121 replies to this topic

[william7]

I don't know what I'm going to do with all you unbelievers who miss the big picture and what's most important in life.

[Luna]

I don't know what I'm going to do with all you unbelievers who miss the big picture and what's most important in life.

Wait.. Wait..
What IS important in life?

[william7]

I don't know what I'm going to do with all you unbelievers who miss the big picture and what's most important in life.

Wait.. Wait..
What IS important in life?

Obeying the commandments so you can enter a long and happy life. This is what Jesus told the rich young man in Matthew 19:16-17. If you're not following the Law as Jesus taught it, you're not really living life as it should be.

Check out my article entitled "This is the Law!!!" I posted, at http://www.imminst.o...40, and the free booklet the Ten Commandments, at http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/TC/.

[Luna]

Yes I think most of us here follow it quite well, not sure if everyone here love God so much, but more or the less.

Yet, I still see people more pure than us dying, getting sick and having hard life.

The important thing in life is make them BETTER, not hope for God to make them better for us.

Didn't God say it somewhere in the bible? I remember it was something like "always be there to help where you put your seeds" or something, as we need to actually do something and, if you believe in that, thanks to god, it'll actually work..

Anyways.. just praying dosen't seem to work.. that's probably 2k years of experience?

[Brainbox]

Regarding the first option, I had some likings for the views of Elijah, until a few day's ago.

Don't give up on me so quick. May be God will give us all accident free flying saucers to replace the motor vehicles humanity is so psychologically thrilled with at the moment, so death and injury can be avoided when participating in Satan's survival of the fittest (and fastest) highway to hell scheme.

This is not about flying saucers, but seriously, this is why it is very difficult to try to build bridges between atheism and religion. One of them just collapsed a few days ago while it was not even finished yet. I don't know what I was thinking...

The core issue's IMO:

The main point that made me quite angry to be honest is the fact that Elijah apparently has a preference for individuals that display a certain psychological condition, expressing itself as a preference for religious thinking. And that, as I understand it, people with different but similar psychological conditions, like a preference to expose oneself to exiting situations, should be re-educated. For me, this would be a highly unethical form of education, commonly referred to as indoctrination.

Furthermore, it is commonly known that social and biological structures that display a sufficient level of diversion, have better survival chances than monolithical structures. So why would one strive for a single mono-culture society on earth? To me, this is a form of evolutionary psychology that is ineffective and even very dangerous in our current times, but would better have suited the condition human society was in during the old middle ages.

Elijah, it seems that you prefer a society that only consists of individuals that adhere to a certain lifestyle due to a specific psychological condition of mind. According current knowledge about evolutionary mechanisms that is not going to happen without extreme centralised human intervention. The thought alone gives me a high level of creeps! Could you explain to me why I should put aside my humanist ethics in favor of your point of view?

[struct]

catichka, do you think that Aegist is going to go to hell for being an atheist? (or, is honest inquiry a more forgiveable sin than lying and saying you believe something that you don't?)

ha ha! Aegist is going to hell!

I like the part where it says 'my friends will be there too'

[struct]

For those not familiar with Highway to Hell, AC/DC (one of my favorite bands) here is a normal version of it

[william7]

Regarding the first option, I had some likings for the views of Elijah, until a few day's ago.

Don't give up on me so quick. May be God will give us all accident free flying saucers to replace the motor vehicles humanity is so psychologically thrilled with at the moment, so death and injury can be avoided when participating in Satan's survival of the fittest (and fastest) highway to hell scheme.

This is not about flying saucers, but seriously, this is why it is very difficult to try to build bridges between atheism and religion. One of them just collapsed a few days ago while it was not even finished yet. I don't know what I was thinking...

The core issue's IMO:

The main point that made me quite angry to be honest is the fact that Elijah apparently has a preference for individuals that display a certain psychological condition, expressing itself as a preference for religious thinking. And that, as I understand it, people with different but similar psychological conditions, like a preference to expose oneself to exiting situations, should be re-educated. For me, this would be a highly unethical form of education, commonly referred to as indoctrination.

Furthermore, it is commonly known that social and biological structures that display a sufficient level of diversion, have better survival chances than monolithical structures. So why would one strive for a single mono-culture society on earth? To me, this is a form of evolutionary psychology that is ineffective and even very dangerous in our current times, but would better have suited the condition human society was in during the old middle ages.

Elijah, it seems that you prefer a society that only consists of individuals that adhere to a certain lifestyle due to a specific psychological condition of mind. According current knowledge about evolutionary mechanisms that is not going to happen without extreme centralised human intervention. The thought alone gives me a high level of creeps! Could you explain to me why I should put aside my humanist ethics in favor of your point of view?

I'll see if can come up with a response in near future. But checkout this song called Highway Star by Deep Purple. It was on their Machine Head album. I use to have the album back when I was 16. It's a trip just listening to it again. http://www.youtube.c...related&search=

Edited by elijah3, 10 August 2007 - 11:16 PM.

[Brainbox]

Ok.

[william7]

The main point that made me quite angry to be honest is the fact that Elijah apparently has a preference for individuals that display a certain psychological condition, expressing itself as a preference for religious thinking. And that, as I understand it, people with different but similar psychological conditions, like a preference to expose oneself to exiting situations, should be re-educated. For me, this would be a highly unethical form of education, commonly referred to as indoctrination.

What is the difference between the need to reeducate people to pursue anti-aging techniques through "professional communications / marketing experts" using social/behavioral science and the mass media, and my desire to see people reeducated to live in a more simplified and modest way according to biblical principles so they can avoid death and live longer and happier? Are these professional communications/marketing experts, you put stock in, not trying to reeducate people to think differently? Isn't McDonald's indoctrinating children to eat its food when they use professional communications/marketing experts to sell their unhealthy products? See http://health.msn.co...67396&gt1=10316.

Furthermore, it is commonly known that social and biological structures that display a sufficient level of diversion, have better survival chances than monolithical structures. So why would one strive for a single mono-culture society on earth? To me, this is a form of evolutionary psychology that is ineffective and even very dangerous in our current times, but would better have suited the condition human society was in during the old middle ages.

As I pointed out in my post, at http://www.imminst.o...60, no mono-culture will exist in a communal society practicing biblical principles. There will still be a sufficient diversity of behavior to survive the demands of evolution. I don't believe evolution will be a problem during the Millennium at all. God will have it under control.

I'm glad you noticed we're in the new middle ages and actually in a worse condition than the old middle ages if you ask me. I like to look at it as we're all participating in a big antisocial jungle, and aging and death are a part of the jungle. I would rather not participate in the jungle or suffer its effects. This is why I choose to not participate in the jungle on the highways. The reason being that it leads to death, suffering, and pain in too many cases. I look at it as just another form of preventable disease like the World Health Organization (WHO). See http://www.who.int/w...orld_report/en/.

Elijah, it seems that you prefer a society that only consists of individuals that adhere to a certain lifestyle due to a specific psychological condition of mind. According current knowledge about evolutionary mechanisms that is not going to happen without extreme centralised human intervention. The thought alone gives me a high level of creeps! Could you explain to me why I should put aside my humanist ethics in favor of your point of view?

God has the better program for bringing us out of the jungle - and keeping us out of it - than the humanist ethics you subscribe to. There will be no extreme centralised human intervention you fear. This is why during the Millennium Christ will not rule over us in a master/servant relationship. Instead, Christ will reign as a loving husband over His wife. See Revelation 19:6-9; Hosea 2:16.

Welcome to the jungle!

[Luna]

What's so cool in mount zion being cut anyways? we have nukes nowdays, we don't cut mountains into two, we blow them.

It's more likely Earth will blow up in a war than a mount split..

[Brainbox]

Elijah, not much time now, just some soundbites. Euhh, textbites. If I missed the essence, please correct me.

What is the difference ...

The concept of free choice.
Enabling instead of limiting.

Isn't McDonald's indoctrinating children ...

No, completely different ballgame. Free choice is the basic principle. If they choose not to comply, they will not be re-educated.

no mono-culture will exist in a communal society practicing biblical principles ...

That seems to be a contradiction in terms.

This is why I choose to not participate in the jungle on the highways.

That's your free will, just don't impose that on others.

God has the better program for bringing us out of the jungle - and keeping us out of it - ...

If I choose not to be part of the communal society practicing biblical principles, what would be my alternative if I do not want to end up in the jungle?

There will be no extreme centralised human intervention ...

I surely hope so. I'm not taking any chances. History learned otherwise.

reign as a loving husband over his wife ...

Try that expression in the women's forum. )

[basho]

Isn't McDonald's indoctrinating children ...
http://health.msn.co...entid=100167396

No, completely different ballgame. Free choice is the basic principle. If they choose not to comply, they will not be re-educated.

Given the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on pervasive marketing (propaganda), do you really think the kids have free choice in the matter? From the article:

"This study demonstrates simply and elegantly that advertising literally brainwashes young children into a baseless preference for certain food products," said Dr. David Katz, the director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

And if these children somehow resist the McMeme and peer pressure, they'll probably be "reeducated" in the form of bullying for being different.

reign as a loving husband over his wife ...

Try that expression in the women's forum. )

LOL, reminds me of: Christian spanking website.

[william7]

And if these children somehow resist the McMeme and peer pressure, they'll probably be "reeducated" in the form of bullying for being different.

They're in the jungle.

[william7]

That's your free will, just don't impose that on others.

But those who participate in the jungle on the highways impose their way of life on me. I got to watch out for these bigger animals when I'm on my bicycle and the pollution is noxious. Is this fair?

If I choose not to be part of the communal society practicing biblical principles, what would be my alternative if I do not want to end up in the jungle?

You know where you are? Your in the jungle baby. you gonna die! Communal living and the Bible is the only solution to the jungle.

[Brainbox]

But those who participate in the jungle on the highways impose their way of life on me. I got to watch out for these bigger animals when I'm on my bicycle and the pollution is noxious. Is this fair?

No, that's not fair. I use my mountain bike fairly frequently and experience the same thing. I'm aware of the fact that I am in a very luxurious position to use my car in case I think I should. I also try as much as possible to reduce the noxiousness I impose on others as much as possible. On the other side, people that are walking very often complain to me that I'm interfering with their freedom to walk where they like when I'm on my bike.

There's a law that deals with the responsibilities all trafficking individuals should adhere to.

Communal living and the Bible is the only solution to the jungle

IMO it's impossible to design a society that is perceived to every society member as ideal. A theoretical ideal society would suit only a few types of individuals.
It's my opinion that all possible types of individuals should work together to obtain the best possible compromise in stead of trying to modify (reduce) the types of individual that do not comply to a certain narrow doctrine.

[Brainbox]

Given the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on pervasive marketing (propaganda), do you really think the kids have free choice in the matter?

You have a good point here, as, of course, Elijah has as well.

In the big picture, at macro-level, however, there is a huge difference between the re-education in the context of communal living. In case children do not comply to the marketing initiatives of mister Donnalds, there are no further consequences. They are free to do whatever they choose, in principle.

The fact that the marketing initiatives are very intense is something we have to deal with indeed. In Holland, the discussion currently is to limit the intensity of the marketing techniques that are directed to children. So, society as a whole is going to deal with it with the aim to preserve freedom of choice without trying to limit free choice. In such a way that children would still be able to make the choice for Mc Donnalds if they really want to. Preserving the concept of free choice as much as possible without imposing structural limits. Ok, some limitation will be experienced by Mc Donnalds, but again, nothing is perfect in a pluriform society. Compromises are inevitable. IMO it's not appropriate to refer to that as a jungle. It's democracy in action.

Edited by brainbox, 09 August 2007 - 12:28 PM.

[william7]

They are free to do whatever they choose, in principle.

On the basis of what principles are the choices made? If the principles of the chooser are inadequate, is it free choice?

Holland, the discussion currently is to limit the intensity of the marketing techniques that are directed to children.

So McDonald's can still get its pound of flesh from the weakest of the weak. McDonald's has already done big damage to the minds and bodies of the population, and, in the process, firmly established itself at the top of the pecking order. McDonald's is too well known to suffer much damage from a lessening in intensity of its advertising. They'll continue to have plenty of victims to satisfy its prodigious appetite for more until its slain like an animal by truth and justice.

So, society as a whole is going to deal with it with the aim to preserve freedom of choice without trying to limit free choice. In such a way that children would still be able to make the choice for Mc Donnalds if they really want to. Preserving the concept of free choice as much as possible without imposing structural limits.

Freedom to choose whats harmful and destructive to health and longevity. Can children really choose freely? Or is it the parents, family, and the neighborhood that determines the choice the children make?

Ok, some limitation will be experienced by Mc Donnalds,

My heart bleeds for those corporate execs who might have to reduce their consumption in material wealth. The poor fellows might not be able to buy the latest in private jets and be forced to stick with the older model for a little longer than they're accustomed to.

but again, nothing is perfect in a pluriform society

This is exactly why we have to develop a perfect society where the strong do not take advantage of the weak, but where the weak are strengthened instead.

IMO it's not appropriate to refer to that as a jungle.

Are you sure? McDonald's certainly follows the law of the jungle. McDonald's is a strong predator and it preys on the weak for its survival.

It's democracy in action.

Yea, corporate controlled democracy. Democracy administered by the rich to the poor in small bites a little at a time so as not to upset the status quo. The only way democracy will ever work will be when its utilized, in a communal society based on sound biblical principles, in the general administration of the mundane tasks of life.

[samson]

All benefit has a price. I blame our crappy risk-asssesment for being unable to count properly. Although you gotta admit that driving a huge Harley on an empty freeway IS pretty fucking awesome.

[william7]

All benefit has a price. I blame our crappy risk-asssesment for being unable to count properly. Although you gotta admit that driving a huge Harley on an empty freeway IS pretty fucking awesome.

If you're gonna be a highway star and participate in the jungle on the highways, you better watch out for those bridges. See http://news.yahoo.co...bridge_collapse. The capitalists who build the bridges are sometimes more concerned with speed of construction and the cheapest way to do things in order to maximize profits than with your safety.

Best to learn how to derive great pleasure out of simple things like walking in the woods and along streams to take in nature. It's more conducive to longevity.

[samson]

If you're gonna be a highway star and participate in the jungle on the highways, you better watch out for those bridges. See http://news.yahoo.co...bridge_collapse. The capitalists who build the bridges are sometimes more concerned with speed of construction and the cheapest way to do things in order to maximize profits than with your safety.

Great! You completely understood me! On the other hand, I luckily live in a nation where the goverment generally cares (I know, it's an alien consept) for it's citizens. Imagine that, that somebody would actually care for his fellow humans. Sick, eh?

Best to learn how to derive great pleasure out of simple things like walking in the woods and along streams to take in nature. It's more conducive to longevity.

No use living without a life. Not that I would know anything about that.

[Brainbox]

What IS important in life?

All benefit has a price. I blame our crappy risk-asssesment for being unable to count properly. Although you gotta admit that driving a huge Harley on an empty freeway IS pretty fucking awesome.

Right!!! [lol]



Another nice picture from the net of the passo dello stelvio.
Btw., they serve an exelent esspresso at the café on the right. I would go back tomorrow if I had the time......... FUN extra ordinaire.

[william7]

Now that I have my temporary permit to drive I can't wait till they come out with the injury proof car they're talking about in this yahoo video at http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/7630028. May be they can produce a model that operates completely on free and clean energy. I wonder how long I'll have to wait.

[Cyberbrain]

I don't know what I'm going to do with all you unbelievers who miss the big picture and what's most important in life.

Wait.. Wait..
What IS important in life?

Obeying the commandments so you can enter a long and happy life. This is what Jesus told the rich young man in Matthew 19:16-17. If you're not following the Law as Jesus taught it, you're not really living life as it should be.

Check out my article entitled "This is the Law!!!" I posted, at http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry187889, and the free booklet the Ten Commandments, at http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/TC/.

Wait, then according to you, the most important thing in life is yearning to go to heaven. But why is heaven important?

Are we nothing more than slaves to God's will? Then I say we overthrow God, Satan, and all the other supernatural beings (if they exist)!

I believe we our masters of our destiny and no one man or God should ever change this. Who's with me?

[william7]

Wait, then according to you, the most important thing in life is yearning to go to heaven. But why is heaven important?

Heaven on earth is what is important to me. I don't believe we go to a heaven after we die like the catholics and the protestants do. Notice the following from the booklet Heaven & Hell What Does the Bible Really Teach?

What is the Kingdom of Heaven?

Many people believe they will go to heaven because Jesus spoke repeatedly of the Kingdom of Heaven. In Matthew 5:3 He said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Three other verses in Matthew 5 refer to the faithful entering the kingdom of heaven. The phrase Kingdom of Heaven appears in the book of Matthew a total of 32 times.

However, note that Matthew is the only biblical writer who uses the term kingdom of heaven. Other Bible writers use the term Kingdom of God. For example, Luke, in recording the same event described above, records Jesus' words as: "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20). The terms are interchangeable. The term Kingdom of God is used 69 times in the New Testament, mostly in the Gospels-Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

As we will see, Jesus did not tell His disciples they should expect to go to heaven. He spoke instead of a kingdom originating from God in heaven that is to be established on the earth at His second coming. Notice Jesus' explanation that He would come to join His followers on earth at His return rather than have them ascend to heaven to be with Him where He currently resides.

After Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, He spent 40 days teaching His disciples, instructing them about the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:3). After this He joined His Father in heaven. Let us notice the instruction His disciples received after He rose into the sky.

"Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven'" (Acts 1:9-11).

Jesus spoke repeatedly of His return to establish the Kingdom of God on earth (Matthew 25:31-34; Luke 21:27-31). He will return to earth and establish His Kingdom here-not in heaven. In what is commonly called the Lord's Prayer, He instructs His followers to pray to their heavenly Father, "Your kingdom come" (Matthew 6:10; Luke 11:2). That kingdom is the true goal of every Christian (Matthew 6:33); we are to pray for its arrival.

In Luke 19:12 Jesus spoke of Himself in a parable, comparing Himself to "a certain nobleman [who] went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return." The "far country" is His Father's dwelling place, which is in heaven. Jesus will bring the Kingdom of God to earth at His return.

Matthew sometimes refers to it as the "kingdom of heaven" because it is a kingdom of heavenly, divine origins. Notice also that it is called the kingdom of heaven and never referred to as a kingdom in heaven. (To better understand what the Scriptures teach about the Kingdom of God, be sure to request your free copy of the booklet The Gospel of the Kingdom.)

Christ's Kingdom established on earth

One Old Testament prophecy is specific about Jesus' return, telling us exactly where He will arrive back on earth to establish His Kingdom. "And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which faces Jerusalem on the east ... And the LORD shall be King over all the earth" (Zechariah 14:4, 9).

The incident we read about in the book of Acts that describes Jesus' ascension tells us that it was on the Mount of Olives that He last talked with His disciples, and it was from the same mountain that He rose into the clouds in their sight. He will return to the same mountain to begin His reign in the Kingdom of God.

In Matthew 5:5 Jesus tells us, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." This verse and many others describe the saints ruling on earth in God's Kingdom. For example, Revelation 5:10, speaking of the resurrected saints, says: "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth" (NIV).

The reward of the saints is eternal life in the Kingdom of God. This will be given to them when Christ returns, but, as we have seen, Jesus will reign with them on the earth rather than in heaven.

http://www.gnmagazin...eavenreward.htm

Are we nothing more than slaves to God's will? Then I say we overthrow God, Satan, and all the other supernatural beings (if they exist)!

Futile gesture that'll never work. Best thing to do if you desire to live a long, healthy and happy life is join God's side.

[John_Ventureville]

Elijah3 wrote:
Yea, corporate controlled democracy. Democracy administered by the rich to the poor in small bites a little at a time so as not to upset the status quo. The only way democracy will ever work will be when its utilized, in a communal society based on sound biblical principles, in the general administration of the mundane tasks of life.
>>>

Your thoughts here made me think of attempts in early Mormonism to create an ideal society though consecration/The United Order. Sadly, in the end it did not work out well (thanks to human nature).

Kostas wrote:
Are we nothing more than slaves to God's will? Then I say we overthrow God, Satan, and all the other supernatural beings (if they exist)!
>>>

According to mainstream Christian doctrine the greatest gift God gave us was freedom of choice. I remember years ago reading an Isaac Asimov short story about an atheist who dies and to his own surprise continues existing as a disembodied mind. When he encounters God he declares his hatred and says he will do everything he can to "take God down due to all the pain and unfairness of the mortal world."

you continue:
I believe we our masters of our destiny and no one man or God should ever change this. Who's with me?
>>>

I am! : ) But I personally believe God does not want to take away our free will. As for some of our fellow human beings, I am not so sure...

John Grigg


The poem, "Invictus," by Sir William Ernest Henley:

"Out of the night that covers me

Black as the pit from pole to pole

I thank whatever gods may be

For my unconquerable soul

In the felled clutch of circumstance

I have not winced nor cried aloud

Under the bludgeonings of chance

My head is bloodied but unbowed

Beyond this place of wrath and tears

Looms but the horror of the shade

And yet the menace of the years

Finds and shall find me unafraid

It matters not how straight the gate

How charged with punishments the scroll

I am the master of my fate

I am the captain of my soul."

[ajnast4r]

...

epic!

[william7]

Your thoughts here made me think of attempts in early Mormonism to create an ideal society though consecration/The United Order. Sadly, in the end it did not work out well (thanks to human nature).

Unfortunately, Mormonisn isn't what God was thinking of to bring in His Kingdom on earth. From my reading of the Bible, God favors a monogamy over polygamy. Jesus made this clear when He said:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

http://www.biblegate...amp;version=31;

The Mormons also don't keep the seventh day Sabbath or any of the Holy Days commanded by God through Moses. See Leviticus 23:1-44. In Malachi 4:4, God tells us to "[r]emember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel." Jesus taught and kept the Law when He walked the earth. He kept the Sabbath and the Holy Days too. See Sunset to Sunset: God's Sabbath Rest, at http://www.gnmagazin...ristsabbath.htm and God's Holy Day Plan - Hope For All Mankind, at http://www.gnmagazin...ewtestament.htm.

If you want to live a long, healthy, and happy life, you need to understand the Sabbath rest concept of the Bible. Here's a video, at http://www.beyondtod...ProgramID=bt026, that explains this well.

[william7]

Now that I have my temporary permit to drive I can't wait till they come out with the injury proof car they're talking about in this yahoo video at http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/7630028. May be they can produce a model that operates completely on free and clean energy. I wonder how long I'll have to wait.

Here's the new link to the above video and the ABC news report.
http://cosmos.bcst.y...p...21&src=news
http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=4760913.

Whatever happened to the edit button?

Edited by elijah3, 05 May 2008 - 08:45 PM.

[Bghead8che]

Your thoughts here made me think of attempts in early Mormonism to create an ideal society though consecration/The United Order. Sadly, in the end it did not work out well (thanks to human nature).

Unfortunately, Mormonisn isn't what God was thinking of to bring in His Kingdom on earth. From my reading of the Bible, God favors a monogamy over polygamy. Jesus made this clear when He said:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

http://www.biblegate...amp;version=31;

The Mormons also don't keep the seventh day Sabbath or any of the Holy Days commanded by God through Moses. See Leviticus 23:1-44. In Malachi 4:4, God tells us to "[r]emember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel." Jesus taught and kept the Law when He walked the earth. He kept the Sabbath and the Holy Days too. See Sunset to Sunset: God's Sabbath Rest, at http://www.gnmagazin...ristsabbath.htm and God's Holy Day Plan - Hope For All Mankind, at http://www.gnmagazin...ewtestament.htm.

If you want to live a long, healthy, and happy life, you need to understand the Sabbath rest concept of the Bible. Here's a video, at http://www.beyondtod...ProgramID=bt026, that explains this well.

The first known reference of Polygamy and religion is in the BIBLE. In fact, a few Prophets practiced Polygamy several thousand years before "Mormons". If the Bible is true and Prophets practiced Polygamy, then Mormons were continuing a practice mentioned in the Bible. So if you are critical of Mormons who practiced Polygamy then your critique should extend to the Prophets in the Bible as well.

People bash Polygamy as being non-Christian, anti-Christian, deviant, etc when Polygamy has been tied to Christianity since its inception.

As an aside there have been no "Polygamous Mormons" for over a hundred years or more. For what its worth I personally believe Polygamy is wrong however there have been times when I believe God has instructed others to marry more than one wife. Obviously God had (or has?) a time and place for the practice of Polygamy if you believe in the Bible.

-Brian