Author Topic: General Religious discussion  (Read 24294 times)

sortitus

  • Level 15
  • *
  • Posts: 675
  • Fell Points: 0
  • MVP of the WORLD
    • View Profile
    • I'll kick you in the face!
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #300 on: July 09, 2009, 06:10:57 AM »
Of course not. That's why we're all going to he(ck) except for the Quakers.

I'm only kidding! But seriously. :|
Hero of Ages: Impressive Regality Over Niceness, Y'all
좋아! This time with more ecstatic! 좋네!!! I'll say it again in french! Trois fois voiture!!! Ça va. C'est vrai. C'est bien.
High Knight of the Grand Pie of the Holy Order of Pie, The Left Hand of Pie

Hero of Ages

  • Level 6
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #301 on: July 09, 2009, 08:51:26 AM »
Second, the quote you gave merely says that people cannot get married in heaven. It says nothing about those who are already married.

I agree with this spirit of your post but I don't think this bit is right. You have to look at the context:

 23On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him,

 24asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'

 25"Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother;

 26so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.

 27"Last of all, the woman died.

 28"In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her."

 29But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.

 30"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."


By your interpretation of Jesus' words, the problem the Sadducees posed is never really addressed, because the problem is not about marrying after death. It is about marriage after death.

Look at it from an Authority (Priesthood) perspective.  The Priesthood is the power granted by God to act in his name and have it be as if HE issued the command.  We see that Jesus gave Peter this Authority and told him what was possible:

Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 

Matthew 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus had stated the same thing earlier:

Mark 10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The same thoughts were states many years before:

Ecclesiastes 3:14
I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it...

Mormons believe that Marriages performed in the proper way and in the proper place by those who have the Authority (Priesthood) have that promise that the bonds created will still remain in Heaven.
I must not fear;
Fear is the mind killer;
I will face my fear;
I will let it pass through me;
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing;
Only I will remain.
-Paul Muad'dib Atreides-

Anticipation of death is worse than death itself.
-Me-

Epistemological

  • Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 15
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Small furry creature from Alpha Centauri
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #302 on: July 09, 2009, 09:23:58 AM »
Look at it from an Authority (Priesthood) perspective.  The Priesthood is the power granted by God to act in his name and have it be as if HE issued the command.  We see that Jesus gave Peter this Authority and told him what was possible:

Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 

Matthew 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus had stated the same thing earlier:

Mark 10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The same thoughts were states many years before:

Ecclesiastes 3:14
I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it...

Mormons believe that Marriages performed in the proper way and in the proper place by those who have the Authority (Priesthood) have that promise that the bonds created will still remain in Heaven.

I'm not saying the relationship between spouses goes away, but that marriage is a moot point in heaven when all are in the presence of God. It is subsumed under and fulfilled by God's unconditional love.  I think you're stretching the meaning of those verses a bit in support of your doctrine, and you have not offered an alternative interpretation of Matt. 22:30. Do you agree with Sortitus?
Once, I asked my imaginary friend,
"Are you real?"
She thought on this, and then sat
down upon the beach. She poked
her finger into the sand; it left a
hole. Ten times she did this, and
nine holes she left.
"Mostly," she concluded, and I was
forced to agree.

Reaves

  • Level 23
  • *
  • Posts: 1226
  • Fell Points: 1
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #303 on: July 09, 2009, 08:06:22 PM »
Reaves, I meant that to be utterly disgusting.  That's how I feel about people judging me and my religion by one small group of people whose actions don't represent me or my beliefs. I don't believe that the Holocaust was committed in the name of true Christianity. Since I claim to be a Christian, I feel that I have inherited as much from the political and military history of Christianity as any Catholic or Protestant.  To me, that history is a warning that blind devotion can go too far.  It's also one of the main reasons for our Article of Faith #11: We claim the privelege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privledge let them worship how where or what they may.
Once again, I think there is a difference. I'm asking not to be compared to Nazism and the Crusades. You're asking not to be compared to the possible actions of...Brigham Young?? In any case, the discussion has clearly moved on from this issue and I don't think its what either of us intend to delve into.
I do appreciate the conclusion you gave at the end of your post about the lessons of history and your eleventh Article of Faith.

Several sites which mention cities you refuse to mention that are in the bible but people dont think they exist...   like Beruit, Damascus, Tripoli? Seriously. You offer vague references to what you perceive as slights from WEBSITES which you also dont mention. The more vagueness you offer, the less credibility you have.
Actually, she in fact recommended a book to you. DARWIN'S BLACK BOX by Michael Behe.

Quote
origamikaren:  Sortitus  summarized my feelings quite well when he said that Brigham Young, as well as the others involved may have done some things that we question now, but they were human and so prone to make mistakes, and that's between them and their God. 
Of course, it is possible for everyone to make mistakes, even born-again Christians. There is no sin that we can commit that is powerful enough to cover up Jesus' blood. However, if these allegations/uncomfirmed accusations are true (I have not studied this issue at all, tbh) and Brigham Young was in fact at least partly responsible or complicit in the massacre, then I would hesitate to name a college after this fellow.

Quote
  mtlhddoc2:
explain the system of "works" - for example, would Bill Gates get a better place in heaven because he gave more? Or would a poor widower working two jobs to support his 4 children get more for leaving a bigger than normal tip for a waitress? How do you quantify your "works"?
Fortunately, we don't have to worry about that. That's above our pay grade. It's not our job to worry about who gets more, we can just leave that to the Judge. However, I thought Sortitus said it well when he referenced the widow who gave her last two coins. But really, its not our place to try to quantify our own or others' rewards in heaven; ie, "who will get more". I'm pretty sure that the guy who invented the definition of Justice will get it right ;)

Quote from: VegasDev
RJF: "AHA! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Cairhien, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a warder when he is only the distraction! Get him Rand! Buzzzzzzz!

mtlhddoc2

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 340
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #304 on: July 09, 2009, 08:24:13 PM »
Reaves, recommending a book, what a novel idea. But the fact is, she is still vague and points to a single source of reference in book form. Other than one particular book, there is NOTHING out there to substantiate her "facts". The fact is, the bible is, if nothing else, an historical document. No archaeologist or scientist would discount the historical aspects of it just becaus ethey were not Christian. thats as ridiculous as disregarding Homer's categorizations of the world just because it was a work of fiction. fiction or fact does not matter here. There are plenty of geographic references in both the bible and the works of homer to know that they both categorized the current geographic world of thier time.

Above your pay grade? Obama used that line when talking about abortion too. without at least attempting to quantify it, you are leaving alot of moral grey areas, which in turn confuses the very people you are trying to "help". By using the term "above my pay grade" you lose the will to challenge your own faith, which weakens it. My faith is challenged daily, which strengthens it, and I never back down from the challenge.

Epistemological

  • Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 15
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Small furry creature from Alpha Centauri
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #305 on: July 09, 2009, 08:50:25 PM »
Reaves, recommending a book, what a novel idea. But the fact is, she is still vague and points to a single source of reference in book form. Other than one particular book, there is NOTHING out there to substantiate her "facts". The fact is, the bible is, if nothing else, an historical document. No archaeologist or scientist would discount the historical aspects of it just becaus ethey were not Christian. thats as ridiculous as disregarding Homer's categorizations of the world just because it was a work of fiction. fiction or fact does not matter here. There are plenty of geographic references in both the bible and the works of homer to know that they both categorized the current geographic world of thier time.

Above your pay grade? Obama used that line when talking about abortion too. without at least attempting to quantify it, you are leaving alot of moral grey areas, which in turn confuses the very people you are trying to "help". By using the term "above my pay grade" you lose the will to challenge your own faith, which weakens it. My faith is challenged daily, which strengthens it, and I never back down from the challenge.

He who commands obedience will judge obedience. Judgment isn't my job. My job is to work out my salvation with fear and trembling and help others to do the same.

Remember, we are judged by faith as well as deeds. The rich man who gives more to charity because he will miss less will in my view probably not be entitled to more than that widow who gave her last two coins. A moral action is judged by three things: 1) intent, 2) essential nature and 3) specific circumstances. No 'guidelines' are possible or necessary beyond the guidelines God has given already. God knows what is in the heart. We know what God commands. God rewards obedience and selflessness. That's all we need to know here. I don't see any grey areas.
Once, I asked my imaginary friend,
"Are you real?"
She thought on this, and then sat
down upon the beach. She poked
her finger into the sand; it left a
hole. Ten times she did this, and
nine holes she left.
"Mostly," she concluded, and I was
forced to agree.

mtlhddoc2

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 340
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #306 on: July 09, 2009, 09:34:51 PM »
Epist: that is called "blind faith". And the bible instructs, nay, commands, that your faith be constantly questioned. If you have already reached the pinnacle of faith, the rest of your life is essentially empty.

Tage

  • Moderator
  • Level 29
  • *****
  • Posts: 1615
  • Fell Points: 2
  • That thing exing the machina? That's Deus.
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #307 on: July 09, 2009, 09:45:43 PM »
I appreciate that this thread has needed very little moderation, especially for such a sensitive topic. That said, I'd like to remind everyone that religion is very personal, and while we like to encourage respectful discussion, please refrain from telling other people what they should think or feel.

Everyone has an opinion, and you're free to express it. But please don't tell other people what their opinions are or what those opinions mean.

Thanks for keeping the discussion clean.
"The Maintenance Shed will sometimes spontaneously explode after being built."

mtbikemom

  • Level 6
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #308 on: July 10, 2009, 12:09:23 AM »
First, stop insulting people

I was just trying to be cute/funny.  I keep forgetting to be serious, sorry.  You provided the tantrum, though, and  I did well to duck.  = ]

Commenting on someone who has formed an opinion about a work that they have not read is not insulting them (I did not say that Karen's mom wears Army boots or anything similar), it is simply pointing out what should be obvious, Jade Knight.  She has just placed herself exactly where my current Mormon friends have placed themselves: choosing ignorance of an excellently researched and balanced work because they think they know what it says.  One of them gave this as an excuse: "My husband would be angry if I brought this into the house."  Like I said, I offered, they said no, and we're all still home schooling friends.  BTW, my copies of the BoM and D&C are waiting for me at the library and I mean to keep my promise and read as much of them as I can before commenting on them.  I'm just asking questions and pointing out things that I perceive to contain flawed reasoning and contradictions on this thread. 

Also, the only reason I recommend Will Bagley's book exclusively is that he does not proseletize or seek to do anything other than research and report.  I could cite Christian sources and ex-Mormon testimonies by the ton, but what would be the use?  My point so far has been proven, anyway.  Not one single Mormon has promised to read it here.  Unless I missed something.  Let me say again, though, the book is graphic and not appropriate for everyone. 

 And I'm sorry if "eternal pregnancy" is not a Mormon doctrine for women.  I heard it described that way once, by someone who had left the church and was taught this by a family member.  I'm sure orthodox Christians teach their kids some weird stuff, too, and I stand corrected.  But no one has yet denied to me that a single, childless  woman, according to the LDS church, cannot achieve the highest levels of heavenly joy and purpose.  My ex-Mormon girlfriend seemed to think this was very wrong and unequal, not to mention unsupported by the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, which teaches that all believers are co-inheritors with Christ, equal in His sight.

Thank you for your clear and direct posts on marriage in the afterlife, Epistemological, and everything you have written, Reaves.  There are lots of other contradictions between Mormon doctrine and the Bible, but I've been asked not to discuss them here.  Would someone else like to tackle the question concerning Mormons' denying the deity of Christ, but accepting his ability to forgive sin?  This does not seem logical to me. 

Epistemological

  • Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 15
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Small furry creature from Alpha Centauri
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #309 on: July 10, 2009, 12:56:39 AM »
Thank you for your clear and direct posts on marriage in the afterlife, Epistemological, and everything you have written, Reaves.  There are lots of other contradictions between Mormon doctrine and the Bible, but I've been asked not to discuss them here.  Would someone else like to tackle the question concerning Mormons' denying the deity of Christ, but accepting his ability to forgive sin?  This does not seem logical to me. 

I don't think they do deny the divinity of Christ. They regard all human beings as potential co-inheritors with God and that we will have a relationship with Christ exactly like Christ's relationship with the Father. This seems to me like full-blown polytheism, but the Mormons I have talked to harmonize the apparent contradiction by explaining that all these beings are collectively part of one Godhead.

I think that's wrong, of course (I believe in theosis, which is similar but not quite so bold), but the fact remains that Christ is divine in some sense according to LDS doctrine. Alma 34: 10-15 reads:

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal esacrifice.
  11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.
  12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.
  13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the claw of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.
  14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.
  15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.


So, Christ is able to effect propitiation through his infinite merit as a sacrificial victim.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 01:00:04 AM by Epistemological »
Once, I asked my imaginary friend,
"Are you real?"
She thought on this, and then sat
down upon the beach. She poked
her finger into the sand; it left a
hole. Ten times she did this, and
nine holes she left.
"Mostly," she concluded, and I was
forced to agree.

Patriotic Kaz

  • Level 30
  • *
  • Posts: 1746
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Antagonist of the Ages
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #310 on: July 10, 2009, 05:32:37 AM »
I am not quite finished catching up but I'm posting this before i forget... some of the people on this board are posting in absolutes and if you believe that there is black and white and the grey in life is less than 50% and that's the perception that is being given off...you are naive more so than this young man who is woefully ignorant because of his..my age and i probably have no right to an opinion...but after seeing my mothers crusade...her entire life since i was born... and the terrible acts committed such as the attempted isolation (didn't work b/c i alone talk and live with him) of all her children from their father who has always been the more dependale parent i am reasonably sure that right and wrong are not nearly so simple as they are painted to be.
On a different note this supposed knowledge everyone speaks of is getting annoying you believe you do not know if so you must be a modern day Lazarus...and if you truly think you are i can get you a list of professionals to cure you of your delusional state
"Words are double edged blades. Only the great and the foolish play with knives." - Kaz the Buddah

"Take off your sandals, for you are posting on holy ground." -  Yahweh Kaz

"Chaos, go to your room!" - Momma Kaz

origamikaren

  • Level 3
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
  • Fell Points: 0
  • The World is Quiet Here
    • View Profile
    • tiggywinkle
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #311 on: July 10, 2009, 06:58:44 AM »
I really shouldn't be doing this, but I'm going to post again in hopes that getting things off my chest will allow me to stop obsessing about this thread. If anybody feels offended by what I'm about to say, then chalk it up to my physical and mental exhaustion and sleep deprivation.  

My mental state for the last several days has been terrible.  I have been fighting a constant battle against anxiety and depression with obsessive tendencies for years, and this thread is making me lose ground at the moment.  I'm certainly losing sleep over it, and with an 18 month old, I can't afford that. During the last several days my mind has swung from one extreme of feverishly ruminating on the arguments I'd love to make, coming up with all sorts of really good analogies that I'm sure mtbikemom won't even acknowledge in her responses (For instance, does knowing that several of the founding fathers were less than exemplary in their personal lives, especially relating to the slaves they owned, make you want to renounce your citizenship and trash the constitution?), to the other extreme of complete lethargy so that I'm barely able to feed myself and my family.  This is what certain kinds of stress does to me, and I know the symptoms to know what I should do (cut off the source of stress completely), but lack the mental willpower (due to my illness) to accomplish it as quickly as I'd like.

Why won't I read the book?  Is it because I'm intellectually lazy and prefer ignorance to facing the truth? NO.  It's because I have more things to do with my life than humor the whims of every jerk with an axe to grind. I haven't had time to read Brandon's latest book, Warbreaker.  What makes you think I'm going to put that off to satisfy you? I don't watch Law and Order or CSI on TV because the constant focus on the negative brings me down.  I don't watch certain other shows because the commercials tell me that the content they're proudest of is offensive and degrading, and drives the Holy Spirit from my home.  I haven't read the Stephanie Meyer Vampire books because I've had a bad experience with what thinking about Vampires does to my mind, and people whose opinion I trust tell me they're a waste of time anyway. Am I physically lazy for not trying every new vitamin, pill, and antidepressant some pharmaceutical company tries to sell me?  Am I morally obligated to sample every bit of poison drug dealers peddle so that I can know that they're harmful?  I don't think so.  

I know, because I know myself, that reading this book won't make me happy.  I doubt there will be anything in it that is worse than my imagination can come up with.  But even if the worst parts of it are true, it still wouldn't shake my faith in the truthfulness of the Gospel, and the value of being a member of this Church.

According to my theology, each person is accountable for their own sins.  I am no more responsible for what those men did in the massacre than I am burdened with Original Sin because Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Your theology may differ, but that's not my problem.

I am not interested in debating one isolated event, no matter how heinous.  Christ died to atone for our sins...ALL of them.  If we recognize our mistakes, turn from them and repent, the Lord will forgive.  That's the essence of the Good News of the Gospel.  Suppose that Brigham young personally fired every one of the shots that killed those travelers (a statement which we know to be false).  We know from his actions before and after the event, that this was an aberration.  Something happened which caused some people to react horribly in the heat of the moment, but once the act was done, the church as a whole, including the First Presidency, said, "This is not who we are. This is not how we want to be known. This is not how we're going to act.  Nothing like this is EVER to happen again, is that clear?"  And nothing like it ever did.  They turned from their sins and repented and forsook them.  Isn't that what we're all supposed to do?  And didn't Jesus Christ himself say something like you're supposed to forgive seventy times seven?  This was ONE.  One very bad thing, but just one.  Elsewhere, it says, "I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."   In Matthew 6:15 He says "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

And what has the Church done since then?  Led a campaign of murder and oppression?  No, we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and man hours in humanitarian service.  We offer our truth to the world without coercion.  If someone wants to leave the church, we're sorry to see them go, but we don't kidnap them, hold them against their wills and forbid them to communicate with family members.  We let them go, with our love, and occasionally reach out to say that the door is still open if they wish to return.  I know from real experience and experimentation in my own life that in the church is where happiness and spiritual growth lies for me.  This is not some passing whim, or a faith that can be shaken by hearing any "shocking" story about how another human being made a mistake.

I have journals from people in my own family describing they joy they felt when they found the early church and recognized the truth that their fathers had been searching for for generations.  I have read how they moved again and again to escape mobs and other violent persecution.  I've read to the end, where the handwriting changes and another family member wrote of how my something Great Grandfather died of one of the rampant diseases at Winter Quarters. They, and all the generations since then have studied and prayed and believed with all their hearts. So don't presume to teach me my own family and cultural history with a book designed to defame a great man and continue the persecution that has been heaped upon us for more than a hundred and fifty years.  Don't fall into Satan's trap and continue the persecution yourself.  Give me the right to believe what I believe, and I'll do the same for you.  

Since I won't be coming back to this thread, I just want to point out that it has been categorically stated several times in General Conference that no man or woman who does not have the chance to be married in the temple in this life will lose any blessings in eternity because of it. If they keep the covenants they make, they will have all the blessings anybody else does.  That includes those who do not have access to a temple, those who never met the right person, and those who can't bear children for any reason.  Those who have the chance, but choose not to take it are a different matter.  Who is to say who was given a fair chance? Only God at the judgment bar.

As for Matt 22:30, Jesus essentially said, "I'm not going to dignify your question with an answer because you're not asking for the sake of knowing, but only because you think it'll trip me up.  Under the Law of Moses, in the Old Testament, there is no ordinance for eternal marriage. Stop worrying about what happens to dead people and take a look at what you're doing while you're alive."  Now, because the Law of Moses was a preparatory gospel, and doesn't include several of the ordinances we consider necessary for salvation, there are a lot of people whose fate seems uncertain.  We've been told not to worry about them, that God is just and merciful, and that however it works out in Heaven, we'll all be happy with the arrangement.

And now, I'm going to sign off.  You may have holes to poke in what I've said, but really, I don't care.  You're not asking these questions for the sake of understanding, but just to get a reaction and try to tangle us up in our words.  So, since Jesus felt good about saying it, I do too.  I'm not going to dignify this discussion with any more response.
Check out my daily poetry selection and musings at http://karenspoetryspot.blogspot.com

-Karen

The Jade Knight

  • Moderator
  • Level 39
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Lord of the Absent-Minded
    • View Profile
    • Don't go here
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #312 on: July 10, 2009, 11:02:30 AM »
Thank you for your comments, Karen.

Kaz:  You are a strong agnostic.  Your own particular relosophical viewpoint requires that you believe that no one can know about these things.  I held this viewpoint once.  I have since discovered that it is erroneous.  I do not expect you to believe me; you have not had the experiences which I have had.  If you're really interested, you're welcome to suggest a psychologist, if you like, though my fiancée happens to have a degree in Psychology, and she happens to think I'm right on this particular issue.

Out of curiosity, what makes you so sure that your own particular relosophical views are not delusional?
"Never argue with a fool; they'll bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

mtbikemom

  • Level 6
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #313 on: July 10, 2009, 02:54:05 PM »

So, Christ is able to effect propitiation through his infinite merit as a sacrificial victim.

I will have to do some research on this, but I hope someone who is already fully versed on the subject will chime in.  I hesitate to make unsupported statements and give opinions, but I will come back to this when I am ready.
I have sent Karen a gentle, I hope, pm . . . but i want to say for the sake of all of you that i appreciate how open and direct she was in her post.  Since she will no longer read this thread, I will at some time write about how amazing some of her statements seem to me.  I think some prayer and reflection are in order on my part.  I would dearly love to discuss Blood of the prophets on a separate thread someday, but I'll need a few more of you to agree to read it.  Only Sortitus has been so bold.

   If it is true that your church leadership has lied systematically over the years and committed certain acts and, unrepentant as a body, gone to great pains to cover up all evidence of them, don't you think you should know about it?  If a particular Catholic bishop was found to have ordered the murder of a group of people, no matter what they had done to him, would this be a man to follow?  Aren't those who show up at his trial and stand by him to the end showing a great deal of lack of discernment and blind devotion?  I myself have left a large church when I realized that things were not as they should be at the top.  Spiritual leaders are supposed to be held to a much higher standard than even presidents and kings, according to my Bible.  I should look up the supporting verses, but I am needing to get breakfast going. 

   I hesitate to endorse this link, since I have heard that Mormons are not supposed to read anything written by ex-Mormons, but what the heck . . . This proves that leaving Mormonism is not easy (not a born-again Christian website)  http://www.exmormon.org/stories.htm

   Thank you, everyone, for this engaging discussion and for expending energy on this.  I want to illuminate you further while I learn from you.  If any of you prayed for my daughter's health, thank you.  She is getting better and almost ready to get back on her bike.

Patriotic Kaz

  • Level 30
  • *
  • Posts: 1746
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Antagonist of the Ages
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #314 on: July 10, 2009, 03:02:02 PM »
Belief and knowledge are to entirely different things now that doesn't mean that you are not right it just means that you have no undeniable proof...and saying his influence is is BS because that is subject to interpretation... and i am not agnostic because i do not accept the possibility of atheism as it lacks substance
"Words are double edged blades. Only the great and the foolish play with knives." - Kaz the Buddah

"Take off your sandals, for you are posting on holy ground." -  Yahweh Kaz

"Chaos, go to your room!" - Momma Kaz