![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 29. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2005, at 10:53:28
In reply to Political wrest, posted by rayww on February 22, 2005, at 0:20:13
"First do no harm"
"I don’t want our government to change my definition of marriage."
Ray - no matter what the government does it doesn't have the power to change *your* definition of marriage. It is what it is, and that is that.
But is your definition the same as the biblical one? From what I've heard from you I don't think so. Although there are many biblical examples to the contrary marriage then meant many wives, marrying your brother's widow if she's childless. Women then were often treated as property. and so on and so on.
These things evolve as human relationships and civilizations evolve.
-----------------
"Virtues of love, sacrifice, morality, kindness, responsibility, accountability, integrity, honesty, can best be developed within its framework."
All of these things are things to strive for, but I don't believe that it is limited to a traditional (whatever that is) marraige. The same-sex couples that I know are just as moral, kind and honest as anyone else.
My love=based ideal government would give respect and recognition to any couple who loves each other. I don't believe I have any right to judge that they are doing wrong.
The children? The laws of nature say that a same-sex couple will not reproduce, so any children are likely to be adopted. In reality, those adopted children are usually older or disabled - children no one else wants. Is this adoption worse than the foster care system? I don't see how it could be.
"just as long as you don't hurt anyone"
Posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2005, at 10:55:17
In reply to Political wrest, posted by rayww on February 22, 2005, at 0:20:13
What are the canadian politicians proposing?
Posted by rayww on February 22, 2005, at 23:30:28
In reply to Re: a question » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2005, at 10:55:17
http://news.google.com/news?q=Canadian+government+gay+marriage+law&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr
Posted by rayww on February 23, 2005, at 0:34:09
In reply to Re: Political wrest » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2005, at 10:53:28
Either we aren't visualizing the outcomes or we are wearing the wrong glasses.
If gay marriage was legalized would they wait until marriage to explore the sexual side of the relationship? We are messing with the definitions. I always thought sex outside of legal marriage was fornication or adultry, commonly defined as "sin" by the Bible.
I would not deny religious belief or freedom to anyone. I hope you don't think I condemn fornicators or any other sinner. I believe in gay rights as people. I believe in love. But if the law tries to tell a Mormon bishop that he has to perform a marriage, or that a gay couple must be allowed to marry in the temple if they are living the moral code, just how is that going to happen? I mean, Hello. Does the Bishop then adopt the label of bigot and become the guilty, prosecutable for denial of that freedom?
Why can't we call gay union something beside marriage? There is nothing wrong with giving gay couples certain rights, but why call it marriage? The term marriage has been taken and is sacred, or should be. Has been for billions of years on every other earth.
I am concerned that Canada is no longer considered a Christian nation. Canada hasn't learned that you can't give all the rights to everyone and not infringe on someone's.
AuntieMel, you are a respected writer on this board and what you write makes sense. Would you label me a bigot for standing up for my beliefs? http://www.zionsbest.com/proclaim.html
Posted by AuntieMel on February 23, 2005, at 8:38:43
In reply to Re: Political wrest » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on February 23, 2005, at 0:34:09
There are degrees of bigotry, you know. There is the bigotry (which is natural and harmless) that says 'I think my way is better' and there is the (in my opinion harmful) that says 'if you don't agree with me you are evil.'
And there is the traditional use of 'bigotry' that defines it as hatred toward a person or class of people for being what they were born to be. In my opinion that it the worse of all - as it says that what nature, or god, created is bad.
I believe (don't hurt me, Dr. Bob) that you are showing the first type of bigotry. The same kind all of us have to one degree or another.
I think both of us see the outcomes, but don't view them in the same manner.
So - to the questions and my take on them.
------------------------------------
"always thought sex outside of legal marriage was fornication or adultry"I respect that this is what you believe and I would fight for your right to believe it. However it is a belief based on your religion and not all people feel the same.
Either way, I believe that sex outside of legal marriage is a personal decision, between the person and his maker/conscious. And I believe governments have no right messing with it. [this goes with my 'as long as you don't hurt anyone' philosophy. note that it also means adults for the same reason]
------------------------------------------------
"But if the law tries to tell a Mormon bishop that he has to perform a marriage....."
To me this would be denying the Mormon bishop his freedom of religion. And I believe that is also not the government's right. Under US and Canadian constitutions and under what I consider simple human morality.
Tolerance goes both ways.
-------------------------------------------------
"Why can't we call gay union something beside marriage? There is nothing wrong with giving gay couples certain rights, but why call it marriage? The term marriage has been taken and is sacred, or should be."
There is what I consider the whole problem. What rights and what to call it.
One problem is that marriage has had dual definitions for years. It refers to both the religious status *and* the legal status. People that go before a judge for the legal status are called married, though not recognized by any religious organization. And religious ceremonies are not recognized by the state without the proper registration.
I believe that a gay couple should have the same status as any couple that goes before a judge. Give it another name? Sure, as long as same sex civil unions are called the same thing.
-----------------------------------------------
"I am concerned that Canada is no longer considered a Christian nation. Canada hasn't learned that you can't give all the rights to everyone and not infringe on someone's."
Two points. Why should Canada be considered a Christian nation? As opposed to any other religion or none at all. Why does a government have to be associated with any creed at all?
I'm hoping that your answer won't go back to the 'majority bowing to a vocal minority' theme from another thread.
Second point: How can giving rights to anyone infringe on someone else's rights?
----------------------------
Thank you for listening to my views. I'm really enjoying this discourse. I have to admit {grin} that when I saw how much you posted on faith that I wouldn't have guessed we could see eye to eye on anything. It just goes to show that not all preconcieved notions {really big grin} about Christians are true.
Posted by rayww on February 23, 2005, at 23:40:36
In reply to Re: bigot? that depends » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on February 23, 2005, at 8:38:43
Thank-you for calling me a Christian.
This isn't a subject I feel I can discuss here without getting banned, but please be clear I do not consider myself in any way a bigot. I am truly for those less fortunate, choose for my best friends those who have few, fight for the cause of the one who needs my support. (but ignore my husband, so good night, I'm off)The problem is, there are so many who have made a mockery of marriage through abuse, cheating, and swinging, etc, that there isn't much hope of salvaging the tradition. Regardless, we the mormons will and you can count on that. Eternal, forever, beyond death marriage is central to our belief.
I thought flower power was about saving the world.
We live in really challenging times. Political prophesy is being fulfilled, and will accellerate. We had a Christmas tsunami, I wonder what Easter will bring.
Posted by gromit on February 24, 2005, at 5:21:35
In reply to Re: bigot? that depends » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on February 23, 2005, at 23:40:36
I don't know much about Mormons and I'm going way off topic, but here it is. From your post I take it you believe in a Daniel/Revelations-mark of the beast-cashless society-end of the world type scenario. I find it ironic that it would likely be the Republican party, with all their moral posturing, to be the ones who would deny our privacy rights to the extent this could happen. They are on that path already, when they say less government what they really mean is less regulation of big business. They have wanted all this spy power for years and 911 was their excuse.
I don't really believe any of this will happen. I'm not religious but I did go thru 12 years of christian schools, more or less. Just wanted to start a discussion.
Rick
Posted by AuntieMel on February 24, 2005, at 8:07:36
In reply to Re: bigot? that depends » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on February 23, 2005, at 23:40:36
Was not so much about saving the world as it was about living in harmony with it and the people on it.
It's about saying that it fine to be a Christian, just as it is fine to not be one. It's about not thinking my way is the only way.
I feel marriage is a promise. A promise to stand together, to trust, to laugh and cry together, to face the future together.
I feel that those who abuse, cheat, etc. are breaking that promise. I also feel it is morally wrong as it breaks the rule of 'just as long as you don't hurt anyone.'
But I don't feel they have the power to make a mockery of marriage, and they certainly don't have the power to make a mockery of *my* marriage.
And neither does any government.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 24, 2005, at 8:24:00
In reply to Political prophesy » rayww, posted by gromit on February 24, 2005, at 5:21:35
It could be an interesting discussion. But maybe start a new thread on it?
Posted by AuntieMel on February 24, 2005, at 8:29:34
In reply to Re: bigot? that depends » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on February 23, 2005, at 23:40:36
I don't think you will get banned for how you describe yourself. The problem is that babblers need to be *very* careful to not be judgemental of other views.
From what you've written here, I don't think you are a judgemental person. Who are we to judge anyway, right?
Maybe the trouble is that you are so passionate about your beliefs that you sometimes post without considering the words carefully enough?
Posted by rayww on February 24, 2005, at 16:35:09
In reply to Political prophesy » rayww, posted by gromit on February 24, 2005, at 5:21:35
---start a poliltical religious discussion?
Actually the Mormons are the only ones who believe the world will never end.
but I like how you describe the scenario..
Posted by rayww on February 24, 2005, at 17:26:50
In reply to Re: Political prophesy » gromit, posted by AuntieMel on February 24, 2005, at 8:24:00
--on PBF or PBP?
Posted by rayww on February 24, 2005, at 17:33:14
In reply to Re: getting banned. » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on February 24, 2005, at 8:29:34
this is babble, right? and we all have labels? so why can't we swing with an idea?
Where else can one babble under the umbrella of psycho, as long as we're not judgemental?
Posted by gromit on February 25, 2005, at 3:24:54
In reply to Re: Political prophesy, posted by rayww on February 24, 2005, at 16:35:09
Well, like I said I know very little about the Mormon religion. All I know is I used to walk my dog by the church and had friendly conversations with the members.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 25, 2005, at 10:37:05
In reply to Re: Political prophesy » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on February 24, 2005, at 17:26:50
Since the topic is religion's role in government affairs I would say PBP.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 25, 2005, at 10:43:54
In reply to Re: getting banned., posted by rayww on February 24, 2005, at 17:33:14
The key phrase is 'as long as you aren't judgemental'
Which is why the phrases 'my religion teaches' and 'according to the leaders of my church' make most things accepted.
On something that would be really controversial it wouldn't hurt to add 'of course I respect other people might not feel the same'
I myself don't offend easily. But there are many here who do and I often have to rethink what I write to take that into account.
And even then, I've had to do some real quick apologies.
So - on to political prophesy....
Posted by AuntieMel on February 25, 2005, at 10:55:30
In reply to Political prophesy » rayww, posted by gromit on February 24, 2005, at 5:21:35
There is a small faction in the 'right wing evangelistical' group of republicans who have combined their beliefs with their politics.
They believe in the 'rapture' and believe that in order to get to it there must first be an apocalypse. They also believe that this apocalypse will happen in and about Israel.
To help the process along, they are against any Israel Palistinian resolution and until Arafat died they were seeing things properly in motion. Calling them terrorists (to an extreme degree) made the situation more of an 'us or them' than it needed to be - and all Camp David accords were left behind.
There must be a huge war over there before the rapture.
Now, I personally am a zionist and strongly believe in Israel's right to exist. But I don't think that has to be at the expense of the Palistinians and a compromise could be reached.
This government seems to have installed several of this mind into cabinet positions and high office positions. That really worries me.
Maybe this is why the budget isn't such an issue to them?
Disjointed, I know, but a place to start.
Posted by rayww on February 25, 2005, at 16:35:34
In reply to Re: Political prophesy and fringe groups » gromit, posted by AuntieMel on February 25, 2005, at 10:55:30
Count me in. I'm just watching for a block of time.
Without stating things such as "if you don't see things my way you're not part of the saved group" I wonder if we might start a list going of documented political prophesies.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 26, 2005, at 1:38:04
In reply to Political prophesy » rayww, posted by gromit on February 24, 2005, at 5:21:35
> the Republican party, with all their moral posturing ... They have wanted all this spy power for years and 911 was their excuse.
Please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on February 26, 2005, at 10:08:46
In reply to Re: Political prophesy and fringe groups, posted by rayww on February 25, 2005, at 16:35:34
I know no reason not to do that. I'm assuming you are talking about the prophesies that are believed to predict future worldly events.
There should be no trouble as long as you start with one you believe pertinent and we keep the discussion limited to how this might fit in with current events.
In other words - keep it as 'detached' as if we were discussing Nostradamus. And not make it a discussion of 'this is what I believe and all other interpretations are wrong'
Just a reiteration - and for anyone else that may want to join in. I don't see you behaving that way anyway - at least not on purpose.
Posted by rayww on February 26, 2005, at 12:21:28
In reply to Re: Political prophesy » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on February 26, 2005, at 10:08:46
First of all a lesson on spelling:
Prophecy means the inspired utterance of a prophet, held to be a declaration of divine will
Prophesy means to speak as a prophet or to predict, or to reveal by divine inspiration.From http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,FF.html:
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
Calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets:
From the writings of Josephus concerning the fulfillment of Prophecy in 70 AD:
http://www.familylifecenter.net/html/resources/josephus.html
Book VI, Chapter II
Fulfillment of ProphecyAnd who is there that does not know what the writings of the ancient prophets contain in them,—and particularly that oracle which is just now going to be fulfilled upon this miserable city—for they foretold that this city should be then taken when somebody shall begin the slaughter of his own countrymen! (110) And are not both the city and the entire temple now full of the dead bodies of your countrymen? It is God therefore, it is God himself who is bringing on this fire, to purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions.”[1]Islam believes in ancient prophecy:
http://clubs.indiatimes.com/iclubs/pages/18377/purdah%20and%20women%20in%20islam.htmlCatholics share some of their most famous Christian prophesies:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12473a.htm
A vision of George Washington “Son of the Republic” that is in line with visions of modern prophets:George Washington, Valley Forge, Winter 1777
In this regard, the things Joseph Smith related go hand in hand with what George Washington foresaw in his vision at Valley Forge concerning the future of this nation, particularly, it's third great trial, which is recorded in the Library of Congress."And again I heard the mysterious voice saying, `Son of the Republic, look and learn.' At this the dark, shadowy angel placed a trumpet to his mouth, and blew three distinct blasts; and taking water from the ocean, he sprinkled it upon Europe, Asia and Africa. Then my eyes beheld a fearful scene: from each of these countries arose thick, black clouds that were soon joined into one. Throughout this mass there gleamed a dark red light by which I saw hordes of armed men, who, moving with the cloud, marched by land and sailed by sea to America. Our country was enveloped in this volume of cloud, and I saw these vast armies devastate the whole country and burn the villages, towns and cities that I beheld springing up. As my ears listened to the thundering of the cannon, clashing of swords, and the shouts and cries of millions in mortal combat, I heard again the mysterious voice saying, `Son of the Republic, look and learn.' When the voice had ceased, the dark shadowy angel placed his trumpet once more to his mouth, and blew a long and fearful blast.
"Instantly a light as of a thousand suns shone down from above me, and pierced and broke into fragments the dark cloud which enveloped America. At the same moment the angel upon whose head still shone the word Union, and who bore our national flag in one hand and a sword in the other, descended from the heavens attended by legions of white spirits. These immediately joined the inhabitants of America, who I perceived were well nigh overcome, but who immediately taking courage again, closed up their broken ranks and renewed the battle.
"Again, amid the fearful noise of the conflict, I heard the mysterious voice saying, `Son of the Republic, look and learn.' As the voice ceased, the shadowy angel for the last time dipped water from the ocean and sprinkled it upon America. Instantly the dark cloud rolled back, together with the armies it had brought, leaving the inhabitants of the land victorious!
"Then once more I beheld the villages, towns and cities springing up where I had seen them before, while the bright angel, planting the azure standard he had brought in the midst of them, cried with o loud voice" `While the stars remain, and the heavens send down dew upon the earth, so long shall the Union last.' And taking from his brow the crown on which blazoned the word `UNION,' he placed it upon the Standard while the people, kneeling down, said, `Amen.'
Books of Interest in this regard
The Constitution, a Heavenly Banner, Ezra Taft Benson
The Coming of the Lord, Gerald Lund
Spiritual Survival in the Last Day, Blaine and Brenton Jorgason
This Nation Shall Endure, Ezra Taft Benson
The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil, H. Verlan Anderson
The Proper Role of Government, Ezra Taft Benson & Elder H. Verlan Anderson
The Title of Liberty, Ezra Taft BensonEzra Taft Benson, former Minister of Agriculture under President Eisenhower, later a Mormon Prophet has written much on the subject.
Mormon prophecy specific to our day:
http://www.jeffhead.com/liberty/ldslettr.htm
A book that shows how to prepare for the future:
"Spiritual survival in the last days"
Prophesies by Joseph Smith that have been fulfilled:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml
Posted by rayww on February 26, 2005, at 12:35:43
In reply to Re: Political prophecy, posted by rayww on February 26, 2005, at 12:21:28
"Spiritual survival in the Last Days" by Yorgason
Error on the book double quotes link. this is the one I meant to link to.
Posted by rayww on February 26, 2005, at 12:39:44
In reply to Re: Political prophecy, posted by rayww on February 26, 2005, at 12:35:43
"Spiritual Survival in the Last Days" by Blaine and Breton Yorgason
Posted by rayww on February 26, 2005, at 12:55:05
In reply to Re: Political prophesy » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on February 26, 2005, at 10:08:46
I think I forgot to read the directions. Perhaps we could start with the George Washington prophecy and ignore all the rest in my other response. Washington's was very specific to the United States of America
I knew this would be difficult, which is why I hesitated to get into it. Strange, it only took me about three searches to find what I was looking for. Of course then the five minutes quickly grew to two hours becasue it was all so very interesting.
> I know no reason not to do that. I'm assuming you are talking about the prophesies that are believed to predict future worldly events.
>
> There should be no trouble as long as you start with one you believe pertinent and we keep the discussion limited to how this might fit in with current events.
>
> In other words - keep it as 'detached' as if we were discussing Nostradamus. And not make it a discussion of 'this is what I believe and all other interpretations are wrong'
>
> Just a reiteration - and for anyone else that may want to join in. I don't see you behaving that way anyway - at least not on purpose.
Posted by gromit on February 26, 2005, at 14:18:23
In reply to Re: Political prophesy and fringe groups » gromit, posted by AuntieMel on February 25, 2005, at 10:55:30
I think you are on the money, I have often thought that part of the motive for invading was to give the whole apocalypse thing a kick-start. We've destablized the entire region even further, we're occupying two Arab countries and making threatening gestures towards others. I don't know where they think we would get the troops to attack these other countries, the only way would be to draft more. People aren't exactly lining up to join at the moment.
I agree that the new administratrion is even more extreme than the last, it was obvious that Colin Powell wanted out a long time ago. He was the only real moderate, I'd vote for him yesterday if he ran considering the candidates the Democrats have trotted out lately. The think that really bothers is the arrogance, not being willing to admit they have made any mistakes. http://www.abacon.com/commstudies/groups/groupthink.html, this reads like a summary of this administration IMHO.
Israel's existance can almost make me believe there is a god. They're a little tiny country surrounded by people who just want them to die, yet they kick the living <insert expletive> out of all comers. They absolutely have the right to exist and we should do all we can to support them.
Ok, the Palistinians. They aren't doing themselves any favors with all these attacks and we all saw groups of them dancing in the streets when the towers came down. It makes it pretty easy to paint them all as terrorists. I'm sure most of them are like anybody else, they just want to be left alone to do their thing. Unlike you I don't believe there can be any compromise and the reason can be summed up in one word, Jerusalem. It will never work, the fringe on both sides will see to it.
About the budget, it seems to be the Reagan budget part II, tax less, spend more on the military, cut social programs, dig us deeper into the hole. We do need a strong defense but as a deterrent, not to be the bully of the world. Besides, military might is not what is needed to defeat our current enemies. After this budget proposal I wonder how many farmers, among others are re-thinking their support of Bush.
One more thing, does anyone else think the "tax rebates" Bush gave out after his first win amounted to a bribe? Vote for me and I will give you money.
You thought your post was disjointed...
Rick
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.