Bmore,

"Clearly this won't work. I posted my ideas, yet people are hell-bent on tearing them apart."

Welcome to the world of internet debate. Don't take it too harshly though, try to find the good points of your opponents arguments, and try to find the garbage. Try to do this on an objective perspective and not from a subjective one. Defend your position, but only as far as it is defensible. And above all, try to remember that many of us (I won't speak for everyone) do love you and care about you, and we are not just trying to tear apart your arguments, but trying to challenge you and represent a "right" view of God and Christianity. By all means challenge us.

" I have a relationship with Christ that I will admit is unique, and it is my own, not to be condemned by anyone else."

Ultimately, this is what it boils down to. The only thing you need to do is be sure of the genuiness of your relationship, and make sure that you truly are following Christ as best as you possibly know how (this does not mean as best as you want, but as best as God has outlined from the Bible, and in your case, from Church tradition). Since you are a Catholic, I would strongly suggest asking your Priest about any issues you have. Also a rigorous study of the Bible is always a good thing.

God Bless,

Chris

Bmore, we're not tearing apart your ideas. We are presenting clear arguements of why they aren't either completely thought out, incomplete and/or biased. When you present an arguement you better be prepared for the other side as well.

As far as your relationship with Christ, it is very true that we need not condemn you for that. Only God knows your true judgement. However, from scripture what understand that God does not like homosexuality and so we are trying to help you reach eternal salvation. If you get in that's awesome, but if not that deeply sadens me because we, through our love for you, tried to help you recieve the greatest gift of all. It's not our fault if you choose to disregard it, afterall it is your choice.

1 Corinthians 3:1-15
But on the judgment day, fire will reveal what kind of work each builder has done. The fire will show if a person’s work has any value. If the work survives, that builder will receive a reward. But if the work is burned up, the builder will suffer great loss. The builder will be saved, but like someone barely escaping through a wall of flames.

Paul shows us here that anyone who is saved can get into heaven. However, you must ask yourself if you are truely saved and if you are the one receiving the reward or the one barely getting through. Personally I would rather do what God wants, as is written in His word, than what I choose to do or by what others interpret is right.

1 Corinthains 1:19
As the Scriptures say, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.”

Clearly this won't work. I posted my ideas, yet people are hell-bent on tearing them apart. I have given well formed ideas, yet people are refusing to see that. If you have a problem with what the APA said, take it up with them. If you have a problem with the Catholic Church, take it up with them. I have a relationship with Christ that I will admit is unique, and it is my own, not to be condemned by anyone else.

FOR SHUCKS: I posted on this earlier. Actually what gays consider unsuiccessful conversion is by all acounts successful It depends on whos defining the term. Exodus recently came under a 4 year study. They follwed 100 participants. here is what they found... 24-30% of those they monitored successfully transitioned into the heterosexual lifestyle... Now granted that is 1 in 4 to 1 in 3... but if I had cancer and the odds of treatment were the same..Id jump at it...

MIlitant gays will label any success rate as a failure if it doesnt encompass a massive success rate of 80, 90 or 100%

Given that the gay community says that they are "born" gay..then what explains a success rate of 24-30%.. ?.. PS both the APA and genome program both state it is more environmental and cognitive.. the genome program says unequivocally that being gay is not genetic...

BmoreTeacher said:
"I find it particularly interesting what they say about homosexuality not being a choice and the lack of evidence for conversion therapy."

Okay but what are the conversion rates of any kind of addict. Drug users go into rehab time and time again. Alcoholics are constantly quiting and then going back. Porn addictions are extremely hard to rid oneself from. Even smokers have a hard enough time quiting their habit.

So please explain to me why you would think that having made up one's mind about their orientation would be any easier to stop? Those that are addicted have a hard time quitting regardless! I can't remember the scripture off-hand, if someone else does please post it, but the bible tells that anything put before God is a sin. In other words, anything that you crave more than Him is a sin; anything that you would put first before God is a sin. Addiction is one of those things, you have to have it. Instead we should replace that with having to have God and after a while the addiction will leave us because our focus is on something greater.

The reason why most of these conversion therapy schools don't work is because the person there is more interested in satisfying his or her own needs than filling that gap with God. Once that person finally realizes that and focuses on Him he or she can finally repent their sin.

So I ask again, what are the conversion rates for homosexuality compared to those of alcoholism, porn addiction, smoking, and drug use? I bet you'll see a close resemblance!

NARTH reported on March 8, 2007:

Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA research, concluded that "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits." However, he adds, "for virtually none of them, is heredity ever close to predictive."

In reviewing the heritability (i.e., influence of genetic factors) on personality traits, Dr. Collins referenced the research of Bochard and McGue for the estimated percentage of these traits that can be ascribed to heredity.

The heritability estimates for personality traits were varied: General Cognitive Ability (50%), Extroversion (54%), Agreeableness (42%), Conscientiousness (49%), Neuroticism (48%), Openness (57%), Aggression (38%) and Traditionalism (54%).

with identical twins, that heritability is not to be confused as inevitability.
As Dr. Collins would agree, environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present.

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation;
* Theories are not facts


most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of
* Science doesnt rely on consensus.. Consensus is the opposite of scientific fact

a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive
* Environmental and Cognitive are the 2 primary suspected causes.
*Cognitive means the ability to be aware and choose

and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.
* Disavowed by the Genome 2007 Study
* Homosexuality is not hardwired," concludes head of the Human Genome Project...


In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation
* They don't know

and the reasons may be different for different people.
* They really dont know

Finally in all this, the report from the APA makes the statement that given everything they dont know, but suspect its both environmental and cogntivie that orientation is not a choice...

It is a ludicrous and arrogant statment given what they think the causes of.

FInally..I have said exactly what the APA said.. it is determined primarily by environment and choice.

ifeelfine,

You are willfully ignoring my posts.

"You are actually changing doctrine so as to believe the Bible is inerrent."

Where and how? You clearly have disregarded my entire argument.

"Thus, you don't take the Bible literally."

Well considering I do not do that, I suppose your "if then" statement is wrong. I have never said that the versuses discussing slavery are wrong, innaccurate, or for any other reason should not be there. Again, this is being willfully ignorant (no offense).

"I do that as well, Bmore does that too and he did that. He believes that those scriptures (as do I) are interpretted incorrectly by many Christians."

This is not what Bmore said, Bmore said that some passages in the Bible are innaccurate. You seem to be only hearing what you want to hear.

"I've stated many times how that is so and how the Bible is inerrent (but not literal)."

I have never heard you say the Bible is inerrant, but I will take your word for it. In any case, if the Bible is inerrant, but only with the right interpretation, which just so happens to contradict a great deal of what the Bible says, then the Bible is not inerrant, rather some "interpretation" is. Are you infallible? If not, then you are going to have to provide biblical support for why the Bible does not mean what it says. Regarding 1) Slavery and 2) Homosexuality. (The two are not in the same category either)

"Prove it isn't so."

Go back and read my posts. And you prove it is.

Bmore,

You said, "Catholicism claims they have the ultimate Truth about the passage "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you." For Catholics, there is no other question or interpretation, despite the fact you may claim there is."

But you are not mentioning that the RCC claims itself as the sole "definer" of what the absolute truth is, in regard to spiritual manners. They are not going on a Sola Scripture argument, they are going on a, "My interpretation only" argument. If you claim divine infallibility for yourself, then you can start comparing yourself to the RCC.

"I think that is the same viewpoint as what I have."

So you are claiming infallibility?

"There most certainly are interpretations, for each and every Bible verse you claim condemns homosexuality, that refute what you are saying."

Please provide versus.

"You claim this is wrong with as much fury as a Catholic would about the Eucharist. Who is to say you have the Truth and I don't, or that I have the Truth and you don't?"

The law of contradiction. Either you have the truth and I don't, or I do and you don't. It is literally impossible that we both do. Also, the RCC claims they have the fullness of truth and Protestants don't.

"Fact of the matter is, if you believe something in the Bible that strongly, that is great for you, but there will always be people who feel you are wrong."

Can you please provide the argument for why you feel I am wrong? "Bmore says so" is not an argument, unfortunately. (Unless you are going to claim that infallibility)

"I am not calling you a sinner for not believing in the Eucharist in the same way I do. If you are wrong, it is not for me to judge you."

Strange, because the RCC does claim it is a sin not to take part in the Eucharist, within the Catholic Church. I think you are just picking and choosing what you believe on a personal basis.

"Truth is something that no one will have in its entirety until we are standing before Jesus."

I would doubt that we would have truth in its entirety even then, if we did we would have to be God. Nonetheless, even if the answer is not clear (but it is) that still doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and say, "All is lost, just believe what you want to believe and do what you want to do!" To do so is "spiritually suicidal" at best.

BALMORE POST:

The reason young men and women are promiscuous is because they have a shattered image. Girls have objectified and in todays MYV culture and men like Bill CLinton who made oral sex something of an acceptable practice is why the STD rate is up.

God doesnt make junk and young people are no longer connected to their truly divine image. As for your other statments.. you blame everyone else in society for your behavior.. notice I didnt say orientation.. I said your acting out what as a Christian you should be putting off.

Okay Passages in John:

Passage John 14:26:
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

assage John 16:13:
13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Balmore how old are you? Neither of these passages have anything to do with homosexual behavior... I feel pity for you..

Let me say something... Given what you shared and all things being equal, if you came from a traditional family environment and can not find any environmental reason for your orientation then I can understand your frustration and anger..... but I will say this... and I do so with compassion..... there are "deviancies" in every species... but I would also challange you with this...

What Satan intends for evil God can use for good.. so hypothetically.. let's say Satan had a role in your orientation.... what if that is true because God has an even greater and higher purpose for your life but that by keeping you distracted through your orientation he renders you unable to be effectively used by God to your full potential?

Here is my challange for you... allow yourself to be sanctified for 60 days. In those 2 months allow God to direct you towards an effective ministry while remaining pure in thought and deed... see what happens

Chris333 said: "I have constantly explained my stance on slavery, without denying a single word in the Bible. Bmore both denied what was written in the Bible, claiming it is innaccurate, and then tried to make an argument based on the Bible. Thus undermining his argument."

You are actually changing doctrine so as to believe the Bible is inerrent. Thus, you don't take the Bible literally. I do that as well, Bmore does that too and he did that. He believes that those scriptures (as do I) are interpretted incorrectly by many Christians. I've stated many times how that is so and how the Bible is inerrent (but not literal). Prove it isn't so.

BmoreTeacher

Do you really care about what God's view is about homosexuality, the Eucharist, and other issues? Or do you only care about what man says God's Word teaches?

Jesus said that if your will is to do the will of God, then you will know whether the doctrine that is taught is of man or of God. (John 7:17).

Do you really want to know what God's position is on homosexuality, the Eucharist, abortion, and etc? If you do, then go to God and allow Him to teach you truth (John 14:26) and to guide you into it (John 16:13).

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

This is where I get many of my views from Jar. Being a teacher, I don't have the time to go into each and every study, but you seem to have plenty of free time, so why don't you look into that. I find it particularly interesting what they say about homosexuality not being a choice and the lack of evidence for conversion therapy.

Someone responded to my question about the Eucharist, but I'm still not sure it was answered completely. Catholicism claims they have the ultimate Truth about the passage "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you." For Catholics, there is no other question or interpretation, despite the fact you may claim there is. I think that is the same viewpoint as what I have. There most certainly are interpretations, for each and every Bible verse you claim condemns homosexuality, that refute what you are saying. You claim this is wrong with as much fury as a Catholic would about the Eucharist. Who is to say you have the Truth and I don't, or that I have the Truth and you don't? Fact of the matter is, if you believe something in the Bible that strongly, that is great for you, but there will always be people who feel you are wrong. I am not calling you a sinner for not believing in the Eucharist in the same way I do. If you are wrong, it is not for me to judge you. Many people on here, in particular Jar, have been bashing gays up and down, and I take that very personally. It is not your place to condemn me, and while I am not saying everyone on here has been (Chris, I appreciate your willingness to dialogue) I feel like Jar just doesn't want to here it. If you don't, thats fine, but you do not have the right to attack my views and tell me I am flat out wrong, because Truth is something that no one will have in its entirety until we are standing before Jesus.

Jar, you do not post those for good, you post those for a very specific attack on me, which is in no way Christian. OK, so lets say (for the sake of you not whining) that what you have found is true. Because some gay couples have domestic violence or HIV, my relationship needs to be defined by them? Just being gay does not make you more likely to be a batterer. I think you take that information and don't think about why it is so. People who are violent have had past issues in their lives, such as being abused or witnessing it themselves. It as about power. I have grown up in a very healthy, normal household with my older brother, younger brother, younger sister, and both my parents. My mom was a stay at home mom, my dad enjoyed a good job close to home which allowed him to come to all my baseball games and swim meets, as well as practice with me on the weekends. By all accounts, I am a very normal person who happens to be gay, which is quite inexplicable. I do not see why Jar is so intent on making the entire homosexual community look bad just because of statistics without thinking why they are so. Gays are marginalized, and often face hatred and abuse by people outside of the community. I would suspect the rates of abuse are so high because that is their way of reclaiming power. Jar, did you see the articles that say 1 in 4 teenage girls now have an STD? That has nothing to do with the gay community. Yes, gays tend to be more promiscuous, but they learn that from watching mainstream society stereotype them. Luckily, my parents told me that just because I was gay didn't mean I should become promiscuous or play into the stereotype, and that support has kept me safe and clean, and now I am in a committed relationship.

CHRIS... I wish you God Speed. Baltimore is a professed homosexual public school teacher who is adopting a child. I agree with what you say again. I think a good starting point is point to John 1.. that Gods Word is infallible and inerrant. This is the crux of the entire discussion. If Christians dont agree on John 1 then false theologies and beliefs are always the result.. because it gives man the ability to pick truths from a menu.

Anyway.... BALMORE never gives specific citations.. he just throws out propaganda and never backs it up... so in order to have a civil discussion requires addressing all false hoods spiritual or secular..because the secular is a reflection of Gods word.. it documents clearly the consequences for sin..... so it glorifies His Truth.. that's why I use the CDC and DOJ reports

jar,

I understand your position and am in agreement with you, however, I am also willing to give Bmore a chance to defend his position.

"Chris I appreciate your desire to have a civil conversation with this man, but not at the cost of both denying what is common knowledge and not without challanging him to present the truth."

I did not deny what was common knowledge, I only gave Bmore the chance to present his case. I am fully aware of the CDC and other reports, however, I also know that this ultimately does not come down to what a secular organization says, it comes down to what God says. Thus the debate will be focused mostly on that, unless you want to make a secular argument. Also, I have challenged Bmore to give his "input" and defend his position. I have been thorough in noting the wholes in his arguments thus far. If at all possible I would rather have a strong but caring discussion, than an emotionally charged and irrational one.

with homosexuality, we have a scientific answer about the roots of homosexuality to back up my side of it."

CHRIS: This very well may be true, I am not a scientist so I will not comment too far on this (assuming you are). But either way, the Bible is clear. Science is not dealing with the heart of man and his relationship with God, the Bible is.


Chris I appreciate your desire to have a civil conversation with this man, but not at the cost of both denying what is common knowledge and not without challanging him to present the truth.

I have posted studies from the Dept of Justice showing the statistical facts on gay domestic violence which Bmore has at least 7 times deleted cause he didnt like the truth.

Then I posted the reports from the CDC showing the truth about those groups most affected by HIV and that was deleted as well

This guy makes up stuff hoping no one will check his lies.

BaltTeach is a teacher not a scientist. Challange him.. Okay Bmore teacher show us the scientifc proof. As far as I know the discoverer of the genome has gone on record as saying there is absolutely no identified gene related to being born at birht as a homosexual. They hgave tried now for 10 years to find one ands there isnt one.

The other flaw in his armor is that in Baptism we are called to die to the old man and put on the new. To pouut off the off man in our old ways. SO even if being homosexual is something he claims to be born with, then he is denying the power of the HOly SPirit to transform.

This was one of my posts that he deleted cause he didnt want to deal with it.

Bmore,

"If you choose to support one side or the other about the Eucharist being an essential aspect of following Christ, why can't I do the same for homosexuality?"

You can, the question is if it is practical to do so, or even possible (without tearing out some parts of the Bible). Regarding Eucharist there are two arguments, one based on the Bible, which is not clear, and the words "Do this in remembrance of Me" which would point towards symbolism. The other side is based on a tradition which has more or less always said it was real. With homosexuality, it is clearly called an abomination in the Old Testament, and in several places in the New is referred to as sinful. Despite some protests that that is only an "abuse homosexual relationship" there is very little support for this, in the text. Why wouldn't the Bible simply condemn all abusive relationships? Why single out homosexual relationships? Surely there is often abuse in both kinds of relationship.

"To me, we're comparing apples to apples"

Not exactly, nobody is trying to argue that taking the Eucharist is a sin, they are just debating the meaning of it.

"with homosexuality, we have a scientific answer about the roots of homosexuality to back up my side of it."

This very well may be true, I am not a scientist so I will not comment too far on this (assuming you are). But either way, the Bible is clear. Science is not dealing with the heart of man and his relationship with God, the Bible is.

"I truly don't understand the condemnations, they seem to completely ignore modern science and refuse to hear any dialogue from my point of view and life experience."

I won't speak for others, but I do not believe I ever "condemned" you, I try to leave that kind of judgment for God. Nonetheless, I will tell you what the Bible says, and my perspective, if you care to dialogue. And, while I do not want to discount your experience, or any science that possibly backs your argument up, we really need to deal with what the Bible says. I am not trying to say that you are not happy, or anything like that, I am trying to give you the best advice I can, while also defending my perspective.

" Any input I may offer is simply dismissed as me being a sinner refusing to turn from my ways."

I have done no such thing, rather it seems you haven't given much input, but where you have, I have addressed it. It seems you are assuming that I am going to condemn you before you speak. I am willing to dialogue about this, so long as we can keep a decent conversation and not devolve into name calling and mudslinging. I thank you for your civil post.

God Bless you, both ifeelfine and Bmore

Chris, the reason I brought that up is because there are arguments, which are legitimate, about homosexuality in the Bible that could go either way. If you choose to support one side or the other about the Eucharist being an essential aspect of following Christ, why can't I do the same for homosexuality? To me, we're comparing apples to apples, and with homosexuality, we have a scientific answer about the roots of homosexuality to back up my side of it. I truly don't understand the condemnations, they seem to completely ignore modern science and refuse to hear any dialogue from my point of view and life experience. Any input I may offer is simply dismissed as me being a sinner refusing to turn from my ways.