BibleBeltBlogger » Blog Archive » Woman knocks over Pope at Midnightish Mass

Woman knocks over Pope at Midnightish Mass

flockwood

The woman was apparently “unbalanced,” observers say.

This year’s Midnight Mass is being held at 10 p.m. Rome time so that the Pontiff won’t have to be up quite so late.

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 24th, 2009 at 4:40 pm and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

200 Responses to “Woman knocks over Pope at Midnightish Mass”

Caleb Powers Says:
December 26th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Midnightish. I love that. I guess the old guy can’t quite make it til midnight anymore . . .
Julian Malakar Says:
December 27th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Timing is irrelevant, celebration of historical birth of living God in a human family, living like us with human suffering and humiliations, as well message of hope at the end of our physical journey in this world is important.
Caleb Powers Says:
December 28th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Julian, I hate to break it to you, but there is nothing “historical” about Jesus’ birth; it is recorded nowhere in historic accounts of the period.
cheese Says:
December 28th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
How can God, even if he did manifest himself as Jesus, ever understand what it’s like to be human, limited, imperfect, and subject to another’s will? Since he’s supposedly infinite, perfect, and ruler of all, isn’t he incapable of forgetting that he’s “the boss”, he created everything, and he can do whatever he wants with it? So long as he’s aware that he is still and will always be “the boss”, he cannot claim to understand what it’s like for all the rest of us who are not in that position of authority. Only if God were able somehow to forget his omnipotence and omniscience could he truly claim to understand the plight of humanity, but he can’t.
Caleb Powers Says:
December 28th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Cheese, buddy, that’s a matter of faith, not logic. If God really is infinite in her understanding, she could indeed understand the plight of humanity. It’s that whole infinity thing; it covers the water.
cheese Says:
December 28th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Doesn’t that reply get old after a little while? “It’s just a matter of faith.” Oh my gosh! Why didn’t I think of it before? Instead of questioning it, I should have just bought it hook, line, and sinker! (For those caught unaware, that was sarcasm.)

As you know, I’m not a big proponent of faith. I like to avoid it whenever I can. Of course, there will always be times we must accept things on faith. I don’t think I can truly avoid it 100%. We simply cannot have scientific certainty for every aspect of life, but given the choice between faith and doubt, I will opt for the latter, because doubt is the true vehicle of human innovation. If you do not doubt the opinions of your predecessors and contemporaries, you will be doomed to repeat their mistakes. The most beautiful thing about science is its self-correcting nature, a nature founded upon prizing doubt over faith.

Religion by prizing faith over doubt has no self-correcting mechanism. Do you see a problem with that?
Julian Malakar Says:
December 28th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
“Julian, I hate to break it to you, but there is nothing “historical” about Jesus’ birth; it is recorded nowhere in historic accounts of the period.”- Caleb

Caleb, if you say there is nothing “historical” about Jesus’ birth, you raised my doubt about your faith on Christ and your integrity with your believe system. My question to you: #1) why do you declare yourself Christian when you do not believe the truth about Christ, as per biblical description? On the contrary you celebrate “Christmas” also. #2) what is the authentic source of your believing Jesus? #3) if you believe Jesus, don’t you believe Jesus was born in this world? If He born that is history, #4) isn’t it?

History is nothing but truth of an incident, but it not PURE SCIENCE. All documents may not be possible to recover with present knowledge. For example if you would have technology to retrieve the voice of your past conversation (history) we could retrieve voice of Christ at the cross as well as conversation with His disciple after resurrection and to proof that He was crucified and resurrected. Unfortunately we do not have that technology at the moment. But matter of facts, it would too late for a Christian to get grace and salvation to wait for evidential proof as you insisted. Because of these cumbersome facts of evidence Jesus told Thomas that blessed are those who believe Him not seeing or asking evidential proof. In your case you believe The Bible is friction, story of spiritual conception, crucifixion and resurrection are myth, but at the same time you say you are Christian, very confusing.

You really surprise me; I wonder how you have faith and believe on Trinity who is truth and spirit and whom you do not see. Is God not real to you? If God is real, then past activity of Truth and Spirit is history. If you read the Bible carefully you would find scripture writers avoided detail as you like to see, to make it readable and understandable to common people like us. Christian have patience to rely on God’s power and believe that one day truth would be revealed to modern man again, when there would be no time to reconcile with God. Last week’s archeological finding about Jesus-era home in Nazareth and Christ’s shroud in a grave is encouraging for millions of Christian around the world.

To millions of Christians, great historians of all time are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to believe Christ and His presence in Bethlehem in the past. By their accounts modern historians were in one consciousness to establish a date of birth of our Lord Jesus Christ and developed a calendar to measure time. Caleb current calendar you got, express any time after death of Christ (AD) or before birth of Christ (BC), if Christ’s birth have no historical effect why you use AD and BC? If you still have doubt on the Bible, please read the Bible with your whole heart (100%). If somebody reads the Bible through out life, still there would be no end of knowledge in the Bible. In the last Anglican Lambeth Conference for Bishops the Bible reading was main agenda. That is why Christ said “you know the truth and the truth will make you free”.
Caleb Powers Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Julian, buddy, you still don’t get it. You say “You really surprise me; I wonder how you have faith and believe on Trinity who is truth and spirit and whom you do not see. Is God not real to you? If God is real, then past activity of Truth and Spirit is history.”

Really? Why? God is indeed very real to me; however, her existence is certainly not predicated, either in my mind or in fact, on the truth of the “historical” statements in the Bible. I mean, Julian, is it not remotely possible that, despite the reality of the existence of God, and Her love for us, that the people who wrote the Bible simply got it wrong in many places, because they were writing many years after the events they were describing were supposed to have occurred, and simply didn’t know any better?

I mean, would Jesus’ teachings not be as good if Jesus were really born in St. Louis rather than Bethlehem? Wouldn’t God still be as great if, as most scholars think, the birth narratives were simply made up and tacked onto the front of two of the the Gospels? Why should my belief in God depend on a particular belief about the Bible, when that particular belief is not logically required in order for me to believe in God?

It sounds to me, Julian, like your faith is not in God at all, but in a particular belief system about God that has no basis in either theology or reality. And, you make me chuckle when you say that to a Christian, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were great historians. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone with those names wrote the gospels, and in fact, other than the genuine letters of the Apostle Paul, we have no idea who wrote a single word of the New Testament.
Julian Malakar Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Caleb, you are riding on your dream religion with the word “if” and heading opposite direction of the Bible with your own merit. You are bombarded with anti Christ scholars like Prof. Spong. Choice is yours. But in any case good luck to your dream religion with your female God/god.
UKLutheran Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Folks… I would recommend that you don’t waste your time debating “theology” with Caleb…

2,000 years of Christian reflection and scholarship about God, and he reduces the whole field down to some radical 60′s scholars who aren’t even taught in liberal mainline seminaries anymore…

In short, “theology” and the “theological consensus” in any discussion with Caleb always boils down to the books he read in school, and the liberal “scholarship” he gets off the shelf at the local bookstore.

There is no real debate to be had here… if you disagree with him, or point to a major biblical scholar who does, than you’re just a “fundamentalist” who is advancing unenlightened faith claims… and scholars and theologians who don’t fit in with Caleb’s sweeping, condescending, and elitist generalizations are likewise not worthy of any consideration.
FrVan Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 6:18 am
10:00pm is a good time for Mass to begin, so that when it is time to take Holy Communion one will be close to the Midnight hour, at the CHRIST-Mass… As to the woman thingy, well, have you seen how many people show up at these things? I’ll bet she was just in a hurry to bust the line to take Communion have a blessed and Holy New Year, One Joyous, and filled with all good things…
cheese Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 8:46 am
UKLutheran, you certainly aren’t advancing the debate in any meaningful direction. You’re just attacking Caleb personally. Is that what Jesus would do?
UKLutheran Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Cheese, like I said… there is no debate to be had.

I’ve been reading and commenting on this blog for nearly four years (sad, I know). I’ve seen this game played over and over. Read the years of posts to see how many times people have tried to “advance the debate” only to run into the same dismissive “broken record” routine from Mr. Powers.

As to WWJD: who knows. Jesus was confusing and unpredictable, even to his closest disciples. He also did many of the things that American Christian Piety suggest Christ just-would-never-do… he wasn’t always nice, he called people names, he was reluctant to heal people, he wasn’t always inclusive, he said people were going to hell, etc. The Christ recorded in the Bible is not the “God-is-love-Sunday-School-Jesus” so many people want him to be.

To be more specific: Read Matthew 10:14-15… surely it is not outside the realm of possibility that Jesus would permit a virtual “shaking the dust of ones scandals,” as well as the encouragement for others to do the same.
Caleb Powers Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Cheese, people like UKLutheran and Julian believe what they want to believe about the Bible, and ignore the evidence. I suppose that’s the real fault-line between piety and scholarship; Julian has apparently read a Classics Illustrated comic book of the Bible, and UKLutheran has apparently swallowed a volume or two of Karl Barth whole. And they accuse me of being hidebound for suggesting that just maaaaayyyyybe things aren’t quite that simple.
cheese Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
UKLutheran, I think there’s plenty of debate to be had. If you think there’s none, why are you here? If your mind is already decided, aren’t you wasting your time? You don’t have to read Caleb’s opinions if you don’t want to.

I haven’t been reading this blog as long as you have, but I can see what you’re talking about, how some debates seem to just turn in circles ad infinitum with nothing ever being resolved and no one changing their minds about anything. Yes, it can be frustrating, but it’s not Caleb’s fault, I chalk it up the inadequacies of our language. Words can only get us so far. Unless we can find a way to convey experiences more accurately, words will only be as good as the person speaking them.
cheese Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
…and if Jesus really was as you describe, he sounds like a real douche.
Caleb Powers Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Cheese, one of those old hippy theologians UKLutheran accuses me of reading, John Dominic Crossan, once wrote that the search for the historical Jesus is like a person looking down into a deep well, and seeing, at the bottom, her own reflection looking back.

I presume that UKLutheran and Julian are rule-oriented people, or at least people who tend to think that there are absolutes in life. So, they naturally see a rule-oriented religion. The Bible is true, and there can be no debate about that fact. Jesus’ life is fully chronicled in the Bible and his teachings are as easily understandable as the Kentucky Revised Statutes, and maybe more so.

Being an old hippy myself, and someone who has lived his life in the gray areas of the law, I rarely see blacks and whites in anything. There is certainly ample scholarly evidence to show that the Bible is anything but an accurate historical account, and even if there weren’t, there’s certainly nothing out there to confirm it.

So, what do you do? Some, including Julian, suggest that you either believe all or nothing. If Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem in the Year One, as Julian says, all bets are off, and Christianity is nothing. Atheists often take this tack, suggesting that because the Bible is fundamentally flawed, it cannot have arisen from anything special, and therefore God doesn’t exist.

As an Episcopalian with latent Buddhist tendencies, I like to take the Middle Way on most things. Sure the Bible is flawed. But that just means it was written by humans. Even if much of it is inaccurate in a fundamental way, it still contains the seeds of a wonderful theology: The idea of universal love and peace and pacifism and turning one’s cheek and helping the poor. And those things come through loud and clear even if Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem and even if John the Baptist really didn’t eat locusts.

The problem really came to the fore during the Protestant Reformation, when protestants, no longer having the magisterium of the papacy to cite, began to cite the Bible as their touchstone for theological principles. The problem with an unchanging text is that it doesn’t change. The magisterium of the papacy is at least flexible and allows for changing the rules when circumstances merit. This new idea of sola scriptura is neither flexible nor a traditional Christian doctrine. No wonder it doesn’t work.

My middle ground is simply to take the spiritual teachings of the Bible, not worry about the unnecessary facts, and look to the teachings of my church and, being an Anglican, reason and experience. That won’t suit those who need bumper sticker theology, but for those willing to reflect a bit and do some serious thinking, it works just fine.
UKLutheran Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
…and if Jesus really was as you describe, he sounds like a real douche.

He was crucified, you know… they don’t hang someone on a cross for politely encouraging people to be nice, hold hands, and sing kumbaya.

In all seriousness, Jesus Christ is most certainly the most “un-douche-like” person who has ever lived… but he does have a message, one that remains controversial, and he calls people to be faithful.

Faithfulness and “being nice” often correspond, but they are not synonymous. That was the point I was trying to make: “WWJD?” often boils down to “just be nice,” which usually works as an ethical guide for people, but still doesn’t come close to encompassing the reality of Christ’s ministry. Sometimes such a distinction gets lost in translation… problems with language, indeed.
cheese Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
“Jesus Christ is most certainly the most “un-douche-like” person who has ever lived…”

See, UKLutheran, and you thought we’d exhausted all debate on this forum…haha.

In all seriousness, though, he was crucified. So what? That says nothing about his character. Anyone with a hammer, spikes, and wood can nail somebody to it for whatever reason they want. People, both innocent and guilty, are executed all the time. It doesn’t mean you were a good person or had a good message. It mostly just means you angered somebody else. So we can agree that Jesus pissed some people off.

Moreover, it is possible to have a good message and still be a douche. It’s called moral hypocrisy, and it’s regularly found in politicians, but it does extend to all classes of people. Mark Sanford, for instance, voting to defend marriage from gay people while having a mistress on the side, ruining his own marriage. Moral hypocrite and complete douche bag.

I’m not arguing that Jesus is a douche, but I’m also not arguing that he wasn’t a douche. I’m just saying that your description of him, who knows if it’s accurate, makes him sound like a douche. The main point is since none of us have ever or will ever meet this guy maybe we should find some other way to measure our morality.
Caleb Powers Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I guess my theology doesn’t care whether Jesus was a douche or not. To me, Jesus’ message is more than just being nice, which as UKLutheran says, is a pretty good policy, but goes further. We’re called on to act. We can’t just be nice and not do anything. We’re called to actually DO justice and HELP the poor, not just sit there and be nice and do nothing.

The whole “Is Jesus a douche” argument perfectly explicates what I’m trying to avoid. Some people seem more interested in convincing someone that every fact in the Bible is true, without worrying about the message. I mean, do I really have to believe that Jesus was or wasn’t a douche to follow his teachings? I like Gandhi’s teachings, but he really was a douche in private. Ditto most of the founding fathers, who were, after all, mainly slave owners who supported a social system complete with debtor’s prisons, public executions, public floggings, and public stocks. And yet they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I would think that, for someone who lived (if at all) and was crucified (if at all) 2000 years ago, we could stop worrying about who his brother in law was and begin to worry about what he taught us.
José Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
UK, if you want to criticize folks for worthless and meaningless “debate” then there are better targets than Comrade Caleb.

I will gladly fault Caleb for one thing, his reluctance to give up on those who seem unable to contribute in any worthwhile fashion. There really is nothing to be gained in arguing with someone who is utterly convinced of his/her personal belief, unwilling to consider any other viewpoint, and is armed with a collection of cherry-picked Bible verses taken out of context. I’m not happy with Caleb’s responses because they prolong an unnecessary annoyance.

If you are so intent to poke at Caleb, please offer a corresponding evaluation of Mr. Malakar. I’m curious why Caleb deserves criticism but Julian does not. It doesn’t seem fair to damn the reaction but ignore the stimulus.
perplexed Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Cheese, having absolutely no respect for what other people believe, will certainly make you popular, definitely the center of a stone throwers convention.
UKLutheran Says:
December 30th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
“It doesn’t seem fair to damn the reaction but ignore the stimulus.”

Jose… that is a valid criticism. In response, I would point out that I was merely lamenting that the response is always the same, regardless of the stimulus!
cheese Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 10:29 am
Perplexed,

I respect people, not ideas. As far as I’m concerned, the idea of a living, walking god is as outdated as the geocentric model of the universe and witch hunts. Ideas are intangible and abstract. They cannot be hurt nor can they benefit by receiving my respect.

People, of course, are different. I like Star Trek, and I treat the Prime Directive as my own: do not interfere with the progress of other civilizations or cultures. I believe people ought to be allowed to believe whatever ideas they want, regardless of how silly, so long as those ideas do not lead to actions that endanger me or my own.

You see, perplexed, Jesus was a person a long time ago. Ever since he died, he’s existed not a person, but as an idea. No one can hurt your conception of Jesus, so you need not worry about how much I respect it.
perplexed Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 7:28 pm
What does science fiction have to do with religion? People are ideas cheese! One day you may regret not interfering into a matter than can have a life altering effect on you..
perplexed Says:
January 1st, 2010 at 9:15 am
Cheese, by the way a neocon philosophy on life may prove very unsatisfying.
cheese Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 8:58 am
People are not ideas, perplexed. People are tangible and mortal. Ideas are intangible and immortal. How could they be the same thing?
KC Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 9:52 am
After seeing this entire forum of ad hominem, I cannot say I know where this is going.

The only thing I am confused with Cheese, is your response “In all seriousness, though, he was crucified. So what? That says nothing about his character. Anyone with a hammer, spikes, and wood can nail somebody to it for whatever reason they want. People, both innocent and guilty, are executed all the time.”

Wow! Even when I was a staunch Deist before accepting Christianity, I could not find any evidence that people were executed in Roman history for “whatever reason.” People were not crucified all the time in this day. Jesus was a threat to the jews- he wasn’t killed for being nice but for pissing them off.

I’m also unsure why you state God is outdated? What makes a god outdated?

Caleb, you certainly cannot say that “Some people seem more interested in convincing someone that every fact in the Bible is true, without worrying about the message.” In the same way, you would have to agree that the people that worry about the message get it wrong too.

I think Jesus’ message is vital. It is the core of the gospel of Christianity. But I have to study theology and the Bible to get to an understanding of it. This doesn’t make me a right-winger as one might propose. I believe in the theme of the gospel- label me what you want. No theologian can propose the Bible is to be literally perceived. Jesus said “if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.” If we literally believed this, no human would have hands. So lets get right of silly stereotypes that both liberal and conservative Christians have towards one another- Lets stinkin’ get along.

I am sickened by the fact that people in this forum continue to attack one’s character.
For the sake of Christ, can’t we reason together (Is 1:18)?
cheese Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 10:34 am
People have always been executed, killed, murdered (whatever you want to call it) for little or no good reason. If you believe in the Bible, then you must reconcile the fact that the one who commanded you not to kill is the same one who kills legions of people in the Bible for no good reason. Think of the firstborns. Can you find a good reason to kill every firstborn? Neither can I. Yes, you may say it was done to intimidate the Pharaoh into releasing the Israelites, but there are far easier ways to convince a mere mortal to do the bidding of an almighty deity. Killing all the firstborns was literally “overkill.”

About Jesus, people may not have been crucified every day of the week, but the method of execution is not really that significant. They could have bludgeoned him to death with stones, stabbed him a few more times with that lance, the effect of imposing a death sentence would be the same. All we can reasonably infer from it is that Jesus pissed some people off and for some reason, but we can’t really infer whom it was or why they were really pissed off. The point is: being executed is not proof of good character.

Why is god outdated? For the same reason that Zeus, Thor, Loki, Odin, Apollo, Aphrodite, Prometheus, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, and the entire Greek, Roman, and Norse pantheons are outdated. All you have to do is add Yahweh to that list to see it as I do.

You can still enjoy the message of Christianity if it’s to your liking. Even if you realize that god doesn’t really exist, just remembering that god is a metaphor for something that we’re all striving to achieve is enough reason to still embrace the Christian message.
KC Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 10:43 am
We can reason why they killed. Not sure why we couldn’t. And as far as God allowing the death of humans…um, we are “tangible and mortal” right? Funny how people curse God for allowing death when we argue the freedom and mortality of mankind.

Hm…the comparison of the greek and roman gods is not convincing to say that the God of the universe is outdated. I am still unsure how one can compare two completely different entities. Elaborate on your last sentence- I read it twice and I’m not sure what you imply.
cheese Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 10:59 am
You can reason why they killed Jesus, but your guess is no more than mere speculation.

God didn’t just allow the killing, he did the killing. I’m not cursing God for allowing death, I’m saying he’s a murderer.

The Greek and Roman gods are not completely different from Yahweh. They are all supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. The only difference is number. Whereas the Greeks and Romans invented vast numbers of deities that controlled every little detail of nature, the Jews invented one god, Yahweh, to control all of nature alone.
KC Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 11:31 am
As far as God “murdering” people, I think you have to define the difference in death and murder.

You speculate as well that God was invented. I cannot be accused of mere speculation for explaining the death of Christ. So it looks like we are at an agreement to disagree there.
cheese Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Murder is pre-meditated and intentional. If you believe the Bible, how can you not see God’s killing of the firstborns and the flood as pre-meditated and intentional?

I wind up agreeing to disagree with a lot of people =). You aren’t the first.

It’s a historical fact that man has invented gods before. All those gods you don’t worship are ample proof that man has invented deities in the past. So, while, yes, my assertion that man created all gods is speculation. I at least made my speculation based upon the fact that man has a history of creating deities to suit different needs. Believing me only requires making one tiny leap of faith, and not even a great one at that. If you accept that man has manufactured gods before, then it only requires a small amount of faith to believe that we manufactured them all.

Believing, however, that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he was the “Son of God,” that he died and was resurrected, that that act somehow saved us from our own sins, and that he’s planning on coming back sometime in the future requires a monumentally enormous leap of faith. There is no precedent in history for it whatsoever. So, in short, yes, we are both speculating, but my speculation requires very little faith, your speculation requires an enormous amount of faith.
KC Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
As understanding the purpose of the flood, I do not see it as murder as you. Of course, my viewpoint is Christian based so I have my logic as you have yours.

Any act of belief is a leap of faith. To say these things are speculation is just as much as an amount of faith as to say it is fact. If you had little faith in what you belief, then you would have such a difficult time defending it. I doubt you have very little faith Cheese.
cheese Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
The issue is not are you taking something on faith. It’s how much faith do you have to use in order to believe something.

Every argument based upon induction requires at least a miniscule amount of faith in order to be sound. Example: Since the sun appeared in the sky yesterday, it will appear in the sky tomorrow. If you buy this argument, then you, at least, have faith in the fact that the sun and earth will maintain their regular orbit, and day and night will precede as normal. If you had no faith whatsoever, you could not agree with the argument, since it involves the future, and the future is entirely uncertain. I do have some level of faith, but it’s very miniscule compared to the amount of faith it requires to buy into the tenets of Christianity or any other theistic worldview. A seven-day creation workweek, parting seas, divinely-inspired plagues, virgin births, talking snakes, visits from angels, demonic possession, instant healings, resurrections, prophecies: believing all these things requires a level of faith that far exceeds mine by several orders of magnitude. The faith required of theistic religions is too burdensome, and I see that as a fatal flaw.
KC Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
It of course is a flaw to you because your world view is based differently from mine. I never asserted that you have the same faith I do. Saying so would be quite ignorant of me.

But I am stating that you have faith in your beliefs. They must be strong or else they aren’t that meaningful to you.
KC Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
“The faith required of theistic religions is too burdensome, and I see that as a fatal flaw.”

Wait wait wait…What do you mean by burdensome? If you assert that because of all those uncertain principles of life and the unknown of the future, then you cannot state that I must defend myself with much more staunch evidence than you. Your version of my faith is skewed as my version of your faith is skewed. So lets not waste time arguing over that one- we’d be beating a dead horse.

But what I question is the “flaw” in my faith. Why do I have to justify myself more than you?
cheese Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Yes, I do have faith, but my faith lies in skepticism, so I’m not sure it counts as much.
perplexed Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
You also confuse man’s free will with the wrath of God. Its like you saying if you put your hand in fire you won’t be burn because you don’t believe it will burn nor has it ever burned, its just been recorded wrong and the real truth is fire doesn’t burn. That would be your synopsis based on your hypothesis using your own formula, derived from your own data, regardless of the base line set by anybody, much less the Bible or science.
KC Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 6:02 am
Cheese, don’t kid yourself. You have a strong faith or you wouldn’t be wasting your time debating on religious forums.
cheese Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Perplexed, how did I confuse the two again? I don’t remember saying fire wouldn’t burn. No synopsis, no hypothesis, no formula did I ever concoct that said fire wouldn’t burn.

KC, okay, I’ll stop kidding myself. What, tell me, do I have faith in?
KC Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 9:39 am
You of course do not have the same faith conviction that I have but you do have a strong faith in your skepticism. As a previous agnostic/deist, I understand the apologetics of it. I am not amused at skeptics that act as if they are faithless because it made no sense as a man of skeptic values. It didn’t make sense then and doesn’t now.

If you didn’t believe your skeptic values, then yes, you’d be one odd skeptic. In the same sense, if you didn’t have strong conviction towards these values, one would exclude you in the skeptic community as a ‘softy’ and a poor member of their group. For example, if I said that I was a skeptic of religious foundations (as I once said) and yet believed in the divinity of Christ, wouldn’t I be excluded from the skeptic club? You betcha.

You have faith in your values. The human race has faith in something. You trust that your evidence is largely impressive over my beliefs. You, Cheese, are no different than me from that basis. I trust that I’m right; You trust that you’re right. So again, don’t look at us Christians as irrational fanatics because of our faith when you yourself have just as much faith as I do but in a different form.
cheese Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 11:14 am
KC,

I completely agree that there’s no such thing as faithless skeptic. At some point, it becomes necessary to use faith, induction, assumptions to navigate through life and society. No one can doubt 100% of the time. There will always be some things we have to take for granted or on less-than-certain ground.

I disagree that our faiths are similar. The Christian metanarrative provides certain “answers” to the fundamental questions in life. Where did we come from? God created us. Where will we go after we die? Heaven, hell, or purgatory. How do we go to heaven? We believe in Jesus, do good deeds, and read the Bible. Christians believe simply having faith in these “answers” is better than doubting them. Hence, the figurative demonization of “Doubting” Thomas. Having faith in these answers is so important to some theists that they’re willing to go to blows to defend these answers.

Now I have my own guesses as to the answers to these questions, but they’re just that: guesses. Mere speculation. I won’t be fighting anyone to defend answers I cannot demonstrably prove nor will I let my guesses hinder me from changing my mind when new evidence becomes available, as it most certainly will. I cannot escape using a miminal amount of faith, but I can temper it with a healthy dose of doubt, and for the record, I never said my answers were better than anyone else’s.
KC Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 11:52 am
I didn’t say that you said your answers were better. I said you believe your evidence is largely impressive over mine. Our faiths are similar in the strength of conviction. You strongley believe I’m wrong. I strongley believe you’re wrong. I’m sure you have an explaination of where we came from, what happens to us when we die, et al. I am not conviced a staunch skeptic as yourself would refuse these questions.
cheese Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
I don’t strongly believe you’re wrong; there’s part of me that says you might be right, but there’s not enough evidence to make me fully accept that you’re right. I just don’t believe in telling people to believe something when I myself don’t have any evidence to give them proof of what I’m asking them to believe. I don’t feel comfortable telling people: “It’s okay. God planned it this way.” Because I don’t know God’s plan. I don’t want to tell people: “God wants you to do X.” Because I don’t know what God wants. I do not feel comfortable speaking on behalf of an entity, which if it does exist and does have a personality, certainly doesn’t think or act like I do. I’m very aware of my own ignorance, and so long as I remain ignorant, I enjoy having the freedom to change my mind when new evidence is discovered, because it’s being discovered all the time.
KC Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
If I were to say “Cheese, if you die today, you’re going to hell.” I would beg to differ than you wouldn’t strongley disagree.
cheese Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
What point are you trying to make, KC? That my disagreement is some sort of hypocrisy?
KC Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
No, my point is that when you said “I don’t strongly believe you’re wrong” is not totally correect. If you look for a list of reasons for my faith, of course you as a skeptic would find a list of reasons why it wouldn’t be logical. But reason doesn’t give me faith, faith gives me reason.

I don’t know how my point is vague. It’s an example- just as you exampled in your last conditional statements.
KC Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
And you say “there’s part of me that says you might be right, but there’s not enough evidence to make me fully accept that you’re right.” What sort of evidence do you need? I could imagine if God himself stood at your bedside and said “Cheese, I’m real” that you still would find reason to say that was mere speculation. So, whatever evidence you look for, the skeptic nature of yourself would still not be impressed.
cheese Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
“Reason doesn’t give me faith, faith gives me reason.” That’s a cute aphorism. Did you come up with that yourself?

C’mon, man, what’s your real reason for pursuing this argument? I said that statement two replies ago. We’ve been going at this for much longer than that. What are you trying to show me?
cheese Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
If an entity appeared at my bedside, and said “Cheese, this is God. I’m real.” I would still have more questions. For instance, how do I know that I’m not dreaming? How do I know I’m not under the influence of some hallucinogenic chemical? How do I know this entity is really God and not some other entity masquerading as God?
cheese Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
To date, no entities have ever appeared at my bedside.
KC Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Exactly my point. You wouldn’t believe. So in flattering attempt to say that I could be right, you really don’t think I’m right.

Its not just a catchy-little-cute saying; its a responsive statement from my old time favorite apologetic St Augustine of Hippo who argued to skeptics when they argued against faith in God a falsehood in reality. You have your sayings too so whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I thought you liked healthy debate. In the name of consistency and reason, you pose ideas and I respond. I respond and you pose an idea. If I have offended you by my pursuit, then my apologies. As a skeptic, you present yourself as one who likes pursuit of ideas and reason- which is all I am trying to do.
cheese Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
It’s not that I can’t believe in God. It’s that I haven’t seen enough evidence. If God really wants me to believe, he’ll provide that evidence. I can’t say exactly what it would consist of, but if he’s really as good as theists make him out to be, he shouldn’t have a hard time convincing a mere mortal like me. And that’s provided that he even cares if we believe or not. I have a hard time seeing why an all-powerful deity would care about us. We don’t do anything for him. We don’t serve a purpose that he can’t fulfill himself. How is this not all just a game to him?

But let’s get back to that question of the entity. If an entity appeared at your bedside and said “KC, I’m God, and I’m real.” Would that be enough for you?
KC Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
I think God has proved evidence. The creation of life and the physics of plants is evidence. Of course, you argue speculation. Why would God care about humans? Because He created them. The Bible addresses that subject. Of course, you argue speculation.

I believe that if even if God appeared before a man’s bedside, it wouldn’t be enough for that skeptic’s mind. You proved that point “how do I know that I’m not dreaming? How do I know I’m not under the influence of some hallucinogenic chemical? How do I know this entity is really God and not some other entity masquerading as God?”

If God appeared to me to tell me to believe in Him it would prove that I didn’t believe in Him before. I don’t need him too. If faith was determined by proving everything to our eyes, then it wouldn’t be much true convictional faith at all. It would be conditional faith, or “I’ll believe it only when it’s real to me.”
cheese Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
So why does God put all this emphasis on believing without seeing? Why is that his game? Don’t you think it’s kind of unfair to make demands of people while hiding behind a curtain?
KC Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
In order for us to say its not fair, we’d have to know why it should be fair. You said yourself, why should God even care? Isn’t convictional faith worth more value when you heartfully trust something to be in existence even if you don’t see it? I think that’s the essence of the heart of understanding. You could never survive if you had to see everything single thing personally and exam it yourself before you could ever believe anything. I don’t think God is hiding behind a curtain simply because not all things in life are crystal clear and perfect to our understanding.
cheese Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
No, I don’t see how convictional faith is worth anything at all. Why does God need it?
KC Says:
January 5th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
God doesn’t need anything; rather, he allows us to exist. So by that condition, I see convictional faith worth much.
cheese Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 11:40 am
God having created us doesn’t explain why God wants our convictional faith. Look at convictional faith in any other context. If there were someone out there who believe in you even though they had never met you, would it somehow benefit you? What about Santa Claus? Does believing in Santa Claus though you’ve never met Santa Claus, do anything for Santa Claus? No. Believing in something that you’ve never seen is not somehow more special than understanding something that you have seen.
KC Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Santa and God are two totally different entities with two totally different properties. You compare all things down like that and it doesn’t make sense. “Believing in something that you’ve never seen is not somehow more special than understanding something that you have seen.” That’s extremely subjective.
cheese Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Subjective? I think it’s a valid question. Santa and God are similar in that there’s no evidence for the existence of either, yet some people choose to believe in them regardless. Of course, people don’t have that big a problem in not believing in Santa Claus. It’s common knowledge that Santa doesn’t exist. People just have a harder time admitting that God doesn’t exist either. You can take Santa out of the question, and it still remains the same. He’s just a proxy. You could say: Would it benefit the Flying Spaghetti Monster to have someone who’s never seen or heard of him to believe in him? Furthermore, my statement is no more subjective than the exact opposite statement, which is what you’re arguing, that believing in something without evidence is more special than believing in something for which you do have evidence. Tell me why I’m wrong. Why is it better to believe in something that you have no evidence for than it is to believe something for which you do have evidence?
Caleb Powers Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
KC, I think what you and Cheese have proven is that to religious people, their own religious beliefs are different than everything else in the world. You suggest that Santa Claus and God are “different entities,” and have “different properties.” The only reason that is true to YOU is that you believe in God and don’t believe in Santa. Period. Therefore, you naturally reject any reasoned analysis that would treat God like any other concept. But you’ve got to remember that someone who does not believe in God as you do would not accept the premise that God is somehow different than any other concept just because you happen to believe that.
KC Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
I’m saying your last sentence is subjective. I didn’t say your entire idea was. Santa and God are different in their properties. You will call this speculation I know: The evidence I have is different than your experience. One of my favorite authors is CS Lewis (a man who once rejected Christianity and all other religions to Christianity’s greatest authors) who said “I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen. Not only because I see it. But because through it, I see everything else.” To me not all things are fully explained and with all the evidence. Evidence and proof changes- just like norms and values in culture. I cannot say that I can only believe in something when the fullest evidence is completely clear. Its called a leap of conviction faith. It is better for me of course because I’ve experienced God’s grace & mercy where at one time, I was a skeptic just like you. I used to demand evidence and proof whereas I realized that evidence and proof just simply cannot fully be trusted. The “whys” and “how-comes” are not always answered. For us to demand those comes from where? What gives mankind the right to always have proofs and demands? Why must we have that? Early philsophy attempted to answer these things and still to this day cannot answer why we feel like we must have proofs and evidence.

And Caleb, yes I understand that. I do know that a person of skeptic value isn’t going to have the same views I do. To otherwise say I have that belief is nonsense.
cheese Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Why must we have evidence? Because not having evidence means our beliefs could be wrong. I don’t know about you, but I have no need for wrong answers. If something is not true, then I don’t know why I’m wasting my time with it. False answers are bad, because they prevent you from looking deeper to find the true answers. If something is true, objective evidence will back it up. That is something I do have faith in. The dark ages ended when man started demanding evidence for his beliefs. In the past 500 years, science and our understanding of the universe have flourished, because man stopped relying on antiquated superstitions and started demanding evidence. There are still a lot of things we don’t know, but you don’t have to jump in bed with the supernatural just because you don’t know something.
KC Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
The dark ages ended with evidence? Really? You induce that science and religion are oil and water. Nonsense.

Evidence is what you make it. There was evidence the courts used to say that certain races were not as capable of making decisions (indigent) like the white race. We see that as insane now. There is nothing wrong with researching things and finding evidence. But evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Objective reality is rarely possible to research- that’s something I believed as a skeptic and still do today.
cheese Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Yes, sometimes evidence can lead us to false conclusions, but other evidence will eventually bring us around to the correct understanding. People initially thought there were big differences between the races. New evidence has since proven those claims false. Science has mechanisms that make it self-correcting. Religion has no such mechanisms. It just tells you to take everything on faith. Evidence did not end the dark ages, a demand for evidence did.
KC Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Not all who demanded truth were skeptics Cheese. Religion and science don’t hate each other.

When will get this “correct understanding?” You cannot see all true correct understanding nor find it yet but you believe it. Why should I have to defend myself much more? Is your evidence better than mine? If so, what superior, supreme, sovereign authority do you have to say so?
Caleb Powers Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
KC, not to horn in on your discussion with Cheese, but your last couple of questions kind of outline the argument. You ask: “Is your evidence better than mine? If so, what superior, supreme, sovereign authority do you have to say so?”

The whole point to both of you is that no one has ANY evidence, and to Cheese, there is no supreme sovereign authority. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God; however, that doesn’t mean She doesn’t exist. It just means that whatever we may believe about the existence of God is based on faith, not reason. So, no one’s evidence is any better than anyone else’s, because there is no evidence anywhere.
KC Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
That’s my point Caleb. My point is that those in the skeptic field play appeal to ignorance in thinking Christians are irrational because they have no evidence when those who accuse don’t have sufficient evidence either.

Its just circular aruging I know. But the point continues so I continue to address it.
cheese Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
For me, the overall lack of evidence is pretty compelling evidence in and of itself. I don’t believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, the tooth fairy, leprechauns, or in Yahweh, because the overall lack of evidence of the existence of these entities gives me no reason to.

I think bias plays a huge role in whether or not people believe in deities. People who believe God exists want God to exist. Returning to the subject of race for a second, the people who argued that evidence showed differences between the races wanted there to be differences between the races. Because if there were detectable differences, it might justify their policy of segregation. They didn’t want to reverse their policies, so they naturally found differences. People with less interest at stake were able to find that there are virtually no differences between the races, save some are more prone to certain diseases than others, e.g. sickle cell anemia. I believe the same happens with religion. If you want to see a world ruled by God, you will see it that way. But what you want and Reality are two different things. You cannot wish God into existence by wanting him to exist. He either exists or does not exist independent of what anyone feels about it. And the overall lack of evidence of that existence leads me to assume the latter.
KC Says:
January 7th, 2010 at 6:54 am
“People who believe God exists want God to exist.”

Remember, I was once a skeptic too. I didn’t want God to just exist before I believed so therefore to me now he does. How can one who rejects God suddenly just believe..why do you think that happens Cheese?
cheese Says:
January 7th, 2010 at 10:36 am
I could guess, but since I’ve not had the experience of returning to theism, any guess that I proffer would be mere speculation.
KC Says:
January 7th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Hm, so I speculated God’s existence through my own testimony when I was once a skeptic to a Christian. Interesting concept.
cheese Says:
January 7th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Why stop there? Why did you not speculate the existence of other deities? What was it that made you say yes to Yahweh and no to Krishna, Zeus, Odin, etc.?
KC Says:
January 7th, 2010 at 11:27 am
I cannot explain how my testimony happened. The best way I could describe it is the same thing that happened to Saul of Taurus. Christ appeared before him and he fell to Christ’s feet . Christ didn’t (in bodily form) appear to me in the same way but I was overwhelmed with conviction. I realized it was Christ’s conviction. I don’t know how or why I realized it but I did.

By saying that I have no proof of things well, yeah Cheese, I don’t have proof that would satisfy your taste of my testimony but it’s all I got. I didn’t go out looking for Christ because I believed everything was fine with my soul. I wasn’t seeking for God. When I started reading scriptures I was overwhelmed when I discovered reading things like “God seeks for man…man doesn’t seek God’s face.”

Again, I cannot prove this to you because you have your mind already made up. Your mind is already leveled not to understand these things because you must have something to satisfy your need to for personal proofs.
cheese Says:
January 7th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Were you a Christian before you became a skeptic? Were your parents Christian? Were you knowledgeable of the Bible before you had this mystical experience?
cheese Says:
January 7th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
I ask because it seems possible to me that your knowledge of the Bible could have influenced your mystical experience. If the Bible has become deeply ingrained in your psyche from being immersed in a culture that looks to the Bible for guidance, is it not possible that your mystical experience would reflect that? I used to consume psilocybin mushrooms in college. My trips were sometimes very mystical in nature and largely reflective of my attitude at the time. If I were peaceful and calm, my trips would be happy and joyful. If I had unsettled anxieties, my trips would also reflect those. Many revelations occurred during this period in my life. I understood that these experiences were chemically induced, so I did not equate them with other types of mystical experience, such as one gets from meditation or extreme physical exertion, but I surmise that the impact upon the psyche is similar. If you had been previously schooled in Biblical concepts, then that your mystical experience pointed you towards the Bible probably makes sense. If your mystical experience had pointed you in the direction of a religion that you had never heard of before, now that would be something.
KC Says:
January 7th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
My family are a mix. There are atheists and Christians in the loop. Of course, you could argue that because of that, it could’ve influenced me. I doubt it simply because I was not pressured nor discouraged.

Was I a Christian before I was a skeptic? No. If I was a Christian then, I never would’ve been a skeptic. I was skeptical because of so many different divisons within the Christian faith itself. I also couldn’t understand which “God” was the true one or if there was a true one. I’ve studied other religions. It’s primarily what I enjoyed the most about my college years. Everything started making sense when I had that revelation.

Many men and women have never experienced Christ and were conviction by Him..Paul was one of those particular ones. So I see what you mean and why you are skeptical and its understandable to one who does not believe. My hope and desire is that God would reveal himself to you, the way he did to me.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 7th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
One thing to remember, KC, is that there is an aspect to “conversion” experiences that tends to make one believe very strongly in what one perceives as the substance of the conversion. In his monumental Varieties of Religious Experience, William James notes the power of conversion experiences, and notes that the substance of what the person was converted to makes little difference: The converted tends to believe, lock stock and barrel, the substance of the new belief. James describes people who have been “converted” not just to Christianity, but to atheism, deism, and in one instance, a man who was converted to avarice. Conversion experiences (and there are a lot of them out there) generally follow the pattern of peak experiences laid out by Abraham Maslow.
KC Says:
January 7th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
I will agree that it is a mystery. Life is compacted with mysteries and things we cannot explain. I don’t imagine that we are completely smart enough to understand them all. I admit that I screw up and fail. When I was a deist, I was quite arrogant. I am not the same person I am today. Ask any old college or high school friend, and they’d quickly tell you. Don’t yell “post hoc prompter hoc!” because I know how it seems. It seems as if I am saying because I was arrogant as a deist and now not as a Christian, then my conversion made me less arrogant.

So simply because these things are mysterious and strange to some, doesn’t make them completely false. Sure, we Christians get things wrongs. There are some quakes out there standing behind the pulpits that destroy the beauty of the gospel, sure. There are also groups that would rather physically slap the good book over anothers head than lend a caring hand.

We are each unique. Caleb’s convictions are much different than mine; Cheese, yours as well. I just have noticed that in my 4 years as a Christian that there is a correlation amongst folks of opposing convictions that tend to downplay a Christian conversion.

I just have always defended that cause.
cheese Says:
January 7th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Is it not also arrogant to believe you have a personal relationship with the most powerful force in the universe?
Caleb Powers Says:
January 7th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
KC, all I’m saying is that the power of a conversion experience is also the power to change one’s perceptions about one’s own perceptions. It’s difficult to examine your own mind and heart when your own mind and heart are the only tools you have to examine them with.
KC Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 6:10 am
I’m sure it’s arrogance to one who doesn’t believe.

I agree Caleb. It is difficult.
KC Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 6:12 am
Also, the roles change. It seems arrogant to me when folks believe God doesn’t exist as well. So we’re at an argumentative standstill Cheese.
cheese Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Why is it arrogant to think something doesn’t exist? Is it arrogant to say that Santa Claus doesn’t exist as well?
KC Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 9:47 am
I’m talking about the creator of the universe. To say that an all knowing being doesn’t exist holds different properties than santa. its a false analogy.
cheese Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Non-existent entities have non-existent properties. Seems like an appropriate analogy to me.
KC Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Well of course it does to you. But we again, like always, are at a subjective standstill. Its a perfect analogy if you think you can compare God to Santa because it’s your viewpoint. But my viewpoint of God is not the same so of course I see it differently.

Being that majority of our conversations are a matter of what lens you have on then it’ll usually end with an agreement to disagree. Which again, we do quite often
cheese Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 10:04 am
But let’s return to the original question: Why is it arrogant to think something doesn’t exist? Santa was just a proxy. You can put anything in there to fill the blank. Why is it arrogant to believe that _______________ doesn’t exist?
KC Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Well you say its arrogant to believe God exist. Okay, in the same way, one could argue that its arrogant to say God doesn’t. I’m not saying you are arrogant for stating that God doesn’t exist; rather, I would say as a previous skeptic is that you trust your intelligence to be your guide. Maybe you don’t but that’s what I once believed as one. But why am I arrogant?
cheese Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 10:28 am
I didn’t say it was arrogant to believe God exists. I said that claiming to have a personal relationship with that God is arrogant. Arrogance is an offensive display of superiority or self-importance. When people tell me that God speaks to them directly, I feel as though they are conflating their self-importance. After all, one must be pretty important to have the most powerful force in the universe communicating directly with them. This is what I see as arrogance, not the belief in God’s existence in and of itself. Also, the attitude that Christianity is the one true faith, I see that as arrogant as well. If you believe that, then you’re basically saying that by virtue of your faith, you’re superior to people of other faiths, and I see that as another form of racism.
KC Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 11:02 am
I don’t think I am superior. Actually, Christianity teaches humility among those who are against you – “Turn the other cheek” kinda stuff. When I think of people in other religions out of love for them I want them to know about Christ- not MY way of life, but the life of Christ.

You are correct. It is arrogant to think of oneself as superior. Christianity doesn’t teach that though Cheese. Yeah, there are Christians that act that way, but it’s not appropriate for them to.

Racism…seriously? Now be honest here. Where do you see that evidence? Christ didn’t act like he was better than others. In fact, being born a carpenter would state that he was of a low social class. Folks were outraged that a carpenter was reading from the holy scriptures in the temples. It broke the social norms. He was humble, not arrogant. We as Christians today are to live in the same manner- with humility & compassion. Just because many people who claim Christianity have acted in a segregated manner doesn’t make the entire form of Christianity wrong. That sort of compositional reasoning is crazy. All people have a relationship with God. It’s either one full of His grace or one that’s not. In the sense of saying that I am a believer doesn’t make me arrogant. It should make me want to socialize with the world in the same manner Jesus did with compassion, kindness, and grace.

I know you aren’t saying that Christianity teaches racism but in comparison I say all that. You will not understand these things friend. I wish you did. But your desire not to reflects your insolence and obvious distaste for Christians. You in the same way exclude others from your way of thinking. Of course, Christians exclude from groups that don’t think the same way. But don’t call it racism. Racism is done out of hatred and disgust.

Good example I like to think about exclusion:

As a board member of a pro-life group, Sally’s in charge of getting pro-life materials to educate communities about abortion. She gives speeches and does debates about how her group wants to rid of abortions in their area. One day, Sally gets raped and becomes pregnent. She decides to have an abortion. She is asked to step down from being a board member from the group because of her decision to have an abortion.

So, is that group wrong from excluding Sally from being a board member? Logically, we would think that because Sally would almost hinder the pro-life movement.

So lets not assume that if a group excludes themselves from others, they are similar to racists.
KC Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 11:08 am
* Correction *

Logically, we would think that it wouldn’t be wrong because Sally would almost hinder the pro-life movement.
cheese Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
I didn’t say Christianity teaches racism. Of course, it doesn’t. I said those who believe their faith is the one, true faith (whatever that faith may be) are akin to racists. This notion that one faith is the supreme faith, that all must turn to it for salvation, and that those who do not are destined for perdition is common among fundamentalists of all breeds, and I find it reprehensible whatever form it takes. You may think I’m referring solely to Christians, but I’m not. I would say the same to a Muslim, a Jew, or even a militant atheist.
Julian Malakar Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
“….. the attitude that Christianity is the one true faith, I see that as arrogant as well. If you believe that, then you’re basically saying that by virtue of your faith, you’re superior to people of other faiths, and I see that as another form of racism.”- Cheese

This is a typical example of misunderstanding of expression of people’s faith. The attitude of a person who believes that the Christianity is the only true faith, it should not be considered the person’s attitude as arrogant or racist, rather it should be considered as the person’s full commitment (100%) to his/her faith. Same way a person of different faiths such as Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim etc. says that his/her faith is true faith and stays firm, s/he is committed to his/her faith. They are respected in the society for their integrity rather than those who believe all faiths. It is like saying “my mother is the best mother of the world” or “my country is the best country in the world”, even though the land is desert.

Debating with Caleb in other posting I tried to convey this message that if I love my God with my whole heart, mind and soul and find Him the only true God thru the Bible study, prayer, attending mass and practice of teaching of Christ, I am not arrogant or racist rather you may say I am proud or too proud of my Heavenly Father.
KC Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Cheese, as I said earlier, I know you are not saying Christians are racist. Read it again.

Well said Julian.
cheese Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
That would be all fine and dandy, Julian, if you were worshipping your god in a vacuum. But you failed to mention what happens when all those people who believe “My god is the best god in the world” get together and start talking theology. Everyone has a different conception of god, even people who identify as the same faith see a different image in their mind’s eye. So, even though everyone feels their god is the best, they can’t all be correct, right? Someone’s god has got to be a fake, right? Someone’s not seeing the picture clearly, right? So how you handle people who patronizingly tell you that you’ve got it wrong and that they’re god is better than yours? What do you think of those people who are too proud of their own non-Christian Heavenly Fathers?
John Hamilton Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Cheese said: “Only if God were able somehow to forget his omnipotence and omniscience could he truly claim to understand the plight of humanity, but he can’t.”

I didn’t take the time to read all the tirades, ahem, I mean “comments” on here, so I apologize if somebody already answered this, but I believe Jesus DID forget all at birth and slowly gained His knowledge and remembrance as He progressed through mortal life. He, being a literal Son of God (Mormon doctrine), did not regain all His former knowledge and glory until resurrected. If He had, He would not have been able to abide in our corrupted world, or more precisely, our corrupted world would not have been able to abide Him, which I guess it ultimately didn’t. Unlike us, He proceeded from “grace to grace” in His mortal development. We, the slovenly boogerheads that we are, proceed from “sin to grace” and sometimes from “sin to grace to bigger sin to grace to little sin to grace to grace again (finally some headway) to sin to grace again, etc.”
KC Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
John,

wait wait wait..I’m confused what makes this statement flow with the statement you had about the whole Tiger Woods/ Buddhist/ Brit Humes comment. I read that one first and then saw this one.. Help me understand what you actually believe.
Julian Malakar Says:
January 9th, 2010 at 10:58 am
“So, even though everyone feels their god is the best, they can’t all be correct, right?…. So how you handle people who patronizingly tell you that you’ve got it wrong and that they’re god is better than yours?” – Cheese

You indeed raised challenging question whether God/gods are of vacuum/imagination or of real world, how do we know? Unknown is full of haunting questions, but still life goes on. How do you buy and sell a product in a competitive market? We choose a product to buy mostly by faith and with some observation, testing, analyzing, comparing, good will etc. Once we choose as a grown up with homework we live on by faith and dig out treasure out of our faith. Once we find the treasure, mistreatment, disgrace, flogging, jeers, prosecution, jailing and even physical death become greater value than millions of dollar in return for reward at the end. Those who do home work they could have the best buy and enjoy the life with reward at the end. Like market there are many false prophets who deceive people by false teaching in the name of God and true religious book make people aware of false product.

Religion is a spiritual product, religious book like the Holy Bible is product description, outreach/ministry to people is advertisement and benefits people received is proof of true or false.

With experience and reality of life I found like any matter (seen/unseen) our origin of life circle around only one Holy God as described in the Bible. Approach of many gods reflects old saying that many minds many moons, and it would exist until world end. I have two ears, two eyes and one head to decide who is selling true God thru their ministry and outreach to people and with their product description in their religious book. But they have right to sell their dear faith to me and I have right to say no with thanks.

God’s ministry thru all prophets, miracles and finally His love for the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes Him should not perish but get everlasting life attracted my mind to buy Christian faith and found Christ is the only way, the truth and life. All life originated thru Him. Choice is yours to buy it. So if somebody overconfidently like Caleb tells me I got the disease and he is healthy I refute his selling pitch wishing him good luck to his believe. If some religion sell Nirvana or rebirth to a rich family next time thru good works of present life, or assure rewards in heaven with lots of beautiful female angel for enjoyment in return for killing innocent people who do not believe their version of faith I would not buy their religion. So selling is nothing wrong unless it hurt my freedom.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 9th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Julian, just one final point, and then I’ll give up discussing this issue with you. I have no problem with your statement that you “love my God with my whole heart, mind and soul and find Him the only true God thru the Bible study, prayer, attending mass and practice of teaching of Christ, I am not arrogant or racist rather you may say I am proud or too proud of my Heavenly Father.”

What I have a problem with is your suggestion that, because I take a different view of Christianity than you that I am not a Christian, and as you’ve said several times, you doubt my salvation. You can believe anything you want to, but when you get to the point of saying that I am outside the fold because I don’t believe what you believe, you’ve gone too far.

And, Julian, apparently part of the Julian Disease is making up straw men to knock down. You say that “If some religion sell Nirvana or rebirth to a rich family next time thru good works of present life, or assure rewards in heaven with lots of beautiful female angel for enjoyment in return for killing innocent people who do not believe their version of faith I would not buy their religion.” Fine, I wouldn’t buy those things, either, but that’s not what most religions are selling. The liberal version of Christianity merely says that you can be compassionate and faithful and helpful to other people without having to believe things about the Bible that are demonstrably untrue. What’s wrong with that?
Julian Malakar Says:
January 9th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
“The liberal version of Christianity merely says that you can be compassionate and faithful and helpful to other people without having to believe things about the Bible that are demonstrably untrue. What’s wrong with that? “- Caleb

Caleb, brother there is nothing wrong selling this product in the name of Christianity, but I would only say it is counterfeit product. The buyer would miss the zest of the gospel not believing Jesus as a Christ (savior) for redemption of our sins by His sacrifice in cross and glorious resurrection. Can you sell a brand name product without following product’s specifications?
Caleb Powers Says:
January 10th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Perhaps not, Julian, but you can certainly argue about what those specifications are. You begin with the assumption — with no evidence — that the Bible is infallible, and we simply don’t accept that, as organized Christianity has historically not accepted it. The problem is that when you buy a name-brand product, you get a manual that has been authorized by the manufacturer. Here, there is no connection between the manufacturer and the manual. Jesus didn’t write or authorize or approve a word of the New Testament, and those who did don’t have any more historical connection to Jesus than we do today.

We in the liberal camp simply don’t give the Bible the same level of credence that you do, but that doesn’t mean that we give God any less credence; one could certainly argue that the conservatives’ attempt to put God in a box is the problem. For the record, liberal Christianity doesn’t downplay the role of God, but does suggest that the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of theology. Why is that so hard for conservatives to accept? Why is it hard to accept the idea that God is indeed real, but is not hemmed in by the box of the Bible or the way the Bible has been interpreted for hundreds of years?
KC Says:
January 11th, 2010 at 8:10 am
Looks like everyone seems to be misinterpreting each other. Julian the conversative seems to not understand Caleb the liberal and vice versa. Caleb you label conversatives as bible-thumpin’ heretics and Julian, if someone is liberal, they might not be saved. I’m a moderate…so be it. I say that so I won’t be labeled.

C’mon now. In each different topics presented in this blog, it seems to have a theme in each one for folks to start a topic about whether the Bible is fallible or whether or not God exists when the topic is about something completely different.I’m guilty of it too so I’m not trying to cast the first stone.

Caleb & Julian, you both have valid points against each other but ultimately these things are not worth arguing about. The most important thing is at the end of the day, what do you do with Jesus? If life is all about whether you believe the inerrancy of the Bible then you neglect Christ. So again, what do you think about Christ? That’s what is important. Who cares if you’re liberal or conservative?
Julian Malakar Says:
January 11th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Caleb, KC I think I understood liberal (Caleb’s) views and I think I also understood the woman’s view who knocked over Pope at Mid night mass. She is not all that crazy as media described; that she was not motivated by some philosophy that made her jumped over the fence and knocked Pope down by 2nd attempts in two years.

All Christian’s views (different Churches) originated from one body but some of them deviated from origin in such a way that it is difficult to recognize whether or not it originated from the same vine. There is only one body of Christ but if we look patiently we would find, we dissect His body at our whim. My concern is too much diversification is bad for our spiritual growth, could be reasons of violent attitude or loss the faith at the end. May God bless the woman’s heart who knocked Pope, as Christ prayed at the cross to forgive us, because we do not know what we are doing or talking about.
KC Says:
January 11th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
I don’t know Julian- it just appears everytime you and Caleb debate, it generally ends with one person saying “you misunderstood me.” So, yes, I believe this is a battle of disagreement because each one doesn’t understand where the other is fully coming from.
John Hamilton Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 8:39 am
KC:

This is my belief. I have no proof, unless you want to accept the Bible and other Mormon Scripture as proof in and of themselves, which I would think ill-advised. It is confirmed to me through faith and prayer. That said, I don’t doubt the convictions of Buddhists, Muslims, or What Have You. It works for me. In my own arrogance I believe all the other religions will be reconciled to the ultimate truth, which I believe is mine, but we may find that the Aborigine Australian belief in the Great Turtle is the closest to the actual truth. (I think that was/is their belief, I may be wrong. I’m sure Caleb will correct me if so.)

Until we do find and comprehend ultimate truth, we will all be full of contradictions as we progress along our journey—picking up certain things and discarding others. I thought I had a good explanation for Cheese’s dilemma about God being able to understand our sufferings. Ultimately, however, I don’t think we have clue one about the power and ability of the creator and ruler of the universe. So, this is just a feeble attempt acquired along my journey.
cheese Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Who do you guys wanna see in the Super Bowl?
cheese Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 9:27 am
I would like to see the Chargers and the Saints myself.
KC Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 9:35 am
I am so “unpatriotic” towards sports..especially the fools-ball.
cheese Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Put some money on it, KC, and it’ll be a lot more fun to watch.
John Hamilton Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 9:56 am
I would love to see the Saints in it. They need it. Not gonna put money on it though. Blessed with lousy luck in that department.
KC Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Give me some credit Cheese..I’ve tried! But I see no reason to get caught up with folks who lose sleep over a group of boys tossing around a spiral piece of stitched leather.
cheese Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 10:25 am
There are many reasons, KC. The game itself is exciting to watch (and play), there’s a huge community of other fans (every office has some), it’s a challenge attempting to pick who will win and which players will have big games, and there’s also the prospect of winning money and bragging rights from your friends. But, of course, it’s not for everybody. There’s a lot of money and politics behind the scenes that can influence what happens on the field.
KC Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Oh I agree Cheese; sports can be fun. I just get frustrated when I watch fans belittle players and those on the opposing team. Being that I’m not very patriotic anyways, I couldn’t care any less about things like that.

Now, I do like a round of golf or a game of stratego. There’s a challenge!!
cheese Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 10:42 am
I grew up watching professional wrestling. I love some good ole fashioned trash talking (within reasonable limits of course).
KC Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 10:52 am
I lean more to UFC than pro wrestling. Of course, when they get into the trash talking I usually flip over to see the updates of my all time favorite Tiger Woods.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I tried to watch a football game once. Didn’t get much out of it. I was amazed to find that people pay money to see them.
John Hamilton Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Hey, I lived in Las Vegas for 8 years. You will be absolutely appalled at what people will pay money to see! I guess everything seems better with beer.
cheese Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 10:13 am
People pay to go to football games, because they’re friggin’ AWESOME. You get up early, you stand in a parking lot with all your friends for hours of eating, drinking, and all around merriment. You get super drunk. Then it’s game time….and if you’ve done it right, you don’t usually remember too much after that. You wake up the next morning, drink some hot tea to repair your vocal chords, and take some ibuprofin for the headache.
John Hamilton Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Wow! Sounds like a blast! I’ll have to try it sometime. I love ibuprofin!
cheese Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Always remember to vomit BEFORE entering the stadium. Once you’re in your seat, it won’t as be easy to do it discretely or not on someone’s back.
John Hamilton Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 10:32 am
I’ll try to remember that.
KC Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Hm, vomiting and headaches..two things I want to avoid.
Julian Malakar Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
“In each different topics presented in this blog, it seems to have a theme in each one for folks to start a topic about whether the Bible is fallible or whether or not God exists when the topic is about something completely different.”- KC

I hope everybody got refresh by discussing with sports, though the subject issue is knocking of old respected Pope by a young woman.

KC, I too got refresh with your out of subject discussion on sports issue, but I like to mention that Caleb’s (liberal views on the Bible) and my (conservative) views were not out of the subject discussion. It is the broader subject of the current issue which results conflict of interest out of different faiths. I assume the woman who knocked Pope is not catholic faith. I see knocking of Pope as a conflict between young rebellious modern timer (I don’t know whether she is atheist or not) vs. old conservative the most popular Christian leader. Does any body know her motive to push Pope?

Like JohnH I do not know who is right in their faiths but I wish, my believe as Anglican is the right way finding God’s grace. Thanks Caleb, for contributions in liberal way to interpret the Bible.
cheese Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Wouldn’t it make sense if she were a Catholic? If I were a Catholic and felt that the pope had been ruining the good name of my faith, I might find reason to, if not kill him, at least tackle him like a linebacker. Just, you know, put him in his place, remind him who he works for. I personally would have liked to drop an elbow on him for that comment about gay marriage being “a threat to creation,” but that’s just me.
KC Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Julian, I didn’t say it was wrong for subjects to change.

The quote you pulled out of my comment was just a comment- it wasn’t an attack.
KC Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
** I am just saying that we tend to get back to same issue.. I simply found it interesting. By saying “I’m guilty of it too so I’m not trying to cast the first stone.” I did not intent for anyone to assume that meant it was wrong.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Julian, while I appreciate your attempts to get us back on track, once again I must disagree with a bit of your post. You characterize the Pope as “respected.” I suppose this is true, because there are people out there, one presumes, who do respect him. I, personally, do not. Here’s why:

1. This Pope, as have all modern popes, has condoned the epidemic of childhood sexual abuse tearing apart the church. He has done this in his own career by hiding instances of childhood sexual abuse, and by failing to punish bishops who condoned childhood sexual abuse. The most glaring example of this is his shielding of Archbishop Law from American law, but it’s not the only example.

2. This Pope insists in preserving both the male dominance of the priesthood and the rule that priests cannot marry. These will ultimately destroy the priesthood, if not the church itself.

3. This Pope may not be as anti-semitic as some past popes (Pius XII comes to mind), but he has not made any friends among the Jews or among the members of any other non-Christian faiths.

4. This Pope has begun an attack on American nuns that is unprecedented in history: He apparently believes that these nuns have strayed too far from the true path, which means that they are not sufficiently servile to the males who run the church.

Each of these things has a real impact on real peoples’ lives, and not just on the thousands of victims of childhood sexual abuse.

In order for me to respect His Holiness (and I don’t imagine that he cares much if folks like me respect him), he’d have to AT THE VERY LEAST
Caleb Powers Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Here’s where I left off:

He’d have to at the very least bring Archbishop Law back to justice and end the whole celibacy thing. These are two things he could do with the stroke of a pen, and if he doesn’t do something soon, he’s not going to have very many priests left to command. But I don’t imagine he sees that. Too bad for those millions of Catholics he’s letting down.
Julian Malakar Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
KC, I know you did not mean attack; it is the name of the game, fun. Cheese, I seriously doubt a sheep in an organized church would dare to attach a Bishop. Atheist in Europe are becoming more aggressive now-a-days in changing the religious foundation in Europe.

In my view gay marriage would definitely be a threat, one day to modern society, where each man/woman is considered an economic man/woman. In other word, world needs population like China, India to live better and cheaper? If gay behavior popularized in society, population growth would be negative, production would be negative to meet people’s demand. At that time Federal agency like Administration for Children and Family (ACF) would have to spend billions of dollars for advertisement to popularize family in between man and woman. During 950 AD to 1050 king of Khajuraho in Central India used to build temple with erotic sculptures to propagate love between man and women to avoid disastrous negative population growth. If you are interested to see historical Indian temple, google “Khajuraho”. Therefore Pope’s concern is not unfounded.
cheese Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Julian,

Homosexual marriage does not threaten the existence of heterosexual marriage. Legalizing homosexual marriage does not mean that heterosexuals will stop getting married, stop having sex, and stop making babies. The ratio of heterosexual couples to homosexual couples will stay the same. Legalizing homosexual marriage will have no effect whatsoever on population growth or decay. Plus, this world has finite resources. It cannot support too many more Chinas or Indias.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Julian, you always amaze me. You think we need MORE people in the world????? I mean, we can barely feed and keep the people we’ve got. If anything, and just playing devil’s advocate (a role abolished, by the way, by the last pope), I would think something that tended to lower the birth rate would be good, not bad.
Julian Malakar Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Caleb, I give thanks to God for bringing this underground sins of Christian workers to light thru major Church like Roman Catholic (RC). I agree with you that some corrupt Bishops endorsed privately world wide this sinful behavior and they should be brought to justice. I also give thanks to God that RC Church despite huge financial as well as morale loss, upheld the biblical teaching of morale sex, which many Churches failed and took the opportunity to catch fish in muddy water by transforming same sex sin into virtue by saying as open gay and accepting liberal meaning of the Bible. (Note: my personal opinion, as I see in current disturb spiritual water in many Churches).

Cheese I can not agree with you in certain that there would not be any imbalance of population growth in future, by encouraging people to be active homosexual as normal. Recent studies say that with advance modern technology in selecting sex of unborn babies, Chinese male female ratio is 60 and 40 respectively i.e. men will have difficulties finding female to marry. Moreover homosexuality is matter of choice, rather than genetically distinct character like male and female as I posted earlier. Because of shortage of female male would be engage of same sex activities for happy living, rather than fighting for a women, resulting negative population growth.

Caleb, I believe with proper distribution of wealth and prudent management, natural population growth would be blessing to mankind rather than liability. China now became #1 supplier of people’s demand of the world. All developed countries eyes now on China for market potential of 1 billion people. And in course of time with proper management I believe they could upgrade their standard of living nationwide. It would be challenging but not unattainable.
KC Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Julian,

As I have once said, I wish homosexuality was never an issue, but this doesn’t mean I believe that if gays get married, the world is going to come crashing down and our economy is going to crumble.

Caleb, I agree. I do not personally approve his holiness either. Its ironic how the church handles sexual abuse with children but raves itself over the issues of moral sexuality.
John Hamilton Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 9:09 am
Homosexuality is a choice much like heterosexuality is a choice, in some cases. You can still choose not to practice it, but it would be tough either way. Just look at the Catholic priests trying to abstain from either.

That’s just one of the problems with celibacy. Not only is it unnatural (in most cases) it denies a natural and wonderful expression of love that I think we all need to learn and develop in this mortal life. Another is the fact that priests are supposed to be giving advise and counsel to couples when they are completely inexperienced in (or should be) a major component of the couple’s relationship.

Julian, as far as gay sex in China goes, I don’t think you need worry. I don’t care if there were suddenly no more women in the world I would never sleep with a guy. Maybe that’s just me, but I think I’m normal. I would rather live the life of a monk! And I mean a “good” monk—not the child molesting kind.
cheese Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Julian,

They’re only giving legal recognition to homosexual relationships and conferring the same rights that heterosexual married couples have to those in homosexual relationships. No one is encouraging anyone else to be homosexual. It is not a choice. If it is a choice, then I dare you to change your own sexual orientation. Try an experiment. See if you can find a man desirous. If you cannot, then maybe you need to rethink your position on the issue. Homosexuals have been persecuted for centuries; no one would just choose to be different like that. Legalizing same sex marriage will not create more homosexuals than there were before, and heterosexuals are not about to stop having babies, so your argument that it would decrease population sizes is wrong.

And your position that more people would be a “blessing” and would make things cheaper is faulty on the grounds of basic economics, supply and demand. People consume resources. The more people there are, the more resources are consumed (supply decreases). The more people there are, the more demand there is for everything that we consume (demand increases). When the demand for something is greater than the supply of it, the price shoots upward. The more people we have, the more expensive everything will become. And, for the record, I’m shocked that a conservative would ever suggest we need a “proper distribution of wealth.”
KC Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Hm..arguing that it’s something we are born with is kinda tough to argue. But so is the the choice argument. An old high school friend told me that he was gay. I wasn’t shocked because I always knew that he was. He told me that he didn’t want to be and wanted how not to be gay.

What do you say? Choose not to be? Or, deal with it because you are born with it?
cheese Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 10:41 am
We’re not the only creatures that engage in homosexual intercourse either. Bonobos do it too.
John Hamilton Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 11:04 am
KC,

We’re all born with talents and problems. Some may be born with a natural inclination to kleptomania (stealing), but that does not mean they should act upon those impulses. The key is to see the good in life and develop compassion BECAUSE of the weaknesses we are blessed with. The kleptomaniac can overpower his stealing impulses when he truly recognizes the reality of the person he would steal from and the suffering it might cause. Likewise with homosexuality. I heard of a gay guy who went strait because he loved a woman, at first only benignly and then let it grow into intimacy and sexual. He said he wouldn’t have grasped the depth of love he now has for his wife if it hadn’t been for the trials of homosexuality he was born with. Take that however you want. The point is weaknesses can actually become strengths. This is if you perceive homosexuality as a weakness in the first place, of course. In Mormon doctrine, being gay is not a sin. Acting upon it, however, is.
cheese Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 11:26 am
John,

If homosexuals could marry, would acting upon their homosexual urges still be sinful?
John Hamilton Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Well, according to we Mormons it would be. The government does not say what is a “sin” and what is not, only what is “legal,” which is an entirely different subject.
cheese Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Okay, but if the Mormon Church said they were going to recognize homosexual marriages, would it still be a sin?
John Hamilton Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
The Mormon Church will never recognize homosexual marriages. Ever! Whether they are legal or not. So, yes it would still be a sin.
cheese Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
See, I think they will. Once same sex marriage is legalized, and time normalizes it for society, churches will give up the fight and realize there was never really anything to fight about. Homosexuals are not evil by nature. They are just people like everyone else. If they decide that they want to cement their relationship with vows, it shouldn’t bother anyone else.

Conservatives say “think of the children!” But I don’t see how it will negatively affect children. Children think nothing of it if they are not taught to think differently by adults. And there is no evidence whatsoever that homosexual couples are incapable of providing a stable, family environment for a child. So long as they are able to send the child to school, keep them fed and clothed, and give them the loving attention that any parent would show a child, the child will be none the worse.

There’s also the argument that legalizing same sex marriage is a slippery slope that will make us legalize marriages to pets, marriages to dead people, marriages to children, etc., but I don’t see how any of these follow. Marriage is still a voluntary institution. Both sides must still be of a certain age, of a certain mental capacity, and capable of saying “I do.” Pets cannot say “I do.” Dead people cannot say “I do.” And children are not old enough nor competent enough to say “I do.” So I think this argument that we’ll have to legalize all sorts of other marriages is ridiculous.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
John sez: “The Mormon Church will never recognize homosexual marriages. Ever! Whether they are legal or not. So, yes it would still be a sin.”

John, buddy, how can you possibly say that? In 1870, the Mormon Church would have said that it would NEVER give up the right to bless polygamous marriages. But, under pressure from the Federal government, they did.

In 1970, the Mormon Church would have said that it would never allow blacks to become priests. But, under pressure from the public (particularly in Brazil), they did.

So, how can you be sure that whoever in your church is authorized to get these thunderbolts from God won’t get one tomorrow afternoon sometime saying that, just like we were wrong about blacks and polygamists, we’re now wrong about gays and lesbians, too? I mean, when you’ve got a church hierarchy with a history of flip-flops like this, how can you ever know when they’re going to flip or flop?

I have never understood, as Cheese points out, the strained logic among the grass eaters, but then I never understood the strange logic of the segregationists, either. I suppose Anglicanism doesn’t lend itself well to oppression of others.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Julian sez: “Caleb, I believe with proper distribution of wealth and prudent management, natural population growth would be blessing to mankind rather than liability.”

Really? And who’s going to do this proper distribution? So far, it hasn’t worked. You figure that when we wear out this planet, we’ll just buy a new one?
Julian Malakar Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Cheese, lust of sexual urge is like a “jinni” of Arabian magic lamp. It must be kept in a bottle so that it could be contained. Heart is our bottle. We also know that there is no gain without pain. It is also true that patience is a key to success. Matter of facts there is no statistic how many people in the world are like Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson and ex-governor of New Jersey Jim McGreevy who enjoyed family life with children, and like many natural human got tired of enjoying same family life years after years, fall into temptation and let the “jinni” come out of their chest and finally engaged to old foul play (same sex activity) that they left behind before marriage. By this case study won’t you tell that homosexuality is matter of choice? To be honest I do not believe both Robinson and McGreevy had no same sex play before they committed to marriage. Before marriage foul play is acceptable when we are young but after marriage “jinni” needs to be held back to save prestige. I remember while I was at school many students had fun with same sex, but none at adulthood took seriously that game for life, they married and now they have family with children.

Same sex is a kind of enjoyment more or less every human have, as long we have sex chromosomes in our body. Since human history, human keeps this character dormant by social pressure, knowing its bad effect in development of human behavior. It is not a 20 or 30 years of research, it is people’s experience of thousands of year. The character remains dormant as long we keep then under lock. The temporary affectionate of same sex should be taken in a liberal point of view (a fun, a adultery) not in conservative way that someone need to commit to other partner for life. Because there is no output i.e. no child is going to be born out of wedlock, meaning no additional responsibility is created that need a commitment by both partner to share additional responsibility equally resulted from their love game.

In one way or other in real life we need to hold our different kinds of “jinni” in our chest to maintain steady flow of life. People fall into trouble who let “jinni” go out of chest, and may end up in jail for murder, rape case or child abuse. Social pressure and legal system is a lid to hold unwanted natural pressure that makes our life hell. If we want we could tame the “jinni” inside our body if not eradicate altogether. We should take same sex activity in liberal way that does not need a certificate to maintain long term commitment.
John Hamilton Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Cheese and Caleb:

You guys are missing a fundamental point about Mormon doctrine. Marriage and the family unit are ABSOLUTELY CENTRAL to the Mormon faith. It’s right up there just barely under the Atonement of Christ. It is the whole purpose and end-all of our temples and temple ceremonies which are the end-goal of Mormon practice. The Mormon Church will never, ever recognize homosexual relationships. It runs completely contrary to the covenants we make in our temples and elsewhere.

We still hold to the doctrine of polygamy, we just don’t practice it. We do not deny or refute it. Nothing has changed. We believe in upholding the law of the land. If the law of the land said we are to worship on Saturday instead of Sunday, we will. And we do in Israel.

The priesthood in the Mormon Church is nothing like the priesthood in the Catholic, Episcopal, or any other church. It is universal and is given to EVERY worthy male member. The Prophet and President of our Church holds no more priesthood power than I do. His stewardship is a tiny bit larger than mine, however. It was never doctrine that blacks should not have the priesthood, it was merely practice. The Mormon Church ALWAYS said that the blacks would get the priesthood again someday. The doctrine never changed and that day has come.

I do not deny that homosexuals can raise healthy well-adjusted children. In fact, in some ways I’m sure they could even do a better job of it. They don’t have to live with a moody wife! (You didn’t here that from me—I’ll deny everything.) The Mormon Church does not shun homosexuals, but they cannot participate fully in the Church. There were several gays in my singles congregation that I attended years ago before I met my wife. They were included as far as possible, but they could not participate in the temple ceremonies and some other practices.

Mormons believe the family unit is eternal and essential for exaltation. “Exaltation” is different from “salvation” in that it goes beyond being simply redeemed and being able to once again abide in God’s presence. It is the ability to become like God Himself (eventually) and have and share all that He has on an equal and infinite basis. To receive exaltation, we MUST be married to a person of the opposite sex. We are not complete and able to procreate without such a union. It is not required that we procreate in this mortal life, but we do need to be married, either while we are here or by proxy after we’re dead. Marriage, like baptism MUST be performed in mortality, either by ourselves or someone needs to do it for us if we did not have the chance in this life. I don’t know exactly where homosexuals end up who choose not to follow this path. There are “non-exalted” beings in the Kingdom of God who are “ministering angels” throughout eternity who will never be fully like God or acquire all His glory. I guess homosexuals who do not overcome their particular weaknesses will become those. I don’t know. And guess what, neither do you, so please don’t mock my beliefs on this.
cheese Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 8:44 am
I have a hard time, John, seeing how the Mormon Church is not discriminating against homosexuals. You say they are not, yet they are not allowed to participate in all the temple ceremonies. To me, this exclusion from participating in the full rites of the Church is discrimination. You may not think so, because you may say: “hey, at least, we’re giving them something. We’re not kicking them out completely.” But, to me, anything less than full equality is discrimination.

And why should we discriminate based upon whom a person is sexually attracted to? Homosexuals are not sexual predators. They are not molesting children. They do not have some secret agenda to spread their “lifestyle” to everyone. They just want the same rights that heterosexuals have, nothing more, nothing less.

In my world, god has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a social contract between two people to share love, property, and trust. Is there really a good reason for stipulating that the two people must be of opposite gender? I truly doubt it.
KC Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 8:59 am
ANYTHING
KC Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 9:09 am
ANYTHING less than full equality is discrimination? That’s not true Cheese.

I know what you are trying to say, but lets not point fingers at the Mormons because they exclude groups. All groups of people in all ways of life exclude others that do not meet their standards.

Example: A democrat committee will exclude a member that claims he started studying politics and now wants to be a republican.

You are false in your assumption that if any group excludes then its automatic terms for wrongful discrimination.
cheese Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 9:23 am
KC,

That analogy is not accurate. The person in your analogy is voluntarily choosing to switch political affiliations. By doing so, they may be excluding themselves from the committee, but there is no evidence that the committee is excluding them against their will.
John Hamilton Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Cheese, I never said that Mormons don’t discriminate. Of course we do. We also don’t let adulterers or pedophiles into our temples or priesthood leadership either (unlike the Catholics—sad). That said, I’m not knocking the “good” gay lifestyle—the gays who are monogamous and commit to a partner for life. Or any relationship that is worked out between two or even multiple competent adults. But, the Mormon Church requires persons to be legally and lawfully married, or not in a sexual relationship if single, to qualify for temple attendance and full fellowship. This “legal and lawful” union is entirely up to the Mormon Church to decide. In Argentina, for example, the Church recognizes “common law” marriages because the government-sanctioned ones are too oppressive and burdensome on the poor. If gay marriages are made legal, the Church will still not recognize them.

Yes, the Mormon Church discriminates against gays, and they will freely admit it! They, and I, have every right to think that homosexuality is a sin. You have every right to think otherwise. We are free to choose. Once we start trying to force others to our will, even if we think we know better then they, we loose the whole point of why we are here in mortality in the first place. Christ never forced anyone (accept when He was being forced to do so, like clearing the temple) and if we want to become like Him, we need to do the same. I have no problem with gays getting married. I have a problem with them forcing others who think they are perverted to recognize them as being married. They have every right to think of themselves as normal, or even better if they wish, and others have every right to think they are deviants. I personally could care less. I’ve known enough good well-balanced gay people in my life to know they are no threat, but I don’t know all, either. I’ve also known a gay or two who I would not let around my children. I know good and bad strait people as well. The Mormon Church leadership thinks that legalized gay marriage could be a threat (and they have some case studies to lend credence to that) and therefore oppose it. They don’t hate gays, far from it, they want to help. We’re hear to preach to the sinners, however we each interpret what a sin is, and that is the main purpose of any worthwhile church, in my opinion.
cheese Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Threat to what? What is gay marriage threatening again?
cheese Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 9:57 am
“Once we start trying to force others to our will, even if we think we know better then they, we loose the whole point of why we are here in mortality in the first place.”-John

Do you not see the hypocrisy in uttering this statement? You and the rest of the people who insist that homosexuality is a sin are the ones doing the forcing. You are forcing them not to marry, and by not allowing it, you are defining all homosexual behavior as sinful. Do you not see that your rigid definitions of what’s right and proper are forcing them into your definition of sin? The problem with your definitions is that you cast a wide net that covers all homosexuals regardless of their intent or character. You are prejudging all of them as sinful regardless if they’re hurting anyone else or not. You are not taking things on a case-by-case basis.
KC Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Cheese, what I am saying is that you cannot say a group is wrong if they exclude others because they don’t believe what they believe. Yes, its a correct analogy.
John Hamilton Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 10:01 am
According to the Mormon Church it is threatening the standard definition of marriage. When we change the definition or make it so broad in can include virtually anything, people start defining their “rights” by such an ambiguous baseline and then anything goes, like forcing churches to comply and honor those “rights.” By letting gays redefine marriage in the eyes of the government, and in a democracy by definition the people, we, the Mormon Church, are surrendering the outer perimeter trench and allowing gays one step closer to getting in our house.

Of course, the same arguments were made in reverse when the whole country came down on the Mormons over polygamy. I guess people don’t like it when we reverse their tactic upon them. I would rather see the government get entirely out of the marriage recognition business altogether, but that logistically can’t happen, so it will ALWAYS leave someone out. Marriage, by its very nature is discriminatory. Who I chose to marry is nobody else’s business and I don’t require their sanction or blessing either.

So, if we’re stuck with government (the people) defined marriage, we must accept that it cannot be all things to all people. The people have spoken on this. The majority do not want to recognize gay marriage. I for one will not force them. If the majority switches and wants to recognize it then I will not force them the other way then either. We have to go with the majority on this one because these are mutually exclusive options. Otherwise, get the government (the will of the people) out of the business and we Mormons can go back to having multiple wives again.
John Hamilton Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 10:14 am
The act of sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex is the definition of sin in this case, according to Mormon theology. Therefore all, yes every single one, homosexuals are sinners. Again this is only according to Mormon doctrine. You are free to believe however you want.

The Mormons don’t wish to force anyone one way or the other, but as long as we’re bridled with government-defined marriage which will always be exclusionary because it has to reconcile the will of ALL the people, which is impossible, we must work within that system and keep the definition where it will do the most good and the least harm. That is generally honoring the will of the majority.

Hey, we had to bend our religious ideals to the will of the majority in the practice of polygamy. We are not willing, if we can help it, to bend them again to accept gays into full fellowship in our Church. Therefore, the Mormon Church is on the front to maintain the will of the majority in favor of the standard definition of marriage.
cheese Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 10:15 am
“Who (sic) I chose to marry is nobody else’s business and I don’t require their sanction or blessing either.” You’re making my argument for me, John.

About polygamy, I don’t really have a problem with it, so long as it’s not coerced and all partners are willing participants and of age. Legalizing polygamy, however, would require us to re-write our marriage laws completely. Homosexual marriage not so much.

I read a book about one of the survivors of Warren Jeff’s group. She was forced to marry her cousin at age 13. Maybe it wasn’t polygamy itself, but the way polygamy was handled that needed to be outlawed.
John Hamilton Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 10:40 am
The current polygamous off-shoots of the main Mormon body (which were all excommunicated long ago, by the way) do not in any way, shape or form represent the way polygamy was practiced 120 years ago. Every case was voluntary and the permission and blessing of the first wife was always required. Men were generally “called” to the practice by their priesthood leaders and did not choose on their own to take a second or third wife, or at least did on initiate it—they were always free to choose. At its height, barely 20 percent of Mormon families were polygamous.

The fundamentalist off-shoots of Mormonism are so inbred and deviate (getting more so over the years) that they are an aberration to even normal human decency. Anything, no matter how good or benign, can be corrupted. I’ve dealt with these people growing up. There was a colony of them not too far from my home town. They are generally pretty slow-witted (especially the women) and have many physical problems as a result of marrying their cousins all the time. In addition, they “purge” the males every generation or so, so that the “alpha males” can have their picks (plural) of the female litter.

When the Mormon Church first stated and moved into the Salt Lake Valley, the women converts outnumbered the men by a good percentage. I think it was almost 3 to 1, not sure. Polygamy could work in such an environment. I think polygamy would have eventually died out on its own anyway, regardless of any laws, once the Church was more established and reached equilibrium. In some ways, though, it is a shame. There are so few good men out there (the vast majority being scumbags like myself) that some women may not mind “sharing” a good one with someone who would not otherwise get a good man. (In almost all cases of Mormon Church sanctioned polygamy the men were financially well off enough to afford another wife and family before becoming polygamous. And, the other wives may not have ever found a man otherwise. Just look up Brigham Young’s wives sometime and you’ll know why Mark Twain said he was one of the most charitable persons on God earth!)
Julian Malakar Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
“Legalizing polygamy, however, would require us to re-write our marriage laws completely. Homosexual marriage not so much.”- Cheese

Re-writing of marriage laws including polygamy is not big issues, if we define marriage is spiritual union of two or more, same or multiple sexes. The whole purpose of marriage is to protect agreement and property. Moreover beside Mormon, Muslim world also believe and practice polygamy marriage. Would you agree, Cheese to accept polygamy, when there would be public pressure from Muslim and Mormon group? I would disagree both unions (same sex, and polygamy) because to me it is sinful nature.
cheese Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
So long as the people entering into the marriage are over the age of eighteen, competent enough to make decisions for themselves, voluntarily doing so of their own free will, and able to obtain a divorce in the event irreconciliable differences occur, then I care not one lick about their number or gender.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
John sez: “Mormons believe the family unit is eternal and essential for exaltation.”

Why can’t that include a family headed by a homosexual couple?

Certainly the Mormons once believed that the family unit could be headed by people in polygamous unions. All I’m saying, John, is that when you have a church with the kind of history of flip flops yours has, no one knows today what doctrine the church will preach tomorrow.
John Hamilton Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Nothing flipped or flopped, Caleb. I explained the polygamy and blacks getting the priesthood. And no, homosexuals cannot head a family unit in the eternities. They cannot procreate. They are two of the same half. They need to be of opposite halves to make the whole. Gender is and always was essential to our identity before we were born here and after we leave. As such we are not complete until gender union is made. We cannot be like God. God is both Male and Female. He is a divine coupling that defies our ability to define. We render Him in the masculine because we had to pick one. We do not want to refer to Him as an It. He is eternally beyond being a non-gender thing.

Suffice it to say, He has however given us direction in the holy scriptures and through prophets. He also gives us the ability to back up or confirm whatever is said in His name if we choose to ask sincerely.

However, we are not given an explanation of everything, otherwise we would not learn. I don’t know why or how homosexuals are the way they are, what their particular challenges needed to be in this life, or what accommodations, if any, are afforded them in the eternities. I suspect each individual case is different. Some feel they are women “trapped in a man’s body” or vise versa. Could be true, but unless God says otherwise, the chromosomes will tell us. If there’s a Y one in there, no matter what else, they are male, if not, female. Whatever emotional, developmental, or environmental factors are involved, these will be taken into full and complete consideration at the final Judgement where we will all be assigned our cell or mansion.

You can, of course, choose to believe this or not or to ask God for yourself. You apparently think we are all neolithic dunderheads for thinking there is “something not right” about gay people, and you’re welcome to think that way, but it is our belief and we will preserve it and keep believing regardless of what the world thinks or does. That’s the nature of faith and spiritual conformation. Can’t explain it to someone else. They gotta get it for themselves. Why we’re here. Good luck!
Caleb Powers Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
John sez: “Caleb. I explained the polygamy and blacks getting the priesthood.”

Yes, John, and I didn’t buy your explanation, and still don’t. Do you really honestly deep deep in your heart of hearts believe that it’s just a coincidence that the two groups that have been historically excluded from the full benefits of Mormonism, blacks and gays, just happen to be groups that have also been discriminated against by the rest of society?

Do you really truly believe that those Mormon founders of yours, who referred to blacks in the most derogatory words possible, words that I wouldn’t use on this blog, and who described them as dirty, filthy, and bearing the mark of Cain, were really truly just interpreting Mormon theology with no racism involved?

I don’t. If you do, that’s fine, but please understand why others are skeptical.

And, you also say that gays can’t head a family because they can’t procreate. Does that mean that heterosexuals who, for whatever medical reason can’t bear or father children, also can’t head families? Does that mean that single people can’t head families? Some of the finest parents I know are gay and lesbian. I’m sure that about twenty years after gays and lesbians are fully accepted by the rest of society, the Mormons will get around to flip-flopping on that one, too. It would just be nice if just sometimes you all would be in the lead on these things, not always the followers.
José Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Some folks might make a case for saying that the traditional marriage with the “’til death do we part” clause is threatened by certain religious groups that make extravagant claims about marriage extending throughout eternity. John, would you be sympathetic with traditionalists who passed a law banning anyone and any church from performing these “untraditional” eternal marriages?

Mormons are permitted to perform their peculiar marriages according to their regulations. Same thing for Catholics, and also for backwoods fundies that don’t allow mixed race relations. They should be allowed such liberties, but dang it there is no good reason for letting their theology stand in the way of others who choose NOT to follow such restrictions.
perplexed Says:
January 17th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Lets see, gay couples can’t conceive without a third party, is that polygamy?
John Hamilton Says:
January 18th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Caleb, I don’t know where you are getting your info on the derogatory comments made by former leaders of the Mormon Church. I am only aware of one or two unfortunate opinions expressed by some a century ago. Those opinions were not the official position of the Church. The Church always said officially that the blacks would one day again get the priesthood. That has always been the doctrine, despite what any individual in the Church may have said.

If you read my comments more carefully, I did say that it is not necessary that couples procreate in this life. I apologize if I did not make that clear enough. They simply need to “pair up” in preparation for procreation in the eternities if for nothing else. This includes singles, who for whatever reason do not get that opportunity in this life. They will be sealed to a spouse of their choosing by proxy sometime in the future. I don’t know how this is to be done logistically, but it will happen for everyone who desires it according to Mormon doctrine.

Gay couples may make great parents in this life, but they do not fit in with the eternal plan of exaltation in Mormon doctrine. Many people are raised by uncles or aunts or in foster care who will always have a gratifying and eternal relationship with such caregivers and givers of unconditional love. They just won’t be sealed together in the eternal family relationship necessary to become like God. (Actually, we will all be sealed together in an infinite “chain” to everyone else, so we’re actually one big [really big] family in the eternities. But, that is getting into really deep doctrine—a little over my head.)

The Mormon Church has no problem with other churches accepting gay marriage—that is their right and freedom. The Mormons would never force them to do otherwise. The Mormon Church however, will never accept it for themselves and is fighting to keep from being forced to do so or any threat that may try to make them do so in the future.

By the way, many leaders in the Mormon Church today say that in some ways the Civil Rights Movement of the sixties was inspired and meant, in small part, to create the conditions for the blacks to get the priesthood a few years later. This is their “opinion,” of course. You might wish to believe the same about the Gay Right Movement, but this would require a fundamental shift in ACTUAL DOCTRINE in the Church which did not happen with the blacks or with polygamy.
John Hamilton Says:
January 18th, 2010 at 11:21 am
On an interesting side note: The prophet of our Mormon Church said back in 1968 that man would never land on the Moon. A year later after they did, he was asked about it. He said, “I was wrong, so what?” (paraphrasing). He said it was simply an opinion, and that was he not allowed to have opinions, even if they are wrong? He was not speaking for the Lord in that case, and that he would have made it abundantly clear if he were. He is human like the rest of us, just like Jonah, Moses, and every other prophet.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 18th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Interesting, John. The real interesting part is that you, an obviously intelligent and articulate person, believe all this stuff. But, follow up, if you will, on one point: What were those “conditions” created by the civil rights movement that allowed blacks to achieve the priesthood?
John Hamilton Says:
January 18th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
It’s also kind of ludicrous that an intelligent person should think someone dying on a cross 2,000 years ago has any bearing on forgiveness for the bone-headed things he does today. But, that is what it is.

As for the “conditions,” they probably mean the culmination of the general public’s attitude development. Racism existed throughout the country and among Church members for many years. By racism I mean the irrational judging of someone’s character or abilities based on the appearance of their skin. This had to be overcome in the minds of a critical mass of the general populace, both in the country and the Church. In Deuteronomy God says He will curse people down to the fourth generation of those who hate Him. I think, really, the hate they have curses themselves. The Civil War and slavery had a great “hateful” impact on both whites and blacks. They passed this hurt and hate on to their children. The next generation may have only picked up on 75 percent of their parents’ hate and their children only picked up on 50 percent. The fourth generation only comprehended 25 percent, and by the fifth generation it was gone for the most part. So, the Civil Rights Movement may not have actually “created” the conditions for full freedom of the blacks, but rather was the culmination or manifestation of the dying out of the “curse.” It was the stamping out of the last little remnants of the hurt of slavery and civil strife. Remember, otherwise good people killed and died based on these cultural elements in American society, however misguided they may have been—much of it taught to them from the cradle. Not to justify their actions, but we should be careful not to judge them too harshly considering their unfortunate circumstances.

It must be remembered that to act in God’s name (having His priesthood) one must be free and not under someone else’s control. The priesthood could not be given to blacks who were owned by another man. It also could not be given, ideally, to someone controlled by cultural and generational hatred to the point of misusing this power. The conditions had to be proper, in a general sense, for the priesthood to be made available universally to the blacks. For whatever reason, maybe the blacks were not “free” enough in their own minds, the priesthood was withheld from them until the process initiated by the Civil War was complete. Of course, this breaks down on an individual basis, but the “critical mass” probably needed to be reached, which did not occur until after the 1960′s.
José Says:
January 18th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
One might therefore conclude that a prisoner could never achieve priesthood, nor a citizen of a totalitarian regime.
John Hamilton Says:
January 18th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Anyone convicted of a felony automatically gets their priesthood revoked until they have done their time, in most cases. The totalitarian regime is a little more tricky since in theory, at least, they are not actually “owned” by another person. The Mormon Church does not preach or do missionary work where the people do not have a certain level of freedom, minimally the freedom of religion. We always go “through the front door” so to speak. We will not do covert missionary work where we are not officially welcome in almost all cases. We are not established in Cuba, North Korea or mainland China for example, and we did not go into Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union countries until we were officially recognized in each.

On a case-by-case basis the dispersion of priesthood authority is not ideal, but our overall track record is pretty good. Keep in mind that God will not recognize priesthood ordinances or authority by those who are unworthy regardless of how air tight their ordination might be.
José Says:
January 18th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
“It must be remembered that to act in God’s name (having His priesthood) one must be free and not under someone else’s control.”

This bugs me more and more.

Obviously there are counterexamples. Paul writing from prison. The early church, when one’s Christian faith was grounds enough for execution. The last two popes, both having grown up under repressive governments. Few Christians would contend that their lack of freedom prevented them from possessing ecclesiastical authority. While no person is ever completely free from the influences of government and society, it is also true that no law can fully harness the human mind.

As a Protestant I especially chafe at the idea that ANYONE’S government can rob me of my rights and responsibilities as a member of the church universal. No believer should be comfortable with that notion. The opportunity for abuse is great when a church can work in cahoots with the state to determine who is eligible for church leadership. Ugh!

I’ve talked before about my own denomination’s regrettable history regarding race relations. It’s interesting that the CME (originally the Colored Methodist Episcopal church, now the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church) was helped into being by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Even the white southerners clearly saw that slaves could exercise valid church authority.
John Hamilton Says:
January 18th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Yeah, José, you might be right, I don’t know all the reasons why blacks didn’t get the priesthood, I’m sure you have ideas on that, but the Mormon Church’s official position is that “we don’t know.”

Our founder, Joseph Smith, still had his priesthood authority while he was put in prison, as well as numerous other Mormon examples. The government certainly does not have final say in any of God’s dealings, of course, but we do our best to be on the “up and up” with those in earthly power. It’s always complicated, but that’s why we rely on God inspiring and directing us and our decisions in each separate case, even if we don’t know all the reasons.
John Hamilton Says:
January 19th, 2010 at 9:21 am
One other thing just to clarify, José. The Mormons never discriminated against the blacks as far as membership in the Church or attendance of worship services or other activities. They simply could not hold the priesthood. There were many black members of the Church through the years leading up to their getting the priesthood and their numbers were growing despite not being able to fully participate. They were never segregated like in your church with separate worship services and sacraments.

It is interesting, to me at least, that their was a large congregation of “Mormons” in Nigeria for several years before they got the priesthood. These good people had somehow got a copy of the Book of Mormon and set up their own church. They wrote to Church Headquarters and asked for guidance. The Church sent out missionaries to baptize them officially, and told them to just be patient, that the priesthood and the authority to baptize each other would come soon. It was 5 or 6 years later when the revelation came, and they were ready. The Church membership has since exploded in Nigeria; all originating from this little core of faithful followers who were humble enough and prayerfully, patiently waited upon the Lord. Church leadership knew the time was approaching. There were hints of it in the decades and years leading up to the Announcement.

It bothers me when others, like Caleb, degrade what for me and others in my Church take as a profoundly spiritual experience. It was like the peace that comes after a long war. It might have even been a necessary war; some are. I remember Church members, very conservative ones, crying (literally) for joy when the Announcement came. The October General Conference of 1978 is one of the most talked about events in the Church. One of the Apostles of the Church described the revelation when it came as “cloven tongues of fire” and one of the most profound spiritual experiences in his long and distinguished life. He was even one who had formerly postulated some not-too-flattering possibilities as to why the blacks didn’t have the priesthood.

So, please don’t malign my church. You certainly are welcome to your opinions, but please understand that we are all human and are struggling through an imperfect world. Our individual struggles and strengths obtained are worthy of some respect even if yours are different.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 19th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
John sez: “It bothers me when others, like Caleb, degrade what for me and others in my Church take as a profoundly spiritual experience.” Well, it bothers me to see people take discrimination and try to turn it into a spiritual experience. The fact that even today, after all blacks have been through, that you can still support this process is truly amazing to me.
John Hamilton Says:
January 19th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
I’m not supporting the processes. I’m just reporting the facts. That is simply what occurred. I cannot deny what I know. I know for myself that leaders of my Church, both past and present, were inspired. They did not withhold the priesthood from the blacks because they were racist, even if they were racist. They did so because God told them to do so and He had not yet rescinded that order. We don’t know why, all we can do is speculate. Racism was not the issue. Leaders of my Church did not care what color someone’s skin was and most of them felt real angst about the issue. Others may not have given it much thought, it was just the way thing were. In that respect they were like the majority of whites in America at the time. The Civil Rights Movement can be credited for “waking them up” in those cases.

Once again, we did ordain blacks at the beginning of the Church, but were then told not too. Those that we did ordain still retained their priesthood throughout their lives. Circumstances were not right for it to be spread to all the blacks yet, for whatever reason, but this shows that they were always “worthy” of the priesthood. Maybe (just speculating) the rest of us were not worthy to honer them having it. Now we are. Hallelujah!
Caleb Powers Says:
January 19th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
I truly am trying to understand, John, but all this seems to me to just add up to the Mormons having institutionalized racism over the years. I mean, you say: “It must be remembered that to act in God’s name (having His priesthood) one must be free and not under someone else’s control. The priesthood could not be given to blacks who were owned by another man.”

Why? Why could a slave not be a priest? Even the portions of the Bible that support slavery, like the book of Philemon, do not suggest that a slave can’t be a fully participating Christian, and as Jose points out, even in the old South, there was a recognition that physical slavery did not prevent the slave from participating in the church.

And, let’s remember another fun fact: The change in Mormon doctrine didn’t occur until 1978. I mean, throughout the ’50s and ’60s, as blacks achieved legal, though not social, equality with whites, did you think this was a phase that we were going through and that one day we’d decide it was a passing fad? In 1969, from what I understand, the powers that be of the church voted to end the exclusion of blacks, and the move was blocked by one apostle, Harold B. Lee. That was after the church sparred with the NAACP throughout the sixties, claiming that it would support civil rights legislation, but not following through on the promise. That hardly sounds like the type of pristine God-oriented decision process that you describe.

And, when the decision was finally made in 1969, to ditch the racist policies of the past, I understand that the factor driving the decision was the fact that the church was about to open a big temple in Brazil, and couldn’t sort out the racial groups there sufficiently well to allow anyone to be a priest. I suppose when you base your priesthood on the race of the priest, you need a pretty bright-line test for what race a person is.

All I’m saying, John, is that this is hardly as simple as you make it out to be; there were some serious non-doctrinal considerations going on.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 19th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Sorry, I meant that the decision to ditch the racist policies came in 1978, not 1969, when it had been blocked.
Julian Malakar Says:
January 19th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
“Why could a slave not be a priest? Even the portions of the Bible that support slavery,”- Caleb

I would appreciate if you show us where in the Bible you found that the Bible supports slavery system. I understand that the Bible teaches us since beginning till now to maintain harmony in between employer and employee relationship. When the Bible teaches slave to honor his/her master and master to honor his/her slave and reminds both that God is the Master of all. It does not indicate the Bible approve or disapprove entrepreneurships system of any type. Disqualification of Mormon priest hood by skin color is also does not sounds good as per biblical teaching. Because of like “he said, she said,” in preparing Church doctrines based on testimony of leader that God had told him to accept or reject an issues, causes to create one more denomination or divide a existing denomination. Many Christian Church are the Bible based means that the Bible teaching would supersede any doctrine that contradicts teaching of the Bible. The Bible is universal but culture and personal experience is local.
John Hamilton Says:
January 19th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
I don’t know where you get your stories, Caleb. Don’t believe everything you read on the Web. The Church Apostles do not “vote” on anything. They try to come to a consensus, but the President/Prophet of the Church is the final word and sole dictator of the Church. We have such things as “common consent” within the membership, but God does not need our approval for anything. The Prophet speaks as directed by God. You don’t have to believe that, of course. Harold B. Lee was only an Apostle at that time. The President of the Church in 1969 was David O. McKay. He could, with a stroke of the pen, allow the blacks the priesthood. His successor, Joseph Fielding Smith, did not even feel the blacks would get the priesthood for a few more generations. There was no “vote” taken or Joseph Fielding Smith would have probably also dissented.

In order to meet the requirements for the building of a temple back then there needed to be 100,000 Church members within its service area. It took many, many years to grow to that number of Church members in Brazil. The sticky issue of whether or not someone had blacks in his heritage would have been being dealt with effectively for quite some time. The priesthood is necessary in abundance to even organize the smallest Branch or Ward of the Church. There are dozens of positions to be filled with priesthood brethren for every congregation. It would not have suddenly become an issue when they built the temple. (One does not need to be temple-endowed to hold the priesthood.)

One of our black General Authorities (yes we have them), right under the Apostles in authority, was a member of the Church for many years in Brazil and held positions within the the Church that did not require the priesthood. He contributed to the building of the temple there even though he knew he may never live long enough to enter it himself.

The Church was never insanely strict on having black blood you one’s line. My Grandpa was concerned when my Mother wanted to marry my Dad and he knew my Dad was from the hills of Kentucky where my Grandpa had served his mission when he was young. My Dad had jet-black hair and olive skin and my Grandpa had seen many mixed race people while on his mission. My Dad said he was unaware of any blacks in his line and that simply stating that was good enough for the Church. He later discovered his Great Grandmother was a full-blood Cherokee and that was probably where the hair and skin came from that is so prevalent in his family.

It wouldn’t have been the “end of the world” if a black person, or someone with black heritage, “accidently” got the priesthood. We had them before and I doubt the Church would have, or did, anything about it in such cases, which I’m sure happened now and then.

As far as being “free” to hold the priesthood, that is merely speculation. The Mormon Church was having enough trouble just trying to hold itself together in its early history without having to deal with pre-Civil War issues of slaves potentially presiding over whites in Mormon congregations. Mormon congregations (called wards) are not like your church. The entire world is divided into geographical areas and each Mormon must attend the ward within which boundaries he lives. There are no exceptions without the approval of the President of the Church himself. Therefore priesthood leaders within each ward must be chosen from within its boundaries regardless of race. It would have been difficult to appease the political and cultural situations of the time of the Church’s infancy to accommodate blacks in such a structure. Later it was more feasible. Did we wait too long change the policy? Maybe. Believe what you will.
John Hamilton Says:
January 20th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Julian, you put way too much faith in the Bible. You need to put it in God through prayer and not so much on written words of questionable authenticity. The Bible is a useful tool but it is not the final word on anything—that final word rests with God. Whether or not the Bible dealt with slaves is unimportant. Ask God instead. If you’re sincere, He’ll answer.
Julian Malakar Says:
January 20th, 2010 at 11:45 am
“Ask God instead. If you’re sincere, He’ll answer.” – John

John, as per your statement, assuming I am not sincere, so God does not talk with me, but how about Catholic Church, Episcopal Church, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist or even Pat Robertson, are they not sincere, like me? If they are sincere, my follow up question would be to you why are you not a Catholic? Thanks
John Hamilton Says:
January 20th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Got a different answer from God. That’s why I’m not Catholic. Maybe you got another answer tailored just for you. Maybe you’re not ready to be a Mormon. Maybe I’m not ready to be a Catholic, in God’s eyes. I’m not questioning your own sincerity, only you can do that. Just worried about reliance on only the Bible (a thing) instead of God Himself.
KC Says:
January 20th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
What is too much faith defined as John?
Caleb Powers Says:
January 20th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
John, I have enjoyed our discussion on this point a great deal, and I believe I have learned something. Don’t get me wrong; I still don’t buy your arguments, but at least now I understand them, though I do think you’re a bit naieve about some of the church’s past policies. But, the bottom line is that the LDS Church is extraordinarily successful, and no doubt will be more so in the future. My views are the views of the past, and the LDS’s views, whatever I might think about them, are apparently the ideas of the future.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 20th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
John says: “My Grandpa was concerned when my Mother wanted to marry my Dad and he knew my Dad was from the hills of Kentucky where my Grandpa had served his mission when he was young. My Dad had jet-black hair and olive skin and my Grandpa had seen many mixed race people while on his mission. My Dad said he was unaware of any blacks in his line and that simply stating that was good enough for the Church. He later discovered his Great Grandmother was a full-blood Cherokee and that was probably where the hair and skin came from that is so prevalent in his family.”

Just a note on this: John, I suspect that what your ancestor really was was what are now called “Melungeons,” a group of olive-skinned people living in various parts of Appalachia, though primarily in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia, which are now thought to be descendants of escaped Portuguese galley slaves (I’m not making this up). This is now a big deal in Appalachian studies. Many people over the years in the mountains claimed “Indian” ancestry because they thought this was true, but most were actually Melungeons. Obviously I don’t know your family’s history: They might well have been Indians, but this would be uncommon.
Julian Malakar Says:
January 20th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
John, your different answer from God in choosing Mormon Church over Catholics is your guts feeling for which you seek answer from God. Because of that nature, you are Mormon, somebody else is Catholics and somebody belongs to different denominations of Protestant, like me. We have no choice of knowing right or wrong of doctrines that evolved from the Bible. If the Bible is the seed of the Christian Church and different denominations are the brunches of the tree grown from the Bible, no branches could produce different fruits that are different from the seed, unless the branch that produce different fruits comes from a seed which is a hybrid variety.

By the term hybrid I mean some doctrines are taken from the Bible and some are from personal experiences such as book of Mormon. The Bible based Church, I mean, fruits of any branches (denominations) would genetically be same character as of the seed itself (the Bible). If the branch (Church) produces different fruits, then it must comes from a hybrid seeds (i.e. mixture of the Bible and personal doctrine), such as Mormon version of Christianity, Caleb’s version of Christianity etc., etc. They deviated with some doctrines from the Bible, saying partial truth of the Bible. They can not say that the whole Bible is false, and then their faith would be in trouble. And again interestingly Muslim also believes Jesus as a Prophet with a different set of holy book, which they believe came from God. My point is to show how our faith system generates different species of Churches with some doctrinal variation, like “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution”. Life is amazing.
John Hamilton Says:
January 22nd, 2010 at 10:21 am
Caleb,

Yes I’ve heard of the Melungeons. My brother-in-law did a lot of research into them. It is an interesting mystery. Too bad almost everything about their origins is lost. Being Mormon, we’re big into genealogy and my Dad’s family tree has been tracked back quite extensively. My great great Grandmother was indeed a Cherokee Indian “princess” (they were always a “princess” when they married a white man back then). Her name was Moonglow and she has a lot of decedents. We don’t know much about her, but we have confirmed that she was indeed Cherokee. It is amazing what is lost just from one generation to the other. Of course my Dad remembers his Grandpa learning to write his name so that he could sign the deed to his farm. So, we’re left with not-terribly-reliable oral stories and such for much of our heritage. So far, we haven’t found any confirmed Melungeons in our line. Doesn’t mean they are not there, many in the family tree are merely names, we don’t know anything about them. And there are certainly a lot of dead ends. As far is we know, the Hamilton family name just appeared with a man named William in Virginia in the early 1700s (I can’t remember the exact date). Haven’t been able to get across the pond on that line.

I do know that I am a mutt of the highest order. My great Grandfather was Jewish. Still don’t know how he wound up in the hills of Kentucky. There are two Ute Indians on my Mother’s side (she is 4th generation Utahan). My Mom’s maiden name is French in origin and we’ve got, Danish, Norwegian, a ton of German, English, Scottish, and I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to find some African in there somewhere. Wonder if that would negate all my family’s pre-1978 priesthood ordinances? Crap! That means I would have to be re-baptized!
John Hamilton Says:
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:31 am
Julian,

The Bible does indeed contain the “fullness of the Gospel.” It just doesn’t do a particularly stellar job of communicating that message. It has been used to justify the most heinous of crimes in years past, and it continues to be used to justify hatred and arrogance today. On top of that it has been hand-copied only for more than a thousand years. We have no original source for any of it’s content and much of its authorship and origins are a complete mystery. Of course, the same can be said for the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and probably all other religious texts.

These “tools” can be interpreted so many different ways that to say, “I’m a follower of the Bible,” carries almost no meaning. One can be a “follower of the Bible” and be anything from a Mormon to a Muslim, so saying your faith depends on the Bible and that therefore that makes you “right” means nothing to someone else.

My stating that we should put our faith in God instead is really code for saying we should trust our instincts when we are trying to do the right thing. We humble ourselves through prayer, acknowledging our ignorance and need for help, and that unburdens our minds from selfish motivations so that we can understand the right. We then can find truth everywhere and anywhere—we are less clouded by prejudices and selfishness. These truths are in the Bible and many other sources, but to praise the “tool” instead of its main Source (but still only one of many sources) misses the boat entirely. God can still be in our lives whether a Bible ever existed or not.

That was my only concern. That you might have been using the Bible as the end-all authority on faith instead of God Himself. I can now see that your faith is much more involved than that, but I just wanted to point out the possible danger of putting too much weight into only a “product” of faith, rather than the Source.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:27 pm
John says: “So, we’re left with not-terribly-reliable oral stories and such for much of our heritage.” So are we Christians; that’s why we can’t entirely rely on the Bible, as you point out.
John Hamilton Says:
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Yup. We gotta have modern day revelations. God’s gotta keep speaking directly to us because He sure can’t rely on others to not screw it up.
Julian Malakar Says:
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:40 am
“That you might have been using the Bible as the end-all authority on faith instead of God Himself.”- John

John you misunderstood the Bible as well as my analogy of the Bible as a seed, which grows as a tree with different branches (denomination). The Bible is the word of living God who is alpha and omega, how do you imagine word and God are two separate identities that I would emphasis word over God? How do you believe one is true (God) and the other (word) is false? Are you picking up true God out of false statement in the Bible? I am amazed. Word of the Lord our God tells you how you can achieve fullness of oneself that Gospel wants us to be. Because you have doubtful mind about the Bible’s originality you overlook the words of the Bible, but again want to get God out of the Bible.

I know you read Luke chapter10 about testing of Jesus by an attorney (cream of the society) for his inheritance to eternal life, and you know Christ’s simple answer, 1) love God with your whole heart and 2) love neighbor as yourself. It sounds simple but you know with the parable of “Samaritan” it requires special wisdom and simplicity, possibility of acquiring that quality by a highly qualified person is remote, like a camel finding a needle from the ground. By your posting above it looks to me you have already comprehended the total message of the Bible and concluded that the Bible incited heinous crime to perform in history and it (The Bible) is incomplete in communicating the Gospel message. May your faith bless your heart! As per your faith on modern prophet and doubt on ancient Gospel writers and disciple of Christ do you think modern men are more pious than ancient people?

As you said “God can still be in our lives whether a Bible ever existed or not.” That is not true, without Bible you and I would worship idol as a god like ancient people, to whom Gospel was not spread. And God does not live with idol worshipers. Mormon Church’s basis is the Bible. Christ is the vine and all denominations are branches. Whoever remains with the original vine could find the Father, no other additional character necessary. But it is not that simple as it sounds, you and I know that. True Christian believes Christ is the reconciliatory with God the father and His commandment and teaching of disciples as found in the Bible are more than enough to inherit eternal life, if we really could follow. As we find in modern time hybrid variety of fruits and vegetables, same way some Church have been evolved as hybrid and you know the difference between organic fruits and hybrid variety. This is an opinion not criticizing others believe.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 23rd, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Julian says: “without Bible you and I would worship idol as a god like ancient people.” Well, Julian, the first generation of Christians didn’t have the New Testament and they did okay. Until the protestant reformation brought the bible out into the daylight, I imagine that something less than 1% of Christians had ever read any portion of it, partly because so small a percentage of the population could read, and partly because the Bible for most of those years was only available in Latin, a language the common people didn’t understand even if they could read.

The bible is a historical document OF THE CHURCH, and can’t be separated from the church that created it. As one of my seminary professors said, Islam and Judaism are “book” religions; that is, they have canonized a particular book, whereas Jesus didn’t write a book; he founded a church. And that apostolic succession from then to now is what makes us a church. The bible is just one of its by-products, along with Amazing Grace and the Book of Common Prayer. People give it way too much authority.
Julian Malakar Says:
January 24th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
“The bible is a historical document OF THE CHURCH, and can’t be separated from the church….”- Caleb

Caleb, are you ashamed of acknowledging the Bible as historical documents of “TRINITY AND SALVATION FOR MANKIND IN EARTH” along with as you acknowledge as a record of Church development? If that is not true how did you came to believe Jesus, Trinity and salvation for whom Church was founded? May be this misconception developed for fear of not being able in using message of the Bible for current demand of the world, such as homosexuality as we discussed earlier.

There is no question of advantage of recorded history over passing the truth by story telling from generation to generation. All the books of the Bible are the fundamental truth of the Almighty embedded in words with unlimited wisdom. Every generation, by understanding Holy God from the Bible has obligation to sow seeds of the Bible to minds of the people so that the seed can grow spontaneously in the minds without obstacle from evil. Thus many Christian books are being written by the inspirations of God keeping intact with the Bible to glorify God not personal reputation as a great scholar. The Book of Common Prayer is one example. Please refer to the parable of sowing of seeds in the Bible for better understanding of our unstable mind. I know you read Bible. The Bible is the subject of God, how one can expect thunder out of blue sky. In other word how we could expect divine dwelling in a mind that does not believe or read the Bible. Anything saying in the name of God is not God’s word, like “all that glitters is not gold”. You know Caleb God of Abraham do not write a book; rather inspire us to write using our talents and our love for Him.
Caleb Powers Says:
January 24th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Julian asks: “Caleb, are you ashamed of acknowledging the Bible as historical documents of “TRINITY AND SALVATION FOR MANKIND IN EARTH?”

Julian, it’s not an issue of shame. I try to analyze Biblical texts with the same tools one might use to analyze any other historical document. This is scholarship, not emotion; shame is an emotion.

What I am unwilling to do is treat the Bible less seriously than I might treat any other document, and that means I must treat it with the same degree of intellectual skepticism with which I would treat anything else. If the Bible cannot stand up to that level of rigor, it’s the authors’ fault, not mine.
John Hamilton Says:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:01 am
I must agree with Caleb on this one, Julian. I respect your reverence for the Bible, but when it comes right down to it, each word in the Bible was written by a mortal man (or possibly woman) as he was inspired by God. This inspiration was “filtered” through his own perceptions, his talents, his ability to communicate with the art of writing, and his culture and it’s influences on how he could convey such a message. Timeless truths are certainly contained in such writings, but they are sometimes obscured and misinterpreted by the reader’s own perceptions, talents, etc. Much of the Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, is obscure to us, even scholars, to one degree or another simply because the context has been long lost. That said, the Bible is certainly a useful tool. One can be inspired by its words even if their full meaning is not entirely clear. We are blessed for the mere effort of trying to understand, I believe. On the other hand, much of the Bible is simple and strait-forward. The key is this: God inspired Abraham, Moses and others without any of them having a “Bible,” and in some cases, without any sacred writings at all. The early Christians did not have a bible. The Gospels were not even written down until many years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The earliest writings were the letters of Paul, and some of those are of questionable authorship (not that they still don’t have value).

If God came down and told you that every word in the Bible is perfect, translated perfectly, transcribed perfectly, and contains all truth, then I won’t argue with you. He hasn’t done so for me, despite all my honest effort. I believe God inspires each of us, usually in subtle ways, to lovingly nudge us in the right direction as we sincerely strive to be good. I believe in continuing revelation. If God could talk to Moses and inspire him to lead the children of Israel, why can’t He inspire leaders today? God never asks us to follow leaders blindly, just like He never asks us, in my opinion, to follow the Bible blindly. What Moses said thousands of years ago may not apply perfectly to our individual situations. Jesus’ parables of sheep and fishing were more relevant to the understanding of the culture He was in at the time. Why can’t He inspire similar parables and teachings that apply to TV-watching computer programers and such today. Even the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, in Mormon theology, don’t always apply perfectly with the situations we are faced with today, only 160 years or so after his death.

Again, the Bible is a great tool—so are prayer beads, I suppose. But the object of the prayer is not the beads, they are merely an object and an aid. Worshiping the prayer beads or insisting they are absolutely necessary is, in my opinion, a form of idolatry. Much like the Law became the focus of worship in Christ’s time among the Jewish culture (and is still to some extent among them today). The same goes for people who “worship” the Bible as if it were absolutely necessary and who feel they could not know God without it. It’s great to have, but when it comes down to making a choice between either knowing God or knowing the Bible, I would choose to throw the Bible out.

Recent Comments

Polls

2008 Archives

2007 Archives

Arkansas megachurches

Arkansas' largest denominations

Endorsements

KY FAITH BLOGS

Largest KY denominations

Largest U.S. churches

Woman knocks over Pope at Midnightish Mass

200 Responses to “Woman knocks over Pope at Midnightish Mass”

Leave a Reply