LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
joobz said:
Which type of writing/statement is more likely to come from a deceiver (AKA Lucifer)?

A Writing that contradicts all known facts and evidence.
or
Something that is in direct supported by all known facts and evidence?
Click to expand...

Honestly? B. Lucifer is the bringer of light. It is he that encouraged eating the fruit of knowledge, he that grants us the freedom to consider our options based solely on our own faculties, unencumbered by divine say-so.
 
It is not just one lone person who has been victim of the radical homosexual agenda... there have been many, however such is off topic to this thread.
 
Janadele said:
instead he is summoned to court, fined, his business closed and his livelihood taken from him. This is how the followers of Lucifer try to force their evil immoral standards upon others in the name of "discrimination".
Click to expand...

Are you deliberately lying about the facts of the case, or are you parroting lies told to you by others?

Janadele said:
It is not just one lone person who has been victim of the radical homosexual agenda... there have been many, however such is off topic to this thread.
Click to expand...

You don't get to pick what's on topic or not. That's a largely democratic decision that may or may not be nudged by the moderators as they see fit. You don't get extra votes for starting the thread.

Your lies about homosexuals have become the focus of the thread for the moment. Instead of admitting you don't have sources to back up your claims, you are trying to change the topic. A quick lesson about skeptics, admitting you don't have sources and that you were wrong / mislead will get us off the scent faster than your increasingly comic attempts to misdirect or trick us.
 
Janadele said:
It is not just one lone person who has been victim of the radical homosexual agenda... there have been many, however such is off topic to this thread.
Click to expand...
I do not believe it is. You are, after all, trying to tell us about the rightness of your faith and ideas. A discussion of the areas in which that rightness can be legitimately questioned is entirely on topic. A question of whether you are being truthful is entirely on topic if the subject of the thread is your own description of your faith and ideas.

As a start, your enclosure of the word marriage in quotation marks says volumes about your bigoted attitude and your (and your church's) inability to live comfortably in the surrounding society. Of course it may vary from one place to another, but where I live, for example, marriage is marriage. It is neither polite nor appropriate to trivialize the marriages of people we don't like by suggesting that their commitment is something else. Shame on you.
 
Last edited:
Janadele said:
It is not just one lone person who has been victim of the radical homosexual agenda... there have been many, however such is off topic to this thread.
Click to expand...


No, your continuing blathertripe about this mythical "radical homosexual agenda" is being vomited at us, by you, as being representative of the doctrine of the abomination you refer to as the church of LDS and as such is quite clearly on topic.
 
Janadele said:
kellyb...
Words of wisdom indeed:
The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians
Chapter 6
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-cor/6?lang=eng
Click to expand...


That's a quote from the Christian bible.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the evil, bigoted and hate-inspired cult of LDS.
 
So Janadele, now that it's been clearly shown you have been deliberately lying. Not just telling falsehoods - which is one of those things that in the bible were considered so bad someone put it in stone to make sure everyone knew about it - but lying.

Remember that you talked about how you wrote these posts to make people consider becoming mormons? Do you seriously believe that being caught in lies and refusing to admit so will actually help your cause? Or do you perhaps realise that instead, people who's being lied to will be more hostile to your cause, and you may in fact end up alienating even those that are supposed to be your allies (other mormons)?

Because from where I am sitting, it's definitely more likely that the second will happen. In other words, if you truly believe in Lucifer, and if you truly believe that becoming a mormon is what will save us... Then right now, you are in fact doing Lucifer's work. How does that feel?
 
Janadele said:
It is not just one lone person who has been victim of the radical homosexual agenda... there have been many, however such is off topic to this thread.
Click to expand...

No, ma'am. You opened the door. You told the lies. You cannot run away from that by claiming that the lies you told in support of your bigotry and chauvanism, pretending to the authority of your sect, are now, magically, off-topic. If you want to move on, support the outrageous claims you made, or apologize for your mendacity.

BTW, you have yet to demonstrate even "one lone person who has been a victim of the radical homosexual agenda". Do you intend to do so?
 
Janadele said:
kellyb...
Words of wisdom indeed:
The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians
Chapter 6
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-cor/6?lang=eng
Click to expand...

OTH, this bit of sermonizing IS demonstrably off-topic.
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

{Preamble}

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.

{ARTICLE I}
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

'Janadele'

I posted the above since you are having some trouble appreciating the fact that when a public business (such as a bakery) pushes their version of religious morality on to the public, then they are violating the US Constitution.

By the same token, when public entities (such as public school) pushes religious morality on to the public, then that public entity is violating the US Constitution.

In order for the Constitution to work, then it has to apply to everyone regardless of their personal choice of religion and/or sexual preference.
 
Janadele said:
kellyb...
Words of wisdom indeed:
The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians
Chapter 6
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-cor/6?lang=eng
Click to expand...

To defend your lies about how a bigoted baker closed shop, you quote scripture that insults and demeans your marriage to a non-Mormon?

Are you trying to claim some sympathy for gays denied marriage equality by pointing out that God disapproved of your own marriage?
 
Crossbow said:
'Janadele'

I posted the above since you are having some trouble appreciating the fact that when a public business (such as a bakery) pushes their version of religious morality on to the public, then they are violating the US Constitution.

By the same token, when public entities (such as public school) pushes religious morality on to the public, then that public entity is violating the US Constitution.

In order for the Constitution to work, then it has to apply to everyone regardless of their personal choice of religion and/or sexual preference.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with you a bit, based on my understanding of the constitution (which might not be good). In these terms, "public entities" means entities owned by the government. The bakery is privately owned, and as such, it doesn't answer to the first amendment of the constitution.

Mind you, the privately owned bakery might still have to answer to possible discrimination laws in their respective states/countries, as well as of course facing the consequences from the people for their choice to make bigoted decisions on whom to sell cake to.
 
Janadele said:
It is not just one lone person who has been victim of the radical homosexual agenda... there have been many, however such is off topic to this thread.
Click to expand...

Equality is not a radical agenda. It is the moral high ground.
 
Hawk one said:
I would disagree with you a bit, based on my understanding of the constitution (which might not be good). In these terms, "public entities" means entities owned by the government. The bakery is privately owned, and as such, it doesn't answer to the first amendment of the constitution.

Mind you, the privately owned bakery might still have to answer to possible discrimination laws in their respective states/countries, as well as of course facing the consequences from the people for their choice to make bigoted decisions on whom to sell cake to.
Click to expand...

Just to address your points, ...

First of all, I said that the bakery was a "public business" not a "public entity".

Second of all, "public businesses" are indeed subject to Constitutional protections. For example, do you recall how segregation was removed from buses, stores, diners, and so on?
That is because such businesses benefit from public services (such as police protection, fire services, and so on), therefore such businesses are subject to the Constitution.

Thanks.
 
Crossbow said:
Just to address your points, ...

First of all, I said that the bakery was a "public business" not a "public entity".

Second of all, "public businesses" are indeed subject to Constitutional protections. For example, do you recall how segregation was removed from buses, stores, diners, and so on?
That is because such businesses benefit from public services (such as police protection, fire services, and so on), therefore such businesses are subject to the Constitution.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Ahh. Well, I said my understanding might well be wrong, and now I've been shown that it was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom