posted
I know plenty of people who've gotten revelation for their own life from various nature spirits. And their antennas come with free shrubberies.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, kat, that was what I gathered the abortion stance from the ramblings on the lighthouse thread was. Ok, actually, that's a more liberal stance on abortion than what I had assumed, but also consistent with what I quoted.
What I don't see is how that quote is at all relevant to birth control. Which is where my question came in, as equating birth and conception was the only way I could find to draw the same conclusion as the author of that site from that quote.
Which I think you and I agree are different things.
But I wonder if other people are aware of that.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet, while there are no specific admonitions against premarital sex in the Bible, there ARE specific admonitions against judging the quality and depth of another person's faith.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom... I find it utterly amazing that you and I were apparently thinking the exact same thing. Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stargate -- I'm not trying to be snarky here (well, maybe I am) because I want to support and back up any other Christians I find on this board.. ..however...
Your post does sound a little condescending. Do you never, ever sin? Not ever since you became a Christian? I mean, you know that it's pretty clear that one sin is not worse than any other sin in God's eyes ("we all fall short").
So if you do even one thing wrong since you became a Christian -- like told a white lie, or said something about someone else you shouldn't have -- does mean YOU are not a Christian?
I agree that these girls should not CONTINUE in this behavior. But I don't believe their sin means they aren't Christian. We all sin, none are perfect.
quote: you know that it's pretty clear that one sin is not worse than any other sin in God's eyes
Doesnt it say somewhere that suicide is the worst sin a person can commit? Although, maybe people say that and there is no actual religous backing for it.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suicide was for a long time considered the only unforgivable sin not because it was considered worse than any other sin but because it is impossible to repent. (Assuming that repentance must come in this life.) Most churches have backed away from that stance in recent decades, however.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a story that may or may not apply; I thought it was funny.
My mother joined the church as an adult, and she remained close to her family, but they were various things in turn and then not really active in anything. Never interested in the church.
One time, when my mom was talking to my aunt about it (just a general discussion of course - it was a big part of my mom's life), my aunt said, and I quote, "We all do different good things. You go to church, and I recycle."
It was unintentionally hilarious, but I think it displayed a fundamental disconnect in the conversation.
posted
I believe that Jesus stated that the only unforgiveable sin was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
quote: Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
posted
Suicide is not identified as such in the bible, no.
Chesterton has a pretty insightful section on it, as opposed to Martyrdom, in Orthodoxy.
The bible does say there's a difference between venial and mortal sin... the Catholic Church's position is that this is mostly a matter of forethought-- if you stop down and think "I shouldn't be doing this, it's wrong" and then do it anyway, that's mortal. It also denotes that there is something called "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" which is the only unforgiveable sin.
I'm no expert, but I was led to believe that this "Blasphemy of the Spirit" was believing yourself un-savable... i.e. despair.
It was precisely because of the ridiculously inflated deal that people make about sexual sin that I became endangered by that particular sin. If you don't think I'm right about this, look a few posts back: "these people are sinning sexually, they must not be real Christians."
How often do you think you can hear that without questioning your salvation? How often do Homosexuals get told that Paul says they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven... and, aside from how out of context and mis-translated that quote is, what do you think this does to their ability to approach God at all?
THIS is what I'm talking about, Kat. and I'm going to take that dreaded step further and personalize this all the way, not to whine, but because I am a perfect example of the harm that over-concern about sexual sin can do to a person spiritually.
Let me refer you all back to my first landmark post. I was molested on four seperate occasions by 3 groups of older kids by the time I was 5 years old. My parents reaction to this was to spank me with a belt and tell me "never do that again."
Did they hate me? No. But they were scared to death because when they told me not to do it, I said it felt good. They were worried their son would grow up to have some kind of screwed up sexuality and decided that to threaten and beat it out of me was the best thing. After all, what would the neighbors think if they knew this little boy enjoyed being sodomized by some older boys?
We over react. We are unjustly and insanely afraid of sexual sin to the point of harming and scarring it's victims. We tell people they are going to hell for being sexually active, that they can't be Christians and be sexual creatures outside of marrying or they are doomed. The message is supposed to be "God loves you and will always love you, no matter what you do, now try to follow His rules because they are what's best for you."
The message is often "God will punish you because you are a bad person, unless you stop and beg forgiveness, because you have to do what He says our you will go to hell." And FAR TOO OFTEN the message becomes "God can forgive anything, but those sexual people are LIVING IN SIN and THAT is unforgivable."
Your lies, your pride, your hatred for other people, those are all on the inside and so they are forgivable, despite the fact that they are more a part of you than your sexual desires... but act on those desires once in a while, and you must be unrepentent. That's what is said. That's what is heard. And that is, spiritually speaking, the most deadly thing I can think of.
I wasted 30 years of my life feeling like I was rotten at the core. That anyone who saw the real me would merely confirm what God had seen because he knew all my hidden desires and thoughts-- that I was evil and not His child. That I was unwanted, not yet purified, that my penitence was not yet perfect enough and so I continued to be a sinner amongst all these holier people who didn't have this horrible nature that is so reviled.
And that, as I'm sure you all know, and as I know now, was comeplete and utter horseshit. I am angry with myself for waiting this long to figure it out, but I am also angry because a huge number of well-meaning but self-righteous people spent most of my life drumming into my head that I wasn't good enough for God.
I am only thankful that my belief in His love for me outlasted their judgement and terribly sorry for those who have believed the hype and the hypocrisy surrounding typical Christian treatment of sexual sin.
posted
Well for starters which are the ten commandments and where are they split? Are you aware that there is a disagreement between churches over this most basic fact Stargate?
Secondly while they are listed in order it is generally believed that the TOP of the list, those about your relationship with God are the most important not the ones lower down the list which is about your relationships with others. The order shows that if your relationship with God is correct your relationships with your fellow people become easier.
So you are spouting somthing that flies in the face of milleniums of christian and jewish interpretation of the commandments.
AJ
(Edited to tone down. I apologize for losing my patience with stupidity. I notice my tolerance has dropped a lot recently.)
posted
This thread points out, I think, how difficult it can be to pin down the distinctions between the canonical, inspired, strongly suggested, only one's informed opinion, and clearly wrong when it comes to the (sometimes conflicting or at least differently stated) pronouncements of LDS Church leaders -- esp. if you do a survey across the decades.
In the interest of clarity -- with the understanding that Church doctrines/policy is not infallible and is open to change and that we still place a primary emphasis on scripture as well as actions rather than doctrine -- the new official Church publication True to the Faith might help with this and further discussions on the LDS Church -- especially related to the issues of abortion and birth control.
Some of the material included is taken from the aformentioned Church Handbook of Instructions. Some is not. The work itself is geared towards youth and new members. It's an interesting and exciting development.
NOTE: My intention in posting this is *not* to spur discussions and extended breakdowns on every potentially incidiary (or not) topic included in the book. Which I could easily see happening, but hope that it doesn't. Nor am I saying that citing True to the Faith chapter and verse [or rather section and paragraph] ends any discussion on Mormon doctrine. But I know that it can be maddening for non-members (and members) when different LDS come up with different replies to a question.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't labeling Stargate as a troll -- I just was expressing a sudden revelation.
She/he didn't join until April 22nd, yet immediately knows who I'm talking about when I mention "OSC-Fan", accuses me of calling her a troll....
what does that say?
Stargate, I actually agree with you on many points, and not on some other points. But I'm not trying to make this a personal fight -- I was just making an observation.
posted
You know, kat... sometimes I just insult people 'cause I think they need a good ol' insultin'. Even despite my personal crusade to wipe religion from the face of the earth.
So please, I'd rather you didn't throw yourself between me and every Hatracker who's ever mentioned God every time I open my.... mouth? Fingers?
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
and I just clicked that link you provided above. You DO know that HWA (Mr. Armstrong) has been dead since 1986? Don't even go there with me! I was a member of his church for over 30 of my 43 years of life!
quote: Preventing birth implies that conception has already occured, and thus there is a birth to be preventing. Preventing conception is a totally seperate issue. Unless you're equating the two distinct concepts.
Celia:
This is a case where there's a slippage in Mormon discourse. The idea of "preventing birth" should probably more correctly be termed "preventing potential births." Another way of saying what I think the author on that site was getting at is "delaying opportunities for God's spirit children to enter mortality and gain physical bodies."
As far as I know, the Church has no official stance on when the spirit enters the body or even to put it in terms sometimes used in the abortion debate -- when "life" begins. Thus, for example, we have the phenomenon of Senator Orrin Hatch who is opposses abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother is in danger, but supports stem cell research.
There are Mormons who do oppose stem cell research and believe that life begins at conception.
It will be interesting to see if, as the field of genetics evolves, LDS Church leaders feel the need to clarify this issue or will be content to leave it as is.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Ten Commandments (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 10:4, marg. "ten words") i.e., the Decalogue (q.v.), is a summary of the immutable moral law. These commandments were first given in their written form to the people of Israel when they were encamped at Sinai, about fifty days after they came out of Egypt (Ex. 19:10-25). They were written by the finger of God on two tables of stone. The first tables were broken by Moses when he brought them down from the mount (32:19), being thrown by him on the ground. At the command of God he took up into the mount two other tables, and God wrote on them "the words that were on the first tables" (34:1). These tables were afterwards placed in the ark of the covenant (Deut. 10:5; 1 Kings 8:9). Their subsequent history is unknown. They are as a whole called "the covenant" (Deut. 4:13), and "the tables of the covenant" (9:9, 11; Heb. 9:4), and "the testimony." They are obviously "ten" in number, but their division is not fixed, hence different methods of numbering them have been adopted. The Jews make the "Preface" one of the commandments, and then combine the first and second. The Roman Catholics and Lutherans combine the first and second and divide the tenth into two. The Jews and Josephus divide them equally. The Lutherans and Roman Catholics refer three commandments to the first table and seven to the second. The Greek and Reformed Churches refer four to the first and six to the second table. The Samaritans add to the second that Gerizim is the mount of worship.
Note: I'm not endorsing all of the opinions on that website because some of it is anti-catholic but this part of the info is correct.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for that link, Zal. Too bad it doesn't mention the hostly debated subjects of caffeine and face cards.
And I never even knew that people divided up the ten commandments differently. You learn something new every day. . . .
Posts: 35 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And just for grins since Kat made me curious as to how good my memory is.
You'll have to trust that I'm not looking anywhere. Compare with the KJV version for mistakes because that is what I memorized it in.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above or the earth beneath or the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them or serve them for I the Lord thy God am a jealous god visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation but showing mercy to thousands that love me and keep my commandments.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Six Days shalt thou labor and do all they work but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work, neither though nor thy son nor thy daughter nor thy manservant nor thy maids servant nor the stranger that is within thy gates.
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it.
Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land with the Lord thy God giveth the. Thou shalt not steal Thou shalt not kill Thou shalt not commit adultery Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife nor his ox nor his ass nor anything that is thy neighbors.
1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 13 Thou shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal. 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
posted
Celia "face cards" are playing cards with faces on them. Fundamental protestants were anti that for a while too,I think in the early to mid 1900s because you can use the cards as symbolism for catholic prayers, thus leading to idol worship.
I wasn't allowed to play with any sort of playing card for years.
Interesting stargate that you could actually find threads with OSC-fan on them since all but one or two are deleted, and the ones that remain are fairly innocuous.
There were some pronouncements [most strongly in the 50's] by Church leaders about playing cards.
Some of the evangelical Christian face-cards-are-evil-because-they-derive-from-tarot [and tarot is divination which the Bible warns against] discourse got mixed into that. And so a sort of simplified folk doctrine [which was reflected by some Church leaders] arose about not having face cards in the home.
As I understand it, however, much of the real concern on the issue breaks down into two periods/categories.
1. Late 19th century concerns over gambling -- i.e. that whole frontier poker thing.
2. 1950s concerns about the rise of bridge playing (and other social card games) among the middle/upper-middle class in Utah [esp. among the Salt Lake City elite]. The popularity of these games in Utah reflected on a surge in popularity among post-war Americans in general. The concern wasn't so much about some inherent "evilness" in face cards. Nor was gambling a concern since I believe most games were played only for fun. Rather, the concern was that these games were causing members to neglect their families and Church duties.
While I know a few Mormons who still refuse to keep face cards in their home, I also know a lot of Mormons who do. Indeed, I learned to play poker and blackjack on Scouting trips. The closest we ever skirted to the edge, though, was playing for candy [Starbursts or jolly ranchers]. Yep, I was a wild one.
And I don't know any Mormons who don't play Uno. Uno is like the caffeine free diet Coke of Mormon game culture.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
My Mom was raised Baptist. When she was in the hospital after she miscarried her first baby, she was mortified that her pastor came to visit and caught her and Dad playing Go Fish.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Mormons are major board and card game players. The factors in this are what you'd might expect.
1. It's cheap entertainment. One-time cost. 2. It's entertainment that takes place in the home. 3. It's a great way to get large numbers of people involved -- i.e. those families with numerous siblings and/or close ties to extended family 4. It can accomodate varying age groups -- either through one game that all can enjoy or setting up separate games.
posted
Jim, I'm sorry. I don't have much to say on it now. I'm sorry you had that experience. I think there is enough blame and pain floating around there to fell an elephant. I still disagree with the conclusions from earlier in the thread, but I'm uncomfortable with discussing it in such personal terms. I can tell it's an issue that's important to you.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought he was complimenting evil. Or were you talking about another post?
Jim-me, yeah I sometimes wonder if anyone even noticed the rare times that I say things I consider to be very personal and difficult when no one responds at all. But I'm just as bad about it.
posted
Ruth was raised in the "caffeine and face cards are forbidden" culture. They couldn't even drink caffeine-free cola, I believe (you know, because you're supposed to avoid the appearance of evil). But they drank Barq's root beer. I can't figure that one out.
But I've gotten her to drink Pepsi and play poker, though (with chips, not real cash, of course). She still doesn't like cola, but she had fun playing cards.
_____
Settlers of Zarahemla? *groans* Can Mormons think of nothing of their own? Must we merely imitate every other cool thing in the world?
[ May 12, 2004, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: The Cheat ]
Posts: 35 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
