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

[JesusKnowsYou]

So instead, you're going to accuse me of being dishonest. About what?

Look, I took away what I did from reading your post and it turned out to be the same thing several other posters took away from your post. I see you'd like to believe that we are all in error, and that your post could not possibly be interpreted in the way we intrepreted it. Rather than blowing us off as liars (not sure what makes me a liar here anway ), why not, just for a few minutes, take some time for some introspection, and maybe read over your own posts again and our responses to them, including our explanations as to why we interpreted your post in the way we did. That's what I would do if I were in your shoes (and have done); rather than lashing out at others for reading the words you typed. We do not always convey our feelings and arguments as perfectly as we may think we have. And especially in a situation such as this, where several posters have interpreted your posts in the same way.

Let's cut through the BS.

In my initial response to a forum member's questions (post #326) immediately after I mentioned a list of weaknesses that included "an attraction to children" I said,

"Before you flip your lid, I'm not trying to say that all of these attractions are exactly the same, but depending on who you ask people will draw a line somewhere as to what is or is not appropriate sexual behavior."

How do you interpret this statement?

I have repeated this example many times to various people and everyone ignores it.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

So every single other person is an idiot, despite the fact that we all walked away from your post with the same impression.
Okay then.
Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself, I guess.

Mass delusions are a b***h.

 

[columbus]

There's just no such things as reasonable discussion on the internet anymore.

I quoted you.
"Racism isn't a problem in the USA, except for white people."


Tom

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

"The Age of Enlightenment (also known as the Age of Reason or simply the Enlightenment)[1][note 1] was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe during the 17th to 19th century.[3]

The Enlightenment emerged out of a European intellectual and scholarly movement known as Renaissance humanism. Some consider the publication of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica (1687) as the first major enlightenment work. French historians traditionally date the Enlightenment from 1715 to 1789, from the death of Louis XIV of France until the outbreak of the French Revolution that ended the Ancien Regime. Most end it with the beginning of the 19th century. Philosophers and scientists of the period widely circulated their ideas through meetings at scientific academies, Masonic lodges, literary salons, coffeehouses and in printed books, journals, and pamphlets. The ideas of the Enlightenment undermined the authority of the monarchy and the Church and paved the way for the political revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. A variety of 19th-century movements, including liberalism and neoclassicism, trace their intellectual heritage to the Enlightenment.[4]

The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the sovereignty of reason and the evidence of the senses as the primary sources of knowledge and advanced ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state.[5][6] In France, the central doctrines of the Enlightenment philosophers were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The Enlightenment was marked by an emphasis on the scientific method and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy—an attitude captured by Immanuel Kant's essay Sapere aude (Dare to know).[7]

.....

Science played an important role in Enlightenment discourse and thought. Many Enlightenment writers and thinkers had backgrounds in the sciences and associated scientific advancement with the overthrow of religion and traditional authority in favour of the development of free speech and thought. Scientific progress during the Enlightenment included the discovery of carbon dioxide (fixed air) by the chemist Joseph Black, the argument for deep time by the geologist James Hutton and the invention of the condensing steam engine by James Watt.[25] The experiments of Lavoisier were used to create the first modern chemical plants in Paris and the experiments of the Montgolfier Brothers enabled them to launch the first manned flight in a hot-air balloon on 21 November 1783 from the Château de la Muette, near the Bois de Boulogne.[26]"

Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia

Why didn't you quote any of the information under the "Religion" heading?

Because it proves that what I said was true?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I quoted you.
"Racism isn't a problem in the USA, except for white people."


Tom

But you said in response, 'Well, that kinda settles that."

My sharing my opinion on racial tensions in the U.S. does not "settle" anything.

I was not making an authoritative statement. I was just sharing my opinion.

I will claim again that you are being unreasonable.

 

[columbus]

My sharing my opinion on racial tensions in the U.S. does not "settle" anything.

Oh yes it does.

It settles my opinion about you and your religion.
Immoral. Flat out immoral.

Just my opinion.
Tom

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Oh yes it does.

It settles my opinion about you and your religion.
Immoral. Flat out immoral.

Just my opinion.
Tom

Why does my opinion on racial tensions in the U.S. "settle" your opinion about my religion?

You can think what you want about me, but what I said has nothing to do with the doctrine and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Why do you assume that all Latter-day Saints would agree with me about the racial tensions in the U.S.?

They don't. We don't all agree on everything. We do not share a "hive mind". There is no "LDS Script" that every member needs to follow.

Why do you keep making such hasty, inconsistent and irresponsible judgments?

You are free to do that, but you can't blame me for disagreeing with you and pointing when you are being hasty, inconsistent and irresponsible.

Just like I cannot blame you for disagreeing with me and pointing out when I am being hasty, inconsistent or irresponsible.

However, you only seem to be able to point out "flaws" in my arguments after either -

- lying by making them up (claiming that I compared same-sex attraction to an attraction to children - never happened) or,

- by making completely irrational and nonsensical arguments (claiming that me sharing my opinion is "similar" to raping children - it isn't).

So, I appreciate you sharing your opinion, but your behavior causes me to place no value in it.

I will now reiterate my position on racial tensions in the U.S. -

The only people in the U.S. who are systematically being denied opportunities or privileges due to their race are white people.

The same could be said about men. They are also being systematically oppressed for being men.

Thanks for your time.

 

[columbus]

Why does my opinion on racial tensions in the U.S. "settle" your opinion about my religion?

Not your religion.
You and your moral code.
Tom

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Not your religion.

Yes my religion. You claimed that my opinion about racial tension in the U.S. somehow (magically) made my religion immoral.

You said in post #486,

"It settles my opinion about you and your religion.
Immoral. Flat out immoral."

C'mon bro. When you claimed that me sharing my opinion was "similar" to raping children - it was stupid - but at least you stood by it.

**mod edit**

You and your moral code.

At least my moral code includes honesty. I can't say that for yours.

Anyways, before my sides split all the way up from laughing, why don't you explain to me and all the kids at home what you believe my "moral code" to be?

You know so very little about me, so I'm wondering what imaginary BS you'll pull out of your rear-end to answer that question.

I mean, you did it before when you claimed that I compared pedophilia to homosexuality when I never did, so I'm excited to see what you'll come up with this time.

I'll only need the edge of my seat.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

But those morals pre-existed the Bible, in much the same way slavery did, so surely the same logic applies if you believe it's wrong to blame slavery on the Bible, you also cannot claim that said enlightenment rationality is inspired by the Bible either.

I cannot agree with this determination.

Let's say, my argument's sake, that the Bible never existed - would slavery still exist? Would the Enlightenment had happened the way it happened?

The Bible is not the source of morality - God is - but it was the tool that had been used to preserve the morals and rationales that helped shape the Enlightenment.

The Bible is a collection of philosophies and ideas, and enlightenment thinkers drew from it in the same way that the Bible drew from earlier philosophies. Each step of the process is kind of like editing - cutting out the parts deemed to no longer be moral, and keeping the parts that are.

I don't agree with this assessment, but if we follow the logic that that which "pre-dates" should take all the credit, then all credit should go to God.

So, it was God that led to the Enlightenment.

I'm not sure I've met anybody, on these forums or elsewhere, who blames Christianity for ALL the world's problems, nor refuses to acknowledge ANY good generated by Christianity. I'm certain such people exist, though, and I would stand by you in disagreeing with them on both points.

Cool. I believe that I have met some these people on this site.

At least, that is the impression they have made on me.

But by the same logic, the claim isn't that the Bible CREATED the institution of slavery, so much as it provided justification for slave owners that can be considered to have perpetuated the slave trade.

Do you understand?

I understand and agree, but members on this thread have blamed the Bible for slavery in the U.S.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

There was no lie in it. You do exclude non-married people from the highest degrees of exaltation in your theology. I'm aware of your theology. I'm also aware that Mormons usually obfuscate or lie about the weirder aspects of your religion (of which there are many), so I don't expect you to be truthful on this matter. You're like Scientologists. But what do you expect from a religion founded by a conman (another thing in common with Scientology)?

I know I already addressed this, but I thought it expedient to provide proof of my claim.

You have claimed that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints excludes non-married people from the highest degrees of exaltation and I told you that you were wrong.

In Doctrine and Covenants 137 the Prophet Joseph Smith was allowed to see the Celestial Kingdom of God, which is the highest degree of glory and exaltation.

He saw that his older brother, who had died as a young unbaptized/unmarried man years before the Restoration, was present in that Kingdom.

"The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.

I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire;

Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.

I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold.

I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins." (Doctrine and Covenants 137:1-6)

Now, before you start making more false claims, Latter-day Saints believe that God the Father and His Son dwell in the highest Kingdom of glory and exaltation.

We also believe that both Adam and Abraham have inherited the absolute highest degree of glory and exaltation and dwell with both the Father and the Son.

I just wanted to point that out so you could not falsely claim that there was some higher degree of glory and exaltation that I was not mentioning that the Prophet's brother Alvin was being denied entrance to.

So, if we believe that marriage is necessary for someone to inherit that kingdom, how could Alvin, who left this world without being baptized or married, be there?

The Lord explained to the Prophet,

"Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven." (Doctrine and Covenants 137:7-10)

This revelation does not just confirm that those who die in innocence or ignorance are able to still achieve the highest degree of glory and exaltation, but it also confirms that the Lord judges us according to our works and the desires of our hearts.

It is not marriage that grants people entrance into the highest and most glorious of Kingdoms, but our works (what we do) and the desires of our hearts.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I know I already addressed this, but I thought it expedient to provide proof of my claim.

You have claimed that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints excludes non-married people from the highest degrees of exaltation and I told you that you were wrong.

In Doctrine and Covenants 137 the Prophet Joseph Smith was allowed to see the Celestial Kingdom of God, which is the highest degree of glory and exaltation.

He saw that his older brother, who had died as a young unbaptized/unmarried man years before the Restoration, was present in that Kingdom.

"The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.

I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire;

Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.

I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold.

I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins." (Doctrine and Covenants 137:1-6)

Now, before you start making more false claims, Latter-day Saints believe that God the Father and His Son dwell in the highest Kingdom of glory and exaltation.

We also believe that both Adam and Abraham have inherited the absolute highest degree of glory and exaltation and dwell with both the Father and the Son.

I just wanted to point that out so you could not falsely claim that there was some higher degree of glory and exaltation that I was not mentioning that the Prophet's brother Alvin was being denied entrance to.

So, if we believe that marriage is necessary for someone to inherit that kingdom, how could Alvin, who left this world without being baptized or married, be there?

The Lord explained to the Prophet,

"Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven." (Doctrine and Covenants 137:7-10)

This revelation does not just confirm that those who die in innocence or ignorance are able to still achieve the highest degree of glory and exaltation, but it also confirms that the Lord judges us according to our works and the desires of our hearts.

It is not marriage that grants people entrance into the highest and most glorious of Kingdoms, but our works (what we do) and the desires of our hearts.

I'm referring to humans becoming gods in Mormon theology.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I'm referring to humans becoming gods in Mormon theology.

I understand where your confusion is coming from. You are referring to what was revealed about the sealing power in Doctrine and Covenants 132.

Before I get into that I want you to know that we believe that Adam and Abraham dwell with God the Father, the Son and Alvin, the Prophet's brother, in the highest Kingdom of glory and exaltation, and we believe that they have already received their exaltation and are considered to be "gods".

Why is Alvin, who left this world unbaptized and unmarried, dwelling with God the Father, the Son, Adam and Abraham - who we believe are "gods" - if he himself is not also considered a "god'?

To answer this question I want you to think about what we do in Temples. Do you know what we do in Temples?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I understand where your confusion is coming from. You are referring to what was revealed about the sealing power in Doctrine and Covenants 132.

Before I get into that I want you to know that we believe that Adam and Abraham dwell with God the Father, the Son and Alvin, the Prophet's brother, in the highest Kingdom of glory and exaltation, and we believe that they have already received their exaltation and are considered to be "gods".

Why is Alvin, who left this world unbaptized and unmarried, dwelling with God the Father, the Son, Adam and Abraham - who we believe are "gods" - if he himself is not also considered a "god'?

To answer this question I want you to think about what we do in Temples. Do you know what we do in Temples?

I don't really care enough about this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I never made such an attempt. I never compared homosexuals to pedophiles.

Yes, you did:

To me, it sounds like you were born with the weakness of same-sex attraction and you decided to indulge that weakness which led to homosexual behavior.

Now, what if we rewrote what you said above to describe having an attraction to children? Or a blood relative? Or to animals? Or whatever?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I don't really care enough about this.

Ok.

Then next time you think to share the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with others, remember that you don't know what you are talking about because you did not care to know.

That way you can avoid looking stupid.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Yes, you did:

Wow. What blatant dishonesty.

You accurately quoted those two sentence from post #326, but you intentionally failed to include the very next line that proves that I did not compare pedophilia to homosexuality.

Let's look at the two sentences you quoted along with the third sentence,

"To me, it sounds like you were born with the weakness of same-sex attraction and you decided to indulge that weakness which led to homosexual behavior.

Now, what if we rewrote what you said above to describe having an attraction to children? Or a blood relative? Or to animals? Or whatever?

Before you flip your lid, I'm not trying to say that all of these attractions are exactly the same, but depending on who you ask people will draw a line somewhere as to what is or is not appropriate sexual behavior."

I made it implicitly clear that I was not comparing any of these attractions.

Everyone that has been saying I compared pedophilia to homosexuality has been incredibly dishonest, but they will never admit it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ok.

Then next time you think to share the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with others, remember that you don't know what you are talking about because you did not care to know.

That way you can avoid looking stupid.

Nice try at misrepresenting what I said. I just don't care enough to discuss it with you because I don't like you. Clear enough for you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow. What blatant dishonesty.

You accurately quoted those two sentence from post #326, but you intentionally failed to include the very next line that proves that I did not compare pedophilia to homosexuality.

Let's look at the two sentences you quoted along with the third sentence,

"To me, it sounds like you were born with the weakness of same-sex attraction and you decided to indulge that weakness which led to homosexual behavior.

Now, what if we rewrote what you said above to describe having an attraction to children? Or a blood relative? Or to animals? Or whatever?

Before you flip your lid, I'm not trying to say that all of these attractions are exactly the same, but depending on who you ask people will draw a line somewhere as to what is or is not appropriate sexual behavior."

I made it implicitly clear that I was not comparing any of these attractions.

Everyone that has been saying I compared pedophilia to homosexuality has been incredibly dishonest, but they will never admit it.

I don't think you understand the concept of comparing. Your last line was a difference. When one compares two different things one will often say both how they are alike and how they are different.

Like it or not we can all see the comparison.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Nice try at misrepresenting what I said. I just don't care enough to discuss it with you because I don't like you. Clear enough for you?

All you said was, "I don't really care enough about this."

You never claimed it had anything to do with you not liking me.

I could not misrepresent what you said because you failed to share key information. That's not on me.

I do think it is funny that you are claiming that I misrepresented what you said when you never mentioned your dislike for me before.

I also find it hypocritical of you to claim that I misrepresented what you said, when you and others have been doing that to me this entire time.

The key different between you and I is that I claimed explicitly that I was not comparing pedophilia to homosexuality - while you never mentioned you disliked me or that your dislike was your reason to not care about this discussion anymore.

My supposed "misrepresentation" of what you said was based on you failing to mention a key fact while your misrepresentation of what I said was based on you ignoring a key fact I had mentioned.

Anyways - Why don't you like me?

Because we disagree?

Or because I gave you completely reasonable advice to not make claims about subjects you don't know enough about?