Some people I read about:

[Wiccan_Child]

Well no you aren't aware as all things are possbile for God, and I am surprised how you could imagine that God could create the universe and everything in it an not be able change people even when that testify to it. Thats some disbelief unless of course you dont know God.

You misunderstand. I am aware that, if your god exists, then he is capable of changing homosexuals to heterosexuals. However, I do not believe that those people who claim to be ex-gay are, in fact, heterosexual, and I believe this irrespective of your god and his alleged abilities.

I dont need to show otherwsie as I am not the one claiming I need supporting objective data to believe, you are.

Non sequitur. You are referring to a seperate point.

 

[brightmorningstar]

No its not non sequitur because you said you don’t believe the testimonies because you need objective data to believe. With the case of the testimonies you have their lifestyles to observe to see if they match their claims, if you haven’t met these guys and observed then you shouldn’t be doubting them until you have seen the proof.
I refer you to my question on the Jonathan and David thread.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No its not non sequitur because you said you don’t believe the testimonies because you need objective data to believe. With the case of the testimonies you have their lifestyles to observe to see if they match their claims, if you haven’t met these guys and observed then you shouldn’t be doubting them until you have seen the proof.

I'm afraid it is a non sequitur. Observe:

Me:I do not claim anything spiritual. Can you show otherwise?
You: I dont need to show otherwsie as I am not the one claiming I need supporting objective data to believe, you are.

Your reply does not follow from what I said. I stated that I have made no claim regarding spirituality, and challanged your assertion that I have. Then, by way of reply, you talk of testimony and ex-gays. It does not follow.

 

[MrPirate]

Dear Wiccan_child,

Ah but you asked whats the point, the point for us is God’s transforming power in action, whether the desires go or the mind is renewed.
even if you assume you mean, I don’t assume people are heterosexual or homosexual. I understand you might do so and I respect that but don’t say ‘we’ as though it includes me.
Furthermore, as you don’t know the God I know, I wouldn’t expect you to believe what He can do. However the links show you others who know what God can do can

Yet still…no transformation of these “ex-gays”

As to claiming things, Wiccan’s do that as well, Wiccan;s testimony is insufficient for me because there is no supporting data. But I would point out that I don’t doubt the testimonies of those with same-sex attraction who say they haven’t been changed, whereas you seem pro gay biased in whose testimony you wish to believe.

I don’t see Wiccan Child making any sort of claims about being “transformed”

Perhaps you have mistaken his post for someone else’s.

 

[MrPirate]

But I get the impression here that the only people disputing anyone's testimonies are those who either dont believe what God can do or believe same-sex sex is ok.

Or, more likely, those who vale truth over a politically convenient lie.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Wiccan_Child,
Sorry but I havnet got a clue what you are talking about

Me:

I do not claim anything spiritual. Can you show otherwise?

divine communique? Isnt that spiritual?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Dear Wiccan_Child,
Sorry but I havnet got a clue what you are talking about

divine communique? Isnt that spiritual?[/i]

It would help if you sticked to one thread or the other.

To reiterate:

"I'm afraid it is a non sequitur. Observe:

I said: I do not claim anything spiritual. Can you show otherwise?
You replied: I dont need to show otherwsie as I am not the one claiming I need supporting objective data to believe, you are.

Your reply does not follow from what I said. I stated that I have made no claim regarding spirituality, and challanged your assertion that I have. Then, by way of reply, you talk of testimony and ex-gays. It does not follow."

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Wiccan_child,

Your reply does not follow from what I said. I stated that I have made no claim regarding spirituality, and challanged your assertion that I have.

Who are these godesses then if they are not spiritual? I believe therfore you must have made a claim without realising it.
The link to the testimony of ex-gays was your statement that you needed evidence.

 

[MrPirate]

Dear Mr Pirate,
Oh yes indeed, I am reluctant to doubt anyone's testimony,

And when “ex-gays” publicly state that they are and always have been homosexuals…that they never changed and their testimony about changing were not true….do you as eager believe that testimony?

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear MrPirate,
There are testimonies of people who believe they were homosexual and now believe they are heterosexual. I dont doubt them. I dont actually believe people are necessarily heterosexual or homosexual as there is no consensus of proof that there desires are innate, but I do believe their testimony that they believe that.
What I have noticed is pro-gay debaters do seem to reject all testimonies that dont support their positiion, and reject what the Bible plainly says. Therefore on this basis anyone who claims to be a gay Christian rather than just a Christian has already identified themselves as lacking belief in a particualr area, and because of the denail other major aspects of their faith.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Who are these godesses then if they are not spiritual?

The Goddess is a deity, and is spiritual by nature. However, when I said that I had made no spiritual claim, I was referring to this particular thread.

I believe therfore you must have made a claim without realising it.

You are somewhat deliberately confusing two seperate threads.

The link to the testimony of ex-gays was your statement that you needed evidence.

We are discussing the nature of subjective and objective evidence in another thread.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Wiccan_Child,
Ok so you make no spiritual claim when it comes to denyng spiritual testimonies but you do when it comes to what you believe. How very convenient.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Dear Wiccan_Child,
Ok so you make no spiritual claim when it comes to denyng spiritual testimonies but you do when it comes to what you believe. How very convenient.

No. If this is what you still believe after four pages of debate, then I have nothing more to say to you on this thread.

 

[david_x]

Yet Alan Chambers admits he “struggles with same sex desires” indicating that there is no “transformation”…just denial.

Denial?
So if someone is addicted to a drug, not using it is denial? They obviously still have the urge that does not mean that it is part of them.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Denial?
So if someone is addicted to a drug, not using it is denial? They obviously still have the urge that does not mean that it is part of them.

Addiction, and the withdrawl thereof, is an objectively verifiable neurochemical tolerance to a foreign chemical. Homosexuality has been evidenced to stem from one's prenatal neurochemistry.
Think of it this way. If one is a heroine junkie, but pretends that they are not addicted and are not feeling the withdrawl symptoms, are they in denial?

 

[david_x]

Addiction, and the withdrawl thereof, is an objectively verifiable neurochemical tolerance to a foreign chemical. Homosexuality has been evidenced to stem from one's prenatal neurochemistry.
Think of it this way. If one is a heroine junkie, but pretends that they are not addicted and are not feeling the withdrawl symptoms, are they in denial?

They are not in denial, that was kinda my point.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They are not in denial, that was kinda my point.

Wait, are you saying that a herione junkie who does not admit to suffering physical withdrawl symptoms when going cold turkey, is not in denial?

 

[david_x]

Wait, are you saying that a herione junkie who does not admit to suffering physical withdrawl symptoms when going cold turkey, is not in denial?

No an adict who is suffering is not in denial.
parraleling that Someone who has thoughts of lust is not in denial.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No an adict who is suffering is not in denial.

Then we disagree on the definition of denial. How do you define it?

 

[david_x]

Then we disagree on the definition of denial. How do you define it?

It is not a literal meaning of denial. The person I was responding to misconscrewd the meaning and I was throwing it back.