APA's 1973 decision cannot be cited as medial consensus.

[savedandhappy1]

As I read on Wikipedia, there is much debate over the reason for the decision. Either way, it doesn't shape my opinion, we have all the other mental health professionals that have a similar opinion against those who say it is an illness.

You still rely on information from Wikipedia, with all the proof of false stuff put on there?

I never said you did, however, you still believe change is possible.

Just thought I would remind you since you have brought it up in past threads awhile back, and I told you than I didn't believe or say reparative therapy was the answer. With it being awhile back I thought maybe you had forgot or confused me with someone who pushes it.

Yes, I believe the Lord can change anyone and anything.

He doesn't change people's sexual orientation...there are mountains of people including myself that have never had a conversion. There isn't any proof of any such change...the majority of those who say they were healed were either bisexual or decieved to start. There are so many that have regretted giving testimonies, which is why I don't believe testimonies hold evidence.

Yep there are many a sinner who has fallen back into the sinful life that the Lord help bring them out of, but that doesn't prove anything except that like all of us if we take our eyes off the Lord then we can fall back into anything we are tempted with. Homosexuality doesn't have the corner on backsliding or falling. It sure doesn't prove that God doesn't change anyone or that He doesn't want to change them.

As I stated, there is lots of controversy over their decision, and what the truth is behind it. Either way, from every other credible mental health foundation's take on the subject, it seems clear that the APA would've changed, anyways. There has been plenty more credible research done since the 70's that support the notion that homosexuality isn't an illness.

And alot of pressure put on all those organizations just like the APA, maybe?

So since they probably would have changed later anyhow it is ok to make it look like that back in the 70's they changed because they believed whole heartedly that they could prove scientificly it wasn't an illness? Interesting.

My point was, that you said you don't have any agenda here, yet you post something like that. All it does is feed the anti-gay stereotype people in this forum, who love to generalize all gays this way. I also said that I wasn't the one who said you had an agenda, but that was my reason for believing you might be perceived that way.

As I said if it was hetrosexual or homosexual isn't the point. The point is the mocking, if it had been hetrosexuals I would have posted in the regular area. It wasn't so I posted where I thought was appropriate.

No, that wasn't my point...my point was about what it contributes to people's already misperceived generalizations are about gays. I don't agree with what they did with the Last Supper thing, in the least.

So if you came across something that hetrosexuals were doing to mock God you wouldn't post it with sad and crying icons, because it is so sad that they don't understand how much He loves them?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Probably has many points, and one of them could be to point out that saying the APA changed their opinion, doesn't mean what it sounds like it means. Again, it isn't because they found proof of anything, except that the pro-gay folks can really put on alot of pressure.





So when Jesus said that the healthy don't need a physician the sick do, he was being misleading? The scriptures I posted are misleading?




Amazing that thinking that the example that was set for us by Jesus should not be mocked, and if I believe it is mocking than I have turned the Last Supper into idolatry.

So if some was putting down the Lord by mocking the example He gave us on how to pray, that would be idolatry also?

Or thinking it was mocking for what Madonna does with the cross in her video and shows mean I have made the crucifiction an idol and not the Lord.

Boy, we have different ideas on what fearing the Lord and being reverent and respectful for all He has done than. The scriptures that tell us He will not be mocked, can I ask what that means to you?

no, its idolatry thinking that mocking a thing robs it of its power or importance... if you believe that SOMEONE ELSE mocking a thing is damaging to it, then thats idolatry.

Someone mocking God is completely between that person and God... it should not offend you in the slightest, because it doesn't harm you, or the thing you care about in the slightest.

To believe otherwise is idolatry.

Of course, the other explanation is that you personalise such attacks, and find something that mocks God, unconciously, to be a mockery of you personally... whichisn't idolatry, exactly... but it sure isn't healthy

 

[savedandhappy1]

no, its idolatry thinking that mocking a thing robs it of its power or importance... if you believe that SOMEONE ELSE mocking a thing is damaging to it, then thats idolatry.

Someone mocking God is completely between that person and God... it should not offend you in the slightest, because it doesn't harm you, or the thing you care about in the slightest.

To believe otherwise is idolatry.

Of course, the other explanation is that you personalise such attacks, and find something that mocks God, unconciously, to be a mockery of you personally... whichisn't idolatry, exactly... but it sure isn't healthy

Hebrew 10:29-30

29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

Gal 6:1-9
1Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

2Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
3For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
4But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
5For every man shall bear his own burden.
6Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
7Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

Boy, Gal. 6, has alot of good thinks in it, and I pray daily to not be weary in loving when I am told I am a hater, prejudice, etc. When all I am doing is trying to not let anyone perish just like God doesn't want anyone to do, out of love.

If someone speaks badly about someone you love, say your Creator and you profess to be His child, you don't find that sad?

You don't think it saddens Him?

Aren't we to daily be growing into the person He made us to be?

Isn't that to be like Him?

So if it saddens Him shouldn't it sadden us?

Idolatry
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Idolatry [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]is the universal human tendency to value something or someone in a way that hinders the love and trust we owe to God. It is an act of theft from God whereby we use some part of creation in a way that steals from honor due to God. Idolatry conflicts with our putting God alone first in our lives, in what we love and trust (see Exodus 20:3-5; Deut. 5:7-9; Romans 1:21-23). In idolatry we put something or someone, usually a gift from God, in a place of value that detracts from the first place owed to God alone, the gift Giver. That thing or person is an idol. The way out of idolatry is always to love and to trust the gift Giver without interference from any gift or any thing other than God. We will then be able to love and to appreciate gifts appropriately, neither giving them too much power nor failing to be thankful for them. We will then be free indeed, and not in bondage or addiction to anything that cannot fulfill us or give us peace (shalom). [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Putting God first means loving and trusting God first, above all, and with everything we are and have (see Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). God has given us every good thing we are and have. (Neither we nor other humans created us or our capacities to do good.) Our focus should never be on the gifts themselves in a way that demotes the gift Giver. This would be idolatry. It is easy to see how idolatry occurs given our deadly propensity for selfishly willful control and self-controlled security. The gifts themselves are easy to control, to manipulate, and to take credit for. They are easy to make, or to take as, "mine." Here begins the human tragedy, the idolatrous rebellion against the God we need for living freely in unselfish love. We learn the hard way that we cannot provide ourselves with security and safety. On our own we lack the needed power of unselfish love. On our own we wither in selfishness and then die.[/FONT]

I don't think we have the same definition for idolatry.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Hebrew 10:29-30

29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

Gal 6:1-9
1Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

2Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
3For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
4But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
5For every man shall bear his own burden.
6Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
7Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

Boy, Gal. 6, has alot of good thinks in it, and I pray daily to not be weary in loving when I am told I am a hater, prejudice, etc. When all I am doing is trying to not let anyone perish just like God doesn't want anyone to do, out of love.

If someone speaks badly about someone you love, say your Creator and you profess to be His child, you don't find that sad?

You don't think it saddens Him?

Aren't we to daily be growing into the person He made us to be?

Isn't that to be like Him?

So if it saddens Him shouldn't it sadden us?

Idolatry
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Idolatry [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]is the universal human tendency to value something or someone in a way that hinders the love and trust we owe to God. It is an act of theft from God whereby we use some part of creation in a way that steals from honor due to God. Idolatry conflicts with our putting God alone first in our lives, in what we love and trust (see Exodus 20:3-5; Deut. 5:7-9; Romans 1:21-23). In idolatry we put something or someone, usually a gift from God, in a place of value that detracts from the first place owed to God alone, the gift Giver. That thing or person is an idol. The way out of idolatry is always to love and to trust the gift Giver without interference from any gift or any thing other than God. We will then be able to love and to appreciate gifts appropriately, neither giving them too much power nor failing to be thankful for them. We will then be free indeed, and not in bondage or addiction to anything that cannot fulfill us or give us peace (shalom). [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Putting God first means loving and trusting God first, above all, and with everything we are and have (see Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). God has given us every good thing we are and have. (Neither we nor other humans created us or our capacities to do good.) Our focus should never be on the gifts themselves in a way that demotes the gift Giver. This would be idolatry. It is easy to see how idolatry occurs given our deadly propensity for selfishly willful control and self-controlled security. The gifts themselves are easy to control, to manipulate, and to take credit for. They are easy to make, or to take as, "mine." Here begins the human tragedy, the idolatrous rebellion against the God we need for living freely in unselfish love. We learn the hard way that we cannot provide ourselves with security and safety. On our own we lack the needed power of unselfish love. On our own we wither in selfishness and then die.[/FONT]

I don't think we have the same definition for idolatry.

but that isn't what we are talking about... idolatry is believing that there is some inherent power in a THING... a painting, a statue, the Olympic torch, that therefore demands the thing be treated in a way comensurate to that power, and that failure to treat it in such a way somehow harms or displeases the thing...

making a satire of the last supper causes no harm to anything.

 

[savedandhappy1]

but that isn't what we are talking about... idolatry is believing that there is some inherent power in a THING... a painting, a statue, the Olympic torch, that therefore demands the thing be treated in a way comensurate to that power, and that failure to treat it in such a way somehow harms or displeases the thing...

making a satire of the last supper causes no harm to anything.

You may be talking about some picture or statue, etc., but I am talking about the Lord's Supper, and them scoffing at how important it was and still is today to those who follow Him. They weren't just making fun of someones picture of what the Lord's Supper could have looked like.

I really can't believe you think it was only satire about of a picture. I don't worship some picture, I have the real live Saviour to worship.

 

[davedjy]

You still rely on information from Wikipedia, with all the proof of false stuff put on there?

I don't use Wikipedia that often, why can't you refute what I used off there, instead of resorting to a discrediting of the whole website?

Yes, I believe the Lord can change anyone and anything.

Do you believe He changes genetic make up such as changing your eyes from blue to brown? as if that is necessary.

Yep there are many a sinner who has fallen back into the sinful life that the Lord help bring them out of, but that doesn't prove anything except that like all of us if we take our eyes off the Lord then we can fall back into anything we are tempted with. Homosexuality doesn't have the corner on backsliding or falling. It sure doesn't prove that God doesn't change anyone or that He doesn't want to change them.

You cannot change the sexual orientation, so it is no wonder that people "fall back into the lifestyle". The lifestyle is only a reflection of the orientation.

And alot of pressure put on all those organizations just like the APA, maybe?

Any proof of that? Maybe homosexuality shouldn't never been labeled as a mental illness to start!

So since they probably would have changed later anyhow it is ok to make it look like that back in the 70's they changed because they believed whole heartedly that they could prove scientificly it wasn't an illness? Interesting.

The reason for the changing in classification status is not completely known, there are only guesses.

As I said if it was hetrosexual or homosexual isn't the point. The point is the mocking, if it had been hetrosexuals I would have posted in the regular area. It wasn't so I posted where I thought was appropriate.

This is a debate forum on homosexuality. Was there something debatable in the topic? Not that I am playing mod, just curious as to whether you brought the article for debate or just discussion.

So if you came across something that hetrosexuals were doing to mock God you wouldn't post it with sad and crying icons, because it is so sad that they don't understand how much He loves them?

First of all, the orientation probably wouldn'tve been disclosed in the article, which is why I thought the article was offensive in a way (not necessarily you posting it, tho). That website you posted off of has an anti-gay agenda to start, so it is easy to assume they love things like this, to make gays look worse.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You may be talking about some picture or statue, etc., but I am talking about the Lord's Supper, and them scoffing at how important it was and still is today to those who follow Him. They weren't just making fun of someones picture of what the Lord's Supper could have looked like.

I really can't believe you think it was only satire about of a picture. I don't worship some picture, I have the real live Saviour to worship.

the lords supper is just as much an inanimate thing as any other picture or statue.

To say otherwise is idolatry.

I really can't believe you think it was only satire about of a picture. I don't worship some picture, I have the real live Saviour to worship.

great. So why care about the mockery of some picture?

 

[savedandhappy1]

the lords supper is just as much an inanimate thing as any other picture or statue.

To say otherwise is idolatry.great. So why care about the mockery of some picture?

You may be talking about some picture or statue, etc., but I am talking about the Lord's Supper, and them scoffing at how important it was and still is today to those who follow Him. They weren't just making fun of someones picture of what the Lord's Supper could have looked like.

You did read my post, right?

I am not talking about some picture............

Do you believe that there was a Last Supper?

I don't believe they were just doing a satire about the picture of the Lord's Supper, but mocking the real Lord's Supper.

Let me say it one more time, it is not idolatry, because I am not talking about some picture. I am speaking of the Supper that Christ had just before He was arrested, beaten, and hung on the cross.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You did read my post, right?

I am not talking about some picture............

Do you believe that there was a Last Supper?

I don't believe they were just doing a satire about the picture of the Lord's Supper, but mocking the real Lord's Supper.

Let me say it one more time, it is not idolatry, because I am not talking about some picture. I am speaking of the Supper that Christ had just before He was arrested, beaten, and hung on the cross.

sure there was a last supper... but if you think these people were attempting to defame anything other than the Leonardo piece, I think you are reading too much into it, trying to find something to be offended about when there isn't anything there

 

[savedandhappy1]

I don't use Wikipedia that often, why can't you refute what I used off there, instead of resorting to a discrediting of the whole website?

I don't have to discredit them it is all over the news, in the paper, etc. etc. etc.

I was just asking you why you were using a site that has been discredited period.

Do you believe He changes genetic make up such as changing your eyes from blue to brown? as if that is necessary.

Why does the bible say that blue eyes are a sin?

They can't find a gay gene you know?

You cannot change the sexual orientation, so it is no wonder that people "fall back into the lifestyle". The lifestyle is only a reflection of the orientation.

God can change anything He wills.

Did I miss another one of your post? The one where I ask you when they came up with the words sexual orientation. Was that before or after the word homosexual that so many use to prove Paul couldn't have understood real love homosexuality back they because the word wasn't made till the 19th century or whatever century it was.

Romans 1 doesn't use the words for homosexuality it just comes right out and describes it, to avoid any confussion. It's ashame that great deceiver can still deceive people on that tho.

Any proof of that? Maybe homosexuality shouldn't never been labeled as a mental illness to start!

Why would I need proof for something that was a question?

I think I already touched on this but will repeat it, since I don't always see all post to me.

I never said I believed that it was or is an illness. In fact I really don't know any Christians that did or do, but back then I could see people wanting it to be an illness as compared to a deceiving satan being the problem.

This is a debate forum on homosexuality. Was there something debatable in the topic? Not that I am playing mod, just curious as to whether you brought the article for debate or just discussion.

What do you want me to say? Do you want me to say I brought it so that everyone would think that all homosexuals mock God, and are awful sick people?

Could it not be brought to show how sad this world has gotten? Could a part of me hoped that all those who profess to be Christian would say how sad it is to see people who probably don't know the Lord, and don't want to? I believe in a post farther down that some of us even mentioned praying for them, that could be another thread been to long ago.

I will ask again if it was hetrosexuals and it was posted in the regular section, or would you have posted and shown by the smiles you posted how sad it makes you to see people that don't realize how much the Lord love them and how He doesn't wish anyone to perish?

Yeah, Dave I have an agenda. I posted it to show how sad it is to look around the world and see so many lost and dieing people. It was about homosexuals mocking their Creator, Saviour, Father, etc. and I can't help but feel it saddens Him. It would have sadden me if it had been hetrosexuals and I would have put it in the regular section if it had been.

I guess I should have put it in the prayer section, but frankly I really thought I might get at least a few people that would want to raise them up to the Lord. I thought I might get a few people who were also sadden by their lost state.

Don't know what I was thinking tho. Not to many people care about others anymore, and I get so tired hearing people say ohhhhhhhhhhhh I am so mistreated, or oh me me me me me. I really think we need to get back to the Great Commission, intercessory prayer and so many other things of the Heavenly Fathers business that we are supposed to be about.

First of all, the orientation probably wouldn'tve been disclosed in the article, which is why I thought the article was offensive in a way (not necessarily you posting it, tho). That website you posted off of has an anti-gay agenda to start, so it is easy to assume they love things like this, to make gays look worse.

Nows days I have trouble believing that they wouldn't have mentioned it if they were hetrosexual. They don't have trouble posting bad things about other groups, but I feel like if not now it won't be to far down the road till we find out.

It offends you because the news put it out there, but it doesn't sadden you that these people could be perishing without Christ?

I guess since I have live alittle longer and seen so much change, and not for the good, that it just really breaks my heart to see people who need the Lord doing such things.


I don't remember which news site I got it off of, and am not going back to look because this whole thing is getting so ridiculous, but it was on every news site and TV channel. So why act like it was only on anti-gay agenda sites?

 

[savedandhappy1]

sure there was a last supper... but if you think these people were attempting to defame anything other than the Leonardo piece, I think you are reading too much into it, trying to find something to be offended about when there isn't anything there

I don't have to try and find something that is offensive to the Lord, and as His child is offensive to me.

I remember the time when the Lord was respected and held in high reguard. People wouldn't even have thought about there being something wrong with the 10 Commandments being in schools and court, etc. They would never have done the satire(as you call) about the Lord like that.

For you to think that any thing like this is just about a picture, when that picture has been a reminder to us for years of what the Lord had done and is doing. The bible talks about doing things so we will remember or bring to rememberance the things He has done. I don't worship a picture, and I don't believe that they were just making fun of a picture. If that was all they wanted to do there are alot of other pictures out there.

What do you think the statement was that they were trying to make? Do you really think they were making fun of Leonardo and it didn't have anything to do about the Lord?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I don't have to discredit them it is all over the news, in the paper, etc. etc. etc.

I was just asking you why you were using a site that has been discredited period.




Why does the bible say that blue eyes are a sin?

They can't find a gay gene you know?




God can change anything He wills.

Did I miss another one of your post? The one where I ask you when they came up with the words sexual orientation. Was that before or after the word homosexual that so many use to prove Paul couldn't have understood real love homosexuality back they because the word wasn't made till the 19th century or whatever century it was.

Romans 1 doesn't use the words for homosexuality it just comes right out and describes it, to avoid any confussion. It's ashame that great deceiver can still deceive people on that tho.




Why would I need proof for something that was a question?

I think I already touched on this but will repeat it, since I don't always see all post to me.

I never said I believed that it was or is an illness. In fact I really don't know any Christians that did or do, but back then I could see people wanting it to be an illness as compared to a deceiving satan being the problem.




What do you want me to say? Do you want me to say I brought it so that everyone would think that all homosexuals mock God, and are awful sick people?

Could it not be brought to show how sad this world has gotten? Could a part of me hoped that all those who profess to be Christian would say how sad it is to see people who probably don't know the Lord, and don't want to? I believe in a post farther down that some of us even mentioned praying for them, that could be another thread been to long ago.

I will ask again if it was hetrosexuals and it was posted in the regular section, or would you have posted and shown by the smiles you posted how sad it makes you to see people that don't realize how much the Lord love them and how He doesn't wish anyone to perish?

Yeah, Dave I have an agenda. I posted it to show how sad it is to look around the world and see so many lost and dieing people. It was about homosexuals mocking their Creator, Saviour, Father, etc. and I can't help but feel it saddens Him. It would have sadden me if it had been hetrosexuals and I would have put it in the regular section if it had been.

I guess I should have put it in the prayer section, but frankly I really thought I might get at least a few people that would want to raise them up to the Lord. I thought I might get a few people who were also sadden by their lost state.

Don't know what I was thinking tho. Not to many people care about others anymore, and I get so tired hearing people say ohhhhhhhhhhhh I am so mistreated, or oh me me me me me. I really think we need to get back to the Great Commission, intercessory prayer and so many other things of the Heavenly Fathers business that we are supposed to be about.




Nows days I have trouble believing that they wouldn't have mentioned it if they were hetrosexual. They don't have trouble posting bad things about other groups, but I feel like if not now it won't be to far down the road till we find out.

It offends you because the news put it out there, but it doesn't sadden you that these people could be perishing without Christ?

I guess since I have live alittle longer and seen so much change, and not for the good, that it just really breaks my heart to see people who need the Lord doing such things.


I don't remember which news site I got it off of, and am not going back to look because this whole thing is getting so ridiculous, but it was on every news site and TV channel. So why act like it was only on anti-gay agenda sites?

I guess my question is: Why is it important that Homosexuality is either a disease or an inherited condition of genetic origin? Apparently somebody's theology depends on it being one or the other. Could we address that?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I don't have to try and find something that is offensive to the Lord, and as His child is offensive to me.

I remember the time when the Lord was respected and held in high reguard. People wouldn't even have thought about there being something wrong with the 10 Commandments being in schools and court, etc. They would never have done the satire(as you call) about the Lord like that.

For you to think that any thing like this is just about a picture, when that picture has been a reminder to us for years of what the Lord had done and is doing. The bible talks about doing things so we will remember or bring to rememberance the things He has done. I don't worship a picture, and I don't believe that they were just making fun of a picture. If that was all they wanted to do there are alot of other pictures out there.

What do you think the statement was that they were trying to make? Do you really think they were making fun of Leonardo and it didn't have anything to do about the Lord?

There ARE a lot of other pictures out there people make fun of.

Read the New Yorker sometime.

I remember the time when the Lord was respected and held in high reguard. People wouldn't even have thought about there being something wrong with the 10 Commandments being in schools and court, etc. They would never have done the satire(as you call) about the Lord like that.

God is STILL held in high regard by most people.

However, the beauty of a free society is you get to express yourself, and that includes through public satire of respected works and institutions.

And I DON'T think the 10 commandments belong in classrooms or courtrooms, not unless you also have the legalistic sections of every other religion displayed right there alongside them.

Take your pick, either or, but just having ONE set of religious material in classrooms and courtrooms is far more offensive than making fun of the last supper.

Probably easier to leave religion in churches, iconography in art spaces, satire in free public domain, law books in the courtroom and textbooks in the classroom... then everything is OK... only reason to get upset is when someone misguidedly wants to mix up those places and the items in them.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I guess my question is: Why is it important that Homosexuality is either a disease or an inherited condition of genetic origin? Apparently somebody's theology depends on it being one or the other. Could we address that?

good question.

I think the idea is that if you can trace the origin, you know how to vilify it... if it really is a genetic trait, you can vilify it as a mutation or undesireable trait, like congenital deformities.

If its a phenomenon traceable to environment, you can treat it as a communicable disease, and vilify it as a mental abberation, unclean infection in degenerate minds.

Anything to make it sound like the science backs you up when you're trying to justify your bigotry and hatred of groups different to your own.

Its no fun villifying a minority that you might accidentally fall into, thats why homosexuals are such a safe bet, its gernerally pretty definate whether you are or you aren't so you can generally call them all sorts of names without fear that you will fall victim to similar attacks. Heck, for SOME homosexuals, its fun to join in to, as you can hide your homosexuality, or at least, confine it to airport washrooms and public bus stations

 

[savedandhappy1]

I guess my question is: Why is it important that Homosexuality is either a disease or an inherited condition of genetic origin? Apparently somebody's theology depends on it being one or the other. Could we address that?

That was one of the point I was trying to make. Whether the APA or any of those other groups say it is this or that shouldn't have anything to do with what God says.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That was one of the point I was trying to make. Whether the APA or any of those other groups say it is this or that shouldn't have anything to do with what God says.

Correct, If God has spoken on the issue it matters not whether the APA claims it a mental abberation or a genetic "disorder" or a pure choice (although physical attraction seems outside one's basic control).

Thus I don't understand this long argument about what homosexuality arises from. Your argument would remain the same. Perhaps it might be fruitful to get to the real issue...Does God speak to this issue at all?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Correct, If God has spoken on the issue it matters not whether the APA claims it a mental abberation or a genetic "disorder" or a pure choice (although physical attraction seems outside one's basic control).

Thus I don't understand this long argument about what homosexuality arises from. Your argument would remain the same. Perhaps it might be fruitful to get to the real issue...Does God speak to this issue at all?

I know when the gnetic component of homosexuality is better understood, I'll be hammering away at the fundies about their belief in Creationism... God made us just the way we are, and look, right there in my God designed DNA...

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I know when the gnetic component of homosexuality is better understood, I'll be hammering away at the fundies about their belief in Creationism... God made us just the way we are, and look, right there in my God designed DNA...

lol...Yes I would agree...

http://iowamusings.com
Spiritmeadow

 

[savedandhappy1]

There ARE a lot of other pictures out there people make fun of.

Pictures of our Lord and Saviour?

Read the New Yorker sometime.God is STILL held in high regard by most people.

Which one? The God of the Bible or one of the many others that is out there?

However, the beauty of a free society is you get to express yourself, and that includes through public satire of respected works and institutions.

I'll say it one more times just because no one seems to understand. I am not talking about some work or institution. I am speaking of our Lord and Saviour and the importance of the Last Supper.

And I DON'T think the 10 commandments belong in classrooms or courtrooms, not unless you also have the legalistic sections of every other religion displayed right there alongside them.

So true why would we want to have the very thing that all our laws were based on hanging in our schools or in he very place where people are seeking justice by laws.

Take your pick, either or, but just having ONE set of religious material in classrooms and courtrooms is far more offensive than making fun of the last supper.

Show me where the Lord told us that if our faith in Him offended someone we had to change. I miss the days when our history books told us that one of the main reasons we came to what is now America, is because of religious persecutions.

Does the fact that Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the faith but by Him, make any difference anymore?

Probably easier to leave religion in churches, iconography in art spaces, satire in free public domain, law books in the courtroom and textbooks in the classroom... then everything is OK... only reason to get upset is when someone misguidedly wants to mix up those places and the items in them.

Romans 9:32-33
32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 10:11
11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1Peter 4:16-19
16Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

17For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
18And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

Can you show me where we aren't suppose to have God in every part of our life? I guess giving only part of our heart, souled and mind, could look alright. Yet I don't believe that He only want us to be at church, home and anywhere that only other people that believe the way do are. I could be wrong, but in my opinion that is one reason we are in the shape we are today.

You do know that the bible was used to teach the kids how to read in our first schools, right? They taught them not only things like math, but taught them about the Lord.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'll say it one more times just because no one seems to understand. I am not talking about some work or institution. I am speaking of our Lord and Saviour and the importance of the Last Supper.

In a free society, no one is exempt from satire. The correct response would be for you to now go out and satirise the people who satirised the last supper. Making exceptions to free speech on ANY ground is tyrany... didn't you guys have a revolution cos of that once?

So true why would we want to have the very thing that all our laws were based on hanging in our schools or in he very place where people are seeking justice by laws.

American jurisprudence is as much based on the 10 commandments as it is based on any other system of religious inspired laws. At least it should be, thats what seperation of church and state is all about.

Show me where the Lord told us that if our faith in Him offended someone we had to change. I miss the days when our history books told us that one of the main reasons we came to what is now America, is because of religious persecutions.

you havn't had to change a darn thing in your own home or the way you conduct your own private life. If you think that you should be able to inflict your own private views on unwilling members of the public, while limiting their right to do similarly to you, well I think thats abhorrent.

As for history books not teaching religious persecution...

I've never really understood it... why do Americans have such a bug up their **** about the pilgrims and the mayflower anyway? The first permanent European Colony in North America was Jamestown in Virginia, set up by the Virginia Company... it had nothing to do with religious persecution, it was about making money

Can you show me where we aren't suppose to have God in every part of our life? I guess giving only part of our heart, souled and mind, could look alright. Yet I don't believe that He only want us to be at church, home and anywhere that only other people that believe the way do are. I could be wrong, but in my opinion that is one reason we are in the shape we are today.

If you want God in every part of your life, including government and judiciary, no one is stopping you. move to, or vote for, a theocratic state. Until you live in one, or found one, however, you need to accept there are people around you who disagree with your views, and that, in the state you live in, your views do not have any more validity or value than anyone elses. Its called tolerance.

You do know that the bible was used to teach the kids how to read in our first schools, right? They taught them not only things like math, but taught them about the Lord.

like way back when the only book everyone had access to was the Bible? Darn technological advancement, going and making a diversity of reading material available!