[AbiDrew85]

Abi, I'm sorry to see that you feel you and I cannot have a productive discussion. I'm unsure how my unwillingness to change "sex" to "gender" can be interpreted as discarding anything you say. I can be a bit dense at times, though.

Because this is at the absolute core of my identity and therefore the entire reason the discussion even exists. Gender is a spiritual thing for me. Sex is anatomy 101. Our anatomy is neither decided by, influenced by, nor decides or influences our spirit. Our minds are also a spirit muscle to my perceptions, based largely on principles taught me in my sect of Christianity. I have a female spirit. But I have a male body. This causes a conflict within me, which we'll get to more later.

Since our moderator is intent on letting the kids play, let us play. I'd like to explore the difference, (as I see it) between whole, and damaged. (I will put religious names in parentheses with the understanding that some may not wish to see them, but references must be made in order to conduct the discussion).

OK. I'll try even though I know you'll never get where I'm coming from.

As you said, "Christ" healed. He "healed", he did not "make whole". the people he is said to have healed were damaged in one way or another, but they were still "whole" at the time of healing. Even Lazarus. Seems like splitting hairs, but it isn't, IMO.

Actually...

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&query=made+whole&x=0&y=0

Christ specifically called most of his healings a "making whole". What he was REALLY talking about though was not the physical aspect of his healings, that was just healing, but the spiritual aspect that went along with it. That's the making whole.

Forgive the use of the LDS scriptures site for the references, but it's the easiest Bible for me to link to on the internet. And it's basically just the King James version.

When a person is born with all the necessary parts, and of the correct number, then they should be considered "whole", should they not? When, through an injury, or an illness, their body becomes "damaged" then they require "healing".

Again, you're free to make your own decision as regards what Christ meant by "made whole", but the fact remains that to "make whole" the person must not have been whole. Yet they, mostly, had all the necessary parts in correct number.

Yes, I agree, we should try to heal them.

Healing is of the body... what about the spirit?

There is another side to that, as well. There are a few religious sects whose devoutness and beliefs require them to accept whatever may be visited upon them, and consider it to be "Gods'" will. No medical services allowed. Question being, are they right, or are we? And does it really matter?

Doesn't matter when it comes to explaining my own actions. I am not of any of those sects.

Personally, I feel they are doing a mighty fine job of ignoring basically the entire New Testament.

You can probably see where I'm going here. I would venture to guess that most, if not all, of us here are, by MY definition, whole people.

That would be your definition. But considering your belief system I find it absolutely insane that you continue to ignore how the spirit factors in. By my definition, any damage done to the spirit makes one no longer whole until that is somehow made whole again.

But, are we "damaged"? Do we therefore require "healing". Assuming we have all our required parts, in the requisite numbers, whose determination is it that we are not in the condition that "God" precisely intended us to be in? "God" wouldn't do that?

Oh, yes he would. God has repeatedly allowed evil to be done that we may be tested by it. No, I don't imagine he does it to us himself MOST of the time. But he allows it. He allowed for sin to enter the world and we are now living with ALL the consequences of that allowance. This is part of that.

"He's" described as being vengeful, fierce, and could even be called murderous. Why couldn't he have a sense of humor, and give us something to deal with? After all, we got our sense of humor from somewhere.

Oh yes, he certainly DOES have a sense of humor. Though I don't think my and our experiences cause him any mirth.

This was the reason I mentioned "devoutness". A truly devout "Christian" would have no choice other than accept and deal with a GD situation.

I guess this depends on your point of view. I consider myself VERY devout... But as you can see I'm accepting and dealing with my situation by working to change it. But you see, that's a HUGE part of my particular sects beliefs. When you find yourself in sin, you change yourself to become a better person.

When one mentions "I am a "Christian", I take that as meaning just that. Saying "I come from a "Christian" background, means that perhaps you are a bit more progressive, and able to deal with your perceived GD and not be tied to such a strict interpretation of faith.

For some reason I get the clear picture that you have not had much if any experience with Mormons.

Incidentally, a person of "Bhuddism" would have a whole different outlook on being created with a built-in defect. Perfectly understandable to them. Has to do with reincarnaction and the purpose of the soul/spirit. The phrase "these are the times that test mens' souls" falls right in place with them.

It also falls right into place with us, meaning Mormons.

So, when I ask, are you broken? Are you damaged? That's kind of where I'm coming from. And who made which decision? Us? Do we really have that right? Thus, why I said, some of us will maybe have to abandon a bit of our religion in order to assume the right to make those decisions that our religion supposedly presumes has been made for us at the time of creation.

And I'm coming from a background that believes that WE made ALL the decisions BEFORE the time of creation. As in each individual person had the opportunity to discuss with God what their trials in this life would be, and while God only gave us a few "ordinations" to choose between, the choice WAS ours. And the choice remains ours in this life. The reason I used the word "ordination" and not "destiny" is because nothing in this world is truly DESTINED. It's ORDAINED, but if we make certain choices, that will change even now.

I would, however, take "minor" issue with one thing you posted. You said that man has the "means, power, and knowledge", and should exercise it in "absolutely any circumstances. I imagine you spoke of that in a "healing" sense, but it was quite an open-ended statement. Maybe even a bit arrogant. Therefore, having the means and power to fornicate, be promiscous, maim, murder and so forth should be taken as authority to do so? Sorry, that was a ridiculous statement, in light of what I believe your real intentions were. BUT, man has had that means and power, and abused it before, resulting in a near wipe-out of the human species. Taken a bit further, does having the knowledge to create life, or develop artificial intelligence mean that we should do it under "absolutely any circumstances"? (And those are just a couple of the scary things we DO know about). Assuming that "God" is, above all, honest, and won't send us another flood, maybe he will exercise his "sense of humor" (hopefully with some great sadness) and let us just destroy ourselves. We definitely have the ability, the arrogance, and the lack of good moral judgement to do just that.

Actually, what I said was "Why would God give us the means, power, and knowledge, to do things if we are not to do them under absolutely any circumstances?". What you read it as was "Why would God give us the means, power, and knowledge, to do things if we are not to do them, under absolutely any circumstances?".

A minor little thing, a single comma you inserted that was not there. But it makes a WORLD of difference in the meaning. The question I really posed was to the effect that SOMETIMES we should do what God has enabled us to do. It was a bit of rhetoric really, because of course we should and do do things, all the time. And that's the whole point, it's the LOGIC of WHY the "appeal to nature" you've been repeatedly making is incorrect. Especially when it comes to doing what under any sane compassionate beings perspective would be considered "good".

Hope I haven't confused you, or upset you. While we have come a long ways from the OP's original intent, I am still intrigued with where we have gone, and how we have gotten there. Fire away! Patti

Confusing me is nearly impossible to do, upsetting me... Depends. Lucky for you it's mid-cycle and I'm high on estrogens