Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Valentinus

  1. But a gay male couple isn't replacing a woman. Likewise, a lesbian couple isn't replacing a man. You can't replace something that was never going to be there in the first place. Same-sex marriage isn't destroying heterosexual marriage. Adultery isn't destroying heterosexual marriage.
  2. The best option, for me at least, is to not stress about it. Also, there seems to be a conflation between equality and inclusivity. Just for fun...didn't Miley Cyrus come out as being without gender?
  3. The obese government is in the eye of the beholder. I agree that in general that progressives tend to seek governmental overreach. OTOH, conservatives approve of big government so long as it suits their goals. Abortion is one of those issues. The hypocritical immorality of the conservative perspective would be that they are pro-life. Furthermore claiming to be pro-life is disingenuous because they are in fact pro-birth. Women are to go ahead and have a baby they are not ready for but conservatives don't want to help provide the means for which the child needs to thrive. Let me be clear, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. People make mistakes and then there are those who seek to victimize women that results in pregnancy. I'm not concerned with any religious moral argument on the issue because hypocrisy can easily be demonstrated. The argument for "traditional" marriage is marred with issues and cannot be supported by scripture. If an argument on the subject is to be made then it has to come from a sociological and philosophical perspective. See video below: Good grief. There is no pleasing everyone. Someone is always going to feel marginalized. This is when we need to persevere and not let marginalization get us down. This is seriously problematic. Trans women need to remember that there is and always be a definitive difference between them and biological women. There is no way to get around it. But this does not address the trans women who are attracted to men. A serious issue is a disingenuous assumption that predatory activity is inevitable. See HERE, HERE, and HERE. Trans men are in my locker room almost every day and sometimes they are around children as well. HERE is an interesting essay on female sex offenders from 2007. Here is the abstract from an essay written on female sex offenders: You can purchase the full article HERE. In the end, there is no clear and easy solution.
  4. I believe it to be a level playing field without moving any possible goal posts.
  5. First, why am I amazing? What'd I do wrong to deserve that? Second, please give me some time to look into your response so that I can respond appropriately.
  6. Heterosexuals are in no way born heterosexual (DSA) than homosexuals are born homosexual (SSA). For consistency's sake.
  7. Fair enough. But what I said still stands for DSA as well then. My heterosexual friend has different-sex attraction and experiences different-sex attraction. Just for the sake of consistency, I'll also say that all human attraction is a malady.
  8. I honestly don't believe Scott would sink so low as to claim gays suffer from a disease or that he believes anything like that in the slightest.
  9. Sure. I can take a walk down a street and find another man attractive. A buddy of mine can walk down said street and find a woman attractive. But again, SSA nor DSA are symptoms or disorders to be treated such as Bipolar disorder, depression, schizophrenia or any other psychological disorder. That's where we cross the line into idiocy.
  10. I have no problem with SSA so long as it isn't used to describe a symptom a person has. Examples: a) I experience different sex attraction. b) I experience Bipolar I Disorder. c) I experience same sex attraction. Example b is exactly how homosexuality should not be treated. It's not a disorder or malfunction to be temporally or externally fixed. Examples a and c are perfectly fine because they are naturally occurring and do not require treatment.
  11. You're right. No Christian in any denomination is the same and do not approach those goals, if they do at all, the same way. There is no perfect or best general idea of how to reach those goals. Normal is poor word choice.
  12. Right. Which is why I wanted to explicitly show where I stand corrected. The first part of the definition helps to make sense of where @The Nehor is coming from. Sorry, Nehor.
  13. So doing the very things any normal person faith already does?
  14. Fair enough. However, there must always be the clear distinction that no church is in any way synonymous with God. A church is merely a vessel. God remains God and stands beyond the church.
  15. How is it seminary if theology isn't taught? What exactly does the LDS seminary seek to do? Is it just for years of scripture lite and devotionals? Again, there's nothing wrong with that but is it really seminary? Ok. Instead of erasing or later editing my paragraph above, I'm going to let it be evidence that I stand corrected based on part one of the definition of seminary. From Merriam Webster: Definition of seminary 1: an environment in which something originates and from which it is propagateda seminary of vice and crime 2a: an institution of secondary or higher education b: an institution for the training of candidates for the priesthood, ministry, or rabbinate
  16. Thank you once again for your rational response and I appreciate your patience in helping me to understand where you're coming from.
  17. It's not that language supersedes it. However, to better understand the scriptures themselves and on their own terms the source language is extremely useful. It is not useful to project a foreign religion on to the text and declare it revelation. Ezekiel is a good example. I'm not saying that not using a suitable text such as the ESV or RSV (or whatever translation you prefer EXCEPT for The Message and maybe the NLT) renders the text useless. However, they do no justice to the full magnitude and richness of the already inspired text. Historical education means a great deal. Daniel McClellan and Mark S. Smith are great examples of the importance of history and language concerning sacred text and human experience with not just their faith but with the Divine. Wayman Mitchell, founder of the Potter's House in Arizona, protested against not just established theology and hermeneutics but against biblical and historical scholarship. He claimed that all one needs is the text in a language a person can understand and the Holy Spirit to receive personal revelation. Such a method is careless and reckless. Of course there is value in personal enlightenment received from the scriptures. Finding life and spiritual application is beautiful. Also, the great thing about prophets is that they don't reinterpret scripture from the original intent and meaning and then call it revelation. Judaism stands on it's own. Christianity is not a revelatory reimagining or revolutionizing of the Jewish faith.
  18. Owing God money and owing a church money in the name of God are in no way synonymous.
  19. The Wayment NT is a blessing for the LDS membership and is by far a more useful text.
  20. No. That is not what I mean by unnecessary sentimentality. Language provides a better understanding of scripture. A mere English rendering does not do adequate justice to the understanding and interpretation of scripture. Without understanding where, why and how scriptural teaching manifests...revelation is meaningless. From a theological perspective, scripture is written, declared revelation. The Holy Spirit enlightened X to write Y in the first place. Teach scripture on their own terms.
  21. What about more in-depth hermeneutics? Also, it seems a bad idea to teach scripture without at least a working knowledge of ancient languages. An example of poor proof texting is using Ezekiel 37 and the sticks of Judah and Joseph and the Hebrew words for sticks and scrolls. Teaching context must also be at the forefront of teaching scripture.
  • Create New...