Exodus Intl Closes doors

[DanieltheDragon]

Exodus a leading ex-gay ministry closed its doors and issued an apology for the harm it has caused to the gay community.

Does this influence the way you view homosexuality as a choice?

they operated for 40 years claiming they could cure homosexuality even their leader claimed he used to be gay. After 40 years they admitted they were wrong and their president admitted he was never cured.

[East of Eden]

Nonsense, as I have demonstrated, the church has held this to be sin since the beginning, and as a matter of fact the NT does address lesbians.

Where does the NT address lesbians? Jesus didn't even mention anything about male homosexuality apart from Matt 19:12 let alone female homosexuality, and Paul didn't write anything about female homosexuality either, including Romans 1:26, and surprise surprise neither did the OT writers.

Oh brother, now you're going to spin Romans 1:26. Its obvious you've got your mind made up.

And what is the published reference for your suggestion that tens of millions of homosexuals have died from aids, given that worldwide most cases of HIV/AIDS are heterosexuals and that the first HIV infections were in heterosexual Africans.

Do you want to claim the gay lifestyle is a healthy one? http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

At least I don't have to lie about what Romans 1:26 actually says, or more importantly what it doesn't say.

No lies here, and I don't think the church had it wrong for 2,000 years only to be corrected by an atheist in Australia with an axe to grind.

Do you claim that all the cases of HIV infected children were caused from buggery by marauding mobs of homosexuals and/or lesbians who also lurk under beds with the reds?

Can you not even be honest enough to admit that gays had a huge part in the spread of AIDS, and that innocent people were affected?

Alas Romans 1:26, like the rest of the bible, mentions nothing at all about female homosexuality,

Nonsense, do you know what 'woman' means in Rom. 1:26?

Nah!!! The vast majority of HIV infections worldwide is by heterosexual sex not by homosexuals and particularly not female homosexuals, or are you trying to suggest that the female 50% with HIV are all female homosexuals and that all the infected children were buggered by male and female homosexuals. http://avert.org/worldstats.htm

So to you, AIDS doesn't have an, ahem, special place in the gay world? Wow.....

So what, where does Romans 1:26 say that the men's women were burning with passion for each other or doing shameful things to each other? Answer: it doesn't,

It does when Romans 1:26 says, "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." Can you please stop making things up?

since the bible is about men not women, where women are just regarded as the property of men along with their sheep and goats, and where the lives and behavior of women are the responsibility of men.

Nonsense, Christianity elevated the status of women. From Dinesh D'Souza:

"Women had a very low status in ancient Greece and Rome, as they do today in many cultures, notably in the Muslim world. Such views are common in patriarchal cultures. And they were prevalent as well in the Jewish society in which Jesus lived. But Jesus broke the traditional taboos of his time when he scandalously permitted women of low social status to travel with him and be part of his circle of friends and confidantes.

Christianity did not immediately and directly contest patriarchy, but it helped to elevate the status of women in society. The Christian prohibition of adultery, a sin it viewed as equally serious for men and women, and rules concerning divorce that (unlike in Judaism and Islam) treated men and women equally, helped to improve the social status of women. Indeed so dignified was the position of the woman in Christian marriage that women predominated in the early Christian church, and the pagan Romans scorned Christianity as a religion for women."

And where does Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 say that womankind should not lie with womankind as with mankind?

So you think homosexual activity was wrong for men but OK for women back then? Strange.....

And besides,, there are far naughtier things than mankind lying with mankind as with womankind, including giving toddlers Crickett guns for xmas & birthday presents

We disagree on your obsession with children's toys, and what is a 'Crickett gun'?

and divorcees who remarry (Mark 10:11-12 Luke 16:18).

Yes, that is wrong, except for certain circumstances.

Globally, HIV infections of male & female homosexuals are of minor importance compared to heterosexual transmissions and infections, and certainly not of greater importance.

Certainly true in Africa today unfortunately, but I was speaking of the US. As the US Center for Disease Control says: "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States."

[mitty]

[quote="East of Eden"]
[quote="mitty"]
[quote="East of Eden"]
[quote="mitty"]
[quote="East of Eden"]
[quote="mitty"]
[quote="East of Eden"]
[quote="mitty"]
[quote="East of Eden"]
[quote="connermt"]
[quote="East of Eden"]


Can you please stop making things up. Romans 1:26 clearly is not about female homosexuality, but about what the women were allowing the men to do to them which Paul found unacceptable such as anal sex, unless you are suggesting that the women were having anal sex with each other. This is in accord with the rest of the bible which says nothing about female homosexuality either.

The male biblical writers clearly regarded women as the property of men (eg Gen 3:16 Ex 20:17) and subordinate to men. Where does the bible say that a woman shouldn't covet her neighbour's husband or his/her ass? Answer: it doesn't. Why are some Christian denominations still reluctant to ordain female clergy because of Paul's attitude to women? Etc etc etc.

Well may you ask why Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 doesn't say that women should not lie with women as with mankind when Lev 18:23 & 20:16 forbids women lying with their puppies & horseys because it confuses them, and when the bible separately deals with female adultery. Clearly the answer, as for Rom 1:26, is that female homosexuals do not bugger each other, nor that the property rights of men are infringed by those that can sexually penetrate them.

Do you think Crickett guns are appropriate gifts for children or should be banned http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/ ... -for-kids/ although I guess you would say that toddlers and little kids shouldn't miss out on playing Rambo or Wyatt Earp either, even if they could blow his/her baby sister's brains out. Afterall, don't you advocate having loaded firearms around the house just in case an armed bogeyman jumps through the window or comes out of a cupboard; but never mind that a toddler might like to play shoot-'em-ups with them.

So why did Jesus condemn to hell divorcees who remarry (Luke 16:18) yet, apart from Matt 19:12, he said nothing about female homosexuality or even male homosexuality.

As for HIV infections, I'm not interested in your country's case but in the global situation which is mainly a heterosexual problem. And afterall, HIV originated in Africa from eating chimpanzees as "wild meat" and was then transmitted between heterosexuals not homosexuals.

[East of Eden]

[mitty]

[otseng]

At least I don't have to lie about what Romans 1:26 actually says, or more importantly what it doesn't say.

Moderator Comment

Please do not imply that others are lying.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[DanieltheDragon]

it would appear at least that east of eden is misrepresenting scripture as the greek words physikēn and physin mean natural and nature. the meaning is not defined further and is subject to opinion. furtherfurthermore the following verse is not offered as a parallel. seeing as natural is not defined we must look at the context which during the writtings of this it was not uncommon for women to have same sex relationships this would have been natural. which makes sense considering the following verse specifies those that give themselves to desires of other men.

[mitty]

[East of Eden]

it would appear at least that east of eden is misrepresenting scripture as the greek words physikēn and physin mean natural and nature. the meaning is not defined further and is subject to opinion.

Nonsense, are you seriously unaware the church has rightly interpreted this as against male or female homosexual activity for 2,000 years? The misrepresentation is yours.

furtherfurthermore the following verse is not offered as a parallel. seeing as natural is not defined we must look at the context which during the writtings of this it was not uncommon for women to have same sex relationships this would have been natural.

It was seen as natural in the pagan world, which is why Paul addressed it when speaking to Gentiles and Jesus did not when speaking to Jewish audiences, where it was clearly not seen as normal.

[DanieltheDragon]

it would appear at least that east of eden is misrepresenting scripture as the greek words physikēn and physin mean natural and nature. the meaning is not defined further and is subject to opinion.

Nonsense, are you seriously unaware the church has rightly interpreted this as against male or female homosexual activity for 2,000 years? The misrepresentation is yours.

further the following verse is not offered as a parallel. seeing as natural is not defined we must look at the context which during the writtings of this it was not uncommon for women to have same sex relationships this would have been natural.

It was seen as natural in the pagan world, which is why Paul addressed it when speaking to Gentiles and Jesus did not when speaking to Jewish audiences, where it was clearly not seen as normal.

The church is not my barometer for correct interpretation of scripture as there is both a bias and poor overall track record. Also your figure of 2000 years is wrong by my estimations of roughly 300 years. Also which church ? There are churches today that challenge this interpretation .

then Paul made a poor grammatical error clearly even today it is by definition natural as it occurs in nature. perhaps Paul made a mistake and again we are left with the an unknown within scripture.

[East of Eden]

it would appear at least that east of eden is misrepresenting scripture as the greek words physikēn and physin mean natural and nature. the meaning is not defined further and is subject to opinion.

Nonsense, are you seriously unaware the church has rightly interpreted this as against male or female homosexual activity for 2,000 years? The misrepresentation is yours.

further the following verse is not offered as a parallel. seeing as natural is not defined we must look at the context which during the writtings of this it was not uncommon for women to have same sex relationships this would have been natural.

It was seen as natural in the pagan world, which is why Paul addressed it when speaking to Gentiles and Jesus did not when speaking to Jewish audiences, where it was clearly not seen as normal.

The church is not my barometer for correct interpretation of scripture as there is both a bias and poor overall track record.

Uh, that's like saying Muslims aren't the correct interpreters of the Koran. What, atheists are?

Also your figure of 2000 years is wrong by my estimations of roughly 300 years.

Explain.

Also which church ? There are churches today that challenge this interpretation .

Very few. The three largest churches in Christendom, the Catholic, the Orthodox, and the big majority of the 70 million member Anglican communion agree with me, as has the church throughout history.

then Paul made a poor grammatical error clearly even today it is by definition natural as it occurs in nature. perhaps Paul made a mistake and again we are left with the an unknown within scripture.

Except he didn't make any errors.