But, what principle should guide our values, beliefs, decisions? What wisdom should we employ? I employ the wisdom of the Bible and the over-arching moral principle that Jesus taught: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind. Love you neighbor as yourself”.

To me, this means that in all my thoughts and actions, I should be asking: “Does this express love to God? Does this express love for my fellow man as another of God’s children?” If not, it’s not “moral” — even if my “experience” or “society” says it’s OK.

The way I see it, there are two types of Christians:

(1) “LIST” Christians — these believers look down a “list” of do’s and dont’s that they have read (or more often have been TOLD to them) and OBEY. “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” is their motto. They rarely (if ever) question what the Bible REALLY teaches or what makes a praticular attitude or behavior “sin”. They just look down the list until they find the thing in question: “Dancing in sin”, “Eating meat is sin”, “homosexuality is sin”, etc. It’s all very black and white, doesn’t require much thinking — just memorization.

(2) “NON-list” Christians who cannot depend on such “lists” but who try at all times to do the “moral” thing — in terms of loving and honoring God and His Children. Corrie Ten Boom lying to the Nazi’s for example. Healing on the Sabbath. Breaking into a pharmacy to get medical supplies to dying people during a natural disaster.

It’s NOT situation ehtics. It goes much deeper than that. It requires that we sacrifice OUR will to God’s will and the welfare of his children. It requires real thought, prayer and ultimate esteem for God and his Children.

t reminds me of the Hebrew National Salami commercial — “We answer to a higher authority”. We aim to do what is RIGHT and MORAL — even if it contradicts the list. EMPATHY, justice, love and grace (not obedience to law) is the basis of any true morality. Jesus seems to contradict the “list” of his day many, many times — to the shock and outrage of the “moral” teachers of His day.

Is this man completely amoral? Heartless? I don’t get it. How can he say such a thing? It sounds like all that matters to him is that his client is unhappy, it doesn’t seem to matter why. Even if the “why” is the ignorance, fear or hatred heaped upon his client by others. How can this man call himself a therapist or a scientist?

I have to agree. I am against repartive therapy on many levels, but I have met people (exgays and such) who are living happier, less self-destructive, more congruent lives now. That’s harm redcution and that’s a good thing, even if is doesn’t change your orientation.

“If this man is saying, ‘This is a part of me that I abhor,’ why can’t we respect that?” Nicolosi asked. “Why do we have to attribute that to something external and take away the dignity of the individual to express how he feels?”

Yes, if only we could all find the true dignity that exists in self-abhorrance. Too bad the article didn’t mention NARTH’s history of defending slavery and child abuse.