church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays

  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #31
I am not comfortable with equating homosexuality with alcoholism. I do not think the cause is the same. I believe being gay is usually genetic/environmental as opposed to alcoholism which I think in most cases is just a plain addiction.

Secondly, lets just play the what if game. What if gays were the majority and heteros were the minority. Do you think there is anything that could cure you?

If gays were the majority from the start of life, there would be no life to complain about.
I doubt even Conan The Barbarian could make an A$$ baby.

B) xUT
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #32
I don't necessarily agree with their approach, but at the same time, if they can help create an environment where gays are more openly welcomed into more fundamentalist communities of faith, it's probably worthwhile.


I agree with the previous poster who said that fundamentalist will not be openly accepted. That's like the KKK telling me that I can join as a jew as long as I don't do any 'jewish' stuff.

The US is getting tired of having religious zealots in the WH. The religion will motivate folks on both sides.
 
I am not comfortable with equating homosexuality with alcoholism. I do not think the cause is the same. I believe being gay is usually genetic/environmental as opposed to alcoholism which I think in most cases is just a plain addiction.

Secondly, lets just play the what if game. What if gays were the majority and heteros were the minority. Do you think there is anything that could cure you?

First, you first equated homosexuality with alcoholism, not me. That is what brought rise to the question!

Let's go back to my original question, Cosworth: "Would you feel better if the Alaska Convention simply wanted to have attendees abstain from such behavior?"

Rather than "cure" something, would you have a problem if the convention simply attempted to have these individuals stop acting upon any sexual urges? Remember, these are people who, presumably, attend such a conference because they want to abstain from those "urges." This is similar to the AA approach, where those who are successful NEVER say they have been cured, but just want to be able to resist the urge.

I see a significant difference between "cure" and "resist the urge"; that is why I ask your opinion.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #36
And what were the Obot's proclaiming their Obamessiah at the Obamacropolis in Denver a few weeks ago?...

Please....

Every wedge that the mainstream media continues to drive between the silent/redneck majority in the country will be more votes for McCain/Palin.

Every comparison between Palin & Obama just points out how inexperienced the D's #1 pick really is.

So, bring it on. Letting the media flay Palin was one of the best strategic moves I've seen in 25 years of watching politics....


As for the topic at hand..... Cosworth, you were duped in to believing MSM spin.



I don't necessarily agree with their approach, but at the same time, if they can help create an environment where gays are more openly welcomed into more fundamentalist communities of faith, it's probably worthwhile.


And....

To continue on the themes above...

Every inquiry into Palin's church is yet another invitation to start re-examining Rev. Wright. Note that Palin's church isn't sponsoring the event -- they're making people aware of it. Subtle difference to pounding on the pulpit & blaming the Man for unleashing AIDS on the black community....

Please do not interject logic and facts into these discussions or I will have to report you to the moderators... :p

Take Care,
B) xUT
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #39
First, you first equated homosexuality with alcoholism, not me. That is what brought rise to the question!

Let's go back to my original question, Cosworth: "Would you feel better if the Alaska Convention simply wanted to have attendees abstain from such behavior?"

Rather than "cure" something, would you have a problem if the convention simply attempted to have these individuals stop acting upon any sexual urges? Remember, these are people who, presumably, attend such a conference because they want to abstain from those "urges." This is similar to the AA approach, where those who are successful NEVER say they have been cured, but just want to be able to resist the urge.

I see a significant difference between "cure" and "resist the urge"; that is why I ask your opinion.


Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your post.

As to your question I think I would have to say no. I say 'guess' because I have never had an interest in joining any group that did not accept me for who I am and I have no vices that I have any urge to give up. I guess I do not understand the urge to join a group that does not accept you. I do not understand the need to resist that particular urge as I do not see anything wrong with being gay. I suspect that there is a certain amount of self loathing involved and I think i anything they need to be told that they are OK and do not need to abstain from being who they are.

I think I understand the urge to be accepted so perhaps they are willing to sacrifice part of who they are in order to be accepted. I do not believe it my self but I think I understand it.

Having said that, the church is a private group and any homosexuals who feel the need to be part of the are more than welcome to do so. I feel sorry for them but it's a free world.
 
If you're a Christian of any kind, homosexual activity is a sin. Period. So is being a drunk or cheating on your taxes. There are lots of sins. Homosexuality is just one. We're all sinners, period. No one is without sin except for the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't see anything wrong with someone having homosexual relations. God does. That's been made clear. Plenty of people disobey God and they can be saved by Grace, in Jesus' name.
 
If you're a Christian of any kind, homosexual activity is a sin. Period. So is being a drunk or cheating on your taxes. There are lots of sins. Homosexuality is just one. We're all sinners, period. No one is without sin except for the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't see anything wrong with someone having homosexual relations. God does. That's been made clear. Plenty of people disobey God and they can be saved by Grace, in Jesus' name.


You may be right that there is no one without fault or sin, whatever you want to call it but, being attracted to someone of the same sex is not a fault or sin. No more than hetero's being attracted to each other. There are parts of the Bible (IMHO) that I believe were particular to the culture and attitudes of that day. We would not be having this debate if people viewed the bible in not such a literal sense. But this kind of thing is all up to each person to decided. I am admittedly more liberal.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #43
I don't see anything wrong with someone having homosexual relations.

God does.

That's been made clear.


From fringe to nutcase all in a few short posts. :wacko:

So Sad, Too Bad......... :p

B) xUT
 
The Bible is clear on the matter. It's a sin. God designed a body for man-woman relations. Anything else is not in God's vision and is a sin. This is clearly biblical.

I don't think people can help being gay any less than a person can help being a drunk, a liar, or a thief. It's just something that's part of our personalities. Some people are naturally predisposed to certain sinful natures and homosexuality is one of them. It's just another form of lust, if you ask me.
 
Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.â€￾
 

Latest posts

Back
Top