Inspired here, and striving for actual debate, as opposed to a flamefest that will likely lead nowhere:
Well, here you are. Your place to debate, to show us your arguments and the tenets of your beliefs. What are your thoughts?
Well, this thread should have a reasonable focus alright. Shouldn’t it?
My hope, erislover, is that Pathros will be relieved of his ignorance and this notion he seems to have that he can cite Bible verses and have them serve as his argument.
Grr.
Well, then, for me at least:
[SEMANTIC ARGUMENTATION: ON]
I await his/her response.
Relieved of my ignorance? With that being said, I doubt that this thread will avoid any sort of flamefest.
I don’t like arguing semantics in reference to the bible. People saying to me “well the hebrew word originally meant this, or the latin word actually means this,” is just a ploy of the adversary to take away from sound doctrine. What is sound doctrine? Obviously you started this thread to argue my interpretation of sound doctrine, which is just that, an interpretation. I do not want to give my beliefs, and then have another person argue against its validity because of the origin of one of the words in a scripture.
I admitted in the other thread that there are liberal and conservative views to everything. We can present each other with all the scripture we want, and we will use our interpretation as we see fit. For this reason, there will be GREAT amounts of contention in this thread, so I reserve the right to not reply, or to even not answer something I find to be argumentative, without conceding anything. Unfortunately, that is impossible in debating with other dopers. They would see this as a flaw in my beliefs or as a sign of my “ignorance.” If I find this to be true of others who join in the debate, iampunha, I would welcome a one on one email conversatin about the matter, which discusses our beliefs and compares them. Not attacks. I welcome, though, a friendly debate. One that is void of any contention or personal attacks.
Now im not sure what you are wanting to debate here, but I think it has something to do with my views on homosexuality. I’m not going to outline them in detail on this thread, but I will offer 3 URLS that better articulate than I can about my beliefs.
These other two are just general sites.
One last thing. If this becomes a debate about Mormonism, I am outta here. I do not wish to debate the validity of my church because when it comes right down to it, its simply a matter of faith. Like I said before, iampunha, If I find this becomes out of hand I do not mind taking the debate/discussion to emails.
Semantics, as defined by m-w.com:
1 : the study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development b (1) : SEMIOTIC (2) : a branch of semiotic dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth.
3 a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings.
So you don’t like arguing over what various words in the Bible mean?
Proof? People telling you what the word meant, as opposed to letting you run astray with a mis-translation, seems to me to be more of a gift than anything else.
Well, if you’re going to make an argument based on a Bible passage, and then you find out that the passage is not intended to mean what you had originally taken it to mean, perhaps you might benefit from being shown the actual meaning (or even a closer one than the one you knew).
Then I would hope that you are open to the possibility that your interpretation may be incorrect.
Would you at least indicate when such is the case, rather than wholesale avoidance? I think that might make any debate easier on the heart, so to speak:)
If you’re going to ignore a response, then yes, some of us probably will see that as you avoiding the question, which would then indicate (to me, at least), that this did not mesh with your current religious views and/or that you did not have any manner of refutation.
Discussion, sure. Comparison, sure. But if you’re going into this thinking “I am right, and I am right about everything”, I hope you will forgive me for not wanting to waste my time, as I am sure you would not want to do were I unwilling to accept or entertain an alternate explanation than my own.
For the sake of, yes, semantics, please explain to me what exactly you mean by contention, as m-w.com (with which I share many views on the meanings of words) has this among other definitions for contention:
2 : a point advanced or maintained in a debate or argument.
I had wanted you to explain in some detail your particular views on homosexuality as they pertain to the Bible, and I hda hoped you would offer some amount of how you take X Bible passage to mean Y, to put it bluntly. In other words, what I was not looking for was a “Leviticus says X. That’s my belief.”
For example: you said here:
“Lets examine WHY I view it [homosexuality] wrong. It violates the laws of creation.”
How, in your opinion, does it violate the laws of creation?
“Homosexuality is a choice.”
Again, defend, please.
“Because I feel that homosexuality IS wrong, and I would not want to raise my children in a society where gays have respected positions of power and are looked upon (and their lifestyle) as acceptable and prehaps admirable.”
You later recant the bit between asterisks. But then you added this gem:
“However, when their lifestyle is accepted, then I would have a problem with it.”
Please, show me the similarities between a gay man who goes clubbing every night and a gay celibate lawyer. Similarities, that is, with respect to their sexual orientation.
“elsewhere in the bible it [homosexuality] is condemned.”
Can you give a passage in which homosexuality is condemned?
Well, it may well be a debate about Mormonism—to the extent that whomever here disagrees with the interpretation of Scripture of the LDS.
And, as I noted in your pit thread, you’re not allowed to disagree with LDS doctrine. Is that an accurate summation, or was I mis-reading? It’s 2:30 here; I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case.
Read the URL I posted, and ask questions about that.
Maybe it’s me, but the link didn’t work. Could you check it and repost please? Thanks, Leander.
Still didn’t work for me. It may be my network - I don’t know.
But I got to the LDS Library site - what’s the specific article? I’ll look it up from the main page.
Thanks, Leander.
Okay, what gives? I have the site bookmarked. I click on bookmark and that is the URL that comes up. I copy and paste that onto SDMB and when I click on it, it doesnt work. Yet, I can copy and paste it onto another web browser window and it works? Sorry for the mix up. Can someone help me out so that I can get this site to work?
Maybe you can just copy and paste that much? I just did it, and it worked… If it doesnt then I have no clue whats wrong.
Dallin H. Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, Oct. 1995, 7
thats the article… sorry It doesnt work for me either.
Is this it?
(fingers crossed)
Shame. Perhaps you might see why homosexuality isn’t a sin, then.
Hey, you tell me since you can obviously recognize one regardless of semantic distinction.
I’ll turn my semantics off for a bit if that is too distressing. After all, everyone knows what one means by “Love thy neighbor,” don’t they?
This node over at Everything2.com is kind of interesting.
Soooo, (according to the link) we have one place in the bible which clearly says that homosexuality is wrong. We also have exactly one passage which says slavery’s OK (Joel 3:8). Clearly, you cannot state something as “fact” just because it appeared ONCE. With all the mistranslations over the ages, that’s just INSANE. The only thing we can get a clear picture of is the things repeated over and over again by many of the different authors - the basic things about Jesus life which are accepted by EVERY Christian spin-off.
Leander, excellent link! 
And Pathros, just for future reference, if that link goes flooey, too, this is how you can get to the article. 
Start here. http://library.lds.org/ Up at the top, click on “Custom Search – choose a form”. Choose “magazines”. You should get “Church Magazine Search”. Click on “Ensign” over in the left-hand column. Put in “Dallin Oaks” in “author” and “same-gender” (hyphenated) in “title”. The article in question is the second hit (of two).
[Here’s the article](http://library.lds.org/Library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1995.htm/ensign october 1995.htm/samegender attraction.htm). It appears that the UBB backend doesn’t deal with spaces in URL’s very well. To make it work, I had to replace every “%20” with a literal space (which is what the “%20” means), and make sure the URL was actually in manual [**url=“stuff”] tags.
Just for completeness, here is the actual link I posted (note the literal spaces):
[url=“http://library.lds.org/Library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1995.htm/ensign october 1995.htm/samegender attraction.htm”]dummy text[/url]
(Side note: to get vB codes to show up like this, I “broke” the code by inserting another one into the square braces. That is, to get [url=""] to show up, I actually typed [[/b]url=""].)
Now, addressing the OP, it is perfectly reasonable for us LDS to avoid the typical argument about whether homosexual sex is a sin or not based on the Bible, because we do not claim the Bible to be the entirety of canon, and do not believe that the canon is in fact closed.
It does not say that that it is an essential characteristic after our birth. It also does not define what male and female is exactly. Take intersexuals for example. They have surgery on them when they are babies to make them look female. I would think that an actual definition of male and female would be necessary to condemn homosexuality.
I consider the leader of the LDS church to be a prophet, and therefore his teachings to be the word of God. Not to mention his interpretations to be from God. Thats also why I don’t argue semantics. When you argue semantics in reference to the bible, you undermine one of the greatest powers to understanding it, and that is the holy ghost. LDS believe in an apostacy, or rather, a falling away of God’s church. (thats putting it in simple terms, its a little more than just that) Therefore, the meaning of God’s word was lost, and that, added with the hundreds maybe thousands of translations over the years, its difficult to know what the original wording even was.
So,when it comes to semantics, all we have is what is on paper. For all we know, the many translations have been so lost that what we think to be the original meaning isnt actually the original meaning, but the meaning we get out of it today, could still include the intent of the author.
That makes very little sense, and in fact is pretty dang confusing. I’ll get to the short of it and that is the power of the holy ghost. I believe that anyone can understand something through prayer, fasting, and humility before God. When it comes to the SDMB, however, that is not good enough. There are many other dopers who use semantics as a tool to undermine belief and interpretation, or rather define belief and interpretation. They also use logic and reasoning ahead of divine light. (Note: this does not mean that I do not use or accept logic and reasoning when it comes to understanding something, even scripture.) These dopers have every right to do so. When it comes to proving me “wrong,” however, I do not take someones semantical argument and consider it “right/wrong.” I pray about it, and search for truth that way. Does that mean that I’ve got the notion that I’m right and will never been proven wrong? It means that I allow myself spiritual growth, and yes, I revise what I say. Its called learning.
erislover, no I don’t like arguing semantics for the above said reasons. Let me clarify something. I dont mean to offer a different interpretation of the word “love.” When I say semantics, I mean nit picking at a verse to the point that it changes the verse’s intent or meaning. I believe true understanding lies in the power of the Holy Ghost, not in semantic debates.
To Dryga_Yes: I cannot defend that site because it is not an LDS site. For the purpose of this thread, I would prefer we stick to the site that has been posted when it comes to the issue. If you wish to quote that site, and attack that site, then feel free to, just as long as theres someone here actually using that as a point of reference.
Finally, I would suggest to Sterra to read the article in its entirety, as well as the links to the scriptures that are posted. I believe that the quote (Im not sure if this is correct) is referring to both before and after birth. It just makes note that when we are born we do not discover if we are male or female, because it is a characteristic that we’ve had even before birth. (This may lead to a can of worms concerning a pre existance, though, but I hope you understand what I’m saying)
How so? For example, how would citing Strong’s Concordance be undermining the Holy Spirit? I agree that one should pray when trying to understand the Bible, but relying solely on prayer or the Holy Spirit sure does fall under the category of not “helping one’s self”, which I believe the Lord tells us to do (though ATM I cannot remember where this is said).
Example?
I will leave the rest of this to someone(s) whose brain isn’t fried. The combination of a midterm and IDing the entirety of the posted pictures from Dope-a-Ween have given me a headache and I can’t guarantee that any argument I’d make today wouldn’t physically resemble a sieve:D