Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Another Messy Scandal Rocks "Ex-Gay" Movement

Expand Messages
  • nyguy_1225
    I know what your point is; you stated it clearly two posts ago. I will reiterate what I said in my last post: You are free to believe anything you like. But
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 17 12:23 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I know what your point is; you stated it clearly two posts ago. I
      will reiterate what I said in my last post: You are free to believe
      anything you like. But you'd be hard-pressed to come up with
      credible evidence to support it. Quite the contrary, the evidence
      does not support it. We can quote from the published works of
      dozens of historians and scholars who have devoted more time and
      effort to this study and subject than both of us and who are more
      learned in Scripture than you and I will ever be -- and they
      wholeheartedly and categorically disagree with you.

      -Alex

      --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
      >
      > In a message dated 8/17/03 11:36:18 AM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com
      writes:
      >
      >
      > > <<You have made some VERY good points, and I'm glad you did. 
      > > However, I will disagree with one of your points. Homosexuality
      as a
      > > sexual orientation (as well as heterosexuality as an orientation)
      > > ALWAYS existed from the beginning of the species Homo sapiens. It
      > > just wasn't recognized, or given a name, until the middle of the
      > > 19th century.>>
      > >
      > > You are certainly free to disagree if you like but you'd be hard-
      > > pressed to come up with any credible evidence to support your
      > > conviction.  I'm afraid the Bible is an empty closet.  There are
      no
      > > homosexuals in the Bible.
      > >
      >
      > My point is that just as measles and mumps and redheads and
      chickens always
      > exists (at least since the beginning of recorded history), so did
      homosexual
      > orientation, even though it wasn't recognized as such, or even
      given a name
      > until 150 years ago or so.
      >
      > Yes, there ARE homosexuals as we understand the term in the Bible.
      The law of
      > averages says so. It's like the man who says he doesn't know any
      homosexuals,
      > and has no gay friends. He does, too. He simply doesn't know who
      they
      > are--yet. By the same token, there ARE homosexuals in the Bible
      (as well as redheads,
      > blondes, and southpaws). But it IS true that we don[t have enough
      infomation
      > to pin the rainbows on the right ones.
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • dixibehr@aol.com
      ... Are you saying that homosexuality, AS AN UNCHOSEN ORIENTATION, is a comparatively recent thing? Seems to me that even Plato suggested otherwise in
      Message 2 of 19 , Aug 17 12:30 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:


        > Quite the contrary, the evidence
        > does not support it. 
        >

        Are you saying that homosexuality, AS AN UNCHOSEN ORIENTATION, is a
        comparatively recent thing?

        Seems to me that even Plato suggested otherwise in SYMPOSIUM.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • dixibehr@aol.com
        ... I supposed there will always be more learned persons than either of us in any discipline. However, I DO have a doctrate in divinity, OK? [Non-text portions
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 17 12:37 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:


          > who are more
          > learned in Scripture than you and I will ever be -- and they
          > wholeheartedly and categorically disagree with you.
          >

          I supposed there will always be more learned persons than either of us in any
          discipline.

          However, I DO have a doctrate in divinity, OK?


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • nyguy_1225
          I think I made the point relatively clear in post #2932 as well as in numerous other posts on this board in the past where the works of several renowned
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 17 2:11 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            I think I made the point relatively clear in post #2932 as well as
            in numerous other posts on this board in the past where the works of
            several renowned scholars and historians were quoted.

            -Alex

            --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
            >
            > In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com
            writes:
            >
            >
            > > Quite the contrary, the evidence
            > > does not support it. 
            > >
            >
            > Are you saying that homosexuality, AS AN UNCHOSEN ORIENTATION, is
            a
            > comparatively recent thing?
            >
            > Seems to me that even Plato suggested otherwise in SYMPOSIUM.
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • nyguy_1225
            I know people who have a doctorate in divinity who are atheists and I know doctors with medical degrees who are quacks. What s your point? -Alex ... of us in
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 17 2:14 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              I know people who have a doctorate in divinity who are atheists and
              I know doctors with medical degrees who are quacks. What's your
              point?

              -Alex

              --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
              >
              > In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com
              writes:
              >
              >
              > > who are more
              > > learned in Scripture than you and I will ever be -- and they
              > > wholeheartedly and categorically disagree with you.
              > >
              >
              > I supposed there will always be more learned persons than either
              of us in any
              > discipline.
              >
              > However, I DO have a doctrate in divinity, OK?
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • calldon2k
              ... chickens always ... homosexual ... given a name ... Considering what has been called the fluid nature of sexuality, exactly WHAT is a homosexual? Are
              Message 6 of 19 , Sep 11, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
                > My point is that just as measles and mumps and redheads and
                chickens always
                > exists (at least since the beginning of recorded history), so did
                homosexual
                > orientation, even though it wasn't recognized as such, or even
                given a name
                > until 150 years ago or so.

                Considering what has been called the "fluid" nature of sexuality,
                exactly WHAT is a homosexual? Are you considered a homosexual when
                you are 30% straight and 70% gay? Are you considered homosexual when
                you are 20$% straight and 80% gay? How about if you are 90% gay but
                you still get a thril at a nice boob or pair of female legs?

                What we label 'homosexual" is more subjective then objective!

                D*
              • calldon2k
                ... It is a subjective moniker. There are few who would honestly say that they never have a twinge at the opposite sex. It is a objective as the testimonies
                Message 7 of 19 , Sep 11, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
                  >
                  > In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com
                  writes:
                  > > Quite the contrary, the evidence
                  > > does not support it. 
                  >
                  > Are you saying that homosexuality, AS AN UNCHOSEN ORIENTATION, is a
                  > comparatively recent thing?

                  It is a subjective moniker. There are few who would honestly say
                  that they never have a twinge at the opposite sex.

                  It is a objective as the testimonies of those who claim to be Ex-gay.
                • nyguy_1225
                  I think homosexuality can best be defined as the
                  Message 8 of 19 , Sep 12, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    <<Considering what has been called the "fluid" nature of sexuality,
                    exactly WHAT is a homosexual?...>>

                    I think homosexuality can best be defined as the naturally occurring
                    ability to fall in love with a person of the same gender rather than
                    with anyone of the other gender. As such, and as any straight
                    person would know from their own experience of heterosexual
                    orientation, it cannot be reduced to a matter of genital nerve
                    ending stimulation and body parts. It's the same un-asked-for
                    experience for heterosexuals and homosexuals; only in the former
                    case the person of affection is of the other gender and in the
                    latter case the person of affection is of the same gender.
                    Experientially, it's the very same core need, the very same gift of
                    God. It's about an involuntary enthusiasm of romantic response in
                    the presence of someone seen as wonderfully "other," as mystery, as
                    precious differentness from one's own sense of self, as
                    complementary beloved. And it's about a deep longing for that
                    person in his or her absence. It is a lack that nothing but the
                    beloved can supply.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.