Its funny you say that, considering that everything in science can be proven wrong, Usually science just does what politics do, and discredit... Sad really...
It's funny how you say that, considering science is about understanding the reality of the universe (i.e. nonfiction), not about this egotistical notion about being "right". Usually, science is the reason why humans have technology (such as computers, the Internet, software), medicine, etc ... <- I suppose the existence of all that goody proves that science has been proven wrong; it's really sad indeed. :/
Actually the computers and technology is fucking up the world, Its clearly "Wrong" to be honest. A tool is no longer a tool when he Hurts more then it helps, and even science is finding that for all of our technology we are going to wipe out our Natural Resources...
Honestly I wouldn't even use computers or anything but in this day and age you cant work, or do anything without them.
Understand the universe? Thats the most idiotic Notion I have ever heard, you really believe that Some idiots from a dot on the universal scale, can ever understand the universe? at all? No not even to a degree. Thats the same as saying in scientific terms, that a Microbe can understand Humans. and if you were to say that then you contradict yourself on soo many levels that it just shows how stupid you can be.
Right... That's why you knowingly chose to use technology and knowingly refused to live like an Amish or live like other "off the grid" subsistence farmers or the other people who willingly live (in the US) without microwaves, stove, television, computers, refrigerators, running water, etc. :/
It's funny how it's science and technology that helps environmentally conscious humans understand human impact on the environment and it's the people with limited understanding of science and technology (people like you) who are !@#$ing up the planet.
Idiots (i.e people like you) can't understand the universe, which is why we have scientists, duh. We have yet to find a microbe on earth that can understand humans, but we've still got the entire universe to scour for intelligent alien lifeforms that may be as small as microbes and could possibly understand humans. You're too stupid and hypocritical to know anything, let alone comprehend your own statements.
Can't argue with people like FDFederation. Some people are just gross and could clearly benefit from believing in being held accountable after death. It's funny he (or one of the other atheists) said that religion gave us less moral law than people could come up, yet he doesn't follow the obvious ones himself.
You mean like not killing people (i.e. not stoning gays, not killing woman to "save honor", not killing you because you still have blind faith in stupid religions), or not holding slaves, or not stealing as short cut to increase your own material wealth (stealing to feed hungry children/family is okay, but it's obviously not okay if you are able to work to earn enough, but are unwilling to work), or not torturing people, etc? As far as I know/remember, I haven't killed, stolen from, tortured, or enslaved anyone. However your "christian values" and christian texts obviously condone killing/torturing people, slavery, "legitimate rape", etc; it's totally okay to commit crimes against humanity as long as you have faith in god 'cus he'll forgive you 'cus he loves you xoxo. When you're dying sometime in the future, you will realize you have wasted your life believing in Imagination Land. But don't fret, there's still hope of salvation for you, we welcome you to throw away those silly religious stories and beliefs and partake in scientific endeavor.
That would be too easy, and would defeat the purpose of faith.
I believe that he will show himself to the world in the end, but by then, it will be too late for those who do not believe, or who have accepted the beast, whatever that may be, in place of him.
You mean like not killing people (i.e. not stoning gays, not killing woman to "save honor", not killing you because you still have blind faith in stupid religions), or not holding slaves, or not stealing as short cut to increase your own material wealth (stealing to feed hungry children/family is okay, but it's obviously not okay if you are able to work to earn enough, but are unwilling to work), or not torturing people, etc? As far as I know/remember, I haven't killed, stolen from, tortured, or enslaved anyone. However your "christian values" and christian texts obviously condone killing/torturing people, slavery, "legitimate rape", etc; it's totally okay to commit crimes against humanity as long as you have faith in god 'cus he'll forgive you 'cus he loves you xoxo. When you're dying sometime in the future, you will realize you have wasted your life believing in Imagination Land. But don't fret, there's still hope of salvation for you, we welcome you to throw away those silly religious stories and beliefs and partake in scientific endeavor.
In the end Athiesm is just a really stupid thing to use so you dont feel bad when you become a mass murderer...
Right, because then you would have evidence, so it wouldn't be faith anymore, and it would be science. (Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence)
That's so silly of you to still have a make-believe invisible friend. You're going to learn this sooner or later, so I might as well be the one to teach you that your invisible lord and your invisible beast don't exist. Sorry to burst your bubbles, little buddy. xoxo
Then don't use it when you become a mass murderer.
P.S. You also won't be able to claim your crimes were part of your religious beliefs or that freedom of religion protects you and your religious crimes from justice. You really need to have a doctor look at your brain for that cannibalistic pedophilia habit of yours.
I've tried. It would be unscientific of me to have not tried.
I am a very open minded individual and if someone said to me "Hey, try this, see if you find God", I'd (and I have in the past) give it an honest go. Anything less would make me unreasonable.
The 3rd reason I'm an atheist is the above. If there were a god, any god, and we're "children of that god", then it'd clearly be part of his, or her, plan for me to be an atheist.
You being an Atheist is not in God's plan. God has a plan for all of us in our lives that we can either choose to walk by giving our lives completely to him, or we can choose to do our own thing.
I do however think me being here talking to you about this is part of God's plan for both of us, simply because we're talking about God... it's tricky.
Which is more likely, that the creator of the universe took a moment out of his schedule to bestow upon you (and not 67% of the non-Christians) this complete sensational experience? Or, that you are under a misapprehension?
To compound the latter, these experiences happen in every faith. Some, like Hinduism, don't even believe in Yahweh (though they're free to pray to him, there's no real restrictions), yet they also receive this.
You can retort that by saying "They're just misinterpreting it", which is fair enough, but it begs the question; "How do you know you aren't the one misinterpreting it?"
Simple answer. I could be wrong, but I don't believe or doubt that I am, and I am no one to judge one of another faith, including you. Let he without sin cast the first stone.
That's so silly of you to still have a make-believe invisible friend. You're going to learn this sooner or later, so I might as well be the one to teach you that your invisible lord and your invisible beast don't exist. Sorry to burst your bubbles, little buddy. xoxo
Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me... what have I been doing with my life? Let's get some cocaine and whores.
You should have been pursuing science, as I have already stated.
Why would you want cocaine? Science has shown it causes brain damage.
Why would you want whores? They have STDs and probably lack knowledge of science. The worst trait they probably have is that they're religious. See what religion has done to you to make you desire these hazardous substances? Religion has messed you up badly, tsk tsk. Hope and salvation awaits you on the path of science. You just need the courage to begin the journey along the path of science.
Ugh... Some people... He's trying to teach us science by throwing out insults... I mean, at least Eiveyn uses science and tries to have an organized discussion. This guy is going to get the thread locked. Anyway, I'm done here.
Why do you view my statements as insulting? I'm just here teaching you why your imaginary friend in the sky doesn't exist. Join us on the path of science.
No verses quoted at all. Thanks for proving your lazy. Though, its more the fault of the guy thinking his Quran is accurate. Why doesn`t he put the verses there?. I have the same stance against christian/or Any website/s that dont attempt to substantiate their claims/beliefs because they are uneducated or uninformed of the truth.
Nearly half the statements have "There is no theory or knowledge regarding this phenomenon.". So what the hell is it on the science list for?. Did I do the same for the list I presented?.
Some of it, apart from and including [most] of the above on that list is complete nonsense(Scientifically proven).
Whatever little[very little] it gets right, is copied directly from the Bible. Because as I said before, Quran = Corrupted Bible.
Regarding Christianity vs Islam, I think you should look into haram vs halal. . . . [bunch of verses]. . . .
Given Muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of God, and it literally states "but they killed him not, nor crucified him", wearing a crucified Jesus around your neck is outright rejection of their idea of the word of God.
I was actually aware that Muslim's don't believe Jesus was crucified, I just failed to mention it. I'll track down those verses and give them a look before I talk more about Islam.
Regarding Buddhism, they actually have a fairly solid system by which you must adhere to, in order to become a deva and ascend to Nirvana. While you could technically be a Christian and a Buddhist, there's no overlap between the two religions. A Buddhist wouldn't "know" Christ and hence wouldn't get into heaven. Likewise a Christian wouldn't live by the teachings of Buddha and hence if Buddhism is right, a Christian won't ascend to Nirvana.
This is where my Mormon beliefs disagree. Specifically, you would have the opportunity to know Christ (and God) in the afterlife. I can see how striving for Nirvana as opposed to heaven (the non-Mormon version) would be counterproductive though. I still wouldn't consider the religions exclusive in terms of living harmoniously, but they do have somewhat conflicting views of the afterlife.
As far as I understand, God is God, while Jesus and the Holy Ghost are "lesser Gods"? Is this not correct? If it is, does this not count as breaking "3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me."? If it's not correct, what are they?
I found a few sources that stated God was an ascended man. Is this not correct?
I'll address all of these together as it's a rather complex answer and is why a lot of Christian denominations disapprove of Mormonism.
Mormons believe in a form of Nontrinitarianism wherein God is God, Jesus is his literal son (granted we believe we are ALL his literal children) and The Holy Ghost is an angel of God. Holy Ghost is synonymous with Holy Spirit; Mormons use them interchangeably. People can sometimes get confused when we refer to them as making up the Godhead. The Godhead is the name we give them as you would a council or body of leadership. Some can assume this means they are all Gods, but this is neither correct nor incorrect. I'll explain it as I answer the next question.
Is God an ascended man? The simplified and misleading answer is yes, but it's much more complicated than that. This goes back to what I said about Mormons being more concerned with the "what comes next" part of the afterlife than other Christian denominations. First, I'd encourage you to read this article about what we call The Plan of Salvation. It IS from wikipedia, but I consider it more approachable for someone new to the concept.
Using this picture (from the wiki) as a point of reference, we also talk about what came before the Pre-Mortal Existence (far left) and what comes after the 3 Kingdoms of Glory (far right).
Lorenzo Snow, one of our Prophets, once said, “As man is God once was, as God is man may be."
“As man is God once was” refers to the belief that the Plan of Salvation is part of a greater cycle that God went through before us. Specifically, God was once a spirit that became a man to get a physical body in accordance with the plan of his father. Through his actions, he achieved the status he maintains now allowing him to continue the cycle through his own spiritual children. As such, God is more accurate as a state of being than a singular individual. We often refer to God as our Heavenly Father because of this.
This also means that we believe God has an eternal partner, our Heavenly Mother, with which he created us. While some would argue this makes us a polytheistic religion (4 so far), it’s only half true. We consider ourselves a monotheistic religion because we consider the relationship we have with our Heavenly Father (God) to be above all else in terms of authority.
A good example would be the relationship between you and your parents (assuming a traditional family). As a child, your parents expect you to obey them and not your neighbor’s/friend’s parents because they are responsible for you. In this way, we “have no other Gods before him.”
“As God is man may be” refers to the belief that through the resurrection we will be restored as a perfected union between our spirit and physical bodies. We will possess the same state as our Heavenly Father, but not necessarily the same status. Whether or not we go on to “rule our own planet” depends on our final judgment.
Skipping over the actual process of judgment, there will be some among us that have the opportunity to carry on the cycle with our own spiritual children. In this way you might say that we get a planet, but we are more concerned with the idea of progressing through eternity with our spiritual families than we are the planet(s) it may or may not take place on. In this way we are becoming like Him (God), but we aren’t becoming Him exactly. We believe that this process is all to help us grow to a point where we are worthy to inherit all that he has for us.
A very literal approach would certainly make us out to worship multiple Gods in a non-Christian sort of polytheism. We, however, believe that God was not the ultimate beginning of all things and that while authority over us IS singular to Him, there was both a time before him and a time that will come after him, all of us being eternal.
This next thought is pure speculation on my part, but I’ve often entertained the idea that God is not the only person out there “testing his children.” If I believe that he had a father, he likely had brothers and sisters as well. A simple idea would be that perhaps God is only responsible for our galaxy, or a part of our galaxy or our solar system (whatever contains his children). Then all of the other areas in the universe represent his family carrying out the cycle with their children. Such a widespread cyclical system could easily line up with the growth of the universe and why it continues to expand (to make room). It also makes it easier to accept God’s 7 periods of creation if it refers specifically to the Earth, solar system or galaxy rather than the entire universe. Of course, as I said, this is me speculating and I don’t have scientific or religious documentation to explicitly support this elaboration.
A valid argument. And yet, we can only handle one thing at a time. I guess Catholics are the topic of the month and at some point we'll move on to Mormons and their magic underwear, but we can't accommodate everyone who comes in here and says "but wait, those beliefs don't apply to my sect of Christianity". After all, there's over 30000 different denominations.
I don’t expect you to accommodate every denomination, but I would ask that you acknowledge that you are talking about a few denominations instead of Christianity as a whole as you carry on. The thread shifted from Religion vs Science to Christianity vs Science to Catholicism vs Science, but it was never acknowledged and alienates those who are being misrepresented (Mormonism being one) by the points being made.
Scientists disagree about one thing and one thing only: reality. Religious people disagree about totally different religious books, and even identical religious books. The disagreement in science stems from our humility in the knowledge that our assessment of reality is not always objective and it is this that drives the scientific process, bringing us medicine, cars, and computers. The disagreement in religion stems from pride and the idea that one person knows the mind of god better than another. The inconsistency here is that religion is based on authority and is supposed to be a static dogma.
I think it’s a mistake to assume all science is humble considering how egotistical people can be about it. New discoveries are usually named after the people who discover them or at the very least BY the people who discover them. It seems to me like attaching your name to science is an effort to immortalize yourself. The term “mad scientist” didn’t spring up out of nothing. Science is but a tool as is Religion. Both are fully capable of being corrupted by the men that use it.
There are arrogant scientists that have the “hubris” to assume they know how reality works just like there are arrogant religious figures that have the “hubris” to assume they know what God is thinking. A religious man is JUST as capable of humble discourse as a scientific man. I am willing to admit that men acting on behalf of religion can make mistakes. I’d hope you’d be willing to do the same for science.
The one difference I can agree on, however, is that even if a corrupt scientist makes a discovery, it is still a discovery (assuming it’s not false). When a corrupt religious leader acts corruptly, there is no benefit. Here I can concede that a discovery made through corrupt science can still be used for good while a corrupt act by religion can’t really be retooled. An example being Nuclear Physics as a method for destruction or energy compared to a religious war.
If God truly cares, he'd have affected history to have made Christianity the only religion, instead of just one of the main religions. You do after all believe that God intervenes in our affairs? Is it not logical to assume that even if he exists that he simply does not care what religion you are?
What you’re asking for defeats the entire purpose of what many believe to be the point of our existence. If we are here to make choices but God steps in to take care of everything, he is depriving us of the ability to choose. This was Lucifer/Satan’s plan and was rejected. God allows us to act as we desire so that we can be judged us by our actions. This is also discussed in The Plan of Salvation under “agency and theodicy.”
Unfortunately for Mormonism, Joseph Smith's fraudulency has been rather well documented. Hell, the guy was already arrested once for banking fraud.
I’d appreciate it if you’d provide what you consider to be reliable documentation for this. This is consistently cited in criticism against us, but I have never found the evidence reliable.
An excuse is "you can't prove it didn't happen". My only point was that you don't have to provide justification for what many believers consider to be miraculous events anyway. It's redundant. But what else did I miss? Are there any other sections of the bible you agree that sound like man-made fairy-tales? Is the bible still the infallible word of god?
From my perspective I do because many of the points you raised don’t sound like fairy tales when you dig a little deeper. I fully agree that the Bible is full of fantastical stories that can be very difficult to accept as being even remotely possible, but you’re pointing at extreme examples that aren’t necessarily all from the same denomination. I also explicitly state in previous posts that I do not believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God because it is translated by men. I’d encourage you to reread my post to find this. Please stop putting words in my mouth by assuming I agree with what you to believe constitutes a Christian. I clearly don’t.
Talking birds - this is not remotely close to talking donkeys, who don't even have the same capability as birds. This is what I mean by handwaving.
I fail to see how this is handwaving when I admit in the same statement that it’s a stretch. Handwaving would be me stating it’s definitely possible and you just don’t understand why because you’re ignorant of “the facts.” I certainly don’t believe a donkey could talk in the natural world, but I know that there are animals that possess the ability to seem as if they can. With that in mind, it’s not that big of a leap to believe that with divine assistance an animal could talk. That is my point.
You were never supposed to address any of those points to begin with. I only listed them to show believers what their faith looks like to an outside observer.
As a Mormon I am especially aware of how WRONG observers get things. I have “outside observers” ask me if I really can’t have sugar! Of course religion is going to look crazy if you don’t have an actual understanding of what it entails. I addressed your points because, to me, they are false observations of what I believe. By correcting the observations it is my way of demonstrating that you should take more time to understand something before you reject it as “childish.” You might think that Catholicism is childish based on these points, but you can’t blanket everyone with the same points.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@Charysmatic: Go
"All religious texts are fiction stories."
It is extremely reliably accurate.
@FDFederation: Go
Its funny you say that, considering that everything in science can be proven wrong, Usually science just does what politics do, and discredit... Sad really...
@Taintedwisp: Go
It's funny how you say that, considering science is about understanding the reality of the universe (i.e. nonfiction), not about this egotistical notion about being "right". Usually, science is the reason why humans have technology (such as computers, the Internet, software), medicine, etc ... <- I suppose the existence of all that goody proves that science has been proven wrong; it's really sad indeed. :/
@FDFederation: Go
Actually the computers and technology is fucking up the world, Its clearly "Wrong" to be honest. A tool is no longer a tool when he Hurts more then it helps, and even science is finding that for all of our technology we are going to wipe out our Natural Resources...
Honestly I wouldn't even use computers or anything but in this day and age you cant work, or do anything without them.
Understand the universe? Thats the most idiotic Notion I have ever heard, you really believe that Some idiots from a dot on the universal scale, can ever understand the universe? at all? No not even to a degree. Thats the same as saying in scientific terms, that a Microbe can understand Humans. and if you were to say that then you contradict yourself on soo many levels that it just shows how stupid you can be.
@Taintedwisp: Go
Right... That's why you knowingly chose to use technology and knowingly refused to live like an Amish or live like other "off the grid" subsistence farmers or the other people who willingly live (in the US) without microwaves, stove, television, computers, refrigerators, running water, etc. :/
It's funny how it's science and technology that helps environmentally conscious humans understand human impact on the environment and it's the people with limited understanding of science and technology (people like you) who are !@#$ing up the planet.
Idiots (i.e people like you) can't understand the universe, which is why we have scientists, duh. We have yet to find a microbe on earth that can understand humans, but we've still got the entire universe to scour for intelligent alien lifeforms that may be as small as microbes and could possibly understand humans. You're too stupid and hypocritical to know anything, let alone comprehend your own statements.
@FDFederation: Go
Can't argue with people like FDFederation. Some people are just gross and could clearly benefit from believing in being held accountable after death. It's funny he (or one of the other atheists) said that religion gave us less moral law than people could come up, yet he doesn't follow the obvious ones himself.
@Charysmatic: Go
You mean like not killing people (i.e. not stoning gays, not killing woman to "save honor", not killing you because you still have blind faith in stupid religions), or not holding slaves, or not stealing as short cut to increase your own material wealth (stealing to feed hungry children/family is okay, but it's obviously not okay if you are able to work to earn enough, but are unwilling to work), or not torturing people, etc? As far as I know/remember, I haven't killed, stolen from, tortured, or enslaved anyone. However your "christian values" and christian texts obviously condone killing/torturing people, slavery, "legitimate rape", etc; it's totally okay to commit crimes against humanity as long as you have faith in god 'cus he'll forgive you 'cus he loves you xoxo. When you're dying sometime in the future, you will realize you have wasted your life believing in Imagination Land. But don't fret, there's still hope of salvation for you, we welcome you to throw away those silly religious stories and beliefs and partake in scientific endeavor.
@GnaReffotsirk: Go
That would be too easy, and would defeat the purpose of faith.
I believe that he will show himself to the world in the end, but by then, it will be too late for those who do not believe, or who have accepted the beast, whatever that may be, in place of him.
In the end Athiesm is just a really stupid thing to use so you dont feel bad when you become a mass murderer...
@Creation25: Go
Right, because then you would have evidence, so it wouldn't be faith anymore, and it would be science. (Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence)
That's so silly of you to still have a make-believe invisible friend. You're going to learn this sooner or later, so I might as well be the one to teach you that your invisible lord and your invisible beast don't exist. Sorry to burst your bubbles, little buddy. xoxo
@Taintedwisp: Go
Then don't use it when you become a mass murderer. P.S. You also won't be able to claim your crimes were part of your religious beliefs or that freedom of religion protects you and your religious crimes from justice. You really need to have a doctor look at your brain for that cannibalistic pedophilia habit of yours.
You being an Atheist is not in God's plan. God has a plan for all of us in our lives that we can either choose to walk by giving our lives completely to him, or we can choose to do our own thing.
I do however think me being here talking to you about this is part of God's plan for both of us, simply because we're talking about God... it's tricky.
Simple answer. I could be wrong, but I don't believe or doubt that I am, and I am no one to judge one of another faith, including you. Let he without sin cast the first stone.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me... what have I been doing with my life? Let's get some cocaine and whores.
@Creation25: Go
You should have been pursuing science, as I have already stated. Why would you want cocaine? Science has shown it causes brain damage. Why would you want whores? They have STDs and probably lack knowledge of science. The worst trait they probably have is that they're religious. See what religion has done to you to make you desire these hazardous substances? Religion has messed you up badly, tsk tsk. Hope and salvation awaits you on the path of science. You just need the courage to begin the journey along the path of science.
@FDFederation: Go
Ugh... Some people... He's trying to teach us science by throwing out insults... I mean, at least Eiveyn uses science and tries to have an organized discussion. This guy is going to get the thread locked. Anyway, I'm done here.
@Charysmatic: Go
Why do you view my statements as insulting? I'm just here teaching you why your imaginary friend in the sky doesn't exist. Join us on the path of science.
While we're on this topic of science and faith, this article was recently posted on the Yahoo! headlines. Check it out.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/heaven-real-says-neurosurgeon-claims-visited-afterlife-213527063.html
No verses quoted at all. Thanks for proving your lazy. Though, its more the fault of the guy thinking his Quran is accurate. Why doesn`t he put the verses there?. I have the same stance against christian/or Any website/s that dont attempt to substantiate their claims/beliefs because they are uneducated or uninformed of the truth.
Nearly half the statements have "There is no theory or knowledge regarding this phenomenon.". So what the hell is it on the science list for?. Did I do the same for the list I presented?.
Some of it, apart from and including [most] of the above on that list is complete nonsense(Scientifically proven).
Whatever little[very little] it gets right, is copied directly from the Bible. Because as I said before, Quran = Corrupted Bible.
What was it we were arguing about again? I got lost somewhere.
Can you guys list down your contentions? I will look for someone to answer them, if they can. Just the Judeo-Christian one if that's okay.
#1 God does not exist because...?
#2 The Bible is fiction, all of it, because of ...?
#3 Jesus could have existed but we have no proof of his claims because...?
#4 Why not believe in other Gods in other religions because...?
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
I was actually aware that Muslim's don't believe Jesus was crucified, I just failed to mention it. I'll track down those verses and give them a look before I talk more about Islam.
This is where my Mormon beliefs disagree. Specifically, you would have the opportunity to know Christ (and God) in the afterlife. I can see how striving for Nirvana as opposed to heaven (the non-Mormon version) would be counterproductive though. I still wouldn't consider the religions exclusive in terms of living harmoniously, but they do have somewhat conflicting views of the afterlife.
I'll address all of these together as it's a rather complex answer and is why a lot of Christian denominations disapprove of Mormonism.
Mormons believe in a form of Nontrinitarianism wherein God is God, Jesus is his literal son (granted we believe we are ALL his literal children) and The Holy Ghost is an angel of God. Holy Ghost is synonymous with Holy Spirit; Mormons use them interchangeably. People can sometimes get confused when we refer to them as making up the Godhead. The Godhead is the name we give them as you would a council or body of leadership. Some can assume this means they are all Gods, but this is neither correct nor incorrect. I'll explain it as I answer the next question.
Is God an ascended man? The simplified and misleading answer is yes, but it's much more complicated than that. This goes back to what I said about Mormons being more concerned with the "what comes next" part of the afterlife than other Christian denominations. First, I'd encourage you to read this article about what we call The Plan of Salvation. It IS from wikipedia, but I consider it more approachable for someone new to the concept.
Using this picture (from the wiki) as a point of reference, we also talk about what came before the Pre-Mortal Existence (far left) and what comes after the 3 Kingdoms of Glory (far right).
Lorenzo Snow, one of our Prophets, once said, “As man is God once was, as God is man may be."
“As man is God once was” refers to the belief that the Plan of Salvation is part of a greater cycle that God went through before us. Specifically, God was once a spirit that became a man to get a physical body in accordance with the plan of his father. Through his actions, he achieved the status he maintains now allowing him to continue the cycle through his own spiritual children. As such, God is more accurate as a state of being than a singular individual. We often refer to God as our Heavenly Father because of this.
This also means that we believe God has an eternal partner, our Heavenly Mother, with which he created us. While some would argue this makes us a polytheistic religion (4 so far), it’s only half true. We consider ourselves a monotheistic religion because we consider the relationship we have with our Heavenly Father (God) to be above all else in terms of authority.
A good example would be the relationship between you and your parents (assuming a traditional family). As a child, your parents expect you to obey them and not your neighbor’s/friend’s parents because they are responsible for you. In this way, we “have no other Gods before him.”
“As God is man may be” refers to the belief that through the resurrection we will be restored as a perfected union between our spirit and physical bodies. We will possess the same state as our Heavenly Father, but not necessarily the same status. Whether or not we go on to “rule our own planet” depends on our final judgment.
Skipping over the actual process of judgment, there will be some among us that have the opportunity to carry on the cycle with our own spiritual children. In this way you might say that we get a planet, but we are more concerned with the idea of progressing through eternity with our spiritual families than we are the planet(s) it may or may not take place on. In this way we are becoming like Him (God), but we aren’t becoming Him exactly. We believe that this process is all to help us grow to a point where we are worthy to inherit all that he has for us.
A very literal approach would certainly make us out to worship multiple Gods in a non-Christian sort of polytheism. We, however, believe that God was not the ultimate beginning of all things and that while authority over us IS singular to Him, there was both a time before him and a time that will come after him, all of us being eternal.
This next thought is pure speculation on my part, but I’ve often entertained the idea that God is not the only person out there “testing his children.” If I believe that he had a father, he likely had brothers and sisters as well. A simple idea would be that perhaps God is only responsible for our galaxy, or a part of our galaxy or our solar system (whatever contains his children). Then all of the other areas in the universe represent his family carrying out the cycle with their children. Such a widespread cyclical system could easily line up with the growth of the universe and why it continues to expand (to make room). It also makes it easier to accept God’s 7 periods of creation if it refers specifically to the Earth, solar system or galaxy rather than the entire universe. Of course, as I said, this is me speculating and I don’t have scientific or religious documentation to explicitly support this elaboration.
I don’t expect you to accommodate every denomination, but I would ask that you acknowledge that you are talking about a few denominations instead of Christianity as a whole as you carry on. The thread shifted from Religion vs Science to Christianity vs Science to Catholicism vs Science, but it was never acknowledged and alienates those who are being misrepresented (Mormonism being one) by the points being made.
I think it’s a mistake to assume all science is humble considering how egotistical people can be about it. New discoveries are usually named after the people who discover them or at the very least BY the people who discover them. It seems to me like attaching your name to science is an effort to immortalize yourself. The term “mad scientist” didn’t spring up out of nothing. Science is but a tool as is Religion. Both are fully capable of being corrupted by the men that use it.
There are arrogant scientists that have the “hubris” to assume they know how reality works just like there are arrogant religious figures that have the “hubris” to assume they know what God is thinking. A religious man is JUST as capable of humble discourse as a scientific man. I am willing to admit that men acting on behalf of religion can make mistakes. I’d hope you’d be willing to do the same for science.
The one difference I can agree on, however, is that even if a corrupt scientist makes a discovery, it is still a discovery (assuming it’s not false). When a corrupt religious leader acts corruptly, there is no benefit. Here I can concede that a discovery made through corrupt science can still be used for good while a corrupt act by religion can’t really be retooled. An example being Nuclear Physics as a method for destruction or energy compared to a religious war.
What you’re asking for defeats the entire purpose of what many believe to be the point of our existence. If we are here to make choices but God steps in to take care of everything, he is depriving us of the ability to choose. This was Lucifer/Satan’s plan and was rejected. God allows us to act as we desire so that we can be judged us by our actions. This is also discussed in The Plan of Salvation under “agency and theodicy.”
I’d appreciate it if you’d provide what you consider to be reliable documentation for this. This is consistently cited in criticism against us, but I have never found the evidence reliable.
From my perspective I do because many of the points you raised don’t sound like fairy tales when you dig a little deeper. I fully agree that the Bible is full of fantastical stories that can be very difficult to accept as being even remotely possible, but you’re pointing at extreme examples that aren’t necessarily all from the same denomination. I also explicitly state in previous posts that I do not believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God because it is translated by men. I’d encourage you to reread my post to find this. Please stop putting words in my mouth by assuming I agree with what you to believe constitutes a Christian. I clearly don’t.
I fail to see how this is handwaving when I admit in the same statement that it’s a stretch. Handwaving would be me stating it’s definitely possible and you just don’t understand why because you’re ignorant of “the facts.” I certainly don’t believe a donkey could talk in the natural world, but I know that there are animals that possess the ability to seem as if they can. With that in mind, it’s not that big of a leap to believe that with divine assistance an animal could talk. That is my point.
As a Mormon I am especially aware of how WRONG observers get things. I have “outside observers” ask me if I really can’t have sugar! Of course religion is going to look crazy if you don’t have an actual understanding of what it entails. I addressed your points because, to me, they are false observations of what I believe. By correcting the observations it is my way of demonstrating that you should take more time to understand something before you reject it as “childish.” You might think that Catholicism is childish based on these points, but you can’t blanket everyone with the same points.