|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Jan 18, 2019 22:59:29 GMT
IMO people leaving the churches might not be such a bad thing, as long as they don't leave God. Leaving god isn't a bad thing. Living your life on the basis of fairy tales, that's bad. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 18, 2019 23:00:31 GMT
I am curious. What is 'Godly approval' and how is it assessed? well godly approval is self explanatory and the best way to learn about it is to read the Bible. How do you know when you have it? How is it assessed? You implied that people need not lose it even if not going to church? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 18, 2019 23:21:44 GMT
IMO people leaving the churches might not be such a bad thing, as long as they don't leave God. Leaving god isn't a bad thing. Living your life on the basis of fairy tales, that's bad. And that is your opinion. Thanks for sharing it. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 18, 2019 23:29:37 GMT
well godly approval is self explanatory and the best way to learn about it is to read the Bible. How do you know when you have it? How is it assessed? You implied that people need not lose it even if not going to church? i didn’t say that last part nor was there any implication of it. The answer to the first part is as simple as knowing how to read |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 18, 2019 23:42:01 GMT
I am curious. What is 'Godly approval' and how is it assessed? well godly approval is self explanatory and the best way to learn about it is to read the Bible. Yes and the objective readers learn therein that the Christian deity approves of a lot of things, good and, well, questionable - including the collection of trophy foreskins, discrimination against the handicapped, rape as an act of war and genocide. So you can how it might prove a vexed subject. Fortunately most of the Bible is neither horrible nor inspiring. It is simply dull and irrelevant: long genealogies written by men obsessed with racial purity; archaic stories about ancient squabbles over real estate and women; arcane rituals aimed at pleasing a volatile deity; folk medicine practices involving mandrakes and dove’s blood; superstition that equated cleanliness with spiritual purity and misfortune with divine disfavor; outdated insider politics and a grand human sacrifice. All with God's approval, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 18, 2019 23:50:52 GMT
How do you know when you have it? How is it assessed? You implied that people need not lose it even if not going to church? The answer to the first part is as simple as knowing how to read Wait a minute...YOU said That to me, is saying the same thing as 'people need not lose it even if not going to church'. However I want to know what Godly approval is and how it is assessed. NOT how to get it ie by reading the Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 19, 2019 0:05:07 GMT
well godly approval is self explanatory and the best way to learn about it is to read the Bible. Yes and the objective readers learn therein that the Christian deity approves of a lot of things, good and, well, questionable - including the collection of trophy foreskins, discrimination against the handicapped, rape as an act of war and genocide. So you can how it might prove a vexed subject. Fortunately most of the Bible is neither horrible nor inspiring. It is simply dull and irrelevant: long genealogies written by men obsessed with racial purity; archaic stories about ancient squabbles over real estate and women; arcane rituals aimed at pleasing a volatile deity; folk medicine practices involving mandrakes and dove’s blood; superstition that equated cleanliness with spiritual purity and misfortune with divine disfavor; outdated insider politics and a grand human sacrifice. All with God's approval, of course. christians have never been required to collect foreskins. For that matter what verse did God require it. Circumcision maybe? I know that genocide and war are the same thing to a theophobiac unless your country is engaged it but fortunately Christians are not a nation and are at war with no one. I also already know theophobiacs can’t tell the difference so please continue. It humors me. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 19, 2019 0:07:26 GMT
i didn’t say that last part nor was there any implication of it.The answer to the first part is as simple as knowing how to read Wait a minute...YOU said That to me, is saying the same thing as 'people need not lose it even if not going to church'. However I want to know what Godly approval is and how it is assessed. NOT how to get it ie by reading the Bible. ”to you” is the appropriate qualifier. A church dying out has nothing to do with the need for fellowship. Would you like a free Bible Study so that all these confusing notions can become clearer to you? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 19, 2019 0:14:31 GMT
Wait a minute...YOU said That to me, is saying the same thing as 'people need not lose it even if not going to church'. However I want to know what Godly approval is and how it is assessed. NOT how to get it ie by reading the Bible. ”to you” is the appropriate qualifier. A church dying out has nothing to do with the need for fellowship. Would you like a free Bible Study so that all these confusing notions can become clearer to you? When shown to be illogical, why do your replies become EVEN more illogical? I am guessing it is a defence mechanism because you don't actually have a logical answer to my question of 'What is Godly approval and how is it assessed'? and by whom? |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 19, 2019 0:16:49 GMT
My two cents.
Doubt is good. Nothing is sure, therefore doubting is the rational thing to do.
It's also something that facilitates progress. Scientific theories often get created because current explanations are doubted.
If a religion tries to prohibit or punish doubt, it deserves to die out. As mentioned in the OP, when you went through periods of doubt, your beliefs you have afterwards are strengthened. In my opinion religions that prohibit doubt or questions do so because they know, deep down, that they are false.
|
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 19, 2019 6:54:13 GMT
My two cents. Doubt is good. Nothing is sure, therefore doubting is the rational thing to do. It's also something that facilitates progress. Scientific theories often get created because current explanations are doubted. If a religion tries to prohibit or punish doubt, it deserves to die out. As mentioned in the OP, when you went through periods of doubt, your beliefs you have afterwards are strengthened. In my opinion religions that prohibit doubt or questions do so because they know, deep down, that they are false. Thank you for addressing a point made in the article I linked. I think this was the main takeaway, that unlike the case the Mormon leader was making, having doubts can lead to humans advancing and improving. Doubt can lead to spiritual growth. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 19, 2019 7:26:38 GMT
I like church now.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2019 16:32:20 GMT
Yes and the objective readers learn therein that the Christian deity approves of a lot of things, good and, well, questionable - including the collection of trophy foreskins, discrimination against the handicapped, rape as an act of war and genocide. So you can how it might prove a vexed subject. Fortunately most of the Bible is neither horrible nor inspiring. It is simply dull and irrelevant: long genealogies written by men obsessed with racial purity; archaic stories about ancient squabbles over real estate and women; arcane rituals aimed at pleasing a volatile deity; folk medicine practices involving mandrakes and dove’s blood; superstition that equated cleanliness with spiritual purity and misfortune with divine disfavor; outdated insider politics and a grand human sacrifice. All with God's approval, of course. christians have never been required to collect foreskins. For that matter what verse did God require it. Circumcision maybe? 'Required' is not what I claimed - merely that it has been, at times, an approved action EG: 1 Samuel 18:25,7 Saul then said, "Thus you shall say to David, 'The king does not desire any dowry except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to take vengeance on the king's enemies '" Now Saul planned to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines... "David took his men with him and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins. They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage." 2 Samuel 3:14 So David sent messengers to Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, saying, "Give me my wife Michal, to whom I was betrothed for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines." So if you disagree, your challenge here is to now argue convincingly that God did not, after all approve of matters here described - things with which neither Saul or David took exception. Can you find later verse condemning the actions? God is an entity who is deeply obsessed with foreskins (and circumcision, as started in Genesis 17:9-14) At least that was true for the first two thousand years or so after Abraham. In the New Testament God changed his mind, according to Paul. Perhaps a change in mood music was just a sign of a culture growing up; primitive societies often mutilate parts of the body to set themselves apart from others. No, I can tell the difference thank you. When God drowned the world except for a few, it was genocide. On the other hand, God’s command to kill and drive out the Canaanites, perhaps even innocent ones, and the similar commands concerning the Midianites and Amalekites, are more to be considered instruments of war similar to when the God of Love recommends rape and pillage in the same context . I hope that helps and look forward to any special pleading. No worries. It is always a pleasure to humour the credulous. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 19, 2019 19:57:08 GMT
christians have never been required to collect foreskins. For that matter what verse did God require it. Circumcision maybe? 'Required' is not what I claimed - merely that it has been, at times, an approved action EG: 1 Samuel 18:25,7 Saul then said, "Thus you shall say to David, 'The king does not desire any dowry except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to take vengeance on the king's enemies '" Now Saul planned to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines... "David took his men with him and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins. They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage." 2 Samuel 3:14 So David sent messengers to Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, saying, "Give me my wife Michal, to whom I was betrothed for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines." So if you disagree, your challenge here is to now argue convincingly that God did not, after all approve of matters here described - things with which neither Saul or David took exception. Can you find later verse condemning the actions? God is an entity who is deeply obsessed with foreskins (and circumcision, as started in Genesis 17:9-14) At least that was true for the first two thousand years or so after Abraham. In the New Testament God changed his mind, according to Paul. Perhaps a change in mood music was just a sign of a culture growing up; primitive societies often mutilate parts of the body to set themselves apart from others. No, I can tell the difference thank you. When God drowned the world except for a few, it was genocide. On the other hand, God’s command to kill and drive out the Canaanites, perhaps even innocent ones, and the similar commands concerning the Midianites and Amalekites, are more to be considered instruments of war similar to when the God of Love recommends rape and pillage in the same context . I hope that helps and look forward to any special pleading. No worries. It is always a pleasure to humour the credulous. What the hell does anyone do with one hundred foreskins? Make a Philistine meat pie? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 19, 2019 20:17:53 GMT
'Required' is not what I claimed - merely that it has been, at times, an approved action EG: 1 Samuel 18:25,7 Saul then said, "Thus you shall say to David, 'The king does not desire any dowry except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to take vengeance on the king's enemies '" Now Saul planned to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines... "David took his men with him and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins. They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage." 2 Samuel 3:14 So David sent messengers to Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, saying, "Give me my wife Michal, to whom I was betrothed for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines." So if you disagree, your challenge here is to now argue convincingly that God did not, after all approve of matters here described - things with which neither Saul or David took exception. Can you find later verse condemning the actions? God is an entity who is deeply obsessed with foreskins (and circumcision, as started in Genesis 17:9-14) At least that was true for the first two thousand years or so after Abraham. In the New Testament God changed his mind, according to Paul. Perhaps a change in mood music was just a sign of a culture growing up; primitive societies often mutilate parts of the body to set themselves apart from others. No, I can tell the difference thank you. When God drowned the world except for a few, it was genocide. On the other hand, God’s command to kill and drive out the Canaanites, perhaps even innocent ones, and the similar commands concerning the Midianites and Amalekites, are more to be considered instruments of war similar to when the God of Love recommends rape and pillage in the same context . I hope that helps and look forward to any special pleading. No worries. It is always a pleasure to humour the credulous. What the hell does anyone do with one hundred foreskins? Make a Philistine meat pie? ,,,a small purse or handbag, might be nice! |
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Jan 19, 2019 21:51:35 GMT
The upside of the Right's stranglehold on religion in the U.S. is that so many younger people can't help but see their hypocrisy, and naturally turn away. The #1 cause of the wave of young people losing their religion (in my opinion) is the Religious Right.
|
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 29, 2019 8:48:32 GMT
The upside of the Right's stranglehold on religion in the U.S. is that so many younger people can't help but see their hypocrisy, and naturally turn away. The #1 cause of the wave of young people losing their religion (in my opinion) is the Religious Right. I think this is at least one of the causes. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 14, 2019 8:55:37 GMT
And now we have an added voice about how to handle doubt. Dallin Oaks, the likely next president of the Mormon church, advised members not to do research about spectss of the church that cause them to have doubts about it. Many years ago the New York Times said that Dallin had a "contempt for the truth" when he said that church members should not criticize church leaders even when they were wrong, and said things that were not true. They had a good point. From the official Mormon church website: "President Oaks acknowledged that some Latter-Saint couples face conflicts over important values and priorities. Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues. 'I suggest that research is not the answer,”'he said. Dallin Oaks advises against doing research - link |
|
