DigitalShadow
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DigitalShadow
-
-
This is the crux of the matter - our nation was founded as a Christian, God-fearing nation, and we are turning away from that now and allowing all forms of wickedness to come in and create problems for us.
This country was founded by people fleeing religious oppression. I'm pretty sure they did not set out to form a theocracy.
You need to first of all find God and come to know Him. Come to know that He is wise beyond us all, that He knows the end from the beginning, and we can trust Him to always give us counsel of what is best for us, for what will bring us all the greatest peace, happiness, and joy, the kind that lasts forever. We can have faith in Him. We can know beyond any doubt that He loves perfectly, that He always knows the right answers.
Many people believe they have found God and many of those people also disagree on what He thinks we should be doing.
Then you can come to know through diligent, humble, and sincere study and prayer that God speaks to man. He has called prophets and apostles to make known His will to us. If we will follow their counsel, we will be blessed with that happiness that we seek for.
Again, many diligent, humble and sincere people strongly disagree on what God tells to who and what He wants from us. What makes one person's opinion of what God says better than another's?
Now, as for my own opinions about why homosexuality is a sin, and for why same sex marriage should not be allowed, it has everything to do with holding sacred that which should be sacred. There is much to be learned about what it means to hold something sacred. There is so much... I cannot explain it all here.
And who is to say what is to be held sacred? LDS leaders? Catholic leaders? Islamic leaders? Anyone who claims to be a messenger of God and gets a decent following?
Marriage is not (or should not be) a fly by night thing that "changes with the times". It is and always has been the holiest of all institutions, sanctioned by God for a divine purpose - to unite man and woman, the noblest of all of God's creations, together to become one, just as Christ and His church are one, to bring forth children to raise in righteousness through the sacred procreative power, only to be employed between man and woman, legally married in the eyes of God and the world.
Marriage has changed quite a bit over the years, you may want to take an in depth look at what marriage has been throughout history before making such statements.
Anything else is sin, and will bring misery to mankind. The sins of others will also intrude upon my own happiness and well being, and I suppose that is at least part of why we voted to keep traditional marriage as it is- but I am more concerned for the welfare of all those who now think that maybe homosexual marriage isn't such a bad thing, because half the people in California voted for it.
It's all well and good that you think same sex marriage is sinful and will bring misery to mankind, but not everyone shares those views and not everyone thinks that is what God wants and when someday a majority of people decide that there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage, you can move to a country more in line with your viewpoint if you feel that strongly about it.
While I love my brothers and sisters who struggle with same sex attraction, I cannot stand idly by while society makes it seem ok to give in to temptation because they preach that it is the only way to find happiness in life. This is not so, my brother- wickedness never was happiness, and we will all know this is true in the eternities.
Not everyone thinks homosexuality is an affliction that people must struggle with, or simply a temptation that we have to overcome. Some people think it is a valid way to live and while I respect that you think God disagrees, not everyone shares that viewpoint.
Please don't keep trying to find out what should be morally right and acceptable all on your own, God has not left us alone to do that. Please look for Him to help you.
I have looked for God, quite a bit actually, so far He is no where to be seen, so forgive me if I am wary of people wanting to dictate morality based on "God's will," especially when there is so much disagreement in the world over what exactly God's will is. In my opinion, laws and morality should be objectively agreed upon.
-
That's a bit of a stretch there, DS. I have no problem with two consenting adults getting married. Under current laws, those two consenting adults must be of opposite genders. Am I opposed to g/l marriage because it is sinful? Sure. There are other reasons as well. But, that is my primary reason. Wili I protest in the street and pitch a little fit if the laws are changed? Nope. But, I would vote against it if given the opportunity.
What reasons do you have against same sex marriage aside from religion or sin? Let's talk about those. I mean, real arguments against it in terms of what objectively negative effects it would have, not just saying that people need to convince you that same sex marriage should be legal. I would really like to hear them because the whole "it's sinful" argument is understandably unconvincing to me :)
I have yet to hear anyone explain WHY.......why is sexual attraction to one's own gender a relevent reason to to endorse a new definition of marriage? "Gay" people are not a different gender or species or race.....are they? If the State allows same gender marriage....WHY...stop there? Why not polygamy? What IF that is the only way someone can feel happy is to be with two or more people that they love? How does that harm you or anyone else?
Are you familiar with "slippery slope" arguments? I have already explained why this particular change to marriage is being debated and not others, at this point we're just saying the same things to each other over and over again.
-
Ridiculous huh? Um, I am personally fine with being married to one woman. But, just because you find it ridiculous that someone might want to marry outside of the usual and customary doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed, does it? Some find the idea of g/l marriage ridiculous. Why is there opinion less valid than yours?
As a comparison it is rediculous, I did not mean to say that the idea of plural marriage itself is rediculous. I apologize if that was not clear.
-
What would be the agendas of both sides? Could you summarize?
Gobal warming does not exist, we should continue with the our unbounded and increasing consumption of resources without regard to our planet since we couldn't possibly affect it in any way.
Global warming will kill us all in 5 years! We need to make everything "green" and stop anything that could possibly hurt the environment.
As a-train said, there are a lot of agendas to go around, those are just two examples. I've seen both sides grossly distort data or flat out ignore things.
-
There are reasons why standards and principles are important.
Yes, and there are also reasons why those standards should be fair and need to be discussed from time to time.
-
I believe that weather is such a complex system that conclusive analysis is difficult at best, but there are certainly zealots on both sides who blatantly ignore things to further their own agenda.
-
I would be fascinated if I actually witnessed a haunting, probably not scared though because as far as I know "ghosts" aren't a leading cause of death. As for watching the shows, I think some people just want to be on TV or have an overactive imagination combined with confirmation bias :)
-
But he has never stated that people should be forced to live according to his moral code. He has proposed no plan by which people's ability to choose for themselves is taken away.
I would like to point out that bytor has proposed that it is rediculous to allow same sex marriage, that same sex marriage would be immoral to God (not just in his belief, but stated it as a fact), and is in effect propsing that we do not allow consenting adults to get married because he finds it sinful.
I would say Peter's statement was somewhat relevant, maybe not juvenile, but definitely inappropriate and his points could have been made in a more respectful manner.
-
How many people are necessary to be considered significant? WHat if I love two women and they both love me and we want to marry? WHy should my right to marry them be denied? Is it because you disagree with my lifestyle choices? What about those who live secret polygamous relationships.....are they insignificant? What makes sexual desire for one's own gender more significant than other relationships? Are you saying that love is the criteria?
Would you exclusively want to marry two women? As in you would not at all be interested in the idea of marrying just one? I've never even heard of anyone like that. The criterea is not that someone somewhere wants to do it, the criterea is that many people see this as their only way to be happy in a marriage. That is why same sex marriage is being discussed and not whatever other rediculous comparisons you try to make.
-
The latter. My point is that gender seems to not matter in the debate over g/l marriage. If indeed gender doesn't matter....and to me it does matter......then why have any restrictions or qualifications at all for a marriage license?
The reason this particular restriction is being debated is because there is a significant portion of the population that is only attracted to the same sex and believe they should be able to marry the person they love. Other restrictions or qualifications are not being challenged because there is no need for them to be.
-
Should marriage be gender neutral? Should a desire to be with the one we love be the only legal criteria for a marriage license? Should this include polygamy? And by polygamy, I mean without regard to gender........man with a man and woman, woman with two men , woman with woman and man, man with multiple men,etc. and also no limit on number of persons in marriage.
The debate over G/L marriage seems to be the desire to be gender neutral, so why not include any grouping for marriage?
The better question is, should there really be another thread on this?
Arguing that marriage should be gender neutral is different from arguing that it should be neutral to the amount of people able to engage in a marriage. There isn't a significant amount of the population that is only attracted to multiple people at a time. I really don't know where you're going with this.
-
What do your tax dollars go to that you consider "religious brainwashing?" I would be okay with removing tax exempt status if I also didn't have to fund Planned Parenthood, ACLU, and other such organizations that taxpayers should not be funding. I would like to see us move to a fair tax system.
First of all, I was not being literal, a point which you and what seems like everyone but MoE have not picked up on despite my attempting to clear that up 3 times in this thread. Second, what would a "fair" tax system be? You contribute a miniscule fraction of the total tax money collected, yet you wish to make far reaching demands about how ALL taxes are spent, how do you consider that remotely fair?
I think one thing that many are forgetting is that this great nation that has allowed us more freedoms and a higher standard of living than any nation in history was founded on Judeo-Christian values. While it is not perfect, it has worked better than any other system on the planet and has made the United States the envy of the world. Why would we want to turn our back on this?
The people who founded it were mostly Judeo-Christian, but that does not mean this country was founded exclusively on "Judeo-Christian values." This country was founded on freedom. Freedom of thought, freedom to criticize, freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The real question is why would you want to turn your back on this.
"Separation of Church and State" is not part of the Constitution and does not mean there should be no mingling of government and churches. It really is impossible to completely separate the two as our values tend to be based on religion and our laws reflect these values. If we read our American history (which unfortunately most of us don't and it is not being taught in our public schools) we know that the framers opposed a national enforced religion ... like they had in England ... not the removal of all religion and acknowledgment of God from the public forum. Madison and Jefferson probably had the most secular or "liberal" view but also acknowledged that faith was a predicate to liberty. Jefferson wrote, "that human beings have certain unalienable rights endowed by God. Rights are not conferred on us by a monarch or the state". He also wrote, "can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"
So the framers thought that we should acknowledge God, but not be forced into a state religion or be punished for the way we worship.
As you pointed out, the framers knew all too well the tyranny that religion can bring when it is allowed to mingle with government and that people should be free to worship whatever God (if any) they please. No one I know (including me) wants to take God out of the public forum, but religion has no place in government and government has no place in religion.
I do have some questions for you from an Atheist perspective. I mean no disrespect, but really want to know your opinion.
No disrespect taken. I would be happy to answer your questions to the best of my ability and hopefully clear up a few misconceptions you may have about atheists.
I believe that my values are based on my faith and belief in God. If you don't believe in God, on what do you base your values?
My values are mostly based on my culture and my upbringing just as yours are. Religion happens to be a main part of your culture and upbringing, but not a part of mine, that is the only difference.
What do you value?
I value life. I am grateful that I have the opportunity to experience it for whatever reason and I wouldn't want to take away that experience from anyone else. I also value my freedom and when people treat me with respect. Likewise, I would not want to take away anyone else's freedom and treat people with the respect and kindness I would like them to give me. I don't have any hopes that I will be rewarded for my good deeds after I die, or be judged for all the bad deeds. I am not kind to people out of fear of going to hell or promises of going to heaven, I find that it is often its own reward.
In your life, what evidence have you seen to make you believe there is no God?
Interesting question, but to me the more important question is "In my life, what evidence have I seen to make me believe there is a God?" After all, you wouldn't incredulously ask someone "What evidence have you seen to make you believe there are no unicorns in this world?" Obviously no one can see every spot on the planet and be certain that unicorns are no where to be found, so it is usually far more useful to define your beliefs based on what you have evidence for, not simply believe in anything you can't find enough evidence against.
Going back to the question, I would answer by saying that I simply haven't found evidence for the existence of any God or Gods.
Have you ever gone looking for God, just to see if you can find him?
Yes, quite honestly and seriously I have. I think anyone who is familiar with my early posts at this forum would tell you that I am honestly seeking the truth in the best way I know how.
Do you think our country would be a better place if the majority did not believe in God? If so, how? Just curious.
That is a difficult question to answer and depending on the circumstances would have very different answers. I don't think the country would be a better place if the majority suddenly stopped believing in God, but I don't believe it would be a worse place either. I also don't think that belief in God was critical to the success of our country (let's just agree to disagree on this, we can argue all day but no one can know for sure so it's rather pointless).
I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction, if not perhaps we should start another thread on atheism and morality? I'm sure Godless and Elphaba would be happy to jump in and offer opinions as well.
-
Because often the actions of the members is what is wrong. It is not the religion itself. Extremists exist in most religions. There were even extremists in early LDS faith and perhaps even some today.
So that is why I say not specifically the religion but the actions of some of its professed members or believers.
Ben Raines
In my opinion a religion is a congregation of people with a defined set of beliefs, regardless of what their scriptures say or how most people would interpret them. If one of those taught beliefs is immoral to me, I see no problem criticizing the "religion." I fully understand though that many religions have extremist "sects" which I consider as their own religion and that the actions of those people does not necessarily reflect the parent religion.
-
I voted in the poll before reading your post. Criticize for actions, sure. Criticize for beliefs I think is contrary to what we state in our Articles of Faith.
If a religion wants to stone a woman because she was raped, happened in Indonesia, then I would criticize but not so much the religion but the actions of its members.
Ben Raines
Why would you more criticize the actions rather than the religion? Of course it is the action that is morally wrong, but would those action have even happened if not for their religion enabling them to do it guilt free?
(I'm really curious what you think and I'm not just trying to be a pain here)
-
Isn't animosity different than criticism?
In my opinion it is, but I don't know if everyone makes that distinction.
-
It's pretty apparent DS, that you didn't make it clear enough, so I posted your explanation that it wasn't meant to be taken literally for the THIRD TIME! Maybe someone will read it this time
Thank you! At least someone understands my frustration.
-
In the case of Prop 8 ... we don't deserve the animosity. Those who express themselves in that manner are hypocrites and uninformed.
Very few people believe they deserve animosity for their actions.
-
I'm not aware of any religion that does not receive public criticism. Can you name one?
I'm not aware of any either, but I am aware of people who think that the public criticism is automatically inappropriate because it is toward a religion.
-
Yeah....let's just abolish the constitution, no need to allow the free excercise of religion. And.......since you don't pay tithing, YOUR money doesn't support religious brainwashing. But since I do pay tithing and I also pay taxes on the money that I tithe.....I expect to recieve all the brainwashing that I pay for.
My post was not meant to be taken literally, in case I didn't make it clear enough.
My post was meant to demonstrate the rediculousness of proposing that no group should have "SPECIAL" rights and that paying taxes means you get to specify what you don't want to see in society at all. In any case, I seem to have failed at that so just ignore my other post.
-
I'm curious what people think about this. If a religion does something that you find morally repugnant, what (if anything) is wrong with publicly criticizing it and making your grievances known? Should religious beliefs be held beyond criticism?
Oh, and here is a funny, somewhat related comic: Flea Snobbery: Laughing
-
Remove tax exemptstatus....
no way:pThe system here goes like this: we pay 10% and get back a few %. Before we got nothing back, but so did not those giving money to carity either, now we all get something back. BUT then again we have to pay taxes that are delt also to the states Church=Lutheran. So everybody paying taxes pay for Lutheran Church. Norwegean LDs has also denied to take the aid state gives to assemblies and such in ordet not to be in a situation where the state is able to blackmail us with the aidmoney.
In Finland LDS church members get nothig back and do not need to pay the "churchtaxes" that go to Lutheran church, no one gets anything back, even if they donate to charity. I dont think they get any aid either from state there.
Much of the donations go to the needy. So to screw down that pipe might stop people donating to the needy and church help systems. However 10% would be payed anyway....
My post was not meant to be taken literally, in case I didn't make it clear enough.
-
THIS was good I think: Meridian Magazine:: Family Leader Network: Violence and Religious Intimidation: No Place in Civil Society
Yes! Dont go to the same as Europa did! I sure hope you can manage it that the religions wont be allowed to be put down like they do in Europe!
Maybe there is light in the tunnel after all...
Violence and intimidation have no place in a civil society, whether related to religion or sexual orientation or anything else. Critizicism of religions is (and should remain) allowed in this society.
-
I don't really care what people do in their personal lives. I'm not telling them their immoral or making judgment. What I am strongly opposed to is how it would affect schools, churches and my personal family. School curriculums would change (as they already have in Massachusetts) to include information about gay lifestyles and it be presented as a lifestyle option. Being the taxpayer that I am who gives thousands of dollars to the system, I don't want to pay to have my children indoctrinated that the gay lifestyle is an option for them. That is my right as a citizen of this country to vote my moral conscience. I do morally object, but it does not mean I judge others; each has to judge for themselves what is acceptable to them. I think our country has gone to far in extending "rights" we have extended so many rights that we have lost many of them. We should all have EQUAL rights, but no group should be allowed SPECIAL rights.
Good point. Let's start by removing all SPECIAL rights that religious groups have, including their tax exempt status. After all, I am an atheist and pay thousands of dollars in taxes and don't want my money going to religious brain washing.
-
Why can't they get better pictures of some of the planets that are lightyears away?
Because of the relative light given off by the star right next to them. It's like trying to get a good picture of a bug in the middle of a spotlight pointed directly at you.
no way:p
Has anyone watched A Haunting
in General Discussion
Posted
Nope.