Keeping Religious Zealots Out of Power

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:12 am

Gazelam wrote:Jersey,

Are you saying you'd throw your (hypothetical) 16 year old out of the house?

If he/she were acting on this behavior..... Yes

Holy crap, Gaz. Just holy crap.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:14 am

Droopy wrote: Theocracy in no way implies the Law of Moses, which was fulfilled in Christ and who's rituals, outward ordinances, as well as legal structures were ended.

OMG, Cogs! I think the sun, moon, and stars just aligned. You and I actually agree on something. LOL

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:47 am

Gazelam wrote:To answer your hypothetical, if I were to see them acting on this mentality, they would not be welcome in my home. they woudl have to find some place else to live and someone else to support them.

Gaz, it is said that Jesus ate with publicans and sinners. He was criticised for this by his holier-than-thou critics, ie, the scribes and Pharisees. "Your master eats with publicans and sinners." He was also called a "glutton and a winebibber" (though probably far from the truth, he did drink wine, with publicans and sinners). Can you imagine Jesus saying, "come let us dine together, 'fags' not welcome though. That is one sin I just won't tolerate."

I don't think Jesus approved of sin, but I never see him personally rejecting people because they are sinners, or turning them away. So even looking at this from a religious/gospel perspective, with the idea that sinners need help:

10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

But it seems you would sacrifice the companionship, and a home, of your own son? Maybe if this did really happen in the future, you'd react differently. Because we really are only talking hypothetically here, and you need leeway and more experience. Personal experience does change people.

Post by **_Droopy** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:50 am

liz3564 wrote:
Droopy wrote: Theocracy in no way implies the Law of Moses, which was fulfilled in Christ and who's rituals, outward ordinances, as well as legal structures were ended.

OMG, Cogs! I think the sun, moon, and stars just aligned. You and I actually agree on something. LOL

Really? But no LDS believe otherwise (if they understand basic Gospel doctrine and New Testament theology at least). The only person I can think of who seemed to think that some of the Mosaic law was still applicable, or should be, was Nibley, and that was only in the narrow niche of economics, not social or general theological issues.

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:56 am

Gazelam wrote:Beastie,

You're a homophobe, gaze.

The term phobia implies fear. I don't fear homosexuals. They just make me want to throw up. I also cannot for the life of me understand how this has become so acceptable. It baffles me.

What part of homosexuals make you want to throw up? Their personality? The way they dress? Or just what they do sexually?

Post by **_Trevor** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:57 am

GoodK wrote:What part of homosexuals make you want to throw up? Their personality? The way they dress? Or just what they do sexually?

The fact that not one has ever responded favorably to his clubfooted advances.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:57 am

Ray,

Gaz, it is said that Jesus ate with publicans and sinners. He was criticised for this by his holier-than-thou critics, ie, the scribes and Pharisees. "Your master eats with publicans and sinners." He was also called a "glutton and a winebibber" (though probably far from the truth, he did drink wine, with publicans and sinners). Can you imagine Jesus saying, "come let us dine together, 'fags' not welcome though. That is one sin I just won't tolerate."

I don't think Jesus approved of sin, but I never see him personally rejecting people because they are sinners, or turning them away.

Your missing an important detail.

Christ was teachign these men the gospel, offering it to them for the first time.

In every instance I have stated an opinion, I am speaking of the previously educated acting against what they have been taught and received.

Post by **_bcspace** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:59 am

You're a homophobe, gaze.

No such thing. This is just the application of hatespeech from the APA to suppress those who believe other than their NAMBLA wing.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:18 am

Gazelam wrote:Your missing an important detail.

Christ was teachign these men the gospel, offering it to them for the first time.

In every instance I have stated an opinion, I am speaking of the previously educated acting against what they have been taught and received.

Yeah, I know that, Gaz. I've seen it in Church too many times not to know. Love only to a point (repentance), forgive only to a point (repentance), accept only to a point (repentance). Justifications as to why the Prodigal Son might still not attain "exaltation", while the "faithful son" will "inherit all that the Father has". It's all very "Mormon", and a way of encouraging total devotion "less you lose your heavenly reward". Those who toil one hour cannot possibly receive the same reward as those who toil 12 hours. And so forth.

It's all very limited and legalistic. "Top dog" gets to heaven by works and obedience, bottom dog eats crumbs for all eternity. Sheep go right, goats go left. Earth consumed by fire, tithe-payers survive, non-tithe-payers burned to a crisp. All so simple for the God of the Great Universe.

Maybe that will help you understand why I don't accept the Mormon concept of God. And why I think atheism is growing so very fast. Dawkins has been given a Hawaii tidal wave to surf home with. That's why many don't just turn to atheism, but actively oppose religion, because it confronts the common sense and sense of fairness of most people, and that's why some have called the "Christian God" a "tyrant". It didn't start with Thomas Paine, nor Voltaire, and it's not going to end with Dawkins. But I already know how you feel about all this.

Post by **_Droopy** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:22 am

bcspace wrote:
You're a homophobe, gaze.

No such thing. This is just the application of hatespeech from the APA to suppress those who believe other than their NAMBLA wing.

Correct, and the APA (in this case, the American Psychological Association) has since reversed its position on the nature and origins of homosexuality and the possibility of change for some through reparative therapy.

I wouldn't call it hate speech though, so much as Newspeak..