why is your pledge said before a picture of him, a mere mortal, when it should be said in front of god, or a picture of jesus if you believe in them...... do you believe that reciting words in front of a picture of some asian dude's face does anything for you in practical terms? or are you just doing what you have been told to do under your doctrine?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm a Unificationist, ask me questions!
- Thread starter Spirited
- Start date
why is your pledge said before a picture of him, a mere mortal, when it should be said in front of god, or a picture of jesus if you believe in them...... do you believe that reciting words in front of a picture of some asian dude's face does anything for you in practical terms? or are you just doing what you have been told to do under your doctrine?
IsmailaGodHasHeard
Well-Known Member
Okay.
Spirited
Bring about world peace
While I don't appreciate your attitude or think that you have actually been reading my posts at all, I will continue to answer your questions.
We consider Reverend Moon to be the second coming of Christ, therefor it is no different to us than saying it before Jesus. If you give me a photograph of Jesus or of God, I will gladly put them next to his picture.
Some families are multiracial, some are not. I am Irish Catholic and Native American, my wife is of Austrian Jewish decent. The purpose is not necessarily just interracial, interdenominational marriages, like my own, are just as strongly encouraged. The purpose is to bring unity in the world by uniting it one family at a time. While it is not included in our doctrine that members must marry in this fashion, it is recommended and considered to be a beautiful offering before God.
do you believe that this korean guy moon sun is the messiah. (second coming)
and what makes you different from the mormons that came before you with a similar story of how god revealed himself through jesus, or angels to their leader?
how do you know that joseph smith was a liar while your korean leader is not?
and what makes you different from the mormons that came before you with a similar story of how god revealed himself through jesus, or angels to their leader?
how do you know that joseph smith was a liar while your korean leader is not?
Spirited
Bring about world peace
I answered the first part already like four times.
Mormons believe in things that I find more or less incongruous with my feelings about genesis. They also believe in Polygamy, something I find to be morally astray from my understanding of ethics. I don't think you have actually studied Mormon doctrine, but Joseph Smith refers to Moroni, not "angels" as the spiritual being that lead him to the golden plates.
Joseph Smith never claimed to be the messiah, I don't see a parallel.
Last edited:
the parallel is that both smith and your korean leader sun moon jupiter claim to have received revelations as young lads..... and obviously you havent studied mormonism either since you claim mormons believe in polygamy.... have you read the stories in the torah, old testament where some of god's people were also polygamists??
doesnt it bother you that your dear leader was convicted and sentenced to serve time in united states federal prison?
doesnt it bother you that your missionaries have defrauded thousands of elderly japanese of their life savings? or that in 1997 your church was the subject of the largest consumer fraud investigation in Japan's history??? you guys must be competing with the scientologists in that fraud department
Spirited
Bring about world peace
Both Brigham Young and Joseph Smith had multiple wives, as did many of the early Mormons. Some of God's people in the Bible and Torah also committed incest and Moses murdered an Egyptian, that doesn't mean that the Bible glorifies such life choices.
Doesn't it bother Christians that Jesus was considered to be a blasphemer and literally tortured and murdered by the Roman government as incited by the Jewish people? It is the fault of the members that Reverend Moon went to Danbury prison. The case was related to tax fraud that was the result of horrendous bookkeeping and poor management of our companies by people in leadership positions.
Japans government has also been known for trying to abolish the Unification Church in it's entirety from day one. In the past two years they released one of our devoted Japanese members who had been in a deprogramming facility for the last fifteen years of his life, getting physically and psychologically tortured. To presume that someones money is being fraudulently taken, you must first assume that they do not know for which purpose it is being used. This has never been the case in our organization.
Many accusations towards my church confuse me greatly, because they presume that we don't know about the terms that you are presenting me with. Not only do we know about these fraud cases, we know whos' fault they were and exactly how and why they happend. We see both sides of the argument, the one you present and the one that we see before us. Our members RUN these companies, and it was not due to intentional pilfering but merely, business ineptitude that these events occurred. You seem to think that Rev. Moons' life is shrouded by mystery and deceit, but the truth is, many members of our church have gone through periods of living with him every single day for years of their lives. I don't see how someone could be shrouded without even having any privacy.
Spirited
Bring about world peace
I would also like to say that I am done defending my beliefs against those who ONLY wish to degrade them. I am here to explain things and answer reasonable questions. I don't mind volatility in cases where I feel that someone is genuinely trying to learn, but I do not see that to be the case with "zuluniner". It does not bother me that you are bringing up questions about the tax fraud cases, let me make that clear. What does bother me is your incredibly negative attitude and blatant show of disrespect when you say things like "sun moon jupiter". If you can clean up your attitude, I will continue to answer questions pertaining to the doctrine of our church.
The Catholic Church has problems with pedifilia. The Mormon Church with polygamy. Islam, in modern times, with extremists and terrorists. Atheists with mass murder/genocide. The NBA with Kobe Bryant. Atlantic Records with T.I.. Every organization in the world has had problems. It is the individual parts of a group that almost always cause problems, not the group philosophy itself.
Be as respectful as you would expect me to be when questioning your own belief system.
The Catholic Church has problems with pedifilia. The Mormon Church with polygamy. Islam, in modern times, with extremists and terrorists. Atheists with mass murder/genocide. The NBA with Kobe Bryant. Atlantic Records with T.I.. Every organization in the world has had problems. It is the individual parts of a group that almost always cause problems, not the group philosophy itself.
Be as respectful as you would expect me to be when questioning your own belief system.
Last edited:
I don't believe you responded to my question on p. 2, but that's okay. It was mostly rhetorical, and on this topic...
Thank God that bisexuality overcomes this issue you are raising.
And he who is without sin can be the first to pick up a rock...(which relates to my earlier question)
Are you without sin?
To hug a person of the same gender in a loving way is immoral?
Is acting on heterosexual feelings, purely for sake of pleasure, immoral (to you)?
What does intolerant imply?
Do you truly not think I could find examples of where Unificationism tolerates?
No, but toleration may be key to lasting marriage.
Could be both.
The sort of behaviors that are generally deemed unacceptable to much of society are those that are perceived as harmful to specific members, or large portions of citizens. How might you explain acts of homosexuality as harmful to society? This is the secular side of the equation. The religious side is unless you are worthy judge (read as without sin) then unacceptable behavior is call for forgiveness, not condemnation; though this does depend on how God / Holy Spirit is said to influence believers.
Same would be true with heterosexuality.
Again, I'll say same with heterosexuality.
For sake of this dialogue, I'd much prefer to stay to the spiritual / religious domain for understanding.
Then the Middle East will never be at peace with its own self.
And yet, magically, this is the world we currently live in. U.S. isn't perfect in its treatment of women, and Middle East is dealing with own homosexuality issues. To project these onto the other countries as 'sole reason why we may not get along' would be preposterous in this day and time. But if country in Middle East is sovereign and not (overtly) exercising abuse of its own people, the world body will generally tolerate the existence of the Middle East nation regardless (really) of its treatment of women. Likewise, many Middle Eastern countries recognize U.S. and European nations as co-existing partners of world body, regardless of sexual freedoms blatantly displayed by Western nations.
It is not likely this will be changed. If a demonstration of physical harm to specific members or large factions can be shown, consideration will be given to the morality issue you touched upon. Without this, it becomes as possible to put genie back in the bottle, as it would be to suddenly outlaw heterosexuality because 'my religion' is not tolerant of the behaviors that accompany that way of life. What do you think chances of this occurring on world wide level, are?
For many, it is happiness in sense of loving relationship. For some, it is pleasurable lifestyle. Like any sexuality that is promiscuous, it is open to reasonable debate that it could be harmful to society as whole (spread of STD's). But subtract promiscuity from homosexual relations, encourage homosexuals (or bisexuals) to marry and live in nuclear family way of life, and suddenly happiness looks a lot like what it would for anyone convinced that marriage means monogamous relations.
I can relate to this.
As I've said elsewhere, if you were truly religious person seeking to help homosexuals, you would be advocating strongly for same sex marriages. To the point of discouraging the promiscuity in the same way you would with heterosexuals. Or would you say to promiscuous heterosexual coupling, that because they cannot control their urges, they are to renounce their orientation and not engage in such behavior ever again? I would think your answer to this would be a clear no, and yet you would in this case (of homosexuality) not do unto another as you would have done unto you. How, from a spiritual perspective, can you plausibly defend this in a moral way?
Your inversion of the Golden Rule is between unsettling and laced with hypocrisy. Because some advocates have treated you unjustly or in demeaning way, this is now how you justify holding an intolerant position toward all homosexuals? With spiritual courage, you could apply the Rule in a a way that doesn't perpetuate insanity, and allows brothers and sisters opportunity for loving relationship that you would afford to some, but apparently not all; thus contributing, instead, to manifestation of same-sex relationships that are not to be honored with longevity, and righteously met with hypocrisy laden condemnation.
The cool thing is, your earthly intermediary may actually support your intolerant and unloving position on this matter. While Holy Spirit will simply return to you what you are sharing with brothers and sisters (judgment for non tolerance and unloving devotion).
Thank God that bisexuality overcomes this issue you are raising.
And he who is without sin can be the first to pick up a rock...(which relates to my earlier question)
Are you without sin?
To hug a person of the same gender in a loving way is immoral?
Is acting on heterosexual feelings, purely for sake of pleasure, immoral (to you)?
What does intolerant imply?
Do you truly not think I could find examples of where Unificationism tolerates?
No, but toleration may be key to lasting marriage.
Could be both.
The sort of behaviors that are generally deemed unacceptable to much of society are those that are perceived as harmful to specific members, or large portions of citizens. How might you explain acts of homosexuality as harmful to society? This is the secular side of the equation. The religious side is unless you are worthy judge (read as without sin) then unacceptable behavior is call for forgiveness, not condemnation; though this does depend on how God / Holy Spirit is said to influence believers.
Same would be true with heterosexuality.
Again, I'll say same with heterosexuality.
For sake of this dialogue, I'd much prefer to stay to the spiritual / religious domain for understanding.
Then the Middle East will never be at peace with its own self.
And yet, magically, this is the world we currently live in. U.S. isn't perfect in its treatment of women, and Middle East is dealing with own homosexuality issues. To project these onto the other countries as 'sole reason why we may not get along' would be preposterous in this day and time. But if country in Middle East is sovereign and not (overtly) exercising abuse of its own people, the world body will generally tolerate the existence of the Middle East nation regardless (really) of its treatment of women. Likewise, many Middle Eastern countries recognize U.S. and European nations as co-existing partners of world body, regardless of sexual freedoms blatantly displayed by Western nations.
It is not likely this will be changed. If a demonstration of physical harm to specific members or large factions can be shown, consideration will be given to the morality issue you touched upon. Without this, it becomes as possible to put genie back in the bottle, as it would be to suddenly outlaw heterosexuality because 'my religion' is not tolerant of the behaviors that accompany that way of life. What do you think chances of this occurring on world wide level, are?
For many, it is happiness in sense of loving relationship. For some, it is pleasurable lifestyle. Like any sexuality that is promiscuous, it is open to reasonable debate that it could be harmful to society as whole (spread of STD's). But subtract promiscuity from homosexual relations, encourage homosexuals (or bisexuals) to marry and live in nuclear family way of life, and suddenly happiness looks a lot like what it would for anyone convinced that marriage means monogamous relations.
I can relate to this.
As I've said elsewhere, if you were truly religious person seeking to help homosexuals, you would be advocating strongly for same sex marriages. To the point of discouraging the promiscuity in the same way you would with heterosexuals. Or would you say to promiscuous heterosexual coupling, that because they cannot control their urges, they are to renounce their orientation and not engage in such behavior ever again? I would think your answer to this would be a clear no, and yet you would in this case (of homosexuality) not do unto another as you would have done unto you. How, from a spiritual perspective, can you plausibly defend this in a moral way?
Your inversion of the Golden Rule is between unsettling and laced with hypocrisy. Because some advocates have treated you unjustly or in demeaning way, this is now how you justify holding an intolerant position toward all homosexuals? With spiritual courage, you could apply the Rule in a a way that doesn't perpetuate insanity, and allows brothers and sisters opportunity for loving relationship that you would afford to some, but apparently not all; thus contributing, instead, to manifestation of same-sex relationships that are not to be honored with longevity, and righteously met with hypocrisy laden condemnation.
The cool thing is, your earthly intermediary may actually support your intolerant and unloving position on this matter. While Holy Spirit will simply return to you what you are sharing with brothers and sisters (judgment for non tolerance and unloving devotion).
javajo
Well-Known Member
I believe in Mathew 24:
23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25Behold, I have told you before.
26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25Behold, I have told you before.
26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Me Myself
Back to my username
This is what you wrote and this is what I answer:
Homosexuality is URGENT to world peace, yes, I just wrote that.
The demographical problem is ridiculously high. Unlimited reproduction and limited resources. Solution?
Homosexuals. TONS OF THEM.
Nope, not bisexuals, or at least, not ones that will stay with a heterosexual monogamy partner, but HOMOSEXUALS.
You can reduce demographics by:
a) A massive amount of dead (eg: a war)
or
b) Massive reduction of reproduction
So homosexuals are a NECESARY contribution to WORLD PEACE that needs to become a much bigger and accepted group RIGHT NOW.
Seriously people, we need this chinese babies adopting people. We need all of them and even more of them.
We need Gays NOW.
Or a war.
I prefer gays than a massacre or massive poverty or social inequity, call me crazy
Spirited
Bring about world peace
This is a monstrous post, I may not answer all of these right away for the sake of time, but I will do my best. My answer is apparently too long, I will be splitting it into two parts.
Thank God that bisexuality overcomes this issue you are raising.
I don't see how that is the case at all within the context of my argument. It's not just viewed as logistically immoral or unwieldy, it is also considered to be a sin within both the Bible and the doctrine of my own faith.
And he who is without sin can be the first to pick up a rock...(which relates to my earlier question)
Are you without sin?
I am not without sin, but I do not see how I could be perceived as casting stones. I am simply trying to explain why my religious views do not allow for homosexuality. To not voice my viewpoints on this would be to condemn myself to the nonverbal "life" of a stone.
To hug a person of the same gender in a loving way is immoral?
Is acting on heterosexual feelings, purely for sake of pleasure, immoral (to you)?
Hugging someone of the same gender is fine. Brotherly love and filial love are absolutely encouraged. Having sexual desires towards that person is very different. You could hug someone that you find attractive, same sex or opposite, without sexual motivations can you not? We teach that sex, within marriage, is a joyous and pleasurable thing, but outside of marriage it is forbidden.
What does intolerant imply?
Do you truly not think I could find examples of where Unificationism tolerates?
I would love for you to do so! I encourage it, please show me what you mean. Perhaps my definition of toleration is imperfect as well, I do not profess to be anything but human and this definition is my own, not that of my church.
No, but toleration may be key to lasting marriage.
This is absolutely true, but both parties should be doing their utmost to improve themselves for the sake of their partner. Eventually this would remove a need for tolerance. The issue I raised was also between immutable religious groups and the social structure supporting homosexuality, it is not comparable to the relationships of individuals.
Could be both.
I disagree completely. Think of something that you are morally averse to. Now imagine living with someone who exhibited that behavior every day. While you may be able to cope with this situation, that was not what I asked of you. I asked if you desire to be in this situation.
The sort of behaviors that are generally deemed unacceptable to much of society are those that are perceived as harmful to specific members, or large portions of citizens. How might you explain acts of homosexuality as harmful to society? This is the secular side of the equation. The religious side is unless you are worthy judge (read as without sin) then unacceptable behavior is call for forgiveness, not condemnation; though this does depend on how God / Holy Spirit is said to influence believers.
From the perspective of someone withstanding daily assaults on their religious beliefs, I would say that the homosexual agenda, which is so frequently coupled with aggressive Atheism, is actually quite detrimental to my vision of society. Now if you take a relativist viewpoint than of course I can't tell you it is a horrible burden on society, that's simply impossible. However, suicide and self mutilation are both illegal in developed countries around the world, and they only directly physically affect the well being of the individual acting upon these urges. Do you then see these actions as morally sound, based on your definition of what is a socially acceptable behavior?
As for the reiteration of your attack on whether or not I am sinless, I would ask you to do away with rhetorical traps. In the Christian faith it is believed that no one is born sinless, should we therefor abolish all judicial systems and start a campaign for global anarchy? I am not going up to individuals and ridiculing them for their lifestyle, I have made mistakes too numerous to mention in my own life. I do however feel a social responsibility to defend what I think is right in the realm of thought. Thoughts lead to legislature, I just want to make it known that people can be opposed to this agenda without being hateful towards the PEOPLE in it.
Same would be true with heterosexuality.
Except that I am not suggesting that someone resist the desire to be heterosexual, are you? I'm not positive what you are getting at here at all.
Again, I'll say same with heterosexuality.
Heterosexuality is the default though, how could it be considered a defect or is that the newest debate I havn't heard about yet.
Then the Middle East will never be at peace with its own self.
Is there rampant homosexuality in the Middle East? Absolutely. The difference is that they do not legally condone it. Laws and allowances represent us as a people and a culture. Individuals will always act against the will of a nation or social structure.
And yet, magically, this is the world we currently live in. U.S. isn't perfect in its treatment of women, and Middle East is dealing with own homosexuality issues. To project these onto the other countries as 'sole reason why we may not get along' would be preposterous in this day and time. But if country in Middle East is sovereign and not (overtly) exercising abuse of its own people, the world body will generally tolerate the existence of the Middle East nation regardless (really) of its treatment of women. Likewise, many Middle Eastern countries recognize U.S. and European nations as co-existing partners of world body, regardless of sexual freedoms blatantly displayed by Western nations.
I don't think you really understand what I am saying. The goal of the Unification movement is world peace through love. Not just the acceptance that we probably won't have to go to war with a nation. And of course it's not the sole problem that the Middle East hates us. The Islamic people of the Middle East, however, have a direct and absolute conflict with all aspects of free sex, and will never be able to join us in a harmoniously relationship will this is still tolerated in the States.
It is not likely this will be changed. If a demonstration of physical harm to specific members or large factions can be shown, consideration will be given to the morality issue you touched upon. Without this, it becomes as possible to put genie back in the bottle, as it would be to suddenly outlaw heterosexuality because 'my religion' is not tolerant of the behaviors that accompany that way of life. What do you think chances of this occurring on world wide level, are?
I don't really understand the attempt to draw comparisons between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Heterosexuality - from the most secular point of view it is possible to hold - is necessary for the proliferation of our species. Even if it is not required that the parents stay together afterwords, though I would debate that this is necessary for normal emotional growth. I'm trying my best to address your concern in that particular argument, but I just don't understand how you can compare a heterosexual relationship to a homosexual one. Other than partnership, it can hardly even be said that they serve the same purpose.
For many, it is happiness in sense of loving relationship. For some, it is pleasurable lifestyle. Like any sexuality that is promiscuous, it is open to reasonable debate that it could be harmful to society as whole (spread of STD's). But subtract promiscuity from homosexual relations, encourage homosexuals (or bisexuals) to marry and live in nuclear family way of life, and suddenly happiness looks a lot like what it would for anyone convinced that marriage means monogamous relations.
My religion does not condone of promiscuous relationships at ALL, regardless of sexual orientation. We hold sexual purity before marriage, and loyalty within marriage, as one of our most integral values. How can homosexuals or bisexuals have nuclear families without the aid of adoption or a surrogate? I would also argue about the developmental effects that this would have on the children of said families, but while this area has been explored very little, I can't really comment more on that.
Thank God that bisexuality overcomes this issue you are raising.
I don't see how that is the case at all within the context of my argument. It's not just viewed as logistically immoral or unwieldy, it is also considered to be a sin within both the Bible and the doctrine of my own faith.
And he who is without sin can be the first to pick up a rock...(which relates to my earlier question)
Are you without sin?
I am not without sin, but I do not see how I could be perceived as casting stones. I am simply trying to explain why my religious views do not allow for homosexuality. To not voice my viewpoints on this would be to condemn myself to the nonverbal "life" of a stone.
To hug a person of the same gender in a loving way is immoral?
Is acting on heterosexual feelings, purely for sake of pleasure, immoral (to you)?
Hugging someone of the same gender is fine. Brotherly love and filial love are absolutely encouraged. Having sexual desires towards that person is very different. You could hug someone that you find attractive, same sex or opposite, without sexual motivations can you not? We teach that sex, within marriage, is a joyous and pleasurable thing, but outside of marriage it is forbidden.
What does intolerant imply?
Do you truly not think I could find examples of where Unificationism tolerates?
I would love for you to do so! I encourage it, please show me what you mean. Perhaps my definition of toleration is imperfect as well, I do not profess to be anything but human and this definition is my own, not that of my church.
No, but toleration may be key to lasting marriage.
This is absolutely true, but both parties should be doing their utmost to improve themselves for the sake of their partner. Eventually this would remove a need for tolerance. The issue I raised was also between immutable religious groups and the social structure supporting homosexuality, it is not comparable to the relationships of individuals.
Could be both.
I disagree completely. Think of something that you are morally averse to. Now imagine living with someone who exhibited that behavior every day. While you may be able to cope with this situation, that was not what I asked of you. I asked if you desire to be in this situation.
The sort of behaviors that are generally deemed unacceptable to much of society are those that are perceived as harmful to specific members, or large portions of citizens. How might you explain acts of homosexuality as harmful to society? This is the secular side of the equation. The religious side is unless you are worthy judge (read as without sin) then unacceptable behavior is call for forgiveness, not condemnation; though this does depend on how God / Holy Spirit is said to influence believers.
From the perspective of someone withstanding daily assaults on their religious beliefs, I would say that the homosexual agenda, which is so frequently coupled with aggressive Atheism, is actually quite detrimental to my vision of society. Now if you take a relativist viewpoint than of course I can't tell you it is a horrible burden on society, that's simply impossible. However, suicide and self mutilation are both illegal in developed countries around the world, and they only directly physically affect the well being of the individual acting upon these urges. Do you then see these actions as morally sound, based on your definition of what is a socially acceptable behavior?
As for the reiteration of your attack on whether or not I am sinless, I would ask you to do away with rhetorical traps. In the Christian faith it is believed that no one is born sinless, should we therefor abolish all judicial systems and start a campaign for global anarchy? I am not going up to individuals and ridiculing them for their lifestyle, I have made mistakes too numerous to mention in my own life. I do however feel a social responsibility to defend what I think is right in the realm of thought. Thoughts lead to legislature, I just want to make it known that people can be opposed to this agenda without being hateful towards the PEOPLE in it.
Same would be true with heterosexuality.
Except that I am not suggesting that someone resist the desire to be heterosexual, are you? I'm not positive what you are getting at here at all.
Again, I'll say same with heterosexuality.
Heterosexuality is the default though, how could it be considered a defect or is that the newest debate I havn't heard about yet.
Then the Middle East will never be at peace with its own self.
Is there rampant homosexuality in the Middle East? Absolutely. The difference is that they do not legally condone it. Laws and allowances represent us as a people and a culture. Individuals will always act against the will of a nation or social structure.
And yet, magically, this is the world we currently live in. U.S. isn't perfect in its treatment of women, and Middle East is dealing with own homosexuality issues. To project these onto the other countries as 'sole reason why we may not get along' would be preposterous in this day and time. But if country in Middle East is sovereign and not (overtly) exercising abuse of its own people, the world body will generally tolerate the existence of the Middle East nation regardless (really) of its treatment of women. Likewise, many Middle Eastern countries recognize U.S. and European nations as co-existing partners of world body, regardless of sexual freedoms blatantly displayed by Western nations.
I don't think you really understand what I am saying. The goal of the Unification movement is world peace through love. Not just the acceptance that we probably won't have to go to war with a nation. And of course it's not the sole problem that the Middle East hates us. The Islamic people of the Middle East, however, have a direct and absolute conflict with all aspects of free sex, and will never be able to join us in a harmoniously relationship will this is still tolerated in the States.
It is not likely this will be changed. If a demonstration of physical harm to specific members or large factions can be shown, consideration will be given to the morality issue you touched upon. Without this, it becomes as possible to put genie back in the bottle, as it would be to suddenly outlaw heterosexuality because 'my religion' is not tolerant of the behaviors that accompany that way of life. What do you think chances of this occurring on world wide level, are?
I don't really understand the attempt to draw comparisons between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Heterosexuality - from the most secular point of view it is possible to hold - is necessary for the proliferation of our species. Even if it is not required that the parents stay together afterwords, though I would debate that this is necessary for normal emotional growth. I'm trying my best to address your concern in that particular argument, but I just don't understand how you can compare a heterosexual relationship to a homosexual one. Other than partnership, it can hardly even be said that they serve the same purpose.
For many, it is happiness in sense of loving relationship. For some, it is pleasurable lifestyle. Like any sexuality that is promiscuous, it is open to reasonable debate that it could be harmful to society as whole (spread of STD's). But subtract promiscuity from homosexual relations, encourage homosexuals (or bisexuals) to marry and live in nuclear family way of life, and suddenly happiness looks a lot like what it would for anyone convinced that marriage means monogamous relations.
My religion does not condone of promiscuous relationships at ALL, regardless of sexual orientation. We hold sexual purity before marriage, and loyalty within marriage, as one of our most integral values. How can homosexuals or bisexuals have nuclear families without the aid of adoption or a surrogate? I would also argue about the developmental effects that this would have on the children of said families, but while this area has been explored very little, I can't really comment more on that.
Spirited
Bring about world peace
I can relate to this.
Then please try to understand that I am not a hateful person.
As I've said elsewhere, if you were truly religious person seeking to help homosexuals, you would be advocating strongly for same sex marriages. To the point of discouraging the promiscuity in the same way you would with heterosexuals. Or would you say to promiscuous heterosexual coupling, that because they cannot control their urges, they are to renounce their orientation and not engage in such behavior ever again? I would think your answer to this would be a clear no, and yet you would in this case (of homosexuality) not do unto another as you would have done unto you. How, from a spiritual perspective, can you plausibly defend this in a moral way?
I am a truly religious person, as I dedicate my life to a faith that I believe to be beautiful and true. Saying that to be a religious person I must accept your perspective is being intolerant of me, which I find to be very ironic. I have said nothing disrespectful to you, yet you openly insult me and try to minimize my convictions, occasionally even using faulty reasoning by attacking me rather than my view. I do not think homosexual people are evil, similarly to how I do not think alcoholics are evil or heterosexual people who suffer from sexual compulsions. I just view the actions that stem from those who choose not to battle these conditions. Alcoholism runs in my family, I have lost loved ones to it, and I most likely would be an alcoholic myself, which is why I mustn't ever drink. I do not see myself as having done anything unto others that I would not have done unto me. I encourage homosexual people to have find a partner of the opposite sex and have a family, raise children and coexist peacefully in society free of ridicule. I even have met religious homosexual people who have opted for this path in life and gave testimonies about it. I do not see homosexuality and heterosexuality as interchangeable circumstances with which one can swap arguments back and forth, as they do not have interchangeable consequences or premises.
Your inversion of the Golden Rule is between unsettling and laced with hypocrisy. Because some advocates have treated you unjustly or in demeaning way, this is now how you justify holding an intolerant position toward all homosexuals? With spiritual courage, you could apply the Rule in a a way that doesn't perpetuate insanity, and allows brothers and sisters opportunity for loving relationship that you would afford to some, but apparently not all; thus contributing, instead, to manifestation of same-sex relationships that are not to be honored with longevity, and righteously met with hypocrisy laden condemnation.
You have to understand that this last paragraph that you quoted was addressing the question of whether or not my faith is true. The question was "If you are wrong, then what". I do not try to justify my actions based on this example of "The Golden Rule", however, I use it as an example of the climate of my life were I to suddenly realize that there was in fact no God (which is what I presumed the question to be asking).
I hold the position that I hold because I believe that it is right, not only for myself, but for homosexual people as well. I do not wish to hurt them or take them on in an exercise of dental surgery (tooth for tooth). I was just trying to express that if I were to be wrong about the existence of God and the absoluteness or correctness of my own faith, that my crime would be no greater, even from the perspective of those opposed to me, than what is currently being inflicted upon religious people in the United States.
The cool thing is, your earthly intermediary may actually support your intolerant and unloving position on this matter. While Holy Spirit will simply return to you what you are sharing with brothers and sisters (judgment for non tolerance and unloving devotion)
I feel that you must not have ever been responsible for the upbringing of someone else, though that may be an incorrect observation and I apologize if that is so. The reason I say this is as follows: truly loving someone does not mean giving them everything that they want. I love my alcoholic family members, but I do not encourage them to drink, nor do I allow them to socialize in my household while under the influence of their drug of choice. I have compassion for my obese family members, but I don't approve of their sedentary lifestyles and eating disorders, I try to help them, rather than trying to make them feel as if they should stay in the same state which ultimately may result in their untimely death. I love and support our nations president even though I don't agree with him and would never vote for him. I love my friend who I helped through horrible depression and thoughts of suicide. Lastly, I love my homosexual friends, but I do not believe that what they do is healthy or spiritually acceptable by the definition of faith that I believe to be true. Love and tolerance are not so interchangeable as you would have them be.
I am genuinely sorry if I have personally insulted or hurt you. That is not my aim and I am aware that systems in my convictions I may not sound very sensitive, even if I am speaking with no intention for harming others.
Thank you for your post.
Spirited
Bring about world peace
This is what you wrote and this is what I answer:
Homosexuality is URGENT to world peace, yes, I just wrote that.
The demographical problem is ridiculously high. Unlimited reproduction and limited resources. Solution?
Homosexuals. TONS OF THEM.
Nope, not bisexuals, or at least, not ones that will stay with a heterosexual monogamy partner, but HOMOSEXUALS.
You can reduce demographics by:
a) A massive amount of dead (eg: a war)
or
b) Massive reduction of reproduction
So homosexuals are a NECESARY contribution to WORLD PEACE that needs to become a much bigger and accepted group RIGHT NOW.
Seriously people, we need this chinese babies adopting people. We need all of them and even more of them.
We need Gays NOW.
Or a war.
I prefer gays than a massacre or massive poverty or social inequity, call me crazy
XD I like your post.
But on a different note: with world unity, science will excel at an ALARMING rate. We are talking colonies on the ocean, under the ocean and in outer space. Fast territories that are currently only accessible by single nations would be accessible to everyone. Resources would be more widely shared rather than hoarded and people would presumably have less ******* children resulting in little to no need for adoption, save for in cases where people have ilnesses preventing them from having children.
Overpopulation is definitely a massive problem, but the solution is not having less babies.
Spirited
Bring about world peace
He is neither in a the desert or a secret chamber, either metaphorically or literally. He travels the world conveying messages of peace. I would also like to mention that he took the eastern world by storm - he was born in what is now communist North Korea - before traveling to the west to share his teachings. This seems more to reaffirm my views than negate them.
Jesus was persecuted horribly during his lifetime, even by his own people or are we supposed to ignore that? The elect during the time of Christ were the Jews, who eventually murdered Christ. The elect during the current age (going by the Bible) are the Christians, the people prepared for the second coming of Christ. Seeing as Christians hate as and persecute us, I don't thing that we've done a very good job of deceiving the elect.
I would like to ask you in what way is it that you will recognize the coming of Christ. Do not quote scripture in your answer, tell me as if you are retelling a story to one of your friends or family members. What would be necessary for you to believe that someone is the Messiah here to save humankind once and for all?
Last edited:
javajo
Well-Known Member
I believe at the 2nd Coming every eye will see him whom they pierced:
Revelation 1:7
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Revelation 1:7
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Spirited
Bring about world peace
Do you believe everything in the book of Revelations to be literal? I do not. Neither do I believe the story of Genesis to be literal.
Stories of ancient peoples predicting the future always had to be told and explained from a context understandable by the current society (obviously). Look at the predictions of Nostradamus and how he describes tanks as an example. Coming on the clouds to me is symbolic of coming in an age where people have dominion over all of the Earth.
It is of course necessary for the Bible to tell readers the time period during which the Messiah will return. If you make plans to go out with your friend you don't just say "I'll be at the movie theater someday, show up or I hate you...". Most of Revelations is prophetic description of the last days and how they can be recognized.
But if you do consider this book to be literal, I don't really know what I can do to sway your view.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Show that Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis Chapter 2 show completely contradictory ways in which earth is created?
( I actually love how the bible couldn´t get to the second chapter of it without contradicting itself completely
)
Spirited
Bring about world peace
Show that Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis Chapter 2 show completely contradictory ways in which earth is created?
( I actually love how the bible couldn´t get to the second chapter of it without contradicting itself completely
That is why I don't believe it's literal!