• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I feel no disdain for those who have an attraction to children - so how can you claim that my mentioning it showcases disdain for those who have a same-sex attraction?

You're again equating them. Are you really having a hard time understanding that pedophilia is a despicable and heinous act of physical, mental and emotional violence and control of a child? A child who is unable to give consent to sexual relations? Do you really have a hard time seeing the difference between that and two consenting adults?

Could you quote me at any point condemning those who suffer from an attraction to children?

If you're not or never did, maybe you should. Unless you think sex with children is OK.

Or those who suffer from same-sex attraction?

What makes you think we're suffering? Except when the bigots and homophobes make life difficult and miserable for people simply wanting to be left alone.

Something being "natural" does not make it moral or right.

A person being "born a certain way" does not mean that all of their behavior is above reproach.

And who is to decide that.

You're just upset that you have no argument - so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

If you think I've made any ad hominems, please do report it. Staff are not above the rules. I assure you, it would be dealt with by my colleagues and superiors on staff.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I didn't - I was referencing what you had said in Post #663 - when you claimed that the "great damage done" mentioned by @columbus was a reference to the damage done to pedophiles.

You said,

"How does being attracted to children hurt someone? I’m guessing it takes quite a toll on one’s psyche. Imagine having to struggle with that? It also prevents someone from finding an appropriate mate with which to share one’s life and find some kind of companionship and/or fulfillment."

You literally misrepresented what @columbus said.


I put no words in your mouth. All that stupid came from you.
Nope, you did.

I wasn't quoting Columbus in the post you refer to. Nor did I misrepresent what he said. What I did was tell you what I think.

I see you're getting rattled.
Take a breath and calm down.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You have led me to believe that you do not appreciate the time and effort I am putting into my posts.

Your questions have caused me to repeat myself and I believe this is so because you are not actually reading my posts, but skimming them to look for potential “ammo” to use against me.

You have also tried to claim that I said things I never did and you are falsely accusing me of trying to change what I had initially said.

I will go over examples of these things in this post.

Everything I’m about to share is my opinion or belief. I will not be saying “I believe…” in front of every sentence because that is annoying.

This is an example of you either are not reading my posts or you are trying to get me to twist my words and create a “Gotcha!” moment.
It's an example of me asking you a question for clarification of what you are talking about. Notice how it's a question?


This is getting absolutely ridiculous at this point. You want me to go through yet another big long repetitive post of yours where you re-hash the entire thread over and over again?
No thanks.

If you're this upset, maybe debating isn't for you.


Our current discussion began after you asked “Why?” in Post #538 about some beliefs I shared with @columbus

I responded with a list of more of my beliefs to which you responded with, “Why do you believe that?” in Post #563.

This led me to respond in Post #569 with,

“I believe that the Holy Spirit of God has testified to my heart and mind the truthfulness of these things.

It is an ineffable witness that is so powerful that it can cast out all fear and doubt.” (Bold and italics added)

And now you are asking me what this “ineffable witness is? Like - really?

The “ineffable witness that is so powerful that it can cast out all fear and doubt” is the testimony of the Holy Spirit to your heart and mind.

Obviously, but I would argue that my beliefs have not been “challenged” in as much as they have been “misrepresented”.

Also, you asking me “Why?” over and over again doesn’t really qualify as a “challenge”.

Agree to disagree.

Yes, but my argument was about the weaknesses of an attraction to children and same-sex attraction - not the sins of pedophilia and homosexuality.

In a discussion about my beliefs we are going to use my understanding of these terms. Not yours.

And I explained to you that that was not at all what I did.

First off - I did not mention pedophilia - but an attraction to children. Which is a weakness - not a sin.

Second - I never once “demonized” or “marginalized” those who suffer from an attraction to children. I never said there was anything “wrong” with them.

Therefore - logically - you cannot use this argument against me because I didn’t bring up pedophilia nor did I “demonize” or “marginalize” those who suffer from an attraction to children.

If I don’t “demonize” those who are attracted to children - how can you claim I use that attraction to “demonize” those with a same-sex attraction?

It makes no sense.

Your argument against my referring to an attraction to children in a discussion about same-sex attraction boils down to, “I don’t like it.”

You just don’t like that both an attraction to children and a same-sex attraction appear on my list of “inappropriate sexual attraction”.

You have every right not to agree with me. You have every right to believe that there is nothing inappropriate about same-sex attraction. You don’t have to believe that it is a weakness.

But you don’t have the right to misrepresent my beliefs.

The moment you claimed that I was discussing pedophilia - you were misrepresenting my beliefs - because we are using my understanding of these terms - we are discussing my beliefs, not yours.

Besides, you already know that my understanding makes way more sense because all of you have been using my way of thinking every time you discuss pedophilia.

Both @columbus and that other forum member who talked about “damage” and “consent” and “respect” both used the word “pedophilia” to describe “raping children” - not just an attraction to children.

As I said before, I do not believe that you would accept my evidence. It is spiritual evidence.

There are methods for deciphering truth mentioned in the scriptures which I tried and I found them to be reliable.

I first applied them at a time in my life when I did not want what I was taught to be true.

However - to my astonishment - I received the “ineffable” witness of the Holy Spirit as promised after following the method described.

That is not the impression you made on me at all.

It seems to me that if you don’t accept an argument - you misrepresent it in an attempt to try and paint it as immoral - or rather paint the person presenting it as immoral.

Or you ask a bunch of questions with the hope of “twisting their words” so you could accuse them of saying something they never said or that they had “changed their tune” when they never did.

Wow. What a non-committal response. “What I think you told me…”

Bro, this is the internet. Our entire conversation is saved and easily accessible. If you want to claim that I said something - actually quote me saying it.

I never said what you claimed that I said.

First off, this is a question based on the assumption that people are born homosexual. I do not believe that to be true.

A person may be born with or develop an attraction to the same-sex, but that does not mean that they are destined to commit homosexual acts.

We are born with weakness (same-sex attraction) but we are not destined to commit sin (homosexual acts).

Let me ask you a couple questions.

Are you going to claim that since God created Light that He also created Darkness?

That because He teaches us His Laws that He also created Lawlessness?

His desire for us to be righteous created wickedness?

Adam and Eve gained the ability to discern Good from Evil when they partook of the fruit. This partaking also caused the conditions of mortality to be placed upon them, such as weakness and eventual death.

God wants us to gain - through our experiences - the ability to choose Good over Evil and the strength to overcome our weaknesses.

He allows us to pass through trials so that we can gain the experience we need to become like Him.

As I have told you before - God does not force anyone to do anything. He will not force us to be perfect. All choices lie before us - the entire spectrum between Good and Evil - and He wants us to choose for ourselves.

To prove who we are and what we want to be through our choices.

God did not create sin, therefore He did not create homosexuality.

You assume that your question was valid because you assume that people are born homosexual.

But I believe that both assumptions are wrong.

God created us - His children - and He commanded us to follow His example.

Men and women are different. They were designed this way to complement one another.

Only a man and a woman - acting together as one through marriage - can obtain perfection in the next life.

It is possible for those who do not marry in this life to find an eternal mate in the life to come - and thus attain perfection.

It is also possible for those couples who could not procreate in this life to be able to do so in the life to come - which is also a requirement for eventual perfection.

These blessings have been promised to those who keep God’s commandments.

Two men and two women cannot become perfect together.

Let me explain something further. Sexual attraction and urges - as we understand them here on Earth - will not exist in the next life.

When me and my wife leave this world - our relationship will endure because it was sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise - but we will no longer have the sexual desires that we had on Earth. That was a temporary thing.

We would still desire each other - but it would be on a different level. A higher level.

A homosexual couple - when they leave this world - will also no longer have the sexual urges that they experienced on Earth and their relationship will also have an end.

Their relationship will end because it was not sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise - which God claims can only happen to those who follow His Law regarding marriage.

The weakness that God had intended for them to overcome and use as a stepping stone - instead became a stumbling block - for whatever reason.

Two men and two women just cannot become perfect together.

Again, this is an argument based on the idea that people are born to be homosexual. Which I believe is false.

They may have been born with the weakness of same-sex attraction - but that does not mean they were born to commit the sin of homosexuality.

Just like how a person who is born with a temper is not destined to commit unjustified violent acts.

Also, the argument that something that makes us happy should be considered moral or good - is very weak.

I believe this is a very simplistic view of both love and happiness.

I love my children and I know that giving them candy makes them happy - but I also know that candy does not instill in them a lasting happiness and can cause harm in excess.

God wants us to receive eternal joy. He rejoices in our moments of happiness only as long as those moments are drawing us closer to the ultimate goal of eternal joy.

For example - He may not rejoice with me in my happiness after beating someone at a video game (which feels awesome) - if my excessive playing of video games is negatively affecting me and my relationships with my family and friends.

God will not rejoice in your cousin’s supposed happiness because He knows that it cannot last into eternity - which is all He really cares about.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I’m not Columbus. But I agree that the Bible is the source of a lot of immorality and perhaps even racism, given the history of some religious sects.
I am Columbus.
And this is post #472.
Nevertheless, those Enlightenment values aren't Scriptural and were generally opposed by traditional, Bible Believing, Christians.

I've often wondered.
Suppose The Declaration of Independence had been put to a referendum, a free and fair vote, of all the colonists? I'm not at all sure it would have won. One can easily find Scriptural support for "The Divine Right of kings to rule". Representative government, not so much. So while the Founding Fathers had a strong inclination towards Deism and Enlightenment values, due to their wealthy liberal and education, traditional Christians would unlikely be too supportive.
Tom
that was referred to as
It was @columbus - during his blind anti-Christian rants - like in Post #472 - who tried to claim that Christianity and the Bible were the sources of all of the world's evils - even racism.

I was already losing interest in the poster.
But dang!

I don't suppose she'll understand that the message I drew from it is that LDS is still my enemy. Folks like Katzpur notwithstanding, LDS as a whole.

Oh well.

Tom
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I feel no disdain for those who have an attraction to children - so how can you claim that my mentioning it showcases disdain for those who have a same-sex attraction?

Could you quote me at any point condemning those who suffer from an attraction to children? Or those who suffer from same-sex attraction?

Something being "natural" does not make it moral or right.

A person being "born a certain way" does not mean that all of their behavior is above reproach.

You're just upset that you have no argument - so you resort to ad hominem attacks.
Dude, you're projecting.
See your posts Re: "Stupid"
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
I was responding to an issue I saw in your use of logic and argumentation.
It would be cool if you'd address what I said, rather than getting all defensive about it.
I was not being "defensive" - I asked a question that exposes a fundamental flaw in your argument.

There is no need for an action to affect someone personally in order for them to disagree with it.

For example - abortion - I understand that it is not my unborn child that is being murdered - but I will always speak out against it - because I believe it is wrong.

Other people deciding to murder their unborn children does not affect me personally - but I will always speak out against it - I will always have that right.

I will also try to refer to it as "murder" - because I believe that words matter and referring to it as an"abortion" - rather than a murder - is an attempt to cover up what it actually is.

I will always speak out against any attempt to "redefine" the murder of unborn children.

I will also speak out against any attempt to "redefine" marriage.

A man and a woman who are "shacking up" are not married - no matter how long they have been together. They would need to get married in order to be considered a married couple.

I understand that this couple's decision to "shack up" and consider themselves married does not affect me personally - but it does not have the essential prerequisites of what is considered a marriage.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It has always been a contract between a man and a woman.

A husband is a man who is married to a woman - his wife. A wife is a woman who is married to a man - her husband.

Nothing is stopping a same-sex couple from being together or changing laws to accommodate their needs as a couple.

They should be able to enter into a life-long and legally binding commitment - but it cannot be defined as a marriage - because marriage is only between a man and a woman.

They lack the essential prerequisite.

Putting a girl in a Boy Scout uniform does not make her a Boy Scout. It does not matter that the organization allowed the girl to join - she will never be a Boy Scout.

There should be nothing stopping her from doing what the Boy Scouts do - but she can never be a Boy Scout - because she lacks the essential prerequisite of being a boy.

A man who believes that he is a woman is not a woman and he can never become a woman. It does not matter what he decides to do with his body. It will always be a body of a man.

He has every right to live his life as a woman - but he cannot demand that others view him or refer to him as a woman - because he lacks the essential prerequisite of being a woman.

None of this is said with malice or vindictiveness - but a desire to accept reality and avoid confusion.

None of this has to affect me personally in order for me to disagree with it and speak out against it.

However - I do believe that all of these examples will eventually affect me in some way.

If changes keep getting made to marriage - the day will come when after I tell someone that I am married they will ask me,

"What do you mean?"
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I was not being "defensive" - I asked a question that exposes a fundamental flaw in your argument.

There is no need for an action to affect someone personally in order for them to disagree with it.

All I’m trying to figure out is why you disagree with it and/or why you think gay people should not be getting married. Is it simply because you think the Bible says it’s wrong and because you think it diminishes your marriage?

For example - abortion - I understand that it is not my unborn child that is being murdered - but I will always speak out against it - because I believe it is wrong.

Other people deciding to murder their unborn children does not affect me personally - but I will always speak out against it - I will always have that right.

So why do you believe it’s wrong? Because you believe it’s murder, as you say here.

So, why is murder wrong?

I will also try to refer to it as "murder" - because I believe that words matter and referring to it as an"abortion" - rather than a murder - is an attempt to cover up what it actually is

I will always speak out against any attempt to "redefine" the murder of unborn children..

Labeling it as “murder” reveals why you think it’s wrong. So, why do you think murder is wrong?

I will also speak out against any attempt to "redefine" marriage.

Why?

A man and a woman who are "shacking up" are not married - no matter how long they have been together. They would need to get married in order to be considered a married couple.

Actually, here in Canada, if you a couple lives together as a couple for a certain period of time, they are considered “common-law” spouses.

Let’s say a couple “shacks up” together for 40 years, living together as a married couple, building a home, raising kids, etc. What do you consider them?

I understand that this couple's decision to "shack up" and consider themselves married does not affect me personally - but it does not have the essential prerequisites of what is considered a marriage.

So what? Why does that bother you?

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It has always been a contract between a man and a woman.

It hasn’t actually been that way everywhere for all time, but whatever.

A husband is a man who is married to a woman - his wife. A wife is a woman who is married to a man - her husband.

Nothing is stopping a same-sex couple from being together or changing laws to accommodate their needs as a couple.

You seem to want to stop them from doing so and calling it what it actually is – a marriage.

They should be able to enter into a life-long and legally binding commitment - but it cannot be defined as a marriage - because marriage is only between a man and a woman.

They lack the essential prerequisite.

Except that it is defined as marriage, in most developed nations in the world, these days.

Putting a girl in a Boy Scout uniform does not make her a Boy Scout. It does not matter that the organization allowed the girl to join - she will never be a Boy Scout.

She will be if she completes the requirements to become something titled “Boy Scout.”

There should be nothing stopping her from doing what the Boy Scouts do - but she can never be a Boy Scout - because she lacks the essential prerequisite of being a boy.

But if the Boy Scouts have changed their rules to accept girls, then by definition, participation or completion of the program allows a person to carry the title of “Boy Scout.”

A man who believes that he is a woman is not a woman and he can never become a woman. It does not matter what he decides to do with his body. It will always be a body of a man.

Sure he can. If he’s undergone gender reassignment surgery.

He has every right to live his life as a woman - but he cannot demand that others view him or refer to him as a woman - because he lacks the essential prerequisite of being a woman.

I would hope that a decent human being would refer to someone as they want to be referred to. Instead of being a jerk about it. But to each his own, I guess.

None of this is said with malice or vindictiveness - but a desire to accept reality and avoid confusion.

None of this has to affect me personally in order for me to disagree with it and speak out against it.

However - I do believe that all of these examples will eventually affect me in some way.

What ways would those be?

If changes keep getting made to marriage - the day will come when after I tell someone that I am married they will ask me,

"What do you mean?"

Sorry but I think you’re being overdramatic with that one. I hope that wasn't your example.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
For example - abortion - I understand that it is not my unborn child that is being murdered - but I will always speak out against it - because I believe it is wrong.

Other people deciding to murder their unborn children does not affect me personally - but I will always speak out against it - I will always have that right.

I will also try to refer to it as "murder" - because I believe that words matter and referring to it as an"abortion" - rather than a murder - is an attempt to cover up what it actually is.

I will always speak out against any attempt to "redefine" the murder of unborn children.
Then perhaps you need to look up the definition of murder, which is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. Even if we agree that unborn children are living, the fact that abortion is legal means that it is NOT murder, and you are the one attempting to redefine the term.

If changes keep getting made to marriage - the day will come when after I tell someone that I am married they will ask me,

"What do you mean?"
And boy does THAT sound like a doomsday scenario. How ever will you cope?
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
My participation in this thread will end soon.
They all follow the same book and god.
I wish I could make judgments about you based on your loose association with a group or ideology.

However - since I am not an inheritor of homosexual privilege - everyone would attack me if I did that.
Yes. But the Bible does provide much fuel for it, all within easy reach.
Where in the Bible is bullying of any kind encouraged?
To my knowledge no one has made that claim.
Then you have not been paying attention.

@columbus has stated - multiple times - that voicing any disagreement with homosexuality is "similar" to "raping children".

@Jainarayan has also stated - multiple times - that me disagreeing with homosexuality is the same as trying to outlaw homosexuality or same-sex marriage.

They say these things because they believe that they are perpetual victims.

I would like to say that all liberal homosexuals in the United States believe that they are victims simply for being attracted to the same-sex.

However - since I am not an inheritor of homosexual privilege - I will not make that claim.
Where would you like to begin?
Considering that my participation in this thread will soon end - I don't know.


Also considering that you like to present falsehoods about my Church and make generalizations about all Christians - I don't think you are best equipped to start presenting any facts.

It should read changed. I'm using my phone more often as my laptop isn't going so well these days.
That makes more sense.

Sorry about your laptop - I'd be lost without mine.
That it is expected you will conform to that law/ideology of freedom of religion, and it is enforced.
I thought this was what you were saying and it is fundamentally flawed.


You have confused the two "truths" I mentioned in my earlier comment. What I said was,

"People believing that they "have the truth" is not harmful to society. That describes literally everyone in some fashion.

People believing that anyone can demand that society should conform to their individual subjective "truth" is harmful."

The freedoms of speech and religion fall under the first category of "truth" I mentioned - not the second.

The freedoms of speech and religion do not require any form of "conformity". No one has to speak their mind or believe in anything.

On the other hand - someone demanding that other people use a certain pronoun in reference to them based on their own subjective perception of themselves - is an example of the second category I mentioned - demands conformity - and is harmful to society.
How so/in what ways?
Being harassed, threatened with violence, followed - having property stolen or destroyed - being refused services - all because I was a representative of my Church.


Now - as you already know - when I say "Church" - I don't mean "the entirety of Christian history" - I mean "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

I am a member of that Church - and as such - I do not bear any collective guilt or blame for everything done - or not done - by all Christians since the beginning of Christianity.

You, personally no. But those who hold your views often do support it.
Obviously not.

If someone "held my views" they wouldn't support conversion therapy.

You are erroneously trying to "lump me in" with all other "Christians".

I wish I could do that without being maligned - like you - but I can't - because I am not an inheritor of homosexual privilege.

It removed rights of an entire group for no other reason than religious beliefs.
Considering that no one has the right to redefine marriage - what "rights" were removed by Proposition 8?
Many Klansmen can say they have black friends. Policy says otherwise.
This comparison makes no sense - but lets stick with the idea of the Klan for a second.

Let's say you had claimed that, "The KKK believes and teaches that none of it's members can have any African-American friends."

Then an actual Klan member tells you that you were wrong and then gives various examples of Klan leaders having African-American friends - wouldn't that prove you wrong?

You originally claimed that the Church believed that people with black skin were ineligible for the priesthood because they were "cursed".

I then corrected you by pointing out that that stance had always been speculative - not the official stance of the Church.

I then mentioned examples of "black-skinned" men receiving the priesthood - both before and during the ban - and also that there were "white-skinned" men who were denied the priesthood due to their lineage.

You falsely tried to claim that my comments were in reference to what happened after the ban - but they were clearly about before and during the ban.

This caused me to correct you again and prove that the priesthood ban had nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin.

You have been proven wrong. You can simply admit it - like a mature and reasonable person - and learn from the experience.

Or - you can be like everyone else on this thread - and learn nothing.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
@columbus has stated - multiple times - that voicing any disagreement with homosexuality is "similar" to "raping children".

You probably believe this.
It's why I don't find your posts worth responding to anymore.

You keep believing that, and I'll keep believing that LDS is an enemy of mine.
A rich and ruthless enemy of mine.

But I also believe that LDS will change, sooner than most large denominations. More Christian, less enemy.

I'm not holding my breath or anything.
Tom
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
They say these things because they believe that they are perpetual victims.

I would like to say that all liberal homosexuals in the United States believe that they are victims simply for being attracted to the same-sex.

However - since I am not an inheritor of homosexual privilege - I will not make that claim.

upload_2020-2-26_15-4-56.jpeg


I'm not a liberal. Believe it or not, not all gays are liberal. So this is something else you got wrong about me.

Btw, do you have a crush on me? You seem to think of me an awful lot. I mean, I'm not bad looking. :shrug:
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
They say these things because they believe that they are perpetual victims.
Well, they are a minority that often faces discriminating. Such as often bringing up homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia up in the same conversation like they are similar. They are not. And promoting the garbage that they are has consequences for people who aren't you. Like being targeted for violence.
Being harassed, threatened with violence, followed - having property stolen or destroyed - being refused services - all because I was a representative of my Church.
Did it occur to you that might be retaliation because your church fought so hard to strip an entire group of the right of marriage? Doesn't excuse it, but we are the company we keep.
Considering that no one has the right to redefine marriage - what "rights" were removed by Proposition 8?
It's so blatant that the bill was had "free the right of marriage" in the damn bill title. Marriage is a civil contract, and your religion, your denomination, it took it upon itself to define this civil proceeding. You butt your nose into other people's business where it does not belong.
then corrected you by pointing out that that stance had always been speculative - not the official stance of the Church.
Bull. It was churh policy. "Most," andnot all, doesn't change the fact it was a racist policy.

since I am not an inheritor of homosexual privilege
Me neither.
Where in the Bible is bullying of any kind encouraged?
Thebest is probably when bears were sent to maul kidsmaking fun of a prophet.
I would like to say that all liberal homosexuals in the United States believe that they are victims simply for being attracted to the same-sex.
Considering it used to be illegal, SSM only became legal a few years ago, and people still fought it. Amd get targeted for violence, harassed, and still lack protections in many states.
ehoods about my Church and make generalizations about all Christians - I don't think you are best equipped to start presenting any facts.
I know Christians are different. But you're clearly more a conservative one.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Stupid or irresponsible by whose standard? I will admit, however, that I am inconceivably witty.
It would be by everyone's standard - save those who believe that homosexuals should be treated differently than other people - like those in this thread.

I would love to see some of this wit. I am a fan of witty and playful banter.
Right, as the rishis passed on to us in the Upanishads and Vedas. Revelations and perceptions of the Divine.
I don’t know what “rishis”, “Upanishads” or “Vedas” are - but if it means that Man can receive revelation from a divine source- then I’m on-board.
There's one major difference between your truth and mine... Your "truth" says we're born sinners, body and soul. My truth says no such thing.
I’d like to start by saying that I believe that you and I disagree on what it means to be a “sinner”.

I believe a “sinner” is “a person who transgresses against divine law by committing an immoral act or acts.”

By this definition - those who have a same-sex attraction commit no sin - but those who engage in homosexual behavior (immoral act) would be considered a sinner.

Next thing is - No - I do not believe that we are all born sinners.

That idea would be contrary to my claims that no one is born a homosexual and that God will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are capable of enduring.

It makes literally zero sense for you to claim that I believe that we are all born sinners - yet also criticize me for my belief that no one is born a homosexual.

How could you claim that I believed that everyone is born a sinner after all the time I spent explaining the difference between weakness and sin?

My “truth” is that a newborn child is not a sinner.

Those who are unable to be accountable for their own actions are not accountable to any law - therefore - “where no law is, there is no transgression.” (Romans 4:15)

I do not believe that anyone is born a sinner. Not only is that not my truth - but it is not a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Recorded in the Book of Mormon - the prophet-historian named Mormon wrote to his son - Moroni - that he should teach repentance and baptism to those “who are accountable and capable of committing sin” and he then taught that “little children need no repentance, neither baptism” (Moroni 8:10-11)

He also said,

“For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.” (Moroni 8:22-24)

I do not believe that anyone is born a sinner.

For this reason I have been claiming that no one is born a homosexual - because that would be claiming that they were born sinners.
Rather, we are, always have been, and always will be divine, body and soul.
I do believe that we are divine in the sense that we are the literal spirit children of God - and we have the potential to become like Him - but I cannot agree with the claim that our mortal bodies are divine.

Our mortal bodies are filled with weaknesses that can cause us to commit sin. I mean - none of us are perfect for a reason - right?

However - if we decide to live according to our spirit (the “divine” that is within us) then we can resist the temptations brought on by our body’s weaknesses and avoid committing sin.

The Lord Jesus Christ is a perfect example of this.

He is the Only Begotten Son of the Father - and divine - and He decided to come down among us and live as we mortals do.

Even though He received a mortal body like ours - which was full of weaknesses - He chose not to succumb to any of these weaknesses - therefore He never committed sin.

He was the only sinless person to have ever lived upon the Earth - not because He was incapable of committing sin - but because He refused to allow His physical body - or the false teachings of the world - to take His divine control of His own actions away from Him.

He proved that if we were to rely on our spirit - that source to the divine within us all - we can overcome the weaknesses of our bodies.

Since no one else has been able to do this - through faith, repentance and keeping His commandments - we can receive His grace (divine help).
There's no logic in believing we're "sinners", or weak, or need salvation or redemption.
I contend that it is illogical to assume otherwise.

None of us are perfect, knows everything or can do anything - which means we are imperfect, ignorant and weak.

We need everything - because we are imperfect, ignorant and weak.
We need only to break free, or wash ourselves of the muck of the world.
I agree. We must break from the muck. We must be washed clean of the muck.

However - how can you break yourself free from the muck of the world while you are currently trapped in it?

How could I - or someone else - break you free from the muck if we are also trapped as you are?

How can you wash yourself of the muck of the world if your hands are filthy from the muck?

How could I - or someone else - wash you of the muck of the world if our hands are just as filthy as yours?

The entirety of the human race is trapped in the muck of the world and made filthy by it.

We need someone who is clean - pure and spotless - who is not trapped or dirty from the muck of the world to free and clean us.

It is my belief that the only person who is pure and and clean from the muck of the world is the Lord Jesus Christ.

He is the only way that we can be made free and clean from the muck of the world.
“The greatest sin is to call yourself a sinner. You are a child of God. Though gold be covered with mud for centuries, it remains gold. So the pure 'gold' of the soul can be covered over with the mud of delusion for aeons, but in its true nature it remains forever undefiled.” - Paramahansa Yogananda
I believe that this is true to an extent - we are precious in the eyes of God - but our actions can change our nature.

Are you really going to argue that every single person - despite what they decide to do - is clean and pure and worthy to mingle with the divine?
Your comments and attitude towards homosexuality speaks volumes about it.
So - you are making stuff up and claiming that I believe it - that is not good.
 
Last edited:

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
But in the interest of fairness and open-mindedness... do you think it should be legal or illegal? And why or why not.
I do not believe that we can legislate morality.

That being said - I also do not believe that marriage should ever be redefined.

I believe that same-sex couples have every right to be together and to enjoy all the legal benefits of being a couple - but they cannot be considered married - by definition - because they do not meet the prerequisites of what a marriage is.

Just like how a boy - no matter how much he wants to be or believes he is a girl - cannot be considered a girl - because he does not meet the prerequisite of being a girl.

That boy has the right to live his life as a girl - if that is his desire - but society or science should not redefine what a “girl” is to satisfy his desire.

Same-sex couples have the right to live as a married couple - but society should not redefine marriage to satisfy their desires.
You're again equating them.
No - I am not. That is absurd. Do you not know what the word “equating” means?

You just claimed that I said that pedophilia and homosexuality are the same. What am I supposed to do in this situation?

When I mention both pedophilia and homosexuality to argue against your claim - you accuse me of “equating” them again.

You are trying to set up a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation on me and it is absurd.

This is an example of one of those stupid and irresponsible things you like to say.

Don’t worry - no one else is going to call you out for it - because of your homosexual privilege.

Also - if I never expressed any disdain for those who suffer with an attraction to children - you cannot claim that my mentioning them in a discussion about same-sex attraction shows disdain for homosexuals.

That makes no sense.

Just another stupid and irresponsible thing you said that you will never be held accountable for. Check your privilege.
Are you really having a hard time understanding that pedophilia is a despicable and heinous act of physical, mental and emotional violence and control of a child?
Thank you so much for saying this.

The word “pedophilia” means “sexual feelings directed towards children” not “raping children”.

For quite some time now I have been pointing out how you and others have been “equating” pedophilia with raping children.

Those who made these claims were @9-10ths_Penguin , @SkepticThinker and @columbus - but you and others gave their comments a “Like” or “Winner” vote - proving that you agreed with them.

I posted a summary of this in Post # 678 - where I proved - without doubt - that you and the others in this thread have been making this mistake while ironically criticizing me for separating the attraction from the action.

A person having an attraction to children does not make them a rapist or child abuser. They would need to act on that attraction to be considered such.

A person having an attraction to the same-sex does not make them a homosexual. They would need to act on that attraction to be considered such - at least by me and God.

In my initial post to you I mentioned an attraction to children as an example to dismantle your “it’s okay if I’m born this way or if it feels natural” argument.

I only mentioned an attraction to children and a same-sex attraction together when I claimed that they both belonged in my list of “inappropriate sexual attraction”.

I never compared or “equated” pedophilia to homosexuality.

And I never claimed that all pedophiles were rapists and child abusers - like you and others in this thread.

You saying this gives my argument further validation. Thank you again for saying it.
A child who is unable to give consent to sexual relations? Do you really have a hard time seeing the difference between that and two consenting adults?
I have claimed multiple times in this thread that any sexual activity between an adult and a child is rape.

I have no issue whatsoever seeing the difference.

You - on the other hand - are having a hard time separating attraction from action.
If you're not or never did, maybe you should. Unless you think sex with children is OK.
Nice. More evidence of you being unable to separate attraction from action.

No - I will not condemn anyone for having an attraction that they had no choice in having.

If their attraction leads them to commit crimes - then I will condemn them.

I do not believe that people are predestined to perform certain actions because they were “born a certain way” - as you and others have been advocating.

A person who is born with an attraction to children is not destined to rape children - as you believe.

A person who is born with an attraction to the same-sex is not destined to engage in homosexual behavior - as you believe.

No one is born a sinner.
What makes you think we're suffering? Except when the bigots and homophobes make life difficult and miserable for people simply wanting to be left alone.
You really don’t understand that a single word can have multiple meanings - do you?

You remember that whole “practice” debacle - where you thought that that word meant only to “perform an activity or exercise a skill repeatedly or regularly in order to improve or maintain one's proficiency”?

That was funny.

And now you seem to believe that the word “suffer” can only refer to the “state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship”.

That is also funny.

When I said, “Or those who suffer from same-sex attraction?” - I used the word “suffer” to mean “experience”, “be affected by” or even “allow” - such as - allow something to happen or someone to do something.

When John the Baptist balked at the Lord’s request to baptize him - Jesus said, “Suffer it to be so now.”

He did not mean “Let’s undergo some pain, distress or hardship”. He meant, “Allow this to happen.” or “Experience this.”

What I said could be read to say, “Or those who experience same-sex attraction?”

Also - if you wanted to be “left alone” - you wouldn’t have started this whole mess by asking me to share my beliefs about sin and homosexuality with you.
And who is to decide that.
That doesn’t matter.

Whatever anyone decides on that matter - nature is a lousy moral compass - and no one’s behavior is above reproach.
If you think I've made any ad hominems, please do report it. Staff are not above the rules. I assure you, it would be dealt with by my colleagues and superiors on staff.
No - thank you.

I am an adult and as such I believe in dealing with my own problems.
Are you fully serious? It harmed every same sex couple that wanted to get married or was already married.
I am 100% serious.

No one has the right to redefine marriage.

The “same-sex marriages” that you claim were “harmed” were performed illegally.

That the law was changed after the fact does not change that they were performed illegally.
I'm not a liberal. Believe it or not, not all gays are liberal. So this is something else you got wrong about me.
I never claimed that you were liberal.

I claimed that you believed yourself to be a perpetual victim and then I made a joke about homosexual privilege that involved me claiming that all “liberal homosexuals” believe themselves to be perpetual victims.

I never claimed that only liberal homosexuals believed that they were perpetual victims.

I also obviously do not believe that all homosexual are liberals because I said “liberal homosexuals” as opposed to “non-liberal homosexuals”. I did not say "all homosexuals are liberals."

This is another example of something stupid and irresponsible you say - but you got the homosexual-card - so you are given a pass.
Btw, do you have a crush on me? You seem to think of me an awful lot. I mean, I'm not bad looking.
No - I just have a good memory when it comes to remembering what my opponents in discussions say.

I do like this side of you though. It’s silly and fun.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I do not believe that we can legislate morality.

That being said - I also do not believe that marriage should ever be redefined.

I believe that same-sex couples have every right to be together and to enjoy all the legal benefits of being a couple - but they cannot be considered married - by definition - because they do not meet the prerequisites of what a marriage is.

Just like how a boy - no matter how much he wants to be or believes he is a girl - cannot be considered a girl - because he does not meet the prerequisite of being a girl.

That boy has the right to live his life as a girl - if that is his desire - but society or science should not redefine what a “girl” is to satisfy his desire.

Same-sex couples have the right to live as a married couple - but society should not redefine marriage to satisfy their desires.

No - I am not. That is absurd. Do you not know what the word “equating” means?

You just claimed that I said that pedophilia and homosexuality are the same. What am I supposed to do in this situation?

When I mention both pedophilia and homosexuality to argue against your claim - you accuse me of “equating” them again.

You are trying to set up a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation on me and it is absurd.

This is an example of one of those stupid and irresponsible things you like to say.

Don’t worry - no one else is going to call you out for it - because of your homosexual privilege.

Also - if I never expressed any disdain for those who suffer with an attraction to children - you cannot claim that my mentioning them in a discussion about same-sex attraction shows disdain for homosexuals.

That makes no sense.

Just another stupid and irresponsible thing you said that you will never be held accountable for. Check your privilege.

Thank you so much for saying this.

The word “pedophilia” means “sexual feelings directed towards children” not “raping children”.

For quite some time now I have been pointing out how you and others have been “equating” pedophilia with raping children.

Those who made these claims were @9-10ths_Penguin , @SkepticThinker and @columbus - but you and others gave their comments a “Like” or “Winner” vote - proving that you agreed with them.

I posted a summary of this in Post # 678 - where I proved - without doubt - that you and the others in this thread have been making this mistake while ironically criticizing me for separating the attraction from the action.

A person having an attraction to children does not make them a rapist or child abuser. They would need to act on that attraction to be considered such.

A person having an attraction to the same-sex does not make them a homosexual. They would need to act on that attraction to be considered such - at least by me and God.

In my initial post to you I mentioned an attraction to children as an example to dismantle your “it’s okay if I’m born this way or if it feels natural” argument.

I only mentioned an attraction to children and a same-sex attraction together when I claimed that they both belonged in my list of “inappropriate sexual attraction”.

I never compared or “equated” pedophilia to homosexuality.

And I never claimed that all pedophiles were rapists and child abusers - like you and others in this thread.

You saying this gives my argument further validation. Thank you again for saying it.

I have claimed multiple times in this thread that any sexual activity between an adult and a child is rape.

I have no issue whatsoever seeing the difference.

You - on the other hand - are having a hard time separating attraction from action.

Nice. More evidence of you being unable to separate attraction from action.

No - I will not condemn anyone for having an attraction that they had no choice in having.

If their attraction leads them to commit crimes - then I will condemn them.

I do not believe that people are predestined to perform certain actions because they were “born a certain way” - as you and others have been advocating.

A person who is born with an attraction to children is not destined to rape children - as you believe.

A person who is born with an attraction to the same-sex is not destined to engage in homosexual behavior - as you believe.

No one is born a sinner.

You really don’t understand that a single word can have multiple meanings - do you?

You remember that whole “practice” debacle - where you thought that that word meant only to “perform an activity or exercise a skill repeatedly or regularly in order to improve or maintain one's proficiency”?

That was funny.

And now you seem to believe that the word “suffer” can only refer to the “state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship”.

That is also funny.

When I said, “Or those who suffer from same-sex attraction?” - I used the word “suffer” to mean “experience”, “be affected by” or even “allow” - such as - allow something to happen or someone to do something.

When John the Baptist balked at the Lord’s request to baptize him - Jesus said, “Suffer it to be so now.”

He did not mean “Let’s undergo some pain, distress or hardship”. He meant, “Allow this to happen.” or “Experience this.”

What I said could be read to say, “Or those who experience same-sex attraction?”

Also - if you wanted to be “left alone” - you wouldn’t have started this whole mess by asking me to share my beliefs about sin and homosexuality with you.

That doesn’t matter.

Whatever anyone decides on that matter - nature is a lousy moral compass - and no one’s behavior is above reproach.

No - thank you.

I am an adult and as such I believe in dealing with my own problems.

I am 100% serious.

No one has the right to redefine marriage.

The “same-sex marriages” that you claim were “harmed” were performed illegally.

That the law was changed after the fact does not change that they were performed illegally.

I never claimed that you were liberal.

I claimed that you believed yourself to be a perpetual victim and then I made a joke about homosexual privilege that involved me claiming that all “liberal homosexuals” believe themselves to be perpetual victims.

I never claimed that only liberal homosexuals believed that they were perpetual victims.

I also obviously do not believe that all homosexual are liberals because I said “liberal homosexuals” as opposed to “non-liberal homosexuals”. I did not say "all homosexuals are liberals."

This is another example of something stupid and irresponsible you say - but you got the homosexual-card - so you are given a pass.

No - I just have a good memory when it comes to remembering what my opponents in discussions say.

I do like this side of you though. It’s silly and fun.
You're still on about this?

I hope you realize that tagging me as you continue to spout anti-LGBTQ nonsense is doing nothing to improve my opinion of you.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
It’s silly and fun.

And getting old, you've been repeating yourself... over and over and over and over and... To the point of stalking, and certainly not advancing your cause or winning. I mean, Kṛṣṇaḥ, Yaśodā, Nandaḥ ca (my version of "Jesus, Mary and Joseph!" :D), let it go already. You lost the arguments. :rolleyes:
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
My participation in this thread will end soon.

I wish I could make judgments about you based on your loose association with a group or ideology.

However - since I am not an inheritor of homosexual privilege - everyone would attack me if I did that.

Where in the Bible is bullying of any kind encouraged?

Then you have not been paying attention.

@columbus has stated - multiple times - that voicing any disagreement with homosexuality is "similar" to "raping children".

@Jainarayan has also stated - multiple times - that me disagreeing with homosexuality is the same as trying to outlaw homosexuality or same-sex marriage.

They say these things because they believe that they are perpetual victims.

I would like to say that all liberal homosexuals in the United States believe that they are victims simply for being attracted to the same-sex.

However - since I am not an inheritor of homosexual privilege - I will not make that claim.
Considering that my participation in this thread will soon end - I don't know.

Also considering that you like to present falsehoods about my Church and make generalizations about all Christians - I don't think you are best equipped to start presenting any facts.


That makes more sense.

Sorry about your laptop - I'd be lost without mine.
I thought this was what you were saying and it is fundamentally flawed.

You have confused the two "truths" I mentioned in my earlier comment. What I said was,

"People believing that they "have the truth" is not harmful to society. That describes literally everyone in some fashion.

People believing that anyone can demand that society should conform to their individual subjective "truth" is harmful."

The freedoms of speech and religion fall under the first category of "truth" I mentioned - not the second.

The freedoms of speech and religion do not require any form of "conformity". No one has to speak their mind or believe in anything.

On the other hand - someone demanding that other people use a certain pronoun in reference to them based on their own subjective perception of themselves - is an example of the second category I mentioned - demands conformity - and is harmful to society.

Being harassed, threatened with violence, followed - having property stolen or destroyed - being refused services - all because I was a representative of my Church.


Now - as you already know - when I say "Church" - I don't mean "the entirety of Christian history" - I mean "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

I am a member of that Church - and as such - I do not bear any collective guilt or blame for everything done - or not done - by all Christians since the beginning of Christianity.


Obviously not.

If someone "held my views" they wouldn't support conversion therapy.

You are erroneously trying to "lump me in" with all other "Christians".

I wish I could do that without being maligned - like you - but I can't - because I am not an inheritor of homosexual privilege.


Considering that no one has the right to redefine marriage - what "rights" were removed by Proposition 8?

This comparison makes no sense - but lets stick with the idea of the Klan for a second.

Let's say you had claimed that, "The KKK believes and teaches that none of it's members can have any African-American friends."

Then an actual Klan member tells you that you were wrong and then gives various examples of Klan leaders having African-American friends - wouldn't that prove you wrong?

You originally claimed that the Church believed that people with black skin were ineligible for the priesthood because they were "cursed".

I then corrected you by pointing out that that stance had always been speculative - not the official stance of the Church.

I then mentioned examples of "black-skinned" men receiving the priesthood - both before and during the ban - and also that there were "white-skinned" men who were denied the priesthood due to their lineage.

You falsely tried to claim that my comments were in reference to what happened after the ban - but they were clearly about before and during the ban.

This caused me to correct you again and prove that the priesthood ban had nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin.

You have been proven wrong. You can simply admit it - like a mature and reasonable person - and learn from the experience.

Or - you can be like everyone else on this thread - and learn nothing.
Of course they do. And did.

Your views on "liberal homosexuals" are baffling and offensive. In my opinion.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
It would be by everyone's standard - save those who believe that homosexuals should be treated differently than other people - like those in this thread.

I would love to see some of this wit. I am a fan of witty and playful banter.

I don’t know what “rishis”, “Upanishads” or “Vedas” are - but if it means that Man can receive revelation from a divine source- then I’m on-board.

I’d like to start by saying that I believe that you and I disagree on what it means to be a “sinner”.

I believe a “sinner” is “a person who transgresses against divine law by committing an immoral act or acts.”

By this definition - those who have a same-sex attraction commit no sin - but those who engage in homosexual behavior (immoral act) would be considered a sinner.

Next thing is - No - I do not believe that we are all born sinners.

That idea would be contrary to my claims that no one is born a homosexual and that God will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are capable of enduring.

It makes literally zero sense for you to claim that I believe that we are all born sinners - yet also criticize me for my belief that no one is born a homosexual.

How could you claim that I believed that everyone is born a sinner after all the time I spent explaining the difference between weakness and sin?

My “truth” is that a newborn child is not a sinner.

Those who are unable to be accountable for their own actions are not accountable to any law - therefore - “where no law is, there is no transgression.” (Romans 4:15)

I do not believe that anyone is born a sinner. Not only is that not my truth - but it is not a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Recorded in the Book of Mormon - the prophet-historian named Mormon wrote to his son - Moroni - that he should teach repentance and baptism to those “who are accountable and capable of committing sin” and he then taught that “little children need no repentance, neither baptism” (Moroni 8:10-11)

He also said,

“For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.” (Moroni 8:22-24)

I do not believe that anyone is born a sinner.

For this reason I have been claiming that no one is born a homosexual - because that would be claiming that they were born sinners.

I do believe that we are divine in the sense that we are the literal spirit children of God - and we have the potential to become like Him - but I cannot agree with the claim that our mortal bodies are divine.

Our mortal bodies are filled with weaknesses that can cause us to commit sin. I mean - none of us are perfect for a reason - right?

However - if we decide to live according to our spirit (the “divine” that is within us) then we can resist the temptations brought on by our body’s weaknesses and avoid committing sin.

The Lord Jesus Christ is a perfect example of this.

He is the Only Begotten Son of the Father - and divine - and He decided to come down among us and live as we mortals do.

Even though He received a mortal body like ours - which was full of weaknesses - He chose not to succumb to any of these weaknesses - therefore He never committed sin.

He was the only sinless person to have ever lived upon the Earth - not because He was incapable of committing sin - but because He refused to allow His physical body - or the false teachings of the world - to take His divine control of His own actions away from Him.

He proved that if we were to rely on our spirit - that source to the divine within us all - we can overcome the weaknesses of our bodies.

Since no one else has been able to do this - through faith, repentance and keeping His commandments - we can receive His grace (divine help).

I contend that it is illogical to assume otherwise.

None of us are perfect, knows everything or can do anything - which means we are imperfect, ignorant and weak.

We need everything - because we are imperfect, ignorant and weak.

I agree. We must break from the muck. We must be washed clean of the muck.

However - how can you break yourself free from the muck of the world while you are currently trapped in it?

How could I - or someone else - break you free from the muck if we are also trapped as you are?

How can you wash yourself of the muck of the world if your hands are filthy from the muck?

How could I - or someone else - wash you of the muck of the world if our hands are just as filthy as yours?

The entirety of the human race is trapped in the muck of the world and made filthy by it.

We need someone who is clean - pure and spotless - who is not trapped or dirty from the muck of the world to free and clean us.

It is my belief that the only person who is pure and and clean from the muck of the world is the Lord Jesus Christ.

He is the only way that we can be made free and clean from the muck of the world.

I believe that this is true to an extent - we are precious in the eyes of God - but our actions can change our nature.

Are you really going to argue that every single person - despite what they decide to do - is clean and pure and worthy to mingle with the divine?

So - you are making stuff up and claiming that I believe it - that is not good.
You appear to be contradicting yourself.

On the one hand you claim that humans aren't born as sinners.
Then on the other hand you claim that humans are, "imperfect, ignorant and weak."
:shrug:
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Top