|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jun 13, 2012 9:30:07 GMT -5
Their religions have an operation range of morality that does not prohibit them from doing such things.
If you think human nature is naturally limited by some unspoken morality you are disgustingly mistaken and uninformed of world history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jun 13, 2012 10:17:21 GMT -5
And no Romney is not a fundamentalist and neither is the entire LDS body of members. The Fundamentalist LDS Church is a splinter group with a very small following. The LDS officially and publicly denounced some of its religious practices in order for Utah to be accepted as a state in the union. The TRUE followers of Christ in the beginning faced opposition... But they made no compromise of their beliefs. They died for them. The TRUE followers of the LDS teachings still support the blood atonement doctrine. Steve kirlew on this message board confirmed that to me. With his justifications of such teachings. The true followers of the LDS or any religion for that matter adhere to its principle core doctrines and do not deviate in the face of opposition. You sir (if you are Mormon) are the splinter group. Not the "fundamentalist". |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jun 13, 2012 10:24:17 GMT -5
Polygamy.... Honestly I see no scriptural opposition to polygamy.
Blacks:
weren't allowed into the LDS until 1979.... Not too long ago. I guess God just changed his mind? Or the core church doctrines were wrong for 100 years?
If God changed his mind.... What god do you serve? Not the same as mine sir.
If the church doctrines were wrong about something THAT SERIOUS.... What else were critically and vitally wrong about them?
Not a faith I would want to be involved in.
Funny how anytime their is opposition by man... God speaks to the church to change its doctrines??? Sounds like a farce to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Byerley on Jun 13, 2012 13:13:12 GMT -5
There are similar arguments a non-Christian can make about either Catholicism and anyone of a hundred Protestant-based sects of Christianity - as far as discounting a candidate based on the fact he is pentecostal, or Baptist, or 7th day Adventist, or Episcopalian, or Methodist, and it goes on and on until you get tired of named them - all with different perspectives about this that and the other.
If you don't align yourself with a person's faith - then thats fine, of course you don't have to vote for them. But lets say the race is between person A and person B - you align with neither religiously, but of course at the end of the day you are also an American.
If you can't base your vote on religion, then what do you do? Just not vote? Regardless of religious affiliation, there will still be an election, and a vote, and a next president - so you have to vote based on the person, his qualifications, whether as a businessman, politicians, person in general.
That would be the first thing I personally look at. Anyone can call themselves a Christian, that doesn't earn a vote from me - that doesn't mean they will be a good leader, and being an agnostic or Mormom doesn't mean someone will be a bad leader.
Once said person is blessed with the office of president, one of the most powerful positions on Earth, there is NO TELLING how they will then carry out their day-to-day decision making, or if virtues formally held dear will evaporate with the power and greed.
Romney - regardless of "religious" merit, can by most definitions, be considered extremely successful - whether talking about business history, family life, father, etc. These days that about all that qualifies for president. And lets face it - I'm no fan of either Romney or Obama, but Obama had next to no qualifications for president, and still got voted in, against Hillary.
Compare the two - wife of one of the most popular presidents in history - actively involved throughout the last 20 years in all spectrums of polictics, social matters, etc., well known, well-liked in her circles - and Obama beats her?
Because his greatest qualification, was his mouth.
There will be two choices in November - religious affiliation, if the prime factor in voting, will have to be for most a non-issue, as either candidate has issues in that department. Romney as a Mormon doesn't make his Mormonism his platform, and Obama as a "who knows what religion" definitely doesn't run on a religious platform.
At the end of the day you're still an American, and have to choose between the choices you have - if you vote, even if you don't align religiously, that doesn't mean you support their religious views, you simply support one choice versus another.
So while I think one's religious affiliation can be important, and can POSSIBLY come into play, this election, it doesn't really matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jun 13, 2012 13:37:48 GMT -5
I understand your perspective for the most part. I disagree with your first part.... But it's whatever.
I understand that a person can act outside of his own faith. Even with seemingly good intentions. But as a foundation of who one is. We must look at religion.
Sure now if you are of the opinion we only have two choices then religion is a non-issue.
But I for one will not vote for either. That's MY decision. I will vote 3rd party or I will not vote. But morally speaking I cannot support either.
And as an American... I see no difference in the two. So it isn't going to hurt my feelings either way who wins. And I know my vote or absence of my vote will ultimately have no effect. So I will sleep well knowing which ever one wins... It ain't my fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by sethkardos on Jun 13, 2012 13:51:17 GMT -5
The viewpoint about a persons religion being the "operating range" of their morality; wow, a hell of a statement, barely worth a response... That statement (whoever coined that phrase or believes it), is clearly self-absorbed and it shows a blatant disrespect to the human species and everything else for that matter, as if we are Sooooooo significant.
I get it, some people think our God is better than other peoples Gods (kinda like saying my Dad can beat up your Dad) and thats cool; it just kills me the obvious prejudice many people have towards other religions (on all sides)... at least admit, you hate others... I thought we were more evolved, clearly not.
What that phrase tells me (whoever coined it or believes it) is that it casts the most broad generalization across large groups of people... rather pathetic. And I am guessing here; but other peoples do not like to be generalized just as we do not when the person generalizing may not even ever have met them... thats why people who generalize (gonna stoop real low here) suck, and cause more bad than good.
Question for Debate: In the history of the Earth, has religion caused more good than bad? I like hearing peoples opinion on this. Maybe the wrong place to post... Sorry. And it is OK to say yes, doesn't mean you don't have faith...
|
|
|
|
Post by sethkardos on Jun 13, 2012 14:00:20 GMT -5
On second thought; maybe I am generalizing too. Damn! can't win.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Byerley on Jun 13, 2012 14:43:15 GMT -5
Question for Debate: In the history of the Earth, has religion caused more good than bad? I like hearing peoples opinion on this. Maybe the wrong place to post... Sorry. And it is OK to say yes, doesn't mean you don't have faith... That question is too massive to be debated. You have a ton of religions throughout history, billions of people - miles of data with one thing at the center, more and more people. When you enter the HUMAN factor - you can take religion out of it, because whether religious or not, the HUMAN will do what hes going to do regardless of whatever FAITH they claim. Forget history, because that question is as easily applied to the PRESENT, as times past. There is countless good going on in the world today as a result of one's compassion, virtues, principles - stemming from their religious views/backgrounds, etc. There is also countless bad going on as a result of one's USE OF RELIGION in the name of their actions. Humans will be humans - regardless of religion. Religion, by itself, is in my experience, empty and incomplete. |
|
|
|
Post by John Byerley on Jun 13, 2012 14:46:52 GMT -5
Btw wasn't trying to insult the question - I've heard it asked alot in my life.
Millions have been negatively affected - murdered - discriminated against in the name of religion.
And millions of lives have also been positively affected - blessed - clothed - fed - and spared as a result of people with true religious conviction and compassion.
Theres no scale big enough to way the two against each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Byerley on Jun 13, 2012 15:11:00 GMT -5
Ryan I'm assuming you were disagreeing with this:
"There are similar arguments a non-Christian can make about either Catholicism and anyone of a hundred Protestant-based sects of Christianity - as far as discounting a candidate based on the fact he is pentecostal, or Baptist, or 7th day Adventist, or Episcopalian, or Methodist, and it goes on and on until you get tired of named them - all with different perspectives about this that and the other."
I'm not sure of your exact faith - whether its Baptist, or Protestant, or just simply Christianity, but lets just assume Protestant for the sake of explaining my statement.
Being a Protestant, a person is, religiously, a descendant of the Catholic church. During the reformation you had an individual, that became a group, that became a massive group, that broke away from the Church, and in affect started their own. The Catholic Church dates back to 107 AD, in terms of the word "Catholic" but of course others would say, it dates back to Christ himself and/or Paul, but EITHER way its been around a LOOOONG time.
Its no secret the ups and downs of the Catholic church throughout history - the doctrine changes, the wars, the crusades, etc. etc. etc. Would be just as easy for one to point at Catholicism and say "did God change his mind?" "Did he change his mind 100 times?"
You're not Catholic I don't think, but your current faith as a Christian, is PHYSICALLY possible IN PART due to the survival of the Catholic church.
On to the Protestant reformation. Why do we have so many different Protestant churches? Because God is "changing his mind" constantly? Some church sects would say yes, some would say no, some would say "this is what God really is saying," some would say, "this is what I BELIEVE God is really saying," on and on.
Whats the common denominator? People - and their twists on their chosen religion.
Christian leaders of both Catholic and Protestant sects have committed horendous acts in the name of GOD and RELIGION - doctrines all around the CHRISTIAN hemisphere, whether internal doctrine or t he BIBLE ITSELF has been translated, retranslated, rephrased, parts taken out, parts added, etc. etc.
So once again a NON Christian has more than enough ammo at their disposal to TRY and UNVALIDATE a Christian candidate based on their religious beliefs. Of course this is America, and for the most part Christianity is still widely accepted, so you will not see that type of opposition in the near future, hopefully, but it is possible in the future.
Considering the current track of the country, I'm certain within the next 50 years a Christian candidate will be under constant political attack as a result of his faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jun 13, 2012 15:52:34 GMT -5
I'm aware of the ammo. But in most cases a semi-knowledgable protestant Christian can refute such ammo.
When I say doctrinal change.... I'm not talking about things like
Unitarianism vs Trinitarian
"Once saved always saved"
Or holy spirit baptism
Or water baptism
Or how a church or denomination is ran
I am talking about a doctrine that is endorsed and justified by members of the church. I'm talking about one of the doctrines of a religion that requires the mortal execution of a member if for example they leave the church. Or marry a black person. Or commit adultery. Etc....
The blood atonement teaches that Jesus blood doesn't cover all sin and for those particular sins you must be killed by your mormon brothers in order to save your soul.
THAT is a BIG problem.
And mr ignorance says brigham young was off.... That's like saying Peter or Paul were "off".
Young was Smiths right hand man. That's like saying joshua was nothing important because he wasn't Moses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Bluth on Jun 13, 2012 15:57:31 GMT -5
And no Romney is not a fundamentalist and neither is the entire LDS body of members. The Fundamentalist LDS Church is a splinter group with a very small following. The LDS officially and publicly denounced some of its religious practices in order for Utah to be accepted as a state in the union. The TRUE followers of Christ in the beginning faced opposition... But they made no compromise of their beliefs. They died for them. The TRUE followers of the LDS teachings still support the blood atonement doctrine. Steve kirlew on this message board confirmed that to me. With his justifications of such teachings. The true followers of the LDS or any religion for that matter adhere to its principle core doctrines and do not deviate in the face of opposition. You sir (if you are Mormon) are the splinter group. Not the "fundamentalist". I'm sorry I didn't know Steve Kirlew was the Northeastboard.com authority on Mormon studies. But to be clear, you have many equivocated ideas when it comes to Mormons and Mormonism. Anyway, I could try and respond with links, quotes and supporting evidence, but you already admitted to being a bigot so I can't really see the point... My final word on the matter is you do not need God or religion to be moral. God did not write the rules of morality. Good and bad existed before God revealed the Law through Moses. Anyone that says otherwise is simply rejecting everything we know about history, science and anthropology. |
|
|
|
Post by CHRISTIAN BINNIE on Jun 13, 2012 16:15:41 GMT -5
This is logically just garbage. One can act within whatever bounds he or she self-imposes. I am not bound by my faith and neither should you or anyone else. What you said goes against everything we know about human nature. Hypothetical question.... Do you think it's immoral to decapitate infants for entertainment? I assume yes.... It's disgusting. It's against your faith. Some cultures don't have problems with such extreme actions. Because they are not limited by their common morality. What cultures do this? |
|
|
|
Post by CHRISTIAN BINNIE on Jun 13, 2012 16:23:52 GMT -5
I understand your perspective for the most part. I disagree with your first part.... But it's whatever. I understand that a person can act outside of his own faith. Even with seemingly good intentions. But as a foundation of who one is. We must look at religion. Sure now if you are of the opinion we only have two choices then religion is a non-issue. But I for one will not vote for either. That's MY decision. I will vote 3rd party or I will not vote. But morally speaking I cannot support either. And as an American... I see no difference in the two. So it isn't going to hurt my feelings either way who wins. And I know my vote or absence of my vote will ultimately have no effect. So I will sleep well knowing which ever one wins... It ain't my fault. Honestly, how in the HELL can you make this last statement "and as an American......" To say, "I see no difference in the two." even based on you "religious" views of them, just shows your TRUE ignorance shining through ... So you don't vote, so it won't be your "fault" What a cowardly statement....TYPICAL! You should be PROUD you CAN vote AND should take every opprotunity to do so, whether on a local level OR national level...People have died so you can have that right.... |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jun 13, 2012 17:19:28 GMT -5
Christian I respect your opinion honestly. And I have to simply take your comments as unaware of the things I've witnessed over the last couple months having been actively involved in the nomination process.
I am very proud of this country and honor those who have served.
But the more I see the voter fraud and illegal behavior of my own party within my own state during this nomination process..... Have you seen anything about what happened at the Shreveport republican convention?
It was a rediculous disgrace to this country. An aggressive act of treason against the people of Louisiana. And against the this country. It was sickening and even you should be angered at what took place.
I am ashamed... Not to be American. But to be labeled as a republican during this debacle.
As an American I will join the fight to overhaul Louisiana's republican party. On the state and local levels.
My opting to not vote for Romney or Obama is not just a religious based decision.
Also...
It is my legal right that soldiers died for to protest the actions of the republican party.
Just as you attempt to shame me for a lack of appreciation to vote.... You should honor those same soldiers that died for my right to vote by respecting my right to protest the republican party, a right for which they also died.
I will vote. But for neither of them.
|
|
