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.

Being offended by a truth isn't on a par with being offended by a falsehood (whether commited through ignorance or knowingly)-Grimma

Well Grimma, some people don't believe that being homosexual is "natural" and a "truth" and even scientists when scrabbling for facts, say it is genetics gone wrong (if you want to use the argument that it is from birth, that is).

Calling homosexuality "natural" and "normal" can indeed offend those who believe it isn't. It doesn't mean that homosexuals cannot claim until they're blue in the face that it is a "natural" genetic occurance.

LOTM, scientists do not say that. New Scientist even did a piece on evolution and homosexuality for a general audience to debunk the myth that evolutionary biologists consider homosexuality maladaptive.

If you have some evidence of research showing otherwise, why don't you link to it?

The word healed inthis case is more referring to the person wanting Jesus to change them. No they are not sick but they have a a need to be changed and cannot do it alone but needs Jesus to change them. It's just easier to say by saying heal I guess.
I am a Christian. Some of you seem to think that we hate or judge homosexuality but it is very present in my life as I have immediate family who is gay. Yes I don't believe it is the correct life style but it doesn't change how I feel about the person and so it shouldn't. I also know of someone personally who used to be gay but god changed them and they have been married with children for about 20 years now. I believe jesus can change you if you desire to.

LOTM, can you not understand at all the difference between somebody being offended by a negative comment that directly applies to them and somebody being offended by a positive comment that is not about them?

even scientists when scrabbling for facts, say it is genetics gone wrong

Do they really? Not in anything I've ever read. Curious to know your sources.

Even if it was 'genetics gone wrong' - well, that would still be a 'natural genetic occurance'.

There are many conditions which could be classified as 'genetics gone wrong' - so would that make it OK to say that for instance a person with Downs Syndrome wasn't natural? Of course not. Sorry, you're making a bad argument from a dodgy premise.

Milly- it depends on how strongly you believe about something.

Saying homosexually is right and normal-to a practising Christian, may be an offensive thing to say, as their faith is crucial to their lifestyle.

Swallowed- I reserve the right for anyone to say anything.

Well Downs sufferers aren't "natural" as their chromosome level is different. If it was indeed "natural" then everyone would be DOwns Syndrome (my sister is, for a start).

MilyR - Genetics/Nature arguments are entirely irrelevant.

Supergreenuk - God didn't change them. That would require God to exist.

Everyone - The word Christian tells you exactly nothing about what a person believes. Lets stop saying "Christians believe/act like X", "As a Christian X" as it's entirely meaningless.

LotM - Genetics/Nature arguments are entirely irrelevant.

disagreeing with someone's beliefs is very different to disagreeing with what they are, whether they at core are natural/normal. surely you see that?

But some Christians believe that they "choose" to be homosexual, or "believe" that they are. What's the difference between choosing a faith and living by it and choosing a sexual orientation and living by it?

OK, I think we've established from the example of Down's that whatever LOTM means by 'natural' isn't what anyone else means.

There isn't an argument. I believe homosexuals choose their sexual orientation. Thankfully, I'm entitled to think that. I don't believe it is a normal genetic occurrence (as I don't believe it applies from conception).

TCNY, the 'nature' argument may be irrelevant, but misrepresenting science is not irrelevant to me.

LOTM, of course Christianity can be crucial to someone's lifestyle, but if they are not gay, then whether or not people say being gay is natural or not has nothing to do with their lifestyle.

Many Christians are no doubt offended by the wearing of poly cotton shirts, as the wearing of mixed fibres is an abomination to God, and the punishment for it is death by stoning. But I don't feel it is any of their business to comment on my clothing choices as I am not actually requesting that they wear them.

But some Christians believe that they "choose" to be homosexual, or "believe" that they are. What's the difference between choosing a faith and living by it and choosing a sexual orientation and living by it?

What some people choose to believe doesn't make something true. So whether a christian believes gays choose to be gay is actually irrelevant.

Milly- It is their right to comment on anything like that. It is anyone's right to comment on anything. (social boundaries put aside).

SwallowedaFly - I don't agree with this natural/normal v choice argument.

What about people who DO chose a sexual lifestyle different to their 'genetic' inclinations - for instance the 'political' lesbianism of the eighties etc. What about straight men and boys working as male prostitutes?

Are these forms of sexual expression invalid and therefore up for criticism in a way that someone who 'just can't help themselves is'? It's far to reductionist a view of sexual behavior and identity.

There is a reason why terms like 'men who have sex with men' exist separate to terms of identity like Gay.

Conversely, there is considerable evidence that there is a genetic predisposition towards religious belief in human beings - 'The God Gene'. So whether one believes it a benefit or not "natural" it may well be that the genetic predisposition to belief is as strong (or at least comparable) to that towards a particular form of behaviour.

LothM - The fact that someone is a Christian is entirely irrelevant to the fact that they are/are not a homophobe.

Christians are no more a coherent group of people with one set of opinions than "People who go to KFC" are.