Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[SomeRandom]

You incorrectly assume that if a birth parent wants their child to be raised in a particular faith, that this is a condescending and demeaning judgment against the candidates who are not of that faith.

Umm if a parent wants their child to be raised in their own faith, one typically doesn't go to the bloody Church or an adoption agency. That would be beyond lazy. If you want to choose the type of people you want to raise your child then typically one goes through private adoption. Done.
An adoption agency is typically a public thing, not private. If said agency is getting money from the Government then it should represent the laws the Government has for its citizens. ALL its citizens.

 

[Scott C.]

Umm if a parent wants their child to be raised in their own faith, you typically don't go to the bloody Church or an adoption agency. That would be beyond lazy. If you want to choose what type of people who raises your child then typically one goes through private adoption. Done.

When LDS Social Services used to perform adoptions, birth parents went to them for faith based placement. They could also go the private adoption route. I don't see why you object to one more than the other.

 

[SomeRandom]

When LDS Social Services used to perform adoptions, birth parents went to them for faith based placement. They could also go the private adoption route. I don't see why you object to one more than the other.

Did they accept government funding? If so then I would object on the grounds that the LDS is not above the law. If not, then they can place the kids with whomever they want.

 

[Scott C.]

Did they accept government funding? If so then I would object on the grounds that the LDS is not above the law. If not, then they can place the kids with whomever they want.

No government funding.

 

[SomeRandom]

No government funding.

Well then I agree. They should be able to choose whatever criteria they want for the prospective parents.

 

[sojourner]

I did say that they are not authorized to act in the name of God but I didn't say that most of them were apostate

Hmmm... See below:

it is the Christian denominations that do not have authority to act in Gods name, because the apostasy left the earth without the priesthood.

Sounds to me as if you're saying that most of them are apostate, because the preponderance of Christianity is denominational.

Why would you be talking about the Mormon Church? i didn't mention it

You said you left the Mormon church. It's obvious to anyone with a brain stem that your doctrinal statements derive from Mormonism; they're the only ones who base their exclusive authority on the apostasy.

Nowhere in the entire bible are the words "god's assembly" mentioned

The word "assembly" does appear.

I am not a member of a congregation, however, 25% of those who left the Roman Catholic Church over the past 10 years became as I, and individualist. That is a defined as a body of people not a body of Christ

Correct, since it was to the apostles that authority was given -- not individual believers. The body of Christ is comprised of Christ, the laity and the clergy (apostles, or episkopoi, their presbyterate and diaconate), bound together by the Holy Spirit as one body in God.

We are all individual children of God we are not a congregation of God. God's family, like mine, is not a community

Actually, family is a great example of community.

end who had just lost a very close friend. Where else would you expect them to be.

In community. Where else?

Groups or departments that are a part of an organisation, not people in a community.

Except that the church isn't an organization -- it's an organism, or body.

No, it is a personal lifestyle not a congregational one, however, my wife and children live with me and they follow the same lifestyle, we are a family group of like minded people, not a community

1) it's clear that you have no concept of how the earliest anointed-believers lived together. There is archeological evidence that they, in fact, did live in community.
2) it's also clear that you don't understand the concept of community as it is defined theologically.

We all, individually, love God. There is no other way. You cannot live on someone else's testimony

We absolutely live on the testimony of others. The bible tells us to continue in the apostles' teaching (witness -- testimony). How do you think the good news spread originally?

You are creating something that was never there by saying that the church is the body of Christ just because Paul used it as an example in his preaching

Nope. It is there. You just don't or can't see it.

Because all of us who have been blessed with the testimony of the Holy Ghost constitutes a group of people with the same belief. However, it is your claim that Christianity is all about living in a community. Clearly it is not

Clearly you're mistaken.

The Apostasy is not unique to me or any other denomination. It is a historical fact

No. There is no objective evidence that proves the apostasy as a historical event. It is the province of Mormonism primarily.

 

[sojourner]

No they talk about sexual perversion between to men, which immediately brings to mind homosexuality, but you are trifling with semantics in order to make it believable for yourself. I suppose that one must take into consideration that two men who have anal sex could very well be gay, or, they are more than likely gay, so, indirectly, these verses are talking about sexual orientation because those that are perpetrating the sin would no doubt be, wait for it, homosexual orientated

It doesn't immediately bring to mind homosexuality. It's obvious that you have no idea how to read critically. Or else you're intentionally misinterpreting the texts.

That man should not lay with another man as he would a woman does not sound like a homosexual act to you then. They are probably sun bathing, right

Or rape, or temple prostitution... Neither of which is a homosexual act. One is an act of violence, the other is a ritual based in religion.

If you believe that sexual perversion is not a sin and that the Pope is a representative of God on earth, how do you reconcile the Popes condemnation on gay marriage

Gay marriage isn't perversion of any sort. A representative of God is neither perfect nor universally authoritative. In this case, especially to you.

Are you attacking me personally again, even after the moderation requested that it should cease.

No, I'm making an observation of your thought process based on your post.

That you do not believe that God was the inspiration behind the translation of the Holy Bible

I didn't say I didn't believe that the texts were inspired. I said that they weren't written by God.

I cannot take your opinion seriously

Your loss.

 

[sojourner]

That is hard not to interpret as sexual sin between two men, who must be sexually orientated to homosexuality in order to be doing it..

No. That's the fallacy. One doesn't have to be homosexual in order to perform same-sex acts.

 

[sojourner]

That maybe historically true, however, that is not the purpose of the Bible, for the majority of those who read it. It's purpose is to guide and direct the children of God into paths of righteousness that lead to life eternal in the presence of our God. Your concept of the Bible is factual events and practices of the past, whereas mine is spiritual guidance

In other words, you're going to twist what is historical to fit your preconceived fantasy of what is written.

 

[Serenity7855]

We absolutely live on the testimony of others. The bible tells us to continue in the apostles' teaching (witness -- testimony). How do you think the good news spread originally?

Just when I think that there is little else that you can say to shock me, that is what you do. You have this one unquestionably wrong.

A testimony is knowledge and a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. How would it be possible for me to say that I know that God lives because sojourner told me. How is that possible? It would be like a jury accepting my testimony that John shot Jane because Peter told me and then the jury sentencing John to death.

When we talk about testimony, we refer to feelings of our heart and mind rather than an accumulation of logical, sterile facts. It is a gift of the Spirit, a witness from the Holy Ghost that certain concepts are true. It is personal belief. How could I bear a testimony that you have. I can only say that something is true if I know it to be true, not if you do.

I could never believe that God lives and loves me and that Christ bled and died to atone for my sins if Joe Blogs told me so. I have to know for myself. My testimony is that I do know that God lives but I cannot give that knowledge to you because it is personal to me. In order for you to know you to must follow the teachings of the Savior until the Holly Ghost testifies to your soul that God loves you.

You are confusing evangelizing or proselytizing with testifying

 

[Serenity7855]

In other words, you're going to twist what is historical to fit your preconceived fantasy of what is written.

You are delivering yet another of your logical fallacies. My argument is being rebutted by attacking my character, motive, or other attribute of my person rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. Argumentum ad hominem,

The mind projection fallacy is a logical fallacy first described by physicist and Bayesian philosopher E.T. Jaynes. It occurs when someone thinks that the way they see the world reflects the way the world really is, going as far as assuming the real existence of imagined objects. That is, someone's subjective judgments are "projected" to be inherent properties of an object, rather than being related to personal perception. One consequence is that others may be assumed to share the same perception, or that they are irrational or misinformed if they do not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

 

[Serenity7855]

No. That's the fallacy. One doesn't have to be homosexual in order to perform same-sex acts.

Quite correct, however, the verse does not talk about a man and a woman performing same sex acts, but two men, thus the speculation is that they are gay. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

[Serenity7855]

It doesn't immediately bring to mind homosexuality..

What does it bring to your mind? Ice cream in the park on a hot summers day?

It's obvious that you have no idea how to read critically. Or else you're intentionally misinterpreting the texts

You are delivering yet another of your logical fallacies. My argument is being rebutted by attacking my character, motive, or other attribute of my person rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. Argumentum ad hominem,

 

[Serenity7855]

Or rape, or temple prostitution... Neither of which is a homosexual act. One is an act of violence, the other is a ritual based in religion.

You are knocking down a straw man. Sexual perversion then, where two men are involved having anal sex with each other, only that brings to my mine homosexuality.

Historically, anal sex has been commonly associated with male homosexuality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex

 

[Serenity7855]

Gay marriage isn't perversion of any sort.

I didn't say it was. I am quoting the Pope not expressing an opinion.

A representative of God is neither perfect nor universally authoritative. In this case, especially to you.

So, in other words, you are saying that the representative of God is wrong, correct? I think he is wrong because he does not have the authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ. I am not a Roman Catholic though.

Moving the Goalpost

Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponent’s argument.

Logical Form:

Issue A has been raised, and adequately answered.
Issue B is then raised, and adequately answered.
.....
Issue Z is then raised, and adequately answered.

(despite all issues adequately answered, the opponent refuses to conceded or accept the argument.

 

[Serenity7855]

No, I'm making an observation of your thought process based on your post.

The result of which is that your observation is an attack that you are putting a smoke screen over.

I didn't say I didn't believe that the texts were inspired. I said that they weren't written by God.

You said: "God didn't "translate" anything. Translation is always the work of human beings. Every bible has a list of translators who worked on the project in the front. None of them are "God." This is ludicrous!" What goalpost do you intend to move now.

 

[Serenity7855]

Sounds to me as if you're saying that most of them are apostate, because the preponderance of Christianity is denominational.

Apostasy and apostate are not synonymous. I said that it is the Christian denominations that do not have authority to act in Gods name, because the apostasy left the earth without the priesthood. Not that they were apostate.

You said you left the Mormon church. It's obvious to anyone with a brain stem that your doctrinal statements derive from Mormonism; they're the only ones who base their exclusive authority on the apostasy.

The Apostasy article I posted demonstrating that the Apostasy actually took place is not written by the Mormon Church.

My affiliation with the Mormon Church and it's teaching is not part of this debate.

Correct, since it was to the apostles that authority was given -- not individual believers. The body of Christ is comprised of Christ, the laity and the clergy (apostles, or episkopoi, their presbyterate and diaconate), bound together by the Holy Spirit as one body in God.

This is so unbelievably alien to me. Now we have a Body in God. Where did this stuff come from? Most of the names of these callings do not appear anywhere in scripture. What church do you belong to?

Except that the church isn't an organization -- it's an organism, or body.

Let me get this clear. The church that Paul refers to as being a similitude to a body having several parts that make up the whole, like the laity and the clergy (apostles, or episkopoi, their presbyterate and diaconate) is NOT an organisation but an individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal, a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus, because that is what is defined as a organism.

 

[Serenity7855]

No. There is no objective evidence that proves the apostasy as a historical event. It is the province of Mormonism primarily.

Apostasy is very much a universal Christian concept and belief. But you think sexual sin is OK, and that man laying with man, as with a woman, is not homosexuality, and that the church is a living organism in which we can rely on the testimony of Joe Blogs rather than get one ourselves. You also believe that the bible was not inspired by God, that you are an apostolic clergy, that the Pope has got it all wrong, that you have to be a member of a congregation to be a Christian, that the Bible is all about living in communities and that God can make mistakes. You haven't said, maybe because out of embarrassment, but you probably believe in the trinity as well. Just a few of your very unusual beliefs.

I believe in the Perfect Plan of Salvation and all that it entails, including free agency and personal revelation.

Christianity

The Christian understanding of apostasy is "a willful falling away from, or rebellion against, Christian truth. Apostasy is the rejection of Christ by one who has been a Christian ...", though many believe that biblically this is impossible ('once saved, forever saved').[45] "Apostasy is the antonym of conversion; it is deconversion."[46] The Greek noun apostasia (rebellion, abandonment, state of apostasy, defection)[47] is found only twice in the New Testament (Acts 21:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3).[48]However, "the concept of apostasy is found throughout Scripture."[49]The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states that "There are at least four distinct images in Scripture of the concept of apostasy. All connote an intentional defection from the faith."[50]These images are: Rebellion; Turning Away; Falling Away; Adultery.[51]

Apostasy is certainly a biblical concept, but the implications of the teaching have been hotly debated.[53] The debate has centered on the issue of apostasy and salvation. Based on the concept of God's sovereign grace, some hold that, though true believers may stray, they never totally fall away. Others affirm that any who fall away were never really saved. Though they may have "believed" for a while, they never experienced regeneration. Still others argue that the biblical warnings against apostasy are real and that believers maintain the freedom, at least potentially, to reject God's salvation.[54]

Mormon Concept? Not really, you are mis-informed.

Jehovah's Witnesses: Jehovah's Witness publications define apostasy as the abandonment of the worship and service of God,

Islam: In Islamic literature, apostasy is called irtidād or ridda;

Judaism: The term apostasy is also derived from Greek ἀποστάτης, meaning "political rebel," as applied to rebellion against God,

Christianity: The Christian understanding of apostasy is "a willful falling away from, or rebellion against,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy

The Great Apostasy occurred when people turned away from the truths of the gospel and the Lord withdrew the authority and keys of the priesthood from the earth.)

Thessalonians 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

 

[SSDSSDSSD3]

What kind of libertarian makes individual legal rights contingent on finding a church to grant them?

Libertarians believe in Liberty for both organizations as well as Individuals, infringing on religious liberty is more important since the Constitution was suppose to protect religious freedom of everyone, not just the individual. Separation of Church and State, not the government infringing on the Church's religious freedom to do whatever they want.

 

[sojourner]

Just when I think that there is little else that you can say to shock me, that is what you do. You have this one unquestionably wrong.

A testimony is knowledge and a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. How would it be possible for me to say that I know that God lives because sojourner told me. How is that possible? It would be like a jury accepting my testimony that John shot Jane because Peter told me and then the jury sentencing John to death.

When we talk about testimony, we refer to feelings of our heart and mind rather than an accumulation of logical, sterile facts. It is a gift of the Spirit, a witness from the Holy Ghost that certain concepts are true. It is personal belief. How could I bear a testimony that you have. I can only say that something is true if I know it to be true, not if you do.

I could never believe that God lives and loves me and that Christ bled and died to atone for my sins if Joe Blogs told me so. I have to know for myself. My testimony is that I do know that God lives but I cannot give that knowledge to you because it is personal to me. In order for you to know you to must follow the teachings of the Savior until the Holly Ghost testifies to your soul that God loves you.

You are confusing evangelizing or proselytizing with testifying

What if Joe Blogs lived his life -- and especially shared his life deeply with you (as in ... guess what? ... community) in such a manner that you felt the love of Jesus in that sharing? What if, through the sharing of his story with you, and the living out of his life within the sphere of your own life, you caught that flame? That's "testimony." That's what it means to continue in the apostles' teaching, in the breaking of bread (together) and the prayers (of the community). That's evangelism. That's what I mean, and that's why living and sharing in community is so important. I think that it's you who may be confused, because you have eschewed community in favor of "my God and I." If the first disciples hadn't shared their story in community, how would it have been transmitted??? There was no bible. Was this supposed to just sink in by osmosis somehow?