Biblical God, physical body or merely a spirit?

Started by Lord Urizen7 pages
Originally posted by Regret
It is possible to clone with a woman alone, but as of yet it is not, and may never be, a viable method for species perpetuation. Women cannot reproduce without men and produce viable offspring.

Women cannot naturally reproduce without men, true, but can artificially. The man has no MEANS of reproduction since his sperm are ONLY MESSENGERS of genetic data....

The Egg cell is more vital than a sperm in the creation of a new life. That is undeniable.

Originally posted by Regret
Using your logic, it would appear that there must be a male and a female God working together, not one or the other. Such is the predominant method of reproduction in existence.

That would make more sense. I beleive that if we truly have a creator, it is EITHER NO GENDER, or it is a DUAL gender...like a blend of male and female.

Originally posted by Regret
When have do I constantly quote the Bible and preach to everyone, telling you all how you are wrong for not believing what I believe? I quote scripture when such is requested, or the individual is a Bible quoter, like Peejayd or JIA. I seldom attack a persons belief any more than anyone else in this forum, I follow the conduct shown appropriate for this forum

I wasn't talkn about you....JIA, Sonnet, Marcello and many others do this, not you.

But the Bible is still your most common reference..nothing wrong with that, but it does not qualify as proof...However, I already am aware that you are not trying to "prove" anything to us, just enlighten.

I admire that.

Originally posted by Regret
I believe much of this post falls under scoffing at my personal evidences. I did not present these, you requested them, stating that they would help you take my position more seriously.

Regret....I swear to you I was not making fun of you at ALL

I was DEAD SERIOUS with my response. Those wierd things REALLY DID HAPPEN TO ME and I still never understood why, but I remember.

I just do not attribute it to God. I believe some kind of unifying power is behind ALL of our incredible and abstract experiences.

Please do not be offended....I swear I was not scoffing at you.

Originally posted by Regret
It appears that your statement here was a lie. And has shown I was in error in presenting such. I repent of having done such a thing. I know you do not care, but I have lost more respect for you due to your duplicity in this instance.

How was it a lie ?

What the hell are you talkn about here ?

Originally posted by Regret
A blessing is a specific statement guided by the spirit as to an illness or or need. It is presented by one who holds valid Priesthood authority, and is done in the name of Jesus Christ. I will not relate the specific wording of blessing as I believe such is inappropriate.

That's fine.

Originally posted by Regret
[BOnce again you have moved the subject towards homosexuality, even though you and I have exhausted our avenues for dialogue on the subject. This is a habit that causes me to dislike pursuing discussion with you. [/B]

Wow...lol....you really dislike homosexuality that much that the mere thought of it sickens you ?

And I wasn't moving it towards homosexuality...I was making an example of how many experiences I had where Christians claim they know everything about a subject they truly know nothing about .

Geez....sorry.... 🙄

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Women cannot [b]naturally reproduce without men, true, but can artificially. The man has no MEANS of reproduction since his sperm are ONLY MESSENGERS of genetic data.... [/B]

The Egg cell is more vital than a sperm in the creation of a new life. That is undeniable.[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, but Semen is required. Unless you are speaking of cloning, which is not viable and may never be viable, women cannot reproduce without some genetic material from a man.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That would make more sense. I beleive that if we truly have a creator, it is EITHER NO GENDER, or it is a DUAL gender...like a blend of male and female.

Mormons actually believe God has a wife. We believe he has not spoken of her due to an attempt to avoid derision of her by Man.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I wasn't talkn about you....JIA, Sonnet, Marcello and many others do this, not you.

But the Bible is still your most common reference..nothing wrong with that, but it does not qualify as proof...However, I already am aware that you are not trying to "prove" anything to us, just enlighten.

I admire that.

I won't take offence from this then. I agree with what you for the most part.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Regret....I swear to you I was not making fun of you at ALL

I was DEAD SERIOUS with my response. Those wierd things REALLY DID HAPPEN TO ME and I still never understood why, but I remember.

I just do not attribute it to God. I believe some kind of unifying power is behind ALL of our incredible and abstract experiences.

Please do not be offended....I swear I was not scoffing at you.

I won't be offended then. I believe that some amount of such occurrences must occur randomly, Man is the product of the divine. It could also be mere coincidence. I am aware of blessings impacting life of various LDS individuals, including myself, on a continuous basis, not coincidence or random, but regular and common. Even non-LDS individuals in the area often request blessings when they are ill. Such is not the same as a handful of random experiences.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How was it a lie ?

What the hell are you talkn about here ?

My statements were due to my misunderstanding and belief that you were scoffing at the experiences I have had, you can ignore them since you have clarified your statements.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Wow...lol....you really dislike homosexuality that much that the mere thought of it sickens you ?

And I wasn't moving it towards homosexuality...I was making an example of how many experiences I had where Christians claim they know everything about a subject they truly know nothing about .

Geez....sorry.... 🙄

Too often you use homosexuality as an example when we have a great amount of differing opinion on the subject. Mine is based in my knowledge of psychology and neural physiology, yours is based in your own sexual experience and orientation. Both have valid basis, but they do conflict. We will be unable to discuss the topic. It is not that I dislike it that much, I dislike discussing it with you because we have reached a series of impasses, and you bring it up in every lengthy discussion we have.

Originally posted by Regret
The Egg cell is more vital than a sperm in the creation of a new life. That is undeniable.

Yes....

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, but Semen is required. Unless you are speaking of cloning, which is not viable and may never be viable, women cannot reproduce without some genetic material from a man.

Cloning is a possibility though, and will improve over time. Not that I'm for it, because I am actually against it...but it shows how the Egg cell is more vital, and thus woman deserve more credit for the promotion of life.

It sickens me how Men try to take more credit, and that may be why it also sickens me to beleive that God , our possible creator, is male.

Originally posted by Regret
Mormons actually believe God has a wife. We believe he has not spoken of her due to an attempt to avoid derision of her by Man.

I find that fascinating. I would like to learn more about your Faith.

Originally posted by Regret
I won't take offence from this then. I agree with what you for the most part.

Alrighty then !

Originally posted by Regret
I won't be offended then. I believe that some amount of such occurrences must occur randomly, Man is the product of the divine. It could also be mere coincidence. I am aware of blessings impacting life of various LDS individuals, including myself, on a continuous basis, not coincidence or random, but regular and common. Even non-LDS individuals in the area often request blessings when they are ill. Such is not the same as a handful of random experiences.

It seems you really didn't beleive me then lol

As if what I claimed seemed so far fetched that I was actually joking....I assure you...eveything I said truly happened. Wierd....

I beleive what you claim right now. But understand that in cultures where witchcraft is present, strange "miracles" have also occured.

And Chinese medicine and practice has been known to cure diseases which American medicine has failed to do so. You know that Chinese medicine is NOT based on chemistry or physics right? Just on tradition, ritual and ancient study. Yet thier population is massive and thier success rate is freakishly abundant !

What I am saying is that I beleive there is POWER in multiple sources. But I beleive taht as HUMAN BEINGS we are all the conduits for the power this Universe contains, as long as we choose to achieve it.

Originally posted by Regret
My statements were due to my misunderstanding and belief that you were scoffing at the experiences I have had, you can ignore them since you have clarified your statements.

Then ignore them I shall ✅

Originally posted by Regret
Too often you use homosexuality as an example when we have a great amount of differing opinion on the subject. Mine is based in my knowledge of psychology and neural physiology, yours is based in your own sexual experience and orientation. Both have valid basis, but they do conflict. We will be unable to discuss the topic. It is not that I dislike it that much, I dislike discussing it with you because we have reached a series of impasses, and you bring it up in every lengthy discussion we have.

I bring up homosexuality only in the slightest references. But yes, we do end up arguing about how homosexuality is or isn't a choice afterward, and it does tend to derail the debate.

The thing is I try to bring my own experience into a debate, more often than a 3rd neutral reference, because personal exprience and knowledge is what I can argue best. Homosexuality is not the only personal aspect I have argued in the past....it just seems to be the one you are least tolerant of.

You do not have to respond to this statement here, but I just find it amusing that you will take offense when someone insults your LDS based Faith (I recall that I made fun of the word LDS = LSD as a joke, and you were quick to call me out on it), yet you feel you have the right to say that homosexuality is "evil" and "wrong" and not expect any backlash from myself or others.

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, but Semen is required. Unless you are speaking of cloning, which is not viable and may never be viable, women cannot reproduce without some genetic material from a man.

That is incorrect. Female-Female reproduction has occoured in mammals and youe likely be possible in humans too.

Originally posted by Regret
Both have valid basis, but they do conflict.

If were seeking truth, there should be no conflict. Hence there is an intervening variable.

Where do they conflict?

Originally posted by Alliance
That is incorrect. Female-Female reproduction has occoured in mammals and youe likely be possible in humans too.

Currently women cannot produce viable offspring without semen from a man, I am not incorrect. Possibility is not probability, as you have pointed out in the argument on the existence of God. There is not currently a significant number of animals that produce without the male/female paradigm. Given this, such a paradigm must currently be assumed to have higher survival value than other forms of reproduction.

Originally posted by Alliance
If were seeking truth, there should be no conflict. Hence there is an intervening variable.

Where do they conflict?

They conflict in personal experience verses scientific analysis. Currently scientific analysis is not conclusive but leans toward homosexuality being chosen, in my opinion due to my educational experience. Uri claims the opposite due to his firsthand experience.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Cloning is a possibility though, and will improve over time. Not that I'm for it, because I am actually against it...but it shows how the Egg cell is more vital, and thus woman deserve more credit for the promotion of life.
I do not believe that cloning will lead to viable offspring. I believe the problems incurred in the process are inherent in the method and further research, which I agree with doing, will increase our understanding of genetic mutations and error, but will only show a fundamental problem with this method of reproduction. Am I wrong? Possibly, but my hypothesis is this.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It sickens me how Men try to take more credit, and that may be why it also sickens me to beleive that God , our possible creator, is male.

It sickens me how some people try to diminish the credit of either sex, it takes both in the current state of being, and there is no reason to believe such will change in our time.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I find that fascinating. I would like to learn more about your Faith.
While I encourage this, the Mormon faith does believe the Bible, and some people do interpret our beliefs as intolerant along the same lines as the rest of Christianity. We have some beliefs that are considered radical and we are hated by many so-called Christians due to them. I believe this is what Christ refered to when he speaks of the world hating him first, it wasn't because he behaved like JIA, he didn't I don't believe, it was because his statements conflicted with the popular beliefs about God and religion, thus often the Christian, and at times the rest of the, world hates us because of our beliefs, not because of who we are or how we behave.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It seems you really didn't beleive me then lol

As if what I claimed seemed so far fetched that I was actually joking....I assure you...eveything I said truly happened. Wierd....

I beleive what you claim right now. But understand that in cultures where witchcraft is present, strange "miracles" have also occured.

And Chinese medicine and practice has been known to cure diseases which American medicine has failed to do so. You know that Chinese medicine is NOT based on chemistry or physics right? Just on tradition, ritual and ancient study. Yet thier population is massive and thier success rate is freakishly abundant !

What I am saying is that I beleive there is POWER in multiple sources. But I beleive taht as HUMAN BEINGS we are all the conduits for the power this Universe contains, as long as we choose to achieve it.

I believed you. The issue is consistency. Can you know everything that is going to happen regularly? Do these things occur frequently in comparison to when you would like them to? Do they have a precipitating event?

Chinese medicine is being studied, and there are some scientific backing being found for much of their traditions. Just because someone did something and it worked, does not mean there is not scientific fact behind it. The difference is that there is a tangible tested reason for such medications traditions, it is not based in a belief or faith, but in the medications and treatments.

I do not argue that miraculous things occur outside my religion. I argue that such occur more regularly and seem more directed within my religion. It leads to the assumption that something within the beliefs of the religion does increase the probability and frequency of such occurences.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I bring up homosexuality only in the slightest references. But yes, we do end up arguing about how homosexuality is or isn't a choice afterward, and it does tend to derail the debate.

The thing is I try to bring my own experience into a debate, more often than a 3rd neutral reference, because personal exprience and knowledge is what I can argue best. Homosexuality is not the only personal aspect I have argued in the past....it just seems to be the one you are least tolerant of.

I may be more sensitive to the subject with you. You have used it frequently in your attacks, and so it is tied to attacks by yourself on Christianity. Personally I dislike personal experience as a method of external persuasion. I typically avoid it as it is often not replicable and is not often conclusive from the perspective of the opponent. Personal experience is fine for the individual, but not often for others, especially since opinion based on such experience must be considered to partially be the result of bias. I agree that my personal experiences have the same possible flaw, that is why I seldom speak from personal experience.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You do not have to respond to this statement here, but I just find it amusing that you will take offense when someone insults your LDS based Faith (I recall that I made fun of the word LDS = LSD as a joke, and you were quick to call me out on it), yet you feel you have the right to say that homosexuality is "evil" and "wrong" and not expect any backlash from myself or others.
I don't attack homosexuality as being evil or wrong, you, and others, have in the past asked for the stance of religion or my personal view, but I do not attack it. I do correct individuals and let them know I am offended when they do or say something that offends me, or is incorrect. If I did not they may think that I do not have issue with their offense. Turning the other cheek does not mean that you should not allow the other person the knowledge of the effect of their action, it only speaks as to retaliation.

Originally posted by Regret
Currently women cannot produce viable offspring without semen from a man, I am not incorrect. Possibility is not probability, as you have pointed out in the argument on the existence of God. There is not currently a significant number of animals that produce without the male/female paradigm. Given this, such a paradigm must currently be assumed to have higher survival value than other forms of reproduction.

No, I know what I said. An embryo was fertilized with genetic material from another female and implanted in the uterus. This was done in mice i beleive about a year ago. Its very likely that this holds true for humans as well.

Originally posted by Regret
Currently scientific analysis is not conclusive but leans toward homosexuality being chosen, in my opinion due to my educational experience. Uri claims the opposite due to his firsthand experience.

This is not true at all, perhaps you aren't reading the full amount of scientific luterature. Science stands on the side of a strong genetic influence, though not a complete one.

I can point you to some spicific studies, but, for now...

Originally posted by NIH
Human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
Originally posted by Regret
They conflict in personal experience verses scientific analysis. Currently scientific analysis is not conclusive but leans toward homosexuality being chosen, in my opinion due to my educational experience. Uri claims the opposite due to his firsthand experience.

You don't know wtf you are talking about. Science leans towards homosexuality being genetic , NOT chosen. Dude, Mormon scientists dont count, alright ?

I do not claim homosexuality is genetic. But it's not chosen either. I can't prove it to you, but i know this..atleast with me, it wasn't a choice.

Regret..you know me to be very outspoken, very straight forward, and not likely to hold back. Think for a second....if i CHOSE to be Gay, wouldn't I JUST ADMIT IT ?

Why would I WASTE all this time trying to JUSTIFY IT ? I don't have to justify shit regarding my sexuality, nor will I ever feel the need to justify or EXCUSE it to anyone, especially not you.

I am telling you this as Truth, because it is what I know. You would never know unless you were in my shoes.

And btw, you have never provided any scientific data to conclude that homosexuality is a choice. So don't try pulling that card.

Originally posted by Regret
I do not believe that cloning will lead to viable offspring. I believe the problems incurred in the process are inherent in the method and further research, which I agree with doing, will increase our understanding of genetic mutations and error, but will only show a fundamental problem with this method of reproduction. Am I wrong? Possibly, but my hypothesis is this.

You dont need to clone to reproduce. Any 23 chromosones injected into the egg cell will produce new life. Sperm may be outdated one day.....

Originally posted by Regret
It sickens me how some people try to diminish the credit of either sex, it takes both in the current state of being, and there is no reason to believe such will change in our time.

Women deserve more credit for two reasons:

1) The Egg Cell is more valuable than the sperm for the guarantee of life

2) Women suffer to give birth, men don't.

Originally posted by Regret
While I encourage this, the Mormon faith does believe the Bible, and some people do interpret our beliefs as intolerant along the same lines as the rest of Christianity. We have some beliefs that are considered radical and we are hated by many so-called Christians due to them. I believe this is what Christ refered to when he speaks of the world hating him first, it wasn't because he behaved like JIA, he didn't I don't believe, it was because his statements conflicted with the popular beliefs about God and religion, thus often the Christian, and at times the rest of the, world hates us because of our beliefs, not because of who we are or how we behave.

Sucks, doesn't it ?

Originally posted by Regret
I believed you. The issue is consistency. Can you know everything that is going to happen regularly? Do these things occur frequently in comparison to when you would like them to? Do they have a precipitating event?

No to everything you asked.

These events occurred without my permission and at unexplainable times in my life.

Originally posted by Regret
Chinese medicine is being studied, and there are some scientific backing being found for much of their traditions. Just because someone did something and it worked, does not mean there is not scientific fact behind it. The difference is that there is a tangible tested reason for such medications traditions, it is not based in a belief or faith, but in the medications and treatments.

How do you know there is no scientific truth behind miracles ? Even the ones that derive from Mormon practices ?

It is already scientifically proven that the mind has much influence on matter. Strong Belief or positive intensity can determine the result of even the most difficult of tasks.

Originally posted by Regret
I do not argue that miraculous things occur outside my religion. I argue that such occur more regularly and seem more directed within my religion. It leads to the assumption that something within the beliefs of the religion does increase the probability and frequency of such occurences.

How can you argue that miracles occur more often with your religion when "miracles" occur all the time in every culture ?

That something in your beleifs may be just your beleifs. The power of mental conviction is great in ANY religion or set of background.

Originally posted by Regret
I may be more sensitive to the subject with you. You have used it frequently in your attacks, and so it is tied to attacks by yourself on Christianity. Personally I dislike personal experience as a method of external persuasion. I typically avoid it as it is often not replicable and is not often conclusive from the perspective of the opponent. Personal experience is fine for the individual, but not often for others, especially since opinion based on such experience must be considered to partially be the result of bias. I agree that my personal experiences have the same possible flaw, that is why I seldom speak from personal experience.

If I am to discuss topics such as Homosexuality, then scientific findings and personal experience are all I have to work with.

The Bible does not educate ANYONE on the subject of homosexuality...it simply labels it as "evil" with no understanding whatsoever, only inspiring ignorance and hate.

I can tell you MORE about homosexuality than the Bible ever could, trust me lol

Originally posted by Regret
I don't attack homosexuality as being evil or wrong, you, and others, have in the past asked for the stance of religion or my personal view, but I do not attack it. I do correct individuals and let them know I am offended when they do or say something that offends me, or is incorrect. If I did not they may think that I do not have issue with their offense. Turning the other cheek does not mean that you should not allow the other person the knowledge of the effect of their action, it only speaks as to retaliation.

You have claimed it was wrong beforehand. Last we spoke on the issue extensively, you made it clear that because of your religion you have no desire to actually KNOW anything scientific or knowledge otherwise having to do with homosexuality, because:

1) Your religion claims it is sinful and wrong

2) It concerns you not, you ultamately couldn't care less.

With those two statements, could you blame me for thinking you close minded ? AT ALL ?

Originally posted by Regret
I do not base my faith in the Bible. It does not mean the Bible is not scripture and valid. God and Christ come before the Bible though, and I disagree with having anything man-made as basis of a persons faith. You have made an Idol, a graven image, out of the Bible, you do worship the Bible and not God and Christ, I disagree with such a thing.

* that's the big question, my friend... you claim you do not base your faith in the Bible... i believe in God and Christ according to the Bible... and YOUR "god" and "christ" are from what?

* plus, if you do not base your faith in the Bible, what's the point of giving examples from therein to prove your argument? it seems really irrelevant...

Originally posted by Regret
Show me some Biblical evidence for having more than one wife being sin. Adultery is extramarital, if one is married to more than one woman, they are not committing adultery because such acts occur within the bounds of marriage. You still have not provided Biblical evidence against the practice of polygamy by Abraham, Israel, or any other Biblical prophet.

* Biblical evidence? what for? and, my friend, are you blind? from the Old Testament up to the New, adultery is a sin, a violation, a transgression in the eyes of God... are you here to justify adultery as well? i really question your faith then...

Originally posted by Regret
Your take on any prophecy is your interpretation of such. The Jews all interpreted the prophecies concerning the Messiah in varying ways, this is the reason for the Pharisees and Sadducee's disbelief in Christ. Prophecy is interpreted by those reading it, and you do interpret it.

* and? you are evading my question or are you refusing to answer? if you do not base your faith in the Bible, who are YOUR prophets?

Originally posted by Regret
As to this:

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; But in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son , whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."
Hebrews 1:1-2

While Christ was on Earth God spoke to man by the Son, directly. There is no reason to assume that once Christ ascended there would be no prophets once again.

* i never even assumed that, i never said any...

Originally posted by Regret
Paul was one such. He did see Christ, he did have visions. Christ also showed visions to Peter, we have record of his prophetic vision prior to dining on what previously had been considered unclean foods. Also, Revelations is an example of prophecy following these verses. If Prophets were ended, such should not have occurred.

* you justify your argument from something you claim not a credible basis?

Originally posted by Regret
Mormons actually believe God has a wife. We believe he has not spoken of her due to an attempt to avoid derision of her by Man.

* where the heck did your organization base this ridiculous belief? not really surprising... you do not base your faith in the Bible, hence your doctrines are also unbiblical...

"And Jesus said to them, The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage;
But those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,
For they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."
Luke 20:34-36

* there are no marriage in heaven like here on earth... God has no wife...

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
Nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything."
Acts 17:24-25

* God does not need anything, even a wife... God is the Supreme Being... i repeat, if do not base your faith in the Bible, YOUR "god" and "christ" are from what? 😕

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You don't know wtf you are talking about. Science leans towards homosexuality being genetic , NOT chosen. Dude, Mormon scientists dont count, alright ?

I do not claim homosexuality is genetic. But it's not chosen either. I can't prove it to you, but i know this..atleast with me, it wasn't a choice.

Regret..you know me to be very outspoken, very straight forward, and not likely to hold back. Think for a second....if i [b]CHOSE to be Gay, wouldn't I JUST ADMIT IT ?

Why would I WASTE all this time trying to JUSTIFY IT ? I don't have to justify shit regarding my sexuality, nor will I ever feel the need to justify or EXCUSE it to anyone, especially not you.

I am telling you this as Truth, because it is what I know. You would never know unless you were in my shoes.

And btw, you have never provided any scientific data to conclude that homosexuality is a choice. So don't try pulling that card. [/B]

I do not study Mormon scientists or their writing, science is not the domain of religion. If I have ever read a scientific paper by a Mormon I am unaware of it. There is no scientific research supporting homosexuality being genetic.

I do not cite any research on the subject because no conclusive evidence exists. The only study that comes close to being conclusive is the anterior hypothalamus study by Levay that shows a smaller size in homosexual men that is similar in size to women. No study is conclusive because genetic and physiological studies cannot occur early enough to show a difference prior to homosexual activity and behavior. The brain alters physiologically due to experience, history, and diet. Homosexual behaviors and activity may cause this change in brain size.

Any decent scientist would not state more than there is a possible predisposition towards homosexual tendency.

I also do not care what anyone says, people lie, this is a fact. There are plenty of reasonable motivations for homosexuals to claim that the behavior is not chosen. The highest, but by no means only, possible motivation is the general intolerance of homosexuality.

I have studied neurophysiology and psychology. My statements here are not without basis, they are the result of years of study. Also, the most adamant supporter of homosexuals I know is one of the neurophysiology specialists that taught some of my courses, he is one of the professors that stated that there is no conclusive evidence for either choice or genetics in sexual orientation.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You dont need to clone to reproduce. Any 23 chromosones injected into the egg cell will produce new life. Sperm may be outdated one day.....
That is how cloning occurs.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Women deserve more credit for two reasons:

1) The Egg Cell is more valuable than the sperm for the guarantee of life

2) Women suffer to give birth, men don't.

I could care less, it still requires a man. Reproduction is a male and female experience regardless of who does what. You can try to diminish men's role, but I believe such is stupid.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
No to everything you asked.

These events occurred without my permission and at unexplainable times in my life.

Then there is no basis for comparing the two.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How do you know there is no scientific truth behind miracles ? Even the ones that derive from Mormon practices ?

It is already scientifically proven that the mind has much influence on matter. Strong Belief or positive intensity can determine the result of even the most difficult of tasks.

I believe God works through the natural laws, I do not believe in the supernatural. I was refering to the actions prior to the occurence. Chinese medicine is highly chemical and involves localized massage. Cause and effect are science, understanding the nature of the variables associated with a phenomena. The brain cannot influence external events past the actions of the body and their impact on the environment and others. Even internally, there are extreme limits to a brain's impact on one's own physiology.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How can you argue that miracles occur more often with your religion when "miracles" occur all the time in every culture ?

That something in your beleifs may be just your beleifs. The power of mental conviction is great in ANY religion or set of background.

I agree, they could possibly be something not isolated to my religion. I do not believe this, but it is possible. The frequency and consistency is higher than I have heard of or experienced outside of the LDS faith though, and that is good enough for me.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If I am to discuss topics such as Homosexuality, then scientific findings and personal experience are all I have to work with.

The Bible does not educate ANYONE on the subject of homosexuality...it simply labels it as "evil" with no understanding whatsoever, only inspiring ignorance and hate.

I can tell you MORE about homosexuality than the Bible ever could, trust me lol

I do not learn about it from the Bible or any other religious source. My religion says that it is wrong, it does not teach anything else about the subject. I believe homosexuality to be a perversion and error in the nature of an individual. Homosexual practices do not promote the continuation of the species and do not fall in line with survival needs. Homosexuality does not increase the health and well being of the individual, and the behavior in men has cleanliness issues as well, imo. My education on the subject of homosexuality is wholly secular.

Now, your knowledge of the subject is biased and probably mainly subjective. I do not hold your statements on the subject that are personal as having much weight unless studies support your claims. As of my readings I have not found support other than the possibility exists, and that there is no conclusive evidence either way.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You have claimed it was wrong beforehand. Last we spoke on the issue extensively, you made it clear that because of your religion you have no desire to actually KNOW anything scientific or knowledge otherwise having to do with homosexuality, because:

1) Your religion claims it is sinful and wrong

2) It concerns you not, you ultamately couldn't care less.

With those two statements, could you blame me for thinking you close minded ? AT ALL ?

I could care less about the subject. If asked or attacked on the subject, I do state my stance. All the same, homosexuals are people and deserve as much respect as anyone else, particularly if their behavior does not conflict with their beliefs and claimed morals. A homosexual that claims to be a follower of the Bible or any other belief system that does not condone such behavior is a hypocrite and deserving of less respect. A homosexual that attacks the beliefs of others due to another's distaste for homosexuality, when the other does not attack homosexuality without provocation, is also a hypocrite and again deserving of less respect, such behavior is showing intolerance on the homosexuals part. I believe that groups feeling persecuted or discriminated against often behaves hypocritically in this manner, and some homosexuals fit this.

Originally posted by peejayd
* that's the big question, my friend... you claim you do not base your faith in the Bible... i believe in God and Christ according to the Bible... and YOUR "god" and "christ" are from what?

* plus, if you do not base your faith in the Bible, what's the point of giving examples from therein to prove your argument? it seems really irrelevant...

* Biblical evidence? what for? and, my friend, are you blind? from the Old Testament up to the New, adultery is a sin, a violation, a transgression in the eyes of God... are you here to justify adultery as well? i really question your faith then...

* and? you are evading my question or are you refusing to answer? if you do not base your faith in the Bible, who are YOUR prophets?

* i never even assumed that, i never said any...

* you justify your argument from something you claim not a credible basis?

* where the heck did your organization base this ridiculous belief? not really surprising... you do not base your faith in the Bible, hence your doctrines are also unbiblical...

"And Jesus said to them, The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage;
But those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,
For they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."
Luke 20:34-36

* there are no marriage in heaven like here on earth... God has no wife...

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
Nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything."
Acts 17:24-25

* God does not need anything, even a wife... God is the Supreme Being... i repeat, if do not base your faith in the Bible, YOUR "god" and "christ" are from what? 😕

You obviously do not understand my position or what I have stated. The Bible is record of God's dealings with men. The prophets in the Bible are my prophets, as are all prophets of God. The Bible is not the end-all of revelation though, and if a current prophet clarifies a point that is ambiguous in the Bible, such is not conflict it is support. If something was not stated in the Bible and a modern prophet states it, such is not unBiblical, such is only not mentioned in the Bible. Prior to Christ everything that was not present in the Bible that he said was unBiblical if such were the case. My basis is God and Christ, such is true, such is fact. The Bible holds their teachings and commandments, and is absolutely credible as a source of religious knowledge, but it cannot be the basis of one's belief and faith, this is making it an idol. I believe in the Bible, but God and Christ are the foundation and basis of my faith. Biblical support is support, and valid to me, but ambiguities exist within it. If God clarifies something or states something now, that will shape my interpretation of the Bible, I am not limited to only the words of ancient prophets to understand, I also have prophets that continue to speak with God. Their words hold as much validity for me as the Bible, they are the ones recording and participating in God's dealings with man today. This does not lessen the value of the Bible, it increases it. The Bible is evidence that God did speak with man, it is evidence that God does speak with man, it is evidence that God will speak with man.

As to Luke 20:34-36:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:15-18
15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

And with Acts 17 you are once again adding words to the text given. You have taken the text and extended it beyond what is stated. If God does not need anything, it is because he has everything, not because he does not have something.

God having a wife is not stated in the Bible, neither is it denied. Given this, there is no Biblical reason to state that such is not a possibility. To state that such is not possible is adding to what God has stated in the Bible. You believe that if something is not spoken of in the Bible it can't be, such is an extremely sad error. God did not speak of television in the Bible, it must be that television does not exist. God did not speak of a large number of things in the Bible, God is not limited by what he did not state in the Bible.

You are in error claiming that if something is not mentioned in the Bible it is untrue. It is arrogant for one who does not speak with God to claim such.

Originally posted by Regret
That is how cloning occurs.

WRONG 👇 Cloning occurs when you remove the genetic material from the egg cell and RE inject it back into the cell. The egg (nucleus) thinks its fertilized and will begin development.

If you inject 23 chromosones from a cell of any person and inject it into an egg cell, it is the same concept as sperm fertilizing the egg. Sperm is simply a carrier...nothing more.

Originally posted by Regret
I could care less, it still requires a man. Reproduction is a male and female experience regardless of who does what. You can try to diminish men's role, but I believe such is stupid.

I am not trying to diminish a man's role in the creation process. But the woman is responsible for far much more in the reproduction process than the male ! That is self evident, and I find it more logical that if God does exist, and is the creator, then God is female (OR a combination of Male and Female)

But for the "Divine Creator" to be Male makes absolutely no sense in my opinion.

Originally posted by Regret

Then there is no basis for comparing the two.

Yes there is.

Originally posted by Regret
I believe God works through the natural laws, I do not believe in the supernatural. I was refering to the actions prior to the occurence. Chinese medicine is highly chemical and involves localized massage. Cause and effect are science, understanding the nature of the variables associated with a phenomena. The brain cannot influence external events past the actions of the body and their impact on the environment and others. Even internally, there are extreme limits to a brain's impact on one's own physiology.

The brain has been shown to have influence beyond just the physical. Have you ever heard of "Dreaming in Tandum" It is a rare, but wierd, phenomena where two people have the SAME dream at the same time. It has happened to many people, including myself.

Originally posted by Regret
I agree, they could possibly be something not isolated to my religion. I do not believe this, but it is possible. The frequency and consistency is higher than I have heard of or experienced outside of the LDS faith though, and that is good enough for me.

I beleive every religion has some truth to it. I beleive every religion can become potentially perfect when it filters out all of its lies, hate, and qualities of disunification INCLUDING exlusitivity.

No offense, but most Christian churches, including the Mormon Church, practice a system of exclusiveness where people are ranked as being morally superior and inferior. You, yourself, have confessed that the Mormon Church only allows the "morally superior" to have a high active role in the Church.

It is discrimination whether you want to face it or not.

That is why Buddhism is more attractive. In Buddhism no one is better or higher ranked than another.

Originally posted by Regret
I do not learn about it from the Bible or any other religious source. My religion says that it is wrong, it does not teach anything else about the subject. I believe homosexuality to be a perversion and error in the nature of an individual. Homosexual practices do not promote the continuation of the species and do not fall in line with survival needs. Homosexuality does not increase the health and well being of the individual, and the behavior in men has cleanliness issues as well, imo. My education on the subject of homosexuality is wholly secular.

Homosexuality does service the continuation of the species in terms of "limitting the population". I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you would bring up science into this, and then purposely ignore one of science's most common laws of survival: Limitting the Population.

Homosexuality is no more or less healthy than Heterosexuality. STD's, Infections, and all sickness are just as common in Heterosexuality as in Homosexuality.

Originally posted by Regret
Now, your knowledge of the subject is biased and probably mainly subjective. I do not hold your statements on the subject that are personal as having much weight unless studies support your claims. As of my readings I have not found support other than the possibility exists, and that there is no conclusive evidence either way.

My knowledge of the subject is FIRST HAND bro.....

That is like me critisizing and denouncing your religion when I really don't know anything about it. You are trying to tell me how Homosexuality is wrong, is a choice, is unhealthy, etc. ...you are telling me things that I know are not true from first hand experience.

I too have studied outside sources on this subject, so I am not solely relying on my own biases. Nice Try 👇

Your own biases go into this because of your religion, so please...the hypocrisy is getting annoying.

Scientists have found nuerological differences in the Brains of heterosexual men and homosexual men. The same study has also been done on animals such as sheep, dogs, alligators, cats, lions, birds, etc.

There is so much information out there, and you have failed to find any ? WOW

Either your Mormon-based internet service blocks all pro-gay databases, or you only google "Being Gay is a sin" anytime you try to research the topic.

If you wish, I will send you all that I have found on the subject.

Originally posted by Regret
I could care less about the subject. If asked or attacked on the subject, I do state my stance. All the same, homosexuals are people and deserve as much respect as anyone else, particularly if their behavior does not conflict with their beliefs and claimed morals. A homosexual that claims to be a follower of the Bible or any other belief system that does not condone such behavior is a hypocrite and deserving of less respect. A homosexual that attacks the beliefs of others due to another's distaste for homosexuality, when the other does not attack homosexuality without provocation, is also a hypocrite and again deserving of less respect, such behavior is showing intolerance on the homosexuals part. I believe that groups feeling persecuted or discriminated against often behaves hypocritically in this manner, and some homosexuals fit this.

It is rather hypocritical for a Homosexual to be a Fundamentalist Christian, on that I agree with you 100%.

But for a Homosexual to be Christian, in a standard meaning of the word, is not hypocritical. I've been Bisexual as far back as I can remember, but I was also once Christian.

A lot of Gay people HAPPEN to be Christian. It is just as hypocritical for a Homosexual or Bisexual to be Christian as it is for YOU or anyone to be Christian simply because we ARE ALL SINNERS. Are you trying to claim that you are , in fact, NOT A SINNER ?

Why is it that every other sin is okay ? Murderers, Rapists, Liars, Thieves, people who aim to hurt others, people who promote the Death Penalty, people who promote disunity through bigotry (Even unintentional) can claim to be Christian, but when a Gay person claims to be Christian, all of a sudden he's a major hypocrit ?

Let me tell you....I know a lot of Gay people who seem much closer to JEsus to me than Jerry Falwell.

Originally posted by Alliance
No, I know what I said. An embryo was fertilized with genetic material from another female and implanted in the uterus. This was done in mice i beleive about a year ago. Its very likely that this holds true for humans as well.

This is not true at all, perhaps you aren't reading the full amount of scientific luterature. Science stands on the side of a strong genetic influence, though not a complete one.

I can point you to some spicific studies, but, for now...

But have the offspring survived? Have they been capable of reproduction? Was their life without undue pain and suffering? So far all offspring attained through such methods have had strong defects that limit their mortality. They die more quickly, they are often sterile, they have various other ailments that impair their ability to function adequately, summed up, they are not viable as of yet. I am speaking of the animal offspring. Such has not yet been attempted on humans, and given the risks I do not believe such should be attempted either. It would be a gross lack of consideration for the well-being and life of a possible child to attempt such. Even if it becomes nearly perfected in animals, currently there are problems inherent with moving from one animal to another, it takes trial and error to achieve viable birth in each new animal they perform such procedures on, and it is possible that such will be the case with all future attempts on new animals.

"The brain has been shown to have influence beyond just the physical. Have you ever heard of "Dreaming in Tandum" It is a rare, but wierd, phenomena where two people have the SAME dream at the same time. It has happened to many people, including myself."
used happen to me all the time... I also used to have Lucid dreams more often... not so anymore.

Originally posted by Regret
You obviously do not understand my position or what I have stated. The Bible is record of God's dealings with men. The prophets in the Bible are my prophets, as are all prophets of God.

* that's odd? way back then, you said the Bible is only "a two thousand year old text that has often been altered and translated in error to fit the beliefs of man"... now isn't that cute?

Originally posted by Regret
The Bible is not the end-all of revelation though, and if a current prophet clarifies a point that is ambiguous in the Bible, such is not conflict it is support. If something was not stated in the Bible and a modern prophet states it, such is not unBiblical, such is only not mentioned in the Bible.

* see? even your analysis is unbiblical... the Bible is more credible than YOUR prophet...

"If any man's will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.
He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood."
John 7:17-18

* a true prophet of God teaches Biblical doctrine, he will not teach anything not stated in the Bible...

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed."
Galatians 1:8

* we should reject people who preaches doctrine contrary to what was written in the Bible... examine YOUR prophet, my friend...

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world."
I John 4:1

* YOUR prophet might be a false prophet especially now that you revealed that he preaches things not stated in the Bible...

Originally posted by Regret
Prior to Christ everything that was not present in the Bible that he said was unBiblical if such were the case. My basis is God and Christ, such is true, such is fact.

* nope... you have just proven that your basis is NOT even God nor Christ... your basis is NOT the Bible... your sole basis is YOUR prophet... you are a puppet to YOUR prophet, anything YOUR prophet says, even if it's outside the boundaries of the words of God and Christ written in the Bible, you gladly amen...

Originally posted by Regret
The Bible holds their teachings and commandments, and is absolutely credible as a source of religious knowledge, but it cannot be the basis of one's belief and faith, this is making it an idol.

* you know what's missing? if the Bible is credible source of religious knowledge, then it is tantamount to say that the Bible is also credible basis of faith... it's way too far being an act of idolatry...

* in fact, YOUR prophet had become your idol according to the circumstances you gave as your basis of faith...

Originally posted by Regret
I believe in the Bible, but God and Christ are the foundation and basis of my faith.

* sorry, you don't believe in the Bible, you reject the Bible once you read something contrary to what YOUR prophet says... you only believe in some Bible verses that can support what YOUR preacher says...

Originally posted by Regret
Biblical support is support, and valid to me, but ambiguities exist within it. If God clarifies something or states something now, that will shape my interpretation of the Bible, I am not limited to only the words of ancient prophets to understand, I also have prophets that continue to speak with God. Their words hold as much validity for me as the Bible, they are the ones recording and participating in God's dealings with man today.

* see what i mean...

Originally posted by Regret
This does not lessen the value of the Bible, it increases it. The Bible is evidence that God did speak with man, it is evidence that God does speak with man, it is evidence that God will speak with man.

* yes... but it does not mean that YOUR prophet can say anything even contradictory to what the Bible says...

Originally posted by Regret
As to Luke 20:34-36:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:15-18
15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

* where the heck is this from? a Mormon book? surely you don't think i'm gonna use this as part of my belief?

Originally posted by Regret
And with Acts 17 you are once again adding words to the text given. You have taken the text and extended it beyond what is stated. If God does not need anything, it is because he has everything, not because he does not have something.

* it only means, God does not need anything like humans do... you just missed another point... the Supreme Being has no wife...

Originally posted by Regret
God having a wife is not stated in the Bible, neither is it denied. Given this, there is no Biblical reason to state that such is not a possibility. To state that such is not possible is adding to what God has stated in the Bible. You believe that if something is not spoken of in the Bible it can't be, such is an extremely sad error. God did not speak of television in the Bible, it must be that television does not exist. God did not speak of a large number of things in the Bible, God is not limited by what he did not state in the Bible.

* hah! that's what you think! television is IN the Bible eventhough it is not written word-for-word... whilst your weird belief that God has a wife is blatantly NOT in the Bible, nor the Bible even suggest anything similar to that kind of belief... it only strengthens my argument that the prophet you believe is DEFINITELY a hoax and unbiblical...

Originally posted by Regret
You are in error claiming that if something is not mentioned in the Bible it is untrue. It is arrogant for one who does not speak with God to claim such.

* care to say that to Jesus and His apostles? your belief obviously mud-stomps the very doctrine preached in the Bible...

"I have applied all this to myself and Apol'los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."
I Corinthians 4:6

* i hope you understand my point... you belittled the credibility of the Bible and put YOUR prophet's doctrine in the pedestal... that is more than idolatry, my friend...

* and you don't tackle your belief in adultery... do you think it is good in the eyes of God to justify adultery? or justify even the extra-marital affairs of mr.Smith? man, even those who don't believe in the Bible knows that extra-marital affairs and adultery are synonymous and is a violation even in the law of man, much more so, in the law of God... think about it... 😉

Originally posted by peejayd
* that's odd? way back then, you said the Bible is only "a two thousand year old text that has often been altered and translated in error to fit the beliefs of man"... now isn't that cute?
While there are alterations and errors within the text of the Bible, it does still hold value in what exists that is correct. Is the entire text the same as the original writers wrote it? No. Many things have been left out, and some things have been translated in specific manners to fit popular belief at the time of translation. Thus the Bible is the word of God insofar as it has been translated correctly.
Originally posted by peejayd
* see? even your analysis is unbiblical... the Bible is more credible than YOUR prophet...

"If any man's will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.
He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood."
John 7:17-18

Modern Prophets speak on authority given by God. They do not speak on their own authority.

Originally posted by peejayd
* a true prophet of God teaches Biblical doctrine, he will not teach anything not stated in the Bible...

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed."
Galatians 1:8

* we should reject people who preaches doctrine contrary to what was written in the Bible... examine YOUR prophet, my friend...

The verse you quote does not necessarily speak as to the Bible. It states "if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you." What "they preached" not what was written, this verse does not necessarily refer to the Bible, much of their preaching is not contained in the Bible, only what was deemed important a hundred years later and that has been cannibalized over the past two Milena. Regardless, nothing the LDS prophets teach is contrary to the teachings found in the Bible. They may be contrary to what you believe is the interpretation of the Bible, but not to the actual text.

Originally posted by peejayd
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world."
I John 4:1

* YOUR prophet might be a false prophet especially now that you revealed that he preaches things not stated in the Bible...

Christ also fell under that cloud when he preached teachings that the Jews did not believe were in the Torah. His statements, also, were considered contrary to the word of God. Sorry, you fit with the pharisees and Sadducee's that condemned Christ. You have your view and will hold to it until you die, no matter your error.

I apologize to you, but you are gravely mistaken. Modern prophets present in the LDS church are not false prophets, they are true prophets.

Originally posted by peejayd
* nope... you have just proven that your basis is NOT even God nor Christ... your basis is NOT the Bible... your sole basis is YOUR prophet... you are a puppet to YOUR prophet, anything YOUR prophet says, even if it's outside the boundaries of the words of God and Christ written in the Bible, you gladly amen...
You cling to the logic presented by clergy with no contact with God. The idea that prophets were ended was the only means by which Christian clergy could claim authority, and they have poisoned the populace against the truth. It is amusing how so-called Christians rationalize their beliefs through denial of the consistency presented in the Bible. God spoke to men, while Christ was on Earth, Christ did the speaking and prophets were not necessary, Christ was there. Almost immediately following his ascension the apostles began having prophetic visions and communications, an obvious return of prophets and prophecy, yet so-called Christians deny the truth. When true prophets returned you cower in fear of maybe following a false prophet.

Matthew 7:15-16
15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

The fruits of the prophets of the LDS church are good, they promote christian principles, the LDS people are a wholesome and delightful people, the LDS church increases the value of property surrounding the areas it builds, the LDS church encourages and strengthens learning institutions, the LDS church promotes family structure and unity, the LDS church aids in worldwide and local relief efforts, the LDS church's welfare system is second to none, the LDS church encourages people to have gainful employment and be of value in the community. Their fruits are good, they are not thorns and thistles, as many so-called Christian groups are.

Originally posted by peejayd
* you know what's missing? if the Bible is credible source of religious knowledge, then it is tantamount to say that the Bible is also credible basis of faith... it's way too far being an act of idolatry...

* in fact, YOUR prophet had become your idol according to the circumstances you gave as your basis of faith...

It is a credible source of religious knowledge, but it is not a credible basis of faith.

1 Cor. 3:10-11
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The Bible states that our foundation is to be Christ. Foundation and basis are the same thing in the context we are discussing. Christ is the foundation of my belief and faith, not the written text that some man created, regardless of its sacred value.

Originally posted by peejayd
* sorry, you don't believe in the Bible, you reject the Bible once you read something contrary to what YOUR prophet says... you only believe in some Bible verses that can support what YOUR preacher says...
Nothing the LDS prophets have ever stated is contrary to the Bible. They may be contrary to your interpretation, but your interpretation is not the true interpretation, if it conflicts with God's prophets.

Originally posted by peejayd
* see what i mean...
Their words do holds as much validity as the Bible, this does not imply that there is any contradiction between their words and the Bible, such is your belief, but not a valid belief.

Originally posted by peejayd
* yes... but it does not mean that YOUR prophet can say anything even contradictory to what the Bible says...
No, it does not mean he will say anything contrary to the Bible, you have stated this due to an erroneous belief that the Bible contains everything God will ever say to man. Such is not the case, God still speaks to man and will continue to do so.

Originally posted by peejayd
* where the heck is this from? a Mormon book? surely you don't think i'm gonna use this as part of my belief?
No, but it is Gods word, and it clarifies the error you hold concerning the marriage as referred to in Luke. It is entirely Biblical. It is not contrary in any fashion.

Originally posted by peejayd
* it only means, God does not need anything like humans do... you just missed another point... the Supreme Being has no wife...
Once again you add to the Bible. Such is definitely unBiblical my friend, the Bible does not state what you do. Your interpretation adds much to the word presented in the Bible.

Originally posted by peejayd
* hah! that's what you think! television is IN the Bible eventhough it is not written word-for-word... whilst your weird belief that God has a wife is blatantly NOT in the Bible, nor the Bible even suggest anything similar to that kind of belief... it only strengthens my argument that the prophet you believe is DEFINITELY a hoax and unbiblical...
You have no basis for such an assumption. You still cling to your claim that what you add to the Bible in limitations is valid. The Bible does not state that God does not have a wife either, so, by the same logic, "hah! your belief that God does not have a wife is blatantly NOT in the Bible, nor does the Bible even suggest anything similar to that kind of belief... it only strengthens my argument that the beliefs you hold are definitely false and unBiblical..."

Originally posted by peejayd
* care to say that to Jesus and His apostles? your belief obviously mud-stomps the very doctrine preached in the Bible...

"I have applied all this to myself and Apol'los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us [B]not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."
I Corinthians 4:6

* i hope you understand my point... you belittled the credibility of the Bible and put YOUR prophet's doctrine in the pedestal... that is more than idolatry, my friend...

* and you don't tackle your belief in adultery... do you think it is good in the eyes of God to justify adultery? or justify even the extra-marital affairs of mr.Smith? man, even those who don't believe in the Bible knows that extra-marital affairs and adultery are synonymous and is a violation even in the law of man, much more so, in the law of God... think about it... 😉 [/B]

You should not go beyond what is written. Why? Because man comes up with many erroneous ideas when doing so. Examples: No prophets following Christ, Trinitarian doctrine, any baptism not by immersion, there are many more, but there is no need to go on. I cannot go beyond what the prophets and apostles have taught, why? Because I do not have authority given by God to do so. Prophets have the authority to speak in the name of God, they are not the ones being spoken to in Corinthians, lay people were. The lay people of Corinth were extending their judgements of others past what had been taught by those in authority had taught, past the writings that they had been given.

I do not place anyone on a pedestal, God speaks to man, he often speaks through an individual or small group of individuals, such is the pattern presented in the scriptures, this does not place them on a pedestal. It is you who places the men in the Bible on a pedestal, you hold their words which were recorded higher than all else, you have a pedestal, and you have raised the Bible upon it and worshipped the Bible.

Polygamous marriage. Adultery is outside the bounds of marriage, polygamy is not adultery, and it cannot be considered such given the definition you provided for adultery, regardless of your view of polygamy.

Originally posted by Regret
I also do not care what anyone says, people lie, this is a fact. There are plenty of reasonable motivations for homosexuals to claim that the behavior is not chosen. The highest, but by no means only, possible motivation is the general intolerance of homosexuality

So ultamately you thnk I am lying ?

Why would I ? I have no reason to. I am not trying to justify my experience or orientation what-so-ever. You honestly beleive that If my sexual attractions were my choice, I wouldn't just ADMIT IT ?

As if I didn't have the guts or something 🙄

I have faced bigotry many many times, and I never felt the need to lie. Not then and not now.

You claim that you know a lot about psychology and neurology through years and years of study, and therefore you know for a FACT that I chose my sexuality. You claim to know about the inner workings of my mind and my being.

You also claim that you know me better than I know myself !

So If I studied the Mormon religion for years, and then I read a biography about you and analyzed it for years, does that mean I would somehow know the truth about you ?

Would I be able to determine your entirety and the workings of your mind from reading the subject of you for years ? Would I have Regret all figured out from studying his biography and religion?

If not, then how do you imagine that you KNOW for a fact that I am Gay by choice, and have somehow changed my own desires ? How would you know for certain the true workings of my own mind, especially better than I would ?