" (or garbage) and religions with hate? Is this not in the very least, the pot calling the kettle black?



> Why should I be tolerant towards you


Because this is how you wish to be treated - with tolerance. If I am intolerant, then make the world slightly better by breathing tolerance into it. I know all about intolerance - all types. You dont have a monopoly on it. I _wish_ it was simply polite moral/origin debates. But it happens all the time. I have a disability. Yeah, there are lots of employers without tolerance to people with chemical sensitivities. Yes, I was homeschooled. I was denied my class ranking in Highschool because they were ashamed to give the valedictorian to someone home-educated. It was a protestant school and I was the only Catholic. I was a "papist". I was in a group home. You learn quickly that they are little more than prisons with caretakers as the prison guards. My own parents actually kicked me out last week for allowing a girl from a homeless shelter to sleep in my car at their house. Intolerance for the poor, the needy, the sick. Yes, I know intolerance. This site is my only current diversion in Whitefish, Montana, where I've just relocated with 50 bucks in my pocket. So please, dont pretend that I dont know the difference between tolerance and political correctness, and dont judge my heart. I refuse to judge yours.

Homeskooled


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

whoa, home, i can see wendy has really upset you...

but that's no reason to not sign off with your usual

peace,
homeskooled

:shock:

(please note that i think this is probably just an oversight, but it really did kind of surprise me)


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2006)

> Quote:
> Every poster gets the benefit of my doubt
> 
> Have you double-checked your posts to people other than myself lately? I am not the only person who you have "seen" evil personality traits in on the site. Look at your recent postings, and be honest with yourself.


That was the Gay thread that got deleted because of one of the mod's abusive behaviors and that was a decision made by Rev himself.
And, for what it is worth, I do not see you as someone having evil personality traits.

Im really sorry your family has kicked you out and the position this resulted in for you. You have my heartfelt sympathy in this. Take care.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Hello all, 
We've all been saying we can't keep up with this thread, well I throw my hands up in the air - I'm accessing the net every few days now and I really can't keep up with it! I hope you are enjoying it anyway...

I don't have much time to write now. The library shuts in 15. In summary, I am still on the diet although I notice physical improvements, like feeling freer, fresher, cleaner, than improvements in my dissociation. The eary improvements were probably due to psychological things I think. I have been wondering whether I should continue with the diet as it is as I am not sure whether it is the best thing for me. Otherwise, I am more than 100% convinced that a clean diet is for me, and will endevour to keep it as pure as possible in the future.

There are a couple of things I ought to write about. The first is that I have been drinking this "detox cordial" drink, which is made from apple juice, and a number of herbs, and licorice, or licorice extract. It was my impression that that would be excluded from the diet, but I have continued to drink it. To be honest I am a bit confused over whether that is good for me or not, as it is meant to be purifying afterall. The other thing is that I fainted a couple of weeks into the diet, in the morning. That has never happened before. Also, last week I was feeling a little light headed. I have started to eat more meat as a result. Oh, and I am a massive fan of marmite - is that good?

Apart from that, my skin has improved, without meds, and I have managed to lose some more fat which as I said has been very hard to shift in the last year. I'm 140lbs now which is good.

On a completely different note I'm glad you all liked the crab story - they really were animated in the documentry, isn't sealife incredible?

And on another completely different note, I have been inspired to start praying a bit and although otherwise disturbed, I have had some lovely dreams recently too, which is very pleasant.

I wish you all well, hope everyone can learn to heal from whatever bothers them.

Gotta log off
R


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Californian, 
No, it was on purpose. I dont want to mock the use of that phrase. It isnt just a "cool" way for me to end posts....I really mean it . Just thought of the phrase "do not say peace when there is no peace". After I saw your post, I felt like adding it, but the library computer kicked me out. So I figure it might as well stay. Not that it wont be returning in the future...

Dear Miss Starling, 
I'm truly impressed....I dont know whether its the tonic that makes you feel weak (I used to use them, and they did a number on me -very porphy) or its that you just arent getting an adequate rotation of non-porphy foods. You have to make sure to get good carbs, plenty of meat, and adequate safe fruits and vegetables. Squash, green beans, peas, oranges, strawberries, rasberries, blackberries, lettuce, carrots, etc...You can add a vitamin, but try something like a simple children's chewable. Thats what I take. I dont know what would make you faint, but I hope you respond as well to this diet as I did.

Peace
Homeskooled

PS- I dont know what Marmite is! Sorry Miss Starling- just gauge that by how you feel after eating it - tired and irritable, still hungry, DPed or DRed, or full and happy? Thats how I know when there isnt any data out there.


----------



## californian (Jul 24, 2006)

i realized later that this is probably what was going on in your decision to leave out "peace" and even thought about deleting my post. in the end, i'll chalk it up to divine providence (also abbreviated dp :shock: ) that you didn't add peace back in, and i didn't change my statement...it allowed for you to both be honest with how you felt, and to give a good explanation for it. 

are you still in whitefish? are you visiting glacier national park? i'm jealous. i'm quite a national park junky. the western United States have sooooo many stunningly beautiful places. my favorite (see my avatar) is yosemite. part of my pride in california is that it has 8 national parks--more than any other state--even alaska! now if we could just do something about the pollution...



Homeskooled said:


> Real quick, Cal, as I have to get going. No, I dont think your a theology nazi at all. I understand that you mean the canon of truth, but it still needs defined by councils, affirmed by tradition, etc..., unless your like me, and those really dont mean much to you. Even still, however, there was very little agreed upon at the time of St. Paul. Eventually Pauline Christianity won out, but it took time.


i understand not being a fundamentalist about the councils, etc., but not meaning much to you? wow.

as for your statement on the canon of truth and the times of st paul: this is why i said that ultimately that canon of truth is engagement with Christ crucified in light of the Old Testament (or conversely engagement with the Old Testament in light of Christ crucified). this is the "canon" by which Christian reflection takes place...it is the presupposition. the Gnostics, for example, neither took the cross seriously, nor the old testament.

the councils, canon law, reflections of the fathers...are all according to this rule...but more on that in a moment...



Homeskooled said:


> Honestly, I havent studied the Greek Father's interpretations of original sin beyond a very eclectic smattering. I was hoping you'd let me know what YOU think, as this has much to do with an interpretation of the point of Christ's suffering and the origins of man. Its also quite a thorny nest to decipher, and so it can bother my obsessive side.


yes, there is a lot in here. but a BIG thing i see here is that the Greek fathers (in general) tend to not have such a pessimistic view as Augustine, and have a view that is much more compatible with current understandings of science. i'm not saying that Augustine is all bad...i mean, there are very few people that have ever even read everything he wrote (there's an old saying that goes "he is a liar who claimes to have read all of Augustine"), and i doubt that i'll ever be one of them.

that said, i think Augustine's ideas are too radical...the state "before" the fall is too pristine, and the state afterwards too depraved. it also seems a bit too static. man was perfect, man screwed it up, Christ fixed it. there is a starting point, a fall, and then a restoration to that starting point. i know this is an oversimplification of Augustine, so feel free to mount a defense of him...i'd really like to see what you have to say.

with the Greek fathers, on the other hand (Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor to name a few), there is a much more dynamic tradition. man is created with the purpose of growing in the image and likeness of God. he is to grow in his own humanity and in true "dominion." but almost immediately after being brought into being (indeed, upon being brought into being in Maximus's thought), humanity chose to not follow that path. Christ then is the true human who recapitulates Adam, and completes that growth of humanity that never occurred in Adam (us) and gives us the ability to truly become human in Christ. in other words there was always a "movement" or direction to "perfection" rather than it being static.

in Maximus, specifically, this entails humanity coming to its destiny in Christ and bringing together all things in himself overcoming the divisions in the universe including:
1) male and female
2) paradise and the inhabited world
3) heaven and earth
4) the intellectual and the physically sensible
5) the created and the uncreated (eternal)

In general, it is much more focused on Christ's role as the "new Adam" than on satisfying the "justice of God" as in Augustine. his death is then primarily seen as the way in which he has finally united all of humanity to himself (including our mortality) and has transformed human mortality and suffering into life.

any questions... :lol:  :shock: 



Homeskooled said:


> Boy, I still think that people can know God even if they dont know or presuppose that he is Christ. It tidies it up a bit and helps us to know Him (God) better, but I beleive in the Scriptures because of the Holy Spirit, and not in the Holy Spirit because I beleive in Scriptures. I really think that a relationship with God, is, simply put, the elemental piece - it cannot be broken down any further than that. Be back later!


i get what you are saying but must raise two points (here Cal goes again):

1) yes, you believe in the Scriptures because of the Holy Spirit, but you would not be able to even identify him AS Holy Spirit if it weren't for the Scriptures and for some level of trust in them. there is an interpretive engagement going on that is so fundamental that we often aren't even aware of it.

2) i never said that people couldn't know/experience God without presupposing/knowing that he is Christ. however, i will argue that such experiences will ALWAYS be interpreted in light of our presuppositions whether we are aware of them or not. i believe that christianity, buddhism, hinduism, islam, taoism, zoroastrianism, etc. (pretty much every major religion) all have countless people that have true contact with the divine. but these experiences get interpreted according to various first principles and therefore take on very different expressions.

thus, the issue is not simply "tidying things up a bit." that is, unless you are a pluralist, which it does not seem that you are. for a pluralist, the presuppositions are irrelevant of course. for the Gnostic, the self is the only presupposition. that's what i thought was problematic about the blank slate idea...it is much more Gnostic sounding.

not that i think you are a Gnostic or are accusing you of being one...as st paul would say, "certainly not." i think you take your experiences in contempletive prayer and interpret them in light of Christ crucified without even consciously thinking about it.

anyway, i look forward to your response.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Sorry but I really have to stick up for something I believe in here...
Marmite! I love it.

Please educate yourselves with the following link. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmite



My main problem is I'm never hungry enough to have protein, carbs and veg in the evening. Unbelievable I know, but true. In a sense it is surprising I haven't lost more weight. As I believe that a lower body fat percentage could help with an hormonal imbalance I don't eat more than what I need. Thankfully, I am now cycling quite a bit - and it's hilly around here - so that should help to combat the prob on all fronts - increase my appetite and decrease body fat. But not give me transport back from the supermarket, as it is an uphill walk all the way.

----
I know I'm writing an awful lot about myself here, I suppose it's because my boyfriend finally broke up with me, and there is still this need to sort of speak of my problems somewhere. Ironically I don't feel I can reveal my vulnerability in therapy yet. It's like I am turning to the internet to be acknowledged or something. I'm not refering to issues relating to the breakup itself! in terms of my dissociation, it has to be a good thing that we aren't together anymore. His principle way of dealing with things is to deny them all the time. Although I suffer from a sort of pathological process of denial, in my personality I am always wanting to confront problems head-on. It was making my dissociation worse to be encouraged by him to ignore problems - he ignored that I had dissociation for instance. For years, this must have been t he way his family dealth with things. He had an evil father and a energetic, good mother. But his mum is the worst person for denying things, perhaps because she had to stand on the side lines while her husband beat the children and used them as farm workers. I don't know why I am even writing this, but I hope that what I am compelled to write is useful to someone.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Homeski
By the way I am sorry you got kicked out for helping someone. You have a remarkably strong faith in yourself and your beliefs in spite of this. I think you must be an incredibly strong person.

Wendy
I've avoiding joining the gay debate, but I just want to say that I don't believe Homeskooled says the things he does to exclude anybody. He talks about his own "imperfections" without defensiveness...it sort of shows a tolerance in imperfections in general if you can do that.


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Cal, 


> in the end, i'll chalk it up to divine providence


Yeah, you can chalk most of my _life_ up to divine providence.



> 1) yes, you believe in the Scriptures because of the Holy Spirit, but you would not be able to even identify him AS Holy Spirit if it weren't for the Scriptures and for some level of trust in them.


But I dont think it matters whether you call him "Holy Spirit" or not. Its kind of for our own intellectual gratification that we need to have the "right" name. God doesnt care - He's looking at the heart. That being said, I do have the "right" name, but it doesn really change anything. If I called him "Ooogga-booogaa", he'd still be with me and enlighten me.



> i understand not being a fundamentalist about the councils, etc., but not meaning much to you?


I hate to be a fundamentalist about this, but if you have God, you have the "councils" in your heart, or at least what is good about them. They split the hairs of the hairs. They are filled with human fallacies (and Divine Truth). I dont pretend that I think they are all infallible, and like my view on most everything, I dont toss the councils out the window. I take them with grains of salt. Most believers dont do this. I guess because it helps to be able to lean on a council when your really afraid you dont know whats right. Once you lose fear however, and St. Antony of the Desert said "love casts out fear, and God is Love", I guess it just feels like it doesnt matter.Even if you make the wrong judgement call - God doesnt love me because I'm right. He loves me because I exist, and so does He. My ability to be "right" is only reflected by how close my soul is to the source of Truth itself. The only yardstick for what is "right" is God, and even councils will be judged by this.



> this is why i said that ultimately that canon of truth is engagement with Christ crucified in light of the Old Testament (or conversely engagement with the Old Testament in light of Christ crucified). this is the "canon" by which Christian reflection takes place


I'm hearin ya.....Ah yes, the quagmire which is the Old Testament. Cal, I have no idea how to read that book. Great swaths of human error abound in it, in my estimation. I dont feel like I need to have "infallible" scriptures, because A) treating them as infallible doesnt usually lead to logically defensible positions and most importantly B)I find that alot of people kind of use the Scriptures as "God" himself - if thats possible, it becomes some sort of imprisoning idol which replaces actually "knowing God". Instead, they "know the Bible". A very aggressive God tends to be revealed in even a balanced and historical view of the Old Testament, and it relfects in these Christians worldview. I am a charismatic without being quite evangelical. Take for instance the slaying of the firstborn of Egypt. Its difficult to reconcile this with the idea that God protects the dignity of the unborn. There are several solutions around this:A) The passage is not true, the story did not take place B) The passage is true, and it is a figurative parable C)The passage is literally true, and God's vengeance contradicts his love D)The passage is true, but we do not fully understand it E)Parts of the story are liberties taken by the author, but of a factual event. Being that there is no historical record of this particular Ramsese, I would have to say that I side with B or E. But the Old Testament is FILLED with this. I think it says more about ancient Jews than God. Hist motives tend to seem VERY contradictory to love, as in when he tells Joshua and his men to sleep with the women in the camp and kill the ones they dont choose. Sheesh. Since, as you say, mysticism is interepreted through the context of the mystic's own mind, I see the book as more of a "history of salvation" than an infallible teaching about the Nature of God. Because God is constant, I dont see his attitude changing so radically from the time of the Exodus to Pentecost and the descent of the Holy Spirit.

As for Augustine, I dont usually agree with him either. I DO beleive that death and disease, as they exist now, are the consequence of sin. How do the Greek fathers explain these, and what debt does Christ pay when he dies? It was obviously more than a unitive act - if you could give more of a Greek interpretation of these things, I would really appreciate it. Original sin, as it is currently taught, kind of contradicts the fossil record, and the obvious find that disease did indeed exist before humans. How, if we were offered a world without sin or death? I dont know. Either disease is not as evil as we say, or there is a more mystical approach to this choice. I find it difficult to look at suffering and NOT see Christ suffering in people - and so I do beleive it is evil. The problem of Original sin rankles the problem-solving part of my brain.

Oh, and I am indeed up here to be around the national park. I may be heading over to the coast of California soon. I am currently staying at a Samaritan House near Whitefish, and looking for a job at the National Park. Ah, life.

peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2006)

--


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Dear Wendy, 
You are right: I am not gay, and I don't feel qualified to join in with the debate. That's why I haven't so far, finding Marmite an easier topic to talk about. That's dissociation for you.
I think that it is good for people to stand up for what they believe in, especially when other people, particularly those of status, put forward seemingly "true" sequences of logical, which when scratched away at the surface are not what they seem. Due to the state of my mind, I am not inclined to side with either of you, although I personally do find homosexuality imperfect, but an innocent imperfection considering that most gay people appear to be inherently gay, rather than perverse heterosexuals. I don't know if that view of mine is homophobic - I certainly don't regard homosexuals as inferior, although I admit I am glad I am not homosexual, as I have enough to deal with already, and it seems undeniable to me that being homosexual can be challenging to the individual. As I wrote before, quite randomly I admit, a friend of mine was clearly gay but was not open about that to me until we were practically no longer friends. As far as I know, it was a struggle for him to come to terms with his sexuality, mainly because it didn't fit his mothers idealised view of how he should be.
Although I'm not gay, I have many other traits that mean that I do not fit in: throughout my life I have been so sensitive to the subtlties of situations, people and my own internal states, that when it comes to being "sensitive", I am off the scale. This trait, and my immense internal lonliness, is something I am yet to find in another person. I have spend much of my life being rejected, misunderstood, and used as a scape goat. All the crap in my family was poured onto me, and assumed to be my fault, even though it was clearly my mother's illness that was the root cause of all the evil in our house. My sisters couldn't condemn her behaviour because they needed her attachment I suppose, so they along with my mum, identified me as the one that was "wrong" and needed to be rid of.

Sorry if I am writing for myself here, but I can't really help there - all this stuff is pouring out of me because I can't bear to keep it inside anymore.

My point was that I know what it is like to be discriminated against, even though I felt I had not done anything wrong, or that what I did do wrong was the result of being victimised myself previously.

I see a parallel between myself and the homosexual because I did not choose to be what I am, and yet I am rejected for what I am repeatedly. Almost everyone I have ever met has told me that I need to change in some way or another, just last night a very introverted friend, during a serious conversation that he initiated, told me that I should enjoy the lighter things in life, just do things for the enjoyment of it, and to live in the moment. He is one in a very long line of unrelated people who have said this to me, and it seems strange that he should say it when these days I am persistently "light" with people unless they themselves indicate that they want to talk about something serious. Put simply, I feel I have something that is *in my nature* that people do not understand or appreciate and cannot connect to. Therefore I try not to condemn what is people's nature.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2006)

--


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Yea, good point! That's a good one...

Still I would not like to stop my creative flow by worrying about my inconsistencies. I'll think about that though.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Hi Wendy, 
I hadn't forgotten about the debate. At the mo I don't have a PC, and I don't intend to get one either! So I have breaks in between my replies. I guess I would have written something last time I accessed, but I got turfed out of the library, so couldn't. The lady came in and said "can you be logging off please" and a bloke quitely said "no", which was funny. She didn't mean it as a question. 
Well, first of all I wanted to check what words I used, for instance that I wrote "I try "and "condemn". I've checked the definition of condemn, in case I was using it incorrectly, and it means to express strong disapproval of something. Now before I go overboard justifying myself, what I wrote pretty accurately decribes me, even though I am a person in flux. 
I would usually avoid pointing out and speaking out against peoples' characteristics just because I don't think it is a very nice thing to do, and also because I don't think many people deserve that. Most things that are unpleasant aren't expressely malicious on the part of ther person doing it. Considering most homosexuals don't choose to be gay, I wouldn't like to criticise a person for being gay.

I'm sorry if you are uncomfortable with my view, but I just don't think it is preferable to be gay - I am actually curious to know how many honest gay people would agree with that.

You said I am judging peoples' nature by saying that being gay is not perfect. In a sense, yes, I do try and ascertain what people are like, and whether their characteristics are potentially harmful to myself, the person concerned, or other people...or animals. I usually judge whether something is good or not by whether it is beneficial to anyone or destructive.

Again, I feel afraid to say it, but I just don't think the anal canal was meant for sex. The mouth wasn't either, you could argue. But the thought of the anus being used for penile penetration is particularly unpleasant to me.

The awful thing is that by saying this, I am probably invalidating gay people who cannot have pentration with the ones they love any other way. I'm not saying that gay men should be celibate, as I know other people propose. I accept that people need to be able to express themselves lovingly in a sexual way, and gays have the right to do that as much as straights. But I don't think it is perfect, and I would be coward to not state that that is my honest opinion.

I don't think it is such a big deal to say that something is imperfect considering most things are! We are all full of imperfections. I wonder whether there is any example of perfection on this earth.

Dissillusioned ol me


----------



## falling_free (Nov 3, 2004)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :shock:


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2006)

Guys, Im done :wink:


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Dear Wendy, what's wrong, why did you delete your post? I'm just really sorry if you feel I was attacking you in any way. Maybe I'm projecting my own feelings onto you, but I hope you don't feel you can't participate in this because you don't feel accepted. That's just silly because you are more than accepted.

I don't have sound to listen to the clip, but I know what Jonathon Ross is like. If that clip mocks gays at all, I'd say for yourself, don't take it seriously. I mean, that's like Homeskooled leaving the forum because of falling's signature pics.

Please don't shut yourself away.


----------



## falling_free (Nov 3, 2004)

the clip doesn't really mock gay people that much, its just some wrestler guy called hardo gay who goes around doing pelvic thrusts in peoples faces and johnothon ross doing an interview with him about his celebrity status in japan. I posted it cos I was bored and wanted to inject some humour into the thread. it made me laugh anyway :lol: .


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2006)

Actually, I dont want to talk about it. But dear miss_starling, do not feel in any way 'bad' about what you posted to me and thank you very much for your concern and you not wanting me to shut myself out and saying I am more than accepted. That is really lovely from you. 8)

I dont know this guy, so that was my misjudgement, Falling_free. Sorry, Im a little sensitive about the topic, especially since the thread started, it brings up old stuff for me, which is not a bad thing, pers?, but have to keep it doable for me.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

I feel like crying - for about the 5th time today.  
Smilies are just so insufficient.

I'm glad it means something to you by my being tender. I'm always afraid of projecting onto other people things that are not true. For me, acceptance has always been a big issue and I'm finally playing an active part in getting myself out there, for all to see, mock, like, dislike, whatever. I have been afraid of projecting my feelings of non-acceptance onto other people. But your deleting posts reminded me so much of myself, I had to say something! You don't need to delete posts. This place is virtually anonymous anyway. If you can't say it here, where can you say it? Your feelings are ligitimate, you have a duty to yourself to stand up for what you believe in.

....Still, perhaps this thread had reminded you you still have old wounds. You can talk about this with your therapist.

That's the way I see this forum, a bit of a sounding board, a chance to self-explore, and recognise that there are other sensitive beings out there too. There is always too much to talk about with my therapist, but we're getting there!

Take care, don't be afraid to be yourself. You aren't hurting anyone by doing that.


----------

