Well, perhaps I should say that I weigh more heavily the power of the holy ghost than I do semantics because arguing semantics is very difficult. Reason being, that what someone says to be the original hebrew word, may not be the original hebrew word. For all we know that word was lost hundreds of years ago. Hence, why I weigh so heavily the power of the Holy Ghost. And for “the Lord doesnt help those who don’t help themselves…”(if thats what you were referring to) Is not in the bible.
As for an example about another doper who fits that description? The most common doper that comes to mind is jab1. I just said that so as to show how much I weigh divine light.
Pathros, I understand that it is important to you to base your understanding of the Bible on faith. In the context of your religion, this is certainly valid, and I have no problem with your beliefs, as long as they are confined to that context.
The problem comes into play when your religious beliefs intersect with secular society. For example, when you espouse a political platform based on your religious beliefs. It is then that you need to show evidence that your religious perspective is, in fact, right, and that your morals are applicable to the situation.
Specifically, if you mean to use your religion to condemn homosexuality in a secular forum, or to form the basis of a political platform marginalizing homosexuality, then you’d best be prepared to defend your position.
You see, all gay people don’t belong to your religion, and don’t ascribe to your code of morality. You need to explain why you are trying to make them do so; why the supposed “sanctity” of marriage is threatened by their desire to marry one another, and enjoy all the rights and responsibilities associated with that institution. You need to tell us, in other words, how exactly gay marriage would hurt anyone. And not in nebulous terms; you’ll need facts, statistics, and proof.
Because it’s not your beliefs that I’m questioning. It’s your right to impose your beliefs on others through legislation.
I did read them. I think that by pre existance he meant before Humans came to earth myself. It doesen’t talk about any “before birth” in the scripture he cited. It only talks about how god created man and woman, before they sinned. If the places where it talks about men and women were important then it would probably define the difference between men and women.
Beg pardon?! I’m LDS and, last I checked, had both free will and free thought. How can I not be allowed to think; i.e, not allowed to agree or disagree in my mind?
On second thought, I just assumed that “prior to our birth” meant before humans were sent to earth. I was mostly looking at the scripture he was showing. I could see where if he believed in some sort of pre existance that he could have meant what you were talking about Pathros_1983. The scripture that he uses doesen’t support that meaning though, so I assume he is talking about back when earth was created.
Monty, if I was reading what Pathros wrote as LDS doctrine rather than his personal take on things, my apologies.
“Since I follow the LDS church, that means I cannot accept gay marriage.”
I take this as an example of how his (Pathros’s) religion prevents him from believing otherwise from the LDS Church. And I coulda sworn I read something to the effect of “I’m not allowed to disagree with LDS teaching” in the Pit thread, but I can’t find that now so perhaps it’s something I misread. I’m not surprised about that much;)
I was referring to a passage that says something to the effect of “The Lord helps those who help themselves”, which I could have sworn was in the Bible . . . I can’t seem to find it right now. I will try some more later and I’ve emailed a family member of mine who knows the Bible with a fair amount of proficiency, so perhaps he will be able to help me out as well.
But anyway. If you could get to some of my questions in a time period convenient enough for you, that would be lovely. I’m especially interested in hearing where the Bible condemns homosexuality.
First of all, Mr. Visible that is an obvious hijack and does not belong in this thread. As I said earlier on the other thread, I will make a response to your comments once I have all my facts straight. Be Patient, please.
Sterra, he does believe in a pre existance. Its one of the more core LDS doctrines. Does that answer your comment, or am I unclear still?
Monty is right, but there is one key thing that if was unclear in the pit thread, I’ll clarify here. I can agree/disagree with LDS teachings all I want, but if I disagree I will not be in sync with those teachings. Obviously. The LDS church does not force me to follow their rules, and believe in their doctrine. As for believing otherwise from the LDS church? If that were true, then I wouldnt be LDS. There is one thing that I’m pretty sure about (correct me Monty or emarkp if I’m wrong) and that is that if a member teaches against LDS doctrine, such as gay marriage, then it is a somewhat serious offence. Sometimes resulting in excommunication.
I’m going to refer you to that site again, and ask that if you have questions ask them in reference to that site. So far, I have found it relatively complete on the manner, and better articulates than I can my beliefs. (No, I do not let that dictate my beliefs, but comes handy with links to scriptures, explanations that would take up too much space on the SDMB, etc.)
Finally, if you can tell me where in the bible it says “The Lord helps those who help themselves,” I’d be greatly appreciated. I have heard that saying before, but never a reference to it.
My father, who is not LDS, but rather is Episcopalian, has told me for many years he just doesn’t understand why so many people try to change a religion’s teachings or organization to suit them. Dad has said numerous times, “Hey, if you want to believe something, go for it. If it’s sufficiently different from the group you previously identified with, start your own group. Gotta be plenty of people who’ll follow you.”
Well, see, semantics is usually used to **clear up **meaning, though I can see that it is also a possibly tool for undermining, er, beliefs. Such is the nature of doubt.
Such is the nature of faith.
Well, I would be happy with one interpretation used consistently. My beef is semantic distinction, something sorely lacking in many religious postings. Hell, you could use “sewfturt” to represent your idea of “love” for all I care, just so I know what you are talking about. Truly I am not as picky as some, but I am quicker to point stuff out of a semantic nature.
Gah, I say, gah! (light tone in that, not harsh :)) My problem is that there are so many different interpretations of religious verse that avoiding semantics will not further my understanding of your position one whit. I get people who tell me being Christian means “following the teachings of Christ” but don’t follow the Book of Mormon, for example (which I do have one handy for any references you’d ever care to make). I am concerned with your view of these texts, not the Holy Ghost who, I must admit, is not on speaking terms with me since I put Eris in his place in my heart.
I honestly don’t mean to be a dick about this, but we are on a rather specific topic (or rather, I got the impression we would be) of why homosexuality is a sin. Such a view doesn’t require much semantic distinction, and it could only help me understand your position (which, of course, you are in no way required to defend).
There is only one more thing that I am unclear on. You said
I noticed that in the scripture he refers to it talks about god creating male and female. Do you know of anywhere where it says that god creates man male or female?
Originally posted by iampunha, who started this thread:
Not a hijack.
Nice attempt at setting the rules, though, Pathros.
I noticed you’ve said the following:
Nice debate you’ve got set up here. If you want to stick to talking about how many angels your religion says can dance on the head of a pin, fine. But your beliefs directly impact my life; I want to understand your justification for that.
I want to make one thing perfectly clear. You can believe anything you want to. Believe breathing is wrong; I won’t stop you. But what I want from you is your Biblical support for imposing your morals on people who don’t follow your religion.
I read the article that you posted, and it gave the church’s doctrine on gay people within the church. That’s fine; if the people in the church don’t like the church’s policies, they can find another belief. I sympathize with the gay people growing up in that environment; it sounds pretty brutal. But I can choose not to follow your religion, and that should mean that your religion doesn’t follow me. In other words, what justification do you have for basing political action on your religious tenets in a society which specifically delineates the separation of church and state?
Mr. Visible, you are just stating here what you stated on the other thread. I will answer you on the other thread. Unless Iampunha states otherwise, this thread is about biblical/theoligcal condemnation of homosexuality, not imposing my morals onto you, or using them to justify legislation. That is what the other thread is about, and it belongs there. I assumed that when Iampunha made the post in the other thread directing me to this one, and made a reference to something I said about homosexuality being a sin, then that is what this thread will be about. I am not setting the rules of the topic, although I am setting my guidelines for debate.
I’m not sure if the article has a link to the proclamation on the family, but it implies that God created Man male, and Woman female, and that the traditional family is ordained by God, therefore, that would support Man being male, and woman being female. Heres the Link:
I have no desire to discuss LDS doctrine, using only LDS publications, and with a stipulation that semantic analysis, and even logic and reason, will be considered inferior to conclusions arrived at through prayer.
Just to clarify something. I could care less what someone else uses to make their own point, but when it comes to making reference to what I said, I asked it be that site, or another official LDS site. If someone wishes to show a contrary belief, they can feel free to do whatever they want. Just when it comes to my beliefs, that is the site im going off of. I also do not believe all logic and reasoning should be omitted from this debate, but when it comes down to a matter of faith (which interpetation often leads to) divine light has far greater weight than logically reasoning. The reason being is that I find that greater knowledge can be achieved through this.
As for semantics, I want to emphasize that I don’t want someones entire debate to rest on that. If its brought up I don’t mind, but if someone’s entire argument rests in that, then I will not respond. (for reasons mentioned in other posts)
Absolutely a hijack. Note how I pointed out that we LDS do not in fact rely solely on the Bible as canon. After stating this quite clearly, why do you ask us to justify the belief from the Bible? Once that point was made, the answer to the OP was given, and the OP either needed to re-state the question (such as, “What other sources are there in addition to the Bible, and what do they say about the issue.”) or drop the thread. Since I gave an extra-biblical source, I’d say that answers the first case.
Yes, and what can also be achieved through this is “I don’t want to have to consider this viewpoint, so I’m going to claim I prayed about it and God told me you’re a fool.”
IOW, you, or Monty, or emarkp, or whoever, could present a point that is essentially irrefutible, and I could then say “I prayed about this for hours, and God told me, in His Divine Light, that you were wrong.”
And by your own statement, that “diving light”, which could as easily as not be total bullshit, would carry more weight than whatever well-reasoned, supported with cites, documented throughout-the-ages point you made.
As for the “iampunha set up this debate as a discussion of the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality,” I appreciate your attempts to keep this thread on what you had thought was my original intent, but in point of fact my original intent was to get you to discuss your religious beliefs/tenets here (as you will see if you re-read the OP), since you were unwilling to do so in the Pit thread. And since your morals are, I would hazard a guess, derived from your religious beliefs and tenets, and since your thoughts regarding legislation stem from those same beliefs and tenets, I would not think it a hijack of this thread to go into a discussion about those.
If you think it would be a hijack of this thread to do so, hell, just tell me what you see the various hijacks as and I’m happy to set up individual threads, though IMHO it would be a bit of overkill, not to mention pushing worthwhile threads off the first page of GD.
And to emarkp:
“Note how I pointed out that we LDS do not in fact rely solely on the Bible as canon.”
Note how I said, in the OP: “Well, here you are. Your place to debate, to show us your arguments and the tenets of your beliefs.”
How about this, for a question meant for Pathros_1983 (but which anyone who knows the answer may feel free to give it):
Where in the Bible is there justification, according to LDS beliefs, for “imposing your morals on people who don’t follow your religion.” as MrVisible asked?
LDS teaching does not condone imposing one’s morals on another. Cruise on over to http://www.lds.org and check out the Articles of Faith. There’s a very interesting one in there about freedom of worship for everyone.
