Two (Plus) Tangents from JOA's Thread

Hi there.

Just replying to your statement that Christianity...

" is full of people who fail at opening their hearts and minds to different sexualities and genders because they don't want to hear or learn anything that challenges them. " ~Quoting Opalescent

For me, mindedness is rooted in knowing what God wants by studying His word. The Bible is very clear that many of the LGBTs tenets are sin. So for a Christian to disagree with LGBT ideology means not that they are close-minded but that they are God-minded.

There is not term for 'close-minded' or 'open-minded' in the Bible. The Bible espouses one Truth for all. To be truly Christian means adhering to this one Truth. The rest are 'fools'.

However, the Great Commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" means that we should not judge our neighbor, but practice tolerant love toward them, even when they are sinning.

~Selah

Yes, this is an example of what I mean by authoritative religions. I simply don't agree there is one Truth, one Way. I am glad you find peace and meaning in your path and wish you well.
 
There is not term for 'close-minded' or 'open-minded' in the Bible. The Bible espouses one Truth for all. To be truly Christian means adhering to this one Truth. The rest are 'fools'.

If the Bible were such a pure and utter source of authority and truth for all, why are the available translations abysmally poor? And why are there forgeries in the Bible?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm

--------------------------

Is the Bible free of error?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran6.htm
 
Last edited:
Re (from opalescent):
"I just want to point out that MightyMax's experiences growing up are not actually a church that treats people right, to quote kdt26417. That's still expecting and pushing people into a closet ... Yes it is marginally better than being told from the pulpit that one is going to burn in Hell but it's just a nicer version of hate."

You have a good point, opal. "Hate is hate even when done with a smile."

Re:
"It's true that Christianity and all Christians are not full of hate ..."

... and I do honestly know that. I know some very loyal Mormons who are also kind, smart, selfless, and loving. It makes me scratch my head, but there it is.

Utah has an ironic problem. It has a lot of gay men. I have a gay cousin (who's a dentist in SLC) and a gay friend (who owns a business). As they came out of the closet, their friends and family had to make a decision about whether to support them in their orientation. Miraculously, everyone I know has been accepting towards these men. I am hopeful that such will be a growing trend in Utah in future years.

Of course, the Mormon church has yet to get past the proverb, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." They need to stop calling homosexual relations a "sin." I'm still waiting for that to happen.

Re:
"If this is what it means to be a moderate Christian, that one nicely doesn't talk about hard subjects and subtly shames people to refrain from showing their true selves openly -- and talking about those truths -- well, that's no badge of honor."

I agree.

Re (from AphroditeGoneAwry):
"For me, mindedness is rooted in knowing what God wants by studying His word. The Bible is very clear that many of the LGBTs tenets are sin. So for a Christian to disagree with LGBT ideology means not that they are close-minded but that they are God-minded."

You're right, though, the Bible does forbid homosexuality.

But who says the Bible is indeed the word of God? and why should I take them at their word? Indeed, who says there's any God in the first place?
 
@ River ... good links, I checked them out.
 
If the Bible were such a pure and utter source of authority and truth for all, why are the available translations abysmally poor? And why are there forgeries in the Bible?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm

--------------------------

Is the Bible free of error?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran6.htm


I don't find that to be true at all. And I do not waste my time on reading unforbidden literature, which can lead your mind astray. I am quite busy just reading and understanding the 66 books God gives us!

Otherwise, God reveals the truth to us in His own mysterious way, highlighting different scriptures based on what He wants us to know.
 
I still don't get how we know that the Bible is the word of God. Do we just get a special feeling that confirms it for us?

Heck, since I was raised LDS, I should also be asking, how do we know that the Book of Mormon is *not* (part of) the word of God?
 
The Bible is God's Word

"And that from a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...." ~2 Timothy 3:15-16
 
So ... we know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says the Bible is the word of God? I think that's called circular reasoning.

And since the verses in question say "scripture," not "Bible" ... and since the Book of Mormon is scripture (just like the Bible is) ... I guess you are agreeing that the Book of Mormon is also the word of God?

I hope I'm not giving you an overly bad time. I am genuinely confused.
 
It is understood that 'scripture' are the ancient texts that speak about the One God. And especially the canonized books which are contained in the Bible.

Since the book of mormon is neither ancient nor canonized, it is not considered scripture.

You are not confused, you are trying to confuse. You are just another self-inflated lazy person who likes to think he is clever, when he is just really lost.
 
Re:
"It is understood that 'scriptures' are the ancient texts that speak about the One God."

That's what the Book of Mormon (supposedly) is: an ancient text that speaks about the One God. (In the same way the Bible does when it speaks of a God the Father, a Jesus the Christ, and a Holy Spirit.)

Re:
"And especially the canonized books which are contained in the Bible."

Especially, but not exclusively? That leaves room for books not contained in the Bible, doesn't it?

Re:
"Since the Book of Mormon is neither ancient nor canonized, it is not considered scripture."

Whoa, the Book of Mormon covers the time period of around 500 b.c. thru a.d. 500, as well as a time period much earlier. Doesn't that count as ancient? and as for canonizing, the Prophet Joseph Smith did that. These are beliefs that are very sacred to Latter-day Saints.

Re:
"You are not confused, you are trying to confuse."

On the contrary, I'm trying to shed some light on things. If I am not successful and am only confusing things, that's another matter.

Re:
"You are just another self-inflated lazy person who likes to think he is clever, when he is just really lost."

Possibly so. How, then, am I to recognize my lostness, let alone how to find my way? If you will help me, I will listen.
 
Re:


That's what the Book of Mormon (supposedly) is: an ancient text that speaks about the One God. (In the same way the Bible does when it speaks of a God the Father, a Jesus the Christ, and a Holy Spirit.)

Re:


Especially, but not exclusively? That leaves room for books not contained in the Bible, doesn't it?

Re:


Whoa, the Book of Mormon covers the time period of around 500 b.c. thru a.d. 500, as well as a time period much earlier. Doesn't that count as ancient? and as for canonizing, the Prophet Joseph Smith did that. These are beliefs that are very sacred to Latter-day Saints.

Re:


On the contrary, I'm trying to shed some light on things. If I am not successful and am only confusing things, that's another matter.

Re:


Possibly so. How, then, am I to recognize my lostness, let alone how to find my way? If you will help me, I will listen.

You only listen to your father, the prince of lies. You have no ears to hear the truth. You are the same now as you always were. Nothing has changed.

*shakes dust off and moves on*
 
That makes me sad. I was enjoying the interesting conversation with you. I am sorry if you feel that I am a minion of Satan, but I'm even more sorry if I have given offense. I don't know how to have these kinds of discussions, I'm not good at it.
 
That makes me sad. I was enjoying the interesting conversation with you. I am sorry if you feel that I am a minion of Satan, but I'm even more sorry if I have given offense. I don't know how to have these kinds of discussions, I'm not good at it.

If you want me to find it interesting, then you will have to get past semantics and discuss concepts. Since that is not really your style, and no matter how long I go away and then come back, you never change, I don't see much point in going any further.

But you have the rest of the forum. :)
 
I don't know how to have these kinds of discussions, I'm not good at it.

How could anyone be good at it? Religious doctrines are as diverse and many as insects, wildflowers, planets and stars. Yet they all (most of them) claim authority over all of the others, as "the one true, right way". :rolleyes:
 
It is understood that 'scripture' are the ancient texts that speak about the One God. And especially the canonized books which are contained in the Bible.

Since the book of mormon is neither ancient nor canonized, it is not considered scripture.

You are not confused, you are trying to confuse. You are just another self-inflated lazy person who likes to think he is clever, when he is just really lost.

wow! you really take the cake! I guess age makes it more legit (harder to find eye witnesses and physical evidence therefore easier to obfuscate the truth).
 
@ AphroditeGoneAwry ... to tell you the truth I'm not 100% okay with "having the rest of the forum." If I can get past semantics and discuss concepts, I'd like to do that if you're willing. You must understand it's hard for me to dialog with the spiritually faithful. I am not spiritually faithful myself -- not anymore. I left the LDS church about 13 years ago, and decided I was an atheist within a few years after that. It's hard for me to talk about spiritual matters without raising objections. But I'd like to make an exception to that at least when I respond to your posts. Would that be an acceptable compromise?

@ River ... you see my dilemma when I don't even believe in spiritual concepts, yet in order to converse with those who do, I have to put my beliefs on hold. And as far as "the one true, right way" is concerned, that's exactly the Mormon church's biggest claim that I have a problem with. If only they wouldn't say that ...

@ graviton ... was I being unreasonable, do you think? How can I serve or listen to the devil if I don't even believe a devil exists? My recent posts have been more aggressive than usual, but I did try to be polite about it (if that makes any sense). It's hard for me to just accept the Bible as absolute truth, and for the record, I admit that the Book of Mormon has even less of a leg to stand on. But, I don't think every word in the Bible is false, and I do quote from it from time to time. There are parts I like.
 
@ River ... you see my dilemma when I don't even believe in spiritual concepts, yet in order to converse with those who do, I have to put my beliefs on hold. And as far as "the one true, right way" is concerned, that's exactly the Mormon church's biggest claim that I have a problem with. If only they wouldn't say that ...

I'm not entirely convinced that you don't believe in "spiritual concepts". Most everyone does, even the most staunchly atheistic skeptics.

That's the beauity of the term "spiritual," it's very inclusive and open to myriad possible interpretations. Anyone who wants to take others into consideration out of kindness and love, rather than pure, narrow self-interest is engaging in a "spiritual life" by my very wide and broand definition.

Definitions of "spirituality" which require woo-woo mumbo-jumbo are a bit to narrow for my taste.
 
Re:
"I'm not entirely convinced that you don't believe in 'spiritual concepts.'"

LOL, you need proof?

Re:
"That's the beauty of the term 'spiritual,' it's very inclusive and open to myriad possible interpretations."

Okay, I guess if you stretch the definition of the word ...

Somehow, the human brain supports a *mind.* Maybe that mind is what would count as a spirit for me? Sure, as long as we agree that (in my belief system) my mind (i.e. consciousness) will be permanently snuffed out when my body dies.

Re:
"Anyone who wants to take others into consideration out of kindness and love, rather than pure, narrow self-interest is engaging in a 'spiritual life' by my very wide and broad definition."

Well I can handle that.

Re:
"Definitions of 'spirituality' which require woo-woo mumbo-jumbo are a bit too narrow for my taste."

Amen brother!
 
@ AphroditeGoneAwry ... to tell you the truth I'm not 100% okay with "having the rest of the forum." If I can get past semantics and discuss concepts, I'd like to do that if you're willing. You must understand it's hard for me to dialog with the spiritually faithful. I am not spiritually faithful myself -- not anymore. I left the LDS church about 13 years ago, and decided I was an atheist within a few years after that. It's hard for me to talk about spiritual matters without raising objections. But I'd like to make an exception to that at least when I respond to your posts. Would that be an acceptable compromise?

That is considerate and kind of you. :)

I was an atheist too, for over 20 years. I am still suffering the repercussions of it today, even though I came back to the Lord many years ago.

The fact that you rejected the mormon church shows good judgment on your part, though I'm sure some of what they believe, if not most, is in line with the Way.

Perhaps this (me) is God calling you back to faith in Him, in a new way, with testing that you could not have in your youth. It is not God's fault that people and religious groups desecrate knowledge of Him; indeed, that is the way of the world! I recommend you focus on the one Bible, and pray to Him, and see what happens.
 
Re:
"It is not God's fault that people and religious groups desecrate knowledge of Him ..."

I agree.

I've always been a big fan of Richard Bach's books. "Illusions" and "Jonathon Livingston Seagull" in particular stand out.
 
Back
Top