Page created 22 Jan 2003 by blvdgirl
URL: http://www.stupid-theology.blogspot.com/
This is a page for ranting and worshipping. For wondering and thundering. Let's talk about God (and any other pertinent deities you may wish to mention). Sort of like a "Sacred and Profane" column for the seekers and searchers of the web.... (Actually, my whole under-handed scheme is to provide William a forum for teaching us all his holy way.)
"Half-Baked Theology"*grin*
What really prompted this entree was the realization that talking about the apocalypse under "World Events with a Pickle and Chips" might be stretching that entree a bit. So here's another spot to play at that sort of thing.
I was actually thinking more Matthew than Revelations when I was saying the scary stuff is still to come.
As per the Left Behind reference, I wouldn't have believed you were capable of referencing that in earnest. Please say you were being cynical.
I said "Left Behind" because it is a good example of dispensational eschatology. Or maybe not a good example, but a popular fictionalized one, not because I actually care about it, and not at all to lump all dispensationalists into the Left Behind groupie camp.
One of main problems with dispensational theology is that the Church is considered a paranthese in God's plan. The argument is that God offered Jesus to the Jews to be their king and they rejected him and so the time of Israel as ruler of all nations gets postponed until the 2nd advent and the church is just a hiccup in the plan. Which makes you wonder what would of happened had Israel accepted Jesus as their king the first time around. The argument is that God knew they would refuse which makes his offer seem kind of disingenuous. Not to mention the fact that they gloss over Paul's letter to the Galatians and the statements that Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenants. This would a good time for my sister to chime in nd wow us with her theological wisdom...if I could ever get her to make an account.
As I understand it, dispensationalism is largely an American phenomena -- which is not to say that it's wrong, but if one single nation is the only place where a theology gains a foothold or adherents and the rest of the world largely rejects it, one has to step back and wonder why.
I'm wondering where people stand on the whole spirit and flesh discussion. Is the flesh evil? If so, why is Jesus the "word made flesh?" And why did Jesus embrace his humanity? And why can't the church get around the fact that He hung out with hookers and winos?Ah, those pesky ravings...
In reading over the recent diary entries, I've noticed that Judaism has come up with regard to vegetarianism, which went off into a tangent, but the point is, since I'm rather new here, I wanted to broach the subject in a somwhat more appropriate forum than the diary entries.What about Messianic Jews, who have accepted Christ as the Messiah.
...and there goes another can of worms
I'll have to find it because I think I wrote it down somewhere.
oh man.... i can't believe this...I AGREE WITH DAVID DUKE'S LATEST RANT!
DAMN!
DAAAAAAMN!
i dont agree with ALLLLL of it...but right-wing christians blindly supporting THE STATE OF ISRAEL because they think it fufills prophecy is a load of dung.
fully supporting israel means supporting christian persocution.
They have a name for Jews for Jesus. It's called Christians. It kind of defeats the purpose of waiting for the Messianic Age (the Olam Ha-Ba, or the World to Come)(remember - the Messiah to the Jews isn't going to come twice) if this IS the Messianic Age, and boy is that a depressing thought. The Messianic Age is supposed to be good and beautiful and full of knowledge, enlightenment, and the joy in and love of God. But I guess Jews for Jesus are basically Christians who follow Jewish Law.Peter, what's dispensational eschatology? I'm showing my ignorance here, but I love a good theology discussion, so I'd like to know what that means.
I'd be happy to post about this, but I need to discuss it with William and brush up on it before I try to talk about it. But roughtly, eschatology is a belief's ology regarding the "eschaton," that is, the end times. So it's "end of the world beliefs." And dispensationalism is a particular theology -- a means for interpreting scripture and understading the events that unfold from the beginning of our time until the end. While all theologies provide, or attempt to provide, some answers to these "big questions," dispensationalism is more systemic in that it puts forth a particular and specific understanding of the way things are, as opposed to a theology that just equips you for say, reading and interpreting scriptures generally. Dispensationalism is very popular in America although not very popular (or traditionally accepted) elsewhere. Because of that, dispensational interpretation is often how people in America think about "the end times," even though it is not the traditionally accepted interpretation. I think this is especially true in the protestant church, and more popular the more "conservative" a community is. Anyway, more info on this after some pondering.
--- see Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace for beauty on a tennis court. god i love that book.
I have always wanted to see eschaton in action!
Real Live Preacher
Pedro, you find the best stuff! After reading, it sparks a question. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on: religion and laughter, specifically in "controversial" films, like Life of Brian, Last Temptation of Christ, or Dogma.What do you all think about laughter and poking fun at religion, people going too far, etc.
Hilarious!
Admittedly, pedro, last temptation isn't a funny movie, but the other two are, and i wasn't completely awake when i wrote the post. But back to the topic, is religion too sacred to reinvestigate through humor and/or Scorcese.
And yes, I certainly intend those "" marks to bew weighty and meaningful...
Seriously though, I think that we need to investigate all aspect of Christ through all aspects of humanity, including humor. I am currently in a theological funk where I am examining Christ's humanness as much as possible (not to the point of denying the divinity). I am highly in love with Andrew Lloyd Webber's Jesus Christ Superstar right now (though I am not an ALW fan generally... well, I like Evita...) and just saw Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat which I liked almost as well... It fascinates me, especially after reading Diamant's The Red Tent recently... One of my pet projects right now is a novel about Jesus- which is probably why I currently find all of this so fascinating... (not really a novel as I have only written 5 pages and will probably never finish it as is my wont with such projects)...
BUT, to answer the questions. Yes, let's please laugh at religion in our attempts to understand it. The clergy and organized church especially deserve much of what they get. But, let's not use humor to avoid truth-seeking....
humor can bring many things a fresh breath. taking something too seriously all the time is not good. if we can't laugh about God (and sometimes with God) then what kind of existence is that?
... the problem with taking some of this too far is it assumes that "as long as it's humorous, it's ok to be sacreligious." Or, "as long as it's humorous, it's ok to be blasphemous." I definitely think there is a difference between the two... and I also think that humor alone is not necessarily a justification to cross those lines, assuming you believe they are lines that can be crossed.The problem I see in that line of thinking is that you either have to accept it all of it, none of it, or constantly be playing the quantifying game of "is the message or purpose or truth contained in this sacrilege or blasphemy worth it's existence?"
I guess sometimes I think it is worth it. Obviously a rather tame example that could clearly be very meaningful or powerful might be someone cursing God in a movie. But the spectrum goes a very long way in the other direction, and I am one of those people who tends to think that often when we feel we're being very edgy or clever in doing those things, or that our edginess or cleverness somehow adds to the legitimacy of the statement, we're really not accomplishing much good.
I don't say that to promote censorship or anything... but for me anyway, as a person or an artist, I hope I would never flippantly do something like that.
in the "daily announcements" for monday.GOD IS NOT RELIGIOUS...SO WHY ARE YOU? Bill Cavanaugh, professor of religion at the University of St. Thomas, will explore this and other questions at a lecture TODAY entitled "God is not Religious: How religion showed God the door." Join us in Isaacson chapel from 12:30-1:30 this afternoon for another perspective on our campus theme.
i think i might go and check this dude out.
Growing up Catholic Charismatic (and AG and non-denom), I always maintained that denominations and religion directly conflict with Christianity. It's putting God in a box, and He don't fit.
...that "religion" has a place in helping people worship and become more than they are, the same way that habits and rules can help a disorganized person become more organized... but habits and rules are not the same thing as truly being an organized person, nor can they truly substitute for it.Religion has become such a pejorative word recently, it's difficult to talk about without really knowing what people are and aren't categorizing as "religion." Is genuflecting religion, but the Eucharist is beyond mere "religion"? Is saying the Lord's Prayer religion, or is any kind of conception of prayer "religion"? (Obviously I'm asking these questions from within Christianity.) What things fall into the sphere of Truth or the compellingness of truth, and what things fall into the sphere of "mere religion"?
Religion to me has always been about the habits, traditions, customs, and yes, rules that exist in the various Christian denominations. Getting back to the simplicity and integrity of the early church has been very important to me. Regrading Eucharist, I think it can be either, depeding on the environment and the spirit of worship and brotherhood that exists. I think it really boils down to what you said, pedro, that rules can't really substitute for a relationship.
I think it's funny that no one wants to say that they're religious because of all the stereo-types attached, but that people are willing to say that they consider themselves spiritual. I think that's lame. If you regularly participate in religious services, you are religious. Maybe you don't support the Christian Coalition or the Zionist Movement or an impending jihad, but you're religious... When someone tells me that they consider him/herself to be a spiritual person, it makes me want to slap them and say, "Good for you! People who worship rocks and smoke a lot of weed consider themselves spiritual." But, I usually don't slap them, I just smirk a little and think small thoughts inside my head (thus proving, that I am one judgemental religious soul in need of redemption).
In my days as a church photographer, I certainly met a large number of people who would fit into your definition of religious, ("regularly participate in religious services") yet were not at all spiritual. In fact, I doubt most of them could even be anything at all close to Christian, considering the way they treated others. Sure, they attended their church every Sunday, but that didn't stop them from, like, beating their kids, yelling at their wives, etc. etc.
I think it's easier to be religious in our culture than it is to be spiritual. When someone says that they are spiritual, that tells me that they've spent some time thinking about it. If someone tells me that they are religious, that tells me that they participate in some form of organized religion, which they may or may not actually think about. It's easy to do things out of habit.
And I also don't blame people who shy away from saying that they are religious. I've seen horrible things happen in churches. Not to mention all the wars waged in the name of religion, etc.
On the other hand, I've met many a person who is both religious and spiritual. Some of the people I met when I was a church photographer were true Christians. But, they would have been good people even if they were not religious, because they were just nice, honest, kind, caring people.
I have to say that many churchgoers I have known over the years appear (superficially at least) to treat religion as more of a social organisation than a spiritual exercise. Those that spend more than the requisite 1 hour/week tend to be nice people (especially those that go on retreats etc.). I do know genuinely nice people who appear not to participate in any religious activities but the ones I have talked to on that subject have basically been pushed away from religion by the negative effects elise describes - especially the obvious hypocrisy in not practicing what is preached. One thing that is very clear is that the nice, spiritual, religious people can be from pretty much any religion. No religious group has the monopoly on niceness (no matter what tele-evangelists etc. would have us believe).
i would like to take this opportunity to invite all chicago area people to north park theatre's production of THE DIVINERS. (first two weekends in april.) it looks like its going to be a really good play, and adresses a lot of the issues of religion vs. spirituality, and especially the concept of what it truly means to "serve god."it is set in a small town in indiana during the depression.
i play a teenage boy with the intellect and innocence of a 4 year old who is deathly afraid of water.
it is a beautifully written play and i have very expectations for the production we're doing.
so... there.
I think I've been misunderstood... I will give this some more thought so I can re-try to express my thoughts on the spiritual v. religious topic. I will post again soon.
I don't think I misunderstood you, although I think some of what you said could definitely be offensive to some folks -- but what I took away from what you said is sort of what I refer to as the "personals factor" -- which is when people in personals say, "I'm spiritual but not religious." Which could mean a lot of different things obviously, but from a pessimistic standpoint might mean, "I have some kind of conception of something other than the material world, but don't worry, it won't get in the way of our relationship" or something. I guess I saw your and elise's posts as two sides of the same coin.
it seems like the distinction that people make between spiritual and religious stems from the sweeping sentiment against 'organized religion'. that's some people's bag. but not mine. but to say you're spiritual, but not religious, i guess i dont' understand it, really. i mean, ok, some people want to distance themselves from the institution of the church, and don't want to be associated with some of the crap they perceive as coming from that. but what im really hearing many times is 'i sorta believe, but i don't want to commit to a church life, and don't want to actually have to tell people i go to church.' which ends up being a cop-out in the long run. also, sometimes the distinction means 'i believe in my own thing, and there aren't really any established churches to worship together with other believers, because we don't believe that community is a value in our faith. so im not into "religion" because that means going to church, and serving traditionalism and other activities i don't understand.'
...is not entirely bad. I mean, it's defintely understandable that someone might come to a place where they "believe their own thing" but there isn't really a "church" or organized religion for it... but yeah, I think often times "spiritual but not religious" comes across and sounding like "I smoke, but I'm not addicted." or something.It's also easy to bandy back and forth about what "spiritual but not religious" means -- but ultimately it comes down to the individual person using the phrase, and not the phrase itself as meaning any one particular thing.
If you ended up cross-linking punk parfait and Theology Fried Rice do you think anyone would notice?
Deja vu!
I definitely agree with most of what's been said here, especially pedro pointing out that blvdgirl and elise had two sides of the same coin. I sometimes mix it up a little and say that I'm Christian, but not relgious...that really throws people for a loop. But sometimes that opens a really great discussion.And speaking of that, I find it very refreshing to have an honest discussion about religion and faith without the pressure or need for prosleytizing (I'm sure I butchered the spelling).
Anyway, I was very pleased with myself that I went to Mass today; the first time I'm I've actually gone to church in months. I'm thinking very seriously about doing some fasting for Lent and really get myself back to where I need to be. And that brings up another great topic: Lent and Easter. I'm going to let someone else come up with something good to say.
i saw this guy speak at college life tonite. he wrote a book called "the gospel according to the simpsons." i thought it kind of funny that it was the first college life i'd been to all year, i had to miss a new epsiode of the simpsons to go, and that our featured speaker was a liberal-democrat-jewish man.
Is that possible? Aren't believers in the Christian tradition told that they are part fo a body of believers with whom that should find fellowship? And without whom the work of the kingdom will not be accomplished, for each person only plays a minor part compared to the whole?
Yes, the church is screwed up, and, yes, religion has (deservedly) a bad rap. But, doesn't that obligate a believer to action rather than inaction? Action to fix what is broken- to try to restore/prepare the Bride of Christ.
There is a whole house church movement that is trying to break out of the institutionalized religious establishment. So in a sense, they are practicing Christianity without the trappings of the what they might call 'civil' religion. The most general definition of religion, however, is the outward expression of spirituality (I'm writing this off the cuff, so you philsophy theology buffs please correct me). So even fellowship with other believers is in some sense a religious practice. The issue is that the world religion entails much more than simple practice of faith. It includes civil, political, and even spiritual connotations that are not always flattering.
The members of a house church movement would still be a "body" even if there were no formal, more "temporal" trappings.
I think that's one of the key points of the movement, i.e. focusing on and really growing a group of believers as a "body" in a setting where every person can be a full participant. But then again, I haven't read much about the movement, but there's bunch of websites out there with writings and such.
that I choose to be in an environment based on the worship and fellowship and the presence of God rather than what the denomination is, seeing as how I've felt at home in pretty much any type of church I've been in.
my ideas of spirituality and religion are that spirituality is more associated with seeking, being open to what one may find, and in some sense creating based on questions without answers. religion would be more closely linked to finding, wanting answers sometimes without needing the questions. being spiritual would be something you wouldn't necessarily be able to explain verbally to someone else, while religion would almost demand it, somehow.spirituality might indicate that one is in touch with something larger than what is right in front of them, that they meditate, observe, pray or experience, but not necessarily with any expectations and not to any one deity or to anything specific.
where religion may have a more structured existence depending on what religion one practices.
i definitely think you can have one without the other, both together or neither and that neither is always a cop-out or excuse. they simply serve different purposes and fulfill different needs or parts of human life.
but those are just my thoughts and i don't expect anyone to share them.
Really.
Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, C.S. Lewis imagined the following exchange between a member of heaven's welcoming committee and an unrepentant theologian:"...I will bring you to the land not of questions but of answers, and you shall see the face of God. "
"Ah, but we must all interpret those beautiful words in our own way! For me there is no such thing as a final answer. The free wind of inquiry must always continue to blow through the mind, must it not? 'Prove all things'...to travel hopefully is better than to arrive."
"If that were true, and known to be true, how could anyone travel hopefully? There would be nothing to hope for."
"But you must feel yourself that there is something stifling about the idea of finality? Stagnation, my dear boy, what is more soul-destroying than stagnation?"
"You think that, because hitherto you have experienced truth only with the abstract intellect. I will bring you where you can taste it like honey and be embraced by it as by a bridegroom. Your thirst shall be quenched."
"Well, really, you know, I am not aware of a thirst for some ready-made truth which puts an end to intellectual activity in the way you seem to be describing. Will it leave me the free play of mind, Dick? I must insist on that, you know."
"Free, as a man is free to drink while he is drinking. He is not free still to be dry." The Ghost seemed to think for a moment. "I can make nothing of that idea," it said.
"Listen!" said the White Spirit. "Once you were a child. Once you knew what inquiry was for. There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers, and were glad when you had found them. Become that child again: even now."
"Ah, but when I became a man I put away childish things."
"You have gone far wrong. Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth. What you now call the free play of inquiry has neither more nor less to do with the ends for which intelligence was given than masturbation has to do with marriage."
C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
who are you, filosofer? anyway, i really like this line from above: "You think that, because hitherto you have experienced truth only with the abstract intellect. I will bring you where you can taste it like honey and be embraced by it as by a bridegroom. Your thirst shall be quenched."
Who am I, indeed? I am the shadow that appears when the moonlight is just right. I am the last glowing ember in a dying fire. I am... Oh, forget it. I'm an old friend (i.e. since sixth grade) of andronicus. I'm also in my last semester in the M.A. in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics program at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in La Mirada, CA, so I have a lot of interest in philosophy, theology, philosophical theology, and theological philosophy.
welcome to the diner. you should feel right at home.
graduated from biola university.
I love The Great Divorce... in fact, I can't think of a work of Lewis' fiction that I don't like...maybe The Dark Tower but that is just because it is so creepy and unfinished. If it had an ending, I would probably not ming the creepiness so much.
i read the unfinished Dark Tower and i was so pissed that it wasn't finished. it had the coolest premise for time travel i had ever seen in a s.f. novel to date. i mean, the idea wasn't completely fleshed out, but the beginnings of it were seriously blowing my mind. in fact, i decided that, when i get to heaven, im having a pint with Lewis, and Luther. and im gonna ask Lewis what happens next in the Dark Tower.
I never read The Dark Tower. I love the Narnia books, and I can't wait to read them to my kids. Like blvdgirl, I have a hard time thinking of a Lewis novel--or anything, for that matter--that I don't like. A few of his books made zero sense to me when I first tried to read them, but a second glance at most of them has been well worth the effort. (I'm thinking especially of his Pilgrim's Regress, which, frankly, is a far more enjoyable read than Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress; it includes one of my very favorite passages in all literature: "...Reason set spurs in her stallion and it leaped up on to the giant's mossy knees and galloped up his foreleg, till she plunged her sword into his heart. Then there was a noise and a crumbling like a landslide and the huge carcass settled down: and the Spirit of the Age became what it had seemed to be at first, a sprawling hummock of rock.") The Space Trilogy is also quite good, though That Hideous Strength, while perhaps the best of the three books, isn't really science fiction. And Till We Have Faces is a marvelous work (supposedly, Lewis thought it was his very best). The Great Divorce, however, is my personal favorite. I was about ready to quit the whole Christian thing about five years ago, and reading that book did more to get me back into the fold than any other single event. I've read it at least once a year every year since then.Anyway, the real question is why anyone would want to have a pint with Luther when you could be hanging out with Chesterton instead.
oh, i have a fond place in my heart for 'A Mighty Fortress Is Our God', which he penned the lyrics to (if not the tune. it is up for debate whether he just ripped off a local drinking song. which would have been appropriate.) he didn't take shit, that's why i respect him. so i figure a pint with a good old monk who enjoyed his ale would be a good way to start things off. i have eternity to drink with Chesterton. sadly, i've never read his works. i have less than an eternity to remedy that.
i believe its a flaw in any church organization... or at best, it should only be a last resort. organizations like churches should engage in dialogue with "problem" people, not kick them out. i know some people wiill never come around to your side of things... but excommunication is an embarrasment. my father has been a pastor for almost twenty years and has never had to "ask a member to leave," though he may have been tempted sometimes. kevin smith got excommunicated from the catholic church for DOGMA. i mean, he shouldn't be named a saint or anything, but i think it was a great peice of art that the catholic church should have taken a good look at.um, i forgot what i was trying to say....
Yeah. I agree with what you're saying Grady, although I also assume taht sometimes dialogue has been tried, but failed.Was Kevin Smith actually excommunicated? Do you have a link for that? Despite the rumors, the Roman Catholic church is actually pretty slow to excommunicate someone.
...i could be mistaken on that point... but i could have sworn i read it somehere official...i'll get back to you on that.
david koresh was "asked to leave" his church 'cause he bagged the preacher's daughter.
Do you beleive in the possibility of life on other planets? I have heard some Christians say absolutely not, God gave life only to this world, and others say that that point of view is silly, because God may have other planets he included in the Creation of life.What're your thoughts?
I'm really not sure what I think about it -- I mean, I could go either way. But I'm not sure Christianity necessarily has anything specific to say about life on other planets (or even other "universes"). Clearly "traditional" Christianity believes that Christ's self-sacrifice is necessary for the forgiveness of sin on Earth, but I'm not sure that the Bible says that there weren't other worlds where there was no sin, or that if there was, redemtion didn't happen in another way. Obviously some more open Christian theologies are not as strict about whether you need to even accept or believe in Christ for forgiveness, whether hell exists, etc., so I think for them the idea of life on other planets isn't as significantly affected by the "forgiveness" issue.An interesting question in my mind (as ridiculous as this may sound to others... or even myself), if an alien landed here on Earth, what would their concept of sin be, and would they also need to "be saved," so to speak? I would be keenly interested to hear about his/her own planet and their concept of "sin" and any kind of salvation history. My feeling is that Christ's sacrifice is much bigger than most of us realize, so if an alien was open to the idea of God and sought forgiveness, I'd think that Christ's action would probably cover him/her, as well.
I guess for me, it would not shake my faith to learn conclusively that there is life on other planets (or say, to learn that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa) -- but it's also important for me, faithwise, to understand that at the present moment, my life should be focused on those around me, and as far as I know, God's work in his people and creation is right here.
Dex, have you read C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy? It has some interesting thigns to say on these subjects.
He used to brag at the local pub that he could drink all ten Commandements, you see they had a huge stein that they used to drink out of, and it had the ten commandments written on the inside, and he could drink it all down in one breath, while most men could only get to the 5 or 6 commandment.
i do not have any thoughts on life on other planets. if there is, that's cool. i wonder wht it's like. if there isn't, there is still plenty of things to concern myself with here on Earth. I'm sure if the Lord created a species that had a soul and the capacity for sin, he would offer them a plan for salvation as well. Imagine handing out Tracts on Mars...
There is an idea in theology that all creation fell with the fall of man precisely because creation was placed under the dominion of prelapsarian man. Once sin was introduced and rebellion entered, creation itself became antagonistic and disordered. Paul somewhere in a letter to somebody states that all creation groans for the final redemption or the revealing of the heirs of redemption (I don't recall which it was). Francis Assi himself preached to every creature including birds, but this was largely because none of his own would listen to him, so it seems more in line with an act of a prophet than an extension of theology.
wrote a book called "the jews and their lies" so i'm going to have to disagree with you there bagginsmoving on, god created everything in the universe, otherwise creation would be a pointless concept so going on that i think that if "he" (quotes are for sarcasm) took the time (yeah, six days, shutup) to create the universe, i think that he could've taken the time to spread life around somewhere else too. this all plays into my theory on the value of life:
life without God is worthless
solitary life (in this universe) is worthless (my opinion)unfortunately, we don't know if there's a god, and we don't know if there's anything else outthere, so i'm just left without knowing one way or the other.
I talked with my friend Maria last night- she's the one that nagged me to read The DaVinci Code. Anyway, one of the major premises of the book was the belief that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that they had children and that the Church had been involved in this huge coverup for centuries. My question to her, and to all of you, is what if that were true? What implications would that have? How would that effect your faith?
It makes me ask more questions... did Jesus still ascend into heaven? Do the people who subscribe to that theory think that Jesus was the son of God? Or do they think that he was just a man? Was he still sinless? (Not that marriage is a sin, but what else goes along with the belief?)The idea that Jesus had children and then left them (and Mary) to ascend into heaven seems a little un Jesus-like. What about his children? Did he abandon them? Does Jesus have offspring on Earth? If so, are they 1/64th divine? Likewise, the notion that the church is the bride of Christ is sort of shattered by the idea that Mary Magdalene was actually Christ's bride. Also, if he didn't ascend, but stuck around, what happened to him? Why did the Apostles lead the early church (with Paul)... or didn't they?
If Christ had sinned, or was not truly human and divine, or did not ascend into heaven (but lived and presumably died on earth) sort of throws the whole "spotless lamb of God returning in glory" thing askew. Those questions are specifically what I would want to know first, and then ask how people who support the marriage story reconcile the marriage and those questions.
My immediate impression (i've heard of this theory before) has been that the theory is tied to the modern "humanizing" of Christ (sometimes discussed under the often legitimate banner of the search for the "historical Jesus") and our fascination with romance and affairs. It's a very National Enquirer story.
I don't doubt that Christ was tempted to abandon his mission -- and if Satan could try to tempt him with the riches of the world, I can see that his own humanity and desire for a normal life might lead him to be tempted to just live a human life, and not "live up to his potential," to put it in very modern terms. Or outside of the whole "temptation" metaphor, I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea that maybe Jesus had romantic feelings ("Love?") for Mary and, maybe Mary Magdalene was very much in love with Jesus. That isn't particularly threatening or shocking to my faith. (A guy just shouted "Mary!" out my window... that was weird.)
I just don't understand how it fits into our understanding of who Christ is and what he did. At first, I think, "what's the big deal if he was married?" But the more I think about it and the other things that impacts, the idea of his marriage seems to get in the way what we understand to have been the bigger issues of Christ's mission, which of course forces the question "Is the church pressing a concept of Jesus that is wrong? Or is the Jesus/Mary marriage story wrong?"
If the church has "covered it up," what does that say about Jesus? Part of what keeps me faithful is having seen how God has been faithful to me and others, or in seeing the truth of the Gospel. There's a real big skeptic in me and there are times when I think that all religious people are deluded and wasting their time. But then I see how true the Gospel and the Bible has been in my life, and I can't ignore that, even if it does take faith to believe.
If the marriage story is in conflict with that, what I have then is a faith reinforced by experience versus an apocryphal story that appears to challenge things central to that faith, and so I can't take the story very seriously.
I'd be interested to read more about it, and maybe have some of those questions answered, however. It's not that I don't think the church has it's secrets... it's just that this is a little too incongruous for me.
ANyway, that's my $2.
link...I assume this is what lukas was talking about.
Here's one from a newspaper.
that's the one
Tribune Investigation
should there be a separate entree for the church or christianity versus one for theology? hah.Anyway, this is a great article.
mother teresa beatified
So tonight Anna decided to ask me a bunch of questions about God. "Where does God live?" "Where is God? (meaning now)" "Why can't I say oh my god? Will it hurt God? Will it kill God?" "What is God?" "Is God happy?"And you know, I actually didn't know what to say to some of those! I muddled through it as best I could but I didn't think I'd be confronted with these questions before the kid even turned three years old! I know we're of different faiths, but God is God and I'm sure some of the insights are the same. What would you answer not-quite-three-year-olds to those questions?
Enlist your rabbi, posthaste.
in soup or survey where pedro redirected this.but i'm not going to because i already started here.
i don't know the first damn thing about raising kids.
so here's the least informed opinion you'll yield: i think what i'd tell her is that there are some things that we just don't really know for sure and won't ever know. and depending on what kind of background you wanted to give it, you could say that is kind of what people mean when they say faith.
i'd also encourage her to keep asking questions that she has because that's more important than actually figuring out what the answer are.
or i might give the following responses:
where does god live?: in the red house down the street. and i hear he gives out candy to kids that knock on his door.
where is god right now?: i think he might be taking a bath.
why can't i say 'oh my god'?: either 1. because i say so [always a classic] or 2. you can. in fact, you just did. so now you have to go to your room.
what is god?: it's kind of like a really ripe, sweet plum with a bite out of it.
is god happy?: let's check his emoticon and find out.
i always believed that kids are closer to truth than adults. In this case as presented by dex, my personal view is that her child is an angel sent by the holy spirit to question authentically about the mother's faith, and through her mother, the father's stand on religion. A divided house attracts angels and satan.
I think it's a *reaffirmation* of my decision. It does question it, and finds it intact, thankfully. My house is not as divided as you think. It's hard to explain what I think to her, in terms she can understand. Inkblot had some good ideas. And yesterday I had her make up her own prayer for the first time - now THAT was cute. "Dear God. Bless my mommy, and my daddy, and my sister, and my Aunt Katie, and everybody in the world, and please let me go swimming in my sleep. Thank you!"barefoot - oh yes. Questions are good. And... check his emoticon! Hah!
Lieutenant - we're going to start taking her to weekly shabbos services. We'd only been going once a month to the kid's service, but we're going to take them every Friday - on the weeks they have tot shabbat we'll do that, but on the others we'll just take her to the other service. Maybe it'll help. I think it will help that she starts preschool at the temple in September.
hope that she isn't satisfied with your answers...
now that i think about it.What I mean is, I hope she continues to always ask questions like that and continues to wonder about the Big Stuff, like God and the Universe... and I'm sure you and Jay will teach her (and Julia and the rest of the forthcoming brood...) well. Taking her to services is a good idea.
So here's a random question for all you religious types: do you find Tarot offensive?
not really. I find it rather silly is all...
silly was my first reaction too, but i never want to underestimate satan's ability to participate in that sort of "magic" if the door is opened
but i don't take offense at it. i think it's sort of interesting, but have never learned anything about it.
I see. It's just that I was reading a little bit about its history and there's more than a few self-proclaimed "black magicians" involved and, well, I just wondered.I personally recommend it. It's great fun reading what your card means and then trying to bend that around so it fits what you wanted to do anyway. Keeps the imagination well oiled :)
it's sort of like your horoscope or something.
For me, "silly" wouldn't come to mind at all.I know that for people of different faiths, or even for other Christians, it might seem odd to try to "listen to God's leading" (a form of supernatural determination) but then reject tarot or horoscopes or other forms of determining your future or direction. It is my belief (based mostly on certain scripture passages) that God chooses to communicate his will in other ways and asks the faithful to abstain from other forms of divination like tarot, ouija, horoscopes, etc., because (my belief) he chose other ways to communicate -- scripture, conscience, the holy spirit, angels, etc. I feel like the ways that God has chosen to communicate are more direct and unencumbered by ritual, mediums, or objects or (generally) natural phenomena (chance, weather, planets).
I think that people more naturally gravitate towards things we can touch and feel and see (or know, like the position of planets) and we are wired to derive meaning from our surroundings, and so those ways are compelling to us ("Why shouldn't the planets control us?"), not to mention the apparent legitimacy indicated by the truly supernatural that one may experience with a ouija board or a medium. Others feel like things like ouija, astrology, or tarot are an outward expression of our subconsious thoughts and desires and so are legitimate if you believe in them and participate, although not supernatural. Many people (even some faithful) feel like this is precisely true about religion in general.
For myself, I believe that divination and fortune telling can be very real, although I think there are many charlatans out there. I also think that some people may simply even have prophetic power which can be used in a righteous or unrighteous manner (you decide what that means!).
But I also believe in the demonic, or a sentient evil power, and as odd as this may sound, I believe that demons can influence people through deceit and abusing the trust of those who open themselves up to the occult, whether they be the mediums, or the participants. This can be powerful because people enjoy the results of the activities -- power and money for mediums, sense, certainty, and order for participants -- but I do not believe that demons have any long term benevolent agenda, so that even if divination seems to be positive in the time being, I do not think that it has a long-term positive effect for the participants.
I'm only trying to answer this as accurately and honestly as I can about my own beliefs -- I don't expect anyone else to agree, and I don't want to judge others for their beliefs or actions, either.
Anyway, I'm not sure if you were asking this in a roundabout way, but I welcome your continued postings about tarot if you want to keep posting about it, gary. My policy with the diner is honesty with respect, and if that's honest for you gary, and we can all be respectful, then it's good for the diner. A very interesting issue, nonetheless.
When I worked at the new age bookstore we sold tons of Tarot decks. They were non-returnable if removed from their shrink-wrap b/c the buyer's "energy" would have contaminated them. I was truly curious about this belief so I asked some knowledgeable staff about it. I asked if there was a ritual for "purifying" a deck before it's shrink-wrapped. Someone said sarcastically "yeah, a priest blesses them". I remember thinking to myself that it was pretty interesting that one could find the notion of someone's energy contaminating a deck of cards perfectly reasonable, while the idea of someone blessing the deck to be ridiculous.
lol :)
Tom, I would start with wikipedia article on mormonism.Also, beliefs and practices.
I think the fundamental reason is that they have quite a lot of beliefs which are unique to the LDS church and are in disagreement with most of the rest of Christianity. I think central to that disagreement is that the rest of the church considers Joseph Smith to be a "false prophet" while the LDS church sees him as the beginning of the restoration of the true church.
Along with that, much of LDS theology isn't just more liberal or more conservative than some other theology -- it's very different. Some of these beliefs touch on fairly central issues like the identity of Christ, the meaning of his death, our place in the created order, etc. that most Christians (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) don't fundamentally disagree on. By the same token, I think it's also important to note that as I understand it, LDS people think the rest of Christianity is "wrong" too.
I guess what I'm saying is that I think the answer to your question "why are Mormons wrong?" is that Mormonism and the rest of Christianity have some meaningful incompatibilities.
My reasons for the mormon church being wrong are mainly racism, sexism, greed and hypocracy. Beyond that, most LDS folks are quite nice.
That's funny! Although people could say that about other flavors of Christianity too :)
Because they believe they'll populate other planets and be to them as Christ is to Earth. Or so I've heard.
Orson Scott Card, one of my favorite authors, is LDS. I think some of you have read his books. Most of his work is science fiction. some of it draws heavily from Mormon Doctrine, and some doesn't really at all. His HOMECOMING series is essentially as insectaturk said - a family leaving their homeland, travelling across their planet to 'hidden' spaceships, and travelling to and populating other planets and working with the native creatures there to spread their enlightened ways of thinking and behaving. great series - as far as fiction goes.
OSC is exactly who I had in mind.
I'm not really asking why they're "wrong", but more along the lines of what are the excuses that are used to say that they are wrong. I don't personally think that the LDS church is any more wrong or right than most other churches (yep, I said it, most.). Anyway, I'm just wondering cause I've got this friend in that church and I'd like to hear what she has to say about it.
Racism, sexism, greed and hypocracy are unfortunate parts of a lot of major religions, but no one from other major religions comes knocking on my door every weekend. I also find the LDS church to be a little more of the above than most other forms of Judaism/Christianity. Also, who are they trying to fool saying things like "Oh My Heck" and "Flippin' Fetch". I could never believe in a God that would fall for fake swearing. Never mind the magic underwear.
This is an interesting discussion. I don't really get the whole Joseph Smith thing. Didn't an angel lead him to these burried texts that he translated into the Book of Mormon? Like in the early 1800s? And wasn't that in North America somewhere? And don't most members of The Church of Latter Day Saints describe themselves as Christians?That was my cousin's biggest concern about The LDS church when we were talking about their doctrine. She kept saying, "they're so misled, they're so mislead. They think they are Christians, but they aren't." I'm afraid for them." This makes my cousin sound like a goof, but she's actually very intelligent and well-read. I just don't understand why they are so "misled?" Does anyone know what makes them non-Christians?
Why are they misled? I don't even understand how one can say they're Christain, and NOT be, isn't it pretty straightforward?
First off, I must include a little disclaimer. I am no way an expert on the LDS Church and some of my information may be wrong. That said, here are my reasons for thinking that mormonism is messed up.
Joseph Smith had a least two "visions" that led to his finding some sacred texts on golden tablets and establishing the LDS church. No one else could read the texts, and I actually think that they had to remain hidden until blankets while he read them. Anyway, prior to his revelations, Joe Smith was a swindler who speculated other people's fortunes in pursuit of gold. He was run out of the east as a criminal before heading west where, for most of his life, he was also considered a criminal.
Other than my not finding Smith a reliable source, the doctrines of the LDS Church are incredibly flexible because their religious inspiration comes from the Book of Mormon, another book that they consider sacred (of which the name currently escapes me), and their oracles (the head honchos of the church)--and in instances where the texts disagree with the oracles, it is assumed that the oracles are correct which makes it very different from the Judeo-Christian tradition which emphasizes the opposite (that Scripture is sacred and its the people who are fallible). As far as their doctrines go, they believe that God was a spirit that evolved somewhere else and that all enlightened males can achieve godhead. They believe in the duality of good and evil. They don't believe in hell, but they do believe in multiple levels of heaven and a sort of holding pen/limbo for unbelievers. They believe that current believers can be baptised for the dead and other unbelievers. They believe that women are only saved through wiving and mothering, and insist on the interesting paradox that taking multiple wives is both sacred and condemned by the Church... Oh, and they wear special underwear....
Mormons believe that Jesus lived, walked on the earth, died, and was resurrected from the dead. However, according to their doctrine, his death and resurrection is not required for the forgiveness of sins, but rather, was only necessary as the first resurrection. Since Christ sacrificed himself and returned to life, all the other spirits on earth can now do the same. This is distinct from the Christian understanding of Christ's defeat of sin and death so that believers can be reconciled with a perfect God. When Christians accept Christ, they accept their own smallness and his Lordship--mormons aspire to their own Lordship...
the angel Moroni showed Mr. Smith where to find the Nephi Plates, which he translated and, is now known as the BOok of Mormon. It was in 1823 when this happened and, it was in Palmyra, New York state. They do consider themselves Christians. They believe that the LDS church is restoring and continuing the true church that Christ set up.From the responses i have gotten from some of my friends, apparently the Scriptures were "closed" in the book of revelation (still looking for a reference), So supposedly it can't be added to anymore (God can't change his mind?). anyway, The LDS church has added to it, three books of scripture. They also claim to be restoring the church as Jesus set it up, with apostles and all that good stuff. I have also been told that they believe they will ascend by "works" more than by "faith", but I have not seen evidence to support this.
The evangelical take on it (as far as I understand it) is that since the scriptures were closed, Joseph Smith must be a false prophet. The Nephi Plates, which were translated into the Book of Mormon ascended into heaven, and since we "convieniently" don't have them anymore, the book or mormon can't be true (there is some discussion to be had about the simliarity between The Book of Mormon and another text that was written around the same time, but I have not looked into this). Anyway, I feel like i'm rambling now. SO i'm going to stop writing. Did that make any sense? That just what I feel I understand about the whole situation.
I don't know if they're misled or not. I don't know if I'm misled or not but I think it's ignorance to say that any one church is better or worse than any other.
was 15 when and angel first appeared to him, and 18 when the location of the plates was revealed to him.....The reason he came about this situation was that during this time many people were finding religion, his mother and father wanted to join different churches. He prayed about it. Then, apparently, angels started appearing before him.
Of course, this could be like that whole "virgin mary" thing which, as one of my friends puts it; "that's the last time anyone can use that excuse".
The three books of scripture that the LDS churhc uses in addition to the Bible are: The book of Morman, The Doctrines and Covenants (basically, the revelations given through Smith) and, The Pearl of great price (translations of the Books of MOses and Abraham).
Maybe I'm just an ignorant, self-righteous hypocrite, but at some point, if you are going to subscribe to any faith, you are going to have to say that one "church" is better or worse than another.... Christianity, as I understand it, doesn't really allow relativism.
I have read that LDS followers do indeed rely more on good works/acts as a vehicle to salvation. In my opinion, that is probably the most noble route to salvation that I've ever heard. It's too bad that not EVERY denomination of Christianity exude acceptance/'good works' (I think all Christian doctrine, that I know of, emphasizes this, but obviously, as we see portrayed in the mass media on an almost daily basis, it's not implemented). A lot of Christain organizations today seem to exist more as judgemental vehicles than Missionary/Good Works oulets.I don't know, getting into these kinds of discussions is a no-win. Everything Blvdgirl said is pretty much exactly what I've heard (except for the part about underwear (?), that was news to me), including the belief that Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection is not required for the forgiveness of sins.
I really do fancy myself a non-judgemental person, but I can't help but feel (almost instinctively) distressed by hearing some of this stuff...
I think this is why: To me (and Lord knows I'm not the smartest person in the world so my interpretation of this may be wrong), it seems that the entire LDS church was literally constructed from a kind of corrupted form of Christianity. I think that's why it's so easy for (me) to become so quickly disturbed by some of their doctrine.
Judiasm, Islam, etc., is easier to accept/understand because they are completely different and it's easy to embrace differences in beliefs (for me). In this instance, my personal beliefs are contorted to fit some very different ideas of what it means to be "Christain." I guess this is why it's so easy for a lot of us to be almost insulted (for lack of a better word) when we discuss the LDS church.
Of course I'm nobody to judge and therefore am really trying not to. I DO respect other belief systems, and it's interesting to learn more about them in this forum.
Thanks to both blvdgirl and neo and everyone else for extending my knowledge.
Sorry, my comments, other than about the names of the scriptures were not directed at you. by the time i had finished writing what I had, you had already posted before me. :DI do however disagree with you, I think it's very possible to not say that one church is better than another, just that "your" church makes more sense to you. I think the most important thing is following the Word. As long as you're doing that, how can you go wrong?
after reading some of these posts. freaky! and now I can see the underwear lines on my mormon classmates!
have you been reading mormon-underwear.com?
I never knew about the underwear thing. Just checked it out on wikipedia though. I tend to disagree with religious theories that involve too many weird beliefs. But I have to admit that the tradition of communion, eating the flesh and blood of Jesus, is pretty weird.
Neo, I totally agree with your statement,"I think it's very possible to not say that one church is better than another, just that "your" church makes more sense to you. I think the most important thing is following the Word. As long as you're doing that, how can you go wrong?"
Sorry if my words were taken incorrectly, or sorry if I offended anyone, it's so hard to communicate these kinds of ideas in writing. What I meant was, the history of Christianity as I understand it, personally, and the tradition of it, as I PERSONALLY interpret it, has been kind of "turned upside down," so to speak, in the Mormon Doctrine, and it's something I disagree with, PERSONALLY. Of course the LDS church isn't the only institution to do this to my "personal" views of things, a lot of Christian denominations differ so drastically in their doctrine.
And my personal feelings in no way change the fact that it IS very possible to respect all relgions and beliefs, which I most certainly do.
Chester, lol, good point!
The thing about Mormon underwear is actually really interesting, and I never knew about it before. It's a pretty devout thing to do and I would think that it would be hard to maintain the "habit" 24 hours a day (as it says they try to do on the website).
(sorry, I know that's in somewhat bad taste but I couldn't resist)
Some recommended reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_SaintsAnd the undies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_underwear
Also, you should know that some believe these pieces of clothing will keep them safe. I've even heard the work bulletproof. I wish I were kidding.
My opinion on the LDS church is mostly from personal experience. Although most LDS folks are very pleasant, they also have a passive aggressive and very condescending way of talking to us non-believers. Just the other day I went to the Salt Lake Temple to take pictures (for Toastboy's daughter). I went with a friend who grew up in a fairly LDS family here in Utah. We were both fairly creeped out and annoyed by the time we left.
Regardless of the similarities with any other religion or with any of my own beliefs, I can't respect any major religion that treats women and minorities so poorly. And yes, I can say the same about a lot of religions, and do, but as i said, they don't come to my house and try and convert me. Combine that with their almost fanatical breeding habits and they become a fairly loathed group. Their only redeeming values seem to be having good social systems via the church (unfortunately I believe they are necessary because of the church) and keeping Utah cheaper than Colorado because most of the outside world is still creeped out/afraid of them.
i know very little/nothing about mormonism [unless you count watching the show BIG LOVE, which i recommend], and was intrigued to read what everyone has learned about the practices and basis for the religion.the temple garments are particularly interesting, if for no other reason than the utter sanctity with which they are regarded.
i do feel that it is possible to make a choice between religions and still not believe that one church is better or worse, generally speaking.
also, a movie you all might be interested in, called 'a purple state of mind' will hopefully be gaining distribution soon and opens religious differences with similar discussions. i'll keep you posted on that.
Aside from tokens of respect, affirmation of feelings, and the luxury of indifference, is there anything real at stake with the question of religious truth?
I know what I think is true, and that does mean that I think that some people are wrong. Or to put it in captain's words, I do think there is something real at stake with the question of religious truth. Most religions feel that way and there is an inherent contradiction there.But I also know that we have been given free will by God to decide for ourselves and I respect that many people with whom I disagree (including other Christians) are doing their best to please God according to a religion they were born into or found. I try to treat them with respect not to be relativistic or convey the sense that I don't think our differences are meaningful or extremely important, but because I want to treat them as I would like to be treated.
I'm also reminded of my dad's words: "The way I figure it, there will either be a whole lot more, or a whole lot less people in heaven than I think there will be." Again, this is not an affirmation of relativism (my dad is a pretty conservative dude), but rather of being careful about how we think about and characterize people with whom we disagree.
I don't know many Mormons, but I know a lot of Muslims. I believe they are wrong. I think Jesus is God's Son, not merely a prophet, that he died and was not carried up into heaven without death, and that the Bible has not been distorted. I also don't agree with Islam that we can be good by trying. And I believe the Bible teaches us that there are right and wrong beliefs about God and that these beliefs make an eternal difference.I can't respect wrong beliefs. But my religion (which of course I think is true) teaches me by example to love. It teaches me that all humans are made in God's image, and that if I do not love them it is quite likely I have little love for God (if you do not love your brother whom you have seen, how can you say you love God whom you have not seen--1?John). So what I say and think and do about other people whose beliefs I think are wrong must come from love if I am really practicing my own religion.
I feel similarly about Revelations. Coming from a Midwest impoverished and uneducated Pentecostal background, I have a lot of sermons on the signs of the times in my head, a lot of extra church meetings about what all the symbolism means. I also learned a lot about how to tell who was going to burn and who wasn't. This is not all the fault of the churches I attended; my home life unfortunately made me particularly susceptible to any theology that gave me the stability of certainty (and I am responsible choosing that way of coping. Those churches also taught me a lot of good, sensible things and were a safe haven for me. But my approach now to the wrongness of others' beliefs and to Revelations and to judgment is "How will knowing this this help me love God and other humans in a practical way?" It is good to learn why a belief is wrong so that you don't accidentally start believing it, and good to know why it is wrong so if the chance comes your way, or if you happen to be spiritually gifted in this area, you can explain the truth in love to someone who needs to hear it.
I think most of us agree that there is often little value in finding out the wrongness of someone else's belief just to make fun of it. Sometimes persecuted people or converts need to be allowed to make fun of the beliefs of the people persecuting them or the beliefs out of which they've come but generally it isn't that helpful for us to sit around and say why someone else's belief is stupid and end there.
But I think we shouldn't let the stupidity of that, or the ways we have seen that kind of talking be loveless and harmful, make us too cautious about adhering to our own (if we are Christians reading the plainest interpretation of Biblical passages as truth) understanding that some beliefs are right and some are wrong, and that, as I have already said, these beliefs make an eternal difference.
i think we raised an important question here. how can we choose which the "right" religion is?
I've been knocking this question around in the back of my mind for the last two weeks now. If I'm going to get anywhere with it, I'm going to need a pitcher of beer and someone to argue with.
at some point it has to become subjective, i just dont think theres any way around it...i dont limiting to the abrahamic religions makes it easier either.
we can start the list with churches like the "church of jesus christ christian"
i just don't think the beer and argument thing will work 1800 miles away.i don't think it'd be much of an argument, either. more of me nodding my head and drinking my beer and listening. but that might be just as productive for you.
I thin the basis of the question is a little misguided. I don't think you should be asking for the "right" religion. I think you need to ask yourself whether or not you believe in God, and, if so, who/what that God is. Only then could you begin to consider the idea of worship and what that means...
Blvdgirl, I don't know that the question is so much misguided as it is modern with it's focus on choice and something uncomfortably called "right". Now I wouldn't dare argue the modernity isn't severly misguided, so your point may still be relevant. However, shifting the initial question to 'whether or not I believe in God' doesn't get us any closer to escaping subjectivism, in fact, it risks taking us more deeply into it.And by subjectivism I mean simply a natural or pragmatic religion that answers some questions to our satisfaction and comforts us with hope in the face of life's challenges, irrespective of whether it's objectively true or not. We do this all the time.
The crux of the matter is the latter part, the question of objectivity and how to attain it, or whether it's reasonably attainable at all. We have a difficult enough time understanding the concrete world around us, a world available to our own senses and that we are in fact a part of. But the objects of religion tend to be beyond our senses, our reason, our very selves.
I should have said that the question is not wheteher or not a person believes in God, but rather whether or not there is a God. As to the more complex matter of understanding that which is beyond our senses to determine who or what God is in truth, I'm not certain that I could add much to that discussion. For while I believe God is truth, all my explanations of that belief are deeply personal and subjective.
Only one pitcher?The real question is if Jesus drove a motorhome...
...the whiskey is mine.
Jesus rides beside me
he never buys any smokes
hurry up, hurry up, ain't you sick of this stuff
ashtray floors, dirty clothes, and filthy jokes
now you're high and lonesome
try and try and try
Jesus may not buy any smokes, but would he chip in for beer or gas? I've also always enjoyed:1: Have you found Jesus?
2: Is he hiding?Also, back to the LDS church a little, Dear Elder. FYI- missionaries in the LDS church are called elder... Example would be Elder William. Hopefully that example will incite a few giggles.
...if they weren't so painful to read.
I was meeting with the mormon missionaries last fall, and boy...they had me going for awhile. Since meeting with them I have had a lingering feeling of violation. I know that they are just full of it, it's a cult based on controlling others...almost akin to a pyramid scheme.They tout families being together in heaven, and a volunteer clergy as being some of their better things, but my readings have told me that families are not together in heaven. and really, would you see a volunteer heart surgeon?
There's lots of stuff this cult claims, but those claims don't stand up to the scrutiny.
and it's racist and sexist. The people that i've met in the church, for the most part have shown me that they basically do not have proper knowledge of the bible or the reasoning skills necessary to make decisions regarding truth on their own.
ugh, it's just a scary organisation.
my current belief: There is no one right church, but there are in fact, wrong churches. If the bible speaks truth, then this church is wrong. If the bible does not speak truth, then what does it matter?
I know you guys all know better, but if you don't, please stay away from this group.
Some of the other joy of living in Utah (besides the beautiful mountains, pastures, desert, abundant snow and high elevation lakes) are getting visited by missionaries. It's spring and apparently the winter is too harsh to spread the word of Joseph Smith, so they're out in force now. I expect my doorbell to ring a lot more often in the coming weeks. I tell my friends to knock, so I know their not missionaries.The fun part is the LDS backlash... A video came in the mail last fall that I never really watched. It looked like a pro-lds tract. A friend and I were gonna watch it and make it into a drinking game this winter. For example, you have to drink every time they say Joseph Smith and you have to finish your beer at the mere mention of polygamy. We were wrong. It's a very anti-lds video, although it still makes for a great drinking game. You can find it here: http://www.goodnewsforlds.com
with videos of preachers from other teetotaling religions I won't name here.
*rimshot*
