Gaz advocates death by blood atonement for Chad Hardy?

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:28 am

Hally McIlrath wrote:
beastie wrote:I think BY taught that murder, adultery, stealing, marrying a black person, and apostatizing were the sins worthy of blood atonement. So if a gay person was married and had sex with someone of the same sex, that appears to be as close as one can get.

It seems like Gaz is trying, attempting, vainly squeeeeezing homosexuality into the realm of murder, so that it can fall under the vision of a Millennium filled with kittens and butterflies and little lambs and throat slashing. But I don't know how one can arbitrarily say one thing is really another. Does that fall under the "it means this because I say it means this" personal revelatory category, or what?

It simply means that Gaz is flat-out wrong from a doctrinal perspective on this issue. He has allowed his own personal biases cloud his judgment.

Gaz, you know I like you, but you are way off base on this one. Blood atonement was a whacked out idea of Brigham Young's that should have never taken place. The End.

Also, as far as BY is concerned regarding sins that were deserving of blood atonement, I believe that covenant breaking was mentioned. Since homosexuality would fall under "covenant breaking", I think that is where Gaz is getting this basis from.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:33 am

The solid reasoning of one Christian:

God leaves no doubt that homosexuality is a sin. So we need to examine what sin means. First it means rebellion against God, but what does that mean? It means that it is something that a person chooses to do. If God were to say that having blue eyes or having brown hair is a sin, then He would be unfair, because we have no control over those things. We are born with or without blue eyes and there is nothing we can do to change that. We are born with or without brown hair and again there is nothing we can do about it. Oh, I guess we could dye it, but it would still be brown under the dye.

The same is true of homosexuality, if we are born that way and therefore have no choice in the matter and yet God calls it a sin, then He is unjust. So either God is unjust, or people are not born homosexual. We know that God is not unjust so that leaves us with one conclusion, people are not born homosexual.

http://www.behindthebadge.net/articles/a128.html

The Bible, God's literal inerrant word, Trump's all. No point even considering that homosexuality could have a biological basis. Not for one minute. "God said it, and I believe it."

Post by **_Hally McIlrath** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:46 am

liz3564 wrote:Also, as far as BY is concerned regarding sins that were deserving of blood atonement, I believe that covenant breaking was mentioned. Since homosexuality would fall under "covenant breaking", I think that is where Gaz is getting this basis from.

What covenant is that? Is it made in the temple?

Does it apply to those who have never made the covenant? And if not, again, what good is it in becoming a Mormon? All things considered, the best plan seems to be to avoid Mormonism during your lifetime, and then accept it once you've died.

Edit:

he same is true of homosexuality, if we are born that way and therefore have no choice in the matter and yet God calls it a sin, then He is unjust. So either God is unjust, or people are not born homosexual. We know that God is not unjust so that leaves us with one conclusion, people are not born homosexual.

God's unjust all the time. He hardened Pharaoh's heart. Did Pharaoh have a choice in the matter? I don't think so. And Job -- how just is it to take a perfectly sinless man, and allow him to become Satan's play toy, just to win a bet? God commanded babies to be killed, and little virgin girls to become the "wives" of the soldiers who killed their parents right in front of them. Read the Old Testament. God's unjust all the time.

Post by **_antishock8** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:51 am

Post by **_Angus McAwesome** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:04 am

RaptorJesus went extinct for your sins...

Post by **_moksha** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:15 am

Should we assume that Gaz would wish to subject
all Furries who where Mormon to Blood Atonement
unless they recanted?

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:42 am

Hally McIlrath wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
Yeah, too late. So he's talking about people who are attracted to Bambi.

I don't think it's that, exactly, I think it's more that people like to dress up like Bambi. They're attracted to humans, they aren't attracted to animals; they just like to dress up in animal costumes. You know, like for Halloween, except not only on Halloween.

I THINK. I'm not really sure, since I don't really understand the attraction myself.

Yeah, I should have been more clear, Bambi was the first thing that popped into my head. So one might assume that a trip to Disneyland would be a furry banquet of some sort. The useless crap I learn on the internet, I'm tellin' ya.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:45 am

Jersey Girl: I get it. So what happens when (I'm going off on a tangent a.k.a. the wrong road so bear with me) it is discovered that the Book of Mormon was really written by a Baptist preacher...will all LDS become Baptists then?

abman: Hopefully they'll be Christians. ;)

Jersey Girl: Calvanists, right? ;-)

abman: Honestly, I don't get your question. From our POV, that simply won't happen. It's like asking what your or I will do when we find out that the Hindus wrote the Bible.

Jersey Girl: Sorry, abman, I said I was "going off on a tangent a.k.a. the wrong road", so don't say you weren't warned. My brain had enough of the serious and went into automatic silly mode. It has to happen on a thread like this, trust me.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:47 am

EAllusion wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:And WTH is a "furrie"?
A person whose sexual fetish is either themselves or others dressing up in furry costumes, usually the kind you'd expect a team mascot to wear.

It's an odd kink, but quite harmless.

There probably is a biological basis for why some things are apt to become fetishes while other things are not, and in what frequency. Some things are very apt to become a sexual kink, others are less likely, and some things just don't do it. Foot fetishes are extremely common. It strikes me as weird on a personal level, but statistics suggest a substantial subset of people will develop them from all walks of life. There's almost certainly been at least one Mormon apostle who had a serious foot fetish. Maybe Gazelam has one.

Wow, that picture is so hot, EA.

(sorry, my brain is melting)

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:54 am

Okay, so what I've gotten from this thread is the clear sense that Gaz was attempting to forward something that isn't doctrinal, somebody around here (Not naming names. Gaz ;-)knows more about people attracted to Chuck E. Cheese than the average poster and after the Second Coming, all LDS will be Baptists.

Is that about right?

Oh. And there was something about not slaughtering dairy cows but let's not go there again, okay?