Traveler
-
Posts
15851 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Posts posted by Traveler
-
-
I am a friend to Islam but I do not speak for any in Islam. From my understanding I would never publish a cartoon of this type. But at the same time I do uphold the right to publish the cartoons. For sure, my opinion of the publishers is not good but let us not for a moment lose perspective. There are numbers in the Islamic community that have taken their unhappyness out on the closest by-standers. Please understand that most of Islam do not believe in this type of action.
There is never justification to punish anyone that is innocent. Regardless of what the crime this is a greater crime to hold the innocent guilty. As LDS I agree with the LDS concept that everyone that is to be punished, will be puhished for their sins and not for anyone else's (including Adam's).
To hold someone else accountable is known as shedding innocent blood among many Christians and the same concept exist in Islam but with even greater evil in shedding what Islam calls "protected blood".
Personally I will never agree to punish anyone that is innocient or to protect (or reward) anyone that is guilty with the one exception of someone that has repented and is willing or has paid the price of their crime.
The Traveler
-
I think part of the problem is that when we think there is a problem it is always with someone else. No one ever says "This is the line where you can think G-d loves you but in reality you will be damned - every body that wants this just get in line." When Jesus told his Apostles that one would betray him did Peter turn to James and say "I bet that it is Judas - he has sure been acting strange lately"? No what each said is "L-rd is it I". If there is a possibility that someone will not make it and we are thinking it isn't me that is one kind of stupid - but the worse of stupid is to think you know who it is that G-d cannot save.
I see the problem of salvation is that many seem to think that positive scriptures only speak to them (excluding others - especially those that do not think like them) and the negative scriptures speak of someone else (excluding themself). If G-d saves you and you do not deserve it; why assume that he cannot save another that does not deserve it? As for me I cannot believe that a loving and caring G-d that would sacrifice his very life and then would allow one person of any time and place that wants in their heart to embrace good to be damned. I do not believe that such is "good news".
If there is one such in all eternity that would be lost then I pray that it is me for I could not accept eternal bliss knowing one other that was good or could be good in their heart, was damned - I am sorry I cannot sing songs of joy and and adoration to a "all powerful" G-d that would delight in such a thing for the G-d that I worship will leave the 99 to make sure that that every last one lost sheep is found. It pains me when any one implies that G-d would just sit back and say woops to bad for that one - oh well the rest of us will have great fun - lets party!!!
The Traveler
-
To answer some question. These scriptures teach two principles of G-d.
1. G-d will not do for any man those things of eternal value what man can do for themself.
2. G-d will do for all men that which is of eternal value that they cannot do for themself.
To deny #1 is to deny that man can lay up in store "Treasures" in heaven.
To deny #2 is to deny the Christ and the Atonement.
When man learns of divine things only that which he desires and seeks will be given for G-d will force nothing upon those that do not desire it. I even believe that the only reason that anyone will suffer the pains of hell is because they do not desire the strings attached to deliverance.
The Traveler
-
Lets take a look at some of the quotes in the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament from that portion of the Book of Enoch that has been recovered.
Matt 5:5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth”
Matt 13:43 “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”
Matt 14:28 “Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Matt 26:24 “Woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would be good for that man if he had not been born.”
Matt 24:7, 21, 22, 29, 30 “There shall be famines and earthquakes in divers places...great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved.... Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven.... Then shall the tribes of the earth mourn; and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with, power and great glory.”
Matt25:31, 32 “Then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another.”
Matt 25:41 “Depart from me, ye cursed, unto everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”
Is anyone surprised? Jesus himself quoted from the Book of Enoch - and what was the reaction of the experts that touted the doctrine of scripture cannon?
John 7:Verse 45-49
45 ¶ Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?
46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.
47 Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?
48 Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?
49 But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.
The Pharisees clearly believed the law was their cannon and Jesus taught and quoted from their non-cannon.
In light of these things now consider this quote
God only saw fit that Moses know the Pentateuch, but today He desires that we have the whole OT and NT. Anything outside of that is rejected if it negates the original in any way. So when you say that our canon is leaving out scripture, I respond that there is no other true scripture out there.
I sorrow and regret that the Bible has resulted in this kind of thinking - Why then does G-d allow a cannon as a means that sincere people be deceived? Let us look at Ecclesiastes 1:9-10:
“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us.”
I submit that the doctrine of cannon which allows man to determine what is scripture and what is not acceptable scripture is a doctrine that began with the Pharisees in the days of Jesus.
The Traveler
-
I am not sure where exactly you are going but I will tell you of a hard time in my life. I had completed a 2 year mission and I had served in the US army during Vietnam. Twice I had orders for combat but ended up being assigned somewhere else. I lost several good friends in combat, to this day there are experiences I do not talk about. A close friend and native American encouraged me to take some time off for a spiritual quest to put my life in order. He challenged me to spend 40 days in the wilderness allowing G-d to provide for my needs.
During my 40 days nothing I expected happened but I experienced sever spiritual experiences. One thing I learned is that there is no such thing as poor for those that trust in the L-rd. The earth is rich and will provide more than what is needed. Although I intended to spend this time by myself only about a week was all I spent as the longest time not contacting another human. Many time I was given water and food in direct answer to prayer.
Sometimes we cannot see forest for the trees. In our modern society we are so filled with things of man that we do not recognize life and nature outside those things. Having spent 40 days in the southwest desseret without anything from civilization but a knief and a blanket - I learned of natures great treasures. Many times I have wanted to return to simple things and have done so from time to time for extended weekends but for the most part I have not the time with obligations to family.
Rich or poor is nothing but a temporary state of mind.
The Traveler
-
Now I do understand the difference between, "the scriptures in the Bible that were given by the commandment of G-d and the idea that there should be a Bible comprised of only certain scriptures - which was not commanded by G-d." But christians like me believe that we have all of God's word to humanity in the Bible.
Fine then show me where the doctrine of Canonization is and what scriptures are to be in a cannon. Or give me one example in scripture where inspired men got together in a council and came up with a scripture any scripture - ever. I do not see any Bible scripture or anywhere in Bible scripture about any existing cannon – anciently or for any time. Should not a new doctrine at least agree with something in scripture? I do not see this doctrine of cannon anywhere. All I ask is where on earth did it come from? Why do Christians like you believe that you have all of God's word to humanity in the Bible? Where do you get this doctrine because it just ain't in the Bible? You have to get it from somewhere because you sure believe it. But where do you get it. Please – If you know won’t you share!! You keep saying all of G-d’s word concerning important doctrine is in the Bible. If the Bible as a cannon is included in “all of God's word to humanity” WHERE IS THIS MISSING DOCTRINE!!!! Where do you get this doctrine from????? How many times must I ask??? Do you really not know???
And what non-canonized writing did He quote so extensively? This is an honest question, I really don't know what you're talking about. I know He quoted Deuteronomy, Psalms and basically declared the whole OT as authoritative. But i am unaware of anything outside of that, unless you're talking about Jude quoting Enoch.
Jude comes right out and says that he is quoting from Enoch but there are many more quotes from Enoch. In fact there are so many quotes that in times past scholars claimed that Enoch was written after the NT and is plagiarism. That is until fragments of Enoch were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and predated any NT writings by 300 and more years.
The problem here is that we do not have a complete document of what once was the Book of Enoch but we do know that even when Christ gave the sermon on the MT he quoted directly from the Book of Enoch – at least from the fragments that have been found. Jude was not the only one to quote Enoch. Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls we now know almost all the NT writers quoted from Enoch.
Just a note here – The Book of Moses in the LDS “Pearle of Great Price” has many of the same doctrines missing from the Bible but in the Book of Enoch. I find it rather interesting that G-d would bring forth the Dead Sea Scrolls to witness to lost scripture and most of Christianity will not even consider it.
-
I thought I would add just one more thought on LDS callings. An LDS prophet (president) once said that there is no success on earth that can compensate for failure in the home. In truth the greatest calling is not bishop or prophet but the call of Father or Mother (husband or wife) and nothing that any can do is more important than to be a parent. The LDS organization and structure is upside down in that every person in the LDS church – especially those that are called to any office are given direct responsibilities to support and sustain the family and this includes the President.
It is our doctrine that only the family organization of this world will continue into the next world – all other organizations experienced in mortal life will cease. LDS are taught that being a parent is the closest thing to G-dhood – not bishop, not apostle, not president. It is all about family.
The Traveler
-
<div class='quotemain'>
...So, church leaders, whether you call them bishops and councilman, or deacons and pastors, are held to a higher example. Basically, they are expected to set the pace for the members to follow.
To put this in LDS perspective, I would say in LDS church structure all leaders from the President to the Bishops (maybe even the counselors) would be held to a higher standard, then the regular member, since they lead the Church. I’m not going to pretend I under the whole structure, like on the Ward or Stake level but for the most part if you are a regular member with just a regular calling then you wouldn’t be considered a “higher leader” of the Church. Just me 2 cents.
M.
From time to time there are decisions (among LDS) concerning the greatest and most noble calls. Usually the talk is that no calling is greater than any other - like the parts of a body are part of one body and the eyes to not think themselves greater than the hands and so forth.
Personally I am very much against what is normally known as "Leadership" because it tends to rank one kind of a person above another. I believe Jesus said that the servant is the most noble in G-d’s eyes – not the leader. I think of all things a person can do the greatest of all is a teacher of children.
I love the LDS concept of calling and church organization where persons are called for a time then released and others are called. One of the greatest sacrament meeting talks (sermons) I have heard was from a former Stake President (The LDS high priest over several wards (congregations)) that was released and called as the assistant nursery leader (teacher of 2 to 3 years olds in a ward). In tears he expressed that working with the children was the greatest spiritual experience of his life.
This may sound strange to our non-LDS friends when they learn that we believe we will one day serve in the calling of G-d but in LDS circles, aspiring to a calling is not considered a good thing at all. In relationship to this idea it is often said that anyone that aspires to any calling – deserves it. Often I have expressed my opinion when asked about someone serving in a bishopric for example – I have said that there is not anyone serving in a bishopric that can do an poor enough job for me to want to replace them.
I know there are great blessing in service and callings – and I will cheerfully serve in any calling for which I am asked – BUT I will much more cheerfully support anyone else that is called – especially to what is known as a leadership calling.
The Traveler
-
The best ice cream is French vanilla in Paris. The best Sea food is in China – which is also the worse place for beef or chicken. Best bread – anywhere in Europe. Worse deserts – Japan. Best fast food – Mos Bugger, Japan. The worse pizza – China. Best pizza – North Lake Tavern in Seattle Washington. Best noodles – Japan. Hottest spicy food – China. Food most likely to taste good and make you sick – Mexico and South America. Best atmosphere for eating – English pub. Most fuss over eating – Arabs in Saudi Arabia. Best BBQ (and slaw) almost anywhere in the South US. And last but not least – The world’s best waffles – at my place (secret family recipe – whole wheat toped with an apricot sauce.)
The Traveler
-
What are we exploring here? Should the qualifications for service be any different than qualifications for salvation? Should not the same things that make a Christian qualify someone to be called?
In my mind, a calling from G-d is not a popularity contest with the world. Pardon my question here but I do not see any of the "charms" being discussed as being all that important to G-d's work. From what I understand of those the represent G-d to the world; the character needed is based around "Love", "Compassion", and a willingness to sacrifice self - which BTW are also characteristics of G-d. Personally I see no difference in preparing for “a calling” from G-d than I see in preparing to live eternally with him.
The Traveler
-
You say that the present Bible is essentially man's work. Since when was God unable to raise up good a capable men of faith to fight the good fight and preserve His word for their generation and ours?
You do not seem to understand the difference between the scriptures in the Bible that were given by the commandment of G-d and the idea that there should be a Bible comprised of only certain scriptures - which was not commanded by G-d. It is not what is in the Bible it is what is missing that is assumed to be his word which is not. No man is capable of commanding G-d regardless of their faith or goodness.
And btw, among the many revelations that true Christians can and should receive are revelations from Jesus Christ telling us what is and is not truly “scripture”.
I think you are making things up. The most quoted scripture by Jesus Christ is not included in your Bible. This leaves me to think either you do not know what you are saying, or you do not know Christ. If Jesus quoted something as scripture is that not good enough for you - it appears to me you faith more based on what you call "capable men of faith to fight the good fight and preserve His word for their generation and ours?" rather than what Jesus taught.
The point is this - as soon as you say the Bible is Cannon you put words in the mouth of G-d that he never spoke or if he did you have no record of it. If I am wrong then please show me the scripture in your cannon.
This is my problem with the Bible - that it is made out to be something other than what G-d said it should be. If G-d said it then I believe it but when men make it up without G-d - I do not believe it. And so far you refuse to acknowledge my concern - that you do not care is not my concern - my concern is that the Bible is made out to be something that it is not validated by G-d. If the Bible is capable of anything - why not capable of indicating that G-d command it to be cannon and not man.
The Traveler
-
A bottom-line "biblical" standard for canon--any writings that would be ADDED to the canon should complement the current standard. Of course, this next point is a difference we have: the new must submit to the old, rather than vice versa.
Nice theory but again I think I have a different point of view - in that this appears to be exactly the argument the Scribes and Pharisees used to reject Jesus (and his Apostles) from the existing cannon. It could also be used in the day of Noah as per “What a flood? That does not complement the current standard.”
The point here is that it is not up to man to determine what is the “Word of G-d”. That is something that should be left to G-d. G-d has a way of speaking - we know that because we have that in what scriptures we do have.
And so we go in a circle - if G-d does not indicate a cannon or if man cannot find that designation I do not believe man should make assumptions. I do not believe that kind of thinking and doctrine complements the current standard. Did not king Saul demonstrate that kind of thinking is unacceptable?
The Traveler
-
<div class='quotemain'>
What I do not accept is the claim that the Bible is the manual for true religious activity when there is no reference in the Bible of the activity for defining cannon (or the Bible).
Those that cannot see the flaw of the Bible as the authority for all religious activity are likely to misunderstand other important things as well.
The Traveler
1. Jesus was Jewish, and clearly recognized and used the canon of his day--basically the Old Testament--primary the LXX, or Greek venacular translation.
2. Timothy clearly had a finite set of writings in mind when he said, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."
3. Without any canon whatsoever, some gullible believers might take the writings of the National Enquirer, or their favorite TV preacher, as gospel.
4. Ultimately, your own church has a canon.
Maybe the real question is not "should there be a canon?" but rather, "who has the authority to establish canon, and what standards should they use?"
Thank you for responding. My understanding and thinking is a little different than yours.
To your #1. This appears to be an over simpilification to me. We know from the DSS that several versions of the old testament documents were referenced as scripture. Just in the Law and the Prophets there were at least 2 versions or every book maintained as what you call cannon and in some cases as many as 5 different versions were kept. We also know that many scriptures used and quoted as "cannon" scripture by Jesus and the writers of the NT are not part of the Bible. This also plays into your #2.
To your #4. There is a distinct difference in our cannon. Owr standard works include scripture that designate what scripture are to be included in a "Minimun" cannon. In addition our standard works include instructions of how to include or increas our cannon or standard works.
This brings me to my point as included in your final statement and #4
3. Without any canon whatsoever, some gullible believers might take the writings of the National Enquirer, or their favorite TV preacher, as gospel.
Maybe the real question is not "should there be a canon?" but rather, "who has the authority to establish canon, and what standards should they use?"
If a doctrine, idea or religious activity is not included in the "Cannon" then any believer (gullible or not) can be influenced by the same spirit inspiring the National Enquirer, or favorite TV preacher as what should be "gosple" as far as what a Bible or cannon should include or not include as cannon. This simply means that the Bible is not authority to define itself as cannon. Some other and higher authority must be used. If what is included as cannon in the Bible is not sufficent to define cannon gosple (doctrine) and some other authority must be used then that authority is always greater than the Bible and that authority should define gosple and every other needful religious activity and the Bible should be defined as nifty but un-needed inferior source of stuff that cannot be relied on for any important matter in which there is confusion or disagrement.
I do not see any other conclusion to draw when such an important doctrine is missing - and that is my concern about the Bible. Not what it has but what it is missing. Being incomplete confusion and disagrement cannot be setteled by the Bible. But that is exactly what most of Christianity attempts to do with it.
The Traveler
-
My concern of the Bible (and scripture in general) is not if such is inspired. My objection is when a claim is made that is not true. The scriptures are a ancient record of G-d's word among the ancients. I want to draw a difference between G-d's word and his spirit inspiration. I can accept that men were inspired to put together a group of scriptures and call it a Bible. What I do not accept is the claim that the Bible is the manual for true religious activity when there is no reference in the Bible of the activity for defining cannon (or the Bible).
Those that cannot see the flaw of the Bible as the authority for all religious activity are likely to misunderstand other important things as well.
The Traveler
-
I agree with that but that's not what he said or not all he said.
The additional point I have attempted to make in relation to all laws is that every law that comes into existance is an effort by one segment of the population to exercise control or power or authority over another segment of the population that does not want it. Those that believe they are right, regardless of what-ever side they are cought believe they are "morally" correct to use the force of law.
My point is that Law is nothing more than one segment of a population attempting to control another segment. If there was not a disagreement there would be not need for the attempted control. If the controlling segment did not believe there was a benefit or need and a sresult they approved of; there would be no compelling need. This is in essence what I believe to be a social moral, which is the very defination of law or the attempt to controll.
The Traveler
-
There are in Christianity two main branches - Catholic and Protestant. Likewise in Islam there are the Shiite and Sunnis. Part of the problem with our free press it that it is not only biased but inaccurate. We are not told which among the Islamic peoples are making threats and attacking and which are protesting and pleading that icons in Islam be treated with respect. Thus the west thinks all of Islam is nuts.
Rather than post here were almost no one knows or believes anything other than what they are told on the news – why not take the opportunity to learn something and have a positive effect.
If you want to know what is going on among our Islamic cousins – call your local mosque and talk to someone about this problem and what you might do to help defuse what is going on or at least have some understanding of why.
The Traveler
-
<div class='quotemain'>
(I am still having a problem understanding what Snow thinks is the basis of law. Someone must think it is right or moral in their mind or there would be no law)
You said that all laws are based in morality. Nonsense. Some laws are but by no means all. There are laws that govern businesses like limited partnerships. Those laws are not based on ideas of "good" and evil. A Senator serves 4 years per term. It is not that a 3 year term is evil while a 4 year term is "good." Obiviously something beside good and evil is behind such laws. One of the reasons could be that having 3 year terms is too expensive in running too frequent elections and hiring and training new staff. Being cost effective is not the opposite of evil.
The fact that we seek order in business (including limited partnerships) is a moral point of view. What it comes down to is that if everyone conducted business in the same manner there would be no law. The reason someone thought of a law is because someone wanted to do something that someone else did not agree was "lawful". Thus the different moral view.
Though we do not think of driving on one side or the other as a moral choice we realize that there ought to be order in driving or people get killed (which is a moral judgment). No one would think of passing a law that requires everyone to drive on the right side of the road until someone goes against the norm and drives on the opposite side that everybody else thinks should be the proper order. Note that there are no laws about where on a sidewalk somone can walk according to the direction they are walking.
Again I state there will never be a law passed until one segment of the population wants to impose their moral view of what ought to be on a segment of the population that thinks otherwise. The only reason for defining the length of a term is because somewhere someone will want a different length of the term (for moral reasons). Someone will want to make an exception for whatever moral they think suits them. Which is an attempt to force their moral choice on everyone else that disagrees with them.
The Traveler
-
Take a look at the post on this thread and ask which poster should be making the laws by which we are all governed? Everyone seems to have their idea of what is right and what is wrong. This is the essence of morals. (I am still having a problem understanding what Snow thinks is the basis of law. Someone must think it is right or moral in their mind or there would be no law)
Mostly we are talking about moral behavior. As we can all see there is a great deal and passion about what behaviors are acceptable in society. I want to thank you all for offering your opinions about what kind of behavior should be acceptable (lawful) and what behaviors should be punished under the law.
It is my general impression that many people think that if you think you are right then you pass laws that support your morality. If you are stopped by someone or group then what you should do is seek more power and force you morality on everybody else that disagrees with your kind of thinking. What I am trying to say is that I think this is a problem even if on some important point we now agree.
It does not matter if you are conservative or liberal the thought is that if you think you are right you have an obligation and duty to force your morals on everyone else. This is a problem. This cannot end in any other way than civil war - forever. You can be dead right (at least in your mind) but is this the process you want to live under, kill or be killed. Dumb animals can do that - are we no better? Is there no possible process that can be trusted to generate laws we can live with, even if we don't like them all that much.
Everyone has ideas about what is right and wrong but no one has any idea how to settle the problem of who gets to say what is law, other then forcing their ideas on every one else. I have wondered how society moves backwards - is there no idea of any good way to move forward? So if you think you are right force is okay for you but even if someone else thinks they are right force is wicked? BTW - I do not think even G-d is that controlling and power hungry.
The Traveler
-
The problem is that while we listened to the liberals brainwashing us into "not legislating morality", they did just the opposite by legislating immorality.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." ~ James Madison
"Men will either be governed by God, or ruled by tyrants." ~ William Penn
These are wonderful opinions. But how do we determine from them what a specific law should be. For example - how do we decide from this what crimes (if any) should be punished by death or punished at all. I would assume that William Penn believed that if G-d did not strike any man down for their disobedience that just men have no cause to act - only tyrants? I am being sarcastic here but I hope through my sarcasism you see my point.
The Traveler
-
So are you saying there is no absolute right or wrong? That it is all subjective?
I am saying is that when there is not complete agreement on what is "absolute right" - whose opinion becomes law? What I am saying that the process that establishes how we agree upon "absolute right" is more impotant than what any single person or group thinks is "absolute right".
I may personally believe in "absolute right" - which is not the point I tried to make. But let us assume that there is "absolute right". How then does a society discover and agree upon that right and how is the law interperted and defined to reflect that. What is the social process to establish "absolute right"? Is it to be determined by who has the most guns and power? Who can make the best arguments? Who has the most money? Who is the smartest and got the best grades in school? Those that have attended church the longest? - Just a note - I have listed some of the processes that I personally believe have proved to be horrible failures.
The Traveler
-
I was once told that morals cannot be legislated. I disagree. Not only can morals be legislated into law, the fact is that morals are the only things that can be legislated into law. We will not change the value of pi or universal gravitational constant through legislation. The legislation of law has never been weather or not we can legislate morals but who’s morals should become law.
I submit that more important than any law is of itself is the process in which we determine what is law. For example: it is not if there should be separation of church and state but the process that we decide if there should be separation of church and state and the process of how we determine what is the proper separation of church and state. It is not what we decide is a crime but the process that we follow to determine what is a crime.
I would also submit that law is not ever needed when there is complete agreement in a society what the law should be. The law is nothing more that one segment of the population forcing their morals on the rest of society. If everyone had the same morals there would be no need for law to in force how individuals behave.
The Traveler
-
The key to a fruitful discussion between folks of different persuasions, be they religious, political, or specific issues, is the concept of "loyal opposition." In politics, it can be summarized: Party members disagree, sometimes heatedly, with those on the other side of the aisle. However, they also assume their opponents are loyal Americans. Those LDS apologists (or even members with a thought or two) who engage me in dialogue here generally assume that I am at least reading their thoughts with interest and openness. Likewise, I presume that those who read my thoughts do so primarily to engage, not attack.
I've had very little contention here. Heated back & forth on occasion. One or two misunderstandings. But none of the personal flaming that I've skimmed on several strings the last few days.
So, I gotta ask...
Where's the
?It has been a while since I have been involved in politics. I no longer work in support of the defnese department. Although I remain loyal to "The Law" that governes this country, I do not have the same loyality to persons in places of power. LDS believe in being subjects to their government and this is a thing I struggle with greatly. It is just that I am not sure any more that this country is under the protection of G-d. 9/11 was not because the USA has enemies for the first time. I believe that as a country we no longer want G-d to protect us from our enemies. Like Mormon - right now I am not sure I support all my country is doing. The asprin factury that was bombed a while back - I think we knew better.
The Traveler
-
I understand your view, but it is a bitter one. You really don't know or understand the God you speak of or you wouldn't even think to say such things.
This response sounds pretty bitter as well. Oh well. You asked, I answered.
I think you have a better understanding of G-d than many that claim to have. I do not know if you have considered the possibility that the reason G-d tells us of him is for our benefit and not his. That would imply that there is something about him worth knowing about that we cannot learn on our own. If that is true then asking someone else will not provide the answer. Which also means that the forum does not have the answer either. Anyway - have a nice day. :)
The Traveler
-
How about someone being put to death for adultry - or not paying their tything (offerings)? Such things are in our Christian scriptures and is the reason that we have separition of church and state.
The problem is not with belief it is with making others that do not believe conform to what you believe. That is the point where belief and force of law that interesting turns because all laws are a moral inforcement. How about punishing a child for misbehaving at church? When does belief become idoltry?
The Traveler
?
The Law And Morals
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Thank you for responding Ray. Do not think that I disagree with what you are saying but even though everyone may agree on your defination of Moral and Immoral - what one segment of the population may believe is ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just another segment of the population may believe the same to be wicked, depraved, corrupt, dissolute, and dishonest
For example if you listen to someone from one of the political parties they will assure you that the leaders and supporters in their party are the ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just and the leaders and supporters in the other party are the wicked, depraved, corrupt, dissolute, and dishonest.
Even in the case of O.J. Simpson over 90% of blacks to this day believe he was set up (innocent) and over 90% of whites believe he got away with it (guilty).
It is not that I want to get into which political party is what or O.J.'s innocients or guilt. The question is who gets to say with the force of Law - "We are the ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just and if you do not agree you are the wicked, depraved, corrupt, dissolute, and dishonest? The ones that agree with you? Or the ones that disagree with you? What is the ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just way to settle the issue?
The Traveler