After Hours

Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion


Marriage for Same-Sex Couples - Wow

By john.a.wills ·
Tags: Off Topic
article root

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Cou ...

Biblically speaking, homosexuality is just one result of 'the Fall', in which man gave dominion of this planet and all that was created 'good' over to the devil. God didn't create homosexuality. Or any of the other 'ills' that befall man.

And please note, peeps, I keep my commentary within the lines of what is supposed to be the Judeo-Christian scripture.

I myself, being as wicked as the next person, pass no judgement on anyone else.

Excepting this particular 'God made it' concept which irritates me no end. It's way outside the scope of scripture.

Collapse -

Honey, the scripture itself is outside the scope of the scripture...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Dude.

And my beef, specifically, is with statements of the type "God X" where a person (!) declares what a supposed omnipotent (=there can be no [d]evil that is not God's Will), omniscient (=there can be no effect that was not planned or at least preemptively noticed [combined with omnipotence it turns out to mean omniculpable]) Creator has done X or wishes X or performs X.
A person must be, by definition, either God, or be incapable of proscribing jack **** on behalf of God.
The devil didn't actually get invented until the Romans and Greeks needed one, as a gnosticist perversion of the until-then-scripture, so, ipso facto the fall, predating this event, cannot have turned anything over to the "devil", and you will find that the scripture is entirely silent on any such event.

It doesn't go, "In the beginning was the Devil and the Word..."
That's why people of the cloth that subscribe to the devil must be Satanists.

If you wonder why I speak to God so irreverently, all of a sudden, it is because I am not speaking to God, but to an interpretation of God as presented by some person. That interpretation is worth the amount of my respect that can be gleaned from my response. Which is, less than most people. If people wield their God as a club over other people, they must be prepared to have that God dragged through the mud, and I am demonstrating how this feels. If people keep their God to themselves, and judge not, lest they themselves be judged, then I leave their Gods in the heavens, pristine as can be.

The moral: Don't use God as a club unless you hate God and wish to put God in harm's way. If a gay man wishes to feel that God condemns him (and somehow managed to slip the responsibility), then they're free to feel that way. But condemning other people for what amounts to self-loathing is not cool, and I don't feel like standing for it. And of course, if a person feels that God condemns other people, then that person has a big problem, as the relationship between God and another person is NONE OF THEIR BEESWAX!!!

Collapse -

Of course, Mormons believe Satan is the brother of Jesus

by robo_dev In reply to Honey, the scripture itse ...

According to LDS doctrine, the two oldest sons of God were Jesus and Lucifer. Lucifer was really peeved that dad (God) chose Jesus to be the savior of all mankind, so he convinced one-third of his brothers and sisters to join him in rebellion.... (typical large family dysfunction)

So apparently Jesus has some brothers and sisters....who the heck are they?? Maybe Elvis, Michael Jordan??

Of course LDS doctrine also posits that Jesus is everyone's older brother (seriously).

Also, angels and devils are the same species, just in different stages of maturity or judgement. Thus demons are just angels 'with issues'.

According to LDS doctrine, the two oldest sons of God were Jesus and Lucifer. After Lucifer convinced one-third of his brothers and sisters to join him in rebellion and were expelled from Heaven. The other two-thirds became the humans born on earth (so how many Jesus-brothers ARE there, and what are their names?)

Got that?

So in effect Jesus has sisters and brothers on earth...but where the heck are THEY?

Collapse -

I always thought

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Of course, Mormons believ ...

that LDS had gotten the last two letters switched around

Collapse -

I always had a problem with 'The Fall' or 'Original Sin'

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Dude.

I can't accept a deity who places a blanket condemnation on all future generations simply for the single action of two of their ancestors, actions those future generations played no part in.

Collapse -

Kinda like 'One strike and you're out'

by robo_dev In reply to I always had a problem wi ...

Of course the issue here is that many bible stories are meant to be allegories, not taken literally, but the original authors did not take the time to point that out.

The joke that starts with 'two guys go into a bar' does not need to specify the identity of the two individuals, their presence is there to make a point.

From a practical matter, for example, the concept that there was one original man and woman would be problematic. What if Adam turned out not to like women (or Eve was not in the mood)? Or if Eve got pregnant then got bit by a snake and died, game over. Poof, there goes the human race.

And of course it gets ugly when you consider that the first son and daughter of Adam and Eve would have to marry each other....ewwww.

So too, the whole concept that God created the earth in about a week is problematic, since the measurement of time had not yet been created, so the bible STORY about creation taken literally, cannot be true.

It could be argued that a 'day' in God's time is like 100 million years human-time, but perhaps the author should state that?

Collapse -

Two creation stories

by john.a.wills In reply to Kinda like 'One strike an ...

Genesis starts with two different creation stories, one in which the Creator hights Elohim (usually translated "God") and one in which he hights Yahweh Elohim (usually translated "the lord God"). If we take them literally, they contradict each other. So whoever put Genesis together obviously did not expect his readers to take them literally. So why should he explain that? The first story is actually a take-off on someone else's story, and an author does not usually put in notes to say whose leg he is pulling.

Collapse -


by CharlieSpencer In reply to Two creation stories

Sorry, all I get are suggestions that I've misspelled 'heights'.

Collapse -

Perhaps you need a paper dictionary

by john.a.wills In reply to 'hights'?

In my office I find Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1973) and in it I find the adjective meaning "being called". The adjective comes from a verb, as in "This grisly beast, which Lion hight by name, The trusty Thisby, coming first by night, Did scare away, or rather did affright" in Shakespeare: A Midsummer Night's Dream. I admit that the verb is a bit out of fashion, but Poul Anderson uses it in stories set in the far future. The verb is cognate with German heissen and Dutch heten.

Collapse -


by CharlieSpencer In reply to Perhaps you need a paper ...

With that cleared up, why is referring to a creator as 'God' in one story and 'lord God' in another contradictory? Is one not a shorter form of the other?

Related Discussions

Related Forums