in thinking jesus can NOT cure homosexuality as it is NOT an illness

[thefinerthingsinlife]

christian lady has written a book claiming jesus can cure homosexuality

I'm not getting into the debate of wether there is a God/Jesus etc. It just this has really mad me angry, how can you cure something that is NOT an illness. I find this extremely insulting and judgemental.

I think Jesus can cure cancer and i remember my friend's mother having breast cancer (she was a christian) and this lady had watched several female relatives die of this. She did not.

you could argue that is was coincidence, a placebo effect etc but they were christians and they prayed and had faith.

i also know of other people who believe they were healed by Jesus.

anyway it is up to you what you believe.

there are alot of positives in christianity. it is very easy to dis the faith.

alemci, that is wonderful about your friend's mother but the point of the thread is not whether Jesus can cure illnesses, but that homosexuality is NOT an illness and therefore does not need to be cured.

Except that the discussion has progressed chipmonkey and moved on to a general discussion about the church and christianity, as it progressed from the orginal topic to gays being parents.

alemci - So your anecdote is "I know somebody who didn't die of breast cancer"? I mean, that is clearly really good, but I don't think it tells us anything about anything.

yes thanks chipmonkey but i was responding to Rebeccas comments about curing cancer.:)

Oh right, I am a bit slow today.

I believe in scientific evidence

The most rigourous study of the effect of prayer confounded expectations (of at least placebo benefit) by showing a small but statistically significant negative effect on people who knew they were being prayed for. Well, Jesus did say to pray in private and 'not let the right hand know what the left hand is doing', so here's a thought - maybe Christians should follow his teaching and pray all they want for whoever they want but not tell anyone?

Grimma, you would not get on with my MIL! When I pointed out to her the scientific evidence pointing towards evolution rather than Adam and Eve, she told me "I don't believe in science."

OP, only a tiny, tiny fraction of people believe this, and while I hate their views, they're getting fewer and fewer with each generation that goes by.

I think you just fancied a bit of a morality wank, didn't you? Well done, you're a saviour of the people.

sorry, swallowed, did you misunderstand me? I'm not the praying sort.

I think swallowed meant that for me. Personally I'd rather if someone was the praying sort they just got on with it and didn't ask my permission, because as they say, 'refusal often offends' and if I don't know about it then it won't make a ha'porth of difference to me.

Another (antirely irrelevant to the OP) point I would like to see addresses is thia.

WHo would want to shave anything to so with a an all powrtful omnipotent God who looks at two people suffering from cancer and says "Well, you've got a lot of people praying to me for your recovery, so I will cure you. You haven't, so I won't......"

This issue is nothing new, however there was still room for an interesting debate had the thought police not turned up (as usual)

I, as a lurker, would have liked to hear more from Rhinestone, but sadly she was shouted down and gave up. Wisely no doubt.

Leningrad, the whole of Mumsnet knows you're a lesbian, maybe it's time you got over it

the smell of burning martyr is getting a tad annoying - for everyone.

maybe it's time you got over it

indeed.
Carry on Lenin, that poster was not speaking for 'everyone'.

Hmm - for someone who was shouted down Rhinestone seems to have managed to contribute and participate in the thread ok.

Thanks for your concern Destination! Rather amazed that anyone would want to hear more from me

I did leave for a while as I was concerned I was being branded with the 'homophobic' brush which I'm not. I'm not going to repeat my non-homophobic credentials but anyone can read my previous posts.

But then Lenin seemed to suggest that free speech should be restricted on MN because it is purely a place for parents, including lesbian parents to find support.

Well, playing devil's advocate here, it's also a place for religious parents. What if a poster genuinely yet respectfully believes that homosexuality is not compatible with the religion they're raising they're children in? Shouldn't they also be able to post here?

And as for MN being solely about parenting - a random selection of today's threads -
Do you remember the last census? All my flatmates put their religion down as Jedi.
I HATE Royal Mail.
AIBU to wonder what IPOAT stands for?

There are also sections on General Health, Pets, Politics, Weight Loss. So it's not just about parenting.

Free speech will sometimes be messy and ALL of us will sometimes be offended by someone else's opinion. But it's better than the alternative.

And Coalition - re your point on state schools, would you therefore offer no objection if Section 28 was brought back into private schools? No, I didn't think so.

P.S. And for the avoidance of all doubt, I am TOTALLY AGAINST Section 28, on the grounds of gay rights AND free speech.

So beat that with a stick.

Rhinestone, there comes a line where one person's 'free speech' turns into 'hate speech'.

Where that line lies may be in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think, people can post what they want on MN but they must be prepared for others to flame or report them. If a poster finds everyone else seeming to gang up on them ... well maybe that should give them pause for thought.