posted
Funny...guess what the church's official response to the protests and vitriol leveled against it lately has been?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, I missed deleting some of your post when I quoted. I still don't understand your answer, though. Should the people who committed terrible acts in the name of God have committed those acts? Were they right because they were following someone who purported to speak for God?
Or should those who thought or felt that those acts were terrible have resisted?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, I missed deleting some of your post when I quoted. I still don't understand your answer, though. Should the people who committed terrible acts in the name of God have committed those acts? Were they right because they were following someone who purported to speak for God?
Or should those who thought or felt that those acts were terrible have resisted?
Again I can't say what would have been best. I was not in those people's situations. Nonbelievers often condemn the Israelites because according to their own record they forcefully removed the inhabitants of Canaan under God's orders.
What's the difference between Abraham and a guy who thinks God wants him to actually slay his own son? One of them was spared at the last second from doing something they didn't want to, and the other actually went through with it.
When a person of another faith says to me, "I know God has spoken to me and wants me to belong to this religion," I cannot always say they are wrong. All I can do is examine for myself what God is saying to me. Maybe God did indeed guide them to join that religion as a stepping stone for something else. Maybe one day God will fundamentally alter the way I see the universe and inform me that Mormonism was a means to an end.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of them was spared at the last second from doing something they didn't want to, and the other actually went through with it.
You realize God doesn't stop everyone in the Bible from fulfilling even His bloodiest requests, right?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if you can't know when someone is truly speaking for God, don't you have to rely on your own God-given reason and knowledge and compassion? And the Holy Spirit that is God's gift to each of us?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Nonbelievers often condemn the Israelites because according to their own record they forcefully removed the inhabitants of Canaan under God's orders.
To make it perfectly clear, when I have referenced this event the intent is not really to condemn the Israelites. After all, they're long dust along with their victims.
No, what I actually condemn (and fear) is the concept that one can look at at event like genocide, understand that it is evil in all other contexts, and yet condone it in this one context simply because one believes that one's deity commanded it.
I don't want to pick on this post, but it is certainly a vivid depiction of the problem. When one cannot look to one's own conscience to judge whether genocide is wrong, whether killing one's own child is wrong, and whether another religion with its own set of arbitrary dictates is wrong, then the three are disturbingly close. (Say separated seemingly by only two hard breaks ) They are seemingly judged as being right or wrong based on a religious story.
For others, that may not necessarily be a problem, god determines which of those acts is wrong or right, no harm no foul. But from the POV of an atheist who doesn't believe in a god, this essentially means that potentially a small group of people decide what "god" thinks and relays that to others.
Now for some, kmbboots whose communication with her god is roughly equivalent to communicating with herself, this is less fearsome.
But the idea that perfectly reasonable people can allow religion to dictate action and belief *as a group* AND *against* what one feels is their own conscience, thats what is actually being condemned when I use that reference.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mighty Cow: People often bring up the idea that Jesus condemned their behavior, or hated the sin and loved the sinner, which I find little scriptural backing for, but the important point is that Jesus never used any sort of force, emotional, physical, legal, or spiritual to make people change, and while he asked them to make an effort to be better - he gave them the best of himself anyway.
I think most people are thinking of the woman set up on the adultary charge when he told her to go and sin no more. Jesus loved everyone regardless, but he did ask that they not commit immoral behavior. Look at his treatment of the Pharases and the money changers. That was the best of himself?
Jesus never talked about homosexuality. It only comes up a couple times here and there. But if one believes that God is opposed to the act, it's really hard to get behind the idea of putting society's stamp of approval on the behavior in defiance of how they see God's will.
Are there even any similar situations in our past? The closest I can think of is 501c status for a group. It probably started as a way to reward charities, as a form of approval. Today, it's just a set of criteria to be met that confers tax exempt status. I wonder if there was a similar uproar when the first group the majority disapproved of applied for 501c recognition?
It all comes back to viewpoint. Some people see America as an exclusively secular government - but not everyone does. Some people see the marriage liscence as a validation of widely held religious thinking on the matter - others don't.
Just screaming equal rights and prejudice over and over does nothing to address the fundamental gap in thinking on the issues. You don't get to frame the debate just by being the most persistant. Eventually, the other guy will just walk away, and then everyone loses.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: I certainly do, reference the Book of Mormon's Nephi and his slaying of Laban. He certainly had a serious moral dilemma about what he had been commanded to do.
kmbboots: You misunderstand. I can know when somebody is speaking for God, because as you said I have my reason, and the Holy Ghost which is God's gift to all who desire it. I cannot always know if God has spoken to a person.
Mucus: To be clear I don't believe the Israelites killed the Canaanites purely because they were "different." Likewise I am doubtful that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed purely because of homosexuality. I think a careful reading of the record gives hints that both instances had more going on. I wish I could flesh this out more but I'm late for work, I'll try and get back to you today. Sufficeth to say I don't think God says, "This GROUP of people need to die."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know whether you're quoting "different" from or where you got idea that I was saying that S&G were destroyed purely because of homosexuality.
Thats not terribly relevant to the my point.
It is interesting that you claim that God never says that a group of people die. I don't want to misquote you, but I've previously noticed that in a thread where Lisa was very aggressively defending the Israelites and their genocide, that you didn't in fact claim that her interpretation was strictly untrue. Simply that while it was distasteful, that it was necessary.
Edit to add:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Until you know the disposition and sociology of both the Israelite culture and these particular Canaanites how can you possibly pass judgment?
So, just to clarify: there are circumstances in which exterminating all the men (including infants) of a given tribe and all the non-sexed-up females would be A-OK?
Do you really think it would be IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a situation however implausible?
quote:
quote:What of the fact the Israelites had disobeyed God's commandment in this matter and there were Canaanites alive in the first place?
Is that really your defense? "You should have genocided them already, so quit yer bitchin'?"
That's not a defense, its an observation of fact. The Israelites had already disobeyed a direct order, we have no reason to assume it was for humane reasons or just because of sheer stiff-neckedness.
...
Genocide is an extremely misleading word in this instance. They left the virginal women alive did they not? They didn't target this group of people BECAUSE of their ethnicity, they targeted their religion. If anything it should be called theocide, as they burned all their idols too. The rationale for killing the non virginal women was that they as a group invited Israelites to participate in their fertility rites, and this included having sex in the presence of idols.
Ah, so I slightly misremembered. It was more that maybe it wasn't quite genocide and there were mitigating circumstances, but it was a direct order.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: kmbboots: You misunderstand. I can know when somebody is speaking for God, because as you said I have my reason, and the Holy Ghost which is God's gift to all who desire it. I cannot always know if God has spoken to a person.
How do you know any more than the people who committed atrocities by following others who they knew spoke for God?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its called faith kmbboots. You seem to say you have it, but you don't talk as if you know what it is; especially not from a religious standpoint. I could be wrong. Maybe you are an agnostic and just don't know it.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have faith in God and in God's goodness. I don't have the same faith in people who claim to speak for God. Particularly when what those people say contradicts God's goodness.
I would think that any survey of history shows that such people often mislead their followers.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the idea that perfectly reasonable people can allow religion to dictate action and belief *as a group* AND *against* what one feels is their own conscience, thats what is actually being condemned when I use that reference.
This is an interesting point in this context as in the LDS Church conscience is believed to be a gift from God, much as the Holy Ghost is. All people are said to be given the gift of conscience, or the "Light of Christ" while those who are baptised into the Church are also given the gift of the Holy Ghost.
What does one do when the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost disagree? How is that even possible?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
I can't speak directly to those questions since I don't think in those terms. I wasn't speaking about Mormonism in specific but rather religion (and yes, forces like nationalism) as a whole.
If we must bring it back to Mormonism in specific, it may be worth considering Lanfear's post,
quote:Originally posted by Lanfear: ... When I first heard of Prop 8, I hated it. Actually. I still think it was the wrong move. However, I believe the church leaders are inspired men, and as such their position supersedes mine.
I voted yes on eight.
and deciding how each of of those phrases corresponds to the situation. Is that a case of the "Holy Ghost" as given by the Church overriding the conscience or the Light of Christ"? I don't know.
But from my POV, it seems to illustrate the point directly.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Jesus never talked about homosexuality. It only comes up a couple times here and there. But if one believes that God is opposed to the act, it's really hard to get behind the idea of putting society's stamp of approval on the behavior in defiance of how they see God's will.
This I understand, but what I don't understand why Churches choose to only enforce Homosexuality. Jesus is very clear that you can only divorce if your spouse cheats on you, and if not, you are in SIN and can never remarry. Or even going as far as to say that if you had pre-marital sex you can't get married, because in marriage wife and husband are supposed to wait until marriage.
The Churches are OK and silent about 4th, 5th, and 6th marriages but very vocal and militant about homosexuality. My guess is because it is easy.
Also, with all the sins and the way of the world, I do not know why Churches act like homosexuality is somehow WORSE than the other sins, but somehow homosexuals deserve extra special scorn and human judgement.
In my brothers neighborhood of Conservative Wealthy Christians, I had a long pool side debate with a baptist over homosexuals, rights, unions marriages and sins.
He was against homosexuality in all ways, shapes and forms. His wife agreed 100%. They were fighting to keep the tradition of marriage sacred.
About a year later, it turns our he got his 21 year old mistress pregnant. The marriage ended in a messy divorce with 3 children caught in the middle.
They should have spent more time strengthening THEIR marriage as opposed to spending so much emotional energy trying to save everyone's marriage. I am sure the irony is lost on them.
Maybe I am wrong and Homosexuality is the biggest problem facing the world today, and once the Churches fix it, everyone on Earth will enjoy a better quality of life.
oh, and i found it so American that the Black Californian's voted 70% to pass Prop 8 'solidifying marriage' and Barack Obama himself noted that 70% of Black Children grow up in a home without a father.
In my Stars and the universe class, we watched a movie in the planetarium on Galaxies, how there are trillions in the universe, and when we watched the part on Galaxies colliding (which was awesome) I marveled at how little we know yet so many love to claim such an absoluteness of Truth and Wisdom. yeah, okey dokey.
Oh, and, In Religion in America class this week, we're doing Islam and Women's rights, and an expert on Muslim Women's rights said, "Religion and Culture" have been used for thousands of years justify the inferiority of women.
I guess, as a Christian, I am so skeptical of religion because I've read a lot of history. A Church being '100% True' would have to actually PROVE it to me.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is something I also fail to understand. No one has ever been able to explain to me (perhaps I am just difficult) why we allow people who take the Lord's name in vain to serve in the military. Or allow people who fail to honor their parent to teach school?
Homosexuality isn't even in the "big ten".
Homosexuality is barely mentioned in the bible and not at all in the Gospels. In the NT, Paul mentions it a few times and it isn't like Paul (though inspired) got everything right - he was writing from a specific context as well.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I already admitted that in the past I was bigoted against gay people, because I didn't think they needed to get married. I'm not proud of it, but I have the introspection and intellectual honesty to admit that I was wrong in the past, dead wrong, and it was largely due to prejudice and ignorance.
I didn't know any gay people, I didn't understand the issues, and I went with what was popular, and what society seemed to support, rather than actually considering the issue, looking it in terms of prejudice and segregation, and seeing how wrong I was.
Once I got to know some gay people, I found out that they're just people, and it was idiotic of me to think they should be treated any differently from anyone else.
Once I realized that all the fear and prejudice people were using for excuses, trying to disguise in a veil of religious belief or societal pressure or what's "normal" was just excuses and a smoke screen to prevent us from realizing that it's just prejudice and segregation, I was ashamed and realized that I needed to change my mind.
I do understand what's going on here. Nobody wants to admit that their strongly held beliefs are actually prejudiced.
So, let me see if I have this right. Because you saw your own motivation for opposing gay marriage as bigoted/prejudiced, you are therefore assuming that everyone else who holds that same opinion must therefore have the same motivation? And any other motivation they cite is merely a smokescreen?
May I assume that even if, in objective reality, someone opposed to gay marriage truly did have a different motivation, you would assume they were lying or deceiving themselves, and accuse them of being a bigot?
quote:This is an interesting point in this context as in the LDS Church conscience is believed to be a gift from God, much as the Holy Ghost is. All people are said to be given the gift of conscience, or the "Light of Christ" while those who are baptised into the Church are also given the gift of the Holy Ghost.
What does one do when the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost disagree? How is that even possible?
I think the two are perceived in such identical ways that it would be hard to tell that was happening.
But I get what you're driving at. Across the board, I believe that everyone is responsible for following his own conscience, and if your conscience disagrees with the Church, then the first thing you must do is resolve that conflict somehow.
Sometimes that might mean realizing that your initial conscientious reaction is wrong, or should be suspended for the time being, based on faith in the organization. Sometimes it might mean making yourself an exception to the organization's ruling. Either way, when the decision is made, it's your own. Individuals are always responsible for what they choose, even if they do it in the service of a larger organization.
No one should ever abdicate their decision-making to someone else. Choices of this importance should always be made consciously and deliberately, as an individual. I believe that Church doctrine fully supports my opinion in this.
EDIT: Rereading the quote, I DIDN'T actually get what you were driving at I missed that you were talking about two different groups of people. I was imagining the two conflicting within an individual.
So my point still stands, but as a non-sequitur, rather than as a response
posted
Mucus: There was a bit of a misunderstanding. I meant to erase that final sentence with the words, "Sufficeth..." Unfortunately I hit post, noticed the error and when I attempted to edit it my internet just was not working. Since I was already pressed for time I just left without fixing the mistake.
You have no idea how many times today that unedited remark ate at me.
kmbboots: While there are wolves prowling in sheep's clothing that does not compel us to conclude that nobody is authorized by God to speak. Look at the numerous prophets in the Old and New Testaments. We didn't have instances where sometimes the prophet was right in how they spoke for God and sometimes they weren't. Prophets far from being perfect made mistakes of course, but not in regards to revealing God's word. I don't think God would intentionally call somebody to be a prophet who was going to deceive the people.
I think it is pointless to state that were the prophet to command me to do something that I believed God disagreed with that I would not do it. It's obvious my first allegiance is to God, but I do not believe that the prophet and God are going to give me mixed messages. If that ever happens, I will have a serious crisis of faith that makes my strivings with same sex marriage look like kindergarten.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure we do. Jesus tells us to beware of false prophets. There must have been some. Read Jeremiah. Here are a couple of samples, but you should read the whole thing.
quote: "For both prophet and priest are polluted; Even in My house I have found their wickedness," declares the LORD.
quote: They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD. (Jer 23:16b)
quote: Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; (Jer 23:16a)
posted
kmbboots: I've already acknowledged the existence of false prophets. I'm protesting the existence of a man called to be a the prophet over God's people later turning and leading folks astray. This type of prophet is known as a, "fallen prophet."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
ETA: The prophets that were denounced in Jeremiah were "official" prophets. The were sanctioned by the religious authority.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've argued for gay rights at Hatrack since I was what, fifteen? I don't feel any urgent need to continue beating the horse. But in just seven short years, most of the world's come around to the reality that homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. Where will we be in another seven years?
The LDS church didn't feel like revising their racial policies until the 1970's, and it's probably going to be late to this equal-rights party too. And your kids are probably going to be just as ashamed of you as they would be of the people who argued against black equality. Rightly so.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please bear in mind that Christianity is a bit more complex than even some Christians will allow.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How would we know which was which?
ETA: The prophets that were denounced in Jeremiah were "official" prophets. The were sanctioned by the religious authority.
One of the "rules" for Mormons is that their prophet can't ever be a false one. That was prophesied by an earlier Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith perhaps, but I'm not sure.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, I think the LDS members who were against Prop 8 have to do some serious gymnastics to support that opposition in the context of the official statement of the church, but I think equal rights for gays are more important than resolving cognitive dissonance for Mormons, so I don't usually speak to that.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How would we know which was which?
ETA: The prophets that were denounced in Jeremiah were "official" prophets. The were sanctioned by the religious authority.
What evidence do you have that they were official prophets? They could have been called prophets because they themselves call themselves prophets. They could have been known as prophets because the people in general accepted them as such. People who prophesy are often called prophets even though that is not their official station. See Saul dancing and prophesying thus giving rise to the saying, "Is Saul among the prophets?" Take Balaam a non-israelite man with the prophetic gift. He gives us some of the most pointed prophecies about the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of Israel. He converses with God and angels. However later he sides with the Canaanites and is slain by the Israelites in one of their battles.
Here is an example of a man with the prophetic gift aka a prophet who falls. This is still in stark contrast to men like Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Jesus, Peter, etc. Men like these were actually called to lead God's people. They enjoyed communion with God. These men were authorized to speak for God as far as His commands pertained to the entire church. There is no instance of men in this head prophetic office falling from their station. They typically lived out their lives and were then replaced.
Matt P: That was Wilford Woodruff in Official Declaration-1. "I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mucus: There was a bit of a misunderstanding. I meant to erase that final sentence with the words, "Sufficeth..." Unfortunately I hit post, noticed the error and when I attempted to edit it my internet just was not working. Since I was already pressed for time I just left without fixing the mistake.
Just to make sure we fully understand each other. Does that mean you're completely erasing that sentence (and that the Christian god does say that certain groups of people have to die) or just that you wanted to tackle it at a different time.
I don't mind dropping the topic if its not one you want to pursue, but I just want to clarify.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The LDS church didn't feel like revising their racial policies until the 1970's, and it's probably going to be late to this equal-rights party too. And your kids are probably going to be just as ashamed of you as they would be of the people who argued against black equality. Rightly so.
The "blacks and the priesthood" issue was founded in a simple Church policy that, when changed, had very few ramifications for our doctrine at large. The main thing the Church had to get over, from a doctrinal point of view, was years of unofficial folk doctrine, which shouldn't have been believed to begin with.
Gay marriage is tougher. Were the Church to start sanctioning it within the Church, that would be a much bigger foundational change to the way our doctrine views the nature of gender and marriage. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. But it's less likely because of the sheer size of the change. Making that change would mean that our current understanding of a lot of core ideas is just dead wrong. The Church is designed in such a way that finding out we're wrong isn't fatal, but it's much harder than simply changing a rule.
(Unlike many other Christian faiths, Mormonism doesn't reject gay marriage because of a couple of passing comments in Deuteronomy. We've got some foundational ideas about the nature of our souls, the afterlife, etc, that don't work with gay marriage. It's not a "god said not to" issue for us, internally, as much as it's a "well, that wouldn't make any sense with what we believe" issue.)
It seems more likely to me that the Church will not start performing gay marriages any time soon, but that, in the future, it may become more supportive of gay marriages between individuals who aren't of our faith. Just a guess. No particular evidence to back it up.
EDIT: Oh, but on the subject of "shame". I think that because of this doctrinal issue, our reluctance to accept gay marriage is going to keep making sense, even after public opinion has shifted completely in favor of it. As long as there's a clear reason for the policy, there's less to be confused or ashamed about. I think that the dominant emotion on the subject will be frustration that the outside world refuses to understand the reasons behind our policy, and just calls us names instead.
posted
Actually, the differences between our beliefs and other Christians' beliefs on this subject sometimes make me wonder why many other Christians don't support gay marriage. They don't believe that marriages during mortality have any relevance to the eternal world, so it seems like a bit of a technicality to me ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mucus: There was a bit of a misunderstanding. I meant to erase that final sentence with the words, "Sufficeth..." Unfortunately I hit post, noticed the error and when I attempted to edit it my internet just was not working. Since I was already pressed for time I just left without fixing the mistake.
Just to make sure we fully understand each other. Does that mean you're completely erasing that sentence (and that the Christian god does say that certain groups of people have to die) or just that you wanted to tackle it at a different time.
I don't mind dropping the topic if its not one you want to pursue, but I just want to clarify.
Strike the whole sentence. It's not worded the way I intended. I'm willing to discuss the concept of justifiable genocide, but I'm not sure where you wanted to go with it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gay marriage is tougher. Were the Church to start sanctioning it within the Church, that would be a much bigger foundational change to the way our doctrine views the nature of gender and marriage. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. But it's less likely because of the sheer size of the change. Making that change would mean that our current understanding of a lot of core ideas is just dead wrong. The Church is designed in such a way that finding out we're wrong isn't fatal, but it's much harder than simply changing a rule.
I don't think the issue is as difficult as all that. You already have a second-class Heaven; why not a second-class eternal marriage, for those who can't deal with the male-and-female thing?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gay marriage is tougher. Were the Church to start sanctioning it within the Church, that would be a much bigger foundational change to the way our doctrine views the nature of gender and marriage. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. But it's less likely because of the sheer size of the change. Making that change would mean that our current understanding of a lot of core ideas is just dead wrong. The Church is designed in such a way that finding out we're wrong isn't fatal, but it's much harder than simply changing a rule.
I don't think the issue is as difficult as all that. You already have a second-class Heaven; why not a second-class eternal marriage, for those who can't deal with the male-and-female thing?
Mormons already have a tiered system in the afterlife. It allows for a large degree of variation between those tiers. Beyond that, there are scriptures stating that only marriage between a man and woman done under the proper authority is of eternal import.
But how things work in the afterlife is certainly something I think we know next to nothing about. Joseph Smith is quoted as saying, "We're you to gaze into heaven for 5 minutes, you would know more than has ever been written on the subject."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, the differences between our beliefs and other Christians' beliefs on this subject sometimes make me wonder why many other Christians don't support gay marriage. They don't believe that marriages during mortality have any relevance to the eternal world, so it seems like a bit of a technicality to me ...
Puppy, this is just not true. The relevance is quite different, and but "irrelevant" is quite simply incorrect.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How would we know which was which?
ETA: The prophets that were denounced in Jeremiah were "official" prophets. The were sanctioned by the religious authority.
What evidence do you have that they were official prophets? They could have been called prophets because they themselves call themselves prophets. They could have been known as prophets because the people in general accepted them as such.
I'm going to have to agree with BB on this one. I see no textual evidence that they were "official" prophets (whatever that means), and quite a bit that they were not.
I disagree about Bilaam, though. He was a true prophet, despite his best intentions.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, the differences between our beliefs and other Christians' beliefs on this subject sometimes make me wonder why many other Christians don't support gay marriage. They don't believe that marriages during mortality have any relevance to the eternal world, so it seems like a bit of a technicality to me ...
Puppy, this is just not true. The relevance is quite different, and but "irrelevant" is quite simply incorrect.
Gonna chime in to second Dag on that one. Although I do support same-sex marriage. But that is because I don't believe that gender roles have eternal significance, not because I don't believe marriage does.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento, has resigned following threats of a boycott over his donation of $1000 to the Proposition 8 campaign. Since the donation was entirely proper, I do not see he deserved that; and I hope this pattern does not spread.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Free speech, man. People have a right to boycott whatever they like. Just as they have a right to donate to whatever they like. You cannot claim that the boycott is improper and the donation proper.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I missed that you were talking about two different groups of people. I was imagining the two conflicting within an individual.![[Mad]](mad.gif)
