1
Rants and Stuff / Re: General Religious discussion
« on: June 15, 2009, 04:29:45 PM »
Has anyone here seen "religulous" By Bill Mahr? I think its something you all should check out.
Max is a Shadowblade, a supernatural--and supernaturally competent--warrior bound to protect her witch Giselle. As a Shadowblade, Max doesn't age. She is better, faster, stronger than any ordinary human being. And she hates it. Giselle betrayed her trust to make Max what she is, and though she is magically compelled to protect Giselle and follow orders, Max works against her witch in every way she can. Continue reading Bitter Night
Review by Silk
Discuss it in our forums.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
ITYM: The problem with our society is that it dislikes the unconventional.
That said, my general view on religion is that it is mainly a tool to keep the masses in line by promising them afterlife goodies for staying in line. I don't discuss my views much because the discussions that ensue tend to start multi-generational feuds.
If I include enough emoticons, this post is sure to be an exception to the rule.
ainge: wholeheartedly agree. People are what they are, gay straight bi, whatever, it takes all types.
Until theycan pin point the gene that makes you anything other than straight than i will continue to believe it is a convenient excuse aka lie for unconventional behavior
QuoteWe are born with sexual orientations and if they don't fall into the mainstream then they are "evil" and must be "cured".
The problem isn't that they are evil or deviant. There is nothing evil in being gay. But homosexual acts do a grave harm to those who engage in them, and since humans are creatures of immense dignity and worth, made in the image of the Almighty, yes, one could call it evil.
Sex is for two purposes: procreation and union (of husband and wife). Glance in the Catechism (which is available online) and you will see that the Catholic Church (the church to which I belong) teaches this; but it is also abundantly clear in a full reading of the Theology of the Body. The belief that sex must always be in-principle procreative is not demonstrable outside of Scripture or revealed truth, but that's not to say that there are not powerful -- particularly aesthetic -- arguments for it; or, e.g., teleological arguments for it. Sex lacking either the unitive or procreative aspect is disordered (and incidentally, someone who definitively can't have sex can't get married in the Church). St Aquinas insists on the unicity of the human person, meaning that the human being is body and soul (the Church believes this now, though there was debate in the past); the bodies of man and woman are in principle procreative respecting heterosexual intercourse: they are designed so to effect the co-creation of new life with God. Therefore even marriages in which there is irremediable infertility are in principle -- by the nature or, as it were, definition of the participants -- procreative.
You are blaming sexual dysfunction on abstinence before marriage? It seems to me that fornication has a great deal more to answer for (e.g. teen pregnancy, sexually-transmitted diseases, a strong shared emotional experience with someone who plans to desert you) than abstinence ever could. Unless, of course, you are speaking to someone whose all-important desires have been temporarily frustrated.
QuoteSome religions hang your salvation and worthiness to receive certain blessings on how much money you give them (this is not exclusive of the LDS church).
There may be churches that do this, but I don't think mine is one, and I don't think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is either. There are good people in all churches and good leaders in many. For someone to reduce very real and honest religious convictions to nothing more than avarice and, perhaps, a desire for control, seems to me to say more about the accuser than the accused.
Most churches do not allow women to have any "Priesthood" powers and seek to take away the rights of women over their own bodies and choices. And SOME even pacify the women by telling her the fact that she can bear children and nurture a home make her holier and more spiritual then men so she doesn't need any of that "troublesome responsibility"... and the women just accept that.
This, right, here, is the single most inflammatory thing you've said, and it more than anything else suggests to me that you are looking for an argument rather than answers to your questions. I assume bodies and choice's is a coy reference to abortion. I will not argue that subject here (goodness knows we already have enough to argue about) so let me restrict myself to this: by denying those you disagree with the possibility, in your mind, of valid reasoning for their views, you have killed any chance at meaningful conversation before you even started posting. If any woman feels they're being controlled by being taught to value life, they are probably not going to be happy with the rest of their Christian walk either. If any woman feels imprisoned by her role as mother and life-giver, then something is terribly wrong. There is no prison. There is no lack of responsibility. The responsibilities of the woman are just as substantial as those of the man, if not more so, and in many places they overlap. Both, for instance, have the same responsibilities to those around them, to set a godly example. Both have the responsibility to care for their family. Both have the responsibility, in short, to live for the Lord, even if the specifics of what that means change a little. Man and woman are equal in value, but not identical in function or purpose. Two things need not be identical to both be of worth. Both are made in the image of God and both are absolutely and categorically equal in human dignity.
And there's just as much evidence going the opposite direction, as well, though I'm certain you're not interested in it, and I'm certainly not interested in getting into a spat over it. I once spent (weeks or months) arguing with a friend about this very topic some 10 years ago, throwing research back and forth at each-other, etc. Eventually we both gave up trying to convince each-other when we realized that the argument was fruitless. A year later he changed his mind and agreed with my position, but he didn't during our debates, and there was so much contradictory research that making any appeal to the
"literature" useless.
Your other specific misconceptions have been rehashed in so many ways on so many different public forums that I see little benefit in going over them here. If you're honestly interested in answers/rebuttals, you'll find them in ample abundance here: www.fairlds.org I get the impression, however, that you are not interested in listening, so much as speaking.
I've gone through quite a few periods in my life when I've honestly wondered, "What if it's all a lie? What if there is no afterlife, or my church has it all wrong?" Being of a logical and scientific turn of mind, I then said, "OK, take the hypothesis that there is no afterlife, what would you do differently her and now?" I asked myself if I'd wear different clothes, date different people. Would I eat differently? Smoke cigarettes? Get drunk every evening like my next door neighbors do? Steal? Have sex outside of marriage?
I looked at even the most glamorous representations of many of these behaviors, and found that they didn't look like they led to happiness. The drunken parties my neighbors throw every night don't even look like they're fun before they often turn into screaming matches, and most of the people who hang out there don't seem to have stable jobs, homes, families, or even relationships.
As for happiness versus cheap thrills, think of a drug addict. He gets cheap thrills, but very little real happiness as he destroys his relationships, his health, his career, and ultimately his whole life in search of more drugs. If your faith in God leads you to a religion that teaches you not to waste your time, money, etc on addictive substances, then following that religion will keep you from doing things that will certainly make you unhappy, and encourage you to do things that will make you happy, even if they're not all as obvious as not doing drugs.
well my understanding of life after death is that of ignorance... i was raised as a Southern Baptist and became a christian with out a denomination (non-denominational is a denomination) and eventually lost all faith i had... i believe we are all ignorant of the after life and i dislike the very concept of faith because it is the choice to believe regardless of ignorance i don't know for certain if re-incarnation exist though i find that more appealing than an after-life which to me sounds like stagnation... but the fact remains we are all of us uncertain
I am not saying that you are a false prophet or an apostate. Only that the theology you're referring to is not indisputable fact, and that all the different Christian churches out there—all of them that don't have access to a true prophet and to modern revelation from God—have no way to verify that their interpretation of the Bible (which can be proved indisputably to have been changed over the last 2000 years) is the true one.