posted
I believe that we, human beings as a body, get better at discovering, understanding, and accepting eternal truths as we get better at learning and understanding every thing else. We know more now than we did 150 years ago - and more than we did 3000 years ago. So religious beliefs should be compromised for better ones.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I believe that we, human beings as a body, get better at discovering, understanding, and accepting eternal truths as we get better at learning and understanding every thing else. We know more now than we did 150 years ago - and more than we did 3000 years ago. So religious beliefs should be compromised for better ones.
I agree with you, but if religious beliefs about morality AREN'T any better than regular human understanding, that takes away the point of religious beliefs for a lot of people.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I believe that we, human beings as a body, get better at discovering, understanding, and accepting eternal truths as we get better at learning and understanding every thing else. We know more now than we did 150 years ago - and more than we did 3000 years ago. So religious beliefs should be compromised for better ones.
I agree with you, but if religious beliefs about morality AREN'T any better than regular human understanding, that takes away the point of religious beliefs for a lot of people.
What do you mean by better? And why wouldn't one inform the other?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
People always go to blacks/priesthood and polygamy when they're talking about doctrinal changes, but that's really just scratching the surface. The church is constantly changing fairly important parts of its dogma.
I just read a book review today that mentioned (in terms vague enough to avoid sacrilege) several changes in the temple ceremony and garments. I was familiar with many of them, but a few of them quite surprised me. They've been gradual enough not to require any official declarations in the D&C. But taken as a whole, temple worship is radically different than it was 150 years ago. At least enough so to raise questions about the absolute, eternal nature of the truths it's based on.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's just it. Our fear of sin is very rational. If you take into account our belief in an afterlife, in accountability, judgment, and the entire Plan of Salvation--it would be irrational to not fear sin. Sin is genuinely frightening stuff.
I find this a very strange perspective. I'm not frightened by sin and don't think fearing sin is at all rational. I can see "repelled by sin" or "Afraid of the consequences of sin", but not "afraid of sin." Fear is an emotion I reserve for things that are outside of my control, like inattentive automobile drivers, violent criminals, virulent diseases, and poisonous snakes. I can always choose not to sin, it is within my control and if I choose badly, God has provided a process by which I can repent and be made whole.
quote:For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
posted
But LIGHT - it could just as easily be that profits are imperfect people and unwilling to hear God's truths until the social environment is correct. Or perhaps God really does change his mind about things because certain things that might be sins in one situation are not sins in another situation.
But, I can run with your "convenience" argument too. In that case, I think we need to push on the church a little more so that God will decide now is the most convenient time to reveal to the "men at the top" the fact that homosexuality is not inherently bad or evil. I'll be super excited if he does!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm amazed at how civil this is 4 pages in.
I just wanted to add my perspective that the role of an LDS parent is going to be a significantly more difficult balancing act for a teen vs. and adult child. For an adult child I think most LDS parents (at least those I have known with family members struggling with this issue) would be willing and able to say, "I cannot understand or condone those choices, but you are a beloved part of myself, and I will never reject you."
For a teenager, most LDS parents who are working hard to establish good spiritual habits would have house rules in place to discourage any dating before age sixteen, and pairing off even after sixteen. It is widely encouraged that young people not date anyone seriously/exclusively until they are both of a reasonable age to marry. The purpose of all dating and romantic relationships is therefore to establish relationship habits that can eventually lead to an LDS temple marriage.
As a (hypothetical) parent to a GLBT teen, I could see a lot of argument over whether these rules should change drastically--if I wouldn't allow my straight child to view pornography, it stands to reason that it is just as harmful for a gay child. For a teen younger than 16, I could honestly see myself saying, "Well, you know what my religion teaches on that subject, and you'll just have to find the balance between what you feel, what you've been taught, and what you personally feel is right, but regardless, the rule stands that you're not allowed to date until age 16, and at that age you are to go with large groups of friends to well-lit venues with responsible adult supervision and the following curfew." In that case, the child's day-to-day life may not change much based on their orientation.
I personally am in my mid-twenties, and I find it entirely plausible that I will never be married. In that case, I would be expecting GLBT members to do only what I am willing to do myself: remain celibate outside of marriage so that I affirm to society as a whole the sacred (an inextricably connected) nature of family, sex and marriage.
I agree that (at the very least in this society) celibacy is a dreadful thing to ask of someone who doesn't believe with their whole self that this is the right thing for them, and who doesn't feel they are receiving divine support for this decision. But I think those who assume that there is no possibility of happiness and fulfillment in life without sexual gratification are placing far to much emphasis on one small aspect of the human experience.
GLBT people who choose to abstain out of fear, shame and self-loathing are no closer to living God's laws than those who openly embrace those lifestyles, but there are some who are able to find peace, purpose, and satisfaction, if not sexual fulfillment, because it is their own faith that they live, not that of their parents.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
God does not rule the righteous out of fear, for fear is something to overcome. So fear of sin is something that can be overcome.
The Righteous are righteous because they believe in what they believe in, not because they fear to disbelieve.
The question is "what do we do about the sinners we love."
The answer is that we should bring those sinners we love around to being righteous. You can't do that be threatening or rejecting the sinners. All that accomplishes is to drive the sin underground. It is only through love and understanding that things work.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
But I think those who assume that there is no possibility of happiness and fulfillment in life without sexual gratification are placing far to much emphasis on one small aspect of the human experience.
I think the emphasis on sexual gratification is yours. In my marriage, sexual fulfillment is one aspect but not the most important one. What people who are celibate miss is the intimate life partner relationship. Someone to share and experience life with. Making it just about the sex is far too simplistic (IMHO).
Posts: 6 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I know it is old school to go back to definitions in these days where "terrorist" means "person doing stuff we don't like", but if we do isn't God, at least of the Old Testament, specifically a terrorist?
He has political and religious goals, does and threatens violence, violence which is designed to have psychological goals, he has a chain of command with no standardized uniform, and he's a non-state actor.
posted
Only if you believe the version of God as depicted in those writings is an accurate and factual representation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
But I think those who assume that there is no possibility of happiness and fulfillment in life without sexual gratification are placing far to much emphasis on one small aspect of the human experience.
I think the emphasis on sexual gratification is yours. In my marriage, sexual fulfillment is one aspect but not the most important one. What people who are celibate miss is the intimate life partner relationship. Someone to share and experience life with. Making it just about the sex is far too simplistic (IMHO).
A solid point, but a practicing LDS member who doesn't happen to be even remotely attracted to the opposite sex could still enter into a traditional marriage, provided both partners knew in advance that that "one aspect" would be permanently missing. Along with the many other variations on close, loving, supportive relationships that are less typically sexual/romantic in nature.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder at those who label sex, human sexuality, a 'small' part of the human experience. There really isn't a way of looking at humans I can think of which bears this notion out, aside from presupposing the idea and finding evidence for it.
Is sex the meaning of life? Surely not, but to suggest it's a small part of humanity seems so very strange to menand to fly in the face of most of what I've read, observed, and experienced as and about human beings. If it were truly a small part of the human experience rather than one of the more fundamental, this topic for example wouldn't be so controversial.
People wouldn't die over it, kill over it, work their lives for and against it, develop mental problems because of their sexuality or their hiding of it, etc. etc. It's not a small part of the human experience, far from it. To say nothing of how sacred sex is supposed to be, etc., if done 'properly'.
I don't say this is what was intended, but labeling sex as something small in this context sounds to me like a means of minimizing the difficulties (that's putting it mildly, because it ain't a small issue) homosexuals endure coping with the expectations put upon them. Sometimes voluntarily and with good intent, others not.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've found this quote very apt when discussing nature/nurture, but it also has application I think as far as human sexuality goes.
Psychologist Donald Hebb is said to have once answered a journalist's question of "which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?" by asking in response, "Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?"
I think sex while not the most important aspect of a relationship, yet I am unsure if one can rightly be asked to just put that part of themselves on hold indefinitely.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
My personal belief is that a person's sexuality is likely to have differing levels of importance to different people, but there are probably not very many people at all for whom the things that fall under that umbrella (sexuality-not just having sexual intercourse with the people we want to have sex with) could be considered a small part of the human experience.
In my mind, this is such a fundamental part of human beings it's very straightforward to me: sexuality is important to people. For some people it's very important, for others it's just important, and for some others it's not really very important. But so far as I know (and I'm hardly informed on the subject), that's far from common.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that claiming the sexual gratification is a small part of the human experience is a very dubious position to take.
It's very high on the hierarchy of needs. Water and food are higher and shelter is as well in all but the most pleasant environments but after those nothing really beets sex and sexual companionship.
Yes there are people who claim to lead chaste lives. A very small percentage of the population. And those who actually succeed at it. An even smaller percentage. But the vast, overwhelming bulk of the population does not and would never willing live sex free lives.
The rules against sex before marriage when strictly enforced lead to earlier marriage. Which is a pretty strong example of this.
Telling a gay teen that he cannot have sex without marriage and then forbidding him to marry is cruel and a recipe for failure. All it does is drive the individual to hidden affairs or leaving his faith.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Telling a gay teen that he cannot have sex without marriage and then forbidding him to marry is cruel and a recipe for failure. All it does is drive the individual to hidden affairs or leaving his faith.
The latter part (and suicides) regular enough that these established religions had such a vested interest in claiming that homosexuality is a choice that you can reverse. That way, it wouldn't be 'forbidding' him from doing anything, he or she's just not 'choosing' to allow himself that opportunity.
Of course, after the stunning failure of conversion therapy, that creates what I (optimistically) consider the recipe for religions to change in the modern world. Reluctantly, and evasively, but assuming the world otherwise stays mostly the same, the gay war ends with us.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. A terrorist is, by definition, human.
Trying to assign God human characteristics is doomed to fail by definition. Understandable, but flawed from the get go.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Sam. That is a really interesting way to interpret that, and I have no response. I mean, the claim by Kwea is a really common one among theologians, but I'm not sure how it is resolved with the Jesus aspect.
I'm particularly thinking of apophatic theology where it seems that the claim is because of how limited our very language is, we can't even talk about God. (Among other general claims about it being wrongheaded to anthropomorphize "him").
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: Wow. Sam. That is a really interesting way to interpret that, and I have no response. I mean, the claim by Kwea is a really common one among theologians, but I'm not sure how it is resolved with the Jesus aspect.
I'm particularly thinking of apophatic theology where it seems that the claim is because of how limited our very language is, we can't even talk about God. (Among other general claims about it being wrongheaded to anthropomorphize "him").
The concept that God chose to manifest himself in human forum and the concept that humans can not understand or judge God by human standards are so different its very hard for me see any meaningful relationship between the two.
By analogy, I choose to express myself by posting words on this forum, yet if you try to understand me by assuming that I am the words I post, you will fail utterly to understand my true nature.
Beyond that, any attempt to understand Judeo-Christian thought by assuming it is one single coherent philosophy are doomed to failure. You can't pick an idea from one theological school (like apothaticism) and match it against a belief from another school (say Christian literalism) and expect anything but total nonsense.
I am of course aware that religions people do that kind of thing all the time, but the fact that many religious people have rather muddled beliefs is really a strawman argument. If you critique Schrodinger or Nietzche based on the way they are represented in popular culture, your critique will be worthless as an assessment of quantum mechanics or nihilism. The same is true of theology.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Only if you believe the version of God as depicted in those writings is an accurate and factual representation.
Ummmm, no. Obviously I believe that the version of God as depicted in the writings is a fictional character. So "accuracy" is kinda inapplicable.
It is like me describing Han as a loose cannon based on him shooting first in Star Wars. Well sure, maybe he was just acting in self defence in the Special Editions, but my classification was never meant to apply across retcons and the Expanded Universe.
For that matter, looking downward, I don't generally say that Ewoks can't be fathers or that Ackbar can't be an Admiral because they're not human. So meh.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Is your argument that God as dipicted in the biblical stories with which you are acquainted can be accurately described as a terrorist.
Or is it that the God which people involved in this discussion believe in, can be accurately described as a terrorist.
If its the former, then I question first whether your acquaintance with biblical stories is sufficient to qualify you to make any judgement of them and second what relevance you think this has to the discussion.
If its the later, then your dismissal of believers intepretation of the bible is obsurd.
Comparison of Bible stories to Star Wars is a strawman from the get go.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, you understand, I hope that "fictional character" and "as accurately and factually portrayed in the Bible" are not the only two options. They are not even the best options.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd love to hear him describe a natural process by which all black people could be "shipped off" the face of the earth.
edit: Barring that, I'd love to hear him describe what racism is and how his comments don't fit that mold.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, like I said elsewhere. It boggles my mind that with companies like Facebook cracking down ever harder on on-line anonymity or even pseudonyms and/or pen-names, that there isn't a bigger dent in this kind of activity.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a very interesting blog written by a young man who is gay but chooses not to participate in the lifestyle. I am not on my computer so I can't give you a link but you could google (Gay) Mormon Guy blog and I am sure you would find it. It is very interesting to read his perspective on this issue.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Well, I don't like it when people pretend to be gay or half-gay for the attention it brings.... Mostly a highschool thing I think girls say they're half because the guys like it, guys say they're half because the girls like it ~.~
I don't read blogs sorry Wendy XD I'm not interested in anyones life unless I feel that individual has something important to say...
Anyone with a blog is just gripping for attention and that area I am not friendly with :F ------------------------ My step-dad has gay uncles, I had to be told they were gay, because neither of them act the stereotypical part, no funny speach, no funny walk, no weird cloth choices, and most of all they don't talk about being gay.
Now besides the possibly more femine voice which could be brought on by excess estrogen. All those other things are just cries for attention and popularity, and the sad thing is it works it vill nebar end ;-; ------------------------------------------ So I think sexuality should be kept between the partners, and maybe the family too... ------------------------------------------ I am racist, sexist, and in dislike of homosexuality, especially under the circumstances that those said races, genders, and sexual orientations are almost entirely guided by stereotypes.
FFS black kids pull up your pants I don't want to see your rears
FFS white kids stop acting like what you think black kids should be acting like
FFS the butthole is an exit!
FFS woman you don't have to listen to your man if he treats you badly
FFS man if you sleep with many various women often then you're a wh*r* too, and that's not a compliment!
quote:Now besides the possibly more femine voice which could be brought on by excess estrogen. All those other things are just cries for attention and popularity, and the sad thing is it works it vill nebar end ;-;
Thanks for uncovering the mystery of gay psychology: all other estimable traits of being notably gay? Cries for attention and popularity. Hooray! Now we know!
urghhh
quote:So I think sexuality should be kept between the partners, and maybe the family too...
Nope. Nobody gets to be shamed into keeping their sexuality secret. If I get to have a picture of my lovely lass on my office desk, my token gay friend gets to have a picture of his main squeeze on his desk too.
quote:I am racist, sexist, and in dislike of homosexuality
posted
Samp- for some reason, I think people assume when gay people discuss their lovers, it isn't going to be a picture or a mention of their anniversary, but instead an in detail report on in what they did in the bedroom. And if it is a picture, it will be porn.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rawrain, your experiences in high school might not be representative of the world at large. I'm just throwin' that out there for consideration. Just a thought.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you been trying to get back ever since? `cause I hear us dudes want to do that, psychologically speaking.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the show Supernatural .___. ----------- Sam by keeping it to your sexuallity to yourself I don't mean hiding it, but I most certainly shun telling everyone just because it is so..
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I mean, I have no idea what you are talking about. You aren't coherent enough for me to understand exactly what you mean when you define 'keeping it to themselves.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
