Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Mormonsandgays

tyler90az

By tyler90az
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

peteolcott Community Regular

peteolcott

Posted
Posted

Quote

The depth of love that two people can have for each other does not depend upon their relative gender, hence denigrating these feelings to impulses was both hurtful and untrue.

I'd disagree.

And you will stick to this point of view no matter how hurtful it is even knowing that you may possibly be wrong?

canard78 Grand Master

canard78

Posted
Posted

Believe it or not, I kind of agree with you. The fact is that I am not good at using soft politically correct bubble-gum language. There, I admitted it. What you can expect out of me though, is that I care enough about every last one of you to speak up and try and save you even if you don't want to be saved.

If we are going to be completely honest, however, you have to admit that your initial post in this thread where you tried to tie the subject into your political activism, was, at the very least, just as inappropriate.

I'd agree that I'm going beyond what the website asks. I accept and support the policy as it currently stands, but hope that in the future it might be changed. But it's not political activism. I'm afraid I'm a fairly passive observer in this and certainly not a political activist. I don't see what politics has to do with it.

TAO Mentor

TAO

Posted
Posted

There are two aspects to my analysis that must be taken separately:

(1) Whether or not that verse is exactly God's will.

Okay, I'll take the bait. The verse is God's will, but your interpretation of the verse is not God's will.

(2) The logical entailments derived from the meaning of the words in that verse.

And what about the meanings dervied from Timothy 3? Of unnatural affection?

I agree that the Holy Spirit is required for correct scriptural understanding.

Then you will agree it is a justified source of information that homosexaulity is wrong, and is a sin?

If we simply take (1) as a premise, then we can conclude on the basis of the meaning of the words that since

This is the whole law, then no other law must be obeyed, and since sin is only breaking God's law, therefore homosexuality is not a sin.

That is incorrect. You see, love is not always appropriate. The best example actually, is adultery, which James talks about in James 2:10. He says, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." Adultery is against the law. So is homosexuality (1 Corinthians 6:9).

TAO Mentor

TAO

Posted
Posted (edited)

And you will stick to this point of view no matter how hurtful

Indeed. If I was worried about hurting everybody, I wouldn't be able to act, or do anything. I'd be bound to do nothing. I am compassionate, but only to a practical level. There is a point where I must say what I must. I have a feeling it would be the same way for you. If I am seeing you right, you would not stop talking about what you talk about, even on the potentiality of hurting someone else's feelings yourself. That is the way most humans act, indeed, that it is.

it is even knowing that you may possibly be wrong?

Of course I could be possibly wrong. As could you. So I will trust what the Spirit whispers to me; for that is what I know as truth. And the Spirit whispers that it is wrong, thus, I cannot agree with you.

Edited by TAO
sethpayne Mentor

sethpayne

Posted
Posted

So, on the one hand I have the words of authorized representatives speaking through The Spirit in an official capacity whom I have recieved spiritual confirmation about the specific message on one hand, and on the other hand I have some random person on the internet telling me that I should listen to him instead.

Oh.... so they are infallible.

Got it.

Nathair/|\ Mentor

Nathair/|\

Posted
Posted

To interfere with someone's exaltation causes them harm.

What God says now supersedes what he said 2000 years ago.

I don't know ** about the first part, I totally agree with the second part.

** I do not think that I share the exact same meaning of exaltation.

The kind that I know about might not be able to be interferred with.

And what God tells his ambassadors today to tell us is that sexual relations other than those between a married man and woman interfere with one's exaltation.
TAO Mentor

TAO

Posted
Posted

I'd agree that I'm going beyond what the website asks. I accept and support the policy as it currently stands, but hope that in the future it might be changed. But it's not political activism. I'm afraid I'm a fairly passive observer in this and certainly not a political activist. I don't see what politics has to do with it.

I think what he was trying to get across was that it is unusual to criticize others for offering an opinion, when one was doing the same thing, or something along those lines. Then again, it's probably better to talk to him about it.

TAO Mentor

TAO

Posted
Posted (edited)

Oh.... so they are infallible.

Got it.

Nah, not quite. Rather, you can ask the Spirit if what they are saying is right. That's why he says 'speaking by the spirit'.

Edited by TAO
peteolcott Community Regular

peteolcott

Posted
Posted (edited)

Okay, I'll take the bait. The verse is God's will, but your interpretation of the verse is not God's will.

Then you will agree it is a justified source of information that homosexaulity is wrong, and is a sin?

http://bible.cc/galatians/5-14.htm

It says that it is that whole law, yet you keep referring to the requirement for obedience to things not included in this [whole] law. What is it that you think the word [whole] means?

Edited by peteolcott
Kemara Rising Star

Kemara

Posted
Posted
You are being unkind.

I wholly reject your claim that I am being unkind, I am simply pointing out your inconsistency and that what you present as scientific fact is not trustworthy.

peteolcott Community Regular

peteolcott

Posted
Posted

Does loving non-human things have a part in the law?

I would say so, but, probably not at the level of bacteria.

peteolcott Community Regular

peteolcott

Posted
Posted (edited)

I wholly reject your claim that I am being unkind, I am simply pointing out your inconsistency and that what you present as scientific fact is not trustworthy.

Yet that is not the case, there is no inconsistency. There are some kinds of things such that for these things first-hand direct experience is the ultimate measure of truth. Sexual identity is one of these things.

Edited by peteolcott
peteolcott Community Regular

peteolcott

Posted
Posted

What makes them an exception?

It seems to me that the human capacity for Love is finite.

pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted

I would say so, but, probably not at the level of bacteria.

Then you are not reading the scripture literally and precisely like you demand of all of us.

Not to mention, this opens up a whole new can of worms. It is now ok, according to your interpretation of the scripture, to make love with a horny dog. Heck. throw in a cat and a donkey while your at it. The more love the merrier right?

Sorry bacteria, you are not to be loved, even though I cannot survive without you.

2
peteolcott Community Regular

peteolcott

Posted
Posted (edited)

Then you are not reading the scripture literally and precisely like you demand of all of us.

Not to mention, this opens up a whole new can of worms. It is now ok, according to your interpretation of the scripture, to make love with a horny dog. Heck. throw in a cat and a donkey while your at it. The more love the merrier right?

Sorry bacteria, you are not to be loved, even though I cannot survive without you.

(1) That is not true, I am pretty sure that bacteria would not be aptly described as your neighbor.

(2) Although I may possibly be incorrect, it would seem to me that beastiality would be a form of mental illness.

(3) If you want to love them all at once, that seems fine.

Edited by peteolcott
peteolcott Community Regular

peteolcott

Posted
Posted

But that is not the question.

The key thing that makes bacteria the exception to

http://bible.cc/galatians/5-14.htm

is that bacteria can not be reasonably construed to be your neighbor.

pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted (edited)

Then you are not reading the scripture literally and precisely like you demand of all of us.

Not to mention, this opens up a whole new can of worms. It is now ok, according to your interpretation of the scripture, to make love with a horny dog. Heck. throw in a cat and a donkey while your at it. The more love the merrier right?

Sorry bacteria, you are not to be loved, even though I cannot survive without you.

While we are at it, lets make it legal for a man to marry his dog and be sealed to him/her for time and all eternity, and be worthy to hold the priesthood and officiate in the ordinances.

The dog is my neighbor, right?

Edited by pogi
volgadon Grand Master

volgadon

Posted
Posted

That the world is 700% overpopulated has a scientific basis.

If the world is truly 700% overpopulated, then encouraging procreation would tend worsen this problem.

Perhaps you would like to contact some of your Hebrew "experts" regarding the literal meaning of Genesis 1:28.

2
volgadon Grand Master

volgadon

Posted
Posted
(2) Although I may possibly be incorrect, it would seem to me that beastiality would be a form of mental illness.

Isn't that act of unkindness denigrating their feelings and depth of their love?

3
peteolcott Community Regular

peteolcott

Posted
Posted

Perhaps you would like to contact some of your Hebrew "experts" regarding the literal meaning of Genesis 1:28.

I guess he didn't think that he had to say [stop filling it when its full].

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...