Another Instance of Compelled Speech (Targeting Religious People) (Sorta)

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If nothing else, this guy is unintentionally (I think) making a good case for separation of church and state. 

Among other things.

[Tacenda]

35 minutes ago, Chum said:

If I may put the Pedantic in PSA, Cannabis isn't an inhalant.

So true, was thinking of the canned ones like in this article: https://www.webmd.com/parenting/ss/slideshow-crazy-things-teens-use-to-get-high

Some teens inhale household products like glue, Freon, aerosol sprays, cleaning fluids, gas from whipped cream cans, and even mothballs for a high that makes them feel drunk. It can be addictive, but inhaling even once can cause brain damage or death. The fumes can cause heart failure or clog your lungs so you can’t breathe.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, YJacket said:

You did the wrong thing Smac.

The pictures should have been left up.  Why?  So that everyone can absolutely see with clear eyes where this is headed.  For all of CB's protesting . . .he protests too much.

He knows it, you know it, I know it where this is headed.

Love is Love!!!!!!!!

Which is really saying "sex is sex".  The whole LGBTQETC movement is all about sex, having sex, thinking sex, doing sex with whoever, whenever, however, whereever.  No rules, no bounds; a complete free for all orgy.

Those pictures are a PERFECT representation of where it is all headed.  And the sooner naive members get their heads out of the sand and figure this out the better.  Naive members simply say "love is love", "be kind", "respect" and the enemy has simply used those words as an insidious injection of rot into the system and it will rot out the entire system.

You see it evident in the arguments made from the pro-LGBTQETC movement, how often they evade direct questions, how often they say things like well if someone wants to do it that's fine . . .it's okay as long as their is "consent". Which is a bull-crap way of saying, as long as we can CONVINCE someone to do it-it's okay.

No morals, no rules, nothing godly, just an entire circle of suck.  CB and the others simply do not want the deep dark underbelly exposed and they rage and nash with their teeth once it is exposed.

One day brother, one day, a reckoning is coming and do you know what that reckoning will be?

One day the deepest, darkest underbelly will be exposed about how 2 men (or 2 women) living together taking in children is really a high-powered mechanism for child sexual abuse.  The highest rates of incident of child abuse occur between non-blood related parental figures and children . . . One day it will be exposed how much sexual abuse there is between the non-blood related partners in homosexual relationships and the children under their care.  But of course, everyone will rage against this comment and call me all sorts of horrible names.

One day . . . just wait the reckoning will happen.

Ah, a QAnoner. It is all about exploiting the kids.

The enemy must be defeated at all costs to protect the children!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/from-hastert-to-gaetz-lets-talk-about-republicans-and-sex-crimes.html

Oh……huh? “It’s always projection” slogan proved again and the supposed defenders of morality are willing to shield the pedophiles in their own ranks. Hmmmmmmm……. 

1 hour ago, YJacket said:

If you feel the need to apologize that is fine, you still revealed the true nature of this.

So you are telling me that if someone doesn't agree with you or even if society doesn't agree with you that it is appropriate to kill oneself?

I utterly reject your emotional blackmail. It is not my fault nor societies fault that LGBTQ kill themselves and I refuse to be emotionally manipulated by such tactics.

Let's see if you really are true to your belief that you profess.

If society says that sexual relations with dogs is inappropriate and those who want or desire relationships with dogs now kill themselves, should society then acquiesce to those demands?

What if it is stealing, a huge group of thieves start killing themselves because society says stealing is wrong do we now allow stealing? 

And comparing same sex relations with bestiality.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

34 minutes ago, YJacket said:

exact same chapter

Um… you do know that chapters aren’t present in the ancient text and were added in the Middle Ages right?

[ttribe]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Um… you do know that chapters aren’t present in the ancient text and were added in the Middle Ages right?

But, but, but...right nearby!

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Chum said:

You keep describing alcohol.

Regarding cannabis, is your objection with decriminalization or with it's existence or with any use or with recreational use or with recreational use without proper care?

Without proper care…I have used it myself successfully medicinally for 6 months before my body did its usual “I don’t like this any more” routine.  I am not that fond of laws regulating recreational use restricting it more than we restrict alcohol, though I wish we spent more on education of children and parents on potential harm.  I think criminalizing it has created more problems than it ever solved.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Calm

[Chum]

35 minutes ago, YJacket said:

I don't believe in a scientific view of the bible,

That's nice. It's not what I said but you can think I did, if you want.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But, but, but...right nearby!

The ultimate in cafeteria Mormonism is saying that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law, except for that part about gays. 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Without proper care…I have used it myself successfully medicinally for 6 months before my body did its usual “I don’t like this any more” routine.  

My son has a very similar problem. His autoimmune condition causes a great deal of pain throughout his body, but he builds up tolerances way, way too quickly.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

The ultimate in cafeteria Mormonism is saying that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law, except for that part about gays. 

Don't forget when you really want to use the Bible to justify an eye-for-an-eye argument.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Chum said:

That's nice. It's not what I said but you can think I did, if you want.

What is a scientific view of the Bible, anyway?

Slightly off-topic, but do Internet discussion groups tend to be more reactionary than the average church member? I go to church pretty regularly with my wife, and I don't recall ever hearing the kind of anti-gay fear-mongering like what I'm seeing in this thread. There was an old guy a few weeks ago who said he had a hard time accepting the blacks getting the priesthood, but that's about it. I wonder if it's just that people feel free here to say what they wouldn't say to someone's face.

[Chum]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Without proper care…

That's a reasonable concern; I certainly share it. I couldn't pull it from your post tho. I think your post would also fit an argument against decriminalization.

I get it's hard to properly cover all bases on a complex topic. I've spent years working out how to make certain points.

[Calm]

Just now, Chum said:

That's a reasonable concern; I certainly share it. I couldn't pull it from your post tho. I think your post would also fit an argument against decriminalization.

I get it's hard to properly cover all bases on a complex topic. I've spent years working out how to make certain points.

I was just providing info rather than an argument.  Some people (not saying anyone posting does, but lurkers might) view cannabis as harmless and may make poor decisions based on misinformation.

[Chum]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I was just providing info rather than an argument.  Some people (not saying anyone posting does, but lurkers might) view cannabis as harmless and may make poor decisions based on misinformation.

We keep talking about alcohol.

Anyhoo, I think a more productive vibe is that cannabis is powerfully useful. That tone might ease reasonable concerns.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was just providing info rather than an argument.  Some people (not saying anyone posting does, but lurkers might) view cannabis as harmless and may make poor decisions based on misinformation.

I have zero experience with drugs of any kind, except for painkillers prescribed after surgery (and I was so scared of getting addicted, I only took those for a day or two). I'm certainly not an advocate for recreational drug use, but I also think the criminalization that began with the Rockefeller laws in the 1970s was a huge, costly mistake. 

[Chum]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Slightly off-topic, but do Internet discussion groups tend to be more reactionary than the average church member?

Anonymity. Same thing with road rage.

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I go to church pretty regularly with my wife, and I don't recall ever hearing the kind of anti-gay fear-mongering like what I'm seeing in this thread.

My stake has 2 or 3 wards dominated by culture warriors. We've had bishops that feast on generating animosity (most of our bishops are better tho).

Edited July 29, 2022 by Chum

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, YJacket said:

Yes, the word of God talks about it in the same breadth as incest, bestiality and everything else.

You got a problem with it, take it up with God, clearly you don't believe in the Bible. 

Not sure if you'd care to know the following but just in case.

And didn't know until recently, that the word homosexual, wasn't in the Bible up until the 1980's. 

https://www.hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality

While the six passages that address same-sex eroticism in the ancient world are negative about the practices they mention, there is no evidence that these in any way speak to same-sex relationships of love and mutuality. To the contrary, the amount of cultural, historical and linguistic data surrounding how sexuality in the cultures of the biblical authors operated demonstrates that what was being condemned in the Bible is very different than the committed same-sex partnerships we know and see today. The stories of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) and the Levite’s concubine (Judges 19) are about sexual violence and the Ancient Near East’s stigma toward violating male honor. The injunction that “man must not lie with man” (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) coheres with the context of a society anxious about their health, continuing family lineages, and retaining the distinctiveness of Israel as a nation. Each time the New Testament addresses the topic in a list of vices (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10), the argument being made is more than likely about the sexual exploitation of young men by older men, a practice called pederasty, and what we read in the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans is a part of a broader indictment against idolatry and excessive, self-centered lust that is driven by desire to “consume” rather than to love and to serve as outlined for Christian partnership elsewhere in the Bible. While it is likely that Jews and Christians in the 1st century had little to no awareness of a category like sexual orientation, this doesn’t mean that the biblical authors were wrong. What it does mean, at a minimum, is that continued opposition toward same-sex relationships and LGBTQ+ identities must be based on something other than these biblical texts, which brings us back to a theology of Christian marriage or partnership.

If neither sex differentiation nor gender complementarity are the basis for Christian partnership, then what is?

While the work to undo the decades-long, dominant and exclusionary interpretations of these passages is important, its emphasis over and against the affirming dimensions of Christian theology for LGBTQ+ people has stifled exploration of a deeper meaning of sexuality for everyone. From Genesis 2, to Matthew 19, to Ephesians 5, what these passages make explicit (and is echoed throughout the rest of Scripture) is something mentioned earlier: marriage is sacred for Christians because it can represent the enduring love between Christ and the Church. Christian partnership creates an opportunity to live out God’s love. While some kind of difference seems to be important in embodying this metaphor, understanding that all our differences can lead  to empathy, compassion, good listening, sacrifice, and what it means to “love our neighbor as ourselves,” there is scant evidence that it is our biology or our views of gender that are the required difference. Anyone who has ever been in an intimate relationship of any kind can testify to the range of differences (and resulting conflicts) that are an inherent part of any two personalities attempting to integrate their lives. And remember, those who are not married but are not LGBTQ+, like single people or people whose spouses have passed, are embraced as Christians. The larger point here is that God’s design for Christian partnership is about reflecting the truest and sweetest love that anyone could know; that is the self-giving, ever-enduring, liberating love between God and creation made possible for us through Christ. A tall order, but nevertheless something countless LGBTQ+ individuals and couples have been living into and continue to live into today.

Conclusion

All things considered, it is important to remember that throughout church history, new information about people and the world have frequently led Christians to reconsider their beliefs. This need not be a reason to distrust Scripture, but rather should serve as an invitation to wrestle with the contexts of the biblical writers and our own lived experiences. As it stands today, there are millions of faithful Christians around the world who have come to recognize the work of God in and through the relationships of LGBTQ+ people (click here to see a list of denominational positions on LGBTQ+ people within Christianity). As New Testament Scholar Daniel Kirk has pointed out, Christians today would do well by the tradition of the apostles and our current witness in the world to recognize that theological abstractions aside, God has already clearly embraced LGBTQ+ people into full communion, and it is now the church’s responsibility to simply honor that reality and rejoice (Luke 15).

Edited July 29, 2022 by Tacenda

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Chum said:

Anonymity. Same thing with road rage.

My stake has 2 or 3 wards dominated by culture warriors. We've had bishops that feast on generating animosity (more bishops that don't tho).

Makes me grateful for my ward. We have mostly families associated with the local Air Force base, so people from all over the country (and the world, sometimes). 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What is a scientific view of the Bible, anyway?

Slightly off-topic, but do Internet discussion groups tend to be more reactionary than the average church member? I go to church pretty regularly with my wife, and I don't recall ever hearing the kind of anti-gay fear-mongering like what I'm seeing in this thread. There was an old guy a few weeks ago who said he had a hard time accepting the blacks getting the priesthood, but that's about it. I wonder if it's just that people feel free here to say what they wouldn't say to someone's face.

You can’t say the quiet part out loud anymore. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You can’t say the quiet part out loud anymore. 

My dad does. 🤣

[Chum]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Makes me grateful for my ward. We have mostly families associated with the local Air Force base, so people from all over the country (and the world, sometimes). 

Everything I've heard points to military wards being the best wards. Level headed and gets stuff done.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Chum said:

Everything I've heard points to military wards being the best wards. Level headed and gets stuff done.

They've been pretty great about having an apostate like me in their midst. 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

They've been pretty great about having an apostate like me in their midst. 

Just wait until they invite you for a ward bbq and it turns out you're the bbq. BURN THE APOSTATE!

[YJacket]

55 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, conflating consensual behavior with crime (murder, even). Yikes. 

So anything that is consensual is morally okay.

In other words if I can convince you to do it and you agree it's perfectly fine.

Now that we have that established and it is established that children can KNOW that they are the opposite sex at what age? 10, 11, 14?

So at what age can they then "consent" to KNOWING they want to have sex with an adult?

If a child can take puberty blockers because they "consent" to it then why can they not "consent" at age 10 to having sex with an adult? 

 

 

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

Just wait until they invite you for a ward bbq and it turns out you're the bbq. BURN THE APOSTATE!

Well, the missionaries have made an appointment for next week. We'll see how that goes. "We just want to get to know the ward members." Right. 😉