It seems like only yesterday the Christian Right’s view of gays was they could change completely. It was just a matter of putting one in the hands of Jesus.
Exodus International and a host of organizations formed to show gay people just how to do that. Their business was to “cure”. The cure was complete when the client married someone of the opposite sex.
It is unfortunate those who formed these groups did not do more research into the issue, or, allowed themselves to believe in the research that was available. The “cure” theory was on quick sand and those who promoted it were sinking in.
Ted Haggard went back and forth between his wife and men. Leaders of Exodus International began to hedge on “cure” and talk of repressing an urge. Leaders of many like reparative therapy groups, including ones near here in Minneapolis, returned to lives as gays.
Now, a Christian group claims its “counseling” methods “reduce” same sex attractions. They have released with great fan fair the result of questionnaires given after counseling.
When on sees the results, however, it is clear the counseling had little impact. A small majority said they had less same sex attraction. About three out of four felt less troubled by their same sex attraction. Does this latter result say they simply returned to their lives as gay people and no long felt guilty about it?
Apparently, no one was “cured”. I would think they would want their money back.
Mr. Lindgren what is your point? Everyone knew that.
Eugene 12:54 “..what is your point? Everyone knew that.”
Are you saying everyone knew homosexuality was not reversible? I beg to differ on that.
If you knew that the next cigarette you smoked would kill you on the spot you would likely not light up. Its the fear factor. How much do you fear? Enough to resist your impulses?
“And by the fear of the LORD one keeps away from evil.” (Proverbs 16:6) This applies to sexual immorality as well.
As with many life changes you have to want to make the change. Took me three years and a couple of dozen tries for alcohol (took the DT’s), 30+ years for nicotine (prayer and working Christian retreats in jails). No counseling works until you WANT it to work.
Stan, most people think the only goal of repairative therapy was to stop homosexuality.
In reality there were three goals: first was to make the person celibate, the second to make them willing to accept never having the emotional connection that comes with sharing all of yourself with someone else.
Then the third and kind of frightening goal was to marry the person off to some unfortunate person of the opposite gender.
I always thought that part was really unfair to the unsuspecting person and his/her parents who ended up having a child that was used as a tool for someone else’s self denial.
Mac: “Then the third and kind of frightening goal was to marry the person off to some unfortunate person of the opposite gender.”
Unfortunate person? Are former gays that bad? I don’t think it is fair you castigate a former gay as some kind of monster.
This is rehash. And only from a couple of months ago. The reposts are starting to become closer together.
http://redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2012/07/02/exodus-international-no-longer-cures-gays/
Jon is speading the lie that people don’t have the free will to make a moral choice. Just go with your impulses. Humans are moral beings. Animals go with their impulses or instincts, that is all they know. That is the product of his evolutionary reasoning.
The good old fall back – Freewill. Can’t explain how your loving God put all the evil in the world – oh, he allows you to choose. Something that can change at will to explain everything eventually explains nothing.
Michael 4:46 “Just go with your impluses.”
I thought God was all powerful. How can we then just follow our impluses?
You still don’t get it do you. Or you refuse to get it…..which is worse.
Reminds me of the story; “daddy, is there an “F” in strawberries? “No son there is no F; Again, Daddy is there an “F” in strawberries”? “I told you son, there is no f”in strawberries”!
If you want to be vulgar you really should say there “are” no strawberries. My wife, a schoolteacher, always said you can use the “F” word as long as you pronounce the “G” on the end.
“An F” singular requiring an is. are is plural. Strawberries, (the word), is the object, (singular). A bowl of strawberries would be plural, due to the number involved. Could be wrong, not important to carry the joke. The “f’in” part I don’t understand. Where did the G come from?
Ah, Free Will. Such a condominium- – - – Come to the dark side; “No, I won’t”?- – - Come to the light side; “No, I can’t”? Something about what I should, but that which I don’t . All about one verse, forgetting the whole chapter. Google away. You’re getting warmer, you’re getting colder.
But you constantly refer to the “bound will” in what way is being bound being free? Just asking but not expecting a definitive answer just some more convolutions.
Think about it. Who’s will is bound. Proof you don’t even know the subject matter. Oh my ! No wonder.
Never heard of bound will before you mentioned it so perhaps you didn’t explain it very well. I know a bad student usually blames the teacher, but convoluted comments and worn out jokes don’t help.
Perhaps it is because since I left school I have found the whole thing to be implausible and don’t find the ultimate answer of divine mystery very helpful.
It’s out there. I can’t force feed you. Even the “convoluted” would be clear. You want answers. You think you have the answers. You haven’t even seriously asked the question, yet you skirt around it. You’re getting warmer, then colder.
Seems that you do not recognise the questions when they are asked. At least you never answer them directly.
Seriously asking. What do you understand by freewill? What do you understand by bound will?
Are they compatible?
Keep looking.
What IS free will. That is the congestion.
entech 6:03 re: your replay to Wanna: “…’bound will’ in what way is being bound being free? Just asking but not expecting a definitive answer just some more convolutions.”
I’ve never heard of “bound will” either. You and I have not spent our lives learning minute details about unimportant subject matter.
Ignorance is bliss. If it’s unimportant to you, why do you bring it up?
Because we are interested, we actually do want to know. Sorry Jon, but I am guessing your answer would be similar.
entech 2:14 “..I am guessing your answer would be similar.”
You are correct. I am curious about why people believe in the mysterious, unseen and unvarified.
Seen but not recognized. There, yet not there. The paradox.
Entech; Jon says, (contrary to your request); “I am curious about (why)((note- – not what)) people believe in the mysterious, unseen and unvarified”. Far different than your question. I have told you both months ago, yet you purpously forget. Those who brag about reason cannot be reasoned with. I will not tell you again. It isn’t a riddle.
The tag-team trips on themselves again.
et: Because we are interested, we want to know.
jl: You are correct and adding interested in why people believe such things.
Now @4:24pm we get Wanna the almighty, source of all knowledge, according to whom the above exchange translates as:
Jon’s statement “You are correct” cannot be taken at face values it is actually contrary to my <REQUEST?.
Which request Wanna, I made a simple statement and got a simple agreement followed by a simple statement expressing curiosity about why people believe in mysterious, unseen and unverified things.
Where the why not what idea comes from it is not apparent.
Now which question is all this far different from, the only question in this whole sequence is the one I asked you and which, as expected you answered with some nonsensical avoidance strategy such as “keep looking” and then the completely stupid and of the wall word game “congestion”????
When you chide people about comprehension you are actually talking to yourself.
Once again your total arrogance creeps out “I have told you both months ago, yet you purpously(sic) forget; it may not occur to you, more likely the very concept is alien to you, that the problem is that you fail to convince, it is not that people purposely forget what you tell them – there is nothing to forget because there is nothing true or memorable in what you say.
A personal question, if I may? What was your line of work before retirement? Could it have been in some educational field where a pass mark depended on a mark from you, and that that mark was contingent on agreement with your expressed views.
On the point of ‘expressed views’ whatever I say is my viewpoint, it may or may not be correct, probably evenly divided between the two extremes with most being somewhere in between. What makes you so consistently correct, so desperate to attack Jon on any point because he does not agree with you. Could it be that in trying to avoid answering any and all questions, reverting to the increasingly stated and increasingly false statement “I have told you before”, that you have been forced to think freely for the time. Are you having a slight ‘itching’ of doubt, the vaguest, reluctant acceptance that you may not be infallible?
Oh my ! Now he gets testy. Forgets what has been said in the past, then blames others for his inability to remember. Yet, asks again. No f’in strawberries for you. There is however an F in failure.
Congestion fits.
We have gont through the free will/ bound will in depth before. It was ‘splained to you. Why ask again? You must expect an answer more to your reasoning. As I said, I told you before, (a fact.) Don’t expect a different answer.
whatever you say, as always whatever You say.
Should we all just follow our impulses? If it feels good, do it as we said in the sexual revolution. Just use a condom. Like a bunch of rabbits. I’m sorry libs think so little of young people. A new take on the old Trix commercial: “Silly rabbit, sex is for kids”.
On a subject we might all be interested in. Ron Paul is scheduled to be on with Jay Leno tonite. Speculation is that he may be announcing a third party run for the W.H. after being shafted by the criminal Romney RNC convention
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/12695-gop-convention-recap-what-will-ron-paul-say-on-leno-show