DiscussMormonism.com

LOL! Perhaps I'll find a way work in some Bill and Ted too.

BCS,

It's nice to see you over here. I think you were around most of the time when I was Johnny_cat, way back when.

Thanks, you too. I remember a Johnny-cat.

I think it would be interesting if people of faith actually looked at the morality behind the things they take for granted.

Done and no, I don't take any of it for granted. However I do not need to find some scientific explaination for every little thing either.

But in the case of homosexuality, the science is already against the agenda. There is no evidence that it is inborn and even if it were, since homosexuals can't naturally reproduce, it would be an abberation.

On top of that, the evidence is overwhelmingly against the homosexual lifestyle choice in terms of risk factors for death, disease, abuse (of all kinds), etc.

In addition, if homosexuality ever was proven to be inborn, it would have no impact whatsoever on LDS doctrine and policy because of Ether 12:27.

I personally don't care if consenting adults do whatever in their own homes, but the risk factors are too great to allow state recognition of marriage or adoptions (no compelling reasons).

I suppose a case could be made for homosexuality's being problematic for the species, but "God said so" doesn't strike me as a particularly moral stance.

If one has any description at all of God and/or what God has said, then that says a whole lot about the morality of the 'God said so stance'. Such a concept is rich in morality. The real question is who's morality is right?

Spoken like a true dilettant.

The believer in imaginary MagicMen calls me a dilettant. Very ironic oh Great Name Caller!

LOL! I'm simply less subtle than you are when I do it.

How about some substance?

You're avoiding the issue which is that a Christian's view of homosexuality is based on a belief in God. Since, for a Christian, God's word is found in the Bible, that is where it starts.

Since your argument is obviously atheistic (as evidenced by the fact that you don't accept what Christians believe God has said about homosexuality as valid argument), the only way for you to make your argument work is to actually test the notion that God does not exist John 7:17.

keene wrote:

bcspace wrote:

There is no GOD okay so no rules....Okay

That's one way to look at it, but it's not okay....

And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. 2 Nephi 2:13

The flaws in logic are bolded.

Happiness occurs, whether the act is righteous, sin, or neutral. I would even go as far as to say happiness is the natural state of man, regardless of what else there be.

There are no logical flaws whatsoever if you include the contextual verses I gave. But it still all comes down to whether or not God exists so we can determine if any laws exist.

bcspace wrote:You're avoiding the issue which is that a Christian's view of homosexuality is based on a belief in God. Since, for a Christian, God's word is found in the Bible, that is where it starts.

All I read from you are accusations of my religious superficiality and issue circumvention. Your belief that God established the condemnation of homosexuals is without substance; it's simply a rule from God -- no thinking required.

The issues you raise sans God about problems with the homosexual lifestyles are irrelevant because they don't affect you. In those impacts you claim to society that include disease-related costs, they are no different than the costs borne by society for people engaging in extreme sports -- society pays for other people's risky behavior. I would love to see the costs directly related to homosexuality versus other "life choices".

bcspace wrote:Since your argument is obviously atheistic (as evidenced by the fact that you don't accept what Christians believe God has said about homosexuality as valid argument), the only way for you to make your argument work is to actually test the notion that God does not exist John 7:17.

You're right: I don't accept it as blindly as Christians do, that's for sure. If you knew even the slightest thing about the origins of the Bible you wouldn't use it as an authority. But ignorant Christians are atheists about Zeus but surprizingly not about Jesus.

The quote in John is particularly interesting since there is no doctrine there. Living Jesus' "doctrine" is almost impossible, since it isn't succinctly articulated anywhere. " If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Can't you even acknowledge that every religion would make that same claim and with the same results: nothing? "Do as we say. You'll see. Nothing's happening? Well, TRY HARDER!"

It's a "no answer" game with only the people engaging in the delusion claiming some proof. The rest of us are just followers of the devil, hard-hearted, blind, believing in proofs over spirituality.

Can't you see that Jesus has nothing to offer? There is no substance? Hating gays doesn't give you a step up on anyone. It doesn't make you a better person.

Once you realize that God hasn't condemned them then you can stop hating them.

bcspace posted above: (bold added in response)

Quote:
I think it would be interesting if people of faith actually looked at the morality behind the things they take for granted.


Done and no, I don't take any of it for granted. However I do not need to find some scientific explaination for every little thing either. Your in the larger group there...

But in the case of homosexuality, the science is already against the agenda. There is no evidence that it is inborn and even if it were, since homosexuals can't naturally reproduce, it would be an abberation. "...science...against..." Really? All science, or just some science? Most of what i've read see it as in-born. "an abberation" does that of necessity place an 'evil' label upon it?

On top of that, the evidence is overwhelmingly against the homosexual lifestyle choice in terms of risk factors for death, disease, abuse (of all kinds), etc. A rather unfounded opinion. Since homosexuality has existed since the 'cave', and until recently in the 'closet', that claim seems rather weak when compared to other 'practices' such as smoking and over-eating as hastening death??

In addition, if homosexuality ever was proven to be inborn, it would have no impact whatsoever on LDS doctrine and policy because of Ether 12:27. Thanks for the ref. Scanning Ether again it does contain some interesting stuff. Favoured nation, groups, individuals; not to shed blood; charity as the greatest expression of respect for "God" and man... As for 12:27, is there ANY individual exempt from "weakness"? Whether purposeful, imposed or natural might be a good discussion?

I personally don't care if consenting adults do whatever in their own homes, but the risk factors are too great to allow state recognition of marriage or adoptions (no compelling reasons). (Thanks for honesty ;-)


Quote:
I suppose a case could be made for homosexuality's being problematic for the species, but "God said so" doesn't strike me as a particularly moral stance.


If one has any description at all of God and/or what God has said, then that says a whole lot about the morality of the 'God said so stance'. Such a concept is rich in morality. The real question is who's morality is right?

That question IS a good one! IMSCO IF the teachings of Jesus can be condensed into the "two new commandments" which are in essence being charitable and compassionate in dealing with each other--now there's a test--then knowledge, understanding and tolerance SHOULD prevail over ignorance, condemnation prejudice and intolerance...

IF Christ didn't bring those two commandments, i shudder to think how our lives would be different! Likewise, it disturbs me to see so many people turn-back to pre-Christ, Old Testament times and attitudes to substantiate retrogressive thinking. Very often in defiance of legitamate science.

To accept the reality, and the morality of homosexuality might well be "a humbling weakness to be overcome" (Eth, 12:9) IF "God" the creator sees all humanity to be equal in his sight, as taught by Jesus. Then why not in our sight? Could it be our lack of faith that keeps us weak? That we are not meeting "God's" challenge to "become strong"?

keene wrote:God is love.

Two people in love have sex.

How is this a sin? How is it bad? I just don't get it. Enlighten me, and let the discussion begin.

I have not read past this post and don't intend to drag myself into anoter match but let me add a few words, if you don't mind.

The love expressed between homosexuals having sex is outside the bounds the Lord has set because it transgresses the law which has been in place since eternity. I won’t deny that there are feelings of love between homosexuals because they are very sensitive people and wired to feel affectionate to each other. That natural desire to have unnatural affection one to another is not their fault. That sounds like a big contradiction but it’s really part of a master plan to test the inner strength during a mortal trial here on earth.

The homosexual test is giving to a select group of spirits who come down to earth and learn to harness their feelings and natural desires. It’s a difficult test, for sure. It must be one of the hardest tests for anyone to have to successfully pass.

I honestly think that homosexuals get a glimpse of the kind of knowledge God has in understanding the sexual desires between both sexes in a natural environment. In other words, they become more like God who understands what it is like for women to be attracted to men. There is a great power in the ability to have these kinds of senses and be able to control them within the bounds the Lord has set.

The mission for every homosexual person is to find God in this life, learn his commandments, resist the perversion that beckons them daily to commit sin, and endure to the end. God will help them every day of their lives if they will surrender everything to God.

Gee, I could go on and on . . .

Paul O

Paul Osborne wrote:

keene wrote:God is love.

Two people in love have sex.

How is this a sin? How is it bad? I just don't get it. Enlighten me, and let the discussion begin.

I have not read past this post and don't intend to drag myself into anoter match but let me add a few words, if you don't mind.

The love expressed between homosexuals having sex is outside the bounds the Lord has set because it transgresses the law which has been in place since eternity. I won’t deny that there are feelings of love between homosexuals because they are very sensitive people and wired to feel affectionate to each other. That natural desire to have unnatural affection one to another is not their fault. That sounds like a big contradiction but it’s really part of a master plan to test the inner strength during a mortal trial here on earth.

The homosexual test is giving to a select group of spirits who come down to earth and learn to harness their feelings and natural desires. It’s a difficult test, for sure. It must be one of the hardest tests for anyone to have to successfully pass.

I honestly think that homosexuals get a glimpse of the kind of knowledge God has in understanding the sexual desires between both sexes in a natural environment. In other words, they become more like God who understands what it is like for women to be attracted to men. There is a great power in the ability to have these kinds of senses and be able to control them within the bounds the Lord has set.

The mission for every homosexual person is to find God in this life, learn his commandments, resist the perversion that beckons them daily to commit sin, and endure to the end. God will help them every day of their lives if they will surrender everything to God.

Gee, I could go on and on . . .

Paul O

Roger says, please Paul, do "go on!" I hope you're not a hit an' run kinda guy ;-) I'm not sure for which you should get the highest mark:

1. For accurately restating old ecclesiatic theory from old-schools going back in time? Or,

2. Composing a nice piece of warm fuzzy rationalization about a human state that you seem to be in denial of?

I'm surprised to read the old "test" theory from you. Am i safe in assuming "God" puts a test on a lot of folks besides Gays? Those born maimed, blind, deaf, etc. Is there a limit in this? I guess we're all tested or challenged in some way to some degree by that theory. It seems so primitive.

You say: "part of a master plan to test the inner strength during a mortal trial here on earth."
What makes you think that? How do you validate that beyond personal-pondering? Or, essoteric "knowledge" for the priveleged?

(Oh,oh looks like i messed up on the "quote" thing? Failed another 'test' :-(

Help me understand your theory in this? If a gay person were to live as you suggest do "You" think "They" would be happier living as a celebate? Without affection and companionship?

I can't go on... Roger M

There is no such thing as a "gay person", but there is such a thing as perversion.

Gazelam wrote:There is no such thing as a "gay person", but there is such a thing as perversion.

Perversion of what?

The gospel?
The proper way to eat eggs? (With chipotle salsa, of course)
Style?

What is normative and what is a perversion are of necessity social constructs.

Runtu wrote:The proper way to eat eggs? (With chipotle salsa, of course)

Big endian. Little endians drive me nuts, especially when trying to modify computer binaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_endian#Discussion.2C_background.2C_etymology