mormonism & homosexuality

[Xylene]

Yes, apparently the ineffable ethereal deity who is responsible for giving us our intangible souls which he shall save for us and lead into his unplaceable mystic utopian kingdom is eminently concerned with what we do with our physical bodies behind closed doors. . .

You know, I'm pretty sure that there's a good reason we're not supposed to know the will of God; Man did a pretty awful patch-work job of inventing it!

Too true, Mystech; personally, I couldn't care less what people do with each other, so long as it doesn't cause me any strife. Besides, there's a verse in the Bible (don't know where) about 'judge not lest ye be judged', and there seems to be a lot of judging and counter-judging going on here. Though I s'pose if you're dealing with hot-button subjects like this, that's going to be inevitable.

 

[cole grey]

Snakelord says, "While you think you can just say 'sorry' and be done with it, I advise you to listen to jesus. Throw away your money, don't drink, and if you have feelings chop up your brain, if you say a bad word - chop off your tongue, and if you look at someone the wrong way - gouge out your eyes."

That's a bit much isn't it? I'm sure there are ideas you hold, that, if carried to nonsensical extremes would be pretty retarded. How do you chop up your own brain? Please refrain from saying things like this. You are much smarter than making statements like this one would imply.


DUENDY,
I was talking with someone yesterday, telling them that the religious conservatives should keep their noses out of other people's bungholes, and thought of this -
Wouldn't pre-marital sex between gays have less possible negative impact than pre-marital sex between heteros? There wouldn't be all the possible problems that arise due to unwanted pregnancy, including abortions.
This means to me, that the sin of Gay sex should be downgraded at least to the level of hetero premarital sex, by even the most conservative churches. Maybe even lower on their scale of "evils". And not many churches excommunicate the members for pre-marital sex, there wouldn't be enough people left in church to pay the rent.

Just some ammo against the conservative bunghole-watchers association of america.

 

[SnakeLord]

What if the one you sinned against suddenly dies or dissapears, so that you'll never be able to have forgiveness from her?

That does happen, and although the matter could never be truly resolved, the brain will do it's job and move on. The brain does that in any case, and goes to show the inherent worthlessness of any outside-earth beings. A religious man will, or should, feel some guilt when he has done something wrong. Saying ten hail mary's doesn't change that fact and doesn't change what is within him, (so much for the power of god). If it does in actuality leave that person with no guilt whatsoever, then he is showing nothing more than neglect for other humans. Lets use an example..

Let's say you call your mother a cheap trampy bitch. Afterwards you will undoubtedly feel guilty about what you said. One way is to apologise and then try and reconcile wih the sin, and indeed wrestle it to the ground. The other would have you believe that it's little more than saying "hail mary" a few times and then it's all peachy clean- when life is not like that. If we all do wrestle with our guilt, then god and jesus are worthless, and just additions made in an attempt to ignore human emotions. If that spacebound forgiveness actually does forgive, then it defeats the purpose of feeling guilty- and thus understanding your sin. If on the other hand they go through the same process as non-religious people, (finding forgiveness over time), then it defeats the purpose of having jesus.

So either they do things exactly the way we do, (commit a sin and get over it naturally), which leaves jesus as a moot addition, or they commit a sin and it's forgiven instantaneously by jesus - which defeats being human, and defeats their ability to truly know what sin is.

I am rather intoxicated, so if this comes out hard to understand just let me know.

Will you live your life hating yourself even if you only did a "small" sin?

That's dependant, and having no "list of sins" with which to work by, is also hard to answer. What are we referring to? Stealing a candy bar? Being gay? What exactly?

If we went by the bible then having homosexual relations is "detestable" and yet I wouldn't feel guilty at all. If I stole a 99p sweet from the sweet shop then yes, I would feel guilty.

So who decides what's a sin and what isn't? I didn't see god saying that smoking is a sin or swindling a bank out of £50 million. Ok, I know I can't be gay or drop my sperm on the floor. I know I can't get divorced or save money, (It is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle), but where do all the other list of sins come from? Certainly not from god.

And when does man decide god is wrong? The pope himself stating it's now ok to be gay - hey, embrace the millennium. Who's calling the shots here? The reason of my concern is because if it is as easy as; "hey I sinned, forgive me", "ok you're forgiven", then these people can excuse pretty much anything without breaking a sweat.

If they truly consider themselves forgiven for the sake of a 30 second prayer, then values are meaningless, and if they don't.. jesus is meaningless.

If people really believe in God, maybe they can be more honest and get more selfconfidence to forgive themselves because they believe an all-powerful God is listening to them.

Your entire sentence here is all about "self". What about the person you sinned against? You didn't even mention them, as if they're completely irrelevant. All the self confidence in the world does not change what you did to them.

Let me give you an example:

I was adopted at two years old. Before that I was fostered 7 times. Now, it's quite likely my parents forgave themselves for giving me up somewhere along the line. Did that change my feelings at all? No. I had to struggle through my entire teen years - with an anger and hurt that could not be swayed by jesus, god or billy the leprechaun. By this time they'd forgiven themselves.. "It's ok now", they said. Was it? What about the suffering and hurt they had caused? You think you have the right to forgive yourself when you don't even see what's happening on the other end? The pain, the hurt and the misery all caused by one action that you have swiftly admonished yourself of. "It's ok, jesus forgives me".. Yeah right, fuck the person who has actually been hurt as long as jesus doesn't care.

Of course, perhaps getting rid of your children isn't a sin, in which case I'm completely wrong. Well, unless we all have the right to create our own list of what sins are or are not.

Forgiveness is a process. It isn't dealt with over a cup of tea and fairy cakes.

I think it's possible to forgive oneself too, it may just take a long time.

I agree with this completely. It's not my argument. But if all people go through this, then jesus is irrelevant. If those of religious nature don't feel that guilt, (because they apologised to sky daddy), then it's a fraud.

1) Recognize that you have sinned
2) Feel genuine sorrow for having sinned

Every human goes through this. Remorse and guilt are natural.

3) Confess to God, a church leader and to the person you have sinned against.
4) Ask God for forgiveness, and the person you have offended.

This is a completely irrelevant factor given that every human goes through the same process. When we have done wrong the only concerned people are ourselves and those we have wronged. god and church leaders have no place in your list.

5) Make restitution to the person you have offended.
6) Forsake the sin
7) Forgive yourself and receive forgiveness

None of which requires steps 3 and 4. You've just added two pointless numbers to the list.

Basically we all go through the same shit, but you've made two completely worthless additions for no reason. We all end up at number 7 regardless of what you've added.

That's a bit much isn't it? I'm sure there are ideas you hold, that, if carried to nonsensical extremes would be pretty retarded. How do you chop up your own brain?

Wasn't my idea, it's all on jesus. If you sin, better to chop off the part of the body than go to hell. Given as thoughts can be seen as sinful as actions, and that it's better to chop off the offending part, it's better in their case to chop out their brain. I don't know how they'd do it - and nor do I want to know, but doing it is best - so sayeth jesus.

Please refrain from saying things like this.

There's restriction on opinion? (even if it's in jesus' own words)

You are much smarter than making statements like this one would imply.

Your only counter argument was that you personally don't know how to chop up your brain. That doesn't in any way negate what jesus said.

 

[Brutus1964]

“ 1) Recognize that you have sinned
2) Feel genuine sorrow for having sinned ”


Every human goes through this. Remorse and guilt are natural.

“ 3) Confess to God, a church leader and to the person you have sinned against.
4) Ask God for forgiveness, and the person you have offended. ”


This is a completely irrelevant factor given that every human goes through the same process. When we have done wrong the only concerned people are ourselves and those we have wronged. god and church leaders have no place in your list.

“ 5) Make restitution to the person you have offended.
6) Forsake the sin
7) Forgive yourself and receive forgiveness ”


None of which requires steps 3 and 4. You've just added two pointless numbers to the list.

Basically we all go through the same shit, but you've made two completely worthless additions for no reason. We all end up at number 7 regardless of what you've added.

If it is forgiveness from God that you seek then steps 3 and 4 are very relavant.

 

[duendy]

dear Snakelord...i was moved by your post, where you described the deep hurt you felt from being abandoned so young. I can see the passion of insight you have about hypocrisy that claims to 'forgive ITSelf' etc., without a thought for its victim(s).....i think a lost of these Abrahamic religions and their off-shoots do that. they really have no depth or sensitivity, though they PRETEND they do

What i am seeing is beliefs...BELIEFS WHICH SEPARATE. some here want me to shut the..up, and not speak out. well, i say yo those who feel that way that..hey, listen, if you really want radical change you better get used to the heat in the kitchen. the other way is conformity and aapthy. putting up with dodgy belief-systems they may APPEAr relatively harmless, but the seed of evil prsecution and violence is always there. in fact the violence Is there when other peoples are judged to be 'sinners' and 'bad' whilst those preaching imagine them selves to be 'good' and 'pure'.

this will not do

btw Brutus, remind us again. who are these 'sons of perdition'? they must be SOOOOME mean MFs to be even worse than us Queers, maaaan. what they do?

So, we have establihed B that i can come into your church (i dont want to go where i am not welcome. where my WHOLE being isn't welcome), but NOT be seen worthy for baptism, UNLESS ia repent my sins of homosexuality. OK, i dont see it as any sin. so IMPASSE regarding us meeting right. cause you ARe Mormon aren't you?

Now, Brutus, i cant disregard your political affiliations. In another thread you proudlt informed us you were a Bush supporter. Pleas see a new thread i have put in 'world events' titles 'Microwaving Iraq'........You will see that Bush and Co are extremely evil evil men. They are not only carrying out an illegal war (though i dont agree with ANY war personally), but their actions has caused and is causing the severest intoxication of Nature, and humans ever. their evil just doesn't bear thinking about.

YET........you completely ignore that evil, and harp on about the supposed evils of love between people of same sex, and 'sons of perdition' and what not

this is complete hypocrisy of the blndest kind, and needs highlighting

let me get this straght Brutus. if--as you claim--your religion is so right and good and pure etc. WHy are you and your other members not speaking out against that evil?!

i dont want to change the thread's main subject, but i think this applicable at this time

 

[cole grey]

There's restriction on opinion? (even if it's in jesus' own words)

I was just saying that when you are not being hyperbolic and exaggerating the aptness of everything Jesus said to being applied literally to every person's life, you bring up interesting points.
The idea you are discussing regarding sin and its need to be dealt with in the physical world and not just the spiritual seems to be quite important. A key idea, in fact, that is often ignored.

 

[Brutus1964]

dear Snakelord...i was moved by your post, where you described the deep hurt you felt from being abandoned so young. I can see the passion of insight you have about hypocrisy that claims to 'forgive ITSelf' etc., without a thought for its victim(s).....i think a lost of these Abrahamic religions and their off-shoots do that. they really have no depth or sensitivity, though they PRETEND they do

What i am seeing is beliefs...BELIEFS WHICH SEPARATE. some here want me to shut the..up, and not speak out. well, i say yo those who feel that way that..hey, listen, if you really want radical change you better get used to the heat in the kitchen. the other way is conformity and aapthy. putting up with dodgy belief-systems they may APPEAr relatively harmless, but the seed of evil prsecution and violence is always there. in fact the violence Is there when other peoples are judged to be 'sinners' and 'bad' whilst those preaching imagine them selves to be 'good' and 'pure'.

this will not do

btw Brutus, remind us again. who are these 'sons of perdition'? they must be SOOOOME mean MFs to be even worse than us Queers, maaaan. what they do?

So, we have establihed B that i can come into your church (i dont want to go where i am not welcome. where my WHOLE being isn't welcome), but NOT be seen worthy for baptism, UNLESS ia repent my sins of homosexuality. OK, i dont see it as any sin. so IMPASSE regarding us meeting right. cause you ARe Mormon aren't you?

Now, Brutus, i cant disregard your political affiliations. In another thread you proudlt informed us you were a Bush supporter. Pleas see a new thread i have put in 'world events' titles 'Microwaving Iraq'........You will see that Bush and Co are extremely evil evil men. They are not only carrying out an illegal war (though i dont agree with ANY war personally), but their actions has caused and is causing the severest intoxication of Nature, and humans ever. their evil just doesn't bear thinking about.

YET........you completely ignore that evil, and harp on about the supposed evils of love between people of same sex, and 'sons of perdition' and what not

this is complete hypocrisy of the blndest kind, and needs highlighting

let me get this straght Brutus. if--as you claim--your religion is so right and good and pure etc. WHy are you and your other members not speaking out against that evil?!

i dont want to change the thread's main subject, but i think this applicable at this time

Duendy

Homosexuality does contain both a religious and political component, so I don't see the political side of it as being off limits in this forum. I would like to steer away from the purely political aspects in this thread, however this is a good example of how good and evil are perceived differently by people. What I consider good, you consider evil and vise versa. How do we discern what really is good and what really is an evil if these terms are so subjective. In the scriptures it says, "by their fruits you may know them” You see George Bush and the war in Iraq as evil. I see Bush as a good honorable Christian man. Now I wouldn't say any war is a "good" thing, but sometimes it is necessary and good can result from it. Whether or not the war in Iraq was good or bad will ultimately be determined after it is over and we can see the fruits that result from it. If the result ends up being bad for both Iraq and the United States then we would all have to agree it was a bad thing. If freedom does come to Iraq and the people there become better for it then we would all have to agree it was a good thing and worth the lives and effort. We can see the fruits (no pun intended ) of homosexuality by looking at the results of it. Aids, many other diseases, sex addictions, guilt, selfishness, despair, suicide, broken families, devastated parents, spouses, and children. How does any of the good you perceive in homosexuality overcome the many bad things?

 

[duendy]

what yo say....'your good is my evil' and vice versa...?
The Garden of eden myth. where 'God' who i am calling the patriarchy, right...warns off adam and Eve from eating the Fruit lees they then will know what is good and what is evil


why i'm mentioning about that, is cause you reminded me by saying that, and an insight i got a while back about that. for i read it that the patriarchy are worried that the individual will be able to KNOw what REALLY IS good and what really ISA evil, whereas the patriarchy--as it has done throughout its power-over opression--as it is now, DICTATEs to us, through various means, especially SPIN, what is supposed to good and what is supposed to be evil

so what they do, in order to keep their illusion, and opprssion, going is to UN-balance the individual. heard of divide and rule/conquer, Brutus? This is the authoritarian stregy whereby a division is deliberately caused so as to fragment a potential energy which could THREATEN the power of the patriarchy. outwardly it's doen by creating factions amongst the people, 'race'. 'colour of skin', 'creed', 'natrion', etc etc. but this device is also carried out INWARDLY too. this is where the individual is divided against hir very self, as 'pure' and 'impure', 'good' and 'bad'. By doing this the person is more esily managed, cause what happens is individual cannot trust hirself when believing in such an inner division. And from THERE the authority has you on a HOOK, cause they then can tell you what Is 'good' for you and what is 'evil'

i am exploring out of that trip, Brutus. i wont say i have got there cause that is a conclusion, and really learning is a constant. beliefs usually are conclusionary...you know, eg., 'i am saved.....she is damned'.....conclusion. end of story. smugness reigns and all that

So listen. i dont need you nor anybody to tell me. what Bush and Co are doing Is evil. You show incredible naiveity about not knowing this. Especially when you have before you--your computer--the means to find out! so i can only guess you DON'T want to find out. Or that you think evil is good
you think that unleashing depleted uranium onto people, including children, and unborn babies is good? that mirowaving people to control their kinds is good? that doing all this so as to spread 'good' is good? when the real reason anyhow is oil...is good?
have you no imagination Brutus. can you not put yourself into the hearts of these people who have already had over 10 years of sanctions from the West where over a million children starved to death and were refused medicql care, and then their whole environment is made dangerously radioactive--witch will lasy for over 3 billion years?!!!!!!!.........and then the fukers begin microwaving them. and i have to ask you if you think that EVIL!?

and also i resent you implication that Gays started AIDS...and are the cause of broken families, and all the ills of society. you are really beginning to make me angry now dude with your relentless ignoreance

 

[Brutus1964]

Quote by Duendy
and also i resent you implication that Gays started AIDS...and are the cause of broken families, and all the ills of society. you are really beginning to make me angry now dude with your relentless ignoreance

Duendy

I am not saying that gays or solely to blame for societies ills. Heterosexual immorality has the same bad results. All immorality has an enormous social cost.

Tolerance is a two way street. Those who demand tolerance for themselves must also show tolerance for others. Mormons including myself are accually a very live and let live sort of people. I do not hate gay people. I work with many gay people and have a lot of respect for them. I do not look down at them or feel superior in anyway. I just do not agree with their lifesyle. I do not push my lifestyle on them and they do not push thier's on me. If only people had more of a mutual respect for others then the world would be a better place.

 

[SnakeLord]

If it is forgiveness from God that you seek then steps 3 and 4 are very relavant.

Ok, but what concerns me more is why steps 3 and 4 come before step 5. When we look at your list, we see that the person sinned against comes after you've already supposedly been forgiven. This seems to show how truly unimportant the 'victim' is in the grand scheme of things.

The process begins: "I'm sorry god", "you're forgiven my son".. everything after that is inherently worthless unless the forgiveness given by god doesn't actually make a difference, in which case step 5 is a lot more important than steps 3 and 4 could ever be.

The main focus seems to be that steps 3 & 4 must be done swiftly because otherwise you burn. It all comes across as very self serving and not really caring about the person who has actually been sinned against. Sure, you can apologise to him once you have already secured your spot in heaven, but by that stage it doesn't really mean anything. You're forgiven, you already know that. It wouldn't matter what the 'victim' said, you're still forgiven- and that is why it's worthless.

If you have a lifetime to apologise to god, I'm sure it can be done after you apologise to the human. But then to the religious mind, the human isn't a millionth as important as god, and so can happily be walked over without concern. When you then do apologise to the human, it is nothing more than going through the motions. It doesn't mean anything of any value because you're already forgiven.

I was just saying that when you are not being hyperbolic and exaggerating the aptness of everything Jesus said to being applied literally to every person's life, you bring up interesting points.
The idea you are discussing regarding sin and its need to be dealt with in the physical world and not just the spiritual seems to be quite important. A key idea, in fact, that is often ignored.

It's a serious struggle figuring out whether to take biblical words literally or otherwise. Some say yes, some say no, some say sometimes, some say only on church days, some say only when talking to atheists and so on. These guys can't even get their beliefs straight, so it's made a lot harder for the rest of us

Of course nobody really takes the bible completely literally, even if they claim they do, but in such scenario as this, the literal method would be to do as I suggested. Of course it would lead to death and be technical suicide, but if that's what jesus expects then who are we to intervene?

But the main reason I've been posting here is to try and figure out exactly how they 'feel' concerning these issues. I could say it in short form which is this:

When you ask god for forgiveness, and he forgives you for your sin, do you truly feel completely forgiven? Is it like an instant wave that rushes over you and makes you no longer guilty of the sin you have done?

Would you get the same feeling by just apologising to the human instead?

If yes, can the god forgiveness be seen as anything more than simply trying to secure yourself a brighter afterlife as opposed to really caring about the sin?

And if god forgiveness does truly forgive on the spot, it completely negates the values of being a human, (imo).

 

[Brutus1964]

Snakelord

I don't think you have read all of steps 3 and 4.

“ 3) Confess to God, a church leader and to the person you have sinned against.
4) Ask God for forgiveness, and the person you have offended. ”

You must confess to God and the person you have offended. Then you ask both God and the person for forgiveness. The actual forgiveness occurs at step 7 when you also forgive yourself.

The only reason you must confess to a church leader for serious sins is because it can affect your standing in the Church. The Church is not the one who forgives though it is Jesus Christ. Also by confessing to a Church leader he can counsel you through the repentance process.

 

[cole grey]

And if god forgiveness does truly forgive on the spot, it completely negates the values of being a human, (imo).

I would say that there are very few people who would actually live more for the afterlife than this life. Only a true zealot could go so far as to justify the bad things they do in this life, by saying they will be rewarded in the next.
Honesty, compassion, self-control, are beneficial to this life, and the next life (if there is one). Refraining from killing or otherwise hurting your neighbor is beneficial for this life and the next.
God's forgiveness for a future life does not nullify the need for humans to coexist in this life. God doesn't stand in place of the person you have hurt and wipe out all meaning from your actions.
Let's just say, for sake of discussion, there is a spiritual reality. That isn't some kind of solipsistic viewpoint that allows you to pretend this life does not exist. The spiritual, i.e. God, deals with the spiritual reality, and the individual must deal with the physical reality. Maybe God steps into the physical once in a while, or all the time (it's hard to say), but that doesn't mean I can depend on God to live my life for me.
My opinion right now is that there is a spiritual reality. This reality is something I know little about in regards to the workings of the laws of spiritual nature, so to speak. I therefore depend on God to deal with the spiritual consequences of my actions, and it appears that God usually lets me deal with the physical consequences. Including having to ask forgiveness from people I have hurt.
People with and without God "sin". People with and without God don't ask for forgiveness. If someone thinks God is the only one who needs to be asked for forgiveness, and then God waves God's magic wand and everything is rosy, they are very confused.
If you say there is no spritual reality, ok. I am not able to reveal it to you, or change your mind. Understood. But the connection you make between having a God forgiving you in the spiritual "world", and a lack of meaning or consequence to your actions in this world is an exaggeration.

 

[Athelwulf]

We can see the fruits (no pun intended ) of homosexuality by looking at the results of it.

Here we go . . .

Aids, many other diseases, . . .

Oh come on, ya can get AIDS from a heterosexual too.

. . . sex addictions, . . .

Heterosexuals can suffer from this too.

. . . guilt, . . .

From being told their whole life that who they are is evil.

. . . selfishness, . . .

Heterosexuals are selfish too.

. . . despair, . . .

From being treated like subhumans.

. . . suicide, . . .

From feeling unworthy of life, either because they feel that who they are is evil, or because they try to live a life that isn't theirs.

. . . broken families, . . .

Because of measures having been passed in eleven states banning homosexual marriage, and because of laws in effect that ban homosexuals from being able to take care of or adopt kids.

. . . devastated parents, spouses, and children.

All of whom have a problem with homosexuals because they were taught homosexuals are evil.

 

[Brutus1964]

Athelwulf

You are right heterosexual immorality causes social ills just like homosexual immorality. The difference is that there is never a time that homosexual sex is good in the eyes of God. Only in marriage between a husband and wife (male and female) is sex sanctioned by God. Any other type of union is giving the child a disadvantage when they enter the world. When we look at school dropout and prison incarceration rates they are all overwhelmingly people who were born in broken homes without the benefit of both a loving mother and a loving father.

 

[Athelwulf]

You are right heterosexual immorality causes social ills just like homosexual immorality. The difference is that there is never a time that homosexual sex is good in the eyes of God. Only in marriage between a husband and wife (male and female) is sex sanctioned by God.

Even though I disagree, I suppose I can understand where ye'r coming from.

Any other type of union is giving the child a disadvantage when they enter the world. When we look at school dropout and prison incarceration rates they are all overwhelmingly people who were born in broken homes without the benefit of both a loving mother and a loving father.

Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.

 

[Yorda]

If we went by the bible then having homosexual relations is "detestable" and yet I wouldn't feel guilty at all. If I stole a 99p sweet from the sweet shop then yes, I would feel guilty.

Remember that the Bible, just as all religious scriptures, are written by man. So even if they are inspired by God, they can have errors. There's nothing weird about that. The holy scriptures is where God's law has been written on, but the law itself is alive, and living things are constantly changing. Just as a man changes along his life, so does the scripture, and yet he remains the same man.
Moses couldn't have given Jesus commandments to the people at that time, they wouldn't have understood them. And Jesus couldn't have given Moses commandments to the people at that time, they have already learned them, there's no power in them. Such is God's law.

God's 12 faces are constantly turning around the earth, no one can hold them back, the new age will come. Moses lifted up the bronze snake and all those who looked at it (without eating its fruits) were cured. It means that all those who accepted the new laws that Moses teached, nicely made it to the new age, and those who held on to the old laws were bitten by snakes, which means that they got sick spiritually because there's no longer power in the old laws.

Verily, today, when we're about to enter a new age, it's easy to see the people who want to hold on to the old laws, and then again, those who want to enter "year 2000". In the beginning, there was only one teaching which the sons of God told in all cultures, but man has made several religions of it and changed it according to themselves and their culture. The people of the east already understand this.

How happy are those who feel guilty for small things, because they hear the voice of God. Or should I say; they have a strong conscience.

So who decides what's a sin and what isn't?

You. It's possible for every human to know what's right and wrong if they just listen to themselves. Just as there are natural laws that govern the outer material world, there are natural laws which govern our inner spiritual world. If we break them, we're hurt, just as if we would jump off a cliff, the law of attraction would kill us. I see God as the "self" which is inside us, so definitely all laws come from within, from "God". Buddha said: "Believe nothing, wherever you read it, whoever said it, no matter if I said it - unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense."

The reason of my concern is because if it is as easy as; "hey I sinned, forgive me", "ok you're forgiven", then these people can excuse pretty much anything without breaking a sweat.

It would be "good" if it would be so easy to forgive oneself and others, but Christians who says that Jesus has forgiven them, haven't been forgiven "just like that", but that also takes time, Christians are no different from other humans. They may fool themselves for a while but their higher self (Jesus) always remembers their sin, and unless they do the right thing, they will not be free from sin. Because man has given his spirit for matter, the self of all things must suffer an eternal crucifixion on the two girders of space and time. That's the way by which the snake-scorpion will come an eagle, above all matter, free like the heavenly bird Horus.

Your entire sentence here is all about "self". What about the person you sinned against? You didn't even mention them, as if they're completely irrelevant. All the self confidence in the world does not change what you did to them.

I have never really seen the sadness of my life as someone elses fault. Until I know better, I put the reason for all bad things on myself and the reason for all good things on God. You must remember that you, and only you, take every step in your life. Of course people have hurt me, but I think it was still my fault that they hurt me because I believe in karma. There is a "lesson" in everything. Whatever I send out, comes back to me thrice as powerful.

The pain, the hurt and the misery all caused by one action that you have swiftly admonished yourself of. "It's ok, jesus forgives me".. Yeah right, fuck the person who has actually been hurt as long as jesus doesn't care.

Remember what Jesus said: "If you do not forgive those who sin against you, they are not forgiven." So even if your parents say that they have forgiven themselves, they are not really forgiven if you haven't forgiven them. They are bound to sin through your feelings. Forgive them and you release their sin. But before you can forgive them, you have to do something. Truly, a time will come when you will not need to forgive or to be forgiven, because you will be sinless.

Of course, perhaps getting rid of your children isn't a sin, in which case I'm completely wrong. Well, unless we all have the right to create our own list of what sins are or are not.

Everyone has their view of right and wrong, but your right and wrong don't have to be right for someone else. Just as their views doesn't have to be right for you. The paths are endless but there's only one top of the mountain.

 

[SnakeLord]

Bah lost the whole post :\ Time to start again lol.

Brutus:

I didn't miss out the end of numbers 3 & 4. What I said was that god and church leaders have no place in your list. You mention asking for human forgiveness in number 5, (which is what I was concentrating on), which leaves 3 & 4 still irrelevant.

You go on to mention church leaders, and that you need to ask forgiveness because you might lose your membership to the club otherwise. That doesn't seem like a very worthwhile motive to me. Again it's all about "self".

However, aside from pointing out that and my apparent reading problems, you haven't managed to answer what I'm asking. I'll try ask a couple of questions that will lead closer to what I'm looking for:

Which do you consider more important - Forgiveness from god, or forgiveness from a human sinned against?

Does gods forgiveness actually mean you are instantly forgiven, and if not then what is it's purpose? The purpose of asking god for forgiveness would, imo, mean you're asking for forgiveness. If he says "I forgive you", are you forgiven? Do you feel forgiven? Does the guilt about what you did instantly vanish in a puff of smoke?

If that's the case, what is the purpose of then asking for forgiveness from the human? You are after all, already forgiven.

If that isn't the case, what good is god's forgiveness if you still don't feel forgiven?

Cole:

I would say that there are very few people who would actually live more for the afterlife than this life.

You think?

A little bit further on you say:

God's forgiveness for a future life does not nullify the need for humans to coexist in this life.

It would seem here that you're saying that the express reason for getting forgiveness from god is not about this life but the next one. As a result, would it not seem apparent that anyone who asks god for forgiveness in this life is only doing so to secure a future in the next one?

It's as bad a motive as Brutus' church leader speech, and concentrates entirely on benefits for self. Sure, once you've secured happiness in your next life, you can go apologise to the human - but those acts of seeking gods forgiveness and church leader forgiveness are completely selfish.

As you said, god doesn't stand in the way of the person you hurt, and so bringing him into it is not for care about the person you hurt, but for your own personal benefit.

Would you say this is wrong? Would you say that asking god for forgiveness has nothing to do with personal gain but true care about the hurt individual? I somehow doubt sitting down and saying; "god please forgive me", will mean as much to them as a box of chocolates would - if the act is truly selfless of course.

but that doesn't mean I can depend on God to live my life for me.

Of course not, but you depend on him entirely for your next life. Thus asking him for forgiveness has nothing to do with the actual 'victim', but for your own future hopes.

I therefore depend on God to deal with the spiritual consequences of my actions

Which is what exactly? What are those "spiritual consequences"? Do they have anything to do with personal benefit?

But the connection you make between having a God forgiving you in the spiritual "world", and a lack of meaning or consequence to your actions in this world is an exaggeration.

Well I wasn't telling as much as I was asking. Lacking this spiritual center, world or feeling, I cannot describe to you whether god has a magic wand or not, and as a result I needed to ask. Right at this moment I see little more than: "We ask god for forgiveness because we want a spot in heaven". Am I wrong?

Yorda:

Remember that the Bible, just as all religious scriptures, are written by man.

Really? Thanks for letting me know..

So even if they are inspired by God, they can have errors.

So.. god doesn't detest homos?

The holy scriptures is where God's law has been written on, but the law itself is alive, and living things are constantly changing.

Sure I noticed that. Christians don't bother getting circumcised, eat pork, rarely love their neighbours, judge a whole hell of a lot, and do not generally impregnate their brothers wives if the dude unfortunately kicks the bucket.

So god's laws are always changing.. Hell there was a time when murder was a sin, but it didn't stop the Christians during the inquisition. No, the laws had changed - perhaps not for the better, but changed nonetheless.

To quote some Mark Twain:

During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Who discovered that there was no such thing as a witch--the priest, the parson? No, these never discover anything. At Salem, the parson clung pathetically to his witch text after the laity had abandoned it in remorse and tears for the crimes and cruelties it has persuaded them to do. The parson wanted more blood, more shame, more brutalities; it was the unconsecrated laity that stayed his hand. In Scotland the parson killed the witch after the magistrate had pronounced her innocent; and when the merciful legislature proposed to sweep the hideous laws against witches from the statute book, it was the parson who came imploring, with tears and imprecations, that they be suffered to stand.

There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.

It is not well worthy of note that of all the multitude of texts through which man has driven his annihilating pen he has never once made the mistake of obliterating a good and useful one? It does certainly seem to suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency.

It's from 'The Fly' and agrees completely with what you're saying. The laws do change, the text doesn't.

And so we ask ourselves: Who changes them? god? If god does not change them, who does? Man? Ah, and there we have it. We could argue that the priests, pope and whoever else cares to be mentioned, has the right to speak for god. Do you agree with this? If not then we can see that these changes have nothing to do with god, and should thus be rightly thrown out with the garbage.

You. It's possible for every human to know what's right and wrong if they just listen to themselves. Just as there are natural laws that govern the outer material world, there are natural laws which govern our inner spiritual world.

According to who's version of what's right and wrong? Some people think it's ok to shit on each other, or to kill foxes, or smoke cigarettes, or bonk small boys, etc etc etc. Who get's the final say, or are you saying whatever anyone considers right or wrong is actually right or wrong?

As an example, (based upon a book I wrote a few years ago):

If I stumbled upon a man raping a woman, I wouldn't hesitate in bashing his brains in. At no time would I consider this 'wrong'. In this instance taking a life would be the right thing to do because you would have saved the more worthy life.

Technically I would be a murderer, but deep inside I'd know I'd done the 'right' thing.

Undoubtedly there would be very mixed opinions. The family of the dead guy would consider my actions as wrong, whereas the girl and her family would consider them right given the circumstances. The law would consider them wrong, but my wife would consider me as doing what I knew I must do in order to save a life.

So who has the final say on 'wrong' or 'right'? You? the judge? the priest down the road fondling small children? Or perhaps god himself and jesus who, according to christianity, are the only ones who can judge? If the latter is the case, how would we know what we could or could not do unless it was written 'in stone' so to speak? If the laws are that flexible that they can change on a whim, without any written consent from god, how do we justify them or know that they are in fact ok?

Listening to a "spiritual voice" inside is not justifiable.

Truly, a time will come when you will not need to forgive or to be forgiven, because you will be sinless.

And thus, not me anymore. I fail to see the value in it personally.

 

[duendy]

SnakeLord...you have GREAt insight!

Brutus1964....you haven't!!

I blame this lack of insight, on your part, on your seemingly complete Mormonist indoctrination. This blinds you spirituallly, policically, etc. ..i notice you conveninently ignored ALL the points i made about evil BushCo's doings in Iraq. oh, i see, we ignore that do we and bash the faggots and 'fornicators' instead......oh right. and ohhh, what A coincidence...Bush believs that too. surprisin he aint a mormon init?

i dont know where to either begin or end with you B. you are something else. a mormon actually.

you say basically you av e 'nothing' against Queers as LONG as the don't have sex, right? cause God dont like it. THAt means YOU dont like it, right? so admit it. don't blame your fictitious character--you who believe's real--'God'.

But i really dont know i waste any effort. you are up your your follicles in falseness.

Snakelord....love the way you show how dogmatic text is inflexible. form my research, i have found that this began--in the West--with the Orphic reform of the roginary Dionysian earth religion. That whereas before spiritual experience had been left open for free interpretation, it was 'Orpheus' who 'set it in stone' see --online'--'From Orphism to Gnosticism' ...a truly fascinating read

Also as Thomas Szasz reveals in his GREAt book The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement, it is not only in the theocracy where text becomes stuck, as do minds, and also what was previously claimed to be 'God's law' becomes passe...so it is with the pesurdoscience of the new religion, PSYCHIATRY. For example, not too long ago, the 'priests'/psychiatrists claimed in the DSM/Bible that homosexuality was a 'mental disease'......NOw they have changed their minds....great science huh?

 

[Yorda]

So.. god doesn't detest homos?

God doesn't detest anyone. He's like the sun which shines on all people, no matter if they are good or bad. Because the good and bad comes from one stem, and they are not really good or bad, but divine. In God, the good and bad are an inseparable oneness. The good and bad exists only in the human mind. Remember, we "ate from the tree of knowledge", and by that we became aware of the illusional difference between "this" and "that".

Sure I noticed that. Christians don't bother getting circumcised, eat pork, rarely love their neighbours, judge a whole hell of a lot, and do not generally impregnate their brothers wives if the dude unfortunately kicks the bucket.

God never said that man should get circumcised, it was our ancestors who started it.
If it was good for man to get circumcised, he would have already been circumcised by God in his mother womb.

So god's laws are always changing.. Hell there was a time when murder was a sin, but it didn't stop the Christians during the inquisition. No, the laws had changed - perhaps not for the better, but changed nonetheless.

No. God's law is eternal, but it changes. The law is like a living man who changes along his life, but he still always remains the same man. When we know more about ourselves, everything seems to change. Of course, the laws have always been the same, we're just able to understand more of them. Christians are those who do the same things that Christ did. There are many people who call themselves believers, but they obey satan more than God. I have seen those who call themselves satanists, but they obey God. Those "Christians" are not able to change God's laws.

According to who's version of what's right and wrong? Some people think it's ok to shit on each other, or to kill foxes, or smoke cigarettes, or bonk small boys, etc etc etc. Who get's the final say, or are you saying whatever anyone considers right or wrong is actually right or wrong?

Deep down inside, all people have the same view of right and wrong, because God lives in everything.
If we listen to our personal self, we will not hear the truth. Instead we must listen to our conscience.

People are evolving, that's why they have mixed opinions. Put some students to discuss in a room and they will argue about everything, and put some masters in a room and they will agree about everything. Just as with small children, they also agree with each other. But I tell you, "take no thought on who's right or wrong, or better than. Be not for or against." Quote by Bruce Lee

If I stumbled upon a man raping a woman, I wouldn't hesitate in bashing his brains in. At no time would I consider this 'wrong'. In this instance taking a life would be the right thing to do because you would have saved the more worthy life.

Moses also murdered a man because he was torturing a slave. Killing doesn't always have to be wrong. It's "better" if people like Hitler are killed. But mankind will awaken through suffering. They will never know the value of "good", if they don't experience evil things. Unless we are like Jesus, we can't do the things that he did.

So who has the final say on 'wrong' or 'right'? You? the judge? the priest down the road fondling small children? Or perhaps god himself and jesus who, according to christianity, are the only ones who can judge? If the latter is the case, how would we know what we could or could not do unless it was written 'in stone' so to speak? If the laws are that flexible that they can change on a whim, without any written consent from god, how do we justify them or know that they are in fact ok?

Let something be thousand times more true and yet if I don't agree, it's not true for me. I must still gain experience through my mistakes. All people will experience the same things as I do, on their own way. People should obey themselves because the self is God. Nothing bad can happen to a good man. Listen to your self and you are listening to God.

Listening to a "spiritual voice" inside is not justifiable.

And yet you were listening to that voice when you said: "Technically I would be a murderer, but deep inside I'd know I'd done the 'right' thing." Just don't confuse the impersonal voice of the self, the conscience, with the personal voice which is only an illusion coming from the body. Our person will not always agree with the impersonal self because it really thinks that it can be happier if it disobeys God.

 

[SnakeLord]

God doesn't detest anyone.

Ok my point got lost. Let's try again. You said that the bible was written by man and as a consequence has errors. Further to that you said that god's laws are written but are "living and always changing".

So what I was asking is whether god actually detests (the act) of homosexuality -(as written in leviticus), or whether that's a written error by man, and several millennia later the pope realises this error and changes it.

He's like the sun which shines on all people, no matter if they are good or bad. Because the good and bad comes from one stem, and they are not really good or bad, but divine. In God, the good and bad are an inseparable oneness.

I'm sorry, but this is complete gibberish.

Remember, we "ate from the tree of knowledge", and by that we became aware of the illusional difference between "this" and "that".

Not me personally, I just went to school.

God never said that man should get circumcised

Yes he did.

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant which you must keep between myself and you, and your descendants after you; every one of your males must be circumcised.

it was our ancestors who started it.

What you mean is; god told our ancestors first.

If it was good for man to get circumcised, he would have already been circumcised by God in his mother womb.

If it was good for man to be sinless, he would have already been made sinless by god in his mothers womb.

But let's fall back on the most common christian statement of them all: Choice.

god wont do it for you, he gave you free will and choice. It's upto you to obey his laws and rules. If he did it for you, he would be removing your free will. He did however leave a little foreign book for you to learn from. In that book we see statements about sins, sexuality, crimes and a whole host of other rules and laws that you need to obey to end up with god. One of these includes getting circumcised. It's there in black and white, and you saying he never said that, doesn't change the fact that it is written in the bible.

What are you trying to justify? We might aswell say god's laws do not include "thou shalt not kill". Clearly they do, but if we do things your way we might aswell just ignore it and kill everyone. After all.....

If god wanted us not to kill people, he would have made it impossible for us to kill while still in our mothers womb.

No. God's law is eternal, but it changes.

In the context of this dicussion, this is a contradiction.

Christians are those who do the same things that Christ did.

Which is what exactly? They heal the blind, raise the dead, get strung up or just talk too much garbage?

There are many people who call themselves believers, but they obey satan more than God.

Ah well that causes a few distinct problems. Namely when a christian comes to my door how would I tell whether he is the former or the latter? Tell me Yorda, how can I tell them apart?

Those "Christians" are not able to change God's laws.

But the 'other' christians are? Doesn't that show that it's not god changing his laws, but man doing it for him without his consent? god's laws are eternal, so sayeth you, and yet on the other hand think you're in a position to just change them whenever it suits you. One minute you need to be circumcised, the next you don't, one minute you can't under any circumstances eat pork, the next you have it on a daily basis and so on.

Well who knows, maybe one day you'll all just decide that worshipping god isn't needed anymore and stop doing it. Doesn't matter what god thinks about that, because from the looks of it he doesn't get a say in the matter anyway.

Deep down inside, all people have the same view of right and wrong, because God lives in everything.

You do know that's complete nonsense.

and put some masters in a room and they will agree about everything.

That's wrong aswell.

Just as with small children, they also agree with each other.

And that is just funny.

It's "better" if people like Hitler are killed.

According to who? Would a nazi jew hater agree with you? While the majority might agree with you, not everyone would. There are those that would consider it 'better' if Hitler had have lived so he could be served justice. Death can be seen as the easy way out to some. And so your opinion is a personal one, and one that cannot be justified by god's laws.

People should obey themselves because the self is God. Nothing bad can happen to a good man. Listen to your self and you are listening to God.

So what you're doing here is just giving the word "self" a different name. Let's rephrase it:

People should obey themselves because the self is self. Nothing bad can happen to a good man, (which is clearly nonsense). Listen to yourself and you are listening to yourself.

The word god is not needed, and nor is it apparent. It also goes further to justifying any evil I can think of. Look at the woman who stoned her kids to death. the god within her, (her self), told her to do it, and if that voice within her is god then he did tell her to kill her children. Her actions have now been justified in two short sentences. You have no room to disagree, after all you just said:

"People should obey themselves because the self is god".

Just don't confuse the impersonal voice of the self, the conscience, with the personal voice which is only an illusion coming from the body.

You're making a fundamental mistake in thinking that voices come from different sources within yourself. All 'voices' come from the brain. Voices do not come from the body. You don't see your arm lift up and talk to you.

Our person will not always agree with the impersonal self because it really thinks that it can be happier if it disobeys God.

And you seemingly are happier by disobeying god who said you must get circumcised.

Makes you wonder..