God's Attitude Toward Homosexuality

[Prestor John]

First of all, it was in part made in jest.

The part not in jest comes down to a literal reading of your remark "Today we keep the Sabbath to remember that He died for us and that He rose again."

Because remembering something, a wholly mental activity, which in this case was something you said was the reason "we keep the Sabbath," does not include any physical activity, such as holding a parade, putting on a stage show, OR "partaking of the emblems of His sacrifice ."

Partaking of His sacrifice, a physical activity, is something you added, and is not implied in your "remembering something." So, adding another element into keeping the Sabbath is moving the goal posts: "In keeping the Sabbath we remember that He died for us and that He rose again, and we partake of the emblems of His sacrifice."

.​

I can see how you got there due to my error.

I sometimes say things assuming that others will recognize the scriptural references.

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19)

According to the LDS Church partaking of the emblems of His sacrifice and remembering Him are literally the same thing.

 

[Prestor John]

That is hardly a "weakness". This is more nonsense based upon a religion of self hatred and hatred of others.

So, you believe that everyone is perfect?

 

[Prestor John]

Yep, never read that. But since it is widely known to be a fraudulent piece of work why would I need to read it?

Is everything you claim to "know" second-hand?

You haven't come to learn and understand anything for yourself?

You let other people do the work and then repeat what they say and then claim you know something?

Sad and lazy.

And no, my understanding of the Bible does not come from "anti-religion sources".

Considering your history of not reading the books you claim to know so much about, we all know that you most likely haven't read the Bible either.

From what source do you claim second-hand knowledge of the Bible?

And you are projecting again. Your belief in myths and lies forces you to look ignorant and foolish.

Even if they are "myths and lies" at least I know them.

You come on here claiming you know something about these things, yet you know nothing about them.

Whether or not these things are true is irrelevant to the fact that you consistently prove that you don't know what you are talking about.

Most Christians cannot afford to understand the Bible. Understanding it refutes it.

You don't even know what the Bible is.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The bible only talk about what Christians should and should not do. If a non Christian person chooses to be homosexual God does not say anything because that person does not follow his words.
But also remember if a person of Christian faith is homosexual, they can be so if they choose not to live in what the bible describe as sin. meaning you can be homosexual and get in to paradise as long you do not act on the homosexual act.
In my understanding one can be a Christian and follow Gods command as long as one do not sin.

 

[loganonekenobi]

This thread looks like it is nearly at an end so I will do what I consider a closing statement. I have researched the subject in my spare time and found that where ever the Bible's influence goes so to does the hatred of the LGBT community.
From what can be seen it is simply bigotry disguised within an appeal to authority.
An authority that cant even be proven to exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you believe that everyone is perfect?

Why do you jump to such illogical conclusions so often?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is everything you claim to "know" second-hand?

You haven't come to learn and understand anything for yourself?

You let other people do the work and then repeat what they say and then claim you know something?

Sad and lazy.

Hardly. One does not have to read every piece of garbage out there to know that it is garbage. And again, you ask a foolish question. Perhaps if you tried to learn you would understand how we know that so many of your beliefs are false.

Considering your history of not reading the books you claim to know so much about, we all know that you most likely haven't read the Bible either.

Now please, when it comes to ignorance you are far more of a king that I am. Just because you believe in myths and an evil God is no reason to assume that others do the same. From now on I will simply edit out all dishonest questions from you.

Even if they are "myths and lies" at least I know them.

No, that is not true. If you knew them you would know why they are myths.

You come on here claiming you know something about these things, yet you know nothing about them.

More false claims. Tsk, tsk, the Ninth Commandment means nothing to you.

Whether or not these things are true is irrelevant to the fact that you consistently prove that you don't know what you are talking about.

You don't even know what the Bible is.

Why do you keep making such obviously false claims? I know what the Bible is, and I appear to understand it much better than you ever will. You can't afford to allow yourself to understand it since even you would know that it was false if you did that. The Bible is simply the attempts of a relatively ignorant tribe to explain the world that they live in. And it is hardly a slur to call those people ignorant. A thousand years from now we will be ignorant in comparison to the people of that time.

All Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe and follow That is why the choice to attack gays based upon the Bible is immoral.

 

[Prestor John]

You like to make stories it seems.

Not at all. I simply mentioned facts about the case that were not included in the link you provided.

The client claimed that Zarda touched her inappropriately and that was what made her feel uncomfortable.

“The client also accused him on inappropriately touching her during the skydive”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarda_v._Altitude_Express,_Inc.

“the student had also accused him of inappropriately touching her during their skydive”

Plaintiff at center of landmark gay-rights case never got to witness his victory

The NBC news article revealed that Zarda customarily informed his female clients about his sexual orientation, in order to squash any awkwardness about them being strapped closely together.

That habit just seemed to backfire on him in this instance and I feel that he was being inappropriate every time he mentioned it to his female clients.

When it came down to the court hearings i'm pretty sure the professionals looks at all of the details. If they had found inappropriate activity the case would have failed.

There was no way to prove or disprove the claim of inappropriate touching.

It is a clear case of “He Said, She Said.”

Your [assessment] is unlikely.

Your assessment is based on nothing but your opinion.

It is a fact that the female client made a claim of inappropriate touching.

Whether or not it happened is unprovable, but the claim remains a fact of the case.

THis man was not proselytising

I never claimed that he was.

I claimed that his sharing of his sexual orientation was inappropriate.

You would have no fear if someone asked you what church you attended or if you and your spouse [were] [planning] on going to a vacation soon.

Are you suggesting that this female client asked Zarda about his sexual orientation?

I have read nothing to that effect.

Your [comparison] is false to say the least.

It may not be perfect, but it is hardly false.

Discussing your political affiliation, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and/or anything else considered controversial with a client (when not solicited) is unprofessional and inappropriate.

I don’t know if it is a fireable offense, but a claim to inappropriate touching certainly is.

What if the instructor had been a heterosexual male? Would you be as outraged?

No the LDS instead like to come to my door at 8 am on sunday.

I know for a fact that this is a lie because all LDS missionaries are required to study from 8 a.m. - 10 a.m. every single day.

No missionary proselytes before 10 a.m., especially on a Sunday when they would gather with other LDS members each week for worship services.

The only times they can get out of study is if they need to attend early Church meetings on Sunday, an early session of the Temple or if they are hospitalized.

Why do you feel the need to lie about the missionary efforts of the LDS Church?

I have yet to see a gay pride group come to my door to tell me to be gay or suffer and eternal punishment.

You don’t seem to know much about the teachings of the LDS Church.

Yes there would have been huge media [attention]. I see it every day on the youtube channels and news.

I have yet to see daily media coverage of the LDS Church anywhere.

Remember the guy that tried to convert the natives on an Indian island? I can tell you that he is now famous. Dead but famous.

I do not know anything about this. Would you mind enlightening me?

The real reason they must draw attention is to combat the bigotry. The best way to fight it is to expose it first.

I believe that everyone should be more objective about cases like these.

I do not instantly assume bigotry when something unfortunate happens to a member of a minority group.

If the instructor had been a heterosexual male, you would still consider this a case of bigotry?

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

As would God, but behavior is a choice.

God does not judge anyone for having an inappropriate attraction. We all have various weaknesses in our flesh that make us prone to commit one sin or another.

He does, however, judge us if we succumb to the weakness and act on our inappropriate desires.

I would argue that someone who has an inappropriate attraction to children is not a pedophile unless he acts on that attraction and engages in inappropriate sexual behavior with children.

I make the same argument for those who suffer with a same-sex attraction. They are not guilty of committing the sin of homosexuality until they actually engage in sexual behavior with a member of the same-sex.

I totally agree with you on this one but that's not what we are seeing in many of the state governments in our country. They are emphatically pushing to make the christian religion favored in this country over all other religions and ideas.

As long as there are no laws actively enforcing the doctrines of any religion, it’s okay for laws and policies to reflect ideals a certain religion may hold.

If you do not like how your State is operating you can elect new representatives or run for office yourself.

In this sense we are all equal under the Law.

 

[Prestor John]

Awesome. Sounds like a great idea. You need more specific instances? well here I'll give you one and if you can still make a story about how this woman [somehow] deserved what she got I'll be impressed by your imagination and at the same time saddened by your lack of empathy. This sort of thing happens and it has nothing to do with anything other than bigotry.

Even though I have mixed feelings about this case, I would still claim that she was not fired simply for being a homosexual and I see no evidence of bigotry.

There is a lot of crucial information about this case that the link you provided does not mention:

• Beall began with a one year limited teaching contract, which was renewed twice, and was assigned to teach Law and Society, Psychology and American Government. During the three years she was teaching Beall was “open and forthcoming about her sexual orientation and often attended school functions with her life partner”

​

If she was fired due to bigotry towards homosexuals, why did it take three years and how did she get the job in the first place?

• Shortly after the third renewal of her teaching contract in 2003 Beall was approved to start a unit on “Civil Rights/Civil Liberties in her Government class” which would cover several "controversial topics”, but during a presentation concerning the "National Day of Silence," Beall observed the ritual by remaining silent during the presentation.

​

The principal who approved the unit was later informed about this presentation and when he saw it for himself he claimed that it was “shaky ground” and likened it to “teaching religion” and that he would need to inform the Assistant Superintendent in charge of curriculum.

It is one thing to teach your students about civil rights and liberties, but it is a whole other thing to participate in a ritual or political action in front of/with your students.

You claim that it would be different for me and my LDS faith? Would you consider it appropriate for me to participate in a ritual, such as a prayer, in front of/with my students?

What if a black teacher knelt in front of his/her class during the Pledge of Allegiance? Can a teacher burn an American flag as a class activity? Can they involve their students in other forms of social or political activism?

To her credit, Beall claimed that she would discontinue the practice, however the spotlight was now upon her and it revealed other troubling things.

• Shortly after the Principal informed the Assistant Superintendent the Superintendent reviewed Beall’s personnel file and it was determined that she held a Political Science Certificate, which authorized her to teach courses in Government and Politics, but it didn’t include any certification for Psychology.
  

​

This oversight would ultimately lead to errors in the EMIS, a statewide data collection system for Ohio's primary and secondary education, and could lead to a loss of funding for the School District.

The Superintendent concluded that Beall could be “recommended for non-renewal due to her limited Certificate” and he also noted that “the situation is tainted by the fact that [Plaintiff] presented a class on gay rights . . . and would not talk in class because all gay persons were supposedly keeping quiet. . . .”

The information on the case can be viewed here: Beall v. London City School District Board of Education, Case No. 2:04-cv-290. | Casetext

I fail to see Beall getting fired simply “for being gay” as your misleading link declared.

As to my mixed feelings, I feel that her stellar evaluations should have pulled more weight with the Board of Education’s vote to fire her. I mean, I don’t agree with her actions, but mistakes happen and she should have received some form of disciplinary action, not necessarily being fired.

The clincher, for me, was her limited certification. However, shouldn’t the school be blamed for assigning her to that class then? Was the only solution to fire her? Was there anything else that could have been done?

Perhaps replacing her with someone more qualified was simpler and less costly? I’m not sure, but what I am sure about is that the Board’s decision was not based solely on the fact that she was a homosexual.

I fail to see bigotry here. I have not imaged these many facts not mentioned in the link you provided. I don’t believe a reasonable person would claim that I lack empathy when citing these facts.

If this same thing had happened to me because I instigated a prayer in front of my class you would be applauding, so who here lacks empathy?​

 

[Prestor John]

Where do we draw the line of "inappropriate love"?

There should be no sexual relations between anyone unless they are a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

That's easy. We have multiple studies and examples of harm that is caused by Pedophilia and Bestiality. We do not have to appeal to an imaginary father figure to understand this.

Those studies can be challenged by other “studies”.

Are you claiming that premarital sex leads to zero problems in society?

So the question is... does marriage equality cause harm to a society?

First, you would need to define both “marriage” and “equality”.

A Girl Scout going door-to-door selling cookies is not “equal” to an old man doing the same. Even if he is wearing a Girl Scout uniform, he is not a Girl Scout.

A guy shacking up with a woman for a year does not make him her husband. “Common law” be damned.

Any union between same-sex partners is not a “marriage” because marriage is only between a man and a woman. It is that simple.

I would argue that redefining what marriage is and claiming that something is equal when it is not does do harm to society because it distorts/changes/effects the most essential unit of society - the family.

I’d like to share with you a proclamation made by the LDS Church concerning the family:

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

The religious would have you believe that they would cause the downfall of the world. However, the Netherlands was the first country to allow same sex marriage and they are doing fine. If one looks at the happiness index, violent crimes, and people in prison per capita as compared to the US or any other highly religious country(culturally or legally) we see quite the opposite is true.

I haven’t really made this argument, but I would say to this, “Give it time.”

With the decline in native birth rates and the massive boom to immigration, I don’t think the Netherlands has a lot of time. It will cease to exist.

It is my opinion that mortal life is supposed to be a struggle. It is something we work with and against in order to become stronger.

If you find yourself in a place that declares, “All is well!” and there are no issues being worked out, it is a pride that leads to weakness and it will soon fail.

I'm not saying that gay marriage causes a better society but I am saying it doesn't destroy one as the religious would have you believe.

Again, give it time, but I am more concerned about the damage done to the individuals involved.

Homosexuality is sinful behavior that harms the human soul and needs to be repented of.

Participating in a life-long contract to never repent of your sexual sins will destroy a person spiritually and that will eventually affect society over time.

Your opinion on sexuality has one flaw that I noted. You said "one man and woman" I do believe the founder of the LDS would have said "one man and his women". Marriage values have changed quite a bit since the Bible was written.

Both the Bible and Joseph Smith, the recognized founder of the LDS religion (because we believe Christ is the founder), teach that the default to marriage is between one man and one woman. That is the standard.

There have been men called to marry more than one woman, but these men received this commandment by revelation.

Only when God commands it can a man be authorized to marry more than one woman.

Joseph Smith did not receive the command to marry multiple women lightly. He resisted it for years before he claims that the Lord threatened to replace him with someone who would do as commanded.

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

Maybe you are thinking of the Quran and Islam, but I don’t see the Bible or other scriptures calling for the “demonization” of anyone.

Of course you wouldn't see that religion can do harm.

I did not make this claim. Why are you lying again?

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

Where in the Bible or other book of scripture were any of these things sanctioned?

According to the “Encyclopedia of Wars”, if you exclude Islam, religion accounts for only 3.23% of all wars.

Socialism is not part of this conversation but you do seem to imply that conservatism is okay with discrimination against certain groups.

I brought up Socialism to demonstrate that secularism has done more harm to the world than religion.

When did I say that it was okay to discriminate against anyone? Are you trying to put words into my mouth again?

Just because I don’t assume discrimination or bigotry the very moment I hear about something unfortunate happening to someone from a minority group does not mean I advocate it either.

I dont care what you believe.

This is apparent from the fact that you keep making baseless and false claims about me and my beliefs.

You are free to believe as you chose. The problem arises when these beliefs start forming laws in the place of sound evidence, reason, and empathy.

Religious ideals espoused in Christianity has created the best system of government in the world.

Secularism has slaughters hundreds of millions of people.

These forums probably would not exist if not for this problem. I for one would not attack any one's faith IF their faith guided only there own lives.

Why is it ok for you to share/push your beliefs on others, but not for me?​

 

[Prestor John]

Why do you jump to such illogical conclusions so often?

You question the existence of "weakness" and you labelled any attempt to define "weakness" as self-hatred or hatred of others.

Obviously, you believe that no one has any weaknesses and are therefore perfect.

 

[Prestor John]

Hardly. One does not have to read every piece of garbage out there to know that it is garbage. And again, you ask a foolish question. Perhaps if you tried to learn you would understand how we know that so many of your beliefs are false.



Now please, when it comes to ignorance you are far more of a king that I am. Just because you believe in myths and an evil God is no reason to assume that others do the same. From now on I will simply edit out all dishonest questions from you.



No, that is not true. If you knew them you would know why they are myths.



More false claims. Tsk, tsk, the Ninth Commandment means nothing to you.



Why do you keep making such obviously false claims? I know what the Bible is, and I appear to understand it much better than you ever will. You can't afford to allow yourself to understand it since even you would know that it was false if you did that. The Bible is simply the attempts of a relatively ignorant tribe to explain the world that they live in. And it is hardly a slur to call those people ignorant. A thousand years from now we will be ignorant in comparison to the people of that time.

All Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe and follow That is why the choice to attack gays based upon the Bible is immoral.

All you offer is bluster with no substance. You make claim after claim without ever providing any support for your insertions.

The only thing you were right about is that attacking gays based upon the Bible is immoral.

Which is why I don't do it and I encourage others not to as well.

That doesn't make homosexual behavior any less sinful.

 

[Prestor John]

This thread looks like it is nearly at an end so I will do what I consider a closing statement. I have researched the subject in my spare time and found that where ever the Bible's influence goes so to does the hatred of the LGBT community.

Did you know that where there is increased internet access there is increased pornography viewed?

This must mean that the internet is responsible for all sexual sin!

Just because there are people who use a resource to justify their bad behavior does not mean that there is anything wrong with the resource.

From what can be seen it is simply bigotry disguised within an appeal to authority.
An authority that cant even be proven to exist.

Believing that homosexual behavior is sinful is not bigotry.

Believing that marriage is only between a man and a woman is not bigotry.

 

[Spirit of Light]

One of the reason mostly all religions, if not all religions teach homosexuality is a sin or is not a right way of life has to do with the moral aspect of being religious. Good Morality is very important in religions to gain the inner wisdom one gain by doing right action, speach and thoughts.
But if one does not follow any religion or cultivation path, the rules are different. Spiritual life is not for everyone

 

[Subduction Zone]

You question the existence of "weakness" and you labelled any attempt to define "weakness" as self-hatred or hatred of others.

Obviously, you believe that no one has any weaknesses and are therefore perfect.

No, not "obviously". You are using bogus terms. "Weakness" appears to be any act that you personally do not like. That has nothing to do with someone being perfect or not.

We might have to work on your logic skills a bit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All you offer is bluster with no substance. You make claim after claim without ever providing any support for your insertions.

The only thing you were right about is that attacking gays based upon the Bible is immoral.

Which is why I don't do it and I encourage others not to as well.

That doesn't make homosexual behavior any less sinful.

More falsehoods. I am willing to discuss the mythical nature of your beliefs, but I doubt if you will properly debate them. The problem is that you love to Gish Gallop. When you do that all you get is quick corrections. And when I offer to go into depth over any of your claims you tend to run away. Your claim appears to be mere projection again.

 

[Ajarn]

we know what different Religions say, however we dont know that those books are the word of God without proof.

We do know men and woman were created different and opposites sexually and if God exists he created that therefore he wants men with woman one would assume.

again however same sex attraction is beyond a persons control, wether it be a chemical imbalance, a genetic thing whatever it could be said God made t bf at individual Gay as he or she did not.

so we dont know, we again are seeking answers that we cannot know unless a God comes forth and says Gay is bad or Gay is fine with me.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Ajarn. As i read your answer a question comes to me.

Do you agree that Religion is based on belief and inner wisdom and to know for sure is science?
In my practice as a Buddhist i have come to gain wisdom aboutmany different topics. Also the topic in discussion. I can not blame those who chose to live like gay couple, but what i can do is to look at the teaching of Both the bible and the buddhist scripture and say both has rules/guidelines how to live a higher moral life. That is how one can say that based on the texts it is moraly wrong to live out the gay sexuality IF one are a religious person. If one are not religious and does not follow any set of spiritual/moral rules then it does not matter if one act out the homosexual part.

 

[loganonekenobi]

Did you know that where there is increased internet access there is increased pornography viewed?

This must mean that the internet is responsible for all sexual sin!

Just because there are people who use a resource to justify their bad behavior does not mean that there is anything wrong with the resource.

The internet does not have specific laws of conduct nor does it condemn any one group. The Bible is pretty clear on some of its rules (not so clear on others).
Also, with exception of child porn, pornography harms no one in any real way. No one has been killed or beaten near to death because of the rise of porn. Sin is only valid if the god being sinned against really exists.

Believing that homosexual behavior is sinful is not bigotry.

Believing that marriage is only between a man and a woman is not bigotry.

what is bigotry
as defined it is...intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Do you tolerate them? Do you allow them to live their lives as they choose? So far in America intolerance is still legal in 28 of the 50 states. If I believed that interracial marriage was going against the great noodle monster's' plan I would be considered a bigot. If I then attempted to vote on such a bill that would ban interracial marriage then it would be discrimination other wise known as bigotry in action.
I'm calling it out for what I see that it is.

 

[Prestor John]

More falsehoods. I am willing to discuss the mythical nature of your beliefs, but I doubt if you will properly debate them. The problem is that you love to Gish Gallop. When you do that all you get is quick corrections. And when I offer to go into depth over any of your claims you tend to run away. Your claim appears to be mere projection again.

Thanks for proving me right yet again.