I am not an abomination

[AlonzoMourning23]

The gay US bishop at the centre of controversy over his consecration has told a convention of US Anglicans he is "not an abomination".
Gene Robinson said the Episcopal Church should "stand up for right", adding that Anglicans should not be swayed by fear of deepening rifts over the issue.

The Ohio convention is to vote on how far to go in seeking to prevent the ordination of more openly gay bishops.

A senior conservative said it would be impossible to prevent a split.

"We've reached a moment where it is very difficult, indeed I think we've reached an impossible moment, in holding it together," Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh said, quoted by the Associated Press.

'Faithfully true'

The Episcopal General Convention is the first since Bishop Robinson's consecration in 2003.

Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham in the UK, warned that a moratorium was needed on creating any bishops living with a same-sex partner until there was consensus in the church.

But in an impassioned speech, Bishop Robinson argued that the question was whether the church recognised the life of Christ in its gay and lesbian members.

It was not primarily about the future of the worldwide Anglican communion, he said.

"I am not an abomination before God," he said. "Please, I beg you, let's say our prayers and stand up for right."

He told the BBC that resolutions proposed by the convention were part of a conversation - one that he would not shy away from.

"I won't walk away. I will stay here and I will talk with anyone who is willing to talk. I will be as faithfully true as I can be with people who can be equally as faithful," he said.

'Express regret'

The main motion being discussed by the Episcopal Church suggests exercising "great caution" before ordaining another gay bishop, but falls short of the moratorium on ordination being suggested by Anglican leaders.

The motion also calls on dioceses to defer same-sex ceremonies until the Anglican communion achieves consensus on the issue.

And it says that the Episcopal Church should apologise "for having breached the bonds of affection in the Anglican communion by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners".

It urges those who took part in Bishop Robinson's election to "express regret" for the pain they have caused.

But it also recognises that gay people are "by baptism... full members of the Church" and apologises to them for years of rejection and maltreatment by the Church.

The motion is mostly based on the recommendations of the Windsor Report, resulting from an inquiry into the row in 2004.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5082270.stm

"It's time we took our faith back and stopped having to apologize for being Christian or Jewish or Muslim without having to explain, 'No, we're not that kind of a Jew, we're not that kind of a Christian.'"- Gene Robinson

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=67408

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But this very situation reflects how the Liberals and the Liberal Media have hijacked this Nations Moral back bone, in many ways, and through out the last Century, has caused the uprooting of decent principles to rule common man.
2. This slippery slope has been followed and led by many politicians being caught in scams.
3. They were good people before they got trapped into the mire of politics, Liberals mindset, has ruined them.
4. And now we see it sneaking into the back door, ( pardon the punn) of The Christian Churches.
5. Gawd help us all.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[AlonzoMourning23]

Chess, when was america ruled by decent morals? What time do you think is a good example? Do you go back 300, 400 years or do you have something more recent?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

One of the priests that led my own mother's funeral was an openly gay Episcopal priest.

I had no problem with it and he was a great guy.

My issue with gays begins and ends with the fact that marriage is not a gay institution. Of course in today's debate that still makes me a homophobe....

[CheesyMuslim]

Chess, when was america ruled by decent morals? What time do you think is a good example? Do you go back 300, 400 years or do you have something more recent?


Sorry bout that,

1. I would have to say 75 years ago this Nation had good morals, as a whole.
2. Before the Liberal Media was even born.
3. Before the Liberals took over the Democratic Party.
4. Before the Rino's came into being.
5. Yep, those were the good old days.
6. They just didn't last with the era of free tv.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nathan Brazil]

Sounds to me like the Episcopalians have some figuring out to do. It doesn't seem to be anyone else's business, though.

Maybe if some parts of the country would give up their obsession on what other people are doing with their private parts the national leaders could focus on things that actually matter, like cutting taxes, eliminating social services, building better smaller nukes, or figuring out who the next American Dildo will be.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Sorry bout that,

1. I would have to say 75 years ago this Nation had good morals, as a whole.
2. Before the Liberal Media was even born.
3. Before the Liberals took over the Democratic Party.
4. Before the Rino's came into being.
5. Yep, those were the good old days.
6. They just didn't last with the era of free tv.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Well, the republican part had a significant amount of liberals, though they were fleeing due to increasing conservatism, conservatism that eventually lead to the defection of the dixiecrats to the republican party in the 60's. Remember, regions that have long been the bane of conservatives policies, like new england, were solidly republican.

But you're telling me that you think a time when interracial marriage (and even cohabitation) was punishable by long jail sentences in many states (and the overwhelming majority of the population agreed it should be illegal), a time where the use of contraceptives even by married couples was illegal in some states, a time where lynchings where common, a time where segregation was the norm in much of the country and jim crow laws flourished, a time where even promoting the intellectual concept of equality was not even legal in all states, a time where the mob flourished, a time where the KKK often controlled towns and elections, a time where even ww1 veterans where barred from citizenship because they happened to be indian, egyptian etc. (anything not fitting the commonly held definition of black or white), you think a time where all those things occured was more moral than today?

Tell me, is it your sense of history or your sense of morality that's warped?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I never said that that time was perfect, I said it was more moral, and stood for something as a whole.
2. These days American morals stand for nothing as a whole.
3. Only in certain circles do morals have any meaning.
4. The lack of Integrity in Politics is an off shoot of a decline in the moral aspects of this Nation.
5. The onset of the Liberal Media with free TV isn't so free after all.
6. It will continue to skew reality towards more Liberalism.
7. It is all in all in reality, at fault for much of the decline in moral ethics.
8. This isn't the fault of the People, its the fault of those Liberals who own the Media, Hollywood elitists.
9. They are already feeling The People's revolt, viewership is rapidly in decline, there is hope for America after all.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nathan Brazil]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I never said that that time was perfect, I said it was more moral, and stood for something as a whole.
2. These days American morals stand for nothing as a whole.
3. Only in certain circles do morals have any meaning.
4. The lack of Integrity in Politics is an off shoot of a decline in the moral aspects of this Nation.
5. The onset of the Liberal Media with free TV isn't so free after all.
6. It will continue to skew reality towards more Liberalism.
7. It is all in all in reality, at fault for much of the decline in moral ethics.
8. This isn't the fault of the People, its the fault of those Liberals who own the Media, Hollywood elitists.
9. They are already feeling The People's revolt, viewership is rapidly in decline, there is hope for America after all.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


You're missing the point.

Is a society that bans unmarried co-habitation more or less moral than one that does not? It's less moral, of course.

Is a society that treats some persons as less equal merely on the basis of skin color more or less moral than one that doesn't use pigmentation as a value? It's less moral, of course.

Is a society that practices religious intolerance more or less moral than a society that doesn't restrict the religious freedoms of individuals? It's less moral, of course.

Is a society that uses religion as a basis for morality more or less moral than a society that uses reason to determine morality? Most likely it's less moral.

After all, religion and morality don't mix.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I never said that that time was perfect, I said it was more moral, and stood for something as a whole.
2. These days American morals stand for nothing as a whole.
3. Only in certain circles do morals have any meaning.
4. The lack of Integrity in Politics is an off shoot of a decline in the moral aspects of this Nation.
5. The onset of the Liberal Media with free TV isn't so free after all.
6. It will continue to skew reality towards more Liberalism.
7. It is all in all in reality, at fault for much of the decline in moral ethics.
8. This isn't the fault of the People, its the fault of those Liberals who own the Media, Hollywood elitists.
9. They are already feeling The People's revolt, viewership is rapidly in decline, there is hope for America after all.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


The civil rights movement owes much of its success to the "liberal media". A short print column on how dogs and water cannons were unleashed of peaceful protestors doesn't draw attention like film does. The media provided a voice that allowed blacks, among others, a voice that allowed their message to reach across the nation. Pity such a thing came to be, isn't it?

But here's some members of your moral society in action

The door was ripped from the wall, and a mob of fifty men beat Thomas Shipp senseless and dragged him into the street. The waiting crowd "came to life." It seemed to Cameron that "all of those ten to fifteen thousand people were trying to hit him all at once." The dead Shipp was dragged with a rope up to the window bars of the second victim, Abram Smith. For twenty minutes, citizens pushed and shoved for a closer look at the "dead nigger." By the time Abe Smith was hauled out he was equally mutilated. " Those who were not close enough to hit him threw rocks and bricks. Somebody rammed a crowbar through his chest several times in great satisfaction." Smith was dead by the time the mob dragged him "like a horse" to the courthouse square and hung him from a tree. The lynchers posed for photos under the limb that held the bodies of the two dead men.....

After souvenir hunters divvied up the bloodied pants of Abram Smith, his naked lower body was clothed in a Klansman's robe-not unlike the loincloth in traditional depictions of Christ on the cross. Lawrence Beitler, a studio photographer, took this photo. For ten days and nights he printed thousands of copies, which sold for fifty cents apiece.

http://withoutsanctuary.org/pics_27.html

Good ol americans taking care of a homeless black man who asked for some food. Oh look, I see they even brought along the kiddies to teach them about that famous southern hospitality: http://withoutsanctuary.org/pics_51.html

California Attorney General called this "a natural result of the apathy of the Supreme Court of the United States." because the court had recently delayed an execution:
http://withoutsanctuary.org/pics_01.html

"The city fathers were sufficiently offended by the nude male figure":
http://withoutsanctuary.org/pics_68.html

lynching postcards continued to exist through the 1930's...

Less than 1% of the lynch mob participants were ever convicted (for any crime, let alone murder). Many lynchings were carried out with the tacit approval of the police, and even in the rare cases in which the murderers were tried, they were often acquitted by all-white juries in the southeastern United States. For example, the trial for the murder of Emmett Till resulted in an acquittal, with the jurors reporting than they had taken a "soda break" in order to stretch their deliberations to over an hour.

On July 19, 1935, Rubin Stacy, a homeless African-American farmer, went knocking on doors begging for food. Frightened, Marion Jones complained to the authorities. Six Dade county deputies were bringing Stacy to jail when he was killed by a lynch mob. Because Stacy's original actions were so innocuous, lynching opponents considered Stacy's murder an egregious example. Nevertheless, Roosevelt did not support the (anti-lynching) bill, believing that it would cost him the votes of Southern whites, and thus the 1936 election.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lynching

Communities also ferociously defended such policies such as "nigers in back" and "get you black ass out of our schools". Courts routinely denied citizenship to anyone who wasn't white or black, and routinely denied equal citizenship to anyone who wasn't white (or Irish) and protestant.

For someone to understand american history and still conclude that a society such as that attains moral superiority over one that grants rights to all races and religions, regardless of your opinion of homosexuals, is disturbing to say the least.

[forest_ranger254]

I have worked with gay people. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and not a biological quirk or mistake. Now, that is a prelude to the fact that I will not go out there and force them to be a heterosexual. I cannot control what other people do. When I have a problem is when gay people sue my pastor or his friends and the heads of church ministries for teaching, in the confines of the church, that homosexuality is a sin. I am not going to go out there and be the "sexual orientation police." As such, I would appreciate it if, in the case that you do not want to hear that it is a sin, STAY THE HECK OUT OF THE CHURCHES!!! If you don't like what we say, you should avoid it. Don't go off and infringe upon my RIGHT to religious beliefs. Matter of fact, don't read the Bible either, since you will find that it is offending you. Just remember, man is commanded in the Bible not to engage in "unnatural" relationships.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I'm not sure why you think you have a right to your interpretation of christianity but others have no right to theres.

Homosexuality occurs throughout the natural world. Homosexuality is not a biological mistake, it is one end of a continuum. It is not a choice either, the only ones who can choose to be in a homosexual relationship (and it be fulfilling) are bisexuals. The data overwhelming back that up.

[forest_ranger254]

I'm not sure why you think you have a right to your interpretation of christianity but others have no right to theres.

Homosexuality occurs throughout the natural world. Homosexuality is not a biological mistake, it is one end of a continuum. It is not a choice either, the only ones who can choose to be in a homosexual relationship (and it be fulfilling) are bisexuals. The data overwhelming back that up.


No evidence for any gene. It is a lifestyle. A lifestyle is a result of habitual choices. I will not say that there aren't biological PROPENSITIES, but there is no such thing as a gene. You have NO evidence to show a naturally occurring gene. Unless you are assuming that scientists created the first homosexual in Sodom and Gomorrah and let him mate, you have no support. And either way, natural selection would have picked the gene out of the pool, as it is not a gene that makes our species stronger. Natural selection is not going to allow for the gene to survive. if a homosexual has a gene, he has no choice, and he will not reproduce. That would be the end of the line. Period.

Secondly, the Bible specifically demands to not engage in unseemly relations. There is no way to interpret that differently.

[AlonzoMourning23]

No evidence for any gene. It is a lifestyle. A lifestyle is a result of habitual choices. I will not say that there aren't biological PROPENSITIES, but there is no such thing as a gene. You have NO evidence to show a naturally occurring gene.

You don't understand even the basics of biology. Most genetic traits are polygenetic, meaning there is no one gene controlling it, it's a mixture. There is evidence for this since a monozygotic (one fertilized egg) twin is more likely to be homosexual if their twin is homosexual than a dizygotic (two fertilized eggs) twin is. At the same time a dizygotic twin is more likely to be homosexual if their twin is than two non-twin siblings are likely to be homosexual, giving evidence for biological differences caused by environmental factors. Environment can exert a tremendous effect of biology. Womb conditions, for example, are environmental, yet they affect the biology of an individual. Even once born, environment affects biology (ie. neuron connections in the brain can be increased by physical contact). But, at the same time, environmental factors, such as being around homosexuals, do not have an impact on ones sexuality, according to psychological and sociological data.

And either way, natural selection would have picked the gene out of the pool, as it is not a gene that makes our species stronger. Natural selection is not going to allow for the gene to survive. if a homosexual has a gene, he has no choice, and he will not reproduce. That would be the end of the line. Period.

Genes that increase the likelihood of homosexuality may serve many functions, and only when the right combination, and certain environmental conditions (in relation to biology) are met, may it result in homosexuality. Genes don't necessarily have to increase an individuals survival, just the survival of those that share similar genes (ie. family).

Secondly, the Bible specifically demands to not engage in unseemly relations. There is no way to interpret that differently.


I can think of a few quotes you could be referring to, and there are alternative interpretations to them. Which one are you referring to?

[forest_ranger254]

You don't understand even the basics of biology. Most genetic traits are polygenetic, meaning there is no one gene controlling it, it's a mixture. There is evidence for this since a monozygotic (one fertilized egg) twin is more likely to be homosexual if their twin is homosexual than a dizygotic (two fertilized eggs) twin is. At the same time a dizygotic twin is more likely to be homosexual if their twin is than two non-twin siblings are likely to be homosexual, giving evidence for biological differences caused by environmental factors. Environment can exert a tremendous effect of biology. Womb conditions, for example, are environmental, yet they affect the biology of an individual. Even once born, environment affects biology (ie. neuron connections in the brain can be increased by physical contact). But, at the same time, environmental factors, such as being around homosexuals, do not have an impact on ones sexuality, according to psychological and sociological data.

Twin studies have proven that identical twins, when put through the same family and when not, will turn out having different sexual orientations. Shoot, PSI, the leading psychology institute in the southeast, has a very strong stand on that, led by Dr Jeff Eckert, who spoke in our Gen. Psy class on the subject. Homosexuality is a result of biological propensities AND choice. An example of genetic propensity is like alcoholism. You can have a propensity towards it, but if you never take the first drink, you will never be an alcoholic. In the same way, nature AND nurture work together for or against different propensities, including homosexuality. If it were a gene, or even a strand of genes, there would be no way to activate them correctly without a homeobox gene, citing NOVA, an episode on the evolution and development of different animals compared to humans. The homeobox gene for the activation of the gay gene has not been found. The genes used in the different experiments were already flipped on when the test was run. This is because only a homeobox gene can flip them on and off. homeobox genes are especially important in the development of a fetus. they flip genes on and off to a specific pattern, although they have yet to find out what switches them on. Why would a cell from a pre-gastrulation frog zygote not turn into a piece of a frog when put into a rat zygote in the same stage? These are questions that scientists, including myself, though from a casual observer's standpoint, have looked for for years. Either way, without a homeobox gene, found in every species to activate the same or similar genes in different species, the gay gene is nothing more than a mere trifle.

Genes that increase the likelihood of homosexuality may serve many functions, and only when the right combination, and certain environmental conditions (in relation to biology) are met, may it result in homosexuality. Genes don't necessarily have to increase an individuals survival, just the survival of those that share similar genes (ie. family).

Still, you need the homeobox gene to flip a bunch of genes on.

I can think of a few quotes you could be referring to, and there are alternative interpretations to them. Which one are you referring to?


You mean you can alternatively describe this? How do you explain that a pastor is to be "the husband of ONE WIFE"? this is put forth in the book of 1 Timothy.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Twin studies have proven that identical twins, when put through the same family and when not, will turn out having different sexual orientations.

Twin studies have not shown that. They have shown that that genetics do play a role:

They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay and how many were straight. They found that 52% of MZ twins were both self-identified homosexuals, 22% of DZ twins were so, and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, showed to the biological camp that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies. Later experimenters found similar evidence in females.

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

Studies have not shown no link between homosexuality and genetics. Likewise, studies have not shown that homosexuality is entirely genetic. Dizygotic twins are no closer, genetically, than 2 brothers born years apart. But, they share the same environment in the womb. Adopted twins only share the same environment after birth, and no real genetic link is found there.

Shoot, PSI, the leading psychology institute in the southeast

I have never heard of a psychology organization with the initials PSI. The american psychological association, america psychiatric assocation, and the american sociological association, all the largest in their fields, all disagree with the argument that homosexuality is a choice.

has a very strong stand on that, led by Dr Jeff Eckert,

I can find no record on him. Only lee university even mentions him, and it's under his sister "dr. kim eckert". I have never heard of the organization you mentioned (unless you have the initials wrong), and I cannot even find anything substantial on him. It does mention he's a clinical psychologist, that's about it.

edit: (not a true edit, but I typed my previous statement up before finding this and want to keep it because it represents the reaction you would get from most psychologists and people who study psychology)

I found PSI, Psychological studies institute. Here's their mission statement:

The Psychological Studies Institute is founded on principles that adhere to National Association of Evangelicals Statement of Faith appearing below. This statement has been affirmed by more than seventy denominations, and thus represents a broad evangelical consensus. All faculty members affirm this statement, and students who attend the Psychological Studies Institute will be taught from a Christian perspective.

We believe the Bible to be inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful man, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whom the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.


http://www.psy.edu/who/faith.asp

What this has to do with psychology is beyond me. It has a clear religious bias, and regardless of your religious beliefs, biblical scripture has no place in studying how the human mind works. They're entirely different fields, and including one with the other is detrimental.

If it were a gene, or even a strand of genes, there would be no way to activate them correctly without a homeobox gene, citing NOVA, an episode on the evolution and development of different animals compared to humans. The homeobox gene for the activation of the gay gene has not been found. The genes used in the different experiments were already flipped on when the test was run. This is because only a homeobox gene can flip them on and off. homeobox genes are especially important in the development of a fetus. they flip genes on and off to a specific pattern, although they have yet to find out what switches them on.

We do not know the genes that increase the potential for many things. That doesn't mean they are without any genetic basis. Twin studies have shown that, despite the same womb environment, monozygotic twins are significantly more likely to both be homosexual than dizygotic twins. This cannot be explained by environment or choice. Homosexuality is partially environmental, but not the "you were raised by homosexuals" kind, and very likely to be partially genetic. What exactly is going on is unknown. The argument that choice is involved lacks any such evidence. If you want to present reputable evidence please go ahead.



You mean you can alternatively describe this? How do you explain that a pastor is to be "the husband of ONE WIFE"? this is put forth in the book of 1 Timothy.


There are 3 common interpretations of that. One is that it was to bar men who were polygamous, though this would be odd since polygamy was rare at the time. Another is that it referred to divorce, that they must not have had more than one wife. A third is that it meant that men must be married.

The most common interpretation is that it bans people who are divorced, since it states that the person must be "beyond reproach". Being unmarried is not a sin, or a moral dilemma, which your interpretation would suggest.

[forest_ranger254]

Twin studies have not shown that. They have shown that that genetics do play a role:

They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay and how many were straight.Â*Â*They found that 52% of MZ twins were both self-identified homosexuals, 22% of DZ twins were so, and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, showed to the biological camp that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies.Â*Â*Later experimenters found similar evidence in females.

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

Sorry, that is not what PSI has. They did three of their own twin studies, finding that a small 15% of identical twins were both gay. The first set were all from the same home. The second group that they studied had completely different living environments, and the number of sets where both were gay was an even smaller 8%.

Studies have not shown no link between homosexuality and genetics. Likewise, studies have not shown that homosexuality is entirely genetic. Dizygotic twins are no closer, genetically, than 2 brothers born years apart. But, they share the same environment in the womb. Adopted twins only share the same environment after birth, and no real genetic link is found there.

And I have said that it isn't all genetic. I never said that it was all nurture. I said it was a mix of nature AND nurture. “Each player must accept the cards life deals him or her: but once they are in hand, he or she alone must decide how to play the cards in order to win the game.�

quote from Voltaire.

I have never heard of a psychology organization with the initials PSI. The american psychological association, america psychiatric assocation, and the american sociological association, all the largest in their fields, all disagree with the argument that homosexuality is a choice.

Psychological Studies institute. They have released people that are now in high plaement in the APA.

I can find no record on him. Only lee university even mentions him, and it's under his sister "dr. kim eckert". I have never heard of the organization you mentioned (unless you have the initials wrong), and I cannot even find anything substantial on him. It does mention he's a clinical psychologist, that's about it.

Well, he exists, you can find him teaching as part of PSI, listed on their website.
www.psy.edu

edit: (not a true edit, but I typed my previous statement up before finding this and want to keep it because it represents the reaction you would get from most psychologists and people who study psychology)

I found PSI, Psychological studies institute. Here's their mission statement:

The Psychological Studies Institute is founded on principles that adhere to National Association of Evangelicals Statement of Faith appearing below. This statement has been affirmed by more than seventy denominations, and thus represents a broad evangelical consensus. All faculty members affirm this statement, and students who attend the Psychological Studies Institute will be taught from a Christian perspective.

We believe the Bible to be inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful man, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whom the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.


http://www.psy.edu/who/faith.asp

What this has to do with psychology is beyond me. It has a clear religious bias, and regardless of your religious beliefs, biblical scripture has no place in studying how the human mind works. They're entirely different fields, and including one with the other is detrimental.

And their beliefs completely count them out? Read the book of Proverbs. The Bible already tells you a lot about human nature. This includes the fact that people can have one of two responses to criticism. They will back down, which is more common, and those who are more extroverted will bite right back.

We do not know the genes that increase the potential for many things. That doesn't mean they are without any genetic basis. Twin studies have shown that, despite the same womb environment, monozygotic twins are significantly more likely to both be homosexual than dizygotic twins. This cannot be explained by environment or choice. Homosexuality is partially environmental, but not the "you were raised by homosexuals" kind, and very likely to be partially genetic. What exactly is going on is unknown. The argument that choice is involved lacks any such evidence. If you want to present reputable evidence please go ahead.

They are more likely to have the same propensities. They can choose to follow those propensities. THey can choose not to. I can name three people who were gay at one point. One would be the former pianist at my church, who has since switched churches to an even stricter church. Another would be the son of the president of Tennessee Temple University, a young man named Eric Lovett, who is now dating a woman.

There are 3 common interpretations of that. One is that it was to bar men who were polygamous, though this would be odd since polygamy was rare at the time. Another is that it referred to divorce, that they must not have had more than one wife. A third is that it meant that men must be married.
The most common interpretation is that it bans people who are divorced, since it states that the person must be "beyond reproach". Being unmarried is not a sin, or a moral dilemma, which your interpretation would suggest.


Men must be married to "ONE WIFE." You just left that last word out. The Greek word used is Gune. Here are the definitions:

1) a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow

2) a wife
a) or a betrothed woman

it seems very clear here in Greek. I am not basing my interpretation on the English. I am basing it on the Greek.
Source:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1151078833-5752.html

[AlonzoMourning23]

Sorry, that is not what PSI has. They did three of their own twin studies, finding that a small 15% of identical twins were both gay. The first set were all from the same home. The second group that they studied had completely different living environments, and the number of sets where both were gay was an even smaller 8%.

Show me the studies.

And their beliefs completely count them out? Read the book of Proverbs. The Bible already tells you a lot about human nature. This includes the fact that people can have one of two responses to criticism. They will back down, which is more common, and those who are more extroverted will bite right back.

Their own site says they want to integrate psychology and theology. Scripture has no place in the scientific study of how the mind works. Their beliefs don't count them out, but their approach is problematic. Psychology and theology are distinct disciplines, often incompatable without compromising one or the other. I don't see anything to show they rise above that issue. Do you? What do they do when scientific research contradicts the bible?



They are more likely to have the same propensities. They can choose to follow those propensities. THey can choose not to. I can name three people who were gay at one point. One would be the former pianist at my church, who has since switched churches to an even stricter church. Another would be the son of the president of Tennessee Temple University, a young man named Eric Lovett, who is now dating a woman.

If they are bisexual then they like both men and women and that wouldn't require a switch really. Then, some people, due to moral beliefs, force themselves into a heterosexual relationship. But these are usually problematic and not experienced on the same level as a heterosexual.

It's true, on some level, that one can choose to act homosexual, but it's just as true that you choose to act heterosexual. One is no more a choice than the other.


Men must be married to "ONE WIFE." You just left that last word out. The Greek word used is Gune. Here are the definitions:

1) a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow

2) a wife
a) or a betrothed woman

it seems very clear here in Greek. I am not basing my interpretation on the English. I am basing it on the Greek.
Source:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1151078833-5752.html


So, in your opinion, being single is a moral dilemma? That's what your interpretation indicates.

[forest_ranger254]

Show me the studies.

I gave you the name of the place. You can call them and ask for Dr Jeff Eckert.

Their own site says they want to integrate psychology and theology. Scripture has no place in the scientific study of how the mind works. Their beliefs don't count them out, but their approach is problematic. Psychology and theology are distinct disciplines, often incompatable without compromising one or the other. I don't see anything to show they rise above that issue. Do you? What do they do when scientific research contradicts the bible?

For one, they haven't run into that problem yet. Strict interpretation of the Bible using the Greek and Hebrew language originally used in its writing is used whenever they need to. However, in their psyological studies, the Bible rarely comes up. I know this because I have seen their classes. Dr Eckert spoke in our Gen. Psy. class. He didn't even mention the Bible.

If they are bisexual then they like both men and women and that wouldn't require a switch really. Then, some people, due to moral beliefs, force themselves into a heterosexual relationship. But these are usually problematic and not experienced on the same level as a heterosexual.

And how do you explain how they can go without any such relationship? Shoot, Eric hasn't been married and definitely hasn't gotten into a sexual relationship with his GF. Mr Watson (the pianist) Hasn't been in any relationship.

It's true, on some level, that one can choose to act homosexual, but it's just as true that you choose to act heterosexual. One is no more a choice than the other.

They are both equally choices. People say that one can't choose to be a homosexual. Why can people then choose to be heterosexual. This makes no sense to the logical mind. If there is only one option, then there is no choice.
“Each player must accept the cards life deals him or her: but once they are in hand, he or she alone must decide how to play the cards in order to win the game.�

So, in your opinion, being single is a moral dilemma? That's what your interpretation indicates.


No, some people are not meant to be married. The way the Greek language puts it, the lists are done by what is more important. In that phrase, the husband of one wife part shows up at the end. That means that either he is to be married to a woman, or single. That is citing Dr Woodruff, the Greek teacher at Temple Baptist Seminary.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I gave you the name of the place. You can call them and ask for Dr Jeff Eckert.


Why should I do any work to back up your evidence? If you're using a study to support your argument, then you should be able to support that claim if challenged. I'm not even asking you to validate the study, to show me why it's accurate, I'm asking you to show me that it exists and says what you claim.


For one, they haven't run into that problem yet. Strict interpretation of the Bible using the Greek and Hebrew language originally used in its writing is used whenever they need to. However, in their psyological studies, the Bible rarely comes up. I know this because I have seen their classes. Dr Eckert spoke in our Gen. Psy. class. He didn't even mention the Bible.

I'm sure they haven't run into that issue, but mainstream psychology has. For example, mainstream psychology does not support the argument that there is anything devious about homosexuality, that it is unhealthy, or that homosexuality involves a conscious choice.


And how do you explain how they can go without any such relationship? Shoot, Eric hasn't been married and definitely hasn't gotten into a sexual relationship with his GF. Mr Watson (the pianist) Hasn't been in any relationship.

If you claim "ex-gay" people are in heterosexual relationships, but aren't in a sexual relationship, how does that support your claim that sexual preference is a choice?

But attraction and emotional connection is not a choice. No ones arguing that either heterosexual or homosexuals have absolutely no control over when, where and with who they have sex.


They are both equally choices. People say that one can't choose to be a homosexual. Why can people then choose to be heterosexual. This makes no sense to the logical mind. If there is only one option, then there is no choice.

You're right that it makes no sense, and I've never heard anyone argue that. Neither are choices.

Do you have any attraction to men normally? If not, I have a challenge for you. go to a store and buy a gay porno, or go online to a gay porn website. At the same time look at a porno with women in it. Tell me when you are able to make yourself more aroused when watching the gay porno than you are when watching the one with women. Choose to be turned on by men, and choose not to be turned on by women, or at least to a degree where men are more arousing.

No, some people are not meant to be married. The way the Greek language puts it, the lists are done by what is more important. In that phrase, the husband of one wife part shows up at the end. That means that either he is to be married to a woman, or single. That is citing Dr Woodruff, the Greek teacher at Temple Baptist Seminary.


That partially hinges on what the intention of the passage is. Is it intended to indicate gender, or is it intended to indicate marriage history (polygamy, divorce etc.)? You already admit the passage isn't meant to be taken absolutely literally, as you don't think being married is a requirement. I'm not aware of any major denominations that fully adopt your interpretation. The phrase, taken absolutely literally, does not allow for the leeway that being single would require.

But, since you mentioned this to back up the religious argument on banning homosexuals from church positions (bishop in this case), you would not take issue with an openly homosexual, but single and not looking, man holding power in the church?