Aesa

Is that what you'll say to your children when we've engaged in so much resource depletion that things seriously start to get unsustainable for us?What about if a nuclear war occurs? We just 'did our best', by 'working in the system' because that's all we could do? Granted, with every change... it starts from a source (this system) but that doesn't mean you just 'go along to get along'. Especially if it's detrimental to the integrity of yourself; society and thus the whole planet in the long-term. We have to look beyond this system, because it is a big part of the problem. Economic analysts have been saying this for 50+ years, but it seems things aren't quite 'bad' enough for people to care yet. When's the breaking point?

Bytor, it's not Obama you hate. Obama is a puppet, like everyone else in this system he is just fulfilling his function. No matter who was in office, they'd be behaving (for the most part) like Obama. Our system is out of date. Humanity will not survive with present day values, politics and money. What we need is a change in values that correspond with our present day understandings, and the carrying capacity of the earth. You seem to be blinded by this idea that it's 'bad politicians'. It's not bad politicians. Even if we get 'ethical politicians' in office problems will not be solved because politicians aren't given the tools to solve problems. Get used to things the way they are, or look to real social change.

Your definition is generally correct. Up until groups like the Catholic and Latter-day Saint groups there's really no reference to an institutionalised 'body' of Christ which comprises the Church... certainly doesn't make it wrong though. ----------- Well that depends if we're speaking how the Bible tells it, and how history tells it -- because one differs from the other.Historically the dispute was from the Gnostic Christians and the Literalist Christians. They both claimed to be part of the original church (and the historical evidence more strongly points to the Gnostics having come first). The Gnostic's believed in Jesus in the same way the ancients believed in the Sun God Horus, as a symbolic figure. The Literalists took everything to be grounded in history (i.e., Jesus lived and is exactly who he claimed to be), which is actually not verified by history at all. That's absolutely a diversion from the topic of this thread, so I just wanted to make a point on that. (We can have a separate discussion on that in another thread, if anyone wants to)

Interesting post, foreverafter. I'm not going to turn this thread into a discussion of your points, though, because this is not an appropriate thread for such a discussion to ensue.

Television can be useful, but you probably wont find much if any of it on mainstream media networks! They are tools of keeping the public blissfully unaware!

He would become a Deistic God. Creator of the Universe but not intervening in human affairs. Now if the God of the Bible really is true, by comparison THAT would be bliss for us!

I couldn't agree more. While both genders at this time in our society, are not given the tools to relate to one another properly it seems men are often the 'worse culprit'. Danni, from my experience with people, what I'd say your husband is doing is holding onto a very big ego. In other words, when something is wrong he doesn't see it that way because he is 'looking after number 1' and as long as he is fine... then everything is fine. Now, I recognise that you are Mormon -- this to me means that you probably believe that "love" is a literal feeling, and that as a Christian you don't really believe in being natural (there's a verse somewhere in the New Testament about "taking off the natural man [being]." From a "natural" perspective, since that is what you asked -- the answer is very different. Nobody actually loves someone all the time, even if they try, there will eventually be a time here and there where there's something they don't love about a person. Let me try and give an example. Someone might ask me (and this is hypothetical, not real life) "do you love your mother?" If I were speaking from a natural perspective I'd probably find myself asking "What do you mean with such a vague term? There are many things I love about my mother, she is a very giving person to those in need, but there are also things I don't love about my mother, for example, she is very bigoted and racist." You can never love someone all the time, despite the counter claims I expect I might get from saying that you 'certainly can'. You just cannot. It is completely natural for your husband to think about being with other women. Now I'm not belittling or trying to be hurtful whatsoever, just trying to broaden your horizons a little bit. You're quite free to discount everything I say without comment, that's what freedom of choice is all about.

Well, realising that all of us need to take it a step further and look past the puppet to see the people or groups that are really to blame for the economic conditions: the international bankers and corporations themselves. The vested interests, which the government HAS to serve in this horrible system.

Not if you're also Omniscient, because then you'd be infinite; and thus unable and without need to change in such a way.

I think it's important to realise that this economic platform isn't solely Obama's by any stretch of the word, but Congress's. This model was begun by Bush, and expanded since Obama took office. Though, I would say to a degree it was a model accepted and therefore pushed by Democrats since the bail-out was passed by a Congress that had a majority democrat house. But at the same time, a very similar model would have arisen under a majority Republican house because the policy making is done in accordance with the vested interests and they don't change all that much no matter whom is in office.

Nope, the government could just step out of it entirely and abrogate any legislation even remotely related to marriage.

After seeing that photo Bush doesn't seem quite so insane. And guess what? That'd still make America one of the largest in the world!How many countries are there on this planet (around 200+ at the moment!)

I think the term Marriage and Union are absolutely synonymous. I think the term you should probably be referring to here is Marriage (secular) and Celestial Marriage (LDS faith). I'm quite aware of the LDS beliefs on marriage.What I'm actually saying is that the government should step out of marriage altogether and leave society (meaning, each individual person) to it's own devices to define what marriage, and thus the family is. This would include a religious groups right to say "No thankyou, we don't ordain that within our beleif."

This video is a simply fantastic compilation that reminds us all of a simple and easy to see truth: Hope you like. :) Sometimes I watch it when I need a real... brightening up.

What Barack was actually saying (though unfortunately it didn't come across clear) is that America is one of the largest Muslim nations in the West, and it is. There are more Muslims in America than Mormons (not surprising since Muslims have been US citizens since the 1600's). There are nearly 6 million Mormons and about 10 million Muslims. And even if you take the whole world into account, that means that America is still one of the largest Muslim nations on Earth. In the top 30-40 easily.

I agree, and I think it should be allowed (polygamy, homosexual marriage, the lot).I think that the family should be allowed to be whatever people want it to be, and not defined by government at all. It's only in recent human history that we've found it necesary to engage in such nonsense. Marriage should not be restricted at all. It just seems to immature to waste our time worrying about who should be marrying whom, when 50% of the worlds population has less than 2$ a day, 34,000 children die daily from poverty and preventable diseases...

I want to thank-you ztodd for replying to me and Godless separately. Things could have got confusing. The Scientific Method is not 'pleasing' to my mind in that it gives me emotional solace like believing in feelings as the measure of truth in one's life would. Trusting in logic is an objective matter, for the most part, ofcourse your interpretation of logic certainly can be subjective due to semantic interpretation.There is little to nothing that comes under the scope of science with requires faith, this is what differentiates it from all the 'older systems'. Science is bound by things that are testable; repetable and observable. Not faith, and not subjectivity. Not opinions, but a finding. Survival is inherent within the human species, as with most species on this planet. You have two choices, in the present day (maybe more, but two that most would consider): (1) continue on in a competitive environment (something bred into us) and keeping fighting (working) against one another in order to survive; or (2) give science and technology it's rightful place in a new social system to eliminate poverty; war and politics -- not eliminate as in 'kill' those people but make those systems irrelevant by fulfilling their function without need for them so for example if you use high technology to create an abundance for everyone then no one will fight over food any more and there will be no nutritional poverty.I think that this inherent survival, can be redirected by a change in our culture to make it entirely natural for all human beings to behave and think in an altruistic way naturally. I don't 'believe' as Iris Murdoch does, specifically, I merely gave notation to her because I'm presently studying her in Philosophy and some of the things she has said seemed quite relevant to the discussion.We cannot get happiness from the same basic things because in reality 'love' and 'feeling wanted and needed' and 'peace' don't exist. Now when I say that I'm saying that they don't exist as 'forms', in other words if you ask 100,000 people to define those terms they'd each have different concepts of what they are. So there really is no 'love' per se, it's just that we all identify a certain emotional state with the same words ... but it doesn't mean we're experiencing the same thing. A good example here, I suppose, is the concept of God. Most spiritual traditions all over the world espouse some form of belief in a deity. They identify with the same terminology, but they certainly don't mean the same thing. And, on top of that I'd say that every person within a define religion (e.g., Latter-day Saints) each have a slightly different concept of what God is, etc,. Well, I know this is a Christian forum but...Considering my notions above, you'd have to be able to arrive at some sort of 'operational definition' or objective understanding of what God is to define his existence and then also prove that He needs to be righteous per se and that sin actually exists, etc,.

This video: YouTube - The Atheism/Agnosticism Relationship describes Atheism vs. Theism very well

So do I, and the fact that they can be seen as all inter-connected and virtually every aspect of Christianity can be referenced somewhere in the Mediterranean/Egyptian/International Pagan world continuously leads me to conclude that Christianity has a ... common ancestor. Feelings aren't really an appropriate measure of what is reality. One might be: the well-being of the human species and all the inhabitants of the Earth? Well I hold that it's entirely subjective. Happiness is not something that everyone will find in the same place, and that's why certain people have certain preferences. Why do they have certain preferences? Because we're all conditioned slightly differently in our environment, and this plays a major role in determining our likes and dislikes (which are, subjective).People like Iris Murdoch, for example, espoused that happiness comes from overcoming our 'selfish ego' and 'joining the world as it is' rather than fighting in our own interests, etc,. You'd have to have faith in God to believe in sin in the first place, wouldn't you?

Well, while that's a nice idea personally I'd hope that my goals can be focused in the same way I see them as being at present. To seek things that will lead to the greater good and growth of the species, and to not be over indulgent (e.g., growing exotic minnows) - what good does that ever achieve? Well, perhaps. I'm actually more coming from the point of view of any conscious eternity, so not Christianity specifically (however I do understand that, the question being raised on a Christian forum that it will be the focus). Kind of like... a guy working out in the fields, who has to do it every day and says "I don't seem to be getting anywhere... what's in it for me?" and someone responds "If you don't get it in this life, you'll get it in the next if you remain 'good' to God". ? Personally, I think it's because most of them have been forced into servitude (i.e., you need to earn money to survive) rather than being able to pursue their own interests and so forth ... there are many 90+ year olds who are fit in body and mind because they've had the courage to pursue what is of interest to them rather than the interests of the wallet as so many of us are raised to consider first and foremost.

I'm also referencing having to live with... the people on this Earth... for eternity. :\

After reading the posts in "TheyCallMeMom"s thread I decided I wouldn't make this post in her thread but rather separate. What on earth is appealing about eternity with family members and so forth? Most old people I meet cannot wait until they die, because they've experienced this consciousness for long enough. Just think about it for a minute. Eternity has no ends and bounds. There is no getting away, there is no indulgent behaviour (because you're in God's kingdom remember, so it's what He says go's), there is no free-will anymore. It's either obey or you're out (Lucifer being cast out of heaven is a relevant example here). I don't know... to me the idea that my conscious awareness will cease entirely in about another 70 or so years is very appealing. I don't want to spend an eternity in this mind, in this body, consciously aware of this universe, bound to any other part of this existence, ... Seriously. Stuff that. I'd rather be dead. What's so appealing about an eternity of static consciousness?

That is merely an opinion, which of-course you are welcome to but which I think at this point I disagree with.The Council's were not designed to make new doctrine out of thin air (well, lets say that for the sake of discussion) but rather meetings to officially sanction already widely held beliefs.

I think they're very different in that one is generally baseless in terms of proving it's claims, whilst the other is all about proving it's claims.However, they do come from the same craving of humans: wanting to know.

You do all recognise, right, that this is the game this left-right paradigm has to play? It's not that they necessarily disagree, it's just that like a game of chess: one side must be in dichotomy with the other.I mean, we saw this coming. Who has forgotten the promises that Obama made prior to being elected that he turned his back on before he even got President? They disagree for the public vote, but go back to supporting the vested interests once 'in control'. Personally I think that's along the lines of what should've been done, with improvements to security at home - not further compromising apparently weakened security by investing resources with an invasive foreign policy. But, I think that's kind of another discussion altogether...