Posted on 12/29/2002 8:59:44 AM PST by scripter
Is God a 'homophobe' is what you must ask yourself if you support the Gay propagandas as much as you do. [And if you say 'Yes', you are in deep doo doo. You may as well have a seance and dare the devil to appear.]
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Carnality for $200 please ...
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Gee, and it is more recent than the Constitution of the United States of America? Therefore, the Constitution is obsolete too? I guess the Bible being obsolete is a given then?
The Liberals seem to agree with you.
Eaker
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
Btw, thought you might want to read these verses again now that you have the correct perspective on what God was upset about.
Passing on a rumour as fact as you acused Mr Cameron. You are in error, but its not my post. I could play God himself on a DVD saying the words and drawing diagrams but you would still shrug it off because its your free will to do so. You're not automons/droids that God orders around in ranks. He has granted us choice. Okay. Make your choice and set your faith in what YOU will. I just wanted to fish around and see if you had any respect for your spiritual facet and the joy of righteousness thru Grace.
The second point is that some people are different and able to do things infinitely unthinkable to others. I can't tolerate them well, they agrivate me because they are so cold blooded. The 'trait' (wrong word) I am trying to pin down here makes my skin crawl. You exhibit it, despite all your appeals to documents and justification. This may be laughable to you; I'm your basic rural yokel, BUT, if we were disaster survivors together someplace, sometime, at the lowest point, when the group was, you know, all starving and dying, you would see the merit, you would argue the obvious, that we should eat those who have died to stay alive. It would be 'gross' to you, naturally enough, but you would definitely end up voting 'for' not against,... you would do it no matter how distasteful.
I would be in prayer and definitely never ever do it. But you would. Face it.
I'm not proclaiming you're evil or bad natured or mentally ill or something less than me, I'm not condemning you, but you are clearly different for the time being; cold.
The third point I want to make is that I could see this thread as an argument between, say gambling or smoking advocates and critics. Sexual perversion, adultery, self abuse and the like are vices of similar seriousness. They are to be loathed not promoted. Perversions used to be centered around public park toilets, now its mainstream. And this is a good thing to the social engineering set? The graduate set? No, its social entropy on fast forward.
Exclusivity is Irrelevent. First, the homosexual and pedophile Kinsey used prison inmates in his sample, obviously there is a much larger prevalence of homosexual behavior. Second, the pathology is same-sex attraction; admission is not the same as attraction as well as there are no part time pathologies.
Whatever you think about Dr. Herek, the question remains: is what he says on that page accurate or not?
Well YES! It’s addressed by Dr. Cameron himself, need I rewrite what you summarily dismissed with it’s “not worth the paper it's written on”? The burden is on you to refute his rebuttal.
I'm not aware of any study Cameron did that isn't invalid.
Gee whiz, being not aware doesn’t invalidate any of his studies, does it? How about a cite in an accepted study three years after him supposedly being “dropped” from the APA.
So the FACT remains, NONE of his research is invalid.
Verbosity was the author's only sin---a good concept poorly executed.
Well NO! It's not addressed by Dr. Cameron himself. Cameron refers to the APA ejection, a topic about which he can say whatever he likes as the APA itself won't comment, and claims that he was de-licensed in Nebraska. Herek's site is about Cameron being censured by both the Nebraska Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association for misrepresentation of the work of others, as well as statements in a court-ruling finding that he was misrepresenting the facts -- none of the three are addressed by Cameron on that page which remains worthless.
That "cite", in case you didn't read it, is of a ratio, not of his conclusions. It's meaningless for what you intend. To spell it out, he takes accurate data, in this case a ratio, and applies it to a conclusion that it doesn't support, hence, "misrepresentation".
OMG. You sit there and think of something to post and the first thing that comes to your crazy mind is CANNIBALISM - and talking about eating dead people - and you say I'm cold? Seriously, you people are really freaking me out....you are a nutso and I don't want anything more to do with you. Stay away from me, you creep. Good riddance to all of you weirdos who have posted these strange things - I'm out of here. This is what I get for trying to respond to you people and be nice....FREAKS.
OK, you got me, but NOT really, why should he address a negative when the ORIGINAL sanctions from the APA, (stemming from a politically agendized committee from the APA) are the basis for EVERTHING? Piling on is where we are today, it’s not science, it’s the blind leading the blind. Even the AMA has. Where did ALL of their “facts” come from? The APA! Not any independent studies or research did they do on their own.
That "cite", in case you didn't read it, is of a ratio, not of his conclusions. It's meaningless for what you intend. To spell it out, he takes accurate data, in this case a ratio, and applies it to a conclusion that it doesn't support, hence, "misrepresentation".
Hmm..The way I read it is Freund was supporting his own conclusions via “(Gebhard et al., 1965; Mohr et al., 1964) reported that the proportion of sex offenders against female children to that of sex offenders against male children was about [2:1].” And then he backed it up with Cameron’s research; “ In our own endeavors (Freund et al., 1984; 1987) we also found a similar proportion. A literature search (Cameron, 1985) that involved 17 additional studies on sex offenders against children, listed the ratio of victimized female to male children in the majority of cases also as approximately [2:1].”
Who’s misinterpreting now?
I meant to say that regarding perversions and other behavioral vices both sides tirelessly quote experts and surveys and numbers whilst rubbishing the opposing experts. Some swear by Chevrolet, some by Mopar, blah blah.
But for SSAD people rarely is the conscience -the real deep down 'sense' of right and wrong let out of the closet. A SSAD sufferrer comes out and puts on a public face of pride whilst simultaneously putting his/her deep self loathing in the closet. A hidden conflict between spiritual and physical satisfaction makes for a shorter fuse than sexually normal people perhaps. A layman's guess.
Re your "weirdo" post in reaction to my hyperthetical 'survival crisis' post... well it was a simple illustration to shine a light on your conscience: to get you to self-test your character off the board for a moment. And your post was very weak and thin reading. Are you really a person who would carry real world 'tests' (such as supporting fundamentally sick behaviors) to such an extent, to overule sentiment and conscience to side with the opinions of the professors? What would you hold to if not for them? What is your own gut feeling? Where is the self confidence and pride (needed in spades to call God 'homophobic')? Extrapolate your position as seen by your posts.
But what did you post? Kiddie shrieks like "Weirdo". Where are the brief references to personal triumphs over real crises and situations highlighting that you are really warm? Nothing heard.
Sleep on. God is patient with us and perhaps He will wait for another day, and an occasion when you really look into your priceless soul.
Are you a medical practioner? Reading between the lines in the earlier post, are we to think the worst, i.e. the spermatazoa 'do their thing' and wriggle their way out of the cavity into the flesh, then the blood's antibodies attack them, kill them, and then the liver filters them out?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.