peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Some people consider homosexuality to be sick, just a prejudice they have. You are not opening your mind enough to the scripture if you do not accept bestiality. You must trust in its precise mathematical meaning. You must be open to the possibility of me marrying my dog for time and eternity.I can definitely say that bestiality is not for me.
pogi Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) I can definitely say that bestiality is not for me.Then I guess God's word is not for you either, if that is your interpretation of scripture. You must allow other people to marry their dogs in the temple. Edited December 7, 2012 by pogi
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 I thought that you were sure in the interpretation of this scripture? I thought you were the enlightened one? For 21 years you have had spiritual confirmation that it is all that matters, that it is the end all and be all in the law. How could you not understand the 1 scripture that really matters? Your credibility is shot.Credibility is a fake measure of truth.This is the specific verse that has formed a key aspect of the 21 year message.http://bible.cc/galatians/5-14.htmIt is not for me to judge each and every action against this measure. That is not my responsibility.
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Then I guess God's word is not for you either, if that is your interpretation of scripture. You must allow other people to marry their dogs in the temple.That is not for me to judge.
pogi Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) That is not for me to judge.You are right it is not for you to judge, it is for the prophets to judge, just like with homosexuality. It is not for you to say wether homosexuality is acceptable before God or not. It is not your place, it is his.All you have focused on in the scripture is love, you have not even considered who your neighbor is. If my neighbor is only human, than torturing animals is not against God's law if it brings me pleasure. If my neighbor does include animals, than you must be open to the possibility of eternal marriage with animals or even plants, basically anything but bacteria, according to your interpretation of love. Edited December 7, 2012 by pogi
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 You are right it is for the prophets to judge, just like with homosexuality.All you have focused on in the scripture is love, you have not even considered who your neighbor is. If my neighbor is only human, than torturing animals is not against God's law. If my neighbors does include animals, than you must be open to the possibility of eternal marriage with animals or even plants, basically anything but bacteria.Oh it is not for God to judge then?I know who my neighbor is that was provided in the Good Samaritan parable.I remain open to all possibilities that are not completely disproven entirely on the basis of the meaning of their words.
Kemara Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 ....basically anything but bacteria....Bacteriaphobe. 2
Kemara Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 This is the specific verse that has formed a key aspect of the 21 year message. http://bible.cc/galatians/5-14.htm Love does not equate to homosexuality.
pogi Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Oh it is not for God to judge then?God doesn't judge law, he gives it. God's law has always been given through the prophets. That is where your favorite verse came from. You cannot dictate what is law and what is not, only the prophets can. Edited December 7, 2012 by pogi
Kemara Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) You ugly man, you. =) You know how many people type LOL even when they didnt literally laugh out loud, I really did LOL. Edited December 7, 2012 by Kemara 1
pogi Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 I remain open to all possibilities that are not completely disproven entirely on the basis of the meaning of their words.You remain open to the possibility that bestiality may be acceptable before God but not open to the possibility that homosexuality is not? With that interpretation of scripture, you must accept bestiality the same as homosexuality. No way around it. I hope I didn't ruin your day with that realization.
RobertAC Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 I watched some of the videos on the site. Very moving. Very classy discussion too. 1
pogi Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 I remain open to all possibilities that are not completely disproven entirely on the basis of the meaning of their words.If you accept animals and plants as your neighbors, then you must also accept that eating food of any kind is murderous and evil. Are you open to that possibility?If they are not your neighbor, than we need not love them. Are you open to that possibility?Your last option is to accept the possibility that you simply do not understand the scriptures. That is your best bet considering the options. 1
DavidB Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Kemara, i support the message of the Church, the Church speaks for itself, once again you ate welcome to visit the particular page to read that message. I have no need to prove anything to you or anyone else. You seem less concerned about what I think the message is and more concerned about playing religious police; and yes that is the third motive i attribute to your nagging and pestering. Mr. Llyod inadvertently revealed much earlier that his motive is similar.I support the message of the Church, and that's that. Edited December 7, 2012 by DavidB
Kemara Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Kemara, i support the message of the Church, the Church speaks for itself, once again you ate welcome to visit the particular page to read that message. I have no need to prove anything to you or anyone else. You seem less concerned about what I think the message is and more concerned about playing religious police; and yes that is the third motive i attribute to your nagging and pestering.Mr. Llyod inadvertently revealed much earlier that his interest seems to be playing religious police of sorts.I support the message of the Church, and that's that.Strawmen and red herrings abound!I have not asked what you do or dont support. I have not disputed that the church speaks for itself. I have not asked you prove anything. I am not playing religious police, I am asking you a couple of simple questions that are pertinent to the discussion regarding statements that you made. You are going to ridiculously extraordinary lengths to avoid answering them.I will ask again - what is your interpretation of the message of the church? What in your view is the adjustment that many Saints need to make? 1
Calm Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Some people consider homosexuality to be sick, just a prejudice they have. You are not opening your mind enough to the scripture if you do not accept bestiality. You must trust in its precise mathematical meaning. You must be open to the possibility of me marrying my dog for time and eternity.So I am wondering if it is okay for me to marry my dog even though I am already married making me a polygamist and my dog is female making is a same sex marriage.
Kemara Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 So I am wondering if it is okay for me to marry my dog even though I am already married making me a polygamist and my dog is female making is a same sex marriage. All the answers can be found by wresting Galatians 5:14.
Calm Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) All the answers can be found by wresting Galatians 5:14.You know, scripture study is so much easier now when one only has to read one scripture and even gets to interpret it pretty much any way that one wants because context means nothing..... Edited December 7, 2012 by calmoriah 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Mr. Llyod inadvertently revealed much earlier that his interest seems to be playing religious police of sorts.I haven't yet figured out what this means, but I find it ironic coming from one who acclaims the Church's new website as a means of filtering out the "chaff." 2
canard78 Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 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.I have no problems with opinions. That's what dialogue is all about. I have problems with people comparing gay people to theives, pedophiles, Black Widows and telling gay people to 'eat lemons' for a year in the hope that it would change their sexuality (at least that was the clear implication).
california boy Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 As most of you know I am gay. I also was a member of the church for many years. When I first heard about the web site mentioned in the op, I was pretty happy. My first thought was wondering if that attitude had been in the church when I came out maybe I would have stayed in the church. It gave me hope that there actually was a place for being a gay member. But after reading the members reactions, I realize that nothing really has changed. The same old attitudes remain. Why is it that almost every thread about gays compares them to pedophiles. Do you ever hear single women compared to pedophiles because they also can't act on their sexuality? Nope, it is only gays that are like pedophiles. And then of course gay relationships are like wanting to marry your dog or cat. Yet no one says your marriage is the same as marrying a cat or dog.I often think of the verse in 1 Nephi. "Men are that they might have joy" And the verse in Alma, "Wickedness never was happiness" I also think of the verse in Genesis "It is not good for man to be alone" And the verse in Matthew "By the fruits ye shall know whether it be good or evil" I think often about how unhappy my life was while I was so active in the church, trying to please others. Trying to pretend to be something that I wasn't. Knowing that if the members of the ward knew I was gay, their attitudes towards me would change. I was well liked, and had many friends in the church. When I came out, I could count on one hand the number of members that ever talked to me again. That was the reality of being gay in the church.Since leaving the church, I have found someone in my life that loves me not only for who I am, but because of who I am. I can not tell you how much happier my life is. Sure things are not perfect, but I am sharing my life with someone who loves me and supports me for who I am, not for who they want me to be. Something that I can never become. If this is wicked, why am I so happy. If this is evil, why is the fruit so good. And why am I so darn happy. Aren't I suppose to have some horrible life where all I care about is lust and sexual depravity? Yet my life is nothing like that. I still fill the love of God and I still feel the Spirit. I am not a heathen. I don't worship satan. I am not his spawn. I just happen to be a gay son of God. Would I trade my life for a life where I could never get close to another man for fear that I would fall in love with them and have to break up our friendship time and time again so I could be alone and share my life with no one? No, never. not ever. Do you know why so many gay members leave the church? It is to find happiness, not to run from it. 1
TAO Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 I have no problems with opinions. That's what dialogue is all about. I have problems with people comparing gay people to theives, pedophiles, Black Widows and telling gay people to 'eat lemons' for a year in the hope that it would change their sexuality (at least that was the clear implication).Perhaps you should reread our analogies then, because you don't seem to be understanding why we are making them, tbh. We aren't making them because we think comparing gay people with theives, pedophiles, black widows, and lemon-eaters is cool; on the contrary, we intend no harm. We are comparing them to dismiss somewhat faulty arguments that pete keeps making. If pete wasn't bringing up these arguments, I rather doubt the comparisons would even exist. Understand? You have to provide extreme examples in order to make people reject their own faulty arguments alot of the times.So please... don't judge us... we take no pleasure in what we are doing. But it's our job to refute these arguments. If you don't refute faulty arguments, eventually they become habit and are socialized into the mainstream. Thus, it's our job to point out why such arguments such as "it's impossible to deny your orientation" and the likes are wrong; if we don't, we are letting it seep where it should not. And we do this with extreme examples, because extreme examples are the easiest way to show such opinions are wrong. You may not like that; you may not like our analogies, but please, remember, they are effective at dismissing these poor arguments like the ones that have been going on in this thread. If we could use lighter arguments, we would. But, people like pete are very much strong in their own ideology. Thus, we must use stronger ones. Because lighter ones would not be effective.Hmmm... I am a bit interested as to why you though lemon-eating so offensive. Sorry, just curious =).Peace.-TAOThose analogies are offensive and will get you thrown out of the thread. 1
volgadon Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 And then of course gay relationships are like wanting to marry your dog or cat. Yet no one says your marriage is the same as marrying a cat or dog.Those comments had to do with the absurdities of Pete Olcott's stance more than anything. 2
california boy Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 We aren't making them because we think comparing gay people with theives, pedophiles, black widows, and lemon-eaters is cool; on the contrary, we intend no harm. We are comparing them to dismiss somewhat faulty arguments that pete keeps making. This about makes me throw up. There is no other group or argument that gets compared pedophiles more than gays by Mormons on this site, and you say it is your duty to do so? That Mormon web site is working for you isn't it.
california boy Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Those comments had to do with the absurdities of Pete Olcott's stance more than anything.How many times on this board have I read gay marriage compared to marrying a dog? And there is Tao right above you saying it is his duty to use the argument that gays are just like pedophiles. Just what do you think the new church web site is about? Just who do you think it is addressing? And just what kinds of dialogue do you think the church is trying to eliminate within the church?
Recommended Posts