imported post
swillden wrote:
Erus wrote:
I would have to pull out the biblical references and quietly state that the means and intention for self defense IS, according to they that writ it, God's Law, which is higher still for most religious dogmas.
On the other hand, the righteous sometimes choose to submit without resistance. It depends on God's goals, and we're incapable of judging what really makes sense in His eyes.
Keep in mind that the LDS faith believes that the leader of the church is a literal prophet of God, no different from Moses, or Abraham, or Elijah or any of the other prophets and apostles who
wrote the Bible. Thus, the faithful have to consider the distinct possibility that the ban on weapons in church is God's Will.
You seem somewhat baffled by the willingness of members to accept the church's decision on this issue, even though we disagree with it. What you're overlooking is that faith trumps such petty disagreements. That's why we accept it, and why you don't.
Yes, the "righteous" must choose. I am just old enough to remember those monks choosing to self-immolate in the 60's. Not too sure how that worked out for thier earthly goals, but at least I remember them. They certainly made thier choice based on thier own faith, perhaps they ascended as they desired. No MAN, regardless of his position of leadership in any religious entity can know, and if he tries to say he does this makes him, in my eyes, false prophet at best.
And yes, we all are incapable of knowing what makes sense in "HIS" eyes... but the church/government leaders are capable? By what divinely bestowed secret knowledge?
Literal prophets.. the last leader of the LDS church just died, and the new guy is now instantly made a literal prophet? Or was he all along and just waiting for his turn? Does that include the other prophets, like Budda, Mohammed? If not, who gets to decide for the rest of us justwho is and is not a valid prophet?Why we do, of course.
The Faithful have many thing to consider, I agree... I do not personally consider BLIND faith to be well considered. Nor do I feel that any MAN'S interpretation of God's willshould be held reasonable or valid if it negates my choices to protect my own life.You seem to, that is your right and I celebrate it, and would die defending it, though I disagree with your choice; that it is YOURS to make is something I hold sacred.
Trust that I am no more baffled by any groups' membership choice to acccept something they dissagree with than I am with any given flock's willingness to be sheared, even though they like the wool they came with.
I am not overlooking that for you, and others, "Faith" trumps what you call petty, I am merely asserting that for me, and many more, I think my(our) right and duty to protect my sacred God-given life, is not petty.
My arguement is not with your choice of religion, or anyone else's for that matter, be they baptist, agnostic, pagan, etc. etc... My contention is that if you leave it up to another, by virtue of "Faith", to guard what is sacred, you have failed to live up to your very own soul and spirit, given to you by whatever GOD you have fraith in.
It boils down to this for me: You enter what you call a house of God, and submit to the humans who control it, in his name. I know that building is ON a house of God, and that no man controls it. You are correct, I do not accept what you do in the name of Faith.
We differ on this obviously, but it is that difference that together, upholding our MUTUAL rights, we preserve and hopefuilly, celebrate.
Erus
