Homosexuality and Religion #2

Remove all ads!

Does this make the point any less valid? Could it not be that they were continuing the non-litral sense that was used in previous chapters?

Ah, but then is it not possible that the person above who claimed to be a messiah could infact be one, even if they do not have the massive following?

On a side note, it's really interesting reading through this thread. It really brings out fanatics on both sides of the fence - both equally unwilling to bend. My view on this hasn't changed in all these 23 odd pages - I still think Rallymama has got the best view here out of the lot of us.

 

Rallymama rules. Maybe she can be our prophet. I believe in Rallymama's vision.

 

I think it is a very cruel thing that the churches do to homosexuals. I think one of the most painful experiences a person can have is to be socially ostracized. Were any of you ostracized and marginalized as youths? I was...and that **** hurts.

The churchs offer a social network that is assured. They will never kick you out as long as you follow the herd. But what makes a club? If everyone could join, then it would not be a club. So to form an insured social network, you must ostracize someone.

And to this effect, the churches have chosen to ostracize feminine males. Oh sure, they don't like lesbos either...but let's be honest, it is the mincing limp-wristed happy-as-a-clam males which really don't fit. So the churches say, "Don't be that guy, and you are assured a social network." Bravo churches! So now almost anyone can join, but that really small minority just has to eat crap so that the church can still be a social network.

So, too bad for the gays...but at least there aren't many of them; plus, they are just about the most non-threatening bunch of exiles imaginable.

Eat crap Gnarf. You have hurt many peoples feelings just so you and your buddies can rest assured knowing you will always be "buddies". Why do your friendships necessitate hurting other people? Examine those friendships...I'd bet they aren't all that great considering the absolute nonsense which they require. Real friends don't need an assured social setting in order to be friends.

 

There are plenty of people in Russia who still swear for Stalin and consider him the greatest leader to ever live. He most likely has a larger following than Joseph Smith so I would not diminish him in the eyes of Russians so easily.

This being from the article about Stalin in wikipedia.

 

Many principles were taught allegorically, but most commandments were explicit. I think that you'll find the bigger ones don't change...

Sure they could, but when the claim is made out of spite, it loses credibility. Truth does not depend on being believed or not...

Yes, I have. Growing up in a small town with Tourette Syndrome and not understanding what was the problem until I was 16, I was the odd man out. Even in some places, my religious beliefs place me in front of a vocal group that either vehemently disagree or outright mock me. Some have even suggested that I should be banned.

Only the really pathetic ones. But take a different view on this. Suppose that the requirements of membership is some degree of conformity with certain rules. Here on SP, those rules come from the mods. If you don't obey those rules to the best of your ability, sanctions are taken against you. It is the same with religion. We have rules in our core doctrines, and to maintain membership in good standing, you must obey those rules to the best of your ability. Certain transgressions can warrant the withdrawal of priviledges, ostracism (withholding of fellowship) or even expulsion (excommunication). Since the core texts of doctrine expressly forbid homosexuality, that's grounds for any of those three sanctions. Adultery (technically on par with homosexuality) is often punishable by excommunication...

Try the willfully disobedient that just don't fit, and you've got it.

Obey the rules and you'll fit in just fine. Sin and your spiritual progress will be hampered. It's not about punishing one group, but encouraging all to obey.

Um, active members of Drug dealing and/or violent criminal organizations are also in similar positions. They are a lot more threatening than these gays, but are treated the same. That shoots down the "Cowardice" arguement you seemed to be making...

No thanks, too full from Christmas dinner and the chocolate that was under the tree...

Have I? Or have they felt the sting of their own guilt and instead of facing it with repentance chosen to vilify me as the messenger?

They don't. But people choose to be offended by the things I say/am accused of saying. Someone puts a question out there, I answer it according to my beliefs and people get pissed off. Is that my fault?

AS opposed to phoney civility when you really want to be alone? As opposed to biting your tongue whe you feel that an honest opinion would be too hurtful? Both of us can claim nonsense against the other on that one. It doesn't make either of us right, not does it mean that we don't believe in what we say/do...

They don't require it once the friendship is established, but there has to be that common ground to bring us toghether in the first place, whether it is a church, message board, regulars at a game store, people you see at school or whatever. At some point, such friendships arise that will transcend the original social setting in which we met and carry on beyond our partaking of said setting. I met one of my best friends in a game store. Even though the store has been closed for 10 years, the bond of friendship has grown to the point where we still keep in touch, and I'm like an uncle to his children. The Church does not mauintain these friendships, but it does introduce me to these friends...

But Stalin did get results, unlike the more democratic governments since 1990. To elevate him to Messiah is pushing it, but to respect him for his place in their nation's history is no different than Canada putting Sir John A. MacDonald (our First PM) on the $10 bill, or honouring other former Prime Ministers for their service during key points in Canadian History or lasting accomplishments that still benefit us today.

 

The cult of Stalin is well and alive. Mostly among the elderly though, youth in Russia seem to be more leaning towards the right than the left. Still to many russians Stalin together with Lenin is the messiah of boljesvism. It goes much beyoned respect, it's a cult of personality.

 

How can you even tell which ones were allegorical and which ones aren't? I know the whole Leviticus issue was argued early on in the first thread, but how do you know for sure that they were the laws of Israel rather than God? And why would such laws be in a holy book about the laws of God? It seems all you want to do is ignore the laws which you don't like and stick to the ones which make you feel that much better about yourself.

But I AM the Messiah! I even put my head in a burlap sack with a magic shamrock in it and dictated my ownn holy book! Try to discredit me and you're obviously a religion-hating bigot! By the way, the tenets of this new book are that we must persecute anyone who's name begins with the letter "R", and since my holy book says it's alright I should do it at all costs!

Hmm. So, you spent your early life being mocked for being superficially different from other people? Sounds a bit like what you're doing now. These people are different from you. That's their only crime.

you still seem to be under the misconception that these people want to be a part of your gang, but want you to change the rules. No. They don't care about your religious beliefs, and they CERTAINLY don't care about you. They want to be able to live their own lives the way they want to, just like everyone else gets to.

What. Okay, so homosexuals are treated the same as gangsters? I don't know what part of the Bible Belt you're living in, but where I am that's certainly not the case. And how does the fact that homosexuals are treated like criminals make someone else's argument defunct?

Yep, that's just about the most self-righteous thing I've ever heard. You're making it sound like you're the Holy Messenger who carries God's Infallible Word, and the Satanic Gays are trying to drown out the sound of their own "guilt" by attacking you. To be honest, the image I'm getting is of a small, over-zealous fundamentalist who's impotently fuming that the GAYS ARE RUINING OUR WAY OF LIFE WITH THEIR BUTTSECKS, and people in real life don't even care enough to tell him to shut up.

It might just be that you're being a self-righteous prick about it. You refuse to accept or respect other people's beliefs, and demand that your religious beliefs should be exalted over all others.

Just get over yourself, man. The way you're going, you've got a place reserved for you in the Bad Place for your pride.

 

Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou wouldst lie with a woman, or Thou Shalt not Kill are quite explicit, and not Allegorical.

Big Difference: They choose to commit Greivous sins and demand that we change the rules to accommodate them. My situation was a neurological disorder.

This thread was about religious views of Homosexuality. There are people wanting me to say it's okay, when it is the exact opposite to my beliefs.

Then why does it seem that some people here need to crusade to change my mind, discredit my faith or even paint me as some backwards neanderthol? Is there some other motivation?

The arguement was that we were cowards for marginalizing a "non-threatening" group, when we marginalize many more threatening groups too.

I've seen much worse here. Like some idiot claiming to be a Messiah just to tell me I'm wrong, people telling me that I'm a bigot because I have some moral convictions...

People in real life don't call me a bigot or push acceptance of homosexuality in my face. They may wish I would drink beer or smoke dope with them, but they don't come right out and attack my religious beliefs. Basically, they treat me with respect. Something you fail to understand...

Was that aimed at me or were you looking in the mirror on that one? Again, that accusation would not only hit me...

Only the ones that are blatantly opposed to my religious beliefs.

It would be nice, but I just want them to stay out of the public eye and quit trying to change social mores. I'd like to have my beliefs without being called a bigot. I'd like a compromise that satisfies both sides and leaves the State out of the dispute, but some here don't want to grant that (you are exempt from that charge, because you have said that that's the way it works).

I have a better eternal destiny waiting for me than those that won't believe...

 

So when are you planning to sacrifice your next cow? That one certainly doesn't sound allegorical.

How are they demanding that you change the rules? What rules?

No-one wants you to change your way of life. What is wanted is for you to say "well, homosexuality is against my beliefs, so I can't really agree with what they do, but people can believe what they like and in any case God will judge them all in the end."

I'm talking about the majority of homosexuals out in the real world. They don't really care if your religion says homosexuality is a sin, since they're not part of your religion and never plan to be.

How exactly does a church "marginalise" criminal groups? Do you go over to their nefarious headquarters, shouting verses at them?

That's not self-righteousness. I said I'm the Messiah because it highlights the credibility of Carl Smith as the prophet of God. Also, I don't believe anyone's outright called you a bigot. Yet. And once again, this isn't about your beliefs. It's about the way you seem to believe that your way is the only way people should go, and that groups that don't agree with you should be oppressed and marginalised. It's a very Inquisitional mindset, really. Our way or the Boot of Smouldering Punishment.

Oh, of course, since you've been showing other people SO much respect in this thread, haven't you?

Yeah? Well, tough turkey. People don't believe the same stuff as you. People have the right to believe whatever they like, regardless of what Leonard Smith's magic stone said to him. So get over it.

Point in hand, Gnarfflinger. you could be considered a bigot due to the way you broadcast your beliefs, not the beliefs themselves.

So, was that just an admission of pride? And I'm prtty sure Hell will be just as bad for you as it will be for the Gays. I don't think it does First Class.

 

If Jesus came to America today, with his long hair and sandals, preaching love and peace, he'd be in Guantanamo Bay before he could say 'Amen'

 

To put it both plainly and childishly: You started it. Or more accurately, your faith did. The religious oppression of homosexuals went on for a long time before they were able to start fighting back. Now they're actually making in-roads toward getting the same rights as everyone else, and they don't want to be stopped short. So you can damn well bet they're going to try every trick in the book to get what they deserve as human beings, including the time-honored tradition of asking for way more than you want and bargaining down. And if they can get in a little revenge persecution in the process...well, payback's a b****, y'all.

 

That was the means of worship. That was no longer required with the death of Jesus Christ. It was part of the Law of Moses, which was fulfilled in Christ.

The prohibition of Homosexuality falls under the heading of Adultery, and thus is still forbidden.

There have been some that have challenged for the right to hold positions within organizations that have forbidden homosexuality. Some churches have even given in...

Didn't I say that somewhere in the first thread or one previous to that? I think the objection comes when I speculate on the result...

Then they must be smarter than some of the people here. IRL, I don't fight this battle because they don't call me on it. It's people anywhere that want my religious beliefs changed or think that I'm foolish for believing what I do that I have a problem with.

Like practicing Homosexuals, Members of such organizations cannot have temple Recommends (cannot participate in higher ordinances of the Church). Members who join such groups and actively advance their agenda may face excommunication if their transgressions are severe enough.

Your blatant disrespect for my beliefs lampoon any credibility your claims against them can even hope to have. You have even changed the name repeatedly. If you can't keep your facts straight, then you are sure as heck no messiah...

Every commandment God gives had a blessing associated with it. By sinning, you exclude yourself from those blessings. By this, I do believe that adherance to these beliefs to the best of your ability is the best way to live. It's not about oppression or marginalization, just faith that God has taught us a better way to live, and desiring that all live that way.

When you wallow with pigs you're going to get covered in s***. In the face of such disrespect, I too fall into that trap. Matthew 7:1-2, the part that says that the way you judge people determines the way that you too are judged is not just a commandment but a warning. You tend to adopt the judgement of those that you see as judging you. Such contemptuous judgement by that is contageous...

I don't do that very well. But I keep thinking I'll do better the more I do it, but it doesn't seem to be working...

No, it's not. While Hell itself is reserved for the worst of offenders, there are kindgoms that do not have the highest Glory of Heaven, but aren't as horrific as Hell. I see the unrepentant Gays there. I don't know that i have the ability to Reach the highest glory available, but I think I can do better than them...

His teachings are unpopular in the world today. People want to believe, but don't feel like living the teachings...

But why should my generation pay for the sins of our ancestors. Further, where is the line that needs to be drawn for the sake of keeping the peace, and what can't be changed without changing existing constitutions?

 

Wow, that is the greatest example of circular logic I've ever seen. You won't let them get married because it falls under adultery? If you did let them get married it wouldn't!

Ancestors my ass. This crap happened well within my lifetime, and I'm not even 23 yet.

We've already agreed on where the line should be drawn, at civil unions and mutual respect and ignorance (as in ignoring each other). I can't really blame you for not keeping people straight when you've got so many to argue with.

 

Civil unions are only a reasonable solution if it applies to everyone. The government has no place endorsing any religion. The US constitution, at least, is every bit as clear on the subject as Leviticus is on the subject of gay sex. I don't really think it's possible to make even a remotely compelling argument that any Judeo-Christian "holy book" condones homosexuality, but that matter is irrelevant, since legally enforcing a religious moral standard would very clearly constitute "endorsing an establishment of religion". Since the (US) government (at least) is clearly forbidden from doing that, all this fuss is pointless.

Bottom line: Civil unions are fine, if that is all you can get from the government whether homo or heterosexual. Allowing "marriage" to one group and "civil unions" to another, however, is unconstitutional and discriminatory. If marriage is so sacred, I must again ask why the government has any place in it at all. The government wasn't present at my baptism and confirmation.......

 

But a religious definition of marriage is explicitly between a man and a woman. Therefore gays can't, in a religious sense, be legitimized in any sexual relations.

Some of that was directed more generally.

Then how about a definition of marriage as such: The act of establishing a civil union within a religious context? Would that then satisfy both sides?

 

Most homosexuals are not asking for a religious marriage ceremony, they want a secular marriage.

I don't see why you have a problem with it anyway. If the Church was forced by law to marry 2 people of the same gender, I could see why you would be upset, but this is not even a consideration!

 

Er... no it doesn't. Adultery can only occur if one of the individuals is married, specifically if the woman is married. However, it would fall under the heading of Fornication, which isn't exactly condemned in the Old Testament.

"Thou shalt not kill" (murder) is obviously one of the ten commandments. I believe the other one is from Leviticus 18:22.

Probably stated before, but I can't help but sometimes, in Leviticus 19:, and obviously non-allegorical are:

Do you agree with these?

The punishments in Leviticus 20 are even better, Death for, well, just about everything. Except of course for raping a bondsmaid, even if she is married. She is obviously the guilty party and would be punished for that offense. Again, you can't argue that the punishments are allegorical.

[ January 04, 2007, 18:20: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

Take the word marriage out of it and replace it with civil union and it's not offending as many people.

In Exodus 20, the reference to adultery also includes all sexual sin, such as fornication, homosexuality, incest, beastiality...

A little extreme, but if you insist, then start lining up the homosexuals. That's just nuts!

Joseph Smith, after revelation from the Lord, recorded in the Doctrine and Covenents a more detailed the relationship between Church and State. Basically, we must recognize and respect the state, but the state has as much right to proscribe our religious doctrine as religion has to write their laws. This does not mean that the state must ignore the religious either. The State has a responsibility to the people to accommodate them as they best can.

Further, no religion has any right to deprive anyone of life, or property involuntarily. We likewise have no mandate to incarcerate sinners. That means that the Spanish inquisition was not acceptable. It also means that we can't just line up the sinners and execute them. Seeing as this is the same Lord, much of Leviticus wouild have actually been the laws of the nation of Israel recorded for historical purposes, not divine command. The fact that Homosexuality is condemned elsewhere supports it's continued prohibition.

 

According to Jospeh Smith, at least. The thing is Joseph Smith is not the government so basically he gets next to no say in how the government should be run and if it should respect religion to such a degree that it disrespects other people.