Originally Posted By Mr X ***But it's always "sick" to outsiders, never to insiders.*** I would think that a massacre undertaken in the name of a blood oath issued directly by a church would be sick to anyone.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***But it's always "sick" to outsiders, never to insiders.*** I would think that a massacre undertaken in the name of a blood oath issued directly by a church would be sick to anyone.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***>>I sure hope not, but an oath is an oath, right?<< It's not taught and it's not part of it.*** Of course not. It's been removed and isn't endorsed. But my concern would be if this sort of thing is still passed down covertly through some of the more zealots families. It's all there in black and white. I'm starting to understand why someone else upthread equated Mormonism with the terrorists. I scoffed when I first read it, but now I'm not so sure.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I would think that a massacre undertaken in the name of a blood oath issued directly by a church would be sick to anyone.<< Oh, of course. I thought you were referring to the Oath of Vengeance.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, I was referring to the connection I pasted (that the massacre had something to do with that oath).
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight I know Icome across as rediculous most of the time in here,but I have to ask this in sincere honesty. We have religions that somehow, later on down the line, change thier way's and/or standings on some things. How can the people that follow thier religion with all that they are( heart mind and body), believe the things that they do and then when the rules change, they willingly go on to believe or have the faith in said religion continue. Wouldn't there be some sort of doubt of what to truely believe after that? Do'es that make sense or no? I SERIOUSLY STINK at trying to explain what I mean, and I hope that someone can help me to explain myself better. I dont have the savvy speach or intellect that most of you do on here. Please forgive me for that.
Originally Posted By mele I get what you are saying, LS. I don't have an answer, however, because I don't understand it either. :-( You said PANTIES!
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight If we were taught to belive the world was flat and we believed that with allour hearts and had that fear instilled in us by the people we held high in trust with our lives to guide us through life. Wouldn't one feel betayed in the higest form? How could you keep faith in that sort of thing? Is that brain washing?
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight No silly mele.. I said MAGIC PANTIES! There's a difference! Amature! ;-)
Originally Posted By skinnerbox First Josh stated: <<I do have fath my church leaders are inspired by god so they won't ask anything amiss.>> Then Josh stated: <<I claim full resposibility for every thought choice and action. You are completely and utterly wrong.>> No... you're contradicting yourself. You absolutely cannot follow your church leaders "blindly" and accept their guidance fully if you "claim full responsibility for every thought choice and action." If you believe everything they tell you, and do everything they tell you to do, then you're not thinking for yourself. Period. You are letting your church leaders dictate to you what to believe, how to believe it, what to do, and how to do it. That is not taking full responsibility for your thoughts and actions. That's being a religious automaton.
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight But why does it always have to boil down to killing or beating the crap out of those who dont see eye to eye with one's belief? Are they that weak that they have to resort to violence? Violence is weakness. It just baffles me, I guess.
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight I couldnt follow any religion that entertained the thought that violence was alright. It's all fear.
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight Sorry if I thread killed this. It's just that it got me to thinking what it usually boils down to.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Sorry if I thread killed this.<< You couldn't kill this thread with a bazooka. >>We have religions that somehow, later on down the line, change thier way's and/or standings on some things. How can the people that follow thier religion with all that they are( heart mind and body), believe the things that they do and then when the rules change, they willingly go on to believe or have the faith in said religion continue.<< Many religions believe in the imperfection of man, meaning we're not going to get everything right. Scientific discovery doesn't necessarily have to change the rules, but IMHO it should change our understanding of them. I will preemptively agree with X that there are quite a few Christian churches that fail to connect human shortcomings with the possibility of shortcomings in their doctrine - or even in the interpretation and/or translation of their holy texts.
Originally Posted By gadzuux And I think they make that connection better than you might think - hence they create these "infallability" clauses that seek to prevent any second guessing from the flock. This isn't limited to just the mormons - many religious leaders including mullahs and the pope claim that they are chosen by god and that their words carry the same weight as god himself and can not be questioned. The amazing part is that some people actually believe it! So, no - these religious "leaders" don't want to account for the failings, frailties and foibles of mankind, they want to portray themselves as above that sort of thing.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <--- still waiting for Josh to respond to the article in post 186, about the sexual abuse cases now facing the Mormon church.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>still waiting for Josh to respond to the article in post 186<< I don't think he's quite done with the huff he stormed off in. Maybe this topic WILL run out of gas then. Can't say I'm saddened.
