The Bible and Homosexuality

Post by * irenic *
We cannot assume that the Bible directly refers to what we have come
to call 'homosexuality' today.

True...

Post by * irenic *
When the Bible addresses the misuse of
sexuality (which it does not do as often as it does many other areas
of human failure),

Your statement of the frequency is both dubious and of dubious significance.

Post by * irenic *
it does so most often in terms of porneia

This part you got right, at least for the NT./

Post by * irenic *
(exploitative, abusive and promiscuous sexuality,

But this is NOT what the word PORNEIA means. Take the time to look it
up in a few good lexicons.

Post by * irenic *
which is often
connected with, and called, idolatry), rather than questions of
sexual orientation or technique 'between consenting adults'.

True, but this is because the whole idea that being "between
consenting adults" makes it OK is s-o-o-o alien to Scripture.

[snip]

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

b***@juno.com

2006-07-03 01:50:17 UTC

Post by * irenic *
We cannot assume that the Bible directly refers to what we have come to call
'homosexuality' today.

Yes, it does. Only a relentless twenty year campaign of brainwashing by
the western media has been able to change your mind, and so many other
minds. Your mind and many other western minds have been brainwashed so
hard, that they are now able to ignore the clear prohibitions of
homosexuality in the Bible.

The only reason you feel justified in ignoring and glossing over the
biblical prohibitions, is because you have been indoctrinated with
pro-gay propaganda.

The Bible is clear. Gayness is wrong (Romans 1). It is something EVIL
that God "gives men over to." He binds them into their disobedience,
because their minds have been darkened, and their thoughts futile.

Luckily, this binding over toward sin is not permanent. Romans 11 tells
us that the only reason God binds men over to sin, is in order to have
greater mercy on them all. But the fact that God will have mercy upon
all men, including gays, does not change the fact that gay sex is both
harmful and sinful.

Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that gayness is "genetic."
Now, obviously, gayness BY DEFINITION is a genetic trait that is NOT
PASSED ON to the next generation. Why? Because gay people DO NOT
REPRODUCE by definition.

If so, then Darwinian evolution would tell us that since gayness BY
DEFINITION does not reproduce itself, it will automatically disappear
by natural selection.

Because of this, simply because of evolution, there is NO WAY that
gayness could be genetic.

Ergo, gayness must be caused by early childhood development. And
therefore it can be healed through therapy.

LO AND BEHOLD! My sister has a church that has ex-gays helping each
other to heal their childhood broken-ness of gay feelings. Yes, gayness
can be healed. I have met ex-gays. God's love is triumphant. Although
God binds gay people over to their sin, He can bring them out of it.
And He does.

But please, don't give me the lame, media propaganda line about how
gayness is "genetic" (see discussion of natural selection above) and
"cannot be changed" (ever hear of Anne Heche?) and is non-harmful (do
you know what anal sex does to the body?)

It is all baloney. Listen to the Bible, and stop watching TV!

seven

2006-07-03 01:50:19 UTC

IT IS AN ABOMINATION TO THE LORD!

Robert Marshall

2006-07-04 04:53:23 UTC

Post by b***@juno.com
Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that gayness is "genetic."
Now, obviously, gayness BY DEFINITION is a genetic trait that is NOT
PASSED ON to the next generation. Why? Because gay people DO NOT
REPRODUCE by definition.
If so, then Darwinian evolution would tell us that since gayness BY
DEFINITION does not reproduce itself, it will automatically
disappear by natural selection.
Because of this, simply because of evolution, there is NO WAY that
gayness could be genetic.

Just to blow a largish hole in this argument - you might want to
consider the number of gay folk who have been married and had children
because either they didn't want to face up to their real sexual
identity or thought marriage would cure them or couldn't at that stage
put a name to it.

Maybe that number is now decreasing but I think a
survey of middle aged gay/lesbians would show a majority as having at
least been married if not having passed on their genes

I think your argument is broken in other genetic ways but I don't have
the science in that area for a serious argument

Robert

--
Conformity means death for any comunity. A loyal opposition is a
necessity in any community Karol Wojtyla (1969)
Links and things http://rmstar.blogspot.com/

Ninure Saunders

2006-07-04 04:53:25 UTC

In article <vJ_pg.147$***@trnddc07>, seven <***@wannadoo.com> wrote:

-IT IS AN ABOMINATION TO THE LORD!

There are lots of things that are called an "abomination"...I bet you
ignore most of them.

Gen. 43:32
And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for
the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the
Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination
unto the Egyptians.

Gen. 46:34
That ye shall say, Thy servants trade hath been about cattle from our
youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in
the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the
Egyptians.

Ex. 8:26
And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the
abomination of the Egyptians to the LORD our God: lo, shall we sacrifice
the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not
stone us?

Lev. 7:18
And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten
at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be
imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the
soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.

Lev. 11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of
all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the
waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

Lev. 11:11
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their
flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Lev. 11:12
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an
abomination unto you.

Lev. 11:13
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls;
they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the
ossifrage, and the ospray,

Lev. 11:14
And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

Lev. 11:15
Every raven after his kind;

Lev. 11:16
And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

Lev. 11:17
And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,

Lev. 11:18
And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,

Lev. 11:19
And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Lev. 11:20
All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Lev. 11:23
But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an
abomination unto you.

Lev. 11:41
And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an
abomination; it shall not be eaten.

Lev. 11:42
Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or
whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the
earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

Lev. 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev. 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their
blood shall be upon them.

Deut. 7:25
The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not
desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest
thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.

Deut. 7:26
Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a
cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt
utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.

Deut. 12:31
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the
LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons
and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

Deut. 13:12
If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath
given thee to dwell there, saying,

Deut. 13:13
Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have
withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other
gods, which ye have not known;

Deut. 13:14
Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold,
if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought
among you;

Deut. 13:15
Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the
sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle
thereof, with the edge of the sword.

Deut. 17:1
Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep,
wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination
unto the LORD thy God.

Deut. 17:2
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy
God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight
of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,

Deut. 17:3
And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun,
or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;

Deut. 17:4
And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently,
and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is
wrought in Israel:

Deut. 17:5
Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed
that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt
stone them with stones, till they die.

Deut. 18:12
For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because
of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before
thee.

Deut. 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a
man put on a woman s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the
LORD thy God.

Deut. 23:18
Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the
house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination
unto the LORD thy God.

Deut. 24:3
And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement,
and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the
latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

Deut. 24:4
Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his
wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD:
and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth
thee for an inheritance.

Deut. 25:16
For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an
abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Deut. 27:14
And the Levites shall speak, and say unto all the men of Israel with a
loud voice,

Deut. 27:15
Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination
unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a
secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.

1Sam. 13:4
And all Israel heard say that Saul had smitten a garrison of the
Philistines, and that Israel also was had in abomination with the
Philistines. And the people were called together after Saul to Gilgal.

1Kings 11:5
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after
Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.

1Kings 11:7
Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab,
in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of
the children of Ammon.

2Kings 23:13
And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right
hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had
builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh
the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the
children of Ammon, did the king defile.

Psa. 88:8
Thou hast put away mine acquaintance far from me; thou hast made me an
abomination unto them: I am shut up, and I cannot come forth.

Prov. 3:32
For the froward is abomination to the LORD: but his secret is with the
righteous.

Prov. 6:16
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

Prov. 6:17
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

Prov. 6:18
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running
to mischief,

Prov. 6:19
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Prov. 8:7
For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

Prov. 11:1
A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

Prov. 11:20
They that are of a froward heart are abomination to the LORD: but such as
are upright in their way are his delight.

Prov. 12:22
Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his
delight.

Prov. 13:19
The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but it is abomination to
fools to depart from evil.

Prov. 15:8
The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer
of the upright is his delight.

Prov. 15:9
The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him
that followeth after righteousness.

Prov. 15:26
The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD: but the words
of the pure are pleasant words.

Prov. 16:5
Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though
hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

Prov. 16:12
It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is
established by righteousness.

Prov. 17:15
He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they
both are abomination to the LORD.

Prov. 20:10
Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to
the LORD.

Prov. 20:23
Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is
not good.

Prov. 21:27
The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he
bringeth it with a wicked mind?

Prov. 24:9
The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men.

Prov. 28:9
He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall
be abomination.

Prov. 29:27
An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the
way is abomination to the wicked.

Is. 1:13
Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new
moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is
iniquity, even the solemn meeting.

Is. 41:24
Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he
that chooseth you.

Is. 44:19
And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor
understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I
have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten
it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down
to the stock of a tree?

Is. 66:17
They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind
one tree in the midst, eating swine s flesh, and the abomination, and the
mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Jer. 2:7
And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and
the goodness thereof; but when ye entered, ye defiled my land, and made
mine heritage an abomination.

Jer. 6:15
Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not
at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among
them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down,
saith the LORD.

Jer. 8:12
Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not
at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among
them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down,
saith the LORD.

Jer. 32:35
And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son
of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the
fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my
mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Ezek. 16:50
And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I
took them away as I saw good.

Ezek. 18:10
If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the
like to any one of these things,

Ezek. 18:11
And that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the
mountains, and defiled his neighbour s wife,

Ezek. 18:12
Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not
restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath
committed abomination,

Ezek. 18:13
Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live?
he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely
die; his blood shall be upon him.

Ezek. 22:11
And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour s wife; and another
hath lewdly defiled his daughter in law; and another in thee hath humbled
his sister, his father s daughter.

Ezek. 33:26
Ye stand upon your sword, ye work abomination, and ye defile every one his
neighbour s wife: and shall ye possess the land?

Dan. 11:31
And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of
strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place
the abomination that maketh desolate.

Dan. 12:11
And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the
abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two
hundred and ninety days.

Mal. 2:11
Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel
and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which
he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

Matt. 24:15
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by
Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him
understand:)

Matt. 24:17
Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of
his house:

Matt. 24:18
Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

Mark 13:14
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel
the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth
understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Luke 16:15
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;
but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men
is abomination in the sight of God.

Rev. 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither
whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are
written in the Lamb s book of life.
--
Pax Christi,
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian

Jesus is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk

My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk

Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org

The Bible Site - help provide free scripture
http://www.thebiblesite.org

To send e-mail, remove your hat

B.G. Kent

2006-07-04 04:53:26 UTC

Post by * irenic *
We cannot assume that the Bible directly refers to what we have come to call
'homosexuality' today.

B - Not all people out there are Christians..nor should they be. Not all
out there take the Bible literally ..nor should they....

Post by b***@juno.com
The only reason you feel justified in ignoring and glossing over the
biblical prohibitions, is because you have been indoctrinated with
pro-gay propaganda.

LOL...pro-gay propaganda? ah ...you mean equality...treating others with
respect right?

Post by b***@juno.com
The Bible is clear. Gayness is wrong (Romans 1). It is something EVIL
that God "gives men over to." He binds them into their disobedience,
because their minds have been darkened, and their thoughts futile.

B - Says you and a book that may or may not be God speaking.
You don't understand the competing cultures and faiths surrounding the
early Jewish-Christians....they (the other pagan faithed people) were
different..they had very little
problem with homosexuality...and since the focus was on being different
from that culture...homosexuality by those early followers...would be
considered evil. This was then written into the Bible..however it still
does not mean that God thought it was evil...but those who wrote the
books. Much as people thought those of Hebraic extraction were the
"chosen" people....obviously ridiculous...they also thought any other
culture and different faith..was evil/wrong.

Romans 1 chap 25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped
and served the creature more than the Creator (sound familiar? the
creature...the Bible?), who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

That's also in the book.

I.M.O

Bren

B.G. Kent

2006-07-04 04:53:26 UTC

Post by seven
IT IS AN ABOMINATION TO THE LORD!

SAYS WHO? AND WHY ARE WE YELLING?

Bren

B.G. Kent

2006-07-04 04:53:27 UTC

B - Neither do people who don't want children...nor do people who are born
with problems where they cannot.

Post by b***@juno.com
If so, then Darwinian evolution would tell us that since gayness BY
DEFINITION does not reproduce itself, it will automatically disappear
by natural selection.

B - Ah like left handedness?

Post by b***@juno.com
Because of this, simply because of evolution, there is NO WAY that
gayness could be genetic.

B - Sorry hon....but many many gay people because of society's
stupidity....are forced to marry and have children. Yes they can force
themselves to have sex with the opposite sex if they have to..but that is
not their choice. Forcing gay men and women to "change" (which in my
opinion is ridiculous) just keeps it going by passing "perhaps" a genetic
propensity for homosexuality onto to their children.

Post by b***@juno.com
Ergo, gayness must be caused by early childhood development. And
therefore it can be healed through therapy.

B - show me proof of anyone that has been changed and stayed that way...in
total happiness with no relapses for the rest of his/her life. You can't.

Post by b***@juno.com
LO AND BEHOLD! My sister has a church that has ex-gays helping each
other to heal their childhood broken-ness of gay feelings. Yes, gayness
can be healed. I have met ex-gays. God's love is triumphant. Although
God binds gay people over to their sin, He can bring them out of it.
And He does.

B - No such animal my friend...if there were you could prove it. You don't
know ex-gay people..you only know people that are not expressing that part
of themselves...for a certain amount of time. It is as silly as forcing
people to use their right hands if they are left handed for the left hand
is the "sinistral..or sinister" hand of the devil.

Post by b***@juno.com
But please, don't give me the lame, media propaganda line about how
gayness is "genetic" (see discussion of natural selection above) and
"cannot be changed" (ever hear of Anne Heche?) and is non-harmful (do
you know what anal sex does to the body?)

B - Anne Heche was never gay. You are confusing experimentation...or a
fluidity of sexuality or bisexuality...with being gay. Many straight folks
have experimented with homosexuality...but it is not their preferred way.
WE are talking about people who are gay...who have no interest in NOT
having same sex intercourse.

And about your obsession with anal sex. Many straight folks have anal sex
with no problems. Many many homosexuals...lesbians especially...don't have
anal sex.

Post by b***@juno.com
It is all baloney. Listen to the Bible, and stop watching TV!

B - Yeah...right....and stop using your computer too!

LOL....

I.M.O
Bren

shegeek72

2006-07-04 04:53:28 UTC

Uh, no. The gay gene can be passed on through heterosexuals.

Post by b***@juno.com
Ergo, gayness must be caused by early childhood development.

The latest evidence indicates homosexuality has hormonal, genetic and
environmental causes.

Post by b***@juno.com
And therefore it can be healed through therapy.

These "reparative" programs you speak of are only effective 10% of the
time and even then the participants admit to still having fantasies of
gay sex. All that's accomplished is sublimation of a natural desire.

Tara

--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem

Matthew Johnson

2006-07-05 03:21:17 UTC

B - Neither do people who don't want children...nor do people who are born
with problems where they cannot.

And they too, fail to pass on their genetic traits. So what IS your point?

Post by b***@juno.com
If so, then Darwinian evolution would tell us that since gayness BY
DEFINITION does not reproduce itself, it will automatically disappear
by natural selection.

B - Ah like left handedness?

No, NOT like left handedness. We already know for a fact that left-handedness is
not genetic (with a few exceptions). Someday, people will admit that sexual
orientation is not genetic either.

Post by b***@juno.com
Because of this, simply because of evolution, there is NO WAY that
gayness could be genetic.

B - Sorry hon....but many many gay people because of society's
stupidity....are forced to marry and have children.

You miss the point. The societal condtion that 'forces' this is quite recent,
far too recent to be a significant pressure on evolution.

Post by B.G. Kent
Yes they can force
themselves to have sex with the opposite sex if they have to

What are you talking about? You can't be _forced_ to carry through the
reproductive act.

Post by B.G. Kent
..but that is
not their choice.

You have a confused notion of 'choice'. I wish I could say I was surprised.

Post by B.G. Kent
Forcing gay men and women to "change" (which in my
opinion is ridiculous) just keeps it going by passing "perhaps" a genetic
propensity for homosexuality onto to their children.

This nonsense is typical of the propaganda so beloved among propenents of
depravity. Again: societal pressures for gays to marry and reproduce are FAR too
late in human history to have a significant evolutionary pressure.

You don't know squat about evolution, Brenda. You have already shown many times
that you don't know squat about Christianity, either. The only thing you know
how to do is to be a blowhard, repeating propaganda based on half-baked ideas.

[snip]

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Matthew Johnson

2006-07-05 03:21:18 UTC

Post by Ninure Saunders
-IT IS AN ABOMINATION TO THE LORD!

He's right. You are not right. You are very wrong. Perhaps this is why
you had to resort to such a childish mockery of rebuttal with your
list of mostly inappropriate verses.

Post by Ninure Saunders
There are lots of things that are called an "abomination"...I bet you
ignore most of them.

This is a childish argument. For starters, there are subtle
distinctions between the THREE different words translated as
'abomination' in the passages you list below.

Nor does your error end there. For you are also sweeping under the rug
the distinction between the dispensations of the Old Testament and the
Dispensation of the New. We are _not_ obliged to keep the whole of the
letter of the Law. Nor are we called to "build a fence around the
Law". We _are_ obliged to keep _certain_ things from the Old Testament
Law, the prohibition of Lev 18:22-26 is one of them.

But you have not even addressed this idea! You are sweeping it under
the rug, hoping to hide it under your mountain of citations --
citations you yourself _clearly_ do not understand, since so many of
them are _completely_ irrelevant.

Yet what is an even _clearer_ sign of your ignorance is that you
included _Proverbs_ in the list. For the crimes Proverbs lists as
'abominations' really _are_ forbidden by both civil and divine law,
and both in the OT dispensation and in the New.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Gen. 43:32
And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and
for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the
Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an
abomination unto the Egyptians.

This is H8441.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Gen. 46:34
That ye shall say, Thy servants trade hath been about cattle from our
youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may
dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination
unto the Egyptians.

This is H8441.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Ex. 8:26
And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the
abomination of the Egyptians to the LORD our God: lo, shall we
sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and
will they not stone us?

This is also H8441. I do believe I am seeing a pattern here. In fact,
a search on H8441 comes up with the same list, up to this point.

But the following citations of yours are actually different words,
H6292 and H8263, NEVER used for moral abominations: they are used only
for ceremonial abominations.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Lev. 7:18
And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be
eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither
shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an
abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.
Lev. 11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers,
of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in
Lev. 11:11
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their
flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Lev. 11:12
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an
abomination unto you.
Lev. 11:13
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls;
they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the
ossifrage, and the ospray,

And the following verses do not even have the word. They add NOTHING
to your already lightweight argument.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Lev. 11:14
Lev. 11:15
Lev. 11:16
Lev. 11:17
Lev. 11:18
Lev. 11:19
Lev. 11:20
Lev. 11:23
Lev. 11:41
Lev. 11:42
Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four,
or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep
upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.
Lev. 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

And I see you left out Lev 18:26:

(Lev 18:26 RSVA) But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and
do NONE of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who
sojourns among you

Why? Is this one too embarassing for you, Ninure?

Post by Ninure Saunders
Lev. 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of
them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
death; their blood shall be upon them.

So why _don't_ you recognize this one, Ninure?

Post by Ninure Saunders
Deut. 7:25
The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt
not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee,
lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy
God.

This is a good example of how an abomination (H8441) should be
regarded. Why do you fail to recognize this?

[snip]

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 3:32
For the froward is abomination to the LORD: but his secret is with the
righteous.

This is a pathetically BAD translation. What 'secret' is he talking
about? Do you even know what 'froward' means, Ninure?

I have to ask, because if you really knew, you would NOT have included
this in your tiresome list of mostly irrelevant citations. In
particular, you would not have included this in a list prefaced with
the slyly hypocritical comment, "I bet you ignore most of them."

But when it comes to the Proverbs citations, Ninure, it is clear that
it is YOU who "ignores most of them".

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 6:16
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination

And how many of these things are you doing with this post, Ninure?

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 6:17
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

"Lying tongue" is certainly a VERY good description of that abuse of
the gift of speech committed by the "pro-gay" spokesmen.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 6:18
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in
running to mischief,

"A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations" is _also_ a good
description of those who continually come up with more and
more inventive excuses for rejecting the Gospel's morality, denying the
authority of St. Paul, and even contradicting Christ's words in the
Gospel, all in defence of an indefensible abomination.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 6:19
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

And how can you avoid this accusation, Ninure? Can't you see that you
are sowing discord among the brethren by defending the indefensible?
Sure, I don't expect you to admit that you are a false witness -- you
have fallen victim to your own propaganda, just like Gorbachev did.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 8:7
For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

But that didn't stop you from speaking up in favor of abominations.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 11:1
A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

And you too, use a "false balance", but in the metaphorical sense. Yet
this verse has long been considered as binding in the metaphorical
sense as well.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 11:20
They that are of a froward heart are abomination to the LORD: but such as
are upright in their way are his delight.

Again: do you even know what this word 'froward' means?

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 12:22
Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his
delight.

You are not dealing truly with us, Ninure. Oh, no. You are resorting
to all sorts of devious deception to claim that Scripture does not
condemn your practice.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 13:19
The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but it is abomination to
fools to depart from evil.

Now this verse is appropriate, but not for your purpose. It is
appropriate for describing why you are so determined to deny the
Gospel truth: because departing from evil is such an abomination for
you.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 15:8
The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer
of the upright is his delight.

And again, this verse turns out to be appropriate for a very different
purpose than what you must have had in mind. For by claiming that
'seven' "ignores most of these", you havce exposed yourself as every
bit as much a wicked hypocrite as the hypocrites you love to criticize
in your own posts.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 15:9
The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him
that followeth after righteousness.

And again, this verse turns out to be appropriate for a very different
purpose than yours: for you have shown, by the dishonesty of your
_entire_ line of argumenation, which category you fall under.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 15:26
The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD: but the words
of the pure are pleasant words.

If you really understood this Proverb, Ninure, you would shudder at
the thought of saying the things you say. For speaking up in favor of
depravity IS an example of "the thoughts of the wicked".

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 16:5
Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though
hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

And how do you avoide seeing this as an accusation against yourself,
Ninure? For it is NOTHING other than pride in the heart that
encourages you to speak up against the Gospel, and even against the
_entire_ Christian Tradition, in defense of depravity.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 16:12
It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is
established by righteousness.

And this is _exactly_ why some fear that by tolerating homosexuality,
the United States, and even a large swath of Western Culture, has
already forfeit the ascendancy we have enjoyed for so long now.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 17:15
He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even
they both are abomination to the LORD.

And how do you avoid seeing this as an accusation against yourself,
Ninure? For this is _exactly_ what you do over and over in your
posts. You make the practitioners of wicked depravity into martyrs and
heroes, thus "justifying the wicked".

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 20:10
Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike
abomination to the LORD.
Prov. 20:23
Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance
is not good.

And again: by including these in your list, you make yourself into a
slanderer, accusing 'seven' of using "diverse weights".

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 21:27
The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he
bringeth it with a wicked mind?
Prov. 24:9
The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men.

And did it ever occur to you, Ninure, that homosexual desire might be
an example of this "though of foolishness" he mentions?

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 28:9
He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall
be abomination.

But this is _exactly_ what you do! You _DO_ turn your ear away from
hearing the Law, inventing excuse after excuse for invalidating Lev
18:22-26. So yes, even your prayer is nothing more than an
abomination.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Prov. 29:27
An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the
way is abomination to the wicked.

And this again, is appropriate, but not according to _your_
plans. Instead, it is very appropriate for explaining the fury with
which you, 'shegeek' and a few others turn to a barrage of fallacies
and denunciations whenever anyone points out their sin.

[snip]

Post by Ninure Saunders
Jer. 8:12
Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were
not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they
fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall
be cast down, saith the LORD.

And again, this is a _perfect_ description of the condemnation that
will overtake you too, Ninure. For just like them, you commit
abomination, you speak out in favor of committing abomination, and you
are not ashamed. On the contrary: instead of feeling the shame, you
invent worse and worse excuses for the inexcusable, and plunge deeper
into evil, just as St. Paul described in Rom 1:18-32:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress
the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them,
because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the
world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity,
has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So
they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not
honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in
their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to
be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal
God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or
reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts
to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped
and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for
ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable
passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were
consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless
acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty
for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God,
God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were
filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness,
malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are
gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful,
inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless,
heartless, ruthless. THOUGH THEY KNOW GOD'S DECREE THAT THOSE WHO
DO SUCH THINGS DESERVE TO DIE, THEY NOT ONLY DO THEM BUT APPROVE
THOSE WHO PRACTICE THEM. (Rom 1:18-32 RSVA)

You are _clearly_ one of those who approves it, so this condemnation
clearly applies to you.

[snip]

Post by Ninure Saunders
Luke 16:15
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;

And that describes you too, Ninure. For all your protests against
'homophobia', and all of your inventive excuses for depravity, are
nothing more than vain attempts to justify yourself before men. They
_certainly_ do not justify yourself before God. Scripture makes that
crystal clear.

Post by Ninure Saunders
but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among
men is abomination in the sight of God.

This is another verse that should leave you struck with fear of
condemnation, Ninure. For nowadays, thanks to deceivers like you,
depravity _is_ "highly esteemed among men", at least as long as it
follows rules set up by men, such as, "it is OK if they love each
other".

But it is still an abomination in the sight of God.

Post by Ninure Saunders
Rev. 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth,
neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they
which are written in the Lamb s book of life.

Again, this should leave you quaking with fear. For you not only work
abomination, but you encourage countless others to do it, multiplying
the condemnation you will hear on the Last day.

[snip]

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

b***@juno.com

2006-07-05 03:21:22 UTC

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Not all people out there are Christians..nor should they be. Not all
out there take the Bible literally ..nor should they....

All people should be Christians. And all people WILL eventually become
Christian. Either in this life, or after burning in hell for awhile,
every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord. Then
the mercy and love of God will emerge triumphant.

Post by B.G. Kent
LOL...pro-gay propaganda? ah ...you mean equality...treating others with
respect right?

Sexual orientation does not equal a person's identity. Treating others
with respect is fundamental, but that does not mean I have to accept
everything they do as right.

Since Gay people can change (as Anne Heche did) this proves that
gayness is not a fundamental trait, but merely a complicated neurosis.
Tough to heal, but possible.

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Says you and a book that may or may not be God speaking.

Since our entire Western Civilization was built upon this "book" that
you so casually toss aside...... I am on firmer ground than you.

If you disagree with the fundamental "book" of our society, why don't
you go start your own atheistic society? Oh yeah, the Russians already
tried that, and it was a spectacular failure!

Post by B.G. Kent
You don't understand the competing cultures and faiths surrounding the
early Jewish-Christians....they (the other pagan faithed people) were
different..they had very little
problem with homosexuality...

Chesterton addresses this. You are partly correct, the ancient Greeks
had "very little problem with homosexuality." However, these same
Greeks immediately converted to Christianity in droves once the Gospel
burst upon the scene.

The sociological question is this: if the Greeks were so liberated
sexually, so happy, so joyful and free, why did they feel the need to
convert so massively to the Gospel, once it appeared?

The answer is: because this so-called sexual liberation is DEVASTATING!
Gay sex, and even straight sex, unless it is tightly controlled, is
extremely destructive.

Imagine children growing up in a home where orgies happened every day,
with old men lusting after young boys, and so forth. THAT IS ANCIENT
GREECE! And that is where Western Civilization is once again headed,
unless we return to the very "book" that you heap abuse on!

For Ancient Greece, the Gospel was a clean and fresh start.The Greeks
converted to Christ, because they had sinned and grown old.

Post by B.G. Kent
Judge not lest ye be judged.

"For by the same measure you use, you shall be judged." When Christ
said we should not judge, He meant we should not judge UNLESS we were
willing to be judged by the same criteria.

If we are willing to be judged by the same criteria we use, then
judging is no problem, as long as it is done in love.

b***@juno.com

2006-07-05 03:21:23 UTC

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Ah like left handedness?

No, left-handedness does not DIRECTLY prevent reproduction. It has
nothing to do with reproduction, and therefore will not tend to die out
genetically.

On the other hand, Gayness is PRECISELY the trait that, if it were
actually "genetic" would have died out by this time. Because it
completely flies in the very face of reproduction.

In fact, the fact that gayness still exists, contrary to all genetic
tendencies, is a powerful argument that the Darwinian paradigm is
false, and should be replaced with a Christian pardigm of a "fallen
world."

Under the Christian paradigm, we are born into a fallen world, with
various sinful tendencies that we must overcome. Gay people are born
with a sinfull tendency toward gayness, straight people are born with a
sinful tendency to fornicate. And so on.

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Sorry hon....but many many gay people because of society's
stupidity....are forced to marry and have children. Yes they can force
themselves to have sex with the opposite sex if they have to..but that is
not their choice. Forcing gay men and women to "change" (which in my
opinion is ridiculous) just keeps it going by passing "perhaps" a genetic
propensity for homosexuality onto to their children.

This is partly valid. However, gay people either need to be celibate,
or they can change to heterosexual with God's help. I don't care how
many times you try to deny it. I have seen it. I have met ex-gays.
Sorry, Bren, you are just wrong.

Post by B.G. Kent
B - show me proof of anyone that has been changed and stayed that way...in
total happiness with no relapses for the rest of his/her life. You can't.

I certainly could. I could introduce you to the ex-gays I have met. Or,
you could visit exodus-international.com, like I have mentioned in the
past.

You can't simply deny what I am saying. I am a real living person, who
has met real living ex-gays. Your denials in the face of reality cannot
succeed. Sorry.

Post by B.G. Kent
B - No such animal my friend...if there were you could prove it. You don't
know ex-gay people..you only know people that are not expressing that part
of themselves...for a certain amount of time. It is as silly as forcing
people to use their right hands if they are left handed for the left hand
is the "sinistral..or sinister" hand of the devil.

It is not that silly. Being left-handed is not self-destructive.
Engaging in gay sex is.

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Anne Heche was never gay. You are confusing experimentation...or a
fluidity of sexuality or bisexuality...with being gay. Many straight folks
have experimented with homosexuality...but it is not their preferred way.
WE are talking about people who are gay...who have no interest in NOT
having same sex intercourse.

Rather convenient for you, isn't it? Any person who switches from being
gay to straight can be defined as "not really gay." I believe that is
called "moving the goalposts" in an argument. A very basic fallacy.

Post by B.G. Kent
And about your obsession with anal sex. Many straight folks have anal sex
with no problems. Many many homosexuals...lesbians especially...don't have
anal sex.

Straight folks having anal sex DO have problems, if they do it too
often. It's called, they become a new customer for Depends
undergarments.

Post by B.G. Kent
LOL....

Har har har. There. I laughted out loud.

B.G. Kent

2006-07-05 03:21:23 UTC

Perfect Ninure! thankyou so much for that.

He mentioned one in the second testament and you mentioned many in the
first...I wonder which one has the most abominations in it?

Bren

B.G. Kent

2006-07-05 03:21:24 UTC

Post by Robert Marshall
Just to blow a largish hole in this argument - you might want to
consider the number of gay folk who have been married and had children
because either they didn't want to face up to their real sexual
identity or thought marriage would cure them or couldn't at that stage
put a name to it.
Robert

B - Yes....and his idea that it is nurture...or the environment that does
it when whole families of six or twelve or four can have one person or two
be gay and then the rest be straight....sort of throws that out the
window.

How does a whole family get raised where just one person is left handed
and the rest are right handed? How does a whole family get raised where
one person is a criminal and the rest aren't? How does a whole family get
raised where both parents are gay....and the children are straight?

I really don't believe how you raise the child has anything to do in these
scenarios.

Bren

Matthew Johnson

2006-07-05 03:21:25 UTC

Post by seven
IT IS AN ABOMINATION TO THE LORD!

SAYS WHO?

Says not only Scripture (Lev 18:22-26), but the _entire_ Christian Tradition.

Post by B.G. Kent
AND WHY ARE WE YELLING?

Perhaps he is 'yelling' because the fraud of the pro-gay forces is so
outrageous. Perhaps he is 'yelling' because too many people in this NG, as in
this society, are simply not listening to sound sense, but listen to what
tickles their fancy and flatters them. The latter, of course, applies to an
awful lot of people opn both sides of this debate...

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

B.G. Kent

2006-07-06 02:19:59 UTC

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Not all people out there are Christians..nor should they be. Not all
out there take the Bible literally ..nor should they....

B - No...not in the Christian way that you mean. To respect diversity is
to treat others as you would have them treat you. I would not want someone
telling me that my faith is wrong....so I don't do that to them.

Post by B.G. Kent
LOL...pro-gay propaganda? ah ...you mean equality...treating others with
respect right?

Sexual orientation does not equal a person's identity. Treating others
with respect is fundamental, but that does not mean I have to accept
everything they do as right.

B - No you don't have to...and they don't have to accept everything you do
as right either...hence rebuttal.

Post by b***@juno.com
Since Gay people can change (as Anne Heche did) this proves that
gayness is not a fundamental trait, but merely a complicated neurosis.
Tough to heal, but possible.

B - Anne Heche did not "change". Ann Heche is Bi-sexual.

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Says you and a book that may or may not be God speaking.

Since our entire Western Civilization was built upon this "book" that
you so casually toss aside...... I am on firmer ground than you.

B - Uhm...sorry but there is more to this world than so-called "Western
Civilization". You are on no more firmer ground than I am...because you
cannot prove your points one iota my friend.

Post by b***@juno.com
If you disagree with the fundamental "book" of our society, why don't
you go start your own atheistic society? Oh yeah, the Russians already
tried that, and it was a spectacular failure!

B - ah..you brought up the commies! a demerit for you!
I'm not an atheist my dear. If you consider yourself someone who
reads..then you have read my posts and know that I very much believe in
God and Christ. I just don't believe that forcing others to believe by
using "afterdeath threats" is right.

B - You'll do that when your superiors tell you to or be killed.

Post by b***@juno.com
The sociological question is this: if the Greeks were so liberated
sexually, so happy, so joyful and free, why did they feel the need to
convert so massively to the Gospel, once it appeared?
The answer is: because this so-called sexual liberation is DEVASTATING!
Gay sex, and even straight sex, unless it is tightly controlled, is
extremely destructive.

B - No..the answer is more than likely that a person in power made it law.
By that I mean a politician.
How do Lesbians destroy themselves with oral sex? I'd really like to know.
Sex is beautiful..try it you might like it.

Post by b***@juno.com
Imagine children growing up in a home where orgies happened every day,
with old men lusting after young boys, and so forth. THAT IS ANCIENT
GREECE! And that is where Western Civilization is once again headed,
unless we return to the very "book" that you heap abuse on!

B - Who is talking about orgies or pedophilia? I am talking about two
adults that are consenting to be able to love each other fully. I don't
heap abuse on the Bible....show me one place where I abused it. I simply
don't agree with it all.

Post by b***@juno.com
For Ancient Greece, the Gospel was a clean and fresh start.The Greeks
converted to Christ, because they had sinned and grown old.

B - and they were forced to or face death.

Post by B.G. Kent
Judge not lest ye be judged.

Blessings
Bren

Matthew Johnson

2006-07-07 01:18:16 UTC

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Not all people out there are Christians..nor should they be. Not all
out there take the Bible literally ..nor should they....

What are you talking about, Brenda? And who do you think you can fool? You tell
others their faith is wrong ALL THE TIME. You do this everytime somebody makes a
statement based on faith, and then you pipe up ordering them to say "in my
opinion", or demanding 'proof' of their assertion.
...

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

shegeek72

2006-07-07 01:18:16 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, NOT like left handedness. We already know for a fact that left-handedness is
not genetic (with a few exceptions).

Huh? Not genetic? Then it's a learned attribute?

Post by Matthew Johnson
Someday, people will admit that sexual orientation is not genetic either.

Only those who do not believe geneticists.

Post by Matthew Johnson
The only thing you know
how to do is to be a blowhard, repeating propaganda based on half-baked ideas.

This appears to be an ad hominem attack.

Tara

--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem

deli

2006-07-07 01:18:16 UTC

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Says you and a book that may or may not be God speaking.
early Jewish-Christians....they (the other pagan faithed people) were
different..they had very little
problem with homosexuality...and since the focus was on being different
from that culture...homosexuality by those early followers...would be
considered evil. This was then written into the Bible..however it still
does not mean that God thought it was evil...but those who wrote the

....

Post by B.G. Kent
Judge not lest ye be judged.
That's also in the book.
Bren

your write about one thing, judge not lest ye be judged. But you are
also wrong. The people who wrote the bible where inspired by god, every
word in the bible was inspired by god himself. And even the tough that
this isn't so is unbelieveble. If you read the story of sodom and
gomora you will see that homosexuality is not permeted by GOD. Thus it
is a sin.It is true that the hebrews didn't think other cultures where
favoured by god, but they where the chosen people, and in the end all
those who needed to be saved where saved, because they believed in
something greater. "judge not lest ye be judged" GOD judges with
righesness and when the time comes he will judge every soul, every
heart, it does't matter in what sexual condition they are. Thus be
alert and don't let your thougts be clouded by matters of this world.

B.G. Kent

2006-07-07 01:18:18 UTC

Post by b***@juno.com
No, left-handedness does not DIRECTLY prevent reproduction. It has
nothing to do with reproduction, and therefore will not tend to die out
genetically.

B - so? what's your point?

Post by b***@juno.com
On the other hand, Gayness is PRECISELY the trait that, if it were

snip

B - and yet because gay people are forced still in this day and age to
pretend to be straight and get married and have children with opposite
sexes....the "trait" still carries on.

Post by b***@juno.com
Under the Christian paradigm, we are born into a fallen world, with

B - so you say. You really must stop confusing your opinion with objective
proof.

Post by B.G. Kent
not their choice. Forcing gay men and women to "change" (which in my
opinion is ridiculous) just keeps it going by passing "perhaps" a

genetic

Post by B.G. Kent
propensity for homosexuality onto to their children.

B - No. You have met people that are trying to be something they are
not..and will keep up the charade until it falls apart.

Post by B.G. Kent
B - show me proof of anyone that has been changed and stayed that

way...in total happiness with no relapses for the rest of his/her
life. You can't.

Post by b***@juno.com
I certainly could. I could introduce you to the ex-gays I have met. Or,

B - started by men who went back to being gay. There are no
ex-gays...there are only people who have put it off for a time

Post by b***@juno.com
You can't simply deny what I am saying. I am a real living person, who

Post by B.G. Kent
B - No such animal my friend...if there were you could prove it. You

don't

Post by B.G. Kent
know ex-gay people..you only know people that are not expressing that

part

Post by B.G. Kent
of themselves...for a certain amount of time. It is as silly as

forcing

Post by B.G. Kent
people to use their right hands if they are left handed for the left

hand

Post by B.G. Kent
is the "sinistral..or sinister" hand of the devil.

It is not that silly. Being left-handed is not self-destructive.
Engaging in gay sex is.

B - No more than straight sex. By the way? there is no such thing as
"gay-sex" there is only "sex".

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Anne Heche was never gay. You are confusing experimentation...or a
fluidity of sexuality or bisexuality...with being gay. Many straight

folks

Post by B.G. Kent
have experimented with homosexuality...but it is not their preferred

way.

Post by B.G. Kent
WE are talking about people who are gay...who have no interest in NOT
having same sex intercourse.

Rather convenient for you, isn't it? Any person who switches from being

B - No..it is called having bi-lesbian-gay and transgendered friends
aplenty and knowing what I am talking about. You never seem to consider
bisexuality.
Strange that.

Bren

--

Matthew Johnson

2006-07-10 04:51:13 UTC

Post by b***@juno.com
No, left-handedness does not DIRECTLY prevent reproduction. It has
nothing to do with reproduction, and therefore will not tend to die out
genetically.

B - so? what's your point?

Post by b***@juno.com
On the other hand, Gayness is PRECISELY the trait that, if it were

snip

Why did you snip this, Brenda? Does the truth hurt that much? You can only hide
from it under your 'snip'?

Post by B.G. Kent
B - and yet because gay people are forced still in this day and age to
pretend to be straight and get married and have children with opposite
sexes....the "trait" still carries on.

This is a classic example of two fallacies: 1) the 'irrelevant distraction' AND
the insistence on a false premise. It is NOT a genetically transmissable trait.
That was Bimm's point in the part you snipped.

Post by b***@juno.com
Under the Christian paradigm, we are born into a fallen world, with

B - so you say. You really must stop confusing your opinion with objective
proof.

He's not. You are. Your foolish words would be excusable, if you had forgotten
what kind of NG you are in. This IS a NG for discussion of the Christian Bible,
in that context, Bimms _has_ met the expected standard of proof: Scriptural
exegesis.

It is you who consistently fail to meet even simpler requirements of proof.

[snip]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - No. You have met people that are trying to be something they are
not..

So YOU say. But why should any of us belive you? Just because YOU are convinced
you are something you are not? You'll have to do better than that.

[snip]

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Matthew Johnson

2006-07-10 04:51:13 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, NOT like left handedness. We already know for a fact that
left-handedness is not genetic (with a few exceptions).

Huh? Not genetic? Then it's a learned attribute?

Showing off your ignorance again, 'shegeek'? This is just another lame
example of the fallacy known as "the false dilemma". It is simply NOT
TRUE that an attribute is either genetic or learned.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Someday, people will admit that sexual orientation is not genetic
either.

Only those who do not believe geneticists.

Again, not true. No serious geneticist believes behavior, especially
_this_ behavior, is a genetic trait. Not in humans. Read a real
geneticist like Lewontin instead of the newspapers.

Post by Matthew Johnson
The only thing you know how to do is to be a blowhard, repeating
propaganda based on half-baked ideas.

This appears to be an ad hominem attack.

Hardly. You just don't know what "ad hominem" really means. So you
"cry wolf", as so many in this NG do, whenever you hear what you don't
like, falsely accusing others of "ad hominem".

Cure your ignorance. At least on this point. Look up "ad hominem" in a _good_
reference on the topic, such as

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm

There, you will find the essential proviso you have tried to hide from
the reader, as you make this false accusation:

The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning as an ad
hominem fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is
relevant.

Here, it certainly is relevant.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

------

[Saying

The only thing you know how to do is to be a blowhard, repeating
propaganda based on half-baked ideas.

is ad hominem if it is intended as an answer to a point the other
person has made. If it is not intended in this way, it is simply
personal attack, which also a violation of the charter. The web page
you point to is quite correct. They consider personal attack to be
relevant when used in a situation where the person's fitness is being
assessed, e.g. when deciding whether they should be a church leader.
That kind of situation would be unusual in this group.

I do not require that posters be superhuman in controlling their
emotions. People often express exasperation at people who seem not to
understand them. However I would request posters to attempt as much
self-control as possible.

--clh]

B.G. Kent

2006-07-10 04:51:16 UTC

Post by deli
The people who wrote the bible where inspired by god, every

Please prove it. If you say it "is" then you can back it up as you are
presenting it as objective truth. I await your proof.

Bren

ps. I love your mortadella

shegeek72

2006-07-10 04:51:16 UTC

Post by deli
The people who wrote the bible where inspired by god, every
word in the bible was inspired by god himself.

Show me the objective proof of this.

We don't have *any* of the original documents, many portions were
passed down orally from generation to generation, the missing portions
of the remaining documents (copies) had to be surmised, there has been
editing, some parts were left out (like the book of Thomas), etc.

To claim "every word" was inspired by God is illogical, highly suspect
AND dangerous, as it allows one to believe ancient texts over modern
science and degreed mental health professionals.

Tara

--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem

B.G. Kent

2006-07-11 03:45:13 UTC

Post by shegeek72
To claim "every word" was inspired by God is illogical, highly suspect
AND dangerous, as it allows one to believe ancient texts over modern
science and degreed mental health professionals.
Tara

B - How true. There are references to four legged fowl in the Bible and I
have yet to see one of those. Then there is the whole "Jebus" fiasco. If
one cannot change one jot or tittle...we then find ourselves worshipping
a book..an idol and not God. If we were to take it all literally should we
actually cut off our arms if they do something wrong? Should we jump into
lion cages in the zoo as a few men have tried to do...because we are
living some sort of Daniel-esque fantasy? (both of those men were killed
by the way).I say use the Bible and other sacred texts as an "adjunct" to
your inner meditations...ask God to guide you to what is truth. Do not use
the Bible in place of your inner guidance(which I believe is God).

i.m.o
Blessings
Bren

shegeek72

2006-07-11 03:45:14 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
Again, not true. No serious geneticist believes behavior, especially
_this_ behavior, is a genetic trait. Not in humans. Read a real
geneticist like Lewontin instead of the newspapers.

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual
orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is
most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental,
cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is
shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to
suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors,
play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is
important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a
person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for
different people.

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some
homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual
orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of
family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is
that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and
is not changeable.

However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance
from a mental health professional want to change their sexual
orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological
help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with
prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life
issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.

What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?

Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that
they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from
homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however
show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many
of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective
which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly
documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported
overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental
health intervention.

The American Psychological Association is concerned about such
therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the
Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution
reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and
spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and
self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with
issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy
would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any
social bias.

Post by Matthew Johnson
The only thing you know how to do is to be a blowhard, repeating
propaganda based on half-baked ideas.

This appears to be an ad hominem attack.

Hardly. You just don't know what "ad hominem" really means. So you
"cry wolf", as so many in this NG do, whenever you hear what you don't
like, falsely accusing others of "ad hominem".

Regardless if it's ad hominem or not, language such as this is rude and
insulting. Hardly, language of a professed "Christian."

Tara

--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem

Matthew Johnson

2006-07-11 03:45:14 UTC

The people who wrote the bible where inspired by god, every word in
the bible was inspired by god himself.

Show me the objective proof of this.

Strange that you demand this of him, when your own double-standard is
far more blatant. You have no 'proof' of many of your assertions.

How could you, when so many of your assertions are _demonstrably_
false?

Post by shegeek72
We don't have *any* of the original documents,

What are you talking about? We do not have the _autographs_, but that
is irrelevant. After all, we don't have the autographs of
Shakespeare's works either, but the doubts about what he wrote are
minor.

Post by shegeek72
many portions were passed down orally from generation to generation,

This too, is irrelevant. In that culture, since oral transmission
_was_ so much more important, they were much better at it than we are
today. All these comparisons you hear with the child's game of
'Telephone' are irresponsiblly irrelevant.

Post by shegeek72
the missing portions of the remaining documents (copies) had to be
surmised,

What "missing portions"? If it is 'missing', then you don't know that
it is there, do you?

Post by shegeek72
there has been editing,

Nothing wrong with that. You would NOT want an unedited text, just as
you would not want reporters publishing in a newspaper without their
text having been edited. Or do you really think that the blogosphere
is more reliable than an edited newspaper?

Post by shegeek72
some parts were left out (like the book of Thomas), etc.

Those weren't "left out". They were rejected for good reason.

Post by shegeek72
To claim "every word" was inspired by God is illogical, highly suspect
AND dangerous,

It is not as dangerous as believing what YOU write. Nor is it anywhere
_near_ as "highly suspect".

Post by shegeek72
as it allows one to believe ancient texts over modern science and
degreed mental health professionals.

Considering that it was "degreed mental health professionals" who came
up with the immense, diabolical fraud of "recovered memory syndrome",
which has ruined many peoples lives and defrauded them of their life's
savings, I can't believe that ancient texts are more dangerous to
believe thatn modern 'professionals'.

Neither should you. But you will do it anyway, because these
rationalizers give you the support you crave for your self-mutilation.

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

shegeek72

2006-07-12 02:06:37 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
What "missing portions"? If it is 'missing', then you don't know that
it is there, do you?

Great! You made my point.

The parts that were missing had to be reconstructed, like a
hieroglyphic pot with a portion of the symbols gone. If I was basing my
entire life on a book, I'd be damn suspect if all of the original
writings weren't there.

Post by shegeek72
as it allows one to believe ancient texts over modern science and
degreed mental health professionals.

Considering that it was "degreed mental health professionals" who came
up with the immense, diabolical fraud of "recovered memory syndrome",

The bad apple rebuttal. Trite. :P

Tara

--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem

Jim Higgins

2006-07-12 02:06:38 UTC

B - How true. There are references to four legged fowl in the Bible and I
have yet to see one of those. Then there is the whole "Jebus" fiasco. If

...

This newsgroup, and its companion s.r.c.b-s, have become nothing but
political newsgroups for the apparent support of trendy non-Christian themes
and causes of which the homosexual push is but one. Both have become a
waste of time and bandwidth.

Matthew Johnson

2006-07-12 02:06:39 UTC

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

I said "read a real _geneticist_". But APA is a _psychological_
association. They do not have the last word on genetic influences. And
they have got it wrong often enough in the past. Remember all the
forged experimental data on the behavior of twins? That was accepted
as 'proof' by APA members for decades before the fraud was discovered.

Post by shegeek72
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

It is an improvement over your usual trash that you quoted an actual
APA publication this time, but you still fail to mark the beginning
and end of the citation. Nor is that your worst failure.

And already, they have disagreed with you. Why, this does not support
your claim at all!

Is this really the best you can do? Cite a source that doesn't really
support you at all?

Post by shegeek72
In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There
is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology,
including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role
in a person's sexuality.

And what a huge difference THIS is from what you said! There is a
_world_ of a difference between "play a significant role" and what you
said.

Post by shegeek72
In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably
many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be
different for different people.

And this is _exactly_ what you refuse to recognize. You do not
recognize the MANY they mention here.

Post by shegeek72
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No.

This is an invalid answer, because the question is really a loaded
question. They have a misleading definition of 'therapy'. If you assume
_their_ definition, then of course it is impossible, since their
definition assumes that homosexuality is not a disorder. You can't
have a therapy for curing what is not a disorder.

But the truth is, that the APA is not really interested in identifying
spiritual disorders. They are only interested in _psychological_
disorders, and even that only from a limited, materialistic viewpoint.

[snip]

Post by shegeek72
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report
that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation
from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports
however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims.

This is an irresponsisble argument for them to offer. Those of us who
remember that 1973 meeting know that there was a lot of doubt on the
_APA's_ claims too. But the meeting was _clearly_ political, and swept
the evidence under the rug. They are still playing this game.

Post by shegeek72
For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an
ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality.

And this is "the pot calling the kettle black". The APA has its own
warped, ideological perspective.

Post by shegeek72
Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example,
treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be
the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such
therapies and their potential harm to patients.

If only the APA were as concerned about the harm depravity does to its
practitioners!

Post by shegeek72
In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a
resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in
treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and
self-determination.

A 'right' they honor on paper only. There is nothing 'unbiased' about
the standard treatment practices of the APA.

Post by shegeek72
Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual
orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place
in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.

Well, that would rule out therapy practiced by an APA member, since
their own "social bias" is even more intense than that of the
"ideological groups" they condemn.

Post by Matthew Johnson
The only thing you know how to do is to be a blowhard, repeating
propaganda based on half-baked ideas.

This appears to be an ad hominem attack.

Hardly. You just don't know what "ad hominem" really means. So you
"cry wolf", as so many in this NG do, whenever you hear what you don't
like, falsely accusing others of "ad hominem".

Regardless if it's ad hominem or not, language such as this is rude
and insulting. Hardly, language of a professed "Christian."

First of all, it is no more "rude and insulting" than your own words,
"suspect Matthew Johnson". Stop whining about other's rudeness while
practicing your own.

Secondly, you have no _clue_ that "language of a professed
'Christian'" even looks like. Sure, the debate between St. Maximus and
Pyrrhus was more polite; but the debate between St. Gregory and
Eunomius was not. Yet Eunomius was far more deserving of politeness
than you are. For even Eunomius did not teach as monstruous as
depravity as you do.

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

b***@juno.com

2006-07-12 02:06:39 UTC

Post by shegeek72
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual
orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is
most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental,
cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is
shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to
suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors,
play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is
important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a
person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for
different people.

It cannot be genetic, since it is exactly the type of trait that would
not be passed on genetically. Ergo, it is environmental and cognitive.
Therefore, can be changed. And I've seen it happen.

Post by shegeek72
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

Yes. I've seen it happen.

Post by shegeek72
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some
homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual
orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of
family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is
that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and
is not changeable.

It does require treatment and IS changeable. Very very difficult, but
doable.

It is almost exactly like a heroin addicted person. Just like a Heroin
addict has to DESPERATELY want to get off heroin, so a gay person has
to DESPERATELY want to get free of gay sex.

If they want to change badly enough, they can. It is no easy matter,
but possible.

Post by shegeek72
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?

They work, provided that the person wants them to work badly enough.
God can help gay people to change. If they really, really want to, it
can be done.

The problem is, many gays don't WANT to change. As long as they keep
that attitude, they will never be able to.

Matthew Johnson

2006-07-12 02:06:40 UTC

B - How true. There are references to four legged fowl in the Bible and I
have yet to see one of those.

Just as I have yet to see you know what you are talking about! "Four legged
fowl" is just an old mistranslation. There really is good reason to believe the
term really refers to some kind of arthropod, not to 'fowl' at all.

That is _why_ the famous Hebrew Lexicon, BDB, lists "winged insect" as meaning
1b for this word, H5775.

Come to think of it, there was really no excuse for this translation blunder in
the KJV. For both the LXX and the Vulgate had much better translations, both
allowing the interpretation of "winged insect".

[snip]

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

B.G. Kent

2006-07-13 02:16:41 UTC

Post by Jim Higgins
This newsgroup, and its companion s.r.c.b-s, have become nothing but
political newsgroups for the apparent support of trendy non-Christian themes
and causes of which the homosexual push is but one. Both have become a
waste of time and bandwidth.

B - Perhaps for you...then my suggestion is to not subscribe to these ones
and find one that suits your needs more.
I and many others do not find it a waste of time and bandwidth...on the
contrary.

Blessings
Bren

B.G. Kent

2006-07-13 02:16:41 UTC

Post by b***@juno.com
The problem is, many gays don't WANT to change. As long as they keep
that attitude, they will never be able to.

B - Hogwash. You have not stayed with your "so-called" changers to see if
they stay that way their whole rest of their lives....and as far as gays
not wanting to change, there is no greater insult than what you have just
said. People have died because they have tried and tried and tried...with
Gods help....to change because an unloving world told them to "fit
in"....and with their feelings of failure for not feeling "normal" have
killed themselves over it. Go talk to a parent of a child who killed
himself because he could not change to suit the world's (not Gods)
desires...and you will learn something.

I really wish you would get some information and education under your belt
instead of bringing out these little constructs from your comfie little
world.

Brenda totally disgusted with intolerance to difference.

Chris Smith

2006-07-13 02:16:41 UTC

Post by b***@juno.com
It is almost exactly like a heroin addicted person. Just like a Heroin
addict has to DESPERATELY want to get off heroin, so a gay person has
to DESPERATELY want to get free of gay sex.

This seems like the right time to point out that there are any number of
different propositions here, each of which may have different answers.
They include:

A. It is possible for a gay person to stop having homosexual sex.
B. It is possible for a gay person to stop wanting homosexual sex.
C. It is possible psychological therapy to stop this desire.

The Christian faith (and basic common sense) tells us that proposition A
is true. I don't see why anyone would necessarily come to any
conclusion about B or C on the basis of faith. B certainly can be true
for some people, but possibly not for others; and God alone determines
our spiritual challenges and temptations. C is irrelevant to
Christianity, but the consensus among psychological practitioners seems
to be that it is false.

--
Chris Smith

Matthew Johnson

2006-07-13 02:16:42 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
What "missing portions"? If it is 'missing', then you don't know that
it is there, do you?

Great! You made my point.

No, I did not. Rather, I invalidated your 'point'.

Post by shegeek72
The parts that were missing had to be reconstructed, like a
hieroglyphic pot with a portion of the symbols gone.

Nonsense. If you had actually read the article on scientific textual
criticism I referred you to - or any other intro on the topic - you
would have known better than to cough up such nonsense. No such
'reconstruction' ever took place.

Post by shegeek72
If I was basing my entire life on a book, I'd be damn suspect if all
of the original writings weren't there.

No doubt. But that is not the case with the Bible.

Post by shegeek72
as it allows one to believe ancient texts over modern science and
degreed mental health professionals.

Considering that it was "degreed mental health professionals" who came
up with the immense, diabolical fraud of "recovered memory syndrome",

The bad apple rebuttal. Trite. :P

No, that is not the "bad apple rebuttal". Rather, it is an example of
how the so-called 'professionals' have let us down SO badly, they do
not deserve our confidence any more, or ever again.

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

shegeek72

2006-07-13 02:16:42 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
I said "read a real _geneticist_". But APA is a _psychological_
association. They do not have the last word on genetic influences. And
they have got it wrong often enough in the past. Remember all the
forged experimental data on the behavior of twins?

Source?

Post by Matthew Johnson
It is an improvement over your usual trash that you quoted an actual
APA publication this time, but you still fail to mark the beginning
and end of the citation. Nor is that your worst failure.

It is quite superior to your attempt to completely discredit the
genetic causes of homosexuality.

Post by Matthew Johnson
And what a huge difference THIS is from what you said! There is a
_world_ of a difference between "play a significant role" and what you
said.

Uh, biological = genetic. Or can't you comprehend that? I didn't say
genetics were the ONLY cause.

Post by Matthew Johnson
This is an invalid answer, because the question is really a loaded
question. They have a misleading definition of 'therapy'. If you assume
_their_ definition, then of course it is impossible, since their
definition assumes that homosexuality is not a disorder. You can't
have a therapy for curing what is not a disorder.

Exactly.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But the truth is, that the APA is not really interested in identifying
spiritual disorders. They are only interested in _psychological_
disorders, and even that only from a limited, materialistic viewpoint.

You have yet to prove homosexuality is a "spiritual disorder."
Precisely because it cannot be proven. It cannot even be objectively
proven that the Bible is the "word of God." Therefore, everything you
say that's based on the Bible is suspect.

Post by Matthew Johnson
This is an irresponsisble argument for them to offer. Those of us who
remember that 1973 meeting know that there was a lot of doubt on the
_APA's_ claims too. But the meeting was _clearly_ political, and swept
the evidence under the rug. They are still playing this game.

No, it was not political. That is Christian propaganda.

Post by Matthew Johnson
A 'right' they honor on paper only. There is nothing 'unbiased' about
the standard treatment practices of the APA.

Balderdash. Any biased psychologist would certainly be reported and/or
a complaint lodged against him or her.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Well, that would rule out therapy practiced by an APA member, since
their own "social bias" is even more intense than that of the
"ideological groups" they condemn.

Psychology does not have a social bias. Indeed, they try to weed out
social bias in order to remain neutral. It's just your sour grapes
because they don't agree with your warped interpretations of the Bible.

Post by shegeek72
Regardless if it's ad hominem or not, language such as this is rude
and insulting. Hardly, language of a professed "Christian."

First of all, it is no more "rude and insulting" than your own words,
"suspect Matthew Johnson".

And you've never put my nick, or name, in quotes?

Tara

--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem

Matthew Johnson

2006-07-14 03:03:16 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
I said "read a real _geneticist_". But APA is a _psychological_
association. They do not have the last word on genetic
influences. And they have got it wrong often enough in the
past. Remember all the forged experimental data on the behavior of
twins?

Source?

How typical of your disgusting double-standard! You ask me for my
'source' for this, which is a WELL known fact, yet you have NEVER
given a source for your outrageous nonsensical claims that the Bible
is 'incomplete'.

Post by Matthew Johnson
It is an improvement over your usual trash that you quoted an
actual APA publication this time, but you still fail to mark the
beginning and end of the citation. Nor is that your worst failure.

It is quite superior to your attempt to completely discredit the
genetic causes of homosexuality.

No, it is not.

Post by Matthew Johnson
And what a huge difference THIS is from what you said! There is a
_world_ of a difference between "play a significant role" and what
you said.

Uh, biological = genetic.

Wrong again. You would have known better than to make this mistake if
you _had_ read Lewontin. How many more times will you put your foot in
your mouth before you wise up?

Post by shegeek72
Or can't you comprehend that?

Oh, I can _comprehend_ it alright. That is how I know it isn't true in
the first place. It is you who show that you do not comprehend it,
since you believe it is true.

Post by shegeek72
I didn't say genetics were the ONLY cause.

You got very close to saying that. It was pretty obvious that you
believe genetics are the primary factor.

Post by Matthew Johnson
This is an invalid answer, because the question is really a loaded
question. They have a misleading definition of 'therapy'. If you
assume _their_ definition, then of course it is impossible, since
their definition assumes that homosexuality is not a disorder. You
can't have a therapy for curing what is not a disorder.

Exactly.

And this is exactly why it is wrong. But once again, you missed it,
and thought that this supports your twisted argument. Of course it
does not.

You have yet to prove homosexuality is a "spiritual disorder."

Not true. The real problem here is that you do not _recognize_ a
proof, just as you failed to recognize Bimm's proof.

Post by shegeek72
Precisely because it cannot be proven.

No, it has already been proven many centuries ago.

Post by shegeek72
It cannot even be objectively proven that the Bible is the "word of
God."

Ah, but you are playing "bait-and-switch" on us. Before, you talked
about 'proof', now you are talking about _objective_ proof. But only
ignoramuses believe as you do, that 'proof' has to be 'objective' in
order to be 'proof'.

What is even more silly about this is that your precious "degreed
professionals" never stick to this strict canon of objective proof
either. On the contrary: one of the biggest differences between any
clinical pramedical practice and scientific research in medicine is
that the clinical practitioner MUST rely on facts that have not yet
been objectively proven.

Post by shegeek72
Therefore, everything you say that's based on the Bible is suspect.

That is a whopper of a non-sequitur.

Post by Matthew Johnson
This is an irresponsisble argument for them to offer. Those of us
who remember that 1973 meeting know that there was a lot of doubt
on the _APA's_ claims too. But the meeting was _clearly_ political,
and swept the evidence under the rug. They are still playing this
game.

No, it was not political. That is Christian propaganda.

No, it is not "Christian propaganda". Even Newsweek at the time, by NO
means a Christian publication, recognized the political bias of that
meeting and its decision.

Post by Matthew Johnson
A 'right' they honor on paper only. There is nothing 'unbiased'
about the standard treatment practices of the APA.

Balderdash. Any biased psychologist would certainly be reported
and/or a complaint lodged against him or her.

No, _your_ claim is balderdash.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Well, that would rule out therapy practiced by an APA member, since
their own "social bias" is even more intense than that of the
"ideological groups" they condemn.

Psychology does not have a social bias.

Nonsense. Of course it does.

Post by shegeek72
Indeed, they try to weed out social bias in order to remain
neutral.

Do they now? Well, then 'try' is all they do. They certainly do not
succeed.

Post by shegeek72
It's just your sour grapes because they don't agree with
your warped interpretations of the Bible.

No, it is not. On the contrary: it is the opinion of serious
psychological professions with advanced degrees and years of
practice. It is not just my own opinion.

And it wouldn't do you much good for me to give you the source for
this, since you can't read Russian.

Post by shegeek72
Regardless if it's ad hominem or not, language such as this is rude
and insulting. Hardly, language of a professed "Christian."

First of all, it is no more "rude and insulting" than your own words,
"suspect Matthew Johnson".

And you've never put my nick, or name, in quotes?

If you find that insulting, that is your own problem. The problem
results from your own determination to lie to the world about who and
what you really are. Try using a name that reflects your real,
biological gender and you will not have the problem.

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Matthew Johnson

2006-07-14 03:03:16 UTC

B - Perhaps for you...then my suggestion is to not subscribe to these ones
and find one that suits your needs more.
I and many others do not find it a waste of time and bandwidth...on the
contrary.

Well, of _course_ you don't. But that is because you _are_ one of the
propagandists Higgins is complaining about.

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Jani

2006-07-14 03:03:19 UTC

It cannot be genetic, since it is exactly the type of trait that would
not be passed on genetically. Ergo, it is environmental and cognitive.
Therefore, can be changed. And I've seen it happen.

It would help, here, if people were a little more specific about what they
mean by "genetic". There are numerous conditions which are "genetic", in the
sense that they're caused by chromosome configuration, which appear at
random in populations without any previous occurrence. Down, Turner's,
Klinefelter's syndromes, to take three well-known examples. There are others
which are "genetic" in the sense of "hereditary", which would be fatal (and
therefore, self-eliminating) were it not for the combination of dominant and
recessive genes and the difference between carrying and expressing.
Haemophilia is your obvious one, there. Sexual orientation is not dependent
on a single "gay gene" or a single "straight gene", but genetics may play a
very significant part in whether any one individual is pre-disposed towards
sexual attraction one way or another.

Post by shegeek72
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

Yes. I've seen it happen.

It does require treatment and IS changeable. Very very difficult, but
doable.
It is almost exactly like a heroin addicted person. Just like a Heroin
addict has to DESPERATELY want to get off heroin, so a gay person has
to DESPERATELY want to get free of gay sex.

Heroin addiction, except sometimes in the case of babies born to addicted
mothers, is *acquired*. At what point in your life did you inject, smoke or
snort something which thereafter dictated your sexual orientation?

Post by b***@juno.com
If they want to change badly enough, they can. It is no easy matter,
but possible.

People can certainly change their *behaviour*. A heterosexual, faced with
the choice of homosexual behaviour or abstinence, might well choose the
latter. It doesn't stop them from being a heterosexual, though.

Post by shegeek72
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?

They work, provided that the person wants them to work badly enough.
God can help gay people to change. If they really, really want to, it
can be done.
The problem is, many gays don't WANT to change. As long as they keep
that attitude, they will never be able to.

And how easy would you find it to "change", if you were born into a society
where being gay was the norm, and you were the one considered out-of-step
and somewhat disgusting for being attracted to people of the opposite sex?

Jani

shegeek72

2006-07-17 17:05:04 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
How typical of your disgusting double-standard! You ask me for my
'source' for this, which is a WELL known fact, yet you have NEVER
given a source for your outrageous nonsensical claims that the Bible
is 'incomplete'.

That is Bible is incomplete is well known.

Post by Matthew Johnson
You got very close to saying that. It was pretty obvious that you
believe genetics are the primary factor.

Then you misinterpreted what I said.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Ah, but you are playing "bait-and-switch" on us. Before, you talked
about 'proof', now you are talking about _objective_ proof. But only
ignoramuses believe as you do, that 'proof' has to be 'objective' in
order to be 'proof'.

Word games.

Post by Matthew Johnson
If you find that insulting, that is your own problem.

Then you shall remain 'suspect.' :P

Tara

--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem

Matthew Johnson

2006-07-17 17:05:11 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
What "missing portions"? If it is 'missing', then you don't know that
it is there, do you?

Great! You made my point.

No, I did not. Rather, I invalidated your 'point'.

Post by shegeek72
The parts that were missing had to be reconstructed, like a
hieroglyphic pot with a portion of the symbols gone.

Post by shegeek72
If I was basing my entire life on a book, I'd be damn suspect if all
of the original writings weren't there.

No doubt. But that is not the case with the Bible.

Post by shegeek72
as it allows one to believe ancient texts over modern science and
degreed mental health professionals.

Considering that it was "degreed mental health professionals" who came
up with the immense, diabolical fraud of "recovered memory syndrome",

The bad apple rebuttal. Trite. :P

No, that is not the "bad apple rebuttal". Rather, it is an example of
how the so-called 'professionals' have let us down SO badly, they do
not deserve our confidence any more, or ever again.

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Jani

2006-07-19 03:07:51 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
Considering that it was "degreed mental health professionals" who came
up with the immense, diabolical fraud of "recovered memory syndrome",

The bad apple rebuttal. Trite. :P

No, that is not the "bad apple rebuttal". Rather, it is an example of
how the so-called 'professionals' have let us down SO badly, they do
not deserve our confidence any more, or ever again.

By that argument, no-one should trust clergy ever again because of the few
"bad apples" in the priesthood.

A more sensible attitude, IMO, would be to accept that individuals within
any social institution might get things wrong - sometimes horribly wrong -
but that doesn't mean all other individuals within that institution, or the
institution itself, have to be thrown out as worthless.

Jani

Matthew Johnson

2006-07-20 01:32:47 UTC

Post by Jani