posted
NFL, I can't evaluate anything separately from my religion. It informs what I think is ideal. Why should the public spend resources to help the poor? Because my faith says helping the poor is a good thing.
That position is impossible for me to evaluate outside the context of my beliefs.
posted
Dagonee, I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that the reason you support government-funded charity is because your religious doctrine is in favor of helping the poor? Isn't there a deeper reason for the doctrine as well? I mean, you might say "God says so" and that's fine, but couldn't the same rule be derived from the stanpoint of ethical behavior in the first place. As in, it's the right thing to do...
I mean, presumably God said it because it was right, not it became right because God said it.
Belle, I agree. And your experience is, I think, the norm for religiously-oriented folks in America. There is an element out there that is pushing this further. But I guess I'm derailing my own thread in talking about it.
It's more interesting to see what people think of when they think of a society in America whose laws are set by religion.
The only conceivable way that would happen is some sort of post-apocalyptic (with or without a 2nd coming) society. Or so it seems people are saying.
But, really, we aren't so far removed from it. If some people had their way, we'd have that kind of society now. Others are actively working to achieve it.
And it scares the hell out of me because I'd be among the first to be stoned in the town square for heresy or for getting a divorce, or for any number of things I've done (including the "God you Say" thread).
But more importantly, I think the methods of justice practiced by men interpreting Scripture are vastly inferior to a system of secular laws.
If we actually had God here telling us what to do, that'd be different. But even when God was present and abiding with his chosen people, he had interpreters (Aaron et al. plus Moses). And I think that humans can't help but screw that kind of thing up.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many times on this forum I have said something to the effect of "In my religion, it is like this...." I apologize if it sounded like, "But in other religions, they don't." It is more of the idea that I can only speak for my religion. Sometimes it is difficult to get one's thoughts across in writing.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Government-funded assistance to the poor, at its heart, involves taking money from someone and giving it to someone else. People like Robespierre are opposed to this because they see it as theft. Other people favor it because they don't believe in private property rights at all.
However, my ethical principles, which derive from my religious beliefs, tell me that private property rights are important and helping the poor is important. My political beliefs are based on botha practical perception of what I think the limits of such programs should be and a moral balancing act between two competing goods (helping the poor and preserving private property rights). So of course more ideas than my religious beliefs come into it. But my religious beliefs are the reason I recognize these two values, and they are the reason I balance them against each other as I do.
posted
Bob, I know that the idea of a religious individual wanting a leader who's religious beliefs are similar to theirs disturbing. Do you feel that the best leaders for our country (or any country) are those with no religious leanings? Or do you simply feel that those leanings should have no influence over their decisions? I imagine that any leader that is strongly religious will be influenced at least to a small degree by his/her beliefs.
I think that a leader, religious or not, should be fair and impartial, not mixing religion and politics. But I would like to think that a religious leader might turn to the Lord for spiritual guidance in handling difficult moral decisions--praying for clarity of thought and inspiration. I think that an atheist or agnostic leader can make a good leader too. It is most important to me that they stand for what I think is important. A religious leader's view might be more similar to mine, or might not. It really depends.
I believe that God does not make arbitrary laws. I believe He does everything for a reason. I expect His laws to make sense to me, especially if I try to understand God's will. My beliefs are heavily centered in scripture and the words of living prophets and apostles, because I believe they God speaks through them.
I am not aware of these prophets and apostles advising me on how to vote or in political matters. I do try to seek God's will when I choose who I vote for, though. That is between me and God. Is that still scary to you? Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, my reasons for not wanting to live in a country run by the church I belong to are in large part structural--it would require a radical transition from a decentralized system to a hierarchial, centralized one. In my mind, that way lies corruption even if running the government didn't produce it. That's not the whole story, but it's a big part.
I don't have a problem with voting for nonChristians if they share my beliefs about values and policies. The trouble is finding someone who does. I suspect I'm not the only person who would vote for a Christian over a nonChristian because they can't find anyone else who will support their values.
I think I'm more aware than average of the potential danger involved; it hasn't been that many years since I encountered the writings of Gary North, who is one of a group of "Reconstructionists" who thinks that Christians (as he defines them) should take over the government outright and remove the rights of other people. His books stated outright that they were using the "Christian Right" to gain power. But the current alternative is to vote for candidates whose beliefs I don't agree with at all, or not to vote. If the choice became between being under the thumb of the Reconstructionists or being under the thumb of secularists willing to ban religion entirely from the public square in the name of protecting people....at that point I'm not sure I don't lean toward the former.
posted
beverly, I'm not as disturbed as it may appear. I mean, honestly, people should use their conscience and their intellect when voting just as they should when making any important decision. And if your religion doesn't affect your conscience AND your intellect, it's probably a pretty piss-poor religion.
(not yours personally...you know what I mean..)
Anyway, I'm absolutely NOT bothered by people of faith deciding that a candidate stands for the things they do. I'm against candidates expecting people to vote for them because they are part of the endorsed group of Christians, or Muslims, or Conservative Jews, or whatever. I think every man is an individual and their ability to lead should be judged based on their experience and past actions, regardless of what they claim about themselves.
I think the vast majority of Americans think this way too. So I'm really not all that worried about our future. I don't think we are a nation of sheep.
But I do worry about the idea that people would put their religious principals first in selecting candidates. Why? Because I think doing so requires a conscience act of will to ignore bad things in otherwise good candidates and to discount good things in otherwise "irreligious" candidates.
I mean, let's face it...if you truly think this way, you would vote against a good man who says he is an Atheist, right? Even if he is Ghandi and MLK rolled into one.
And I'd rather see that type of person in charge because he'd do the right thing, regardless of motivation, than to have the type of symbol-using hypocritical pandering we've been seeing in recent elections.
Everyone has to decide for themselves, though. And if the bottom line is that you can't see yourself being represented by someone who doesn't even believe in God, then your duty is to vote against such a person, as much as it might pain me to see that vote go the way it would.
Oh well.
This is much ado about nothing, really. There isn't a person here who would vote based on whether a person sported a WWJD bracelet and a fish bumper sticker. I'm not really sure such people exist.
But there are people who have an agenda to turn America INTO a Christian-led society with "reformed" laws. Hopefully they're just a fringe.
Folk of the Fringe notwithstanding.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, Bob, I think I understand. There is this one crazy guy, I think he's a Mormon, who is always trying to run for President--anyone remember his name? Bo Grits or something? Oh, apologies ahead of time if he is your personal candidate-of-choice. I actually don't know much about him, but it does kinda seem like he is all about, "Hey, vote for me 'cause I'm a Mormon!" (To a Mormon audience, of course.) Most of us don't pay much attention to him.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I should learn not to sleep a full eight hours between posts. The combination of responding to two different thoughts (plus my natural alarmism--I don't really expect a takeover by hyper-secularists any time soon) is making me look hysterical and weird.
Some expansion, therefore.... I actually believe that the decentralized way the church of Christ is organized may be one of God's methods of keeping the church from becoming a governmental organization. I don't believe that that would be a good thing at all--just look what happened to Europe during the Middle Ages; I don't think we would do much better today. Some of our prominent thinkers have gone much farther--David Lipscomb not only criticized President Garfield for running for office, he suggested that his assassination was a divine judgement and that his life might be spared if he repented and resigned.
At the same time, though, I don't trust nonChristians to protect my freedom of religion if believers step aside, even if they have the best of intentions. I don't believe they understand the degree to which Christianity necessarily functions in the public square and influences one's whole life. Nor have I found very many who share my attitudes on moral issues like abortion (sorry to harp on that; it just comes most easily to mind). For the foreseeable future at least, I'd support an increasing presence of conservative Christians in government. How to deal with the Gary Norths and David Chiltons who will undoubtedly step up to the plate is beyond me, but I'm sure someone can figure it out.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
like I said, if everyone would just vote their conscience and their intellect, all will be fine.
We can live with disagreement if everyone has a say in how we are governed and no-one is left out even when the super-majority holds sway.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That wouldn't make them vote with their conscience and intellect. In fact, it would probably result in a smaller percentage doing that - and a larger percentage just voting whoever because they are supposed to.
quote:We can live with disagreement if everyone has a say in how we are governed and no-one is left out even when the super-majority holds sway.
Incidently, how does the minority have a say if the majority always overrules them?
I mean, I can vote Democrat all I want, but the Republicans are going to win my state in all likelihood. Isn't that a prime example of me NOT having a say? Or does it still count as "a say" even if my say is promptly ignored in favor of the majority's say afterward?
posted
The idea of a religious state conjures up a lot of concepts in my noggin, the main one being wanting to run screaming from the mere concept, nevermind the manifestation.
This brings a question to my mind. Anyone ever belonged to one group of individuals where everything was fine and dandy, then another group of individuals where everything was dysfunctional? The kicker being that both groups had the same label attached?
quote:I have a question, and I’m trying to find a non-defensive way of asking it. Do most LDS really believe that other Christians don’t think for themselves, theologically, but just believe whatever their pastor tells them?
In some ways no. In other ways, however, yes. As was said, it isn't a teaching or belief within itself. However, after more than a century of religious people descriminating against Mormons based on false information and outright lies, it is hard NOT to get a feeling that members of other Christian religions simply believe what their pastors tell them. There have been a myriad of stories, too numerous to count and including a few of my own experiences, where the words "my pastor told me . . . " and then a litany of wierd, twisted, and exotic understandings of Mormons. And this was not done to learn more, but to directly challenge.
Luckily, not all Christians are like that. However, there are enough that it has become an LDS "social" understanding that most Christians simply believe whatever their pastor tells them. If there were more Christians who sought to understand, and less pastors who sought to undermine, LDS people and beliefs then I think the notion wouldn't be as strong.
On another note: Bo Grits was LDS, but he was excommunicated years ago for his extreme views about survivalism.
quote: Anyone ever belonged to one group of individuals where everything was fine and dandy, then another group of individuals where everything was dysfunctional? The kicker being that both groups had the same label attached?
Yes, but we spelled our band's name The Beetles
In truth, though, that comment could apply to nearly every "group" I consider myself a part of:
Churches Political Parties Families Organizations
Several examples of each come to mind.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Luckily, not all Christians are like that. However, there are enough that it has become an LDS "social" understanding that most Christians simply believe whatever their pastor tells them. If there were more Christians who sought to understand, and less pastors who sought to undermine, LDS people and beliefs then I think the notion wouldn't be as strong.
Hmm...seems like it goes both ways, Occassional. If one is feeling misunderstood, deliberately misunderstanding in return isn't likely to clear things up.
By the way, this brings up another good question: What is the LDS stance on ecumenism? I mean, do your church leaders join in worship and understanding with other denominations?
As for the pastor thing...I've never heard a pastor or priest mention the LDS once. Everything I know about LDS I got from the news or Hatrack. I just assume I'm fairly normal in the first regard. As for the Hatrack thing, well all I can say is I learned a lot. Some of it is weird, but not so weird that we can't all enjoy a good fluff thread together now and again.
posted
Sorry, Teshi - I was out all day yesterday and am just now responding to your query -
quote:How does the spirituality show itself, though? It's different if the leader has morals inspired by spirituality or religion, but if the spirituality becomes explanation such as "God wills it" (only rarely so severe), then it becomes what I am talking about.
I wouldn't include explanations such as "God wills it" when it is continued as the "God wills it for you and told me so" as spirituality. However, people can hold beliefs about "their" life and God's purpose in it and discipline themselves to follow that belief (IMHO).
I can hold the belief that my life HAS a purpose, whether "God" blessed me with one or I took a long look around and said "A-ha! I think that's a good thing to do, be, etc. and worked to create more of it or said "Oh no - that's horrible! And worked to right whatever the wrong was that I saw."
This does not mean that the action/belief is compatible with a religious stance or a government/law - but I think that folks that take a look around them and see something they want to build on, improve, tear down and rebuild, whatever, have a right to express that in our society.
Of course, we have the right to and choose our own path. (Phew!)
But I think what Bob and others are getting at, is the sometimes people don't spend time analyzing the data and just go with the gut feeling of "That chimes true, and it must be so because someone from 'my' group said so - and since it's 'my' group and I know it's the only right way of living/doing life, everyone else has to join me or face the consequences."
And that I don't hold with.
This is probably not very clear - I apologize. I guess an example would be - at a very basic level - I spent a year providing street outreach to homeless/drug-addicted people and youth about HIV/AIDs and prevention tactics. I felt very strongly that this was a high-risk group of people with many needs and just as much right as the next person to staying healthy and safe and hopefully getting off the streets. As I was only working part-time at a paying job, I volunteered 20 hours a week to this venture. I felt "called" for lack of a better word - although at this time, I decidely had NOTHING to do with any religions. My idea of "God" was not very - positive - shall we say.
This activity was definitely unpopular with the mainstream folks. They certainly disagreed with it. They were downright hostile at times. They were entitled to their opinion, just as I was entitled to do this work.
Anyway - on another bent that appeared while I was out from some other folks regarding "pastoral guidance":
"people blindly accept what their pastors tell them." That certainly is not limited to any one group of people - in my experience.
posted
What is the LDS church's stand on ecumenism? I am not sure. I think that the leaders of this church regularly communicate with the leaders of other churches and try to cooperate on issues for common good. I don't know much about it though.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
and choose our own path. (Phew!)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
