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

>>> 1) I have seen it change in persons I know
>>>
>>> 2) I have heard others re****t it changed in persons _they_ know
>>> (e.g., http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relation****p/_article/2496/)
>>>
>>> 3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it 
>>> changed
>>> (see,
>>> g.e., Rom 1:18-32.
>>>
>>> These three reasons are reason enough to disbelieve all the many
>>> irresponsible
>>> voices claiming to have evidence for the impossible.
>>
>>Like Einstein said, theory is theory until you have the data to make it
a
>>fact.
>
> And you do not have the data to make it a fact.
>

Sure we do.  Look at the track records of those who have attempted change.

As has been stated....a dismal record.  Fact.  The numbers don't lie.

>>I think the overall failure rates of such "change" ministries is enough
>>evidence
>
> We know you do. We knew this several posts ago. You add nothing to the
> discussion by repeating this unproven and unprovable assertion.

It's not unprovable.  The research has been done...and the facts are
there.

>> and reason enough to disbelieve people who pur****t to "know
>>someone" who changed.
>
> No, it is not reason enough. But more im****tant, you miss the point: it 
> was
> _you_ who claimed it is "hard-wired", so all it takes is ONE counter 
> example to
> prove you wrong. And I gave such a counter example.

An unverified example.  Again, good enough for you to have your opinion. 
But you expect others to come to the same conclsuion on second and thrid 
hand unverifiable information?

>>Anyone see Ted Haggard?
>
> Irrelevant, for reasons already explained.

Relevant...for reasons explained (Part of the failure of "change 
minstries".)

>>
>>Anyone hear of the Catholic Church Crisis?
>
> This is _also_ irrelevant, since it does not even concern whether or not

> ***ual
> orientation is 'hard-wired'.

Again, part of the failure of "change ministries".

> If you have to keep bringing up such inflammatory,

Why are they inflammatory?  They're all true.  Or do you not read the 
papers?

> yet totally irrelevant
> points,

Very relevant....for reasons already explained.

> then you can only succeed in one thing: persuading the rest of the NG
> that you have not got a leg to stand on,

I dont see the NG jumping to your defense....?

> so you have to keep on resorting to
> "red herrings".

And you keep resorting to this mysterious yet unverifiable "person you've 
known" as your source of what is possible...or Russian fairy tales on the 
internet (cuz if it's on the internet, we know it's true!).