Changing Sexual Orientation Is Possible, New Research Says

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Dor

Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, "Take heed that no man deceive you." The deception is here.
Matthew 24:5 "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." They are claiming to be Christ and deceiving others.
Mt.24:24 "for false Christ's and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive if possible the elect."

I will stick with my Bible you can stick with Benjamin Crewe and Alice Baily if you want or you can delve deeper and see what demons they are actually working with.

As is typical, I see that you readily sweep aside all sensible discussion and investigation, babbling on about demons when something is said that does not suit you.

Yes, yes, Dor, demons. Uh huh. Sure, buddy. You run with that ...

I will not scripture-pick with a man that cannot tell a demon from his hind end, nor will I cast my pearls - as we can see well what is the result.

Have your last say, and be done with it!

[Dor]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

As is typical, I see that you readily sweep aside all sensible discussion and investigation, babbling on about demons when something is said that does not suit you.

Yes, yes, Dor, demons. Uh huh. Sure, buddy. You run with that ...

I will not scripture-pick with a man that cannot tell a demon from his hind end, nor will I cast my pearls - as we can see well what is the result.

Have your last say, and be done with it!

Whatever you want to see Andrew is good for you.
I showed you one simple scripture Mathew 24:5.

You have no idea what discussion or investigation I have had or done about all the new christs and Benjamin Crewe and Alice Bailey.

Anyone that actually pulls their head out of the sand can see they have nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth, except they use his name to try to get a glint of legitimacy.

[bob x]

The Bible warns people not be with someone who is not an unbeliever and that light and darkness can not coexist.

Yes, the gospel of John and the Pauline epistles are full of that mind-set. This is the core evil at the heart of Christianity, which undoes all the good that Jesus tried to do. If you were there when Jesus walked the earth, you would be among those condemning him.

[BlaznFattyz]

if christians marry an unbeliever, our faith can be an example of god's love and god can work in the home, and the children can grow up with god in their life.

[bob x]

You ought behave the same to everyone, "like your Father in heaven, who makes the rain to fall on the good as well as on the evil, and the sun also to rise on the unjust as well as on the just."

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, BobX!

Forgive my tardiness, I have been away for a few days attending to a family matter. I spent what free time I had considering a response to you.

I thought at first to write an in-depth analysis of behaviorism pulling from Pavlov, J.B. Watson and B.F. Skinner to critique the "G-d made me this way" justification. I thought about how humans are more than simply brute animals subject to the whims of love, rage and fear by virtue of conscience. I thought to point out in this discussion what I feel to be a rather curious and selective application of the biological justification to some behaviors and not to others, and how this all comes around to the age-old argument between predestination and free will. Then I thought about how all of this would likely be casually dismissed as not knowing what *I* am talking about.

I thought to write a sarcastic application of the biochemical justification across other behaviors, "good" and "bad," and how this would effectively undermine and make moot the fundamental precedence of modern civilization like law, justice, equity, religion and even the existence of a higher spiritual master. I decided that the focus would probably end up on the sarcasm instead of the point that without willful choice there are no good nor bad behaviors, there are no saints nor villains, there are no heroes nor victims; only surrender to fate and circumstance.

I thought to write of how one can be labeled falsely and still have to carry the burden of social ostracism, how even once adjudicated *not guilty* the stigma attached by society still lingers, costing reputation, family, livelihood and hope. I thought that there is no such thing as paying one's debt to society, that society promotes this scapegoat attitude through politics, social services, legal institutions and popular media. I decided that ultimately the point would be dismissed as irrelevant not for the underlying connotation, but for the political and emotional imperative to leave somebody, anybody, to heap our disgust upon instead of practicing the forgiveness and understanding we all seek for ourselves.

I considered that offense would probably be taken at every turn as a form of emotional blackmail to avoid addressing any portion of logical disagreement, and how my words seem to be continually turned against me. Turned against me not with any attempt at understanding the academic logic, reasoning and taking justifications to their apparent conclusions, but by simple emotional stubbornness; and how this all seems to me so contrary coming from a professor of higher learning whom one would expect to know better.

It has become apparent to me that with some people logical reasoning and open pursuit of wisdom are viewed as narrow-minded stubbornness (even hatred) when the conclusions reach an opposing point of view. I find great irony that those who claim young Matthew Shepherd as a martyr don't even recall his name, he's simply "that kid" in Wyoming who was brutally tortured and murdered for the cause. Allow me this one emotional appeal; why do you suppose I can recall the name of Matthew Shepherd? If hate and disgust were my motivation, shouldn't Matthew Shepherd be another anonymous "one of those?" Yet participants here who supposedly love him and what he has come to symbolize didn't even remember his name? (I deliberately watched for 3 days waiting for anyone else to offer the man's name before posting it.)

When all is said and done, I do not expect anyone to be convinced by facts. We will simply have to agree to disagree. Humans are notoriously prone to emotional appeals even when those appeals do not hold up under their own reasoning when given an unemotional look. There will always be those among us who will justify any behavior they prefer through whatever means seem expedient to their cause. I find further irony in not extending the same considerations requested outward to others, that while asking for empathy and acceptance the attitude extended is one of political bias and distance. Contrary to S. Covey's advice, understanding is requested, while the only understanding offered in return is broad strokes of presumption.

All of us, every single one, must account to a higher spiritual master. Whether viewed as G-d or Karma, we are all accountable for our activities. Whether we justify our behavior through emotional appeal or logic and reasoning, we will ultimately face the rewards of what we do not only to ourselves, even more importantly I feel by what we do to others. Since none of us is perfect and all of us deal with the faults we prefer I suppose what counts the most is what we do with what we "know" and how we make the world better for others. None among us is worthy to cast the first stone. We are charged with doing the best we can with what we know. Perhaps the stones in our hands would be put to better use, like building bridges or hospitals. Some will likely continue to seek comfort in building walls; that is not my call to make. I claim my inalienable right and will continue to take charge of my own and proactively seek what I interpret as wisdom. Wisdom finds agreement with fact and logic as extensions of truth, a real and tangible truth to which religion can only point and to which emotional appeal too often wantonly usurps. I prefer to learn *how* to think rather than what to think. It is those professors who have allowed me the opportunity to exercise critical thinking whose teachings I have come to cherish most, some of whom agree with you politically.

Juantoo3
-BSBA, Summa Cum Laude, class of 2004

[bob x]

The way that I see beauty, the way that I feel love, is built into me. How I respond to the situation is my own choice. I choose to love. If you have a problem with that choice of mine, that is too bad for you, but will not affect me. You have not been talking to me "academically", you have been talking to me emotionally and insultingly: the love in my heart is like the love in yours, not like some form of abuse or fraud, as you keep characterizing it for no excuse.

I find great irony that those who claim young Matthew Shepherd as a martyr don't even recall his name, he's simply "that kid" in Wyoming

I assure you I have never forgotten his name and have his picture with me. Nobody guessed that you were making some kind of trap-test when you referred to the story without the name.

[flowperson]

Here's an article from today's LA Times that brings us up to date on the schism in the Anglican Community which is being caused by this issue.

flow....

Church divide over gays has a global audience - Los Angeles Times

[flowperson]

Hello All...

At the risk of poking the "bear" in the eye with a sharp stick, I'd like to remind everyone here that this issue may be resolved, at least as to reason and cause, by scientific study. It's all well and good to quote scripture, march in the streets, separate ourselves from our brothers and sisters, or just sit around and grumble, bitch, and moan...after all, that is the human way. But none of these activities seem to do any good in the long run in any such disputes unless there is some sort of proof. It's coming, but not right away because the study of genetic origins and how development into born, breathing humans occurs is still in the mid-term fetal stage.

I became convinced in the late 80's that this was genetic, but you all know that already. Here is an article regarding the ongoing search for "real" answers:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Gay-Genetics.html

flow....

[bob x]

We do not need to wait for scientific studies about what the cause actually IS, in order to know that "choice" IS NOT the cause: this is a matter of direct conscious knowledge.

[flowperson]

Bob...But until certain sorts of proofs are presented in public spaces, the naysaying by guys like Mr. Jones will not EVER stop and fade away.
Not everyone uses their brain and heart in tandem, as they were intended to, to make logically conscious decisions. This guy is PROOF of that. Even provosts at well known colleges and universities are not immune to these sorts of delusions you know.

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Oh good grief!
Just when you thought the narrow-mindedness and ignorance could not possibly get any worse ... VOILA!!!

Those poor, misguided Maori heathens! What ever shall we do to help them find JEEEEEZUS!

Attachment 605

Which is the greater sin? Choosing to love another person of the same sex, or REFUSING to love another human being at all?

And while you're thumping, care to explain for us how "hating the sin" in this case is the least bit different than hating the whole group of people who are sinning (as you folks see it, that is)?

In other words, TELL ME ONE WAY in which you are LOVING homosexuals ...



I assure you brother, for every prayer you send out on behalf of those poor, misguided homosexuals (and people with tattoos, piercings, different color of skin than you, etc.) ... I will send out TWO such prayers FOR YOU! - cuz guess who needs them more!

I'm almost disgusted enough by this to lose my lunch.

All I can say on a personal note, is BLESS YOU, Brother, for giving me the chance to practice the Unconditional LOVE which Christ preached, taught and demonstrated ... for ALL PEOPLE. If it weren't for folks like you, I might delude myself into believing there weren't any significant challenges left!

(If you can't love the people with tattoos, and fifteen body piercings, and the drag queens and the ultra-liberals, then you really aren't loving at all! As Jesus taught, it is EASY to love those who are closest to us - family, friends, fellow church-goers. The CHALLENGE, and hence the shining, beautiful opportunity to PRACTICE the Love of God, is when we cannot easily identify with the person, or group, in question. But don't worry if that slips by you - again, and again, and again. You'll get more opportunities.

And mine is you, and people of this mindset, for I know my imperfections, and the considerable irritation that comes from observing such intolerance - and hate. Until we learn to see ourself in another, and to love our neighbors as ourselves, all the preaching in the world, in the name of Jesus or any other Savior ... is really just whistlin' Dixie.

I do not hate you for your narrowness and ignorance. I just wish it didn't take so long to overcome. And that, I admit, is my problem.)

HORSE CRAP. To love another is divine. No argument there. To engage in sex with a gender the same as "yours" is counterintuitive to the keepings of propogating the species...even you understand that Andrew. So, you have to come to a conclusion. Is sex, for pleasure? Is sex for procreation? Is it for both? Where do we draw the line?

What is the ULTIMATE PURPOSE of SEX? If it is a privilage for male/female to procreate, then it is not a "right" for same gender relations. If it is a rutting instinct, then there is a problem with certain humans who seem to go to the same gender as self.

If it is an expression of "love" between two people, regardless of gender, then why is it not condoned by the major religious faiths of the world? (note I said MAJOR, as in OLDEST, most ESTABLISHED and ACCOMPLISHED).

Which is it?

Answer carefully Andrew. Everybody is reading...

v/r

Josh

[greymare]

Josh, if its sex between two loving consenting adults, (especially those who have a commitment to each other how can that be wrong?) Notice I said Loving. I dont mean a one night stand that is wrong whether you are straight or gay. (my opinion) If its Love between two people as I said above, its Good.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by greymare

Josh, if its sex between two loving consenting adults, (especially those who have a commitment to each other how can that be wrong?) Notice I said Loving. I dont mean a one night stand that is wrong whether you are straight or gay. (my opinion) If its Love between two people as I said above, its Good.

Is the love wrong? no. Is the sex wrong? Well, trying to fit a peg where there is no peg receptical is kind of obvious, don't you think? Like nature has made it clear, one body does not naturally "fit" another...

v/r

Q

I see where that could go off into 50 different ways. So allow me to clarify. The original purpose of sex is to pro-create, agreed? Anything after is man's design, and has nothing to do with the design God had in mind. What we are describing in this thread is "pleasure" attached to a relationship. Is that a right between any two consenting adults? Historically...no.

[greymare]

ahhhh, so the love is ok but the act (sex) is not? for me, I dont actually feel strongly one way or another about this issue (homosexuality re:bible) I'm just of the strong feeling that Love in this form cannot be Bad. As far as the act goes, (sex) to each his or her own. There are some things that people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, that I dont want to know about. and vice versa, I'm sure. Loving is better than Hateing. love the Grey