Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

Ingledsva · Apr 2, 2016

Prestor John said:
Proving how and why the Catholic Church started offering government funded social services is critical to this debate because it refutes many ignorant claims you have made about the motivations of the Catholic Church to provide those services.

I would not be offering so much information if you knew anything about this topic. Since you have been offering nothing but your opinion about the Catholic Church, I felt the need to enlighten you.

You are muddying the waters, bringing in crap that has no actual bearing on the subject. Which was the Catholic Church Adoption Agencies discriminating against same-sex couples.

Prestor John said:
How can the Catholic Church be guilty of discriminating against anyone in offering adoption services when the U.S. Constitution does not provide a fundamental right for anyone to adopt? how could anyone's "right" be denied them if there is no such "right"?

Again two different things. No fundamental right to adopt - covers anyone - they might be idiots, etc.

Withholding children from same-sex couples, and the non-religious, is still discrimination. And ALL 50 states now recognize the right of married Same-sex couples to adopt.

Prestor John said:
Also, how can the Catholic Church be guilty of discriminating against same-sex couples when the "Charitable Choice" provision claims that Catholic Charities retains the right to define their religious beliefs (such as marriage is only between a man and a woman) and that if anyone objects to their beliefs, a secular alternative should be offered, thus extending the same service to the offended individual?

Would you mind sharing this "law" that you keep referencing?

You know perfectly well there are anti-discrimination laws. I don't have to pull them up!

Also - With that last ruling that I posted a link to, - - ALL 50 states recognize the rights of same-sex couples to adopt children.

If they don't want to follow the legal documents they signed to become an adoption agency, - and not follow the law, - then they should give up those licenses.

*

Quintessence · Apr 2, 2016

*** STAFF REMINDERS ***

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.

Ingledsva · Apr 2, 2016

Prestor John said:
I am aware that you have shared this opinion many times.

If you were actually reading my posts you would realize that I have addressed this opinion you have presented many times.

The fact remains that according to the “Charitable Choice” provision of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act the “religious character” of a faith-based provider is “protected” by allowing them to retain independence from Federal, State and local governments and also their control over the definition, practice, and expression of their religious beliefs.

I have to present it many time because you keep repeating.

AGAIN - the DEFINITION, -PRACTICE and EXPRESSION of RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, is JUST that, and does not give them the right to ignore the law, and the legal documents they signed to add an adoption agency.

Prestor John said:
If an individual objects to the religious character of a faith-based provider they are free to accept a secular alternative.

Which doesn't fix the problem, - which is discrimination of same-sex couples and non-religious couples. And of course Catholic Adoption Agencies not complying with State laws.

Prestor John said:
Would you mind sharing a link to this “court ruling just the other day”?

Already did. I noted beside the link, that the document was on the page. Have fun. It is twenty-some pages.

Prestor John said:
This ignorant comment is further proof that you are not reading my posts.

The U.S. Constitution does not provide a fundamental right to adopt.

In Lindley v. Sullivan (which I have mentioned a couple times) the Seventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled,

“Because the adoption process is entirely conditioned upon the combination of so many variables, we are constrained to conclude that there is no fundamental right to adopt.”

No one has the right to adopt. Neither marital status nor sexual orientation gives anyone the right to adopt.

No one, as in NO ONE, has the “right” to adopt.

Your claim that this “court ruling the other day” gave same-sex couples the “same rights” as heterosexual couples means that same-sex couples still do not have the “right” to adopt same as heterosexual couples.

Pay attention.

BULL!

ALL FIFTY STATES now recognized that the RIGHTS of SAME-SEX COUPLES to ADOPT, - is exactly the same as heterosexual couples rights to adopt!

Prestor John said:
I am waiting for you to quote this “law” you keep referencing.

I have provided evidence from the “Charitable Choice” that a FBO has the right to retain control over their beliefs. They do not have to compromise their beliefs to offer government funded social services.

I have also shared from Lindley v. Sullivan that no one has the right to adopt.

How can same-sex couples claim that their “right” to adopt has been violated when the U.S. Constitution does not provide any “right” to adopt and when The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act explains that if they object to the “religious character” of a FBO that they can seek a “secular alternative”
Would you mind providing examples of these license “rules” and “requirements” that you claim prove that the Catholic Church is guilty of discrimination?

Why are you asking for ridiculous crap, - when you KNOW a license is required to be an adoption agency. And I linked you to the latest and LAST state recognizing the right of SAME-SEX COUPLES to ADOPT!!! That is now in ALL FIFTY STATES!

You have yet to share a single reference to support any of your claims.

Then I would ask you how these supposed “rules” and “requirements” somehow give anyone the right to adopt, when the U.S. Constitution does not provide that right, and how they disregard the “Charitable Choice” provision of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act?

Of course. You said this in post #880 which can be found on page #44 of this thread.

I felt that it was necessary to share this information about the Catholic Church because (based on your comments) it appeared that you were ignorant on the subject.

Also, knowing that the Catholic Church offered adoptions before ever receiving government funds shows that they are not reliant upon government funds to offer those services.

They have both the means and ability to offer adoption services without government funding.

This proves that the threat of losing government funding was not the deciding factor in their decision to discontinue to offer adoption services in various States.

Rather, their belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman was the reason for their decision to discontinue those services.

Also, knowing that it was the U.S. government that acknowledged the higher quality of services offered by the Catholic Church and other FBOs and that they begged these organizations to receive government funds so that they can help the needy more efficiently than local, State and Federal governments could, gives us some perspective.

It shows how it would not be the Catholic Church that would suffer if those government funds were to be withdrawn, but rather, many thousands upon thousands of U.S. citizens, who have come to rely on the services offered by these FBOs.

In their attempts to spurn faith-based organizations, those who believe that homosexuals are being discriminated against (even though no one has the “right” to adopt, the “Charitable Choice” provision protects FBOs religious beliefs and there are many more “secular alternatives” where same-sex couples could go to receive those services) are in fact only harming the poor and needy, not FBOs.

Yeah…you should actually read my response before commenting.

How does my sharing a statement from the Catholic Charities USA official website that claims that they have no “religious requirement” have “no bearing” on what we are discussing?

Repeat! Repeat! Repeat! See above and last couple of posts.

The Catholic Church being able to "offer adoption services without government funding," has no bearing here, - as THEY DO ACCEPT GOVERNMENT MONEY!

Prestor John said:
Did you not claim that they require a “faith commitment”?

They do not have a “faith requirement” for prospective parents.

The list of criteria that the birth parents review includes the adopter’s religion.

The page I provided had a faith requirement for the prospective parents.

Also as noted, not giving the birth parents access to files with same-sex couples, - discriminates against such, - and also doesn't actually allow open adoption birth parents to have full choice in placement.

Prestor John said:

Lindley v. Sullivan

Click to expand...

Prestor John said:
(the case that ruled that no one has the right to adopt) also claimed that, “Among the factors a court must consider in determining whether the proposed adoption is in the child's best interest are the religious belief of the adopters and adoptee…”

I am positive that you are not actually reading my posts now. That’s sad.

Lindley v. Sullivan can sit until it is overturned. It makes no difference as --

Every adoption agency requirements page I visited said they had to follow USA Law, and state law.

ALL 50 states have said SAME-SEX couples have the exact same rights to adopt as heterosexual couples.

As a proof and result, - according to the news, - some of the Catholic Adoption agencies have already started to shut down.

*

Serenity7855 · Apr 2, 2016

sojourner said:
Yet, those 2.2 billion people are all wrong, according to you.

How is that according to me? I didn't say that at any stage in the thread so the statement is yet another of your falsehoods. Have you any Idea just how many false accusations, mirepresentations, insults, innuendos and ah homenims that I have been the target of from you, all intended to discredit me, and not my opinion?

Yet, you seem to use its doctrines as fact readily enough. And, in fact, you did leave the church, which only proves my point. You left, yet you condemn someone else for doing the same.

As I have said, I use it as a book of commandments, parables, allegories, principles and precepts and not a factual history book. It is the literal word of God intended to prepare us to meet God and dwell in His presence.

It is so disconcerting to read that you think it is the same thing when it is so clearly not the same thing. She left a Christian church and joined a completely different religion. I left a Christian Church and remained a Christian .You have not proven anything because your point is a logical fallacy..

So all that biblical talk about gathering people together into community is just God lying to us, then?

So you believe that yet you do not believe that God instructed us that sexual perversion is a sin? You are cherry picking. It reminds me of all the attrocities commited by the Catholic Priests jusified by their interpretations of scriptures.

No it's not. The bible is a human invention, written and compiled by humans.

A member of the Clergy would never speak such blasphemy and sacrilege. The sword contained within the full Armour of God is His word, The Holy Bible, written by men and compiled by God, through His inspiration.

Prestor John · Apr 3, 2016

Ingledsva said:
I have to present it many time because you keep repeating.

AGAIN - the DEFINITION, -PRACTICE and EXPRESSION of RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, is JUST that, and does not give them the right to ignore the law, and the legal documents they signed to add an adoption agency.

Which doesn't fix the problem, - which is discrimination of same-sex couples and non-religious couples. And of course Catholic Adoption Agencies not complying with State laws.

Already did. I noted beside the link, that the document was on the page. Have fun. It is twenty-some pages.

BULL!

ALL FIFTY STATES now recognized that the RIGHTS of SAME-SEX COUPLES to ADOPT, - is exactly the same as heterosexual couples rights to adopt!

Repeat! Repeat! Repeat! See above and last couple of posts.

The Catholic Church being able to "offer adoption services without government funding," has no bearing here, - as THEY DO ACCEPT GOVERNMENT MONEY!

The page I provided had a faith requirement for the prospective parents.

Also as noted, not giving the birth parents access to files with same-sex couples, - discriminates against such, - and also doesn't actually allow open adoption birth parents to have full choice in placement.

Lindley v. Sullivan can sit until it is overturned. It makes no difference as --

Every adoption agency requirements page I visited said they had to follow USA Law, and state law.

ALL 50 states have said SAME-SEX couples have the exact same rights to adopt as heterosexual couples.

As a proof and result, - according to the news, - some of the Catholic Adoption agencies have already started to shut down.

*

You do not know what a "right" is.

No wonder you are so confused.

No wonder you can so easily disregard the First Amendment.

It's sad.

Prestor John · Apr 3, 2016

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond.

ADigitalArtist said:
Just raising a fist and shouting 'red herring' does not actually make it so.

Red Herring Logical Fallacy:Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

You stated in your comment in post #806 that I “continue to think the LDS church has or should have the power to regulate civil marriage, word or contract.”

I have never claimed to “think” that way, yet this was not the first time you accused me of believing this.

Just as the definition for a “red herring” states, you have been trying to “redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting (you) can better respond.”

You are trying to change my argument into something that appears ridiculous so you and other can ignore it.

This is why I responded in post #863 by saying, “I asked you to stop trying to mislead and distract with this red herring.

Could you please quote me advocating this idea you keep presenting? Instead of insisting that I “continue to think” this way (which I don’t), just quote me saying it.

If you cannot quote me saying it then you cannot assume that I “think” that way.

You are, again, trying to paint the LDS Church’s constitutional right to petition the government as an effort to establish religious laws or a theocracy.

This exaggeration showcases your personal belief that religions in this country should not have the right to petition the government. You are providing evidence that you do not actually support the First Amendment.”

ADigitalArtist said:
No, I paint, and rightly so, the LDS or any church's wishes of government mandated religious law against same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. As has already been established in court.

By your logic, no religion has the right to petition the government, which of course, is a contradiction to the First Amendment.

Does the First Amendment give religious organizations the right to petition the government or not?

ADigitalArtist said:
There isn't. Also already been established in court.

I would like to read in the court ruling where they say that there is no fundamental difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Would you mind supply a link to the court ruling and point out where they say that?

ADigitalArtist said:
Good thing civil marriage isn't a matter of religious people's opinions on what the 'word of god' is.

No one was advocating that it was. Yet another red herring.

I was merely explaining the scriptural difference between the two issues.

I was not claiming that, “The popular interpretation of religious scripture should be considered an authority in civil law.”

Which was another red herring you tried to present in your last post.

ADigitalArtist said:
A modern view of the scripture, yet it was considered to be condemned by the scriptures as Christians were opposing interracial marriage.

Just because certain “Christians” were opposed to interracial marriage does not mean that the scriptures opposed it.

No one is perfect. “Christians” can be just as prejudiced as anyone else. Yet that is not a reason to assume that the scriptures condone that prejudice.

I asked you before to share which verse of scripture condemns that practice of interracial marriage.

Are you having difficulty finding it?

ADigitalArtist said:
And it doesn't matter, really. Their motivations are still religious, and that's still not a good enough argument for mandate and civil law.

You are erroneously equating someone’s “motivation” with their “argument”.

I have religious reasons for not drinking alcohol, but the arguments I would present against the consumption of alcohol would not include the quoting of scripture.

ADigitalArtist said:
Religious people do not control the definition of 'marriage' and 'family.'

Who does? You? The Supreme Court?

I don’t remember the Supreme Court being given the authority to declare what is or is not a family or marriage.

If you claim that they do, where did they get that authority?

ADigitalArtist said:
Except they aren't and they haven't.

I will give you one example. The Liberty Ridge Farm. Look it up.

Your cartoon is not really true to life.

It depicted the (I’m assuming homosexual) man just standing there doing nothing, when in reality, he would have had a megaphone to his mouth and he’d be chanting how much a “hater” and “bigot” the other (I’m assuming “Christian”) man was for not supporting homosexuality.

ADigitalArtist said:
This continuous calling it a red herring to dismiss it, despite it being clearly a legal precedent and relevant to modern law doesn't actually strengthen yours.

It is a red herring.

You saying, “It’s the same as another case, so it should have the same outcome.” Does not mean that it is actually the same.

ADigitalArtist said:
Yes, they do. For the same reason they must provide evidence that POC are insufficient parents. Because, guess what? It's illegal to refuse to place in a POC home even if your personal belief is that different races or biracial couples aren't fit parents. The same is true of homosexual parents.

This is another red herring.

The scriptures do not claim that a homosexual couple cannot raise a child. They only claim that homosexuality is considered an abomination to the Lord and should not be practiced.

Why are you asking “Christians” to present proof of an argument that the scriptures are not making?

ADigitalArtist said:
What you believe is irrelevant, the evidence shows otherwise.

No evidence has been provided.

ADigitalArtist said:
So what? I'm talking about a community center sponsored by community taxes only, not religious services. This is equivalent to government.

A “charitable service” is not a “religious service”.

So, if I have an issue with something being done at my local community center, according to your logic, I have the right to shut it down?

ADigitalArtist said:
And catholic churches don't own marriage or family.

No one said that they did. You are trying to present another red herring.

What actually matters is that the Catholic Church and other religious organizations define “marriage” and “family” only the one way, which is based on their religious beliefs.

It would be a violation of their First Amendment rights to demand that they acknowledge any “marriage” that contends with their religious definitions.

The “Charitable Choice” provision ensures that they can offer government funded services and yet still retain control over how they define and express their religious beliefs.

ADigitalArtist said:
Besides, I'm not talking about a church, I'm talking about a courtroom. No gods necessary to do any civil service there including marriage ceremonies.

Right you are. Just don’t expect certain religious organizations to recognizes any marriages that they believe violate their beliefs.

ADigitalArtist said:
Sure, so long as there is no state sponsored religion, which is unconstitutional.

Sweet.

So the Catholic Church does not need to recognize “same-sex marriage” nor do they need to offer adoption services to homosexual couples, because they shouldn’t have to do anything that violates their beliefs and there are many secular alternatives.

ADigitalArtist said:
I really tire of this. I don't have the time or energy to go over the same points. Like it or not, gay marriage and gay adoption is and will remain legal and a protected right.

The LDs Church has already accepted it and will wait for the law to fail us when our First Amendment rights are violated again.

ADigitalArtist said:
LDS, Catholic, and anyone else stuck in the past will just have to deal with it.

Another red herring.

You don’t have any authority to declare that anyone is “stuck in the past”.

A key difference between you and I is that I believe that there are moral absolutes. Certain things are always “bad” or “wrong” while other things are always “good” and “right”.

My moral compass does not change with the fads of the times, while yours does.

You’re just going to have to deal with that.

ADigitalArtist said:
I don't particularly care if they're mad, any more than I care if skinheads are mad that POC continue to enjoy the same rights they do.

Another red herring.

Trying to equate religious belief with bigotry.

sojourner · Apr 3, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
How is that according to me? I didn't say that at any stage in the thread so the statement is yet another of your falsehoods

You were the one crowing about the "Apostasy," wherein Christianity had turned from God, not me. So, either 2.2 billion people are right, or they're apostate. Which is it?

Serenity7855 said:
It is the literal word of God intended to prepare us to meet God and dwell in His presence

I was talking about the the Mormon Church. I have no idea what you're going on about here. Unless it's the bible, in which case I disagree with you.

Serenity7855 said:
It is so disconcerting to read that you think it is the same thing when it is so clearly not the same thing. She left a Christian church and joined a completely different religion. I left a Christian Church and remained a Christian

According to the bible (which is Gods word), you can't leave the body of believers and remain a Christian, because, according to the bible, Christianity is all about living in community. You can't do that alone.

Serenity7855 said:
So you believe that yet you do not believe that God instructed us that sexual perversion is a sin?

I don't think homosexual acts, carried out in the context of love, are sin.

Serenity7855 said:
A member of the Clergy would never speak such blasphemy and sacrilege

Well, I just did! And truth is never "blasphemy" and "sacrilege."

Serenity7855 · Apr 3, 2016

sojourner said:
You were the one crowing about the "Apostasy," wherein Christianity had turned from God, not me. So, either 2.2 billion people are right, or they're apostate. Which is it?

Regardless of any smoke screens, I didn't say that at any stage in the thread so the statement is yet another of your falsehoods

I was talking about the the Mormon Church. I have no idea what you're going on about here. Unless it's the bible, in which case I disagree with you.

Why would you be talking about the Mormon Church? i didn't mention it. How did you manage to think it was the Mormon Church from this statement: "As I have said, I use it as a book of commandments, parables, allegories, principles and precepts and not a factual history book. It is the literal word of God intended to prepare us to meet God and dwell in His presence." The Mormon Church is not even mentioned.

I left a Christian Church and remained a Christian. She left the Christian church and change her entire belief system. Completely different.

According to the bible (which is Gods word), you can't leave the body of believers and remain a Christian, because, according to the bible, Christianity is all about living in community. You can't do that alone.

No, not according to the bible but according to you and the congregation that you instruct. It is false doctrine. Your interpretation is fallacious and not without ambiguity.

Where is that said in the bible. Where is it said that the church is the body of Christ and not that we should reinsert our loyalty to Him by remembering His body? Here, because that does not interpret into His body being the church to me, witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son,

At the Last Supper, Jesus explained the ordinance of the sacrament as he ate with the Twelve Apostles (Matt. 26:17–28; Luke 22:1–20).

Jesus took bread, and blessed it; and he took the cup, and gave thanks:Matt. 26:26–28; ( Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19–20; )
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life:John 6:54;
He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul:1 Cor. 11:29; ( 3 Ne. 18:29; )

Luke 22:19-20

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

The Sacrament Prayer: Nothing here that says Christianity is all about living in a community.

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

Christian: Nothing here that says Christianity is all about living in a community.

Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Acronyms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Chris·tian
(krĭs′chən)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. In other words "Lifestyle"
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus, especially in showing concern for others.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. In other words "Lifestyle"
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus. In other words "Lifestyle"

Christianity: Nothing here that says Christianity is all about living in a community.
krɪstɪˈanɪti/
noun

the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or its beliefs and practices.In other words "Lifestyle"

Christianity- Nothing here that says Christianity is all about living in a community.

In Christian theology, the term Body of Christ has two separate connotations: it may refer to Jesus' statement about the Eucharist at the Last Supper that "This is my body" in Luke 22:19-20, or the explicit usage of the term by the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians to refer to the Christian Church not it's congregation.

Although in general usage the term "Body of Christ" may refer to Christ's body in the spiritual realm, the other two distinct usages are prominent theological issues. For some Christians, such as Roman Catholics, the term may refer to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For a larger segment of Christians, including Catholics and some Protestants, it may instead or also refer to the Christian Church as a group of believers, as used in the Pauline epistles. The use of the phrase "mystical body" emphasizes the spiritual essence or sacramental character that characterizes the group

Luke 22:19-20
12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptize by one Spirit, so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

Paul letter to the Corinthians was using the body as a similitude, a comparison. Not "The Body" but "Just as the body" or the organisation or establishment, having many different parts and functions that together make the whole church. It talks of inanimate parts and not a literal body, let alone the body of Christ

Nothing here that says Christianity is all about living in a community.

Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life andteachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament. In other words a lifestyle. Christianity is the world's largest religion, with over 2.4 billion adherents, known as Christians. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of humanity whose coming as Christ or the Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament.

Christian theology is expressed in ecumenical creeds. These professions of faith state that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, and was resurrected from the dead, in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust in him for the remission of their sins. The creeds further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven, where he reigns with God the Father, and that he will return to judge the living and dead and grant eternal life to his followers.

I case you don't see it, none of the definitions contain the words "Body of Christ" them none of them say that, "according to the bible, Christianity is all about living in community." There is nothing in scripture that defines the body of Christ as the Church or that Christianity is all about community. Nothing.

I don't think homosexual acts, carried out in the context of love, are sin.

So are you right or is God right. I know which one I will back.Then you can hardly be a profitable servant of God because He insists that it is a sexual perversion, and therefore a sin, as does the Pope, who you said is a representative of God on earth, and the Catholic Church who have a membership of 1.2 bullion people. Half of all Christians. Below are twelve verses that corroborate my point that sexual perversion is a sin.

What the Catholic Church says about Homosexuality.

Homosexuality is treated in Roman Catholic Church teaching under two forms: homosexual orientation is considered an "objective disorder" because Catholicism views it as being "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil", but not sinful unless acted upon. Homosexual sexual activity, by contrast, is viewed as a "moral disorder" and "homosexual acts" as "contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine effective and sexual complementary. Wiki

Serenity7855 · Apr 3, 2016

1. Genesis 19:5: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

2. Leviticus 18:22: " Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

3. Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

4. Deuteronomy 23:17: " There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

5. Judges 19:22: "Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him."

6. 1 Kings 14:24: "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel."

7. 1 Kings 15:12: "And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made."

8. 1 Kings 22:46: "And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land."

9. 2 Kings 23:7: "And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove."

10. Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

11. 1 Corinthian 6:9: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind."

12. 1 Timothy 1:9:10: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

How on earth can you say that it is not a sin when God has made it so very clear that it is. How do you justify that, do you consider that you are more knowledgeable than God, himself. You have to know that your dogma is suspect.

Well, I just did!

Well yes you did, and I am gkad you agree with me. So lets hear no more of this nonsense.

And truth is never "blasphemy" and "sacrilege."

But your word are not true, as I have demonstrate.

I know the character of my Father who is in Heaven. I know the Plan of Salvation like nothing else I know. I know every detail and can easily see it's perfection and logic in every small detail, from the creation to the second coming. I know that God has no place for those who commit sexual sin contrary to his Plan and is sad to see those, who profess to try to draw near to Him with their lips but in the hearts they are far from Him, when they preach the Doctrines of men and not His word that he has given us. There is a purpose for our existence. Why else do you think we are here? God is a never changing God, which is borne out by his disgust of sexual sin, both in the Old and New Testament. The world may change and increase in it iniquities and mankind may twist and misinterprete his words but His commandment are eternal in nature, they will never change just to satisfy the whims and fads of the world. “This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”. I feel sorry that you cannot see how wide of the mark your belief is, because Jesus taught us about those who claimed to have taught His words and preached His gospel. But he shall say to you when you claim His acceptance, "I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity."

Ingledsva · Apr 4, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
1. Genesis 19:5: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

2. Leviticus 18:22: " Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

3. Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

4. Deuteronomy 23:17: " There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

5. Judges 19:22: "Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him."

6. 1 Kings 14:24: "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel."

7. 1 Kings 15:12: "And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made."

8. 1 Kings 22:46: "And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land."

9. 2 Kings 23:7: "And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove."

10. Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

11. 1 Corinthian 6:9: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind."

12. 1 Timothy 1:9:10: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"....

Not a single verse you have listed is actually about homosexuals.

ALL of the sentences mistranslated "sodomite" actually use the word - Qadesh - a Sacred Prostitute, as you have been shown over-and-over.

SO? WHAT? You don't accept your own Christian scholars on This? Because it doesn't mesh with what YOU want to believe?

qâdêsh

BDB Definition: male temple prostitute

*

The LOT story says NOTHING about gay sex. ONE word "yada" which can have a sexual connotation, - was mistranslate here as sex. Also the crowd was both male and female.

YHVH uses the same word - and I'm guessing he wasn't going down for some gay sex. And the other story that is almost the same - and uses the same word "yada" in the same place, tells us what they wanted to do to him was - KILL him! Not have sex with him.

Jdg 19:22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know "yada" him.

Jdg 20:3 (Now the children of Benjamin heard that the children of Israel were gone up to Mizpeh.) Then said the children of Israel, Tell us, what was this wickedness?

Jdg 20:4 And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge.

Jdg 20:5 And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead.

The "YADA" here in Judges 19 is the same as in the Lot story, - and means to Judge and carry out that judgment.

No homosexual sex in either story.
*
1 Co 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9 - 10 use ARSENOKOITES - which I have shown has no know meaning as homosexual - in the ancient world.

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek, from the 8th century BC to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. They have 73 references to the arsenokoit stem. There are NO early Greek uses of the word as “homosexual.”

LATER - the church decides to translate it as such.

*
Romans 1: tells us these are people having sex in worship of God in the form of animals, and that it is a RITE. Which means it is NOT about homosexuals. Sacred Sex Prostitutes had sex with anything including animals.

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and serpents.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

~~ ~ NOTE: the people in 24 that dishonor their bodies, are the people WHO worship the Act of Creation in 25! Religious Sexuality! ~~~

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of Deity into a lie, and worship and render religious homage to the "Act of Creation" more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

That is Sacred Sex.

*
Both Leviticus texts are Molech Sacred Sex Worship which is Idolatry, - and again not about homosexuals.

Lev 18:21 as for Thy seed/semen don't give in sex/copulation (abar is also to cover, copulate,) to Molech don't profane the name of Elohiym; I am YHVH.

The next line is usually started - and with man don't - however the word also means - and for man, don't. And there is NO - "as with a."

Lev 18:22 and for man, don't lie down (for sex) beds women, Idolatrous is he.

The next line continues on with the things we know they did in Molech worship

Lev 18:23 And you shall not give your semen with any animal, for uncleanness with it. And a woman shall not stand before an animal to lie down with it; it is a shameful mixing.

With either translation of 22 - it is still talking about the Qadesh - Sacred Prostitutes of Molech.

Lev 18:30 confirms it is Temple Sex IDOLATRY - by adding -

(KJV) Lev 18:30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any oneof these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

That word translated "customs" is chuqqah - STATUTES/LAWS/RITES

Homosexuality is not a RITE to Molech!

*
Lev 20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Lev 20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

Lev 20:4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:

Lev 20:5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

KJV -Lev 20:13 If a man (iysh) also lie with mankind (zakar,) as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

ZAKAR is also - (commemorative, etc.,) and there is no - as with a - So - perhaps -

Lev 20:13 And if a Man also lies down for commemorative sex (Sacred Sex) with a women, both have committed IDOLATRY, they shall die; their blood shall be upon them.

Lev. 20:13 If (834) Man (376) lies down (7901) for (854) commemorative (2145) sex/intercourse (4904) woman (802) both (8147) commit (6213) Idolatrous custom/abomination (8441) (worthy of) death (4192) (worthy of) death (4192) bloodshed (1818)

Lev 20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

Lev 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

Lev 20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

As you can see we have the SAME Molech Sacred Sex actions.

*

Serenity7855 · Apr 4, 2016

Ingledsva said:
Not a single verse you have listed is actually about homosexuals.

ALL of the sentences mistranslated "sodomite" actually use the word - Qadesh - a Sacred Prostitute, as you have been shown over-and-over.

SO? WHAT? You don't accept your own Christian scholars on This? Because it doesn't mesh with what YOU want to believe?

qâdêsh

BDB Definition: male temple prostitute

What a lovely example of impertinence and discourtesy. I feel so very blessed when spoken to with so much love and affection.

1. I have never been shown any such thing of the sort before. You confuse me with someone else.
2. I have no Christian scholars to tell me what I can find out for myself
3. I believe what God wants me to believe, as contained in His Holy Bible.

One thing that I never, ever do, for various reasons, is wonder if what I am reading in the Bibles has been translated correctly. What I am reading is exactly what God wants me to read. If there is an error in the translation then God knows about it. It always slightly annoys me when people try to be clever about knowing what is and is not translated correctly because God, being Alpha and Omega, would know that would happen long before it did. So what the bible contains, whether in English, German or French, is what God wants His people to have. The mistakes are only picked up by those who do not understand God and His capabilities

The LOT story says NOTHING about gay sex. ONE word "yada" which can have a sexual connotation, - was mistranslate here as sex. Also the crowd was both male and female.

Thats not what it says in my Bible.

YHVH uses the same word - and I'm guessing he wasn't going down for some gay sex. And the other story that is almost the same - and uses the same word "yada" in the same place, tells us what they wanted to do to him was - KILL him! Not have sex with him.

Did you get cofirmation from the Holy Ghost on that as I didn't

Jdg 19:22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know "yada" him.

Jdg 20:3 (Now the children of Benjamin heard that the children of Israel were gone up to Mizpeh.) Then said the children of Israel, Tell us, what was this wickedness?

Jdg 20:4 And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge.

Jdg 20:5 And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead.

The "YADA" here in Judges 19 is the same as in the Lot story, - and means to Judge and carry out that judgment.

Your Bible is not the same as mine because that is not what my Bible says

No homosexual sex in either story.

There is in my KJV of the Bible, and that is the Bible that God inspired 52 scholars to translate for Him. Have you heard of the spirit of the law rather then the letter of the law. I fear that you are stuck in the latter

1 Co 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9 - 10 use ARSENOKOITES - which I have shown has no know meaning as homosexual - in the ancient world.

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek, from the 8th century BC to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. They have 73 references to the arsenokoit stem. There are NO early Greek uses of the word as “homosexual.”

LATER - the church decides to translate it as such.

ARSENOKOITES, that is not English, is it? So what relevance does it have to me?

Romans 1: tells us these are people having sex in worship of God in the form of animals, and that it is a RITE. Which means it is NOT about homosexuals. Sacred Sex Prostitutes had sex with anything including animals.

Again, you read from a different Bible to me. What I have quoted is exactly what the Bible says

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and serpents.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

~~ ~ NOTE: the people in 24 that dishonor their bodies, are the people WHO worship the Act of Creation in 25! Religious Sexuality! ~~~

Really, is that what you think?

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of Deity into a lie, and worship and render religious homage to the "Act of Creation" more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

That is Sacred Sex.

What is the difference between sacred sex and your ordinary run of the mill sex?

Both Leviticus texts are Molech Sacred Sex Worship which is Idolatry, - and again not about homosexuals.

Lev 18:21 as for Thy seed/semen don't give in sex/copulation (abar is also to cover, copulate,) to Molech don't profane the name of Elohiym; I am YHVH.

So lying with man as you would a woman means something totally different to what it actually says, is that right? Only that is what my scriptures says and there ain't much room for mis-interpreting it.

The next line is usually started - and with man don't - however the word also means - and for man, don't. And there is NO - "as with a."

But you are talking about the original text, which is completely and entirely irrelevant to the standard Christian who does not read Hebrew, which is why God translated it for us exactly how He wanted it to be. Your argument is a mote one.

All the rest of your post is exactly the same. A demonstration that you have spent much time getting to know where the mistakes in translation are, mistakes that are a complete inconsequentiality. Would you not think that if you know where the mistakes are then how much more does God know. One thing that He does know, that you appear not to, is how superfluous your efforts have been, in spending precious time analyzing something that is an insignificance to the text that He intended for us to use in striving to live a Christ-like life., as contain in the Bible that I read. Do you not think for one second that a God of the universe, omniscient omnipresent, and Omnipotent wouldn't take into considerations man's inability to translate His words corrected. What you think are man's mistakes are part of His plan to provide His sacred word to us. You err in as much as you over analyse the scriptures unnecessarily, but even worse, you appear not to have the Spirit of God as your constant companion to testify to you that what you are reading has it's origins in Divinity. If you did then you would not be trying to prove that something so very true, and precious to so many people, is a lie.[/QUOTE]

sojourner · Apr 4, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
Regardless of any smoke screens, I didn't say that at any stage in the thread so the statement is yet another of your falsehoods

You said that most of them were apostate and didn't have any authority.

Serenity7855 said:
Why would you be talking about the Mormon Church? i didn't mention it. How did you manage to think it was the Mormon Church from this statement: "As I have said, I use it as a book of commandments, parables, allegories, principles and precepts and not a factual history book. It is the literal word of God intended to prepare us to meet God and dwell in His presence."

Because I said that you still bought into their doctrine (specifically concerning the "apostasy" and who had God's authority). You brought the bible into that issue. Stick with the program, please.

Serenity7855 said:
I left a Christian Church and remained a Christian. She left the Christian church and change her entire belief system. Completely different.

I don't think they are. You know why.

Serenity7855 said:
No, not according to the bible but according to you and the congregation that you instruct. It is false doctrine

Oh, so I guess all that stuff about praising God in the assembly, the people of God, Jesus calling a body of disciples, him saying that he came for the Jews, him calling us God's family, him giving authority to the group of disciples, and the fact that the disciples, themselves, replaced Judas to make Matthias part of the group, and the fact that they were together in the upper room after Jesus was crucified, and the fact that they organized themselves into groups -- or ... wait for it ... churches in the bible is all B.S. But I guess it is, seeing as how you seem to think that the bible is itself, apostate, having been written after the last apostle died.

Serenity7855 said:
Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life andteachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament. In other words a lifestyle

Correct. It's a lifestyle of living together in community. We don't love in a vacuum. We don't love God without being in community with God. We don't love each other without being in community with each other.

Serenity7855 said:
Christianity is the world's largest religion, with over 2.4 billion adherents, known as Christians.

Most of which, according to you, are "apostate."

Serenity7855 said:
I case you don't see it, none of the definitions contain the words "Body of Christ" them none of them say that, "according to the bible, Christianity is all about living in community."

Why do you think Paul said that "all are one in Christ Jesus?" I guess that whole Jesus gathering the crowds and going to the synagogue thing is hooey.

Serenity7855 said:
So are you right or is God right.

We are both right.

sojourner · Apr 4, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
How on earth can you say that it is not a sin when God has made it so very clear that it is. How do you justify that, do you consider that you are more knowledgeable than God, himself. You have to know that your dogma is suspect.

None of those passages talks about homosexuality. None of them. They may refer to rape. They may refer to temple prostitution. But they don't talk about the homosexual orientation.

Serenity7855 said:
But your word are not true, as I have demonstrate.

You've demonstrated nothing but your inability to get out of your own head on the matter.

Serenity7855 said:
I know the character of my Father who is in Heaven. I know the Plan of Salvation like nothing else I know. I know every detail and can easily see it's perfection and logic in every small detail, from the creation to the second coming. I know that God has no place for those who commit sexual sin contrary to his Plan and is sad to see those, who profess to try to draw near to Him with their lips but in the hearts they are far from Him, when they preach the Doctrines of men and not His word that he has given us. There is a purpose for our existence. Why else do you think we are here? God is a never changing God, which is borne out by his disgust of sexual sin, both in the Old and New Testament. The world may change and increase in it iniquities and mankind may twist and misinterprete his words but His commandment are eternal in nature, they will never change just to satisfy the whims and fads of the world. “This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”. I feel sorry that you cannot see how wide of the mark your belief is, because Jesus taught us about those who claimed to have taught His words and preached His gospel. But he shall say to you when you claim His acceptance, "I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity."

Because, of course, "God so loved the world." And because Jesus "will draw all people to himself." And because God will "search for the lost one until it is found."

Serenity7855 said:
But you are talking about the original text, which is completely and entirely irrelevant to the standard Christian who does not read Hebrew, which is why God translated it for us exactly how He wanted it to be. Your argument is a mote one.

How in the world can the original text be irrelevant, for crying out loud??? God didn't "translate" anything. Translation is always the work of human beings. Every bible has a list of translators who worked on the project in the front. None of them are "God." This is ludicrous!

Prestor John · Apr 4, 2016

JoStories said:
First off, thank you for the incredibly polite and civil response. Its somewhat rare here. Here is that link.

You are welcome.

I understand that this issue can ignite hostilities because it is an issue involving passion and love.

Even though I believe that homosexuality is sinful, I do empathize with those who struggle with same-sex attraction. We were formed from the same elements and we all have weakness and lust in our flesh. I don’t consider you alien to myself.

We naturally get defensive when someone begins to speak negatively about our behavior. If I didn’t know what I know about God and His law, I would be livid if anyone told me that my behavior was inappropriate or sinful.

Fortunately for me, I do know about God’s law and I do have people in my life who are called to help me overcome it.

JoStories said:
Manning, W. D., Fettro, M. N., & Lamidi, E. (2014). Child well-being in same-sex parent families: Review of research prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief. Population research and policy review, 33(4), 485-502.

Thank you for sharing this.

However, I was hoping to read more about the actual study and not just a review on it.

Do you have an actual link to the study?

JoStories said:
My opinion is that if they are adults, they have the right to do as they wish, however, as a survivor of childhood incest and rape, by my grandfather, I find the idea repulsive.

I am sorry to hear about the abuse you suffered. My initial reaction would be to try to comfort you with the healing words of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, I will refrain, because I would not want to offend you.

I become both enraged and depressed when I hear about these kinds of things happening to beautiful children. How did you manage to overcome those abuses?

Not to be insensitive to your past, but even though you find the idea repulsive, it sounds as though you would support the marriage of a father to his daughter as long as they were both consenting adults.

Is that correct?

JoStories said:
I also have two cousins who are first cousins who married. I don't see the issue of incest as even remotely comparable to SSM. Completely different issues.

I did not bring up the idea of incest in order to make a comparison between it and homosexuality.

Another forum member (I can’t remember who) claimed that as long as it is between two adults, no one should be able to object to them marrying. I only mentioned incest to gauge the conviction of that forum member. To see if he/she really believed that.

I don’t remember if that particular member ever responded, but another member said that the idea of supporting an incestuous marriage, even if both participants were consenting adults, was ridiculous.

I was not trying to say that homosexuality and incest were comparable. I was just looking for an example of two consenting adults that might strain that other member’s conviction.

I only wanted to make the point that there is more required for marriage than having only two consenting adults. There would need to be other requirements.

JoStories said:
You are free to forget what I said about a civil post.

I am sorry that you became offended, but I do not consider the, “It doesn’t matter what you believe! It doesn’t matter what you think! It’s legal now. Neener! Neener! Neener!” stance to be conducive to a discussion nor very mature.

I would never take that stance and I would berate anyone for taking that stance.

JoStories said:
My opinion on this subject is jaded as in 1998, my wife, (she was not truly my wife as we could not marry of course), died as a result of my not being able to put her on my insurance.

I remember you mentioning this before when you accused me of being a factor that led to her death.

As I said before, this is a tragedy and I personally feel that it was wrong for anyone to keep her from being added to your insurance.

However, redefining marriage was not the ONLY means to correct this and similar situations. A simple word-swap of “spouse” for “life-partner” would have cleared this up.

I feel that there are a lot of issues in our system that could be fixed with little tweaks, rather than completely redefining marriage and violating certain people’s First Amendment rights.

JoStories said:
You can imagine, if not appreciate that that jaded my views.

I can imagine and appreciate your views on this subject and I would hope that you, more than anyone (when considering your “jadedness”) could then see the inefficiency in our system of government that led to that tragedy.

It was the government’s hijacking of “marriage” and making it a carrier for all of their tax and benefit BS that led to this issue, not the “Christian” view on marriage. It was the government that made marriage a requirement for placing a significant other on your insurance, not the “Christian” view on marriage.

JoStories said:
I do respect your opinion and give it its needed respect and justification.

I would hope that this was true, but ever since you claimed that I was personally responsible for the death of your partner and your admonition that I should be “Proud of myself” over that fact…

I can’t believe this. Not right now anyways.

JoStories said:
However, that being said, it is still legal now and while I do see your side, it is similar to spitting in the wind if you will, as it is legal now.

The consumption of alcohol is legal now too, but I am still opposed to it and I would tell everyone never to drink it and I would share how it can and has ruined lives.

Not only am I entitled to the right to speak about it, I feel that it is my duty as a “Christian”, world-citizen and a human being graced with “common sense” to share that with everyone.

I know and understand that my stance on the consumption of alcohol is not going to affect the alcohol business or anyone’s desire to buy it and drink it, but I am still compelled to share my views on it.

Even if it is just “spitting in the wind”, as you say, my conscience allows me no other alternative.

I will forever condemn the consumption of alcohol, no matter what society says. It will always be “bad” and “wrong” to drink alcohol.

Now, imagine I had said that about homosexual acts. They are eternally damaging. You may not see all that damage in this life, but our eternal lives do not end with this one.

JoStories said:
I fail to see how that is immature but if you wish to think I am, mores the power to you. I assure you, I am not.

As I said before, I hope I was wrong.

Serenity7855 · Apr 4, 2016

sojourner said:
You said that most of them were apostate and didn't have any authority.

I did say that they are not authorized to act in the name of God but I didn't say that most of them were apostate. That is you manipulating and adding to my words, as you do with scripture.

Because I said that you still bought into their doctrine (specifically concerning the "apostasy" and who had God's authority). You brought the bible into that issue. Stick with the program, please.

Why would you be talking about the Mormon Church? i didn't mention it. How did you manage to think it was the Mormon Church from this statement: "As I have said, I use it as a book of commandments, parables, allegories, principles and precepts and not a factual history book. It is the literal word of God intended to prepare us to meet God and dwell in His presence."

I don't think they are. You know why.

You are right, I do know why, however, it is not what you think.

Oh, so I guess all that stuff about praising God in the assembly,

Nowhere in the entire bible are the words "god's assembly" mentioned

the people of God, Jesus calling a body of disciples,

I am not a member of a congregation, however, 25% of those who left the Roman Catholic Church over the past 10 years became as I, and individualist. That is a defined as a body of people not a body of Christ.

him saying that he came for the Jews,

No connection

him calling us God's family,

We are all individual children of God we are not a congregation of God. God's family, like mine, is not a community.

him giving authority to the group of disciples, and the fact that the disciples, themselves, replaced Judas to make Matthias part of the group,

Where is the connection here to your congregations and the body of Christ.

and the fact that they were together in the upper room after Jesus was crucified,

So What? Irrelevant. They were close friend who had just lost a very close friend. Where else would you expect them to be.

and the fact that they organized themselves into groups

Groups or departments that are a part of an organisation, not people in a community.

-- or ... wait for it ... churches in the bible is all B.S. But I guess it is, seeing as how you seem to think that the bible is itself, apostate, having been written after the last apostle died.

This has to be the biggest case of "word in my mouth" that I have ever come across. The words you right are a falsehoods and only demonstrate your capabilities.

Correct. It's a lifestyle of living together in community.

Whoops, there goes that goal post wondering all over the pitch.

No, it is a personal lifestyle not a congregational one, however, my wife and children live with me and they follow the same lifestyle, we are a family group of like minded people, not a community. Most of my friends share my religious beliefs which makes us a group of like minded people, not a congregation. However, you said "Christianity is all about living in a community." You are WRONG it is about living a Christ centered lifestyle that will lead us back to God. The fact that you are so monumentally wrong on this particular point casts aspersions on what you really do know about Christianity and Gods plan for us.

We don't love in a vacuum. We don't love God without being in community with God. We don't love each other without being in community with each other.

We all, individually, love God. There is no other way. You cannot live on someone else's testimony. As individuals who love God we all live in societies community where we serve our fellow man in a Christ-like way, that means to teach what is right and what is wrong, like sexual perversion is wrong and using dishonest tactics to discredit others. It is more productive than being a member of a small congregation who serve each other. However, you said that Christianity is all about living in a community and that the church was it's congregation, the body of Christ, when Paul meant the organisation.

Most of which, according to you, are "apostate."

No, it is your doctrine that is apostate, it is the Christian denominations that do not have authority to act in Gods name, because the apostasy left the earth without the priesthood. Church's can exist and for many people are a good place to share one anothers experiences, however, they are edifices of man and not God. They have no authority over the Children of God. That was my original argument, however, like you tried to twist my words to say that I am homophobic, when it is sexual perversion that I object to because it is a sin, you are now trying to say that I believe that all Christians are apostate when my argument was that they have no authority. That is unethical in debate.

Why do you think Paul said that "all are one in Christ Jesus?" I guess that whole Jesus gathering the crowds and going to the synagogue thing is hooey.

Churches are man-made organisation. Like industry, they have a mission, that is to bring souls back to Christ. That requires different internal structures that together form the church organisation. No different then the body has several different parts that make up the whole, or that my TV has several different parts that make it a TV. Could my TV be the Church? You are creating something that was never there by saying that the church is the body of Christ just because Paul used it as an example in his preaching.

Because all of us who have been blessed with the testimony of the Holy Ghost constitutes a group of people with the same belief. However, it is your claim that Christianity is all about living in a community. Clearly it is not.

We are both right.

No, you are wrong

The Apostasy is not unique to me or any other denomination. It is a historical fact.

The Apostasy

The ancient apostles and prophets warned that the Church of Christ would fall away from the simple truths Jesus had given it. The Bible, compiled after the beginnings of the Great Apostasy, recorded these predictions: Isaiah warned that "This people draw near me with their mouth" but their hearts were far from God. (Isa. 29: 10, 13.) and that spiritual darkness would cover the earth (Isa. 60: 2). Amos said there would be "a famine of hearing the words of the Lord." (Amos 8: 11) Jesus himself said there would "arise false Christs and false prophets" to oppose the true ones (Matt. 24: 24), but that you would recognize them by their fruits.

Paul said that after his departure that "grievous wolves shall enter in among you (Acts 20: 29). After preaching to the Galatians, he was astonished at how fast this process of apostasy had taken root among them. He wrote, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him" (Gal. 1: 6) Paul also sought to allay the anticipation of an immediate return of Christ when he wrote concerning the anxiety for this event to the Thessalonians. He told them that that day would not come until there had been a falling away first and that the "son of perdition" would be revealed first. (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

Paul also told Timothy that some church members would err concerning the truth about the time of the resurrection (2 Tim. 2: 18) and that even believers would be led astray, having "a form of godliness" but deny the power thereof, (2 Tim. 3: 5) Paul also told him that the time would come when the church itself would "not endure sound doctrine" and would turn away from the simple truths Jesus taught, following false teaches instead. (2 Tim. 4: 3-4)

Peter gave similar warnings to the church, saying that there would be false prophets and false teachers among the people (2 Pet. 2: 1). Jude tells us in present tense that there were certain men crept in who were leading the ancient saints astray. (Jude 1: 4).

John said that the leaders of some Christian congregations had rejected the apostles while they still lived and excommunicated those who stood up the ordained apostles of Jesus. (3 John 1:9-10) In the messages to the seven churches in Asia, John wrote that some men, claiming to be apostles, sought to lead the church astray. The church in Ephesus had tried them by ecclesiastical authority and found them to be liars. (Rev. 2: 2)

This Great Apostasy was well underway by the time John wrote his last words in the opening years of the second century. When the last of the apostles ceased to minister among men, the keys of the kingdom were withdrawn from mankind and the errant Church's demise accelerated. Here are some of the important historical mileposts that transpired.

The Bible clearly prophesies that the Church of the end times will be characterized by apostasy. Paul said that the Antichrist will not be revealed until “the apostasy comes first” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Jesus prophesied that “many will fall away” and “most people’s love will grow cold” (Matthew 24:10, 12).

In the book of Revelation, chapters 2 and 3, the Apostle John records seven letters of Jesus to seven churches in the area of modern day Turkey. Among other things, these letters present a panoramic prophetic survey of the Church in history. The last of the churches mentioned, the one that represents the Church of the end times, is the church at Laodicea. It is pictured as a church that is neither hot (healing) nor cold (refreshing), but rather is lukewarm or tepid (Revelation 3:15-16). In short, it is a church that is apathetic. Jesus also pictures it as a worldly church enamored with its wealth (Revelation 3:17). The Lord is so dissatisfied with this church that He declares, “Because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:16).

Serenity7855 · Apr 4, 2016

sojourner said:
None of those passages talks about homosexuality. None of them. They may refer to rape. They may refer to temple prostitution. But they don't talk about the homosexual orientation.

No they talk about sexual perversion between to men, which immediately brings to mind homosexuality, but you are trifling with semantics in order to make it believable for yourself. I suppose that one must take into consideration that two men who have anal sex could very well be gay, or, they are more than likely gay, so, indirectly, these verses are talking about sexual orientation because those that are perpetrating the sin would no doubt be, wait for it, homosexual orientated.

That man should not lay with another man as he would a woman does not sound like a homosexual act to you then. They are probably sun bathing, right? You are Obfuscating Stupidity. If you believe that sexual perversion is not a sin and that the Pope is a representative of God on earth, how do you reconcile the Popes condemnation on gay marriage.

You've demonstrated nothing but your inability to get out of your own head on the matter.

Are you attacking me personally again, even after the moderation requested that it should cease.

Because, of course, "God so loved the world." And because Jesus "will draw all people to himself." And because God will "search for the lost one until it is found."

Again another vague and ambiguous response that only serves to show that you did not comprehend what I said.

How in the world can the original text be irrelevant, for crying out loud??? God didn't "translate" anything. Translation is always the work of human beings. Every bible has a list of translators who worked on the project in the front. None of them are "God." This is ludicrous!

That you do not believe that God was the inspiration behind the translation of the Holy Bible, or that you do not credit God with the knowledge and foresight of what is to come, I cannot take your opinion seriously. It is obvious, by this response, that you have never read the account of the translation of the KJV of the Bible. Your right, that anyone would think that God could dwell in the presence of imperfection to translate the bible is ludicrous, so why would you think that. You are being intentionally disingenuous.

May I suggest that you take a break as you are backing yourself into corners that you will find difficult to get out from without losing credibility as a clergy

Ingledsva · Apr 4, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
What a lovely example of impertinence and discourtesy. I feel so very blessed when spoken to with so much love and affection.

1. I have never been shown any such thing of the sort before. You confuse me with someone else.
2. I have no Christian scholars to tell me what I can find out for myself
3. I believe what God wants me to believe, as contained in His Holy Bible.

One thing that I never, ever do, for various reasons, is wonder if what I am reading in the Bibles has been translated correctly. What I am reading is exactly what God wants me to read. If there is an error in the translation then God knows about it. It always slightly annoys me when people try to be clever about knowing what is and is not translated correctly because God, being Alpha and Omega, would know that would happen long before it did. So what the bible contains, whether in English, German or French, is what God wants His people to have. The mistakes are only picked up by those who do not understand God and His capabilities

LOL! A - translation - is exactly that - and is why we have different versions.

And that "exactly what God wanted me to read" - is bull. If the original text says - Qadesh, - you cannot translate it as homosexual, - as that is not what the word means!

Ingledsva said:
The LOT story says NOTHING about gay sex. ONE word "yada" which can have a sexual connotation, - was mistranslate here as sex. Also the crowd was both male and female.

Serenity7855 said:
Thats not what it says in my Bible.

Obviously it doesn't matter if your - translation - says something different. Read the original. The word translated as - men - 'ĕnôsh - also means people both male and female. Did you notice that even your KJV ends the verse with - ALL THE PEOPLE from every quarter? SO, ALL the people both male and female surrounded the house.

Ingledsva said:
YHVH uses the same word - and I'm guessing he wasn't going down for some gay sex. And the other story that is almost the same - and uses the same word "yada" in the same place, tells us what they wanted to do to him was - KILL him! Not have sex with him.

Serenity7855 said:
Did you get cofirmation from the Holy Ghost on that as I didn't

LOL! Try reading the original texts which you folks claim are from God, - rather then translations!

Ingledsva said:
Jdg 19:22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know "yada" him.

Jdg 20:3 (Now the children of Benjamin heard that the children of Israel were gone up to Mizpeh.) Then said the children of Israel, Tell us, what was this wickedness?

Jdg 20:4 And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge.

Jdg 20:5 And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead.

The "YADA" here in Judges 19 is the same as in the Lot story, - and means to Judge and carry out that judgment.

Serenity7855 said:
Your Bible is not the same as mine because that is not what my Bible says

LOL! That is the KJV version.

Serenity7855 said:
There is in my KJV of the Bible, and that is the Bible that God inspired 52 scholars to translate for Him. Have you heard of the spirit of the law rather then the letter of the law. I fear that you are stuck in the latter

No there isn't! here is the translation from your KJV.

Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

That word is "YADA." And here is where YHVH uses the same word in the same story, - and obviously NOT meaning he was going down for some GAY SEX.

Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Serenity7855 said:
ARSENOKOITES, that is not English, is it? So what relevance does it have to me?

LOL! You have got to be kidding? That is the actual word in the original verse. And as shown, - there is NO ancient Greek use of it as - homosexual!

Ingledsva said:
Romans 1: tells us these are people having sex in worship of God in the form of animals, and that it is a RITE. Which means it is NOT about homosexuals. Sacred Sex Prostitutes had sex with anything including animals.

Ingledsva said:
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and serpents.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

~~ ~ NOTE: the people in 24 that dishonor their bodies, are the people WHO worship the Act of Creation in 25! Religious Sexuality! ~~~

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of Deity into a lie, and worship and render religious homage to the "Act of Creation" more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

That is Sacred Sex.

Serenity7855 said:
Again, you read from a different Bible to me. What I have quoted is exactly what the Bible says

Really, is that what you think?

YOU - can see from the words that they are talking about a RITE of SACRED SEX - WORSHIP!

Serenity7855 said:
What is the difference between sacred sex and your ordinary run of the mill sex?

Sacred Sex is a RITE performed in WORSHIP of a God, - and is thus is IDOLATRY, - and worthy of death according to the Hebrew texts.

Homosexuality is not a RITE of WORSHIP to another God.

Serenity7855 said:
So lying with man as you would a woman means something totally different to what it actually says, is that right? Only that is what my scriptures says and there ain't much room for mis-interpreting it.

But you are talking about the original text, which is completely and entirely irrelevant to the standard Christian who does not read Hebrew, which is why God translated it for us exactly how He wanted it to be. Your argument is a mote one.

I have shown that these texts are under Molech worship verses - and are what the Sacred Prostitutes did. And have other translations.

Serenity7855 said:
All the rest of your post is exactly the same. A demonstration that you have spent much time getting to know where the mistakes in translation are, mistakes that are a complete inconsequentiality. Would you not think that if you know where the mistakes are then how much more does God know. One thing that He does know, that you appear not to, is how superfluous your efforts have been, in spending precious time analyzing something that is an insignificance to the text that He intended for us to use in striving to live a Christ-like life., as contain in the Bible that I read. Do you not think for one second that a God of the universe, omniscient omnipresent, and Omnipotent wouldn't take into considerations man's inability to translate His words corrected. What you think are man's mistakes are part of His plan to provide His sacred word to us. You err in as much as you over analyse the scriptures unnecessarily, but even worse, you appear not to have the Spirit of God as your constant companion to testify to you that what you are reading has it's origins in Divinity. If you did then you would not be trying to prove that something so very true, and precious to so many people, is a lie.

That is quite funny - that you don't want to know what the texts actually say in their original languages, - because they then don't jive with what YOU believe!

The mistakes are not "inconsequential."

Christianity teaches this is the word of God, - but then INSTEAD, - most believe - TRANSLATIONS, - that don't say what the originals do.

Those supposed "inconsequential" mistakes - are being used to deny basic human rights to people.

*

Ingledsva · Apr 4, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
No they talk about sexual perversion between to men, which immediately brings to mind homosexuality, but you are trifling with semantics in order to make it believable for yourself. I suppose that one must take into consideration that two men who have anal sex could very well be gay, or, they are more than likely gay, so, indirectly, these verses are talking about sexual orientation because those that are perpetrating the sin would no doubt be, wait for it, homosexual orientated.

That man should not lay with another man as he would a woman does not sound like a homosexual act to you then. They are probably sun bathing, right? You are Obfuscating Stupidity. If you believe that sexual perversion is not a sin and that the Pope is a representative of God on earth, how do you reconcile the Popes condemnation on gay marriage.

...

Pure bull!

You have been shown that all of these are Sacred Sex acts, or total mistranslation of words like Qadesh - Sacred Temple Prostitutes.

The facts of the matter are that even if these Sacred Prostitutes provided male-male sex, - they would still NOT be homosexuals.

They were dedicated or sold to the Temples, - and TRAINED to perform Sacred Sex acts, thus no homosexual orientation.

*

Serenity7855 · Apr 5, 2016

Ingledsva said:
Pure bull!

It may well be to you, however, it would be a boring place if we all agreed with each other

You have been shown that all of these are Sacred Sex acts, or total mistranslation of words like Qadesh - Sacred Temple Prostitutes.

If what you have said is true then i have to accept it, yes.

The facts of the matter are that even if these Sacred Prostitutes provided male-male sex, - they would still NOT be homosexuals.

My scriptures clearly state that Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. That is hard not to interpret as sexual sin between two men, who must be sexually orientated to homosexuality in order to be doing it..

The bible is not intended to be a factual record. It is a book of commandments intended to spiritually save souls. This is a commandment, a principle that we should ALL maintain. It is not intended to be a record of the past.

They were dedicated or sold to the Temples, - and TRAINED to perform Sacred Sex acts, thus no homosexual orientation.

That maybe historically true, however, that is not the purpose of the Bible, for the majority of those who read it. It's purpose is to guide and direct the children of God into paths of righteousness that lead to life eternal in the presence of our God. Your concept of the Bible is factual events and practices of the past, whereas mine is spiritual guidance.

Serenity7855 · Apr 5, 2016

Ingledsva said:
LOL! A - translation - is exactly that - and is why we have different versions.

And that "exactly what God wanted me to read" - is bull. If the original text says - Qadesh, - you cannot translate it as homosexual, - as that is not what the word means!

It may not be what the word means but it is what God means

He didn't translate it thus, Men replaced it during the translation.

Obviously it doesn't matter if your - translation - says something different. Read the original. The word translated as - men - 'ĕnôsh - also means people both male and female. Did you notice that even your KJV ends the verse with - ALL THE PEOPLE from every quarter? SO, ALL the people both male and female surrounded the house.

Hebrew is spoken by just 5 million people. 369 million people speak English. Who do you think is God's target audience? What the original states in an irrelevance. It was the common language of the day and it was written in that language, by infallible men, in preparation for its translation into more commonly used languages and in the process refined by Gods influence on men to read as he wanted it to.

LOL! Try reading the original texts which you folks claim are from God, - rather then translations!

I have never said that the original text came from God. I believe it was written by men and then God selected what He needed to deliver His message

No there isn't! here is the translation from your KJV.

Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

That word is "YADA." And here is where YHVH uses the same word in the same story, - and obviously NOT meaning he was going down for some GAY SEX.

Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

LOL! You have got to be kidding? That is the actual word in the original verse. And as shown, - there is NO ancient Greek use of it as - homosexual!

The word obviously has dual meaning

YOU - can see from the words that they are talking about a RITE of SACRED SEX - WORSHIP!

Sacred Sex is a RITE performed in WORSHIP of a God, - and is thus is IDOLATRY, - and worthy of death according to the Hebrew texts.

Homosexuality is not a RITE of WORSHIP to another God.

I have shown that these texts are under Molech worship verses - and are what the Sacred Prostitutes did. And have other translations.

I realise that you have taken the time to write this, however, be assured that I am not avoiding it, I just feel that I would be repeating myself by responding to it.

That is quite funny - that you don't want to know what the texts actually say in their original languages, - because they then don't jive with what YOU believe!

Click to expand...

I do not want to know because I do not need to know. There is no other reason. Why would I need to know how it is translated from Hebrew to English. What purpose would it serve me in getting closer to God? It is but a foundation to a much greater work that will help me whilst in mortality. Even if it became glaringly obvious that God had made a huge blunder, it would not phase me and I would just have to accept that I don't see the whole picture so there must be a reason for it. I have been converted by the Holy Ghost, therefore, I cannot deny it. I am a closed minded bigot, as far as that is concerned.

The mistakes are not "inconsequential."

Christianity teaches this is the word of God, - but then INSTEAD, - most believe - TRANSLATIONS, - that don't say what the originals do.

Those supposed "inconsequential" mistakes - are being used to deny basic human rights to people.

They became the words of God after He selected them. He did not pen them with His own hands. When they became a complete canon of works they became the word of God. His compilation was complete.

Basic human rights to whom and what human rights are you referring to, only, as far as I am aware, everyone has the same human rights, including gays since the early 70s. Before that it was illegal, therefore, not a human right to break the law.

*[/QUOTE]

Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Consults with Trees

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

HEATHEN ALASKAN

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists