Susan's Place Transgender Resources

As the LDS church manual of  instructions (issue 1999) describes, there are for Mormons two different kinds of transsexuals:
Those which are already Mormons (they are excommunicated immediately, and mayn't be baptized again, except, they cancel everything again. And those which have their Transition already behind themselves, but not yet werebaptized. Special rules are applay for this group:

1. Before their baptism they must put first of all to themselves many, often of very intimate questions by local (bishop) and national (Stake President, Apostle) church leader.

2. Transsexuals may marry neither in the temple, nor what is as important for them,  to make for themselves or / and their ancestors, holy sacraments

3. The men who are born as women mayn't receive the priesthood.

All this makes transsexual people to second-class members in the LDS "church", and offends in my opinion against laws (however, there you know more). I find, such a thing isn't to be accepted! This "church" tramples around on our civil rights, as if they had in addition the RIGHT to do that. It becomes time to show once the Mormon that they mayn't permit everything to themselves.

PS:
I still have a personal question: I can't answer  my PM, and also send no PM. What do I make wrong? Where must I change something?

I cannot speak for every Mormon - but I can speak for myself.  I was not excommunicated even when I transitioned.  My leaders attempted to do their best to understand what it meant to be transsexual.  Granted, they encouraged me not to transition, but they are allowed to tell me what they believe to be best for me, and it is my choice to follow it.  Had I continued on with transsexual surgery, they would have had to make a choice to keep me as a member, but I have a feeling they would have.

The church handbook of instruction given to bishops is a guidebook - not the hard and fast rules.  The bishops and leaders are supposed to follow the Spirit first, the rules second.  As such, many transsexuals have had different experiences with their bishops.  Some have had very negative experiences, others have had positive ones.  Generally, those who have a testimony of the Gospel, who sustained the leadership, and who didn't behave themselves without meekness, have remained members regardless of their decision concerning transition.

Churches have a right to decide what to do considering their own member's memberships status and who it accepts as members, just as people have a right not to join or remain members.  I don't think this constitutes trampling on anyone's civil rights.

Quote from: interalia on May 16, 2009, 11:11:18 PM
I cannot speak for every Mormon - but I can speak for myself.  I was not excommunicated even when I transitioned.  My leaders attempted to do their best to understand what it meant to be transsexual.  Granted, they encouraged me not to transition, but they are allowed to tell me what they believe to be best for me, and it is my choice to follow it.  Had I continued on with transsexual surgery, they would have had to make a choice to keep me as a member, but I have a feeling they would have.

I speak also from my experiences and what i did see from the US, Germany and China. And there they act full after this handbook.
The problem is, that they disn't accept a transperson as normal member of their "church", and it doesn't matter how far do you goin with your transition. my Bishop thought, after i was telling him that i was trans and need a surgery to feel myself complite, that I WANT TOLEAVE THE CHURCH! But this wasn't my desire at that time.

Quote from: interalia on May 16, 2009, 11:11:18 PM
The church handbook of instruction given to bishops is a guidebook - not the hard and fast rules.  The bishops and leaders are supposed to follow the Spirit first, the rules second.  As such, many transsexuals have had different experiences with their bishops.  Some have had very negative experiences, others have had positive ones.  Generally, those who have a testimony of the Gospel, who sustained the leadership, and who didn't behave themselves without meekness, have remained members regardless of their decision concerning transition.

This is wrong! If a Bishop want that I stay in the church,even as a transperson, HE would be immidiently excommunicated. This handbook is seen as a Revelation from God to the Church leaders. It is not a "You are free to act", it is a "thus speak the LORD".

Quote from: interalia on May 16, 2009, 11:11:18 PM
Churches have a right to decide what to do considering their own member's memberships status and who it accepts as members, just as people have a right not to join or remain members.  I don't think this constitutes trampling on anyone's civil rights.

They hasn't the right to keep us away from OUR rights. We are not 2nd class citizens/members, we have the same rights as anyone else. If we make a sex change surgery, are we sinfull for that? If we want to live our life as the person we are, is that to be ashamed? No!!!! But it is to a church who act like the LDS do in this case, to be ashamed.
Here, what a former member of the church (she was also trans) said about your topic and my comments to it:

I agree with you ref your comments about *** and the Church.  .I too do not think I could go back and really I do not wish to.  I dislike the church and the people, for the church breeds a certain type and I do not like it.

Think of it.

I'm not much of the religious sort. But I live in a town that may as well be called Mormon Land. Most are nice to me, some get weirded out on me. Then again, most of them can't decide if I'm a boy or a girl. Actually many seem to think I'm a girl pretending to be a boy, which is somewhat accurate in my opinion  :laugh: They seem to have given up on my attending church. Some of the women have commented that nice girls wear bras and dresses. They're just people. Some are rather helpful. Some are a pain in the butt. That's just people

I'm sorry for the seemingly rotten experiences you had with your church leaders and members and am sorry you do not feel you can believe in it anymore.

That is where you and I differ it seems.  My belief and faith is in no way conditioned or dependent upon the actions of either my church leaders or the membership.  They have nothing to do with my faith.  For me, it has everything to do with the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost.  Had I not had that, and other revelations, then there would be no grounding for my faith, but because I have, my faith and testimony of the LDS church stands independent of my good and bad relationships with others.

I know of other transgendered members (I know several now) who are not having negative experiences with the church, those for whom the leadership took the General Handbook of Instruction was taken as a guide book - as it is intended.  These leaders looked at the person, their heart, their feelings, their individual testimonies, listened to the Spirit and chose not to pursue excommunication, and in fact these trans-persons remain members today.

You seem to be angry with the church, and that is alright, you believe they have trampled on you.  I wish you the best of luck in your new faith - Wicca.  I know there are plenty joyfully waiting and ready to receive you.  However, if you at one time had a testimony of the LDS faith, consider its basis, and then ask yourself if perhaps you still have it somewhere.  If so, pray to determine what it is that you should do - pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, seek to repent of your sins (and for clarification I am not including transsexualism - it is not a sin), and see if God will not direct you.  Perhaps you might rediscover the same faith, that same peace, that once led to you to the waters of baptism.

Witch of Hope,
It takes 15 posts for most of the function to active, including PMs.  Just post as you would and it will happen fast.

Blessed Be,
Janet

I presently reside in Ogden Utah and was raised in a small Mormon community not far from here in Wyo. Spent 24.5 years in Central America and have traveled the Americas. I've  seen different cultures and by far the worst are Mormons. I was baptize as a child against my will. They can have all the rules they want. I don't play the game so I don't follow the rules. It's merely a cult that has grown to a reccognized religion. The missionaries damn well had better not knock on my door. The persecuted me for too many years.

Quote from: Genevieve Swann on May 17, 2009, 10:21:14 AM
I presently reside in Ogden Utah and was raised in a small Mormon community not far from here in Wyo. Spent 24.5 years in Central America and have traveled the Americas. I've  seen different cultures and by far the worst are Mormons. I was baptize as a child against my will. They can have all the rules they want. I don't play the game so I don't follow the rules. It's merely a cult that has grown to a reccognized religion. The missionaries damn well had better not knock on my door. The persecuted me for too many years.

Your parents and the missionaries were culprits as well as victims, but they didn't know it better. The prophet of the Mormons, the apostles, yes, the whole leadership of the LDS, knows it better. They can find out, but they doesn't do it, because their rules are more important to them than the people! Here an example from my active time as a Mormon (it deals nothing with TS):

A Mormon, marries and father of two children,  discovered his love to another man in Cologne where he lived like me. He had sex with the man. He got communal denial what means, he mightn't do certain things in the church (address hold, pray). He loved the LDS, but also this man. in it he broke, and committed suicide. What said, however, the bishop and his woman? He would have died by an "accident". Nobody should get to know what had really happened.

Thus the "true and only church" acts as ehey see themselfs!
Besides, the LDS has had a homosexual  and a tg history in the 19th century. A grandson of Brigham Young was a ->-bleeped-<-, lesbians were tolerated like gays, and everything ended when the GLF (Gay liberation front) arose. Then everything was hated, which wasn't heterosexually and unambiguously genderlike. It was the time of McCarthy. A chance?

Quote from: Witch of Hope on May 16, 2009, 10:31:43 PM
All this makes transsexual people to second-class members in the LDS "church", and offends in my opinion against laws (however, there you know more). I find, such a thing isn't to be accepted! This "church" tramples around on our civil rights, as if they had in addition the RIGHT to do that. It becomes time to show once the Mormon that they mayn't permit everything to themselves.

I know you are not from America, so this may sound like a strange thing to hear.  The truth is that the Mormons have a right to believe and practice whatever they wishes.  They are not committing any crimes (unless you count polygamy among some of the smaller sects).  Membership is completely voluntary.  If this group you are associated with is that crude, find someone else to worship with.  I find a lot of variation even among LDS people.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Kristi, it isn't a matter of a voluntary membership, it is a matter of civil rights! Noone, no Church, Sect or destructive cult (as i seethe LDS church) hast the right, to denied people their basic rights.
You are an American, right? What would be if someone want to say to you (maybe from the government) that you can't be in your city anymore (e.g.all blondes most leave the city, or other stupid reasons).But it is your RIGHT, to live wereever you want. Is a church/sect/cullt different than a human being or a government?

Quote from: Witch of Hope on May 17, 2009, 07:12:08 PM
Kristi, it isn't a matter of a voluntary membership, it is a matter of civil rights! Noone, no Church, Sect or destructive cult (as i seethe LDS church) hast the right, to denied people their basic rights.
You are an American, right? What would be if someone want to say to you (maybe from the government) that you can't be in your city anymore (e.g.all blondes most leave the city, or other stupid reasons).But it is your RIGHT, to live wereever you want. Is a church/sect/cullt different than a human being or a government?

Help me understand, please, how a church, a single entity, specifically the LDS church, is taking away people's basic civil rights in any way except by their ability to nationally vote.

Quote from: interalia on May 17, 2009, 07:38:56 PM
Help me understand, please, how a church, a single entity, specifically the LDS church, is taking away people's basic civil rights in any way except by their ability to nationally vote.

Actually, I am too tired to answer, because now in Germany it is 03:55 a.m.. But, nevertheless, I will try it.
If we accept once, you wouldn't have been with the Mormons, and would have brought the sex-change surgery already behind yourself. You get to know the church, say that you were transsexual (because you are too silly or are too honest), and experience how you must wait long for your baptism. Others, are baptized before you, although they came later. But they haven't been transsexual. Then, nevertheless, you have made it, and werebaptized.While other women may marry their husbands in the temple, this is kept you. In other respects you aren't allowed in the temple (for the temple work). You not even get your Endowment!
So if this is no violation of civil rights (equal treatment), I also don't know!
You got the right to marry whom ever you want. You are a (straight) woman in this case/example.

the lsd church.. I smoke so much pot there, they don't really mind me being there, I just don't go in, the forest is peaceful enough, maybe one day I'll go in there, but outside I see all kinds of beautiful stuff, and its nice, and inside, I feel like I'm being judged, but <not allowed> god, ultimately all things are one right, anyone can say anything in any religion, a group of christians can say you are not christian if you ride bikes with tassles, but another christian can say she is as long as your hair is red, what do either of them know? Do they exist in the first place, or is it just like... a bad idea? Beliefs are wierd, but just follow your heart, and not what other people tell you.

No ones being trampled on, its just they can believe and say and do what they want with their lives, just like everyone does.

I got told by my branch that I would be excommunicated should I even attempt to start on the road to transition.  I told them to shove their church, I only joined it to make my wife happy... and out of curiosity!  I remember when the "Elder" was preforming my interview before baptism, I never really answered his questions straight.  "Do you believe Jesus was the son of god?" He asked.

  "The church and the bible describes us ALL as the children of god, if this is to be accepted as true, then would it not mean that Jesus is the son of god without a doubt?" was my answer.

I admit I miss my sister missionaries, especially Gunko!  However sadly when she went back home her boyfriend broke up with her, and now the church is pressuring her into marrying another man, not but 2 weeks after!  The sad part is she's allowing it!  Not something I can accept... as such I haven't talked to her since I found out.  I'm so opinionated sometimes, so maybe it's best not to talk to me in times like this.

Well of course I don't agree with what the Mormons are doing, but I still fail to see how this denies you any certain rights, unless you were forced to attend there.  You can still marry whomever you want, just in either a civil ceremony or in another church that is tolerant.

Perhaps it is a cultural difference, but please help me understand.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Far too often the "culture" of the church members (especially the culture in Utah) is mixed up with being church "doctrine".  I have seen far too many people hurt because they cannot make this distinction.  In such an environment where a majority of people are the same faith, nutty stuff can happen, cultural beliefs can take on a life of their own, and what would normally be a simple social stigma can seem like hard and fast religious doctrine.

I spend a lot of time asking members, "why do you believe that?"  "what is your basis for that belief?"  Sometimes they find they don't know where they came up with it, it is just so common they thought it was true.  This type of thinking is not limited to the LDS church of course, but is common among professors of faith.  I do my best to show people the difference between what is doctrine and what is culture.

This is the battle I fight daily with people in and outside of the church.  The church might be made up of the sum of its parts (the good and the bad) but the doctrine stands apart from its culture.  If someone is offended because of some of the negative cultural behaviors of church members, then it is understandable, but not worth losing one's faith over - not if it is founded in the doctrine.

Quote from: Kristi on May 17, 2009, 10:20:41 PM
Well of course I don't agree with what the Mormons are doing, but I still fail to see how this denies you any certain rights, unless you were forced to attend there.  You can still marry whomever you want, just in either a civil ceremony or in another church that is tolerant.

Perhaps it is a cultural difference, but please help me understand.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

This isn't right!
In Germany a man can marry, e.g., on the registry office another man. If A Mormon makes this, he or she is excommunicated immediately. With the Mormons only heterosexual marriages are permitted, and till few decades was also forbidden the marriages of mixed race in the LDS "Church". In the 19th century such people were even killed by the Mormons in their own church. The "law" of the blood atonement" required it.
And a transsexual person who had revealed himself can't marry as a woman a man.. And for Mormons this is very important, because only the temple marriage is valid with the Mormons for all eternity.
To transsexual members to refuse this, is an violation of their civil rights.

Quote from: Witch of Hope on May 18, 2009, 02:54:21 PM
This isn't right!
In Germany a man can marry, e.g., on the registry office another man. If A Mormon makes this, he or she is excommunicated immediately. With the Mormons only heterosexual marriages are permitted, and till few decades was also forbidden the marriages of mixed race in the LDS "Church". In the 19th century such people were even killed by the Mormons in their own church. The "law" of the blood atonement" required it.
And a transsexual person who had revealed himself can't marry as a woman a man.. And for Mormons this is very important, because only the temple marriage is valid with the Mormons for all eternity.
To transsexual members to refuse this, is an violation of their civil rights.

Would you then have the government forcibly make the LDS church perform same sex marriages in their temples?

Quote from: Witch of Hope on May 18, 2009, 02:54:21 PM
This isn't right! ..........
To transsexual members to refuse this, is an violation of their civil rights.

What civil rights do we have that say we should be able to tell any religion what to believe and what to practice?

Trust me, I am not advocating for their practice.  If you are one of the members, it is a violation of who you are, but not your civil rights.  If you want to have a temple marriage, you know the rules.  Here in the United States it took threatening the LDS church with revocation of their tax-exempt status before they had a "revelation" and decided black people were not barred from full participation and marriage.  I don't think you have any such leverage there.  You have two options.  You can stay and try and change them from within.  Or you can leave and find some other group whose beliefs are not so obviously opposed to yours.  If you do leave, as you pointed out, you can marry whomever you wish in a civil ceremony.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Witch of Hope on May 17, 2009, 07:12:08 PM
Kristi, it isn't a matter of a voluntary membership, it is a matter of civil rights! Noone, no Church, Sect or destructive cult (as i seethe LDS church) hast the right, to denied people their basic rights.
You are an American, right? What would be if someone want to say to you (maybe from the government) that you can't be in your city anymore (e.g.all blondes most leave the city, or other stupid reasons).But it is your RIGHT, to live wereever you want. Is a church/sect/cullt different than a human being or a government?

I don't see how this is a violation of civil rights. Of course the LDS is denying basic liberties to the person in question, but that person doesn't need to be there in the first place.

Quote from: interalia on May 18, 2009, 03:38:20 PM
Would you then have the government forcibly make the LDS church perform same sex marriages in their temples?

No, but this "church" must accept the legal marriage of two gay mormons. This is a minumum. Even the LDS stands under German law in Germany.

Quote from: Witch of Hope on July 28, 2009, 08:56:37 AM
No, but this "church" must accept the legal marriage of two gay mormons. This is a minumum. Even the LDS stands under German law in Germany.

I have a German friend who I chat with on the phone regularly.  He has told me many many instances where German law is far more progressive and fair than what we have in the USA.  I think that the confusion here is that you don't understand how uncivilized we are in the USA.  Our government (and laws) is still massively dominated by people who hold religion first then social responsibility.  My friend finds our culture very backward and is constantly amazed at what we endure here.

Maggie

Quote from: interalia on May 18, 2009, 03:38:20 PM
Would you then have the government forcibly make the LDS church perform same sex marriages in their temples?

In a word. Yes.  Atleast in Ontario.  If you read the Ontario human rights act, it states of course that Anyone has the right to practice any religion and follow their beliefs without prejudice.  However it also states on the tail end of this that, "Unless the belief poses safety issues, is hate based or terrorist in nature, or contradicts another section of the human rights act."  The other section I'm refering to of course is that "No person or organization can discriminate against someone due to gender idenity."  and of course the deffinition of discrimination, in short, is:  Treating a group of people as better than another group of people, by refusing services, insulting on basis of.....ect,ect.

This goes for non-trans homosexuals as well as trans homo, and hetero.  In otherwords (at least in Ontario Canada) LDS no long has the right nor choice whether they want to do it or not, It's the LAW that they have to provide the same services to every member of the church (and cannot legally refuse membership, or disallow membership) on basises of sex,gender identy, race, ect. ect.

So yes, the church can and SHOULD be forced to allow these things in their temple whether they like it or not.  As far as I'm concerned you should follow the laws of whatever country your living in, even if you dislike them.

As the LGBT church manual of  instructions (issue 1999) describes, there are for Mormons two different kinds of phobic people:

Those which are already Mormons (they are excommunicated immediately, and mayn't be baptized again, except, if they admit their sins of intolerance, vanity and greed and repent those sins. And those which have their phobias already deeply ingrained, but not yet were baptized. Special rules are apply for this group:

1. Before their baptism they must put first of all to themselves many, often of very intimate questions by first the gay and lesbian church leaders then by the trans leaders.

2. Phobics may not be allowed the freedom of speech nor the audience of their peers.

3. The men who are born as phobics mayn't receive the priesthood until their phobia is cleansed from their bodies.

4. Fear mongering shall not be allowed and shall be publicly exposed for what it is by any accepted LGBT member.

5. The sins of intolerance, hatred, vanity and self righteousness shall not be acceptable behavior for any member of the congregation.  Sinners shall repent and apologize to those they have hurt or face excommunication.

Our children shall be protected at all costs from these sins and any sin against a creature of God. They are our future and we need to instill in them love, compassion, tolerance and knowledge.

Respectfully,
The LGBT Community Church

Quote from: Witch of Hope on July 28, 2009, 08:56:37 AM
No, but this "church" must accept the legal marriage of two gay mormons. This is a minumum. Even the LDS stands under German law in Germany.

Please think about this a little bit.  Even in your country German law forced the church to go along with discrimination, eventually ending up in a convoluted form of state-sanctioned "Christianity" called the German Christian movement, which led eventually to the holocaust.  However, in 1934, a group of Christian leaders stood up to the government in opposition.  Most of them were killed.  However the statement they adopted was called the Barmen Declaration, which is still widely studied today.  It is one of the finest  statements ever penned.  It states, among other things, that the church and the state derive their policies from separate sources.  As much as it tries, the government cannot ultimately control the beliefs of any group of people, including the Mormons.  And contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, the government is not always on the correct side.  You of all people should know that.  However painful it may be to you, this interplay between church and state seems to be necessary for moral progress.   Further, Germany does have a state church and it is NOT Mormon.  You are in no way required to attend any LDS functions or adhere to their horrible doctrine in this area.  You are doing this voluntarily.  Therefore you have no right to demand anything.  Find a church that matches what you believe and be at peace.

You can find the text to the Barmen Declaration here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/barmen.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/barmen.htm)

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Witch of Hope on May 18, 2009, 02:54:21 PM
This isn't right!
In Germany a man can marry, e.g., on the registry office another man. If A Mormon makes this, he or she is excommunicated immediately. With the Mormons only heterosexual marriages are permitted, and till few decades was also forbidden the marriages of mixed race in the LDS "Church". In the 19th century such people were even killed by the Mormons in their own church. The "law" of the blood atonement" required it.
And a transsexual person who had revealed himself can't marry as a woman a man.. And for Mormons this is very important, because only the temple marriage is valid with the Mormons for all eternity.
To transsexual members to refuse this, is an violation of their civil rights.

What puzzles me is that if you think the LDS is a cult (and I don't dispute that) then why do you CARE whether or not trans people can have temple marriages and participate in, essentially, false religion?

you have to understand, if you do not already, that despite their claims, the theologies of Mormonism are wildly different from Orthodox Christianity.

A lot of Mormons don't realize this until they get pretty deep into the religion and by then they've been indoctrinated enough most don't care.

But the point is, you have to first believe all that "Temple marriage" business they preach in the first place boefore you can get upset that a trans person is denied that sort of thing. Do you?

If not, I don't see why you don't simply wash your hands of the LDS entirely and leave them to their own errors.

---

Post Merge: July 28, 2009, 06:36:59 PM

---

Quote from: Adrianna on July 28, 2009, 09:46:03 AM
In a word. Yes.  Atleast in Ontario.  If you read the Ontario human rights act, it states of course that Anyone has the right to practice any religion and follow their beliefs without prejudice.  However it also states on the tail end of this that, "Unless the belief poses safety issues, is hate based or terrorist in nature, or contradicts another section of the human rights act."  The other section I'm refering to of course is that "No person or organization can discriminate against someone due to gender idenity."  and of course the deffinition of discrimination, in short, is:  Treating a group of people as better than another group of people, by refusing services, insulting on basis of.....ect,ect.

This goes for non-trans homosexuals as well as trans homo, and hetero.  In otherwords (at least in Ontario Canada) LDS no long has the right nor choice whether they want to do it or not, It's the LAW that they have to provide the same services to every member of the church (and cannot legally refuse membership, or disallow membership) on basises of sex,gender identy, race, ect. ect.

So yes, the church can and SHOULD be forced to allow these things in their temple whether they like it or not.  As far as I'm concerned you should follow the laws of whatever country your living in, even if you dislike them.

And THIS, among other things, is EXACTLY what the Religious Right in the U.S. is so paranoid about. Whenever you hear a RR Fundie in America say that the civil rights movements threatens their freedom of religion THIS is one of the things they are talking about (along with "hate speech" cases that have fined Christians for publication of scripture proof-texts)

IMO, the law in Canada described above is a clear and direct violation of freedom of religion and in this sense, the nation of Canada does not have complete religious freedom.

A church which is required to place the doctrines of the government above the doctrines of the church has no freedom but what the government permits. It flies in the face of what a great many people came to this continent to escape.

So when you see Dobson and the rest opposing every move the gay rights crowd makes and calling the "gay agenda" a threat to their own freedoms - now you know WHY they say that.

They have good reason to worry.

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 28, 2009, 06:23:57 PM

you have to understand, if you do not already, that despite their claims, the theologies of Mormonism are wildly different from Orthodox Christianity.  A lot of Mormons don't realize this until they get pretty deep into the religion and by then they've been indoctrinated enough most don't care.

Very true.  They are in no way Christians in the orthodox sense.  However, I still support their right to believe whatever they wish.

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 28, 2009, 06:23:57 PMA church which is required to place the doctrines of the government above the doctrines of the church has no freedom but what the government permits. It flies in the face of what a great many people came to this continent to escape.

Which is exactly what I was referring to above. 

Again, these words from the mouth of Karl Barth, the man many consider to be the finest German theologian:

8.09 In view of the errors of the "German Christians" of the present Reich Church government which are devastating the Church and also therefore breaking up the unity of the German Evangelical Church, we confess the following evangelical truths:   .....

8.18 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.

8.21 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.

8.23 We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commision, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church's vocation as well.

8.24 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.

Like it or not, this is a German document, YOUR history.  Your way works just fine if the state is against something or someone you hate.  But sooner or later, it will be against you.  Then do you really want the state telling you what you can and cannot believe?  If you desire to be a puppet in this life, go ahead and push for the right of the German government to dictate doctrine to the Mormon church.  If you want to be free to use your own brain and decide for yourself what you will believe and how you will worship, then let the Mormons believe and practice as they wish.  Go elsewhere.  You cannot have it both ways.  If you wish the state to establish religious practices and beliefs, you will end up losing your freedom.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 28, 2009, 06:23:57 PM
And THIS, among other things, is EXACTLY what the Religious Right in the U.S. is so paranoid about. Whenever you hear a RR Fundie in America say that the civil rights movements threatens their freedom of religion THIS is one of the things they are talking about (along with "hate speech" cases that have fined Christians for publication of scripture proof-texts)

IMO, the law in Canada described above is a clear and direct violation of freedom of religion and in this sense, the nation of Canada does not have complete religious freedom.

A church which is required to place the doctrines of the government above the doctrines of the church has no freedom but what the government permits. It flies in the face of what a great many people came to this continent to escape.

So when you see Dobson and the rest opposing every move the gay rights crowd makes and calling the "gay agenda" a threat to their own freedoms - now you know WHY they say that.

They have good reason to worry.

How can something be a violation of its self?  Freedom of Religion is part of the Human Rights Act.  So if the Human Rights Act states "Freedom of Religion, Unless these practices are motivated by hate, terriorist actions, or contradicts other sections of the Human Rights act."?  Something cannot be a violation of its self.  I could understand if it said that everyone should have Freedom of Religion no matter what.  Then a different section nulified that, then yes that would be a violation, but that's not what we have here.

Are you saying that someone should have the right to be discriminatory against someone just because a (Man Writen) Book that they say is "Holy" said so?  Somehow that doesn't seem fair to me.  Furthermore, if god is "all loving" then shouldn't the church be so as well?  Ultimately, the Freedom of Religion is the freedom that someone has to choose whichever religion they want to follow.  So then, in that respect, wouldn't refusing someone to follow your religion for whatever reason, be a violation of the Freedom of Religion.

Quote from: Adrianna on July 28, 2009, 10:03:19 PM
How can something be a violation of its self?  Freedom of Religion is part of the Human Rights Act.  So if the Human Rights Act states "Freedom of Religion, Unless these practices are motivated by hate, terriorist actions, or contradicts other sections of the Human Rights act."?  Something cannot be a violation of its self.

Unless the government finds that the discrimination in question is motivated by hate (a ludicrous proposition on the face of it since it amounts to mind-reading) then that's exactly what it does.

if I tell you that you have freedom of speech except that you cannot say anything insulting about your government - you do not in fact have freedom of speech no matter what i have previously claimed.

Quote
I could understand if it said that everyone should have Freedom of Religion no matter what.  Then a different section nulified that, then yes that would be a violation, but that's not what we have here.

Are you saying that someone should have the right to be discriminatory against someone just because a (Man Writen) Book that they say is "Holy" said so?

Within the context of religious practice, and so long as they do no physical harm to another, yes.

I would not suggest, for instance, that a landlord should be able to refuse to rent to you on religious grounds because lack of shelter does you physical harm. But refusing you a religious ceremony in a church building does not.

And Iwould absolutely suggest that any religion of any sort has the right to practice it's rites, or refrain, as they see fit within the confines of their place of worship (again, short of physical harm).

Quote
  Somehow that doesn't seem fair to me.  Furthermore, if god is "all loving" then shouldn't the church be so as well?

They should. but it's not the government's place to make that call.

QuoteUltimately, the Freedom of Religion is the freedom that someone has to choose whichever religion they want to follow.

It's also the freedom to follow ones concious within that religion.

What difference does it make what church you join if you can only practice government approved doctrines. What happens when the government decides the articles of your faith do harm to the public good? what happens if that changes when the party in power changes? What happens if ALL religion is deemed harmful to the public good (as many atheists believe)?

Quote
  So then, in that respect, wouldn't refusing someone to follow your religion for whatever reason, be a violation of the Freedom of Religion.

It would be a conflict between to competing claims to freedom. but the truth is that you cannot impose the claim of the one, or the few, against the claim of the many when both claims are equally valid.

Quote from: Nichole on July 28, 2009, 10:48:37 PM
Please understand that the Deutsche Evangelishe Kirche written about by Barth is the Lutheran Church in USA, not the current brand of evangelicalistas we are used to here.

Close, but not quite.  Actually, when the Barth wrote about the German Evangelical Church he is referring to a conglomeration of churches.   In German, the term evangelisch is more accurately rendered Protestant in today's American vernacular.  It simply means non-Roman Catholic.  This conglomeration of churches still exists today and is composed of 22 church bodies: 2 Reformed (Calvinist), 9 Lutheran and 11 united bodies.  Interestingly, they are a far cry from what many in the USA would consider part of the evangelical wing.  And also notable is the fact that the Mormons do NOT participate.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

In short, Laura, your are saying everyone should have the Freedom of Discrimination.

Your words amount to nothing more than "My church tells me I should hate you, so I do."  Which is a step in the entirely oppsite direction society should be taking.  Your right, refusing someone services for whatever reason does no phsyical harm, but it does however provide psycological harm, which in many cases is worse.  Especially when speaking about LDS, the church wishes to keep following the religion in the family.  For many families it's not a choice, but rather a "duty".  If you are born into a Mormon family you are expected to be a mormon no if ands or buts.  Of course the church does have "outs" to make it seem less mind controlled, however I have never seen a mormon family who would allow their children to take this out.  You could argue that it's not the business of the church what parents force their children to do, but when it's the church that teaches them to do it through "doctrine" before they even have children then yes I do blame the church.

If you are forced to follow doctrine, that states you are less of a person then anyone else, and your family threatens to disown you, then YES that causes a great LOT of harm to someone.  This is why the Human Rights act is in place.  The wonders of democracy allow the people of a country to vote on what they think is right.  So if everyone believed the Human Rights Act as correct, then what does even a church have to complain about.  Obviously many people even within that church also agree with the Human Rights Act, if a select few disagree TOUGH!  It is human nature to wish to feel safe and secure within one's community, including within their religious practices.  It's the governments job to make sure the community runs smoothly, and to make sure people feel safe and secure.  If a "religion" wishes to contradict this, and force people to feel bad about themsleves, then obviously the religion is not doing any good for the community.  Therefore, it IS the governments job to make sure said religion either adheres to laws in place to help people, or STFU and get out of their country.  Government runs the country, not religion.

Quote from: Nichole on July 29, 2009, 10:24:03 AM
Everyone already has that right. How can it be removed?

IF you're willing to defy all, you are allowed to be discriminatory.

It's not a right, it's just something people do.  It's wrong, hateful, and hurtful. 

OK, gee whiz I'm hard pressed here.  I'm not exactly a defender of the faith (no matter what it is) but I do strongly believe in basic American principals, and even if I don't like it all that much, Freedom of Worship is pretty primal among them.  So too - and I think its even closer to the point here - so is Freedom of Association.

So if you want to go to the big Catholic Church here - we got one, it looks like an Agitator to a Maytag washing machine, but there it is.*  Or you can go across the Bay to the huge LDS temple over on another mountain.  Or you can go to African Orthodox Church of St. John Coltrane and ponder the meaning of the universe while listening to A Love Supreme.  (Yes its a real church, not all that bad as churches go, and you can even be white and go, and face it, some people find Bach boring, Steven Chapman even more so.)

That's cool.  I'm down with that - it would be nice if they paid taxes, but... - so long as no one is forced to go, or forced to support them.

As far as I've ever seen Western Religion is pretty legalistic, they have lots, and lots, and lots, and even more rules.  You're free to accept those rules as a part of belonging.  Your also free to eat ham and cheese sandwiches with a shrimp cocktail, or eat hamburgers on Friday during Lent, or not wear special underwear if you don't want to. 

If you don't like their rules, or their doctrines, or their faith, or their books, or the way the dress - easy, don't go.  If you're going to join a voluntary organization, fine, don't complain to me about the rules.

Oh but they discriminate against me.  Boo Fricking Hoo.  I got some new news apparently.  All sorts of groups, some religious, and many not, discriminate against somethings, some have a pretty long list and discriminate against just about everything else. 

Laura Hope, who is a good Baptist, went to church all the time, prayed, read the bible (I'm guessing here, but I bet I'm right) did all the right Christian worship type things - Laura is going to hell.  I know that because every nun that taught me up to the eight grade told me so.  Because Laura is not a Catholic, she is, as one of my nuns called it, a DBP, a Dirty Black Protestant.  She might have been baptized, but it didn't count because a priest didn't do it in a Catholic Church.  Simple as that.  You just can't have people running willie nilly around the countryside baptizing people now can you?  I was taught that being a Christian wasn't even enough, you had to be our kind of Christian for it to do any good, in this case, Roman Catholic.  And the LDS wasn't just a cult, which is kind of a new trendy word, it was an outright heresy, and it was a fast ticket to the place below with all the fire and they guy with the pointy stick to believe in that.

Nor is the Roman Catholic Church alone in that - plenty of people, some Baptists even, think the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, so I guess turnabout is fair play.  Jews still call themselves 'the chosen people of God' and very much mean by that, that you aren't chosen there pal.  You follow Allah or you're an infidel, and even at that Suni or ->-bleeped-<-e?

I think its perfectly reasonable (well, to the degree that I cringe to write the word reasonable when talking about religion) for a group to set rules, and try and enforce them - within the confines and structures of the community of believers only. If your church says porno is bad, fine.  People in that church should not look at it, however they have no right to tell me that I can't thumb through my well-worn copy of Sluts in Uniform, vol. 7 either.

Many Western religions - most if not all of them in fact, have a real problem with homosexuality for a number of reasons, some of them, like the LDS actually make sense in the confines of the doctrine. Others find something in some obscure book of the Old Testament (while very carefully ignoring everything else around it) and run from there.  Catholics seem to hate it because it was so very Roman.  So be it.

But I think that any church, like any other voluntary organization, has an absolute right to define who are, and who are not, members. It's not the business of government to decide, and what's Canada going to do when the Pope or the Bishop excommunicates a Canadian Citizen?  Go to Rome and get an audience and persuade the church to change its mind?  Canada will be long gone as a nation state in far less time then it takes the Catholic Church to change its mind.

It was never the point of American law, or the Canadian one either, to preempt the religious doctrines of any particular religion.  And even if that actually flies in Canada - and I doubt it, they are not going to force Churches to marry homosexuals, or accept transsexuals - its never, NEVER, N-E-V-E-R, going to fly like that this side of the border.  The hate speech stuff is strictly for public speech, not for private speech, and what's said inside a church is considered private speech.






* I'm not kidding, look at the picture and you tell me what it looks like
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/St_Mary%27s_Cathedral_-_San_Francisco.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/St_Mary%27s_Cathedral_-_San_Francisco.jpg)

Brilliant!  I want to ply you with drink and stick my tongue in your ear for that post :)  Nicely said!

I take money and gift cards too.

Ahh, story of my life - that's how I'm a union delegate and rep for the negotiation team, because everyone is too busy making money to worry about the contract.

Hell no, I was just going to organize a picket line and collect strike pay, LOL.

Well as someone who went to a male only school - in fine Catholic tradition, right next door to an all girls school, so I kinda missed the point - but, I'm aware of all that.  But England is a long way away, and I don't tour anymore, so I think I'll be safe.  If he gets close I'll just put on the bootleg recording of Jewell playing last night and he'll fall asleep (like we all did) real fast.

I could argue that in fact not having young women around was good for the young men too.  Face it guys are dumb enough without giving them a reason.  Take any bunch of stupid guys, add in one reasonably attractive girl, and you get supercharged stupid.

Quote from: Nichole on July 29, 2009, 02:09:56 PM
You'll get no argument from me on that. :)

Nor I. :laugh:

Speaking of LDS, I took some of that once. Didn't know they were giving it away free in church but I heard about this concert where there was some free kool-aid...

Quote from: Adrianna on July 29, 2009, 09:47:00 AM
In short, Laura, your are saying everyone should have the Freedom of Discrimination.

Yes.

Otherwise known as Freedom of Conscious or Freedom period. Discrimination happens all the time and in thousands of contexts and most of them perfectly logical. For instance, I would never be hired as a waitress at Hooters. Is that discrimination? Yep.

But that's the owners of the stores free right. As it should be.

Now, that freedom, like all freedom, can be abused and needs policing but it's not a wrong in the abstract.

Quote
Your words amount to nothing more than "My church tells me I should hate you, so I do."

and this is the fundamental mistake that all non-believers insist on making about religious people.

How do you conclude that the only motivation is HATE? The Christian religions believe strongly against drunkeness  - does that mean they HATE alcoholics? The traditional Christian religion condemns adultery - does that mean they HATE ever person who cheats on their spouse?

"Ah," but you will say, "those are ACTIONS not identities" and this is true - but not from THEIR point of view. In THEIR worldview, homosexualism as an action, not an identity - so within the context of their belief system, it is EXACTLY the same as adultery or drunkeness or cheating or stealing.
Do they HATE thieves?

Or do they simply disapprove of the choices they make?

As long as you insist they are motivated by hatred for you, you can never hope to truly understand the nature of your opponent.

Quote
  Which is a step in the entirely oppsite direction society should be taking.  Your right, refusing someone services for whatever reason does no phsyical harm, but it does however provide psycological harm, which in many cases is worse.

No worse than the harm that would be done to the church if they were forced to bless that which they believe is wrong. Would you ask the church to give there blessing to intoxication by providing free pot every service? To give their blessing to Adultery by having "Swingers Night" on Saturdays?
I don't think a fair minded person would. so you do psychological harm to the people in the church when you require them to violate their sincerely held beliefs every bit as much as you might harm the applicant.

the difference is that if you require ALL churches to bless that which they disapprove of, then they have nowhere to turn to find what they seek. On the other hand, if the gay couple is turned away from an unaccepting church, there ARE accepting churches they can turn to. So who suffers the greater harm?

Quote
  Especially when speaking about LDS, the church wishes to keep following the religion in the family.  For many families it's not a choice, but rather a "duty".  If you are born into a Mormon family you are expected to be a mormon no if ands or buts.

Right.

Except of course that being gay, you have already rejected the authority of that church - so why then do you reverse course and seek the official blessing of a body who's official authority you have just rejected?

IF there authority is so important you need there blessing on your marriage, THEN there authority is so important that you do not WANT a gay marriage or even to exercise your homosexuality. IF on the other hand, their authority can be spurned because being gay, you know better, then their authority CAN'T (or shouldn't be) very important to you in other areas.

A personal example - i was raised as a Southern Baptist and doctrinally I'm more Baptist than I am anything else - BUT, it would never occur to me to present as female in any SBC church I've ever seen. Why? Because I KNOW they have it wrong when it comes to transsexualism...so why would i go to them demanding they bless what I KNOW they believe is sin?

It's entirely irrational to do so.

Quote
  Of course the church does have "outs" to make it seem less mind controlled, however I have never seen a mormon family who would allow their children to take this out.  You could argue that it's not the business of the church what parents force their children to do, but when it's the church that teaches them to do it through "doctrine" before they even have children then yes I do blame the church.

If you are forced to follow doctrine, that states you are less of a person then anyone else, and your family threatens to disown you, then YES that causes a great LOT of harm to someone.

I agree. I simply think that in this case the solution is worse than the problem. And so have many others far smarter than me over he last few centuries.

QuoteThis is why the Human Rights act is in place.  The wonders of democracy allow the people of a country to vote on what they think is right.

So....every U.S. state that has voted on it has voted anywhere from 60% to almost 90% against Gay Marriage.

therefore Gay marriage is wrong - correct?

The wonders of democracy and all that, ya know.

Quote
  So if everyone believed the Human Rights Act as correct, then what does even a church have to complain about.  Obviously many people even within that church also agree with the Human Rights Act, if a select few disagree TOUGH!

The majority rules and the minority can deal, is that your position?

That's a VERY dark place for a homosexual or a transsexual to be. All of us in the U.S. might as well just resign ourselves to transsexual enjoying no protected status then, since the majority have spoken. legal challenges to anti-gay marriage referendums are clearly out of place since the majority has spoken.

right?

See, it's EASY to say "you folks in the minority can suck it!" when the folks in the minority are....someone else.

We call it evil and wrong when American Christians tell the gays "Tough!" and well we should, but when Canadians tell the church "Tough!" that's not only ok, but a GOOD thing?

That's an interesting thought process.

Quote
  It is human nature to wish to feel safe and secure within one's community, including within their religious practices.  It's the governments job to make sure the community runs smoothly, and to make sure people feel safe and secure.

I think we have a pretty fundamental difference of opinion about what the government's job is.

Nevertheless, what makes you think the church memebers will feel "safe and secure" when the government dictates there theology and practice?

QuoteIf a "religion" wishes to contradict this, and force people to feel bad about themsleves, then obviously the religion is not doing any good for the community. 

Is that the only good a church does for a community - to make people feel good about themselves?

Quote
Therefore, it IS the governments job to make sure said religion either adheres to laws in place to help people, or STFU and get out of their country.  Government runs the country, not religion.

but religion isn't trying to run the country - just their own religion.

As for "STFU or get out" - what would you think of me if I said "Gays in America need to STFU or get out" - or insert the word "blacks" or "Hispanics" or "transsexuals" for gay.

It seems to me that if I applied your reasoning to your comments, I'd have to conclude you HATE the Christians. if you don't, then your attribution of hatred to them is logically inconsistent. If you do, then you can't judge others for hatred if you are a hater too.

Either way, your argument isn't logically tenable.

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 29, 2009, 05:39:27 PM"Ah," but you will say, "those are ACTIONS not identities" and this is true - but not from THEIR point of view. In THEIR worldview, homosexualism as an action, not an identity - so within the context of their belief system, it is EXACTLY the same as adultery or drunkeness or cheating or stealing.
Do they HATE thieves?

Wrong. The LDS church has recognized homosexuality as a born identity, not an act. They are now sympathetic and understand it is something is born with, however they think that homosexual sex is the sin. So they are acknowledging that it is not a choice to be made who you are attracted to sexually, but the act of sex is a choice... as is the same choice that heterosexual couples make.

Also, it is apart of the Mormon belief to abide by the LAWS OF THE LAND. Which means the laws of where they live are also their own laws. This does not tread on them, this is what they are taught to obey. So if such a rule were to be made (And Adrianna is wrong, Churches are not allowed to be forced to practise marriage here if they do not want to.) then they would have no choice but to abide because of their own rules.

Of course I realize not every church follows the same train of thought, but not every church is against same-sex marriage or the LGBT either.

But like mentioned before, when Canada redefined marriage, they also stated that religious groups are not obliged to do so if it went against their beliefs.

Quote from: Adrianna on July 29, 2009, 09:47:00 AM

If you are forced to follow doctrine, that states you are less of a person then anyone else, and your family threatens to disown you, then YES that causes a great LOT of harm to someone.  This is why the Human Rights act is in place.  The wonders of democracy allow the people of a country to vote on what they think is right.  So if everyone believed the Human Rights Act as correct, then what does even a church have to complain about.  Obviously many people even within that church also agree with the Human Rights Act, if a select few disagree TOUGH!  It is human nature to wish to feel safe and secure within one's community, including within their religious practices.  It's the governments job to make sure the community runs smoothly, and to make sure people feel safe and secure.  If a "religion" wishes to contradict this, and force people to feel bad about themsleves, then obviously the religion is not doing any good for the community.  Therefore, it IS the governments job to make sure said religion either adheres to laws in place to help people, or STFU and get out of their country.  Government runs the country, not religion.

This is perhaps the most convoluted statement I have see in a long time.  You don't want people forced to follow a doctrine, but on the other hand you want people to be forced to follow your own doctrine.  You cannot have it both ways.  Further, you want people to be forced into your definition of "good" for the community.  Almost no two people agree on precisely what that would be.  What you appear to be advocating is a system of tyranny where a few are able to force their beliefs on all organizations in the country, precisely what you seem to be accusing the church of trying to do.   No religion I know now wants to take over governmental functions,  most are too busy doing things for society the government has neither the funds or the ability to do.  Your statements show a complete ignorance of what the church is all about and what it does in society.  Are you familiar at all with how much charitable work Christians do in the world?  No, I am not saying you should join in, because the faith motivation is something you obviously do not understand.  But before you go telling us to STFU at least put together some kind of rational basis for conversation.  For now, thanks for showing us all you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

because some people, especially those who think they know what is "good for all" or read it in some doctrine, cannot comprehend any other good better than theirs. The world they envision would be perfect if only they could get all these damned non-believers to comply. Some try this with gentle persuasion, others use more desperate means.

No religion I know now wants to take over governmental functions

Must have missed that whole Holy Roman Empire deal eh?  (it was neither Holy, nor Roman, but hey, one out of three ain't bad, it was an empire, pretty much presided over by the Pope.  Look up, 'two swords doctrine' for some fun reading.)  Islamic Republics?  Lots of religions have sought, very successfully in many cases to control the government.  I believe there are people here, specifically those in the dominionist movement, that would seek a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.

So, such people exist, and history shows they could be successful, I doubt here in the current climate, but things change.

To Laura.  I do not "Hate Christians"  I disapprove of religious ORGANIZATIONS as a whole. If you are christian, or whatever, and you wish to believe in things, even hate related things, in your own time, then please go ahead.  However when you group together, call your self a "Holy Church" and demand that others bow to your beliefs (Which is exactly what any orgasnization is doing when they ask to be legally allowed to discriminate against people for whatever reason) then THAT is wrong.

If you wish to organize and display your right to freedom of assembly be my guest.  However, by becoming a so called "organization" or cult (which all organized religions are), and you demand that the government not Tax you just because your a "church", then you damn well better listen to what the government has to say. 

To Kristi, I do know what I'm talking about.  I've been a member of quite a few churches before to see what they are all about.  They appear on the outside with motivations of good and charity.  Yes they do adhere to this.  Yes, in general churches ARE a good thing.  However discrimination is paramount in all churches.  "This person is bad because they are black, This person is bad because they are gay, this person is bad..ect...ect."  You cannot honestly expect the government to try to abolish such things by making laws that ALL in their country must follow, yet say "But your a church, so it's ok for you to hate."  It just shouldn't happen.  It is not tyranny that I am speaking of.  If the majority of people believe that discrimination should not be accepted, and show this through democractic voting, then who is the church to argue?  No one likes a pompus jerk who thinks they are better then everyone else, why is the church an exception?  Sure democractic government isn't perfect, and it never claims to be, but atleast it's trying to make life better for everyone.  I still do not see the point in saying your god is all loving, but then say certain people are better than everyone else... it completely contradicts its self.

I'm not perfect, and my views are just that, My views.  Clearly though, there is something seriously wrong with an organization that wishes to punish people for things beyond thier control.

you demand that the government not Tax you just because your a "church", then you damn well better listen to what the government has to say.

That's a misreading of the reason, the purpose and the intent of the whole separation of church and state deal.  Churches are required to obey some laws, like building and fire codes, but the general idea was the government stayed away from religion, and religion stayed away from government.

Churches, many of them at least, feel their reason for existence is to stay to the right path, even when popular opinion disagrees with them.  If you don't like it, don't go.  Easy enough.  But in thinking that your way is 'better than everyone else' then who exactly is the pompous ass then?  Especially when what you are suggesting is compliance by force.

Quote from: Adrianna on July 29, 2009, 09:26:18 PM
To Laura.  I do not "Hate Christians"  I disapprove of religious ORGANIZATIONS as a whole. If you are christian, or whatever, and you wish to believe in things, even hate related things, in your own time, then please go ahead.  However when you group together, call your self a "Holy Church" and demand that others bow to your beliefs (Which is exactly what any orgasnization is doing when they ask to be legally allowed to discriminate against people for whatever reason) then THAT is wrong.

If you wish to organize and display your right to freedom of assembly be my guest.  However, by becoming a so called "organization" or cult (which all organized religions are), and you demand that the government not Tax you just because your a "church", then you damn well better listen to what the government has to say. 

To Kristi, I do know what I'm talking about.  I've been a member of quite a few churches before to see what they are all about.  They appear on the outside with motivations of good and charity.  Yes they do adhere to this.  Yes, in general churches ARE a good thing.  However discrimination is paramount in all churches.  "This person is bad because they are black, This person is bad because they are gay, this person is bad..ect...ect."  You cannot honestly expect the government to try to abolish such things by making laws that ALL in their country must follow, yet say "But your a church, so it's ok for you to hate."  It just shouldn't happen.  It is not tyranny that I am speaking of.  If the majority of people believe that discrimination should not be accepted, and show this through democractic voting, then who is the church to argue?  No one likes a pompus jerk who thinks they are better then everyone else, why is the church an exception?  Sure democractic government isn't perfect, and it never claims to be, but atleast it's trying to make life better for everyone.  I still do not see the point in saying your god is all loving, but then say certain people are better than everyone else... it completely contradicts its self.

I'm not perfect, and my views are just that, My views.  Clearly though, there is something seriously wrong with an organization that wishes to punish people for things beyond thier control.

Generally speaking, they are not forcing people to bow to their beliefs who do not believe in them, they are a collective of people with the same or similar beliefs. This is not any different than being apart of a political party where people have the same or similar views.

As far as listening to the law is concerned, the law protects such religions. Like I've said before, the charter of rights says that religions are not obliged to perform gay marriage if they so choose not to offer it. What we are now discussing is highly theoretical unless you are able to provide a country that actually does force churches against their own will to perform gay marriage.

Discrimination can be good or bad, and while it's unfortunate that some religions may snub you for not being a particular race or orientation, it is still just a belief. Unless they are outright advocating the killing and harm of said people, there's not much action that can be taken.

Quote from: Adrianna on July 29, 2009, 09:26:18 PM
To Kristi, I do know what I'm talking about.  I've been a member of quite a few churches before to see what they are all about.  They appear on the outside with motivations of good and charity.  Yes they do adhere to this.  Yes, in general churches ARE a good thing.  However discrimination is paramount in all churches.  "This person is bad because they are black, This person is bad because they are gay, this person is bad..ect...ect."  You cannot honestly expect the government to try to abolish such things by making laws that ALL in their country must follow, yet say "But your a church, so it's ok for you to hate."  It just shouldn't happen.  It is not tyranny that I am speaking of.  If the majority of people believe that discrimination should not be accepted, and show this through democractic voting, then who is the church to argue?  No one likes a pompus jerk who thinks they are better then everyone else, why is the church an exception?  Sure democractic government isn't perfect, and it never claims to be, but atleast it's trying to make life better for everyone.  I still do not see the point in saying your god is all loving, but then say certain people are better than everyone else... it completely contradicts its self.

I have no idea what you have been a part of, but it is nothing like the faith I adhere to, I assure you of that.  Nor is it like any church I have ever been part of, and I am certain I have had experience with more than you might ever meet.   I would never be a part of anything that teaches what you describe.  Jesus never taught anything close to that either.  And if you really believe that "discrimination is paramount is all churches" you prove your ignorance here.   However, in order to show you how wrong you are you would have to let me show you, which I am sure you will not be ready for, though I think it would amaze you.   Sure, there are problems with any organization, but you paint everyone with a broad brush and your logic is seriously flawed.

Where did MLK's support come from?  Read about the struggle in Birmingham.  Without the tension and dialog between Christian leaders, his work would never have happened.  I could go on, but I just could not disagree with you more.

Yes, Tekla, I missed the Holy Roman Empire.  I am a bit too young to remember.  Perhaps someone of your maturity could give us some of your memories.  ;)

Actually, and Nichole was right, I had in mind present day Christian denominations, and I should have been clearer about that.  Historically, there have been some very bad attempts.  Geneva was another.   It does not work and never really has IMHO.   Now if we are expanding this discussion to Islam, you are certainly right about the fact that theocracies are out there.  They are as near to us as Dearborn, MI.  That is one place that has some truly unconstitutional things going on.

But I will say again that all groups wish to influence their communities.  That is not only true of religious groups, but many kinds of social groups as well.  It is certainly true of the GLBT movement.   You will not agree with all of the viewpoints out there.  Support what you believe in and just leave the others alone.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

I don't think that theocracy is limited in our time to Islam.  Israel struggles with it, and Salt Lake City and a whole lot of Utah, if not governed directly by the precepts of the LDS, the laws are surely strongly informed by them.  And the dominion movement is very real, very strong - see all that stuff with the C Street Fellowship, and I think that Sara Palin and quite a few of her followers by into it - and quite determined. 

I think in general, Western religions in particular, most religious people feel deep in their heart that the world would be a better place if everyone believed as they do, and followed their rules.

Quote from: FairyGirl on July 29, 2009, 06:59:28 PM
because some people, especially those who think they know what is "good for all" . . . cannot comprehend any other good better than theirs. The world they envision would be perfect if only they could get all these damned non-believers to comply. Some try this with gentle persuasion, others use more desperate means.

an attitude which is not REMOTELY confined to religiously motivated folks, by the way.

Heh...you should try living with Adrianna and trying to agrue religion. It doesnt work to well.

I know that the bible is flawed. I will admit that. Men are flawed and as such wrote things wrong. I cant count the number of contradictions in Genisis alone...but anywho. I belive there is a God and I belive in Jesus. I've chruch hopped and ended up even joining the LDS chruch. I've since not returned because of the strong emphesis on Thithing. I dont have enough money to buy grocieries and there telling me no matter what give what i have to god and i will be blessed..but anyway not my point.

I'd love to find the all excepting chruch in my dreams. It just doesnt seem to igisit. and if it does please point me in that direction. For now i'll belive in god. And live my life.

heh..thats all. btw really if you know where the accepting chruch is let me know!

Yes Israel does struggle with it.  Most of the people I have met there, interestingly enough, have been cultural Jews, but not religious ones.  This is their description.  You just have to realize that there is a cultural identity that is like no other.  It often has nothing to do with religious belief.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Adrianna on July 29, 2009, 09:26:18 PM
To Laura.  I do not "Hate Christians"  I disapprove of religious ORGANIZATIONS as a whole.

Exactly my point. you disapprove - nothing more.

Yet when Christians disapprove of homosexuals, you ascribe that view to HATE.

Why?

Quote
If you are christian, or whatever, and you wish to believe in things, even hate related things, in your own time, then please go ahead.  However when you group together, call your self a "Holy Church" and demand that others bow to your beliefs (Which is exactly what any orgasnization is doing when they ask to be legally allowed to discriminate against people for whatever reason) then THAT is wrong.

but as others - people who carry no brief for defending Christianity - have pointed out, private organizations discriminate all the time. I'm never going to be allowed to join the Girl Scouts, for instance.

that does NOT mean they "hate" me.

And no one here is talking about them demanding anything of those outside the church - when they do that I oppose them. but when you choose to join the group, you choose to join on there terms. That's a perfectly normal thing to expect.

Quote
If you wish to organize and display your right to freedom of assembly be my guest.  However, by becoming a so called "organization" or cult (which all organized religions are), and you demand that the government not Tax you just because your a "church", then you damn well better listen to what the government has to say. 

The government doesn't tax churches because the government deems it a social good to have churches. No more or less than a city choosing to waive taxes on the new factory they are trying to get to come to town - or like the U.S. Federal government giving exemptions for home mortgages in order to encourage home ownership.

Tax exemption is not something churches "demanded" (though like any other human being, they protest if their exemption is threatened to be taken away) - personally, I'd rather they were taxed so that particular red herring was taken away.

In any case, my debate with you is NOT "Should the church obey the government?" Rather, my debate with you is "Should the government meddle in religious practice?"

Your remarks about being tax exempt pretain to the former question, but not to the latter one.

Quote
To Kristi, I do know what I'm talking about.  I've been a member of quite a few churches before to see what they are all about.  They appear on the outside with motivations of good and charity.  Yes they do adhere to this.  Yes, in general churches ARE a good thing.  However discrimination is paramount in all churches.  "This person is bad because they are black, This person is bad because they are gay, this person is bad..ect...ect."

There's some of that, but even in the most Fundie churches I know, it's the ACTIONS that are considered "bad" - even when the wording is sloppy, only the very fringe would say "Gays are bad people" and mean just that - usually what they mean is "gays are doing a bad thing"

that said, YES, religions are often plagued with the very human trait of looking down on others and thinking you are better than them. Which I'd be more worried about if there were not so VERY many non0religious folks so very prone to look down on the religious people and consider them intellectual inferiors.

Which is to say you are complaining about a trait of human nature, not a trait of religion.

Quote
  You cannot honestly expect the government to try to abolish such things by making laws that ALL in their country must follow, yet say "But your a church, so it's ok for you to hate."

AGAIN you charge hate cavalierly, with no effort to support the clain and entierly ignoring the fact that the illogic and intellectual inconsistancy of it has been pointed out to you.

Quote
It just shouldn't happen.  It is not tyranny that I am speaking of.  If the majority of people believe that discrimination should not be accepted, and show this through democractic voting, then who is the church to argue?

Here's another point in my previous reply you ignored - are you willing to accept ALL the results of a majority vote as legitimate? Or only the ones you agree with?

Quote
  No one likes a pompus jerk who thinks they are better then everyone else, why is the church an exception?

It's not. Have you never ever met an un-believer who pompously believed they were better and smarter than religious people?

i daresay I've seen it on this very board.

Have you ever called such people out and ask them why they were "hateful"?

QuoteSure democractic government isn't perfect, and it never claims to be, but at least it's trying to make life better for everyone.  I still do not see the point in saying your god is all loving, but then say certain people are better than everyone else... it completely contradicts its self.

that's an interesting take since the foundational doctrine which underlies all Christianity is this:

"ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and "There is none righteous, no not one" and "Every thought of man is only wickedness continually" and "The heart of man is desperately wicked"

the very existence of Christianity is predicated on the proposition that not one single person who ever lived (save Christ himself) could ever possibly be good enough to win the favor of God - that is precisely why we needed a Savior.

Further, the heart of the Christian faith is that the ONLY people who ever gain the favor of God are those who have looked at THEMSELVES  and seen a person so very sinful that the ONLY option was to confess that reality and beg God's forgiveness.

Understand that? In a theologically sound Christian church, every single member has had to first find THEMSELVES to be shamefully wicked before they can even consider anyone else.

Yet these are the people you assume think they are better than everyone else?

Sadly, yes, some of them still manage to do that - but at least if they are REAL Christians they HAVE had that moment when they judge themselves as harshly as they ever judge anyone else. I daresay you can't make that claim for all unbelievers.

Quote
I'm not perfect, and my views are just that, My views.  Clearly though, there is something seriously wrong with an organization that wishes to punish people for things beyond thier control.

I would suggest that refusing to compromise your sincerely held beliefs is not "punishing people"

Most of the people I have met there, interestingly enough, have been cultural Jews, but not religious ones.

True that, and that is a unique situation to be sure.  Most of the Jewish people I know eat ham and cheese sandwichs, drive cars on Saturday and all like that, still, they consider themselves no less Jewish then those that observe those laws.  Yet, in Israel most of the laws that would or would not be in accord are controlled by a very small minority of very conservative believers. Like I said, they struggle with it.


P.S. The leader in 'accepting' churches is the MCC,
MCC of Toronto
115 Simpson Ave.
Toronto, ON M4K 1A1
Telephone:  416-406-6228
Fax:  416-466-5207
Website: www.mcctoronto.com (http://www.mcctoronto.com)
Senior Pastor: Rev. Dr. Brent Hawkes
Email:  pastor@mcctoronto.com
Director, Congregational Life: Rev. Jo Bell
Email:  jbell@mcctoronto.com
Director, Finance, Revenue & Administration:  Russell Vert
Email:  rvert@mcctoronto.com
(Please visit webpage for our full staff and leadership directory)
Lay Delegates: Jennifer Alexander, Marilyn Byers, Richard Firth,
Sandra Millar, Dawn Sinclair
Worship times: Sundays: 9 a.m. and 11 a.m.

The government doesn't tax churches because the government deems it a social good to have churches.
In fact, the reason was to keep government out of religion (the power to tax is the power to destroy) and in the devil's own bargain hoped for the reverse to work also.  It was nothing about churches being a positive social force, and quite the contrary, several are not.  Still, it was considered to be in harmony with the First Amendment. 


And, at least in the Catholic Church there is nothing wrong with being gay, its gay sex that is wrong.  You are free to love whoever you want, it just limits the kind of love you can have.  Which by the way, in the RC church, is not limited to gay sex, but all sorts of sexual practices are forbidden.

wow, what a thread! :)

It doesn't matter what your world view is as long as you don't try to impose it on others. If a particular church, sect, cult or secular group decide on a collective stance, well they can fill their boots and practice it to their hearts content.  My only issue would be when they try and foist their rules on how to live onto others.

Same applies to the non-religious like me.  I have no right to tell them what to believe. Actually, I couldn't care less when it's entirely their own business.

The time to actively resist is when any group seeks to exert influence beyond the "event horizon" of its membership.  The Westboro Baptists, for example, need a good hefty kick in the groin (preferably several) because while disapproving of homosexuality is their prerogative, taunting and hurling abuse at the funeral of some poor sod who died of AIDS is completely beyond the pale.

I have this subject, therefore, put in the forum because it makes me mad which power is given to the churches VOLUNTARILY. Churches are like own state with own rules within a state. Churches are protected, although they don't keep to laws. If a country, e.g., Germany, created laws of the protection of transsexual people(TS mayn't be fired), no church can go, and turn itself against it..
Some said here that nobody is made be with the Mormons. This is right only partially. Certainly nobody stands with a gun behind one, but the doctrines of the LDS and family boundaries, bind very strongly to this sect. And this is why many rather undertake them procedures of a "healing" degrade by Evergreen international, than to live openly. Since what happens, if to recognize itself as transsexual a Mormon gives in own family?
He or she will offend. He or she is put under pressure to be "normal" again. Help and support is to be expected in mormon families rather seldom.
But it is not only with the LDS in such a way!
In many other churches and sects transsexual people are also excluded or excommunicated.
So, it is not only a LDS problem.

Quote from: tekla on July 29, 2009, 11:29:08 PMmost religious people feel deep in their heart that the world would be a better place if everyone believed as they do, and followed their rules.

so do Republicans. (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cosgan.de%2Fimages%2Fsmilie%2Fkonfus%2Fa050.gif&hash=3aef94fddedef29723ac7cdc7d7a7cef91a72f6d)

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 29, 2009, 11:32:27 PM
an attitude which is not REMOTELY confined to religiously motivated folks, by the way.

My point exactly, Laura ::)

Heck Fairy Girl, so do the Democrats and the Greens really do.

We forget our (American) history, and how profoundly radical it was when we set out to separate the Church from the State and create a new order for the world. Pretty much we were the first to try that whole deal out.

Quote from: tekla on July 30, 2009, 09:31:46 AM
Heck Fairy Girl, so do the Democrats and the Greens really do.

yeah but I couldn't find any nifty religious icons with donkeys in them lol

Understood, and I'm not even sure what the Green icon is, perhaps a banana slug?

Hey, if your messing with old "Randy Andy" Jackson then your steppin' on the fightin' side of me.  And him too.  Crusty old bastard he was.  And the first major public Presidential Sex Scandal too.  Just in case some people would be thinkin' that's a modern day invention.

Laura, when you refuse someone services due race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation,...ect ect.  That is discrimination, and that is what the churches do.  Yes I disapprove of churches, however I would never refuse someone any service I provided just because they believed in god, or hell even if they were Satan worshipers.

My point is simply, everyone is equally stupid, and should be treated as such.  However churches as a whole have a tendacy to say "I am better than you" for various reasons.  Of course as you stated yourself, MOST people have this HUMAN tendancy.  Individually it's something someone must deal with on their own.  The issue becomes when a ORGANIZATION actively promotes this kind of thinking, THEN it's a problem.

Am I willing to follow all majority voted laws? Yes I am.  I voted, and so did everyone else.  If a law comes to pass that I don't like, tough, more people liked it and so I must live with it.  If I'm really that against it, I can always move to country that doesn't have that law.

Believe it or not, I have met someone who believed themselves better than anyone else, and I did indeed against this person defend religion while pointing out all their flaws.  So don't you dare automatically assume I do this only against churches.

Also, your right that I can't say all unbelievers have found themselves wicked and judged themsleves.  However I can't say that about all churches either.  The bible its self tells you to not be discriminatory;

"God does not discriminate amoung his people" (Acts 10:34)
"All Christians are equal in God's eyes" (Galatians 3:28)
"God will judge those who discriminate" (Colossians 3:25)

So why then do you still believe churches should be allowed to refuse ANY services to anyone, when your god says its self that they should not discriminate? Answer me that.

Of course if you can find me the name of a single church that does not discriminate in ANYWAY I will recant my statements, until then I stand.

Believe it or not, I have met someone who believed themselves better than anyone else

Believe it or not, I've gone to a big time grad school, work in show biz/rock and roll, and live in California - San Francisco at that - and gee, that statement pretty much applies to everyone I meet or have met.  Even the bums here sleeping in the doorways will tell you 'Hey, at least I'm not in Jersey.'

however I would never refuse someone any service I provided just because they believed in god, or hell even if they were Satan worshipers.

OK, I'll call BS on that one.  Would you knowingly work for and take the money of someone involved in Child Porno?  Slavery?  (In the US lots of Quakers, if not most of them, refused to do business with slaveholders, and I think they were righteous in that).

I'll have to answer in a day or two, work calls.

Quote from: Adrianna on July 30, 2009, 09:57:44 AM
Am I willing to follow all majority voted laws? Yes I am.  I voted, and so did everyone else.  If a law comes to pass that I don't like, tough, more people liked it and so I must live with it.  If I'm really that against it, I can always move to country that doesn't have that law.

I am calling BS on that!  What if the law mandated discrimination against people with dark skin?  What if the law mandated the killing of Jews?  What if the law required seizure of all Japanese-American homes and assets without cause?  I could go on, but these are very modern happenings.  People should not just "live with it."  I give you more credit than that, too.

Quote from: Adrianna on July 30, 2009, 09:57:44 AMThe bible its self tells you to not be discriminatory;
"God does not discriminate amoung his people" (Acts 10:34)
"All Christians are equal in God's eyes" (Galatians 3:28)
"God will judge those who discriminate" (Colossians 3:25)

I think this is a good illustration of why government should not be allowed to interpret scripture and enforce their interpretation on the church.  They might just come up with as poor of work as you did (assuming you did not just cut and paste this from some source without checking it out.)  Those are not direct quotes, not even close.  While I do not disagree with those things you have in your quotes, they are not what these particular texts either say or intend.  So thank you for making the point quite clearly that outside interpretation and enforcement of Christian doctrine onto the church is nothing but a sham.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

To Tekla, yes I would willing provide services to someone involved in Child Porn, However since that is against the law I would subsquently call the police on them.  I don't care who asks me to provide service that is none of my business, however knowing someone is involved in something illegal and calling the police on them is an entirely different subject matter.

As for Kristi, I got the qoutes I just posted out of the bible sitting right beside me, so don't you dare call my work uninformed or poor. 

She really did get the out of the bible that we had proping the screen of our computer up. I checked.

FYI this is the New living translation...easy to understand relevant for today. (thats what the cover says) I've had this bible for 6 years. It was givin to me by my youth paster because it has large print. and it does with out the Thy and thyn stuff...

Adrianna makes a point that i actually agree with *gasp* and that is that God loves us all. He says that. The rest can be tossed around and interprated however you want. hence the millions of diffrent chruches with the same bible.

So to run off topic even more...Ok this questions been bugging me for ever and i'm going to put your minds at work. IF Adam and Eve were the first people...and then they had Cain and able... when Cain kills able and god sends him out of Eden...where did his wife come from?

...what? There is no need to be sarcastic about it i'm asking a real question. Genisis contractics itself by  first saying "God created all the peoples of the earth" then into it he says he created Adam FIRST then and Eve and then it goes onto that story. Saying that they were the first people on earth. So if they had two sons.Able is killed by Cain And he cast Cain out where does he get his wife from....It never made sence to me. I was actually asking.

Just trying to make sence of something.

Quote from: Nichole on July 30, 2009, 01:56:14 PM
That wasn't sarcastic, if you read a bit further I think you will find that Cain settled with a wife in the Land of Nod. Presumably the land of Nod was occupied by human beings from somewhere, but no indication of where they came from.

Aliens....LOL hum i didnt find anything about the land of nod lol. Mabie this bible translation i have is really screwed up. Though i try to read the king james and i'm asleep in five seconds.

okay so another a little sarcastic a little seriuos question. Revelations.....seems to be the words biggest asid trip. Its the wierdist thing i've ever read in my intier life. Any way to de-wierd it.

Quote from: Nichole on July 30, 2009, 01:56:14 PM
That wasn't sarcastic, if you read a bit further I think you will find that Cain settled with a wife in the Land of Nod. Presumably the land of Nod was occupied by human beings from somewhere, but no indication of where they came from.

Erica must not have been listening to me when I re-read it to her last night.  It does indeed say "Cain settled with his wife in the land of Nod" however that does not say where he got his wife.  Why must we presume the land of Nod was already occupied when genisis tries to be so clear on everything else.. seems a sorry little detail to miss.

P.S.
Revelations=Major Acid trip, only riviled by Alice In Wonderland

Quote from: Adrianna on July 30, 2009, 11:19:32 AM
As for Kristi, I got the qoutes I just posted out of the bible sitting right beside me, so don't you dare call my work uninformed or poor.

I certainly did not want to get into proof texting, but I absolutely stand by what I said, especially if that is where you got that from.   It is both poor and uninformed.  Get a reputable translation, rather than the NLT,  which was developed to be a dumbed-down easy reader version.  BTW, in case you did not know, I am reading those verses in both English and the original Greek.  I happen to be fully qualified to judge the accuracy of any translation.  Let me show you a version that accurately represents them.  Then you have to read the context to find what the verses are saying.  Here is a good translation of the Greek:  This one happens to be New American Standard.

Acts 10: 34-35 "Opening his mouth, Peter said : "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him."
This is Peter's sermon concerning the fact that the gospel is now available to both the Jews and the Gentiles.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination in the modern sense.

Galatians 3:28-29 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female ; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise."
The context here is that the free male children, up to this time in history, had been the only heirs.   Women, slaves, and Gentles could not be heirs.  However, all now were included by faith as full heirs or the promise of eternal life.  The equality here is that all receive eternal life.

Colossians 3:23-25 "Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality."
Again, this is a passage concerning relationships between individuals, along with the motivation for us doing our work.  It also speaks of God's justice in our eternal rewards.  It in no way refers to discrimination in the modern sense.  It is God's judgment (not ours) that is without partiality.

Can you see that by finding a little phrase and taking it completely out of context, you made verses say what they never were intended to say?  This is very dangerous, and completely unfair to do this and then use it as a basis to condemn the church.   If you want to argue scripture, at least do some work and discover what it means.   The church has plenty of faults, you do not have to invent others.   Any fair criticisms you might have are pretty much rendered lame and your credibility is scoffed at when you do things like that.  So...why should we expect governments to do any better?

If you want to discuss any other verse, I would be glad to do so, but please, let's do it by pm.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Witch of Hope on July 30, 2009, 06:40:41 AM
I have this subject, therefore, put in the forum because it makes me mad which power is given to the churches VOLUNTARILY. Churches are like own state with own rules within a state. Churches are protected, although they don't keep to laws. If a country, e.g., Germany, created laws of the protection of transsexual people(TS mayn't be fired), no church can go, and turn itself against it..
Some said here that nobody is made be with the Mormons. This is right only partially. Certainly nobody stands with a gun behind one, but the doctrines of the LDS and family boundaries, bind very strongly to this sect. And this is why many rather undertake them procedures of a "healing" degrade by Evergreen international, than to live openly. Since what happens, if to recognize itself as transsexual a Mormon gives in own family?
He or she will offend. He or she is put under pressure to be "normal" again. Help and support is to be expected in mormon families rather seldom.
But it is not only with the LDS in such a way!
In many other churches and sects transsexual people are also excluded or excommunicated.
So, it is not only a LDS problem.

In truth, all of society puts emotional pressure on transsexuals to deny their identity and try to be "normal"

It would be a false assumption to suppose that those who do not live in a religious family always or even usually receive complete acceptance.

Ultimately, a TS has to either face that pressure or submit to it - whether it comes from a church or a parent or a spouse or whoever.

QuoteIn truth, all of society puts emotional pressure on transsexuals to deny their identity and try to be "normal"

"Transsexuals"?  Everyone, everyone is an individual and no one is average. It is society that forces expectations on people so they have to play a role.

A reputable translation Kristi? Who are you to say which translation is correct?  Who is anyone to say.  Unless you can actually read the original scrolls yourself then you can't prove which translation is correct.  The most widely accepted translation is supposed to be the King James.  However it's called "the King James" translation because it's how King James told someone to write it.  Who's to say over the years the bible has not gone from being meant to be a complete work of fiction, and ancient story telling, that some fanatics took to far?  Seems to make the point of the bible (not the church in general just the relance on a BOOK) kind of a moot point don't you think?

Quote from: Adrianna on July 30, 2009, 09:57:44 AM
Laura, when you refuse someone services due race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation,...ect ect.  That is discrimination,

Yes it is.

Quoteand that is what the churches do.

Yes they do

QuoteYes I disapprove of churches, however I would never refuse someone any service I provided just because they believed in god, or hell even if they were Satan worshipers.

But would you want your government FORCING you to, for instance, say a prayer over those people, or sing a hymm praising their God?

Quote
My point is simply, everyone is equally stupid, and should be treated as such.  However churches as a whole have a tendacy to say "I am better than you" for various reasons. 

It's not just churches, hun.

Quote
Of course as you stated yourself, MOST people have this HUMAN tendancy.  Individually it's something someone must deal with on their own.  The issue becomes when a ORGANIZATION actively promotes this kind of thinking, THEN it's a problem.

Why? Since when is it a civil right to be married at all, let alone in a place against the will of the person who owns the property? Our society has expanded the idea of "rights" to include a great many things which are PRIVILEGES

Quote
Am I willing to follow all majority voted laws? Yes I am.  I voted, and so did everyone else.  If a law comes to pass that I don't like, tough, more people liked it and so I must live with it.  If I'm really that against it, I can always move to country that doesn't have that law.

that too, might be against the law. If they pass a law which requires you to submit to euthanasia because trans people are "defective" and must not be allowed to propagate - will you submit?

Quote
Believe it or not, I have met someone who believed themselves better than anyone else,

I certainly believe that - such folks constitute the majority.

Quoteand I did indeed against this person defend religion while pointing out all their flaws.  So don't you dare automatically assume I do this only against churches.

Never did. Merely speaking on the subject at hand.

Quote
Also, your right that I can't say all unbelievers have found themselves wicked and judged themsleves.  However I can't say that about all churches either.

If you understand Christian theology then you should be able to.
If they haven't they fail the basic test of being a Christian at all.

Quote
  The bible its self tells you to not be discriminatory;

"God does not discriminate amoung his people" (Acts 10:34)

34Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism

Quote
"All Christians are equal in God's eyes" (Galatians 3:28)

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Quote
"God will judge those who discriminate" (Colossians 3:25)

25Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.

In the first two, it speaks of GOD'S actions, it's not instruction. There are other passages where, for instance, Paul tells a church specifically to put out an unrepentant person ("turn them over to Satan") until the recognized their need to repent.
Everything has to be understood in context - prooftexting like that is exactly the sort of things legalistic Christians do to us and exactly what they use to justify the discrimination you refer to.

The third quote doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you said it said.

In any case, the Bible never says that you are to accept that which God disapproves of. now you and I both know that God doesn't disapprove of us...but within the context of what THEY believe, he does. And so you are asking them to obey the government over obeying God.

Here's another Bible quote for you:

Quote
29But Peter and the apostles answered, "(A)We must obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)

THAT is the controlling principle for the church. It is balanced by Paul's instruction to obey the legal authorities, but the position of the church (any church) has always been that when the two cannot be reconciled, obeying God is most important.

I understand your position - and if you sincerly believe that this non-discrimination is a more important ethic than religious freedom then so be it - you are entitled to that view.

But do be honest with yourself and admit that you are willing to sacrifice Freedom in order to save peoples feelings.

Also, while it's not my business, I really don't think quoting the Bible inthis matter is your strongest argument. There's just too many other passages that would work against your case.

Quote
So why then do you still believe churches should be allowed to refuse ANY services to anyone, when your god says its self that they should not discriminate? Answer me that.

Because your understanding of the quoted passages is flawed and there are many other passages which undermine the interpretation you ascribe to them.

Furthermore, even if the church has misunderstood the will of God and even if he really intended for them to never discriminate against anyone for any reason...

If you have a society in which true religious freedom exists, it is STILL not the place of the government to make that determination (i.e. "what God wants") - in a society with true religious freedom, a church is free to be wrong about what God wants

The only thing the government should be able to do is limit the extent to which any church imposes their doctrine on one who does not accept said doctrine.

Quote
Of course if you can find me the name of a single church that does not discriminate in ANYWAY I will recant my statements, until then I stand.

I can't find you the name of ANY organization of human beings which doesn't discriminate AT ALL for any reason.

Can you?

Quote from: ~Erica~ on July 30, 2009, 01:30:05 PM
She really did get the out of the bible that we had proping the screen of our computer up. I checked.

FYI this is the New living translation...easy to understand relevant for today. (thats what the cover says) I've had this bible for 6 years. It was givin to me by my youth paster because it has large print. and it does with out the Thy and thyn stuff...

Point of order - the "Living Bible" is a paraphrase, not a translation.

Which is to say, it is heavily influenced by the authors opinion, rather than being a direct translation of the original words.

And, as an aside, you can get quite a few different translations now that are free of the King James Elizabethan English.


The NASB might be the best, but there are easily half a dozen.

Quote
Adrianna makes a point that i actually agree with *gasp* and that is that God loves us all. He says that. The rest can be tossed around and interprated however you want. hence the millions of diffrent chruches with the same bible.

So to run off topic even more...Ok this questions been bugging me for ever and i'm going to put your minds at work. IF Adam and Eve were the first people...and then they had Cain and able... when Cain kills able and god sends him out of Eden...where did his wife come from?

Well, assuming for the sake of the question this was literal history (a point I would not take a stand on)

If you read All of the first several chapters of Genesis you get many clues on this point:

1. Adam and Eve Lived HUNDREDS of years and thus logic suggests that had MANY children other than the two mentioned in the story.

2. Consider, God said "go forth and multiply" and there was no knowledge of birth control or reproduction. By the time Cain was, shall we say, 30, he likely was one of 25-30 siblings. And we do not know that the killing occurred when he was 30  - lets suppose it occurred when he was 200.

Then there may well have been 180-200 siblings, who themselves had had many children. YES, that implies intermarriage between siblings but that was not uncommon even as late as Abraham. The reason for this is that the genetic imperfections that make marriage between siblings unsafe today had not been reinforced by generations of breeding yet.

3. Let us assume quite conservatively that women did not begin childbearing until they were 20. that would mean that at the time Cain was 200, there would have been EIGHT generations of descendants old enough to have begun having children....and of course each of them in turn having multiple generations below them.

I'm no mathmatician but as a crude attempt:

Generation Zero: Adam + Eve (2)
Generation 1: Cain and Abel and siblings - one child from Eve every year, with some infant mortality, starting at age 20 = 150 children by the time Cain is 200, let's assume half are female
Generation 2: 75 females ranging in age up to 180 years, the oldest having been old enogh to bear children for 160 years and thus having up to 150 children of her own, again assuming half female and some mortality - call it 60 child bearing females. and each of her child-bearing sisters producing at a similar rate for a lesser period of time. Assume a mean of 30 daughters per mother and in the next generation you have at least 2200 child bearing females

See where this is going?

3. the bible speaks of Cain wandering among the cities of the earth or some such. So the population was obviously into the thousands.

4. We do not know how old Cain and Abel were at the time.

In short - Cain married a relative, either a sister or a neice or whatever. There would have been hundreds if not thousands of possibilities.

---

Post Merge: July 30, 2009, 03:28:40 PM

---

Quote from: ~Erica~ on July 30, 2009, 01:52:52 PM
...what? There is no need to be sarcastic about it i'm asking a real question. Genisis contractics itself by  first saying "God created all the peoples of the earth" then into it he says he created Adam FIRST then and Eve and then it goes onto that story.

The reason for this is because it is an idiomatic function of Jewish storytelling at the time.

first you tell a general overview - a very broad statement of what the story is about...then you go back to the first and go into much detail.

It's one of the many ways in which a person really doesn't "get" the Bible unless they understand the context and culture behind it.

---

Post Merge: July 30, 2009, 04:31:48 PM

---

Quote from: ~Erica~ on July 30, 2009, 02:03:55 PM
Aliens....LOL hum i didnt find anything about the land of nod lol. Mabie this bible translation i have is really screwed up. Though i try to read the king james and i'm asleep in five seconds.

okay so another a little sarcastic a little seriuos question. Revelations.....seems to be the words biggest asid trip. Its the wierdist thing i've ever read in my intier life. Any way to de-wierd it.

Not really but there is a way to understand WHY it's weird, and why all the end time prophecies in Daniel and so forth are weird.

(assuming for the sake of argument that the book is legit)

consider the fact that the claim is that God took a man who lived 2000 years ago and showed him events that still lay in OUR future.

How would a man of that day describe and understand, for instance, a helicopter, or a tank?

---

Post Merge: July 30, 2009, 05:47:26 PM

---

Quote from: Adrianna on July 30, 2009, 04:53:50 PM
A reputable translation Kristi? Who are you to say which translation is correct?  Who is anyone to say.  Unless you can actually read the original scrolls yourself then you can't prove which translation is correct.

Bible scholars have thousands and thousands and thousands of documents from thousands of years ago which they use to verify the veracity of the content of the Bible.

One can easily question WHY the Bible should have any athority at all.

One CANNOT, if one is acquainted with the FACTS (which, may I say, quite a lot of internet experts are not) question whether or not what you find in a modern translation accurately reflects the original contents of the original texts.

where there are uncertainties, they are minor and they are well documented in any good study Bible so that the reader knows when they are reading an uncertain passage.

How do they know the texts they have are reliable?

Simple.

If you took a work of fiction, shall we say a John Grisham novel, and you ask every member of Susans to transcribe by hand the contents of that book and to be VERY vareful they got every word right - all of us would make errors.

but a third party could take all our works, compare them to each other, and find out what the book actually said at near to 100% accuracy because all our mistakes would be in different places

By shear chance, there MIGHT be a place where 100 of us all made a mistake, but it wouldn't be the SAME mistake which would undermine the chances that any of them were actually correct.

Even if the process is repeated for 100 years, an expert can take the existing copies and compare then and by the same method find out what the original content was - even if some of the transcribers had PURPOSELY miscopied it.

Even if you suppose one church or one group of churches conspired to change a text, the copies made by others would outnumber their work and disprove the credibility of the corruption.


Question whether the Bible is true? Or that it shold be followed?

Sure.

Question that it is an accurate representation of the original work? Anyone who does that is simply revealing their lack of acquaintance with reality.

With all due respect.

Well, to me it's all just an academic discussion within the context of the story.

Not at all unlike a discussion of the ramifications of time travel in Star Trek.

For instance, IMO everything that happened in enterprise is in a different timeline than previous Trek series because of the events of "First Contact"

:D

See my point though? - you don't have to believe a story is true to discuss plot points within the context of the story.

Well, I didn't mean academic in the sense of actual scholarship...I meant simply in the sense of speaking of a subject within the context laid out by the subject. That can be an academic point, in the sense you mean, or it can be the discussion of the plot of a movie or it could be pretty much anything.

The point is only that If I say "frankly ol girl, Adam and Eve are a myth anyway" then Erica's question was meaningless. It is only possible to even address the question is you assume, for the sake of the discussion that the claims made in that particular Scripture are true.

Then it becomes not a matter of whether or not anyone ever actually lived 900 years, but whether or not the story is internally consistent.

When you are young and THEY decide to baptize you there are no questions. It is done without your consent.

Quote from: Genevieve Swann on July 30, 2009, 06:50:16 PM
When you are young and THEY decide to baptize you there are no questions. It is done without your consent.

True but if you don't believe it, it means nothing.

Even within a faith which practices infant baptism, it's understood as a "covenant sign" (i.e. symbolic) which is why they have "confirmations" later.

That said, I would agree with the proposition that some of the worst offenders in terms of being judgmental and legalistic are those Christians who were "converted" as little children and never really had a chance to see themselves as "rotten sinners" the way an adult convert would.

I have no evidence for that but it sure seems logical that would be the case.

Quote from: Genevieve Swann on July 30, 2009, 06:50:16 PM
When you are young and THEY decide to baptize you there are no questions. It is done without your consent.

Only in faiths that baptize infants.

Any 'forcing' comes from parents if at all.

Quote from: Adrianna on July 30, 2009, 04:53:50 PM
A reputable translation Kristi? Who are you to say which translation is correct?  Who is anyone to say.  Unless you can actually read the original scrolls yourself then you can't prove which translation is correct.  The most widely accepted translation is supposed to be the King James.  However it's called "the King James" translation because it's how King James told someone to write it.  Who's to say over the years the bible has not gone from being meant to be a complete work of fiction, and ancient story telling, that some fanatics took to far?  Seems to make the point of the bible (not the church in general just the relance on a BOOK) kind of a moot point don't you think?

You are surely digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.  A translation is just that:  looking at the original language and putting the meaning into another language.  You obviously know nothing about the manuscript evidence of the Bible or you would not say such outlandish things.  Just to be clear, I have never told anyone here what s/he should believe.  However, if you come out telling everyone what the Bible says or what Christians believe or what we are like, and you are so blatantly wrong, I am more than qualified to set you straight on that.  And I will.  I don't care what holy book you subscribe to, but don't misrepresent mine.  Sure there are a number of ways to interpret scripture.  That is a much different issue than translating what the original languages say.  There is so much complied material from the various codices and papyrus fragments that, even with some minor variations, it is quite possible to translate them.   No, the scriptures are far from irrelevant.   

And yes, I am more than qualified to make these judgments.  Why?  Because of extensive study in these areas, including more than one advanced degree, not to mention the nameplate which reads "Dr." on my office door.  Yes, I can and do read and translate both Greek and Hebrew.  I will not say anything more.  I could not care less whether you personally believe what I am saying because it appears your mind is already made up, regardless of the facts.  A closed mind is a dangerous thing.

Now in return, please tell me your qualifications to make these interpretive pronouncements concerning Bible history, translation, meaning of the original languages.  You obviously consider yourself an expert.  We are all waiting to hear why.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

biblegateway.com has lots of different translations available with the click of a drop down menu, including several other language versions.

bible.cc has multiple versions that can be read in parallel, including a literal Greek translation, commentary, lexicon, concordance, just about everything you need for cross referencing bible passages.

The New American Standard is a good version. I was always partial to the 1901 American Standard version, because it's easier to read than King James, but retains the poetic language that makes the 1611 King James version such a time honored favorite. Another good version is the New International or NIV which is written is simpler language great for young people.

Also try Crosswalk.com.  Lots of versions there and many commentaries, etc.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Nichole on July 30, 2009, 07:24:39 PM
Are you serious, girlfriend?

Anecdotally-speaking from my own life: later-life converts to anything: religion, atheism, politics: neo-con to far left, trans-politics, what have ya seem to be far more vociferous, nasty, and generally intractable than any one I've ever met who was raised in a group.

Most of my sceptical friends have converted from Catholic or some hard-shell variety of protestantism to become lighter-hearted and easier-going than their parents and peers who remained in their churches.

Converts who started older? Well, they seem more inclined to bring out the logs for the bonfires and the lighter-fluid to accelerate the fire! And they seem more than willing to tie-up the witch, set her on the pyre and drop the match, as well!

Oh yes there's that initial "convert the world" enthusiasm, to be sure - that's the most full frontal assault of all.

I didn't really think about that when I wrote that post so I guess I have to retract a bit.

But in the folks I've seen, that over-eager stage doesn't last a really long time.

What I was originally referring to though, was pecular to the Christian concept of having first self identified as a hopeless sinner before you can be saved. It wouldn't apply elsewhere in the same way.

Maybe it's just me making an unproven assumption based on reasoning it out instead of a case study....I just get the impression that those who were saved as kids never really have the chance to see themselves as real sinners the way later converts do so it SEEMS like it would be easier for them to look down on those who are involved in stuff they never faced.

I could be wrong.

---

Post Merge: July 31, 2009, 12:08:31 AM

---

Quote from: Kristi on July 30, 2009, 08:00:16 PM
And yes, I am more than qualified to make these judgments.  Why?  Because of extensive study in these areas, including more than one advanced degree, not to mention the nameplate which reads "Dr." on my office door.  Yes, I can and do read and translate both Greek and Hebrew.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Oh my!

I think I need to return to my seat and let you lead the discussion! (NOT trying to be mocking here!)

I DO happen to know when others are more qualified to speak than I am, LOL. I have a Bachelors from a Baptist college and a lot of coursework but I never took Greek (let alone Hebrew!)

Guess what? I didn't believe that the Bible or the Book of Mormon, or other "holy scriptures" are from God. They are men made. Made by men which want to have the power over their tribe.
Jesus did exist, but he was NEVER the son of God or a prophet. He was just human. And, if we understand this, NO Religion can have a power to force me to do something against my will.
As a dianic Wicca, I'm free to act, even, if some of my sisters which follow also my tradition have problems with transsexuality and cast me out of their middest. I can practice alone.

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 31, 2009, 12:03:18 AM
I think I need to return to my seat and let you lead the discussion! (NOT trying to be mocking here!)

I DO happen to know when others are more qualified to speak than I am, LOL. I have a Bachelors from a Baptist college and a lot of coursework but I never took Greek (let alone Hebrew!)

No, please don't.  That was not the point here.   

I will leave this to those with more energy for a fight. 

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Kristi, Laura Hope, and tekla and others.  I know you don't agree with the LDS faith, but thank you for your sanity.  Government dictating the doctrines of a voluntary-membership organization is ludicrous except in the absolute extremes.

Quote from: Witch of Hope on July 31, 2009, 04:46:21 AM
Guess what? I didn't believe that the Bible or the Book of Mormon, or other "holy scriptures" are from God. They are men made. Made by men which want to have the power over their tribe.
Jesus did exist, but he was NEVER the son of God or a prophet. He was just human. And, if we understand this, NO Religion can have a power to force me to do something against my will.
As a dianic Wicca, I'm free to act, even, if some of my sisters which follow also my tradition have problems with transsexuality and cast me out of their middest. I can practice alone.

So why in the hairy heck do you CARE what a person has to do to have a Mormon marriage?

I think, with all due respect to any Mormons reading this, that Mormon theology is a load of hooey - thus, I don't give a rip what Mormon leaders ask Mormons to do.

---

Post Merge: July 31, 2009, 02:48:39 PM

---

Quote from: Kristi on July 31, 2009, 09:36:54 AM
No, please don't.  That was not the point here.   

I will leave this to those with more energy for a fight.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

That is sure not me darlin'

"Sincerity is no proof of truth."

"The bible is of no private interpretation."

Dr. Victor Paul Weirwille

The second quote he said comes from the bible itself. Those have been my guidelines for many things besides understanding religious books.

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 31, 2009, 02:43:58 PM
So why in the hairy heck do you CARE what a person has to do to have a Mormon marriage?

I think, with all due respect to any Mormons reading this, that Mormon theology is a load of hooey - thus, I don't give a rip what Mormon leaders ask Mormons to do.

I totally aggree with you, that this LDS cult and their doctrines are "a load of hooey"! But the Problem is, that LDS members believe, that their leader is a Prophet of God (wouln'd be better to mentioned him a "Profit of themselves"?), with whom they should obey as the should it to God.
This is the real reason for so much suffer, transgendered and homosexual youth had to go through, so much self hate and why so many of us commit suicide. Mormon leaders don't be obey to laws if they don't want have the results (e.g. Proposition 8 in California), and they do what they want, to protect the church (e.g. in cases of sexual child abuse which I simply mention CHILD RAPE) and even the men which are guilty (several cases were known at the past years).
You can't just say that they are a stupid cult (which they are), so many members believe this stuff,and would rather kill themselves before they leave the group.

---

Post Merge: August 01, 2009, 05:32:17 AM

---

Quote from: LordKAT on August 01, 2009, 12:12:59 AM
"The bible is of no private interpretation."

Christian Fundamentalists did it all the time, without understanding of hebrew or greek. They misused the bible for their prejudice against Women, Gays, Transsexuals, disobeyed Chidren and strangers (anti semitic is a CHRISTIAN creation).

Just a curiosity here, Kat. Whenever you're pointing out flaws in others do  you ever take stock of those in yourself? Or do you show your even-handedness by criticizing as well the opposite position as the one you had been criticizing?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.  And I try to not only share the wealth, but also, give as good as I get.  And if I'm not getting it from someone else, I'll do it to myself.  I might well agree that, for example, drugs should be legal, but if someone is making a dumb argument for that, as opposed to a good one, I'm going to try to take it apart. And the best arguments I have are with myself.  But yes, anyone who strives for perfection* as I do, can't do it without constant critique, examination, and honesty.  You never get better if you don't look at your mistakes.  And I do try to take criticism and critiques and the occasional ass-chewing - and not respond right away, but take it home with me, sit in the bathtub and splash around with it a little bit.  Try and evaluate what was said, rather than just responding to the person who said it.  Hell, as they say, even broken clocks are right twice a day.

And its rarely on my part an attack on the person, but rather, a reflection on the words said and ideas expressed.  I only worry about the argument being wrong, not the person.

And of course I argue both sides, I'm an academic, trained by the Jesuits, I can argue sides no one has though of yet.

Now, on with the game.

Well, I didn't mean academic in the sense of actual scholarship
I didn't mean mechanics dealing with you know, moving parts and all.  What other definition of academic is there?  Though I'm well aware what is meant by this - and for damn good reason - is an argument about nothing that really doesn't matter at all, hence the Star Trek reference was perfect.

& I'm down with Nichole on the 'recent converts' deal, they have a zeal that people born into it (no matter what it is) never get close to.

A translation is just that:  looking at the original language and putting the meaning into another language.
Translation is not that simple.  You are simplifying the process to make it an easy business - so clear, so always right.  First, not all languages have the same words with exact one-to-one meaning exchanges.  Second, words change.  They change in time - think of 'gay' in the 1890s and again in the 1990s - not even close.  Third, words are also part of a context, a context of language, culture and time - and it might not be possible to pick up on all that.  So, your translation (or my translation) may be what we think approximates the original meaning and intent, but its also possible in that to be way wrong. 

And, some things do not translate at all.  They are locked in time and culture in a way that is not possible to crack.  A 20th Century person, raised in a culture of democracy and science can't even begin to have a clue as to what the ancient Israelite saw when he/she looked out unto the world.  With decades, and decades of hard study, hard work, and good teachers, it might be possible to glean some of it, but you'll never know for sure.





*Note: I said 'strives' not 'obtains' - we get close, and at times I do on my own, but close is as good as it gets.  ,

Quote from: Witch of Hope on August 01, 2009, 05:25:59 AM
You can't just say that they are a stupid cult (which they are), so many members believe this stuff,and would rather kill themselves before they leave the group.

As may be, you'll have more luck convincing the individual that they need to reconsider who they listen to than you will presuading the group to change it's doctrine.

Plus, you will avoid trampling on religious freedom with your laws.

Christian Fundamentalists did it all the time, without understanding of hebrew or greek. They misused the bible for their prejudice against Women, Gays, Transsexuals, disobeyed Chidren and strangers (anti semitic is a CHRISTIAN creation).
[/quote]
I do not think that that is true.

QuoteI didn't mean mechanics dealing with you know, moving parts and all.  What other definition of academic is there?

The sort that happens in a figure of speech? If i say it's "katie bar the door" will you point out that most doors no longer have bars?

Quote
Though I'm well aware what is meant by this - and for damn good reason - is an argument about nothing that really doesn't matter at all, hence the Star Trek reference was perfect.

So you know what I meant and you were simply yanking my chain? Noted.

Quote from: tekla on August 01, 2009, 07:15:49 PM
A translation is just that:  looking at the original language and putting the meaning into another language.
Translation is not that simple.  You are simplifying the process to make it an easy business - so clear, so always right.  First, not all languages have the same words with exact one-to-one meaning exchanges.  Second, words change.  They change in time - think of 'gay' in the 1890s and again in the 1990s - not even close.  Third, words are also part of a context, a context of language, culture and time - and it might not be possible to pick up on all that.  So, your translation (or my translation) may be what we think approximates the original meaning and intent, but its also possible in that to be way wrong. 

And, some things do not translate at all.  They are locked in time and culture in a way that is not possible to crack.  A 20th Century person, raised in a culture of democracy and science can't even begin to have a clue as to what the ancient Israelite saw when he/she looked out unto the world.  With decades, and decades of hard study, hard work, and good teachers, it might be possible to glean some of it, but you'll never know for sure.

I have not oversimplified it.  I did not say it was always easy.  In fact, it can be very hard work.  And you are right in that the meaning of words changes.  Translations do need to be updated.  That, however, is not the issue.  There are idioms (which I think you were referring to) which need to be rendered into modern phrases in order to make sense.  This is part of the reasons for some of the difference in modern translations.  Some things can't be rendered word for word and still be accurate for modern ears.

Doing this is quite possible.  If you doubt this you have no idea of the amount of scholarship that has been done, especially in the area of biblical texts.  The real challenge is not finding the original meaning, but rather in rendering it into modern English (or whatever language you are working towards.)  It is far from impossible to do.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

I'm fascinated by old writings being found and even more fascinated by all the work that people do in order to translate and find meaning in these writings.  But does all that happened in the past really have an effect on what happens now? 

In the movie "Lion King" I think it was Puma and Timba who were walking through the jungle and one hits the other on the head with a stick.

"What did you do that for!?!"

"Doesn't matter. It's in the past."

I love that scene because it's so true.

The LDS church discriminates against trans people, and blatantly so. Is it because they are living in the past? That would be interesting to know.

Julie

QuoteYou never get better if you don't look at your mistakes

Yes! One of my personal maxims is "Nobody is born wise; one acquires wisdom by learning from mistakes!"

(ps. had an album browse - love the pics)

Quote from: Laura Hope on August 01, 2009, 08:55:30 PM
Plus, you will avoid trampling on religious freedom with your laws.
Christian Fundamentalists did it all the time, without understanding of hebrew or greek. They misused the bible for their prejudice against Women, Gays, Transsexuals, disobeyed Chidren and strangers (anti semitic is a CHRISTIAN creation).
I do not think that that is true.The sort that happens in a figure of speech?

It is true, and I can prove it. But my proofs in German (from ancient books)
Thomas von (from) Aquine, one of the famous catholic church teachers was one of them. Martin Luther another one. Hitler used the words of Luther to kill the jews. In Middle age, Jews are often oppressed by christian churches (catholics) and had to life at special places, without using their own trade. I have a German documentary, copied by a TV-series, which proof all this. So, they are enough evidences,to show that it was the Christianity, which is responsible for the antisemitism. They created it, but others (Hitler, Stalin,to name a view) are the real killers!

If you doubt this you have no idea of the amount of scholarship that has been done, especially in the area of biblical texts.  The real challenge is not finding the original meaning, but rather in rendering it into modern English (or whatever language you are working towards.)  It is far from impossible to do.


No, this is what I doubt...  That you can understand and comprehend what people who were so radically different from us were really meaning when they wrote what they wrote. The worldview is so different, the knowledge base so limited that I doubt that any clarity of vision is possible.

Let's just take one example, though I think its a good one.  When you or I look at an animal, what do we see?  We see the scientific hierarchy of class, section, genus, and species and subspecies and all that biology stuff. Just like when we look at a tree, we see the same scientific hierarchy and stuff like photosynthesis. Before modern science, back in the days of the writers of the bible, or in the Dark Ages, we know that people saw those things differently.  They saw each and every thing on earth, not as a part of an ecology, not ranked by hierarchy, but as a living lesson from god. In the Middle Ages, every animal has a moral attached to it, its on earth to teach us something that god wants us to know. Trees are different, not because of genetics, but because god wants us to teach us lessons, and the lesson of the oak is different than that of the evergreen.

We know that because we still have some of the books, called bestiary, or Bestiarum Vocabulum in the original Latin (so your not the only one who can read a dead language) and in these books, what we find is not a natural history as we would understand it, but rather belief that the world itself was the Word of God, and that every living thing had its own special meaning.  And that's a very different way to see the world and one that few comprehend anymore as individuals, much less as a society.

Though as someone who has done translation work I do approve and salute you for at least copping to the fact that what you are doing is rendering, as it does seem to be doing for the text, pretty much what a slaughter house does to a cow when it renders it.

To be sure Martin Luther and many other Christians of his day were anti-semites.

but there's a difference in that and INVENTING it.

Anti-Semitic thinking (as concerns the Jews*) goes back to before the beginning of Christianity



*I believe it's technically true that all the descendants of Abraham are "Semites" so it's tricky to call an Arab an "anti-semite" linguistically but in common usage it means "against the Jews" so it's in that sense that I speak.

What is antisemitism?
fear and hate against jews.
And what is the christian reason for this: Christ was killed by jews (he, he was a jew, and it wasn't jews to kill him)

Antisemitism in the Roman Catholic Church: http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol11.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol11.htm)

Catholic Church and Holocaust: http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol1.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol1.htm)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol12.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol12.htm)

I found this at the internet by a little google search. Maybe it is enough proofes to you?

I was brought up in the Mormon church and had a baseball bat applied squarely across my brow when the subject of "my" problem came to light.  I was excommunicated as soon as I used an unused "Women's" restroom on an unused floor of an office building.  That was the arrangement I had made at work.  In the words of "my" bishop "as soon as they start using the women's restroom, there's no turning back."  So, for relieving myself in the wrong room, I became a "son of perdition, relegated to spend all eternity with Lucifer and his angels."

Here's the deal.  I can blow the veracity/truth of the Mormon church out of the water in a few paragraphs.  I could probably do the same about Christianity with a sit down conversation.  But I won't. Nothing is accomplished. I've found my peace in the world my own way without the need of an organized church.  YOU need to find a place where you feel comfortable.  YOU need to find a place where you feel love and companionship.  YOU need your beliefs cradled and held dear.  You will not find it in the LDS faith.  Perhaps in one locality (highly doubtful), but if you move you're screwed.

There are thousands of Christian sects where I'm sure you can find a home. I do believe that there are more that are accepting LGBT people all the time here in the USAyee... as well as around the world. I won't give up on them. Don't torture yourself by attempting to align yourself where you will never belong.

Cindi

Quote from: Witch of Hope on August 02, 2009, 02:51:51 PM
What is antisemitism?
fear and hate against jews.
And what is the christian reason for this: Christ was killed by jews (he, he was a jew, and it wasn't jews to kill him)

Antisemitism in the Roman Catholic Church: http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol11.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol11.htm)

Catholic Church and Holocaust: http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol1.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol1.htm)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol12.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol12.htm)

I found this at the internet by a little google search. Maybe it is enough proofes to you?

*sigh*

Proving (some) Christians have been very anti-semetic doesn't at all prove that Christians originated anti-semietism.

Perhaps we're having a language problem here...

@ Cindi Jones,

QuoteI was brought up in the Mormon church and had a baseball bat applied squarely across my brow when the subject of "my" problem came to light.  I was excommunicated as soon as I used an unused "Women's" restroom on an unused floor of an office building.  That was the arrangement I had made at work.  In the words of "my" bishop "as soon as they start using the women's restroom, there's no turning back."  So, for relieving myself in the wrong room, I became a "son of perdition, relegated to spend all eternity with Lucifer and his angels."

This seems to me everything so familiar. When I was excommunicated at that time (this was in 1992, on the 2nd of February), the same was said to me. At that time I was sad, and didn't want to see that my bishop tried to manipulate me. He used even my former woman, my children, and the temple sealing certificate to move me to the return. but when he saw that his rotten tricks didn't have an effect with me, he changed the tactics. From then on,  NO member was allowed tohas any kind of contact with me,even by written, telephone or personal contact. I was slandered, and to me was said that I served from now on the devil because I would have become a "son of perdition". I had survived my father and his brother, has the prison and my service survived, and this tiny bishop meant, I would let before fear my knees shake?

QuoteYOU need to find a place where you feel comfortable.  YOU need to find a place where you feel love and companionship.  YOU need your beliefs cradled and held dear.  You will not find it in the LDS faith.  Perhaps in one locality (highly doubtful), but if you move you're screwed.

I had find such a place in 1998, and it is NOT Christian.

QuoteThere are thousands of Christian sects where I'm sure you can find a home. I do believe that there are more that are accepting LGBT people all the time here in the USAyee... as well as around the world. I won't give up on them. Don't torture yourself by attempting to align yourself where you will never belong.

I'm a witch, and follow the Dianic path of the Goddess. In this I'm accepted also as a woman with transexual past,
I don't need the LDS cult any more.
But it is very difficult to separate internally from a group which one loves, also if this group was to a whole peace of ->-bleeped-<-. There are many homosexual and transgendered youngsters in the LDS, and they all require our love and support. They need to hear that also God loves them, because their cult doesn't do it. Their cult can only destroy  people and families. I think of future generations who wouldn't have to suffer if the LDS changed their mind.

Be Blessed

Linda

Not to change the topic, but if I ever start a biker club I'm going to call it The Sons of Perdition, I'm surprised that's never been used.

Quote from: Laura Hope on August 02, 2009, 09:06:46 PM
Proving (some) Christians have been very anti-semetic doesn't at all prove that Christians originated anti-semietism.
Perhaps we're having a language problem here...

We don't have a linguistic/language problem, but, we value facts differently. These were no simple members who said such a thing or acted in such a way, but they were people with power. The leaders whom others had to follow. Not to forget church teacher, popes, and, cardinals, they all were involved in it. They were the opinion doers of the Catholics. Theirr words and actions had far-reaching consequences for many people.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 02, 2009, 05:27:36 PM
I was brought up in the Mormon church and had a baseball bat applied squarely across my brow when the subject of "my" problem came to light.  I was excommunicated as soon as I used an unused "Women's" restroom on an unused floor of an office building.  That was the arrangement I had made at work.  In the words of "my" bishop "as soon as they start using the women's restroom, there's no turning back."  So, for relieving myself in the wrong room, I became a "son of perdition, relegated to spend all eternity with Lucifer and his angels."

Here's the deal.  I can blow the veracity/truth of the Mormon church out of the water in a few paragraphs.  I could probably do the same about Christianity with a sit down conversation.  But I won't. Nothing is accomplished. I've found my peace in the world my own way without the need of an organized church.  YOU need to find a place where you feel comfortable.  YOU need to find a place where you feel love and companionship.  YOU need your beliefs cradled and held dear.  You will not find it in the LDS faith.  Perhaps in one locality (highly doubtful), but if you move you're screwed.

There are thousands of Christian sects where I'm sure you can find a home. I do believe that there are more that are accepting LGBT people all the time here in the USAyee... as well as around the world. I won't give up on them. Don't torture yourself by attempting to align yourself where you will never belong.

Cindi

It is harder to get excommunicated from the church now.

I often find people who try to find things wrong with the church often use dated information. The LDS church actually progresses. You can transition in the church and not be excommunicated because shock and horror, things have changed.

Quote from: Monty on August 02, 2009, 09:21:15 PM
It is harder to get excommunicated from the church now.

I often find people who try to find things wrong with the church often use dated information. The LDS church actually progresses. You can transition in the church and not be excommunicated because shock and horror, things have changed.

Monty,

So, the prophet who talks to the infallible and unchanging God has changed his mind? Is this the same church in Utah that decided that gays in California couldn't be married anymore?  You mean the one that wanted to actually take away rights that had been granted to them and DID? Cool. I'm so glad that they are a more loving and caring people now.  It is truly amazing what changes have been made in 8 months.

The last time I checked the official rule book, if you dismember yourself, you are cut off.   That was only a couple years ago.  I was also told that my "sin" was second only to murder (even worse than a child molester.... can you believe?). It matters little to me now.  I've made a new life and have a new family.   I left the cult behind over two decades ago.  It took many years to realign my beliefs with reality however.  It's difficult to hate yourself and still be successful.  But passing time helps. 

Witch,

Listen sweety, just let it go.  Hate has no useful place in your heart.  If you can let go of the hate, the pain will follow. I'm glad that you've found something to take its place. 

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 02, 2009, 11:37:28 PM
Monty,

So, the prophet who talks to the infallible and unchanging God has changed his mind? Is this the same church in Utah that decided that gays in California couldn't be married anymore?  You mean the one that wanted to actually take away rights that had been granted to them and DID? Cool. I'm so glad that they are a more loving and caring people now.  It is truly amazing what changes have been made in 8 months.

The last time I checked the official rule book, if you dismember yourself, you are cut off.   That was only a couple years ago.  I was also told that my "sin" was second only to murder (even worse than a child molester.... can you believe?). It matters little to me now.  I've made a new life and have a new family.   I left the cult behind over two decades ago.  It took many years to realign my beliefs with reality however.  It's difficult to hate yourself and still be successful.  But passing time helps. 

I think you'll note that there have been changes to rules throughout the Bible(Old testament and New testament) and in the Mormon church itself over the years. It's not that they see it as God changing his mind, they see it as him waiting for the perfect timing to put forth action.

It depends entirely on your bishop if they excommunicate you or not, but the stance changed to sympathetic before Prop 8. Having a specific definition on how they view marriage doesn't mean they are less compassionate and that's an entirely different case. I'm not happy they did that, but I feel a lot of scape goats are going around in reaction to it and not enough common sense.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 02, 2009, 11:37:28 PM
Witch,

Listen sweety, just let it go.  Hate has no useful place in your heart.  If you can let go of the hate, the pain will follow. I'm glad that you've found something to take its place. 

Cindi, I don't "hate" the LDS! But I don't love them also any more. For it this "church" has done too much bad to other people and me. It is also not right that somebody, who is a member of this "church", and make a transition, isn't excluded. To me cases from the USA, Hong Kong and also Germany are known (the last case it happened in 2007) where members were excommunicated so.

PS: I'm not your sweety.We didn't know each other, and I'm not fall in love (or you are?)  ;D

Witch,

"Sweety" is used commonly here in the US as a casual endearing and friendly term. It's a simple way to reach out without risk.  I'm sorry that it got lost in your translation.  Other casual terms are "hon", "honey", "doll", etc.

I was excommunicated from the LDS faith and it was an extremely painful experience.  I even wrote a book about it which was published recently and is available through most online outlets.  In the first year after, I was suicidal.  That turned to rage and hate against the church in following years.  Then, I started to learn about the historical foundations of the church and Christianity in general.  Now I have a fuller understanding of the whole gig.  While I still feel the pangs of hurt from time to time, I've decided that I can hold no ill will towards them.  Those who refuse to understand us will die some day. The new generation is growing up in a world where LGBT issues are better understood and accepted.

I don't know the future of the LDS faith.  I don't know if they will change their doctrines. It is not all that important to me.  I am still connected through my family. I must endure endless discussions of "church stuff" while in their presence.  It isn't doctrine thrown at me.... it's just the normal "church stuff" between family members.

BTW, where are you from?  I don't want to get too personal and you don't have to answer if you don't want. But it would be nice to get to know you.

Cindi

Quote from: Witch of Hope on August 02, 2009, 09:18:06 PM
We don't have a linguistic/language problem, but, we value facts differently. These were no simple members who said such a thing or acted in such a way, but they were people with power. The leaders whom others had to follow. Not to forget church teacher, popes, and, cardinals, they all were involved in it. They were the opinion doers of the Catholics. Theirr words and actions had far-reaching consequences for many people.

So your position is that no one ever hated or discriminated against the Jews because they were Jews before Christ?

Quote from: Laura Hope on August 03, 2009, 02:53:38 PM
So your position is that no one ever hated or discriminated against the Jews because they were Jews before Christ?

Not from other cultures. As far as I know, the christians are the first group with antisemitism. Other cultures hate them, but this wasn't antisemitism. They hate Jews for steal their land or killed other pagan worshipers. But this wasn't antisemitism.

PS: It would be great if we can go back to the topic, please.

Quote from: Witch of Hope on August 03, 2009, 04:49:09 PM
Not from other cultures. As far as I know, the christians are the first group with antisemitism. Other cultures hate them, but this wasn't antisemitism. They hate Jews for steal their land or killed other pagan worshipers. But this wasn't antisemitism.

PS: It would be great if we can go back to the topic, please.

anti = "against"

Semite = "Jew"

Why does it matter to the use of that word what the REASON for being against them was?

Seems to me you are defining the word according to your personal definition in order to be anti-Christian.

Kind of ironic.

Antisemitism refers to a specific set of persecutions and legal restrictions that were brought about in the Western World in the Christian Age, otherwise called, The Dark Ages and continuing into the modern world.  They ranged from prohibitions against certain activities, segregation in living arrangements, - ghettos - regulation of families to only one son, pogroms, official and non-official mob actions, and it also included systematic torture and death under the First Crusade, the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from England (1290), Spain (1492), and Portugal (1497) and of course, the Holocaust.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisemitism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisemitism)

an⋅ti-Sem⋅i⋅tism
  /ˌæntiˈsɛmɪˌtɪzəm, ˌæntaɪ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [an-tee-sem-i-tiz-uhm, an-tahy-] Show IPA
Use antisemitism in a Sentence
–noun
discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.



^^^
Only definition listed.

Actually, most "Mormons" are not anti semitic. They recognize Christ as a Jew and consider themselves as the children of Israel. They also consider everyone part of the same family. Descendents of Abraham. Jews, Muslims, Christians and others are all considered part of what they call the ten tribes of Israel.

Hey, I live in the middle of Mormon ville. I may not totally agree with them on some subjects. But I do let them speak their piece.

Quote from: Virginia Marie on August 04, 2009, 03:58:37 AM
Actually, most "Mormons" are not anti semitic. They recognize Christ as a Jew and consider themselves as the children of Israel. They also consider everyone part of the same family. Descendents of Abraham. Jews, Muslims, Christians and others are all considered part of what they call the ten tribes of Israel.

Hey, I live in the middle of Mormon ville. I may not totally agree with them on some subjects. But I do let them speak their piece.

Mormons actually consider Jews "the chosen people" of God.  That's what it says in "their" Bible (not that it's any different than anyone else's)

Cindi

I noticed that they have both the Bible and their own book which they say is a second witness to the Bible. Some of the stories are interesting and a fairly good read. But you do have to get past some of the boring parts. I'm still not sure about this Mormon dude that buried gold plates on a hillside or the angel with a trumpet. But most of them are generally nice to me

In an article which a liberal Mormon named Jörn (or Jörg) Dittberner had written in which he could prove that in Germany, at the moment of the Nazi dictatorship, many German Mormons were against Jews. They believed, Hitler would be a sort of "tools" of God. And many have betrayed Jews to the Gestapo (confidential state police of the Nazi). Others have hidden Jews. And even the American Mormons who visited Germany in this time found the Nazi pigs good, also what they made with the Jews if they talked about it at all. I will look once, maybe I find the article somewhere, then I can say further details in addition.