![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> And I don't know what the
> Mormon stance on loving each other, but I'm pretty sure there's a bunch
> of caveats in there too, given they dislike their gay members loving
> their neighbors, for example.
If you mean "love" as in caring for someone more than for yourself, then
the Mormons preach it quite literally.
If you mean romantic or sexual, then it's quite restricted.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I have seen "The Davinci Code" and found that
Sorry, I stopped reading right there. I thought about making a comment
about basing a religious conversation on a work of text, but I'd be far
too tempted to go too far and offend someone...
I think I'd better stop now ;)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Chambers wrote:
> If you mean "love" as in caring for someone more than for yourself, then
> the Mormons preach it quite literally.
Well, I guess unless you're gay. Or black.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Chambers wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> I have seen "The Davinci Code" and found that
>
> Sorry, I stopped reading right there. I thought about making a comment
> about basing a religious conversation on a work of text, but I'd be far
> too tempted to go too far and offend someone...
>
> I think I'd better stop now ;)
>
> ....Chambers
Hehe, that attitude... "I'm so good writing that I'm offensive,
especially on unprepared people".
IMO people that offends when communicating has weak character and spirit
plus, and finds shelter and shield on their intellectual vanity. I'm not
interested in these kind of people or what they have to say, mainly
because because that vanity won't let them be humble to learn or accept
some flaws or different POVs or even part of them, these kind of people
live in denial, defensive, self-centered and narrow minded worlds, so
what's the point?
I'm sorry too, but I like people that actually want to discuss trying to
find the truth and the good in everything not people that want to be
given the reason on everything they think they have.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
You have said probably many truths here, but my point of view about the
Bible I think is still valid and the same as I wrote in my previous
post. A guide gets outdated and sometimes have some erroneous facts but
have to cope with that and take the good and the truth and apply it to
our life for constructive benefice which is basically what religions,
governments and society in general strives for, right? unless you deal
in absolutes, which I think this is a serious character flaw, and just
take the flaws of the Bible or any other text as a pretext to deny them
entirely; and AFAIK trying to follow a "perfect" path in life is just
utopia, I think at the contrary we have to make constant but gradual
changes in our life doing our very best.
And I don't re member well but I think that the Bible/Jesus don't say we
have to hate everyone including ourselves, but to deny ourselves meaning
detach from intellectual, personal or any other kind of pride that will
disable our capability of being ourselves: be in touch with our feeling,
flaws, virtues, etc and won't allow us to be humble to learn, improve,
find the better part of ourselves and greater good than what we think
we're capable of. In short is a meditation not a literal advice.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Well not strictly, I don't know what every religion in the world is
>> about, but mainly every religion preaches how God want us to love each
>> other the best way possible, you get me?
>
> Um, no. Indeed, most religions don't preach that.
>
> Buddhism doesn't. Wicca doesn't. Greek gods weren't particularly
> admirable. Norse gods weren't particularly loving. Mayan gods wanted you
> to kill each other.
>
> I'm pretty sure that even Islam doesn't preach that, but rather
> obedience to God over all else. I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't
> actually show up in the old testament as well.
>
> Indeed, unless you think every religion is Christianity and indeed only
> the loving parts of Christianity, I'm pretty sure that "most" is overblown.
>
Your attitude is "Why is God doing this?" on answer, no, what you
believe is just crap, God and any religion, OK dude, then I'll write:
what ever you say...
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Saul Luizaga schrieb:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Well not strictly, I don't know what every religion in the world is
>>> about, but mainly every religion preaches how God want us to love
>>> each other the best way possible, you get me?
>>
>> Um, no. Indeed, most religions don't preach that.
>>
>> Buddhism doesn't. Wicca doesn't. Greek gods weren't particularly
>> admirable. Norse gods weren't particularly loving. Mayan gods wanted
>> you to kill each other.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that even Islam doesn't preach that, but rather
>> obedience to God over all else. I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't
>> actually show up in the old testament as well.
>>
>> Indeed, unless you think every religion is Christianity and indeed
>> only the loving parts of Christianity, I'm pretty sure that "most" is
>> overblown.
>>
>
> Your attitude is "Why is God doing this?" on answer, no, what you
> believe is just crap, God and any religion, OK dude, then I'll write:
> what ever you say...
Well, I take Darren's attitude as "Your /argument/ is crap because it is
based on wrong assumptions; try again"; as long as he doesn't make any
statement whether a religion not teaching universal love for each other
is crap or not, his posting cannot be read as "God and any religion is
crap", because all he wrote about was that your assertion that "mainly
every religion preaches how God want us to love each other the best way
possible" is flawed.
That's the difference between argument (Darren's posting), contradition
(how you interpreted his posting), and being hit on the head (your
posting [SCNR for the sake of the Monty Python quote :-)]).
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Saul Luizaga schrieb:
> I'm sorry too, but I like people that actually want to discuss trying to
> find the truth and the good in everything not people that want to be
> given the reason on everything they think they have.
Um... sorry, but what would be the sense of discussion without reason?
BTW, I had the same reaction to your posting as Chambers did: "Duh...
does that guy /really/ base his current attitude towards Christianity
solely on the "facts" presented in a /movie/ - especially one targeted
at people getting a kick out of conspiracy theories?"
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
clipka wrote:
> Saul Luizaga schrieb:
> Um... sorry, but what would be the sense of discussion without reason?
already explained in previous post.
>
> BTW, I had the same reaction to your posting as Chambers did: "Duh...
> does that guy /really/ base his current attitude towards Christianity
> solely on the "facts" presented in a /movie/ - especially one targeted
> at people getting a kick out of conspiracy theories?"
It turns out that The Davinci Code presents true facts about
Christianity so yeah that would be a good argument to change your
believes if your believes are based on manipulated facts, if you think
is "just a movie" you have a poor judgment over it.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
clipka wrote:
> Well, I take Darren's attitude as "Your /argument/ is crap because it is
> based on wrong assumptions; try again"; as long as he doesn't make any
> statement whether a religion not teaching universal love for each other
> is crap or not, his posting cannot be read as "God and any religion is
> crap"
His attitude is not his words, you're missing the point, Islam for
example teaches the purity of God's love and that we most promote this
among us, so he is wrong here, but I doubt he will admit this, since he
will say: exactly where? and I don't know exactly, is what I conclude
from the many Koran fragments I've heard or read in an unknown period of
time.
> , because all he wrote about was that your assertion that "mainly
> every religion preaches how God want us to love each other the best way
> possible" is flawed.
No he didn't, his attitude also speaks for him. And even if the
quotation is flawed is what we all need to do anyway, as one possible
way for a harmonious co-existence, makes sense to me.
> That's the difference between argument (Darren's posting), contradition
> (how you interpreted his posting), and being hit on the head (your
> posting [SCNR for the sake of the Monty Python quote :-)]).
since you missed the point of my post, Ill say this is a wrong assumption.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |