Homosexuality in the Bible

[s2a]

Hello again sojourner,

You chose to respond to my commentary of;
In 30+ years of notable observation that your God doesn't do a damn thing about: homeless children; crushing poverty; sustained (and religiously imposed) ignorance and (political/social) oppression, and; preventable disease and starvation.

If a human were indifferent to such needs and concerns, we would deem them indeed cruel and perhaps, evil. I don't expect your God to to anything, because it's always the most ordinary men and women that make the only palpable difference for change (regardless of their faith, or lack thereof). The only "miracle" I've ever witnessed is in actually getting people to give a damn about their fellow humankind in need.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the last 5 paragraphs of your post, I don't necessarily agree with how you got there. Refer to the paragraphs I've highlighted in blue. God does work in in the world. God works through the faithful. We are God's hands and feet in the world. And, usually, the most common of us do the most. My denomination (which is small) gave hundreds of thousands of dollars and hours and hours of labor to relief efforts following Katrina. We gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to relief efforts in Sri Lanka following the tsunami. We give hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to world relief and to fight racism and sexism. Habitat for Humanity is largely funded and empowered by religious organizations. Looka t all the good work done by Mother Teresa and her sisters. And these are just a few examples of the millions of dollars and hours of manpower given to world relief on behalf of the Church, who works in God's Name.

God does care, and God uses God's people to do the work of caring, whether they realize they're being used, or not. If there's caring in the world, it's because of the love of God for God's people, which inspires humanity to do the same.

Yes, yes, i know. I've heard it before. [Your} God manifests His will through His faithful and loyal adherents. It's a lovely sentiment, and even touching to ponder, as long as you don't think about it too hard.

My morning paper is delivered daily at the end of my driveway, about 60 yards from my front door. I could get off my semi-wide and comfortable posterior, and effort the daily retrieval ritual for myself, but hey - I've got a loyal and eager-to-please dog that will perform that task for me...and will deliver my daily read with a canine smile of satisfaction and a wagging tail to boot. Voila! I have benignly gifted my dog with both a reason and a purpose in serving my wishes. Am I not worthy of praise? Would I not be more worthy of canine praise if I made the dog jump through hoops of fire along a three-mile course whilst retrieving my newspaper? How about 10 miles? How about evading set bear traps and armed snipers in the process? How contrived/difficult must I make this (rather mundane) task as an approving litmus test of '''true" loyalty and devotion (to me)? What Would [my dog named] Job Do?

Is the purpose of the totality of human suffering, poverty, disease and hopeless misery to be the only crucible left in service to test both piety and fealty to an alleged omniscient and "loving" deity? Must human existence be so injudicious and randomly cruel as to make the prospects of a promissory (and "perfect") after-life more appealing? Just who made the rules here? Who[m] is [by divine right and providence] the self-appointed judge, jury, and executioner?

The OT is replete with example of direct divine interventions [and to be fair, divinely ordained righteous executions/exterminations] that could be construed as "miraculous" - or at the very least to be in "service" to "God's Will". The NT has it's own incongruities to answer for....but that's another matter.

Tell you what. For every three concrete distinctions you can provide/illustrate, that humanitarian efforts "in the name of God" are distinctly different from otherwise conscience-driven motivations/results evinced/realized by "unbelievers", I'll lend you three times as many reasons/rationales why atheistic/un-spiritual rationales are utterly independent of any expectant hopes/promises in service to/of/for any ultimate divine reward or validation.

You invoke the "divine" motivations of Mother Teresa?

Mom dared question the existence of her God, when she opined in her personal writings/journal:

"...my faith, my hope and my love are overflowing and that my intimacy with God and union with his will fill my heart. If only they knew . . ."

"...I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist."

"The real Mother Teresa was one who for one year had visions and who for the next 50 had doubts - up until her death"
- The Messeggero, Rome's daily newspaper

in a press conference, Momma T said:
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

Praise god...

Ya know, as an irreligious apostate (such as myself), that does willingly choose to devote (albeit sparing) time and effort to children and mothers (through no fault of their own) that are homeless, hungry, and [virtually] helpless (but not entirely hopeless), I have never once thought of the plight of these innocents as some sort of "test" or "lesson" of humility - for those that by choice or fortuitous circumstance - as somehow require to earn or develop admission or acceptance into some divinely-promised Disneyland.

[Do more religious organizations effort aid to the afflicted moreso than unaffiliated efforts/motivations of any "irreligious/non-sectarian" group? Yes, but are their motivations the same, and which group retains an expectation/promise of reward for "good works"?]

My conscience demands more than blithe indifference to the plight and unmitigated suffering of others. You might care to claim that your God is working His Will through me, with neither my consent, nor my pronounced pious fidelity [to Him - working in the ascribed "mysterious ways" that He does]. I could not "disprove" such an assumptive claim. But I dare say that you could offer no compelling evidence (beyond faith) that my conscience is simply my own to bear and answer for (by cognizant choice), and that any personalized/individualized conscience remains the only available evidence that your god's purposed "best intentions" are attributable as pious servitude to His Will. The only thing necessary to accept that personal conscience is (otherwise a) manifestation/execution of God's Plan, Purpose, and Will, is a belief that it is so.

Ironic, is it not, that when a believer claims to have been "called" by God to a particular duty or service (as preacher, patrician, or politician) - (practically) no one assails their motives? But when an adherent claims to converse with their god as defense of their untoward/illegal actions, most consider such claims as veritably insane, as if the god of the Bible never asked any of His adherents to slaughter heretics in His name...

Why is it then, that it's socially acceptable (and deemed "sane") to believe in an alleged benevolent invisible deity that ascribes an individualized/personalized purpose and reason (through revelation) for existence, but it's deemed societally "insane" (or legally irrelevant) to personally assert in defense that "God told me to do it"? Could it be that no one can suitably or satisfactorily differentiate between motivations of personal conscience and the amorphous claims of what may or may not constitute (or concomitantly serve) "God's Will"?

 

[shema]

Thats kind of silly, the bible is talking about a spiritual path, symbollicaly, and no matter how many people in the world become christian, doing the right thing is always harder to do than the wrong thing, that will always be a fact no matter who does what. And just because there are a lot of christians in the world, this doesn't mean that there all doing the right thing, just because they say their christians does not mean they truly understand and accept God/Jesus/the trinity in their heart. And you can be good christian and do a few right things, but at the same time do alot of wrong things like believing---



A person might feel that the moral thing to do is to disown their homosexual child and they might lie in bed and never lose any sleep on it, But just because a HUMAN FEEELS something is right doesn’t mean that it is the right thing to do by GOD< YOU KNOW THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE? Christian people- no matter how much you want to be nice, and crave to be politacally correct no lie you say to yourself is EVER GOING TO BE RIGHT JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TOO. JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE BEING GAY IS NOT OKAY DOESN"T MEAN YOUR A BIGOT, its not like normal christian people want to kill gays, theres always a few stray psychos in every group of people.
YOU CAN"T PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT FROM THE BIBLE- BEING GAY IS WRONG AND UNNATURAL AND THE BIBLE CLEARLY STATES THAT- no matter how much unbeleivers want to pick it apart. Also does the bible really have to tell us so much? Does the bibble have to hammer it into our heads? Does the bible actually have to state in highlighted letters"DO NOT engage in anal sex or have sex with other men or women?" in big words, it doesn't have to tell us that murdering is bad that much, atheists aren't trying to pick that part of the bible apart! Let me tell you,the bible doesn't have to tell me that eating a turd sandwich is bad for me i pretty much already knew, And the % of christianity the last time i checked is more like3/4 % of the worlds population.

"Well, being a deciple of Christ I agree with you 100% especially about
bible is both symbolic and literal, it doesn't vary on topics as much as you would like it to, its just misunderstood, ALOT by simple people who try to placate their own conscience by grasping for straws.
, but there are people on this forum, who just don't believe in God. So how do we explain His ways to the world other than using thier logic?

 

[sojourner]

Hello again sojourner,

You chose to respond to my commentary of;
In 30+ years of notable observation that your God doesn't do a damn thing about: homeless children; crushing poverty; sustained (and religiously imposed) ignorance and (political/social) oppression, and; preventable disease and starvation.

If a human were indifferent to such needs and concerns, we would deem them indeed cruel and perhaps, evil. I don't expect your God to to anything, because it's always the most ordinary men and women that make the only palpable difference for change (regardless of their faith, or lack thereof). The only "miracle" I've ever witnessed is in actually getting people to give a damn about their fellow humankind in need.



Yes, yes, i know. I've heard it before. [Your} God manifests His will through His faithful and loyal adherents. It's a lovely sentiment, and even touching to ponder, as long as you don't think about it too hard.

My morning paper is delivered daily at the end of my driveway, about 60 yards from my front door. I could get off my semi-wide and comfortable posterior, and effort the daily retrieval ritual for myself, but hey - I've got a loyal and eager-to-please dog that will perform that task for me...and will deliver my daily read with a canine smile of satisfaction and a wagging tail to boot. Voila! I have benignly gifted my dog with both a reason and a purpose in serving my wishes. Am I not worthy of praise? Would I not be more worthy of canine praise if I made the dog jump through hoops of fire along a three-mile course whilst retrieving my newspaper? How about 10 miles? How about evading set bear traps and armed snipers in the process? How contrived/difficult must I make this (rather mundane) task as an approving litmus test of '''true" loyalty and devotion (to me)? What Would [my dog named] Job Do?

Is the purpose of the totality of human suffering, poverty, disease and hopeless misery to be the only crucible left in service to test both piety and fealty to an alleged omniscient and "loving" deity? Must human existence be so injudicious and randomly cruel as to make the prospects of a promissory (and "perfect") after-life more appealing? Just who made the rules here? Who[m] is [by divine right and providence] the self-appointed judge, jury, and executioner?

The OT is replete with example of direct divine interventions [and to be fair, divinely ordained righteous executions/exterminations] that could be construed as "miraculous" - or at the very least to be in "service" to "God's Will". The NT has it's own incongruities to answer for....but that's another matter.

Tell you what. For every three concrete distinctions you can provide/illustrate, that humanitarian efforts "in the name of God" are distinctly different from otherwise conscience-driven motivations/results evinced/realized by "unbelievers", I'll lend you three times as many reasons/rationales why atheistic/un-spiritual rationales are utterly independent of any expectant hopes/promises in service to/of/for any ultimate divine reward or validation.

You invoke the "divine" motivations of Mother Teresa?

Mom dared question the existence of her God, when she opined in her personal writings/journal:

"...my faith, my hope and my love are overflowing and that my intimacy with God and union with his will fill my heart. If only they knew . . ."

"...I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist."

"The real Mother Teresa was one who for one year had visions and who for the next 50 had doubts - up until her death"
- The Messeggero, Rome's daily newspaper

in a press conference, Momma T said:
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

Praise god...

Ya know, as an irreligious apostate (such as myself), that does willingly choose to devote (albeit sparing) time and effort to children and mothers (through no fault of their own) that are homeless, hungry, and [virtually] helpless (but not entirely hopeless), I have never once thought of the plight of these innocents as some sort of "test" or "lesson" of humility - for those that by choice or fortuitous circumstance - as somehow require to earn or develop admission or acceptance into some divinely-promised Disneyland.

[Do more religious organizations effort aid to the afflicted moreso than unaffiliated efforts/motivations of any "irreligious/non-sectarian" group? Yes, but are their motivations the same, and which group retains an expectation/promise of reward for "good works"?]

My conscience demands more than blithe indifference to the plight and unmitigated suffering of others. You might care to claim that your God is working His Will through me, with neither my consent, nor my pronounced pious fidelity [to Him - working in the ascribed "mysterious ways" that He does]. I could not "disprove" such an assumptive claim. But I dare say that you could offer no compelling evidence (beyond faith) that my conscience is simply my own to bear and answer for (by cognizant choice), and that any personalized/individualized conscience remains the only available evidence that your god's purposed "best intentions" are attributable as pious servitude to His Will. The only thing necessary to accept that personal conscience is (otherwise a) manifestation/execution of God's Plan, Purpose, and Will, is a belief that it is so.

Ironic, is it not, that when a believer claims to have been "called" by God to a particular duty or service (as preacher, patrician, or politician) - (practically) no one assails their motives? But when an adherent claims to converse with their god as defense of their untoward/illegal actions, most consider such claims as veritably insane, as if the god of the Bible never asked any of His adherents to slaughter heretics in His name...

Why is it then, that it's socially acceptable (and deemed "sane") to believe in an alleged benevolent invisible deity that ascribes an individualized/personalized purpose and reason (through revelation) for existence, but it's deemed societally "insane" (or legally irrelevant) to personally assert in defense that "God told me to do it"? Could it be that no one can suitably or satisfactorily differentiate between motivations of personal conscience and the amorphous claims of what may or may not constitute (or concomitantly serve) "God's Will"?

To borrow a phrase: "O Crash, you do make speeches." There are several assumptions in your post that are not true for all Christians or other religious people who believe in God. First, Not everyone does good works in order to gain the reward of heaven. That, IMO, is just bad theology. Second, my claim is that all good works are motivated divinely. Can't help it if you don't believe that. I do. Third, Those who are called to ministry (in most cases) are subject to a very intense period of discernment, and their motivations are thoroughly questioned by spiritual authorities. Fourth, there's a HUGE difference between receiving divine revelation and insanity. Fifth, it is appropriate for even the most pious person to question faith. Questioning is part of spiritual growth. Sixth, Mother Teresa was speaking theologically. Taking our poverty as a joy, linking us in solidarity with the poverty of Christ on the cross, is a valid theological way of thinking about our poverty.

 

[s2a]

Hello sojurner,

You dallied in less than pithy reference offering:

To borrow a phrase: "O Crash, you do make speeches."

To borrow another quote from the same flick, Annie observed that:
"The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness." ;-)

I wonder what that means...

There are several assumptions in your post that are not true for all Christians or other religious people who believe in God.

Assertions are not assumptions. You're invited to clarify your own unique perspective of revelation that you feel separates yourself from my lent characterizations.

First, Not everyone does good works in order to gain the reward of heaven. That, IMO, is just bad theology.

I won't necessarily quibble with that assessment. Some of the "redeemed" might very well figure they're "forgiven" both now and forever, no matter what they do (or don't do); and go on to pursue their own interests with utter disregard/disinterest for the needs and concerns of others. A few may actually take the scriptural teachings of Christ to heart, and effort to ameliorate or improve either a given individual's, or mankind's general and overall condition. I am unconcerned as to whether certain sectarian Christian doxologies promote or deny the necessity of "good works" as precondition to ultimate salvation. I deem all theologically derived tenants as bunk, and all remaining (persisting) perspectives as beyond applicable bias or determinations...as to what sectarian particulars qualify as either "good" or "bad" theology. I observe demonstrable hypocrisy amongst adherents of the self-ascribed Christian faithful on a daily basis, and do not bother with discriminations of whom may be a "better" (or worse) Christian than another.

Second, my claim is that all good works are motivated divinely. Can't help it if you don't believe that. I do.

I got that the first time around. I explained that "good works" can be sourced from inspirations devoid of faith-based theological beliefs. I can't help it if you can't accept that fact either. ;-) A donkey (or a camel) may be a noble steed indeed , and well-reknowed for his intransigent personalit amd spirited sense of will and mission...

Third, Those who are called to ministry (in most cases) are subject to a very intense period of discernment, and their motivations are thoroughly questioned by spiritual authorities.

So what? Besides orthodox Roman Catholics, what "spiritual authority"--within this mortal realm--is deemed as universally authoritative in such "discernments"?

"Groups which self-identify as part of Christianity include (but are not limited to): African Independent Churches (AICs), the Aglipayan Church, Amish, Anglicans, Armenian Apostolic, Assemblies of God; Baptists, Calvary Chapel, Catholics, Christadelphians, Christian Science, the Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormons"), Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox churches, Ethiopian Orthodox, Evangelicals, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Local Church, Lutherans, Methodists, Monophysites, Nestorians, the New Apostolic Church, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, the Salvation Army, Seventh-Day Adventists, Shakers, Stone-Campbell churches (Disciples of Christ; Churches of Christ; the "Christian Church and Churches of Christ"; the International Church of Christ); Uniate churches, United Church of Christ/Congregationalists, the Unity Church, Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, Vineyard churches and others. These groups exhibit varying degrees of similarity, cooporation, communion, etc. with other groups. None are known to consider all other Chrisian sub-groups to be equally valid."
Source:

So, by what earthbound authority is a "believer" to look to as "unquestionable" authority in matters of spiritual guidance and instruction? Hmmm?

Fourth, there's a HUGE difference between receiving divine revelation and insanity.

OK. Please illustrate the differences between "hearing God" spiritually and "Hearing God" insanely. What authority in such deliberative distinctions is ultimately empowered to definitively delineate such differences? What spiritual authority determined that Jim Jones, or David Berkowitz ("Son of Sam") did NOT hear god directly "speaking" to them? Do ALL Christians agree with that assessment? Why not?

Fifth, it is appropriate for even the most pious person to question faith. Questioning is part of spiritual growth.

Interesting. Are not truly repentant sinners, professing the sacrifice and salvation afforded in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ Jesus, both renewed and reborn in spirit? What then, in this mortal existence, could challenge, shake, or call into question God's promise of redemption and eternal life? Is there any NT Scripture that suggests or allows for doubt in God keeping HIs promise? What test of faith does Scripture account as being utilized by Jesus amongst His faithful? Whom did Jesus condemn in failing that test?

Sixth, Mother Teresa was speaking theologically.

No, she was speaking personally, as in her personal journal/diary entries. Her doubts were real, and continual. Don't believe me. Read them for yourself.

Taking our poverty as a joy, linking us in solidarity with the poverty of Christ on the cross, is a valid theological way of thinking about our poverty.

I am a volunteer that periodically serves the most immediate needs and concerns of the indigent and the homeless. I might readily introduce you to at least thirty or forty mothers, fathers, veterans, or children that find no solidarity, joy, or theological value in their poverty/circumstance. But bear in mind, these families are the fortunate ones. At least they have provided access to clean water, nutritious food, temporary shelter, and relative safety/security.

The "joy" and "solidarity" of poverty, as Mother Teresa witnessed firsthand, seemed to defy the validity of theological rationales afforded by the comfortable and well-off.

The challenge to faith-based beliefs entail these facts:

Every day, more than 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes--one child every five seconds.

Every year, nearly 11 million children die before they reach their fifth birthday. Almost all of these deaths occur in developing countries, 3/4 of them in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, the two regions that also suffer from the highest rates of hunger and malnutrition.
Source
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/a0200e/a0200e00.pdf

Poor nutrition and calorie deficiencies cause nearly one in three people to die prematurely or have disabilities, according to the World Health Organization.
Source: http://www.who.int/en/

Ah...the "joy" of poverty, and the blissful solidarity afforded by shared suffering, wasting, and slow, lingering death. Praise Jesus! How comforting to know that even He did not have to experience watching his own begotten progeny enjoy the faith-testing aspects of malaria, diarrhea, malnutrition, and respiratory illness. After all, He could've miraculously "cast out" those "demons" whenever He pleased.

Spare me the religious platitudes and faith-based rationalizations proffered by the pious safe and fat Christian evangelists (and their happy fat adherents) preaching the "mercy" and "love" of their God and Savior. If you could intervene and prevent the needless starvation of a child, but waited instead for others to "prove" themselves as adequately engaged in compassion and care, as some sort of a "test of faith" and "spiritual growth"; then remove yourself to some place where "criminal negligence" and "depraved indifference to human life" are not prosecutable crimes within a civil society.

By the time you have read to this line in this post, 36 children have died from preventable malnutrition-related causes; gasping, wheezing, malformed, wasting, and disease-ridden children....taking not hours, nor a day to die by crucifixion, but their entire short life...from the very day of their birth.

Praise God, and His methods for instilling "spiritual growth" amongst the His own adherents, confidently assured of their own personal salvation! Don't let that air-conditioner overly chill you in your night's rest, or worry that there will be no more Ho-Ho's at the convenience store tomorrow. Have a McMuffin for breakfast, and praise Jesus for another opportunity to testify and witness about God's mercy and Plan for us all! While I humbly suffer, can I get some ketchup for my hashbrowns?

 

[sojourner]

It appears as though the one vomiting the hatred and sarcasm here is the Atheist...not the Christian. How typical...and how telling...that the one who turns his back on God is the one who cannot post in terms of mercy and hope -- and who cannot see the misery of humanity without having to place blame and slap someone.

And yet...God chooses to use you for God's good purposes anyway, regardless of your attitude........

 

[s2a]

Hello sojourner,

You said:

It appears as though the one vomiting the hatred and sarcasm here is the Atheist...not the Christian.

Oh my.

Sarcasm? Without question...

"Vomiting"? Why not "ralphing", or "blowing chunks" instead? Each characterization creates a more visual picture, and either alternative might better endear you to silent lurkers who might otherwise perceive you as entirely too full of yourself (or replete with bovine excremental matter) to bother taking seriously in lent introspection.

"Hatred".

"Hatred"?

Really?

I allegedly "vomit hatred", whilst you supposedly remain chaste and virtuous in your piety, distant and removed from the vileness of the topic at hand?

[Pssst. These are rhetorical questions, that really do answer themselves. No expectation of reply is wanting]

How typical...and how telling...that the one who turns his back on God...

How weak and vacuous of you to so ignorantly and self-servingly conclude. I get it. Those who "turn their back on God" are adulterers, liars, cheats, and deceivers...even if they never "believed" in your god from the outset. Effort to come to terms with the notion that there is a sizeable population of citizenry that never have, nor are unlikely ever to embrace supernaturalistic explanations or god/deity concepts as veritable "truth(s)". You might readily "reject" (or "turn your back") upon a claim that the Earth's Moon is made of cheddar cheese. You might rely upon science to render/fortify that stance. I would champion and support such skeptical evaluations of simliar spurious claims. But your god is only another spurious claim, abetted only by popular adherence and belief, of which neither is adequate nor empirically justified evidence of evident fact or truth. Think of it. Even if you deem yourself "religious" is some shape, form, or fashion, any personal deviations from established dogmatic traditions and creedal doctrines renders you as an "infidel", "heretic", unbeliever", or worse within some competing/alternative sectarian observation/evaluation/conclusion. HIndus regard the exsitent cosmos in cycles of billions of years of detstruction and renewal, and Jews/Muslims regard Christianity as misguided prophet-worship and constructionally flawed as to both God's reason and ultimate purpose for mankind. Buddhists effort neither to preach nor proselytize (nor seek to impose) their faith-based beliefs upon anyone. Atheists promote reason, critical thinking, and personal responsibility in both personal choice, and in dealing with the resultant (controllable) consequential outcomes therefrom. You might wish to believe and subsequently rationalize that anyone that does not accept your personalized understanding and imbued spiritual/biblical/holy ghost "revelation" therefore lacks any conception of (or adherence to) any veritable "truth(s)", but know that even in the accounted totality of self-professed "Christians", that "followers of Christ" remain in the minority as a whole in the larger faith-based worldview. Even if overall popularity and a totality of like-minded adherents made a certain faith or belief-system valid and "true", one could easily argue that the totality of collective "Christian" beliefs represent a significant minority within the world's populace at best, and that any claims of "truth" derived of such beliefs do not constitute a majority, much less a universal appeal of acceptability as being either "fact" or "truth", even in matters of existential provenence.

Believing something to be "true", even with millions (billions?) of adherents in faith-based support as testimony, doesn't make any claim "true" by default of widespread opinion alone.

I'll tell you what. I won't question your piety or faith in your god, as long as you can acknowledge that atheists retain no belief in ANY god(s) to otherwise "turn their back(s)".

Mythology and superstition support quaint notions of gods and supernatural entities (like Vishnu, Apollo, Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin); but non-acceptance of such claimed entities does not constitute some logical about-face in erstwhile abject denial counter to the presence of overwhelming and compelling substantiative empirical evidence to the contrary.

Do you "deny" Santa?
Do you "turn you back on him", despite the millions of children that "believe" in Him as veritable and real--or do you retain a more articulate understanding of what Santa represents?

...is the one who cannot post in terms of mercy and hope -- and who cannot see the misery of humanity without having to place blame and slap someone.

Such is the price of personal accountability.

"Blame" is earned, but rarely successfully ascribed upon others. And what's so bad about a slap in the face? It imparts no permanent physical damage, but it may instill a better cognitive process when practiced upon those with entrenched and defensive opinions.

I would beg no especial supplication regarding your hyperbolic mischaracterizations, for my conscience is clear; and my community efforts are both documented and my own to account for in their results. I ACT on behalf of the poor, the disenfranchised, the homeless, and the forgotten (most especially veterans and their widows).

Don't preach to me of "mercy" and "hope". I am no god...and yours remains conspicuously absent in times of greatest need of both.

Spare me your vapid and impotently pious overtures of faith and "compassion" as some sort of hoped-for guilt-projection. You have neither earned wisdom or experience to impart in this arena that is superior to (or more enlightening than) my own.

And yet...God chooses to use you for God's good purposes anyway, regardless of your attitude.......

Praise the Boss that would manipulate HIs own employees, in full knowledge that they were ultimately doomed to (His own imposed) termination! What better justice and bastion of virtue could we look to than a Boss that would seek His own purposes over the concerns, hopes, and evidenced compassions of heretical infidels that "turn their backs" on your God.

How wise. How just. How compassionate...

Deuteronomy 5:9--
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me..."

How fickle. How small. How petty.

Preach to me again about the "mercy and hope" your god offers...

[PS. Your evasion and avoidance of the pointed questions posed of you for salient reply will not remain unnoticed amongst the numerous lurkers out there. Please tell me you have something more to offer them than testimonially simplistic and banal turpitudes presented.

Surely, you have something of greater import and substance to offer in rebuttal than merely impugning the character of a lone heretic...

Surely...

 

[sojourner]

This stuff really bugs you, doesn't it?

Good!

 

[logician]

I do believe one needs more than the "bandwagon" theory to support a religious claim.

 

[s2a]

This stuff really bugs you, doesn't it?

Good!

There's an old axiom that suggests that "ignorance is bliss".

"Be happy in your work".

"Row well, and live."

If you think that I would envy the facile confidence and smug self-assurance of faith-based beliefs, I invite you to think again.

Your apparent inability to address and tender reply to the most basic of pointed inquiries speaks volumes amidst the reverberating silence and lacking cognitive vacuum your personalized perspective entails.

As It seems to be both your strategy and wish to avoid such matters of discussion, I shall trouble you no more with any challenging inquiries. I overburdened your capacities in reasoned discussion, and for that I concede my own fault as much.

Peace.

s2a

{PS. You lose.]

 

[sojourner]

If you think that I would envy the facile confidence and smug self-assurance of faith-based beliefs, I invite you to think again.

It is not my intent to be either smug or self-assured about my faith. It is not my intent to garner your envy. And if you think that confidence in belief is in any way "facile" or cheap, you apparently don't understand the dynamics involved in the life of faith. If you didn't want your parade rained on, why did you insist upon holding it in my street?

Your apparent inability to address and tender reply to the most basic of pointed inquiries speaks volumes amidst the reverberating silence and lacking cognitive vacuum your personalized perspective entails.

You assume too much, and you know what happens when you assume...
What you call "pointed inquiries" were manifested more in the form of self-superior rants of anger, disguised as reasonable arguments. I have no wish to engage with that sort of -- as you put it -- "discussion." I merely pointed out my own observances of your copious outbursts of contempt, acknowledging them for what they were, understanding that there is no argument to be found in this sort of ego-driven drivel. Emotionalism and self-superiority creates the vacuum from which I am expected to fashion a reasonable argument. It can't be done.

As It seems to be both your strategy and wish to avoid such matters of discussion, I shall trouble you no more with any challenging inquiries. I overburdened your capacities in reasoned discussion, and for that I concede my own fault as much.

Absolutely! This sort of...how did you put it?..."discussion?"...can go nowhere with your obvious contempt of things that are a large part of my own identity. Where's the respect for my position in your posts, friend? Why should I subject myself to that kind of emotional firestorm? Life's too short and too stressful as it is! "Reasonable discussion?" Try "bombastic tirade."

I have enough capacity for reason to recognize the wolf in Grandma's nightshift.

Be well.

P.S. If it makes you feel better, OK! You win. Better that than endure another infantile fit of pique.

 

[Evandr2]

For some strange reason I feel very compelled to chime in here. What I see in this exchange of self styled verbal efficacy is several people trying to declare reality and the perceived ill fated paths of others by virtue of their own wisdom (or lack thereof). Weather or not our individual wisdome has a solid foundation is something that must be learned by others. You cannot convey a surity of things with words alone, especially using indignant tirades and attempts to insult others. This is the very definition of futility for compared to perfect knowledge in all things, our current level of wisdom and understanding is as the blathering fool.

There's an old axiom that suggests that "ignorance is bliss".

s2a - you hit that nail right on the head and you are a profoundly exquisite example of that old axiom. I do not claim to be smarter than you, I simply understand that I have information that has been given me from beyond a veil. Your lack of understanding of just what the veil is and how a person can tap knowledge from beyond it dos not invalidate my declaration that is has happened.

You cannot say with real authority that what I know and understand is just my own supposing. To attempt such is both amazingly haughty and profoundly presumptuous. You know "squat" about my understanding. To boldly say I am wrong is to imply that I am either a liar with ulterior motives for my declarations or that I'm insane of just plain stupid. Well excuse me! I am sorry that you do not possess what I possess but you really ought to stop trying to tell other people what they do and do not know. You just don't possess the wisdom to be seated in the exalted throne of judgment you seem to have placed yourself in.

Now, having said that I believe that all parties involved in this discussion as of yet have been guilty to some extent of trying to butt themselves onto that same throne.

Use wisdom from whatever source you might, use logic, use truth, but stop trying to support your position with presumption for it invalidates foundation and without foundation your arguments cannot stand and profound is the fall thereof.

"Be happy in your work".

Yes! - be happy in your work and let others be happy in theirs. With that statement comes responsibility. The responsibility to be happy without trying to effect the derailment of the same privilege of others. When a conversation degrades to this level of futility is needs to be abandoned.

"Row well, and live."

I honestly believe (notice I haven’t said "Truth and reality is") that that bit of good advice covers far more ground than the vast majority of the populous of the world understands. Rowing well requires that attention to ones own ores receive the lions share of thought and effort. You will not win any boat races by using the distraction of others from off their oars as your stratagem.

If you think that I would envy the facile confidence and smug self-assurance of faith-based beliefs, I invite you to think again.

I'm quite sure you will not envy for envy intones that there is a degree of understanding of that which is envied. You use the words facile and smug as if you have information that is beyond reproach. Either way you have not right or reason, other than fear, to make such claims with such a tone. It appears that your intent is to destroy and not to teach!

Your apparent inability to address and tender reply to the most basic of pointed inquiries speaks volumes amidst the reverberating silence and lacking cognitive vacuum your personalized perspective entails.

Again, you attempt to glorify your own supposed wisdom by comparing it to your self-fashioned definition of the folly of others. You ought to stop it for it is the condescension of a fool to declair themself the winner because they go about pasting looser signs on others.


You must help lay the foundation of maturity and reason whereon replies to observations can be executed without having to stop and defend oneself every at every other word. A true debate forum understands that both sides of the issue have right to be heard and respected. I appears that, in this thread, respect flew out the window early on.

As It seems to be both your strategy and wish to avoid such matters of discussion, I shall trouble you no more with any challenging inquiries. I overburdened your capacities in reasoned discussion, and for that I concede my own fault as much.

Perhaps leaving this thread is the best course of action for all parties involved. It has degenerated into a slap fight wherein there is little benefit

PS. You lose.

Again, you presume too much for the winners and losers will be made manifest only when the game is over and, my dear s2a, the game is far from over.

Vandr

 

[Pah]

The Bible and Homosexuality. If the Bible is to be a guide to the kingdom of God and set out behaviors, it leaves two comments about same-sex orientation.

On the one hand we have the purity law and St Paul and on the other we have Christ, the lesson in James, and the examples of same sex relationships. We have the joys of physical passion in another section.

Scolarship has cast doubt on the meaning of purity laws and Paul to be the same sexual act we have today. There is excellent argument to say that the same-sex coupling of the Bible period were involved in temple worship of other Gods and was forbidden because it worshiped another God.

Christ has always been about love and favoring the weak, the down-trodden and the outcast. It is not for nothing that the woman at the well and the kind stranger on the road were outcasts. Christ spoke to have children, the weakest of society, to come to him. I believe the rich who Christ disfavored and doomed not able to come into the heavenly realm of God are a symbol of all with power who abuse the poor (the weak, the outcast and the down-tridden). He tells one rich man to give away all his earthy possessions, he desribes the rich man's journey to God's presence as difficult as a camel going through the eye of a needle, he tells another that when asked for one article of clothing for the poor, to give another. The message of Christ is clear and the Word is clear in James 2.

In Paul there is the statement that uncontrolled passion is the only reason for marriage - not a social construct, not a means of proceation but pure lust that needs marriage to contain it. That would have to be the earliest "traditional" Christian marriage. We know from examples on the Old Testament, that procreation happened with concubines and that became the intrigue of the palace, the plotting and maneuvering for an heir. So it was not a marriage for procreation. It would be a fair wager to bet that some marriages were to garner helpmates as Eve was considered or to cement relations between tribes or cities. It was not therefore the same social consturct as that which is claimed today as "traditional". Lust, passion, PLEASURE uncontrollable was the reason for marriage.

If there is a messgae to be read in the bible in regards to treatment and acceptance of same-sex orientation, it is overwhelmingly in favor of looking after your personal sins and loving the rest of humanity in completed disregard of their sin.

 

[Evandr2]

Pah,

A lot of different meaning can be seen in your post depending on how you look at it. When you take ancient scripture, ancient people, ancient religious beliefs and customs and then try to conform present day belief and action around them it is no wonder that the world is awash with so many different constructs of philosophy.

I don't have the wisdom of my Heavenly Father but it takes very little wisdom to see and understand that we cannot be expected to survive this mortal trial without some current and direct intervention from our loving God.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, fear and pride are the great stumbling blocks. There is good reason to study the Bible, for those who do not comprehend their own history are doomed to repeat it, but, with all due respect for the truth contained therein, the Bible is an unreliable source from which to garner the well assembled wisdom necessary to adequately keep the Lord's commandments in our generation. It is my firm belief that Bible scripture has been severely tweaked over the centuries by both the well intended as well as those with evil designs for self glorification.

To believe that the Lord has shut up his mouth and refuses to give live revelation to living prophets for the direction, benefit, and good of this people in this age is to believe in a cold and stone hearted God. I cannot comprehend such an injustice from any father let alone our Heavenly Father.

With regard to homosexuality I have 2 unwavering belief tenants.

First, I believe that there is far more to the concepts of heaven and hell than most people are willing to understand and that someone who chooses, for whatever reason, to take up the homosexual lifestyle, will not find themselves in the extremes of either realm. By definition, damnation is a ceasing of forward progress. I like to believe that there are many levels of damnation in glory. I believe that the Lord has a place of great glory prepared for those who fall short of the blessings of exaltation in the presence of God but who are far from being worthy to be called a son or daughter of perdition. There has to be a middle ground. For those who might be interested I have penned an analogy of this concept I call "spoons". You can read it at www.faithandevidence.com/headings.php 15th evidence, 74th paragraph.

Second, I believe the pain associated with damnation and hell is the mental anguish that will come from within each individual who is given a perfect knowledge of their own failure to achieve exaltation regardless of any other blessing of level of Glory they might find themselves having received.

That is why I am in absolute agreement with the following quote you posted.

If there is a message to be read in the bible in regards to treatment and acceptance of same-sex orientation, it is overwhelmingly in favor of looking after your personal sins and loving the rest of humanity in completed disregard of their sin.

In short, we must hate and abhor the sin for it impedes forward progress in the eternities but we must love the sinner for it is a commandment of God. We have not the wisdom or right to judge.

P.S. Nice segue back to topic

 

[Pah]

Pah,
...

I don't have the wisdom of my Heavenly Father but it takes very little wisdom to see and understand that we cannot be expected to survive this mortal trial without some current and direct intervention from our loving God.

Direct intervention? Your god has spoken through the Holy Ghost to not only the men and women who are oriented to the same-sex but to all the "straights" in the various congregations to which they belong.

To believe that the Lord has shut up his mouth and refuses to give live revelation to living prophets for the direction, benefit, and good of this people in this age is to believe in a cold and stone hearted God. I cannot comprehend such an injustice from any father let alone our Heavenly Father.

You have failed to hear the revelation. If one is, as the pharisee were want to do, enthralled with the law, it is little wonder that they are deaf to the spirit of the Lord moving in communities that hear the word of God.

With regard to homosexuality I have 2 unwavering belief tenants.

First, I believe that there is far more to the concepts of heaven and hell than most people are willing to understand and that someone who chooses, for whatever reason, to take up the homosexual lifestyle, will not find themselves in the extremes of either realm. ...

I take great offense at the continuence of the thought that any orientation is a choice. That you would deny the passion of a same-sex couple as a life-style is equally offensive.

Second, I believe the pain associated with damnation and hell is the mental anguish that will come from within each individual who is given a perfect knowledge of their own failure to achieve exaltation regardless of any other blessing of level of Glory they might find themselves having received.

Then, according to James, any infraction of the law means failure to keep the whole law. If it is law you want and not the love that Christ promises, so be it, for you can never satisfy the law as Christ did. Your salvation is in the grace of God.

That is why I am in absolute agreement with the following quote you posted.

In short, we must hate and abhor the sin for it impedes forward progress in the eternities but we must love the sinner for it is a commandment of God. We have not the wisdom or right to judge.[/COLOR

]You must hate and abhor your personal sin. You have the timber in your eye and others have only motes. You can not be concerned about other's sin and decidedly, as specified in other words of God, can not judge the sin.

It becomes a real social problem when those who continue to fail God's word, strike out with civil law in a totally mistaken direction and justification..

 

[Pah]

Pah,
...

I don't have the wisdom of my Heavenly Father but it takes very little wisdom to see and understand that we cannot be expected to survive this mortal trial without some current and direct intervention from our loving God.

Direct intervention? Your god has spoken through the Holy Ghost to not only the men and women who are oriented to the same-sex but to all the "straights" in the various congregations to which they belong.

To believe that the Lord has shut up his mouth and refuses to give live revelation to living prophets for the direction, benefit, and good of this people in this age is to believe in a cold and stone hearted God. I cannot comprehend such an injustice from any father let alone our Heavenly Father.

You have failed to hear the revelation. If one is, as the pharisee were want to do, enthralled with the law, it is little wonder that they are deaf to the spirit of the Lord moving in communities that hear the word of God.

With regard to homosexuality I have 2 unwavering belief tenants.

First, I believe that there is far more to the concepts of heaven and hell than most people are willing to understand and that someone who chooses, for whatever reason, to take up the homosexual lifestyle, will not find themselves in the extremes of either realm. ...

I take great offense at the continuence of the thought that any orientation is a choice. That you would deny the passion of a same-sex couple as a life-style is equally offensive.

Second, I believe the pain associated with damnation and hell is the mental anguish that will come from within each individual who is given a perfect knowledge of their own failure to achieve exaltation regardless of any other blessing of level of Glory they might find themselves having received.

Then, according to James, any infraction of the law means failure to keep the whole law. If it is law you want and not the love that Christ promises, so be it, for you can never satisfy the law as Christ did. Your salvation is in the grace of God.

That is why I am in absolute agreement with the following quote you posted.

In short, we must hate and abhor the sin for it impedes forward progress in the eternities but we must love the sinner for it is a commandment of God. We have not the wisdom or right to judge.[/COLOR

]You must hate and abhor your personal sin. You have the timber in your eye and others have only motes. You can not be concerned about other's sin and decidedly, as specified in other words of God, can not judge the sin.

So I agree.

It becomes a real social problem when those who continue to fail God's word, strike out with civil law in a totally mistaken direction and justification..

 

[Evandr2]

Direct intervention? Your god has spoken through the Holy Ghost to not only the men and women who are oriented to the same-sex but to all the "straights" in the various congregations to which they belong.

It is my belief, understanding, and personal testimony to you that an individual receives direct revelation for themselves and the calling to which they are called. A person for themselves, heads of house for their households, bishops for their congregation and so forth all the way up to a prophet for the body of Christ's Church.

The Lord's definition of a family unit is one man to one woman and the children they produce or are called to take in.

You have failed to hear the revelation. If one is, as the pharisee were want to do, enthralled with the law, it is little wonder that they are deaf to the spirit of the Lord moving in communities that hear the word of God.

On this point I challenge you for you know nothing about what revelation I have or have not received, as I know nothing of yours.
I can only testify that I have been baptized of water and of fire, having received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those with authority to do so, therefore I can declare with boldness and without fear of being incorrect that it is you, by your fervent opposition to what I know to be truth, that it is you who have failed to hear revelation.

We can bandy declarations back and forth all day long and it will be to no avail unless one takes the words of the other and applies some prayer and searching of the possibilities.

I understand that no mortal individual can know the truth of my statement until they have discovered it for themselves in the same manner that I have been given to know it.

The voice of the spirit is un-mistakable and a demon cannot manifest that same spirit. Pah - I know the voice of the spirit as do hundreds of thousands of others both in and out of the LDS faith. There is no argument or contention on points of revelation among those who know the voice of the spirit for the gospel is the same yesterday, today, and forever and the spirit will declare the same principles to all alike

I take great offense at the continuence of the thought that any orientation is a choice. That you would deny the passion of a same-sex couple as a life-style is equally offensive.

It is sad that you take offence for none was meant. I know not where sexual orientation is developed, I can only say that God is not the author or cause of it for it is an abomination unto him. (Lev.18:22)

Although it is not my place to judge or condemn another for their exorcizing their rights of free agency within the laws of the land, it is also not my responsibility to support what I believe to be wrong or that which I believe would be an offence to God.

Then, according to James, any infraction of the law means failure to keep the whole law. If it is law you want and not the love that Christ promises, so be it, for you can never satisfy the law as Christ did. Your salvation is in the grace of God.

"After you have done all you can do". You left that off the end of this quote or is it that you just don't understand that it should be their.

Saying that grace alone is sufficient to gain exaltation in the presence of God is the great cop-out of those who would exact the reward of the laborer.

You must hate and abhor your personal sin. You have the timber in your eye and others have only motes. You can not be concerned about other's sin and decidedly, as specified in other words of God, can not judge the sin.

Your comment is very curious. Are you saying that I must be perfect before I can recognize that others are involved in that which is considered sin? What an odd idea seeing that I have a right and responsibility to help fashion the mores of my society.

When it comes to the Laws of our society you can bet your last dime that I will peer, as best I can, into the hearts and morals of those whom I stand behind as the leaders of my society.

Yes, I hate those sins which do easily beset me and I make no excuses for them nor do I try to justify them by twisting the words of the Lord as many people do. Neither a person nor a people can escape the consequences of sin by changing its definition or asking everyone else to turn a blind eye to it.

I simply said that we must eschew sin as we see it to be such and yet love all the children of men. Having said that I will also declare that we have a responsibility to avoid putting a destroyer in a position wherein they can destroy that which they have no right to destroy.

It becomes a real social problem when those who continue to fail God's word, strike out with civil law in a totally mistaken direction and justification.

That is very true, a person making such a statement must be careful that they do not fall under the weight of it.
In the final analysis we will all be judged by our own actions and not the actions of others. To use the modern vernacular, we will all lie in the beds we make for ourselves.

 

[Pah]

...The Lord's definition of a family unit is one man to one woman and the children they produce or are called to take in.

The Lords definition includes 500, I think that is the number, of concubines. The Lord speaks of three women in a household. It seems to be self-serving to forget that.

On this point I challenge you for you know nothing about what revelation I have or have not received, as I know nothing of yours.

I can know of your revelation or lack of revelation by your words

I can only testify that I have been baptized of water and of fire, having received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those with authority to do so, therefore I can declare with boldness and without fear of being incorrect that it is you, by your fervent opposition to what I know to be truth, that it is you who have failed to hear revelation.

I would have fear if that was the limit of acquiring knowledge.

We can bandy declarations back and forth all day long and it will be to no avail unless one takes the words of the other and applies some prayer and searching of the possibilities.

Search away . There is much for you to consider

I understand that no mortal individual can know the truth of my statement until they have discovered it for themselves in the same manner that I have been given to know it.

I can know the truth by applying better standards of truth than revelation

The voice of the spirit is un-mistakable and a demon cannot manifest that same spirit. Pah - I know the voice of the spirit as do hundreds of thousands of others both in and out of the LDS faith. There is no argument or contention on points of revelation among those who know the voice of the spirit for the gospel is the same yesterday, today, and forever and the spirit will declare the same principles to all alike

It is sad that you do not recall that polygamy was correct within church dogma. It changed didn't it. Was not the Holy Ghost present at both times? Or did the dogma change for political reasons and you ignore the previous revelation that multiple wives were correct? I'm hoping, for the sake of the church, that the Holy Ghost visited a new revelation upon you.

It is sad that you take offence for none was meant. I know not where sexual orientation is developed, I can only say that God is not the author or cause of it for it is an abomination unto him. (Lev.18:22)

You seemed to know when you said "...that someone who chooses, for whatever reason, to take up the homosexual lifestyle...". You called the lifestyle a choice and I'm not to assume that the reason for the lifestyle is not choice?

There seems to be no reason to assume that God did not create the animals the way they are today. Homosexuality is well documented in animals. To say that is choice stretches credibilty. To say it appears in the course of evolution, though I consider that to be correct, is to cast strong doubt on the creation and creation's author.

I propose that your interpretation of the complete bible is in disharmony. "Abomination" may be consider "impure" but the former gives more weight to the fear and/or hatred from the first to translate thusly. It has since been passed along by those who had fear and/or hatred. The act seems to have been involved with the worship of other gods. That is the same problem with the pronouncement that Sodom was destroy by homosexuality.It has become tradition to think that way and so many fail to see the error of that tradition.

Although it is not my place to judge or condemn another for their exorcizing their rights of free agency within the laws of the land, it is also not my responsibility to support what I believe to be wrong or that which I believe would be an offence to God.



"After you have done all you can do". You left that off the end of this quote or is it that you just don't understand that it should be their.

Your support isn't needed. It happens today without criminal sanction and will continue to happen long after your grandchildren die. Same-sex copling is here to stay. What you are saying is that Paul is to be ignored when he talks of lust as being the reason of marriage. Lust is there and yet you provide no marriage to "cover" that lust. That's just part of the disharmony you incur.

Had I quoted, I would have include the cite. It was from my understanding. James 2:10 bears this out in the New International Version (default fot BibleGateway)

10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

Now your "out" is that you do not keep the whole law but not "what you can do" And if you do not keep the whole law you must justify why you would want to keep the parts that deal with homosexuality.

I know some of your church have underclothes that are one garment from the shoulders - there is no mixing of thread. But if you are not wearing that garment your underclothes will have latex to hold them up. Do you shave? Do you do any work on Sunday or Saturday? I'll bet you don't even eat kosher nor observe a sabbath the way specified. So why do you pick homosexuality?

Saying that grace alone is sufficient to gain exaltation in the presence of God is the great cop-out of those who would exact the reward of the laborer.I'm saying that works nor faith in Christ will provide salvation unless God gives you his grace. I know you follow christ but I ask you if, (not requiring an answer - it is for introspection) is you have a savings account? If you do then you only partly follow Christ. Thus you need the grace of God as well.

Your comment is very curious. Are you saying that I must be perfect before I can recognize that others are involved in that which is considered sin? What an odd idea seeing that I have a right and responsibility to help fashion the mores of my society.

I say you must be perfect to be concerned with the sins of others. "Cast the first stone" kind of thing.

In this society, you have no right to impose any Church dogma on anyone else in society. You will have an exceedingly bloody time to fashion that right to what you must have to change society to the views of any church.

When it comes to the Laws of our society you can bet your last dime that I will peer, as best I can, into the hearts and morals of those whom I stand behind as the leaders of my society.

I'm sorry you do not think for yourself

Yes, I hate those sins which do easily beset me and I make no excuses for them nor do I try to justify them by twisting the words of the Lord as many people do. Neither a person nor a people can escape the consequences of sin by changing its definition or asking everyone else to turn a blind eye to it.

I'm saying that the definition was changed by the homophobic pious.

I simply said that we must eschew sin as we see it to be such and yet love all the children of men. Having said that I will also declare that we have a responsibility to avoid putting a destroyer in a position wherein they can destroy that which they have no right to destroy.And now you deny free will to others? That was a gift from God was it not? Leave others alone - you may not judge nor may you secularily alter the social environment to suit a mistaken sense of God's will.
That is very true, a person making such a statement must be careful that they do not fall under the weight of it.
In the final analysis we will all be judged by our own actions and not the actions of others. To use the modern vernacular, we will all lie in the beds we make for ourselves.
[/QUOTE]And here we agree.

 

[Evandr2]

The Lords definition includes 500, I think that is the number, of concubines. The Lord speaks of three women in a household. It seems to be self-serving to forget that.

Polygamy is not a principle of the everlasting Gospel which cannot be altered nor would God attempt to do so. The Lord God can and has, in diverse times, altered His directives as to polygamy (among other things) and the number of wives a man should have. Currently, through revelation to a living prophet, polygamy has been banned.

In any case, the core situation has been a man and one wife or a man and however many but it is still a situation of a men and women forming a union, not men and men or women and women. Even in polygamous households it is not given that the many wives conduct themselves as would lesbians. I'm sure it happens but it is not the rule but the unintended exception.

I can know of your revelation or lack of revelation by your words

To a degree you are correct. But remember, I can say the same to you.

I would have fear if that was the limit of acquiring knowledge.

It astonishes me that you would make such a statement. The Holy Ghost is the ultimate source of knowledge.
There is much laid out for my discovery that I may work to discover it and receive the growth and rewards of the laborer but to say that there are better sources of knowledge than God is...Well, I honestly cannot think of an expression to adequately indicate the mindless folly of it!

Search away . There is much for you to consider

Yes, yes there is, and I WILL continue to search, as should you!

I can know the truth by applying better standards of truth than revelation

Careful Pah - Your floundering - that statement was irresponsible and indicates that you know nothing of the Lord God or revelation.

It is sad that you do not recall that polygamy was correct within church dogma. It changed didn't it. Was not the Holy Ghost present at both times? Or did the dogma change for political reasons and you ignore the previous revelation that multiple wives were correct? I'm hoping, for the sake of the church, that the Holy Ghost visited a new revelation upon you.

As I stated earlier, polygamy is not a principle of the everlasting Gospel and is also off topic. The focus of this thread is homosexuality and the Bible, not plural wives.

You seemed to know when you said "...that someone who chooses, for whatever reason, to take up the homosexual lifestyle...". You called the lifestyle a choice and I'm not to assume that the reason for the lifestyle is not choice?

You can assume what you like, as for me I will seek the mind and will of the Lord and then listen for the response by way of the Holy Ghost. I believe that life did not start at conception and that we lived with God as His spirit children for many millennia. It was there that we began to develop the character we were born with and continue to develop in mortality.

There seems to be no reason to assume that God did not create the animals the way they are today. Homosexuality is well documented in animals. To say that is choice stretches credibility. To say it appears in the course of evolution, though I consider that to be correct, is to cast strong doubt on the creation and creation's author.

That is a weak argument Pah. Animals are not the sons and daughters of God. They are not in a position to inherit exaltation in the kingdom of God. They are not held to the same standards that we are. Only a fool would take justification for their actions because a dog did the same.

I propose that your interpretation of the complete bible is in disharmony.

Yes, the Bible in its present form has a great deal in it that is confusing and even contradictory to some interpretation. That is why I look to current revelation contained in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. I give personal testimony to you that therein the Lord has corrected the flaws of the Bible that have crept in at the hands of its many translators. I know I speak the truth for it has been given to me by personal revelation from the Holy Ghost but you must discover that for yourself.

"Abomination" may be consider "impure" but the former gives more weight to the fear and/or hatred from the first to translate thusly. It has since been passed along by those who had fear and/or hatred. The act seems to have been involved with the worship of other gods. That is the same problem with the pronouncement that Sodom was destroy by homosexuality. It has become tradition to think that way and so many fail to see the error of that tradition.

With that statement you are attempting to whitewash sin by changing its definition. That's a real stretch - even for you. You just claimed that you see error where millions have seen the plainness of it and understood it as such.

Your support isn't needed. It happens today without criminal sanction and will continue to happen long after your grandchildren die. Same-sex copling is here to stay. What you are saying is that Paul is to be ignored when he talks of lust as being the reason of marriage. Lust is there and yet you provide no marriage to "cover" that lust. That's just part of the disharmony you incur.

Prophesy backs you up. It is sad that my people are those who fulfill it because prophesy also indicates that the Lord will destroy them from off the face of the earth and deny them His presence in His kingdom.

Had I quoted, I would have include the cite. It was from my understanding. James 2:10 bears this out in the New International Version (default fot BibleGateway)Now your "out" is that you do not keep the whole law but not "what you can do" And if you do not keep the whole law you must justify why you would want to keep the parts that deal with homosexuality.

Some sins easily beset me and some do not. Some sins are an abomination to God and some are an irritation that the Sacrament can deal with. You must be careful not to lump all sin under the same heading. Satan is allowed to tempt us and cause us to stumble that we may gain strength by our experience. The Lord is all too aware of that. There is little excuse or simple remedy for major transgression including those involving sexuality and the spilling of innocent blood.

I know some of your church have underclothes that are one garment from the shoulders - there is no mixing of thread. But if you are not wearing that garment your underclothes will have latex to hold them up. Do you shave? Do you do any work on Sunday or Saturday? I'll bet you don't even eat kosher nor observe a Sabbath the way specified. So why do you pick homosexuality?

Please clarify. I can find no continuity to your train of thought.

I will continus this post in the next one.

 

[Evandr2]

I'm saying that works nor faith in Christ will provide salvation unless God gives you his grace. I know you follow christ but I ask you if, (not requiring an answer - it is for introspection) is you have a savings account? If you do then you only partly follow Christ. Thus you need the grace of God as well.

If works were not required to be worthy of the saving grace of God then there is no point to commandment or any religious order. The purpose of life would be no more than to make it through alive and not get in the way of someone else doing the same.

I say you must be perfect to be concerned with the sins of others. "Cast the first stone" kind of thing.

You cannot help someone escape the consequences of sin if you turn a blind eye to them. Those who sought to stone the adulterer were pursuing unrighteous judgment. The lords response to the woman was "go and sin no more" indicating that the mob was correct in their assessment that she had sinned. They were just acting as hypocrites. Had the people taken the condescension of the Lord and tempered their concern with kindness I'm sure that the Lord's reaction to them would have been quite different.

In this society, you have no right to impose any Church dogma on anyone else in society. You will have an exceedingly bloody time to fashion that right to what you must have to change society to the views of any church.

Impose? I impose nothing. I influence and I take part in the process but so do you.

I'm sorry you do not think for yourself

A man cannot stand so tall as he is when he is on his knees before his maker.

I'm saying that the definition was changed by the homophobic pious.

The definition is clear and always has been. Declaring it to be otherwise does not change that fact. You will have to pardon my boldness but some arguments, such as the one you present here, are too weak and absurd to give credence to. Homosexuality is an abomination to God because it stymies the forward progress of the individual in the eternities. Man without the woman nor woman without the man is not in the Lord.

And now you deny free will to others? That was a gift from God was it not? Leave others alone - you may not judge nor may you secularily alter the social environment to suit a mistaken sense of God's will.

The fear in your tone is evident. I deny no one any degree of free will. It is not my place or purpose to usurp the authority of God or temporal law enforcement. It is not my design to interpret the word of God to suit my own fancies. It is my desire to be keep the commandments and seek to be an instrument in the hands of the Lord to accomplish His purposes and bring the light of truth and knowledge to others.



Vandr

 

[Pah]

Polygamy is not a principle of the everlasting Gospel which cannot be altered nor would God attempt to do so. The Lord God can and has, in diverse times, altered His directives as to polygamy (among other things) and the number of wives a man should have. Currently, through revelation to a living prophet, polygamy has been banned......

I'll accept that but then we are finished. The Holy Ghost is moving in Christian inclusive congregtations and you have missed the boat. The time of hatred and pharassetic love of the old law is done.