...So, god made everyone capable of sin, including adam and eve. Then, without any knowledge of the difference between doing right or doing wrong, they (naturally) sinned, and because of that, god now requires people to sin; living a sinless life is not an option like it was in the garden of eden (assuming the edenites were lucky enough to avoid stepping on the "sin land mines" that god had strewn about).
riiiiight.
That's a kind of entertaining way to spin it.
But in Eden the "sin land mines" were plainly defined -- in fact, there was just one.
That "God requires people to sin" is an interesting thought. Insofar as you are correct that "living a sinless life is not an option", it could be considered to hold water. But if that's so, can we also say that parents require children to get cuts and scrapes? After all, the parents know the conditions in the world, and that cuts and scrapes are inevitable, so aren't those injuries their fault?
But you address a point that is admittedly problematic. Even the Apostle Paul, who ventured explanations for all sorts of things, calls this one "the mystery of iniquity" -- the first part of the mystery is, of course, why there should be iniquity; then there's why it is so powerful, and why we can't escape it; then there's 'Why did God wait so long to do something about it?'; then there's 'Why didn't His solution make things better for me, here, now?!'
Indeed that latter points to one of the driving forces behind a lot of the triumphalism and hunger for theocracy: many Christians aren't satisfied with having to keep living in a world full of troubles, and they want to hammer it and bend it until they have paradise. Of course that means they don't understand their own Gospel, according to which (to steal a great rock line) "we have to get ourselves back to the Garden" is a program that can't work.
It's enough to make me want to ask Christians who want all these laws against gays, "Why don't you believe what Jesus did wasn't enough?" At root, that's what they're saying: that the work of Christ was insufficient, so they have to force righteousness down people's throats by using law (even though they're told quite plainly that Law can't bring righteousness); that the Gospel is an insufficient power to change people's lives, so they have to coerce change; or even that the presence of homosexuals living happily in society somehow makes them unclean -- which is a way of saying that Jesus failed in overturning the Law, because only under the Law can something from the outside make a person unclean.
Now, Sy Rogers clearly believes that being gay is being unclean. He firmly believes that God can change a gay person into a straight person, which is a point I'm not going to argue, since the Bible does say that "with God, all things are possible".
What I want to know is what he does with Paul's point that we all have different gifts, and different callings, and why he ignores Jesus' words when one disciple asked about what was going to happen with another, "What concern is that of yours? You, follow Me."
Because seeing that God has allowed our biology to be, as MikeyLove put it, "The Human genetic code [to be] thrown out of whack", what guarantee does Rogers have that God indeed is calling all gays to become straight? How can he be certain that what he has done was for everyone, not just for him? I'll concede to him that there are perhaps gays whom God calls to change, and God will change them; or calls to be celibate, and God gives that gift -- but when there are thousands of gays who have sought counseling, who have prayed, who have fasted, who have had 'spirits' 'cast out', who have been anointed with oil by the elders as James instructs in asking for healing, who have struggled and begged and pled with God for change, and yet change has not come, I am not willing to concede that God is calling all gays to become straight -- or He would have answered those prayers... and I would not be here, on JUB, but would be living happily with a wife, 1.8 children, and a dog. Neither am I willing to concede that God has called him to tell all gays to be straight; I say he is like the man who, on receiving something wonderful, turns around and demands that everyone else get it, too -- because though he may see himself as trying to pass on a gift, he isn't the one who decides who gets the gifts: God does, as St. Paul says in several places.
If he really has changed, if he really is happy in his life and isn't cheerleading in order to bury his own weaknesses and failures, then I'm happy for him. I'd be happier, though, if he'd refrain from thinking that he has instructions from God on what all of us are supposed to do.
