Author Topic: General Religious discussion  (Read 67361 times)

Writerainge

  • Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Women who behave rarely make history. ~ Unknown
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #195 on: June 08, 2009, 06:21:11 AM »
Quote
We 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.
 

YOU could call it evil. I was born bisexual, therefore, I have engaged in homosexual acts, and never was grave harm done to me.  Instead of cheapening my dignity, it strengthened my identity and made me more comfortable with my body, my beauty, and expanded my understanding of human intimacy.  If someone thinks it is evil it is becuase they have been told by a religion that it is... which is fine, if that's what they want to think... I just disagree. 

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.

This is completely a subjective opinion shared with your church.  I don't believe that sex is for the sole purpose of procreation or the union of man and wife.  I think this is biologically evidenced by the fact that a woman's pleasure center is not inside her body and can rarely be reached through intercourse.  That isn't to say that I don't agree that union isn't a majority of the purpose but it goes OH so much deeper than that... I wish you could know...    but, I think we'll move on...

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.


Sexuality is something that if explored safely, while being completely honest with ones self and ones partner, can be spiritual beyond belief.  If honesty and realistic expectation is part of your sexual relationship, then there is no reason to feel deserted if things end.  The oppression of sexual exploration of yourself and others isn't healthy physically or psychologically.  Fornication, (as I PRAY you know) is such a minuscule part of ones sexual experience.

Quote
Some 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.

I don't know if your church is one... although it has been in the past.  The LDS church is one of these.  If you do not give 10% of your earnings to them, they will not allow you into their highest realm of heaven, let you in to their temples, nor can you partake of their eternal blessings.  I'm not saying that they don't have the right to do this... I'm just saying I don't agree with it.  I'm not quite sure what that says about me, exactly... 

Quote
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.

I'm glad that you see things this way regarding the roles of man and woman... I can't say that I disagree with you on many points.  I in no way mean to be inflammatory and if you chose to be inflamed by my honest opinions, I can't stop you.   I'm merely using reason and logic and asking honest questions to which I've only received Dogmatic answers.  I believe in early abortions to be available for women who have been the victims of incest, rape, and other unforeseeable situations, but my post was by no means a coy reference to abortion.  Yet, I could see how you would think that.  I was more referring to the physical and sexual double standards that apply in this world when it comes to women and how certain expectations of a "woman's role" are set by this particular patriarchal society.  I'm not sure about the whole "image of God" idea... again that is an opinion of yours and your religion.  But I agree that we are equal in human dignity... I like that you use this word.  There are many women who feel imprisoned by her role as mother and life-giver because that is not what she wanted her role to be...  A mother is a sacred thing, but women need options that are sanctified by society... that is all. 

The futility comes in to such conversations becuase most all these subjects are, well, subjective... Its all a matter of opinion.  There is no way to KNOW that this is what your God wants other than to believe texts which were written by men and voted on by pagans and jews nearly 2000 years ago to try and obliterate civil and religious unrest.  You base your lives on this religion, and that's fine... I chose to base my life on rationality.  Which is also fine.  The only way any of us are vindicated is when we die and find out for ourselves.  If your Jesus is standing there on the other side of death, I'll kneel at his feet.  If it is someone else, I kneel at theirs.  I just don't know.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 04:55:52 PM by Writerainge »
There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness. ~Dali Lama

origamikaren

  • Level 3
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
  • Fell Points: 0
  • The World is Quiet Here
    • View Profile
    • tiggywinkle
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #196 on: June 08, 2009, 07:21:58 AM »
I'd like to point out for tone purposes that when I use the word "you," I'm referring to people in genral, and not a specific person. Please don't read this as confrontational -- just explaining things that don't seem clear yet.

I could definitely debate any of the things on your list of general problems with religions (I see that Epistemological did a good job of covering the most important of the points). without going through point by point, just know that none of them are things that I see as real problems in my life as a member of this church. Most of them are due to perversions of the true doctrines of the gospel.  I had a religion teacher once who would often draw a continuum on the chalkboard -- whatever doctrine we were talking about, he would put in the center, and then show how even slightly pushing it towards one extreme or another in any direction can make it opressive or even a sin. Satan has been able to skew almost everything in mainstream religion -- sometimes just a little bit, and sometimes a lot -- to distort it as you've pointed out.  Some of that (OK, often much of it) even creeps into the day to day practices of the LDS church because, though the gospel may be perfect, the people trying to put it into practice are not.  One of the things that the Prophet and General Authorities do a lot of in our church is to watch for those shifting winds and try to direct the membership back towards the true doctrine.

Regarding the health effects of the Word of Wisdom, the real issue here is free will.  Satan's plan is to take away free will so that he will have all the power and glory.  The Father's plan is to give us free will so that we can make the most of ourselves. The reason we're counselled against many sins is that when we do them, the natural consequences limit our free will in the future. (disease, unwanted pregnancy, prison, trying to remember all the lies, less money and time to spend living happily and doing good, etc...) It doesn't make sense to knowingly surrender your free will to an addictive substance.

I agree that overindulging (or underindulging which is something I struggle with) in food is as much of a problem as overinidulging in drugs or alcohol. Obese Mormons who overindulge in food aren't really living the Word of Wisdom. It's not something that automatically keeps you out of the temple, but it does affect your ability to serve, and to feel and act on the promptings of the spirit.  I've seen a much greater focus lately from church leaders trying to address this on an individual level -- though not necessarily across the pulpit.  The real difference between food and alcohol or tobacco, is that they are addictive substances, and when under their influence, you really can't feel the spirit at all, or have the mental capacity to make wise choices about other things.  Far too many people have started out drinking "just a moderate amount" and really regretted something the next morning.  Then there are the millions who can't break the chains of cigarette smoking or alcoholism even if they try. My family history suggests that if I was to start, I would quickly become addicted with unfortunate results.  That's not a risk I'm willing to take for a little relaxation when a little TV will usually get me as relaxed as I want to be.

With tithing, the question is: not how much money are you giving the church, but are you willing to trust God?  He has promised that if you follow his commandments (and tithing is even a Biblical one), he will "open up the windows of heaven so that there will not be room to receive it." If you can't trust him with an affordable percentage of your worldly goods, then you certainly don't have the commitment necessary to keep the covenants made in the temple. And before you argue that 10% is not affordable for some people, know that if tithing means the difference between eating or paying rent or something like that, then your Bishop has the authority to help with those necessities out of the welfare funds.  I have never met a single person who feels poorer for paying a full and honest tithe.

As for the "patriarchal order" and the priesthood, I think that as with many things, God knew human nature, and designed the church and the gospel to take advantage of our strengths and shore up our weaknesses.  If you simply take a look at the trends in churches where they have given women the priesthood, you'll see that the already skewed demographic tilts even further.  Even in the LDS church, there are more active women than men.  If you tell men that we don't really need them in the leadership and serice positions they hold, then they won't feel like they have a place in the kingdom of God.  This is not the only reason for the policy of course. There is truth in many of the things that you claim are said just to "pacify" the women. When the programs of the church are run as the Prophet has counselled (and there have been specific leadership trainings directly from Salt Lake on the topic -- which tells you that the programs are not always run perfectly), no woman has to feel like she's minimized or opressed or lacks responsibilities or a voice in this church.   

I know that there have been doctrinal questions addressed in PM's in the last few days.  Did they answer all of the questions people asked about my post on the afterlife, hell and forgiveness for sinners? I'd be happy to go searching for specific refrences in the scriptures if they haven't.
Check out my daily poetry selection and musings at http://karenspoetryspot.blogspot.com

-Karen

Patriotic Kaz

  • Level 30
  • *
  • Posts: 1746
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Antagonist of the Ages
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #197 on: June 08, 2009, 09:11:11 PM »
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
"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

Writerainge

  • Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Women who behave rarely make history. ~ Unknown
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #198 on: June 08, 2009, 09:55:58 PM »
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

Can't argue with that logic...  Spoken like a true Agnostic.  *shrug.  There's nothing wrong with unconventional behavior... so long as it doesn't hurt anyone.   ;)
There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness. ~Dali Lama

mtlhddoc2

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 340
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #199 on: June 09, 2009, 05:30:57 PM »
ainge: wholeheartedly agree. People are what they are, gay straight bi, whatever, it takes all types.

Writerainge

  • Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Women who behave rarely make history. ~ Unknown
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #200 on: June 09, 2009, 05:53:57 PM »
ainge: wholeheartedly agree. People are what they are, gay straight bi, whatever, it takes all types.

I'll say "Amen" to that.   ::)
There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness. ~Dali Lama

Patriotic Kaz

  • Level 30
  • *
  • Posts: 1746
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Antagonist of the Ages
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #201 on: June 10, 2009, 09:24:32 PM »
the problem with the unconventional is society dislikes it
"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

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 #202 on: June 10, 2009, 09:44:57 PM »
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. ;) :P :-* :-* :-*

If I include enough emoticons, this post is sure to be an exception to the rule. :D
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

mtbikemom

  • Level 6
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #203 on: June 11, 2009, 12:23:25 PM »
Please forgive me in advance for this. 

Miyabi wrote in one of the very first posts in this thread:

Therefore I choose to not believe or disbelieve in the absolutes.

Do you absolutely believe that there are no absolutes, dear Miyabi?  Please think about this carefully before responding.  Any other takers?

Oh, and Renoard, I think I love you.  Like a brother, y'know, but I really mean it.  Thanks for your intelligent posts.  I have only read about half of this thread, but I will joyfully contribute, as time allows, from now on. 

Comfortable Madness

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 339
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #204 on: June 11, 2009, 03:40:48 PM »
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes"

Ahhh....Sorry. I couldn't resist. Just easing the tension a little bit. ;D
“I will never serve you, Father of Lies. In a thousand lives, I never have. I know that. I’m sure of it. Come. It is time to die.” Rand al'Thor

"Mourn if you must. But mourn on the march to Tarmon Gai'don." Logain Ablar

mtbikemom

  • Level 6
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #205 on: June 11, 2009, 06:37:24 PM »
What, me create tension???  Never.

Seriously, I like the quote.  You sound just like me at age 21.  Oh, there I go again . . .

Writerainge

  • Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Women who behave rarely make history. ~ Unknown
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #206 on: June 11, 2009, 07:37:12 PM »
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. ;) :P :-* :-* :-*

If I include enough emoticons, this post is sure to be an exception to the rule. :D

We seem to be in agreement on a great many things. 
There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness. ~Dali Lama

mtbikemom

  • Level 6
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #207 on: June 13, 2009, 02:54:41 AM »
Sortitus wrote: 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.

Wow, dude, are you really willing to risk your eternal life on that guess?  Again, this is another thing I used to believe with all my heart, but no longer do.  What if the Bible is true and you're wrong?  There is no second chance for salvation after death and this might be your last one.

mtbikemom

  • Level 6
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: General Religious discussion
« Reply #208 on: June 13, 2009, 04:12:55 AM »
And from Frog on page 12 of this thread: "By their fruits you shall know them." If you want to know that Thomas Monson, or any of the previous prophets are correct, you have to read their teachings, judge their actions, and then pray about it.

I have read about the life and sayings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young written by Mormons, orthodox Christians and a certain "cultural Mormon," most recently.  I have compared these men's lives, writings and practices to men like Charles Spurgeon and Jim Elliot, Andrew Murray and Amy Carmichael (a woman! imagine that!), Michael Behe and  Hudson Taylor.  I urge anyone with an open and curious mind to do the same.  My Mormon friends are the nicest people in the world, but none of them so far have been willing to judge any of their early prophets by their fruits or compare their Mormon beliefs with the Bible.  I have a feeling that someone on this forum might be more intellectually sincere. 

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 #209 on: June 13, 2009, 05:40:46 AM »
Sortitus wrote: 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.

Wow, dude, are you really willing to risk your eternal life on that guess?  Again, this is another thing I used to believe with all my heart, but no longer do.  What if the Bible is true and you're wrong?  There is no second chance for salvation after death and this might be your last one.

This is frequently called "Pascal's wager".
"Never argue with a fool; they'll bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."