|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 8, 2006 19:16:47 GMT -5
Morluna,
(I wanted to re-post this because I am very much interested in entering in on an open discussion with you. I know you read it before, but avoided it. If you could, let's discuss these issues.)
So to sum it up, you determine right and wrong based on:
1. Meditating
2. Reading other peoples writings
3. Looking inside to your "conscience"?
I have some questions on these.
1. Meditating
When you meditate, how do you know you are even experiencing God? Even the devil appears as an angel of light.
Also, when you say meditate do you mean pray or do you mean the buddhist style of meditation? Praying is looking outside yourself to God, the buddhist style of meditation is looking within yourself for truth. Do you mean prayer or do you mean meditation.
If you mean meditation, how do you know that you are pure inwardly and not corrupt? How do you know you are not looking in the wrong places for the right answers?
If you mean prayer, to which God are you praying to? The God of the bible, the koran, the buddhists, the hindues, or mormons? To which God do you pray?
2. Reading Other Writings
You listed many different writings. However, of those you listed there are contradictions. Those writings and those religious leaders were not all in agreement and did not all preach the same message. How do you decide which one to believe and which one to reject?
3. Conscience
How do you know that your conscience is as it ought to be? How do you know that your conscience has not been, as the bible says, "seared with a hot iron"? How do you know your conscience is as strong as it should be and is not weak when it comes to things you are sypathetic towards? Are you sure your conscience is un-biased?
Also, "I must assess my actions and beliefs critically and strive to be loving and compassionate toward all of my fellow human beings"
Who says that love and compassion are even virtues? If the bible is not the Word of God, who is to say that these things are even good? You would have to borrow from the Christian world-view to say these things.
------------------------------------------
I have some comments on these things:
1) they cannot change about themselves even if they wanted to
How do you know? Are you a homosexual? If so, have you ever tried to change? What makes a homosexual a homosexual?
The bible says a homosexual is one who engages in homosexual activities. Would you say that it is impossible for them to stop engaging in such activities? Are they forced to do it? As a theif is a theif for stealing, a murder is a murderer for murdering, so also is a homosexual a homosexual for commiting homosexual acts.
There are testimonies of men who used to live in a homosexual lifestyle who have found freedom in Christ and are now happily married to women and have children of their own. There are similar stories of lesbians who have done likewise.
2) is not harmful or damaging to their fellow man and thus should not be anyone's business but their own in the first place
Homosexuality and lesbianism is a threat to national security because these are nation condeming sins. Remember Sodom and Gommorrah.
Your arguements are weak. The same arguements could be used for beastiality and polygamy.
Besides, who is to say that something is wrong if it hurts others? What if someone says it's ok to hurt others? What if someone says it's the right thing to do to hurt others? Who is the ultimate authority for morality?
God is the ultimate authority and this is what he clearly says:
Romans 1: 26-32:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
And also:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11:
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 8, 2006 19:25:12 GMT -5
I am very much interested in seeing where this goes....
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 8, 2006 19:28:59 GMT -5
Oh wow I feel special! You guys made a thread just for me!
This could take me a minute... Let me read through all of that.
Also: Aw, you changed my signature... That's okay... I'll find a new banner that is perhaps more acceptable to your intolerance. ^_^
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 8, 2006 19:30:22 GMT -5
....no "Questions for Valentine" thread? I'm unloved.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 8, 2006 19:32:46 GMT -5
....no "Questions for Valentine" thread? I'm unloved. You're very much loved...we still want you to go to Heaven instead of Hell!
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 8, 2006 19:37:06 GMT -5
You're very much loved...we still want you to go to Heaven instead of Hell! ...so you want my dear friend Morluna to go to hell? Or does the squeaky wheel indeed get the grease? ...and does this mean that I simply must squeak a bit louder? Or are y'all still thinking about how to answer my questions about the genetics of homosexuality and the validity of APA research?
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 8, 2006 20:51:37 GMT -5
Hi Jesse, Yes I'm sorry I didn't answer all of your questions before. Honestly I just didn't have time to type it all out. I am a college student after all... so I had work to get done. (Still do, but talking to you guys is infinitely more fun than writing term papers!) When you meditate, how do you know you are even experiencing God? Even the devil appears as an angel of light. I know what the presence of God feels like. It's not something I can put into words, as you, claiming to be someone who has experienced the Holy Spirit and the presence of God in your life, should know. When I go into my room, quiet my mind and listen, the Creator speaks. Personally, I'm not sure "the devil" exists, but I know the feeling when the Spirit is within me, and I know it's not the devil. I both pray and seek guidance through Buddhist style meditation. I reflect inwardly on my own conscience and ask for guidance from God. God, Allah, The Creator, Yahweh, Jehovah... they are all the same Being in my eyes. As I said before, I weigh everything on my own conscience to decide how I feel about it. I think relying on only one text as the authority on life is a closed minded way of living, so I seek guidance from many different backgrounds and then assess it, deciding what is right for me. I'm not sure of anything, as I am only human. Because of this, I am ever seeking for the truth. This is why I study the texts and engage in discussions like this one. I've learned things about myself in the last couple of days talking with you guys. I thank you for that. Christianity is not the only faith system to teach the virtues of love and compassion. Essentially all world religions teach these virtues. See, this is why you guys should study other religions. You might learn something. I am a heterosexual female with homosexual tendancies, and the possibility of bisexuality. Believe it or not, all human beings have homosexual tendancies. My personal theory on you guys is that you're just repressing your own homosexual tendancies because you're afraid to come to terms with them. But I don't know you, so I can't judge... I can say that I've had some very bad romantic experiences in the past, men have ended relationships in very hurtful ways, and there have been times when I've thought, "Love would be so much easier if I were a lesbian. I understand how women think. Men confuse me." But of course, I cannot change my sexual orientation and I continue to be attracted to men. I am not closed to the possibility that one day, I may meet a woman who interests me in the same way that men do, and because of this I have come to realize that I am heterosexual with the possibility of becoming bisexual. At this point however, I have yet to meet any female to whom I have been attracted to in the same way I have been to men in the past. I think as I become more experienced in romantic relationships and explore the things that attract me, I'll be able to pin down these ideas and better understand my own orientation. To make a visual explanation of this, here is a chart: straight ___*_________ | ____________ gay See? The asterik is me. I'm open-minded about the possibility, but she would have to be a very special woman for sure. As to changing one's orientation, I don't think you can simplify people as either "gay" or "straight" as illustrated in my diagram. Sexuality is an extremely complex and multifaceted thing, and people come in many varying forms and orientations. I do not however, believe that you can just wake up one day and decide that you are going to be gay from now on, or wake up and decide that you are going to be straight from now on for that matter. Any change is gradual and comes through growth and exploration, like anything else. Threat to national security?! WOW. I disagree sir. As to Sodom and Gommorrah, I do not recall that homosexuality was one of the sins that condemned them. They were raping children and visitors of their city. That was their downfall, not consensual love between two individuals. My interpretation, not yours I understand. Sorry you feel that way. To me, your arguements appear weak because you base them on a text that I don't accept as infallible truth. Once again, your quotations mean nothing to me. I do not accept any text as truth if it does not line up with my personal definition of morality. My conscience is my Bible. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, I'm doing too many things at once! Haha. Much love, Morluna
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 8, 2006 21:00:36 GMT -5
Thank you very much for responding so quickly. After reading through your answers I am very excited to respond.
I just wrote out a big long response in the doctrine and theology section and so am a bit exhausted. But commenting on this thread is top priority for tommorow.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 8, 2006 21:06:21 GMT -5
Okay. I'll look forward to hearing from you. Take care.
Much love, Morluna
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 8, 2006 21:26:20 GMT -5
To add to what Morluna said about sexuality being a continuum, that is the generally accepted, scientific view, yes. Here's a helpful resource for one type of sexuality spectrum: www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-hhscale.html Most people aren't 1s or 7s, for the record. And I'd wager that, statistically, it's highly unlikely that all the adminstrators of this site happen to be 1s. Like Morluna, I most definitely wouldn't consider myself in this category. Also like Morluna, I've been hurt by men in the past. My thoughts have turned more towards the realm of "perhaps I'd be happier if I stopped looking for a relationship, period." Would I be open to the possibility of a relationship with a female? Sure. But I tend to lean towards the male side of the spectrum, from the little that I know about myself at this point, so it probably isn't likely. I've noticed that I'm not a very sexual person in general, though. It doesn't affect me in the way it seems to drive most people I know. This probably goes back to the fact that I have psychological issues concerning sex which I do not want to go into here. Thanks for that post, Morluna. I think you did a great job with making your beliefs clear.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 8, 2006 21:41:19 GMT -5
Oooo that's a great site Val! (lol, Val...) Thanks for posting that. ^_^
Hahah, I had no idea that there was any scientific backing to what I just said about the sexual continuum... It just sort of seemed like common sense to me... go figure. My intuition and internal assessment was right. And I didn't even need a book to tell me what to think. Who'da thunk? xD
To go by the numbers, I'm probably a 1.7 or so on that scale. Hm... maybe even a 2... I'm not sure. Neat.
Yeah... I know lots of people that just aren't as sexually driven as I am. Can I just say that being a horny virgin is just about the worst feeling in the world? LOL. But that's okay cause I touch my 'gina a lot. xB
But of course the admins of this board would tell me I would be better off to drop out of college and get married than to turn to masturbation for sexual satisfaction until I decide to become sexually active with a partner. Nice guys... nice.
OH NOES I LOST MY VIRGINITY TO MY VIBRATOR!!!1 XD BAHAHAHAHA. ....
OMG I'm SO going to get banned from this forum...
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 8, 2006 22:14:05 GMT -5
Morluna, prior to this post I must say that I thought much more highly of you. You have completely poisoned the well in the way I think about you from now on. I'm disapointed. [*shaking my head] Miles
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 8, 2006 22:20:46 GMT -5
I'm sorry you feel that way. Would you like to explain what I said to disappoint you so greatly?
Was it the vibrator comment? *giggles* I'm sorry, I realize that was a little silly. The way I said it anyway...
But while we're on this topic, was I correct in assuming that you condemn masturbation? I'm asking a serious question. I'd like to hear your stance on it.
Or maybe it wasn't that but instead the comments about homosexuality? I would think after yesterday you would know my stance on that already, and not be open to further "disappointment" in my character.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 8, 2006 22:56:45 GMT -5
Masturbater's need to repent. But it doesn't matter what Miles Lewis says about the topic, Jesus says in the sermon on the mount when adressing the topic of lust; "If your hand causes you sin, cut it off, and if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out..." He was speaking figuratively, of course. Jesus can set you free from any bondage of sin, if you are willing.
Miles
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 8, 2006 23:12:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 8, 2006 23:15:57 GMT -5
Masturbater's need to repent. But it doesn't matter what Miles Lewis says about the topic, Jesus says in the sermon on the mount when adressing the topic of lust; "If your hand causes you sin, cut it off, and if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out..." He was speaking figuratively, of course. Jesus can set you free from any bondage of sin, if you are willing. Miles .... Of course? He's speaking figuratively "of course." ! How do you know this? HOW? Maybe he LITERALLY wants us to cut off our hands or pluck out our eyes if they cause us to "sin." Maybe the Laws of Moses still stand and we are all going to Hell if we eat SHELLFISH. Maybe we're all doomed if we pluck a bit of grain from a plant on the Sabbath. MAYBE you're a hypocrite and a new age Pharisee. How about that? Who are you to pick and choose what parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are figurative? How can you know? YOU CAN'T. I will not apologize for losing my temper this time. It is justified. Your logic makes NO DAMN SENSE. Good night sir.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 9, 2006 0:04:00 GMT -5
If you pluck out your eye because you lust, you simply become a one-eyed luster. Your eye isn't what actually causes you to sin. Jesus said all wickedness, adulteries, fornication, blasphemies,etc... come from the heart. For that reason you need a new heart, and Jesus Christ wants to make you born again with a new heart that loves to serve and obey God, not love and serve sin. Good night ma'am and God bless, Miles
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 9, 2006 10:36:46 GMT -5
But who instructed you on which parts of the Bible are literal and which ones are figurative? How can you possibly know except through your own deductive reasoning? And if you choose to employ deductive reasoning, how then can you condemn me for employing the same reasoning to decide which parts of the text are true for me and which ones are imperfect and flawed by time, revision, and man's own fallicy?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 9, 2006 10:48:40 GMT -5
That website is awesome miles I found in season out of season on there, but it raises a question, what is the problem with Jesse's preaching, Ray is more harsh than he is.
I dont want to start it up again, just an interesting observation.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 9, 2006 13:08:50 GMT -5
This doesn't really answer the question. Your answer is dogmatic. It's a bold statement but is not an arguement.
You are saying, "I know it is God because I know it is God." A man who is schizophrenic could say, "I know that I am Jesus Christ because I know that I am Jesus Christ." Certainly you wouldn't accept this state yourself. You would call my arguement weak if I said, "I know Christianity is true because I know Christianity is true. Your logic is shown to be absurdity when applied to other topics. The principle I am trying to convey here is that certainty in an individual does not mean certainty in reality.
Your answer also seems to allude towards subjectivism. You are appealing to feelings rather then to facts. You "feel" that it is the Holy Spirit. What happens when two people experience the same event and have opposite feelings about it? One man hears a sermon and feels it was of God. Another man hears the same sermon and he feels it was of the devil.
Is feelings really a reliable, accurate test for reality and truth? If it were true, that feelings = truth, then how could one come to such a conclusion except by some feeling? If you make the conclusion based on reason or logic, then you are being inconsistent because feelings is no longer the test. Basicly, how do you know that it's by feelings that we know anything? Do you simply feel that it's by feelings? This too would be dogmatic and be unjustifiable circular reasoning.
My ultimate test of reality is not subjectivism - feelings, but is the Word of God. Since God created the Universe, God is able to tell us all things of the Universe. His Word says, "Test the Spirits whether they be of God or not." And the way you test to see if a Spirit or even a preacher is of God or not, is whether or not what they are saying line up with the Word of God.
In this case, your presupposition is subjectivism. Mine is God's self-attesting, self-authorizing Word.
You answered part of the quest. I asked if you meant the Buddhist style of meditation and you said yes, which is looking inwardly for answers. However the other questions still stand:
How do you know that you are pure inwardly and not corrupt?
How do you know you are not looking in the wrong places for the right answers?
Do you simply believe that you are inwardly pure on blind faith? Do you simply assume that you are?
They may be the same being in your eyes, but that does not mean that they are the same being in reality. A political equivalent to your spiritual statement would be, "capitalism, socialism, nazism, communism, they are all the same government to me."
Now that we know that you think they are all the same, what is your arguement that they are all the same.
The Koran says "kill the infidel" while the bible says, "love your enemies." The Koran teaches that a man can beat his wife, while the bible teaches that a husband is to love his wife. Are these not clear and obvious contradictions? Which is true and which is false?
If you pray to both the God of the Bible and Allah of the Koran, it sounds like you pray to a schizophrenic god who contradicts himself. Does this not sound to you like a very fallacious belief?
You seem to be buying into eclecticism. You are not following any set system or method but pick and choose a little from here and a little from there, depending on what you feel is right for you.
But again, how do you know that your conscience is a reliable compass to make moral decisions? And how do you know your conscience is untainted and unbiased?
You say relying on one text is close-minded. Who is to say it is wrong to be closed minded? You could also say, using this logic, that saying 2 +2 = 4 is closed minded. Should we be open minded that maybe 2 + 2 = 10?
There are plenty of things you are not open-minded too Morluna. Are you open-minded to racism? Are you open minded to sexism? I believe that an open-mind can easily become the devils out-house. There are certain things we ought to be closed minded about.
You said you look at many different backrounds to see what is right for you. What determines what is right for you? Would you say what is right for you is what you like? What is right for you is what you feel? What is right for you is what is makes you happy? How do you determine what is rigtht for you?
Your statement also alluded towards relativism; what is right for me might not be right for you. Some things in life certainly are relative. For example your occupation, your favorite ice-cream, your hair cut. These are all relative depending on the individual. However truth (including religion) and morality is never relative. Beliefs differ with each individuals, but truth does not differ because truth is not subjected to the individuals but the individuals are subjected to truth.
I would say you are sure about a lot of things, but not everything someone is sure about is true. If it were true that you are not sure of anything, your following statement that "I am ever seeking for the truth" could not even be said. Because you couldn't be sure that you were seeking after the truth.
Everyone has things they are sure about, the problem is that many are sure about the wrong things. If you couldn't be sure about anything, you couldn't say that you weren't sure about anything. To say that you are not sure requires that you are sure that you are not sure.
But, you admit that your own conscience might be seared and might be biased? You admit that it might not be as strong as it ought to be?
If so, then how could you say that your own conscience is the ultimate test by which you know things?
By which test could you test your conscience to see if it's an accurate test to test things?
Yes other religions has similiar ethics, but that is because all men have the same God who gave us all the same inner-light of morality. However there are also radical differences in ethics when it comes to religions. Some religions teach that the sacrifice of children to the Gods. Some religions teach that it is ok to beat your wife.
However, the question at hand was how do you know that love and compassion are good things? You said because all religions teach them. Even if that were true, how do you know that they are all right? Are you saying in essence, "what the majority of people believe is true"? The majority of America once believed in slavery. The Majority of America once condemned homosexuality (and still does). Does the majority have the authority to establish morality or does morality come from outside the majority?
I believe in love and compassion because the Word of God teaches that God is a God of love and compassion. Even if the whole world taught that love and compassion were vices that made men weak, it would not sway me even in the least because my confidence is not in the majority of religions or in the majority of civilization but is in the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator of the Universe.
Jude1:7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
"Strange flesh" would be like a man who desires another mans rear end.
My arguements against your world-view are not based on the text of the bible. I am not doing an external critique - saying you are wrong because the bible says this. Rather I am doing an internal critique - taking your stand point and view and showing the inconsistencies of them. For example, how you will use these arguements to justify homosexuality but would still condemn bestiality dispite the fact that your same arguements could justify bestiality.
There it is, your ultimate presupposition! YOURSELF! You reject anything if it does not line up with your own personal definition. You are saying you are autonomous. But what if everyone did that? What is someone said it was ok to beat up homosexuals because according to their personal defintion of justice, justice is beating up homosexuals? Would you say, "well, they have the right to make up their own defintion?" No, you would condemn it! But why? Can't they do what you yourself are doing?
You said your conscience is your bible. I also asked a few different questions above about question, on how you know it is not biased and tainted or weak. And also, how do you test to see if your conscience is the ultimate test by which you test other things? (If you say that you test conscience by reason and logic, then you are saying that your conscience is not your ultmate authority but that reason and logic actually are, thereby refuting your own statement that your conscience is your bible.)
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 9, 2006 13:35:58 GMT -5
If you need a book to tell you that compassion and love are good things, then you are beyond my help.
That passage is SO vague, it could mean anything. "Strange flesh." Who's to say that's not the flesh of an animal, or a reference to the flesh of a stranger or one you do not have love for - i.e. rape, child molestation, or one night stands? You pounce on passages and mold them to fit your own prejudiced ways of thinking.
My conscience operates on logic and reason. I learn through study and the weighing of issues in my own heart. If I think that a particular belief is hurtful to others, I do not accept it. How much more clear can I be?
|
|
|
Post by Juli on Apr 9, 2006 13:53:31 GMT -5
I will be covering this particular discussion in much prayer - guys, keep on loving Morluna "as is" the way Christ does. And that is is out of the love of Christ compelling you that you will absolutely not compromise the Truth or God's Word in any way - I never thought for a second you would of course! When this is all said and done, you each will have been faithful watchmen, warning of the danger to come, and the blood will not be on your hands.
|
|
Starnge and peculiar fellow
Guest
|
Post by Starnge and peculiar fellow on Apr 9, 2006 14:55:13 GMT -5
Hi Morluna...
I hope that you know what love is...
Love is what a mother feeds her child when she holds it close to her breast.. and caresses its face....
Love is when a father works his fingers till they bleed to feed his family...
Love is when a man's conscience at night is burdened.. because the homeless man on the corner is freezing to death... and moves him to invite him in and give him a meal...
Love is when a rapsit is forgiven, recieves forgiveness... and is welcomed intoo the family he destroyed by his act.. as a new man... no longer a rapist...
Love is when a king leaves his castle and dies in battle defending his peasant servants who cannot defend themselves...
Love is not... taking from soemone else something that makes you feel good about yourself... that is deceptive thievery... calling itself love...
Love is not accepting that what feels good kills the soul in anothers beating heart... and marks them with a lifestyle of a burdened conscience...
Love is not putting your foot on a drowning man's head, and wishing him a nice swim...
Love tells the truth, and acts in truth...
It is selfless, and it defends the poor and opressed.... It causes the great kings to give their life for the lowly and opressed...
It isn't boastful, sinful, and ungodly, or selfish...
It is patient kind, and always hopes, always perserveres...
The king of the universe came to defend those who Satan had his claws on, dug deep like mice caught in an eagle's claw waiting to be devoured...
He offered himself, and said take me!!!
Would you Morluna... take the king's body, and his majesty, given in ransom for you... to use your body as his enemy?
If so you are not a mouse at all, but a prowler, and an eagle yourself...
And though Jesus was the lamb... he will come again as a Lion...
Will you Morluna, if indeed you are an eagle... stand against Him who cannot die?
If you are a mouse.. he has given himself as a ransom for you... do not obey the lusts of your flesh any longer...
If you are a winged Eagle... you will be brought low, and devoured by the Lion...
I hope you understand God's message... because it is His Message to you Morluna...
whether you are a mouse or an eagle.......
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 9, 2006 15:30:46 GMT -5
Oh Strange and Peculiar! Thank you so much! I have seen the light! Your prepackaged chain letter has shown me the error of my sinful ways!
...
Seriously. If you love me so much, you could perhaps give enough effort to actually respond rather than just posting a premade list of somewhat poetic lines. It's not even good poetry at that... >:(
You know, it never ceases to amaze me the things that Christian fundamentalists think of non-Christians. But I don't suppose I should be surprised, having lived under the same brainwashing lifestyle that many of you follow for years of my life. Lucky for me, I actually read my Bible, reflected on my own heart, and realized that the teachings of today's Mainstream Christianity are utter bulls*it. But, but... that's not fair... It's bulls*it to me, but it may work very well for you... as that is the case.. you go ahead and believe whatever you want. I'm not here to judge. When I say Mainstream Christianty, I am referring to fundamentalists like yourselves who, in my opinion, have perverted the Word of God and lost sight of Jesus' true and original message. I too, consider myself a follower of Jesus' teachings, but I have long since stopped referring to myself as a "Christian" because of the connotation of hatred that label has come to represent.
I DO know what love is, thank you. I agree with most of the things on that list. The only one that really bothers me is this one:
If the king loved his peasant servants so much, why would he not simply renounce his position of power and share his wealth equally among all the people of his nation? Why would he not educate the peasants so that they would no longer be defenseless servants to his will? I assume that this line was supposed to refer to the "Heavenly King" and not an Earthly king, but just the same. When I look at it literally, it bothers me greatly. What can I say? I'm a democratic socialist. Obviously I have problems with monarchy. And even if you look at that line metaphorically, it presents human beings as helpless servants. I thought we were supposed to have free will and the ability to take care of ourselves and make decisions for ourselves. What happened to that?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 9, 2006 15:51:47 GMT -5
Morluna,
I'd really like to engage in open discussion with you, but your response doesn't give me much to go with. Any chance you might actually attempt to answer some of the questions or try to overcome any of my objections in length?
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 9, 2006 20:58:17 GMT -5
Responses for Jesse, Morluna, I'd really like to engage in open discussion with you, but your response doesn't give me much to go with. Any chance you might actually attempt to answer some of the questions or try to overcome any of my objections in length? Sorry, I just didn't have the time to devote to that huge slew of questions earlier. Here you are. This doesn't really answer the question. Your answer is dogmatic. It's a bold statement but is not an arguement. You are saying, "I know it is God because I know it is God." A man who is schizophrenic could say, "I know that I am Jesus Christ because I know that I am Jesus Christ." Certainly you wouldn't accept this state yourself. You would call my arguement weak if I said, "I know Christianity is true because I know Christianity is true. Your logic is shown to be absurdity when applied to other topics. The principle I am trying to convey here is that certainty in an individual does not mean certainty in reality. AAAAHHHH!!! *tears out hair in frustration* But you DO make the argument that "Christianity is true because I know that it is true." Your entire basis for saying the things that you say and believing the things that you believe is simply because "the Bible says so." You have no factual evidence to back up any of your arguments. While some of my beliefs are beyond scientific explanation, (the experience of meditation and prayer for example) most of the statements I have made are based firmly on facts. Furthermore, it would be extremely hypocritical of me to deny you the right to believe what you believe, based on the fact that I hold to unexplainable beliefs as well. I can't put into words what it is like when I meditate and feel the energy of the Creator flowing through my enlightened self, not any more than you can put into words how it felt when the Holy Spirit came upon you and you were saved (assuming that you DID have that experience in which case if you didn't you can leave now because you are not a true Christian according to basic doctrine.) The issue I take with your arguments, and your approach is simply this: In addition to making your beliefs known to others, you force your own beliefs onto others. Here is the fundamental difference between you and I. I do not force others to believe what I believe. I discuss spirituality quite a lot and LOVE to do so (isn't it obvious? ;D) but when I do discuss it, I say what I believe, and then I politely listen to what others believe, and then I RESPECT their beliefs by not trying to convert them to my way of thinking. This is simple human courtesy and respect for others. Something you lack. You condemn anyone who disagrees with you to eternal Hell. And yet you cannot provide ANY substantial proof to show that your views are the only proper ones to live by. You repeatedly quote scripture from a book that I do not accept as factually based in order to prove your points. Your entire argument is based on a 4000 year old book of text, that has been rewritten and retranslated innumerable times by innumerable different individuals, all with different social and political agendas. If you accept it as fact, fine. That's your choice. But can you not see why others would be skeptical about converting into a belief system based on such flimsy historical context? How many times are you going to use the same arguments dear? As I said before... your choice to accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God is part of what you FEEL is right, part of your belief. You have no more proof of anything than I do. I don't. That's why I continue to question the world around me and my own beliefs every day. It might interest you to know that at one time in my life, our (yours and mine) beliefs lined up very closely. I accepted the Bible as unerring fact once. But over time, as I studied it more and more, I found things that did not feel right to me. My conscience told me it was wrong. I chose to believe what felt right in my heart and the brain that God gave me, rather than what a book had to say. I prayed about the questions I had, I meditated upon them, and I was able to come to conclusions on those issues. At this point in my life, I have decided that I will trust my conscience and the guidance of the Creator through prayer rather than any physical text. But the point is, I am always growing and changing, and because I realize I am not perfect I know that at some point my feelings on certain issues may change. This is why I am forever seeking the truth and I will never get to a point where I think it is okay to say, "Alright. That's it. I've learned all there is to know and I'm perfect now." That would be a very conceited thing to think about myself. How do YOU know that your Bible is not the wrong place to look for the right answers? We're both human and imperfect. We both make mistakes. The difference between us is that you refuse to accept the idea that you might, even MIGHT, be wrong. Even just a LITTLE bit. And further you force your potentially misguided beliefs on others and condemn them if they don't agree with you. This is very conceited of you, in my opinion. I already answered this, kind of. No I do not. For this reason I continually grow and assess my own beliefs and ask the Creator for guidance towards the truth. Leviticus 21:9~ If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire." John 8:3~ The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the law of Moses you commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" ... "If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."Your own Bible contradicts itself, and Jesus overturns the old Laws of Moses in the New Testament, so why do you continue to look to the Old Testament for answers? This makes less sense than my drawing from multiple cultures and beliefs for truth. Besides, I never said ALL of the Koran is true (to be honest I have yet to read very much of the Koran, it's next on my list!) anymore than ALL of the Bible is true. As to this: "The Koran says "kill the infidel" while the bible says, "love your enemies." The Bible also says things like "if you look at a woman lustfully, you have already commited adultery in your heart and deserve to die." "The Koran teaches that a man can beat his wife, while the bible teaches that a husband is to love his wife." The Bible also teaches that woman should be subserviant and obedient to her husband, and I sure as Hell don't believe that! xD No, it doesn't. Next question please? Now you're getting it! xD In some forms of discreet math, I'm pretty sure it does. O_o Valentine, you're more up on this sort of thing than I am... am I correct in that statement? You're right. I am very closed minded about racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, prejudice based on ablism, among other things. I do not agree with anything that takes away from the God given rights of other human beings. Any belief that is not hurtful to my fellow man is open to exploration, and I'll probably try it out. If it is harmful to my fellow man and takes away from their human and civil rights to freedom and respect, it is not right for me. Straight and simple. Who says? You. That's your belief. My belief is different. Don't press your belief on me and I won't press my belief on you. Got it yet? When I say I am sure about things, I mean that that is how I feel about them as of now. My feelings might change later, as I grow. But I've already covered this. My truth may be different from your truth, but I reserve the right to not have my truth trampled upon by yours. Oooo now that's some philosophy there. Not being sarcastic... I'm serious. That was nice. :D I have very firm beliefs on some topics, particularly ones related to how I live life and how I feel others should be allowed to live theirs. When I said "I'm not sure of anything," I believe you had just asked me a question about the afterlife, and that's what I was referring to. I'm pretty well grounded in my beliefs concerning this life, because I live this life every day and am well acquianted with it. I have absolutely no knowledge of the afterlife, if there even is one, so I accept that any beliefs I have concerning it are not based on fact. None of us have been there, so no one can know what it is like. Unlike those who follow your beliefs and seem to need definite answers on everything, I rather like the mystery of what is waiting for us after we pass on. I am not afraid of death. I certainly don't want to die yet because I haven't done all the things I need and want to do in this life for it to feel worthwhile and well lived to me. But when my death does come, I hope I will be ready for it and can surge forward into whatever comes next with excitement and awe, not fear. If it hurts others, it's wrong. What more of a "test" do I need?
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 11, 2006 23:16:19 GMT -5
This doesn't really answer the question. Your answer is dogmatic. It's a bold statement but is not an arguement. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think she was getting more at something like this: We live in succession, in division, in parts, in particles. Meantime within man is the soul of the whole; the wise silence; the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related, the eternal ONE. And this deep power in which we exist and whose beatitude is all accessible to us, is not only self-sufficing and perfect in every hour, but the act of seeing and the thing seen, the seer and the spectacle, the subject and the object, are one. We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are shining parts, is the soul.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 11, 2006 23:23:32 GMT -5
This doesn't really answer the question. Your answer is dogmatic. It's a bold statement but is not an arguement. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think she was getting more at something like this: We live in succession, in division, in parts, in particles. Meantime within man is the soul of the whole; the wise silence; the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related, the eternal ONE. And this deep power in which we exist and whose beatitude is all accessible to us, is not only self-sufficing and perfect in every hour, but the act of seeing and the thing seen, the seer and the spectacle, the subject and the object, are one. We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are shining parts, is the soul. *claps* Nicely said.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 13:15:12 GMT -5
How do you determine what is a "God given right" and what is not? What if someone said, "It is my God given right to hurt other people"? How would you prove him wrong?
Do you think you are simply presupposing "it's good not to hurt people" without any logical or reasonable explaination as to why?
Who determines what is a human right? Who said that freedom and respect are even good things? Again, on what grounds do can you say that harming your fellow man is wrong?
Who says what is hurtful to others is wrong? You are being very autonomous and arbitrary. What is the ultimate source of morality? Are you Morluna that ultimate source of morality?
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 13:19:44 GMT -5
How do you determine what is a "God given right" and what is not? What if someone said, "It is my God given right to hurt other people"? How would you prove him wrong? Do you think you are simply presupposing "it's good not to hurt people" without any logical or reasonable explaination as to why? Who determines what is a human right? Who said that freedom and respect are even good things? Again, on what grounds do can you say that harming your fellow man is wrong? Who says what is hurtful to others is wrong? You are being very autonomous and arbitrary. What is the ultimate source of morality? Are you Morluna that ultimate source of morality? Discussing the ultimate source of morality is difficult to do without first discussing man in the state of nature and natural order. I don't really think you are capable or well read enough to understand these philosophies, even the ones that directly tie into the Bible. You're getting really redundant with your use of the word presupposition and its derivatives.
|
|