DigitalShadow
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DigitalShadow
-
-
I can see how some religions genuinely do require one to close their mind. It is not something I have observed in the LDS doctrine.
I will say that from an outsider's perspective, the LDS church has been far more open minded than most. If it weren't for that fact I wouldn't even be here. I would like to point out that I would have been banned from most christian boards by now, probably even some of the more strict LDS ones too :)
-
Okay, I'm being a stinker here -- but DO WE REALLY KNOW "SIGNIFICANTLY" MORE ABOUT THE WORLD AROUND US?
Again, we'd have to have as our foundation a knowledge of what is there to be known? How much is there to be known? Once we know that, we can look at our current body of knowledge and make a judgement. "We know 5% of all there is to be known in the world (or solar system, or universe, whatever).
In comparison to the body of knowledge we had 10000 years ago, I would say the body of knowledge we have now is significantly greater. Compared to the infinite set of knowledge that exists in the universe it is all insignificant, but I was only comparing to what we had before. Did we have any idea what caused rain or other weather patterns? Did we have any idea what the stars in the sky were? Did we know what caused various illnesses? No, we had to rely on supernatural and superstitious explainations for all of those. That was my only point.
-
Not sure about that! To know that the number of mysteries has decreased significantly, you would first have to quantify how many there are to begin with, which cannot be done.
Every time a mystery of the world is solved there is indeed one less mystery, however given an infinite set of mysteries that exist to begin with, the word "significant" would be irrelevant in that context. Point taken. I retract that statement an replace it with: "We do now know significantly more about the world around us".
-
Or life really does have a purpose, and we are meant to find that purpose. That really explains why people want religion more than anything else. I think what gives people the basic need for religion is the light of truth.
God did not just place us here to figure it out completely on our own. Each of us have within us something we brought with us from our heavenly abode. We call it the light of truth, or the light of Christ. One of the manifestations of the light of Christ, is conscience. It helps us choose between right and wrong. The purpose of the light of Christ, is to lead us to truth, and ultimately to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Then we will receive a greater witness, even the Holy Ghost, to guide us, sanctify us, and help us return back to the presence of our Father. Throughout all of this, the light of truth will continue in us helping us obtain more light and truth until we have received it all. Here's another scripture to consider:
And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness. That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day. And again, verily I say unto you, and I say it that you may know the truth, that you may chase darkness from among you;(D&C 50:23-25)
The scriptures sometimes refer to this light as intelligence. Here is some more interesting reading on the topic: Guide to the Scriptures: Light, Light of Christ, Guide to the Scriptures: Intelligence, Intelligences)
This is the way I view religion throughout history:
At first belief in Gods gave people a feeling of security in war-torn times (my God is more powerful than yours and will protect me!). Then, as societies became more peaceful, belief in God more served the purpose of explaining the world around them where knowledge was lacking. Now, as our scientific knowledge increased (while we obviously don't know everything or even close, but the number of mysteries in the world has decreased significantly), religion is looked to for a sense of purpose and in general is in a state of decline around the world. Many people now only have a weak "just in case" belief in their religion and some dismiss it alltogether as a vestigial artifact of older times that is perpetuated mostly by culture now. I wouldn't say that I completely agree with that conclusion, but I do think that it is possibility that should be examined.
I think that both your theory and my theory are rational conclusions and I can't say which is right with absolute certainty so i won't rule either of them out, but I will say that I lean more towards the theory I just stated because it makes more sense to me.
-
Fair enough.
I don't think that embracing the LDS Faith makes me close-minded. Quite the opposite. As the Lord tutors me, I find my mind opened to lots of ideas that I had not considered before!
What makes me so adamant about my faith are those experiences. I want everyone to taste as I have tasted!
Close-minded is a word that has a lot of negative connotations attached to it (kind of like atheist). I certainly don't believe you are close-minded as a person, but I do believe that faith in a religion requires closing your mind to other possibilities to some extent, and that is the part I have the most problem with.
-
DS:
Are you waiting for us to say something that will make sense to you?
Most of what the people say here makes sense to me. I can usually put myself in their shoes and see where they are coming from (and I usually do, because I find it widens my perspective). I'm somewhat strange because I always like to hear both sides to every story. It's easy to simply hear one side and be all for it, but usually if you take the time to hear and understand both sides, nothing is as black and white as it originally seemed.
So why do I come here? Quite simply because I enjoy the discussions and the company. Many things that have been said here have inspired thought even if they didn't change my opinion. To me, the pursuit of truth is never ending. To settle on one thing as absolutely true to the exclusion of all other ideas is not something I see myself ever doing. That doesn't mean I can't explore options and see what makes the most sense for me though.
-
I would wager a guess that the majority (maybe not vast majority, but still over 50%) of people in any specific religion have those beliefs either "just in case" they are right or because it is a part of their culture and they were raised that way.
Kudos to the people who take the time to examine their own beliefs, atheist and theist alike. I find it hard to believe that a just God would judge someone who honestly sought His word to no avail more harshly than one who happened to be raised in the "correct" religion and never bothered to examine it.
That's just my 2 cents though.
-
I know I can get mouthy! :) Been talking to DS for a while now. I think he puts up with me!
Don't worry, it is actually pretty difficult to offend me and I usually enjoy spirited discussions :)
-
I don't see how there is any kind of evidence, including the various methods, scientific, or otherwise, that would validate the existence of God to you, if what you say is in fact the case.
You are correct. This is the problem that I've been trying to explain to people since arriving on these forums with limited success. I think you may be one of, if not the first person to understand it so well.
How about yourself, do you exist?
The fact that I can ponder that question, leads me to believe that I probably do exist by most definitions of the word. Can I say for certain? No. Does it really matter? No. All I can do is try to make sense of the world around me and enjoy the experience we call life. That's really all anyone can do, but many people like to feel like everything including their life has purpose, or that some higher power is looking out for them. That is essentially the origin of religion, whether a current one is right or not, I don't think that many people will dispute that the first religions were born out of this basic human need.
-
Really? 0% eh? no evidence what so ever? There is not one shred of evidence that compels you to continue these conversations. Whatever......
I said emperical evidence. That doesn't include anecdotal or "spiritual" evidence
-
Roger that. Just clarify for me some more then. So, you do believe that absolute truth exists, but you don't believe we are capable of discerning it?
Regards,
Vanhin
I believe that there is one truth, but we are incapable of determining it for certain and when people claim to know something with absolute certainty they are only closing their mind off to other possibly valid ideas.
-
In the LDS Church, we believe that all men and women can be prophets in their own lives. Moses wished that all his people could/would be prophets, and Joseph Smith's goal was to have every person receive their own theophany.
what if my faith was only partially based upon what other men told me, and that it was also based upon my own spiritual experiences, which could include angelic visitations, miracles, personal prophecies, or perhaps even a visit from God himself? I'm not saying I have had all these experiences, I haven't - but I've had several of them. And I know others who also have had many of these experiences.
As I said before, how does one explain it when Joseph Smith is not the only one who has seen a vision? How do we consider 12 men seeing the gold plates on three separate occasions? How do we explain hundreds seeing angels in the Kirtland Temple? How do we explain Jesus Christ being seen by Joseph Smith and others at the same time? Either there was a huge hoax, a huge hypnotic experience, or it was real. My spiritual experiences tell me that it was real, to the point that I know God lives and that there are living prophets today.
I don't go into details in my spiritual experiences, as I consider them sacred and allow other spiritual beings to seek their own experiences. I will tell you that from spiritual witnesses I have seen the mantle of priesthood authority fall upon a man 2 weeks before he was called as bishop. I have a witness of Brigham Young as prophet that came unexpectedly, but is definite that he is in the Spirit World performing sacred ordinances for the spirits there. I have felt the spirit speak words of prophecy through me as I've given blessings. I've seen people with incurable diseases healed through that priesthood power. For me, these are witnesses and evidences that have not come from the scriptures, but from God interfacing directly with me.
And this is why I know these are true, and not merely a belief in what someone else said.
If I said that I've seen Jesus appeared to me and clearly state that Joseph Smith is wrong and that I should start my own church and had another witness who saw the same thing as I do, how would you explain that? Well, that is my answer to you as well.
I've never claimed that people believe in religions merely because someone else said to, I have heard the "undeniable" feelings and experiences they received that led them to their particular religion and supported their particular doctrine or interpretation. My only concern is that I've seen many people utterly convinced they are right but whose "undeniable" knowledge conflicts with each others. Obviously not all of them are right, therefore "undeniable" knowledge does not seem very reliable from my point of view which is why I like emperical, observable, repeatable evidence.
-
I mean anything, not just religious. So, you don't believe that absolute truth exists, or are you saying we are incapable of knowing that anything is absolutely true?
Is there nothing that you are aware of that you would consider absolutely true then?
Vanhin
I believe we are incapable of knowing anything to be absolutely true. That basically is the definition of what it means to be agnostic, even though it is usually applied in a religious sense and widely misunderstood by many people.
-
DigitalShadow,
Do you mind sharing something that you have verified to be absolutely true? Let's examine that for a bit.
Sincerely,
Vanhin
I don't consider anything absolutely true, that is one of my main issues with joining any particular religion. Given enough evidence, I will consider something most likely true, but sufficient amounts of conflicting evidence will change my mind. In my opinion, claiming that anything is "absolutely true" is arrogant and nonproductive because it closes your mind to other possibilities.
-
We all exercise faith - what is most telling about a person is how skeptical they are of other's faith when they are unwilling to examine their own.
The Traveler
In the most general sense of the word, yes we all do things we are not 100% sure of. The amount of evidence required to cause the incidence of faith is an important distinction though.
-
BTW, are you an expert on airplanes? Have you tested the planes yourself? How do you know this particular one is safe? Did you inspect it? Measure fuel levels? Check all the systems? Ask every passenger if they are a terrorist? Interview each employee of the airlines? Test all the food for poison? Interview the president of the airline? Make sure of his credentials? I hope you don't have that much time on your hands. :) You trust the people who do say they know and that, my friend, IS very much faith. Is your faith blind? No. You do have a few facts to go on. But you will never KNOW for sure.
I think I get your point now, that I get on a plane even though I'm not 100% sure I'll get off it alive so I should be able to place faith in a religion that I'm not 100% sure is true. I think the important difference here that I take issue with is that from the emperical evidence I've seen, I am 99.999% sure I'll get off the plane alive and I'm 0% sure that God exists, based on the fact that I've seen no emperical evidence (0% meaning I have no idea, NOT that I'm positive He doesn't exist).
-
No. Please don't misunderstand me. Yes use your logic. I am not telling you to lean on feelings alone. No one here is. The proof is in the pudding. You gotta live it to know the truth of it. That is where your logic and reason really can serve you. But you gotta get a vision of where you wanna go and then determine how to get there. So, really DS. What do you really want? What need is there in you to even have these conversations? Boil it down. Do you want religious truth? If the answer is yes, then you have to move yourself to a different position. Otherwise you will hover around all of it and never land.
I want the truth, religious or not. My point is that I don't see why I should make exceptions for religious theory and go about validating the truth of them in ways other than how you determine the truth of anything else.
I absolutely agree with you. There are a billion and one religions and science is one of them.
So, maybe you could explain why it is you are focusing on the LDS church....or Christianity perhaps. I am making the assumption that you have determined, at least to some degree, that there might be something to it all. Perhaps it would be helpful for your own searchings if you could argue the other side. Why IS religion or specifically this religion something that makes sense to you?
No, no, no. I'm sorry, but I really don't like it when people make the claim that science is just another form of religion.
Religion is a based on a specific set of beliefs or doctrine that is unverifiable by emerical evidence. Science is based on a process that assumes you don't know everything and seeks to learn more through observable repeatable experiments. While some people may take a few scientific theories and religiously cling to them, science itself is a process with no set doctrine. It is the objective study of the world around us. There is no definition of religion that could be construed to have science as a whole fit into it.
Yes feelings can easily mislead. Thus the Spirit. Look, if God is real and he does want to talk to an individual, don't you think it is logical that he would speak to them directly in a perfectly confidential and personal way? How else would something like that work without feelings AND logic AND perceptive ability? And please remember that the Spirit is NOT our feelings. Our feelings are a response to the Spirit.
Don't you think that it is logical that if God exists and is a perfect being and we were His creations that He could reliably communicate with His children who are honestly seeking him and end all this confusion over what He really wants?
Yes, we are all fallible, dang it. God uses the weak things of the world. And that is ok. The messenger doesn't have to be perfect to deliver a perfect message. God does the converting. He does the changing of mind and knowledge.
Given the number of so-called messengers of God in this world bringing conflicting messages, I remain skeptical when claims are made absent of evidence. That is all I was saying.
I pray and practice for the very same reason! I can observe what happens when a person feels the spirit or becomes clean from sin or changes into a more loving individual. I can see it with my own eyes and feel it with my own everyday senses. I have seen it in others and I have seen it in myself. It is not just touchy feely feelings and blindness to the rest. It is so very much more!! It is logical. It makes sense. And it feels really good. I am sad that after all of this discussion, that is what you still feel like we are saying to you.
You can claim that those feelings originated from the Holy Ghost or the Alien Overlord Xenu, I'm not saying you're wrong, but until I personally see evidence otherwise, from my point of view they are just feelings. The power of an idea combined with faith in it can do amazing things, I've witnessed it as well. You say that is proof of God, and I say it is proof of the power of the human mind. Just look at studies into the placebo effect if you don't believe what the mind can do by itself.
-
I guess I am not sure about what kind of evidence you want. Testimony and scripture passages seem to be unsatisfactory for you. If it is truth you want as to whether or not there is a God, then the best place to find that knowledge are the scriptures and testimony and prayer. Science and scholars can talk all day long and try to measure all of it. But to what end? They can't give you the knowledge. They can do what they can do.....but in the end you will end up unsatisfied as well.
I see religion the same as I see any other theory and use the same logic to determine whether or not it makes sense. Is there some reason I shouldn't? If you propose a scientific theory that can only be verified through scripture feelings that you receive after having enough faith in it, I would be just as skeptical.
DS. Believing is a choice. I have said it before. So is disbelieving. So is skepticism. Neither side is determined by 100% predictability. You can't prove that God never at anytime answers prayers. Some say prayer works. Some say it doesn't. Only you can decide for yourself. And you can't get the answer any other place than on you knees.
Yes, there is no proof for any religious viewpoint, but that doesn't mean that they should all be equally considered. There is as much emerical evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is for God. Feelings are great, but without some logic behind them, they will easily mislead you.
You may want everything to fit nicely into a predictable and familiar way for you to discover the truth. If you want cake, you gotta follow the recipe for making cake. If you want really good cake, then you follow my recipe for cake! :) Little joke. The same is true for spiritual things. God made the rules. Man didn't. You can't tell God to do it your way and then wonder why he doesn't comply.
Whether the rules were made by God or not, it is man that is presenting them to me and given how fallable man is, I am understandably skeptical when people tell me they know the will of God and what I should do to please Him.
With regards to faith. We all believer or non, use faith. We don't have 100% guarantee that the plane will function perfectly, but we get on the plane. You believe a certain way. And you exercise a lot of faith in your line of thinking. I hope that you can see that faith isn't as far away from you as you may think. I don't think it is that some of us don't have the ability for faith. I think it is where we put our faith that makes all the difference. Because even though I don't have a 100% guarantee, I can still fly!
I get on a plane because I know how many flights there are and how few of them crash. No faith required. I know the rough odds of dying and the convenience of getting across the country in hours is worth the miniscule risk. Making decisions based on observable and well understood principles is quite different from justifying belief based on feeling. While both fall under the very broad definition of faith, it is the more specific definition of faith as it pertains to religion that I have problems with. Nice try though :)
-
One more question for you digital that I personally am curious about is. You seem to be a very bight guy. You seem to read alot and ask lots of questions. And I would bet that this is not the first forum that you have asked these kind of questions to right? Which is a good thing in my opinion..but have you ever just done a in depth study on who Jesus is? What did he say about himself? What did others say about him? In the bible and not in the bible..and how he compares to the world's reglions of what they believe..how he is different or the same...It would interesting for you to do that..and I think if you did it with an open mind to the possiblity but using logic and reason to support it you will have all your answers met.
You are correct. I like to keep a balanced view of things, so I also frequent a skeptics forum which is prodominantly atheist/agnostic (go figure). For what it's worth I have looked into the historical aspects of the life of Jesus and have been underwhelmed with the results.
I agree with your reasoning and can see what your saying.
as far as no human being able to explain comment i posted..I meant..person was laying on the stretcher.no heart beat, no brain activity and clinicaly dead..no doctor in that room could account for the fact as to why he came to life..and nobody could explain it even one step further in that there was no brain damage. 4 min of no heat beat and that equalls brain damage. It is beyond reason or intellect or science. It was God.
I think if you took one isolated arguement a christian gives you for God and you might be able to come up with a reasonable rebuttel but when you lay all the evidence on the table it is hard to ignore.This where I put my faith in. My faith does not contridict my logic.
Now that is only part of the equation Digital..then it comes down to which path right? If you come to the conclusion there is a God then at some point you've got to figure out which path to God right? And this is where I purposed to you a analytical study on Jesus and the bible.
I would like to point out that simply because something is beyond our current scientific knowledge, does not mean that God did it. As reassuring as it is to point to things that are beyond our current level of knowledge and say how God must have been responsible, I think that it is far more useful to use those as opportunities to further our scientific knowledge than to declare it as a miracle. If we stopped at "God did it!" every time we don't understand something, our increasing scientific knowledge would come to a hault.
-
Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population Page 1
You can look into the study if you wish.
As far as God not answering a prayer. You are correct that sometimes it is God's will to let people die. My dad was killed very young. Just because we pray for something does not mean that God will answer it the way we would like. Sometimes Digital I am very thankful that God did not answer my prayers exactly how I wanted it to happen because I can't see my whole life and see what He sees. Sometimes it has been years later that I saw what God was doing in a situation. But I was only giving you...1. Science evidence that prayer works and 2. A personal account where I saw God work..a think no human can explain...3. I work in the medical field..there is no greater place to this carried out then here.
I browsed the study, thanks for the link, I do appreciate it. My point however is that if a principle is true, studies tend to agree. I have seen multiple studies to the effect that prayer made no difference, I have now seen one study that seems to point to prayer being effective. While I will grant you that it is evidence, I have still seen more evidence (both personal and scientific) that prayer has no effect.
You say that no human can explain a personal account of seeing God work. Well I'm a human and I'll give it a shot. Your eyes sometimes see what your mind wants you to see, your brain fills in the gaps to make sense of what you don't understand and finally where religion is concerned, people find a way to make God look good and events purposeful sometimes because it supports their view of the world. There, explained. It may not be the correct explaination but it is certainly very plausible. To say certain events are unexplainable is quite misleading.
Let's look at how I've seen religious people react to certain situations:
A person almost gets in a car accident - I have been blessed and God was looking out for me
A person gets in a minor car accident - Thank God I don't have any serious injuries, God was looking out for me.
A person gets in a major car accident and lives - It's a miracle I'm still alive, God was looking out for me.
A person gets in a major car accident and dies - [friends and family] It was their time to go, and they're in a better place now.
All of those situations happen whether God exists or doesn't. Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. Sometimes good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people, but simply looking at those specific examples and saying "ha! I told you so!" is rediculous unless you look at all the opposite examples and explain why they are equally likely.
-
I am sorry I have misunderstood your desires. I thought you were trying to find out what we believe and why we believe so strongly in what we do.
All I know is my own religion, my own beliefs. I can speak to what I know and how I know it. That is about all I can do.
Since we believe our Church is the only true Church -- how would you expect us to respond and behave?
I believe that I have found out what it is you believe and why you believe so strongly. The question now is whether I will accept that for my own beliefs as well. I know this is mostly a personal question, but the main purpose of this thread is to explore religion from an objective perspective and to discuss the reliability of personal subjective experiences, why they conflict so much from person to person, and why so many people describe them as undeniable experience when obviously some if not many are wrong since their experiences conflict.
I encourage debate, citing evidence, and even philosophical reasoning on this thread. What I somewhat discourage is dogmatic reasoning of "it is this way because the scriptures say so!" because while I find it fascinating, to someone who does not accept the scriptures as the word of God, it means the same as pointing to a book that is right because it says it is right.
-
The Book of Mormon counters practically any negative, doubting viewpoint you can come up with:
7 For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other words—they set him at naught, and hearken not to the voice of his counsels.
It "feels good" to the carnal man to doubt and "prove God wrong". It can be very satisfying, intellectually. It makes them feel "prudent, wise and smart." It's heady stuff.
Unfortunately, by having a doubting heart, we close ourselves off from that which God would give us.
2 Ne. 9: 42
42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.
cast these things away (your insistence on the scientific method, your insistence on proof, your pride in your logic and learning)
consider yourself a fool before God (you acknowledge that He is superior to you in every way, mentally, logically, physically, spiritually -- in every way)
and come down in the depths of humility (become willing to listen to your feelings, and become willing to receive an answer from Him through your feelings)
if you do not do these things
"He will not open unto you" -- He will not give you the "proof" you seek.
You entirely missed my point. He was basically saying that I must explain the 8 witnesses if I reject the Book of Mormon as truth and I was replying by asking how he would explain 8 witnesses to a prophet with conflicting teachings. My point being that if I wanted, I could probably gather 8 friends together to claim they saw something, that doesn't make it true or even necessitate other people either having to prove that it is not true or believe it.
-
DS:
Good morning. How are you?
The scriptures do say so. Also, He says so. Why wouldn't God speak about Himself in His words to us? He wants us to get to know Him better. Why wouldn't He say they are from Him?
I would say the progression is:
1) Willing to know if God exists. FAITH
2) You do what He says we must do to know if He exists. OBEDIENCE
3) God witnesses to you that He exists. PROOF
4) You continue to obey his commandments.
5) Over time, you come to know God's attributes as He, Himself, infuses you with them.
6) Eventually you become like Him.
Given how stubbornly you cling to your "being unconvinced" -- perhaps you will spend the rest of your life wondering if God exists. In fact, I could easily see that being the case, if you continue as you are. Your having to be "compelled" is a form of pride.
God is not going to change how things work just for you. You need to be the one to bend to His will. In this case, the scientific method will prove unhelpful. You might consider trying a different method for a while.
Signs follow faith, they do not precede them. Signs given because we are "demanding proof before we will believe" tend to condemn us. Signs to not breed more faith. They do the opposite. They serve to harden our hearts.
We've given you ample testimony that He lives. We've invited you to take the steps necessary to find out for yourself. All that remains is for you to take those steps. You are never going to get that witness through our words alone. Not because I say so, but because that is the way God works. His witness comes through the Holy Ghost. Through your feelings.
Feelings of peace, love and assurance. Such that you will have a hard time putting the experience into words (which is what most of us suffer from as we try to help you understand, I might add! God's witness to our souls is unspeakable)
I'm not proposing He "change how things work just for me." I'm stating that the "way things work" looks suspiciously like He doesn't exist and religions make rules compensating for that.
You say that I am stubbornly clinging to being unconvinced but I could just as easily say that you are stubbornly clinging to being convinced. I've told you before, I came here to have honest and open discussions about religion, not to simply be convinced that your brand of Truth is the right one.
-
I agree with VanHin. It is easy to explain away many so-called prophets, who are the only witness of their spiritual experience. But how does one explain the 3 and 8 Witnesses? How does one explain the Mormon Pentecost at the Kirtland Temple dedication, where hundreds experienced spiritual events (speaking in tongues, angels in the rooms and on the roof, etc)? How does one explain Joseph having revelations with others also witnessing them, such as with Oliver Cowdery: John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, Jesus Christ, Moses, Elijah, Elias; or with Sidney Rigdon: Christ, and the 3 kingdoms of heaven?
How would you explain it if I said there was a different person claiming to be a prophet who had 3 and 8 Witnesses as well? If you really think about that question you'll see how easy it is to dismiss extrodinary claims when you don't already believe them.
Exploring religious theory
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
I think that being in the theological majority breeds close-mindedness and hostility to conflicting viewpoints regardless of what views the majority holds. I don't usually let the actions of a few of the members of any particular church color my view of the church in general. By that same logic, one would have to throw out all of science because a few scientists are jerks.
In any case, no offense was intended :)