Liberal Religion is Getting a "Trump Bump"

[babe]

All in all, considering that the Mormons were driven out of Missouri because they had a cooperative notion of economics and enough group cohesion to look like a threat to non-members, and because they were anti-slavery in a place where that was the hot button issue of the day.... and on and on down the historical trail of being pretty much excluded from, or seeking isolation from, mainstream society, the LDS have done pretty well to end up being as inclusive of others as they are.

Some of you voice concerns I've gone over myself at some point, and I see the validity of those concerns. I choose to let the poor Mormons live as they are, and pursue of policy of acceptance for those differences. But I'm not "active", and I don't go there to get my virtue-validating card, and I don't need their approval for my way of life, either. Easy to be tolerant on those terms.

I look at "God" in a conscious effort to not blame "God" for what people say, do, or believe. I prefer to believe there is a "God" on the Mormon notion generally, that of a Father in Heaven, a person actually of good character worthy of emulation and respect. If there is no "God" as I believe or imagine, it does not change my idea of what kind of person I should be.

I believe I should be a better person than I've ever been. I believe I should gain better understanding than I've ever had. I believe I should treat other people better than I ever have yet done. Lots of good stuff to reach for.

If the LDS people or leaders don't also believe that, I'd be pretty disappointed. I sorta think they do.

 

[babe]

All in all, considering that the Mormons were driven out of Missouri because they had a cooperative notion of economics and enough group cohesion to look like a threat to non-members, and because they were anti-slavery in a place where that was the hot button issue of the day.... and on and on down the historical trail of being pretty much excluded from, or seeking isolation from, mainstream society, the LDS have done pretty well to end up being as inclusive of others as they are.

Some of you voice concerns I've gone over myself at some point, and I see the validity of those concerns. I choose to let the poor Mormons live as they are, and pursue a policy of acceptance for those differences. But I'm not "active", and I don't go there to get my virtue-validating card, and I don't need their approval for my way of life, either. Easy to be tolerant on those terms.

I look at "God" in a conscious effort to not blame "God" for what people say, do, or believe. I prefer to believe there is a "God" on the Mormon notion generally, that of a Father in Heaven, a person actually of good character worthy of emulation and respect. If there is no "God" as I believe or imagine, it does not change my idea of what kind of person I should be.

I believe I should be a better person than I've ever been. I believe I should gain better understanding than I've ever had. I believe I should treat other people better than I ever have yet done. Lots of good stuff to reach for.

If the LDS people or leaders don't also believe that, I'd be pretty disappointed. I sorta think they do.

 

[green]

If there is no "God" as I believe or imagine, it does not change my idea of what kind of person I should be.

I believe I should be a better person than I've ever been. I believe I should gain better understanding than I've ever had. I believe I should treat other people better than I ever have yet done. Lots of good stuff to reach for.

If the LDS people or leaders don't also believe that, I'd be pretty disappointed. I sorta think they do.

Lots of good here.

That's the goal. Be better today than you were yesterday.

I think when we get to the judgement bar, there will be a lot of druggies, homeless, losers in societies eyes that get in. In their small, pathetic way, they improved everyday. I also think there will be a lot of very prestigious religious leaders, pastors, bishops, stake presidents, apostles (Boyd K Packer) who will not get in, as they did everything for the wrong reasons and did not improve day by day.

Ok, the Packer dig was a little harsh, only God knows why he hated so many people.

But my point still stands.

 

[RandyForRubio]

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.

So here's where I go with this thought process...

The Bible (if you believe it), says that God never changes. Which would seem to not work with what you're talking about above. Obvious there are changes going on. So is the Bible wrong? If you say yes, then how/why trust the rest of it? Just pick and choose what you like, don't like? Guess it depends on the person. Other option is that God doesn't change like the Bible says, but the people in charge are phonies. Well then what? Who can you trust/not trust?

Just for clarification, I'm not calling you out. I just like the discussion.

 

[green]

So here's where I go with this thought process...

The Bible (if you believe it), says that God never changes. Which would seem to not work with what you're talking about above. Obvious there are changes going on. So is the Bible wrong? If you say yes, then how/why trust the rest of it? Just pick and choose what you like, don't like? Guess it depends on the person. Other option is that God doesn't change like the Bible says, but the people in charge are phonies. Well then what? Who can you trust/not trust?

Just for clarification, I'm not calling you out. I just like the discussion.

No, you are fine. I like the discussion as well. I do believe in God. I am losing trust in religion more and more.

I think as long as religion is teaching what Christ taught, "love one another", "love God", "Get better everyday" then they are fine. When they start teaching exclusion to a sinner and start defining what is right and wrong...that is when they get in trouble.

Partly, because life is not black and white. In some instances, one acton is right. In another, it could be wrong. That is where you have to follow your heart and desire to do better and let God judge.

Take my Church, the LDS Church. Their leaders had racist tendencies, probably due to fear of the unknown (and you could argue the compilers of the Bible had the same fears). They passed policy based on those fears and it was contrary to what Christ taught. Thankfully, they died off, the newer leaders were more Christ like and fixed the bad policies (which is a good thing, to have each successive leadership group grow closer to Christ).

The problem is, they didn't learn their lesson and they are making the SAME EXACT MISTAKES towards LGBT groups.

That's unfortunate.

 

[Siro]

No, you are fine. I like the discussion as well. I do believe in God. I am losing trust in religion more and more.

I think as long as religion is teaching what Christ taught, "love one another", "love God", "Get better everyday" then they are fine. When they start teaching exclusion to a sinner and start defining what is right and wrong...that is when they get in trouble.

Partly, because life is not black and white. In some instances, one acton is right. In another, it could be wrong. That is where you have to follow your heart and desire to do better and let God judge.

Take my Church, the LDS Church. Their leaders had racist tendencies, probably due to fear of the unknown (and you could argue the compilers of the Bible had the same fears). They passed policy based on those fears and it was contrary to what Christ taught. Thankfully, they died off, the newer leaders were more Christ like and fixed the bad policies (which is a good thing, to have each successive leadership group grow closer to Christ).

The problem is, they didn't learn their lesson and they are making the SAME EXACT MISTAKES towards LGBT groups.

That's unfortunate.

Hmmm. I think the church should focus more of the important things Jesus taught, like how a divorced women who remarries is an adulterer, and that if you look at a woman lustily then you've committed adultery. It is unfortunate that there is so much emphasis on love thy neighbor and that kind stuff.

 

[babe]

So here's where I go with this thought process...

The Bible (if you believe it), says that God never changes. Which would seem to not work with what you're talking about above. Obvious there are changes going on. So is the Bible wrong? If you say yes, then how/why trust the rest of it? Just pick and choose what you like, don't like? Guess it depends on the person. Other option is that God doesn't change like the Bible says, but the people in charge are phonies. Well then what? Who can you trust/not trust?

Just for clarification, I'm not calling you out. I just like the discussion.

These are eternal issues, eternal quests, eternal conflicting ideals. I don't have the answers that will end them.

In the LDS section of it all, the original appeal of it was a fresh start while most Christian sects were endlessly debating the fall of Adam, baptism methods or customs, with the Bible as exhibit "A" versus older institutions... Catholic and even Lutheran and other essentially traditional views. Things had gotten noticeable about being different from the Bible, but the Catholics and others kin to Catholics were claiming essentially unbroken succession from Jesus.

today, the LDS are facing similar dissatisfactions, putting claims to authority above "scripture".

I look at the scriptures not as God's finger on the stone tablets, though that would be an interesting exhibit if we had it, but as institutional efforts from earlier eras to lock the beliefs and traditions down to a then-conventional tradition. Solomon sent his troops out to smash all the dissident priests across the countryside, and make everyone come to Jerusalem with their tithes and offerings, and submit to a State-sanctioned, and State-defined "religion". The only things that I really appreciate in the scriptures are the perceptibly independent or original notions, not even the creation story. The idea of a principled God who is consistent and just.

As for Boyd K. Packer, he is one who defended me personally.

As for gays and other forms of perceived "deviance" from a pattern believed to be acceptable to "God", it should be interesting to note the part in Genesis where Abraham took up the case to plead with God for the cities of the plain..... It is contrary to the notion of patience, long-suffering, and a lot of other virtues to hate anyone, even if you believe they have a "problem". But what is at stake for religious purists is the ideal, the thing to be sought.

I think children are a great blessing. This is a transmissible pattern that works and keeps society chugging along. I think, and I have laid the case out elsewhere, that in the last fifty years particularly, we have been flooded in our food and packaging, in our commercial building materials, in materials used on auto interiors, in everyday products of all kinds, with "phytoestrogens". The soy based oils used widely in our processed foods, the printer paper, the plastic liners on all kinds of cans, the plastic sheet and bottle products... all have phytoestrogenic "Bis-phenol A". I was once a plastic formulator. All this exposure to cumulative toxins/estrongenic chemicals really has had an impact on human growth and development. It is showing in current epidemic proportion cancer, even diabetes, obesity, hormonal imbalances.

In human development, the male brain is modified with the testosterone-mediated changes including snipping intra-hemispheral neurons of certain types. Allows males to focus on one thing, while females go on multi-tasking......

If you looking for a natural explanation for perceived sexual orientation issues, here's a pretty good thing to look at, for one. If true, this would certainly be something "God" would consider in any evaluation of our feelings, life choices, and such.

But rather than just join with the chorus about unquestioning acceptance of some things, I would suggest we change our ways to protect our biological constitutions from assault through modern commerce and technology.

And, yes, Dr. Jones, that OSB board is one of the big issues. Get educated, and find an alternative, and then advertise it and charge more for your clean and natural construction, please.

 

[Siro]

Christianity is dead, except for the occasional cultist. Everyone else is a humanist. The humanist doctrines demand we look inward and follow our heart. It implores us to seek love and other positive feelings. It insists that there is no higher authority than oneself. Even babe is a humanist. It is the religion of the modern world.

 

[babe]

Christianity is dead, except for the occasional cultist. Everyone else is a humanist. The humanist doctrines demand we look inward and follow our heart. It implores us to seek love and other positive feelings. It insists that there is no higher authority than oneself. Even babe is a humanist. It is the religion of the modern world.

No one is above liking a nice printed word, and sorta canonizing it.

Organized religions do this to carve out some niche of common core beliefs, a market niche so to speak.

Actually, while I realize I'm mostly working outta my own skull since I've not been otherwise meddled with by supra-natural forces, I see the need to take a "Godist" stand theologically. The question remains, and always will be, what God is. What, objectively, God is. Unless we are looking for something on that level of thought, we are not doing much better than worshipping the Lion in the forest, or the snake in the grass.

debunking exaggerated claims to knowing God, or speaking for God, is a pretty old issue, theologically. Moses commanded folks not to believe false prophets, and advanced an objective standard for judgment.

If someone prophesies something, and that thing does not happen, Moses said we should stone the false prophet. In our time, we elevate the ideas of free speech and freedom of belief to protect the nutcase prophets, but hey, isn't that the way to be more loving and nice?

far from being a real "humanist", I try to advance the issues in discussion from the point of view that if something is not actually true, we should not believe it. I don't stand on my right to believe whatever I please. I differ from Siro in considering that there are a lot of things I don't or cannot know objectively, which I reserve as possibilities pending better information.

Henry E. Eyring, in his book "Faith of Scientist", which was given to me as gift on my sixteenth birthday years ago by a smart redhead bookdragon who loved me, Eyring states that whatever is true, that's his religion.... that's the Mormon religion....

I've made something of a career being the critic of Mormons, particularly complacent smiling nice do-gooders who haven't thought things through in the critical vein, but deep in my heart I love those predictable believers. . . . .you can't find nicer people, really.

Sure, they can irritate the heck outta you, too.

 

[babe]

Christianity is dead, except for the occasional cultist. Everyone else is a humanist. The humanist doctrines demand we look inward and follow our heart. It implores us to seek love and other positive feelings. It insists that there is no higher authority than oneself. Even babe is a humanist. It is the religion of the modern world.

Objectively, this is a sort of tautology. If Christ is dead, Christianity is dead. But if Christ was resurrected as reported by early Christians, and sits presently on the right hand of God (Psalms 110:4), there may be some further news......

Meanwhile, enjoy the sunshine and make the most of life. I consider it prudent to consider the teachings of Christ and try to live in a consistent way.

 

[green]

Hmmm. I think the church should focus more of the important things Jesus taught, like how a divorced women who remarries is an adulterer, and that if you look at a woman lustily then you've committed adultery. It is unfortunate that there is so much emphasis on love thy neighbor and that kind stuff.

Ha ha. Good point. I'd argue that the Bible falls into the same flaws/traps as Churches do...then you remember that the Bible was assembled by...a Church. Almost as if they went through the sacred writings and found the books that most closely aligned with the message THEY wanted to get out.

I think every religion has truth, every religion has a lot of similars.

On the other hand, who likes their neighbors anyways?

 

[Siro]

No one is above liking a nice printed word, and sorta canonizing it.

Organized religions do this to carve out some niche of common core beliefs, a market niche so to speak.

Actually, while I realize I'm mostly working outta my own skull since I've not been otherwise meddled with by supra-natural forces, I see the need to take a "Godist" stand theologically. The question remains, and always will be, what God is. What, objectively, God is. Unless we are looking for something on that level of thought, we are not doing much better than worshipping the Lion in the forest, or the snake in the grass.

debunking exaggerated claims to knowing God, or speaking for God, is a pretty old issue, theologically. Moses commanded folks not to believe false prophets, and advanced an objective standard for judgment.

If someone prophesies something, and that thing does not happen, Moses said we should stone the false prophet. In our time, we elevate the ideas of free speech and freedom of belief to protect the nutcase prophets, but hey, isn't that the way to be more loving and nice?

far from being a real "humanist", I try to advance the issues in discussion from the point of view that if something is not actually true, we should not believe it. I don't stand on my right to believe whatever I please. I differ from Siro in considering that there are a lot of things I don't or cannot know objectively, which I reserve as possibilities pending better information.

Henry E. Eyring, in his book "Faith of Scientist", which was given to me as gift on my sixteenth birthday years ago by a smart redhead bookdragon who loved me, Eyring states that whatever is true, that's his religion.... that's the Mormon religion....

I've made something of a career being the critic of Mormons, particularly complacent smiling nice do-gooders who haven't thought things through in the critical vein, but deep in my heart I love those predictable believers. . . . .you can't find nicer people, really.

Sure, they can irritate the heck outta you, too.

Of course you're a humanist. You believe in inherent human rights, don't you? What can be more humanist than that?

I also have to take into account that the Biblical figures who warned of false prophets really meant that they themselves were the real thing. It's like the prohibition on idols. It's really about worshiping the correct idol.

We protect nutcases in our society because we're no longer Christians. Saint Augustine warned that nothing we do can get us to heaven, because God is the final authority. That's monotheism. We now have Christian-flavored humanists arguing with atheist-flavored humanists. It is an amazing time. But maybe all of them were.

Not me though. I'm no humanist. Except when I am. Other times I'm a transhumanist cultist, but then I remember that I'm a nihilist. But really, isn't humanity incredible?

 

[Siro]

Ha ha. Good point. I'd argue that the Bible falls into the same flaws/traps as Churches do...then you remember that the Bible was assembled by...a Church. Almost as if they went through the sacred writings and found the books that most closely aligned with the message THEY wanted to get out.

I think every religion has truth, every religion has a lot of similars.

On the other hand, who likes their neighbors anyways?

I don't even know my neighbors.

Christians, and others, look at their religion and wonder why fellow believers don't like the things they like about it, and ignore the things they don't. But that's not the right question. If you can pick and choose, why believe any of it at all? Why even believe in God?

 

[green]

I don't even know my neighbors.

Christians, and others, look at their religion and wonder why fellow believers don't like the things they like about it, and ignore the things they don't. But that's not the right question. If you can pick and choose, why believe any of it at all? Why even believe in God?

Why do anything at all? We like to name things. We like to compartmentalize things. We have clocks, books, etc.

I think we are getting a little off point. Good is good. And a lot of good comes down to the intentions.

Whether you name it God, or Muhammed, or Chi, karma, or whatever, search out the good. I think it's ok to pick and choose. Pick the good. I think we can all find that. Forget/ignore the bad. The isolationism, the ranking of people, the exclusion of people because they are different.

"Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things."

 

[fishonjazz]

Forget/ignore the bad. The isolationism, the ranking of people, the exclusion of people because they are different.

Even byu and byu fans?


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Stoked]

So here's where I go with this thought process...

The Bible (if you believe it), says that God never changes. Which would seem to not work with what you're talking about above. Obvious there are changes going on. So is the Bible wrong? If you say yes, then how/why trust the rest of it? Just pick and choose what you like, don't like? Guess it depends on the person. Other option is that God doesn't change like the Bible says, but the people in charge are phonies. Well then what? Who can you trust/not trust?

Just for clarification, I'm not calling you out. I just like the discussion.

The Bible dramatically changes between the Old and New Testament. So now what?

 

[DutchJazzer]

The Bible dramatically changes between the Old and New Testament. So now what?

dont be a religion hater , you should listen to jordan b peterson on religion!


just youtube that man. i wont because he gets accused of something called "hate speech" even though it is just a smythical as a unicorn every logical man knows there is no such thing as hate speech

 

[NUMBERICA]

Hey like maybe next time people should show their displeasure for Trump by voting? Who knows it may just be more effective than protests after the election. A little theory I've been working on. I know it sounds crazy but I've got a hunch.

We MIGHT be able to get out of this alive and be able to say "OH, yeah, that ONE time that we seriously just handed the country over to a nepotist, brazenly misogynist, sex criminal, not-so-secretly racist, out-of-the playbook fascist authoritarian hopeful, pathologically lying buffoon with only his incredible privilege, ruthlessness, and knack for appealing to the lowest natures of people as a pure-savant of rhetoric AND ALL OF HIS MOUTH-BREATHING ACOLYTES. Yeah, whoops, we didn't think it could happen, BLAH BLAH BLAH... you know... we ****ed up. But it was ONE time." BUT ONLY IF PEOPLE LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT HOW THIS **** ****ING WORKS.

 

[green]

Even byu and byu fans?


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using JazzFanz mobile app

I did say there was an exception to every rule...

Lol.

 

[Stoked]

dont be a religion hater , you should listen to jordan b peterson on religion!


just youtube that man. i wont because he gets accused of something called "hate speech" even though it is just a smythical as a unicorn every logical man knows there is no such thing as hate speech

Stop with the wild assumptions.

Just asking a question based on his previous answer. I want to see how he squares that. I'm curious.