Ben Carson says being gay is a choice

[AUDub 11,158]

He got Ed Brayton's attention. Language warning, though I've edited it here.

After making an egregiously stupid statement that homosexuality is “absolutely” a choice because people go to prison straight and come out gay, Ben Carson took to Facebook to “apologize” and managed to dig the hole even deeper with more absurdity.

In a recent interview on CNN, I realized that my choice of language does not reflect fully my heart on gay issues.

What the **** does that mean? This is classic religio-babble.

I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation.

Yes you do. When asked if you think homosexuality is a choice you said, and I quote, “absolutely.” You didn’t just pretend to know, you pretended to know it “absolutely.”

I’m a doctor trained in multiple fields of medicine, who was blessed to work at perhaps the finest institution of medical knowledge in the world. Some of our brightest minds have looked at this debate, and up until this point there have been no definitive studies that people are born into a specific sexuality.

You have a medical degree and you have no idea how epigenetics works. Absurd, but unsurprising.

We do know, however, that we are always born male and female.

You’re a doctor and you’ve never heard of intersex people? Hermaphrodites? Klinefelter’s syndrome? About 1% of all people are born with one of several types of non-binary gender (and that’s just looking a genitalia, it doesn’t count those who are transgender), which means there are about 70 million people who were not, in fact, born male or female. Again, we have a medical doctor who claims to know things that are flatly false.

I support human rights and Constitutional protections for gay people, and I have done so for many years. I support civil unions for gay couples, and I have done so for many years. I support the right of individual states to sanction gay marriage, and I support the right of individual states to deny gay marriage in their respective jurisdictions.

Then you don’t have a clue what the word “rights” means. States do not have rights, individuals have rights. And if you actually supported human rights for gay people, you would be against violating those rights no matter what level of government is doing it.

I also think that marriage is a religious institution. Religious marriage is an oath before God and congregation. Religious marriage must only be governed by the church. Judges and government must not be allowed to restrict religious beliefs.

You have it exactly backwards. If marriage was a religious institution, non-religious people would not be allowed to get married. If marriage was a religious institution, only those that the church approves of would be allowed to get married. But in this country, you can get married without any religious component whatsoever. You can be married at a courthouse with religion being completely absent from the proceedings, which proves that marriage is a legal institution. A marriage is not legally recognized unless the government issues a license and the license is then witnessed and returned to the government.

And whether gay people are allowed to get married or not, “religious marriage” is and will remain under the control of the church. No church can be forced to perform a gay wedding, just like they can’t be forced to perform an interracial or interreligious one. But that has nothing to with whether they can actually get married, which is a function of the state, not the church.

And then, because he apparently can’t trust himself not to say something stupid on the subject, he told Sean Hannity he will refuse to answer any question about gay rights from now on:

He added: “I simply have decided I’m not going to really talk about that issue anymore, because every time I gain momentum, the liberal press says, ‘let’s talk about gay rights.’ I’m just not going to fall for that anymore.”

Yeah, you should totally blame it on the person who asks you the question. It must be their fault, not yours for saying something stupid.

[homersapien 11,393]

That was a certainly a straightforward analysis!

[TheBlueVue 177]

He got Ed Brayton's attention. Language warning, though I've edited it here.

After making an egregiously stupid statement that homosexuality is “absolutely” a choice because people go to prison straight and come out gay, Ben Carson took to Facebook to “apologize” and managed to dig the hole even deeper with more absurdity.

In a recent interview on CNN, I realized that my choice of language does not reflect fully my heart on gay issues.

What the **** does that mean? This is classic religio-babble.

I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation.

Yes you do. When asked if you think homosexuality is a choice you said, and I quote, “absolutely.” You didn’t just pretend to know, you pretended to know it “absolutely.”

I’m a doctor trained in multiple fields of medicine, who was blessed to work at perhaps the finest institution of medical knowledge in the world. Some of our brightest minds have looked at this debate, and up until this point there have been no definitive studies that people are born into a specific sexuality.

You have a medical degree and you have no idea how epigenetics works. Absurd, but unsurprising.

We do know, however, that we are always born male and female.

You’re a doctor and you’ve never heard of intersex people? Hermaphrodites? Klinefelter’s syndrome? About 1% of all people are born with one of several types of non-binary gender (and that’s just looking a genitalia, it doesn’t count those who are transgender), which means there are about 70 million people who were not, in fact, born male or female. Again, we have a medical doctor who claims to know things that are flatly false.

I support human rights and Constitutional protections for gay people, and I have done so for many years. I support civil unions for gay couples, and I have done so for many years. I support the right of individual states to sanction gay marriage, and I support the right of individual states to deny gay marriage in their respective jurisdictions.

Then you don’t have a clue what the word “rights” means. States do not have rights, individuals have rights. And if you actually supported human rights for gay people, you would be against violating those rights no matter what level of government is doing it.

I also think that marriage is a religious institution. Religious marriage is an oath before God and congregation. Religious marriage must only be governed by the church. Judges and government must not be allowed to restrict religious beliefs.

You have it exactly backwards. If marriage was a religious institution, non-religious people would not be allowed to get married. If marriage was a religious institution, only those that the church approves of would be allowed to get married. But in this country, you can get married without any religious component whatsoever. You can be married at a courthouse with religion being completely absent from the proceedings, which proves that marriage is a legal institution. A marriage is not legally recognized unless the government issues a license and the license is then witnessed and returned to the government.

And whether gay people are allowed to get married or not, “religious marriage” is and will remain under the control of the church. No church can be forced to perform a gay wedding, just like they can’t be forced to perform an interracial or interreligious one. But that has nothing to with whether they can actually get married, which is a function of the state, not the church.

And then, because he apparently can’t trust himself not to say something stupid on the subject, he told Sean Hannity he will refuse to answer any question about gay rights from now on:

He added: “I simply have decided I’m not going to really talk about that issue anymore, because every time I gain momentum, the liberal press says, ‘let’s talk about gay rights.’ I’m just not going to fall for that anymore.”

Yeah, you should totally blame it on the person who asks you the question. It must be their fault, not yours for saying something stupid.

Frankly, I don't blame him for not wanting to talk about it anymore. He could lie about his position like Obama did and seemingly always does and simply say all that is above his pay grade. Leave it to the lackies in the media to suggest his presumed ability to be an effective President hinges on a social engineering issue that, in reality, is so small its really not worth the time, the ink nor the paper involved in reporting it.

[aubfaninga 16]

Of course, we all remember that magical time in our lives, when a young boy or girl, pondering which 'feels' right, takes the fateful step and then chooses to be either gay or straight.

<_</>

Or not.

Actually the number of preadolescent sexual experimentation is actually quite high. It's hard to find the numbers but they are out there. (found it before but it's hiding now)

If I remember correctly the number is upwards of 55% just in males.

That isn't remotely what I'm talking about here.

Do YOU remember the day you CHOSE to be straight ?

If you look at the percentage of adult homosexuals compared to the percentage of preadolescent experimentation there definitely can be some correlation. or as you put it "Choice".

Do you remember the day you chose to quit looking at inappropriate aged girls? At some point I made the "choice" but I can't tell you the exact time or date. I know for a fact that I was not "born that way".

What are you talking about?

"[A] CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF THE population, perhaps the major portion of the male population, has at least some homosexual experience between adolescence and old age. In addition, about 60 per cent of the pre-adolescent boys engage in homosexual activities, and there is an additional group of adult males who avoid overt contacts but who are quite aware of their potentialities for reacting to other males."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1447861/

http://www.advocates...a-z/201-lessons

[alexava 6,973]

Thanks for the welcome.

I have read multiple studies on this topic and have questions I don't feel have been completely answered so my doubts remain.

I realize I threw out an easy and obvious example of choice, but it's one I felt everyone would be familiar with. My example probably made me look simplistic in my views.

I agree that Dr. Carson's expertise is not in genetics, but that doesn't undermine his ability to understand the topic to a great degree.

I find it interesting that such an intelligent man is being so quickly dismissed in this thread. He's not a politician so he is going to say things that a handler didn't get to review first. The prison example was probably not a good example and I think he has already acknowledged that and apologized for offending people.

Still working on that Quote thingy.

And that's the point.

He surely understands that his area of expertise, as deep as it is, is very narrow. But he obviously has the capability to understand the science. (Which is more accurately sexuality, not genetics.)

So why - as a potential candidate for president - would he make such a statement that is grounded in such obvious ignorance?

Is "chubby chasing" genetic? That's what I want to know because my son has a thing for circumference.

Not sure I want to understand what you are talking about. <_</>

My son prefers very heavy women and finds skinny women to be a turn off. Was this a "choice"?

that is funny. "Very" is what has me laughing. He shouldn't have any trouble finding them.

[homersapien 11,393]

He got Ed Brayton's attention. Language warning, though I've edited it here.

After making an egregiously stupid statement that homosexuality is “absolutely” a choice because people go to prison straight and come out gay, Ben Carson took to Facebook to “apologize” and managed to dig the hole even deeper with more absurdity.

In a recent interview on CNN, I realized that my choice of language does not reflect fully my heart on gay issues.

What the **** does that mean? This is classic religio-babble.

I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation.

Yes you do. When asked if you think homosexuality is a choice you said, and I quote, “absolutely.” You didn’t just pretend to know, you pretended to know it “absolutely.”

I’m a doctor trained in multiple fields of medicine, who was blessed to work at perhaps the finest institution of medical knowledge in the world. Some of our brightest minds have looked at this debate, and up until this point there have been no definitive studies that people are born into a specific sexuality.

You have a medical degree and you have no idea how epigenetics works. Absurd, but unsurprising.

We do know, however, that we are always born male and female.

You’re a doctor and you’ve never heard of intersex people? Hermaphrodites? Klinefelter’s syndrome? About 1% of all people are born with one of several types of non-binary gender (and that’s just looking a genitalia, it doesn’t count those who are transgender), which means there are about 70 million people who were not, in fact, born male or female. Again, we have a medical doctor who claims to know things that are flatly false.

I support human rights and Constitutional protections for gay people, and I have done so for many years. I support civil unions for gay couples, and I have done so for many years. I support the right of individual states to sanction gay marriage, and I support the right of individual states to deny gay marriage in their respective jurisdictions.

Then you don’t have a clue what the word “rights” means. States do not have rights, individuals have rights. And if you actually supported human rights for gay people, you would be against violating those rights no matter what level of government is doing it.

I also think that marriage is a religious institution. Religious marriage is an oath before God and congregation. Religious marriage must only be governed by the church. Judges and government must not be allowed to restrict religious beliefs.

You have it exactly backwards. If marriage was a religious institution, non-religious people would not be allowed to get married. If marriage was a religious institution, only those that the church approves of would be allowed to get married. But in this country, you can get married without any religious component whatsoever. You can be married at a courthouse with religion being completely absent from the proceedings, which proves that marriage is a legal institution. A marriage is not legally recognized unless the government issues a license and the license is then witnessed and returned to the government.

And whether gay people are allowed to get married or not, “religious marriage” is and will remain under the control of the church. No church can be forced to perform a gay wedding, just like they can’t be forced to perform an interracial or interreligious one. But that has nothing to with whether they can actually get married, which is a function of the state, not the church.

And then, because he apparently can’t trust himself not to say something stupid on the subject, he told Sean Hannity he will refuse to answer any question about gay rights from now on:

He added: “I simply have decided I’m not going to really talk about that issue anymore, because every time I gain momentum, the liberal press says, ‘let’s talk about gay rights.’ I’m just not going to fall for that anymore.”

Yeah, you should totally blame it on the person who asks you the question. It must be their fault, not yours for saying something stupid.

Frankly, I don't blame him for not wanting to talk about it anymore. He could lie about his position like Obama did and seemingly always does and simply say all that is above his pay grade. Leave it to the lackies in the media to suggest his presumed ability to be an effective President hinges on a social engineering issue that, in reality, is so small its really not worth the time, the ink nor the paper involved in reporting it.

I think you are missing the point. His position - or at least his words - cast light on his judgement - if not the thought processes that lead to his convictions.

And really, "social engineering"? Like the Civil Rights act was social engineering?

[TheBlueVue 177]

'I think you are missing the point. His position - or at least his words - cast light on his judgement - if not the thought processes that lead to his convictions."

yeah you got me but let me ask you a follow up...does Hillary Clinton operating multiple personal e-mail accounts on a personal server as SoS cast light on her judgement? Or, does that light only shine on discussions about homosexuality? Comparatively speaking, I'd say Ben Carson's feeling about that topic are really inconsequential to the performance of that job compared to Hillary's recent transgressions but I haven't seen you opine on that even ONCE.

[aubfaninga 16]

If you look at the percentage of adult homosexuals compared to the percentage of preadolescent experimentation there definitely can be some correlation. or as you put it "Choice".

Do you remember the day you chose to quit looking at inappropriate aged girls? At some point I made the "choice" but I can't tell you the exact time or date. I know for a fact that I was not "born that way".

Interest in the opposite sex is , imo , hardwired into males. I can't speak as to why gay men are gay, but your question is kinda ridiculous, as it intermixes social limits on very real biological and evolutionary matters.

As I age, my interest in women changes. But the interest in females remains that... an interest in females.

I think all angles of looking at this are interesting. Even research into identical twins choosing separate paths always puts fog into the discussion.

Not really. In fact, it confirms the proposition that a "genetic" - or biological - component exists.

If one twin is homosexual, the other is something like 10 times more likely to be homosexual than from random chance. (As I recall)

Not disagreeing but my guess is these results can be found across the board with twins. I have seen twins used to show the "god gene".

Drug abuse...

http://archives.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol14N4/Twins.html

If we want to prove that hand usage is not genetic we have this....

http://uwtwinregistry.org/do-identical-twins-always-have-the-same-hand-preference/

[homersapien 11,393]

'I think you are missing the point. His position - or at least his words - cast light on his judgement - if not the thought processes that lead to his convictions."

yeah you got me but let me ask you a follow up...does Hillary Clinton operating multiple personal e-mail accounts on a personal server as SoS cast light on her judgement? Or, does that light only shine on discussions about homosexuality? Comparatively speaking, I'd say Ben Carson's feeling about that topic are really inconsequential to the performance of that job compared to Hillary's recent transgressions but I haven't seen you opine on that even ONCE.

Possibly.

I don't fully understand the issues regarding that, which is why I haven't expressed an opinion on it beyond pointing out the matter has evolved from the time Colin Powell did the same thing.

And of course the standard applies to other subjects than homosexuality. It's silly to even ask.

And you'll have to excuse me for not bringing up Hillary. I thought the subject was Ben Carson. Oh wait, it is. :-\

[TheBlueVue 177]

'I think you are missing the point. His position - or at least his words - cast light on his judgement - if not the thought processes that lead to his convictions."

yeah you got me but let me ask you a follow up...does Hillary Clinton operating multiple personal e-mail accounts on a personal server as SoS cast light on her judgement? Or, does that light only shine on discussions about homosexuality? Comparatively speaking, I'd say Ben Carson's feeling about that topic are really inconsequential to the performance of that job compared to Hillary's recent transgressions but I haven't seen you opine on that even ONCE.

Possibly.

I don't fully understand the issues regarding that, which is why I haven't expressed an opinion on it beyond pointing out the matter has evolved from the time Colin Powell did the same thing.

And of course the standard applies to other subjects than homosexuality. It's silly to even ask.

And you'll have to excuse me for not bringing up Hillary. I thought the subject was Ben Carson. Oh wait, it is. :-\

Correction...Colin Powell DID NOT have a personal server. You do understand the difference right? Let me help you out. When you own the server what you delete is lost forever. Easy to see why she wanted her own personal server...clearly, SHE wanted to be in control and have the ability to hide anything and everything that could possibly make her look bad and there is an AWFUL lot of that out there since she has always been nothing but a self serving conniving govt parasite

[Strychnine 1,802]

'I think you are missing the point. His position - or at least his words - cast light on his judgement - if not the thought processes that lead to his convictions."

yeah you got me but let me ask you a follow up...does Hillary Clinton operating multiple personal e-mail accounts on a personal server as SoS cast light on her judgement? Or, does that light only shine on discussions about homosexuality? Comparatively speaking, I'd say Ben Carson's feeling about that topic are really inconsequential to the performance of that job compared to Hillary's recent transgressions but I haven't seen you opine on that even ONCE.

Possibly.

I don't fully understand the issues regarding that, which is why I haven't expressed an opinion on it beyond pointing out the matter has evolved from the time Colin Powell did the same thing.

And of course the standard applies to other subjects than homosexuality. It's silly to even ask.

And you'll have to excuse me for not bringing up Hillary. I thought the subject was Ben Carson. Oh wait, it is. :-\

Correction...Colin Powell DID NOT have a personal server. You do understand the difference right? Let me help you out. When you own the server what you delete is lost forever. Easy to see why she wanted her own personal server...clearly, SHE wanted to be in control and have the ability to hide anything and everything that could possibly make her look bad and there is an AWFUL lot of that out there since she has always been nothing but a self serving conniving govt parasite

That is not necessarily true. Deploying an email server that is even secure enough to actually use is not a simple "Click Next to continue..." process. Basically all email server systems feature email retention policies (many of which are enabled by default). That said, the motive for operating a personal email server is most likely correct, as it does give one the ability to dictate those settings to whomever they pay to install it. Most of us in the field that have actually installed several email servers are in the habit of leaving those policies in place, or turning them on when they are not enabled by default. I would be interested in knowing what the Clintons are actually running. While they could certainly afford it, I have doubts that they sprung for the expensive Microsoft Exchange or the server platform it requires (unless they went the SBS route).

[Aufan59 71]

Growing up, I chose neither my genes nor my environment.

So distinguishing between genes and environment is irrelevant to determine whether something was a choice.

[homersapien 11,393]

'I think you are missing the point. His position - or at least his words - cast light on his judgement - if not the thought processes that lead to his convictions."

yeah you got me but let me ask you a follow up...does Hillary Clinton operating multiple personal e-mail accounts on a personal server as SoS cast light on her judgement? Or, does that light only shine on discussions about homosexuality? Comparatively speaking, I'd say Ben Carson's feeling about that topic are really inconsequential to the performance of that job compared to Hillary's recent transgressions but I haven't seen you opine on that even ONCE.

Possibly.

I don't fully understand the issues regarding that, which is why I haven't expressed an opinion on it beyond pointing out the matter has evolved from the time Colin Powell did the same thing.

And of course the standard applies to other subjects than homosexuality. It's silly to even ask.

And you'll have to excuse me for not bringing up Hillary. I thought the subject was Ben Carson. Oh wait, it is. :-\

Correction...Colin Powell DID NOT have a personal server. You do understand the difference right? Let me help you out. When you own the server what you delete is lost forever. Easy to see why she wanted her own personal server...clearly, SHE wanted to be in control and have the ability to hide anything and everything that could possibly make her look bad.

OK, I get it better now. But I don't fully understand the full advantage. Copies of her email would exist on every computer she mailed would it not? But I recognize it would make it more difficult to investigate her directly.

Was she breaking the law by that?

[homersapien 11,393]

..... and there is an AWFUL lot of that out there since she has always been nothing but a self serving conniving govt parasite

You don't seem to be looking at this very objectively.

One think I like about conservatives, they always overplay their. Remember how they had Clinton on the ropes and voted to impeach him? Clinton was seen as victim and came out more popular than ever.

Same will happen here if they keep it up.

[homersapien 11,393]

'I think you are missing the point. His position - or at least his words - cast light on his judgement - if not the thought processes that lead to his convictions."

yeah you got me but let me ask you a follow up...does Hillary Clinton operating multiple personal e-mail accounts on a personal server as SoS cast light on her judgement? Or, does that light only shine on discussions about homosexuality? Comparatively speaking, I'd say Ben Carson's feeling about that topic are really inconsequential to the performance of that job compared to Hillary's recent transgressions but I haven't seen you opine on that even ONCE.

Possibly.

I don't fully understand the issues regarding that, which is why I haven't expressed an opinion on it beyond pointing out the matter has evolved from the time Colin Powell did the same thing.

And of course the standard applies to other subjects than homosexuality. It's silly to even ask.

And you'll have to excuse me for not bringing up Hillary. I thought the subject was Ben Carson. Oh wait, it is. :-\

Correction...Colin Powell DID NOT have a personal server. You do understand the difference right? Let me help you out. When you own the server what you delete is lost forever. Easy to see why she wanted her own personal server...clearly, SHE wanted to be in control and have the ability to hide anything and everything that could possibly make her look bad and there is an AWFUL lot of that out there since she has always been nothing but a self serving conniving govt parasite

That is not necessarily true. Deploying an email server that is even secure enough to actually use is not a simple "Click Next to continue..." process. Basically all email server systems feature email retention policies (many of which are enabled by default). That said, the motive for operating a personal email server is most likely correct, as it does give one the ability to dictate those settings to whomever they pay to install it. Most of us in the field that have actually installed several email servers are in the habit of leaving those policies in place, or turning them on when they are not enabled by default. I would be interested in knowing what the Clintons are actually running. While they could certainly afford it, I have doubts that they sprung for the expensive Microsoft Exchange or the server platform it requires (unless they went the SBS route).

God I just love technical talk.

[homersapien 11,393]

Growing up, I chose neither my genes nor my environment.

So distinguishing between genes and environment is irrelevant to determine whether something was a choice.

I think I understand what you are getting at, but I can't help but feel there's no connection between those two sentences other than both are true.

[Aufan59 71]

Growing up, I chose neither my genes nor my environment.

So distinguishing between genes and environment is irrelevant to determine whether something was a choice.

I think I understand what you are getting at, but I can't help but feel there's no connection between those two sentences are than both are true.

The point of contention is whether genes determine homosexuality. If we assume they don't, it means environment determines homosexuality.

Regardless of which of the two is responsible for homosexuality, it was never a choice.

[alexava 6,973]

Growing up, I chose neither my genes nor my environment.

So distinguishing between genes and environment is irrelevant to determine whether something was a choice.

I think I understand what you are getting at, but I can't help but feel there's no connection between those two sentences are than both are true.

The point of contention is whether genes determine homosexuality. If we assume they don't, it means environment determines homosexuality.

Regardless of which of the two is responsible for homosexuality, it was never a choice.

cant argue with that.

[aubfaninga 16]

Growing up, I chose neither my genes nor my environment.

So distinguishing between genes and environment is irrelevant to determine whether something was a choice.

I think I understand what you are getting at, but I can't help but feel there's no connection between those two sentences are than both are true.

The point of contention is whether genes determine homosexuality. If we assume they don't, it means environment determines homosexuality.

Regardless of which of the two is responsible for homosexuality, it was never a choice.

Ezekiel 18 just made sense to me.

Ezekiel 18 1-2 "The word of the Lord came to me again, saying,

What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge?"

What do you mean by this wisdom that "FLESH" (genetics) and "TRADITION" (environment) control a persons spirit?

Anyone who has an ear to hear let him hear what all of Ezekiel 18 has to say about making a choice.

I will never concede my GOD given right of Free Will !!!

Proverbs 24:16, Deuteronomy 30:19 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will never blame my behavior on my genes or my environment. We were all created with a choice and it was freely put in our hands.

"But let every person carefully scrutinize and examine and test his own conduct and his own work. He can then have the personal satisfaction and joy of doing something commendable [in itself alone] without [resorting to] boastful comparison with his neighbor.

For every person will have to bear (be equal to understanding and calmly receive) his own [little] load [of oppressive faults].

Let him who receives instruction in the Word [of God] share all good things with his teacher [contributing to his support].

Do not be deceived and deluded and misled; God will not allow Himself to be sneered at (scorned, disdained, or mocked by mere pretensions or professions, or by His precepts being set aside.) [He inevitably deludes himself who attempts to delude God.] For whatever a man sows, that and that only is what he will reap. For he who sows to his own flesh (lower nature, sensuality) will from the flesh reap decay and ruin and destruction, but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not lose heart and grow weary and faint in acting nobly and doing right, for in due time and at the appointed season we shall reap, if we do not loosen and relax our courage and faint. So then, as occasion and opportunity open up to us, let us do good [morally] to all people [not only being useful or profitable to them, but also doing what is for their spiritual good and advantage]. Be mindful to be a blessing, especially to those of the household of faith [those who belong to God’s family with you, the believers]. See with what large letters I am writing with my own hand. [Mark carefully these closing words of mine.] Those who want to make a good impression and a fine show in the flesh would try to compel you to receive circumcision, simply so that they may escape being persecuted for allegiance to the cross of Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One)."

[DKW 86 7,431]

While i agree in free will over-riding for some things, i do not think that is true except for small issues.

Look, if we all just used our free will PROPERLY, we would all overcome ALL SINS and therefore we would not need forgiveness nor a Savior.

We would all just chose to not sin.

I dont know much, but i know the human condition, we are all flawed and we all screw up regularly.

I am as screwed up as anyone and i freely admit it. I am also saved, educated, and have a decent IQ.

But i would never state openly that i have, or could, overcome all sin by simply applying my free will to chose.

That is not going to hunt.

[aubfaninga 16]

While i agree in free will over-riding for some things, i do not think that is true except for small issues.

Look, if we all just used our free will PROPERLY, we would all overcome ALL SINS and therefore we would not need forgiveness nor a Savior.

We would all just chose to not sin.

I dont know much, but i know the human condition, we are all flawed and we all screw up regularly.

I am as screwed up as anyone and i freely admit it. I am also saved, educated, and have a decent IQ.

But i would never state openly that i have, or could, overcome all sin by simply applying my free will to chose.

That is not going to hunt.

That is why there is confession, repentance, and prayer.

Do you even believe he can heal blindness or raise the dead?

Anything you ask in Yeshua's name and he will do. He will even send the holy spirit.

Denial and doubt do not fit in my faith. I believe that Yeshua is willing and more than capable of moving mountains!

Have a blessed day DKW and have a little faith in the healing power of Jesus.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

auburnfainga......how do you deal with God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

[homersapien 11,393]

Growing up, I chose neither my genes nor my environment.

So distinguishing between genes and environment is irrelevant to determine whether something was a choice.

I think I understand what you are getting at, but I can't help but feel there's no connection between those two sentences are than both are true.

The point of contention is whether genes determine homosexuality. If we assume they don't, it means environment determines homosexuality.

Regardless of which of the two is responsible for homosexuality, it was never a choice.

That's what I thought you meant. But not to be picky, "nature and nurture" aren't mutually exclusive.

[aubfaninga 16]

auburnfainga......how do you deal with God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

What is there to deal with?

The cities were evil and only thought to do evil. They were judged and destroyed. If I wanted a happy ending every time I would get a Disney Movie.

Seriously think of it this way. Would you cry a tear if IRAN and ISIS bombed EACH OTHER off the face of the earth?

Do you shed tears over the Mayans?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

aufaninga .....I guess I didn't make myself clear. They were destroyed for sinful/unnatural sexual practices which is the topic of the thread I thought. Not trying to start a theological discussion. You quoted scripture so I was more a curiosity question.