USU78 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, Gray said: Right up there with this abomination: Bad argument, though I loves me some treyf as much as the next goy. Point me to the tablecloth vision that removes the to'ebah designation for homosexual relations, lest I accuse you of arguing from silence.
poptart Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Mormons accept the Bible. We have evolved in reference as to what we want our secular government to do about it. Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus form part of the Holiness code and list prohibited forms of intercourse, including the following verses: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13. Lol think it also prohibits shelled fish, don't see a lot of religious people who are against gay marraige arguing for a lobster ban either. I'll give the LDS this, I know a few with gay siblings and i've never heard once of them disowning them. Seen a lot of others do just that though. 2
poptart Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, USU78 said: Bad argument, though I loves me some treyf as much as the next goy. Point me to the tablecloth vision that removes the to'ebah designation for homosexual relations, lest I accuse you of arguing from silence. >goy /pol much?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I disagree. There are tons of things one could say if he/she is want to be rude. Abomination is just one. And let's face it it's a term we don't use much these days. My Google search indicates it is used a great deal in relation to homosexuality, just not by Mormons, who tend to be more civil than average in their discourse.
Bobbieaware Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Gray said: I think in order for this argument to have any weight, you'd have to agree that anything not specifically commanded in scriptures must be forbidden. That would be quite a long list, including getting vaccinated, going to college, adopting rescue dogs, and all kinds of other modern things that ancient Biblical writers never would have conceived of. But if the scriptures teach broadly applicable principles that we can use to help guide our lives in any situation, then I must conclude that marriage for gay couples is indeed godly and right. I knew you would bring this up because it's the only possible defense. But the fact is that since eternal marriage between men and women, and bringing forth children within that everlasting marriage covenant, is the one essential commandment that, beyond all the others, guarantees the fulness of exaltation in the celestial kingdom and a concurrent fulness of eternal joy, the time for the Lord to have made a commandment for men and men and women and women to enter barren same sex unions would have been at the same time that he gave the FIRST commandment. But he didn't. And he couldn't. Why? Because the first commandment has two parts. The first part being for men and women to leave their fathers and mothers and to marry after coming of age. The second part of the first commandment is for these married men and women to have children. So the above immutable facts necessitate the following all-important question be answered: How could the sons and daughters of God keep and fulfill His commandment to have children if they marry individuals of the same sex, thereby making it impossible to keep and fulfill the commandment to bear children? It's not of little significance to note that even before Eden, when the spirit sons and daughters of God lived in his immediate presence, there was a plain and unambiguous commandment given to bring forth children. By marrying individuals of the same sex, the purposes and the commandments of God are frustrated and his word returns unfulfilled and void. The time to have made an exception for gay marriage should have at the time when the first commandment was given, But because such a clarifying commandment wasn't given, we are all under the solemn obligation to enter marriage covenants where bringing forth children is possible -- either in this world or the world to come. How do the sons and daughter of God keep the commandment to leave their fathers and mothers, enter the covenant of marriage, and bring forth children if they covenant to remain in unions that are barren by very nature? Edited July 13, 2017 by Bobbieaware
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 1 hour ago, JulieM said: I have a right to respond to a comment directed at me. From what I've seen, you are the only one on this thread employing semantics like Bobbieaware referred to. First you stated the discussion wasn't about gay marriage, but was about homosexuality. Then, you post that it's not about homosexuality, but it's about gay marriage. You keep changing the discussion. So, is it now about both and if not, which one? 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: Geesh! Got some thin skin there, Scott! I reject your invitation to withdraw from this conversation. I will leave the conversation when I decide, not because you rudely ask me to leave. Channeling your inner Julianne? It's just that if you think my thread is worthless word-game playing, I don't know why you would thus want to hang around and engage -- unless it's to make a nuisance of yourself. I'm just pointing out no one is forcing you to stay and engage. 2
USU78 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 40 minutes ago, poptart said: >goy /pol much? It was a joke. Sheesh.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 4 hours ago, Valentinus said: Firstly, you didn't address my post correctly. Cite a scriptural text that states gay marriage is an abomination. Secondly, abomination is not a literal translation, nor in the same ball park for that matter, of the Hebrew word to'ebah. "Abomination" is a late mistranslation and bastardization of the text. Since the Hebrew ritual term to'ebah comes from an Egyptian word meaning "pure," it is likely that the Israelites meant it to mean "impure" and any synonyms you care to apply it to. The 19th century Mormon practice of polygyny was described by many Americans as "barbaric." People tend to use emotive terms for things they don't like or approve of. 4
JulieM Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It's just that if you think my thread is worthless word-game playing, I don't know why you would thus want to hang around and engage -- unless it's to make a nuisance of yourself. Where has anyone stated this thread is "worthless"? You're overreacting here, Scott. I simply responded to a post directed at me and stated the truth. Edited July 13, 2017 by JulieM
USU78 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: My Google search indicates it is used a great deal in relation to homosexuality, just not by Mormons, who tend to be more civil than average in their discourse. I'd like to point out that it is not necessarily rude to use useful terms, having agreed-upon definitions, in conversation even about topics that can generate emotional responses in people. It is, moreover, a bullying tactic, akin to if not identical to the ad hominem fallacy, to insist that people not use useful terms. I, therefore, challenge the spoken and unspoken claims concerning the use of "abomina*" and "pervers*" and "obscen*" on this board.
USU78 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Since the Hebrew ritual term to'ebah comes from an Egyptian word meaning "pure," it is likely that the Israelites meant it to mean "impure" and any synonyms you care to apply it to. The 19th century Mormon practice of polygyny was described by many Americans as "barbaric." People tend to use emotive terms for things they don't like or approve of. ... homophobe, hateful, antisemitic, and other epithets, not used clinically but rather solely rhetorically, come to mind as examples of such emotive terms. 3
ttribe Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, USU78 said: I'd like to point out that it is not necessarily rude to use useful terms, having agreed-upon definitions, in conversation even about topics that can generate emotional responses in people. It is, moreover, a bullying tactic, akin to if not identical to the ad hominem fallacy, to insist that people not use useful terms. I, therefore, challenge the spoken and unspoken claims concerning the use of "abomina*" and "pervers*" and "obscen*" on this board. So, you are unable to come up with equally useful, but less emotionally charged terms? 6 minutes ago, USU78 said: ... homophobe, hateful, antisemitic, and other epithets, not used clinically but rather solely rhetorically, come to mind as examples of such emotive terms. Interesting when the bully claims to be the bullied... 1
USU78 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 1 minute ago, ttribe said: So, you are unable to come up with equally useful, but less emotionally charged terms? Interesting when the bully claims to be the bullied... As you do.
ttribe Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, USU78 said: As you do. I do? Where'd I do that? It would certainly be news to me. How about my first question?
USU78 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, ttribe said: I do? Where'd I do that? It would certainly be news to me. How about my first question? By controlling the terminology, one controls the outcome of the conversation. I choose not to play by those rules. By cheating and not permitting a level playing field, you bully. It's really quite simple.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 30 minutes ago, USU78 said: I'd like to point out that it is not necessarily rude to use useful terms, having agreed-upon definitions, in conversation even about topics that can generate emotional responses in people. It is, moreover, a bullying tactic, akin to if not identical to the ad hominem fallacy, to insist that people not use useful terms. I, therefore, challenge the spoken and unspoken claims concerning the use of "abomina*" and "pervers*" and "obscen*" on this board. Well, I've never been a fan of political correctness. I was only responding to Calm's thread, primarily because the prior thread was closed before I got the chance to. 1
ttribe Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, USU78 said: By controlling the terminology, one controls the outcome of the conversation. I choose not to play by those rules. By cheating and not permitting a level playing field, you bully. It's really quite simple. Oh, spare me your victim status. Your posts are among the more confrontational on this board, IMO. Again I ask, why are you unable to come up with equally useful, but less emotionally charged terms? Edited July 13, 2017 by ttribe
USU78 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Well, I've never been a fan of political correctness. I was only responding to Calm's thread, primarily because the prior thread was closed before I got the chance to. I quite got that.
USU78 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 Just now, ttribe said: Oh, spare me you victim status. Your posts are among the more confrontational on this board, IMO. Again I ask, why are you unable to come up with equally useful, but less emotionally charged terms? Because I don't care to be bullied into conceding an argument. Of course, if you asked prettily instead of nastily ...
Storm Rider Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 24 minutes ago, USU78 said: ... homophobe, hateful, antisemitic, and other epithets, not used clinically but rather solely rhetorically, come to mind as examples of such emotive terms. USU78 - but those are helpful terms to beat down the ignorant pigs that pose as Christians, but really just hate those who are gay. Shaming is only acceptable if it attacks anyone against the Sacred Cows of the identity politics. I saw an article that I only briefly scanned between a conflict between two actors. The gay actor berated the straight actor for a tweet he made. Of course, the straight actor came back and corrected his attempt to shame him. No, little Johnny, using the terms abomination or perversion are not rude - they are direct and they are blunt and they are not political correct, but their use is not rude. It is true that in common conversation when we are seeking mutual understanding in a social setting we may each choose not to use them. However, in a discussion of scripture all we have to do is quote the scripture and let the scripture speak for itself. No, the mere fact that I will not berate anyone for the use of proper terminology in a specific conversation does NOT mean that I hate my gay friends or that I don't love them. In the exact same way that I don't any other sinner. Attempting to dress up any sin is like attempting to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. At the end of the day, that is not a silk purse. It is and will always remain a sow's ear. 1
USU78 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Storm Rider said: USU78 - but those are helpful terms to beat down the ignorant pigs that pose as Christians, but really just hate those who are gay. Shaming is only acceptable if it attacks anyone against the Sacred Cows of the identity politics. I saw an article that I only briefly scanned between a conflict between two actors. The gay actor berated the straight actor for a tweet he made. Of course, the straight actor came back and corrected his attempt to shame him. No, little Johnny, using the terms abomination or perversion are not rude - they are direct and they are blunt and they are not political correct, but their use is not rude. It is true that in common conversation when we are seeking mutual understanding in a social setting we may each choose not to use them. However, in a discussion of scripture all we have to do is quote the scripture and let the scripture speak for itself. No, the mere fact that I will not berate anyone for the use of proper terminology in a specific conversation does NOT mean that I hate my gay friends or that I don't love them. In the exact same way that I don't any other sinner. Attempting to dress up any sin is like attempting to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. At the end of the day, that is not a silk purse. It is and will always remain a sow's ear. We don't agree on all points, but I highly respect this post.
ttribe Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, USU78 said: Because I don't care to be bullied into conceding an argument. Of course, if you asked prettily instead of nastily ... Edited July 13, 2017 by ttribe 1
Tacenda Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: USU78 - but those are helpful terms to beat down the ignorant pigs that pose as Christians, but really just hate those who are gay. Shaming is only acceptable if it attacks anyone against the Sacred Cows of the identity politics. I saw an article that I only briefly scanned between a conflict between two actors. The gay actor berated the straight actor for a tweet he made. Of course, the straight actor came back and corrected his attempt to shame him. No, little Johnny, using the terms abomination or perversion are not rude - they are direct and they are blunt and they are not political correct, but their use is not rude. It is true that in common conversation when we are seeking mutual understanding in a social setting we may each choose not to use them. However, in a discussion of scripture all we have to do is quote the scripture and let the scripture speak for itself. No, the mere fact that I will not berate anyone for the use of proper terminology in a specific conversation does NOT mean that I hate my gay friends or that I don't love them. In the exact same way that I don't any other sinner. Attempting to dress up any sin is like attempting to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. At the end of the day, that is not a silk purse. It is and will always remain a sow's ear. So how would you feel if someone thought you were a sinner because you are married to your wife? See how insane that would feel? The Bible says many things that we don't have a clue are coming from God. I would steer clear of calling anyone a sinner unless you are that God (not that you were exactly). And whenever we use God's name in error, then we take His name in vain. Edited July 13, 2017 by Tacenda
poptart Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 1 hour ago, USU78 said: It was a joke. Sheesh. Lel thats ok, us good goys have to stick together. 1
USU78 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, poptart said: Lel thats ok, us good goys have to stick together. guys ... goys ... little wordplay ... not worth much, but I crack myself up
Recommended Posts