Core Belief ?'s

[Dr T]

Hi Ray,

I posted that because of the depth in some of your posts. You write a lot into such a short arrangement of words, while annotating so much of it. Because I appreciate what you are trying to do, I have to smile. I shake my head because I think, "This man has a good heart. Now, if only he could be concise and direct about what he types..."

[Traveler]

Hi Traveler,

Please forgive me if I'm mistaking you for another poster, but I seem to recall that your theory regarding humans losing their incentive for creating children was attached to your attitudes regarding society accepting homosexuality, and that the more this is accepted the less children would be produced, thus bringing down society? I think it was the references to the homosexuals causing the downfall of the human race that possibly offended some posters. Other posters did offer the choices of homosexuals adopting children that needed families and such, but this didn't appear to be acceptable to you as you felt that a 2 parent (one male, one female) would be the only one acceptable.

Once again, if I've mistaken you for another poster and this isn't what you were referring to, then please forgive me.

I do feel it is very difficult to argue/debate core beliefs with people when one person thinks that the opinions of the other are morally wrong. It must be very difficult to walk away from that debate just agreeing to disagree.

Thank you pushka for your question and remembering my previous post. In general I define morality as the effort to sacrifice one's personal wants, desires, passions and needs for the greater needs of others. Currently it appears to me that our society supports individual wants, desires, passions and needs as being the only legitimate engine of behavior. I also believe one does not have to be homosexual to demonstrate such shelfishness in relationships - it is just hard for me to recognize self sacrifice as the basis of homosexual relationships in order to insure a next generation. Adopting children may be helpful because it is a method of solving a problem of unwanted children by biological parents that do not understand their moral obligations to children above that of their wants ect. But without society providing incentive to insure an next generation - I do not believe you can be sure that there will be an next generation for that society - which is the basis of natural selection. Perhaps if someone could demonstrate a result without incentive, I could understand the argument and need to end incentive to maintain biological families that bring children into the society and prepare them to care for biological children of their own.

The Traveler

[Ray]

Now, if only he could be concise and direct about what he types..."

Heh, so you don't think I'm being concise and direct ENOUGH... even though I do "write a lot in such a short arrangement" of the words I am choosing to use???

Are you yankin' my chain, or trying to tell me something, Doc?

Please say that again in fewer words... while trying to be as concise and direct as YOU can.

[pushka]

Hi again Ray. I can assure you that I did not intentionally twist either your words or Traveler's. I am still unsure as to whether the original poster about homosexuality and children was Traveler as Fiannan seems to also fit the bill quite easily of possibly putting the two together. However, that is aside from the real issue here.

It is the insinuation that homosexuality is one of the factors of the decay of society, because they are considered morally wrong by some people, and because some of them choose not to have children which made me say what I did in my post...I'm sorry if I appeared to place words in your mouth that you did not speak.

I still feel as strongly as I do on my matters of belief/unbelief, and if God does exist then I am very sorry that some of my beliefs do not agree with his if his really are the 'only' way to be.

On the otherhand, if I'm going to be joined by my friends who feel the same way as I do, then I will go down smilin' :)

[Traveler]

Pushka: I try to keep things simple and consistent by taking all the variables our to see how straight forward the constants are. The basic foundation of evil is the attitude of self and self importance. The basic foundation of good is the attitude of others and sacrifice of self. In every case where are problems from marriage to wars between nations it always comes down to somebody being selfish and unwilling to give something for the benefit of others.

The "natural" behavior is selfish - a person must be taught and learn to be giving of self and to abandon selfishness. Thus the need for social incentive to over come selfishness. I define intelligence as the ability to learn and modify cognitive behavior. Research (such as Pavlov and Skinner) demonstrate that intelligent species can have any cognitive behavior modified. Scientifically (in the case of Pavlov) this learning is called the lowest cognitive level of learning and is also called conditioning or brainwashing. This learning can take place without the learner being aware and can even leave the impression with the learner that they were borne with that behavior. One common example of this kind of learning is the fears developed into phobias. I try to help others understand this not as learning of choice but more a learning resulting from adjustments.

Under Hitler the Germans took the lowest cognitive level of learning to extremes and introduced methods of modifying the masses behavior through entertainment - these methods have become common place in modern advertising. The engine of brainwashing (lowest cognitive level of learning) is association which is intensified with reward - and keep in mind one of the highest natural reward associations in humans is directly related to reproduction. This is the reason that sexuality is used so heavily in advertising.

But what I have learned is that people will believe what they want (or according to their conditioning) over all else.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

personally, I don't think I am being offensive when I say or suggest that someone cannot see something they simply cannot see... even if someone gets personally offended by my thought or suggestion that they can't see something they believe they truly can see perfectly.

Truth can be delivered offensively. The receptor is the one who decides if it is offensive or not. So, if you know they will be offended (i.e. even if someon gets offended ...), then the point you're trying to communicated will be missed.

So, by all means be a messenger of truth--willing to risk disapproval when that true word is inherently difficult. On the other hand, when at all possible, mitigate the hardness of the truth with that love the Master fills us with.

Bottom-line: Yes we must be mindful of our audience, even as we are careful not to compromise the truth, .

I'm going to throw out an example, and we'll see how Dr. T's question gets answered. If I get the question right, it is whether or not we must needs get consternated when folk disagree with our basic beliefs.

So, here's one that is sure to find opposition from both LDS and most Christians: From the viewpoint of Torah-observant Jews it is better for a Jew to be an atheist than a Christian. A Jewish atheist is one who has strayed from the worship of God. A Jew who becomes a Christian is one who has cut herself off from her people, and taken to worshiping an idol (Jews consider the worship of any human who pretends to be God idolatry).

Did the bold-faced part enrage you, raise your body temperature, get your heart beating a little faster? As followup, these same posters (from another site) said that they highly respect Gentile Christians, because they succeed in observing six of the seven Noahide laws, and thus will likely be rewarded on the Day of Judgment.

Many posters will choose to engage in verbal combat upon hearing this. Some will react to the idolatry charge, others the the preference for atheists over Christians (note: if they have Jewish blood). But, if you can overcome that first reaction and dialogue with such folk, it's a sign of incredible spiritual maturity, im always ho.

[pushka]

Traveler, thanks for your further comments. I am undergoing Cognitive Behavioural Therapy at the moment, so I can appreciate your viewpoint. However, at the heart of me, I still cannot believe that to be homosexual, in most/some cases (trying not to generalise, Ben Raines!) is a learned behaviour. I am sure that ones true underlying attractions would come forth eventually if that was the case.

Prisonchaplain, your comments are interesting too, from the point of an Agnostic, I think that as long as you are generally a 'good' person, and don't do harm to others intentionally, then there is no need to be a believer in God. Perhaps I'm looking at this from a different stance than the Jewish people, in that they are still believing in their God.

[Dr T]

Thank you all for your ideas about this. Good example P.C.. As far as the nature/nurture debate, the way I tend to see things is not nature or nurture but nature through nurture. We are biological creatures and can not get away from that. On the other side of the coin however, we are all psychological creatures (thoughts, feelings, actions, interpersonal relatedness, etc.) which we cannot also separate from who we are. I think they go hand in hand. How much so? You tell me. :)

Dr. T

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

personally, I don't think I am being offensive when I say or suggest that someone cannot see something they simply cannot see... even if someone gets personally offended by my thought or suggestion that they can't see something they believe they truly can see perfectly.

Truth can be delivered offensively. The receptor is the one who decides if it is offensive or not. So, if you know they will be offended (i.e. even if someon gets offended ...), then the point you're trying to communicated will be missed.

So, by all means be a messenger of truth--willing to risk disapproval when that true word is inherently difficult. On the other hand, when at all possible, mitigate the hardness of the truth with that love the Master fills us with.

Bottom-line: Yes we must be mindful of our audience, even as we are careful not to compromise the truth, .

I'm going to throw out an example, and we'll see how Dr. T's question gets answered. If I get the question right, it is whether or not we must needs get consternated when folk disagree with our basic beliefs.

So, here's one that is sure to find opposition from both LDS and most Christians: From the viewpoint of Torah-observant Jews it is better for a Jew to be an atheist than a Christian. A Jewish atheist is one who has strayed from the worship of God. A Jew who becomes a Christian is one who has cut herself off from her people, and taken to worshiping an idol (Jews consider the worship of any human who pretends to be God idolatry).

Did the bold-faced part enrage you, raise your body temperature, get your heart beating a little faster? As followup, these same posters (from another site) said that they highly respect Gentile Christians, because they succeed in observing six of the seven Noahide laws, and thus will likely be rewarded on the Day of Judgment.

Many posters will choose to engage in verbal combat upon hearing this. Some will react to the idolatry charge, others the the preference for atheists over Christians (note: if they have Jewish blood). But, if you can overcome that first reaction and dialogue with such folk, it's a sign of incredible spiritual maturity, im always ho.

A slightly different idea, and different example, Tommy:

I never mean to offend anyone when I share what I know to be true, and I always share what I know to be true... as well as my personal beliefs and ideas... whether or not you or anyone else does too.

And if you or others are offended by what I just said and know to be true, it is not my responsibility. I simply shared what I know to be true and all of you can do what you want to. :)

Oh, and btw, I used some bold type in my sentence to simply say what I know to be true with boldness, not because I'm trying to make anyone feel offended when I say what I personally know to be true.

p.s. I'm also adding a link to the topic of TRUTH to illustrate what I see that is really cool, like how truth is described as the power of the Holy Spirit which cuts us at our CORE if we don't want to receive it. And I personally favor these words of Nephi as he helped to make that point. :)

[Dr T]

Thanks for the example Ray. Here is why I shake my head and smile. You said,

"I never mean to offend anyone when I share what I know to be true, and I always share what I know to be true... as well as my personal beliefs and ideas... whether or not you or anyone else does too.

And if you or others are offended by what I just said and know to be true, it is not my responsibility. I simply shared what I know to be true and all of you can do what you want to.

Oh, and btw, I used some bold type in my sentence to simply say what I know to be true with boldness, not because I'm trying to make anyone feel offended when I say what I personally know to be true."

This could have been covered in one sentance. For example, "I never mean to offend anyone when I share what I know." :) Still smiling.

[Ray]

Thanks for the example Ray. Here is why I shake my head and smile. You said,

"I never mean to offend anyone when I share what I know to be true, and I always share what I know to be true... as well as my personal beliefs and ideas... whether or not you or anyone else does too.

And if you or others are offended by what I just said and know to be true, it is not my responsibility. I simply shared what I know to be true and all of you can do what you want to.

Oh, and btw, I used some bold type in my sentence to simply say what I know to be true with boldness, not because I'm trying to make anyone feel offended when I say what I personally know to be true."

This could have been covered in one sentance. For example, "I never mean to offend anyone when I share what I know." :) Still smiling.

But if I had only used those words I wouldn't have used some other words, and I personally believe those other words add a few more key ideas.

Heh, but you can go ahead and keep smiling, Doc. It helps me know you were not offended. :)

[Dr T]

Ray,

I'm really enjoying you. I understand that you see those other words as important and they do add a few more ideas. That is why I called them annotations. I also appreciate your concern about offending. :)

Thanks you for your thoughts and thank you for not being offended.

[Ray]

I hope you'll also enjoy those links I added. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, thanks for your further comments. I am undergoing Cognitive Behavioural Therapy at the moment, so I can appreciate your viewpoint. However, at the heart of me, I still cannot believe that to be homosexual, in most/some cases (trying not to generalise, Ben Raines!) is a learned behaviour. I am sure that ones true underlying attractions would come forth eventually if that was the case.

In my lay-scientific (read NON-scientific) opinion, homosexual temptation (tendencies?), much like alcoholic temptation, is a matter of predisposition. Yes, some are much more easily and strongly tempted towards attraction to others of the same gender. Minus religious and social sanction, there's probably little reason for an individual not to act out on such inclinations. However, just as an alcoholic doesn't have to drink, and indeed, many live "recovered" lives (my grandfather being one), those tempted by homosexual feelings can abstain, and, some do find their way to satisfying heterosexual relationships.

Prisonchaplain, your comments are interesting too, from the point of an Agnostic, I think that as long as you are generally a 'good' person, and don't do harm to others intentionally, then there is no need to be a believer in God. Perhaps I'm looking at this from a different stance than the Jewish people, in that they are still believing in their God.

If God is not knowable, then you are right. However, Christians of all stripes believe that God is knowable to those who seek Him. To not seek God, and not embrace him when He is found, is akin to turning away from one's parents by saying, "Well, I can be a good person without knowing or interacting with my folks."

[Ray]

To not seek God, and not embrace him when He is found, is akin to turning away from one's parents by saying, "Well, I can be a good person without knowing or interacting with my folks."

Let us translate akin to mean exactly the same thing, since God is in fact our Father.

[Dr T]

I didn't read the links yet Ray. You feel God is the same as us while I think God is different than us. Altogether different.

[Traveler]

Traveler, thanks for your further comments. I am undergoing Cognitive Behavioural Therapy at the moment, so I can appreciate your viewpoint. However, at the heart of me, I still cannot believe that to be homosexual, in most/some cases (trying not to generalise, Ben Raines!) is a learned behaviour. I am sure that ones true underlying attractions would come forth eventually if that was the case.

Please do not feel that I am "coming down" on you are trying to play with your mind but the concept of learned behavior has a rather broad spectrum. Perhaps it would be better stated as acquired behavior. Let me give a little example. A couple (of any kind) is very much attracted and involved - they "fall" in love with each other. Sometime later they part (divorce) without any ability to show any attraction toward each other. Is this because their "true underlying attractions would come forth eventually" or because they have made adjustments based on experiences. Please note that "adjustments based on experiences" is the essence of "learning" which is the ability to modify one's concepts or behavior based on experience. Which I believe defines an intelligent species.

Otherwise we must accept "non-learned" behavior as non intelligent that can not be modified (including made stronger) by experience of any kind. If this is true concerning "sexual preference" then there is no reason to attempt to modify or rehabilitate even the most deviant sexual preference. (which is kind of what PC posted - just stated acording to my understanding)

Anyway that is how I see it in the most simple terms I understand. - Thanks for lisinging

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I thought to post something that many readers may find a great surprise concerning me and my social circle. I have some friends that I consider very good friend that are involved in homosexual relationships. I do not believe in excluding someone because they do not agree with my basic concepts - nor do I believe it necessary to seek occasion to modify something they are pleased with. There is no pretense here - I do not pretend to like them in spite of the preference - I honestly enjoy their company - and at the same time I do not pretend to tolerate their preferences. If a subject matter is turned that direction I voice my opinion just as I have done here on the forum. I have not had a problem with my friends on the matter that we have different opinions. In fact I do not know anyone that I could not find something to disagree. Mostly I do not choose to go to war over disagreements - though I believe some would make that choice - for me when the subject is being discussed I give my opinions - I try not to attack with the understanding that some do not know the difference between trying to defend my self and attacking.

Sorry if I have offended anyone - that is not my intension.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I didn't read the links yet Ray. You feel God is the same as us while I think God is different than us. Altogether different.

Just my little opinion here. Is a zygote human? Is it different than human? Exactly at what point does a developing zygote become human? Or is a child different from an adult?

It is my honest opinion that if someone believes that G-d cannot make (in eternity - with no limits) a g-d out of a human (teach man of g-dliness) then they must believe that with G-d "all things" are not possible and that says much more about their belief in G-d than it does about their belief in the possible destiny of man. It is my understanding that a "damned" being is one that has limits and that the opposite of limits is infinite and I believe infinite is a definition of G-d.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Hi Traveler,

To answer your question, a human form is a human not matter what age. Or as good old Dr. Seuss wrote, "A person is a person no matter how small." I think God is able to do all things that are possibly done. We are creatures and not able to attain status of Creator in the same essense of God. We will always remain mortal.

[Ray]

I didn't read the links yet Ray. You feel God is the same as us while I think God is different than us. Altogether different.

That's a little misleading, because I don't think we are exactly the same.

And while we may someday grow up to be exactly like Him, we still have a long way to go.

[Dr T]

You are correct Ray. That sentance can be misleading. I apologize. As you said, "And while we may someday grow up to be exactly like Him, we still have a long way to go." I would say, No, we will never grow to be exactly like Him.

[Ray]

We will always remain mortal.

Heh, oh really.

After we're resurrected I'll find you and talk to you, and then we'll both laugh at old times.

No, we will never grow to be exactly like Him.

Do you believe our Lord told us to do something we can never do, when saying we should be perfect like our Father in heaven?

I know it's not easy, but in fact it is possible, although it will take a LONG time.

And hey, if you're not doing anything for the rest of eternity, you and I should hang around with God and others who want to be like Him. :)

[Dr T]

I wonder if there will be computers and forums in heaven? :) Will you still be using the same name?

[Maureen]

It is my honest opinion that if someone believes that G-d cannot make (in eternity - with no limits) a g-d out of a human (teach man of g-dliness) then they must believe that with G-d "all things" are not possible and that says much more about their belief in G-d than it does about their belief in the possible destiny of man. It is my understanding that a "damned" being is one that has limits and that the opposite of limits is infinite and I believe infinite is a definition of G-d.

Whether it is possible or not for God to create "a god" doesn't necessarily mean that God would or should. Should the created tell the creator what he should be doing? IMO, God is unique for the fact that he is God.

M.