Psycho-Babble Faith Thread 611474

Shown: posts 6 to 30 of 30. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. deirdrehbrt

Posted by Simus on February 23, 2006, at 0:40:04

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 22, 2006, at 22:53:30

I am touched by your openness and honesty. I will try to bare my heart with you as you have with me.

(Dr. Bob, may I preface the following with the statement "it is my belief..."?)

God, as I know Him, IS love. He just can't Himself. He loves people. It isn't what He does, it is Who He is. But He is also pure, and for this reason, sin separates people from Him. Knowing the sinful nature of people after the fall of Adam, out of love He prearranged a "once-and-for-all" atonement for sin, Jesus, His beloved Son, Whose death and resurrection would be the ultimate sacrifice for all mankind. Jesus opened the door back up for man to fellowship with God the Father. That's why Jesus said He was the way to the Father--because He knew He would pay the ultimate price to bridge the gap caused by sin, once and for all.

Do I believe that a non-Christian can get into Heaven? Understanding the nature of God and His vast goodness, I believe that He will "open the understanding of" everyone before it is too late so that they may choose to live with Him in Heaven, or reject Him for eternity. So yes, I believe that everyone who calls upon the name of Jesus will be saved. Please don't tune me out yet. Stick with me for a moment longer. I wish I could explain this more eloquently, but I will do the best I can with what I have. I wish I could just hand you my heart so you would know what I know and feel what I feel. Knowing Jesus as I do, I can't imagine anyone truly knowing Him and still rejecting Him. He is the only one Who knows me so completely yet loves me in spite of all my shortcomings. No human has ever given me that kind of love and acceptance. No "religion" has ever done that for me. In my darkest hours, I feel His peace wrap around me like a warm blanket. He gives me words of encouragement when I just don't think I can go another step. When I am at the end of my rope, He sings songs to me that drop me to my knees in tears of love. I don't want to cram religion down someone's throat. I am trying to say, perhaps somewhat awkwardly, that I would wish for all people to get to know Jesus the way I do, and if they did, He would capture their hearts forever. If anyone doubts His existance, as I did at one time, I just wish they would say, "Lord, if you are real, come and show yourself real to me like you did to that lady on PB." Anywho...

About the whole acceptance thing, I have noticed that one thing Christians sometimes have a hard time with is "loving the person, hating the sin." Christians also occasionally forget that being judgemental, gossiping, etc. are sins too. I have a laundry list of things I take before the Lord and want to be free of, but it is almost always a process I have to go through. For instance, I have to let go of unforgiveness on a daily basis, sometimes hourly, depending on how deeply I was wounded by someone. And I don't consider myself better than someone else because my sins are "lesser" than someone elses. Sin is sin.

So there it is. My faith. Thank you for sharing, and thank you for receiving.

Peace be with you!

 

Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. Simus

Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 23, 2006, at 1:33:53

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. deirdrehbrt, posted by Simus on February 23, 2006, at 0:40:04

Simus,

Thank you for sharing your heart. I have no doubt about your faith in Jesus. I honor your path. I beleive it is right for you.

Still, I think that Deity is much larger than can be described within the pages of a single volume. I see Deity, God, Goddess, revealing itself to many peoples in many ways. I think that Deity has existed all along, in all parts of the world since the dawn of time.

Some say that without God, there would be no goodness, no true love. The calvanists speak of the Total Depravity of man, it is one of their foundational principles. I don't see that. I see honor and goodness within the tribes of Native Americans. Certainly, too, they had their wars, but that has been a theme of mankind from the beginning. For honor and self sacrifice and unconditional love to exist, Deity must have had a hand. Otherwise, these civilizations would not have achieved that which they did.

Having evidence of the hand of Deity throughout the world, I can only come to the conclusion that among all peoples, there have been those who worship an ultimate Deity (God). We may have different names, different means of worship, different means of learning about Deity. Still, in the end, there is one.

As far as the belief that God gives everyone a chance to open their understanding, most of the world's population doesn't have that chance. There is some progress in China, but it is very much discouraged. Some other countries are violently anti-Christian. And then there is the question of all of those people in the western hemisphere prior to about the 1400's. I just don't believe all of these people are left behind.

Of course, as a Christian, it is your holy duty to spread the good news. It is fundamental to your faith that Jesus is the only way. I respect that.

With the exception of exclusivity to salvation, I think you would be surprised to find out just how much our faiths have in common. I'll admit that there are some significant differences as well, but there is alot of common ground.

As far as praying to Jesus, I sincerely have. I spent a great deal of time on my knees. In the end, I was led in a different direction. You're probably thinking that I've been deceived. I can't believe that. I have found a love and acceptance and a freedom, as well as a charge and duty that fills me in a way that is tangible and holy. It's not a trick of some Satan.

In the end, it's not really offering worship to a different God, it's a matter of understanding Deity in a different way. I understand that as a Christian, that's quite difficult for you, and I respect that. It's not my place to try to convince you of my ways. I just hope that we can honor each other's beliefs, and I do, and live together in friendship. I think that if we can do this, then we are truly honoring Deity.

Many blessings,
--Dee

 

Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. deirdrehbrt

Posted by Simus on February 23, 2006, at 6:43:46

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. Simus, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 23, 2006, at 1:33:53

I am a firm believer that everyone must have free will to make their own decisions when it comes to their faith. I honor your decision, as you have honored mine.

It was a pleasure "meeting" you.

 

Re: Lynn, An answer. Long.

Posted by rayww on February 25, 2006, at 15:57:51

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. rayww, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 22, 2006, at 23:07:08

> Rayww,
> Thanks for your post.
> I once, was Mormon as well. The missionaries I had spoken to taught quite a bit. There were parts that they left out until after I was baptized thoguh.

<<<<<
My opinion is that missionaries only teach the basics. They want you to discover your own testimony of Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ and the Book of Mormon. Once you have that foundational testimony, it is up to you to study and grow and apply the same principles of testimony to everything you learn, step by step. Testimony can be fragile and requires care. Testimony is divine communication from God that witnesses that something is true or divine. All people from all religions can receive it in their search for God, because it truly leads the way to Him. It is this divine force that keeps religions alive, because once a person receives it he thinks his religion must be the one God is communicating in, therefore true. (that's just my opinion of why religion got so mixed up, thinking every man made package, though different, is true) But I can see how easy it is to get out of step.

If life were such that every good deed produced blessing and every evil deed caused you to suffer, it would be very clearly defined. We know that evil sometimes brings temporary peace and happiness, and even the good suffer. So there is obviously a deeper meaning to life in all of its complexities.

> I truly enjoyed the musical Saturdays Warrior, and still listen to some of that music. I went on missionary splits, I visited the Joseph Smith memorial in Vermont.

<<<<<
I was in the chorus in Saturdays Warrior when our stake put it on. It was quite an experience.

> This was another part of my journey in trying to discover where I actually fit. In the end, I didn't fit there.
> Still, I have enormous respect for the church. As a whole, I don't think I've seen more commitment to values anywhere else.
> Mormons would seem to have a need to allow for other religions. With many different worlds, it would seem that the plan of salvation would have to be just a bit different on each. Jesus Christ would be the savior for this world, but perhaps not for the worlds before.

<<<<<<
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22worlds+without+number%22&search.x=19&search.y=3
I think we don't quite comprehend who Jesus is. We only need to worry about one God, and shouldn't try to comprehend the vastness of creation, especially if it will become a faith-weakening experience for us.

> I just couldn't get past the idea of men becoming Gods. The phrase "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." seems just a bit out of reach for me.

<<<<<<
--until you think of it in terms that Jesus (God) came to earth in a body, and still has one. We're not talking instant fix in this tiny speck of existance. Man regards himself pretty special indeed if he thinks the whole universe was created just for him, or just for this one earth. Creation is going on as we speak always has and always will. There is a scripture that sums it up well, "this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/1/39#39
So, we are pretty important. We bring glory to God by helping with creation, and taking care of the things you mention.

> Still, I agree with you that all religions need to work together. This world, her plants, animals, waters, earth and sky have been entrusted to us. She is also our mother for in a very real sense, we come from her. Every atom in our body was once part of the air, the earth, or the ocean. It will take more than one religion to care for her, and for all of the living things, including each other.

<<<<<
very very true! Think of what a difference it would make if we could all work together. It all fits together neatly in God's plan of salvation. http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22plan+of+salvation%22&search.x=37&search.y=3

People of my faith believe all things were created spiritually before they were created here on earth in the physical sense. It will become inseparably connected at the time of resurrection, but not until then. Your belief ends with mother earth, we believe there is a spiritual element to all of creation that is separate from earthly elements. Every living thing has spirit, and that spirit is obedient to God. Except man's, because man has the power of choice. He can choose to become like God or like Satan. Most of us try to sit the fence, but the world is now to the point where there is no luke warm. You're either hot or cold, because we get sucked in fast no matter which side of the fence we choose, and the fence is really hard to hang onto.

> I remember when I was a member, the only disappointing thing was not being able to watch Battlestar Gallictica, because it was on a night we weren't to watch TV. I found this weird as the show was a Mormon TV show. :-)

<<<<<
I never heard of it being any kind of Mormon show, but family rules differ from home to home, just as individuals differ, and families. If that was the only disappointing thing, I wonder why you left :-)

I think of it as God standing at one end of the line and Satan at the other, with all of us somewhere in between. There's no such thing as used to be, it's all an important part of who we are today. I am who I am because of who I was yesterday, and who I hope to become tomorrow.

> Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, and for the memories.
> --Dee

<<<<
thanks to you as well. I'm curious if you remember reading any of the scriptures I referenced. Did you ever read the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price? It is the preface to the first book of Moses in the Bible (Genesis), and though it was had by Nephi on the brass plates in 600 BC, somehow disappeared from the Bible. For reasons known only to God wickedness prevents us from having certain scripture, and righteousness brings it on. All scripture is in God's hands. He has the power to give us what we need and deserve and if the world is steeped in wickedness He may withhold some from us until there is a righteous pocket large enough to receive it. If we could all ban together on some of the big issues facing Christianity and Humanity in general it would make a huge giant difference. We might begin by loving and caring for eachother, and respecting nature. I mean how often do you sit down to a good steak and think about the animal that gave its life so you might live? Or the plant or the bird. We need to open our eyes to what is going on here and see more than just ourselves and our own view point. There is a place for all people and all viewpoints, but good will prevail. The pocket is growing larger day by day in spite of the suffering that surrounds us. Perhaps it grows because of suffering. You think? :-)

rayww

 

Re: Lynn, An answer. Long.

Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 25, 2006, at 19:36:14

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long., posted by rayww on February 25, 2006, at 15:57:51

Rayww,
I don't remember specific passages from the Doctrine and Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price, though I had the book. I'm certain that I read great parts of them as I've always read everything that I could about what engaged me.
As far as what lead me away from the Church, it was learning more controversial teachings after having been baptized. I felt that I was fed what was palatable before, perhaps much as one feeds a baby a liquid diet, then cereal, then real food. It's just that the real food didn't in any way fit what I had known about God. Maybe it does for others. That's fine.
Here is a link that discusses the relationship between Battlestar Gallactica and the Church.
http://www.proaxis.com/~sherlockfam/art5.html
As far as thinking of the animal when eating meat, I certainly do. Life requires the taking of life. Even vegetarians, refusing to eat meat, need to recognize that there are animals displaced and killed in the act of creating a field on which to grow vegetables. Too, the plants themselves are living things killed to nourish our bodies. Life, except on a very small scale cannot exist without death.
Anyway, the final reason for my leaving the Church was that I am transgendered. The Church refuses to accept the biological nature of this condition, rather attributing it to Satan, as something which can be renounced. Reconcililation with the Church is not possible, at least until they come to the truth regarding this issue.
Instead, I've found my path in Pagan traditions. These seem to me to be somewhat more enlightened. My ancestors, who lived on this continent before the Europeans were much more open in this regard, not viewing it as a curse or abomination. Hopefully, some day, the world will realize that being GLBT isn't a choice or a sin, but rather just a way of being. I know that this probably is anathema to your beliefs, but honestly, I don't hold that against you in any way. I just know from years on my knees that this wasn't a burden that God was presently going to lift. It was a part of me with wich to deal.
It has certainly given me a perspective on suffering, intolerance and hatred.
Anyway, thank you for your reply. I wish you blessings and peace.
--Dee

 

Re: please be civil deirdrehbrt

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 25, 2006, at 20:41:59

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 22, 2006, at 22:53:30

> I just saw how the word f r [*] g was splatted. In my faith, this is not a naughty word. It has been rendered obscene by modern culture, but Fr*g is a goddess of love. It's sad how a deities name can get one into trouble. Sigh.

Sad, but true. Please don't use language that could offend others.

But please also don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.

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

 

Re: please be civil

Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 25, 2006, at 22:53:49

In reply to Re: please be civil deirdrehbrt, posted by Dr. Bob on February 25, 2006, at 20:41:59

So, if the word poghf had two meanings, one which was peace, and the other which was obscene, and it was used in a context CLEARLY indicating it's CLEARLY un-offensive CLEAR meaning, that it would still be CLEARLY interpreted in it's MOST offensive manner?
Unbelievable.
Totally unbelievable.
Give a blessing, get a slam.
Had it.
bye.

 

Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. deirdrehbrt

Posted by rayww on February 26, 2006, at 8:24:31

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 25, 2006, at 19:36:14

I read that you are both alcololic and transgendered, each of which could add to the problems associated with the other. I have weaknesses also. All people have their share. The church has a set standard that cannot be broken without causing spiritual damage. In the church we must remain close to God in order for his will to be done through us. It is a fine line but a very protective one, and it is very strong. Any time I give in to my weakness this line becomes weaker and weaker, but when I resist it becomes stronger. I am one who from time to time has tried to live life close to the edge. I can no longer do that and survive. I have learned the hard way what it all means. The principles of righteousness are simple and the same for everyone. You can get carried away on Galatica if you want, but that isn't reality. The church has a sexual standard that gets broken by most, but through repentance and hard will the line can be fixed. We live in the trenches too and are there to help. Yours is a humanity issue that needs support and love. I'm sorry you weren't offered it and that you still suffer. A lot of people suffer in life with a lot of different problems, all of which can be eased and even fixed by this line I speak of, that leads to Jesus.

 

church and sexual standards? rayww

Posted by Tamar on February 27, 2006, at 12:06:40

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. deirdrehbrt, posted by rayww on February 26, 2006, at 8:24:31

> The church has a sexual standard that gets broken by most, but through repentance and hard will the line can be fixed.

Which church? My church doesn't have such a thing.

 

Re: church and sexual standards?

Posted by rayww on February 27, 2006, at 20:26:48

In reply to church and sexual standards? rayww, posted by Tamar on February 27, 2006, at 12:06:40

> > The church has a sexual standard that gets broken by most, but through repentance and hard will the line can be fixed.
>
> Which church? My church doesn't have such a thing.
>
>

<<<<
Tamar, mine is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Re: Lynn, An answer. Long.

Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 27, 2006, at 20:27:09

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. deirdrehbrt, posted by rayww on February 26, 2006, at 8:24:31

Ok.... Maybe I'll try to give Babble one more shot. E-mails and chats with other babblers seem to show some people actually like me here.
Anyway, in answer to your last post, I'd like to make one first thing a little more clear. I'm NOT gettign carried away with Battlestar Gallictica. To me, it's good science fiction. That the show was done by Glen Larson, who happens to be a member of the Church, and that he managed to fit some of the theology into the program was an interesting aside. I though, that being a member of the Church, you may be interested. That's all there is to the TV show.
As far as being an alcoholic, this does not mean that I drink. I do not. I choose not to every day. I know quite well where drinking will lead me. The last time I drank, I awoke in intensive care. I do not wish to do that again. I don't believe drinking to be evil. I do believe being out of control to be contrary to that which deity would have for us. I am overcoming a genetic physical addiction to a substance. For me, drinking is no longer an option.
Regarding moral standards, every faith has them to some extent. That's part of what defines a faith.
My question to you though would be this: When faith and science conflict, where does one turn? Some turn to their precepts, and some turn to science. It happened with Galileo. Science discovered that the world wasn't the center of the universe. Indeed, it's not the center of the solar system, and the solar system is not the center of the galaxy, and so on. The Catholic church did not agree with this knowledge, and Galileo was branded a heretic.
Some believe that the world was literally created in six 24 hour periods. Some believe that God created woman inferior to men. That's all OK. Belief in faith is one thing. When, however, science contradicts faith, a choice must be made. One must choose to continue to believe in the precepts of his or her faith, or to believe science. In some cases, religion will come to integrate the science into it's beliefs and find reconciliation. This is the wisdom of God in action.
In my case, being transgendered, I tried turning to faith. Faith left me wanting. I had tried counseling with church counselors. I delved deeply into prayer and study of scripture. It didn't work.
A point of information is needed before I proceed. There are different kinds of transsexual people that go beyond the Male to Female and Female to Male categories. Some people classified as transsexual are not actually transsexual. There are some, who may be homosexual. Some of these people, finding they have a strong attraction for the same sex, but feeling this is very wrong can begin to feel instead that they are actually not their birth sex. This is a psychological method for coping with information about themselves that they cannot accept. There are others who come to a decision to alter their birth sex to further a drag-queen persona. There are other reasons also.
There are also many further types of trandgendered people. There are those born with x-y chromosomes who appear to be female. There are those with x-x chromosomes who appear to be male. Nature truly produces sex and gender along a continuum, with the heaviest distributions at either end. I think it unwise to either ignore, or to try to fit those in the middle into a category not of their choosing. Indeed there are statistics that rate the incidence of death among transsexual people as high as 50% by the age of 30, mostly due to suicide. I understand these feelings all too well.
In my case, these feelings began as soon as I noticed a difference between boy and girl. At 3 or 4 years of age. It has nothing to do with sexual preference or "having fun dressing up". It's who I am. I cannot act convincingly my birth sex. Indeed, in grade school, my peers shunned me because I could not convincingly be one of them.
I take some comfort in the fact that science is moving increasingly toward a better understanding of the genesis of this condition. Post-mortem examinations of the brains of people like me have shown physical differences. Genetic and in-vitro theories are showing promise. In the end though, all that I hope for in the understanding of the cause is some understanding from those who are now critics and antagonists.
On the other hand, your church is not mine. Your beliefs are not mine. While I respect yours, I have my own, and I too have deity to whom I am accountable. I need to honor that which I am. Too, I have to do so living in a world in which the continuum of gender is perceived not to exist. My ancestors called us berdache. We were those who could bridge the gap between male and female. We were considered sacred. Our present world has made that something bad, something to be hidden. Living between genders is not only unseemly, but it can be fatal. So, I must make a choice, and the one I have chosen is the one that is right for me.
I feel comfortable with my choice, and comfortable with deity. I am learning, slowly, to view this as one of those blessings that initially feels a curse. Deity found a way for me to deal with this without resorting to taking my own life. I am grateful.
I have no wish to change your views on this subject. The Church is quite clear, and the prophets have spoken on this subject. You, as a member ought to follow your church's teachings. I understand too, that you speak from a genuine concern regarding my spiritual condition. I admire that, and I thank you.
I ask from you that you recognize my choices, honor the fact that I believe they are right for me. We each have our own beliefs, and from our individual perspectives, each is as valid as the other. So, I respect your beliefs. I trust your motives. I wish you well.
Blessings,
--Dee

 

Re: Lynn, An answer. Long.

Posted by rayww on February 27, 2006, at 21:53:56

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 27, 2006, at 20:27:09

di I am proud of you in so many ways. I don't hold anything against you for your life. I believe you have tried very hard to figure it all out, and you have your share of challenges. I don't understand the problems you face or their association with the church. God loves you I am certain. I have a question that has to do with the larger picture, after we die, we know (believe) that those who are mentally retarded here will be whole there, those who lose an arm or a leg here will have it restored there, and those with sexual disorders here will be normal there? What is normal for you? Do you consider what you live with to be a disorder or is there another normal that I am unaware of? Will there be homosexuals in heaven if homosexuality is a mental or physical disorder rather than a mixture of choice? I would assume that if it were a mental disorder that a person who was born with it would be fixed, but if it was a result of choice, a person could be hurt by how long it might take to overcome the longing or the addiction after they die. I realize no one has these answers, but it is something to wonder about. I have a daughter who is not married and is long past the age when most women marry. She keeps herself pure. I think there are many who do. I have a friend who is about the same age who is attracted to women, she is not married and keeps herself pure also. It can't be that easy, but neither have messed with it, and gotten addicted. They both live rich and fulfilling lives. How does a person know if they are or they aren't until they experiment with it?

True science and true religion will never disagree with each other. 170 years ago religion told us we shouldn't smoke. Science didn't figure it out until later, so we chose to obey religion not knowing why. Religion has told us that marriage between a man and a woman is God's way, that they should love and care for eachother and nurture their children. We don't know why it is so important to God, we just do it. Maybe some day we will understand and know all the answers. I am glad I have true religion. It has never let me down. Just like you, mine is right for me. I don't think you would be writing on the Faith board if you didn't have a little faith mixed in with your other belief. I'm glad you decided to stay. If you're uncomfortable with my thoughts and questions I'll leave. But I think you understand them and seem willing to discuss openly, and I like that.

 

Re: meanings

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 27, 2006, at 22:38:39

In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 25, 2006, at 22:53:49

> So, if the word poghf had two meanings, one which was peace, and the other which was obscene, and it was used in a context CLEARLY indicating it's CLEARLY un-offensive CLEAR meaning, that it would still be CLEARLY interpreted in it's MOST offensive manner?

I'm sorry you felt it was a slam, but I'm glad you're still here. The only meaning in the dictionary I use here is:

usually vulgar : COPULATE
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fr*g

Bob

 

Re: please rephrase that rayww

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 27, 2006, at 22:38:44

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. deirdrehbrt, posted by rayww on February 26, 2006, at 8:24:31

> The principles of righteousness are simple and the same for everyone.

> You can get carried away on Galatica if you want, but that isn't reality.

> neither have messed with it, and gotten addicted.

> True science and true religion will never disagree with each other.

> Religion has told us that marriage between a man and a woman is God's way

> I don't think you would be writing on the Faith board if you didn't have a little faith mixed in with your other belief.

Keeping in mind that the idea here is to respect the beliefs of others and to be sensitive to their feelings, could you please rephrase the above?

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

 

Re: please be civil deirdrehbrt

Posted by Simus on February 27, 2006, at 23:41:53

In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 25, 2006, at 22:53:49

Sorry about the PBC. For the record, I wasn't at all offended.

 

Another long one....

Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 28, 2006, at 2:08:14

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long., posted by rayww on February 27, 2006, at 21:53:56

Rayww,
First, I'm sorry you got hit with a "Please rephrase that". In your post below, I answered with my explanation of our conversations, and what I believe them to mean. I'm not taking any offense to what you are saying.
Now to your questions.
My concept of death, and what happens afterward may be different from yours. I don't believe in the three kingdoms. I do believe that we do continue, and that we shall have a life. I'm not certain what form it will take. Perhaps there is reincarnation. That seems to work for me, as I have had a number of experiences that point in that direction.
In any case, homosexuality was considered a disease until just a few years ago... when the DSM IV came out. I don't remember the year. prior to that, it was considered a disease because it was 'deviant' from the rest of society. Since that time, we have learned that human sexuality exists on a continuum. There are those who are exclusively heterosexual, there are those who are exclusively homosexual, and there are those inbetween. There are some who may expirement once or twice not being sure, and there are those who are certain in either direction, and have no need of expirementation.
I don't believe it to be a disease. I believe that honest and sincere love between any people is sacred. It can be any combination of gender, the love isn't generated from the body, but from the spirit. The body is a vessel. It shall decay. It shall become dust once again.
In my faith, which deals with spirits or souls more than the body, we recognize that we shall meet again. There is a saying that says "to fulfill love you must return again at the same time and place as the loved one, and you must remember and love them again."
We don't have scripture, per se, but we do have writings of some people that we hold dear. This is one that some of us hold dear.
I don't believe that I will necessarily return in a body of the same gender. I don't believe that I was necessarily the same gender in a prior existence. I'm not sure that spirit has gender. That is part of the reason that I believe that true love has the capacity to transcend gender, and why I don't believe that homosexuality is necessarily wrong.
Too, I think that the heterosexual community could learn much from the homosexual community. Heterosexual males seem to me, to be quite frightened of appearing homosexual. So much so, that they have distanced themselves from many experiences of affection.
When I was growing up, I was compelled to act like a male. I was taught that boys or men ought not to show affection for each other. When attending a movie with a male friend, it was proper to have one empty seat between us to prevent people from thinking we were too close. That sort of stuff.
Many years later, still trying to "play the man", a friend, who is gay, was celebrating his union to his partner in a church. I attended the wedding. I learned a very important lesson that day. Perhaps I wasn't offended because I didn't see myself as male, but when I went to the receiving line, I received a kiss from my friend and his partner. What I learned that day was that a kiss from a gay man, to another man, is not a sexual act. It can be a sincere way of saying "I love you, thank you for being here".
A kiss can be a wonderful way of communicating, but because we have become so afraid of possibilities of interpretation, it is lost to a great part of our culture.
As far as your friends who keep themselves pure, I'm happy for them, if they are truly happy. They may well be. I have a lesbian friend who is celebate. It is her life, and she is content. I am happy for her too. I believe that there are good catholic priests who are gay, but chose to live a celebate life dedicated to God, rather than enjoying the love and companionship of another man. In some cases, I think this is sad. I think that they retreated into the priesthood because they were afraid of what being gay meant. Serving God wasn't their primary purpose, rather, it was a means of escape.
The same holds true for celebacy, in my mind. If it is one's calling, then by all means, attend to that calling. That is a just, noble and good thing, worthy of honor. But if instead of a calling, it is a retreat, that then, is sad.
I'm not casting any judgement on your friends. I'll assume the noble choice for them. I have no reason to assume otherwise, and to doubt the nobility of an action in a person I do not know would be wrong. No matter what, I admire thier convictions and their adherence to their faith. That is nothing but commendable.
I disagree somewhat with your description of homosexuality as an addiction. I see that as no more of an addiction than heterosexuality. In either relationship, the sexual act is seen as something both pleasurable, and sacred to the relationship. It is a physical act that brings a couple together on a deeper level. Calling one sacred, and the other an addiction just doesn't work for me.
An addiction is something that I know something about. Being an alcoholic, I understand the physical compulsion, the mental obsession, and the spiritual loss of values that comprise an addiction. When I take a drink, it is impossible for me to stop until I am either out of alcohol or too drunk to drink anymore. That is the physical compulsion. When not drinking, I would obsess about drinking. It got to the point where if I didn't want to drink, I would dissociate, and actually watch myself going into a store and buying booze. That is the mental obsession. The spiritual loss of values came in when I would do things hurtful to my family just to be able to drink. Things such as driving (I would say I wasn't drunk, but I'm certain that my blood alcohol level would have said otherwise) while drunk, with my children in the car; or driving drunk with no-one in the car and putting a great many people at risk anyway. The spiritual loss of values involved putting myself ahead of the good of others. It made me into a being seemingly more worthy than the rest of the world. A hedonist.
So, that's what an addiction means to me. It means being out of control, and valuing that drink, or drug, or whatever, more than anything else.
Hetero, or homosexual love is expressed physically and emotionally. The lover has a deep need to fulfill, and be fulfilled by the beloved. Were it about sex alone, should the beloved die, or go away, it would seem that the lover would seek another to fulfill the physical need. Such is not the case in the committed homosexual or heterosexual couples that I know. Certainly there are promiscuous homosexuals, but there are promiscuous heterosexuals as well. The existence of promiscuity in some cannot point to homosexuality being an addiction in all homosexuals anymore than it can point to love being an addiction in heterosexuals.
In my mind, homosexuality is merely another state of being. It is challenging. It means that finding your beloved may be quite costly in this culture. For that matter, being any brand of GLBT is costly. A while back I read in a newspaper of a friend of mine who got severely beaten just because she was recognized as being transgendered. She was hospitalized, but fortunately recovered.
This also gives lie to the argument that LGBT people do this for 'fun'. Certainly it wasn't fun for me to be beaten nearly every day in school. Certainly it wasn't fun for my friend in Rhode Island. Nor is it fun for any of us to be hurt, or hear of friends being hurt. The case of Matt Sheppard sent waves of agony through our community, while some anti-gay demonstrators have parties dancing on his grave. Certainly, this must prove that what we are doing isn't for the fun of it.
Again, there must be another explanation. And again, the only one that I can come up with is that it is another manner of being. Of course, it is one that some churches will say is in error. I don't begrudge any church from making rules for it's members. Too, I recognize that if a member of a church disagrees with the laws of that church, then he or she has the right to leave, and ought not to try to force that church to change it's ways just so they can feel comfortable.
I agree that true science and true religion will complement each other. There have been cases in the past where religion has been shown to be in error, and there have been cases where science was in error. When the errors were rectified, each grew. Deity put the marvelous clock of the universe in motion, and science has a sacred task of understanding it.
We, the faithful, your church through scripture, and my faith through understanding nature and experiencing deity personally, come to an understanding of what deity asks of each of us. It is your belief, and that of your church that a proper relationship is between a man and a woman. I honor that for your religion. My religion holds the love between two committed people as sacred, regardless of gender. Does this mean that Deity is divided? I don't think so. I think that it means that we, as human beings are unable to fully comprehend deity. Were we able to, we would be deity. Perhaps, different religions are created with different rules in order to accomodate the unique differences among a diverse people. And maybe all of these religions exist, with all of their different ways of expressing love, tolerance, or intolerance, joy, reverence for the numinous, all of our different concepts of who deity or God is, and our utter humanity, just to bring glory to the creator. Maybe all of this shows just how impossible it is to categorize deity in a single set of beliefs. Maybe this variety exists in order to teach each of us that there is so much more than can be contained in our limited understanding.
I have no doubt that your religion never let you down. I have great respect for the LDS. As I said before, the Chruch's dedication to morality and family and faith were such that I haven't seen in any other church that I have been a part of. If you remember, or re-read, I never said that the church let me down. I don't believe that it did. What I said was that what I learned after baptism was not something that I could reconcile with my understanding of God at that time. Still, I can't accept the beliefs and teachings of your church. That in no way diminishes my respect for it.
As far as faith mixed in with my other belief, my other belief is my faith. Faith is that which defines our relationship with the universe and with deity, or the spiritual realm. My faith tells me that there is one ultimate deity. That deity is neither male nor female, but is beyond sex. It encompasses all of what we call male and female. Though defined as polytheistic, our 'gods' and 'goddesses' are actually aspects of deity, much as many names were given God by the Jews, each recognizing certain aspects of God. A list of some of the names is:Ehiyeh sh'Ehiyeh "I Am That I Am": a modern Hebrew version of "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh".
Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchak ve Elohei Ya`aqov "God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob".
El ha-Gibbor "God the hero" or "God the strong one".
Emet "Truth".
E'in Sof "endless, infinite", Kabbalistic name of God.
Ro'eh Yisrael "Shepherd of Israel".
Ha-Kaddosh, Baruch Hu "The Holy One, Blessed be He".
Kaddosh Israel "Holy One of Israel".
Melech ha-Melachim "The King of Kings".
Makom literally "the place", meaning "The Omnipresent"; see Tzimtzum.
Magen Avraham "Shield of Abraham".
YHWH-Yireh (Yahweh-Yireh) "The Lord will provide" (Genesis 22:13, 14).
YHWH-Rapha" "The Lord that healeth" (Exodus 15:26).
YHWH-Niss"i (Yahweh-Nissi) "The Lord our Banner" (Exodus 17:8-15).
YHWH-Shalom "The Lord our Peace" (Judges 6:24).
YHWH-Ra-ah "The Lord my Shepherd" (Psalms 23:1).
YHWH-Tsidkenu "The Lord our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6).
YHWH-Shammah "The Lord is present" (Ezekiel 48:35).
Tzur Israel "Rock of Israel".

Though not technically polytheistic, the Jews certainly were aware of the many different aspects of deity.

In the few communications we've had, I can say I am fond of you, and I enjoy this talk. I think that we both realize that we aren't going to sway each other, but in understanding you, I understand myself better, and I hope the same holds true for you. Your questions help me re-evaluate my beliefs. That is something that all religious people ought to be doing. Our beliefs ought to be owned rather than borrowed. Reading and reciting scripture is one thing, but if it is not believed, wholely owned by the believer then it is nothing but legalism. It is when a faith is owned that it becomes something holy. I sense that in you, and I honor it.
I am in no way uncomfortable, threatened or troubled by your questions. I hope the dialog continues.
Believing that all the blessings come from one, I remain your friend,
--Dee

 

Re: please be civil Simus

Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 28, 2006, at 2:15:47

In reply to Re: please be civil deirdrehbrt, posted by Simus on February 27, 2006, at 23:41:53

Simus,
Thank you for that. I certainly don't feel I was offensive. I'll inquire about the double-g spelling. If that works for him, I'll settle for that.
Anyway, thanks for the comment. I do appreciate it.

 

Re: Lynn, An answer. Long.

Posted by notfred on September 6, 2006, at 21:10:07

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long., posted by rayww on February 27, 2006, at 21:53:56

Will there be homosexuals in heaven if homosexuality is a mental or physical disorder rather than a mixture of choice?

Not since 1957 has it been a mental or physical disorder. It is not a choice either.

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/hooker_e.html

Taking her friends' advice, Hooker devoted herself to the study of stable, occupationally successful homosexuals. In 1954, she received a grant from the National Institute for Mental Health, which led to a breakthrough study, published in 1957.

The experts concluded that the gay males were no worse, and sometimes better adjusted than the rest, and proved unable to identify correctly the gay male in each pair.

 

Thank you (nm) notfred

Posted by gardenergirl on September 6, 2006, at 21:46:52

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long., posted by notfred on September 6, 2006, at 21:10:07

 

Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. deirdrehbrt

Posted by Dena on August 9, 2008, at 15:11:57

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 22, 2006, at 22:53:30

> Simus,
> Matthew 18:14 is a nice comfortable verse. When Jesus speaks of his "sheep" though, it's been pointed out quite clearly that He is speaking of His people. In Matthew 25 He describes the judgement, when the sheep are on his right, and the goats are on his left. As I understand it, the sheep are Christians. No non-Christian will enter heaven. I believe one verse says "No-one comes to the father but through the son". Could be wrong, but if I am, please show me where. Do you think that non-christians will enter heaven? If so, they why do so many churches proslytize and send out missionaries with such zeal? And once a society is converted, what happens to it's religion? Mostly, it seems to be relegated to mythology.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This misunderstanding of the words of Jesus (as well as the timing, the relevance, and the intended audience/timeframe), have been the source of much pain for many people who are outside the religion of Christianity, to include, to a huge extend, the Jews.

I cannot fathom why this was left, unsanctioned, to continue to cause harm to others.

Yes, I understand the context of the post, that Dee is here describing how that very misunderstanding has caused her to be harmed by the same institution (Christianity).

But, how can some be sanctioned for speaking of what constitutes anti-Semitism, while this post has been allowed even as it speaks of what constitutes erroneous Christian understanding?

Shalom, Dena

 

Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. Dena

Posted by rayww on August 11, 2008, at 22:04:49

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. deirdrehbrt, posted by Dena on August 9, 2008, at 15:11:57

> This misunderstanding of the words of Jesus (as well as the timing, the relevance, and the intended audience/timeframe), have been the source of much pain for many people who are outside the religion of Christianity, to include, to a huge extend, the Jews.
>
> I cannot fathom why this was left, unsanctioned, to continue to cause harm to others.
>
> Yes, I understand the context of the post, that Dee is here describing how that very misunderstanding has caused her to be harmed by the same institution (Christianity).
>
> But, how can some be sanctioned for speaking of what constitutes anti-Semitism, while this post has been allowed even as it speaks of what constitutes erroneous Christian understanding?
>
> Shalom, Dena

<<<
I'm not certain exactly what you are saying Dena. Salvation belongs to Jesus because he created it. Other religions do not believe in Salvation. Let them believe in whatever they will, whether it is reincarnation, paganism, or whatever else. We in America believe in freedom of religion, and that has done well for America. Look at us.

Is Salvation mentioned in the OT? In what context? Jesus invented/created the idea of salvation. It was Jesus who invented/created resurrection too. If we were to give credit where credit was due, everyone would fit somewhere. No one would be left out of anything, because if Jesus is real, if He invented salvation, if what He says is true, then we will all see Him one day, and have the privilege of working out our salvation from there with Him. If He is not real, then we have nothing to worry about because when we're dead we're dead.

In the mean time, it would be good if we tried not to totally mess up our life here.

God has told us a few hints on this too. Like, Love the Lord, don't kill anyone, use sex appropriately, don't steal, envy, lie, cheat, or bear false witness. Eat properly, take care of your body, spirit, and mind.

Many people live a celibate life and seem to get along all right. what about the woman or man who through no fault of their own doesn't meet and fall in love with a person they want to marry? What about the person who takes an oath of celibacy?

Every one of us lives with our own personal challenges, none of which needs to keep us from salvation, if that's what we believe. It is good to believe in something, whether its Jesus and salvation, or some other form of belief. Belief is what gives us hope, and hope is connected to faith. Faith is connected to God. Do we need to connect the dots to find it for ourselves?

 

Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. rayww

Posted by Dena on August 11, 2008, at 23:24:28

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. Dena, posted by rayww on August 11, 2008, at 22:04:49

I don't want to detract from the message here, or the situation at hand.

Your understanding of the Bible, and of both covenants doesn't resonate with me -- I see it quite differently, and do not wish to debate here.

No offense intended -- just being aware of appropriate boundaries. My post was not about what I believe, but about the inconsistent sanctioning that's done here, by the administration.

Shalom, Dena

 

Lou's request for clarification-wnurnturnt rayww

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2008, at 21:54:07

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. Dena, posted by rayww on August 11, 2008, at 22:04:49

> > This misunderstanding of the words of Jesus (as well as the timing, the relevance, and the intended audience/timeframe), have been the source of much pain for many people who are outside the religion of Christianity, to include, to a huge extend, the Jews.
> >
> > I cannot fathom why this was left, unsanctioned, to continue to cause harm to others.
> >
> > Yes, I understand the context of the post, that Dee is here describing how that very misunderstanding has caused her to be harmed by the same institution (Christianity).
> >
> > But, how can some be sanctioned for speaking of what constitutes anti-Semitism, while this post has been allowed even as it speaks of what constitutes erroneous Christian understanding?
> >
> > Shalom, Dena
>
> <<<
> I'm not certain exactly what you are saying Dena. Salvation belongs to Jesus because he created it. Other religions do not believe in Salvation. Let them believe in whatever they will, whether it is reincarnation, paganism, or whatever else. We in America believe in freedom of religion, and that has done well for America. Look at us.
>
> Is Salvation mentioned in the OT? In what context? Jesus invented/created the idea of salvation. It was Jesus who invented/created resurrection too. If we were to give credit where credit was due, everyone would fit somewhere. No one would be left out of anything, because if Jesus is real, if He invented salvation, if what He says is true, then we will all see Him one day, and have the privilege of working out our salvation from there with Him. If He is not real, then we have nothing to worry about because when we're dead we're dead.
>
> In the mean time, it would be good if we tried not to totally mess up our life here.
>
> God has told us a few hints on this too. Like, Love the Lord, don't kill anyone, use sex appropriately, don't steal, envy, lie, cheat, or bear false witness. Eat properly, take care of your body, spirit, and mind.
>
> Many people live a celibate life and seem to get along all right. what about the woman or man who through no fault of their own doesn't meet and fall in love with a person they want to marry? What about the person who takes an oath of celibacy?
>
> Every one of us lives with our own personal challenges, none of which needs to keep us from salvation, if that's what we believe. It is good to believe in something, whether its Jesus and salvation, or some other form of belief. Belief is what gives us hope, and hope is connected to faith. Faith is connected to God. Do we need to connect the dots to find it for ourselves?

rayww,
You wrote,[...Other religions do not believe in salvation...If (Jesus) is not real...when we're dead we're dead...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by what you wrote here. If you could clarify the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accirdingly.
A. In,[...other religions do not believe in salvation...], by what authority do you use to state that?
B. In,[...if (Jesus) is not real...when we're dead we're dead...] could there be an explanation different from that, that could be unbeknownst to you?
C. other aspects not stated
Lou

 

Re: Lou's request for clarification-wnurnturnt

Posted by rayww on August 14, 2008, at 20:10:45

In reply to Lou's request for clarification-wnurnturnt rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2008, at 21:54:07

> > > This misunderstanding of the words of Jesus (as well as the timing, the relevance, and the intended audience/timeframe), have been the source of much pain for many people who are outside the religion of Christianity, to include, to a huge extend, the Jews.
> > >
> > > I cannot fathom why this was left, unsanctioned, to continue to cause harm to others.
> > >
> > > Yes, I understand the context of the post, that Dee is here describing how that very misunderstanding has caused her to be harmed by the same institution (Christianity).
> > >
> > > But, how can some be sanctioned for speaking of what constitutes anti-Semitism, while this post has been allowed even as it speaks of what constitutes erroneous Christian understanding?
> > >
> > > Shalom, Dena
> >
> > <<<
> > I'm not certain exactly what you are saying Dena. Salvation belongs to Jesus because he created it. Other religions do not believe in Salvation. Let them believe in whatever they will, whether it is reincarnation, paganism, or whatever else. We in America believe in freedom of religion, and that has done well for America. Look at us.
> >
> > Is Salvation mentioned in the OT? In what context? Jesus invented/created the idea of salvation. It was Jesus who invented/created resurrection too. If we were to give credit where credit was due, everyone would fit somewhere. No one would be left out of anything, because if Jesus is real, if He invented salvation, if what He says is true, then we will all see Him one day, and have the privilege of working out our salvation from there with Him. If He is not real, then we have nothing to worry about because when we're dead we're dead.
> >
> > In the mean time, it would be good if we tried not to totally mess up our life here.
> >
> > God has told us a few hints on this too. Like, Love the Lord, don't kill anyone, use sex appropriately, don't steal, envy, lie, cheat, or bear false witness. Eat properly, take care of your body, spirit, and mind.
> >
> > Many people live a celibate life and seem to get along all right. what about the woman or man who through no fault of their own doesn't meet and fall in love with a person they want to marry? What about the person who takes an oath of celibacy?
> >
> > Every one of us lives with our own personal challenges, none of which needs to keep us from salvation, if that's what we believe. It is good to believe in something, whether its Jesus and salvation, or some other form of belief. Belief is what gives us hope, and hope is connected to faith. Faith is connected to God. Do we need to connect the dots to find it for ourselves?
>
> rayww,
> You wrote,[...Other religions do not believe in salvation...If (Jesus) is not real...when we're dead we're dead...]
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by what you wrote here. If you could clarify the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accirdingly.
> A. In,[...other religions do not believe in salvation...], by what authority do you use to state that?
> B. In,[...if (Jesus) is not real...when we're dead we're dead...] could there be an explanation different from that, that could be unbeknownst to you?
> C. other aspects not stated
> Lou
>

Lou, if you would like to enter a discussion with me on the meaning of Salvation, perhaps this would be a good place to start: http://byubmp3.byu.edu/edweek06/mcconkie.mp3
Your questions are honest, let me see if I can explain it so that you are able to understand.
What is the meaning of Salvation?
Ans: to be saved from our sins.
Que: why do we need to be saved from our sins?
Que: what will happen to us if we die with our sin?
Que: what is the definition of sin?
Que: What does it mean to be saved?
These questions have many different answers found in many different religions, but as described at the end of the reference above, there can be only one salvation, and it will be the same for everyone, and it would have been taught to Adam the same as it was to Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jesus, and today. It is God's plan of Salvation, and just because our definitions may be a little screwed up, does not alter the fact that there is one salvation - God's.

Jesus kind of shocked everyone when three days after he died he came back to life again, not as he was before, but resurrected, meaning he came back in a physical/tangible body inseparably connected to his spirit, in a form that could travel through space, walk through walls, enter wherever he chose. We don't know what substance he became, because it is not of this world. Jesus was the first one to be saved, and he opened the door for the whole world to go through. The graves were opened and many other people were resurrected at the time Jesus was. There is evidence and witnesses to that pivotal event on earth. It was such that time was measured according to it. BC, and AD.

If Jesus had failed, and had not been able to finish whatever it was he was sent here to do, when you die, you would be dead forever, you would die in your sins, remain in spiritual darkness along with everyone else. There could be no salvation because it would not be possible to be saved from your sin. You would have no hope of ever seeing God again, or being in his presence.

Why?

What is the door? How do we go through it?
"I am the way, the truth and the life". "He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live".

Some people believe in Jesus, and accept the idea of Salvation. Others do not. Just because they do not believe it, doesn't mean it can't happen. Everyone, with no one left behind, will some day have the opportunity to face the door that Jesus opened. In order to go through the door there might be changes we'll have to make. These changes are far easier to make on earth where we have spirit and body to work with because here we can increase our light and knowledge and we can grow more spiritually active, and become the person we want to be, so that at the point when we die, we'll be ready to meet our maker.

 

Lou's response to Dena's post

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2009, at 21:23:38

In reply to Re: Lynn, An answer. Long. deirdrehbrt, posted by Dena on August 9, 2008, at 15:11:57

> > Simus,
> > Matthew 18:14 is a nice comfortable verse. When Jesus speaks of his "sheep" though, it's been pointed out quite clearly that He is speaking of His people. In Matthew 25 He describes the judgement, when the sheep are on his right, and the goats are on his left. As I understand it, the sheep are Christians. No non-Christian will enter heaven. I believe one verse says "No-one comes to the father but through the son". Could be wrong, but if I am, please show me where. Do you think that non-christians will enter heaven? If so, they why do so many churches proslytize and send out missionaries with such zeal? And once a society is converted, what happens to it's religion? Mostly, it seems to be relegated to mythology.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> This misunderstanding of the words of Jesus (as well as the timing, the relevance, and the intended audience/timeframe), have been the source of much pain for many people who are outside the religion of Christianity, to include, to a huge extend, the Jews.
>
> I cannot fathom why this was left, unsanctioned, to continue to cause harm to others.
>
> Yes, I understand the context of the post, that Dee is here describing how that very misunderstanding has caused her to be harmed by the same institution (Christianity).
>
> But, how can some be sanctioned for speaking of what constitutes anti-Semitism, while this post has been allowed even as it speaks of what constitutes erroneous Christian understanding?
>
> Shalom, Dena

Dena,
You wrote,[...the context of this post...]
I disagree with that the grammatical structure of the statement in question leading me to believe a different context.
If anyone would like to see more of what this is about from my perspective, they could email if they like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.