Are all religions cults? OP actually started by Liz

[_JAK]

Just to amplify one point among many good ones marg made –

marg stated:
“The world has 6 billion people, China is having to limit families to one child..since when is having children a moral act?”

Roughly half the world’s human population lives in poverty and at disease and starvation levels. As quantity of life has increased for humans, the quality of life has decreased globally. That is not to say quality has decreased for every person. Of course it has not.

Jason might consider this:

The USA is in the greatest economic down-turn since the Great Depression. And soon all the baby-boomers are going to be retiring placing enormous burden on the US Social Security System, on Medicare, and on private insurance companies. And as we find ways to make people live LONGER even if we don’t greatly improve quality of living, it will cost more and more.

So perhaps the USA has just crossed over the rise and is beginning the decline of the USA society. That strongly suggests that the USA has too many people to support the life-style it has come to enjoy and expect. The jobless rate is now at 7.6% and is expected to rise over 2009. That means fewer and fewer people to pay into Social Security and less money for that and for Medicare.

As the USA deepens its recession, other countries are also feeling the negative effects of that. Even China which makes an enormous number of goods for the USA is laying off workers, and China is experiencing nothing like what the USA has in terms of quality of life.

If gigantic dangers are not seen and truly recognized before the car is going over the cliff, it will be too late to do more than watch the CRASH.

6 billion people is most likely too many people for the planet. How to control that is complex beyond any society or collection of societies to address presently.

Consider the woman in the USA who, with already 6 children, was artificially inseminated with 8 embryos. She now has 14 children and appears will be living in a three bedroom house with her mother. She is not married. She has no income. She was on food stamps BEFORE the 8 babies which she just had. And some of those premature babies will have learning problems and physical problems as a result of being so premature. The hospital which delivered the 8 babies is owed one and a half million dollars for the services they rendered and the cost will rise as the premies remain hospitalized.

Was that a moral decision for the woman and for those who helped her to get into this situation?

Standard of living vs. quality of life is a reality of the present time. That’s the case for concern about global population as well as for the USA (which is already at a far higher level than most of the world).

[_Yoda]

Consider the woman in the USA who, with already 6 children, was artificially inseminated with 8 embryos. She now has 14 children and appears will be living in a three bedroom house with her mother. She is not married. She has no income. She was on food stamps BEFORE the 8 babies which she just had. And some of those premature babies will have learning problems and physical problems as a result of being so premature. The hospital which delivered the 8 babies is owed one and a half million dollars for the services they rendered and the cost will rise as the premies remain hospitalized.

Was that a moral decision for the woman and for those who helped her to get into this situation?

Standard of living vs. quality of life is a reality of the present time. That’s the case for concern about global population as well as for the USA (which is already at a far higher level than most of the world).

With all due respect, JAK, this story seems to be a bit of a red herring. Was this woman a member of the LDS Church? I would be very surprised if she was.

The Church doesn't promote artificial insemination. It isn't particularly against it, either, but the focus is really on families, and raising children...not simply having them, but raising them. The other emphasis the Church puts on raising families involves raising them in two parent homes as an ideal.

I do have a couple of questions about the story that I'm curious about, since you brought it up. If this woman was on food stamps, and already had six children before the artificial insemination, how did she obtain the money for the artificial insemination? I don't really see why Medicaid would pay for something like that. It is certainly an elective surgery. Artificial insemination is quite expensive.

Also, what woman, in her right mind, who already has 6 kids, would want 8 more?

[_Yoda]

No you not demonstrated any such thing, you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of what constitutes good ethics. For example why on earth should having children when the world is being depleted of resources, being polluted..constitute having good morals?

Are you saying that it is unethical to have children? That married couples who want and can provide for children should not have them based on the world's current stance of resources?

You have children. Would you have appreciated someone telling you that you shouldn't have children based on the world's resources?

As you well know, there are a lot of things regarding the Church that I do take issue with, but as far as the emphasis of families is concerned, at least the modern emphasis, which, I grant you, HAS evolved over the past 20 years, the focus is on raising children rather than simply birthing them.

[_marg]

No you not demonstrated any such thing, you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of what constitutes good ethics. For example why on earth should having children when the world is being depleted of resources, being polluted..constitute having good morals?

Are you saying that it is unethical to have children?

I think a strong case can be made that it's unethical for the church to promote large families. They don't have the facts. They don't know the resources of the couples, their capabilities. It's a self interest of the church to increase membership, not a best interest in couples or their future children.

So whether or not having kids is ethical is a matter of looking at who gets hurt in the process. Are the benefits greater than the costs. In some situations it might be ethical, it depends on perspective and situation. Some countries are over populated, some have a population, uneducated and living in poverty with few beneficial prospects for a good quality of life for future children.

If somone is having a large family to be obedient to the church, and that large family is a hardship on the couples, and/or a hardship on the kids such that they don't get emotional support and/financial support due to strain on the family because of size, then again an argument can be made it is an unethical decision.


It's just not always a morally good decision to have kids, or have a large number of kids.

And of course if one looks at the big picture with a 6 billion population of the world then increasing the population by having more than 2 kids per family can be considered unethical.

You have children. Would you have appreciated someone telling you that you shouldn't have children based on the world's resources?

Actually I did in school have a teacher who discussed over population of the world, growth rates and projections based on that, and that more than 2 per family adds to the growth rate. That was about 40 years ago, so population concerns have been discussed for quite some time. It's not anything new.

Let's put it this way, I don't think highly of couples who have large families. In other words, that's their choice and it is deliberate, but I don't think they are doing anything wonderful to be praised about.

As you well know, there are a lot of things regarding the Church that I do take issue with, but as far as the emphasis of families is concerned, at least the modern emphasis, which, I grant you, HAS evolved over the past 20 years, the focus is on raising children rather than simply birthing them.

Well then that is good.

[_Jason Bourne]

That's not the teachings of the Church. Whatever one does to oneself is not immoral unless it affects others negatively. If one overeats to the point they are unhealthy, and that negatively impacts their family that too is immoral. But for Church members to think they are being moral because they don't drink at all, is nonsense.

I believe I pretty much agreed with you. Do you always continue to argue with someone who agrees with you?

Certainly not the act of just marrying and having children. However, getting married and having children and then investing the time required to raise decent members of society is reflective of moral values.

The world has 6 billion people,

So what? This bears on the morals of raising decent persons exactly how? Let me answer. It does not.

China is having to limit families to one child..since when is having children a moral act?

I did not say having a child in and of itself was a moral act. In some cases it is immoral. I said the effort to raise decent responsible citizens is a moral act.

No it doesn't depend on point of view. What others do privately is no business of any one else's unless it can be shown to be detrimental to others

I will concede this one to you. It is to complex to debate on this thread and one I am not all that passionate about.

Serving and giving time to one's chosen faith system reflects good moral values. It is called contributing to society. It is valid form of public service and charity which in most peoples world reflects good morals.

It's not necessarily contributing to society. It's contributing to perpetuation and growth of an organization. Do you consider Hell's angel members performing callings to be moral, or Mafia member callings to be moral? It depends on what those callings are and the purpose of the organization. Because an organization claims religous status does not mean that anything it teaches is true or necessarily good. A good part of religious teachings is a waste of resource of time. Look at the Book of Mormon all that time spent reading it, debating who wrote it etc...all on a fraudulent work..a fictious story passed off as sacred text and historical at that.

It is contributing to an organization that does good and moral things for society. The Hell's angels and benevolent religious organizations are poor comparisons. And it seems to me a good percentage of charity, both in dollars and time, is funneled through religious organizations. Not all things a religious organization does are moral things. But many are. I believe charitable giving would shrivel up if to were left to those who do not believe in a God.

What you have to look at is who does it hurt. One of the reasons premarital sex was discouraged historically is before the birth control pill, there were not good birth control methods and women were dependent on men financially due to unequal jobs and pay available. Now a days the concern is sexually transmitted diseases but that's a concern for those who get married as well, in other words precautions, medical checks can be performed to control for that. I certainly do not think couples need to be married before having a sexual relationship. White House on earth is getting hurt if they do? Why do you wish to negative judge others who are causing you and others no harm?

You and I will never agree on this one Marg. It seems clear to me that there is much hurt that can come from promiscuity over and beyond unwanted pregnancy-which certainly is still way too high. But our world views even without God in this one are just too far apart.

Your opinion of the LDS Church as a fraud is simply that. Not fact as much as you state it as such. All religions have flaws yet they offer valuable community service and benefits and those things are reflective of good morals.

This is like the emperor has no clothes and people don't want to say anything. Jason it is so obvious the Book of Mormon is a fictional story using King James english to sound ancient that it doesn't even need to be debated. Of course it's a fraud, you have to be either heavily indoctrinated or pretty darn naïve to think otherwise.

Smugness in your assertions is unbecoming. I have my own views of the Book of Mormon. But I am not so self assured as you are perhaps to think what I say is always right and obvious that it does not need to be debated.

Well if a religious organization is only concerned with its own then it's not really doing the service because of ethical reasons, the motivation is to help their own, which ultimately helps the organization. It's a good thing except the motivator is not truly about being moral.

LDS people serve those in and out of the church. But much of it us within the church. It makes sense because it is a community and often those in the community are more aware of the needs of other in their community. I am a home teacher to a two widows in my ward. One lost her husband a year ago. I knew him. I promised I would look after his elderly wife only hours before he died. I asked to be her home teacher. Another couple moved into our ward a year ago. He had lung cancer. Because of my own experience with cancer I am I think more sensitive to persons with this disease. I asked to be their home teacher as well. He died two weeks ago.

The experiences I have shared with these people are tender and dear to me. They could be multiplies millions of times over in the LDS Church. Sure I could have gained them elsewhere. But would I have? Would I have sought these things out? Maybe. Maybe not. But the Church gives me a vehicle to serve a segment of humanity in ways that perhaps most people do not take unless there is a vehicle like this to bring them such opportunities.


These are valid moral acts of service whether or not they are limited to the LDS community or not.

Once again marg demonstrates her ignorance of things LDS. I will here not as I have many times on this board that you, in your statement above, make the same mistake as others by focusing on simply disaster and humanitarian aid. You ignore the program in the LDS Church called fast offering. It is the method the LDS Church uses to feed the poor, pay their rent, utilites and so on. I have conservatively estimated that the income and out flow on an annual basis for world wide welfare assistance through fast offering funds to be $500 million annually

.

I see so you have personally estimated.

Yes Marg. And you see I have had personal experience with this having administered it for almost a 6 year period. So you need to see it and see it clearly. It is not based on simple speculation but on actual dollars going out for average wards.

So what have you estimated is the total income they receive per year in tithing? What do they receive on the income of their investment assets per year? What do they receive as income on their businesses per year?
What is their total asset value? And then what percentage to they pay out per year in charity relative to their total yearly income and relative to their Total net worth?

I think Ostling's book Mormon America has the figure fairly accurate.

What do you think the annual operating costs are? How much goes in building maintenance an up keep, missions, church programs, utilities and so on. Let's say the LDS Church brings in 6 Billion a year as Ostling estimates. Do you know how much of that goes for operations? Really this must be known before you condemn the Church for giving to let's say humanitarian aid. One can argue that the Church does 100% charity even to support it programs for its members in say youth group activities and missions. This is part of its deemed charitable work.

So this fast offering is given to fellow Mormons in need and is above and beyond what the church takes in in tithing?

Yes. Fast offerings are earmarked to help the poor and needy. And it can go to non LDS as well.

It is to some extent less moral when there are requirments imposed upon recipients that they hold the same beliefs and the Church.

Why?

My point is that were it not for the financial gain enjoyed by religious organizations many wouldn't exist. The popes used to sell indulgences to gain money and the people with money would buy off their sins.

Unless you can prove that there are those running it that are getting inordinately rich off it I think your point is invalid.

Why don't they release financial records?

I do not know. I think they should. They used to until 1959.

No you not demonstrated any such thing,

Sure I did.

you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of what constitutes good ethics.

Of course I do not understand. I disagree with you.

For example why on earth should having children when the world is being depleted of resources, being polluted..constitute having good morals?

And you are now demistrating that you did not read what I said. Try again.

Also, your comments above are full of dogmatic assertions that are far from conclusive.

I see so you negatively judged people who are homosexual, those who have premarital sex, those who choose to not have kids, those who drink alcohol, as having poor morals. And then you positively judge those who promote and perpetuate a fraudulent organization started up by a promiscuous con man, as having good morals.

[/quote]

You certainly excel at twisting my words.

[_JAK]

Consider the woman in the USA who, with already 6 children, was artificially inseminated with 8 embryos. She now has 14 children and appears will be living in a three bedroom house with her mother. She is not married. She has no income. She was on food stamps BEFORE the 8 babies which she just had. And some of those premature babies will have learning problems and physical problems as a result of being so premature. The hospital which delivered the 8 babies is owed one and a half million dollars for the services they rendered and the cost will rise as the premies remain hospitalized.

Was that a moral decision for the woman and for those who helped her to get into this situation?

Standard of living vs. quality of life is a reality of the present time. That’s the case for concern about global population as well as for the USA (which is already at a far higher level than most of the world).

With all due respect, JAK, this story seems to be a bit of a red herring. Was this woman a member of the LDS Church? I would be very surprised if she was.

The Church doesn't promote artificial insemination. It isn't particularly against it, either, but the focus is really on families, and raising children...not simply having them, but raising them. The other emphasis the Church puts on raising families involves raising them in two parent homes as an ideal.

I do have a couple of questions about the story that I'm curious about, since you brought it up. If this woman was on food stamps, and already had six children before the artificial insemination, how did she obtain the money for the artificial insemination? I don't really see why Medicaid would pay for something like that. It is certainly an elective surgery. Artificial insemination is quite expensive.

Also, what woman, in her right mind, who already has 6 kids, would want 8 more?

liz,

The issue previously raised was one of “moral values.” The example of the mother who has had 14 babies is an example of “moral values.” She is a citizen of the USA and of the world. What she has done and those who helped her do it are issues of “moral values.”

Was her behavior and that of those who helped her to achieve this record defensible? I think not. The questions you raise are appropriate with regard to the funding of this series of multiple events and of this individual who is relying on financing which she is quite unable to fund. The story was widely covered in the USA on major television networks as well as in newspapers.

You, liz, had stated previously: “And, no, I don't find atheists to be morally deficient in any way. Morality depends on each individual's character. Everyone is different. There are a lot of factors involved.”

Hence, “morality” was a topic and term of use in the earlier posts. I agree with your observation that “morality depends on each individual’s character.” Moreover, it depends upon one’s environment and exposure to notions of what is, in fact, moral conduct.

Is it morally defensible to do what this woman has done and which others have facilitated? I think not for the reasons I previously expressed. It was ecologically indefensible. It was financially indefensible. It was socially irresponsible. As you observed, “There are a lot of factors involved.” Now, you were discussing morality. I am discussing morality.

liz comments: ” With all due respect, JAK, this story seems to be a bit of a red herring. Was this woman a member of the LDS Church?”

The question is irrelevant. However, the issue of morality of having 14 children as this woman has is a moral question. It’s a health question. It’s a rational issue as she is quite unable to finance the rearing, the feeding, and the educating of these 14 children to adulthood.

While you make frequent references to “the Church,” such references appear to ignore the fact that there are more than 1,000 religious groups which have emerged and resulted from the Protestant Reformation of 1517. There is no “the Church.” Documentation should not be required, but it is easily available. Various churches (religious groups and organizations) have various responses to this single case as an example of moral question. The example is most relevant to notions and interpretations of “morality depends” as you articulated previously.

Not only “what woman in her right mind” but what fertility clinic or doctor would encourage this most risky behavior? Clearly, it was done. As for “right mind,” that idea, like the idea of “morality” is open to subjective, legal, and rational exploration.

So, I am addressing your comments previously made under this topic as well as those of others.

I also fully recognize that you as moderator can entirely delete my comments, edit them to make them appear contrary to what I have stated, or move them to some other location making it impossible for them to be followed or tracked. So I take the risk in addressing what has been previously stated and addressed under this topic. I find that exercise of deleting or modifying original posts deplorable and dishonest. But I post this recognizing that you or some other moderator can obliterate a comment which you don’t like for any reason or whim.

My address of this woman’s conduct and that of those who facilitated it is an address of moral conduct. The general topic: “Are all religions cults. OP actually started by liz” is the topic under which I have posted comment.

Of course, other issues such as “artificial insemination,” “raising children” (your phrases, liz) are also topics which could have been addressed in my comments. I chose to focus on a specific issue of “morality,” a term which you introduced previously under this topic.

[_marg]

Jason this was the evolution of the discussion:

Marg: At a basic level it's part of the system. It's why the Church claims to exist. It claims to be chosen by a God. How could an individual not pick up from that system how they as individuals are morally superior to all others outside the system? Inessence it's part of the church training program.
By following various rules and being obedient, wearing the garments, going on a mission, not drinking caffeine & alcohol, getting married and having kids, not being homosexual, accepting callings, those sorts of things an individual in the Mormon system equates to having good moral values.

Harmony: So you don't think those things are examples of good moral values? You left out things like staying chaste until marriage, giving service, time, talents and money to the building up of the Kingdom, taking care of the widows and orphans, helping out in times of disaster.

Marg: Let's see

1) not drinking alcohol and caffeine..I don't think it has anything to do with moral values.

Jason:
I agree accept if one drinks alcohol to excess and destroys their life and/or family. That is immoral.

Marg: That's not the teachings of the Church. Whatever one does to oneself is not immoral unless it affects others negatively. If one overeats to the point they are unhealthy, and that negatively impacts their family that too is immoral. But for Church members to think they are being moral because they don't drink at all, is nonsense.

Then you write: " I believe I pretty much agreed with you. Do you always continue to argue with someone who agrees with you?"

I continue to emphasize and expand on ideas. I didn’t disagree with you, but was bringing back into focus the intial point of whether the various church teachings such as “abstinence of alcohol, as one example meant church followers abiding, were acting morally. I’m not interested in the exceptions such as drinking excessively, or when one has an addiction problem. I’m interested in whether complete abstinence by anyone should be an indication of a moral act, because it’s part of the church teachings.

But since you think I’m too argumentative I won’t argue with you any further.

[_Jason Bourne]

But since you think I’m too argumentative I won’t argue with you any further.

Oh Boo Hoo Marg.

You get pretty rough and tumble with almost everyone you debate with here. Get over it.

[_marg]

But since you think I’m too argumentative I won’t argue with you any further.

Oh Boo Hoo Marg.

You get pretty rough and tumble with almost everyone you debate with here. Get over it.

ok I'm over it.

[_Yoda]

liz comments: ” With all due respect, JAK, this story seems to be a bit of a red herring. Was this woman a member of the LDS Church?”

The question is irrelevant. However, the issue of morality of having 14 children as this woman has is a moral question. It’s a health question. It’s a rational issue as she is quite unable to finance the rearing, the feeding, and the educating of these 14 children to adulthood.

The only reason I stated that your mentioning of your story was a bit of a red herring was because you had specifically stated "Jason may wish to consider this" before going into it. Jason had been debating with Marg about what the LDS Church taught that was or was not moral. I didn't state that as a means to offend you. If I did, I apologize.

That was also the reason I asked the question about the woman belonging to the LDS Church. I thought you were integrating more information into the debate between Jason and Marg.

I agreed with you that it was an interesting sidenote, and, frankly, I think we both agree that this was not a responsible action on this woman's part.

The questions you raise are appropriate with regard to the funding of this series of multiple events and of this individual who is relying on financing which she is quite unable to fund. The story was widely covered in the USA on major television networks as well as in newspapers.

I do remember the story being covered, but I don't remember all of the details. I did not realize that the woman already had six children. I knew that she had eight babies. That was all I remember about the case. The information you presented about her already having six children, and not being able to provide for any of them was what prompted my other questions. I was genuinely curious. If you choose not to answer my questions, that's fine. I suppose I can look up the information. I just didn't know all of the details, and you seemed to.

I also fully recognize that you as moderator can entirely delete my comments, edit them to make them appear contrary to what I have stated, or move them to some other location making it impossible for them to be followed or tracked. So I take the risk in addressing what has been previously stated and addressed under this topic. I find that exercise of deleting or modifying original posts deplorable and dishonest. But I post this recognizing that you or some other moderator can obliterate a comment which you don’t like for any reason or whim.

When have I done any of the things you claim here, JAK? The only time I have ever deleted or modified an original post was when that post explicitly went against the board rules which Shades established. I also think it deplorable to simply obliterate a comment on a whim, or edit a comment to make it appear contrary to what someone has stated. If you feel that I have done this, please supply a link where you feel this has been done.

As far as splitting the comments from the Wayneman thread into this topic, I provided reference links so that those who were participating in this conversation would know exactly what was going on. And, I split the comments so that the conversation could be more streamlined, and continue without posts being lost in a thread which had gone way off topic for several pages.