I said earlier:



Shall I bring up the fact that you lied about Dr. Cameron in regards to my post?

How about the fact that you continued to lie about after admitting it.

How about the fact that you'd address the issue of incest and are still avoiding it. (proving me correct that I am privy to your thoughts)


You cannot fix the damage you've done to your own reputation, it's obvious in your "hell-bent" denial of the facts.


Just let it go...

Slink away while you still have some dignity cause I'm done with you...

#8 Your imagination and my thoughts
#9 Reality and your imagination
#10 An admitted mistake and a blatant lie
#11 Fact and opinion
#12 Your calling something a lie and it being one(may already be covered by 8)

None of your so-called facts obtain.

You still denying putting forth Dr. Cameron? My mistakenly attributing the study in the link provided to Dr. Cameron was admitted several times over. That is anything but a lie. See #10 in the growing list of things that you need to pay attention to, Pan. My being admittedly mistaken does not constitute being a lie, nor does that have any bearing on the fact that you offered Cameron's writings as suggested reading material on the subject matter.

Slink away???

Big man, big big man. Ooooooo soooooo impressive with all that virtual brawn. Ahhh, if only I could be so manly... freaking birdchested poose.

We there yet?

Go 'beat up' on some more women.

lol, more like you?



Seriously, don't you see how foolish you're starting to look? (or still looking)

#8
#9

Always about focusing upon the person arnt'cha Pan?

Is there an intelligible argument from you anywhere in here? If there is, point me to it. Likewise, if you care to ever address the rejoinders and back up the drivel you put forth, ask and I'll point where you should focus.

To the OP...

It does seem that following the religion is necessarily at adds with being friends with 'sinners' in the same regular manner as one would be with other church goers.

I think that the black and white thinking inherent in a belief system based upon the primary concepts of good and evil definitely has the potential to severely limit the person's ability to apply critical thinking skills to complex notions. That is displayed in these forums all the time. Selective application of scientific data seems to be a troublesome concept for some to grasp hold of. Now, whether or not that causes a person to be disingenuous in their dialogue is an interesting idea.

What kind of approach would yield any useful information regarding this?

I mean, someone can assert that the world is flat and/or 6,000 years old and truly believe that. They would not be disingenuous in their claim. It is when one puts forth an assertion that is known by them to be false but is publicly claimed to be true, that some form of blatant dishonesty is taking place. Pan's purported position which mimicked my own is a fine example of this. Now, we cannot conclude based upon that that there is reason to believe that the religion has caused that to happen. The religion clearly holds that bearing false witness is against the moral code... the ten commandments. So, in cases like that the religion is not necessarily the cause of the dispicable behavior.

what is the 'regular' manner of being a friend?

is it pretending to like what you dont like or pretending to agree with what you dont agree with or agreeing to do things that go against your own moral code(wherever that comes from?

I am just curious about what is perceived to be so different between how a religious person carries on friendships compared to anyone else?

From the OP...



Well, no... not literally anyway. They still do "live life", so perhaps saying that they "cannot live life" leads to confusion. If a religion and/or religious belief is the primary factor, like the foundation of one's personal belief system then that is, at least in large part, who they are/become.

Being genuine however, is two-fold Dragoness. One always acts genuinely in the 'sense' that those actions stem from that person. However, it can be very difficult perhaps impossible to know what another person's intent is based only upon their actions. In another 'sense', being genuine requires knowing oneself. I mean, if a person truly believes and subsequently claims to be a certain way, it is not necessarily the case that they are. Nor is it necessarily the case that they know that. Thus it may be disingenuous in two entirely different ways.

I mean a person might say this...

"I am an honest person. I value honesty above all else."

Now, that is true if, and only if, that person is honest and does place the highest value upon honesty. A person can believe that they are honest, believe that they act in honest ways, but still be a dishonest person without knowing better. There is sometimes great contention regarding what constitutes being an honest person. There are varying degrees of clearly dishonest behavior that are 'allowed' in the minds of many. This kind of belief about honesty allows such behavior to still 'qualify' to that person as 'honest'.

I mean, if a person lies rarely, are they still an honest person? Likewise, if a person lies habitually are they as honest as a person who lies rarely? These kinds of things are difficult to pinpoint when one one a sliding scale to measure honesty. My own concept of honesty holds that in order for one to be honest, they express only that which is believed. In other words, the measure of one's honesty is had by the strict agreement between what one says and what one believes.

In this way one can be both honest and disingenuous, because they can truly believe what they say(honest) but that belief may not include what they claim, unknowingly of course(disingenuous). For a claim to be genuine it must be what it says it is. It must contain what it says it contains. That is not the case with honesty however. In order for a claim to be an honest claim, it must only be honestly believed to be true. For it to be genuine, it must obtain and preserve truth.



This seems to be hinting at, or presupposing a conflict between a person's wants/desires and their moral conviction/religious belief. I would agree that the possibility for such a conflict exists. One may fleetingly wish to cheat on their spouse(in their mind), and yet not go through with it. Now, I would not call that concealing their true selves. I mean we all have times in which we will weigh such things and choose between them. We also will always choose what we think is the best option, at that time.



This could be the case, but not necessarily.



Again, this could be the case, but not necessarily.



Again, this could be the case, but not necessarily.

Well it would include whatever being a friend entails to each person, on an individual basis. I regularly do certain activities, talk in certain ways, and the like with my regular friends. Some other people, who may not be as close of friends for whatever reason, would not be considered my regular friends. During time with those people, I may or may not act the same way for any number of different reasons.



Well no, that would be dishonest and disingenuous. One need not 'pretend' to agree with another's personal choices in order to still be a friend.



Yeah. Me too.

I would suppose that because religion is such a large part of a religious person's life. I may suppose that it would have some kind of affect/effect upon personal relationships. It seems that the OP is questioning what these are, or how they 'work out'. I wonder how a religious person views different kinds of friends, and whether or not that view is based upon their behavior. I do not assume that all relgious people re the same though. I know many, and therefore know better.

Have you ever seen a known religious person be faced with a situation that opposes their belief but they don't feel they should say anything so they get this strange look in their eyes and a funny little fake smile on their face?

This usually happens when a religious person is placed with a known gay person and they are forced to interact.

I believe this to be disingenuous interactions.

My perception, I know, but I have yet to see a religious person be really supportive of gay folks in their lives.

I see. Thank you. I am not one to change my behavior often accept to adapt to the situation I am in(being at work, as opposed to at a party, as opposed to hanging with family)


For me, what makes a friend a friend is the ability to trust and open up. My best friend ever was a pot smoker, I didnt agree with this part of his life, I was honest with him about feeling it was unhealthy for him, but my love for him was no less genuine and we were no worse friends for it. I just wasnt around him when he smoked pot, and he didnt speak about it or smoke it around me,,,out of MUTUAL respect for each other.

I likewise have family who are homosexual(the topic that this thread rests on so often), and as a christian I feel this lifestyle is a spiritually and physically unhealthy one for them. They know that I am not in favor of the lifestyle so they dont ask me to join them when they do 'lifestyle' things, and I dont make a point of discussing it with them out of MUTUAL respect. I love them no less for it , I actually think if I didnt love them Id be more prone to NOT CARE what they did.

That situation, with the facial expression, may be a case of the religious person being uncomfortable. That is not necessarily disingenuous Dragoness, but it very well could be. The same situation happens all the time with non-religious folk as well.

True my post was much longer including the non religious situations or some of them but I figured it would confuse this issue.

When you see them "claiming" to love everyone and acting this way, I can't help but seeing them being disingenuous.

I feel sorry for them because they are denying themselves good wholesome friendships out of fear and religious taught discrimination.

Your welcome. Yes, we have different personas for different interactions. That and that alone does not constitutes being dishonest, nor disingenuous.



That is the key to all human interaction/relationship.



I suppose I'm wondering here what kinds of things you're referring to when you say 'lifestyle' things.



Can you look at them without the fact that they are gay immediately coming to mind?

yes, because I tend to not define people by their sexual interests. I see race, I see gender, but I dont see whats in a persons heart when I look at them.


when I say 'lifestyle' things, I mean they wouldnt invite me to the local rainbow club with them or the gay parade or to an event where they and their partner were likely to be engaged in pdas

but there is plenty in our life and our daily routine that has nothing to do with sex or sexual interests, so its not something that has gotten in the way of any relationships I have built,,,

I think that I understand what you're getting at here. I think you're attributing a false cause though. I too, have often witnessed the clear 'looking down the nose' at other people kind of behavior for many different reasons. That kind of behavior is not necessarily a product of religion. If it were, all religious people would be that way, and everyone who is that way would be religious. That is not the case though.

I think your being offended by an elitist mentality, and I agree.



People like that don't want friends like that, Dragoness.

Ah. Judging a person based upon who they are, rather than how they look, and/or what they may do in their private life. Admirable.

I must wonder though, Ms. Isn't what one does in private an integral part of who they are in heart? Or do you mean honesty, caring, integrity, and things like that?

in most things yes but

in LOVE and LUST all bets are off,,,,

there are so many hormones involved that whatever part those sexual activities play towards ones identity, is not big enough to override everything ELSE that makes them who they are,,,,

if someone makes a habit of going home and beating their spouse, that might speak a bit to their character


however, if one goes home and engages in consentual bdsm, it might just be an outlet for them or it could be the whole foundation of who they are,,,,they are the only ones who will know that

in my opinion anyhow