Gay Cure Counsellors Struck Off By Christian Counselling Service

Two Christian counsellors who offered gay cures to patients have been denied accreditation Association of Christian Counsellors, with the way paved for others with similar offerings to also be expelled.

The request to bar counsellor Lesley Pilkington, and the Core Issues Trust, a separate organisation offering gay cures headed by Dr Mike Davidson, was made by the Professional Standards Authority for Heath And Social Care.

Two other secular bodies, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy and the UK Council for Therapy have also banned Pilkington and Davidson from membership and accreditation, because of the "harmful" practice.

But now the faith-based counselling body has removed therapists for offering gay cures.

James Taylor, head of policy at Stonewall told HuffPostUK: "Stonewall, as well as the BACP and the UKTC, has always been clear that counselling and psychotherapy services should be based on the best medical evidence rather than the offensive idea of 'voodoo' gay cures.

"Sadly this is not a view that Lesley Pilkington and the Core Issues Trust share."

Pilkington was the subject of a successful sting after Guardian reporter Patrick Strudwick posed as a potential Christian client seeking a cure for homosexual feelings. The paper published an expose, which led the accreditation bodies to declare they would no longer accept members who promoted gay cures.

Mike Davidson, was last year stripped of professional status with the British Psychodrama Association. He was at the centre of a row over posters he attempted to have displayed on London buses, in the style of the Stonewall slogans, which said. “Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!"

Mayor of London Boris Johnson ordered Transport for London not to accept the posters, and Davidson has challenged the decision twice in the courts.

Andrea Williams, chief executive of Christian Legal Centre which represents Pilkington and Davidson, commented: "It appears that the ACC has succumbed to pressure from the State. This is highly disturbing."

Gaylesta, the LGBTQ Psychotherapist Association, has guidelines which state: “Striving to treat what is not a disorder is not therapy, it is professionalised homophobia. It is dangerous, and it is a threat to all LGBTQ people. Individuals who have undergone these treatments often have a significantly larger chance of becoming self destructive and suicidal.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/28/gay-cure_n_4874057.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

oh dear more equality goes down the spout..

this is an old story isn't it ?

Maine coon lover wrote:this is an old story isn't it ?

It was in yesterday's Huffington Post Maine.  

"Individuals who have undergone these treatments often have a significantly larger chance of becoming self destructive and suicidal.”

Absolutely right they were struck off, 'voodoo' as mentioned earlier in the article

Big praise to the Association of Christian Counsellors for kicking out two proponents of inequality.

Finally, good to see a Christian organisation that kicks out people who show unchristian views by being intolerant

sad that freedom of choice is no longer acceptable..

heavenly father wrote:sad that freedom of choice is no longer acceptable..

Not under the banner of Christianity, to be Christian you have to love everyone and not be intolerant as they were, quite simple and understanding why the Association got shot of them

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:sad that freedom of choice is no longer acceptable..

Not under the banner of Christianity, to be Christian you have to love everyone and not be intolerant as they were, quite simple and understanding why the Association got shot of them

actually the bible makes it quite clear about homosexuality but freedom of choice does not seem to matter to the pc brigade obviously..

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Not under the banner of Christianity, to be Christian you have to love everyone and not be intolerant as they were, quite simple and understanding why the Association got shot of them

actually the bible makes it quite clear about homosexuality but freedom of choice does not seem to matter to the pc brigade obviously..

I thought you said Jesus came and changed many things?

How odd, what did Jesus say on homosexuality?

Nothing, he did though teach you to treat others fairly and with love, so is odd you cannot do the former with Gay people and instead wish to promote discrimination against them based off a verse, which from the same chapter you ignore the command to kill children that disobey their parents or to kill adulterers.
Maybe you can explain why you are not an advocate for the death penalty for disobedient children and
adulterers?
Or do you just pick verses you like then, to make your faith, whilst ignoring others?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

actually the bible makes it quite clear about homosexuality but freedom of choice does not seem to matter to the pc brigade obviously..

I thought you said Jesus came and changed many things?

How odd, what did Jesus say on homosexuality?

Nothing, he did though teach you to treat others fairly and with love, so is odd you cannot do the former with Gay people and instead wish to promote discrimination against them based off a verse, which from the same chapter you ignore the command to kill children that disobey their parents or to kill adulterers.
Maybe you can explain why you are not an advocate for the death penalty for disobedient children and
adulterers?
Or do you just pick verses you like then, to make your faith, whilst ignoring others?

the biggest thing Jesus changed was the means of our salvation...

Jesus is God, the bible is the word of God, so what ever the bible says is what Jesus says..  

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I thought you said Jesus came and changed many things?

How odd, what did Jesus say on homosexuality?

Nothing, he did though teach you to treat others fairly and with love, so is odd you cannot do the former with Gay people and instead wish to promote discrimination against them based off a verse, which from the same chapter you ignore the command to kill children that disobey their parents or to kill adulterers.
Maybe you can explain why you are not an advocate for the death penalty for disobedient children and
adulterers?
Or do you just pick verses you like then, to make your faith, whilst ignoring others?

the biggest thing Jesus changed was the means of our salvation...

Jesus is God, the bible is the word of God, so what ever the bible says is what Jesus says..  

So you back the command in the bible for the death penalty for adulterers and disobedient children then?
Plus also Jesus advocates this also then, killing children, when children are innocent?
How odd, how is that loving?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

the biggest thing Jesus changed was the means of our salvation...

Jesus is God, the bible is the word of God, so what ever the bible says is what Jesus says..  

So you back the command in the bible for the death penalty for adulterers and disobedient children then?
Plus also Jesus advocates this to then, killing children, when children are innocent?
How odd, how is that loving?

i did say that was people who stood against what God's plans were for his people, they were going to the promise land the ones who stood against them were beaten, you cannot stand against God, those that chose to were silly...

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


So you back the command in the bible for the death penalty for adulterers and disobedient children then?
Plus also Jesus advocates this to then, killing children, when children are innocent?
How odd, how is that loving?

i did say that was people who stood against what God's plans were for his people, they were going to the promise land the ones who stood against them were beaten, you cannot stand against God, those that chose to were silly...

Utter waffle and no relevance to my points, the bible clearly states in the same chapter calling upon death as a punishment for homosexuality, the biblical heinous (hilarious I know the stupidity this is love) crimes of adultery and disobedience,

So try again

So you back the command in the bible for the death penalty for adulterers and disobedient children then?
Plus also Jesus advocates this to then, killing children, when children are innocent?
How odd, how is that loving?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

i did say that was people who stood against what God's plans were for his people, they were going to the promise land the ones who stood against them were beaten, you cannot stand against God, those that chose to were silly...

Utter waffle and no relevance to my points, the bible clearly states in the same chapter calling upon death as a punishment for homosexuality, the biblical heinous (hilarious I know the stupidity this is love) crimes of adultery and disobedience,

So try again

So you back the command in the bible for the death penalty for adulterers and disobedient children then?
Plus also Jesus advocates this to then, killing children, when children are innocent?
How odd, how is that loving?

what did Jesus do in the case of the adulteress brought before him...  

children killed for disobedience is tad over the top but certainly more control is necessary...  

feelthelove wrote:

Maine coon lover wrote:this is an old story isn't it ?

It was in yesterday's Huffington Post Maine.  

"Individuals who have undergone these treatments often have a significantly larger chance of becoming self destructive and suicidal.”

Absolutely right they were struck off, 'voodoo' as mentioner earlier in the article

updated yesterday so it said

think is the same story from 2012 lol

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9283083/Christian-counsellors-being-closed-down-says-struck-off-gay-cure-psychotherapist.html

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Utter waffle and no relevance to my points, the bible clearly states in the same chapter calling upon death as a punishment for homosexuality, the biblical heinous (hilarious I know the stupidity this is love) crimes of adultery and disobedience,

So try again

So you back the command in the bible for the death penalty for adulterers and disobedient children then?
Plus also Jesus advocates this to then, killing children, when children are innocent?
How odd, how is that loving?

what did Jesus do in the case of the adulteress brought before him...  

children killed for disobedience is tad over the top but certainly more control is necessary...  

Interesting so you think your deity is over the top with this death sentence for disobedient children then?
I just got you to question your faith....  

I take the view point with adulterers, but what about disobedient children being given a death sentence?
Jesus said nothing on that, the same with homosexuality, so why do you back one verses and not the other, as that makes no sense?

Maine coon lover wrote:think is the same story from 2012 lol

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9283083/Christian-counsellors-being-closed-down-says-struck-off-gay-cure-psychotherapist.html

sounds about right, same old same old...  

they are not interested in equal rights but we discovered that last night.  

Maine coon lover wrote:think is the same story from 2012 lol

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9283083/Christian-counsellors-being-closed-down-says-struck-off-gay-cure-psychotherapist.html

Try reading each closely Maine, the first event mentioned in yours, them being struck off is mentioned in mine, they were not at that time though kept out from the Christian Association, thus these stories are related but not the same

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

what did Jesus do in the case of the adulteress brought before him...  

children killed for disobedience is tad over the top but certainly more control is necessary...  

Interesting so you think your deity is over the top with this death sentence for disobedient children then?
I just got you to question your faith....  

I take the view point with adulterers, but what about disobedient children being given a death sentence?
Jesus said nothing on that, the same with homosexuality, so why do you back one verses and not the other, as that makes no sense?

you keep saying you have read the bible and you even turned from Christianity because of your research and you don't know a basic thing like Jesus and the adulteress that was brought to him..  

the whole of the bible shows you God's intentions for man, from genesis to revelations, you can see clearly gays had no part in his plans or ways...  

no you don't make me question my faith...lol...  

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Interesting so you think your deity is over the top with this death sentence for disobedient children then?
I just got you to question your faith....  

I take the view point with adulterers, but what about disobedient children being given a death sentence?
Jesus said nothing on that, the same with homosexuality, so why do you back one verses and not the other, as that makes no sense?

you keep saying you have read the bible and you even turned from Christianity because of your research and you don't know a basic thing like Jesus and the adulteress that was brought to him..  

the whole of the bible shows you God's intentions for man, from genesis to revelations, you can see clearly gays had no part in his plans or ways...  

no you don't make me question my faith...lol...  

I do know them, I just love having you go around in circles in a fluster and I agreed on adultery with what Jesus is claimed to have done but yet again you are unable to answer properly.
You did question your faith, you said clearly that this punishment was over the top, that is questioning Gods command and thus challenging your own faith by doing so


So do you back the verses that makes disobedient children punishable by death?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

you keep saying you have read the bible and you even turned from Christianity because of your research and you don't know a basic thing like Jesus and the adulteress that was brought to him..  

the whole of the bible shows you God's intentions for man, from genesis to revelations, you can see clearly gays had no part in his plans or ways...  

no you don't make me question my faith...lol...  

I do know them, I just love having you go around in circles in a fluster and I agreed on adultery with what Jesus is claimed to have done but yet again you are unable to answer properly.
You did question your faith, you said clearly that this punishment was over the top, that is questioning Gods command this challenging your own faith by doing so
So do you back the verses that makes disobedient children punishable by death

I don't do circular arguments just the truths that i believe, are you trying to say Jesus committed adultery?? i'm sure you are not...

I did not question my faith at all just a response to a question about whether i considered killing a child for disobedience is over the top, my faith does not hinge on that piece of scripture...  

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

I do know them, I just love having you go around in circles in a fluster and I agreed on adultery with what Jesus is claimed to have done but yet again you are unable to answer properly.
You did question your faith, you said clearly that this punishment was over the top, that is questioning Gods command this challenging your own faith by doing so
So do you back the verses that makes disobedient children punishable by death

I don't do circular arguments just the truths that i believe, are you trying to say Jesus committed adultery?? i'm sure you are not...

I did not question my faith at all just a response to a question about whether i considered killing a child for disobedience is over the top, my faith does not hinge on that piece of scripture...  

Dear me, no I said you had a point on adultery with Jesus stopping an execution DOH

You did question it by saying the punishment was over the top, so how can you question the severity of a crime commanded by God?

Also I get really tired of you avoiding answering questions, a straight yes or no, do you back the  verse for disobedient children to be put to death, or do you claim it is not the word of God?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

I don't do circular arguments just the truths that i believe, are you trying to say Jesus committed adultery?? i'm sure you are not...

I did not question my faith at all just a response to a question about whether i considered killing a child for disobedience is over the top, my faith does not hinge on that piece of scripture...  

Dear me, no I said you had a point on adultery with Jesus stopping an execution DOH

You did question it by saying the punishment was over the top, so how can you question the severity of a crime commanded by God?

Also I get really tired of you avoiding answering questions, a straight yes or no, do you back the  verse for disobedient children to be put to death, or do you claim it is not the word of God?

that's ok i was just seeing if i read that part of your post right, the mormons think Jesus married twice and had kids..  

the word says test me and that's what sensible Christians do, God's plans and ideas are very different to mine but i only have x amount of years when you have eternity I guess things are different..so I do examine the word and my faith it is what God wants and expects..  

yes it is God's word, no i wouldn't stone my child to death for disobedience and i don't think any Christian as for some time..  

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Dear me, no I said you had a point on adultery with Jesus stopping an execution DOH

You did question it by saying the punishment was over the top, so how can you question the severity of a crime commanded by God?

Also I get really tired of you avoiding answering questions, a straight yes or no, do you back the  verse for disobedient children to be put to death, or do you claim it is not the word of God?

that's ok i was just seeing if i read that part of your post right, the mormons think Jesus married twice and had kids..  

the word says test me and that's what sensible Christians do, God's plans and ideas are very different to mine but i only have x amount of years when you have eternity I guess things are different..so I do examine the word and my faith it is what God wants and expects..  

yes it is God's word, no i wouldn't stone my child to death for disobedience and i don't think any Christian as for some time..  

So you admit now questioning his judgement over the severity of the punishment for this crime.

You also back the claim the Bible is the word of God and thus commands to murder children for mere disobedience.

You also now have proved that Jesus changed the severity of adultery, meaning Jesus would conflict with the original command on severity, by allowing the woman to go free telling her to sin no more. Thus clearly Jesus contradicts with the written word of god, in other words himself, as he is meant to be God, showing that God was once wrong on the severity.

Is he not meant to be infallible?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

that's ok i was just seeing if i read that part of your post right, the mormons think Jesus married twice and had kids..  

the word says test me and that's what sensible Christians do, God's plans and ideas are very different to mine but i only have x amount of years when you have eternity I guess things are different..so I do examine the word and my faith it is what God wants and expects..  

yes it is God's word, no i wouldn't stone my child to death for disobedience and i don't think any Christian as for some time..  

So you admit now questioning his judgement over the severity of the punishment for this crime.

You also back the claim the Bible is the word of God and thus commands to murder children for mere disobedience.

You also now have proved that Jesus changed the severity of adultery, meaning Jesus would conflict with the original command on severity, by allowing the woman to go free telling her to sin no more. Thus clearly Jesus contradicts with the written word of god, in other words himself, as he is meant to be God, showing that God was once wrong on the severity.

Is he not meant to be infallible?

he is infallible, he told her to sin no more, he did not condemn her neither did anyone else, Jesus brings Grace not law remember...  

the fact i question God does not mean God is wrong, I'm sure he has his reasons and if you could quote the exact scripture i would look in to it further..  

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


So you admit now questioning his judgement over the severity of the punishment for this crime.

You also back the claim the Bible is the word of God and thus commands to murder children for mere disobedience.

You also now have proved that Jesus changed the severity of adultery, meaning Jesus would conflict with the original command on severity, by allowing the woman to go free telling her to sin no more. Thus clearly Jesus contradicts with the written word of god, in other words himself, as he is meant to be God, showing that God was once wrong on the severity.

Is he not meant to be infallible?

he is infallible, he told her to sin no more, he did not condemn her neither did anyone else, Jesus brings Grace not law remember...  

the fact i question God does not mean God is wrong, I'm sure he has his reasons and if you could quote the exact scripture i would look in to it further..  

Hilarious, so if he did not condemn her for a crime already written as punishable with death, would show Jesus contradicts himself with the previous written command, from himself, the clear fact you are missing.

So the punishment from Jesus to this woman was to rightly let her go and not punish her at all.

Which clearly contradicts his original command on severity:


Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


Thus Jesus/god is fallible.

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

he is infallible, he told her to sin no more, he did not condemn her neither did anyone else, Jesus brings Grace not law remember...  

the fact i question God does not mean God is wrong, I'm sure he has his reasons and if you could quote the exact scripture i would look in to it further..  

Hilarious, so if he did not condemn her for a crime already written as punishable with death, would show Jesus contradicts himself with the previous written command, from himself, the clear fact you are missing.

So the punishment from Jesus to this woman was to rightly let her go and not punish her at all.

Which clearly contradicts his original command on severity:


Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


Thus Jesus/god is fallible.
 

thanks for the scripture but i meant the scripture about killing disobedient children..  

you don't understand different covenants do you before Jesus was the law, kinda like our laws now, they can tell you not to do but do not actually help you to not do, if you get what I mean, through Jesus we have Grace, with Grace you still shouldn't do but if you do you are bought and paid for by Jesus, so though Jesus you are not condemned for doing it...  

I hope you can understand that, it is actually harder to explain with out writing a huge essay...  

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Hilarious, so if he did not condemn her for a crime already written as punishable with death, would show Jesus contradicts himself with the previous written command, from himself, the clear fact you are missing.

So the punishment from Jesus to this woman was to rightly let her go and not punish her at all.

Which clearly contradicts his original command on severity:


Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


Thus Jesus/god is fallible.
 

thanks for the scripture but i meant the scripture about killing disobedient children..  

you don't understand different covenants do you before Jesus was the law, kinda like our laws now, they can tell you not to do but do not actually help you to not do, if you get what I mean, through Jesus we have Grace, with Grace you still shouldn't do but if you do you are bought and paid for by Jesus, so though Jesus you are not condemned for doing it...  

I hope you can understand that, it is actually harder to explain with out writing a huge essay...  

Grace has bugger all to do with a command from Jesus changing from always being a punishment of death to allowing someone to walk free

I used the word of god on the punishment for adultery, where before it was commanded that death was always the punishment, that is until Jesus contradicted himself showing the crime does not warrant a punishment of death. So you are left with a problem, because if Jesus knows it does not warrant death and lets the woman go even though she has sinned, the commands he made before are then wrong, because from the beginning the punishment would be replicated throughout, thus it never should have had a punishment of death in the first place.
Thus showing Jesus/God is fallible

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

thanks for the scripture but i meant the scripture about killing disobedient children..  

you don't understand different covenants do you before Jesus was the law, kinda like our laws now, they can tell you not to do but do not actually help you to not do, if you get what I mean, through Jesus we have Grace, with Grace you still shouldn't do but if you do you are bought and paid for by Jesus, so though Jesus you are not condemned for doing it...  

I hope you can understand that, it is actually harder to explain with out writing a huge essay...  

Grace has bugger all to do with a command from Jesus changing from always being a punishment of death to allowing someone to walk free

I used the word of god on the punishment for adultery, where before it was commanded that death was always the punishment, that is until Jesus contradicted himself showing the crime does not warrant a punishment of death. So you are left with a problem, because if Jesus knows it does not warrant death and lets the woman go even though she has sinned, the commands he made before are then wrong, because from the beginning the punishment would be replicated throughout, thus it never should have had a punishment of death in the first place.
Thus showing Jesus/God is fallible

Grace has everything to do with walking free, Grace means we walk free from the sins that would be otherwise judged against us...  

God is infallible he created a way where the law could be satisfied as it must be as he is a righteous Judge but we could be absolved of blame as the price for that sin had been paid in Jesus...  

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Grace has bugger all to do with a command from Jesus changing from always being a punishment of death to allowing someone to walk free

I used the word of god on the punishment for adultery, where before it was commanded that death was always the punishment, that is until Jesus contradicted himself showing the crime does not warrant a punishment of death. So you are left with a problem, because if Jesus knows it does not warrant death and lets the woman go even though she has sinned, the commands he made before are then wrong, because from the beginning the punishment would be replicated throughout, thus it never should have had a punishment of death in the first place.
Thus showing Jesus/God is fallible

Grace has everything to do with walking free, Grace means we walk free from the sins that would be otherwise judged against us...  

God is infallible he created a way where the law could be satisfied as it must be as he is a righteous Judge but we could be absolved of blame as the price for that sin had been paid in Jesus...  

Sorry that is utter baloney.

You are also contradicting him further or at the very least showing how bad and nasty he is, because if the law before from him to punish by death, then he lied over its severity and also committed many to an early grave, all because he wanted to come later in human form and then decide that the severity of punishments commanded before, are thus then never needed at all.

Still thus also then fallible through telling fibs and punishing many people who were unlucky enough to be live and die before he came, that is so bad on every level, it is comical to claim that is intelligent at all  
Hilarious, it shows an utter contradiction throughout because of this being claimed to be the word of god, if infallible, the severity of the punishment would not change

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

Grace has everything to do with walking free, Grace means we walk free from the sins that would be otherwise judged against us...  

God is infallible he created a way where the law could be satisfied as it must be as he is a righteous Judge but we could be absolved of blame as the price for that sin had been paid in Jesus...  

Sorry that is utter baloney.

You are also contradicting him further or at the very least showing how bad and nasty he is, because if the law before from him to punish by death, then he lied over its severity and also committed many to an early grave, all because he wanted to come later in human form and then decide that the commands he made before are not needed anymore.

Still thus also then fallible through telling fibs and punishing many people who were unlucky enough to be live and die before he came, that is so bad on every level, it is comical to claim that is intelligent at all  
Hilarious, it shows an utter contradiction throughout because of this being claimed to be the word of god, if infallible, the severity of the punishment would not change

you cannot have read the bible at all to say such a thing, those who died before Jesus went to paradise not heaven, Jesus when he died went to preach to them, which means they had the same chance as those after his death to accept him and have their sins forgiven and gain eternity with God...  

still no infallibility just God making a way for us,,,what a mighty God we Have..  

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Sorry that is utter baloney.

You are also contradicting him further or at the very least showing how bad and nasty he is, because if the law before from him to punish by death, then he lied over its severity and also committed many to an early grave, all because he wanted to come later in human form and then decide that the commands he made before are not needed anymore.

Still thus also then fallible through telling fibs and punishing many people who were unlucky enough to be live and die before he came, that is so bad on every level, it is comical to claim that is intelligent at all  
Hilarious, it shows an utter contradiction throughout because of this being claimed to be the word of god, if infallible, the severity of the punishment would not change

you cannot have read the bible at all to say such a thing, those who died before Jesus went to paradise not heaven, Jesus when he died went to preach to them, which means they had the same chance as those after his death to accept him and have their sins forgiven and gain eternity with God...  

still no infallibility just God making a way for us,,,what a mighty God we Have..  

Really, the Jews believe in Heaven, not paradise, that is the garden of Eden (DOH), so that is complete gobbledygook as well.
It also have nothing to do with people accepting him after he died, and thus you are clutching at straws.
Thus either Jesus lied to Moses to make the punishment of death for various crimes and thus condemn many people who lived and died before he came to having their lives cut short for committing adultery, being disobedient to their parents etc. As basically when Jesus comes the severity has been downgraded to no punishment living on earth as there was before. Thus again making him fallible

Or Jesus did not lie to Moses, the punishment was death and Jesus thus proves himself wrong being that the severity for this crime is wrong. He did not forgive her, all he did was not condemn her of a crime, and told her to live her life free of sin . Thus this shows a contradiction to being infallible, as it would be the same level Jesus uses from the start of when it was first commanded.

So please spare me the babble you are coming out with

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

actually the bible makes it quite clear about homosexuality but freedom of choice does not seem to matter to the pc brigade obviously..

I thought you said Jesus came and changed many things?

How odd, what did Jesus say on homosexuality?

Nothing, he did though teach you to treat others fairly and with love, so is odd you cannot do the former with Gay people and instead wish to promote discrimination against them based off a verse, which from the same chapter you ignore the command to kill children that disobey their parents or to kill adulterers.
Maybe you can explain why you are not an advocate for the death penalty for disobedient children and
adulterers?
Or do you just pick verses you like then, to make your faith, whilst ignoring others?

the biggest thing Jesus changed was the means of our salvation...

Jesus is God, the bible is the word of God, so what ever the bible says is what Jesus says..  

This from the same guy who has said in other threads that the Old Testament doesn't matter (at least when it comes to the commandments to kill disobedient children, that women should marry their rapists, that impotent men are to be kicked out of the church, etc.).

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

the biggest thing Jesus changed was the means of our salvation...

Jesus is God, the bible is the word of God, so what ever the bible says is what Jesus says..  

This from the same guy who has said in other threads that the Old Testament doesn't matter (at least when it comes to the commandments to kill disobedient children, that women should marry their rapists, that impotent men are to be kicked out of the church, etc.).

I have never said the OT does not matter, Jesus came to fufill the law thats all...

Not a christian so clear up some point of confusion for me. I genuinely am stumped here so I want to at least understand the mindset even if it's hihly likely I will continue to disagree with you.

1. If it's not part of god's plan, why do gay people exist?

2. If you believe in the "judge not lest you be judged" why are you bothering to belittle and be judgmental of another group? As long as they aren't causing harm to anyone but themselves then it's not your problem because they'll be up for whatever awaits them in the after life.

3. Considering the teaching of Jesus how do you know which parts of the old testament are still valid and which ones became null and void? I'm pretty sure there's a no seafood thing in there along with do not work on Sunday and no blended fabrics which are pretty much ignored by all Christians I met.

4. Once again considering Jesus and his parables how can a Christian reconcile wealth and the ruthlessness of most business dealings with "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." phrase that I've seen?

5. Did god actually fight other gods. I remember a segment somewhere in the old testament where the Jews lost because some king or something sacrificed his son to that nations god.

jaded fox wrote:Not a christian so clear up some point of confusion for me. I genuinely am stumped here so I want to at least understand the mindset even if it's hihly likely I will continue to disagree with you.

1. If it's not part of god's plan, why do gay people exist?

freedom of will, we make our choices..

2. If you believe in the "judge not lest you be judged" why are you bothering to belittle and be judgmental of another group? As long as they aren't causing harm to anyone but themselves then it's not your problem because they'll be up for whatever awaits them in the after life.

Jesus commanded that we go forth and spread the good news..

3. Considering the teaching of Jesus how do you know which parts of the old testament are still valid  and which ones became null and void? I'm pretty sure there's a no seafood thing in there along with do not work on Sunday and no blended fabrics which are pretty much ignored by all Christians I met.


some where for their time, a vision given said do not count anything i have made as unclean, that changed the dietary laws..

4. Once again considering Jesus and his parables how can a Christian reconcile wealth and the ruthlessness of most business dealings with "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." phrase that I've seen?

it is all about who your God is, if your god is money, you are in trouble, if you use wealth for the benefit of others that's good..

5. Did god actually fight other gods. I remember a segment somewhere in the old testament where the Jews lost because some king or something sacrificed his son to that nations god.

never heard of that one at all sorry...

heavenly father wrote:

jaded fox wrote:

5. Did god actually fight other gods. I remember a segment somewhere in the old testament where the Jews lost because some king or something sacrificed his son to that nations god.

never heard of that one at all sorry...

Kings 3 or something I forgot how to read the numbering.

26 When the king of Moab realized that he was losing the battle, he took seven hundred swordsmen with him and tried to force his way through the enemy lines and escape to the king of Syria,[c] but he failed. 27 So he took his oldest son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him on the city wall as a sacrifice to the god of Moab. The Israelites were terrified[d] and so they drew back from the city and returned to their own country.

jaded fox wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

never heard of that one at all sorry...

Kings 3 or something I forgot how to read the numbering.

26 When the king of Moab realized that he was losing the battle, he took seven hundred swordsmen with him and tried to force his way through the enemy lines and escape to the king of Syria,[c] but he failed. 27 So he took his oldest son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him on the city wall as a sacrifice to the god of Moab. The Israelites were terrified[d] and so they drew back from the city and returned to their own country.

i'll have to read in to the whole chapter it will take a while but i will get back to you, other races did have their own gods same as the Egyptians did...

heavenly father wrote:

jaded fox wrote:

Kings 3 or something I forgot how to read the numbering.

26 When the king of Moab realized that he was losing the battle, he took seven hundred swordsmen with him and tried to force his way through the enemy lines and escape to the king of Syria,[c] but he failed. 27 So he took his oldest son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him on the city wall as a sacrifice to the god of Moab. The Israelites were terrified[d] and so they drew back from the city and returned to their own country.

i'll have to read in to the whole chapter it will take a while but i will get back to you, other races did have their own gods same as the Egyptians did...

Of course other nations worshiped their own gods; no question. The point I think is why would the Israelites have been terrified when they should have known theirs was the only one true God?

Eilzel wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

i'll have to read in to the whole chapter it will take a while but i will get back to you, other races did have their own gods same as the Egyptians did...

Of course other nations worshiped their own gods; no question. The point I think is why would the Israelites have been terrified when they should have known theirs was the only one true God?

I did say other nations had their own gods, i have no idea why they were terrified, i said I will check the scripture...  

it is 2 kings chapter 3 and the vs 26 in all the versions I have use the word indignation...not terrified...

H7110

קֶצֶף

qetseph

keh'-tsef

From H7107; a splinter (as chipped off); figuratively rage or strife:—foam, indignation, X sore, wrath.

heavenly father wrote:it is 2 kings chapter 3 and the vs 26 in all the versions I have use the word indignation...not terrified...

H7110

קֶצֶף

qetseph

keh'-tsef

From H7107; a splinter (as chipped off); figuratively rage or strife:—foam, indignation, X sore, wrath.

Maybe it's the version I read. This one I just did a general search ad that's what I found.

jaded fox wrote:

heavenly father wrote:it is 2 kings chapter 3 and the vs 26 in all the versions I have use the word indignation...not terrified...

H7110

קֶצֶף

qetseph

keh'-tsef

From H7107; a splinter (as chipped off); figuratively rage or strife:—foam, indignation, X sore, wrath.

Maybe it's the version I read. This one I just did a general search ad that's what I found.

could be there are many versions, i tend to use the king james, and an exhaustive concordance...

heavenly father wrote:
oh dear more equality goes down the spout..

 

The "heavenly dog turd" still hasn't managed to quite get his maggot-sized brain around the definition of "Equality" !!!

Bing Dictionary wrote:
e·qual·i·ty [ i kwóllətee ]

state of being equal: rights, treatment, quantity, or value equal to all others in a specific group

equation with equal quantities: an equation in which the quantities on each side of an equal sign are the same

synonyms: parity, fairness, equal opportunity, equivalence, likeness, impartiality, egalitarianism

JUST how thick can those Flopheads get ?   

Look, there are some things that work and some things that don't. "Equality" isn't letting a quack apply leeches to a sick person because we have to respect his belief that bloodletting works. This gay-cure horseshit is the same thing; it does not work and has been proven, with data, to cause more harm than good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

Ben_Reilly wrote:Look, there are some things that work and some things that don't. "Equality" isn't letting a quack apply leeches to a sick person because we have to respect his belief that bloodletting works. This gay-cure horseshit is the same thing; it does not work and has been proven, with data, to cause more harm than good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

Agree Ben, you cannot cure something which is not an illness or a disorder

jaded fox wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

never heard of that one at all sorry...

Kings 3 or something I forgot how to read the numbering.

26 When the king of Moab realized that he was losing the battle, he took seven hundred swordsmen with him and tried to force his way through the enemy lines and escape to the king of Syria,[c] but he failed. 27 So he took his oldest son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him on the city wall as a sacrifice to the god of Moab. The Israelites were terrified[d] and so they drew back from the city and returned to their own country.

  

YO !!!   Jaded Fox !

Hasn't the penny dropped yet, about their lies ?

"heavenly father" and MCL have neither EVER read the Bible before !

LOOK at how many others have easily caught them out on here..

h_f only C&Ps his quotes off creationist websites...

 ::attn::  ::happ::  ::drnkpst::

I just realized the bible is actually pretty cool. We have waring gods people. Divine beings wrecking havoc on the human population in order to gain superiority over the others. It's pretty awesome when you think about it. Ra squaring off with Jehova and Moab battling Ashtoreth. Winner claims the souls of this world!

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Look, there are some things that work and some things that don't. "Equality" isn't letting a quack apply leeches to a sick person because we have to respect his belief that bloodletting works. This gay-cure horseshit is the same thing; it does not work and has been proven, with data, to cause more harm than good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

  

WHEN I'm attacking the fringe-loon and scam areas of the "traditional" and alternative medicines, I prefer to use "homeopathy", certain "naturopathy" and chiropractic promises, and "faith healing", as my examples of pure and unadulterated quackery...

WITH respect to some of the 'old-school' methodologies such as the "laying on of leeches" ~ most of the major hospitals these days still have a department of the 'dark arts' and 'alchemy' tucked away quietly out the back ~ where they can take care of such treatments as :

* bee venom for treating rheumatism and relieving certain types of arthritis;
* using certain strains of blowfly maggots to remove dead skin from bad abscesses and 'necrotising' wounds;
* chelate therapy;
* using certain 'herbal' and fungal remedies to relieve certain symptoms and conditions;
* AND ~ where they still use leeches, not to "cure" ailments, but to relieve such complaints as too much blood in the body, too many red blood cells in the blood, or too much Iron in the red cells !