Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I like it better than the last one

It's good, but I don't see the need with the discussion thread

It's not going to go anywhere good, just lock it now.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I didn't mean that when I said,"on this again". I meant in the other thread I had answered that question many times.
Meant nothing of insult to you or upset from me.

[smeeprocket]

I didn't mean that when I said,"on this again". I meant in the other thread I had answered that question many times.
Meant nothing of insult to you or upset from me.

okay then I apologize for snapping.

[Arcvasti]

All

How many of you believe in Creationism (or similar concept) that is to say, All That Is was made by the hand of an intelligent creator and things such as evolution did not occur? (There are of course other interpretations that you may specify in your response if you so wish).

I believe that All That Is was made by the hand of an intelligent creator. Just not all at once. Or rather, YES all at once in one super-compressed miniscule ball of matter, but it took forever for anything we would recognize as the world to form. And evolution DID hapen and can be demonstrated fairly easily.

Questions for anyone whose religion involves a divine objective moral authority:

1) Does your religion hold that its god(s) is/are the source of what is good and evil or does it hold that good and evil exist independently of its god(s) (e.g. god(s) simply have a complete understanding of which is which)?
(if your religion doesn't specify, feel free to just give your personal belief instead)

2) Is there anything which your religion has indicated is wrong or evil that you personally believe is right or good (or at least, ok/acceptable)?  Or vice versa?

3) In the case that you answered yes to question 2), do you submit to and adopt that aspect of your religion despite it contradicting your own morality or do you work around it in some way?

1) I'd say that its more that they do indeed exist separately.

2) Homosexuality... The Catholic Church[To which I technically belong, I suppose], says that its a sin, but condemns homophobia[Not that that stops anyone intent on being a douche]. Their reasoning is something along the lines of "God created man to be with woman and woman to be with man" and cited the divine mandate to have offspring. Which is total bullshit, since having children is more detrimental to society then not in the present age. I personally don't have a problem with it. And, if I did, that telling people that I had a problem with it would be wrong.

3) I, personally, am heterosexual, so I don't have to deal with that. And I can't actually object to the whole "Homophobia is a sin" thing, so I suppose I DO technically follow the Catholic Church's teachings on it, even if I don't agree with them.

[Sheb]

What does it takes to convert to Judaism?

There's that organization that offer free trips to Israel for Jews to convince them Sionism is good and everything, and I've always wanted to visit Israel.

[Helgoland]

Meaning it, I guess.
That question is of some relevance to me, I guess: There's a certain bit of liturgy that is very important to me, and if they change it, I'll seriously consider converting.
The bit is what the priest says during transsubstantiation: "My blood that is spilled for you and for all" vs. "My blood that is spilled for you and for some". The former is the old version, but the latter is supposedly a closer translation (if you're being a jackass and translating with an agenda) and completely inacceptable to me. The current situation is that the priest may choose which one to use.

[Arx]

In the Methodist church I believe the service book says "The blood of Christ, shed for you and all humankind, for the forgiveness of sins", but the words are often not held to explicitly. When I give communion, it's what I say.

[Helgoland]

You give Communion? Is it not that big a deal with Methodists, or are you ordained or something?

And yeah, that sounds about right. What's important to me is the emphasis on Him dying for _all_ people, even if some may reject it, instead of just for the members of a sort of club.

[Arx]

It's not that big a deal. A minister must bless the sacrament and be present, but it's standard for there to be several lay helpers - traditionally the Society Stewards, but it can be anyone, such as the minister's son when she's preaching in some church in the posterior end of nowhere.

"Giving" was possibly a slightly misleading term. The liturgy/words I mentioned are usually used in the blessing, and when 'handing out' the communion. I have never done the blessing part, and likely never will - I don't have the skills for the pastoral work, unfortunately.

[UXLZ]

Christians:

Does/Did Jesus actually want all the reverence he's getting?
Also, wasn't Jesus meant to have done all this stuff to save the entirety of humanity from their sin? (Or some sin, I always get confused with this one.)

[Helgoland]

Fairly certain he did, yes. He was pretty firm about being the Messiah, after all.

I believe the doctrine you should look up is 'original sin', but I'm really not qualified enough to elaborate.

[Ghills]

All

How many of you believe in Creationism (or similar concept) that is to say, All That Is was made by the hand of an intelligent creator and things such as evolution did not occur? (There are of course other interpretations that you may specify in your response if you so wish).

I think you're seeing a dichotomy where there really isn't one (to be fair, several Christian sects also get trapped in this dichotomy).

I believe that God created the earth. He could totally have done that by evolution - in fact, LDS theology says that God generally works by natural processes. He was the one who set them up, after all, and they're generally the way He wants things to be done (which is why LDS members get blessings and go to the doctor).

Christians:

Does/Did Jesus actually want all the reverence he's getting?
Also, wasn't Jesus meant to have done all this stuff to save the entirety of humanity from their sin? (Or some sin, I always get confused with this one.)

Jesus wants us to obey Him, seek to be like Him and worship Him and Heavenly Father as opposed to glorifying large bank accounts / politicians / expensive cars / TV stars / etc.   But He did live very simply and was not OK with people using religion to gain power or wealth (see: Him whipping money changers out of the temple grounds).

To answer your second question: Yes.  What sin exactly differs depending on which kind of Christianity you're asking about.

LDS theology says that Jesus was the only perfect person to ever live, and as such was the only one able to stand as our Mediator with Heavenly Father so that we aren't all condemned for our imperfections.  We do not believe in original sin - we believe that children aren't capable of committing sin until at least 8 years old, the age of accountability.  Children who die before the age of accountability are automatically saved.

Other Christian sects do believe that everyone is born sinful, which is why Catholics baptize infants as soon as possible.  This is kind of controversial because it was used as a method of societal control and pressure on parents in some centuries.

Some sects believe that our works and acts qualify us for salvation. Some believe that simply accepting Jesus as our Savior is enough.  LDS theology says that accepting Jesus as our Savior means obeying Him as best we can (i.e. faith without works is dead type of thing).

[TD1]

Do you believe the Creation story is literal? That Adam and Eve existed, etc.?

[Ghills]

Do you believe the Creation story is literal? That Adam and Eve existed, etc.?

I believe Adam and Eve existed and were the first genuine humans.

The creation story has parts that are obviously symbolic, and after umpteen thousand years and multiple complete language and culture shifts is doubtless missing some things.  There's an expanded LDS creation story in the Pearl of Great Price which I think makes more sense (of course, parts of it are still mind-blowing, since this is the creation of the world ).

Questions for anyone whose religion involves a divine objective moral authority:

1) Does your religion hold that its god(s) is/are the source of what is good and evil or does it hold that good and evil exist independently of its god(s) (e.g. god(s) simply have a complete understanding of which is which)?
(if your religion doesn't specify, feel free to just give your personal belief instead)

2) Is there anything which your religion has indicated is wrong or evil that you personally believe is right or good (or at least, ok/acceptable)?  Or vice versa?

3) In the case that you answered yes to question 2), do you submit to and adopt that aspect of your religion despite it contradicting your own morality or do you work around it in some way?

1)  Independently, to a certain extent.  If God wasn't a perfect being, He would cease to be God. And Satan wasn't always evil. But as things stand, God is our perfect Heavenly Father and is trying to teach us how to have eternal joy and be able to live with our eternal family.  Satan is trying to tempt us into doing things that will disqualify us from eternal happiness, and ultimately enslave us so that we must join him in his eternal unhappiness.

2) Not really.  If I had any significant disagreements with LDS theology, I wouldn't be a member.  There are things that I don't quite understand yet, but as I spend more time learning I understand more and more. I'm confident that at some point I'll understand the answers to my questions.

3) One thing that did make me very uncomfortable was women's rights and the Priesthood.  So I spent a long time studying the doctrine - and found that the questions I had were more about common practices in my wider culture than in Church doctrine.  LDS priesthood works quite differently from how other Christian sects view the priesthood, and legitimate concerns based on other sects' practices don't necessarily apply.

[TD1]

Do you believe the Creation story is literal? That Adam and Eve existed, etc.?

I believe Adam and Eve existed and were the first genuine humans.

What do you believe they looked like?

[Ghills]

Do you believe the Creation story is literal? That Adam and Eve existed, etc.?

I believe Adam and Eve existed and were the first genuine humans.

What do you believe they looked like?

I don't think it matters. 

Jesus came to save everyone regardless of size, facial features or skin color.  If Adam and Eve turn out to be hairier (or whatever) than modern humans, *shrug*.

I mean, they apparently lived for centuries.  Just going by the scriptures I'd have to guess that they're slightly different from modern humans, especially seeing as how modern human groups vary so widely.