Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[Serenity7855]

Or we could just look at it a different way and notice that natural events just happen, and they are beyond our control. Why attach all this unnecessary baggage to it?

1. Natural disaster do just happen
2. They are beyond our control
3. The baggage you refer to is in fact scientific advancement The Universal Mind and the Laws of Attraction.

The "natural laws of the Universal Consciousness" are not scientific truth.

1. This is not simply a philosophical ideal passed down to us through the ages. It is an exact scientific truth.

So god is the universe,

I don't know that yet, however, it is certainly within the realms of possibility. That is why I started the thread "Is God and Energy the same thing?"

and this universe will get you if you’re wicked and debaucherous,

No, the universe will react to certain condition that it picks up on, like overwhelming wickedness.

but only sometimes and only in some places and there’s no real way of knowing if you’ve been sent a hurricane or an earthquake just randomly or if it’s because you’ve been wicked and debaucherous. Or you can carry on with wicked actions indefinitely and nothing at all will happen to you.

How on earth have you manage to come to this resolve from anything that I have written here discombobulate me. You are complicating a simplistic phenomenon with

1. This only applies to the lives of those living under the Mosaic Laws, which have now been superceded by the Abrahamic Covenant.
2. When a group of people, living under the Mosaic Law, reach a point of impious and sacrilegious wickedness the Universal Mind reacts.
3. Does God know how it will act, well in order to tell the that a great flood will destroy them I would say yes, so no surprises there.
4. No, you can carry on with wicked actions indefinitely and nothing at all will happen to you. Those prostitutes, as I have said, are governed by the Abrahamic Covenant

Sorry, I don’t blindly obey anybody, especially without any explanation.

Neither do I, unless it is God. Then I am humble enough to do what I am told to do because I know that He sees what I cannot see and what ever he tells me to do will be for my benefit.

If something doesn’t make sense, I’m not going to just accept it and I don’t think anybody else should either.

Again, neither do I, however, it makes perfect sense to me.

I have to say, I find these kinds of assertions to be kind of strange. I mean, you seem to know (or claim to know) so much about this god you worship right down to the “spiritual laws of attraction” and “natural laws of the universal consciousness” and who this god punished in the past and exactly why, and on and on with the minutiae. But when you come upon a difficult question or a counterpoint, all of a sudden it’s all so mysterious and we can’t know the whole picture and who really knows.

It seem mysterious to you because you cannot conceptualize it and your knowledge on the subject might be limited. I got my knowledge about universal consciousness from scientific articles and journals. I think you will find that Christianity may not agree with me as it just might disagree with how they see God. The rest is gleaned by simple objective and inductive reasoning using my own knowledge and the knowledge and wisdom of those who are intellectually superior to me.

So that means what? That god no longer feels like warning people about their terrible and potentially natural disaster-inducing behavior?

I means that civilization reach a point where it was appropriate to introduce the Abrahamic Covenant. No more were there physical punishments for sin, like cutting the thief's hand of or flooding the earth. It was a time for free agency and faith in God to come into its own.

I didn’t ask you to judge them. I’m trying to point out that natural disasters have nothing to do with people’s behavior and there’s really no evidence to indicate that we should believe that. Naturally disasters apparently just happen without rhyme or reason.

Hey, I am not asking, or expecting, you to believe anything that I say on here. That is for your own conscious. The evidence is provided by the Bible. The earth was flooded because of the wickedness of the people. God could not kill them as he is a perfect being incapable of sin. That is the character of God. We cannot even dwell in his presence because of His perfect. We would shrevil and die and whilst we did he would be contaminated by our carnality. He is pure love, He is incapable of hurting us. If He did then he would cease to be God. It is a fundamental principle of the Bible and Christianity. So who do you think killed them if it wasn't God?

I have read them. I am talking about now. How do we determine the next time there is a natural disaster whether it is just random or the result of somebody’s sinfulness?

There will be no more disasters of this magnitude because Christ will return before mankind becomes that wicked again, plus, of course, and for the umpteenth time, we are living under the Abrahamic Covenant.

So god used to get human beings to carry out his dirty work for him, but changed his mind and decided not to do that anymore, but he still sends natural disasters to punish people?

I never said that. I said that the Universal Mind reacts.

I don’t know. You’re the one saying that we can’t see the whole picture like this god can and that this god knows what’s best for us, even if we don’t. So maybe there is some greater cause to that woman murdering her children that we just can’t understand (according to your line of reasoning). Maybe her kids were going to grow up to be serial killers or something. Who knows.

Who knows

And that looks like a cop out to me too. You just said we can’t understand why god does what “he” does and that there’s a bigger picture we can’t understand.

Whether you think it a cop out or not .it is the way that it is. We do not have the capacity to see Alpha and Omega but he does because He is a God. But we may know the answer to all things, even hidden knowledge, when we reach a point of righteousness where we can tap into the powers of heaven.

Because I know that the Mosaic Laws were fulfilled by Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount. We will not be allowed to reach the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah ever again as the second coming will precede that point.Oh okay, so natural disasters aren’t punishment from god then?

That depends on whether you believe that God is the universal mind or pure intelegent energy

 

[sojourner]

The original comment had been about same-sex couples going to the Catholic Church looking to adopt a child. I made a comparison about that being like coming to my house and asking me for alcohol.

Therefore, I was not trying to equate the "world" with my "house". I was equating the Catholic Church to my "house".

Since you missed my meaning I will explain that I was trying to say that in a religious institution, the religious leaders make the rules based on their doctrine. Just as at my house I would make the rules.

Therefore, in a Catholic church, no one should be allowed to contend with them over their rules and policies, just like no one should be able to contend with my rules while they are in my house.

I never said that the "world" belonged to either the Catholic or the Latter-Day Saints (LDS aka "Mormon", but prefer LDS).

So, IOW, we should just let the Catholics alone, and let their pedophilic priests continue to perp on little boys, because it's taking place "in their house." Wrong is wrong, no matter whose house the wrong is taking place in.

No it is not. Let me rephrase your sentence to make it more accurate,

"According to our beliefs, we cannot support homosexuality. Therefore, we cannot allow you to adopt any of the children from this institution. We will, however, recommend other agencies that would be able to help you find a child to adopt. God bless and have a nice day."

so, somehow, "adopting children" equates to "support of homosexuality." Seems like an inordinately heavy (and unrelated) burden to place on the small shoulders of orphaned children. No, I'm afraid the issue isn't "support of homosexuality." The issue is "unwarranted fear of homosexuality." they don't believe that homosexual people can be "moral enough" to adequately love and rear children. They have no real evidence, mind you, just their own bigotry based on misinformation. Somehow, it's more "moral" to subject children to the known problem of pedophilia than it is to place them into loving and capable homes.

So, when someone tries to bum a cigarette off me, when I confess not to have a cigarette, I am "foisting" my beliefs concerning tobacco on that person? They can cry out, "Discrimination?"

Nope. Not even close. If you had advertised yourself as a "purveyor of cigarettes," it would be closer. Obviously, the Catholics "believe in adoption," or they wouldn't be adopting out children. The issue is that they have taken it upon themselves to discriminate against a whole segment of the population with regard to whom they will consider as "good candidates." That's not their call to make, so long as the prospective parents pass muster based on real, psychological and sociological data.

I am not saying this just on a whim or just to pass the time. I want people to know that homosexuality is a sin and that practicing it hurts yourself and others.

I would hope that my saying this and perhaps teaching why it is a sin (no one has even cared enough to ask) would cause those who have not committed the sin to refrain from committing it and those who have committed it to repent and change their ways.

I would want my declaring that homosexuality is a sin to be equitable to my shouting that the building is on fire! I want people to react and get to safety!

You're mistaken. It's not a sin. And even if it were, it would only be a sin for you -- not for everyone else. You don't see the Jews going around calling "foul" over people breaking their laws who aren't Jewish, do you? If Christians wanna eat shellfish, that's their business. In fact, I know plenty of Jews who sell shellfish -- even if they, themselves, don't believe in eating it.

Homosexuality isn't an act that's committed. It's an orientation that forms one's identity. How can one refrain from being who they are?! See, this is why people who don't know better shouldn't be allowed to continue to spread unfounded bigotry.

Homosexuality isn't a fire. It's a normal, healthy expression of human sexuality.

You can continue to ignorantly believe this if you want.

However, if you knew anything about translation, just because there might not be a direct translation of a word or concept, that does not mean that that word or concept does not exist in the original language.

Certain words just don't translate well.

That is a very poor and ignorant premise upon which to claim that the scriptures do not condemn homosexuality.

I'd be more than willing to bet that my translational and exegetical skills far outweigh your own, based upon what I've read here. Actually, if there's no term for the concept, it's quite likely that the concept didn't exist. The injunctions against certain sexual acts are far, far more culturally-embedded than you think.

Perhaps I was unclear.

That's an understatement.

I am not condemning homosexuality because it is "different" from my lifestyle. I have to condemn it because the Word of God teaches that I should.

For example, the LDS don't drink coffee and tea. They believe it to be a commandment from God in these last days.

When non-LDS people hear this they always assume, "The Mormons must not like caffeine." Then, lo and behold, they witness me drinking a Coke. It's funny how people run up to me all bewildered exclaiming, "I thought Mormons didn't drink caffeine!"

No where in the revelation about what we should and should not eat was caffeine ever mentioned. People simply assumed, because there is caffeine in both coffee and tea, that the "Mormons" don't drink caffeine.

The "Word of God" also teaches that you should stone adulterers, not wear clothing of mixed cloth, and that raped women must marry their attacker. Why don't we hear you braying loudly about those things? In fact, those things are far, far more explicitly spelled out than any injunctions against homosexuality.

With regard to the coffee and tea thing: Science has revealed many, many health benefits of both coffee and tea that have nothing to do with caffeine. In fact, science has shown conclusively that coffee and tea are far more healthful than soda pop. Science has also shown that homosexuality is a natural and healthy human sexual identity. Why do you continue to hold everyone to outdated and misinformed standards, just because your bible "says so?" And why, for Pete's sake, aren't you petitioning the Supreme Court to take coffee and tea out of circulation, since the consumption of it is a "sin?" Why the focus on homosexuality?

I do, however, need to condemn the practice of homosexuality because it has been revealed by God to be sinful and He has commanded me to condemn it.

Condemn the practice of homosexuality, not the person claiming to be homosexual.

Homosexuality isn't a "practice." It's an identity. Which means that when you condemn it, you are condemning a person.

 

[sojourner]

1. This only applies to the lives of those living under the Mosaic Laws, which have now been superceded by the Abrahamic Covenant.

Which has been superceded by the New Covenant.

The evidence is provided by the Bible. The earth was flooded because of the wickedness of the people

The earth wasn't flooded, as per the bible. There is no scientific evidence to show this.

for the umpteenth time, we are living under the Abrahamic Covenant.

No, the Law was fulfilled, and Jesus gave us a New Covenant.

 

[Demonslayer]

Jesus gave us a New Covenant.

"Invalid"

- The Jews

 

[Serenity7855]

I
IMO, this is a poor example. On the one hand, the judge with pass the sentence. On the other, God does the killing. There is no other way to see this. Yes, they disobeyed. Ok...I will hand you that. But in the end, rather than being compassionate or giving them some license, God intentionally killed them all. I get that you see it that it was their own fault, but that does not negate the fact that it was God who killed them. And if that is your view of what and who God is, that makes God into a rather monstrous being.

That is the point that I am making. God has to act within the constraints of his own abilities. He physically and spiritually cannot do anything sinful. It is impossible, unthinkable. It cannot happen. God simply cannot kill even if he wanted to, which he cannot want to, however, he can warn,

 

[Serenity7855]

Which has been superceded by the New Covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant cannot be superseded, it is an everlasting covenant.

The earth wasn't flooded, as per the bible. There is no scientific evidence to show this.

No, I realise that their is no scientific evidence to support the flood, however, this is God, or the universal mind, we speak of. But, in my opinion, there is a very good chance that it is just a story, like most of them are..

No, the Law was fulfilled, and Jesus gave us a New Covenant.

Yes, I would agree with that.

 

[Demonslayer]

But, in my opinion, there is a very good chance that it is just a story, like most of them are..

If Sodom and Gomorrah was just a story as well, would that change your mind about the intrinsic evil of homosexuality?

 

[Serenity7855]

If Sodom and Gomorrah was just a story as well, would that change your mind about the intrinsic evil of homosexuality?

No, because it is the content of the parable that is important, the message it is giving us and not whether it actually happened. However, I don't believe that homosexuality is evil, I believe that anal sex is a sexual sin but it does not make the perpetrator evil, it is the sin that is evil. I am not against two people loving each other, I don't believe that God is either.

 

[Demonslayer]

I believe that anal sex is a sexual sin

Even between a man and a woman?

 

[sojourner]

"Invalid"

- The Jews

The poster is Christian, so it's not "invalid."

 

[sojourner]

The Abrahamic Covenant cannot be superseded, it is an everlasting covenant.

Tell that to Jesus...

No, I realise that their is no scientific evidence to support the flood, however, this is God, or the universal mind, we speak of. But, in my opinion, there is a very good chance that it is just a story, like most of them are..

How do you know that it's not all "just story," that we can either dismiss or take at face value, as makes us comfortable?

 

[Serenity7855]

Tell that to Jesus...


How do you know that it's not all "just story," that we can either dismiss or take at face value, as makes us comfortable?

The Holy Ghost told me

 

[Serenity7855]

Even between a man and a woman?

Yes, it is a sexual sin. God does not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.

 

[Ingledsva]

*

First of all, how do gay people dampen the merriment of Christmas? They don’t like Christmas?

Any way that they can. Why, because they do not believe in the birth of Christ, Christianity have been totally overtly honest about their stance on homosexuality which can cause those with a neurotic disposition to become retaliatory. ...

WOW! That is the most dishonest crap I have heard in a long time.

You know perfectly well lots of gay people are religious and celebrate the birth, = Christmas. And a few not believing, - would in no way change Christmas.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

He didn't. You must be reading it subjectively.

How many times do I have to post the text saying he - personally - murdered King David's baby?

And of course we also have the flood, and the exodus story.

The Exodus story says YHVH made it so Pharaoh wouldn't let the Hebrew go, then it says he murdered the firstborn, for Pharaoh not letting the Hebrew go.

Another twisted -immoral murder of the innocent - for the crimes of others - story. With a YHVH being the reason, - kicker.

*

 

[Prestor John]

Emotionally well, socially well, relations with peers - the children of homosexual parents do just as well as children of heterosexual parents.

How are these things measured? What are the standards to which they were compared? Did these studies continue to follow-up on these children into their teens or adulthood?

Actually, any and all questions I’d have for you about these studies could easily be answered if you’d only share a link to this “meta-analysis” like I asked you to last week in post #862.

Why did you ignore my request? Would you mind sharing that link now? Or am I going to need to ask you a third time?

There is no need for alarm or concern.

Excuse me, but it is not up to you to decide what concerns or alarms me.

Considering that I love others and that I believe that homosexuality is destructive to those that practice it, the “same-sex marriage” topic concerns me greatly and it is very alarming.

In many cases, this just is not happening.

Millions of people disagree and many lawsuits have been and will continue to be filed.

The Federal government has refused to renew contracts with certain religious organizations because of their beliefs concerning marriage.

In some cases, such as "no negroes/gays allowed," oh well.

People keep trying to make this issue about that issue, but they are not the same. Apples to oranges.

Try to stay on track. Don’t get distracted.

The state is not forcing the Church to change. If it happens from within (as was the case with allowing black people), that is entirely within the church. The state had nothing to do with it.

No one said that the State had anything to do with the lifting of the Priesthood ban.

I was merely stating that the Supreme Court’s decision had sparked some unrest in certain members of the LDS Church over this issue.

I never said that the State was trying to change the LDS Church.

Please stop getting side-tracked. Stop losing focus. Pay attention.

That is not happening.

You quoted only a portion of what I had said and then tried to make it seem as though I had said something that I did not actually say.

I never said that the State had forced any Church to offer services to those they deemed unworthy. What I had said was that the State had been trying to forcethese churches to do just that by redefining “marriage” and “family”.

I will now quote what I said in post #862,

“Anyone found unworthy may be denied access to certain Church services. Both the LDS and Catholic Churches do not recognize “same-sex marriage” as approved by God and they consider homosexual acts to be sinful. Therefore, certain Church services cannot be extended to those who commit homosexual acts, unless they repent and change their behavior.

Forcing a Church to offer services to those they deem unworthy, according to their doctrine and interpretation of scripture, is not religious freedom.*(You only quoted this portion)

The State is trying to force the Church to change their definitions of what a “marriage” and “family” are, which would change their doctrine.

For people claiming to want “freedom”, they don’t seem to understand that that should apply to people you disagree with too. Same-sex couples are free to choose other organizations to receive adoption services. Why demand that a religion conform to their way of thinking? “My way or the highway”?

I believe that the Catholic Church should be able to refuse their services to anyone they consider unworthy, according to their doctrine and interpretation of scripture.”

I did not say that the State had forced any Church to offer services to those they deemed unworthy. I only said that their redefinition of “marriage” and “family” was their initial attempt at trying to force these churches to offer service to those they deemed unworthy.

Why do you feel the need to attempt to change what I actually said and to put words into my mouth?

Again, that is not happening.

If you were going to address this sentence, why did you try to change what I said above?

That doesn’t make any sense.

Also, yes, the State is trying to force the Church to change their doctrine concerning marriage because the State is demanding the Church to recognize those “same-sex marriages”.

If I am truly free to believe what I want, then I should not have to recognize “same-sex marriage”.

Actually, with Obama getting to appoint Scalia's successor, it is pretty much a done deal. If a Democrat wins the White House in November, there will be zero chance of it ever being over turned. And the Republicans will be forced into a situation where they can either start supporting same-sex marriage, or be further alienated from younger voters, and the next generation of young voters, which means they will never get back in the White House.

Not all Republicans are religious. Neither are all Democrats irreligious.

Nothing you just said disproves my point that nothing is absolute in regards to Man’s laws.

The “next generation of young voters” will change even more stuff up until the U.S. Constitution is completely disregarded.

Yup. And no one is forcing them to believe otherwise.

So you agree with the people who chose to refuse marriage services to same-sex couples?

I know much more than you are giving me credit for.

Hard for me to tell considering the ignorant claim you made about religions just wanting to deny minorities their rights.

If you know “much more”, or practically anything about the doctrinal stances of these religions, you never would have made that claim.

It is not incorrect because there is no such thing as a "traditional marriage." Maybe inside of your own bubble it exists, but in the grand scheme of things no such thing has ever existed.

How long does something need to consistently happen until it can be considered “traditional”?

Aw, my “bubble” and this “grand scheme of things” that only you and the other “elite” know about?

Everyone else is too stupid to see it, right? The religious only know their own “version” of history inside their “bubble”. (Note: Sarcasm)

Your arrogance is obnoxious.

 

[Prestor John]

And they are Conservative Christians who typically and frequently rely on Freudian ideology, and try to force people into a mold and attach events to them that may-or-may-not have actually happened.

Oh of course! The only “true experts” are those that agree with you, right?

No “true expert” would be a “Christian” because anyone with half a brain knows there is no God, right? (Note: Sarcasm)

Aren’t you and people like you also trying to “force people into a mold” and aren’t you also doing so by trying to “attach events to them that may-or-may-not have actually happened”?

Your “there is no such thing as traditional marriage” argument is filled with events that “may-or-may-not have actually happened”.

You can still believe whatever you want. You just can't publicly discriminate. And if discrimination is a part of a religion, it isn't worth protecting.

I contend that the refusal to recognize “same-sex marriage” is not discriminatory at all.

I challenge you to share cases of discrimination in regards to this issue and I bet the only cases of true discrimination were caused by someone’s personal opinion and action and was not endorsed by the actual doctrine of any religion.

Believe me, it happens for religious reasons.

You have given me absolutely no incentive to believe anything you say.

Open the scriptures and show me where this is taught.

If you don't want your children learning such things, you'll have to keep them away from it.

You haven’t heard about the schools refusing parents’ request for their child to “opt out”?

If I want my child to go to a public school, they are going to be exposed to this.

Why should a public school, which I help fund, teach what I consider offensive?

Why would I need to “avoid” this? Can’t the school accommodate me and my children?

Why would my children need to go somewhere else?

People have complained and gotten their way about lots of stuff at schools. No more prayers. No forced recitation of the national anthem. Creationism is not taught.

People have been finding ways to eliminate anything considered “offensive” being taught in our schools.

Why do they have to teach that homosexuality and “same-sex marriage” are morally acceptable?

Why even discuss morality issues in school at all?

It's disgusting that you would want your children to believe someone is an abnormal sinner who doesn't deserve basic human rights.

Yes, that would be disgusting. Good thing that is not what I would teach my children. I also have not been saying that here.

Why do you and other people assume so much about a person just because they have religious reasons for opposing homosexuality and “same-sex marriage”?

That would be comparable to me assuming that every homosexual man is flamboyant, has multiple sex partners and constantly participates in orgies.

I would be wrong to assume that. Those are nasty unsupported stereotypes.

You are wrong for assuming how I perceive those who practice homosexuality and also those who I disagree with on this issue.

Anyways…

• Homosexuality is “abnormal”. It is not “normal”. That is not saying that it is “evil” or “weird”.
  
  
• Everyone sins and are therefore considered “sinners”. E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E-!
  
  
• I don’t want to deny anyone their basic human rights. I don’t consider marriage to be a basic human right.
  

Public schools have no right teaching religious dogma.

I was not advocating this idea. What made you think that I was?

I don’t think marriage or other moral/civil issues should be discussed in public schools.

Man, your assumptions really make you miss the mark, don’t they?

That homosexuality is normal and perfectly fine is a scientific fact.

This is not true. This would be impossible to prove.

For something to be considered “normal”, it would need to be “regular”, “usual”, “typical”, “expected” or a “standard” of some kind.

Homosexuality is not “normal”.

Where is the scientific study that not only defines what “perfectly fine” means, but also proves that homosexuality should be described thusly?

I am sorry to break it to you, but this is simply not true.

It's not even an issue of morality, other than that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, religion, sex, gender, ethnicity, and so on deserve to be treated with respect, dignity, and should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else in society.

Then you and I must be discussing different topics.

I have been talking about homosexuality being immoral and that “same-sex marriage” is not sanctioned by God. I have also been talking about how the Federal government and others have been pressuring religions to change their doctrine on this issue.

When have I said that homosexuals (or anyone) should not be treated with respect or dignity?

Why do you assume (again!) that my beliefs regarding homosexuality and “same-sex marriage” would cause me to be disrespectful or indignant toward those who self-identify as homosexual?

I believe everyone should have the same rights in our society. However, I hold firm to the idea that that goal could have been reached without redefining “marriage”.

 

[Ingledsva]

...

I think that the Catholic Church was threatened to either change their doctrine or lose their tax exemptions status?

No. That is fact. That is what happened.

Some people did not like the beliefs of the Catholic Church in regards to this issue, so they called discrimination and tried to force the Catholic Church to change their doctrine, lose their tax-exempt status or stop helping children and families.

That's not going to be the last time that tactic will be used. The Catholic, and other churches, will be threatened again and again with losing their tax exempt status or change something about what they believe.

...

The Catholic Church - is a church, - and when becoming an adoption agency, - has to follow the same rules as all other adoption agencies.

If they discriminate against same-sex couples - then they SHOULD lose their license.

Personally - I think ALL religious institutions should lose their tax-exempt status. They are money making businesses. But even if they weren't, - we the people shouldn't have to boost religions, by allowing them to pay no taxes.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

No, because it is the content of the parable that is important, the message it is giving us and not whether it actually happened. However, I don't believe that homosexuality is evil, I believe that anal sex is a sexual sin but it does not make the perpetrator evil, it is the sin that is evil. I am not against two people loving each other, I don't believe that God is either.

Interesting - because in context - there is no homosexuality spoken of in the Sodom and Gomorrah story.

They mistranslated ONE WORD - using it's sexual connotation, - and decided therefore that the whole text was about homosexuality, and meant they wanted gay sex with the angels/messangers.

Which is pure baloney - as YHVH uses the same word when he says he is going down to Sodom and Gomorrah.

And I'm assuming YHVH wasn't going down for some Gay sex!

*

 

[Scott C.]

The Catholic Church - is a church, - and when becoming an adoption agency, - has to follow the same rules as all other adoption agencies.

The Catholic church should be allowed to place children in Catholic homes, where that religion is practiced. There's nothing wrong with a parent using an adoption agency that matches their values, when placing their own child up for adoption.