The Dude wrote:I think the church should hold out as hardline bigots for as long as possible. The longer the better. The best result would be for the LDS church to be the very last institution on the face of the earth to change their ways and accept homosexuals and their relationships as normal human behavior.
Well, you really haven't answered my question directly. My question must be a hard one to answer, no? Should the Church admit practicing homosexuals to full faith and fellowship?
Are you stupid? I clearly answered "no" they should not admit practicing homosexuals.
Now, if I loved the church then my answer would have been "yes".
I try not to be stupid. Basically, your answer is "yes," the Church should refuse to admit practicing homosexuals because the Church is wrong in everything else, so why not just seal the deal and be wrong in that?
Sophistry is dishonesty at worst, disingenuousness at best. Either one is a rhetorical failure.
Let's see if Thama has the moral courage to answer my question.
rcrocket wrote:Basically, your answer is "yes," the Church should refuse to admit practicing homosexuals because the Church is wrong in everything else, so why not just seal the deal and be wrong in that?
You still don't get it. I think the church was right to change their policy on blacks, which unfortunately leaves us criticizing past bigotry which isn't nearly as effective or meaningful as criticizing current bigotry.
Sophistry is dishonesty at worst, disingenuousness at best. Either one is a rhetorical failure.
You don't know honesty when you see it.
Let's see if Thama has the moral courage to answer my question.
lol moral courage? Who do you think you are?
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
Runtu wrote: Monson's statement seems to be part and parcel of that idea: you have to watch out for the tolerant and kind and civil, as they are hiding deep sins.
Bah.
I think he is just saying that people use the virtue of tolerance to get people to be accepting of "sinful" behavior or engage in it. Think homosexuality, but also think "drink alcohol." It's a rather mundane thing you'll hear any number of conservative Christian personalities raving about on the radio.
Sophistry is dishonesty at worst, disingenuousness at best. Either one is a rhetorical failure.
You don't know honesty when you see it.
Let's see if Thama has the moral courage to answer my question.
lol moral courage? Who do you think you are?
Somebody who is willing to post with his own name. Somebody who is willing to answer questions honestly without fear of where the answer might lead. Somebody who certainly strives for honesty in all cases and will admit dishonesty if ever confronted with any objective proof -- instead of some crazy mindreading business.
Can't you admit your answer is at the least disingenuous?
You don't have to answer the question -- I'll just move on to the next followup question.
Should the church be criticized (from the perspective of reasonable-thinking people) for not admitting homosexuals to full faith and fellowship?
rcrocket wrote:Should the church be criticized (from the perspective of reasonable-thinking people) for not admitting homosexuals to full faith and fellowship?
No. The church should be criticized for urging it's members to lobby against the recent same-sex marriage developments in California.
rcrocket wrote:Should the church be criticized (from the perspective of reasonable-thinking people) for not admitting homosexuals to full faith and fellowship?
No. The church should be criticized for urging it's members to lobby against the recent same-sex marriage developments in California.
"It's" is a contraction of "it is." You've used the wrong word.
The Church feels it has a moral imperative under the First Amendment to encourage its members to support an amendment to the California constitution. It has a belief founded upon scripture and divine revelation. The wall of separation of church and state goes only one way.
But it is interesting that you admit that the church should not be criticized for denying fellowship to practicing homosexuals. What is your philosophical basis for making this particular concession?
Last edited by _rcrocket on Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rcrocket wrote:Can't you admit your answer is at the least disingenuous?
You don't have to answer the question -- I'll just move on to the next followup question.
<wiping sweat from my brow>
Should the church be criticized (from the perspective of reasonable-thinking people) for not admitting homosexuals to full faith and fellowship?
People should criticize that which they feel is worthy of criticism. Are you asking me to call one group "reasonable-thinking" and another group "unreasonable"?
I know what I think: the church should be criticized for making homosexuality a sin. It would be reasonable for people who agree with me to voice their criticism.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
Just can't answer my particular question, can you? It just grates, doesn't it, to engage in dialog with a member of the Church (remember -- the "liar" of "liars") where you are fearful of being pinned into a corner?
I reiterate my question posed above to you. I'm not asking you the question as you rephrased it. To restate, is it unreasonable for the Church to refuse fellowship to practicing homosexuals? Is a yes or no so hard with you?