Why bother ringing 911?

[Maeght]

Yes, if you don't heed warnings about such stuff.

Warnings from who? And I agree - what is your definition of sin?

[Spud]

Warnings from who? And I agree - what is your definition of sin?

Specifically, the cigarette packet, parents (in my case re: alcohol) and a university lecturer who talked about the effect of computers on necks.
Sin is ignoring the warning.

[Maeght]

Specifically, the cigarette packet, parents (in my case re: alcohol) and a university lecturer who talked about the effect of computers on necks.
Sin is ignoring the warning.

That's not a definition of sin though - can you give your definition please?

[Brownie]

I agree Maeght.  What Spud is describing is at worst unwise, thoughtless behaviour but not sin which is an action, or ommission, with far more serious intent.

[Owlswing]

Evidence that they shunned the company of women, please, Owl.

Read your bible and tell me where there is anything about them enjoying the company of women once they started to follow Jesus!

[Hope]

Read your bible and tell me where there is anything about them enjoying the company of women once they started to follow Jesus!

- They visited the home of Mary and Martha (sisters of Lazarus), and would seem to have done so quite regularly;
- three Gospel passages refer to Peter's mother-in-law, suggesting that he was married;
- there are a number of women mentioned in the story of the Crucifixion. in view of the speed that this carried out, those women must have been accompanying Jesus and his disciples because they wouldn't have time to make it all the way from Galilee - which is were most of the  disciples came from;
- Jesus made no attempt to stop women and children coming to talk to him;

That's just off the top of my head - without looking at any of the material.  There are possibly more examples.

A bit of investigation later:

In 1 Corinthians 9:5, (! & 2 Corinthians are both generally regarded as part of the 'real' Pauline epistles) Paul asked the Corinthians whether he did not have the right to take a believing wife as was the case with “the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas [Peter].” From this, we can assume that Peter was not the only disciple to have a wife.

[Hope]

Name them!

Why?  All I know is that several gay people have said that they regard their orientation to be wrong in the various reports that have done the rounds over the years.  I woud have no idea whether you would actually know them.

[BeRational]

Why?  All I know is that several gay people have said that they regard their orientation to be wrong in the various reports that have done the rounds over the years.  I woud have no idea whether you would actually know them.

Perhaps these reports are fictional?

[Owlswing]

- They visited the home of Mary and Martha (sisters of Lazarus), and would seem to have done so quite regularly;
- three Gospel passages refer to Peter's mother-in-law, suggesting that he was married;
- there are a number of women mentioned in the story of the Crucifixion. in view of the speed that this carried out, those women must have been accompanying Jesus and his disciples because they wouldn't have time to make it all the way from Galilee - which is were most of the  disciples came from;
- Jesus made no attempt to stop women and children coming to talk to him;

That's just off the top of my head - without looking at any of the material.  There are possibly more examples.

A bit of investigation later:

In 1 Corinthians 9:5, (! & 2 Corinthians are both generally regarded as part of the 'real' Pauline epistles) Paul asked the Corinthians whether he did not have the right to take a believing wife as was the case with “the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas [Peter].” From this, we can assume that Peter was not the only disciple to have a wife.

None of this can be taken as FACT! Even you admit that by the wording used (highlighted in red).

Oh, and as I was told many years ago in school - never, ever assume - it makes an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me'!

[Owlswing]

Why?  All I know is that several gay people have said that they regard their orientation to be wrong in the various reports that have done the rounds over the years.  I woud have no idea whether you would actually know them.

Because I think that this is yet another one of your totally baseless assertions to "support" your opinions. Either that or they are people who have been subjected to the totally discredited "cure" for homosexuality so beloved of some Christian groups/sects.

It is of no consequence whatsoever if I know them or not - what is of consequence is whether YOU do! Which I sincerely doubt. 

[floo]

Specifically, the cigarette packet, parents (in my case re: alcohol) and a university lecturer who talked about the effect of computers on necks.
Sin is ignoring the warning.

I ask again what is your definition of 'sin'?

[Hope]

Because I think that this is yet another one of your totally baseless assertions to "support" your opinions. Either that or they are people who have been subjected to the totally discredited "cure" for homosexuality so beloved of some Christian groups/sects.

It is of no consequence whatsoever if I know them or not - what is of consequence is whether YOU do! Which I sincerely doubt.

You can hide behind the "totally baseless assertions to "support" your opinions", or the "they are people who have been subjected to the totally discredited "cure" for homosexuality" claims if you so wish, but the very existence of the latter category indicates that there are people who hold this position.  I realise that you want everyone to believe that they can be whatever they wish to be - something that is increasingly being drilled into young people at school, and often very positively - but not all want to be forced to act in this way.

[Brownie]

Good evening!
Owlswing, I too have read reports and interviews with people who believe that God somehow changed their sexual orientation.  Also a couple of guys who believed that God taught them how to avoid temptation and went on to marry and have children.   It was some years ago and I do not know their names though they didn't withhold names, but there was no-one of high profile (one was a television interview, an American chap.  I remember his face very well and some of the things he said).

They seemed truthful and quite sincere in their beliefs.  However we don't know what happened a few years down the line, which I know sounds very cynical but my experience of life has taught me that great changes of any kind do not always last; people revert to type especially under stress and show me the man or woman who has a stress free life. 

The other possibility, or probability, is the person leading a double life and that happens a lot.    Sometimes no-one finds ever finds out so they can have the best of both worlds but if it comes to light, there is a scandal.  It's grossly unfair to the person they married and there have been countless cases of homosexuals (including clergy),  marrying someone of the opposite sex, ultimately causing a lot of hurt which could have been avoided had they not tried to be what they are not.

All encouraged, nurtured even, by people telling them it is wrong to be gay!

I don't believe anyone can change their sexual orientation and there's no reason why they should.  However all Hope said was he had heard of people who claimed they had, and so have I.

[Owlswing]

You can hide behind the "totally baseless assertions to "support" your opinions", or the "they are people who have been subjected to the totally discredited "cure" for homosexuality" claims if you so wish, but the very existence of the latter category indicates that there are people who hold this position.  I realise that you want everyone to believe that they can be whatever they wish to be - something that is increasingly being drilled into young people at school, and often very positively - but not all want to be forced to act in this way.

To act in what way? Forced? By whom?

[floo]

You can hide behind the "totally baseless assertions to "support" your opinions", or the "they are people who have been subjected to the totally discredited "cure" for homosexuality" claims if you so wish, but the very existence of the latter category indicates that there are people who hold this position.  I realise that you want everyone to believe that they can be whatever they wish to be - something that is increasingly being drilled into young people at school, and often very positively - but not all want to be forced to act in this way.

It is sick disgusting that anyone could regard homosexuality as an illness in need of 'curing', when it is as normal as heterosexuality. 

[Hope]

It is sick disgusting that anyone could regard homosexuality as an illness in need of 'curing', when it is as normal as heterosexuality.

Have I ever even suggested that it's "an illness in need of 'curing'"?  Pretty well the only people I have seen referencing the idea are those who want to make out that the practice of homosexuality is not wrong.  I have regularly noted that homosexuality, in much the same way as a tendency to bad temper is, is something that may be innate in some - perhaps all of us - but has to be acted upon before it can be judged to be right or wrong.

For homosexuality to be 'as normal as heterosexuality' 50% of the population would have to be one, 50% the other.   It may, like left-handedness or short-sightedness, be natural, but that is not the same thing.

[Spud]

That's not a definition of sin though

But it was almost quite a good rap, no?

[Spud]

I agree Maeght.  What Spud is describing is at worst unwise, thoughtless behaviour but not sin which is an action, or ommission, with far more serious intent.

In the anglican prayer of confession we say that we have sinned against God in thought, word and deed, through negligence, through weakness and our own deliberate fault.

[floo]

Have I ever even suggested that it's "an illness in need of 'curing'"?  Pretty well the only people I have seen referencing the idea are those who want to make out that the practice of homosexuality is not wrong.  I have regularly noted that homosexuality, in much the same way as a tendency to bad temper is, is something that may be innate in some - perhaps all of us - but has to be acted upon before it can be judged to be right or wrong.

For homosexuality to be 'as normal as heterosexuality' 50% of the population would have to be one, 50% the other.   It may, like left-handedness or short-sightedness, be natural, but that is not the same thing.

You have a perverted way of thinking on this topic Hope, which is very sad! So do you think being left handed is abnormal as in the bad old days? We should be living in much more enlightened times where the subject of homosexuality is concerned, but sadly there are still many sick bigots who see it as abnormal;, hopefully with gay marriage now legal, in years to come people will see it as normal and no big deal. What really gets me is the people who use the not so good book as an excuse for their bigotry, funny there is no record of Jesus condemning it. But as I have said many times he could have been gay.

[floo]

In the anglican prayer of confession we say that we have sinned against God in thought, word and deed, through negligence, through weakness and our own deliberate fault.

It needs 'sinning' against and exterminating if it actually exists, and is as bad as the Bible portrays it as being.

[Brownie]

In the anglican prayer of confession we say that we have sinned against God in thought, word and deed, through negligence, through weakness and our own deliberate fault.

I know that Spud, it is also said in the Catholic Church, it covers all eventualities.  There certainly are "Sins of omission", if we knowingly don't bother to do something positive which may result in a serious problem for others, and if we are careless and know we are being careless but just don't care.  We always have to careful.

[jjohnjil]

You have a perverted way of thinking on this topic Hope, which is very sad! So do you think being left handed is abnormal as in the bad old days? We should be living in much more enlightened times where the subject of homosexuality is concerned, but sadly there are still many sick bigots who see it as abnormal;, hopefully with gay marriage now legal, in years to come people will see it as normal and no big deal. What really gets me is the people who use the not so good book as an excuse for their bigotry, funny there is no record of Jesus condemning it. But as I have said many times he could have been gay.

I agree entirely with you on this, Roses.

In ancient days when a tribe needed theirs to be bigger than their rival's, homosexuality would have been seen as counter-productive to that aim.  In today's world of dangerous over-population, it should be welcomed not condemned.

This is the problem with people believing what was right thousands of years ago must still be right today. 

Bigotry is the right word when they preach it on Internet forums.

[Brownie]

I have not come across any children/young people who are "forced" into believing anything;  no-one is encouraged to be gay, they are either are or they are not.  However kids are encouraged to believe there is room for everyone and not be bothered if one of their fellow pupils has a different orientation to their self.  I think that is a very good thing and eventually the snide remarks, taunting etc, which gay kids used to experience will completely disappear.

[Spud]

It needs 'sinning' against and exterminating if it actually exists, and is as bad as the Bible portrays it as being.

Actually we tell it we're truly sorry, but I'll also tell it it better watch out for a crazy lady called floo, at least then it has a fair chance of repenting

[Sebastian Toe]

Have I ever even suggested that it's "an illness in need of 'curing'"?  Pretty well the only people I have seen referencing the idea are those who want to make out that the practice of homosexuality is not wrong.  I have regularly noted that homosexuality, in much the same way as a tendency to bad temper is, is something that may be innate in some - perhaps all of us - but has to be acted upon before it can be judged to be right or wrong.

For homosexuality to be 'as normal as heterosexuality' 50% of the population would have to be one, 50% the other.   It may, like left-handedness or short-sightedness, be natural, but that is not the same thing.

Don't you judge right handedness or short sightedness to be right or wrong?