130 replies to this topic

[Reflectionist]

I'm not trying to be a dick, just trying to figure it out. Chill out, if you don't like my personality, fine. Don't. You've been exposed to arunma too much. He's the nice guy. He's the one that KNOWS everything about other religions. I don't. I am Christian, but don't treat me like Arunma, I'm not perfect. Nobody is, just chill the hell out.

Now, back to my quest for ultimate knowledge of Mormonism:

Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why is this? Is there anything in the Bible that says this? Sure, I mean, it kinda sounds like it happens in Acts, but I don't think specifically that's what it is.... is that just open to interperetation? Acts is a history book. It's not one of the books of morals or anything. It should be taken literally....

No?

[Veteran]

I'm not trying to be a dick, just trying to figure it out. Chill out, if you don't like my personality, fine. Don't. You've been exposed to arunma too much. He's the nice guy. He's the one that KNOWS everything about other religions. I don't. I am Christian, but don't treat me like Arunma, I'm not perfect. Nobody is, just chill the hell out.

So because you're not arunma, people shouldn't expect you to be nice? Interesting strategy.

You can't mock someone's religion without realising you're going to wind people up the wrong way. It may not be your intention to ridicule and make fun of mormonism, but you've certainly got to see that your current methods of ascertaining information about the religion is getting on people's nerves. It's religion, dude! It's a touchy subject, so treat it with a little care.

Rather than tell people to chill out, type your posts in a way that doesn't offend. Otherwise your participation in this particular forum will be cut short.


Now that's out of the way, BACK TO ADVENTURE.

[Reflectionist]

So because you're not arunma, people shouldn't expect you to be nice? Interesting strategy.

You can't mock someone's religion without realising you're going to wind people up the wrong way. It may not be your intention to ridicule and make fun of mormonism, but you've certainly got to see that your current methods of ascertaining information about the religion is getting on people's nerves. It's religion, dude! It's a touchy subject, so treat it with a little care.

Rather than tell people to chill out, type your posts in a way that doesn't offend. Otherwise your participation in this particular forum will be cut short.


Now that's out of the way, BACK TO ADVENTURE.

Ok...my bad....

[Fizzbit]

My big question is... was it only men who were allowed to have multiple spouses? Or could women have multiple husbands as well?

[Selena]

Well, if the original purpose was to generate an army of children, one woman with a harem of men wouldn't exactly result in as many youngin's popping out. Would it?



(although it'd be a lotta fun if you could tolerate that much man in one room)

Edited by Selena, 07 May 2006 - 08:53 PM.

[Delphi]

Just the men had more than one spouse, for the reasons that Lena stated now and what I stated earlier.

I think I'd go nuts with so many men in one room...

Oh, and the different wives had different houses so it was a little easier. The wives still mingled and stuff though.

[Reflectionist]

Delphi - did you see my post at the top of the page?

[Chikara Nadir]

Contro is such a silly free-for-all. XP

I didn't mean to sound like I was bashing directly on you, either. I just like to get really loud against or for certain views, not meaning to attack individuals. ^^ Just wanted to make sure that this was clear. Vet and I may be admins, but feel free to state your views without any fear of getting in trouble on the forums unless you go against the Contro rules.

[Nevermind]

So why is it illegal? It can't be because of sex with more than one person (which is quite a skin-deep reason for it being outlawed anyway)? I know it's illegal in the states, as it is illegal here too, apparently. But why? What were the reasons they stated?

[Chikara Nadir]

When the majority decides that a certain idea or practice differentiates too far from what they're used to, it tends to be outlawed or regulated. At least, that's the best I can figure.

[Nevermind]

So basically it's a "we do it because we can". How fitting...

[Selena]

Either...


a) The monogamists saw it as a sin against nature and wanted to enforce a law against it.

b ) The polygamists realized the danger of being surrounded by seven women in a kitchen. With the knives.

Edited by Selena, 08 May 2006 - 02:47 AM.

[Nevermind]

Well I doubt the knife situation would happen, because a guy who manages to charm seven different women into marrying him all at once wouldn't have too much trouble charming a knife out of their hands.

[Korhend]

"Working your way to heaven" just sends up red flags"
Oh yes, our silly papists with our 'helping people' and 'working to make the world better', I can see why we send up read flags.

[Reflectionist]

Korhend:

I meant, that the idea that you can get to heaven on your own accord, is pretty silly.

Sure, that's all nice and dandy to be helping people. Yeah, I encourage it. But it won't get you to Heaven. Not by itself.

[Korhend]

If god is to claim to be just, it is the only possible way. Christianity based on faith alone is pure nihilism.

Edited by Korhend, 12 May 2006 - 10:18 PM.

[Reflectionist]

I didn't say anything to the contrary.

"Faith without deeds is dead."

But deeds without faith are pretty much worthless.

Edited by Reflectionist, 12 May 2006 - 10:23 PM.

[Korhend]

Christianity based on faith is worship of an unjust and immoral god.

Edited by Korhend, 13 May 2006 - 09:35 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Christianity based on faith is worship of an unjust and immoral god.

Christianity based on anything else is not Christianity.

[Chikara Nadir]

Christianity based on faith without spreading the word of Christ vocally and through good deeds seems hypocricy to Jesus' way of life.

[Reflectionist]

Christianity based on faith without spreading the word of Christ vocally and through good deeds seems hypocricy to Jesus' way of life.

Better than half-assing it while holding your hand out and saying "here, give me money and I'll pray for your soul"

Meh, nothing demonstrates the love of Christ like saying the word 'ass' in a post dedicated to apologetics.

Edited by Reflectionist, 14 May 2006 - 12:52 AM.

[Chikara Nadir]

Good point, of course. Just so long as it's made clear that you're against the practice of indulgences (paying money for your sins to be cleared), and not against the total idea of good deeds being used as an example to others of what Christianity stands for.

[Chikara Nadir]

Christ himself said that? o.o And I dunno, that sounds just anti-divorce. XP

[Korhend]

Christianity based on anything else is not Christianity.

Are you claiming catholicism is not Christianity?

[Alakhriveion]

I'm almost convinced, but he also says right after "he who takes a women who has been put away commits adultery", as in if a person marries a person who has already been married to someone else. However this could also be a divorce issue rather than just having multiple partners.

Yeah it is. The NIV translation actually just says "If a man divorce his wife an marries another, he commits adultery."

Polygyny is actually allowed by most religions (mine included). I don't see what, if anything, is wrong with it, although true polygamy might be a little more modern. Yes, it will break down the modern nuclear family. You know who else wanted to do that? Jesus. Deal. (Luke 12:52-53)

[Reflectionist]

Are you claiming catholicism is not Christianity?

I didn't say that. Catholics have faith. Tons of it. But they lose the point of Christianity every once in a while. It's supposed to be a relationsihp, not really so much a religion as in "do this, don't do this, do this, don't do this or you're going to Hell."

That kind of stuff shouldn't even be thought about. Sure, it's okay to do that stuff. But don't put too much faith in that, and lose sight of God's Love. Don't lose sight of love. If you do something just because you've always done it, that's how your religion does it, and it's not out of love.... well...

First Corinthians 13:1-3 [b]The Message Translation[/i]:
1If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don't love, I'm nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate.
2If I speak God's Word with power, revealing all his mysteries and making everything plain as day, and if I have faith that says to a mountain, "Jump," and it jumps, but I don't love, I'm nothing.

3If I give everything I own to the poor and even go to the stake to be burned as a martyr, but I don't love, I've gotten nowhere. So, no matter what I say, what I believe, and what I do, I'm bankrupt without love.

Yeah it is. The NIV translation actually just says "If a man divorce his wife an marries another, he commits adultery."

Polygyny is actually allowed by most religions (mine included). I don't see what, if anything, is wrong with it, although true polygamy might be a little more modern. Yes, it will break down the modern nuclear family. You know who else wanted to do that? Jesus. Deal. (Luke 12:52-53)

Context is a good thing. He isn't talking about marital relationships here.

49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided,father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Nowhere in there did I read the words 'husband and wife.' Did you?

[Alakhriveion]

Oh no no. I wasn't saying that he was against marriage, just the family, which is a structure of unequal power (Father/Son, Mother-in-law/Daughter-in-law, there's a pattern there). Polygamy (but not polygyny) would help get rid of it.

[Showsni]

1 Corinthians 7:2 - each man should have his own wife and each woman should have her own husband. (If they're married at all that is; most of the chapter says it's better not to get married in the first place).

And Jesus isn't necessarily saying that He wants to bring discord to families in the passage Alak mentions - just that He will. And, indeed, has done. Look at all the wars over 'Christianity' for example.