Jump to content

Recommended Posts

@luckynicole:

May I ask what you personally believe about it, then?

About homosexuality? Well, I believe you are born that way due to hormones while in the womb. However, there are also people who have developed gay feelings from lust over the years. Yes, there literally are people who choose to be gay. There are even even websites dedicated to those who chose it. Now, knowing that people are born gay, should they act on their feelings? Leviticus 18:22 says you shouldn't. Then again, there are lots of things in Leviticus that says you should't do, that we obviously do. Since Christians are now under 'grace' and not Mosaic law, we have to look to the new testament.

 

In Romans 1: 26-27, it says " Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with their lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. " These verses are in a chapter called " Gods anger at sin".

 

Based on this, as much as it pains me to say it, I guess acting on homosexual feelings is sinful. But a sin to be gay? No, I believe you are born that way. The reason it pains me is because I sympathize with gay people. While I believe that if they want to be Godly, they should not partake in sexual activities, I also personally believe they can have relationships but just without the sex. Might not seem like much and might seem like a very hard way to live, but I don't see another way around it based on that scripture. However, I believe they should have all the same and equal rights as hetero's, including marriage, because, who am I to say how they live? Every human being can live however they want. And not many homosexuals are Christians for the obvious reasons. The Catholic church believes that homosexuals need to live in a lifestyle of abstinence, and for once, I agree with them, if they want to be on God's side and live a Godly lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
I've thought that old time Christians believed that dark skin was a mark of Cain. Wasn't that also used as an excuse for slavery?

Well, I'm not sure about the curse of Cain, but the idea that "Africans deserve slavery" has been wrongly inferred from the curse of Canaan.

 

Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said,

“Cursed be Canaan;

a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”

(Genesis 9:20-25 ESV)

 

Many Biblical historians will claim that the descendants of Shem ventured into the Asian continent, the descendants of Japheth went to the European area, and the descendants of Ham migrated into Africa. Since Ham's descendants were cursed, and Ham's descendants migrated into Africa, the slave trade was a fulfillment of that prophecy right? Well, not really... The curse applied to Ham's lineage through Canaan, his son. And Canaan's descendants lived in the land of Canaan, the Promised Land, around the area of modern Israel. I'm sure if Shiny or Noble hop on here they can provide a little more scholarly refutation of that idea, but suffice it to say that African slavery isn't a fulfillment of the curses in Genesis. I've never heard that dark skin was the mark God placed on Cain, but I'm not sure how that can be reasoned from the text. Again, one of our resident Hebrew scholars would be more helpful here in regards to original language and whatnot.

 

Completely unrelated to that question... I just had an interesting thought. For those of you who believe we are created by a god/gods, how do you believe disabilities happen? Are they some sort of test or punishment, or just happen because we're all different? Or do you believe they have nothing to do with the way said god/s created us and happen on their own?

 

You're going to get different views based on the person's theological persuasion. I hold to a Reformed understanding of scripture, which stresses the absolute sovereignty of God over all His creation. God "works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Ephesians 1:11). So I believe, based on the relevant Bible passages, that we can say that God has a purpose for each and every challenging disability or disorder a child is born with. However, I don't think we can say for certain why an individual child was born with a disability. It may be an exercise of faith for the parents, the child may be a blessing in the lives of others, etc. I would say punishment is a less likely option, as I would be hard-pressed to find any scriptural support for parents being punished for sinfulness through a "difficult" child.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks philpot! I really wasn't sure about it; all I knew was that people found their justification for slavery in bible on basis of a curse. So it could be that I just got the name wrong, or that pop culture got to me xd.png

Share this post


Link to post
Thanks philpot! I really wasn't sure about it; all I knew was that people found their justification for slavery in bible on basis of a curse. So it could be that I just got the name wrong, or that pop culture got to me xd.png

Not a problem tongue.gif just know that it bothers Christians as much as it bothers you when people use that passage to justify the slave trade xd.png

Share this post


Link to post
I have a question. Why do you believe Jesus came to America and lived here. And why do you think the Garden of Eden is in modern day Missouri? Both of those statements are in the Book of Mormon. Most bible scholars believe that the Garden of Eden was in between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. How did Jesus come to America? Also, why did Joseph Smith say that God turned Indians skin color dark red due to them disobeying him? Dark skin is not a result of punishment. Dark skin is due to people adapting to their environment over many many years. Like black people in Africa, their dark skin is to protect them from the sun. It is not due to disobeying God.

We believe that Jesus came to America and preached the gospel for a short time, and gave essentially the Sermon on the Mount again, to the peoples living in America. After he set up Apostles we believe he returned to Heaven. He came and ministered to them after He was resurrected. How exactly he traveled to the Americas I am not entirely sure.

 

For the garden of Eden, it was revealed to our Prophets through latter day revelation that Eden was located on North America. This was before the continents divided. So it could be that back in the day it was between the Tigris and Euphrates. I haven't learned much on this doctrine.

 

Although the "curse" of the Lamanites is often associated directly with their skin color, it may be that this was intended in a far more symbolic sense than modern American members traditionally assumed.

The curse itself came upon them as a result of their rejection of the Gospel. It was possible to be subject to the curse, and to be given a mark, without it being associated with a change in skin color, as demonstrated in the case of the Amlicites. At most, the skin color was seen as a mark, and it may well have been that these labels were far more symbolic and cultural than they were literal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I have disconnect with Tigris and Euphrates being anywhere close to America, even when Pangaea was around.

 

Here's one more question: what do your church officials think about branches like flds?

Share this post


Link to post

I have disconnect with Tigris and Euphrates being anywhere close to America, even when Pangaea was around.

 

Here's one more question: what do your church officials think about branches like flds?

Considering the fact that I'm not a Mormon, I do not believe that Joseph smith was a prophet. To put it quite honestly, I believe he made it up in order to game fame and to stay in the town he was living in. Before this happened, he was due to be exiled from town. He was a thief & con man participating in running an illegal bank and an adulterer (he lied to his wife about being with a bunch of teenage girls). He also shot a bunch of militia when trying to run from the law right before he died. They were going to persecute him for polygamy. Even though he spoke against it in public, he was secretly a polygamist. They obviously found out. So that also makes him a liar.

 

Basically I don't trust the guy one bit. The things they believe in make no sense to me. PS All this information I provided to you, you can find by researching.

Edited by luckynicole659

Share this post


Link to post
Considering the fact that I'm not a Mormon, I do not believe that Joseph smith was a prophet. To put it quite honestly, I believe he made it up in order to game fame and to stay in the town he was living in. Before this happened, he was due to be exiled from town. He was a thief & con man participating in running an illegal bank and an adulterer (he lied to his wife about being with a bunch of teenage girls). He also shot a bunch of militia when trying to run from the law right before he died. They were going to persecute him for polygamy. Even though he spoke against it in public, he was secretly a polygamist. They obviously found out. So that also makes him a liar.

 

Basically I don't trust the guy one bit. The things they believe in make no sense to me. PS All this information I provided to you, you can find by researching.

I knew all of that. What I'm asking about is Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That's the largest denomination that still practices polygamy, and it's leader Warren Jeff is currently in jail (life sentence).

Share this post


Link to post
I have disconnect with Tigris and Euphrates being anywhere close to America, even when Pangaea was around.

 

Here's one more question: what do your church officials think about branches like flds?

We don't accept the "branch" of FLDS to be a branch of our church. They simply use a similar name to Latter Day Saints. They claim to follow the same principles, with the exception of practicing polygamy. It is true that the Church practiced polygamy at one time but that was because at the time of Joseph Smith there was only a few members, and that through revelation Joseph Smith was told to begin practicing polygamy, essentially to build up the church's population. He had two wives and children with both, and yes he tried to keep the second one private, but he didn't openly deny it. At the time he was arrested he was preaching the gospel. He never shot at anyone, never operated an illegal bank or was a con-man. He was on the verge of being exiled because many people in the town did not believe him and believed all the false rumors people had created about him to deface him. And if he was ever alone with teenage girls, it was to teach them the gospel.

 

About Joesph Smith making up the Book of Mormon- I encourage you to read it before judging it. Many things on the internet- about the BoM and Joesph Smith, simply aren't true. Many events written in the Book of Mormon came true. And he did not write it- it is a collection of ancient records from native population who used to inhabit the Americas. He translated the records into English through inspiration and using a code that he found with the plates that the records were written on.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

About Joesph Smith making up the Book of Mormon- I encourage you to read it before judging it. Many things on the internet- about the BoM and Joesph Smith, simply aren't true. Many events written in the Book of Mormon came true. And he did not write it- it is a collection of ancient records from native population who used to inhabit the Americas. He translated the records into English through inspiration and using a code that he found with the plates that the records were written on.

 

I have read it. If I recall correctly, didn't the Hebrew immigrants to the Americas cross the Pacific in some sort of metal submersible pushed by the hand of God? The description sounded remarkably like a submarine that would have been around about the time Joseph Smith "translated" the plates.

 

Also, I've been told that it is official church history that Smith translated the plates indirectly by use of seer's stones, and dictated the results. Isn't it recorded that the plates were often not even in the same room with him?

 

Why is it that there are recorded battles where millions died in full ancient armor, with swords and mail, and yet we can find no archaeological evidence to support such a fact? I can walk around a Civil War battlefield with a metal detector and I'll find metal objects till kingdom come. That's evidence. I can walk around where "battles" took place in New York and not find a single sword or piece of mail. Why? Where is the evidence to support the historical fact of the battle that occurred there?

 

Why is there no genetic evidence to support the idea that Native American peoples are descended from Near East peoples?

 

Share this post


Link to post

I have read it. If I recall correctly, didn't the Hebrew immigrants to the Americas cross the Pacific in some sort of metal submersible pushed by the hand of God? The description sounded remarkably like a submarine that would have been around about the time Joseph Smith "translated" the plates.

 

Also, I've been told that it is official church history that Smith translated the plates indirectly by use of seer's stones, and dictated the results. Isn't it recorded that the plates were often not even in the same room with him?

 

Why is it that there are recorded battles where millions died in full ancient armor, with swords and mail, and yet we can find no archaeological evidence to support such a fact? I can walk around a Civil War battlefield with a metal detector and I'll find metal objects till kingdom come. That's evidence. I can walk around where "battles" took place in New York and not find a single sword or piece of mail. Why? Where is the evidence to support the historical fact of the battle that occurred there?

 

Why is there no genetic evidence to support the idea that Native American peoples are descended from Near East peoples?

I feel like no matter what I say you're just going to ask me questions that me, as an eighteen year old, can't possibly answer because I have no physical proof to give you. Isn't that what some religions are based on? Faith is things that are hoped for which are not seen. I would visit www.lds.org or talk to some local missionaries if you want more info on these bigger questions

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I believe in a mixture of science and religion. I believe God created man and animals and Earth, but I believe that He created us so we could adapt and evolve. I think man looked much different when God created man, and that is why scientists think we evolved from apes. Humans may have looked very similar to apes in structure, and then evolved to look how we do today.

 

On the subject of homosexuals, I agree with luckynicole. I hate to say it, but God disapproves of this action. I wish them the best, and hope no harm comes to them, but I disapprove of their actions. I won't stop them or prevent them from doing as they please, but I would not participate in such an activity, nor necessarily approve.

Share this post


Link to post

 

On the subject of homosexuals, I agree with luckynicole. I hate to say it, but God disapproves of this action. I wish them the best, and hope no harm comes to them, but I disapprove of their actions. I won't stop them or prevent them from doing as they please, but I would not participate in such an activity, nor necessarily approve.

/scratches head

 

Well, my God approves of it, and I know plenty of other people whose God approves of it... So, in terms of legality, there isn't much to show for on the opposition.

Personally, I encourage people to feel however they feel is best for themselves. If that's how you feel, then perfect, that's good smile.gif And if you're not homosexual, I don't believe anyone would ever expect you to "participate" anyway, seeing as homosexuality is a type of sexuality and not an activity. laugh.gif But hey, to each his/her own. I'm just as perfectly happy with my girlfriend as a straight guy is, so I don't see harm in it whatsoever. c:

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, I believe in a mixture of science and religion. I believe God created man and animals and Earth, but I believe that He created us so we could adapt and evolve. I think man looked much different when God created man, and that is why scientists think we evolved from apes. Humans may have looked very similar to apes in structure, and then evolved to look how we do today.

 

On the subject of homosexuals, I agree with luckynicole. I hate to say it, but God disapproves of this action. I wish them the best, and hope no harm comes to them, but I disapprove of their actions. I won't stop them or prevent them from doing as they please, but I would not participate in such an activity, nor necessarily approve.

who cares if god "disproves of it"

 

if gays are sinning, which they're not, why should religious people care? it's not affecting them

Share this post


Link to post
who cares if god "disproves of it"

 

if gays are sinning, which they're not, why should religious people care? it's not affecting them

I suppose those of us who believe in a God care. We don't do it to belittle them or such...well, some of us. Some honestly believe that these people will gain gods wrath. Whether that's true or not is up to you. These people just care about the ones who make such life choices. Yes, some go overboard I fear, but not all of us are like that.

 

There's another big controversy. People were not created/did not evolve to be with the sme sex physically. That's obvious. But I'm not going to bash people who make such choices. I may not totally agree with the choice, but I'm not going to judge 'em.

 

We care because we...well care! Why not be thankful that people are taking a chance to show others they care? But not in a way that's hateful and mean. I hate it when the religious do that! I have friends who have made this life choice. *shrug*

 

(Please excuse my grammar. My iPhone laughs at grammar.)

Share this post


Link to post

It's actually not that obvious that people evolved in a way to deter homosexuality. With a population the size of humanity, there is room for niche evolution. There are numerous studies that hypothesize on evolutionary reasons for homosexuality which are aided by the face that there are observed physiological differences between homosexual and heterosexual people.

Share this post


Link to post
It's actually not that obvious that people evolved in a way to deter homosexuality. With a population the size of humanity, there is room for niche evolution. There are numerous studies that hypothesize on evolutionary reasons for homosexuality which are aided by the face that there are observed physiological differences between homosexual and heterosexual people.

Yep. There's an actual biological difference in the hypothalamus in the brain of gay men and straight men, and gay women and straight women. c:

 

I keep wondering why people say it's a choice though. I wonder if what everyone is referring to is actually different...? Yes, it IS a choice to be with someone. I make the choice to be with my girlfriend. I do not, however, make the choice to be physically, sexually, and emotionally attracted to her as a person. That is a very biological reaction and not something that can be consciously decided by any individual.

Share this post


Link to post

It's actually not that obvious that people evolved in a way to deter homosexuality. With a population the size of humanity, there is room for niche evolution. There are numerous studies that hypothesize on evolutionary reasons for homosexuality which are aided by the face that there are observed physiological differences between homosexual and heterosexual people.

If one believes in evolution, sure. T'is true enough. But then again, we'll never know.

 

No one knows for sure. If you think about it, you have to have a lot of faith to believe whatever theory you do. Sure, there's science to prove every theory whether a person likes it or not. Theories, that's all they'll ever be until someone figures out a way to actually watch the event of life being created. But I wander down a rabbit trail and I digress.

 

I've seen a few of the study results. An interesting study I must say. I kinda wonder how they'd explain me...

 

It seems kinda odd how history keeps repeating itself.

Share this post


Link to post
If one believes in evolution, sure. T'is true enough. But then again, we'll never know.

 

No one knows for sure. If you think about it, you have to have a lot of faith to believe whatever theory you do. Sure, there's science to prove every theory whether a person likes it or not. Theories, that's all they'll ever be until someone figures out a way to actually watch the event of life being created. But I wander down a rabbit trail and I digress.

 

I've seen a few of the study results. An interesting study I must say. I kinda wonder how they'd explain me...

 

It seems kinda odd how history keeps repeating itself.

The Theory of Evolution is not a "theory" as in it's a "guess." The scientific meaning is not the same as the common usage of this word. I don't really think evolution is a thing that NEEDS to be "believed in." I don't know why so many people are willing to accept microevolution but not macroevolution when the only difference is time.

Share this post


Link to post
The Theory of Evolution is not a "theory" as in it's a "guess." The scientific meaning is not the same as the common usage of this word. I don't really think evolution is a thing that NEEDS to be "believed in." I don't know why so many people are willing to accept microevolution but not macroevolution when the only difference is time.

Is that not what a theory roughly is? The word has many many meanings. But it is basically an educated guess.

 

Hmm, well if someone believes it's true, are they not believing in it? Or am I mistaken?

 

Perhaps they have "accepted" a different view of things. It is a interesting question.

Some people are more ready to accept/believe in something's more than others. It's what make life so interesting!!

Share this post


Link to post
Is that not what a theory roughly is? The word has many many meanings. But it is basically an educated guess.

 

Hmm, well if someone believes it's true, are they not believing in it? Or am I mistaken?

 

Perhaps they have "accepted" a different view of things. It is a interesting question.

Some people are more ready to accept/believe in something's more than others. It's what make life so interesting!!

Believe is a word which implies faith, in a sense that there isn't a better thing to hold onto than just that.

 

You don't see people going about claiming to believe in "gravity" which is a theory in the same sense that evolution is. They're both scientifically at the same level. We don't feel a need to express our "believe" in gravity, but people do like to claim that evolution is such a believe. I feel this is a way to diminish the significance of evolution and the scientific backing that it DOES have by confusing people with words.

Share this post


Link to post

Ahh. I see.

 

Yet faith is not really that, is it? Something we just cling to because theres nothing better? Faith is one of the basics of life. Unless you assume everything?

 

We can not see gravity, can we? But we know its there. There evidence it exists and we have faith that it will continue. When you take a step outside, you are believing that gravity will hold you down...otherwise would you be walking outside? Side note: Gravity is something we take for granted...

 

Ah, but creation is the same way from our view. We see faults in evolution as you see faults in creation. (Or in any of "educated guess" that's out there.) but, as I said, until someone can actually go back and see how life was created, we'll never know. Until then, we have faith in our instincts and what not that tell us what we should and shouldn't accept.

 

...If any of that made any sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Ahh. I see.

 

Yet faith is not really that, is it? Something we just cling to because theres nothing better? Faith is one of the basics of life. Unless you assume everything?

 

We can not see gravity, can we? But we know its there. There evidence it exists and we have faith that it will continue. When you take a step outside, you are believing that gravity will hold you down...otherwise would you be walking outside? Side note: Gravity is something we take for granted...

 

Ah, but creation is the same way from our view. We see faults in evolution as you see faults in creation. (Or in any of "educated guess" that's out there.) but, as I said, until someone can actually go back and see how life was created, we'll never know. Until then, we have faith in our instincts and what not that tell us what we should and shouldn't accept.

 

...If any of that made any sense?

If you see the faults in evolution, why haven't they been published in a scientific journal? The scientific community would love it for someone to point out a serious flaw in the theory of evolution so that the theory could be better adjusted.

 

Further, evolution does not make assumptions about the creation of life or the world. That is a different.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, but creation is the same way from our view. We see faults in evolution as you see faults in creation. (Or in any of "educated guess" that's out there.) but, as I said, until someone can actually go back and see how life was created, we'll never know. Until then, we have faith in our instincts and what not that tell us what we should and shouldn't accept.

 

Do you consider evolution and creation exclusive of one another? I know a Christian woman who believes that life as such was first created by god, and then god orchestrated the flow of evolution, so to speak.

 

( I myself am pure realist-materialist, nonspiritual atheist. )

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.