Religion

[Stan]

I have long argued that religion, as in the organised institutions, should not necessarily be linked to the actual experiences of personal faith. The 'evil-doings' of religious groups, and there is a long and painful history of such things, has much more to do with a small elite using the power of religion over a mass of people, then it has to do with a faith in a god / gods.

I agree...sometimes. That being said, I believe the Church (the Body of Christ also known as the people of God) vs. the church (a building with people in it on Sunday) is a living thing. In that Body there are Hands (people who work for the needy and the unsaved), there are Feet (people who go place to dispense Christ's love and mercy), there are minds (people who explain scripture in everyday terms, pastors, etc) and a host of other parts. The Body cannot function properly if it does not worship together and commune as a Body.

Without Worship and Sunday School on Sunday, my men's group on Tuesday mornings and my Wednesday night dinner and Bible Study and a host of meetings to conduct the business of the church (like paying the heat and electric, the mortgage, salaries, etc) I would not be encouraged and held accountable in my growth as a person and a disciple. Likewise, the Church would cease to exist if it could not meet to plan things like feeding homeless people, planning mission trips, etc.

It might look like people in the church are there because they feel like they have to be, but there are more people that are uplifted and encouraged on a weekly (or more often) basis when attending worship. To me, not going to church would be like never going home to see my parents or never having a cookout with my brothers. Life would not be as rich as it is for me now.

Things start to go wrong when the church starts to think more about the growth of the church vs. the growth of the Church. And when people start to think that THEY need to grow the Church. Christ was strongest when He was weak (when He gave up His life on a cross). That was when His purpose was fulfilled. It is the same with the Church. It is stronger when it is weak. But here on earth people get in the way of themselves sometimes.

[Nalaris]

Well, in the case of rape, that's different. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' official stance on such mitigating circumstances is that every circumstance would require a Priesthood authority to counsel with the mother and make a decision. That may or may not be to get an abortion.

Of course, all your points concerning the status of a fetus are moot, as are mine, technically, since there's been no absolutely, unquestionably conclusive results. There have been studies "proving" both sides of the issue. The topic of abortion has been beaten to death, and it is not relevant to those three basic questions I asked at the beginning. Not to mention we've both made our points two or three times. Let's drop it, shall we? Repitition isn't that great in debate.

God himself is unchanging, but the circumstances on Earth change all the time. Do you think God determined right and wrong by rolling dice? Or just deciding this is right and that is wrong? God wants us to do what's right at all times and all places: that means not following a set dogma of good and bad, but just some basic principles, i.e. compassion, generosity, etc. When Christ came to Earth he fulfilled the Law of Moses, and a new, Higher Law was established.

Concerning those Bible justifications of stoning rape victims, homosexuality, etc., give me the quotes. Back it up.

[Talapus]

Concerning those Bible justifications of stoning rape victims, homosexuality, etc., give me the quotes. Back it up.

From Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[Joshuamonkey]

I don't think the bible was talking about rape. And if it was, who cares! That was then, now is now. You can't still use all the same laws in the Bible word for word! The Earth has changed.

[Talapus]

You can't still use all the same laws in the Bible word for word! The Earth has changed.

If the laws in the Bible have changed, how can you possibly use the Bible as a justification of morality? How can you determine which laws have changed and which remain the same? And for those that have changed, what laws have taken their place?

[Joshuamonkey]

You were the one using the Bible as a justification. The prophet of our church tells us. Heavenly Father tells us.

[Talapus]

You were the one using the Bible as a justification.

Hardly. I was providing a verse from the Bible that Nalaris asked for that talked about killing homosexuals. I in no way directly derive my moral values from the Bible, or any other religious text. I myself am not homosexual, but I have several friends who are, and I wish them continued happiness in their lives.

The prophet of our church tells us. Heavenly Father tells us.

Presumably the Heavenly Father has never spoken to you directly on the subject of killing homosexuals (if I am wrong on this point, be sure to correct me), and I must therefore assume that any changes to the laws outlined in the Bible must have been passed down to you through your prophet? I have never read the Book of Mormon (although it is on my list of texts to read), and do not have a complete understanding of your sect. Am I correct in stating that the prophet you speak of is Joseph Smith? Are there any other prophets (besides the ones outlined in the Bible) that I should be aware of?

[AoM]

I think the chances of humanity having grasped the true nature of the universe and its creation and function are slim. If there were a grand truth, obviously it would be nice if everyone aligned their views with it, but so long as the existence of a Creator or Creators remains unprovable through means other than "just having faith," you will never see humanity agree on it.

I do not believe that any religion has it right. I'm not ruling out the existance of God and heavan, but I'm not convinced that they are absolute truths. If there is an almighty God, and he truly is all that is good, then by leading a good life, one should be deserving of entering his kingdom regardless of whether one worshipped him or believed in him. Any God that would punish a good person whose only crime was in not believing, is not a God that is worth spending eternity with, and is certainly not an example of a "perfect" being.

So no, I will not hang on to a religion "just in case" I'm wrong and there is a God. I will believe what I see. If he's real, God won't judge you by the number of times you go to church or pray in a certain direction or how many times you fasted. Acts of goodness are important, not acts of faith.

[Talapus]

Very eloquent AoM. I agree very much with you on this matter.

[Phalynx]

Talk of Old Testament Law is relevant to Judaism, (I have wondered how they now interpret these laws) but not to Christianity because Jesus came to rewrite the rules and remove the punishment, he was the one who prevented a mob stoning an adulteress, so that particular argument is irrelevant to *most* christians.

With regards to abortion, There is a time when an embryo becomes a foetus, but these are medical terms... I'm not sure exactly when a foetus moves from potential human being to human being, but babies are now born and survive at 24 weeks (5 1/2 months) which a few years ago was well within the window when it could be terminated/aborted/killed. This is a classic case where relative morality really lets isteslf down. As far as I am concerned we can't be sure when a foetus is a child so you HAVE to take the most conservative position you can... after all an embryo, which is a ball of small cells is alive and can exist externally (in the case of IVF) before being transferred to a mother.

There are not many situations I can think of where the needs of one human being justifies the killing of another - the only situation I can of in this context is where the pregnancy direct threatens the mother's life and that is a majorly tough decision....

Of course if you can persuade yourself it's right then its OK obviously....

(oh and the idea that rape justifes termination mystifies me profoundly)

[formerly known as hf]

As far as I am concerned we can't be sure when a foetus is a child so you HAVE to take the most conservative position you can...

Neither can we be sure when it is an individual being, with consciousness. Right up until birth, it is fused with the mothers body, it is part of the mothers body.

It seems we take entirley different approaches, you believe in the sacredness of a possible human life, however unformed it may be, whereas I am far more concerned about the rights of the mother over her own body, and upholding free will and the right of choice.

You say that rape victims have no reason to have an abortion? I always find that disgusting coming from a man. You will never, can never, ever, in even the smallest way, understand the pain of pregnancy via rape. You are so far removed from such an experience and feelings that making decisions on such a matter, even holding an opinion is disgusting.

As for the bible, I won't repeat myself, but I had it out a while ago. My position still stands, that there is almost anything that can be justified by 'reading' bible passages in particular ways. (http://www.cantr.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7399 is where most of the discussion came from)

If you accept that the Bible, supposedly the word of God, is no longer fully applicable to today's entirely different society, then how do you formulate ideas of what is God's fundamental rights and wrongs for today? If you rely on the teachings of a prophet or of contemporary holy people, then aren't you putting your belief in the opinions of those holy people, rather than in God? How can you be sure they have 'read' God's teachings correctly, and properly interpreted them in the right way? If you rely upon your own feelings, then how can you be sure you, yourself, have the right interpretation? There is no way, ever, of knowing God's (who doesn;t exist anyway) fundamental, universal values, as we will always have to rely on the 'readings' of uorselves or others, and we can never know if they, or us, have got it accurate.

[Phalynx]

You say that rape victims have no reason to have an abortion? I always find that disgusting coming from a man. You will never, can never, ever, in even the smallest way, understand the pain of pregnancy via rape. You are so far removed from such an experience and feelings that making decisions on such a matter, even holding an opinion is disgusting.

Oh well if I'm not entitled to an opinion I will shut up then..

[Hellzon]

"I kinda lament the fact that any male gets involved in the politics or legal ramifications of abortion. It's like a guy with no arms chairing a clapping convention." - Dead.Blue.Clown, RPGnet

I like my quote file.

/Hellzon - pro-choice. Not that abortion is much of an issue in the land of the liberal commie polar bears

[Stan]

I find it disgusting when people who aren't fetuses claim that fetuses aren't babies.

*shrugs* This is the second time you've used the "you're not a woman" in the abortion debate, HF.

Should I have my wife post on the issue? How about my mother who was once raped and is still opposed to abortion in all cases?

[formerly known as hf]

I find it disgusting when people who aren't fetuses claim that fetuses aren't babies.

Not /really/ the same thing, is it?

Should I have my wife post on the issue? How about my mother who was once raped and is still opposed to abortion in all cases?

The opinions of those people would be so much more highly authoritative and valuable then us men deliberating about a subject that will never, ever, affect us in the way it affects others. Hellzon's quote kinda sums it up.