Re: How Should We Respond to Homo***uality?

>>> Three reasons:
>
>>> 1) I have seen it change in persons I know
>
>>So you claim, but how do we know this is true?
>
> You don't. But you are missing the point. Have you forgotten what the
> question was?

No.  This experience is something that has obviously affected you.  But
you 
expect everyone to come to a similar conclusion...not knowing this 
individual you mention.

Also, why doesn't he share his story...to offer sup****t to others?


>>And if we are believe you, how do we know these persons have actually
>>'changed'? In all the cases that I know of the homo***uality has not
>>changed, but merely been sublimated.
>
> And I could turn that around and ask you: how do -we- really know that
> yours didn't change, that they only 'sublimated'?

Because they have no stake in claiming anything different.

>>> 2) I have heard others re****t it changed in persons _they_ know
>>> (e.g.,http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relation****p/_article/2496/)
>
>>More questionable, second-hand re****ts?
>
> No more questionable than all the cases you claim weren't really
> changed.

Second, third hand unverified information?

Plus those that claim "no change" are public.  Your "change is possible" 
people are all second and third hand accounts...impossible to verify.

>>For someone who appears to value do***entation this fails.
>
> Again, you miss the point.

No, that's indeed the point.

Instead you cling to things that you *wish* to believe or *want* to
believe 
and accept them as true...with no facts, no verification, impossoble to 
prove.

>>> 3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it
>>> changed (see, g.e., Rom 1:18-32
>
>>This section does not refer to the loving, longterm relation****ps of
>>today.
>
> How long do you think you can hide from the truth? This thread is not
> _about_ such relation****ps, whether they exist or not; it is about the
> _orientation_.

How long are you going to _make up the Truth_  from the things you _want_
to 
believe.

> Those "dramatic" sources are not good enough.

Of course not...why let facts get in the way?

> How could it be, when the no less scientific Catholic
> Medical Association finds the very opposite?

Would you expect anything else from the CATHOLIC Medical Association?

The _Catholic_ Medical Association has a dog in the fight.

They are bias...and carry very little authority on this subject.

> Perhaps you missed the Yahoo! article about how the majority of
> doctors were wrong about drinking 8 gl***** of water a day?

But Rome is *always* right....right?

Just ask Galileo.

>
>>But, of course, modern science is wrong and you're right.
>
> Ah, but what you call "modern science" is not really scientific at
> all.

This from someone who uses the Catholic Medical Association as a source?