God's Attitude Toward Homosexuality

[Katzpur]

@columbus

Hey, how did you change what it says under your nick. My just says Active Member and I don't know how to play around with that.

In the upper right-hand corner of your screen, right next to the picture of an envelope (which depicts conversations) and the flag (which depicts alerts), you'll see your user name and avatar. Click on your user name. You'll get a little pop-up window with showing a number of different options. Click on "Personal Details." One of the options under "Personal Details" is "Custom Title." That's where you change "Active Member" to something a little more creative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've obviously misunderstood what we believe. We believe that in His pre-mortal life, the man referred to as Jesus Christ in the New Testament was known as Jehovah. We believe that He was the Jehovah of the Old Testament and is an entirely different individual from His Father (Elohim).

The last thing on earth that we believe is that there was no sacrifice on the cross. We believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin in Bethlehem and was the Son of God. We believe that He was sent to earth by His Father, lived a perfect life, taught a gospel of love and mercy, suffered in Gethsemane, died on Calvary in an atoning sacrifice for our sins, and rose again on the third day. We believe that He sits today on the right hand of His Father. I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion you did that we don't believe in His Atonement.

What made you think that I don't believe in his supposed atonement? By the way, why would that even be necessary? Your version of God caused the problem by being incompetent to start with. Why would he need to sacrifice himself to himself for sin that he was ultimately responsible for? I t really makes no sense at all.

But if Jesus is who you think that he is then his time on the cross would not even be equivalent to a bad weekend in Las Vegas for you and me.

 

[Jane.Doe]

What made you think that I don't believe in his supposed atonement? By the way, why would that even be necessary? Your version of God caused the problem by being incompetent to start with. Why would he need to sacrifice himself to himself for sin that he was ultimately responsible for? I t really makes no sense at all.

But if Jesus is who you think that he is then his time on the cross would not even be equivalent to a bad weekend in Las Vegas for you and me.

I'm not following the logic behind your comment here.

LDS don't believe God is responsible for the sins of the world-- the people who sin are responsible for their actions, and no one else. So unless you somehow counting God allowing man to have free will as being "ultimately responsible" for, I'm not sure the logic behind your comment.

Christ's atonement had to be done because people sin. They do horrible things to themselves, each other, etc. These things are wrong and cause pain. These wrongs have to be met with justice-- God is not an anarchist or someone to pretend that people weren't really hurt by these wrongs. So Christ took our sins upon Him: He suffered because of our wrongs. He satisfied the needs of justice, and in turn can give us undeserved mercy (cause let's face it-- I myself have done horrible things. as has every other person).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not following the logic behind your comment here.

LDS don't believe God is responsible for the sins of the world-- the people who sin are responsible for their actions, and no one else. So unless you somehow counting God allowing man to have free will as being "ultimately responsible" for, I'm not sure the logic behind your comment.

Then they do not understand the Adam and Eve myth and how God screwed up his creation and blamed man for it.

Christ's atonement had to be done because people sin. They do horrible things to themselves, each other, etc. These things are wrong and cause pain. These wrongs have to be met with justice-- God is not an anarchist or someone to pretend that people weren't really hurt by these wrongs. So Christ took our sins upon Him: He suffered because of our wrongs. He satisfied the needs of justice, and in turn can give us undeserved mercy (cause let's face it-- I myself have done horrible things. as has every other person).

Sorry, what is "sin"? Why is Christ's atonement necessary? How does that do any good at all? The idea of someone atoning for someone else is rather immoral.

 

[Prestor John]

Boy, I would think that maybe four times a year would be a sufficient number of reminders, or at the very most, once a month. Would you not remember if reminded once a month?

Remembering Him includes partaking of the emblems of His sacrifice which is a renewal of the covenant we made at baptism.

Repentance is a daily exercise of faith and this weekly renewal helps the penitent avoid sin and to meet desired goals.

By remembering Him, keeping His commandments and following His example we believe that we can attain peace and happiness in this life and eventual salvation and perfection in the life to come.

 

[Prestor John]

No, all of that came from "God the Father". From my understanding Mormons are not trinitarians and since there are quite a few verses where Jesus makes it clear that he is not "God the Father" it would appear that you are in error about even the LDS version of your faith:

14 Bible Verses That Indicate Jesus Is Not God | Interfaith forums

Wow! That is a bit messed up. You in effect say that there was no sacrifice on the cross in doing so. But then the supposed sacrifice fails from almost every angle.

At least you are consistent in your brazen ignorance. That's something.​

 

[Prestor John]

My friend, it is important to remember that although I have no problems with you being a Christian, that I myself am a Jew, so appealing to the Christian scriptures doesn't work for me. To me they are wonderful religious writings on par with the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, the Sutras... combining wisdom and error. Most importantly, they simply aren't the sacred texts of MY people. If you are going to try to use scripture as an authority with me, you'll need to stick to the Torah (the books of law). As far as I'm concerned, Jesus had zero to do with the giving of the Law to Israel.

Now, does the Bible contradict itself? I assume you believe it does not. Therefore I should be able to quote from the Tanakh (what you call the OT) and it will be authoritative to you.

So I ask you again, to whom did God give the Law for keeping the Sabbath in the Torah? And the LORD said, "Speak to the Children of Israel." Not the world. For this reason I was making the point that Gentiles need not keep the Shabbat.

And as for the words of Jesus, Jesus preached to the lost children of Israel (sinful Jews). He did not go to the world -- in fact he told his disciples to NOT visit Gentiles when he sent them out on their journey. Although he didn't abrogate the 613 commandments, he didn't put them on Gentiles either.

The Sabbath predates the Law of Moses for God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it during the Creation.

It was the Lord Jesus Christ who created the Earth and all things upon it, therefore He is the Lord of the Sabbath.

He was also the Being who gave the Law to Moses and commanded him to give it to the Children of Israel.

Any Gentile who accepts Christ and is baptized by His authority are adopted into the House of Israel and therefore are required to remember the Sabbath Day and the keep it holy.

I am a descendant of Ephraim.

 

[Prestor John]

The Sabbath is Friday sunset until Saturday sunset.

Just in case your church failed to teach you what "Sabbath" means.
Tom

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ changed both the day and the purpose of the Sabbath after His Resurrection.

We have been commanded to gather together on Sunday and to partake of the emblems of His sacrifice in remembrance of Him.

 

[Prestor John]

What made you think that I don't believe in his supposed atonement?

In post #217, after Katzpur informed you that the LDS Church teaches and believes that the Being known as Jehovah in the Old Testament was the pre-mortal Jesus Christ, you said,

"You in effect say that there was no sacrifice on the cross in doing so."

You were the one who erroneously claimed that the LDS Church does not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ's sacrifice (i.e. His Atonement).

By the way, why would that even be necessary?

It is necessary in order for Mankind to overcome both sin and death.

Your version of God caused the problem by being incompetent to start with.

It was Man that chose to partake of the fruit, which caused both sin and death to enter into the world.

God simply allowed them the free will to choose.

Why would he need to sacrifice himself to himself for sin that he was ultimately responsible for? It really makes no sense at all.

Explain how God is responsible for sin.

But if Jesus is who you think that he is then his time on the cross would not even be equivalent to a bad weekend in Las Vegas for you and me.

The Lord Jesus Christ came into this world just like any other mortal, yet He took upon Himself the sins and sufferings of all people.

The prophet Alma said of His suffering,

"And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me." (Alma 7:11-13)​

Then they do not understand the Adam and Eve myth and how God screwed up his creation and blamed man for it.

The LDS Church believes that Adam and Eve were real people and that the Fall of Man was a literal event.

It is not a surprise that you don't understand Mankind's need for the Atonement of Christ since you don't believe in a literal Fall.

The Atonement makes no sense without the Fall.

Sorry, what is "sin"?

The simplest description of sin would be "willful wrongdoing."

Why is Christ's atonement necessary?

As I said earlier, it is necessary in order for Mankind to overcome both sin and death.

Man was responsible for both sin and death entering the world, therefore by Man must also the means of overcoming both sin and death be realized.

Sin can only be overcome by a mortal having the power to choose to never commit sin.

Death can only be overcome by a mortal having the power to choose when to lay down his life and to raise it up again.

Christ has always had the power and authority of God, yet when He was born into our world He inherited all the attributes of mortality as well.

Because of His mortality, the weakness of His flesh, Christ had the capacity to be tempted and to sin, but He chose to never commit sin.

Because of His mortality, Christ could suffer all the ailments of this world, even death, but because of His godhood, He could suffer all these things passed the point that would have killed another man, and He chose the moment of His death as well as the moment to rise from the dead.

Paul said near the end of his first epistle tot he Corinthians,

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:20-22)

How does that do any good at all? The idea of someone atoning for someone else is rather immoral.

It was incredibly unfair to the Lord Jesus Christ, but He went through with it anyway because He loves us and there was no other way.

This is why we praise Him in both humility and pride. Joy and sorrow. Weakness and strength.

 

[Brickjectivity]

On my profile page, I can't see any place where it says, "your title". If I click on the avatar, I get a pop up to change the avatar, but that's it.

Follow this link: https://www.religiousforums.com/account/personal-details

Look for Custom Title in the middle areas just below the avatar.

 

[Katzpur]

What made you think that I don't believe in his supposed atonement?

That's not what I said at all. I said that you don't seem to think Mormons believe in the Atonement.

By the way, why would that even be necessary? Your version of God caused the problem by being incompetent to start with. Why would he need to sacrifice himself to himself for sin that he was ultimately responsible for? I t really makes no sense at all.

But if Jesus is who you think that he is then his time on the cross would not even be equivalent to a bad weekend in Las Vegas for you and me.

You know what? It's clear this conversation is going no where. I've been around long enough to know when someone is looking for real dialogue and when he's just itching for a fight. You've intentionally twisted my words so that they mean something entirely different than what I said, and that's exactly what you'll try to do should I attempt to try to untwist them. It's just a game for you and I'm not playin'. Sorry.

 

[Jane.Doe]

Then they do not understand the Adam and Eve myth and how God screwed up his creation and blamed man for it.

I will acknowledge that the mainstream Christian understanding of Adam and Eve is ... problematic. It's one of the reasons I'm not a mainstream Christian.

LDS understanding is different: for LDS the Garden of Eden was never God's end game. Adam didn't eat and apple and God then say "oh, shoot, guess I got to come up with some plan B now". Rather God always knew things would go down the way they would, and that was always the plan. This life in a fallen world serves a purpose-- men learning good & evil, men learning joy and pain, etc. And God always know that Christ would need to be sacrificed to redeem man. And at the end of this redemption is not going back to Garden of Eden-- rather a perfected state greater then that.

Sorry, what is "sin"?

God is the ultimate Goodness. He wants us to walk in His was because they are good. Knowingly turning away from those ways towards something bad is known as sin.

Why is Christ's atonement necessary? How does that do any good at all?

Because you and I have all at one point decided to leave God's Good ways, and we need a way back.

 

[Ajarn]

Leviticus just gives "sex education". It explains the "sexual position" (you shall not lie with a male AS one lies with a female). Should NOT be judgmental as Bible/Jesus states "judge not"

Judge not, so we should not Judge murderers or Rapists to.
or are you taking it out of context, essentially creating a contradiction in the Good Book.

Lets be honest, the Bible is against it, that can not be argued, its written in plain English, regardless people will twist it to please them rather then leave the Religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least you are consistent in your brazen ignorance. That's something.​

Please. you are projecting again. I can help you understand your book of myths, well not that Book of Mormon. It is hard to take that obvious fraudulent work as anything more than a work of comedy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not what I said at all. I said that you don't seem to think Mormons believe in the Atonement.

And my point was that that was nowhere near what I said or implied.

You know what? It's clear this conversation is going no where. I've been around long enough to know when someone is looking for real dialogue and when he's just itching for a fight. You've intentionally twisted my words so that they mean something entirely different than what I said, and that's exactly what you'll try to do should I attempt to try to untwist them. It's just a game for you and I'm not playin'. Sorry.

No, I am not. if anything I did the same thing that you did. The problem is that the LDS interpretation of the Bible is even worse than that of mainstream Christianity. The problem is that the idea of atonement and sacrifice is simply false when looked at rationally and logically.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will acknowledge that the mainstream Christian understanding of Adam and Eve is ... problematic. It's one of the reasons I'm not a mainstream Christian.

LDS understanding is different: for LDS the Garden of Eden was never God's end game. Adam didn't eat and apple and God then say "oh, shoot, guess I got to come up with some plan B now". Rather God always knew things would go down the way they would, and that was always the plan. This life in a fallen world serves a purpose-- men learning good & evil, men learning joy and pain, etc. And God always know that Christ would need to be sacrificed to redeem man. And at the end of this redemption is not going back to Garden of Eden-- rather a perfected state greater then that.

The problem enters when you say that Christ was needed to be sacrificed. That makes no sense at all.

God is the ultimate Goodness. He wants us to walk in His was because they are good. Knowingly turning away from those ways towards something bad is known as sin.

What is "sin"? That is what a huge portion of this thread is dedicated to. If one takes the Old Testament literally at all it is clear that "sin" is not based upon morality. The God of the Old Testament is an extremely immoral person.

Because you and I have all at one point decided to leave God's Good ways, and we need a way back.

Sorry, this is mere word salad and does not explain anything.

 

[loganonekenobi]

Didn't Zarda's side eventually win that case?
Anyways, employees should not be talking about their sexuality or religion to customers. Period.
Not only did his comment make the customer uncomfortable, but she claimed that he also touched her in ways that made her feel even more uncomfortable.
Maybe he mentioned his sexuality to justify manhandling her a bit? I don't know the truth behind these claims. I wasn't there. But a company would fire any employee that had such a complaint made against them.
I could be disciplined if I spoke about my religion or proselyted while working. I could get fired if I tried to use my religious affiliation to justify something I did or said that made a customer feel uncomfortable.

You like to make stories it seems.
When it came down to the court hearings i'm pretty sure the professionals looks at all of the details. If they had found inappropriate activity the case would have failed.
Your assesment is unlikely.
THis man was not proselytising
You would have no fear if someone asked you what church you attended or if you and your spouse where planing on going to a vacation soon.
Your comparision is false to say the least.

I don't think so. The LDS Church aren't "media darlings" like homosexuals.

No the LDS instead like to come to my door at 8 am on sunday. I have yet to see a gay pride group come to my door to tell me to be gay or suffer and eternal punishment.
Yes there would have been huge media attenntion. I see it every day on the youtube channels and news. Remember the guy that tried to convert the natives on an Indian island? I can tell you that he is now famous. Dead but famous.
The real reason they must draw attention is to combat the bigotry. The best way to fight it is to expose it first.

That is a matter of opinion.

Attraction is not a choice. The legitimate scientific community can tell you that.

First off, this is a matter of personal belief. We should not be trying to write Christ's teachings into law, therefore, forcing other people to live by them.
Separation of Church and State.
I totally agree with you on this one but that's not what we are seeing in many of the state governments in our country. They are emphatically pushing to make the christian religion favored in this country over all other religions and ideas.
Second, I don't want employees anywhere talking to me about their sexuality. And I don't want to discuss my sexuality with them either.
That's your perfect "Do unto others..." scenario.
"You don't tell me about your sexuality and I won't tell you about mine."

Awesome. Sounds like a great idea. You need more specific instances? well here I'll give you one and if you can still make a story about how this woman some how deserved what she got I'll be impressed by your imagination and at the same time saddened by your lack of empathy.This sort of thing happens and it has nothing to do with anything other than bigotry.
https://www.insidesources.com/fired-im-gay-thats-still-legal-ohio/

I have used the example of pedophilia in arguments against homosexuality, but not in the way you are espousing.
I am not comparing two consenting adults helping one another masturbate or whatever to a child being exploited.
However, I have used the example of pedophilia to point out that there is such a concept as "inappropriate love".
Where someone draws the line at what is or is not "inappropriate love" depends on the individual, but I believe that romantic and sexual love should only be had between a man and woman who are legally and lawfully wedded.
That's it.

Where do we draw the line of "inappropriate love"? That's easy. We have multiple studies and examples of harm that is caused by Pedophilia and Bestiality. We do not have to appeal to an imaginary father figure to understand this.
So the question is... does marriage equality cause harm to a society?
The religious would have you believe that they would cause the downfall of the world. However, the Netherlands was the first country to allow same sex marriage and they are doing fine. If one looks at the happiness index, violent crimes, and people in prison per capita as compared to the US or any other highly religious country(culturally or legally) we see quite the opposite is true.
I'm not saying that gay marriage causes a better society but I am saying it doesn't destroy one as the religious would have you believe.
Your opinion on sexuality has one flaw that I noted. You said "one man and woman" I do believe the founder of the LDS would have said "one man and his women". Marriage values have changed quite a bit since the Bible was written.

I believe that people do this, not the true tenets of these faiths.

The true tenets of the faith are up for debate as shown by the 30 thousand or so denominations of christianity. In addition, it's not hard to show the passages that tell Its adherents to treat certain people with negativity(sometimes in extreme fashion). This is why there needs to be "apologetics" in the first place.

I don't subscribe to the idea that religion is a source of mankind's woes. it has done more good than harm.

Of course you wouldn't see that religion can do harm. It is true that religion is not the only motivator in many of the atrocities but it's really easy to lose empathy if your god says its okay. Do you remember the history of the "manifest destiney" or the "trail of tears"? It was okay because the natives where heathen savages.

Socialism has killed more people than religion has.

Socialism is not part of this conversation but you do seem to imply that conservatism is okay with discrimination against certain groups. That's okay, history will back you up on that.
I dont care what you believe. You are free to believe as you chose. The problem arises when these beliefs start forming laws in the place of sound evidence, reason, and empathy. These forums probably would not exist if not for this problem. I for one would not attack any one's faith IF their faith guided only there own lives.

 

[Jane.Doe]

The problem enters when you say that Christ was needed to be sacrificed. That makes no sense at all.



What is "sin"? That is what a huge portion of this thread is dedicated to. If one takes the Old Testament literally at all it is clear that "sin" is not based upon morality. The God of the Old Testament is an extremely immoral person.



Sorry, this is mere word salad and does not explain anything.

Let's zoom out to the super-big picture.

I believe that there are certain actions out there (we don't have to specify which) that a inherently beneficial to that person, society, or the larger world. In other words, there are actions which are inherently good. These things should be strived for.

Conversely, there are certain actions out there (we don't have to specify which) that a inherently harmful to that person, society, or the larger world. In other words, there are actions which are inherently bad. These things should be avoided for.

Do you agree with the above?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's zoom out to the super-big picture.

I believe that there are certain actions out there (we don't have to specify which) that a inherently beneficial to that person, society, or the larger world. In other words, there are actions which are inherently good. These things should be strived for.

Conversely, there are certain actions out there (we don't have to specify which) that a inherently harmful to that person, society, or the larger world. In other words, there are actions which are inherently bad. These things should be avoided for.

Do you agree with the above?

Yes, but one needs to be careful in such an approach and not use to to justify one's own prejudices. For example, gay people are born that way. Or at least that is what the evidence supports. One can't use false arguments based on the supposition of "what if everyone was gay?" That would be as silly as arguing "what if everyone was male?". One has to deal with the world as it is, not as one would pretend that it should be.

 

[Jane.Doe]

Yes, but one needs to be careful in such an approach and not use to to justify one's own prejudices.

Totally agreed.

(Still staying big picture here)
I do believe that there is a God out there. God is the apex of goodness. He asks us to do good things and not to do bad things. His ways are good.

Conversely, other ways are less than the apex of goodness and involve some aspect which is harmful (to various degrees of course).

Make sense? I'm know you don't believe there is a God, so I don't expect you to agree with me. Just asking if I make sense?