Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[SkepticThinker]

Yes I am. Many great leaders of our time were poor spellers so your attempted connection between stupidity and poor spelling falls flat on its face. Secondly, if you have problems deciphering what I write because of spelling mistakes then it is your own comprehension is dubious not mine. I can understand what you say despite your spelling mistakes and your need to bring it to my attention in an attempt to taunt and belittle me. Not what you would call ethical.



You are here to provoke. I am here to defend and refute. I have better things todo then to provoke anyone. You seem extremely proficient at it though.

The rest of this post is just a repetition of stereotypical and mythical claims about gay people that have been pointed out and refuted several times on this thread.




722 This isn't about me. It is about gay marriage. If you want to debate then debate my opinions without insulting my person.
726 This is a religious forum and this thread is debating Gay marriage. Of course the subject of gays is going to arise.
731 You are doing it again. This is not about me and my person. We are debating gay marriage we are not trying to insult serenity the most. Get off my back you trouble making zealot with a spiteful tongue. You have made it all to clear that you are not here to debate.
746 Nothing relating to gay marriage here.
749 Nothing relating to gay marriage here.
751 Nothing relating to gay marriage here.
760 Nothing relating to gay marriage here.

Now, you are trying to say that I am lying about my acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle, well you were obviously lying about my objections to homosexuality as none of thjese quotes you have posted suggests anything of the sort.I may have used the word homosexuality instead of anal sex, however, the examples below demonstrates how I feel anout homosexuality. There are plenty more as well. You are a real piece of work aren't you. You have tried to set me up by misrepresenting me. How do you feel about that.
430 I accept gays and their inability to procreate. I do not accept lies being peddled as the truth.
478 Well, i don't have a problem with homosexuals either. The effect that they have on my life is zero. I am doing what any good Christian should be doing, that is, defending the word of God, and in this case it is - Leviticus 22. Man shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. I am not unique in my belief, all Christians believe this, otherwise, they are not Christian
565 I don't oppose homosexuality. I have not said that I do. I oppose those who peddle a lie as the truth for their own advantage. I oppose those who are unscrupulous in their attempt to make wrong right by deceiving and lying just to make them feel guiltless about the perversions that is a part of their lifestyle. No, I do not oppose homosexuals, they will have to stand accountable for their sin, as will I.



Not at all, I want you to debate honestly without using trickery.



I do not have the time to go through post desperately trying to find dirt on you, however, I have responded to your insults. If you do not like insults in retaliation then either stop insulting me or leave the debate.

I dismiss it because statistics prove nothing and can easily be twisted.




They are acceptations to the rule, mis-fits



We don't all dress in pink clothing and talk camp intentionally and tell everyone that we are straight.


Agreed



They act outside of the envelope and the circle of life.



They indulge in anal sex, which is abnormal. Many take poppers to facilitate anal sex. Many take recreation drugs and alcohol to reduce their inhibitions. Some use small animals to insert into their rectum, among other phallic objects. a questionably high proportion of pedophiles are also homosexual.



That is my educated opinion, it is anecdotal, however, if you want a links then here it is.

WHY HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27902859?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

The Devil's Misfits: The True Face of Homosexuality - My Testimony
Jay Hudson.a former homosexual, and now a born-again, Spirit-filled preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, has a God-ordained Call to expose the true face of homosexuality. He is anointed to operate in the Spiritual Gifts of Prophecy, Word of Knowledge, Healing and Exhortation. He is passionate to reach out to those individuals who are desiring to depart from the homosexual lifestyle; while he also desires to encourage and educate parents and siblings who have a loved one who is currently living in the gay or lesbian lifestyle. He offers sound biblical advice to loved ones, as well as, sharing with Church Leaders, on the proper manner in which to ready the Church, for ministering to those homosexuals who are exiting out of the lifestyle.



Your world is very black and white isn't it? You see no further then the nasty pictures. As I said, and you have confirm right here, fathers, in general, love their children unconditionally, very often, even when they abuse them. I am sorry but your opinions are so blinkered by your bigotry. You are not reasoning objectively which means that you are stuck in your own beliefs. You have just assumed that if a father abuses his child then he cannot possibly love him unconditionally. How could you know that?



You are wrong. I am not going to link you to government statistic, I have done that to no avail, but you are wrong, and you are wrong because you have not been converted by the Holy Ghost.

For probably the fourth time now, gay people can procreate. And they do procreate. They have the same genitals as everyone else.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am sorry if I have not answered anybody, there are just to many to respond to all at once but I will try

No worries. You've got quite a lot of responses to get to.

 

[Ingledsva]

A List of Parables that could teach wholesome principles to our children.

All you have listed is the usual atheist diatribe that has been explained to them on these pages many, many times. Atheists do not want to hear that though. It reduces their weaponry. These are just the parables, there are 1500 different simple stories used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson. Not bad is it?

1 The Growing Seed Mark 4:26–29
2 The Two Debtors Luke 7:41–43
3 The Lamp under a Bushel Matthew 5:14–15 Mark 4:21–25 Luke 8:16–18
4 Parable of the Good Samaritan Luke 10:25–37
5 The Friend at Night Luke 11:5–8
6 The Rich Fool Luke 12:16–21
7 The Wise and the Foolish Builders Matthew 7:24–27 Luke 6:46–49
8 New Wine into Old Wineskins Matthew 9:17–17 Mark 2:21–22 Luke 5:37–39
9 Parable of the strong man Matthew 12:29–29 Mark 3:27–27 Luke 11:21–22
10 Parable of the Sower Matthew 13:3–9 Mark 4:3–9 Luke 8:5–8
11 The Tares Matthew 13:24–30
12 The Barren Fig Tree Luke 13:6–9
13 Parable of the Mustard Seed Matthew 13:31–32 Mark 4:30–32 Luke 13:18–19
14 The Leaven Matthew 13:33–33 Luke 13:20–21
15 Parable of the Pearl Matthew 13:45–46
16 Drawing in the Net Matthew 13:47–50
17 The Hidden Treasure Matthew 13:44–44
18 Counting the Cost Luke 14:28–33
19 The Lost Sheep frequently called The Good Shepherd Matthew 18:10–14 Luke 15:4–6
20 The Unforgiving Servant Matthew 18:23–35
21 The Lost Coin Luke 15:8–9
22 Parable of the Prodigal Son Luke 15:11–32
23 The Unjust Steward Luke 16:1–13
24 Rich man and Lazarus Luke 16:19–31
25 The Master and Servant Luke 17:7–10
26 The Unjust Judge Luke 18:1–9
27 Pharisees and the Publican Luke 18:10–14
28 The Workers in the Vineyard Matthew 20:1–16
29 The Two Sons Matthew 21:28–32
30 The Wicked Husbandmen Matthew 21:33–41 Mark 12:1–9 Luke 20:9–16
31 The Great Banquet Matthew 22:1–14 Luke 14:15–24
32 The Budding Fig Tree Matthew 24:32–35 Mark 13:28–31 Luke 21:29–33
33 The Faithful Servant Matthew 24:42–51 Mark 13:34–37 Luke 12:35–48
34 The Ten Virgins Matthew 25:1–13
35 The Talents or Minas Matthew 25:14–30 Luke 19:12–27
36 The Sheep and the Goats Matthew 25:31–46
37 Parable of the Wedding Feast Luke 14:7–14
Parallels outside the canonical gospels[edit]
A number of parables have parallels in non-canonical gospels, the Didache, and the letters of Apostolic Fathers. However, given that the non-canonical gospels generally have no time sequence, this table is not a Gospel harmony.

Number Parable Matthew Mark Luke Other parallels[37][38][39]
1 Parable of the Sower Matthew 13:1–23 Mark 04:1–25 Luke 08:04–18 Thomas 9
1 Clement 24:5
2 Parable of the Tares Matthew 13:24–53 Thomas 57
3 Parable of the Growing Seed Mark 04:26–34 Thomas 21
4 Parable of the Hidden Treasure Matthew 13:44 Thomas 109
5 Parable of the Pearl Matthew 13:45 Thomas 76
6 Parable of Drawing in the Net Matthew 13:47–53 Thomas 8
7 Parable of the Rich Fool Luke 12:16–21 Thomas 63
8 Parable of the Faithful Servant Matthew 24:42–51 Mark 13:33–37 Luke 12:35–48 Thomas 103
Didache 16:1a
9 Parable of the Mustard Seed Matthew 13:31–32 Mark 4:30–32 Luke 13:18–19 Thomas 20
10 Parable of the Leaven Matthew 13:33 Luke 13:20–21 Thomas 96
11 Parable of the Lost Sheep Matthew 18:12–14 Luke 15:01–7 Thomas 107
Gospel of Truth 31–32
12 Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen Matthew 21:33–46 Mark 12:1–12 Luke 20:9–19 Thomas 65
13 Parable of the talents or minas Matthew 25:14–30 Luke 19:13–24 Nazoraeans 18
14 Parable of the great banquet Matthew 22:1–14 Luke 14:15–24 Thomas 64
15 Parable of the strong man Matthew 12:29–29 Mark 3:27–27 Luke 11:21–22 Thomas 35

I could easily go on.

And none of your parables will counter the actual crap in there.

Murder people that are different, or that don't obey your laws (working on Sabbath for instance), or if you want their land, rape women and children, sex slaves, hold slaves forever, etc.

Or being murdered for not wanting to be a slave under the reign of Jesus! Luke 19:27

*

 

[First Baseman]

LOL! And you leave out pertinent parts of the parable!

Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

That is very clear. Death for not wanting to be a slave under the reign of Jesus!

That's love for you!

*

You have drawn your conclusion out of context.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That would only give my age away.

It’s the 1950’s, right?

That

What country do you live in?

Canada. You still didn’t tell me what country you live in.

I am sure that such women with these aspirations existed in my age.

They’ve always existed.


You said that in your country and in your time, women weren’t made to work and didn’t want to work; that they had a more important job in raising families. And you said that in response to someone’s claim that “the world in past days” was extremely misogynistic. Can you see how your own statement could be seen as misogynistic, thus making that person’s point?

Each to their own opinion.

Indeed.

If that is the case with anyone who calls themselves a Christian then they are very much mistaken in there belief and their stance as a Christian must be brought in question. At the end of the day it is is mankind who is responsible for their own actions and not God.

I totally agree that mankind is responsible for their own actions, because I do not believe in god(s). What I’m saying is, human beings use words that they claim are from god(s) to condemn, demonize and marginalize their fellow human beings. The way that some Christians or some Muslims do when it comes to gay people. That behavior serves to perpetuate institutional or structural violence.

If I was not posting then there would be no debate. This is a debating forum where people debate. These are my opinions. By all means critique them but don't try to stifle freedom of speech. That is dictatorial.

As I responded, this commandment is not about women.

Yes, I understand that we are debating. I didn’t tell you to stop posting. I am pointing out what I see as a problem in your argumentation. In other words, I am critiquing your argument.


I guess I don’t understand your position then. Homosexuality is a sin, but only if it’s a men? Women are free to be openly gay and do what they please, and that’s not considered a sin? It’s only participating in anal sex that is a sin? If lesbians have anal sex are they then considered to be sinning?


Why would it be okay for women to be gay but not men? How does the logic work there?

Anal sex is a perversion regardless as to who is doing it or how often. That is the commandment of God so can never be questioned as God is unchanging, the same today, tomorrow and forever.

Then please stop equating it with homosexuality.


Okay so the sin isn’t in being gay, the sin is in having anal sex? Am I understanding this yet?

So if a man is gay but never has anal sex, is that okay?

No, that is just how it is. Are heterosexuals abnormal and homosexuals normal. Do homosexuals set the bar for society or do heterosexuals set the standard. If you answer that heterosexuals set the standard then you have to declare that homosexuality is outside of the envelope, act contrary to normal human behavior, an abnormality in our society. That is sound reasoning.

They’re all normal at this point. There has always been a proportion of the population that has been gay. In other words, it’s normal for a certain portion of the population to identify as homosexual as a sexual orientation.


Besides, we now know that human sexuality isn’t as binary as people once thought it was, rather, it falls along more of a spectrum where people sit all over the place between the two orientations.

As with everything is our world, there are always exceptions to the rule. I didn't say that all fathers love their offspring unconditionally for that reason. Still trying to put words in my mouth. You make it sound like the alternative is common place, as you do with homosexuality.


What I said was "something that is considered to be missing when adopting" I said it was a consideration not a fact.

Come on. Saying something is considered to be a certain way implies that it is a fact.


By whom? You? What is the reasoning behind this view?

I would say that those who cannot see the wood for the trees are deluding themselves or are a part of the problem. The internet is full of articles on it plus our eyes can see it everywhere.

Do you dispute my assertion that over the last century or so, things have gotten better for women, gay people, people of color and basically just minorities in general?

So, you recognize the past transgressions of man but you are blind to today's decaying world.

I’m pointing out that things are much, much better now than they were for most, if not all of human history. You made the assertion that the world is getting much worse (you didn’t give any specifics though).

And that is why you don't see it. You don't want to

I don’t see it because you provided no examples and because I know that if I were a woman living a little over a century ago, I wouldn’t have had any right to vote or own property; I would have had little to no control over my own body and my own reproductive cycle; I would have a very difficult time getting into college or getting a job (making it very difficult to maintain any kind of independence, should that be what I wanted for myself); I could have been put into a mental institution against my will for expressing my own opinions publicly; and I probably would have died giving birth to my ninth child. I’d say I have good reason to believe that I live in the best time to be a woman in human history. I’d say I have good reason to believe that society is not falling apart.


But I’m all ears to hear what it is that I am missing.

 

[Ingledsva]

You have drawn your conclusion out of context.

LOL! No I haven't. Note how the servants are taken care of - then - he says kill the ones whom in the beginning of the parable, said no to his reign!

Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

Luk 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

Luk 19:16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

Luk 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

Luk 19:18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.

Luk 19:19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

Luk 19:20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold,here isthy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

Luk 19:21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

Luk 19:22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee,thouwicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

Luk 19:23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

Luk 19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

Luk 19:25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

Luk 19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

We are told what happens to the servants that were given the money. NONE DIED. BUT - those whom refused him, - slaughtered.

*

 

[SkepticThinker]

For the father, he is in dire trouble. For the son, he will be blessed by keeping the commandment. But you are talking about extremes. One would hardly survive being beaten everyday for his entire childhood. I would not expect his childhood to last very long.



Well, that is debatable. I do not actually know, however, there are questions to be asked, like, what that unconditional bond is and whether someone who is not biologically attached can feel that bond that is all to apparent with biological parents.

What reason do we have to believe that is not the case?

If their bodies produce oxytocin (as most everyone's does), they should be just as capable of bonding with other human beings as anyone else.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No apology necessary. You are free to comment and I am glad you are here. This is an important issue and I feel it should be given the time and effort it is due.

Thank you, I usually feel a bit weird butting in.

I agree that this is an important issue.

I would love to see some of this evidence. Would you mind sharing a link?


How does one measure a person’s compassion or empathy?

“A large body of scientific literature demonstrates that children and adolescents who grow up with gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.21–37 Although the methodologic challenges are daunting in

addressing phenomena as complex and multifactorial as children’s longterm developmental and psychosocial outcomes, the literature accumulated over more than 30 years, taken together, provides robust, reliable, and valid assurance about the well-being of children raised by parents of thesame gender.28,29”


http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377.full.pdf



Hmm, I may have gotten the traits wrong …


“And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research.”

http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html

I was claiming that men and women parent differently. They operate differently. They react to situations differently. I believe that a child should be exposed to all of these differences in order to develop ideally.

All people parent differently. All people operate differently and react to situations differently. Is there some womanly way to react to situations that’s different from a manly reaction?


If you look into some of the studies I posted above (mainly the top link) they talk about how the children raised in two-parent-same-sex families fare just as well as children raised in two-parent-opposite-sex families. And all of those children fare better than those raised in single parent families.

I mentioned masculinity and femininity only to stress the point that no matter how similar someone might be to the opposite sex, a male is not a female and a female is not a male. Therefore, they cannot provide those differences that I believe are crucial.

What do you think those differences are?

This is a false dichotomy.


You are oversimplifying the situation and are trying to make it appear that the Catholic adoption services had only the one choice or nothing. That is not the case. That is not true at all.

Maybe you have a point. Let’s rephrase then.


If a loving gay couple show up looking for a child to adopt, the Church would rather withhold the child from that home and wait until a straight couple showed up?

I am grateful that this will never be an option because there are always heterosexual couples looking to adopt.

Gay couples have been raising adopted and biological kids for quite a while now. My female cousin raises her biological daughter with her wife.


I’m grateful that there are gay and straight people in the world looking to give a home to children who need one.

I only know so much about Catholicism (I am not Catholic), but I know that they did not want to allow unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt their children either.

At least they’re consistent, I guess.

Catholics only want the children in their programs to go to families. They do not define “family” as just any group of people that have a deep regard for one another. They only consider a group to be a “family” if the female mother and male father are married.

The Catholic Church, as an organization, does not want to be caught supporting what they consider to be sinful behavior. They consider heterosexual sexual relations outside of marriage to be sinful. They also consider homosexual sexual relations to be sinful.

They may be able to help more children if they’d reconsider that view, especially in light of the studies I linked above. I doubt that will happen though.

Allowing any of these “entities” to adopt one of their children would be redefining what they consider a “family” and “marriage” and it would inadvertently mean that they are supporting what they consider to be sinful behavior.

You’d think they’d be happy enough just finding homes for needy children in the first place. Let god sort out the sin stuff.

This observation is based on a false dichotomy.

It’s based on the fact that they’ve got a lot to clean up in their own backyard before they should start trying to dictate morality to anyone else.

No. That is a violation of my religious rights guaranteed to me by the First Amendment.

No it isn’t. You don’t have the right to dictate what marriage is for a whole country, based on your religious beliefs. The state and federal government recognizes marriage to be between two consenting adults of either the same sex or opposite sex. So whether your religious sensibilities agree with it or not, two people of the same sex that have a marriage licence are married.


Nobody is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex. And nobody is forcing churches to perform ceremonies that they don’t agree with. So how are your rights being violated?

The fundamental differences had among both genders are multiplicative when introduced into a heterosexual relationship. These differences are what can enhance, ennoble and empower a relationship that a same-sex couple just cannot duplicate.

Such as?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All people parent differently. All people operate differently and react to situations differently. Is there some womanly way to react to situations that’s different from a manly reaction?

Makes me think of my dad's family. With both the men and women, when it comes to child rearing or solving problems with other adults, the phrase "I'm gonna whup your ***" is typically spoken and resorted to as a means of "conflict resolution."

 

[Serenity7855]

It’s the 1950’s, right?

Yes

Canada. You still didn’t tell me what country you live in.

The UK

They’ve always existed.

You said that in your country and in your time, women weren’t made to work and didn’t want to work; that they had a more important job in raising families.

Yes, I did

And you said that in response to someone’s claim that “the world in past days” was extremely misogynistic. Can you see how your own statement could be seen as misogynistic, thus making that person’s point?

I am not misogynistic in any way so the context was not intentionally misogynistic, however, I recognize that it could have been interpreted thus. So when I was accused of being misogynistic, in an attempt to besmirch me, I explained my point demonstrating that i was not guilty as accused. That should be enough. I shouldn't have to keep explaining myself.

I totally agree that mankind is responsible for their own actions, because I do not believe in god(s). What I’m saying is, human beings use words that they claim are from god(s) to condemn, demonize and marginalize their fellow human beings. The way that some Christians or some Muslims do when it comes to gay people. That behavior serves to perpetuate institutional or structural violence.

Yes, I agree, however, there is always two sides to every story.

Yes, I understand that we are debating. I didn’t tell you to stop posting. I am pointing out what I see as a problem in your argumentation. In other words, I am critiquing your argument.

That is fine, I really don't mind that. It is the insults that I find unnecessary and offensive. It is being told to keep my opinion to myself on a debating forum.

I guess I don’t understand your position then. Homosexuality is a sin, but only if it’s a men? Women are free to be openly gay and do what they please, and that’s not considered a sin? It’s only participating in anal sex that is a sin? If lesbians have anal sex are they then considered to be sinning?

The bible does not really talk about homosexuality, rather, it is sexual perversion that it condemns as sinful. In the scriptures relating to men it is clear, when analyzing them, that God is referring to anal sex. I can think of no scriptures where the love of one man for another is condemned. Many Christian believe that it is homosexuality that is being spoken of, it is not. Anal sex is a sin because it is a sexual perversion, regardless of your sexual orientation. It is my opinion that anal sex is quite rightly a sexual perversion that causes many problems in our society, that gets swept under the carpet. What is most important to note is that we are here to be tried and tested in the flesh and are given free agency to act in the manner of our choice. It is the individual who will have to stand accountable for their actions, therefore, we have no right to judge them or condemn them when we walk so imperfectly. We should pray for them that they to will feel the promptings of the Holy Ghost and come unto Christ.

Why would it be okay for women to be gay but not men? How does the logic work there?

It doesn't. It is OK for both to be gay it is not OK for them to commit sexual sins. But remember, that only relates to Christianity.

Okay so the sin isn’t in being gay, the sin is in having anal sex? Am I understanding this yet?

That is my opinion.

So if a man is gay but never has anal sex, is that okay?

That is my belief

They’re all normal at this point. There has always been a proportion of the population that has been gay. In other words, it’s normal for a certain portion of the population to identify as homosexual as a sexual orientation.

I believe so

Besides, we now know that human sexuality isn’t as binary as people once thought it was, rather, it falls along more of a spectrum where people sit all over the place between the two orientations.

That is a theory not a fact. It is not known, for a certainty, what makes someone gay. But remember, we all have free agency to act in the manner we chose, that means that just because you have these emotions does not mean that you have to act upon them. Whether you do or not is your choice.

Come on. Saying something is considered to be a certain way implies that it is a fact.

Well no, off course not. It is a postulation, a hypothesis or a theory that may or may not end up as a fact

Do you dispute my assertion that over the last century or so, things have gotten better for women, gay people, people of color and basically just minorities in general?

Your talking about prejudices. I do not know if they have gotten better or if they are simmering away on the back boiler. Secondly, there are more of us now so there is naturally more prejudices. Even if they have gotten better everything else is dilapidating around us. Society is ripening ready for the second coming. Just watch the news and you will see many examples.

I’m pointing out that things are much, much better now than they were for most, if not all of human history. You made the assertion that the world is getting much worse (you didn’t give any specifics though).

We are all individuals with different needs, wants, aspirations, likes and dislikes. What makes you happy might make me sad. You might only know about today. Yes, I did post an article showing the decline of our society. But there are so many of these articles on the internet demonstrating that society is pretty run down in all areas. As someone that grew up in the 50s I can categorically state that, in my opinion, things were much better then compared to what they are like today.

I don’t see it because you provided no examples and because I know that if I were a woman living a little over a century ago, I wouldn’t have had any right to vote or own property; I would have had little to no control over my own body and my own reproductive cycle; I would have a very difficult time getting into college or getting a job (making it very difficult to maintain any kind of independence, should that be what I wanted for myself); I could have been put into a mental institution against my will for expressing my own opinions publicly; and I probably would have died giving birth to my ninth child. I’d say I have good reason to believe that I live in the best time to be a woman in human history. I’d say I have good reason to believe that society is not falling apart.

That is because you are living it right now. You may have said the same thing a hundred years ago. All that you mention is what you could not have and not what you could have. All are material but happiness is not material it is spiritual. One thing is for sure, you could breath clean air a hundred years ago. Pollution is just one of the prices we pay for what you have.

But I’m all ears to hear what it is that I am missing.

The meaning of life, the purpose for our existence, the reason why we are here at this time in this universe. They knowledge and wisdom that comes with companionship of the Holy Ghost, I wish that I could give you a free sample, however, only you can come to a knowledge that there is a divinity and God does exist. Science confirms it for us via the Big Bag, the Cosmological Model, The Higgs Boson, Dark Energy and Dark Matter, Fine Tuning, Biogenesis, Rapid Expansion, Evolution, and the most important of them all is Quantum Physics. All of these testify that a God exists, must exist.

 

[Serenity7855]

What reason do we have to believe that is not the case?

At this time, it could very well be that way.

If their bodies produce oxytocin (as most everyone's does), they should be just as capable of bonding with other human beings as anyone else.

I wasn't referring to the physical I was referring to the spiritual. A spiritual bond between a spirit father and his son that may, or may not, be responsible for that unconditional love. I am referring to Morphic fields that underlie the organization of proteins, cells, crystals, plants, animals, brains, and minds. They help to explain habits, memories, instincts, telepathy, and the sense of direction. They have an inherent memory and imply that many of the so-called laws of nature are more like habits. They may cause an interaction between the father and son during pregnancy that eventually creates a bond. It is a relatively knew area of research that stems from the magnetic fields generated by our body and how they can effect those around us.

 

[JoStories]

No, religion is but a lifestyle that promotes all that is needed to create a utopian society. Nothing that it teaches is derogatory in any way. It can only have a positive influence on mankind. To exclude it is possitively ridiculous and only serves Beelzebub.

A utopian society? You wish to see a 1984 type of lifestyle? Religion, and this includes all of them, definitely does teach derogatory messages. One need only look at the WBC, or Jihadists, or the Inquisition, or the truly heinous acts being inflicted on women in Africa in the name of the RCC. I could name many more but you, I am sure, get the point. If this is the 'lifestyle' you wish to see inflicted on all of this planet, I would easily choose death first.

 

[JoStories]

That is just part of the parable.

Luke 19:23 says "Why then gavest not thou my money unto the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with interest?"

Of course there is no real bank Jesus is referring to, it is part of the parable.

What the parable means is that this is the judgment for the man who was given a talent and hid it away rather than use it gain more for the Master. It does not refer to those who were given no talents by the Master.

She posted a totally different verse though. She posted "27 But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me". You will note how this verse does instruct the reader to murder.

 

[JoStories]

There is nothing moral or just about a person's sin, either, and all have sinned. Sin brings about death and judgement. Judgement isn't about cookies and cream.

Your faith may say that you 'sin' but you should not use a blanket statement such as you have as not all people are a part of your faith and many don't believe in the concept of 'sin'. As a Buddhist, I certainly don't. And 'sin' does not bring death or any of that. In my faith, we make choices which are lessons in this life we must learn from. Some are small, some are profound. I would appreciate you not using blanket statements about everyone falling under the umbrella of your faith.

 

[First Baseman]

LOL! No I haven't. Note how the servants are taken care of - then - he says kill the ones whom in the beginning of the parable, said no to his reign!

Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

Luk 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

Luk 19:16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

Luk 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

Luk 19:18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.

Luk 19:19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

Luk 19:20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold,here isthy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

Luk 19:21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

Luk 19:22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee,thouwicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

Luk 19:23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

Luk 19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

Luk 19:25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

Luk 19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

We are told what happens to the servants that were given the money. NONE DIED. BUT - those whom refused him, - slaughtered.

*

You still haven't justified your claims about the passage. You want to try again or just give it a rest and admit that you can't do it?

 

[First Baseman]

She posted a totally different verse though. She posted "27 But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me". You will note how this verse does instruct the reader to murder.

No it doesn't. The command was given in parable form to the angels. Angels are incapable of murder.

And judgement means that some will be found guilty and to be found guilty is to pay the price. So if you can't do the time (or get executed) don't do the crime.

The passage is a stern warning to those who will not do the will of the Almighty Holy God but instead continue in their own agenda in sin. God will not tolerate this.

No one is commanded to commit murder.

 

[Serenity7855]

LOL! No I haven't. Note how the servants are taken care of - then - he says kill the ones whom in the beginning of the parable, said no to his reign!

Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

Luk 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

Luk 19:16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

Luk 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

Luk 19:18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.

Luk 19:19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

Luk 19:20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold,here isthy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

Luk 19:21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

Luk 19:22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee,thouwicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

Luk 19:23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

Luk 19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

Luk 19:25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

Luk 19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

We are told what happens to the servants that were given the money. NONE DIED. BUT - those whom refused him, - slaughtered.

*

You seem to think that the Bible is a history book and it's contents are an accurate account of those times, let me tell you that it most certainly is not. Don't beat yourself up about it though as most atheists are under the same impression, or they use it as such to try and discredit the existence of Deity. The New Testament is not even chronologically correct.

The main impetus and objective for the existence of the Bible is to help us to draw nearer to God by adhering to the concepts and principles in this magnificent book of commandments. By using the Bible to help manoeuvre us through life's trials and tribulations will help us to gain eternal life in the presence of God.

It is very possible that many of the stories and allegories contained in the Bible are just that, fictitious stories with a moral undertone. For example, we pretty much know that it is unlikely that a world flood ever occurred, however, by reading that story we can learn what the reward for excessive and persistent evil might be. That is the reason why the Bible contains that principle.This can all be corroborated by looking up the definition of a "parable" it is "a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels." A moral fable selected by God to teach us correct principles so that we may be the benefactors and reap eternal life with Him.

The bible is full of these moral tales that can only produce virtuous and edifying fruit when teaching them in our schools, and all places of learning, to instill wholesome moral principles in our society instead of hostile children with a chip on their shoulders who have no real direction in life. No reason for their existence. Heck, I would sooner that it was all a lie and when I die there would be nothing, rather then to have no purpose or meaning for my life, how very desperately depressing. No wonder our world is on a social kamikaze mission to final and certain coup de grâce.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No it doesn't. The command was given in parable form to the angels. Angels are incapable of murder.

Satan is an angel, and he killed seven people. And if angels can't kill, why would Jesus give a parable that speaks of something impossible?

The passage is a stern warning to those who will not do the will of the Almighty Holy God but instead continue in their own agenda in sin. God will not tolerate this.

True, and it says to kill those who don't want your God to reign over them.

No one is commanded to commit murder.

"...bring hither and slay them before me." That is a very clear order to kill.

 

[Serenity7855]

A utopian society? You wish to see a 1984 type of lifestyle? .

A 1984 lifestyle? I certainly do not wish for it but in case you hadn't notice it is pretty much here already, especially in respect to big brother. Let me tell you that Orson Well's 1984 did not portray a utopia society

Religion, and this includes all of them, definitely does teach derogatory messages

No, you are not reading it with an open mind rather than a critical closed mind. There is nothing in the Bible that is derogatory. It is all intended to benefit us, after all, it is the literal word of God and God is incapable of being derogatory.

One need only look at the WBC, or Jihadists, or the Inquisition, or the truly heinous acts being inflicted on women in Africa in the name of the RCC.

Again, another person equating the deeds of mankind with God. You cannot blame God for something that man has done. It is nonsensical.

I am sure, get the point. If this is the 'lifestyle' you wish to see inflicted on all of this planet, I would easily choose death first.

Oh, I get the point. I did not advocate such a lifestyle for anyone.

 

[Serenity7855]

And none of your parables will counter the actual crap in there.

How eloquently phrased.

Murder people that are different, or that don't obey your laws (working on Sabbath for instance), or if you want their land, rape women and children, sex slaves, hold slaves forever, etc.

During the beatitudes Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Laws and introduced the Abrahamic Covenant, effectively rendering most of the Old Testament obsolete. So why do you harp on about something that has been fulfilled more than 2000 years ago.

Or being murdered for not wanting to be a slave under the reign of Jesus! Luke 19:27

Being a slave at that time was much different then in our times. There are plenty of articles that can explain that for you on the internet.

You give an impression that you just want to diss God rather than constructively critique opinions and beliefs.