HogboblinZwei RE: Homo-emotional" is, clearly, a made-up term used by hateful bigots. Another thing: there's no solid historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. And if there were concrete evidence for Jesus, it wouldn't by proxy make him the son of God. This is a good thing, because it makes the whole "believe in me or suffer an eternity of punishment" bit absolutely irrelevant.
Cookiecrumb RE: I don't think the OP is saying that homosexuality doesn't exist. I think he is distinguishing homo-emotion and homosexuality, and attributing homo-emotion as having possible causality for homosexuality, while also claiming you can have one without the other.
Thanks for your replies! I appreciate your feedback. Sorry about the delayed reply.
Homo-emotional refers to emotional needs such as affection, nurturance, endearment and companionship being fulfilled in the context of platonic, male bonding. Every man has homosocial & homoemotional needs but not every man with homosocial & homoemotional needs is a homosexual. Homoemotional needs being fulfilled through platonic male bonding isn’t necessarily correlated with homosexuality. Therefore, I don't understand how the term homoemotional automatically evokes hateful bigotry.
For all the people that have been supernaturally healed from a disease, delivered from hardcore addiction(s) and/or professed salvation in Christ, the Bible stands on its own merits throughout time, without me uttering a word in its defense.
You just got to understand, it didn't happend in a bed.
Babichev RE: In Kenya, it’s common to see men walking hand in hand, even men wearing military uniforms. In Nepal, I’ve seen young men sitting on each other’s laps, arms around each other, laughing hysterically at some funny thing. In Italy I’ve seen men embrace each other with great emotion. I had a couple of male Saudi roommates for awhile, a pair of grad students. Their male friends would come over to visit. The camaraderie I witnessed among them was amazing; I’ve never seen anything like it among American men.
Thanks for your reply! I appreciate your feedback. Sorry about the delayed reply.
It is difficult to find a good thorough book on platonic, same-sex affection, nurturance, companionship, endearment and men bonding emotionally. However, I have read books on male gender role norms that mentioned male bonding in 19th Century America in which men used to sleep together as bedfellows without regard to sexual consideration or perhaps the modern middle east where men hold hands as an endearing gesture of interpersonal solidarity:
For example, ““Normal American men are homophobic, afraid of close friendships with other men. The moment we begin to feel warmly toward another man, the “homosexual” panic button gets pressed. It makes us nervous to see French or Italian men strolling down the street arm in arm. Must be queer! From a cross–cultural perspective it is we who are odd; close male friendship is the norm in most societies and is usually considered a more important source of intimacy than romantic relationships. The celebrated friendships of David and Jonathon or Achilles and Patroclus reflect a valuation more typical than the American pattern of acquaintanceship or a quick slap on the butt after making a touchdown. . . . A predictable result of our homophobia is that men become overdependent on women to fulfill their need for intimacy, and swallow the romantic myth hook, line, and sinker. We grow up expecting that some magic day it will happen. We will find the one special woman who will take away our loneliness and heal our alienation. The two of us will fall in love and be all things to each other: lovers, companions, helpmates, and best friends. And then we are disappointed and feel betrayed when it doesn’t happen.” (P. 174) Fire in the Belly: On Being A Man Sam Keen
“The lack of intimacy and demonstrated affection among American men is quite unlike the situation in many other cultures. Many Americans may be aware, from newspaper photographs, that the acceptable style of formal greeting for men in France, Russia, and other European cultures is to embrace and kiss each other. Some of us may even be aware that Arab leaders often are seen walking arm in arm, or holding hands as they talk. Yet most of us are so ignorant of men’s daily behavior in much of the non–Western world that we do not realize the peculiarity of men’s interactions in the United States. In short, contemporary American mainstream masculinity is rather unique in its suppression of displays of affection, and of close and intimate friendships between adult men.” (P. 187) Men’s Friendships Peter Nardi, Editor
“In parts of China and India that are highly gender segregated as well as intolerant of homosexuality one often sees evidence of what appears to be nonsexual male intimacy (e.g. holding hands, sleeping in the same bed) among boys and men.” (P. 32) Deep Secrets: Boys’ Friendships and the Crisis of Connection Niobe Way
MCcuddles2 RE: @SincereGenuine thanks for sharing. While I do not have a religion, I value you as a human being and I think that your experience and identity as a male Christian cuddler is valid. 🙂 I am happy that you are brave enough to share it ❤.
FunCartel RE: I think the rhetoric needs to be dialed back a bit on @SincereGenuine. I am also not in the religion camp but I am in the toleration camp as long as I am not being force fed his beliefs. However, I think religion is his conversation starter and the lens that he views the world through. There is nothing wrong with him doing so for that is the way he lives his life whether you agree with his beliefs or not. What is pertinent in the CC world is he is discussing it in a mature manner and without offense. I think he has an open heart and we should as well, because at the core of his original post is an uncomfortable ideal that exists in America but rarely acknowledged—male to male bonding. He may be coming from a different angle and he may be awkward in his verbiage, but he has no ill intent. If we are truly open to male-to-male platonic affection, then it takes everyone to remove the stigma—atheists and Christians, liberals and conservatives, men and women, straight and gay, and most importantly—dogs and cats. Otherwise the idea of male platonic affection will remain a niche ideal. Our words need to bleed kindness.
Cookiecrumb RE: I am very surprised. A man says that he cuddles other men on the basis of his faith, but he's not homosexual. He doesn't participate in sex. This is a platonic cuddling site, not a sexual one. And he's getting flack? Why does he need to be educated? He demonstrates inclusivity within the parameters of the terms of service for this site. What is wrong? Why does he need to be reprogrammed beyond the parameters of this site? Because of personal bias? I agree with someone sharing their worldview because it broadens my perspective. You could say you cuddle people because you believe in Budda. Wonderful. Please tell me more. I may not agree with you. But the perspective is interesting. I am interested in the beliefs of others, not because I want to reprogram them, but because their perspectives aren't mine. It is also a way to try to find common ground. Eunuch is an especially unique perspective. He never condemned anyone for not being a eunuch. He just said he was. But the common ground is still cuddling. If you are unkind to everyone who believes differently than you, then people will not share, and we will learn less about each other.
DaringSprinter RE: @SincereGenuine: Did you think about the homosexual people on this website before you used a term that reduces every same-sex attraction they experience to "not enough love from same-sex parent"? I'm asking genuinely, because I was raised in a devout Christian environment and I know how easy it is to not think about things like that, when you're used to just saying them.
UCpaaHVg6u0 RE: @SincereGenuine I am curious if you are telling us that you yourself have experienced longings to be with men? I am asking you directly if you've experienced pressure from people you seek love and support from, liked family, about feeling sexual towards men? What I am picking up it's that you want to cuddle men platonically, but that wanting more than platonic cuddling with men is just a product of the harshness which you yourself have been a victim of. Maybe you could be more forthcoming about yourself here. Or not. I'm not a big cuddler of men myself, mainly because I don't trust a man who says it would just be platonic. Otherwise, it would be great if men could be affectionate like women are with each other.
I am a 44 years old only child with no siblings. Throughout my life, I have been a loner pretty much without close male friends since elementary although that is beginning to change as I become more confident in my own masculinity and interacting with men. If I could have chosen my father, I would have picked a man who is soft spoken, mild-mannered, peaceful, benevolent, endearing, affectionate, tactile, and nurturing.
My father has a harsh, very dominant, pugnacious, contentious, volatile personality inclined to relentlessly fuss, argue, criticize, complain, and curse. My parents have been married for 47 years, but they still argue like newlyweds because my mother is a saint who is sweet, kind, confident, assertive whereas my father is a heathen who is very small–minded, nitpicky, insecure, and controlling. I was spanked & whipped until I turned age 16, and there wasn’t love in equal measure to offset the discipline so I grew up seeking affection, nurturance, and endearment from a paternal surrogate.
Because of paternal estrangement early in life, I went looking for love elsewhere in the arms of men, but I never labeled/considered myself 'gay' because I knew that homosexuality is Biblically wrong.
For a very brief time in college, I experimented with homosexuality 20 years ago, but I never lost my virginity as a result of having an orgasm because of something that someone else did to me.
While attending college, the discourse from Sociology of Gender classes and informal observation of the dysfunctions in others' relationships convinced me at age 24 that I wanted to become a eunuch, and that is what I have labeled myself ever since based on Matthew 19:11-12.
From age 11 to 34, I was compulsively addicted to pornography and masturbation. However, at age 44, I don’t look at pornography nor masturbate anymore. Just like it is possible to ignore erections when cuddling with another dude, it is also possible to live a life unrestricted by pornography & masturbation. Pornography & masturbation are a form of psychosexual bondage that distracted me from focusing solely on meeting my high homo-emotional needs. Often, men are psychologically restricted from bonding emotionally & affectionately with other men because pornographic images & episodes of self–stimulation are indelibly etched into their subconscious which keeps them from reaching out to be closer to other men as brothers. More men would be free to be emotionally & affectionately closer to their brothers if they weren’t bound by pornography & masturbation addictions in their private lives.
Beyond the default fixation with sex, pornography, and masturbation, there really is the potential for men's freedom & liberty to be able have emotionally meaningful & affectionately impactful relationships with each other.
In 2001, I quit fooling around with homosexuality and became a eunuch; in 2011, I stopped masturbating; in 2021, I ceased looking at pornography.
Based on I Corinthians 6:9 & 11, I believe that people can/do change a homosexual orientation.
Since 2002, I have developed a personal relationship with Christ consisting of Bible reading, studying & listening and prayer to the extent that I am free to pursue the real male bonding that I desired to begin with, without having a desire for counterfeits like masturbation, pornography, and same–sex attraction, all of which have become most unappealing to me as I have grown closer in my walk with Christ.
Psychologically, I consider myself a eunuch, which is just another way of labeling myself ‘asexual’ based on choosing to remain celibate with no interest in dating/coupling, but I actually am a virgin who has never dated or been intimate with a woman based on having casually observed the dysfunctions of others’ relationships around me.
I consider eunuch, asexual, and celibate to be synonyms somewhat although there are slight variations in terms’ meanings. For me, asexual means that regardless of past history, I volitionally choose to be totally uninterested in pornography, masturbation, dating/coupling, and sex. This is the kind of life that Jesus lived as a celibate, asexual, eunuch so if Jesus did it, I believe that it is possible for man to do the same as Divinely empowered through the Holy Spirit.
I like being single. Since I have a low sex drive, I'm not interested in dating or coupling. However, I do have a high need for homo-emotional bonding with men to the extent I seek male affection, nurturance, endearment, and companionship.
I feel that more men would choose to remain single if male gender role norms permitted interpersonal solidarity based on gender consciousness. This why many women have stronger emotionally intimate relationships with their girlfriends than they do with their male partners.
Unfortunately, a man often has to choose between a wife and kids or having close male friends whereas married women have girlfriends with whom they are platonically intimate and the emotional bond between a married woman and her girlfriends is often more emotionally & affectionately close than the relationship between a married woman and her own husband.
Because of their experiences with fathers and ex-wives, men everywhere are hurting! I am perceptive and discerning enough to feel the hurt.
What I find completely backwards is the notion that it’s perfectly fine, normal, or even healthy for two gay men to literally have sex, but if two straight men want to embrace for a few minutes that is considered to be weird. Yet, it is considered okay for guys to beat on each other in the boxing ring as a form of entertainment. That doesn’t make any sense to me.
Speaking from personal experience, instead of seeking a father’s love through sexual encounters in the arms of another man, cuddling with dudes is a genuine, authentic alternative for gay/bicurious dudes whose deficient male bonding needs should be satisfied instead through platonic, same sex affection, nurturance, companionship, and endearment from men:
I believe that men cuddling is a way to heal the hearts & souls of guys who have been emotionally wounded by abrasive fathers and/or emasculating women.
@SincereGenuine: That's... a lot of information. But none of it answers my question—which, if you recall, was "did you consider the non-straight people who'd be reading your post before you used the word 'homo-emotional'?"
Examples of this term in use tend to be not great, as I'm sure you know.
Thus the problem with the person who has labeled himself a homosexual: he thinks he’s gay and interprets his normal (but unmet) homo-emotional feeling the wrong way. And based upon his feelings he continues through life reinforcing his gay identity, further hindering the identification process and preventing unmet needs from being met. It’s a terribly vicious cycle that can be stopped only be understanding same-sex needs and satisfying them through proper channels.
—Jeff Konrad, Setting Love In Order
Same sex attraction is rooted in an effort to get homo-emotional, or same-sex, love needs met.
—Same Sex Attraction, an article on NewLife.com
In the father-son, mother-daughter relationship, a homo-emotional wound develops if the child perceives or experiences his or her same-sex parent as either cold, distant, absent, passive, abusive, or unavailable. This homo-emotional wound is a key factor in the development of what may later appear as same-sex attractions. In the heart of every man or woman who experiences same-sex desires is a sense of detachment from his or her same-sex parent.
—Homo-Emotional Wounds, an article from gaytostraight.org
And so on. I don't recall ever having seen the word in any context other than anti-gay.
Also, please pardon my asking, but I can't help wondering... your replies aren't automated, are they?
@SincereGenuine Why the automated messages? Is that how God speaks?. “Thank you, I have heard your request and will consider your prayer. If you need further assistance, press 1 for the Vatican, press 2 for a Protestant, press 3 if you are interested in our Born Again program, or press 4 if you need information on the Priest recall.”
Just kidding , but @DaringSprinter Brings up a good question—your answers seem automated and rote. That sort of goes beyond religion into the “cult” area.
@SincereGenuine
Therefore, I don't understand how the term homoemotional automatically evokes hateful bigotry.
Again, the only sources I've found have used "homo-emotional" to say that homosexuals aren't really homosexuals—they're simply confused and corrupted by society.
Saying that homosexuality doesn't actually exist is demeaning to homosexuals. Who do exist. Homosexuality is a real thing that occurs in nature. A dude doesn't become gay because his dad wasn't kind to him. Some dudes are just born gay.
This is something that is supported by research and study. Suggesting otherwise is false.
I have not managed to find any serious research into "homo-emotionality". What I have found, several times, is Christians who support things like homosexual "therapy" and "conversion" who insist that "homo-emotional" is a totally for reals thing. This shouldn't need to be said, but these people have an agenda that stems from religious belief. It is Christian bigotry poorly disguised as something vaguely scientific.
For all the people that have been supernaturally healed from a disease...
Please, if you'd be so kind, share with me a peer reviewed thesis—written by medical professionals—stating that a supernatural event healed a patient.
@SincereGenuine You have received two well constructed challenges from @HobgoblinZwei. I will be interested to hear your retorts although the first one denying homosexuality needs to be addressed because it is not a very loving or accepting concept. As for the second point, the fake priest in The Exorcist did exorcise the demon out of Linda Blair that made her think she could act.
DaringSprinter RE: That's... a lot of information. But none of it answers my question—which, if you recall, was "did you consider the non-straight people who'd be reading your post before you used the word 'homo-emotional'?" Examples of this term in use tend to be not great, as I'm sure you know.
Thanks for your reply! I appreciate your feedback!
With all due respect, by asking if I considered the term homo-emotional in reference to non–straight people, you are implying the correlation between homo-emotional and homosexual when ALL men have homo-emotional needs that aren’t being met by other men because of the homophobic apprehension of hegemonic masculinity pertaining to concerns about being effeminate and feminine.
FunCartel RE: @SincereGenuine Why the automated messages? Is that how God speaks?. “Thank you, I have heard your request and will consider your prayer. If you need further assistance, press 1 for the Vatican, press 2 for a Protestant, press 3 if you are interested in our Born Again program, or press 4 if you need information on the Priest recall.”
LOL, you just brought a big smile to my face : )
The context of the quote in the opening post was that they were eating Passover meal. At these meals they would recline on their left side and eat with their right hand. So The beloved disciple (John) would have been in front of Jesus with his back towards Jesus. With thirteen people at the table it would have been tight. Some translations say John leaned on Jesus. Others say he was close to Jesus. Any interpretation outside of this context is speculation and not supported by the text.
@snugbuddy imagine the close proximity and the ancient halitosis when there was no toothpaste. Ick
@SincereGenuine says,
With all due respect, by asking if I considered the term homo-emotional in reference to non–straight people, you are implying the correlation between homo-emotional and homosexual when ALL men have homo-emotional needs that aren’t being met by other men ....
I didn't give the word "homo-emotional" its unfortunate connotations—all the folks using it to describe the supposed lack of acceptance and love from a same-sex parent that supposedly turns people gay did that.
You're trying to reclaim it?
This thread is so fascinating!!
At first I found myself thinking, "Huh. What an interesting way of looking at things" to, "Huh. This is something completely new to me, but to each their own I suppose."
But then I got a bit further into the back and forth and thought, "Whoa! What the heck?! This could be some really problematic thinking!" Because it kind of reads as if it may be the result of subversive conditioning seeking to suppress someone's true self as well as that of others.
Now I'm here in a room of mirrors trying to reflect, and am wondering... If someone is basically just sharing their way of interpreting things, or quotes from texts they find meaningful, is there anything inherently wrong with that? Even if what they share may fly in the face of what others know to be true? Or that to some may just read as a bit problematic? I mean, if they aren't blatantly trying to convert anyone to their way of thinking, and are just sharing their truth, is there any actual harm in that?
Are there really any cons if the one being suppressed is happy/content with things?
And, does the copy paste/repeating of oneself qualify as it's own sort of conditioning attempt? I know there are studies around those who are repeatedly exposed to messaging will begin believing it. Something about enough repetition starts to equate to truth (especially if done without challenge).
IDK ~ I don't think I see an actual issue, but the part of me that's questioning is making me wonder if I'm missing something. I feel like I'm barely skimming the surface and there's something truly horrific lurking beneath.
To be fair though, this feeling could also be due to a lack of caffeine and protein...
It is bewildering to me that no one acknowledges the reality that (1) all men have homoemotional needs, (2) instead of being exclusively emotionally codependent on women, men are capable of providing affection, nurturance, endearment, and companionship to other men in the form of platonic male bonding, (3) Lack of the aforementioned realization perpetuates the psychological castration/emasculation of men at the hands of women, and (4) Men aren't psychologically inclined in a collective sense to see themselves as cognitively enslaved by women to cultivate a widespread men's liberation movement away from the gender politics associated with being subservient to women.
Ha, I know that feeling, @quixotic_life. Waking up and getting some food inside is usually a pretty good move.
If someone is basically just sharing their way of interpreting things, or quotes from texts they find meaningful, is there anything inherently wrong with that?
Wrong, I dunno. But one thing I can say for sure: I wasn't expecting to get smacked with the familiar word I've only ever heard in the argument "gay people aren't really gay, they're just trying to meet their homo-emotional needs the wrong way."
Like there are some emotional needs that can only be satisfied by somebody who's the same sex as you—acceptance and caring from anybody else just doesn't do it.
Like there are two different sexes of love: male love and female love.
Even without the next bit of the argument, that not getting the male or female love you needed as a child confuses you into trying to get it from homosexual lovers, even without that it's still a bit of a slap in the face. Love isn't just love? Acceptance and caring aren't equal? All the sympathy and respect in the world isn't good enough if the person offering it is the wrong sex? Ouch.
And....
Not everyone is male or female, you know. Can we not love? Is our love not necessary? And if it is, where do we get our "homo-emotional" needs met?
It's bewildering to me that you went from ignoring rather important questions to...all that. It makes it seem like you've got something to hide.
But whatever. It's not your job to respond to @DaringSprinter or myself. I will say, however, that you're missing an opportunity to show that "homo-emotional" isn't a made-up phrase used by bigots.
Now, with that out of the way, I'm going to go through this latest post. Fun!
It is bewildering to me that no one acknowledges the reality that (1) all men have homoemotional needs,
There's that word again. I don't think anyone would argue that men don't have emotional needs. And, in addition to that, I think many people here would agree that our current society makes it difficult for men to achieve emotional fulfilment; in general due to gender norms, and when it comes to emotional interactions with other men.
The problem is, is that nobody really talks about homo-emotional needs because that word is used by bigots. "Homo-emotional" is not in the lexicon of the general public because it's in the domain of Christians who are prejudiced against homosexuals.
Again, this is problematic because it dismisses homosexuals entirely. It's also problematic because it takes the issues that men face in society and ties them up with bigoted garbage. It's more offensive to homosexuals, but it's also not doing straight men any favors. Unless they're Christian men who have issues with gay men existing.
(2) instead of being exclusively emotionally codependent on women, men are capable of providing affection, nurturance, endearment, and companionship to other men in the form of platonic male bonding
This is a good thing. It's less of a good thing when it's all wrapped up in exclusionary buzzwords that have zero meaning outside of a very specific (and prejudiced) belief system.
(3) Lack of the aforementioned realization perpetuates the psychological castration/emasculation of men at the hands of women
Ah, so now you're also crapping on women. Neato. I suppose this makes sense, given the anti-woman propaganda on your page. "Feminism = Misandry" indeed. I'm curious: what attracts you to problematic views?
(4) Men aren't psychologically inclined in a collective sense to see themselves as cognitively enslaved by women to cultivate a widespread men's liberation movement away from the gender politics associated with being subservient to women.
So, what I'm getting from this is "Men think they're tough and independent, so they don't realize that they're enslaved by women, which is why they're not banding together to fight for their freedom...from women."
Wow, man. Just...wow.
So let's see. You've expressed a view that denigrates homosexuals, you've done a disservice to men with emotional needs by hijacking their problems in the name of Jesus, and now you're sharing opinions as undeniable facts that amount to "women are evil".
Ha. Haha. Good luck with being nice and "inclusive", everyone! This man simply wants to live his truth, and that's not problematic at all.
Hahaha. My sides are in orbit.
Oh great. A discussion about religion. Finally something we can all agree on.
@FunCartel it is not the responsibility of marginalized groups (in this case members of the LGBTQIA community) to be kind to or reform people who are being homophobic (veiled or otherwise), regardless of the reason they are being homophobic. It is more important to make members of the LGBTQIA community feel heard and welcomed than to make the person making homophobic remarks feel heard and welcomed. Yes, it is possible to do both, but I think a lot of people in this thread are straying too far into the idea that inclusivity means we have to give a platform to hateful ideas. That is not true.
Moreover, we should not be asking members of the marginalized community to be "kind" or "understanding" to someone who is actively attacking our community. We should instead focus on reducing harm to the marginalized community and making sure said community members feel supported/welcome/fought for/etc. Yes, it is important to educate and change the minds of homophobes, but not at the cost of prioritizing the homophobe (and their feelings) over LGBTQIA people.
I believe in personal responsibility - as an adult, you are responsible for your actions. In this case, @SincereGenuine is responsible for his actions that are profoundly homophobic, and now misogynistic. Being "brainwashed" is not an excuse for making homophobic and misogynistic remarks that are attacking other members of this community. Religion does not absolve someone of spreading their hateful ideology. It may be a reason for their hateful ideas and that reason may provide a path for them to fix their ways, but it is not an absolution.
@desi_babe
This is superb. Thank you.
Also, it's a bit too late, but I wanted to clarify something. I think you might be misreading @FunCartel. He's a good dude.
I didn't pick up on how you @ed him. Probably because I'm tired and stupid. I just really enjoyed the points you made in general. Because you made awesome points.
@desi_babe:
Yes, it is important to educate and change the minds of homophobes, but not at the cost of prioritizing the homophobe (and their feelings) over LGBTQIA people.
Well said.
I should note—this holds true even if the homophobe is LGBT+. I wasn't a different person back when I believed the Christian bible was perfectly, inerrantly accurate. I was still asexual, still agender, still me. But I was also frankly harmful and bad to be around, and I'm glad most people didn't prioritize my feelings over the feelings of those I hurt.
@SincereGenuine i would like to bring the thread back to your original topic.
How has cuddling affected you positively as a Christian?
I don't think you are homophobic and I think you can simply choose to ignore any derailment; after all it takes two people to make an argument.(as I know from your religion, you cna turn the other cheek).
If your thoughts really are problematic I am sure a mod will lock the thread. If it isn't locked then you are fine.
While people have heated opinions about this topic, it is important to remember that they are only opinions and extremely subjective. Opinions should not be convoluted with truth, I think any sensible person can agree with that.
Until then, I would love to hear more of your truth.
This just HAS to be a joke. I refuse to believe that any man anywhere truly believes they're "enslaved by women" on a large scale. Like that can't be real.
And calling women emasculating over and over isn't hate speech exactly but it's really teetering on the edge.
@SincereGenuine "Seek and ye shall receive". I did ask, and you answered abundantly. I thank you for your sharing. I think it's unfortunate that your choice of venue has resulted in you being targeted for scrutiny, as if you have lesser rights than others with similar proclivities, to just be who you are. So ironic how that works. I think you are here because you want to test the waters. I think you should go for it, but you're going to have to endure nipping at your heels for your transgressions against the PC police.
@desi_babe You totally misread or ignored key points I said. You are confusing acquiescence with civility and changing the thinking. I specifically stated I take it on a person-by-person basis. Implicit in that is they are responsible for their actions, for they can be bigoted but if you condemn them outright because of their religion you have changed nothing. I think you should take a page from @HogboblinZwei and others who are challenging and deconstructing his views rather than taking apart my misread post.
I never said brainwashing is an excuse—that is just one of your lecture points. What I said is you deprogram brainwashed people. Some it may change and some it may not. But anger, venom, and hatred returned to a group that is full of disdain changes little, and quite often antagonizes the issue.
In addition, I would suggest you look at the thread chronologically because I initially said give him a break earlier to listen fully to what he has to say and then after that he thoroughly revealed himself for what he is. You don’t see me condoning it. You are angry at the wrong person and distorting everything I said. Shall I rehash everything I said in every thread to meet your approval? I mean stop reading that which is not there.
And I never said you need to reform them—but if you want real change, you need to change the thinking and the narrative. What good is a fight for change if the enemy is still as plentiful as before? There will always be people that will hate a group but you need to change the thinking of some or else—what good is it? What are you doing? Fighting hate with hate? Then you are just as horrible as they are.
Furthermore I was asking the CC Community to wait and hear people out BEFORE making assumptions. I think change comes from hearing each side—but I also—and here is where you ignore the truth by omission—I said in a post that @HogboblinZwei had challenges to things that he said that are highly problematic. Why aren’t you attacking the bigot if you are so “supportive” of the community and don’t have time for “understanding”?
Yes I am angry at you because you seem to want to misrepresent what I said. I don’t owe you an explanation but I just gave you one…the second today counting the other thread. But I am done. You do not know me, you only attack what you think you know. You help no cause with innuendo.
Do I need to embrace his views for you to stop your distortions and mistruths against me? Because you are verrrry silent on addressing him.
RE: MCcuddles2 How has cuddling affected you positively as a Christian?
In 2002, I began to read, study, and listen to the Bible read aloud on CDs. Prior to 2002, I had gone to church my whole life but never read the Bible privately so I didn’t realize the freedom & liberation that is available in Christ as conveyed through His Word pertaining to Biblically sanctioned diversity of lifestyle options beyond heterosexual marriage like being a eunuch (Isaiah 56:4–5, Matthew 19:11–12, I Corinthians 7:32–33, 35) as well as examples of platonic male bonding with affection, nurturance, companionship, and endearment such as David and Jonathan (I Samuel 18:1, 3 & II Samuel 1:26), Jesus & the Apostle John (John 13:23), and Paul & the church brethren (I Thessalonians 5:26).