Oh, so it's a Christian thing. That makes more sense.
Liberal Religion is Getting a "Trump Bump"
- Thread starter sirkickyass
- Start date
Oh, so it's a Christian thing. That makes more sense.
green
Well-Known Member
Nope, it's not a Christian thing at all. Any religion that is scared of those different than how they are, and uses that religion to exclude and create fear against the other groups, is just as guilty.
Christ took Mary, who was a whore, and told her she had no condemnation. That is, if not the biggest lesson Christ ever taught, one of the biggest lessons.
Show me a religion that follows this principle:
Not necessarily. You can be an atheist and fully participate in the Unitarian Univeralist group. That's the whole point - nobody is telling you what to believe or not believe, what to feel or not feel. You follow your heart and mind and make your own decisions and make the experience your own. It's the ultimate agency. It's a relief to have a positive experience when you are used to feeling like a worthless piece of crap after church meetings in the past (yes, I get that not everyone internalizes church messages the way I did).
Ah, a liberal humanist church then. Still a religion. One of the better ones though. A solid 6/10.
Christianity. They follow Christ's example as given in the Bible. As you just did.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Dude the title of this thread gives Trump credit for driving people to attend. I find that to be weird btw. Not shocking or all that unexpected but still weird.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/
I wish that was always true.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Time for the big multi-quote response:
People are pretty good at analogizing to other experiences with which they are more familiar and the human brain likes to categorize. Watching the call to prayer was interesting because of its clear similarities to cantor-based services in Judaism or a traditional Latin mass in Catholicism. It was also interesting to understand that the call to prayer was quite literally that; there was no real service to speak of by way of preaching.
Experiencing that and understanding the similarities is something for which there really is no substitute. You can think about it like a comparative religion course that was organized by something other than a University or seminary if that makes it make more sense.
This might be the hardest part for people to understand. I would say the plurality position on those I've spoken with is straight atheism without nihilism. That said, I'm not certain that is the majority of people.
Literally the first day they handed me a card with the basic tenets of the religion I asked the follow-up "how is this different from humanism?" The response was "None. We just don't take a position on secular vs religious humanism." That's a good enough answer for me.
I found it to be weird too, which is why I mentioned it in the first place. Obviously correlation isn't causation and it could be some other factor that led to a 40% increase in attendance suddenly in mid November. But I'm putting my money on Trump Bump.
People are pretty good at analogizing to other experiences with which they are more familiar and the human brain likes to categorize. Watching the call to prayer was interesting because of its clear similarities to cantor-based services in Judaism or a traditional Latin mass in Catholicism. It was also interesting to understand that the call to prayer was quite literally that; there was no real service to speak of by way of preaching.
Experiencing that and understanding the similarities is something for which there really is no substitute. You can think about it like a comparative religion course that was organized by something other than a University or seminary if that makes it make more sense.
This might be the hardest part for people to understand. I would say the plurality position on those I've spoken with is straight atheism without nihilism. That said, I'm not certain that is the majority of people.
Literally the first day they handed me a card with the basic tenets of the religion I asked the follow-up "how is this different from humanism?" The response was "None. We just don't take a position on secular vs religious humanism." That's a good enough answer for me.
I found it to be weird too, which is why I mentioned it in the first place. Obviously correlation isn't causation and it could be some other factor that led to a 40% increase in attendance suddenly in mid November. But I'm putting my money on Trump Bump.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Yep and if you don't obey this law, this God loves you so much he'll condemn you to eternal suffering for it.
I undertand the human need for laws/structure/guidelines, etc., but when they're administered by an egomanaical, insecure, power hungry, murdering *******, they kind of lose their appeal.
I'd figure that all religions must in present time necessarily reduce to some personal interpretations, even if those may derive from intense study of scripture or authoritative material. Even the LDS and Bible-thumpers or Islamic fundamentalists, or Confucist, Bhuddist, taoists or animists.
I'd probably worry even Unitarians, and they'd excommunicate me.
The LDS three times had me up for excommunication. One time, it took the Church President to take a stand to stop it, the second time the Bishop asked me to please forget it happened, the next time GA ordered a Stake President to do it,but after talking to me, that Stake President, a FederalJudge, said he agreed with me and disobeyed the order. The last tome, the enquiry was initiated locally, and the Stake Pres abandoned the issue saying literally that The Lord showed him not to do it.
I am not active, I will defend the Church against critics after sympathizing with concerns if appropriate.
Pretty sure Jazzgal and Green or even Kicky would be welcome if willing to live by the standards and just be charitable about leadership issues and teachings.
My girls and my wife, though not members, are treated well.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Who was this Stake President, Federal Judge? We may have contacts in common.
I was only hauled before the SP once, because some woman in the ward tattled on me for telling her husband about In Sacred Loneliness (about JS polygamy). The meeting did not go well for him, as I don't take kindly to being told what I can read or talk about in private conversations. Of course, there was nothing they could do about my telling someone about a book that is sold in the BYU bookstore.
green
Well-Known Member
Here is my issue with this (and not you jimmy, but more your first, I assume, sarcastic line.
I was raised LDS. Heck, I'm still LDS. I still go most weeks. My issue is that God changes too much. No polygamy (which is what the Book of Mormon teaches) then polygamy, then tell people we don't do it while we do it. Then, no polygamy, you'll get kicked out for it. Then, it's "Give blacks the priesthood" then it is "no way, Joseph Smith didn't mean to give that guy the priesthood and we took it away from him as soon as we found out he was black because blacks can't have the priesthood" then it is "blacks can have the priesthood!" and now it is "Brigham Young and the others were racist, thats why blacks couldn't have the priesthood, it had nothing to do with God". Same with the word of wisdom. It says you can drink beer, you can't eat meat and you should take care of your bodies. Well, we can't drink beer, all we eat is meat and we are surprisingly fat for a people that follows a code that says to not be fat. Oh, and it's not a commandment, but now it is.
Then there is tithing. It's a law, it's not a law and visa versa. The scriptures say to give up all your excess upon joining the Church then 10% of your excess after that. Talmage says it's just 10% after you've paid all your food, lodging and clothing. Holland takes that quote out of context and says it means 10% of your income even if it means you go hungry.
The temple ceremony constantly changes as have the covenants made in the temple.
At some point, when will god make up his mind? It also seems that god bends to the will of the gentiles a lot as well.
Anyways, I just feel bad for those that are buying into this hardlined anti-gay rehtoric (you can throw transgenders in there as well) the church is taking. Go back and read Mark E. Petersen and take out the words "black" and "negro" and insert "homosexual", "same sex attraction", "transgender", etc and you will find it's the same song and dance we went through 40 years ago.
Just like the leaders back then, these leaders are wrong.
I've come to this conclusion: I like religion. ALL religions. I like when people gather together to better themselves. I like when we can share our burdens and work together and come out better people. Religion gives you an chance and forum to do so.
I don't like it when a religion starts to single out people and attack them because they are different than I am. That is when it stops being a religion and starts being a way to control the masses.
I am for any instance in which we are given reasons to care about what's happening to our neighbors and become involved in one another's lives. Unfortunately, it is historically a very thin line between religious prohibitions on what YOU are allowed to do vs religious proscriptions on what WE should do for each other.
Cappy_Smurf
Well-Known Member
Considering he lost by 3 million votes, it does sound a bit nutty. The problem wasn't with people not voting, but that they didn't live in the right area for their 1 vote to count as 5. Perhaps a better theory is for people to consider re-locating to maximize their voting power.
As for the OP, I'm not surprised in the least that people are seeking God/religion, now that the anti-Christ has arisen.
The time is near. REPENT!!!
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Hence one of my fundamental issues with traditional, dogmatic religions. They seem to focus overwhelmingly on a negative morality (what we should not do) and less so on a positive morality (what we should do), and when the two come into conflict (e.g., proscriptions against homosexuality in contrast to a commandment to love others as oneself), the former almost inevitably win out.
The issue is, to a degree, that religion often devolves down to control, for whatever reason or even for control's sake, and a negative morality, in which you've convinced people they are unworthy and subject to eternal punishment for not following a strict code over which eathly leaders are the 'authorized' arbiters, is much more effective as a method of control than a positive morality.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
You're fixating too much on states. Voting in Dem counties was way down. Republicans had, and still have, a clear disadvantage in the electoral college. Trump won states that he was unlikely to win because metropolitan dems in those states failed to show up.
Cappy_Smurf
Well-Known Member
Look, people can rationalize this to death for all I care, but at the end of the day, dems showed up to the polls to the tune of 3 million more votes than Trump got. I mean, how ridiculous do the numbers have to get before people accept that a system that elects the loser is broken? As for fixating too much on states, I'm exactly the opposite. It's completely nuts to me that so many Americans have been talked into believing in a system where some people get one vote, while others get to have their vote count as several votes, because of where they live. The states' rights argument is and always has been stupid as ****, when trying to justify why some American's votes should count more than others.
One American, one voice, one motha ****in vote.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I agree with all of this and want to add another reason the electoral college sucks: It discourages people from even voting at all. If you live in california and you are republican then why even vote? If you are a democrat living in utah then voting is simply wasting your time.
Hell, california might be more republican than we think and utah might be more democratic than we think but so many of the minority party dont even show up to vote that it appears more red or blue than it actually is.
green
Well-Known Member
Think about this with Utah and gerrymandering:
Utah is 60% LDS. Approx 30% of the LDS Church is active, i.e., they go to Church at least 1 time per month (which is a pretty broad definition of "active"). If you do the math, it looks like this:
100% of Utah.
60 are LDS.
60*.3 = 18 people are active.
18% of Utah is ACTIVE LDS.
Yet, over 90% of the Utah Legislature is active LDS (or they claim to be).
Utah may be the most mis-represented state in the country.