I've never been able to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to justify denying anyone basic human rights.
You haven't met my ex.
Ba Dum Dum!
This makes me think Jesus was up to more than just teaching peace, love and granola. If he were an early incarnation of the sicarii, that would certainly explain why he was so gruesomely executed.I'm a Jesus agnostic. I don't think it's possible with the information we have to claim we know anything about the man, if indeed there was one. Like most people in history, he is essentially invisible as an individual. All we have is an exceptionally dubious passage in Josephus. Not that it really makes a difference, though. Christianity has as much to do with Jesus as it has to do with the space shuttle.
I once got the role of 'judge' while two friends, one a Jew and the other Orthodox Christian who did a debate on the merits of Jesus as the Messiah.
I've forgotten most of the details but one of the most interesting 'take home' messages was just how hard the the New Testament worked to fit Jesus into the role of Jewish Messiah.
For example the nativity material we are all familiar with as members of the western world is a kind of mash up of the scene as described by two the the New Testament Gospels. Mathew and Luke I believe but could be wrong. If you actually read either just on its own its clear that they are not telling the same story at all.
Essentially its clear that the Biblical writers are jumping through hoops to show that a set of parents, indisputably, from Galilee (sp?) some how ended up in Bethlehem (sp?) right when the mother was giving birth because its critical that the Jewish Messiah be born in Bethlehem.
If they just made the guy up out of whole cloth then he'd just be from Bethlehem and they would not have to concoct this elaborate story about pregnant woman traveling all over the Holy Land in order to satisfy the requirements of a tax consensus that would appear to be unique in Roman history in that it demanded that the people go to where they were born instead of where they actually lived (The Romans, like the IRS don't care much about where you happen to be born but they care a great deal about where you are now - 'cause they want to know where to go to get their money).
In the end its the very inadequacies of the person in taking on the role of Jewish messiah and the New Testaments attempts to downplay those inadequacies that most strongly argue that there was in fact an actual person. Though I doubt that this actual person was in fact born in Bethlehem...likely he was born in Galilee.
There is evidence to support a non-divine human named Jesus of Nazareth did indeed live in that time period. We have the sketchy account by Josephus and even some greek records of the name Jesus from that time, even recording the fact he was crucified
I'm aware of Josephus but not these Greek records. Do you have a source 'cause I want to look that up.
|
Just do me this one little favor CJ try and see things from my perspective. I had a very hard time with my sexuality, a VERY hard time. I tried so hard not to be gay. I did everything in my power, until I fell in love. I fell for the most wonderful guy in the world, he's now my husband. But everyday I have to turn on the news and listen to people say, being gay is a choice, that homosexuals don't deserve civil rights, that (in some countries) homosexuality is such a heinous life choice execution is in order. I never had a choice, I wanted one for many years, but it never came. Then when the one really good thing happened in my life, I was lucky enough to live in a country that allowed me to make the highest of all social contracts with the love of my life. If you really want, go to page 129 of this thread and read my story. Maybe you'll see why I have a problem with the anti-marriage laws, with the ignorance of the evangelical movements. Just imagine that you lived in a country that wouldn't let you marry your wife?
I have tried very hard to see things from your perspective Jeremy. This is why I left alone a couple of conversations I had unwittingly brought up. You have not always had people treat you with any sort of kindness and understanding. I did not wish to be another of those. If I have given you this impression please take my heart felt deepest and sincere apologies. I went a long time ago and read the page in question.
I can see your problems with the anti-marriage laws, and you have expressed quiet completely your reaction to them. I am not nor have I ever been an evangelical.
Please understand that though I do not accept all your views I hold no ill will toward you and feel it is not my place in any way or shape or form to tell you how to live your life.
|
|
This thread is to have been about civil talk about religion. Please forgive me when I get upset when it just feels like Christian bashing.Luckily, there were no Mormons to feel bashed a page or two back.There was at least one, me. It's been an interesting discussion to follow and brought out a whole range of emotions out in me. In the end, every time I felt like posting a rebuttal to something that was said, I realized that I was being too emotional at the moment and would probably cause more harm then good, and so I held back. I learned a long time ago that you can't 'argue' religion.
I also feel that religion cannot be 'proved'. To me it is strictly a matter of faith and belief. If you believe in a religion, that is okay by me. It is also okay with me if you don't, but I'm pretty easy going that way.
We all have the freedom to choose for ourselves. I can't force anyone to be LDS anymore then anyone could force me to give up my belief in the LDS church. We all choose for ourselves, I made the choice to join the LDS church when I was ten years old and I'm glad that I made that choice.
Well ... I better sign off before I start preaching and trying to convert everyone, just kidding. ;-) Have a good afternoon.
Rereading all these posts I feel I should apologize to you as well. I meant no offense and will do my utmost, assuming I continue with this thread, to double check my responses and reasoning's behind them. Please accept my apology.
|
|
Ha.Your rebuttals are becoming more and more verbose, CJ. Feeling overly philosophical?
Not really no. Just working and it has been a very busy day leaving me with less time to respond then I would like or would sometimes otherwise be needed.
Also I would like to add that whoever had the great idea to install a spellchecker in the web browser is now my best friend.
|
Sorry I meant to put roman instead greek in there but nonetheless here is what I know.
There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Of the four, Josephus' writings, which document John the Baptist, James the Just, and Jesus, are of the most interest to scholars dealing with the historicity of Jesus. Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions Christus, without many historical details. There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. (According to Suetonius, chapter 25, there occurred in Rome, during the reign of emperor Claudius (circa AD 50), "persistent disturbances ... at the instigation of Chrestus".[43] Gnosis.org Mention in Acts of "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome." (Acts of the Apostles 18:1-2) has been conjectured to refer to the expulsion at the times of these "persistent disturbances".
Josephus had this to say
About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.
Mind you the above text is greatly in dispute, but the general conclusion is that part of the text is genuinely Josephus, in fact the first 2 sentences of the text seem to be genuine. The last part however they believe were added much later. The near complete belief is that Josephus definitely wrote that he existed but the miraculous part of the text is not genuine.
Pliny the Younger (61- 112 ce)
Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.
Tacitus (56- 117 ce)
Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14–37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Suetonius (69- 140 ce)
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius ] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome".
Some of those only reference christ but they all come around the time shortly after Jesus was supposed to be crucified. So if anything it shows christianity was there at the time.
Edit: Let me say it again I am an atheist and I have no belief in the divinity of Jesus however we have more historical evidence of his existence than we do of many ancient supposed happenings. I am willing to accept he existed, just not willing to believe he was the miracle working son of god.
There was at least one, me.I sincerely apologize for opening that can of worms. I specifically used your religion because I knew it would get a rise. I am sorry.
Not a problem. Although some things touched a nerve, I got over it after giving it some thought. I think that in the end, as long as we keep the discussion as civil as possible, then it can be healthy for us to discuss with each other what we do or don't believe.
Well ... I better sign off before I start preaching and trying to convert everyone, just kidding. ;-) Have a good afternoon.Glad you joined the conversation, and would be very interested to hear your responses to some of the comments made about the Book of Mormon upthread. We promise not to throw you out for proselytizing. ;-)
Also, are you related to Steve Greer? The last name + religious leanings made me wonder.
Well I feel a bit better about stepping out of the shadows and into the conversation. It's a bit awkward for me because I feel I'm not the best at this type of thing, but I'll do what I can.
I'll give some thought to some of the things that were posted previously and see what I can put together. I'm recovering from some minor surgery at the time so I'll have time to think about it.
As you could probably tell from my previous statement, I don't pretend to be a gospel scholar and I don't have the answers to everything, but I give it my best shot.
As for being related to Steve, it's possible. Most of the Greer's that I'm related to are from Utah, Idaho, and Southern California.
...
Until I meet a Mormon who does not follow that example, I'm happy to put the LDS at the top of my list of examples of religions that seem to be doing more good than harm.
Among any group you can always find a 'bad apple' if you look hard enough. Thankfully that is the exception to the rule. I'll admit that I'm not always the best person I should be. It's a struggle everyday to do what is right. And being a red head have a bit of a temper, although I have a pretty slow fuse. :-)
I can say the same for my friends and acquaintances that are members of other churches or beliefs. I think as people we tend to gravitate to what makes us comfortable.
Edit: To fix a typo.
Until I meet a Mormon who does not follow that example, I'm happy to put the LDS at the top of my list of examples of religions that seem to be doing more good than harm.Except, in my opinion, Prop 8.
Sorry, I can't discuss this one, too many internal conflicts. I have friends on one side of the issue, and my faith in the traditional family on the other. It's just not subject I can cover very well. Plus, since I don't live in California anymore, I was rather detached from the whole thing.
And the fact that blacks that try to join the clergy are denied when their lineage is "traced" back to cain.
That was changed in September 1978, when in an official declaration made by Spencer W. Kimball, then president of the church, announced that all worthy male members of the church were eligible to hold the priesthood.
You can read the declaration for yourself here if you would like.
EDIT: To fix some horrible grammar.
stuff...
Rereading all these posts I feel I should apologize to you as well. I meant no offense and will do my utmost, assuming I continue with this thread, to double check my responses and reasoning's behind them. Please accept my apology.
Thank you, and as I've said before this evening, it's all water under the bridge. Hopefully through this discussion we can all come to a better understanding of each other.
Sorry, I can't discuss this one, too many internal conflicts. I have friends on one side of the issue, and my faith in the traditional family on the other.Until I meet a Mormon who does not follow that example, I'm happy to put the LDS at the top of my list of examples of religions that seem to be doing more good than harm.Except, in my opinion, Prop 8.
That's the pain of living, isn't it? We will always find others who disagree with us. There will always be social conflicts. Any engaged person will develop opinions, and those will not be the same as others, even those of friends. Certainly one does not want to choose between one's friends and one's principles, though sometimes that choice would be far harder than others.
I'm a big fan of the traditional family. I grew up in one, though. I may be biased. One mother, one father, differing genitals between them, happily married these thirty-four years come December. More power to 'em. I wouldn't want to do anything that would hurt their relationship. It's healthy and happy. They enjoy all the benefits of marriage and I would not take a one away.
But what about the traditional family is imperiled? I think that people that want the traditional family should be welcome to it. I wish them long, healthy, and happy relationships with all the many benefits thereof just as I wish the same to those who desire non-traditional families. I mean, why not? Some will be happy. Some will not. Some will make it work. Some will give it up. That'll be true whatever the distribution of genitals is. Some of us will make mistakes. Some of us will get it right the first time. Some will outgrow each other or change so they're no longer compatible. Others will be together for life. People are people.
Or did you mean to say you have faith in the compulsory, exclusive traditional family and all others need not apply?
Stuff ...
That's the pain of living, isn't it? We will always find others who disagree with us. There will always be social conflicts. Any engaged person will develop opinions, and those will not be the same as others, even those of friends. Certainly one does not want to choose between one's friends and one's principles, though sometimes that choice would be far harder than others.
I'm a big fan of the traditional family. I grew up in one, though. I may be biased. One mother, one father, differing genitals between them, happily married these thirty-four years come December. More power to 'em. I wouldn't want to do anything that would hurt their relationship. It's healthy and happy. They enjoy all the benefits of marriage and I would not take a one away.
But what about the traditional family is imperiled? I think that people that want the traditional family should be welcome to it. I wish them long, healthy, and happy relationships with all the many benefits thereof just as I wish the same to those who desire non-traditional families. I mean, why not? Some will be happy. Some will not. Some will make it work. Some will give it up. That'll be true whatever the distribution of genitals is. Some of us will make mistakes. Some of us will get it right the first time. Some will outgrow each other or change so they're no longer compatible. Others will be together for life. People are people.
Or did you mean to say you have faith in the compulsory, exclusive traditional family and all others need not apply?
Yes, you can always find someone that will disagree with your opinion. For example, I have a co-worker that I love to debate the merits of a flat tax system vs. our current tax system. He just can't understand why I would give up all the deductions and tax breaks that I get. The thing is that I love the simplicity of having my a set percentage of my income automatically deducted and I just never see it or have to worry about it.
But getting back the subject at hand. I just feel like I can't discuss my opinions on this with out sounding like a bigoted idiot. In a nutshell, I believe that people are free to choose for themselves in this life, but that some of choices we make in this life will not be acceptable in the next life.
And with that, I've pushed that border about as far as I feel comfortable.
|
Yes, you can always find someone that will disagree with your opinion. For example, I have a co-worker that I love to debate the merits of a flat tax system vs. our current tax system. He just can't understand why I would give up all the deductions and tax breaks that I get. The thing is that I love the simplicity of having my a set percentage of my income automatically deducted and I just never see it or have to worry about it.
But getting back the subject at hand. I just feel like I can't discuss my opinions on this with out sounding like a bigoted idiot. In a nutshell, I believe that people are free to choose for themselves in this life, but that some of choices we make in this life will not be acceptable in the next life.
And with that, I've pushed that border about as far as I feel comfortable.
At the risk of being uncivil, if you think what you're saying makes you sound like a, to use your words, "bigoted idiot", does it not make you question whether you should be holding views you appear to be embarassed by?
As for things being acceptable in the next life, do you eat shellfish? Wear mixed fabrics? Trimming the hair at the side of your head or your beard? Those are as repugnant to the God of the Bible as lying with a man as with a woman. Why is it only homosexuals (well, technically only gay men as lesbians don't lay with a man at all. That's rather the point of lesbianism.) that ignite this level of disapproval? Where's the campaign to ban lobster?
But getting back the subject at hand. I just feel like I can't discuss my opinions on this with out sounding like a bigoted idiot.
I shall accept your preferred term for yourself. You ought to know. I've observed the same about every opponent of same-sex marriage. I do not consider this a coincidence.
In a nutshell, I believe that people are free to choose for themselves in this life, but that some of choices we make in this life will not be acceptable in the next life.
Show me some empirical evidence of that and I will happily accept it as a reasonable policy argument.
Absent that, isn't it really your problem? I mean it's your hell and you are very welcome to go there if you like. But why should the rest of us be restricted to your religious taboos? I bet you eat stuff that isn't kosher, or halal. I dare say you've never done a ritual skyclad either. Should you be forced to? It could save your soul, you know.
For that matter, maybe those underpants of yours are a problem. Maybe wearing those sends you to hell. I just had a revelation that this is the case, though I confess I didn't stare into a hat first. In light of this very serious danger, it seems the best we can do is ban them. We'll come to your house and collect the lot. Sound good? You're welcome to attend the burning. Of course that would not really do the job, since more could be made. We shall have to outlaw their production, sale, and use.
Do you think that's a reasonable argument? Because to be honest I thought religious freedom was a better state of affairs for the both of us. Call me crazy.
|
|
But getting back the subject at hand. I just feel like I can't discuss my opinions on this with out sounding like a bigoted idiot.I shall accept your preferred term for yourself. You ought to know. I've observed the same about every opponent of same-sex marriage. I do not consider this a coincidence.
Thats the pot calling the kettle black.
Now if you had asked simple questions about why someone felt a particular way it would be one thing. But to go on the attack when someone simply stated they may not agree with you. Not that they do not but that they might, you go rabid.
Now if you had asked simple questions about why someone felt a particular way it would be one thing.
I did ask him some simple questions.
Very SIMPLENow if you had asked simple questions about why someone felt a particular way it would be one thing.I did ask him some simple questions.
Ask and ye shall receive. Receiving may take four to six weeks. Offer not valid in Alaska or Hawaii. Void where prohibited. We do not ship internationally.
|
|
Ask and ye shall receive. Receiving may take four to six weeks. Offer not valid in Alaska or Hawaii. Void where prohibited. We do not ship internationally.Very SIMPLENow if you had asked simple questions about why someone felt a particular way it would be one thing.I did ask him some simple questions.
Should that not be void in Rhode Island? I mean everything is void in Rhode Island.
|
|
But getting back the subject at hand. I just feel like I can't discuss my opinions on this with out sounding like a bigoted idiot. In a nutshell, I believe that people are free to choose for themselves in this life, but that some of choices we make in this life will not be acceptable in the next life.
I so wish it actually worked that way I really really do. As I said in above posts, I searched many years to a cure for my homosexuality. I never chose it, in fact I never once had an attraction to a girl despite trying. Sorry you can believe that if you wish but I can tell you from personal experience that it's not. In fact working in the gay community seeing the abuse both mental and physical, done to homosexuals why would anyone choose that. I never wanted to go through what i did being spit on in the hallways of my school, but I did. Some gays are beaten and murdered. If they could pop a switch and choose to be straight don't you think they would?
Edit: Disagreeing with someone does not make you a bigot at all. Hating someone irrationally makes a person a bigot. Interfering with someone elses life when it's none of your business makes a person a bigot. You seem to be none of those, therefore I wouldn't consider you a bigot. You seem entirely to rational to be one, by my impression of you.
|
|
New Questions:
What does religion say about hate? How do you feel about hate in general? I'm not talking about bigotry or other ignorant hatreds, but has anyone here actually ever hated someone in particular (you don't have to say who)?
For the longest time I wondered if I could actually hate anyone, though I've disliked quite a few people. That changed rather recently when I came to the conclusion that I hated someone. I could find no redeeming qualities about this person (despite having known them for years), and they seem to be unwilling to better themselves (and I am unwilling to accept that they cannot change, but I think they refuse to). I cannot stand to be in their presence at all. What does religion say about my hate?
|
|
New Questions:
What does religion say about hate? How do you feel about hate in general? I'm not talking about bigotry or other ignorant hatreds, but has anyone here actually ever hated someone in particular (you don't have to say who)?For the longest time I wondered if I could actually hate anyone, though I've disliked quite a few people. That changed rather recently when I came to the conclusion that I hated someone. I could find no redeeming qualities about this person (despite having known them for years), and they seem to be unwilling to better themselves (and I am unwilling to accept that they cannot change, but I think they refuse to). I cannot stand to be in their presence at all. What does religion say about my hate?
Now this reaching back a few years in my memory. But I believe the bible said something like hatred is as the sin of murder, that if you hate thy brother it is like you have killed him in your heart already. ( you watch someone will come up with the actual scripture and make me look stupid :P) Thats all I know about it from a religious standpoint. But I kinda do have a story to go along with yours.
I also hated someone. My step father, the man abused me physically, and mentally. Tortured me through years of depression (dealing with my sexuality) and when I finally came out he kicked me out of house and home. A year later he developed an inoperable tumor in his lung and the doctor gave him six months to live. He went through chemo, withered away to nearly nothing, my brother pleaded with me to try and make my peace with him before it was too late. He showed up at my apartment door one day, about a month before he died he had very little hair left, he was about 120 pounds, and the weakest I ever saw him. He asked me one question, and it's the last time we spoke. "Why did you put our family through this?" I responded with "I never put the family through anything, if anything you made my life a living hell. I hope you suffer before you die, I hope that if there is a hell, you burn!!!! Now get out before I call the cops." That was the last time I saw him, he died in the hospital a month later his lungs filling with blood. I still to this day feel like s&++ about it. I know I was justified in my anger, but the bitterness eats away at you. It's just plain not healthy, so whatever happens don't let it consume you.
|
|
I also hated someone. My step father, the man abused me physically, and mentally. Tortured me through years of depression (dealing with my sexuality) and when I finally came out he kicked me out of house and home. A year later he developed an inoperable tumor in his lung and the doctor gave him six months to live. He went through chemo, withered away to nearly nothing, my brother pleaded with me to try and make my peace with him before it was too late. He showed up at my apartment door one day, about a month before he died he had very little hair left, he was about 120 pounds, and the weakest I ever saw him. He asked me one question, and it's the last time we spoke. "Why did you put our family through this?" I responded with "I never put the family through anything, if anything you made my life a living hell. I hope you suffer before you die, I hope that if there is a hell, you burn!!!! Now get out before I call the cops." That was the last time I saw him, he died in the hospital a month later his lungs filling with blood. I still to this day feel like s%!! about it. I know I was justified in my anger, but the bitterness eats away at you. It's just plain not healthy, so whatever happens don't let it consume you.
If I was in your shoes, I'd still feel like sh!t if I had shown him any kindness.
"I might forget you, but not forgive." - Natalie Merchant
|
|
I'm sorry to hear about what happened Jeremy, my step dad wasn't exactly a nice person either... except my stepdad problems involved drugs and not outright bigotry. I never brought myself to hate him, though it seems that my little sister went through hell with him. I know she hates him. It has been my experience that Stepparent's don't tend to get along with the new children in their lives (there are exceptions of course).
So if I hate someone it is like murder? Even if I do not want to actually harm them, just wish that they'd find a new job that made them move far away? Is what I'm feeling not hate then?
New Questions:
I'm not talking about bigotry or other ignorant hatreds, but has anyone here actually ever hated someone in particular (you don't have to say who)?
Sure. I hate my uncle, and I don't mean just in the say nasty things to him way. I mean in the actually sat down and seriously considered ways to get rid of him sense of the word. He chose the worst, most stressful and painful time of my father's life to put him through six months of completely gratuitous agony for no reason other than he might get a few dollars out of it. Apparently he's an exceptionally hate-attracting fellow, since his kids feel about the same way I do.
In the abstract I can think of lots of people who would do us all a big favor if they put themselves out of our misery, and even that would only remove the drag on the rest of us that they are. It wouldn't go very far towards repairing the damage they'd already done. The usual suspects, you know. People who've done grievous harm to others. Serial child molesters, Guys that hijack food shipments into areas of famine. People who walk into a plague and tell you that the ways you can use to successfully protect yourself actually do nothing, or worse increase your risk of infection, and thus practically inject you with a hot load of the virus themselves. The last two are both mass murders by other means. There's as culpable as any Austrian with a ugly little moustache or Georgian thug that likes to call himself a man of steel.
I don't think these people should be killed. I wouldn't applaud if they were. But if they decided to off themselves? That's the kind of thing I'd throw a party to celebrate. If it qualifies as hatred, I hope I keep on hating 'em forever.
|
Belief before seeing is key.I simply can not agree with this statement. Otherwise, people will blindly believe whatever they are first indoctrinated into. Maybe Sam was right.
Not really, and if you read the context of what I'm saying you'd understand better. You believe something first. Do you see anything no? Then it is not worth believing. You believe another thing. Do you see something yes? So you do it again and again until you realize that what you first believed might be more than you thought it was. But you must always test. Always! Blind belief in anything is not advisable, and I'm not talking about silly things like for example; "I believe if I step off this cliff that I won't fall." Obviously you're going to fall so your belief was silly.
I'm talking belief only in spiritual things. If I pray and things happen as a result, then it might be pure coincidence or it might be a higher power. If you pray repeatedly and see patterns emerging from answers to prayers you are gaining evidence that your spiritual path may be on to something. It still may not, it still may be coincidence. But coincidence can only stretch so far. After a while you have to decide to be an honest or an dishonest doubter. An honest doubter is right to test the higher power through prayer, but when unexplained things that keep occurring on a regular basis, especially things that you or targets of the prayer were not first informed about (c.f. psychosomatism), then you reach a point where you cut and run or you continue on the path.
Dishonest doubters cut and run often because they really didn't want there to be any higher power than themselves, and are scared that if they continue along this path it's going to get more difficult to explain away by coincidence logic or anything else.
Honest doubters who persevere are rewarded but their motives must be honest behind their doubts. Perseverance through faith is the only way you can get close to God. But remember God's mind is so far beyond our thoughts that results of our prayer may not always be seen to us on Earth. But God rewards anyone who honestly seeks and believes. This has been my experience of God, and I have accepted that I will not receive proof in the human physical sense. This is why it is Faith. No one can fathom the mind of God and therefore no-one could understand the proof of his existence were He to display it to you.
So believe as you will, I have no interest in trying to argue you into believing as I do, only you can find the way yourself, but I promise you if you honestly believe and seek God you Will find God.
Paul, Samnell, Jeremy and anyone else I may have offended:
I am truly sorry if my last remark caused offense. It is entirely for this reason that I stay away from these types of discussions. I am a very simple person in a lot of ways and even though I have my own problems, I have been very blessed with a happy and peaceful life. I know for a surety that a lot of that peace comes from being a member of the LDS faith.
Please believe me when I say that I wish for you that kind of peace in your lives. I would like nothing more then there to peace and friendship amongst us all.
My previous remark was meant to be self derogatory and to point out how inadequate I feel in discussing issues such as this. I know nothing of your lives and what you've been through, other than what Jeremy has posted about himself. Our lives have all been very different and I guess I just can't grasp what it would be like to walk in your shoes.
Well got to go, again I'm very sorry.
|
|
Belief before seeing is key.I simply can not agree with this statement. Otherwise, people will blindly believe whatever they are first indoctrinated into. Maybe Sam was right.Not really, and if you read the context of what I'm saying you'd understand better. You believe something first. Do you see anything no? Then it is not worth believing. You believe another thing. Do you see something yes? So you do it again and again until you realize that what you first believed might be more than you thought it was. But you must always test. Always! Blind belief in anything is not advisable, and I'm not talking about silly things like for example; "I believe if I step off this cliff that I won't fall." Obviously you're going to fall so your belief was silly.
I'm talking belief only in spiritual things. If I pray and things happen as a result, then it might be pure coincidence or it might be a higher power. If you pray repeatedly and see patterns emerging from answers to prayers you are gaining evidence that your spiritual path may be on to something. It still may not, it still may be coincidence. But coincidence can only stretch so far. After a while you have to decide to be an honest or an dishonest doubter. An honest doubter is right to test the higher power through prayer, but when unexplained things that keep occurring on a regular basis, especially things that you or targets of the prayer were not first informed about (c.f. psychosomatism), then you reach a point where you cut and run or you continue on the path.
Has this happened to you? Have you supplicated and recieved measurable results that you're sure could only have been achieved via divine intervention? Is there a mechanism at play you may not understand whether God, gods, pranks, coincidence, etc?
Dishonest doubters cut and run often because they really didn't want there to be any higher power than themselves, and are scared that if they continue along this path it's going to get more difficult to explain away by coincidence logic or anything else.
Honest doubters who persevere are rewarded but their motives must be honest behind their doubts. Perseverance through faith is the only way you can get close to God. But remember God's mind is so far beyond our thoughts that results of our prayer may not always be seen to us on Earth. But God rewards anyone who honestly seeks and believes. This has been my experience of God, and I have accepted that I will not receive proof in the human physical sense. This is why it is Faith. No one can fathom the mind of God and therefore no-one could understand the proof of his existence were He to display it to you.
If no one can fathom God, then how do you know he exists? He's beyond human comprehension with logic by your assertion above. If you're feeling God's existence, then what made you feel that and decide to connect it to God? Where is knowledge of God actually derived?
Your assertions have proven to be quite thought provoking for me. :P
New Questions:
What does religion say about hate? How do you feel about hate in general? I'm not talking about bigotry or other ignorant hatreds, but has anyone here actually ever hated someone in particular (you don't have to say who)?For the longest time I wondered if I could actually hate anyone, though I've disliked quite a few people. That changed rather recently when I came to the conclusion that I hated someone. I could find no redeeming qualities about this person (despite having known them for years), and they seem to be unwilling to better themselves (and I am unwilling to accept that they cannot change, but I think they refuse to). I cannot stand to be in their presence at all. What does religion say about my hate?
Now this reaching back a few years in my memory. But I believe the bible said something like hatred is as the sin of murder, that if you hate thy brother it is like you have killed him in your heart already. ( you watch someone will come up with the actual scripture and make me look stupid :P) Thats all I know about it from a religious standpoint. But I kinda do have a story to go along with yours.
I also hated someone. My step father, the man abused me physically, and mentally. Tortured me through years of depression (dealing with my sexuality) and when I finally came out he kicked me out of house and home. A year later he developed an inoperable tumor in his lung and the doctor gave him six months to live. He went through chemo, withered away to nearly nothing, my brother pleaded with me to try and make my peace with him before it was too late. He showed up at my apartment door one day, about a month before he died he had very little hair left, he was about 120 pounds, and the weakest I ever saw him. He asked me one question, and it's the last time we spoke. "Why did you put our family through this?" I responded with "I never put the family through anything, if anything you made my life a living hell. I hope you suffer before you die, I hope that...
Jeremy:
It doesn't sound like he was at all regretful or apologetic. I know I wouldn't have forgiven under the circumstances you describe. If he had come truly sorry and regretful? Then perhaps...I can't say what I would have done. But that didn't happen, so why beat yourself up?
Even in the end, the man couldn't let go of his hatred.
Paul, Samnell, Jeremy and anyone else I may have offended:
I am truly sorry if my last remark caused offense. It is entirely for this reason that I stay away from these types of discussions. I am a very simple person in a lot of ways and even though I have my own problems, I have been very blessed with a happy and peaceful life. I know for a surety that a lot of that peace comes from being a member of the LDS faith.
Please believe me when I say that I wish for you that kind of peace in your lives. I would like nothing more then there to peace and friendship amongst us all.
My previous remark was meant to be self derogatory and to point out how inadequate I feel in discussing issues such as this. I know nothing of your lives and what you've been through, other than what Jeremy has posted about himself. Our lives have all been very different and I guess I just can't grasp what it would be like to walk in your shoes.
Well got to go, again I'm very sorry.
You've nothing to apologize for, dude. We appreciate you taking part. Sam is a good guy, and I agree with his position 100%, but I think he was unnecessarily abrasive (yeah, I know -- pot, meet kettle). If you "walk" away feeling like you should never have participated, then we did everyone a disservice.
All I ask is you try to put yourself in his shoes...he's been told more times that we can count that he's going to burn in hell because of who he is. I think I'd be mad, too.
But getting back the subject at hand. I just feel like I can't discuss my opinions on this with out sounding like a bigoted idiot.I shall accept your preferred term for yourself. You ought to know. I've observed the same about every opponent of same-sex marriage. I do not consider this a coincidence.
I'm calling b#!@%#+# on this.
I have debated this specific topic (sme-sex marriage) with you.
Now, put your money where your mouth is and tell me what I have stated that makes me sound like a bigoted idiot?
|
|
But getting back the subject at hand. I just feel like I can't discuss my opinions on this with out sounding like a bigoted idiot.I shall accept your preferred term for yourself. You ought to know. I've observed the same about every opponent of same-sex marriage. I do not consider this a coincidence.
I'm calling b@@@&~!* on this.
I have debated this specific topic (sme-sex marriage) with you.
Now, put your money where your mouth is and tell me what I have stated that makes me sound like a bigoted idiot?
Have you not figured this out yet? Anyone who disagrees with him is a bigot or an idiot. He espouses that people need to think for themselves; only if it is exactly the way he thinks. The main thing he complains about is in fact his worst offense.
Have you not figured this out yet? Anyone who disagrees with him is a bigot or an idiot. He espouses that people need to think for themselves; only if it is exactly the way he thinks. The main thing he complains about is in fact his worst offense.But getting back the subject at hand. I just feel like I can't discuss my opinions on this with out sounding like a bigoted idiot.I shall accept your preferred term for yourself. You ought to know. I've observed the same about every opponent of same-sex marriage. I do not consider this a coincidence.
I'm calling b@@@&~!* on this.
I have debated this specific topic (sme-sex marriage) with you.
Now, put your money where your mouth is and tell me what I have stated that makes me sound like a bigoted idiot?
Yeah, I know. I probably should have just kept my mouth shut.
But, we could go on and on about how people are hypocritical. However, my objection is on the narrow grounds that I am being attacked and insulted without justification. I really don't care whether he is or is not being hypocritical.
I have debated this specific topic (sme-sex marriage) with you.Now, put your money where your mouth is and tell me what I have stated that makes me sound like a bigoted idiot?
I'm not sure which argument was yours, since to be honest I've heard them all loads and loads of times, but here are the two that immediately came to mind:
1) Same-sex marriage is wrong because there's no possibility for procreation.
2) Same-sex marriage is wrong because I can't figure out which one is supposed to be the chattel homemaker and baby factory.
I don't think this requires elaboration.
Or was it:
3) It's not traditional, so therefore it's wrong.
I can take you through how I get the two adjectives from each item, but I suspect that even if I did you would still simply assert the contrary. Not many people will get up and proudly declare themselves racists either.
|
|
Not many people will get up and proudly declare themselves racists either.
I can name a few people who have stood up and admitted they're racist. Some are related to me, I have little-to-nothing to do with either of them any more. They scare me, honestly... but that's from more than just their racism. Hmmm.
I have debated this specific topic (sme-sex marriage) with you.Now, put your money where your mouth is and tell me what I have stated that makes me sound like a bigoted idiot?
I'm not sure which argument was yours, since to be honest I've heard them all loads and loads of times, but here are the two that immediately came to mind:
1) Same-sex marriage is wrong because there's no possibility for procreation.
2) Same-sex marriage is wrong because I can't figure out which one is supposed to be the chattel homemaker and baby factory.
I don't think this requires elaboration.
Or was it:
3) It's not traditional, so therefore it's wrong.
I can take you through how I get the two adjectives from each item, but I suspect that even if I did you would still simply assert the contrary. Not many people will get up and proudly declare themselves racists either.
I made no such assertions as you mentioned. So, how do you assert that I made idiotic bigoted comments?
I am still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is and back up this insulting labeling that you have attributed to me.
I made no such assertions as you mentioned. So, how do you assert that I made idiotic bigoted comments?I am still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is and back up this insulting labeling that you have attributed to me.
I worked from memory. I could go back and copy and paste from the posts and you'd still say the same thing, but I scarcely keep an archive of your posts. Were you the fellow who argued from original intent?
That's #3.
The one who argued that there are innate differences between male and female that necessitate that the female have a male protector?
That's #2.
If you really think you've got an ironclad non-idiotic, non-bigoted argument against same-sex marriage (not marriage in general, mind) then for all our edification feel free to present it again and I'll happily go over it. Maybe I just forgot about you. Like I said, all the special rights for straights crowd blends together.
And the fact that blacks that try to join the clergy are denied when their lineage is "traced" back to cain.That was changed in September 1978, when in an official declaration made by Spencer W. Kimball, then president of the church, announced that all worthy male members of the church were eligible to hold the priesthood.
You can read the declaration for yourself here if you would like.
EDIT: To fix some horrible grammar.
Defending an organization against charges of racial discrimination with a statement that makes it apparent that said organization still discriminates based on gender seems a bit... odd, to me.
I mean this not as a criticism of you personally, Doug, or even of the LDS church, specifically. I have issues with any religion that uses the possession of a penis as a qualification for being clergy, in spite of (or perhaps because of) my upbringing in a heavily patriarchal evangelical community. I've never been able to wrap my mind around the belief systems inherent in religions that bar women from the clergy. There's no way I can think of that as anything OTHER than a statement that women are somehow inherently inferior (or 'unclean', or 'sinful', to use the religious parlance I grew up with), and I see no reason to be part of an organization that won't allow me to be an equal member.
Which is perhaps more personal information than is necessary or desired, here, but it's something that's always baffled me about many religious traditions, including the one in which I was raised.
I made no such assertions as you mentioned. So, how do you assert that I made idiotic bigoted comments?I am still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is and back up this insulting labeling that you have attributed to me.
I worked from memory. I could go back and copy and paste from the posts and you'd still say the same thing, but I scarcely keep an archive of your posts. Were you the fellow who argued from original intent?
That's #3.
The one who argued that there are innate differences between male and female that necessitate that the female have a male protector?
That's #2.
If you really think you've got an ironclad non-idiotic, non-bigoted argument against same-sex marriage (not marriage in general, mind) then for all our edification feel free to present it again and I'll happily go over it. Maybe I just forgot about you. Like I said, all the special rights for straights crowd blends together.
Your re-statements still do not apply to my arguments.
I argued that the union between a man and a woman is not the same as the union between a woman and a woman is not the same as a union between a man and a man.
ONE of the reasons for the unions being different is that a man can knock his wife up but one man cannot knock another man up and one woman cannot knock another woman up. The inclusion of a child within a same-sex marriage NECESSITATES a third party's involvement but the union between a man and a woman does not necessitate a third party's involvement. That is a very significant difference regarding lifetime relationships.
That is one big difference. That is not the same as your number two.
I argued that because the unions are different, laws written to apply to circumstances occurring in one type of union (which the writers defined as "marriage") do not automatically necessitate the state should apply them to other types of unions which is what legally referring to all unions as a "marriage" would do.
That is not your number three.
I made these statements before and you woefully failed to find fault with them.
You are unable to back-up your claims of bigotry because it is not here.
And the board ate my post again.
Paul, Samnell, Jeremy and anyone else I may have offended:
I am truly sorry if my last remark caused offense.
You didn't offend me. I just agreed with your assessment and move on to what I considered the more interesting part of my post. I'm just blunt like that. I daily see far too much of the inexcusable passed along as though it were reasonable and fair under the guise of fake politesse. It rankles me, so I do my best to avoid falling prey to the same.
Please believe me when I say that I wish for you that kind of peace in your lives. I would like nothing more then there to peace and friendship amongst us all.
You are welcome to your own wedded bliss. I wouldn't take it away. I'll even go further: I want you to have it. It just happens we're not allowed it. The situation is one I consider rather ill-disposed towards peace and friendship.
My previous remark was meant to be self derogatory and to point out how inadequate I feel in discussing issues such as this. I know nothing of your lives and what you've been through, other than what Jeremy has posted about himself. Our lives have all been very different and I guess I just can't grasp what it would be like to walk in your shoes.
I can't match Jeremy's story, but stick with me for a thought experiment? I can't make you, of course. But maybe this can give you an idea.
You're LDS. Imagine that you were in a room with a group of people who were ostensibly your friends, peers, and coworkers. An authority figure is before you. Maybe it's a teacher. Maybe it's your boss.
Now imagine all the meanest, nastiest, most blatantly slanderous, untrue anti-Mormon accusations ever uttered. Really crazy stuff. No basis in fact at all. I haven't studied anti-Mormonism so I don't know exactly what these would be. Maybe it's that the underwear are made of the skin of Christian babies or something. I don't know, but stuff on that caliber. The kind of thing so outrageous that it seems like if people actually believe it that it's the immediate precursor to getting a mob together and having a riot.
You're stuck with these people and you have to hear this. But you can't defend yourself. You can't stand up for the truth. Why not? Because if you do, you are admitting that you are one of them and even if they don't form a mob, your career is over. Your house is imperiled. You'll be kicked out of school. Word will get out and even if the people before you don't do something, someone else might. And all you can do is sit there and offer the weakest, most tepid criticism (at best, you might be expected to nod along) for fear of what might happen.
That was my university experience. But there's more.
You can't even meet with other LDS, except in secret or in private. You recognize each other through careful looks, coded phrases, and furtive praying sections at private club that depend on the mafia for protection. If you are discovered, and you may be discovered by police posing as secret LDS people, you are liable to be arrested and fined, at the least. You are very likely to be beaten before, after, and/or during arrest.
That's every gay person in America until the late 60s, more or less. It's what life was like.
Even if you are discovered in your own home praying with another LDS person, you could be arrested and fined. For what you do with another person in your own home, harming nobody.
That's America before 2003.
And this is America today. Except for the people saying yes, of course.
I argued that the union between a man and a woman is not the same as the union between a woman and a woman is not the same as a union between a man and a man.
No, you asserted it. Bigotry.
ONE of the reasons for the unions being different is that a man can knock his wife up but one man cannot knock another man up and one woman cannot knock another woman up. The inclusion of a child within a same-sex marriage NECESSITATES a third party's involvement but the union between a man and a woman does not necessitate a third party's involvement. That is a very significant difference regarding lifetime relationships.
#1. We already allow infertile couples to marry. You'd have to be a blind not to have noticed the fact. Idiotic. And we have prejudice against non-procreative couples. Bigoted.
I see I remembered rather accurately, despite your protests. Shame, that. You could've been better.
Allow me to rephrase.
Situation X applies to 95% of a particular contract Y that people engae in.
Situation X applies to 0% of a partcular contract Z that people engage in.
The above statement does not demand that a law passed with the intent of regulating situation X in contract Y must be applied to all cases of contract Z. Nor does it necessitate that those not in the 5% of situationX cannot be included in contract Y.
To say so is idiotic.
Defending an organization against charges of racial discrimination with a statement that makes it apparent that said organization still discriminates based on gender seems a bit... odd, to me.
Lindisty,
Well let me try again, hopefully I'll do better than I did in my last attempt, as it is obvious that I rolled a natural 1. :-)
The LDS church has an internal organization just for women, and it is considered just as important as any other organization in the church. Yes, it is true that women don't hold the Priesthood in the LDS church, but you don't have to have the priesthood to serve in the church. In fact my daughter spoke in church today before the whole congregation. I wish I could have been there to listen, but I'm stuck at home recovering from surgery.
It has really been an eye opener today to sit and realize how many people I have met, both online and in person that have had such difficult lives. I've spent much of the day wishing that everyone's lives could been better then what they were. And it has also made me realize how thankful for my life I should be. Although I have my trials, I now know that my life has been pretty easy.
I hope that answers your questions.