Good example of 'speaking the truth in love'

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

To be honest it isn't something I've ever thought about. My initial response is that as far as I understand Scripture, the prohibition is against sexual acts. I don't see that, biblically speaking, two men sharing a kiss and a cuddle is any different from an unmarried boy and a girl, who are not sexually active, kissing and cuddling. The only problem I can see (in either context) would be if it stirred up the hormones and tempted them to go further into overt sexual acts.

The Salvation Army has a gender imbalance in that it has many more female clergy than male. Therefore it is quite common for two women to live and work together as a ministerial team, often in successive churches and over a long period of time. Often these women would retire together. When one of them dies it is usual for the funeral notice to state that the name of the bereaved 'companion' so former parishoners can send their condolences. I've known a few of these couples (pairs?), and I'm pretty sure the relationship was non-sexual - but their devotion and attachment to each other in every other respect resembled a marriage.

Maybe it is not a semantic issue after all. The key difference is a homosexual couple is a sexual couple, even if they abstain from explicit sexual acts like intercourse, or mutual masturbation. Their sexual attraction forges their commitment. Christians do not see this attraction as something to be celebrated in a lifelong commitment. Instead, it is something to be overcome. It is this distinction between heterosexual and homosexual attraction that doesn't really fit the message of Christianity.

tommy2bad

Wolfsbane;
Homosexuality is wrong, be it romantic only or filled out with sex.

Based on what?
Other than a biblical admonishment are their any reasons why its wrong. OK if it just that, thats your right to choose but so many religions want to base the law of the land on this idea that they should have to back up the claim or opt out of the discussion. What they chose to do is their decision like fasting or praying but once they campaign to have it legislated for or against they need reasons other than the circular logis of "its wrong because God said so aand God said it wrong because its wrong"

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Homosexuality is wrong, be it romantic only or filled out with sex. The desire itself is sinful, just as my desire for another man's wife - however romantically based - would be sinful.

Do you have any idea about why God disapproves? It is clear why God would oppose adultery. But does God explain why he opposes any celebration of Homosexual desire?

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

I understand your point, the point I'm raising is marriage isn't even an option, not because God deemed it between one man and one woman because he didn't, that came later, but because the Jewish understanding of homosexuality didn't develop as fast as their understanding of monogamy. If their social development had stayed the same way as at the time of King David then polygamy would be the norm now.

Well, that's the point Tommy. God gave us a new covenant - The Holy of Holies is not the sole business of a High Priest anymore - Christ gave himself, and in doing so created a new covenant for everybody, the Temple was torn down, and now you can receive Christ and stand with him even knowing you fall short, just like me

- It's not really about 'social' development, or even something that can be viewed through a lens that looks at how humanity came to the conclusion that monogamy is good -

It's about the new Covenant, and what God makes Holy. 'Lust' is not Holy even for a married couple - everything you do as a Christian, you offer to God first, it's about putting God first always in all things, and denying mere human things - strange as it may sound even above our desires, above our relationships, with Parents and those we love, above everything - it's hard, it's not easy for anybody, that's what we have in common though - We all fall very very short.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Zombrex said:

I'm sorry, I may not have grasped PDN's view of what constitutes romantic love as I've only got back to the thread and am pressed for time. But as far as I can see, romantic love is not platonic love. I can love a woman as a spiritual sister, or a man as a spiritual brother (as per David and Jonathan). But romantic love includes the sexual element, whether or not it is physically expressed.

Where though is romantic love between homosexuals described though in the Bible?

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I disagree that the Bible fails to recognise there is unlawful romantic love. Amnon 'loved' Tamar, his half-sister, and was sick with love. He raped her - then found he was out of love. Romantic love is emotional and often transitory. It takes an act of the will to make it hold.

Certainly sexual lust can exist on its own - but much lust involves exactly the same romantic love as is valid between the sexes. Good people get trapped in adultery at times because of this romantic element, rather than bare sexual need.

So whether one feels romantically about one's neighbour's daughter, or one's neighbour's wife, or the neighbour himself - the first is valid, the latter two not.

Well if you think that romantic love between two gay people is considered illegitimate according to the Bible, we go back to Morbert's original point.

Personally I don't even think the Bible recognizes that there is such a thing as romantic love between homosexuals, it seems to have no notion of such a concept, viewing romantic love purely in heterosexual terms, and homosexuality purely in terms of sexual lust. But that is just my opinion, I'm not a Christian (as I'm sure everyone is aware).

wolfsbane wrote: »

Homosexuality is wrong, be it romantic only or filled out with sex. The desire itself is sinful, just as my desire for another man's wife - however romantically based - would be sinful.

So it is not just the physical sexual act, but a gay man being in love (romantic love) with another man, is in itself sinful?

Is that actually specifically mentioned in the Bible, or is it an expansion on the commandments not to have physical sex with another man?

Sonics2k

wolfsbane wrote: »

Homosexuality is wrong, be it romantic only or filled out with sex. The desire itself is sinful, just as my desire for another man's wife - however romantically based - would be sinful.

Why?
Why is love wrong? We're talking about the exact same love I have for my girlfriend, that my mother has for hers.

You are comparing adultery, with a committed and loving relationship.

Zombrex

Sonics2k wrote: »

You are comparing adultery, with a committed and loving relationship.

Careful now

PDN

Sonics2k wrote: »

Why?
Why is love wrong? We're talking about the exact same love I have for my girlfriend, that my mother has for hers.

You are comparing adultery, with a committed and loving relationship.

What kind of person promotes bigotry and homophobia in the name of religion these days?

Mod Warning
This discussion will only produce more heat than light if you engage in inaccurate mud-slinging.

We are not talking homophobia here (irrational fear or hatred) - we are talking about certain actions being designated by the Bible as incompatible with Christianity. If you can't avoid the mudslinging then I will lock the thread.

Sonics2k

Apologies PDN.

It was only meant as a simple question based on a statement made by wolfsbane, and one that I wished to follow up on.

I'll remove the last line as it seemed to be the trouble maker.

Zombrex

Sonics2k wrote: »

Apologies PDN.

It was only meant as a simple question based on a statement made by wolfsbane, and one that I wished to follow up on.

I'll remove the last line as it seemed to be the trouble maker.

Perhaps clarify if you are looking for a genuine theological answer (ie explaining why God feels this is necessary supported by Biblical text), or if you are asking why people subscribe to a religion that has this as a teaching in the first place.

The second question is probably beyond the scope of this thread (and possibly contrary to the charter), since it is basically asking people to justify why do they think God exists and is the god described in the Bible.

tommy2bad

lmaopml;
- It's not really about 'social' development, or even something that can be viewed through a lens that looks at how humanity came to the conclusion that monogamy is good -

Well yes it is, I used monogamy as an example of something that God 'changed' on just to stay with apples and apples.
Lets take slavery then. God never said it was wrong, in fact scripture was used to justify slavery but we moved on. Or do you still think slavery is OK just not legal according to the world?
Is God going to condemn to Hell a loving committed homosexual couple while welcoming slave traders to heaven as long as they never engaged in homosexual acts?

SonOfAdam

If we accept the basis for human sexuality as Genesis 2:24 anything outside of that falls into the 'not ideal' category, be that heterosexual sex outside of the boundary of marriage or homosexual sex.

I disagree with Wolfsbane on this one, that homosexuality (per se) is wrong - the bible says that the acts are sinful not the orientation - if you are saying the orientation is wrong then you offer no hope to those who deal with same sex attraction - the woman in the video may have ended her relationship, I doubt she has resolved her attraction to women and will quite possibly endure that attraction for the rest of her life - does that make her more a sinner or less a christian ? It's little wonder that you don't find many gays in the pews if this is the received wisdom - it's a very unattractive place to be where your 'sin' is considered the 'big one', The church needs to cop onto itself - speck and plank come to mind (Mat7:3)

There's a difference between temptation and sin , we should really bear that in mind.

JimiTime

SonOfAdam wrote: »

If we accept the basis for human sexuality as Genesis 2:24 anything outside of that falls into the 'not ideal' category, be that heterosexual sex outside of the boundary of marriage or homosexual sex.

I disagree with Wolfsbane on this one, that homosexuality (per se) is wrong - the bible says that the acts are sinful not the orientation

I don't think Wolfsbane said that tbh. Ones 'orientation' is not an action. Just because I am heterosexual does not mean that I think about sex with women. I can be celibate, full of self control etc. If I lust after women though, then it becomes sin, just like if a homosexual lusts after another it is sin.

- if you are saying the orientation is wrong then you offer no hope to those who deal with same sex attraction - the woman in the video may have ended her relationship, I doubt she has resolved her attraction to women and will quite possibly endure that attraction for the rest of her life - does that make her more a sinner or less a christian ?

Again, I don't think that this is what was said.

Also in terms of enduring the attraction, as much as homosexual groups and such apologists violently oppose the very notion, there are testimonies of people who overcame homosexual attraction.

It's little wonder that you don't find many gays in the pews if this is the received wisdom - it's a very unattractive place to be where your 'sin' is considered the 'big one', The church needs to cop onto itself - speck and plank come to mind (Mat7:3)

There's a difference between temptation and sin , we should really bear that in mind.

The issue is the desire to bend the gospel to suit ourselves and our sins. A practicing homosexual, like a practicing fornicator etc, should not be ignored in a congregation, but ministered to. Heres what Paul says to the Corinthians:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.

tommy2bad

JimiTime;
Also in terms of enduring the attraction, as much as homosexual groups and such apologists violently oppose the very notion, there are testimonies of people who overcame homosexual attraction

In me hole their are. The very language you use is offensive.
Get this once and for all. It. Is. Not. A. Disease.

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

In me hole their are. The very language you use is offensive.
Get this once and for all. It. Is. Not. A. Disease.

Nobody said it was.

What is offensive about someone overcoming an attraction if that attraction is leading them into behaviour which is incompatible with their desired goal?

For example, if someone has an attraction towards eating cream cakes, but their goal is to weigh less than 15 stone, then they may need to overcome their attraction. That's not offensive, nor is it saying that attraction towards cream cakes is a disease.

If someone has an attraction towards sexual acts with people of the same gender, but their goal is to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, then they may need to overcome their attraction. That's not offensive, nor is it saying their attraction is a disease.

If someone has an attraction towards eating bacon sandwiches, but their goal is to be an observant Jew, then they may need to overcome their attraction. That's not offensive, nor is it saying that attraction towards cream cakes a disease.

As a former alcoholic, I used to have an attraction towards consuming excessive amounts of alcohol, but my goal was to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, so I needed to overcome my attraction.

tommy2bad

Yeah right he meant it that way. Reread the post the implication of what he wrote is simple.Even your later comparison to alcoholism is as bad.

PDN;
If someone has an attraction towards eating bacon sandwiches, but their goal is to be an observant Jew, then they may need to overcome their attraction. That's not offensive, nor is it saying that attraction towards cream cakes a disease.

As a former alcoholic, I used to have an attraction towards consuming excessive amounts of alcohol, but my goal was to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, so I needed to overcome my attraction.

So it a bacon thing then? Or are you not going to engage with the 'why' question?

I'm telling you, if I were a gay person reading this thread, I wouldn't be feeling the love this Christianity lark is supposed to be about.

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

Even your later comparison to alcoholism is as bad.

Why? I chose to indulge in a behaviour which, while perfectly legal, was hindering me from following Jesus. So I chose to overcome my attraction to such behaviour. What is bad about stating that? Following Jesus means putting him first.

So it a bacon thing then? Or are you not going to engage with the 'why' question?

To be honest, engaging with the 'why' question would involve us in discussing the entire purpose of sexuality and marriage in Christian theology. That is only likely to derail the thread (and bring the trolls out in force). You can start a new thread on it if you wish.

I'm telling you, if I were a gay person reading this thread, I wouldn't be feeling the love this Christianity lark is supposed to be about.

What someone 'feels' can be very subjective. Your own posts, and the way you talk to other Christians, would not IMHO make them feel very loved either.

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

Why? I chose to indulge in a behaviour which, while perfectly legal, was hindering me from following Jesus. So I chose to overcome my attraction to such behaviour. What is bad about stating that? Following Jesus means putting him first.
Thing is alcoholism is a disease, you framing it as a choice is what I object to.

To be honest, engaging with the 'why' question would involve us in discussing the entire purpose of sexuality and marriage in Christian theology. That is only likely to derail the thread (and bring the trolls out in force). You can start a new thread on it if you wish.
No thanks, maybe another time. It would be interesting though.

What someone 'feels' can be very subjective. Your own posts, and the way you talk to other Christians, would not IMHO make them feel very loved either.
Yeah, text is a poor medium(tradesman blaming his tools )

I'm actually wondering if I reacted to the medium more than the message in the OP's video. I have no problem with the idea of telling someone when their in danger from sin The fact that the sin in question is one thats not on my radar and I cant find any good reason for it to be isn't important. To be called a sinner is one thing but claiming that I am therefore not a Christian and cant be one until I am 'cured'...I'm getting angry again just typing it. No it the message thats offensive.

JimiTime

tommy2bad wrote: »

In me hole their are. The very language you use is offensive.

On the subject of offence:
Offence is not actually something that registers with me tbh. People who claim offence, especially on behalf of others are just an irritation, and a modern day pain in the @rse tbh. I don't think I've actually EVER been offended by anything a stranger has said. Even when they try their best. I find taking offence to be quite a childish behaviour, and a real obsticle to honest and open discussion. People looking to cause offence, you just ignore as dishonest folk, not looking for adult discussion. People looking to take offence the same. Grown ups though, should be able to share opinions etc that challenge even their very core.

And specifically to what you took offence to:
The irony of that stand, is that you must consider how "offensive" it is to someone who testifies to the contrary. The venom and bile fired at people who testify to what I said from many LGBT quarters can be horrendous. Think of the stigma THEY must overcome. 'Is he just pretending' etc. Then to have people like yourself basically call them liars, or deluded homosexuals. Just because South Park take the p!ss, and make light of such a concept, does not a pile of cr@p make it.

Get this once and for all. It. Is. Not. A. Disease.

Not that this has been claimed, but it doesn't actually matter if it is or not.

JimiTime

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'm actually wondering if I reacted to the medium more than the message in the OP's video. I have no problem with the idea of telling someone when their in danger from sin The fact that the sin in question is one thats not on my radar and I cant find any good reason for it to be isn't important. To be called a sinner is one thing but claiming that I am therefore not a Christian and cant be one until I am 'cured'...I'm getting angry again just typing it. No it the message thats offensive.

We are all sinners, no-one is disputing that, including the woman in the video. The pertinent question, is are you a Christian if you choose to consciously reject what God has condemned as sinful, and follow your own treacherous heart? The obvious answer is no.

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

Thing is alcoholism is a disease, you framing it as a choice is what I object to.

Alcholism may be a disease - but the act of drinking is a choice. Nobody ever put a gun to my head and forced me to drink. I made poor choices, and I suffered big consequences as a result.

When I became a Christian, the first step was taking responsibility for my own actions. I had to learn to make better choices. Ultimately that meant that choosing to follow Jesus would be more important than the thing had previously been most important to me.

Doc Farrell

Do you believe that gay people should live alone PDN?

philologos

It's amazing how bitter and hostile this gets.

I believe that God was right about sexuality, and I'm quite happy to get into a discussion as to the benefits of a Christian approach to sexuality. Simply put, I disagree with the perspective currently put across by many LGBT activists, and indeed many heterosexual people who choose to live contrary to God's standards concerning sexuality.

Much the same way as I disagree with Islam. Yet for some reason when I discuss the Gospel with Muslims in my local area who are doing evangelism on the street, I can tell them why I disagree with them about Jesus, I can shake their hands and thank them for their time. I've shared my perspective about why I disagree with Islam, they've shared their perspective about why they disagree with Christianity.

I'd love to reach a point in this discussion where I could say the same, but I can't see it happening any time soon unfortunately.

tommy2bad

JimiTime wrote: »

On the subject of offence:
Offence is not actually something that registers with me tbh. People who claim offence, especially on behalf of others are just an irritation, and a modern day pain in the @rse tbh. I don't think I've actually EVER been offended by anything a stranger has said. Even when they try their best. I find taking offence to be quite a childish behaviour, and a real obsticle to honest and open discussion. People looking to cause offence, you just ignore as dishonest folk, not looking for adult discussion. People looking to take offence the same. Grown ups though, should be able to share opinions etc that challenge even their very core.
Crap excuse for bad manners.
And specifically to what you took offence to:
The irony of that stand, is that you must consider how "offensive" it is to someone who testifies to the contrary. The venom and bile fired at people who testify to what I said from many LGBT quarters can be horrendous. Think of the stigma THEY must overcome. 'Is he just pretending' etc. Then to have people like yourself basically call them liars, or deluded homosexuals. Just because South Park take the p!ss, and make light of such a concept, does not a pile of cr@p make it.
Not an excuse to act in kind
Yes I do believe that the 'cure' people are knaves or fools same as creationists and ID muppets. See it's easy but not nice:)


Not that this has been claimed, but it doesn't actually matter if it is or not.

The pertinent question, is are you a Christian if you choose to consciously reject what God has condemned as sinful, and follow your own treacherous heart?

Their you go again. :rolleyes: Is their really a need for the aggressive language? Are you so indifferent to others opinions that you dismiss them so vehemently?

PDN

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Do you believe that gay people should live alone PDN?

No, I don't see that anyone is suggesting solitary confinement.

The concept that there is such a thing as a 'gay person' has not existed for most of history.

Human beings have the capability, under certain circumstances, to be attracted to all kinds of people or objects. These can change depending on what is available or achievable (eg 'straight' men who engage in gay sex in prison). Those whom we would find the most attractive are not always accessible or willing.

Our choices of sexual partner are not made in isolation. They are determined by our beliefs and ideologies and environment. For example, even before I was a Christian I don't think I could have been involved in an intimate relationship with someone who was a racist. My beliefs would preclude me from doing so, even if the racist was the person I found more physically attractive than any other.

When we choose to follow Jesus, that involves discipleship. We do not fulfil whatever action might appear to be enjoyable. Instead we believe that the joy to be found in following Jesus is worth curtailing some of our choices in life.

Some people who would want to have an active sex life never do so because they don't find a suitable wife or husband. Some people who are attracted to children or animals choose not to indulge those desires. Some people who would feel more attracted to those of the same sex nevertheless find real joy and lasting happiness in being married to someone of the opposite sex. Some people who would be most atttracted to the actress Olivia Wilde find they can still live happy fulfilled lives by marrying Jane Smith from Balbriggan. Some people are attracted to multiple people, but choose instead to devote themselves to just one person. It all comes down to choices.

In a secular democratic society (which is the kind of society I choose to live in) people are free to make these choices (with the obvious proviso that we don't abuse the rights of others by actions such as rape or child abuse). I support fully their right to make those choices.

But that does not mean that every choice is compatible with being a follower of Jesus Christ. Nor does it mean that God approves of every possible choice that people might make. Nor is it intolerant or unloving if you refuse to pretend that all those possible choices are approved by God.

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't see that anyone is suggesting solitary confinement.

The concept that there is such a thing as a 'gay person' has not existed for most of history.

Human beings have the capability, under certain circumstances, to be attracted to all kinds of people or objects. These can change depending on what is available or achievable (eg 'straight' men who engage in gay sex in prison). Those whom we would find the most attractive are not always accessible or willing.

Our choices of sexual partner are not made in isolation. They are determined by our beliefs and ideologies and environment. For example, even before I was a Christian I don't think I could have been involved in an intimate relationship with someone who was a racist. My beliefs would preclude me from doing so, even if the racist was the person I found more physically attractive than any other.

When we choose to follow Jesus, that involves discipleship. We do not fulfil whatever action might appear to be enjoyable. Instead we believe that the joy to be found in following Jesus is worth curtailing some of our choices in life.

Some people who would want to have an active sex life never do so because they don't find a suitable wife or husband. Some people who are attracted to children or animals choose not to indulge those desires. Some people who would feel more attracted to those of the same sex nevertheless find real joy and lasting happiness in being married to someone of the opposite sex. Some people who would be most atttracted to the actress Olivia Wilde find they can still live happy fulfilled lives by marrying Jane Smith from Balbriggan. Some people are attracted to multiple people, but choose instead to devote themselves to just one person. It all comes down to choices.

In a secular democratic society (which is the kind of society I choose to live in) people are free to make these choices (with the obvious proviso that we don't abuse the rights of others by actions such as rape or child abuse). I support fully their right to make those choices.

But that does not mean that every choice is compatible with being a follower of Jesus Christ. Nor does it mean that God approves of every possible choice that people might make. Nor is it intolerant or unloving if you refuse to pretend that all those possible choices are approved by God.

Now thats as fair as you'll get. Maybe you should do some youtube PDN you sound much more reasonable than the lady in the op.?
Sexuality is a sliding scale theirs no gay or straight just degrees of one to the other all mixed up in culture and circumstances. A little bit of motes in our own eyes as much as planks in others.
Sin is falling short of the mark not just some deliberate act of rebellion.

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

Their you go again. :rolleyes: Is their really a need for the aggressive language? Are you so indifferent to others opinions that you dismiss them so vehemently?

I think there's a fundamental point here, Tommy, and it applies to so many more issues other than gay sex or any other extramarital sex.

Who determines what is right or wrong for a follower of Jesus Christ?

As I see it there are three possible answers:

1. You can set you yourself up as the arbiter of what is right or wrong. By this criteria, it is up to God to convince you why a particular action is right or wrong. And if you don't accept (or even understand) those reasons, then you are free to ignore or even reverse the revelation of Scripture. Such an attitude, I believe, is sub-Christian and ultimately incompatible with being a follower of Jesus Christ. According to Scripture, all our hearts are treacherous and prone to sin, therefore we are hopelessly biased and unable to be that moral arbitrer.

2. You can set up a human institution (eg a church or denomination) as the arbiter of right or wrong. The problem with that, of course, is that human institutions, even the best of them, are run by people with treacherous hearts and a proneness to sin. Therefore this approach can still produce a distorted version of Christianity.

3. You can accept the teachings of Jesus, as revealed through the apostolic writers, as being the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. This involves studying both the Old and New Testaments and reading them Christocentrically. This, I believe is the historic Christian position.

Now, even in number (3) there will still be an element of subjectivity. Our treacherous hearts can lead us to misinterpret Scripture, even with the best of intentions. But I think the honest impartial observer will see that this approach is the most objective. If you measure six inches with a ruler you can still make an error, but are less likely to do so than if you decide that six inches is whatever length you choose to make it.

tommy2bad

If you measure six inches with a ruler you can still make an error, but are less likely to do so than if you decide that six inches is whatever length you choose to make it.

I'm inclined to use the gap between my thumb and pinky as 6 inches, 1 inch is the knuckle of my thumb and a foot, well you know how I measure that. I guess I use me as the measure of all things. But it is my life on the line here and I have to suspect that the people who wrote scripture used their hands and feet to measure too.

JimiTime

Jimitime wrote:

On the subject of offence:
Offence is not actually something that registers with me tbh. People who claim offence, especially on behalf of others are just an irritation, and a modern day pain in the @rse tbh. I don't think I've actually EVER been offended by anything a stranger has said. Even when they try their best. I find taking offence to be quite a childish behaviour, and a real obsticle to honest and open discussion. People looking to cause offence, you just ignore as dishonest folk, not looking for adult discussion. People looking to take offence the same. Grown ups though, should be able to share opinions etc that challenge even their very core.

tommy wrote:

Crap excuse for bad manners.

Spoken like a true offence junkie;)

Jimitime wrote:

And specifically to what you took offence to:
The irony of that stand, is that you must consider how "offensive" it is to someone who testifies to the contrary. The venom and bile fired at people who testify to what I said from many LGBT quarters can be horrendous. Think of the stigma THEY must overcome. 'Is he just pretending' etc. Then to have people like yourself basically call them liars, or deluded homosexuals. Just because South Park take the p!ss, and make light of such a concept, does not a pile of cr@p make it.

tommy wrote:

Not an excuse to act in kind
Yes I do believe that the 'cure' people are knaves or fools same as creationists and ID muppets. See it's easy but not nice

Which is exactly why your faux outrage is both ironic, and a double standard.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Their you go again. :rolleyes: Is their really a need for the aggressive language?

I wish I COULD claim such wisdom as my own, but I'm afraid its the prophet Jeremiah, and an author of Proverbs that you have the issue with, not me.

Are you so indifferent to others opinions that you dismiss them so vehemently?

I've just corrected your misrepresentations of the arguments, and presented you with how following Christ works in relation to what we desire. If that dismisses your opinions as a consequence, then so be it. That doesn't make me indifferent to them though, it makes me diametrically opposed to them. As a tolerant person, I realise that other people exist and that they don't all agree with me. I'm fine with that, as should anyone who tolerates opposing opinion. Being vehemently opposed is the polar opposite to indifference tommy. At the end of the day, as Christians, we look for what Christ wants, rather than what we want. That is the crux of all of this, as PDN described in relation to his former alcoholism.

SonOfAdam

@JimiTime - We'll have to wait til he posts again for clarification - it's what I took from his posts. It is not my desire to bend the gospel to condone sinful practices, whatever they may be.
I am not opposed to the idea that some experience change in their attraction but those examples are few and far between in my experience - there are formerly ex-gay groups such as Courage that have changed their ethos because they saw little or no freedom from same sex attraction among attendees and now embrace 'loving same-sex relationships' - and there are groups that maintain the biblical perspective despite not seeing that freedom in the majority of cases.
My point is the church can be a cold place for those struggling with this issue, even for those on the 'inside' - so it's little wonder there aren't many gays (ex or otherwise) in the pews.