Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If one is "born gay" how do you explain ex-gays?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trump Gurl View Post
    Okay, last post for me: The only reason I posted in this thread is because the term "ex gay" was being talked about, and I tried to say that since same sex attraction is a mental disorder there can be no such thing as an "ex gay".

    But now all these wannabe Bible experts are trying to tell me nonsense about the Bible, and I decided to look through some of your older posts and I can say confidently that you don't know jack about the Bible, either one of you. It's lit man.

    So there you go. I'm chillaxin at home and don't feel like arguing. Believe what you want to.
    Interpretation: "Nobody's agreeing with me. I'm taking my ball and going home."

    The problem is that you jumped into the conversation without any sort of reference, evidence, support or anything else except "it's true because I say it's true", and "if you don't agree with me your either drunk, stupid, or childish".

    Why would anyone listen to you? Do you want to offer credentials or references or something that explains why what you say can be believed/trusted? Without that, you're just another idiot writing in a forum loaded with idiots who are trying to foist your opinion off as gospel truth.

    The whole point of Theology Online is to discuss Christian beliefs, compared either to other religions or to science or to atheism or even to different sects of Christianity. But comparison means finding the truth among lies. Stating something over and over again, stating something with capital letters, stating something with an insult attached--none of these are authoritative, and they make you look like a fool trying to look smart and failing badly.

    Don't just take your ball and go home. Learn to converse with people politely; learn to offer your opinion as opinion instead of fact; learn to offer evidence to back up your opinion. Or just show us that you are God, since offering your opinion without some other kind of support is claiming to be THE authority on the subject.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by eider View Post
      I was asserting that some Christians that know do not answer to the Mosaic Laws.
      I am not sure what you mean by this answer, so I will say, the Mosaic law was for the Jew, not the Greek or Gentile if you will. The Mosaic law was fulfilled upon the life, death, & resurrection of Jesus Christ, the new covenant was struck. Though the law will never pass away, it is there to show us our inability to follow it, and that the release from the burden of sin is through the redemption of Christ's sacrifice for salvation. Again I am asking you if you are asserting that those that belong to the Body of Christ are "required" to follow the Mosaic law?

      Originally posted by eider View Post
      So you would not like to live in Pastor Enyart's kind of American Constitution then, is that right?
      I am not aware of Pastor Enyart's stance on the American Constitution so, it would be unfair for me to comment on it.

      Originally posted by eider View Post
      And although you are above the Law you keep to Laws mostly laid down by Paul, is that right?
      Above the Law? Hardly...Set free from it's burden of sin & death by the blood of Christ would be a more accurate description, which is the exactly what is described in the New Testament.


      Romans 8:1 Consequently, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what was impossible for the law, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did. By[a] sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the requirement of the law would be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.



      Originally posted by eider View Post
      Does the above mean that it's OK for same sex couples to live in peace, and be left alone in peace?
      I believe that homosexuality & sexual immorality has been around since the fall of mankind, just as an entire laundry list of humankind's sin has existed, I do not approve of it yet, I do not believe hostility towards those who are mired in their sin is helpful to sharing the Gospel that can set them free from their sinful condition. People need to see redemption from sin, not condemnation from those that claim to be ambassadors for Jesus Christ so... Acceptance...NO...Understanding...Yes. I think that the open acceptance of this lifestyle on a societal level is detrimental to society as a whole, and that used to be the normal reaction but, society has been, and is in moral decline, a lot of things have been normalized in the process, this decline will continue until the 2nd advent of Christ. this is not an acceptance, just an understanding of how Gods Word conveys what the eventual ending to this story is.
      The winner of the 2011 Truthsmacker of the Year Award

      http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...pictureid=3504


      Help Take Back Our Country from Washington D.C.. with the Convention of States

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rocketman View Post
        I am not aware of Pastor Enyart's stance on the American Constitution so, it would be unfair for me to comment on it.
        See https://kgov.com/constitution.

        I believe that homosexuality & sexual immorality has been around since the fall of mankind, just as an entire laundry list of humankind's sin has existed, I do not approve of it yet, I do not believe hostility towards those who are mired in their sin is helpful to sharing the Gospel that can set them free from their sinful condition. People need to see redemption from sin, not condemnation from those that claim to be ambassadors for Jesus Christ so... Acceptance...NO...Understanding...Yes. I think that the open acceptance of this lifestyle on a societal level is detrimental to society as a whole, and that used to be the normal reaction but, society has been, and is in moral decline, a lot of things have been normalized in the process, this decline will continue until the 2nd advent of Christ. this is not an acceptance, just an understanding of how Gods Word conveys what the eventual ending to this story is.
        See https://kgov.com/homo.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
          If you have something to say than say it JudgeRightly, this site is for dialog not link dropping...or at least it used to be.
          The winner of the 2011 Truthsmacker of the Year Award

          http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...pictureid=3504


          Help Take Back Our Country from Washington D.C.. with the Convention of States

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rocketman View Post

            If you have something to say than say it JudgeRightly, this site is for dialog not link dropping...or at least it used to be.
            You do realize, do you not, first of all, that I'm a moderator and am well aware of the rules, and second of all, that TOL and Kgov are now run by the same people, right? Which means that the rule about link dropping (which is against links to other FORUMS, so it doesn't apply anyways) does not apply.

            For the first link, you said you were not aware of what Pastor Enyart thought of America's constitution. The link I posted, had you just clicked on it, was to correct your assumption that eider was talking about America's CURRENT constitution, to that eider was talking about Bob's PROPOSED constitution of America, which can be found at said link.

            The the second link, again, had you just clicked on it, would have directed you to Kgov's response to the homo claims of "we just want to be left alone," which argument is the same one eider just made.

            I was trying to help you out. So please, don't shoot the messenger.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rocketman View Post

              I am not sure what you mean by this answer, so I will say, the Mosaic law was for the Jew, not the Greek or Gentile if you will. The Mosaic law was fulfilled upon the life, death, & resurrection of Jesus Christ, the new covenant was struck. Though the law will never pass away, it is there to show us our inability to follow it, and that the release from the burden of sin is through the redemption of Christ's sacrifice for salvation. Again I am asking you if you are asserting that those that belong to the Body of Christ are "required" to follow the Mosaic law?
              Which part of 'I know Christians whop tell me that they do not follow the Mosaic KLaws' did you not get?
              You would need to ask them any questions about that, surely?

              I am not aware of Pastor Enyart's stance on the American Constitution so, it would be unfair for me to comment ...... on it.
              It's the very first thread in the Politics section.
              Read up on it.


              Above the Law? Hardly...Set free from it's burden of sin & death by the blood of Christ would be a more accurate description, which is the exactly what is described in the New Testament.


              Romans 8:1 Consequently, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what was impossible for the law, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did. By[a] sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the requirement of the law would be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
              Ah......... Yes ........... Paul has written about following Jesus the Christ.
              But I studied as much of the life (and times) of Jesus as I could and never read about that from him.
              I acknowledge your belief....... fair enough?


              I believe that homosexuality & sexual immorality has been around since the fall of mankind, just as an entire laundry list of humankind's sin has existed, I do not approve of it yet, I do not believe hostility towards those who are mired in their sin is helpful to sharing the Gospel that can set them free from their sinful condition. People need to see redemption from sin, not condemnation from those that claim to be ambassadors for Jesus Christ so... Acceptance...NO...Understanding...Yes. I think that the open acceptance of this lifestyle on a societal level is detrimental to society as a whole, and that used to be the normal reaction but, society has been, and is in moral decline, a lot of things have been normalized in the process, this decline will continue until the 2nd advent of Christ. this is not an acceptance, just an understanding of how Gods Word conveys what the eventual ending to this story is.
              I believe that sexual drives have varied in humans since the start, but as long as those who are prejudiced against LGBT lifestyles keep their beliefs and opinions to themselves, then, no problem. But if or when minority groups become harassed, victimsed or subdued by self-righteousness in any way, then all of a community should rise up to bring law-and-order to any such attacks.

              For me, the one condition which shows how different our sexuality can be is 'Asexuality' and I have known a few asexual men and women in my lifetime...... who clearly do not fit with heterosexual characteristics. If folks can accept that condition, then they can accept the rest, as far as I am concerned.

              The Churches which now support LGBT followers and their lifestyles are now are in full view here (UK) but the more extreme churches seem to be falling away. Maybe that's God's will?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by eider View Post
                I believe that sexual drives have varied in humans since the start, but as long as those who are prejudiced against LGBT lifestyles keep their beliefs and opinions to themselves, then, no problem.
                Why do those who disagree with LGBT lifestyles have to be the ones to keep their beliefs and opinions to themselves, if LGBTs are allowed to offer their own beliefs and opinions?

                Going back to the murder comparison, that's like saying murderers are allowed to give their opinion about murder, but those who disagree are forbidden from discussing it. That's what happens in a society where right has already been chosen, and is never allowed to change. You're arguing against yourself again, eider, since you go for the morality by majority model.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Derf View Post
                  Why do those who disagree with LGBT lifestyles have to be the ones to keep their beliefs and opinions to themselves, if LGBTs are allowed to offer their own beliefs and opinions?
                  Because there would be no need for the latter if the former would simply tend to their own biz (glass house).

                  See how that works?
                  _/\_

                  Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by quip View Post

                    Because there would be no need for the latter if the former would simply tend to their own biz (glass house).

                    See how that works?
                    That's an opinion. My opinion is that there IS a need, and that it IS tending to my own biz. You're in the same glass house, quip.

                    And determining whose opinion should hold sway is the exact same moral dilemma you and eider are trying to prevent anti-LGBTs, if you'll allow the term, from joining the discussion.

                    Again, if you say anyone who is against murder is NOT allowed to voice their opinion about whether murder should be legal, murder will become legal, because murderers will have the final (and only) say.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Derf View Post

                      And determining whose opinion should hold sway is the exact same moral dilemma you and eider are trying to prevent anti-LGBTs, if you'll allow the term, from joining the discussion.
                      Oh, we would support anybody's rights to free expression and opinion, so long as it does not incite crime, harassment, victimization, fears etc.
                      Shout your mouth off.....if you must.

                      Again, if you say anyone who is against murder is NOT allowed to voice their opinion about whether murder should be legal, murder will become legal, because murderers will have the final (and only) say.
                      You cannot help it, it seems. Why is it that Anti-LGBTs (your name for yourself) construe sexuality beside murder, or pedophilia? So extreme....

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by eider View Post
                        Oh, we would support anybody's rights to free expression and opinion, so long as it does not incite crime, harassment, victimization, fears etc.
                        Shout your mouth off.....if you must.


                        You cannot help it, it seems. Why is it that Anti-LGBTs (your name for yourself) construe sexuality beside murder, or pedophilia? So extreme....
                        It's really quite simple and easy to understand, eider

                        Homosexuality is a disordered condition, same as abortion, rape, divorce, adultery, etc

                        Including murder and pedophilia



                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Derf View Post

                          That's an opinion. My opinion is that there IS a need, and that it IS tending to my own biz. You're in the same glass house, quip.

                          And determining whose opinion should hold sway is the exact same moral dilemma you and eider are trying to prevent anti-LGBTs, if you'll allow the term, from joining the discussion.

                          Again, if you say anyone who is against murder is NOT allowed to voice their opinion about whether murder should be legal, murder will become legal, because murderers will have the final (and only) say.
                          Sorry, but that's just a brute fact. People who've been trod upon tend to react to it.
                          You have every right to express your bigotry....likewise their right to express their opposition to it.
                          _/\_

                          Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by quip View Post

                            Sorry, but that's just a brute fact. People who've been trod upon tend to react to it.
                            You have every right to express your bigotry....likewise their right to express their opposition to it.

                            next up - Pedophiles!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Derf View Post
                              And determining whose opinion should hold sway is the exact same moral dilemma you and eider are trying to prevent anti-LGBTs, if you'll allow the term, from joining the discussion.

                              Again, if you say anyone who is against murder is NOT allowed to voice their opinion about whether murder should be legal, murder will become legal, because murderers will have the final (and only) say.
                              As Bob keeps saying: In the public square, Christianity and homosexuality are mutually exclusive. You can't have both.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by quip View Post

                                Sorry, but that's just a brute fact. People who've been trod upon tend to react to it.
                                You have every right to express your bigotry....likewise their right to express their opposition to it.
                                I don't think that even begins to address my point. Want to try again?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X