I agree, Harry is becoming more demented by the day.
May 5, 2014 at 11:34am
I think it’s a gnat crawling up the lens of the camera.
March 25, 2014 at 12:00pm
So if a gay person does not participate in homesexual behavior, is he/she doomed? I am very much a Christian, probably just not as radical as you are, but I do love others that love Christ, even if they show gay tendancies. I am not the person to judge them, but perhaps God gave you that right.
March 25, 2014 at 11:36am
“They don’t have to hire any homosexuals because there is no such thing as a gay Christian.”
Exactly. I personally know many gay Christians. Their beliefs may not perfectly align with yours, but that doesn't make them any less Christian.
You should both actually READ a Bible sometime. It's quite explicit on the matter:
1 Corinthians 6
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
The book of Romans also has a lot to say on the subject.
Yes the BIble is clear. Women may not hold positions of authority, and must be silent in church. 1st Corinthians 14:34. The Bible also has rules against shaving, eating shellfish, and wearing nylon. But I guess you didn't like those....
What's funny is the same people that wrote the things you are quoting would probably stone you to death for the sorcery that is your avatar. LOL
@HP. Women were not allowed in positions of authority at that time because of that culture and the lack of education for them. God is intelligent, not malevolent. Secondly, your shaving rule only applies to Nazarenes like John the Baptist and the shellfish thing was rescinded with a vision to Peter, presumably because people had learned to cook their food properly. Also, I see nothing in my Bible about not wearing Nylon, but about not wearing linen and wool in the same clothing.
Don't even try to be a rules lawyer with me.
The verse says clothing of mixed fibres. That includes nylon. And I am always amused at how quickly people like you try to explain away other rules, and say that they weren't meant for us, but somehow the couple verses speaking of homosexuality do. LOL
Yes, the versus I like that support my world view are valid...the ones that don't are invalid.
You have to be a possessor of saving grace not just a professor.
New International Version (NIV)
True and False Disciples
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Finally, a story for Hairy Pooter. Hi Hairy. Hows it hanging man?
granted and cogent. But it does not then follow that their Sexual Disobedience in otherwise exemplary Christian Lives somehow renders the Abomination of Homosexual Lust and Coitus acceptable to God or the Church. Homosex remains OFF God's Table in a Big Way, a kind of Debauched, Depraved, and Degenerate Idolatry. Nor does their otherwise Exemplary Christianity Justify in any way the Church's Mitigation of the Sin.
Sad, truly sad that people who really don't know or understand science or how it works think they do. Look up a study of monozygotic twins and homosexuality and you will see that there is no such thing as a "gay" gene. It is a very well modeled and conducted scientific research paper that establishes clearly that there is no "gay" gene. However, the shear desire for politically correct society (and activists) to demonstrate a "gay" gene and normalize their behavior will inevitably lead to badly conducted science and faulty research models (intentionally) to produce the desired outcome. Scientific research can be and is often manipulated very easily. As a physician, I have to evaluate "research" all the time and believe me if a drug company is pushing a new drug they will line up 10 "scientific research" papers that say their drug is completely safe and awesome in every way. But to hell with real truth as long as your ears are tickled and you can say, "science shows this or that" you don't care how poor the science really was to reach that conclusion. And once picked up by the always politically driven and correct media it will be heralded as factual and those who criticize the "science" or point out its inconsistencies will be mocked and harassed into silence or obscurity. It's not to difficult to figure out the game played if you see behind the curtain, problem is most people don't ever question anything with a critically thinking mind.
Harry the Bible is less clear on that than you want to use for your Straw Man 3rd Grade Argument of "you allow THIS so you HAVE to allow THAT" or "you don't enforce THIS so you CAN'T enforce THAT", bogus AND shallow.
Priscilla was a Church Leader, get's top billing over Acquilla. There was at least one female "Apostle" Junia, that's in Romans. No "face value" reading of the NT documents can fail to see the prominent mention of Women Leaders in the Church. Do NOT confuse "usurp authority OVER" i.e., mutiny in the Greek, that's the standard use of the term in other literature, a military term with "have NO authority." In fact the Women played prominent rolls from the beginning, bankrolling the ministry, being the "roadie crew" for logistics and were the FIRST witnesses to the resurrection. Get it STRAIGHT before you straw man it.
He "knows this how" because Christ said that His followers (biblical Christians, not in name only) will keep His commandments. His commandments, the entire Scriptures (OT & NT) forbid homosexuality. Therefore, anyone who claims to be a "Gay Christian" is an oxymoron, and not a biblical Christian.
There is no suich thing as a gay believer...You cannot say, "I believe," and spend your time arguing with what is so clearly written. Ephesians makes it clear...our lives on this earth are the harbinger of a wedding...The male plays a role that ends, and the female plays a .role that ends. At the wedding, the Bride is all female, and the Lord is all male. He is not at all confused...if you've bought into excusing convenient lies that bring temporary relief but can have zero lasting fruit, you will be very confused.
Okay, back from lunch and I've cooled down a bit. I'm sorry for my less than respectful posts beforehand.
HP, as far as your statements on shellfish go, here is the passage about peter's vision:
As far as shaving the head goes, you are right that men should not shave their heads, but neither shall they let it grow long. Women on the other hand, shall let their hair grow out. This is backed up by OT and NT laws.
And yes, the depending on the version, the Bible does say that one shall not wear mixed fabrics. Other versions say wool and linen. Whether this was done away with by the New Covenant or simply not relevant to non Jewish peoples is up for debate.
I simply repeat my point about the education of women and the culture of the time.
None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the original topic of how homosexual behavior is clearly against the Bible.
@Lucretius. That's because they have never experienced the awesomeness of a well built gaming PC. ;)
First the BSA, now WV. Sad to see these Christian organizations leave their love of God behind to cater to the money, and succumb to the bullying, of the gay gestapo.
Despite thorough genome-wide research, no study has been able to find a gene or genetic marker that is consistently associated with homosexuality. Although twenty to fifty percent of the variation in sexual orientation appears to be inherited in some way, identical twins don’t necessarily share a sexual orientation; if one twin is gay, there’s only a twenty percent probability that the other twin is, too. This low probability,.or concordance, suggests that simple genetic inheritance might not drive sexual orientation.
There are no specific genetic markers which determine gender orientation. Studies show that there are variant conditions from individual to individual in much the same way different people like a particular flavor of ice cream, or have a susceptibility to alcohol or drug addiction.
What this indicates is that a treatment for homosexuality is possible.
Most recently a study was conducted in Sweden among 4600 gay males. 20% stated that they could enter into a completely hetero long term relationship. 40% stated they could be bisexual and the rest stated they could only engage in a completely homosexual relationship. 80% of lesbians studied indicated they are bisexual.
It can be argued that homosexuality is not a choice and argued that it is, but it appears that sexual conduct is a choice.
Thanks for the Primary Source material doc.
"...married gays and lesbians at its U.S. branch, so long as they are committed followers of Jesus Christ."
Can't be both gay/lesbian and a committed follower of Christ. "And such were some of you...."
A born-again Christian has no place for a lifestyle that is an abomination unto an almighty God.
The monozygotic twin research is a perfect study because the individuals have absolutely the same identical genetic makeup. When these twins were studied and followed for sexual orientation most all of the individuals who reported themselves homosexual or with homosexual tendancies had a twin sibling that was heterosexual. When the data and statistics were compiled the conclusion was that genetics did not play a significant role or any role at all in the shaping of sexual orientation. Both environmental and social influences played the dominant and deciding role. What makes this heavily weighted research is that the twins contained identical genetics but there was no statistical correlation whatsoever between sexual orientation among these twins, meaning if one was homosexual the other was often not. Being able to isolate these traits among monozygotic twins helps to eliminate other factors or variables of influence upon results. But of course this research is buried and never reported in the media because it doesn't fit the agenda or the "I was born gay" mantra.
"Go and sin no more..
Actually, you know what? We're tired of fighting sin..
Go ahead and keep sinning, we don't care anymore. " - World Vision.
Can you source a peer reviewed paper that concludes that it is choice?
I am familiar with the twin studies but again the consensus at the moment from the scientific community appears to be "a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors determine sexual orientation."
I haven't seen anything that has said that is a simple as "choosing" a shirt in the morning.
Plus, since you are familiar with the twin studies I'm sure you are familiar with the debate. And if you familiar then surely you know they are not debating if it is a choice. I know some people here have a weird aversion to Wikipedia but it is a lot easier just to post this than to list all the sources referenced within. Go to the sources.
Again, do you have any empirical studies that show it is not biological and simply a choice?
@ Lucretius....I can and will. Give me a bit because I am ouot and running around, but I will get it in a bit. Also, be careful not to read into what I said. I did not say the study concludes it is choice in the sense I believe you mean. It concludes that there is no geneticly predominant influence upon homosexuality. When you state that the consesus of today is a combination you are partly correct, but what the monozygotic twin study demonstartes is that a gay gene either does not exist or if it does its influence, in light of enviroenmental and social variables, is nearly negligible in determining homosexual orientation. The reason this is such a potent study is because it is able to isolate the genomic influence due to the fact that it is identical among these individuals who grew up as twins.
"but what the monozygotic twin study..."
There is more than just one isn't there?
I am reminded of line from Casablanca, "I wouldn't bring up Paris if I were you, it's poor salesmanship."
"the consensus at the moment from the scientific community appears to be"
Manmade Global Warming.
THAT worked out real well.
High School debate tactics don't impress me, LC. "No we can't prove ours, but YOU have no definitive studies either so that proves WE MUST be right and we win!" doesn't work for me. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
When you got a genetic Address for the Q-gene get back to me. Until then everything you say is counter-intuitive and I am an intuitive.
I swear I knew it was going to be a Prime Dwarf Tossing Day when I came in the E-bar. Nothin' NO THING funnier than Prhomos trying to exegete and exposit.
Sucboy, you are confusing and conflating Sound Exegesis and Exposition with Eisegesis. Rookie mistake.
Quote from Albert Schweitzer about the German Expositors of the Generation before his, what's funny is Uncle Albert was doing exactly the same:
"They looked down the long well of history and saw their own reflection at the bottom."
As C.S. Lewis says "the texts say what they say and something different can be gotten out of them only by suppressing something else."
Not only are you clueless about how The Holiness Codes translate into Jesus Ethic, you really DON'T CARE DO YA? It's all a Red Herring to try to leverage a little 3rd Grade Logic. "Well if you don't punish Johnny anymore for spitballs, you can't punish me for cheating on the test."
Like I say, ya'll a HOOT, son.
@the big mick
I...I..I don't know why I'm responding or really what I'm responding to.
But. no. It's not 3rd grade logic, it's expecting christians to be consistent. Which I will admit, is quite childish of me, because I know that if they are using the bible it is impossible. But I think it does well to show them the separation they create in their own minds. It helped me get out...that's for sure. Just doing my part:)
Some notes to those who responded to me:
The twins study actually shows a FAR higher rate of homosexuality when the other twin is gay, which shows a pretty clear genetic disposition to being gay. The idea of a gay gene is overly simplistic, and shows that someone does not understand biology. If you really want to learn about how genetic sexual orientation is, google "gay genetics". All recent scientific studies show that there is a clear genetic disposition for being gay.
Also, not to point fingers, but if you are saying that being gay is wrong because a couple verses in the Bible say so, yet ignore the verses saying shaving or women speaking in church are wrong, that makes you a hypocrite. God never said there is anything wrong with being gay, the Bible was written by men.
A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.
Yes there are 8 fairly large and well recognized studies. There are more I am sure but these 8 are from different countries and have substantial numbers of twins studied and are well designed.
Sorry about the miscommunication when I said monozygotic twin study, I meant it in a generic model study sense not a specific individual study sense. Sorry about the wording.
1991 Bailey and Pilard study was considered faulty since it failed, for one, to include twins separated at birth.
Bailey then conducted a study in 1999 in which he sent out a questionnaire to all registered monozygote twins in Australia only 3 out of 27 sets of respondents were both gay. At this point it was determined that there is no genetic link for homosexuality.
Since then other studies have concluded such subjective anomalies like finger length and blinking.
At this point it should be abundantly clear that if a conclusive, incontrovertable genetic link to homosexuality had been made LGBT activist would present that argument in court rather than the constitutional argument for equality presently employed.
I know what you speak of because I search fortruth
and the Lord provides it here and there
and so it is as you say
one finds what they seek
your posts of intellect/wisdom are always a welcome site ...
If anyone has a peer-reviewed scientific study showing that being gay is a choice. If you want to see these studies that show that being gay has genetic disposition, google "gay genetics" as I said. When you ask for a specific gay gene, you are just showing your ignorance of this science.
But if you really feel that being gay is a choice, prove it and choose to be gay!
Here is a little known fact in this particular discussion. Did you know that the number of ex-gays (those who identified as homosexual and have now become exclusive heterosexuals) actually outnumber gays or self described homosexuals? Check it out and become informed.
Homosexual sex is mentioned at least 5 times in the bible as an "abomination", an especially horrendous sin. As far as the "church" in question, I would refer the pastor to Rev. 3:15,16, "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish that you were either cold or hot. so then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
5 J. Michael Bailey, Michael P. Dunne, and Nicholas G. Martin, “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78, 3 (2000): 524–36.
6 Niklas. Langström, Qazi Rahman, Eva Carlström and Paul Lichtenstein “Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-Sex Sexual Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden,” Archives of Sexual Behavior (2008) (an e-publication prior to being in print).
I am familiar with the studies. I don't think those studies have the conclusion that many on here think it represents. Perhaps even yourself.
None, of those studies conclude...."people can choose not to be attracted to the opposite sex". Which I think many on this site are reading into on the twin studies. A more honest representation of the studies show that homosexuality at this time is far more complex than our understanding. If I may...it is similar to "god of the gaps" arguments. "Since it is not straight genetics it must be my already preconceived notion of what homosexuality is."
Plus, you have to take into account that even our understanding of monozygotic twins is incomplete. "Gringas and Chen (2001) describe a number of mechanisms which can lead to differences between monozygotic twins, the most relevant here being chorionicity and amniocity."
Plus, you have to take in Epigenetics, which is for all intents and purposes a virgin scientific field, Neuroscience, birth order, female fertility among other studies.
So, I think you are in danger of falling into a similar trap to the one you described in your first post. The twin studies are PERHAPS just one piece in a very large unfinished puzzle.
A better representation of our knowledge would be what I said from the beginning..."a combination of genetic, hormonal, and social factors determine sexual orientation."
@ Harry....“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”
“Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.
Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. “These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen ‘naturally’ in life, some very quickly,” Dr. Whitehead observes. “Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.”
Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.
The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.”
“The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case—generally changing their attractions from year to year.”
Jesus never says anything regarding gays. To be a Christian, all you have to do is accept that Jesus is the son of God and he died for our sins, gay people can be Christians.
This "choice" argument of yours is old, tired and irrelevant, and it's you who have no concept of genetics.
This choice you hinge your argument on is the same as asking someone to choose becoming an alcoholic or drug addict.
Why don't you try one of those?
What is conclusive is that there is no definitive genetic link for homosexuality, but that phenotypic generational traits, which can be identified vary from group to group, which prove inconclusive.
There will be a treatment our even a cure in the near future especially when funding for research hours towards that goal rather than attempting to manipulate biological impossibilities.
"Here is a little known fact in this particular discussion. Did you know that the number of ex-gays (those who identified as homosexual and have now become exclusive heterosexuals) actually outnumber gays or self described homosexuals?"
Let me guess Dr. Neil Whitehead? I'm going to need a little more substantial evidence than him if that is your source. No reason this should be a little known fact if it is in fact fact. :)
AH!!! How could I have guessed the info would be coming from Dr. Whitehead?
Dr. Whitehead is a "pray the gay away" loon.
@ Lucretius...I have been very careful to state only what the studies have and have not concluded I have made no mention of choice as that is an entirely different topic altogether. I addressed the fallacy that there is a deciding genetic factor in homosexulaity, ie "I was born gay and cannot change or help it" This is not substantiated in any twin study of substance. Ah, the fallacy of dismissal because of who is mentioned and not what was mentioned. The information does not come from him but is quoted from the research itself, hence the internal quotes. Whitehead is mentioned because he was the one quoting the research directly. Your issue is with the studies I have listed from Australia, Sweden and the US. To date the largest best designed studies on this topic. You have just unfortunately undermined your position by not very carefully reading what was posted as it comes directly from the research, one of the quotes is actually from a prohomosexual researcher. Check it out, read carefully, and avoid fallacy my friend.
I don't have time to fully respond but again "I addressed the fallacy that there is a deciding genetic factor in homosexulaity, " This is not a fallacy...but it is possible. We just don't know enough right now. Yes, if you wrongly focus all of your attention to a particular set of studies that seem to support what you want to believe...you could come to that conclusion. But as you are well aware there is a lot more studies and fields of study when it comes to homosexuality. So again, more accurately...."a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors determine sexual orientation." describes our scientific knowledge on homosexuality.
As far as Dr. Whitehead...yes a person who believes that a race of lizard creatures walks among us can cite correct scientific studies. But you should be more wary of how he might be cherry picking supported information to confirm is unsupported views.
@ LUCRETIUS...let me argue my point from a different perspective to illustrate what I am getting at. Let's take another issue, say alcoholism. We know that twin brothers born to an alcoholic parent will have some genetic basis for an increased prediliction for alcoholism/addiction. However, because of other more potent factors (scoioeconomic and environmental) this may or may not become a reality of expressed behavoir. We do not say the person is born an alcoholic or is enslaved to genetics to become an alcoholic withoutthe possibility of change. Nor do we NOT seek to modify that behavior if it does become manifested in the individual. And while certainly I could produce numbers of brothers who both become alcoholics I could also produce twin brothers/sisters where one did and one did not become addicted. This seems to indicate that while genetics may make some "more likely" to have a certain condition/behavior it is incorrect thinknig to suggest it is inevitable or that other factors are more powerful of an influence, ie "the I was born gay argument". All of this to say that in our politically correct society we seek to substantiate our positions by producing scientific studies rather than letting our positions be produced by scientific studies.
I get a kick out of you guys
You just had someone of knowledge honestly explain the "science" to you ~~~ (the give me science guy), and at the end of it all after you have been supplied quite the evidence that supports the truth of scripture you resort to responding by saying you don't have time after you just spent time and name calling of a particlar individual because he believes in prayer,( because you don't) which in the end probably make him the most honest person to get an honest study from. You throw away the flashlight and tie on the blindfold. ( I shake my head)
@ LUCRETIUS......That is why I cited the actual studies anyone can read for themselves to see if what was quoted is accurate or not. I think you will find that it is dead on. As far as the gentics role see my previous comments using alcoholism as an example, I think it illustartes what science is discovering regarding genetics and homosexuality, which really isn't new at all but is an emerging pattern for allsorts of things from mental illness, to addictions, to sexual orientation.
Could you please cite what you quoted me? It sounds like nothing more than anti-gay propaganda. I know for a fact that much of what was said there is factually wrong....
Also, some of you seem to be trying to link homosexuality with drug or alcohol addiction. That is just a thinly veiled attempt to make being gay look negative. If you want to use a better analogy, being gay is like being left-handed. You can't tell just by looking at a person, you don't get to choose which one you are, neither one is better than the other even though most people are straight or right-handed. And finally, scientists are finding genetic links to both in modern studies.
Sorry to inform you but homosexuality is deviance.
Addictions are analogous to homosexuality as a result of the genetic studies done which have been sited ad nauseam.
There is no genetic link to homosexuality, period.
What is more likely analogous to homosexuality being ambidextrous or switch hitting. Even basketball players learn to shoot with both hands.
Sorry potter, but you don't agree to disagree with the Bible if you are Christian.
You can call yourself a Christian all day long, but if you are not Saved, then it means nothing.
You come to God on HIS terms, not yours.
Studies of the Xq28 region of the X chromosome have been found faulty since initial testing was done in gay siblings and did not include hetero siblings. After 40% sampling done on both gay and hereto siblings was conducted it was determined a non factor since the Xq28 region was equally present and but present in birth study groups.
Beside the failed hypothalamus linkage that was the most recent attempt at a genetic link.
That's, Xq28 was equally present in both study groups of gay siblings, and gay and hetero siblings.
What this means is that environmental factors are likely more of contributing factors.
LGBT activists continue to push this study despite knowing full well of it's initial faults and subsequent corrections.
I don't understand why it is more important to be lied to instead of giving accurate information so people can make better decisions.
Even on most articles discussing genetic links that I've seen generally state that the research is inconclusive. Yet some people want to accept these things as fact regardless of any contravening information.
@Harry Potter.... I really don't care to address you because it is obvious from your comment you don't understand genetics or how the study of genetics works. Left handed can be a genetic tendency but can also easily be overcome by choice and environmental social factors so that some one can become right hand. Case in point would be me. I have many left handed folks in my family and I began life doing most all things left hand dominant but through training my parents encouraged me to do things right handed and today I do everything right hand dominant. You demonstrate little understanding in your comment and appear to be more agenda driven than anything. It isn't the truth you seek it is acceptance of your beliefs regardless of factual information. Not trying to be personally disrespectful but this is my observation after reading many of your comments in this thread. Have a good day.
You really don't even understand what is being discussed around you. Yet you just poke and prod just do be annoying. You really have no place in this conversation if you are not going to add anything of substance. Why don't you go read some of those studies I or Sleazy cited and be productive.
Again, I apologize but I am short on time. You are misrepresenting even some of the very studies you cite. The Langstrom study(which you cited) found that 37% of male Homosexuality is genetic and 63% was caused by individual-specific environmental factors. Environmental factors do NOT include upbringing, societal influences, and other post-natal factors. They do include chemical or hormonal influences during embryonic development known as neurohormonal or neuroendocrinal factors. Both the Bailey and Langstrom study you cited conclude that homosexuality is something that you are born with and that there are many factors that cause it.
And these are just the twin studies.
Comparing human sexuality and attraction to alcoholism is a red herring. The issue is complicated...but all the scientific evidence...including the ones you cite, agree with me.
A typical dismissive comment from someone who has not cited their sources like I requested, and has failed to respond to my challenge. You keep pretending to understand science. Using big words will undoubtedly fool many on here into believing you know what you are talking about, but it won't change the facts.
God Almighty says that homosexuality is an ABOMINATION, and God outranks all humans. God also doesn't change, he is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Just because our society has decayed ,doesn't mean it is ok,because God says it isn't.
Some of the Levitical Law seems pretty strange. But in reality a lot of them were about health, sanitation and getting along with others. What to eat and what not to eat. Shellfish and pork are still dangerous to eat. Shaving was and still is dangerous. No trac II back then. Any infection could kill you. Mixed fibers? They expand and shrink at different rates and render the garments unwashable, stinky. Paul wrote that the women should be quiet in the church because of complaints of their very loud "hen chatter" sessions while the men prayed and worshipped and conducted the church business. Women in authority in the Church? What better example than the United Methodist Church, where women are pastors, unrepentant homosexuality is celebrated, communism is celebrated and abortion is celebrated. Yeah, women make great leaders alright. The last line is sarcasm.
ROMANS 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we might not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.
2 Corinthians 5:16-17 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new
So there is your answer. GOD SAYS you cannot be A PRACTICING HOMOSEXUAL and be a follower of CHRIST...and as for being born a homosexual...that is A BLATANT FLAT OUT LIE...
@harry..... You keep asking for what has already been listed and commented on in this thread. If you simply would read then you would have your answers and again I have been through numerous college and medical school genetics courses, I understand just fine my friend. Have a good day.
Actually I do know a bit of what is being discussed and have read some of it.
But as always you "know "me better then me ...
and S I O doesn't need my help ...
Just an owl sitting on a tree in this forrest ...
March 25, 2014 at 11:08am
I think you’re reading the story wrong. Gun control advocates and liberals are the ones complaining. So cute!
March 24, 2014 at 9:39am
Hasn’t been a warm winter and spring is fairly cool so far. Too cold for sunbathing!
I believe O’Reilly taught in the inner schools for some time. Also, don’t care what color Jesus was. Don’t think he was black, but if he was, doesn’t matter to me. The end result of his time on earth is not predicated on color.
I know most people think O’reilly is a narcissist and a bloviater, but he does do good things, namely pushing Jessica’s Law, Wounded Warriors, Track Chairs for Vets, and getting the plight of black Americans to the forefront, just to name a few.
More than one can say for the powerful office of our current President.
February 27, 2014 at 12:23pm
Believe me. If this were a Repub and this site were a liberal site, there would be hate, calls for the death of the Repub and downright language. There has been none of that here. This is a walk in the park, compared to how a leftist website would respond.
February 11, 2014 at 5:11pm
Bet you didn’t listen to the video.
February 3, 2014 at 2:57pm
I thought O’Reilly did a decent job. No other journalist has come close to pushing Obama’s buttons like O’Reilly did.