Hello, again, Ryan!
First off, technology cannot be compared with “instinct.” Do animals engage in homosexuality? Answer: never, and they never will. You believe in evolution, therefore we are “animals” which would conclude that instinctually we are to pair with one of the opposite sex. Technology is inventions of the mind. They are separate from nature, we are not. We ARE nature. Your whole quoted “theory” would not make sense because if in fact we are animals, why then do animals (who also are governed by hormones and hereditary defects) not engage in homosexuality?
‘God allows free-will’ and ‘God instills preference’ (if God tells you what you prefer, than you can’t choose it on your own).”
WRONG!!! God gave us free-will and he gave us the will to CHOOSE our likes and dislikes. I NEVER said God “tells” you what you WILL like, He gave us the gift of preference.
“Then stop doing it. That was simple. Besides, I thought Christians weren’t supposed to judge anyone, even their own? ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’…”
WRONG again. Read 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 “Do you not know that the saints (Christians) will judge the world?…Do you not know that you will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!” We ARE to hold one another accountable. Again 1 Cor 5 “Are you not to judge those inside [the church]? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you.” Judgment is something totally different, Ryan. I am NOT judging their character, I am judging the WRONG behavior. “Love the sinner, hate the sin!”
“There are numerous theories”
THEORIES= Speculation as opposed to truth (Webster’s Dictionary)
Give me something concrete here, please. I do not believe anything you have printed because it is based on THEORY, NOT PROOF and therefore is not credible. You are also quoting me something from secular scientists that already believed in their mind that this was truth. I, however, know of people who have been cured. There are books (which I don’t have off hand so I will get the title for you) that are written by recovered homosexuals that state it was not an inborn trait, it was evil. These are people who were homosexuals, THEY ARE CREDIBLE!
“Confucius (551-479 BCE) that you may be familiar with ‘Don’t do anything to anyone that you wouldn’t want done to you’. ”
My dear, friend, do you know where Confucius got this from? The jewish law, Ryan! All Confucius’ belief’s stem from an origin of something that already existed. Confucius did not invent the Law of Human Nature. So go back farther, like say, the beginning of human life.
Anyway, Ryan, I find nothing else to be very entertaining in that, your views are just not going to change. Only God can change you. Let me just end with a couple of quotes from C.S. Lewis. The rest is up to you. I have a family and I must attend to them. God Bless, Ryan. I hope you will open your heart and join our team. Oh, as for your medical reference, thank you. You are correct as I am a health professional. I deal with human health and disease. I appreciate you accuracy in stating fact, I also hope you will appreciate my expertise in that science has a HIGH failure rate when it comes to nature. Women in childbirth died years ago because people disobeyed God’s commands (the commands to wash because GERMS were not yet discovered) in the Bible and did not wash before seeing each patient. Woman died from infections, staph mainly. So please, let’s stick to the point.
“You sound like you have a lot of anger in you. I would venture to say that it may not be because of homosexuality, but something else… ”
Just curious, what do you mean by this? If you are referring to my husband’s “taste” for tall, thin, athletic blondes, I was referring to myself. I otherwise have no clue what you were referring to with this comment?! Sorry, maybe I’m a little thick headed on this one?
“We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case, and in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe- no more that the architect of a house could actually be a wall, or staircase, or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions? In the only case where you can expect to get an answer, the answer turns out to be Yes; and in the other cases, where you do not get an answer, you see why you do not.
Suppose someone asked me, when I see a man in a blue uniform going down the street leaving little paper packets at each house, why I suppose that they contain letter? I should reply, ‘Because whenever he leaves a similar little packet for me I find it does contain a letter.’ And if he then objected, ‘But you’ve never seen all those letters which you think the other poeple are getting,’ I should say, ‘Of course not, and I shouldn’t expect to, because they’re not addressed to me. I’m explaining the packets I’m not allowed to open by the ones I’m allowed to open.’
It is the same about this question. The only packet I’m allowed to open is MAN. When I do, especially when I open that particular man called myself, I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am under a law; that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way. I do not, of course, think that if I could get inside a stone or a tree I should find exactly the same thing, just as I do not think all the other people in the street get the same letters as I do. I should expect, for instance, to find that the stone had to obey the law of gravity- that whereas the sender of the letters merely tells me to obey the laws of my human nature, He compels the stone to obey the laws of its stony nature. But I should expect to find that there was, so to speak, a sender in both cases, a Power behind the facts, a Director, a Guide.”
“Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called to Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the ‘laws of nature,’ we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law Right and Wrong ‘the Law of Nature,’ they really meant the Law of HUMAN nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law- with this great difference, that a body could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.”
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of JUST and UNJUST? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my agrument against God collapsed too- for the agrument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist- in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless- I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality- namely my idea of justice- was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.”