Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[sojourner]

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

Calling attention to the fallacy of your argument isn't ad hominem. The mind projection fallacy fits perfectly what you're doing here. To say that isn't an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be to say that you're stupid for employing such a fallacy. I didn't do that. I merely pointed out the fallacy.

 

[sojourner]

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.

1) There would have been no reason for the ancients to speculate what they did not know about.
2) There is no reason to speculate that the writers were talking about anything other than "battlefield rape" (a form of overpowering and shaming an enemy) or temple prostitution.
3) To speculate that they were talking about gay sex is to read the texts through the lens of modernity, which is always a HUGE mistake.

 

[sojourner]

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

Asked and answered so many times it's become tiresome. Rape and temple prostitution.

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.

I can't imagine any other reason you would post such a thing. It's not a fallacy to point out your opponent's ignorance on a subject.

 

[sojourner]

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

I can't help what it brings to your mind. See, this is where your mind projection fallacy comes into play. This isn't about what comes to your mind. It's about what really is. And what really is, is that the texts aren't likely speaking to loving relationships. Sex outside of such relationships is what's "perverse," and important to the prohibition -- not the sex of the two participants, particularly.

 

[sojourner]

I am quoting the Pope not expressing an opinion.

Why quote someone whom you don't believe has the authority to speak definitively for God?

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.

Yes. I think he's wrong on that point.

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.

1) The issue has not been adequately answered by you.
2) We have shown, over and over again, that the original languages do not say what you believe them to say, and that the ancient culture didn't have the scientific information we now have, yet you refuse to concede those points and accept those arguments, offering instead, the excuse that the reality of what the texts say is all about what you believe them to say, based on your own, non-critical reading of them. That's simply not an adequate argument from the texts. It's not what you believe the texts to say that matters here. What matters is what the texts, through critical reading, really do say.

 

[sojourner]

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

No, it's an observation. Saying that someone has blue eyes isn't an attack; it's an observation.

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.

How is it "ludicrous?" People write things down in languages. God simply doesn't put pen to paper -- or, in this case, bone stylus to clay. Translation of languages is a human -- not a divine -- endeavor. The whole process of writing, editing, revising, compiling, and translating is a human endeavor. Human beings wrote the texts. What is ludicrous is to maintain "God wrote it" as fact.

 

[sojourner]

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.

They're not synonymous. But one who is "apostate" is part of "the apostasy." "Apostasy" comes from the Greek apostasis (from the bible), meaning, "rebellion." The Apostasy is a rebellion, in this particular case, a mass movement away from God. One who is "apostate" is part of that rebellion.

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.

It may not be an official church document, but I'd be willing to bet that Mormon doctrinal thought is behind it. If it waddles and quacks like a duck -- it's probably a duck.

This is so unbelievably alien to me.

Your loss.

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.

See the Wikipedia article. It talks about organisms as "any contiguous living system." It also talks about organsims as "self-organizing beings." The Great Barrier Reef is one of the largest organisms on the planet. It isn't one particularity, but a colony. Like the church -- a self-organizing colony. In this case, the church is organic -- an organism -- because its identity isn't based upon a structure imposed upon it from the outside, but rather upon the interrelationships and interdependence of its parts.

 

[sojourner]

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 don't "think sexual sin is OK." But I don't think that homosexual sexual acts are inherently sinful.
No, same-sex acts are not necessarily homosexual acts.
Yes, the church is organic, in which our faith is based in an interdependence.
I didn't say the bible wasn't inspired by God. I said that God didn't write or translate the bible.
Yes, I am a member of the clergy that has continued in the apostolic tradition.
Yes, I think the Pope is wrong on that point.
I think that "being a Christian" means that one lives in deep relationship with others who are Christian, and that they identify as a community of believers.
Yes, one of the overarching themes of the bible is how to live in community.
I didn't say God can make mistakes. People make mistakes.
Yes, I am a Trinitarian.
Nothing "very unusual" or even "slightly out of the ordinary" about any of that.

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.)

That particular application of belief concerning apostasy is one of the foundational beliefs of Mormonism. Other groups conceptualize the term differently. Jews and Muslims certainly don't conceptualize it that way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

The decision is rooted in prejudice either way, but private adoption doesn't necessarily make someone else complicit in the discrimination.

If you go to a lawyer with the adoptive parents already picked out, the lawyer doesn't have to know what your criteria were for picking them. Even if the lawyer does know, she's not the one actually doing the discrimination - she's involved after the fact.

OTOH, a social worker who uses the birth parents' discriminatory criteria is actually carrying out the discriminatory act.

 

[Scott C.]

The decision is rooted in prejudice either way, but private adoption doesn't necessarily make someone else complicit in the discrimination.

If you go to a lawyer with the adoptive parents already picked out, the lawyer doesn't have to know what your criteria were for picking them. Even if the lawyer does know, she's not the one actually doing the discrimination - she's involved after the fact.

OTOH, a social worker who uses the birth parents' discriminatory criteria is actually carrying out the discriminatory act.

I'm still at a loss as to why you think it's wrong for a birth mother to so discriminate.

 

[Prestor John]

This was nothing but leftist irreligious nonsense.

If an adoption agency wants the ability to choose the birth parents by faith or race or whatever the hell, then it should not accept money from the Government at all.

No one is advocating that an adoption agency choose any “birth parents”.

We are claiming that the birth parents (those who have decided to give their unborn child up for adoption) have the right to designate who they want to adopt their child. They can use any and all qualifiers to make their decision, including the religion of the prospective parents.

In Lindley v. Sullivan (the case that clarified that the U.S. Constitution doesnot provide a fundamental right to adopt), the Seventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals also ruled that, “Among the factors a court must consider in determining whether the proposed adoption is in the child's best interest are the religious belief of the adopters and adoptee...”

Religion is an important aspect of someone’s life and even though the birth parents may be unable to care for and raise their child, they still want what they believe is in the best interest of their child and they have the right to decide who adopts their child.

Also The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 included the “Charitable Choice” provision which protects the First Amendment rights of any faith-based organization (FBO) that chose to receive government funds. It says,

“The religious character of faith-based providers is protected by allowing them to retain control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of their religious beliefs.”

This means that the FBO does not have to use the government’s definition of “marriage” or “family”, but they are free to continue to define those terms based on their religious beliefs.

The “Charitable Choice” provision also states that, “If an individual objects to the religious character of a program, a secular alternative must be provided.”

Therefore, if the FBO cannot accommodate someone because of their religious beliefs, that individual is free to go and receive service from one of the many secular alternatives.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either work separately from the Government allowing you to not have to follow the laws of the land, or shut the hell up and act like adults.

You misunderstand the position of faith-based organizations.

Let’s use Catholic Charities USA as an example. They were providing charitable services, including adoption, many decades before receiving any government funds. It was President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression that reached out to FBOs for help with his “New Deal”.

He gave an address to Catholic Charities USA (it was then called the National Conference of Catholic Charities) on October 4th, 1933, and he stated that,

“The Federal Government has inaugurated new measures of relief on a vast scale, but the Federal Government cannot, and does not intend to, take over the whole job. Many times we have insisted that every community and every State must first do its share.

Out of this picture we are developing a new science of social treatment and rehabilitation—working it out through an unselfish partnership, a partnership between great church and private social service agencies and the agencies of Government itself. From the point of view of fixing responsibilities, the prevention of overlapping, the prevention of waste, and the coordination of effort, we are, all of us, making enormous strides with every passing day.”

The Federal government gave government funds to the FBOs because they were bettered trained, efficient and organized. Faith-based organizations do not need government funds to provide their charitable services, however, the funds they receive from the government allow them to help more of the poor and needy.

Follow the rules like everyone else has to instead of whining like a [spoiled] brat because the social contract and the law which applies to everyone equally says you have to treat everyone the same.

You really do not understand the position of these faith-based organizations.

Most of these organizations did not want to receive any funds from the government. They felt that if they received any funds from the government, that the government might start imposing limitations on their freedom of religious expression.

They accomplished a lot in FDR’s “New Deal” and also during President Johnson’s “War on Poverty”. However, as expected, there were instances of religious discrimination and violations of First Amendment rights. Such as when the Catholic Charities of Boston were forced to adopt children out to homosexual couples by the State’s Department of Social Services from 1985-1995.

I believe it were these violations of the First Amendment that caused President Bill Clinton to push for the passing of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996. He promised to protect the religious rights of the FBOs. However, many FBOs were still resistant to offer government funded social services.

This resistance caused George W. Bush to create the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives by executive order. This executive order further promised to protect their religious rights and offered them even more of a capacity to provide government funded social services.

It was the Federal Government that kept begging faith-based organizations to take their money and to use it more effectively than they themselves could.

So, rather than these faith-based organizations being “spoiled brats”, they only received government funds after being pressured to for decades and they were promised that their religious right would not be violated. The promises made to them were broken when the Federal government demanded that they change their definition of marriage and to offer adoption services to homosexuals.

Which I think encompasses Jesus' teachings far better than hiding behind Him in order to justify outdated and disgusting practices such as discrimination based on nothing but prejudice.

If you actually knew anything about Jesus’ teachings, you would know that commandments of God do not become “outdated” and that He condemns the practice of homosexuality.

You flaunt your ignorance of religious teaching when you declare that their teachings are discriminatory or based on “nothing but prejudice”.

Also, in a nation that claims to offer freedom of religion to all of its citizens, what you think about someone’s religious definition or expression is completely irrelevant.

All that matters is that they have religious convictions and the First Amendment AND the “Charitable Choice” provision of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act AND the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives executive order claim that they not only have the right to have those beliefs, but they are free to define, develop, practice and express those beliefs.

You do not need to agree with their beliefs in order for them to have the right to live by their beliefs.

I mean this is not like we are talking about people who are or have been locked up in prison or people posing actual threats to children. These are parents who have to go through a screening process to ensure their home is suitable. Now you want to throw extra hoops in front of that process? Fine.

I am using Catholic Charities USA again as an example.

They do not offer adoption services to a couple until they have been married for at least two years.

They believe that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

Therefore, according to their policies and religious beliefs, unmarried heterosexual couples who cohabitate and homosexual couples do not qualify for their adoption services.

When they inform the prospective parents that they cannot receive services from Catholic Charities USA, because of their religious beliefs, they claim that there are many other adoption agencies who would be able to help them and they make sure that the couples gets all the information they need to go there.

There are no “extra hoops” added to this process. If you want someone to blame, then blame the couples that went to Catholic Charities USA knowing that they would not be qualified according to the beliefs of the Catholic Church. They themselves threw in an “extra hoop” that wasted everyone’s time.

 

[Prestor John]

But Tax payers should not have to pay for such disgusting discrimination.

If no one listens to me when I say that I don’t want my tax dollars helping pay for abortions or for public schools to teach my children that homosexuality is acceptable, then what makes you think anyone wants to listen to you?

It seems that those on the left think this argument only works for them and those who agree with them. If anyone wants to use this argument in favor of religious expression, it is ridiculous. But if it snubs religion, then it is an acceptable argument.

Let the agency work by money of it's own or consenting donations from people who support such discrimination.

Again, your personal opinion that the religious beliefs of these FBOS is “discrimination” is irrelevant.

Also, these FBOs actually do charge adoption fees to the prospective parents during the process, so it can be argued that they are working by their own money.

Although personally, I would rather a child go to a caring home, not just one that lives up to the standards set forth by some judgmental as hell Christian.

This is a false dichotomy.

You are assuming that a “Christian” home cannot be a “caring home”.

You may not personally feel that there is such a thing as “sin” that should be avoided, but that does not prove that there is no such thing and it most assuredly does not negate someone’s right to believe in it if they so choose.

Which could ignore perfectly well suited homes for said child.

According to who?

If the birth parents do not want their unborn child being placed in a homosexual home because they believe that homosexuality is a sin and they don’t want their child to grow up believing otherwise, who are you to tell them they are wrong?

Such an action is in their benefit, not the child's.

This is a ridiculous assertion.

What benefit, other than remaining true to what they believe, have any of these FBOs received?

They have got nothing but derision, hate, and outrage for remaining true to their convictions.

According to those who believe that homosexuality and other sexual practices are sinful, placing a child into that environment would be harmful.

They believe that they are doing what is in the best interest of the child. That is their belief.

Disgusting to use children in such a way, but if they want to. Then fine.

These children are not being used or exploited in any way.

Let them do so privately and not mooching off the Government and demanding that they be given special privilege by breaking the laws just for their benefit. I mean selfish much?

These FBOs did not break any laws.

Promises made to them were broken and their First Amendment rights were violated.

They were promised that their religious rights would be protected while offering government funded services. The government broke that promise. Therefore, these FBOs have decided to no longer offer those services. They don’t NEED government fund to offer those services. They offered government funded services at the behest of the government.

They have not "mooched" at all. The government needed the Churches, not the other way around.

Who knew that passing judgment upon other people was so near and dear to the hearts of Christians anyway?

The Lord Jesus Christ was the one who taught that the unworthy should not partake of the emblems of His sacrifice.

It was the Lord Jesus Christ that taught His followers to use righteous judgment.

The scripture claim that homosexuality is a sin and that it should be condemned. The scriptures are the law that most of the FBOs live and operate by.

Would you consider a police officer enforcing the law to be “judgmental”? Or is he merely doing his job by enforcing the law?

Does a police officer “hate” those who break the law? Is he/she required to “hate” anyone?

The FBOs refusal to adopt children to those they consider unworthy is merely them abiding by their interpretation of the scriptures. Just because they refuse those services to certain people does not mean they are “judgmental” or that they hate anyone. They are only keeping what they consider to be law.

I thought they were supposed to follow Lord Jesus' example?

You should really study the life and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

He showed mercy to the woman who had been caught in adultery, claiming that those without sin should cast the first stone, but He did not in any way condone her sinful behavior.

He said that He did not condemn her, but he admonished her to go and “sin no more”.

These FBOs are not condemning anyone, they are simply abiding by their beliefs.

 

[Serenity7855]

2) We have shown, over and over again, that the original languages do not say what you believe them to say, and that the ancient culture didn't have the scientific information we now have, yet you refuse to concede those points and accept those arguments, offering instead, the excuse that the reality of what the texts say is all about what you believe them to say, based on your own, non-critical reading of them. That's simply not an adequate argument from the texts. It's not what you believe the texts to say that matters here. What matters is what the texts, through critical reading, really do say.

1. The only poster giving me accurate information on the errors in translation is Ingledsva, so quite who this "we" is eludes me.

2. I have made absolutely no claim on what the think the original language says.

3. The ancient cultures did not have the same scientific knowledge that we have, however, they had far more than that mans knowledge, they had God, the Master Scientist. Which probably explains much about the Egyptians advance culture

4. What, the argument that God had no clue that errors would be made and had made provisions for them. As Christ is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. knowing the beginning from the end, as a Christian, I could never deny the power and capabilities of God, the father, and His son, Jesus Christ. Both would have been fully aware of the errors made in translation.

5. I don't care either way what the original texts says, I never have. I read from the God inspired KJV of the Bible. It tell me exactly what I need to know in order to live a Christ centered life. Since 1611 it has been changing lives and bring people unto Christ. It contains the exact wording that God intends for it to contain. There are, therefore, no mistakes in its text.

6. The Bible speaks to the individuals. Whenever we need to clarify something with God we pray (James 1:5-6). We get the answer from His scriptures. So yes, it does matter what the text says to me because I am doing the reading. What does not matter is what it used to say, in another language, several thousand years ago. That you think it does only makes you a critic of the word of God and not someone who follows His command.

7. The Bible should not be read with a critical eye. It was compiled by a perfect being. You cannot criticize perfection. You are checking on the word of God to see if He erred. Sooner you then me.

 

[Serenity7855]

Man you need to reread what you wrote!

The facts are that they were written in the languages of the countries they were given in.

in•fal•li•ble
(ɪnˈfæl ə bəl)

adj.
1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.
2. unfailing in effectiveness or operation.
3. not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements.
4. (in Roman Catholicism) immune from fallacy or error in expounding matters of faith or morals.
n.
5. an infallible person or thing. (Random House Dictionary)

Why would they be given by God - INFALLIBLE, - so that they could later be mistranslated by - fallible men! That is ridiculous!

Translations from the original language, - to other languages, - have to keep the same meaning.

Well, this is interesting. You have picked me up on a error in my grammar, and you are right, I made a mistake, however, if you were to be honest you knew that it was a mistake and knew that I really meant was fallible, therefore, you could have just ignored they error and continued with the debate without it effecting your judgement. A bit like errors in translation. We know how God wants it to read, because that is the way it now reads, so the need to pick up the original errors is a triviality. It does not effect the overall message.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What exactly is " the practice of homosexuality?"

 

[McBell]

5. I don't care either way what the original texts says, I never have. I read from the God inspired KJV of the Bible. It tell me exactly what I need to know in order to live a Christ centered life. Since 1611 it has been changing lives and bring people unto Christ. It contains the exact wording that God intends for it to contain. There are, therefore, no mistakes in its text.
.

Wait...
WHICH version of the KJV?

 

[Serenity7855]

1) There would have been no reason for the ancients to speculate what they did not know about.

How do you know that. God had just told them.

2) There is no reason to speculate that the writers were talking about anything other than "battlefield rape" (a form of overpowering and shaming an enemy) or temple prostitution.

You are saying that the forbidding of two men laying together as they would with a woman can be interpreted as temple prostitution or battlefield rape, which is not even mentioned in the millions of Bibles through the Christian world. Or do you suggest that we all learn Hebrew and read from the original text? Or more likely, should we hire the clergy to translate it from original text, a bit like the Catholics fighting to suppress the word of God by keeping it to Latin only.

3) To speculate that they were talking about gay sex is to read the texts through the lens of modernity, which is always a HUGE mistake.

It is what it says, there is no speculation. Take a look

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.

Do you see any mention of battlefield rape or temple prostitution. I don't, but maybe they are hiding in a anagram. That is exactly what it says to everyone who reads it over centuries of publications. You are saying that not only does God know about these errors but He allowed them to fool people for centuries. Sounds like something a false prophet might say.

You are a breath of fresh air. You fulfill prophecy, the prophecy of the false prophets. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

 

[McBell]

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

With all that you have gotten wrong in this thread alone, how are you not one of these false prophets?

 

[Serenity7855]

What exactly is " the practice of homosexuality?"

I suspect that you know the answer to this question

 

[SkepticThinker]

I suspect that you know the answer to this question

I know how you define it. I was referring to Prester John's use of the term.

Sorry, I should have quoted him to avoid confusion.