Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[Typist]

Hmmm.....

Let's imagine some neo-nazis want to deny Jews the right to marry. Should we elevate such a proposal by debating it as if it was anything but hateful nonsense?

Suppose some racist bubbas from a backwater bayou want to deny blacks the right to marry. Should we take that seriously too? Should we debate their proposal as well?

Wait, hang on a sec, I just remembered that I don't like people with barking dogs. We don't want any more of them for sure, so I propose no marriage for barking dog owners. Do I get a seat at the table now too? Should you take me seriously, listen to my arguments, debate my proposal?

Doesn't there come a point when to even engage such people is to elevate their ideas beyond what is merited?

Yes, I know there is a political battle underway which has to be attended to, I'm surely not against that. But that doesn't require us to have anything to do with those who claim rights they wish to deny their neighbors. Such people can simply be ignored.

If the issue is in the courts, there's nothing we can do to effect the outcome.

If an election is involved, the job is to get the sane people to the polls.

In neither case is it necessary to elevate the social status of anyone who claims rights they wish to deny to others. Just as we would with nazis ranting about Jews, or racists ranting about blacks, the best thing is to just turn our backs and walk away, and don't treat such people as if they were valid members of a civilized conversation who deserve a hearing. Battling with such people just makes them more important.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

He doesn't make the laws of the land...humans do.

Exactly. God has no business or relevance in making the laws of the land, particularly when the constitution is supposed to separate religion and state.

 

[JayJayDee]

Exactly. God has no business or relevance in making the laws of the land, particularly when the constitution is supposed to separate religion and state.

God never advocated a marriage of church and state. In fact Jesus said we were to be no part of this world.
Religion has no business in politics.

 

[Typist]

As example...

Let's say I want to deny dog owners the right to marry. What do I do?

I go to a dog show and hold up a big outrageous sign insulting the dog owners. Now I have the attention of the dog owners and they start yelling at me. I push back and work to whip the whole scene up in to a big crisis.

The media gets wind of the story and comes to film the action, as they will publish literally anything which helps them build audience and sell ads. Using the media, I'm now reaching all the other dog hating morons in the world, for free.

As I attract more morons to my side, my lonely wacko crusade becomes a "movement". Now, as the leader of a movement, I can get even more free media air time. Now I get to engage not just the dog show, but the entire population. So I keep stirring the pot, becoming ever more famous and thus powerful as I do.

This is how the game is played, and this is how morons get influence far beyond what they should have. When we engage them, we are playing the game they want us to play, and we are feeding their power.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, I have an obligation to explain that God has standards that humans are not free to break.

Well, you've done that. You've told us your particular take on what you think God wants.

I doubt there was anyone in the thread who supported same-sex marriage because they thought it was in line with Jehovah's Witness doctrine, but if there was, you've corrected this situation. At this point, anyone in this thread who still supports same-sex marriage does so because they don't care about Jehovah's Witness doctrine.

You're still posting, though, so I suspect that there's something else you're after. Is there?

Just because there is a law of the land to say otherwise, counts for nothing with God. He doesn't make the laws of the land...humans do.

So same-sex marriage laws are irrelevant to God. Glad we got that settled. Why are they so relevant to YOU, though?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am only repeating what is contained in scripture. Have you ever read the Bible? God tells us about himself and what he requires of us. It isn't a secret.



I have no desire to do anything other than what I am doing...delivering a point of view. If you don't like it, there is nothing I can do about that. I know the God I worship...and he does not approve of sexual sin in any form, same sex or not.
Is there something wrong with telling the truth?

This is a religious debate forum after all, so I am presenting an opposing Biblical argument.

He also doesn't seem too keen on banning marriage. Does your Bible include 1 Timothy 4?

Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will desert the faith and occupy themselves with deceiving spirits and demonic teachings,2 influenced by the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared. 3 They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creation of God is good and no food is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. 5 For it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer.

The Bible says that "in the later times", there will be people who have been deceived by demons and liars, who want to prohibit marriage and certain foods. Now we find you here, telling us about how you want to prohibit marriage. In the past, you've also advocated prohibition of certain foods (since the JW blood transfusion ban is considered "dietary", right?).

I've never put stock in Biblical prophecy before, but maybe I should re-evaluate that position.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

All of these verses concern heterosexual marriage, - and SAY NOTHING against homosexual marriage.

1.) I think you might have missed a crucial characteristic of those "verses" anyway.
2.) Please feel free to cite any one of them verbatim from an actual Bible. That done, perhaps we might proceed.

So why are you trying to use them???

I'll provide you with an opportunity to review my entire OP and reach a better, more informed conclusion before I reply with the sort of ridicule your misplaced effrontery merits.

 

[JayJayDee]

Well, you've done that. You've told us your particular take on what you think God wants.

I have posted what the Bible says. Accept it or reject it...your choice.

I doubt there was anyone in the thread who supported same-sex marriage because they thought it was in line with Jehovah's Witness doctrine, but if there was, you've corrected this situation.

It has nothing to do with JW doctrine. It is Biblical doctrine in plain English. Are you disputing that? Both OT and NT scripture specifically speak about God's view of homosexual,practice. Has he changed his mind about those things because people want to break his laws whilst claiming to worship him? Israel tried that...it didn't work.

At this point, anyone in this thread who still supports same-sex marriage does so because they don't care about Jehovah's Witness doctrine.

But some might care about how God feels about these things. It has nothing to do with being a JW....it has everything to do with being a Christian.

You're still posting, though, so I suspect that there's something else you're after. Is there?

Yes Penguin...it's called responding to someone who posted to you. Have I broken some kind of Penguin law then?

You weren't a mod the last time I looked.

So same-sex marriage laws are irrelevant to God. Glad we got that settled. Why are they so relevant to YOU, though?

The laws of God are relevant to me as they should be to anyone who claims to be Christian. We don't care what the laws of the land say when they disregard the laws of God.

When the apostles were told to be silent about the teachings of Jesus, their response is reflected in my responses.....

"But in reply Peter and John said to them: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, judge for yourselves. But as for us, we cannot stop speaking about the things we have seen and heard."

"In answer Peter and the other apostles said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men. ” (Acts 4:19, 20, 29)

That is why I keep posting. You might not care what God thinks...but some actually people do.

 

[JayJayDee]

He also doesn't seem too keen on banning marriage.

Why would he ban legitimate marriage? It is his arrangement. It is divorce on flimsy grounds that he despises.

Does your Bible include 1 Timothy 4?

The Bible says that "in the later times", there will be people who have been deceived by demons and liars, who want to prohibit marriage and certain foods. Now we find you here, telling us about how you want to prohibit marriage.

Actually this was pertaining to Christendom which began with Roman Catholicism. They were the liars with corrupted consciences and demonic teachings who turned Christianity into a power trip for their self appointed hierarchy. They introduced many foreign teachings and forbade marriage to their priests (and still do.) They forbade the eating of meat on Fridays for centuries. It was a mortal sin....so when they dropped this unscriptural notion, pity the poor souls who broke that man-made law before it was abolished.

In the past, you've also advocated prohibition of certain foods (since the JW blood transfusion ban is considered "dietary", right?).

The sanctity of blood was repeatedly highlighted in the OT (Lev 17:10-14).....it is also repeated in the NT for Christians.
Blood is sacred to God. His laws forbade any illegitimate use of it.

When the circumcision issue was causing divisions between Jewish and gentile Christians, the apostles and elders in the first century prayed for guidance in settling the issue.

This was their response.......

"For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Acts 15:28, 29)

You will notice that two of the "necessary things" pertained to the consumption of blood. A strangled animal was not properly bled and thus could not be eaten. To "keep abstaining from blood" meant not taking it into the body in any way.
If a person is not able to eat by mouth, they are often fed either by nasal tube or intravenously. If we would not take blood via a nasal tube, why would we take it via a cannula inserted into our veins?

Google the "dangers of blood transfusions"......and also "bloodless surgery". The use of blood is decreasing as the medical profession recognises that it isn't very good medicine after all. It is actually a very lucrative business. You might want to check out the cost of a blood transfusion while you're at it.

You will also notice that part of the "necessary things" was to "abstain from....sexual immorality"....which would include homosexual practice.

Look up the word "abstain"....then tell me how you justify these things.

I've never put stock in Biblical prophecy before, but maybe I should re-evaluate that position.

I definitely think you should....especially the ones pertaining to "the time of the end". (Dan 12:9, 10; Matt 24:14)

 

[Ingledsva]

*

All of these verses concern heterosexual marriage, - and SAY NOTHING against homosexual marriage.

1.) I think you might have missed a crucial characteristic of those "verses" anyway.
2.) Please feel free to cite any one of them verbatim from an actual Bible. That done, perhaps we might proceed.



I'll provide you with an opportunity to review my entire OP and reach a better, more informed conclusion before I reply with the sort of ridicule your misplaced effrontery merits.

What I said is absolutely correct no matter which translation you use!

You were using texts dealing ONLY with female - ownership - by males.
*
As already stated, and shown - Mat 19:9 and Mat 5:32 - are about men putting aside the women they own, - only!

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his woman, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his woman for every cause?

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his woman, exceptit befor fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mat 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.


1 CO 6:9 Know you not that the “heathen” shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither prostitutes (pornos,) nor idolaters, nor (moichos) adulterers, nor the morally weak, nor arsenokoites (rapists, etc)

"Moichos" actually means a male paramour = the illicit partner of a married person..

There are no ancient Greek texts using arsenokoites or its stem as homosexuality. There are uses for both male and female as RAPE.


The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek, from the 8th century BC to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. They have 73 references to the arsenokoit stem. There are NO early Greek uses of the word as “homosexual.” LATER - the church decides to translate it as such – then these later texts copy the church original.

*

 

[NulliuSINverba]

What I said is absolutely correct no matter which translation you use!

You were using texts dealing ONLY with female - ownership - by males.

Again, I think you've missed something rather substantial here. And I'm still waiting for you to cite any of my proposed <<<ahem>>> "scriptures" verbatim from a legitimate Bible.

Have a nice day.

 

[Ingledsva]

Again, I think you've missed something rather substantial here. And I'm still waiting for you to cite any of my proposed <<<ahem>>> "scriptures" from a legitimate Bible.

Have a nice day.

LOL! You are a hoot!

Re-read it with my edit. I added much more material.

And you are just plain wrong.

PS - If you are wondering why it is WOMAN - in those texts - instead of - Wife, - it is because that is the actual meaning of the word. There was no marriage, - women were handed off from ownership by father - to ownership by another male for breeding purposes.

*

 

[Nietzsche]

You will notice that two of the "necessary things" pertained to the consumption of blood. A strangled animal was not properly bled and thus could not be eaten. To "keep abstaining from blood" meant not taking it into the body in any way.
If a person is not able to eat by mouth, they are often fed either by nasal tube or intravenously. If we would not take blood via a nasal tube, why would we take it via a cannula inserted into our veins?

Yeah, and why would you eat using dentures or clean yourself with a brush. If God wanted that we would have them, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have posted what the Bible says. Accept it or reject it...your choice.

That's easy, then: I reject it.

It has nothing to do with JW doctrine.

Is what you're saying in line with the JW position or not?

It is Biblical doctrine in plain English. Are you disputing that? Both OT and NT scripture specifically speak about God's view of homosexual,practice. Has he changed his mind about those things because people want to break his laws whilst claiming to worship him? Israel tried that...it didn't work.

I don't dispute that you've looked at the big Rorschach test that is the Bible and come away with something you sincerely believe. As someone who doesn't believe in God in the first place, of course I'm not going to believe you've somehow figured out how God feels on this or any other issue.

But some might care about how God feels about these things. It has nothing to do with being a JW....it has everything to do with being a Christian.

Many people aren't Christians and don't want to be. Why impose your beliefs on them?

Yes Penguin...it's called responding to someone who posted to you. Have I broken some kind of Penguin law then?

You weren't a mod the last time I looked.

You haven't broken any "Penguin law"; I just don't trust that you're being completely forthcoming.

The laws of God are relevant to me as they should be to anyone who claims to be Christian. We don't care what the laws of the land say when they disregard the laws of God.

Wait... which is it: do you care or not? You just argued both sides.

 

[JayJayDee]

Yeah, and why would you eat using dentures or clean yourself with a brush. If God wanted that we would have them, right?

Last time I looked there was no Biblical injunction against using tools that are of benefit in eating or cleansing.

There is a strict Biblical injunction on the use of blood. You are free to ignore it. It only applies to those who care about what God says....so I guess that lets you off the hook.

You might just want to ask why a hospital admission form asks if you have "EVER" had a blood transfusion though.....?

 

[Nietzsche]

Last time I looked there was no Biblical injunction against using tools that are of benefit in eating or cleansing.

Then what makes intravenous anything somehow worse? Do you have any idea how much of what you put in your mouth, without traveling to your stomach, gets in your bloodstream?

There is a strict Biblical injunction on the use of blood. You are free to ignore it. It only applies to those who care about what God says....so I guess that lets you off the hook.

Perhaps had he not made it so we tend to die if we lose a lot of of it, or just made it so we wouldn't need to fix his mistakes through surgery and such, that I could buy that. But that's not the case. And there's a bunch of fun things you can do with blood.

You might just want to ask why a hospital admission form asks if you have "EVER" had a blood transfusion though.....?

The same reason they ask if you've ever been hospitalized, have substance abuse problems, are pregnant, ect ect ect. It's called "Medical History".

I wouldn't be here without transfusions. My father was in an accident in his younger years and without a transfusion he would've been dead from exsanguination. My birthother had a rough pregnancy. Without the transfusion, she would've also bled to death. In fact, most of the people you've ever met would be dead because either they or their ancestors needed a blood transfusion during a critical moment.

 

[Ingledsva]

Last time I looked there was no Biblical injunction against using tools that are of benefit in eating or cleansing.

There is a strict Biblical injunction on the use of blood. You are free to ignore it. It only applies to those who care about what God says....so I guess that lets you off the hook.

You might just want to ask why a hospital admission form asks if you have "EVER" had a blood transfusion though.....?

Not supposed to eat pork, or mix some materials either - but I'm guessing some JW's do both, and enjoy that bacon with their eggs.

It is hilarious how some Christians are such hypocrites when it comes to following ancient Hebrew law. Forget the ones I don't want to follow. Adhere to the letter, to the ones I want - YOU - to follow! LOL!

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Last time I looked there was no Biblical injunction against using tools that are of benefit in eating or cleansing.

There is a strict Biblical injunction on the use of blood. You are free to ignore it. It only applies to those who care about what God says....so I guess that lets you off the hook.

You might just want to ask why a hospital admission form asks if you have "EVER" had a blood transfusion though.....?

Like many Christian "laws," the original does not say what man has added to it over the years.

How does a law about animal butchering become a law against life saving blood transfusions???

Gen 9:4 But flesh with blood of life ye shall not eat.

That says absolutely nothing against blood transfusions.

Later Men always add their own interpretations to the originals making them into ridiculous crap.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

He also doesn't seem too keen on banning marriage. Does your Bible include 1 Timothy 4?


The Bible says that "in the later times", there will be people who have been deceived by demons and liars, who want to prohibit marriage and certain foods. Now we find you here, telling us about how you want to prohibit marriage. In the past, you've also advocated prohibition of certain foods (since the JW blood transfusion ban is considered "dietary", right?).

I've never put stock in Biblical prophecy before, but maybe I should re-evaluate that position.

Here it is -


1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from "broma" foods/meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

*

 

[JayJayDee]

Not supposed to eat pork, or mix some materials either - but I'm guessing some JW's do both, and enjoy that bacon with their eggs.

Christ ended the law and introduced a new arrangement for worship. (Rom 10:4) There were no longer any animal sacrifices needed as he came to fulfill the law, offering his own life in sacrifice once and for all time. (Heb 7:26-28) The dietary requirements were only incumbent on Jews, not Gentiles. So that is why the "necessary things" were stipulated....they all pertained to the gentile believers who did not have A background of obeying Jewish law. These things deemed to be "necessary" were now in force for all Christians.

It is hilarious how some Christians are such hypocrites when it comes to following ancient Hebrew law. Forget the ones I don't want to follow. Adhere to the letter, to the ones I want - YOU - to follow! LOL!

Christians are not under the law. They are not under its dietary restrictions or its law on circumcision. Christ said he did not come to destroy the law...he came to fulfill it. The principles all still apply. The dietary restrictions often were later found to have health benefits. There is no law against following the law if one wishes to....but there is no obligation any longer.