B
bluelake
Guest
See Ps.139;13-16
God doesn’t make junk.
God gives us the choice to choose .We don’t always make the right choices.
We must repent everyday, because we sin everyday.
God bless you,
bluelake
- Status
God doesn’t make junk.
God gives us the choice to choose .We don’t always make the right choices.
We must repent everyday, because we sin everyday.
God bless you,
bluelake
B
bluelake
Guest
B
bluelake
Guest
Homosexuality isn’t a disorder, it’s a sin.
See 1Cor.6:9-11-13 and 6;9-11
We must stop looking for excuses to justify our sins. The Lord calls us all to repentance.
God bless,
bluelake
We are to pick up our cross and walk worthy according to his word.
C
Captain_America
Guest
Mere assertion; more than that, an argument ad hominem. Prove NARTH is wrong using real life facts.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
You should have gone to the source. Here is a portion of Bradlee Dean’s refutation of the incorrect news that you posted:
Affirming our Stance on Homosexuality
…
On May 25, 2010 The Minnesota Independent published an article interpreting statements that I made on the radio, some of which clearly warned homosexuals that their life-style is sinful before God, as we warn all unrepentant sinners of every stripe that their sin problem has consequences for them and our society. All sinners, without the sacrifice of Christ, and without the acceptance of that sacrifice, are doomed to eternal separation from God.
This is the last thing in the world we want happening to anyone, including homosexuals. When you love someone, you are willing to wrestle with them, as we wrestle with our children because we love them. We are not apathetic, not lazy about those whom we love. Both Jake and I were so very close to our own eternal separation from God and came to understand so vividly what an empty and frightening prospect that was, that we are sincerely petrified for anyone headed in that direction. We are sinners who have been liberated by Christ. And we want all sinners to be liberated by Christ. This process can only start when we admit in the first place that we are wrong. We are in a sinful condition.
Let me make this perfectly clear – again. We are opposed to the state, in any country, no matter what its religious tradition, in executing homosexuals. We are against anyone, anywhere, at any time, who executes homosexuals for being homosexual. We want to preach the Gospel to them, whatever may be the cost, to prevent that from ever happening. As it says in 2 Peter 3:9, we are “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” Therefore, we speak the truth in love!
The gay “movement” is part of a sexual revolution that has stripped sexuality of all moral significance for an entire generation. We cannot accept the physical prosecution of homosexuals and we cannot accept the proposal that homosexuality is either private or moral. Therefore, as Christians, we must wrestle with this human sin in order to preserve healthy, loving human sexuality for as many as possible. We must love the homosexual and preach to him. God must and will do the rest. We are content with our role.
We are not authoritarian because we do not believe that persecution is going help homosexuals.
But preaching is not persecution. The notion, promoted by liberals, that preaching – freedom of speech – is a form of coercion, is madness, and proves that the modern liberal, so often identical with the modern journalist, does not care about keeping people free – including homosexuals. When is the gay community going to wise up to the fact that it is nothing but a political opportunity to the liberals? Most liberals do not care about homosexuals. They care only for the political strategy they can build around the gay community; a strategy directed at reducing the influence of Christianity on government generally. It is nothing but a will to power, not a will to health and well being for real people.
Using an excerpt from our radio show, taken out of context, to suggest that I have called for the execution of homosexuals is not accurate, nor is it correct. I was not affirming Islamic law. I was contrasting its excesses with the approach of Christianity which recognizes both the law and grace. I have never said that homosexuals should be subject to any kind of violence. I oppose exercising any kind of violence on them.
I preach what my faith tells me to preach – out of authentic love and commitment to the eternal souls of each and every sinner. The media has twisted my remarks so irresponsibly, without calling me for correction or comment, as any competent journalist would have done. Given this statement, it is clear that if any media source were to slander this ministry’s position, we will have to take action and will be likely to succeed with it. It is time for the drive by media to start dealing honestly with dissent.
…
Bradlee Dean
President and CEO
You Can Run International, Inc.
.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
You did a “data dump” on us in this post and all of your 21 posts are geared towards convincing people in this forum that homosexual sex is normal, supporting the positions being advanced by activist homosexuals. And then you indicated your disdain for NARTH as a source of information on homosexuality. Nice try.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those following this thread, below is the collection of links of various studies by scientists, researchers, and specialists challenging the “Born That Way” theory. Everything that you raised is addressed in one or more in the list of studies as titled.
narth.com/menus/born.html
“Born that way” theory
Homosexuality 101: What Every Therapist, Parent, And Homosexual Should Know
Link: Radio Interview With Dr. Stanton Jones – September 27, 2007
Study Seeks To Discover Genetic Origin Of Homosexuality
Link: Can You Change Your Sexual Orientation? By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.
Link: Gay By Choice? The Science of Sexual Identity
Myths And Misconceptions About Behavioral Genetics And Homosexuality
Link: Same-Sex Behavior in the Animal Kingdom
What Do First Stages Of SSA Or OSA Tell Us About Their Origin?
Facts, Not flattery, About Same-Sex Attraction
“Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired,” Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project
The Role Of Free Agency In Sexual Identity Development
2002 Study Shows The Importance Of Social Factors, Cannot Detect Genetic Factors In SSA
Link: Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction
Media Campaign In Colorado Waged Over ‘Born Gay’ Theory
Anthony Bogaert (& Friends) Grasping At A Straw
Link: Biological Research On SSA: Is SSA An Abnormality Or A Part Of Human Design?
Canadian Psychiatrist Finds Major Flaws In Anthony Bogaert’s Study Of Gay Brothers
Individuals With Unwanted Same-Sex Attractions Find Help From Ohio Ministry
NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee Responds to Scientist Who Sees a Possible ‘Gay Gene’
The Human Embryo’s Sex Differentiation: Why Do Men Have Nipples? A Book Review by Louis Berman, Ph.D.
Homosexuality: The Essentialist Argument Continues to Erode
How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together
Two Major Papers Run Features On Sexual Orientation And Reorientation Therapy
‘Gay’ Ram Claims Questioned By NARTH Leader
Link: Dr. Throckmorton Interview On CNN
Link: Q & A Concerning the March 2005 Human Genetics study concerning sexual orientation in men
Latest Gay Brain Study Scrutinized
Study of Male Triplets Lends Support to Neurohormonal Theory of Sexual Orientation, Say Psychologists
NARTH Advisory Board Member Notes Flaws In Italian Study On Mothers Of Homosexuals
Italian Researchers Believe That Genetic Factors May Increase Fertility In Mothers Of Gay Males
The Animal Homosexuality Myth
Governor Howard Dean Misunderstands Origins Of Homosexual Behavior
Newswriters Represent New Study As Proof Of Biological Basis Of Homosexuality
Health Writer Says Study Shows a Biological Cause for Homosexuality
“Gay Sheep” Study Offers Intriguing Prenatal Hormonal Link
New Evidence for Biological Influence on Gender
The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science
Is There a “Gay Gene”?
The Importance of Twin Studies
New Ex-Gay Website
Is There a Link Between Left-Handedness and Homosexuality?
The New Finger-Length Study on Lesbians
The Biological Research on Homosexuality
The Fading “Gay Gene”
Is Sexual Orientation Fixed at Birth?
Can Prenatal Hormone Exposure Influence Gender-Identity Development? – One Theory
Peace.
P
PerfectTiming
Guest
So the solution is always answer threats and violence with the same? That’s ridiculous. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
L
larkin31
Guest
Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is very likely the result of a combination of genetics, embryonic hormonal conditions, and social conditioning. To call this complicated nexus being “born this way” or, on the other side, to dismiss the nexus as “entirely a choice” is in both cases to err in oversimplification.
T
TAU_Wolf_2011
Guest
J
Jaymax
Guest
It would take too long to go through every page on their website and show the misrepresentation of studies, false claims etc because there are so many. The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and many scientists whose studies they misrepresented have already proven them “wrong”. No mainstream health professional or scientist takes them seriously.
J
Jaymax
Guest
You can’t be serious.
J
Jaymax
Guest
Please read Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity -
Bruce Bagemihl
amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398
J
Jaymax
Guest
Here’s a clue. Every study I linked to was published in reputable peer-reviewed science Journals. NARTH have never published in any peer reviewed journals/ They had to self publish in their own non-peer reviewed journal - which only had 2 volumes. Narth cleverly write lots of articals and use what looks like impressive bibliographies…however if you read the actual studies they cite (and most people probably don’t) you will see how they have misrepresented the studies. Quite a number of scientists have protested the misuse of their studies by Narth,
My post wasn’t a data- dump from a propaganda website like yours is. They were links to indexes of studies in peer-reviewed journals. I have read every one of those studies and many more.
No major health organization or reputable scientist takes NARTH seriously.
Try and find a “study” of theirs in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.
They are a small fringe bunch of conservative “practitioners” who are opposed to homosexulity for religious reasons and promote “reparative” therapy which every major health organization warns against as being ineffective, unethical and harmful…
They have around 160 something clinical members. The American Psychiatric Association, the Americal Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association etc have over 480,000 clinical members - and are all opposed to Narth’s religiously bigoted, scientifically unsupported “ideas” about homosexuality.
You do the math.
P
PerfectTiming
Guest
Numbers and popular consensus don’t make you right. Throughout history there have been numerous examples of where the brightest scientific minds of the time turned out to be wrong. We are without a doubt limited by the technology and socio-political influences of our time, just as those in history were.
J
Jaymax
Guest
Oh good grief. These people have been pumping the same old nonsense for years. Their ideas are based on flawed Freudian models from almost 100 years ago. Their articles are full of flaws. They CLEARLY misrepresent the work of reputable scientists if you take the time to read their sources. They have NO peer-reviewed studies of their own.
Here’s another clue, NARTH does not even have a code of ethics - unlike the major health organizations. A person does not even have to be quailifed to join NARTH - you just have to agree with their agenda.
Heakth Organizations of over 480,000 clinical professionals didn’t just pull their statements out of thin air. The statements are based on years of empirical data. Unlike NARTH.
L
larkin31
Guest
And, furthermore, they do not speak for the CC.
I don’t even read NARTH materials anymore (I did, a year ago, when I joined CA).
P
PerfectTiming
Guest
Um, I wasn’t talking about NARTH at all. I know little about them and I was not the one promoting them. So actually pay attention to who you’re responding to. I was making a completely separate point unrelated to NARTH or any other institute.
L
larkin31
Guest
I’ll repeat
J
Jaymax
Guest
Um, you responded to a post of mine where I was responding to another poster’s comments about NARTH…
My apologies for assuming you were talking about the point of my post.
However, I agree with you that some of the brightest minds have been proven to be wrong. For a true scientist, being proven wrong has almost as much honour as being proven right, as it advances scientific knowledge.
On the other hand some of the brightest minds have been proven right - Galileo for one. It took the Vatican over 350 years to apologise to Galileo. He was luckier than Giordano Bruno who was burnt to death for heresy.
4thefirsttime.blogspot.com/2007/09/1992-catholic-church-apologizes-to.html
beliefnet.com/News/2000/03/The-Vaticans-Turn-To-Recant.aspx
As for yuor comment about numbers and consensus not necessarily making something right, that’s true. However when you have more than 480,000 professionally qualified health professionals as well as many scientists with expertise in this field of study basing their consensus on scientific evidence, as opposed to a very small number of people who have a clear religious agenda; whose ideas have been disproven for many years; who have not been able to come up with any credible scientific evidence to support their ideas and who have a history of misrepresenting the data of reputable scientists…well…what can I say?
- Status