Satan Really Is An Evil Genius

[Mystery Meat]

Ha! In my first draft was much more direct, but I softened it and backed off so I wouldn't put words in your mouth.

 

I would like to clarify that I am in favor of equal rights and opportunities for all.

[Brian 2.0]

I would like to clarify that I am in favor of equal rights and opportunities for all.

So are you in favor the right and opportunity for gays to marry in the states where marriage is not defined as strictly between a man and a woman?

[Mystery Meat]

So are you in favor the right and opportunity for gays to marry in the states where marriage is not defined as strictly between a man and a woman?

 

I am in favor of getting the government completely out of the marriage business. We don't need the government to sanction any marriage. This would require amending the tax code, which I would also endorse. Intestacy laws should be changed to accommodate same sex couples as should insurance law and other areas of law. 

[Brian 2.0]

I am in favor of getting the government completely out of the marriage business. We don't need the government to sanction any marriage. This would require amending the tax code, which I would also endorse. Intestacy laws should be changed to accommodate same sex couples as should insurance law and other areas of law.

You're saying marriage means nothing to the government. Not involved at all. Civil unions are what gets you the benefits of what government now considers "marriage"?

If so I agree with this, though it may be near impassible to see happen.

The flip also works. The church gets out of the marriage business and is solely in the sealing business.

[Mystery Meat]

You're saying marriage means nothing to the government. Not involved at all. Civil unions are what gets you the benefits of what government now considers "marriage"?

If so I agree with this, though it may be near impassible to see happen.

The flip also works. The church gets out of the marriage business and is solely in the sealing business.

 

Yes exactly. Marriage should mean nothing to any government. I also think we don't need civil unions either, but that requires a little bit more massaging. 

 

It will be near impossible. And the reason is because of the far right and the far left. Far right hate the idea of their being any sort of compromise that extends benefits to same-sex couples. The far left hates the idea because it doesn't go far enough to force the far right to recognize and support their relationships (almost as a forceful bend of the knee and confession of the tongue). Which is sad. It actually wouldn't be all that hard of an issue to figure out.

 

Edited to add that I would amend the tax code to get rid of the advantages for filing as married and for declaring more dependents. To make up for the increased financial burden I would lower ordinary income tax rates by about half, while at the same time increasing the capital gains rate to match the ordinary income tax rates. 

Edited May 8, 2014 by lvjd66

[CV75]

I am sure many will disagree, but let me ask you this. If marriage between man and woman is the only form of marriage God approves of, how better to win advocate to your cause then by making those who support Gods law bigots for doing so.

That works, and I think the other extreme is used as well, which is to remove its broader relevancy to society by relegating it to a purely religious rite and at the same time undermining religious freedom and expression in the public square.

[Mystery Meat]

That works, and I think the other extreme is used as well, which is to remove its broader relevancy to society by relegating it to a purely religious rite and at the same time undermining religious freedom and expression in the public square.

 

I do not deny that you may be right. I have though about it a lot.

[Porter_Rockwell]

While I suspect you and I agree on much, I think your view of religion is a little too narrow.  Yes, religion often causes division.  Yet, it is the ONLY thing that we have found that also creates unity ... and progress.  The drumbeat to end slavery in America was first beat by, you guessed it, northern CHURCHES.  The civil rights movement was a movement born in, you guessed it, southern black CHURCHES.  In fact, even secular movements, such as the labor movement, owe much of their success to the Catholic Church and others.  And while we are generally slow (too slow in my opinion) to come around, when we do, we mobilize resources and commitment that is unrivaled by what, say, a group of college professors could ever muster.

 

I believe religion poisons people...and causes them to act and believe things that are none sense and contrary to their nature. I respect your opinion that that's a narrow view.

The Western world has made the greatest strides globally in the areas of equality, gender equity, religious freedom (ironically), racial tolerance etc...in the Americas because of Jeffersonian views and a Constitution that forbids religion in the halls of justice and purposefully separates church and state.

I won't suggest to teach African history in the Americas, but this I absolutely do know: all humans, regardless of their origin seek to shrug off the bonds of an oppressor. That's called liberty. Humans don't desire liberty because they're religious...they demand it because they're human and their soul cry out for item regardless of affiliation. Some good people are religious...but it's a leap to suggest they're good because of religion.

So my challenge is: name a kind act, charity, gesture act of love or a good deed that can only be done by a person of religion, and can't be done by a none religious person. There aren't any. Goodness occurs in-spite of religion and in the absence of religion.

Second part: name an act of aggression, violence, discrimination DONE and justified in the name of religion? Religion allows good men and women to justify their wickedness in the name of a higher calling.

It poisons thought, imprisons people and ensures they never develop their true personal liberty, consciousness and essence...none of which requires the consent of a celestial slave-master or a quorum of controllers. I won't be a slave...

I won't live in an Orwellian make believe world for the sake of false security.

Conformity and comfort or liberty and vulnerability. I'll take liberty all day.

Peace

[teddyaware]

I believe religion poisons people...and causes them to act and believe things that are none sense and contrary to their nature. I respect your opinion that that's a narrow view.

The Western world has made the greatest strides globally in the areas of equality, gender equity, religious freedom (ironically), racial tolerance etc...in the Americas because of Jeffersonian views and a Constitution that forbids religion in the halls of justice and purposefully separates church and state.

I won't suggest to teach African history in the Americas, but this I absolutely do know: all humans, regardless of their origin seek to shrug off the bonds of an oppressor. That's called liberty. Humans don't desire liberty because they're religious...they demand it because they're human and their soul cry out for item regardless of affiliation. Some good people are religious...but it's a leap to suggest they're good because of religion.

So my challenge is: name a kind act, charity, gesture act of love or a good deed that can only be done by a person of religion, and can't be done by a none religious person. There aren't any. Goodness occurs in-spite of religion and in the absence of religion.

Second part: name an act of aggression, violence, discrimination DONE and justified in the name of religion? Religion allows good men and women to justify their wickedness in the name of a higher calling.

It poisons thought, imprisons people and ensures they never develop their true personal liberty, consciousness and essence...none of which requires the consent of a celestial slave-master or a quorum of controllers. I won't be a slave...

I won't live in an Orwellian make believe world for the sake of false security.

Conformity and comfort or liberty and vulnerability. I'll take liberty all day.

Peace

Your ideas sound amazing similar to the Book of Mormon Anti-Christ named Korihor. See for yourself:

12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:

13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.

14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.

15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.

16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.

17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof. (Alma 30)

Edited May 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

How far off the path has one gone if they don't believe in a devil per say?

[teddyaware]

How far off the path has one gone if they don't believe in a devil per say?

This is one of the greatest moments of triumph for the adversary of men's souls -- the moment when his diligent whisperings finally convince a son or daughter of God that the devil does not exist.

22 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance. (2 Nephi 26)

Edited May 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[stemelbow]

Your ideas sound amazing similar to the Book of Mormon Anti-Christ named Korihor. See for yourself:

12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:

13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.

14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.

15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.

16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.

17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof. (Alma 30)

The two don't sound at all similar to me. Please explain what is so amazingly similar.

[stemelbow]

I don't really disagree with you here. I will be labeled a bigot and as hateful. I have come to terms with the fact that in the eyes of man I will come out on the wrong side of history. I am very glad, however, that I know how God feels on the matter and that I am not a bigot or hateful in his eyes.

Some of us can't say we know how God feels. We can say we know how the Church is telling us how God feels, though. Knowledge can be tricky on these matters. If I take your comments about being glad you know how God knows, and replace the notion of no gay marriage with no inter-racial marriage, it might come off as coming from an LDS person 60 or so years ago. Indeed, the first presidency that long ago condemned inter-racial marriage much like today the Church condemns same sex marriage, although today the condemning is much softer.

60 some odds years ago a member could easily say "I know how God feels about inter-racial marriage" perhaps on the same grounds you say it today about same sex marriage. Unfortunately, today we've been told through Church information disseminating lines that the view the inter-racial marriage is opposed to God's favor is untrue. So, what's really going on here? I wonder how many assumptions we take and try to shove into God's head.

[california boy]

Some of us can't say we know how God feels. We can say we know how the Church is telling us how God feels, though. Knowledge can be tricky on these matters. If I take your comments about being glad you know how God knows, and replace the notion of no gay marriage with no inter-racial marriage, it might come off as coming from an LDS person 60 or so years ago. Indeed, the first presidency that long ago condemned inter-racial marriage much like today the Church condemns same sex marriage, although today the condemning is much softer.

60 some odds years ago a member could easily say "I know how God feels about inter-racial marriage" perhaps on the same grounds you say it today about same sex marriage. Unfortunately, today we've been told through Church information disseminating lines that the view the inter-racial marriage is opposed to God's favor is untrue. So, what's really going on here? I wonder how many assumptions we take and try to shove into God's head.

You bring up a very valid point.  Have you noticed that no member is defending the churches past stance on inter racial marriage?  Yet they stand forward with sure confidence that on the issue of gay marriage, unlike the past issues, "we" know the will of God because the brethren have told us such.  Of course those same bodies were also responsible for those earlier pronouncements.  

 

What people have a hard time stating is that no revelation on gay marriage has ever been received, just like there was no revelation on interracial marriage.  Even in the scriptures, there is no pronouncement that any of the verses came from God.  What is clear is that sex within the bounds of marriage is the law of chastity.  Period.  60 years from now the church may very well declare that sex outside of marriage is the law of chastity for all legally and lawfully married couples.  God's gay children are just as entitled to the plan of salvation as all His other children which includes Celestial marriage to their eternal partner, not some woman after they die being assigned to them.

 

Is the church there now?  Of course not.  The statements being made by current church leaders including Elder Ballard are the same as the church leaders making the interracial statements 60 years ago.  And just like 60 years ago, most members take those words of the brethen and state confidently gay marriage will never change.

[The Nehor]

You bring up a very valid point.  Have you noticed that no member is defending the churches past stance on inter racial marriage?

 

I will. Due to the Priesthood ban it was a bad idea then.

[Ahab]

He is not nearly as clever as he imagines himself to be. Luckily for him humanity is not that bright so he does not really need brilliance.

I mean his plans are not original. He tries the same stuff every time......... and we keep falling for it.....every time.

Thank you for confirming my belief that I have simply just become more intelligent than he is, and yes you too can get to the point where you will no longer fall for his antics.

He kinda reminds me of a cousin I grew up with who is still the type of smart alec he once was when I grew up with him.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Am I the only who remembers growing up with the church teaching how false it was to believe that forbidding to marry was Satans plan and that the Bible clearly taught that "it is not good for man to be alone? And a sign in the latter days where false men would forbid marriage?

1 Timothy 4:3

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

It is so easy to claim that the other guy is following Satans plan and a sign of the false church isn't it.

Oooh you're a sly one. Almost thou persuadest me to be gay, again, even after I have already learned by sad experience that it is not good for man to be gay even though the thought of it all still tempts me when I neglect to consider what I have learned through my experiences.

[Mystery Meat]

I love how the same lack of revelation argument keeps being used. You attempt to win the day by setting false criteria for revelation. The prophet does not have to say, "thus sayeth the Lord," for the words to be the divine in origin. You need to gain a stronger grasp on revelation, what it is, what it looks like, what it sounds like and how it is received. You clearly do not understand God's methods for revealing truth. Revelation rarely comes in large, dramatic heavenly pronouncements. The first vision was one form of revelation. The all worthy men was another. The idea to develop city creek was a third. Each revelations. Each valid communications to further and protect God's work. Your setting a condition that the prophets must come out and say, on December 21st of this year we received the following revelation... This is a false condition and nowhere in Mormon or ancient theology is this a requirement for a divine proclamation.

 

The only reason I can see for trying to establish this false condition is for personal justification.

Edited May 9, 2014 by lvjd66

[Mystery Meat]

Double Post.

Edited May 9, 2014 by lvjd66

[Mystery Meat]

Oooh you're a sly one. Almost thou persuadest me to be gay, again, even after I have already learned by sad experience that it is not good for man to be gay even though the thought of it all still tempts me when I neglect to consider what I have learned through my experiences.

 

The problem with CB's use of Timothy has at least two BIG problems. First and most importantly, is he fails to recognize God's definition of marriage (between man and woman). The second problem is related to the first. He is guilty of wresting the scriptures. It is ironic that he is using Paul's words (selectively) to support SSM considering how strong Paul came out against homosexuality. He ignores those verses and thus wrests the scriptures. He further wrests the scriptures by ignoring the pattern for marriage (man and woman) that is used throughout. No SSM has ever been sanctioned by God. It has always been man and woman. 

 

Always.

Edited May 9, 2014 by lvjd66

[stemelbow]

Oooh you're a sly one. Almost thou persuadest me to be gay, again, even after I have already learned by sad experience that it is not good for man to be gay even though the thought of it all still tempts me when I neglect to consider what I have learned through my experiences.

I may be confused. Are you saying you were once gay and now are not?

[The Nehor]

I may be confused. Are you saying you were once gay and now are not?

 

I once was gay but now am bi, was blind but now I see......

[Ahab]

I may be confused. Are you saying you were once gay and now are not?

Yes, and No, depending on your understanding of what it means to be gay. I think it's more accurate to say I no longer have sexual relations with my same sex even though I still have same sex attractions. I am now happily married to a wonderful woman and having sexual relations with my same sex is now only a part of my past.

[Tacenda]

I think we give too much power to Satan, but know it's old news.

[DarkScythe]

Satan is stronger than we are comfortable with. Sexier and smarter too.