Agree or disagree?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

So tell me when it comes to the issue of gay marriage,,,,,who's right? You or Jesus Christ?

Huh?

There is only one marriage God truly countenances, that within the temple.

By analogy, he acquiesces in civil ceremonies modelled after the union authorized within the temple.

That much is clear.

Nobody here, with the exception of perhaps Seattle, believes gay marriage is a good thing, some just find it to be a de minimis issuel, probably due to family members suffering from SSA.

That is all.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think a strong argument could be made that the country is more religious today than it ever has been before (including at its foundation).

Sometimes I wonder how you make it through a day, Archaea.

I would love to see, if anyone has it, data on how religious the country is as opposed to the past. Couple of thoughts come immediately to mind when I read your comment:

1. If there are more religious people is it because religions are increasingly more liberal and require less or is it the more "orthodox" religions that are more appealing or is it actually both?

2. Is there really more influence of religion in politics today than ever, or is it simply that in times gone by people generally had a much firmer base line of what their "morality" included and there was no need for a christian coalition? For example 50 years ago there didn't need to be an abortion debate or a gay rights debate because there was virtual unanimous opposition to them.


I guess I tend to believe as to (1) above that it is both.

With respect to (2), I think that the "christian right" has always been there and in much greater numbers than today but became better organized and more vocal in the last 30 years to combat the extremely well organized and mobilized special interest groups that emerged on the left. I also think, however, that the success of left wing special interest groups has prompted many of these folks on the christian right to to "hunker down" so to speak and become even more conservative and in many cases more strident.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I wager the Church will engage in the political arena even less, now that is has received a solid loss. It will become as Mormon, refusing to participate, until we are destroyed.

In a previous discussion Hoya asked specifically what 'more' someone could do ... He asked of course so that he could dissect my ideas with artful language and condemn my perspective as foolish and ignorant, and condescend to inform me I am an idiot.

The discussion was closed before I had a chance to respond. Ultimately the rhetoric will drown out the truth and the democratic societies within which we all live will grow increasingly self destructive … which leads us back to the question of what more can one do … the answer is self evident, and we refuse to listen.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You seem to view the Church as some sort of social help institution giving hand outs. I see the Church as an institution which possesses information and ordinances, and which when resources allow, will provide short terms assistance at the temporal level.

Therein lies the answer ... too many members want the church to be what it is not.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Therein lies the answer ... too many members want the church to be what it is not.

So the church is not a social institution?

Whatever happened to, bring me your tattered, your poor, your disadvantaged? I thought America was founded on the principles of christianity, are we not a christian church?

What about the BOM, it is full of examples where the poor are the ones cared for, and soon raise above the rich. The republican ideals of taking care of yourself have poisoned this church for long enough, it's seriously time to return to 'true mormonism,' ie, loving all, taking care of the poor, respecting people, etc.

The church is, and only is a social institution, it's nothing more, nothing less. Look at the mission of the church, not only does it provide direct social lines of fellowship, it's aim is to create social interactions that extend outside of the realm of LDS.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Rocky, Jesus said two things....

a. Love God above all things

b. Love your neighbor like you love yourself

Now if we personally love God, we personally will strive to do what we 'should' do, but if we love our neighbors, we will extend them friendship, brotherhood, courtesies, devotion, love, kinship, etc, even if we aren't comfortable with the decisions they make.

That's the part that people don't understand about that passage, the first part is personal, and deals with us individually, the second part is universal, and deals with mankind.

Fus, I completely agree with you. Never at anytime have I said one iota about not loving those regardless of which direction they choose to live their life.

I'm sure some will mis-interpret me based on my feelings on the subject and that's fine.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Render to Caesar, what is Caesars....

I honestly think Jesus would say this, and than would instruct us to love the person.

Is there really any difference between a homosexual and the woman Jesus saved from stoning?

No, I don't believe there is a difference.

Is there a difference when Christ gives us direction and we choose to tell him he's wrong?

Yes.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

So the church is not a social institution?

Whatever happened to, bring me your tattered, your poor, your disadvantaged? I thought America was founded on the principles of christianity, are we not a christian church?

What about the BOM, it is full of examples where the poor are the ones cared for, and soon raise above the rich. The republican ideals of taking care of yourself have poisoned this church for long enough, it's seriously time to return to 'true mormonism,' ie, loving all, taking care of the poor, respecting people, etc.

The church is, and only is a social institution, it's nothing more, nothing less. Look at the mission of the church, not only does it provide direct social lines of fellowship, it's aim is to create social interactions that extend outside of the realm of LDS.

It is an institution to teach and to hold the ordinances of exaltation. By way of devolution, it has social aspects.

Society has changed so much since the days of Brigham Young.

No longer is the Church the sole, and in many instances, even the primary social institution for its members.

Here's what liberals don't understand. Resources are LIMITED. Leaders will make judgments where to allocate resources.

It is sad to see persons who've never managed large resources be critisized by a bunch of people who've never managed the quantities of resources.

The Church has a threefold purpose, not a onefold purpose, i.e., looking like a hand out organization so that some people can feel good about what people are doing.

It is a common debate, do I teach a man how to fish or do I give a man a fish? The Church doesn't have a big pool of fish, but it has a wealth of knowledge how to fish.

People seem to believe, wrongfully, that the Church has a boatload of fish sitting around. It doesn't.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Fus, I completely agree with you. Never at anytime have I said one iota about not loving those regardless of which direction they choose to live their life.

I'm sure some will mis-interpret me based on my feelings on the subject and that's fine.

But you are misquoting Jesus when you attribute Him with saying that homosexual marriage is evil.

That's the beauty of the gospel, we can have people like hoya, homeboy, archaea, myself, and we can all think drastically different and still congregate under the same tenent of love and worship.

So you can personally believe that homosexual marriage is evil, I can believe it's not that big of a deal, and we can both follow and love Jesus the same.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is through catastrophic cleansing of society, which I hope to avoid. Our society has never known privation, therefore it is full of gluttony and excess.

Yes good people exist, in the minority and who for their own security, financially and spiritually, remain quiet. Speaking out no longer works. Through the cacophy of communal static, nobody can hear, or nobody's listening.

I get nervous when people start talking about a "catastrophic cleansing" of society (for some reason I'm having images of the movie Falling Down, with Michael Douglas). I'm interested to know your definition of a "good" person, one not in need of cleansing. I'll grant you that politicians are M.F.S.O.B.'s, but that's always been the case and they've always needed cleansing.

I don't consider someone a bad person just because they have a vice. My father-in-law was an alcoholic -- it eventually killed him -- but he was one of the most generous, decent men I have ever known. My best friend growing up was stoned every day of his life during his junior and senior years of high school. Last month he was released as a bishop and is now in the Stake Presidency. He's a good person now, and he was a good person back in high school. He's just a lot more responsible now.

As for homesexuality, does that automatically make someone a bad person, a prime candidate for cleansing (you went on your mission to Germany, right? )? I just don't see it. Almost all the homosexual men I know are kind, generous people with honest jobs and productive lives. What is it about these people that make them so ripe for cleansing? Is it the homosexual sex act that so disturbs you? I realize that the notion of anal sex is repulsive to many people, but can't you say the same thing about fat-sex? Should we pass an ammendment that restricts marriage to people with less than 30% body fat?

You lament the fact that people are finding religion less and less relevant today, but I would suggest that the problem is more a case of religion failing people today. The Christianity I see today has little in common with the Christianity I remember from my youth. Today's Christianity is strident, mean-spirited, divisive, political, judgmental, self-centered. Today's Christianity seems more interested in telling us who amongst us is evil, rather than encouraging us to love each other. Today's Christianity is a corrupt, bastardized version of the Christianity I see when I read the New Testament.

Perhaps the problem today is that we worry too little about being Christian and worry too much about being religoius. Maybe if we relied less on our religions to tell us who is good and who is bad in the world, we would discover that things aren't quite as dire as we suppose.