Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After reading all the back and forth discussion here, I see one thing here: that many gay people simply do not understand the Bible and do not want to because it represents a mirror image of their lives and the inherent sin nature that lies therein. And that's exactly what the Bible is supposed to be...a mirror to reflect mans spiritual ugliness. Once a person realizes that they are sinful and separated from the presence of God, they may or may not turn to the only Person who can save them from that accursed nature and that is Jesus Christ. If they choose to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they are forgiven of their sins and become new creations through Him. They will once again enjoy the presence of God in their lives and will live eternally with Him. On the other hand, if a person rejects that idea (as I see some here have chosen to do so), they don't see their sinful nature because they don't believe that they are sinners! They don't see anything wrong with their lives or their distorted passions or care about their eternal state because they are so wrapped up in themselves and interested in only what they want. Folks, you can talk until you're blue in the face about scientific facts, human rights, personal desires, wants, desires and everything else under the sun that you wish.
You can deny God all you want and call people who follow God names and chastise them or throw them under the bus however much you want but when all is said and done and that day of Judgment comes along and you are found guily of not having declared Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you will regret it and it will be a regret that will torment you forever. You will live with the results of that terrible decision for all eternity. The Bible is God's Word and He is not double-minded nor does He mince words...His Word is very explicit and to the point and calls sin sin, no matter what shape or form it comes in. It means today exactly what it meant when it was first written and nobody, past, present or future is going to change the meaning of it to justify their sinful ways, period. You either stand for God and His ways and live according to His Word or you choose to deny Him, continue living an ungodly life and face the ultimate judgment on that fateful day. God will not be mocked and if you do so, you will regret it forever.
So you have two choices, follow Jesus and live or continue to live in defiance of Him and suffer the consequences. We are not here to vilify people, only warn them and tell them of a life that only God can give. We are only doing what we are called to do in His Name, if you don't accept it, then the Bible is clear on the rest of the story. Blessings.
And you want people to think you have no bias and willful ignorance speaking.
Maybe you felt left out that I didn't include the catagory of people who God classifies as " ... The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile"
As one of your crowd so lovingly put it .... you just need to learn to shut up.
Of course I do, I have a great deal of bias toward those the wallow in willful ignorance, for they are a threat to the future of mankind and are a plague on society.
There are many believers that completely reject the bias they learn from the bible, for it is nothing but the ignorance and bias of men dead for thousands of years.
Shut up Is the reason and reality becoming too much to bear? A very typical response, if you can't debate with reason or evidence, tell the other to shut or insult them. Really? does that come under your WWJD bologna.
After reading all the back and forth discussion here, I see one thing here: that many gay people simply do not understand the Bible and do not want to because it represents a mirror image of their lives and the inherent sin nature that lies therein.
That could be, but it is more likely that what you have stated is a fallacy rather than a demonstration that the bible speaks of homosexuality being wrong, you will only be able to take your preconcieved notions about homosexuality and apply that to verses that speak of things that do not define homosexuality in the first place.
If you remove your preconcieved notions, the bible will not define a stance against homosexuality. The verses in leviticus speak of an act that does not define what a homosexual is. The verses in the new testament do not define homosexuality. You will have to have already believed certain things about homosexuality first, not the other way around.
All this thread has shown is an affirmation that a previous thread stating that many Christians do not even know what homosexuality is, and neither do you.
SuperSoul, it just seems that all you are focusing on here is penises, anuses and vaginas.
Try looking at the hearts, minds, and souls.
I say this gently, not trying to cause a huge disruption or argument here.
Just... I think you are bypassing the essential part of us, and looking at more of the temporal stuff.
hope that makes sense.
peace,
sparrow
Sparrow,
Thanks for explaining your thoughts & feelings in a nice way.
You make a good point, that we are more than our bodies - we are spiritual beings having a rare emotional, intellectual human experience. I hope you understand why I was being so blunt about anatomy & medical risks - to hopefully inform others so they will be spared pain. Yet, you're right - there's a lot of psychology (study of the soul) to explore as well.
First off, I respect that many of those with homosexual preferences truly feel love & genuine care for their partners. I imagine how frustrating it'd be to have so much feeling & not be able to fully express it, for various reasons. Or it might be confusing to have such strong sexual feelings for someone of the same sex, who doesn't match with one, anatomically.
I know that God is love & is "no respector of persons." IMO, essentially, sin is incorrect thinking - something we all struggle with.
For our psychological, social & spiritual health & development, it's imperative that we explore why we think & feel as we do. Thoughts & feelings don't just happen as they do, from nothing. They are cumulative - one building on another throughout our lives. It can be painful to explore the source of strong beliefs & feelings, yet ignoring their source, is ignoring a major key to our spiritual, mental & social health.
I'm not recommending shaming oneself for having homosexual thoughts or feelings. I am suggesting one first just observe/notice thoughts & feeling with an accepting, compassionate heart. "Feelings buried alive never die" - so stuffing them is unhealthy. Emotions need noticing - before moving on. We all need to courageously explore our pasts, present & future for explanation, awareness & guidance. Love is most important - it's wanting & striving for ours & others' higher good. We best learn both intellectually & intuitively... possible ways of responding to our feelings. Then we can decide what is the most truly loving thing to do for ourselves & others.
That could be, but it is more likely that what you have stated is a fallacy rather than a demonstration that the bible speaks of homosexuality being wrong, you will only be able to take your preconcieved notions about homosexuality and apply that to verses that speak of things that do not define homosexuality in the first place.
If you remove your preconcieved notions, the bible will not define a stance against homosexuality. The verses in leviticus speak of an act that does not define what a homosexual is. The verses in the new testament do not define homosexuality. You will have to have already believed certain things about homosexuality first, not the other way around.
All this thread has shown is an affirmation that a previous thread stating that many Christians do not even know what homosexuality is, and neither do you.
And your statement reflects exactly what I referred to in the last post I made. I understand that many people refer only to the sexual act when addressing this issue but even maintaining an eros type of love for a person of the same sex is sinful. There are four types of love: Storge - familial affection; Phileo - friendship; Eros - romance/sexuality; and finally, Agape - unconditional love. Man is capable of each but agape is the most elusive or most difficult to achieve. Eros encompasses the romantic/sexual part of human love but the Bible says that even looking upon another to lust after them is sinful. You cannot change what the Bible says in the OT or the NT regarding how God views the notion of same sex relationships. It is a sin just like any other in the Bible and that will never change. Trying to change and justify their meanings is ridiculous and so denies the very authority of God and makes a mockery of His Word and the standards set down therein.
After reading all the back and forth discussion here, I see one thing here: that many gay people simply do not understand the Bible and do not want to because it represents a mirror image of their lives and the inherent sin nature that lies therein. And that's exactly what the Bible is supposed to be...a mirror to reflect mans spiritual ugliness. Once a person realizes that they are sinful and separated from the presence of God, they may or may not turn to the only Person who can save them from that accursed nature and that is Jesus Christ. If they choose to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they are forgiven of their sins and become new creations through Him. They will once again enjoy the presence of God in their lives and will live eternally with Him. On the other hand, if a person rejects that idea (as I see some here have chosen to do so), they don't see their sinful nature because they don't believe that they are sinners! They don't see anything wrong with their lives or their distorted passions or care about their eternal state because they are so wrapped up in themselves and interested in only what they want. Folks, you can talk until you're blue in the face about scientific facts, human rights, personal desires, wants, desires and everything else under the sun that you wish.
You can deny God all you want and call people who follow God names and chastise them or throw them under the bus however much you want but when all is said and done and that day of Judgment comes along and you are found guily of not having declared Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you will regret it and it will be a regret that will torment you forever. You will live with the results of that terrible decision for all eternity. The Bible is God's Word and He is not double-minded nor does He mince words...His Word is very explicit and to the point and calls sin sin, no matter what shape or form it comes in. It means today exactly what it meant when it was first written and nobody, past, present or future is going to change the meaning of it to justify their sinful ways, period. You either stand for God and His ways and live according to His Word or you choose to deny Him, continue living an ungodly life and face the ultimate judgment on that fateful day. God will not be mocked and if you do so, you will regret it forever.
So you have two choices, follow Jesus and live or continue to live in defiance of Him and suffer the consequences. We are not here to vilify people, only warn them and tell them of a life that only God can give. We are only doing what we are called to do in His Name, if you don't accept it, then the Bible is clear on the rest of the story. Blessings.
Thanks urbanlemur,
Hopefully this reaches those who earnstly want to listen to Jesus and want to forsake the idol of homosexuality that God says it is.
Shut up Is the reason and reality becoming too much to bear? A very typical response, if you can't debate with reason or evidence, tell the other to shut or insult them. Really? does that come under your WWJD bologna.
It's not the reason and reality that is becoming too much .... it's the hatred, wanton accusations by th eaccusers of God not being fair.
If you need to look for insults start with yourself...that's what WWJD bologna suggested.
Lest anyone think that God hates everyone that sins, let me assure you that He does hate the sin but loves the sinner! As John 3:16 says:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
that whosoever should believe on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."
He hates what man has become today in regards to the severity of sin but His promise still holds true for all of us...believe in Christ and what He did on the Cross because of His love for His creation/children and you will be saved. That is agape love, period. No greater example.
You cannot change what the Bible says in the OT or the NT regarding how God views the notion of same sex relationships. It is a sin just like any other in the Bible and that will never change. Trying to change and justify their meanings is ridiculous and so denies the very authority of God and makes a mockery of His Word and the standards set down therein.
Considering the Bible wasn't written in 21st Century English, you obviously have a very distorted view of what the Bible says.
Can you prove that the original Hebrew and Greek in the context of Caananite and Greco-Roman cultures say what you think they say?
Like say, a 1st Century theologian who said Paul was condemning gays?
Once again, the homosexual crowd is attempting to exalt the infamous pseudo-science of Alfred Kinsey,. It is very interesting that my write-up in post #183 contained 737 words total, and you zeroed in on a single sentence which only mentioned that Judith Reisman had once sued the Institute, but your Reismanophobia is certainly justified, and I hope that the readers of these posts, see how this reveals something about yourself. Judith Reisman was not obsessed with Kinsey. She was a very intelligent woman, raised Catholic. She was simply an individual who had experienced child molestation in her own family when her daughter was molested by a 13 year old. She perceived a notable decline in the morals of American culture and traced a significant portion of that influence to the twisted pseudo-science of Alfred Kinsey, (hero of the homosexuals).
Judith Reisman holds a Phd in Media Communications, has served as consultant to the to U.S. Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. She is president of the Institute for Media Education and the author of several books exposing the homosexual deception, or at least, Kinsey's part in it. She has brilliantly, (in my opinion), connected the dots, by explaining how one man's obsession with sex has affected major aspects of our society. You mentioned her name contained in only one sentence, out of 737 words on post #183, so I thought I might expound a little. I don't mind at all.
For the readers, something that 'Jaymax' has been adamant about, is providing 'peer reviewed' findings by credible scientific researchers/psychologists. The irony which is almost laughable is, this hero Alfred Kinsey, was one of the most scrutinized, and unqualified individuals in the history of scientific research. Not simply because of the bias related to his Atheist/Darwinistic views, or his perverted obsession with every form of sex, including pedophilia, but simply because the man's education and experience was not one of a psychological nature. Sexology was basically 'made up'. It's like the term homophobia. Homosexuals seem to be professionals at using this tactic.
Kinsey's own associate Paul Gebhard questioned much of the sampling that was done. At least 2 of the major groups used as subjects were, lets see, how did Gebhard put it, oh yeah, "defective". A researcher who along side Kinsey performed this perverted research, didn't have faith in the results produced. Quote: Gebhard PBS Interview (PBS isn't a right wing religious fringe group, last I checked).
" Here's my opinion of the thing, our lower social level sample, that is the grade school educated, was bad, I'm sorry we even published on it. Our sort of middle high school level, it's an approximation, I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but it's a pretty fair approximation. Our upper middle, our sort of college level sample I'd say is excellent, I don't think it's ever been approached since. I think it's the best sex sample done on that particular level.
"The other sample, the lower social level samples, those are defective, and you shouldn't pay too much attention to them."
Gee Jaymax, your hero is looking a little on the unqualified side to me. His own twisted accomplice just criticized his sampling.
For readers, this hero of the homosexual movement also protected a known child molester, Rex King, who admitted to molesting hundreds of children. Was this an incarcerated individual?? No! But, this didn't seem to bother Kinsey at all. Good ol' Rex was in good hands with the staff of the Kinsey Institute. No need to ruffle feathers over a few hundred molested children. This man was free to molest at will, and reportedly handed over detailed documentation of many accounts, directly to Kinsey. Some might call this, now what's the word, oh yeah, 'evidence', not to mention a misappropriation of funding.
PBS itself isn't blameless in it's attempts to help to mislead society by portraying Kinsey in a positive light, (attempting to stay in the good graces of the gay crowd, no less), in at least one documentary, but they just can't seem to get their hands on the more accurate version which aired in 1998 on the BBS network, known as Secret History, 'Kinsey's Pedophiles'.
The product of religious fringe groups?? Nice try, Jaymax. Judith Reisman was just one of the few in society who had the guts to report about this cartoon character.
Regarding studies, I suppose we're at an even disadvantage. You were to have forwarded studies at one time, establishing conclusively that homosexuality is innate/inborn. What I got was a bunch of theories, one of which actually had the stones to mention Kinsey. One of the pediatric reports you sent, written by an MD, would have been better named 'How to care for your homosexual'.
Anyone, (and I mean anyone), psychologist, Christian, layperson, who does their homework on this individual, will not need Reisman in order to know that this individual was a sexual psychopath, responsible in large part, for the deconstruction of the nuclear family, and the advancement of perversions.
Once again you go off on a complete tangent with strawman arguments.
I have never once stated or implied that Kinsey was my "hero".
You started down this myopic track of Kinsey because one of the articles from the American Academy of Pediatrics I linked to, cited Kinsey. (Amongst many other references to other studies which you conveniently ignored, because Kinsey is an easy target.)
This is how the article cited Kinsey:
The estimated proportion of Americans who are homosexual is imprecise at best, because surveys are hampered by the stigmatization and the climate of fear that still surround homosexuality. Past studies asked more often about sexual behavior and not sexual orientation. Kinsey et al, from their studies in the 1930s and 1940s...."
You took this as some kind of "endorsement" of Kinsey. Clearly you are not used to reading or writing scholarly articles or papers. If I were writing about developmental psychology, I would cite Freud to give an historical perspective. Does that mean I or anyone in the field of development psychology think Freud was correct in his theories? No. Were his theories and methodologies flawed? Yes. Was he influential in the early history of the field? Yes.
Was Kinsey controversial? Yes. Was he influential in exploring taboo subjects and opening up the field of studying human sexuality? Yes. Were his studies flawed? Yes. Does this mean his work has been "completely discredited" as you claimed? No. His work has since been adjusted for the flaws (non-randomised and weighted samples etc).
Judith Reisman's libellous claims against Kinsey have been discredited (and thrown out of court).
Her hysterical notions about homosexuality have also been discredited by every major health organization and millions of health professionals.
In 1983, during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) was headed by social conservatives, including Alfred Regnery in the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Reisman had given a talk on a Washington, D.C. radio program and CNN's Crossfire about the "connections between sex education, sex educators, and the pornography industry" which was heard by a member of the DOJ and she was asked to discuss her views in person, which "struck a common chord [...] especially those opposed to sex education in the schools."
She was then invited to apply for a grant, which was approved without competition for the amount of $798,531 (though later reduced to $734,371), to undertake a "study at American University to determine whether Playboy, Hustler and other more explicit materials are linked to violence by juveniles."[2][13][23][24][25] The allocation came under criticism as the grant was approved despite a staff memo from Pamela Swain, a director of research, evaluation and program development, in which she claimed that the study could be accomplished for $60,000.[23]
"Sex crime researcher Avedon Carol commented that the report was a "scientific disaster, riddled with researcher bias and baseless assumptions." The American University (AU), where Reisman's study had been academically based, refused to publish the completed work, citing concerns by an independent academic auditor.
You also seem to be hinging your views about studies on homosexuality on Kinsey. That would be like basing views on developmental psychology only on Freud's notions of psychosexual development and completely ignoring all the far better researched work from researchers in the last 80 years.
You seem to think that you are making some kind of "Ah hah! Gotcha!" point.
You're not. You are just setting up your own strawmen arguments to tear down. Meanwhile you are completely ignoring anything else that does not agree with your clearly prejudiced uneducated views on homosexuality.
In the meantime, you completely disregarded the quote from the original article from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which was:
"... there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation."
This is just one of many evidence-based articles from reputable mainstream health sources stating that there is no scientific evidence for your claim that homosexuality is caused by child sexual abuse.
You also completely ignored the review of the Wilson and Widom 2009 study of 908 adults who had been sexually abused as children. This large longitudinal study shows that your view is incorrect. The review by a well-respected Christian Psychologist, aslo shows exactly how religious fringe groups like NARTH distort studies.
So, do you, or do you not, still believe that homosexuallity is caused by child sexual abuse?
Last edited by Ceist; 06-08-2011 at 08:37 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is the reason and reality becoming too much to bear? A very typical response, if you can't debate with reason or evidence, tell the other to shut or insult them. Really? does that come under your WWJD bologna.
it just seems that all you are focusing on here is penises, anuses and vaginas.
