Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
False. Marriage has changed many times according to needs and culture. If you truly want to be historical, marriage was about money and having someone provide for your daughter. The daughter being assumed by most cultures to be unable to provide for herself. Often the reason for the marriage was the money that exchanged hands or the political advantages it might bring.
Additionally, there have been long standing taboos in many cultures about marrying outside your race or nationality that only in modern times have been removed.
Last, there are societies that have allowed and blessed same-sex marriages in history.
[/font]
The topic is not limited to Dr. Spitzer and I haven't seen where he presumes to be an expert in spiritual matters. So, if you wish to only reply to posts dealing with that, go for it.I'm talking about the OP. The OP is specifically about the study done by Dr. Spitzer that studied Christian based reparative therapy groups. The other groups are off-topic and not being discussed here.
Thought is an act and unhealthy thinking can be an addiction. But I see the main issue I tried to break down in the explanation seemed to be overlooked.But you do not get addicted to something by merely thinking about it. Addiction only occurs by action. This is why the comparisons to addiction inevitably fail. As for greed or lustful thoughts, I've never heard of any form of therapy designed to "cure" people of those temptations or thoughts nor ever heard them classified as "addiction".
No legalism on my part, I merely mentioned homosexuals that have temptation. Why is it that when talking of gays it automatically becomes assumed that they are guilty of "adultery in his heart" but we make no similar assumptions, nor of a need to "cure", heterosexuals who are equally tempted with sexual sin?
freedom from bondage to homosexuality we usually dont see completely meaningless phrases like that out side of the testimony of ex-gays.this is all based on your idea that freedom from bondage to homosexuality requires one not to be a homosexual. just not true.
freedom from bondage to homosexuality we usually dont see completely meaningless phrases like that out side of the testimony of ex-gays.
Then I suggest getting out more, it is quite common to see Christianity refer to sin as slavery.
It's also not uncommon to see the Scriptures endorse slavery. If you're going to be consistent in your insistence that we can't pick and choose the Biblical strictures that we like, you're going to have to endorse slavery along with forbidding gay marriage. Otherwise, you're picking and choosing the Scriptural references that you like, and you're therefore a hypocrite.
Besides showing that the word hypocrite can be misapplied, the complete lack of understanding about your non sequitur topic doesn't force me to do anything. However, the attempt to inject it into this in order to make an opportunistic slander does demonstrate where one error can lead to more. Its your choice if you want to show that type of fruit.
Oh pul-leez! In Steve's defense, how are you going to talk about "opportunistic slander"? lol I'm sorry if it's against forum rules, but I cannot and will not sit idly by and listen to this tripe. I have seen you "slander" gays and lesbians every single chance you get - a low blow at every opportunity. Just because you do have an eloquent way with the English language doesn't mean you can disguise the meaning in what you say.
/end rant
One - if you have been so observant about what I've posted, then I shouldn't have to point out that what is usually posted is already there in the Bible. The 'new stuff' usually comes from the more Liberal posters - thus, the Liberal label.
Two - while I might disagree with the flattering descriptor, I thank you for saying that I have an eloquent way with the English language. I actually think I need large improvements in that department.
Peace
Then I suggest getting out more, it is quite common to see Christianity refer to sin as slavery.
quote]
Tell me, does reducing the people of an entire minority to a sin help one justify personal prejudice?
well saidOh pul-leez! In Steve's defense, how are you going to talk about "opportunistic slander"? lol I'm sorry if it's against forum rules, but I cannot and will not sit idly by and listen to this tripe. I have seen you "slander" gays and lesbians every single chance you get - a low blow at every opportunity. Just because you do have an eloquent way with the English language doesn't mean you can disguise the meaning in what you say.
/end rant
Being gay is not a sin.Then I suggest getting out more, it is quite common to see Christianity refer to sin as slavery.
John 8:34
Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.
Romans 6:5-7
5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
Romans 7:24-25
24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to Godthrough Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
Steve has not slandered you. Steve has pointed out an error in your thinking. That's not slander; it's speaking the truth as Steve sees it.Besides showing that the word hypocrite can be misapplied, the complete lack of understanding about your non sequitur topic doesn't force me to do anything. However, the attempt to inject it into this in order to make an opportunistic slander does demonstrate where one error can lead to more. Its your choice if you want to show that type of fruit.
The topic is not limited to Dr. Spitzer and I haven't seen where he presumes to be an expert in spiritual matters. So, if you wish to only reply to posts dealing with that, go for it.[/quote[
You were responding directly to me, and as such I was clarifying exactly what I was posting about so that you could remove the speculation from your post.
If you think my posts have been off-topic, go ahead and use that little report button found in any of my posts. Otherwise, I don't see where complaining of what you think is off-topic will do you much good.
Again, I accused you of nothing, I was simply clarifying what was being talked about in the post you responded to.
Thought is an act and unhealthy thinking can be an addiction.
Interesting idea but it doesn't really apply to the accepted definition of addiction.
But I see the main issue I tried to break down in the explanation seemed to be overlooked.
Not overlooked, just irrelevant to what I was saying.
As for your "I've never heard..." retort, the lack of seeing something or agreeing with something isn't a stumbling block for me. There are plenty of souls out there that don't see or agree with a great many things... and yet healing occurs.
It was a generalized reply. I didn't need to say you specifically were using legalism.
And as far as your "we make no similar assumptions, nor of a need to cure...", I would imagine that your use of "we" doesn't include me.
That's up to you.
So you believe that people who simply disagree with your are committing a "sin." It's not enough, in your mind, to be celibate if you are gay. No, in your mind someone has to think exactly as you do, or else it's "sin."[/FONT]
homosexuality is a condition born of the fall of man. that is innate IMO. that does not mean it is natural, it is not of God by rather a product of the fall of man. bondage to homosexuality comes from acting on temptation.
[/FONT]
if they act on them they are in bondage to sin. that does not make them evil. that is your claim not mine. i claim they are just imperfect as am i.
celibacy is freedom if it coincides with a heart condition that realizes homosexual acts or unions are sin. being celibate and not believing as such is still sin. God looks at the heart, not just the action.
...
You aren't going to win over any gay hearts or minds with that argument.
Why should gays have to change?
---------------------------------------------
WF, regarding the quotes above yours, I am curious if it was you and your beliefs that were riducled, if you would choose to respond with sincerity or or would be tempted to sink to their level and respond with sarcasm and nastiness as well?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?