Basic Christianity.

[_Ray A]

I think that some religions are better than others at bringing the widest good to the most people. Ikes I know that is difficult to judge. But if a religion has basic tenets which are ultimately destructive to itself or any outside the group, then I would say that that's probably a recipe for disaster.

Gosh, if I had to pick a religion that were the most 'loving' I wouldn't be able to pick the christianity that has been fostered down the years through different powermongering regimes. (Entirely separate from Jesus' basic theology, which I think I hold to a lot more closely) Maybe Buddhism? Atheism is such a wide term for so many people that I would find it harder to judge whether atheist tenets would be more successful. Maybe humanism?

I think Mormonism is far from "perfect". I think it can (or has been) be "destructive to itself" in some ways, like advocating polygamy. But I do believe the Book of Mormon, largely, "testifies of Christ". I'm not really interested in Godhead definitions here. I have flirted with Buddhism, and considered many other ideas/beliefs, but I feel a certain "grounding" in the gospel accounts, a "realism" I don't see in the Book of Mormon, which I still think is a powerful spiritual record, but one only reflective of the "real source". Maybe a spiritual expansion? Nevertheless I see the gospels reflecting a real, tragic scenario I don't see in Invincible Nephi. The pathos of the gospels, to me, is real.

No, I see no comparison to Buddhism, humanism, atheism, or any other "ism". I think Christ is the final word in our search for meaning. I must be getting old, and all these realisations coming back, which I had at 19! I suppose I have gone full circle, and no doubt I'm mad.

[_Ray A]

P.s. Right on Ray. We follow Jesus because the stories of him, whether they be true or not, are good morals to live by. Who cares of the source of things and whether things were as they are said or taught to be. But rather, the teachings and doctrine are what's important. I once tried to debate that I didn't care the origin of the Book of Mormon, but I go by it's instruction and advice and teachings. To me at that time, it did not matter who wrote it or if it really was by ancient prophets or not. I did not care because I did not read it as a story, that I ought to believe all these things to be true and literal, but rather as a book that contained information on how to deal with certain issues and how it is Ok to trust in a higher being. I gave up. But really! does it matter? If one has faith in a book that it will do them good in their life, whether spiritual or physical, then believe that. But why rest foundations of belief on something that might surely fall. We cannot say for certain the absolute source of the Book of Mormon, we can say that witnesses claim it's origin. But would God really wasn't that we choose to follow a book because it was written or because there is something in that book that we learn from and is good unto us? My point is that we ought not to argue of the origins of the book and whether it is 'true' or not, because the origins are irrelative and obviously the book is true. It is in front of us. We are all refering to the same book. It is ones pro-orgative if they choose to live by the principles in such a book, just as it is of ones choice to drive a certain car or choose to cook from a recipe book. Am I making sense here?


Pirate.

You are a genius.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

P.s. Right on Ray. We follow Jesus because the stories of him, whether they be true or not, are good morals to live by. Who cares of the source of things and whether things were as they are said or taught to be. But rather, the teachings and doctrine are what's important. I once tried to debate that I didn't care the origin of the Book of Mormon, but I go by it's instruction and advice and teachings. To me at that time, it did not matter who wrote it or if it really was by ancient prophets or not. I did not care because I did not read it as a story, that I ought to believe all these things to be true and literal, but rather as a book that contained information on how to deal with certain issues and how it is Ok to trust in a higher being. I gave up. But really! does it matter? If one has faith in a book that it will do them good in their life, whether spiritual or physical, then believe that. But why rest foundations of belief on something that might surely fall. We cannot say for certain the absolute source of the Book of Mormon, we can say that witnesses claim it's origin. But would God really wasn't that we choose to follow a book because it was written or because there is something in that book that we learn from and is good unto us? My point is that we ought not to argue of the origins of the book and whether it is 'true' or not, because the origins are irrelative and obviously the book is true. It is in front of us. We are all refering to the same book. It is ones pro-orgative if they choose to live by the principles in such a book, just as it is of ones choice to drive a certain car or choose to cook from a recipe book. Am I making sense here?


Pirate.

You are a genius.

Huh? That is very nice of you, but do you see that things like this are just common sense. There is nothing genius about it. Besides I am too mad to be a genius. :P

[_Ray A]

Huh? That is very nice of you, but do you see that things like this are just common sense. There is nothing genius about it. Besides I am too mad to be a genius. :P

You sure you're only 19?

[_the road to hana]

Would the world have been better off without Christianity?

Imagine - no religion, no God.

Would we now all be living in peace and harmony?

There was religion, and belief in God, before and without Christianity, so I imagine you're asking two different questions here.

Or else you're singing a John Lennon song.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Huh? That is very nice of you, but do you see that things like this are just common sense. There is nothing genius about it. Besides I am too mad to be a genius. :P

You sure you're only 19?

Definetly. I only look about 16 though. I was once ID'd trying to buy a pair of tweezers.

[_Ray A]

Or else you're singing a John Lennon song.

I like John Lennon. "Imagine" was a rail against religion, especially "man-made" religion.

Not God.

[_Ray A]

Definetly. I only look about 16 though. I was once ID'd trying to buy a pair of tweezers.

Pirate, please do record this in your fascinating blog, and please explain why you had to be ID'd to buy a tweezers. I was never ID'd. At 14 I looked like 18. At 53 I look like 52. That brings me some vain pride.

[_Ren]

I like John Lennon. "Imagine" was a rail against religion, especially "man-made" religion.

Not God.

"Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky"

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Definetly. I only look about 16 though. I was once ID'd trying to buy a pair of tweezers.

Pirate, please do record this in your fascinating blog, and please explain why you had to be ID'd to buy a tweezers. I was never ID'd. At 14 I looked like 18. At 53 I look like 52. That brings me some vain pride.

Very well. I shall. It's funny. Hopefully I stay looking much younger.