Apostacy big winner at oscars

[_marg]

As to your last line, love is meaningless if respect is not there.

That is true, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, it doesn't go far enough. It's possible to love someone and not respect their behaviors. Happens all the time. We aren't required to accept or respect behaviors that we feel are destructive to self, the family, or society as a whole. We are required to love the individual and respect that the behavior is their choice. We don't have to respect the behavior itself.

The Church takes it further than "We don't have to respect the behavior itself" the church is not agnostic on homosexuality. It takes a stand and treats homosexuality with active disrespect. The problem here is that this issue is not restricted to behaviors, which are choices and changeable. Sure one can in religious terms "love a sinner and hate the sin", if one thinks that eventually that person can change or the behavior is not fundamental to the core being of that person. But if someone possesses "religious sin" in this case homosexuality, which they can never change, they will always by the Church and those following the teachings of the church be viewed with disrespect and really can never be accepted. So I fail to see how earth any love is being shown. It seems to me that "love" is a hollow word in this case.

The Church's views on homosexuality negatively impacts the lives of homosexuals, by encouraging guilt, low self esteem in homosexuals and encouraging not love but disrespect and non acceptance in their fundamental nature.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason can a religious person respect homosexuals who act upon their homosexuality?

Mormons can respect the person but not the the act of what they are doing.

Looking at the webster dictionary for the word "respect" it says:

So the opposite of respect is disrespect. When the church teaches that homosexuality is a sin it is expressing in religious terms a low regard as opposed to a high regard for .. homosexuality...in other words a disrespect for homosexuality. .see definition 3

The disrespect is for the act not the person.

[_Jason Bourne]

In what way does a Christian believer love a sinner?

Some Christians would argue the act of crying repentance and preaching salvation is an act of love. EV critics of the LDS Church who try to persuade Mormons to give up their religion say that they love the Mormon but hate their doctrine. I believe in their hearts most are acting out of care and concern for Mormons and their eternal well being. I do not think most hate us.

Here are some definitions of love:

1 a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2): attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3): affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b: an assurance of love <give her my love>2: warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>3 a: the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration <baseball was his first love> b (1): a beloved person : darling —often used as a term of endearment (2)British —used as an informal term of address4 a: unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: as (1): the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2): brotherly concern for others b: a person's adoration of God5: a god or personification of love6: an amorous episode : love affair7: the sexual embrace : copulation8: a score of zero (as in tennis)

Which one is applicable? "Brotherly concern for others"?

Sure. How about care and concern for a person that one believes is a Child of God. How about love for a person that is part of the human race.

Is it showing concern to tell a homosexual that they can't have legal equal rights to heterosexual couples?

Not for that aspect of their lives.

Is it showing concern to tell a homosexual that they must not have sexual relationships?

Maybe. If LDS are correct that such behavior is sin then yes.

Rather than concern it seems the Church is negatively judgmental and interfering in affairs of others in such a way as to cause hardship, guilt, and promote poor self esteem.

Again the Church let's people live how they wish. They just may not be able to be members. The exception to this is the gay marriage issue and because the Church view that as a threat to the moral well being of society and the family unit they do encourage members to intervene.

I don't consider that love Jason.

I know you don't marg. So? One can oppose certain behaviors and still have brotherly love for a fellow human.

[_marg]

Jason can a religious person respect homosexuals who act upon their homosexuality?

Mormons can respect the person but not the the act of what they are doing.

Looking at the webster dictionary for the word "respect" it says:

So the opposite of respect is disrespect. When the church teaches that homosexuality is a sin it is expressing in religious terms a low regard as opposed to a high regard for .. homosexuality...in other words a disrespect for homosexuality. .see definition 3

The disrespect is for the act not the person.

As I mentioned in a previous post it's fine to disrespect an act when it's not part of the fundamental nature of a person, when that act is a choice. As long as homosexuals are not causing others harm then the church has no moral right, not does any Mormon have any moral right to negatively judge their behaviors. Such attitudes breed prejudices.

[_marg]

In what way does a Christian believer love a sinner?

Some Christians would argue the act of crying repentance and preaching salvation is an act of love. EV critics of the LDS Church who try to persuade Mormons to give up their religion say that they love the Mormon but hate their doctrine. I believe in their hearts most are acting out of care and concern for Mormons and their eternal well being. I do not think most hate us.

Well if a person makes up their own definition of love, even abuse could be excused as doing it for " love". A spouse abuser could claim they are doing it for the good of the other out of love. Claiming love means very little.

Sure. How about care and concern for a person that one believes is a Child of God. How about love for a person that is part of the human race.

Here are some definitions of love:

1 a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2): attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3): affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b: an assurance of love <give her my love>2: warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>3 a: the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration <baseball was his first love> b (1): a beloved person : darling —often used as a term of endearment (2)British —used as an informal term of address4 a: unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: as (1): the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2): brotherly concern for others b: a person's adoration of God5: a god or personification of love6: an amorous episode : love affair7: the sexual embrace : copulation8: a score of zero (as in tennis)

Which one is applicable? "Brotherly concern for others"?

Exactly, so where is the care and concern for the person, when one is telling a homosexual they are wrong, they are inferior, they are sinning, they are not entitled to equal treatment under the law in co habitation relationships? I agree homosexually should be loved as part of the human race and their fundamental nature accepted if they are causing others no harm, but that's not what is happening.

Is it showing concern to tell a homosexual that they can't have legal equal rights to heterosexual couples?

Not for that aspect of their lives.

Yes or no Jason, is it showing concern?

Is it showing concern to tell a homosexual that they must not have sexual relationships?

Maybe. If LDS are correct that such behavior is sin then yes.

Sin is a religious, man created concept. Sin exists upon a definition created by a religious organization. So that has nothing to do with ethics or moral values.

Therefore to look at this objectively, rather than from a constructed religious perspective, is it showing concern to tell a homosexual who wants to have sexual relationships that they must not? If they must not have those relationships then what rationale is being used or what objective ethics applied to warrant this position?

Rather than concern it seems the Church is negatively judgmental and interfering in affairs of others in such a way as to cause hardship, guilt, and promote poor self esteem.

Again the Church let's people live how they wish. They just may not be able to be members. The exception to this is the gay marriage issue and because the Church view that as a threat to the moral well being of society and the family unit they do encourage members to intervene.

This make it difficult for gays who are brought up to be LDS members but are then rejected based upon a fundamental human nature they are born with, a nature that causes no harm. I think a gay person might argue with you that your position is just as harmful and disrespectful to them as Gaz's is. At least with Gaz he's being straight up about it, and not hiding behind words like"love" when love isn't there.

I don't consider that love Jason.

I know you don't marg. So? One can oppose certain behaviors and still have brotherly love for a fellow human.

Love is only a word. One can not be abusive to others and then claim it's done out of love. Abuse is not love. Calling homosexuality a sin by religious standards is being abusive. Rejecting gays based upon their fundamental nature is also abuse.

[_Jason Bourne]

This make it difficult for gays who are brought up to be LDS members but are then rejected based upon a fundamental human nature they are born with, a nature that causes no harm. I think a gay person might argue with you that your position is just as harmful and disrespectful to them as Gaz's is. At least with Gaz he's being straight up about it, and not hiding behind words like"love" when love isn't there.

It is not my position Marg. It is the LDS Church's position. My position varies from this one. I think Gays are most likely born that way. I am more aware of the difficulty for LDS gays than you are. Did you read the post I made about the active LDS 17 year old I know who is LDS is having same sex attraction? Kids like him is one of the reasons I think that persons are born gay.

[_Jason Bourne]

Sin is a religious, man created concept. Sin exists upon a definition created by a religious organization. So that has nothing to do with ethics or moral values.

This is simply your opinion. It is not factual. The whole of our society and legal system is built on Judeo Christian principles. in my opinion abandoning God and the concept of sin only being a man made thing leads to anarchy and lack of a moral compass in decision making processes. But this is just my opinion. But watching you and the conclusions you seem to reach makes me rather uncomfortable with your approach. If sin really is man made then it may have as much validity as the system you use to come up with values, ethics and morals. Your system as just as man made is could be full of pitfalls and errors.

On the other hand I do understand your position and contemplate it. Saying something is sin just cause some book or someone claims God said it is and can be dangerous. Not sure where I am totally on this to be honest.

Therefore to look at this objectively, rather than from a constructed religious perspective, is it showing concern to tell a homosexual who wants to have sexual relationships that they must not?

no

If they must not have those relationships then what rationale is being used or what objective ethics applied to warrant this position?

The only non religious rational is if their behavior is detrimental to themselves and or society as wholes.

[_Jason Bourne]

Love is only a word. One can not be abusive to others and then claim it's done out of love. Abuse is not love. Calling homosexuality a sin by religious standards is being abusive. Rejecting gays based upon their fundamental nature is also abuse.

One more comment. While I think it likely gays are that way because they are born that way this is far from conclusive. It is like the global warming thing. It is risky business to make policy or build moral values on something that is far from conclusive is it not?

[_marg]

This make it difficult for gays who are brought up to be LDS members but are then rejected based upon a fundamental human nature they are born with, a nature that causes no harm. I think a gay person might argue with you that your position is just as harmful and disrespectful to them as Gaz's is. At least with Gaz he's being straight up about it, and not hiding behind words like"love" when love isn't there.

It is not my position Marg. It is the LDS Church's position. My position varies from this one. I think Gays are most likely born that way. I am more aware of the difficulty for LDS gays than you are. Did you read the post I made about the active LDS 17 year old I know who is LDS is having same sex attraction? Kids like him is one of the reasons I think that persons are born gay.

Yes I did read that post. My point has been that Gaz is an obedient Mormon who does little critical thinking and that his attitude is a function of the disrespectful attitude he has learned and it is sanctioned by the Church. He doesn't understand what's wrong with his attitude. I think he's being honest and I respect him for that.

TD has mentioned why is homosexuality considered a sin in the first place. Gays should not need to ask to be forgiven.

One can argue the religious perspective "love the sinner hate the sin" but does that really happen when the accused sin, is a fundamental nature of a person? I don't think so.

[_solomarineris]

Good night gullible one.

Yea,
She's the gullible one, she didn't read the fairy tale of Book of Mormon, which doesn't preach hate of homosexuality or polygamy.
I am curious Ray, why didn't you suggest Marg to read sicko books like "Miracle of Forgiveness" & "Mormon Doctrine?". She could get really hair-raising compassionate feeling from those bastard sickos.