mormonism & homosexuality

duendy

01-27-05, 10:46 AM

"this is the same dude that if you get one of his friggin precious WORDS wrong he's reachin for his kaleshnakov!"
I don't apologise for favouring clarity over clamour, precision over precipitateness, rationality over ranting.
I don't consider you an enemy. As I have stated before I just think you are an asshole.

D__CHARMING.

and what has it got to do with you what i am saying to Brustus anyoldhow? are you Mormon? so what are you doing here?
I mistook this for a public forum. How could I have been so foolish.

d__-'Brustus'? shit you cant even spell his name right. never mind speak for him!
and you are SURPRISED?

__errrrm, why are you speakin for Brutus.....?
Do you ever read anyone elses post for what they say? I am not speaking for Brutus, I am paraphrasing his words.

d__no, dude, what your're TRYING to do is wind me up. but you aren't skillfull enough, as clever as you THINK you ar with words.

'one aspect of my life' you mean my VERy sexuality?? gettoutta here fool
Well, much as I enjoy sex, and am quite content to be a heterosexual male, it is only one aspect of my life. You do seem to have a lot of hangups.

d__oh, pulEEEZE. since when have you had YOUr heterosexuality insulted? and like i said. i cant believe you. your not genuine and show hypocritical tendencies

"a more bitter-sounding poster i have yet to MEEt."
Strange. I'll have to watch that, if that's how I come across. I can't think of anything to be bitter about. I stopped typing for a few moments and racked my brains, but really I think I've been quite fortunate. I mean who or what is there to be bitter about?

d__ like i said. NOT genuine!

Anyway, enjoy your fulminations against the patriarchy. Enjoy your selfrighteous belief that only you care about the downtrodden. Enjoy your fiftieth birthday. Enjoy the absence of my attempts at further communication.

and you believe i will lose sleep over that 'threat'? 'promise'?

i however, WILl challenge your views if i see fit. though please lets try and keep this silly tittle tattle down. it must be tedious for others. but then again, i dont follow YOU around trying to drive YOU banannas do i?

duendy

01-27-05, 10:53 AM

Duendy.

If you noticed I said the Church condemns all sex outside of marriage not just homosexuality. The reason why God has prescribed sex outside of marriage is because of all the damage it does to children, individuals, and society. Sex and immorality when misused only brings unhappiness and despair. Children are brought into the world without the benefit of a loving mother and father. Women are used and abused by men and they are left in poverty dependent on society for support. Disease and death are the result of an immoral lifestyle. It is out of love and compassion that God has given us these commandments. God only wants us to be happy and live a joyous life.

Ophiolite

I am pretty sure Duendy is female. Thank you for your posts.

Brutus, you are dodging th issue again.
The whole subject of ACTUAL sexuality 'outside marriage' is a big one, and is completely tied to patriarchal oppressive dogma. this is where woman/wife and children become the male's property!
For get that for now. that deserves another thread

What Is being talked about is homosexuality. PRACTCING homosexuality. the very cocept of Gays marrying is faily recent in the modern world anyhow. so forget marriage concerning this subject
I am asking you, how can you not see youself as my enemy if you condemn my sexuality?

Brutus1964

01-27-05, 10:56 AM

Well, I might aswell be the one to point out that this goes against what jesus says.

Matthew 5:27 details jesus speech that the sin has been done when the thought crosses your mind. If you look at woman with lust, you have already sinned. The attractions of these friends of yours, are enough to be their downfall - and in the words of jesus, the best thing to do now is to yank their eyes out, chop their hands off.. yada yada yada.

Their "standing with god" is affected unless they chop their brain out for letting it have sinful thoughts and emotions, so sayeth jesus.

Do any religious people actually bother reading the bible?

Yes lusting after a woman or someone of the same sex is a sin. But there are degrees of sin. If you took that scripture to it's extreme you would be justified in actually committing adultery because hey I thought about it. It's the same as actually doing it. So I might as well do it.

The reason Christ said not to lust after a woman is because that is the first step in actually doing it. If you try and keep your mind pure, you will not dwell on it. Also the act of lust is more than just an attraction. It is a all consuming desire to have sex with someone. If someone did this it would be a sin and worthy of repentance.

Brutus1964

01-27-05, 11:06 AM

Brutus, you are dodging th issue again.
The whole subject of ACTUAL sexuality 'outside marriage' is a big one, and is completely tied to patriarchal oppressive dogma. this is where woman/wife and children become the male's property!
For get that for now. that deserves another thread

What Is being talked about is homosexuality. PRACTCING homosexuality. the very cocept of Gays marrying is faily recent in the modern world anyhow. so forget marriage concerning this subject
I am asking you, how can you not see youself as my enemy if you condemn my sexuality?

Because I do not view you strictly based on your sexuality. I do not define myself soley based on mine. Sometimes you can't help whom you are attracted to. I am married and occasionally I will meet a girl at work or somewhere and I may be attracted to her. It is not lust, and I do not dwell on it, and I would never act on it. It is a natural response. This is the same for a gay person. They may be attracted to someone of the same sex but that does not mean they have to act on it. It is a choice to engage in homosexual sex or any sex type of sex for that matter.

We can disagree on something and not be "enemies". That is the problem with radical Islam is they feel anyone who disagrees with them is an infidel and worthy of death. Mormon’s consider homosexuality a sin, but we don’t stone people for it.

duendy

01-27-05, 11:11 AM

abd Brutus baby...dont foget me again...but concering your reply to snakelord.....what you espouse is THe evil. not what you denounce.

i hav a book i recommend everyone read concering an intelligent and ddeeper undersnding of Christianity. it is alan Watts' Myth and Ritual in Christianity
Alan ifghtly tells how the character 'Jesus' is taking the PISS out of the one's who will take the Law So seriously. he is teasing them. this makes sense concerning his constant harangue against hypocrites, and his chillin out with REAL people

so why is what you espouse evil. it GUILTs the individuals natrualness. we ALL LUST and have desires. it is natrual. you then guilt people sos they haven't even got freedom in their own fukin MINDs from thought police such as yourselves

what this does is this. these feelings are energy. have you ever put your finger in akettle? well you can guess what happens

add that to putting grown men in charge of children with that bullshite dogma = ? can you guess??

SnakeLord

01-27-05, 11:12 AM

But there are degrees of sin.

Oh right. Where did jesus highlight this? Did he make a list?

"And I, Jesus, sayeth to thee that stealing a bike is worse than stealing a car".

He was telling you that not only the action is sin but the very thinking about it. So much so that he told you to tear your eye out and throw it away for it would do you less harm to lose one part of yourself than to have your whole body thrown into hell. So according to him, you can get thrown to hell without ever acting upon a feeling, but just for the feeling itself.

He didn't say anywhere that; "well, it's a sin but not as big a sin as another sin".

Tell your friends that god "detests" homosexuals, and that they have 3 choices available to them:

1) Chop the offending part of their body off as jesus suggests, (in this case their brain)

2) Turn straight.

3) Go to hell.

But let me guess, they're excused because they're in your collective right? Doesn't matter what sins they break as long as they call themselves christian.

Brutus1964

01-27-05, 11:27 AM

Oh right. Where did jesus highlight this? Did he make a list?

"And I, Jesus, sayeth to thee that stealing a bike is worse than stealing a car".

He was telling you that not only the action is sin but the very thinking about it. So much so that he told you to tear your eye out and throw it away for it would do you less harm to lose one part of yourself than to have your whole body thrown into hell. So according to him, you can get thrown to hell without ever acting upon a feeling, but just for the feeling itself.

He didn't say anywhere that; "well, it's a sin but not as big a sin as another sin".

Tell your friends that god "detests" homosexuals, and that they have 3 choices available to them:

1) Chop the offending part of their body off as jesus suggests, (in this case their brain)

2) Turn straight.

3) Go to hell.

But let me guess, they're excused because they're in your collective right? Doesn't matter what sins they break as long as they call themselves christian.

You are right as far as stating that even the smallest of sins will separate you from God. This is absolutely true. Having a bad thought will send you to Hell the same as murdering someone in the eyes of God. But there are sins that are much harder to overcome than others. Jesus Christ will forgive all our sins the big and the small as long as we accept him and repent. Repent means to forsake your sins and try you’re hardest to never do it again. If you do it again then repent again and again. After a while the desire to do the sin will be lifted and you will have control over your own body and appetites.

Medicine*Woman

01-27-05, 11:38 AM

Brutus1964: Yes lusting after a woman or someone of the same sex is a sin. But there are degrees of sin. If you took that scripture to it's extreme you would be justified in actually committing adultery because hey I thought about it. It's the same as actually doing it. So I might as well do it.

The reason Christ said not to lust after a woman is because that is the first step in actually doing it. If you try and keep your mind pure, you will not dwell on it. Also the act of lust is more than just an attraction. It is a all consuming desire to have sex with someone. If someone did this it would be a sin and worthy of repentance.
*************
M*W: First of all, those weren't Jesus' words. They were the words of Paul, the homosexual who invented Christianity. Jesus, should he have actually existed, lusted after Mary Magdalen as was told in the Gospel of Philip.

Secondly, as the world turns and humanity continues to evolve, heterosexuality is becoming passe. Perhaps the world has the optimum number of peoples so the desire and means to procreate is diminishing or changing to suit the times. All animals, including humans, are sexual beings. It's in our nature to have the desire to procreate -- even if our actions of procreating do not lead to birthing new individuals -- our sexuality remains intact. Religions try to suppress our natural tendencies. Anytime one of our innermost desires are thwarted or incomplete, the resulting actions will come out in some perverted way. Just look at the sexual crimes of the Roman Catholic Church which I blame on centuries of repressed sexuality due to celibacy. Not only did the Church create an evil environment for perverted sexual activity, it attracts the worst of perverts for the job!

Human sexuality is a natural and healthy part of our humanity, unless it is suppressed by the guilt rendering Church or by the guilt erroneously instilled in the individual's mind.

The times, they are a'changing. We are at the crossroads of our human development. As time goes on, there will be more homosexuals than heterosexuals, contributing much to Christianity's demise. Would it be a sin if your child was born with blue eyes? Would your brother be doomed to hell if he was blasted with female hormones as an embryo in utero? Would your beautiful daughter be shamed and banished by society for falling in love with a woman? Human sexuality should not be an issue for religionists' edicts anymore than one's skin color or one's eyes. One's sexuality is nurtured long before birth and it develops and manifests as one becomes pubertal -- regardless of what direction that may lead. Sexuality emanates from the innermost spirit of humanity. Unless it is nurtured and grown from its very core, it will become repressed and perverted. Laws and religions need to get out of our genitals.

SnakeLord

01-27-05, 02:56 PM

But there are sins that are much harder to overcome than others.

In this case the 'easy' sin to overcome would be the action. Deciding to actually do something or not do something is far easier than having a completely natural feeling. This goes for any natural feeling: pride, jealousy, anger, probably happiness to for that matter.

Jesus Christ will forgive all our sins the big and the small as long as we accept him and repent. Repent means to forsake your sins and try you’re hardest to never do it again. If you do it again then repent again and again.

Ah yes, the christian mind at it's most perverse. Sin, repent, sin, repent, sin, repent. Who gives a shit if you sin as long as you repent after? If you do it twice no big deal, just repent some more and so on all the way down the line until your fat on your sins, but happy in the knowledge that you kept saying sorry for doing them. It reminds me of that quote:

"I once asked god for a new bike, but then realised it doesn't work that way. So I stole one and asked him to forgive me."

After a while the desire to do the sin will be lifted and you will have control over your own body and appetites.

This is nonsense. You cannot get rid of natural feelings, addictions or appetites. I can prove it to you. Tell me when you think you can control anger and hatred and I'll come round and kill your family. Tell me when you think you can control addiction and I'll come round and inject you with heroin. You are not in control, and never will be when concerning these things. Emotions can be tempered to a degree, but you will never have complete control.

You can see it's affects by reading some of Leo's or Woody's posts. Full to the brim with hatred for atheists, which is odd given that jesus said something about loving people. I guess afterwards they just repent and it makes it ok. But these feelings of hatred that they have cannot just be swept aside or forgotten about, regardless to what jesus says - which just shows how powerless he truly is, and that man does have one over him. I could make you sin right now without so much as blinking an eyelid, and in that moment you would show jesus exactly how unimportant he is.

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.

Yorda

01-27-05, 06:24 PM

I guess afterwards they just repent and it makes it ok. But these feelings of hatred that they have cannot just be swept aside or forgotten about, regardless to what jesus says - which just shows how powerless he truly is, and that man does have one over him.

Christians are forgiven by Jesus, non-religious people are forgiven by themselves. It's the same thing, you see, Christians just call the "self" Jesus.
But Jesus also said: "If you do not forgive people's sins, they are not forgiven."
---
People who think homosexuality is wrong probably shouldn't talk about it since it's such a sensitive subject.

SnakeLord

01-27-05, 07:18 PM

Christians are forgiven by Jesus, non-religious people are forgiven by themselves. It's the same thing, you see, Christians just call the "self" Jesus.

Not exactly, no.

Personally I see forgiveness as coming from the one who has been sinned against. If I called my wife a bitch, it would be upto her whether to forgive or not. jesus, god and billy the leprechaun are completely irrelevant to that and have no say whatsoever. Even after the forgiveness has been given, it's hard to feel forgiven inside because you always have the memory of what you've done or said.

Christians always seem to regard it as something done over tea and forgotten about within 30 seconds once you've told the priest or the clouds about it.

Yorda

01-27-05, 07:40 PM

Snake

What if the one you sinned against suddenly dies or dissapears, so that you'll never be able to have forgiveness from her? Will you live your life hating yourself even if you only did a "small" sin? 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. I think that if I really regret something "in my heart" I could forgive myself.

I think it's possible to forgive oneself too, it may just take a long time. If someone else can forgive us, we should be able to forgive ourselves too. It's a good deed to forgive oneself too, you know. Ruining your own life because you cannot forgive yourself is not a good deed. If we don't forgive ourselves, we don't just hurt ourselves, but others too.

duendy

01-28-05, 06:00 AM

Because I do not view you strictly based on your sexuality.

d__Well, i would want you to. My sexuality is a HUGE part of me

I do not define myself soley based on mine. Sometimes you can't help whom you are attracted to. I am married and occasionally I will meet a girl at work or somewhere and I may be attracted to her. It is not lust, and I do not dwell on it, and I would never act on it.

d__you're being a bit of a hypocrite here. people who lust usually dont dwell on it. attraction, lust, what's the difference?

It is a natural response. This is the same for a gay person.

d__ahhhhhhhh. if ONLY you MEANT that!

They may be attracted to someone of the same sex but that does not mean they have to act on it.

d__errr, i said PRACTICING. don't give me the 'i will accept you if you dont do Queer sex malarchy. THAt isn't acceptance at ALL

It is a choice to engage in homosexual sex or any sex type of sex for that matter.

d__ Yes. And i CHHOSE Queer sexuality. How do you feel about that as a Mormon. Am i going to hell. would i be alowed in your church?

We can disagree on something and not be "enemies". That is the problem with radical Islam is they feel anyone who disagrees with them is an infidel and worthy of death.

d__Well, i have to say that i would respect THAt better than the mixed messages you are giving me.
On one hand you are informing me that ANy lusty thought will send me into hell, never MIND Gay SEX! and in the next breath are saying that it doesn't matter. I am confused. Can you help me understand what exactly it is you mean here?

Mormon’s consider homosexuality a sin, but we don’t stone people for it.

No, you believe in a myth which banishes us all to hell. Gee thanks.....With 'friends' like you, do i NEEd enimies?

Brutus1964

01-28-05, 09:02 AM

There are steps to repentance.

1) Recognize that you have sinned
2) Feel genuine sorrow for having sinned
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.
5) Make restitution to the person you have offended.
6) Forsake the sin
7) Forgive yourself and receive forgiveness

If the person you have offended is dead or not around anymore, or in cases were restitution is impossible. You can confess to a church leader who will advise and help you to overcome your sin and receive forgiveness from the lord.

duendy

01-28-05, 09:15 AM

listen very very closely Brutus.....:

I HAVE NOT SINNED!

Only in your belief system (and others from which it stems from) have i sinned. Are we clear?

So, IF you adhere To such a belief system which believes i am a sinner IF i PRACTICe Queer sexuality, and love it. which i DO. THEN you are my enemy aren't you? Go on admit it. because we can never meet. Because everythime you will be saying:

'have you stopped sinning yet?'

right?

so you belief acts as a barrier to any relationship we might have had. 'good morming' and 'good evening' and general 'good manners' are quite suprficial in this context. i actually would feel more genuinity if you called me a 'fuking cokcsukin faggot'. that's more honest at least, than a sanctimonious plea for me to rePENT?

Silas

01-28-05, 09:43 AM

so you belief acts as a barrier to any relationship we might have had. 'good morming' and 'good evening' and general 'good manners' are quite suprficial in this context. i actually would feel more genuinity if you called me a 'fuking cokcsukin faggot'. that's more honest at least, than a sanctimonious plea for me to rePENT?So, first of all, I think this establishes that duendy is a male, after all! :P

But I do take issue with your increasing righteous indignation and apparent willingness to have a full-on fight. It's not like Brutus put up a thread denouncing all gays, you put the thread on specifically to press Brutus's buttons because he is a known Mormon. Brutus may well be dodging the issue, but that may simply be the best way he knows how to avoid a confrontation he has no particular reason to pursue.

It may be that Brutus in his mind does not in fact condemn you or any other gay for their natural feelings, nor for the natural desire to express them. However, as a proselytising Mormon he knows that if he states this opinion in a public forum he will be open to charges of hypocrisy and potential censure from his own Church. So he gives the party line on "condemning the sin, not the sinner" and you are not satisfied because he doesn't call you a cocksucking faggot?

Don't get me wrong, I entirely agree with you about the difference between your attitude to sin (if nobody else is hurt, where's the sin?) and Brutus' rather more dogmatic approach. But you're really here to pick a fight, and you know it.

Brutus1964

01-28-05, 09:48 AM

That is a good question Duendy

Are you a male or female. Your posts suggest female, but after your last post I am not sure now.

No need to use derogatory terms. We are not the "Reverend" Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas. In fact he would consider the LDS church to be a "fag" church since we allow non-practicing homosexuals to remain as members.

duendy

01-28-05, 10:11 AM

So, first of all, I think this establishes that duendy is a male, after all! :P

d__think of me as girl boy or both, it is no concern of mine though it seems to keep you'll amused

But I do take issue with your increasing righteous indignation and apparent willingness to have a full-on fight.

d__no, you intuit me wrong, i am cool throughout this, i CAN get angry make no mistake, and all other emotions. i am not anti-passion. but in this instance i am challenging Brutus, not fighting

It's not like Brutus put up a thread denouncing all gays, you put the thread on specifically to press Brutus's buttons because he is a known Mormon.

d__well...obviously. we KNOW he IS. he has done a fiar bit of misionizing his cause here. and i wanted to focus on his causes views about homosexuality. Of COURSe i do

Brutus may well be dodging the issue, but that may simply be the best way he knows how to avoid a confrontation he has no particular reason to pursue.

d__well, doggin the issue is not good enough, i want honesty. i want to know where i stand. it's alright pretending one is good mannered and the next breath politely tell you you're condemned to hell less-en you repent your sin. such 'good' manners can trun to the utmost evi given the right circumstances and power. as we well know in history. right? so i do not encourage hypocrisy, i challenge it

It may be that Brutus in his mind does not in fact condemn you or any other gay for their natural feelings, nor for the natural desire to express them.

d__well 'Brutus1964' might very well not. but who is Brutus. is Brutus an individual who can think for himself. or he hs totally caught up in Mormonismic judgments regarding my sexaultiy. That's one of the things i'm trying to get at

However, as a proselytising Mormon he knows that if he states this opinion in a public forum he will be open to charges of hypocrisy and potential censure from his own Church. So he gives the party line on "condemning the sin, not the sinner" and you are not satisfied because he doesn't call you a cocksucking faggot?

d__well i don't REALLy like being called that, and dont like others same neither. i was just making a dramatic point that i am not mad on hypocrisy.
I try and speak my truth here as much as i can, and i expect others to do so too. I am exploring how me and Brutus could ever really meet in a deep way if he sees me as an unrepentant sinner. is it possible......? i don't think so. so....?

Don't get me wrong, I entirely agree with you about the difference between your attitude to sin (if nobody else is hurt, where's the sin?) and Brutus' rather more dogmatic approach. But you're really here to pick a fight, and you know it.

no, YOU seem to know it. you really though are interpreting what is going on in a wrong way.
right from the beginning, before B admitted he was mormon, i found him very easy going. BUT what does that MASK is what i am interested in, and i am trying to bring it out. NOt hide it away. it's when you hide things they fester

duendy

01-28-05, 10:19 AM

That is a good question Duendy

d__i look foreward to you answering it then.

Are you a male or female. Your posts suggest female, but after your last post I am not sure now.

d__ahhhhhh, ambiguity. i LOVE it!

No need to use derogatory terms. We are not the Reverend Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas.

i know i know, that's another 1000 lashes for me from the demons of the dark pit

Brutus1964

01-28-05, 12:58 PM

Duendy

I am not going to condemn you or judge you. God will be the ultimate judge. Also LDS do not believe in a burning Hell. Everyone will get his or her measure of Glory except for the Son's of Perdition. Gay People are God's children too so they are also heirs to his blessings.

You asked if you would be accepted in my church and still be gay? You would certainly be welcome to come to church, but to be baptized you would need to repent and forsake your sins. This would include your homosexual lifestyle.

To repent and strive for perfection is a long road. We must try to put away our devilish carnal nature and take control of our own selves. This includes taking control of all our appetites including sex, overeating, smoking, drinking, and drugs. Anything addictive that takes control of our minds and bodies is evil. They enslave us to our own desires and passions and take away that which is most precious. Having a relationship with God, praying, reading scriptures, avoiding temptation, freeing our minds of evil thoughts all help us to control our own selves and remove the shackles and manacles that bind us. This is where true freedom resides.

Athelwulf

01-28-05, 02:14 PM

Duendy, I feel you are unjustifiably overreacting. I understand why ya would hate Brutus for what he believes, but understand that it was you who asked him. You can't get mad at him kuz of his answer if you asked for his answer. This is a bait-and-hook, and it's not very nice.

Also, ya should understand that Brutus hates the fact that you are a homosexual. He doesn't hate you the person for being a homosexual. That goes against his Mormon teachings.

I disagree with Brutus's stance on homosexuality. I hate the fact that he is against homosexuality, but I don't hate him the person for thinking so. I'd rather see you following my example than going on as you are. I can't make ya do it, and I won't try either, but I politely request this of you because this would make relations between you and Brutus much smoother. Brutus seems to me to be a decent human being, and I know you can be as well.

Now, as for Yorda,

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.

I am perfectly capable of forgiving myself for something, as are most other Atheists. I don't need some God in the equation, and neither do you.

Brutus1964

01-28-05, 02:54 PM

Athulwulf

Very well said.

Mystech

01-28-05, 03:12 PM

I would not call the LDS church a fundamentalist church. In fact fundamentalist Mormons are the ones who live out in the desert and practice polygamy. They are not affiliated at all with the LDS church. Any practicing polygamists in the LDS church now are excommunicated.

I've got to agree with Brutus on this one. As outlandishly strict and restrictive many of the tenants of the mormon church seem to most outsiders, the real fundamentalists are the ones who live in the middle of nowhere on the Arizona and Utah boarder, and allow their spiritual leaders decide which women go to which men an where they'll live while they all stockpile survival gear and weapons for whatever coming storm they think is coming that they need to weather. To be honest I thought that these types were sort of just a rumor, but then Arizona had a gubernatorial candidate a few years back who's entire platform was that we'd drive these people back across the boarder into Utah where he felt they belong, haha. Also a lot of those Neo Nazi types in Northern Arizona as well, for that matter . . . it's a really strange fucking neighborhood.

Xylene

01-28-05, 04:15 PM

Do you really think that God--with all the other B.S. that He/She/It has to deal with--really gives a damn, frankly, about who sleeps with whom, or what sex they are?

Mystech

01-28-05, 04:24 PM

Do you really think that God--with all the other B.S. that He/She/It has to deal with--really gives a damn, frankly, about who sleeps with whom, or what sex they are?

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!

Xylene

01-28-05, 04:50 PM

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. :rolleyes:

cole grey

01-28-05, 04:57 PM

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

01-28-05, 07:26 PM

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

01-28-05, 08:19 PM

“ 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

01-29-05, 04:44 AM

cole grey

01-29-05, 04:57 AM

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

01-29-05, 06:58 AM

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 :D ) 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

01-29-05, 07:31 AM

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

01-29-05, 07:42 AM

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

01-29-05, 01:25 PM

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 :D

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

01-29-05, 04:20 PM

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

01-29-05, 05:02 PM

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

01-29-05, 05:16 PM

We can see the fruits (no pun intended :D) 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

01-29-05, 05:27 PM

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

01-29-05, 05:36 PM

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

01-29-05, 05:57 PM

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

01-29-05, 11:10 PM

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

01-30-05, 07:47 AM

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

01-30-05, 08:18 AM

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

01-30-05, 01:03 PM

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..

Yorda

01-30-05, 06:31 PM

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.

If God detested homosexual acts, don't you think he would stop them?

I'm sorry, but this is complete gibberish.

Lions can sense impure people.

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.

I think you're confusing the Bible with God. The Bible is a book, God is not a book.

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

Yeah, but he IS sinless when he is in his mother's womb!

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

Actually it isn't, even if it sounds like it.

Christ obeyed God's will. So those who really want to be called Christians should also try to do the right thing.
It's not important to do good, but to decrease the daily mistakes we make. Then we'll automatically be good.

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?

Do you want Me to tell You how to tell the difference? You have your own views, your own ways. The Lord said: "My ways are not your ways!" What use do you have for My views on Your own path? Haven't you heard "Christians", how they talk and behave? Some of them are good, some of them are bad, I'm sure you can tell the difference. This doesn't mean that you have to judge them. It's enough if you know that the world must consist of good and bad people.

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.

I have said it before. No one can change God's laws. But when we learn more, we also learn more about God's law, so it seems like it has totally changed. A parable: Newton discovered the gravity. So the laws of gravity stood there for a few hundred years, but then later Einstein "changed" all that because he showed more exactly how gravity works.

The laws haven't changed but we're able to understand more of them so they seem different. So it's like this with the other laws of God also, "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not judge" etc. Some of them are still valid as you see, some of them will "change", some of them will never "change". Every human can tell the difference between right and wrong because the human body is a temple of God.

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.

Yeah, worshiping God isn't important. What is better than a belief in God, is a belief in oneself. The people of the West may still have to worship God for a while, but many people in the East already understand that the meaning of life is to know ourselves, and then be ourselves.

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.

Nazis have personal views and personal thoughts, otherwise they wouldn't think like that. Of course they wouldn't agree with me because they've lost themselves, they only listen to their person and not to their inner voice which never lies.

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.

Yeah, now you just have to know what the self is.

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.

No, the woman didn't listen to her inner self or the voice of God or the conscience, she was listening to religious scripts which told her to stone her children. Again, you're confusing God with religious scripts.

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.

The brain is a part of the body, so the person and all thoughts and feelings comes from the body. The self has no thoughts, no feelings, nothing, and not that either.

Xylene

01-30-05, 08:18 PM

The major problem I see with religion, in terms of its attitude towards gay people, is their massive level of hypocracy. Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of William II and his successor Henry, was the one responsible (in England at least) for the the order that priests should be unmarried. Even to the extent of telling married priests to put aside their wives. The upshot of that is that the churches are now filled with gay people. :rolleyes:

There are some people, so I've heard (couldn't say who they were) who have a theory that Jesus himself might have been gay, anyway. So what does that do to the Church's attitude to gay people? :p

Medicine*Woman

01-30-05, 08:25 PM

Xylene: The major problem I see with religion, in terms of its attitude towards gay people, is their massive level of hypocracy. Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of William II and his successor Henry, was the one responsible (in England at least) for the the order that priests should be unmarried. Even to the extent of telling married priests to put aside their wives. The upshot of that is that the churches are now filled with gay people. :rolleyes:

There are some people, so I've heard (couldn't say who they were) who have a theory that Jesus himself might have been gay, anyway. So what does that do to the Church's attitude to gay people?
*************
M*W: Jesus was not gay. Jesus was a married man who was desparately in love with Mary Magdalene. Together they brought the perfect communion -- male and female he created them. The only true resurrection -- the only true life was one that embodied the male (Jesus) and the female (Mary Magdalen). The truth about Christianity is that Jesus (male) was the embodiment of Mary Magdalene (female). The only salvation is the embodiment of male+female.

SnakeLord

01-30-05, 10:24 PM

If God detested homosexual acts, don't you think he would stop them?

Of course not. Where is the choice then? That's what christianity teaches. I am an atheist, so whatever version pleases you is of little value to me. However, in the bible - which the majority hold to be the word of god, and even you mentioned it being "inspired" by god in your last post, it clearly states, (supposedly in god's own words), that he finds it detestable. Doing so doesn't mean he instantly extinctifies it, as any real christian will tell you.

Lions can sense impure people.

Complete and utter hogwash.

I think you're confusing the Bible with God. The Bible is a book, God is not a book.

Hmmm.. I see... So we can ignore the bible? One must wonder where you came up with this then:

The laws haven't changed but we're able to understand more of them so they seem different. So it's like this with the other laws of God also, "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not judge" etc. Some of them are still valid as you see

Other laws of god? Where did you find these "other" laws of god, of which "some" are "still" valid? Could it perhaps be the book you're confusing to be god? And then with what right do you state which are valid and which are no longer important? It would seem you're using the same source, but then trying to dismiss the laws you don't happen to agree with.

Now while it's ok to say; "god is not a book", does that instantly mean he doesn't have the ability to write? And if he does have the ability to write, and decided to write some laws for the humans to follow, why do you think you can just go against it?

Yeah, but he IS sinless when he is in his mother's womb!

You obviously didn't understand what I was getting at. Read it again.. or not.

Actually it isn't, even if it sounds like it.

Actually it is, even if you don't want it to be.

It's not important to do good, but to decrease the daily mistakes we make. Then we'll automatically be good.

Nonsense.

Do you want Me to tell You how to tell the difference?

I thought the "tell me Yorda", would be a bit of a giveaway.

You have your own views, your own ways.

I am aware of that, thank you, but I'm here to hear and debate other views, not mine.

What use do you have for My views on Your own path?

You sound like you suffer from deep paranoia. I'm interested, I'm not a man in black. Don't panic.

Haven't you heard "Christians", how they talk and behave? Some of them are good, some of them are bad

They all sound the same to me.

This doesn't mean that you have to judge them.

Uh... but you do.

It's enough if you know that the world must consist of good and bad people.

Eh? Everyone on the planet knows there's good and bad people. It has no relevance here.

I have said it before. No one can change God's laws.

O..k, and what are these never changing laws of god? I would consult the bible but it's apparently useless. So I'll leave it upto you to make a list for me.

A parable: Newton discovered the gravity. So the laws of gravity stood there for a few hundred years, but then later Einstein "changed" all that because he showed more exactly how gravity works.

No offence, but you really can't use gravity as a comparison to gods laws.

Every human can tell the difference between right and wrong because the human body is a temple of God.

You actually believe that? ...

Yeah, worshiping God isn't important.

I could name a few billion that disagree with you. I don't of course - being an atheist. There simply is no god to worship in the first place.

What is better than a belief in God, is a belief in oneself.

Sure, but then you come across as only being half way there. You mention "god within us", and other such statements. You're like a wannabe atheist who didn't quite make it.

Nazis have personal views and personal thoughts, otherwise they wouldn't think like that. Of course they wouldn't agree with me because they've lost themselves, they only listen to their person and not to their inner voice which never lies.

And of course those are your personal views and thoughts. Are you claiming you're right, they're wrong? It would certainly seem so considering you've already labelled them as "lost".

Yeah, now you just have to know what the self is.

Astound me oh wise one.

No, the woman didn't listen to her inner self or the voice of God or the conscience, she was listening to religious scripts which told her to stone her children.

How do you know? She said god told her to, not that a book told her to. You're confusing god to be a book.

Again, you're confusing God with religious scripts.

Actually it would seem you're doing that. Or just calling her a liar for the sake of it.

The brain is a part of the body, so the person and all thoughts and feelings comes from the body. The self has no thoughts, no feelings, nothing, and not that either.

What are you trying to say? You seem to be somewhat confused and stuck between a place of religion and non-religion. One minute you mention god, the next the self, the next the "inner" self, whatever that might be, and so on. Give it to me clearly.. Is there a god? Isn't there? Oh, and kindly list today's "real" sins for me, I can never keep up.