Science will kill Christianity, as it is already doing because religion is for the unreasonable.
I don't agree with this and I don't find that study as being conclusive evidence of the decline of religion. To me, this aligns with the nature of modern youth to be less and less concerned with spirituality until later in life. Societal pressures have far more pronounced effects on religion amongst youth than science will likely ever have in our lifetimes. Science doesn't push conformity nor does it lash out at you for being different; social norms do. As a 22 year old Mormon, my beliefs are rarely challenged by science. Instead, my beliefs are challenged on a daily basis by those who find my decision to reject profanity, alcohol, drugs and sex as contrary or "silly." None of which have anything to do with scientific advancement.
Religious beliefs tend to become more important when the question of raising a family surfaces. Given that this is also becoming less of a priority for modern couples (get married later, don't always have kids), it is logical that religion is also taking a back seat to personal interests. This ALSO relates to societal pressures considering that there is a rise in the "need" to be independent. Science isn't telling people to postpone having a family in favor of pursuing self-interests.
We're living in a fairly selfish age where youth are encouraged both to conform and focus on their own needs. Those needs being ones that align with social expectations such as sexual reputation. Being a virgin past high school is taboo. What does that have to do with science? Drug use is moving towards legal recreational consumption. Science for the win? Nudity is quickly becoming an acceptable form of family entertainment. Is that science too? The world is all about "does it feel good? Great!" It can be difficult to find religion in the midst of that.
To me, science is more likely to affect the middle-aged person's religion conviction than a twenty-something. I think this particular statement is one of your less thoughtful remarks.
Bible God precedes time. Time was created at the big bang. It works a long the dimensions of the universe(again, its more like an illusion) By definition anything prior is some infinite and eternal energy and the common name is God.
I disagree here. I don't consider the common name to be God. That is an assertion made by you that isn't as common as you suggest. I believe present-God came after the Big Bang. I also believe Evolution was a tool used by God in his creation(s). I find the Bible supports Evolution more than it does Creationism given that most of the support for Creationism comes from assumptions made through interpretations of the Bible that I disagree with.
I support Intelligent Design, but I don't consider it exclusive to Evolution. Is it not logical to assert that Evolution was made possible as a direct result of life being designed to support it? I don't believe our current understanding of Evolution is entirely accurate, however, as I don't believe we all started as single-celled organisms.
I feel that you're trying too hard to prove that only one can be right when in my mind, they are both reliant upon the other to function.
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.”
So this is basically polytheism, just that God the father is superior?
There is nothing "basically" about it. It's a complex answer to which Mormon's would say no while others say everything from yes to no. I answered this in the same post you pulled this quote from. I'd encourage you to go back and read it again so that I don't have to quote myself.
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.
I wasn't talking about the people behind science or religion. Clearly they can all be evil and egotistical. I'm referring more to the philosophies themselves. I find the scientific method to be humble. And indeed, there is no sign of arrogance or hubris in any science textbook I've ever read. I cannot say the same for all religious texts.
Guess which one the church says is more harmful for children:
In this frame I still disagree because humility requires a certain aspect of humanity that what you're describing doesn't have. Humility is often associated with being respectfully modest or lacking a prideful ego. You can't really say science falls under this definition because it doesn't respect anything. In fact it is often viewed as a VERY disrespectful philosophy because it only cares about the truth. A simple example would be how scientists would like to "farm" embryos for stem cell research. The motivation for doing so isn't necessarily good or evil, but it doesn't respect the sacredness that some people have for these "unborn children." I think a better term that I would agree with is indiscriminate. Science doesn't care who you are, only that what remains at the end is truth. Religion is admittedly more discriminate with regards to the choices people make.
As for "arrogance" or "hubris" in religious texts, I feel that you are being far too biased. Religion, at it's core, is about spiritual salvation through humility and service. This contradicts what you constantly label religion as being. I believe that what you are talking about has more to do with the people than the philosophy itself. I also don't care what "the church" (Catholic in your case) says is more harmful for children because it is not what I believe in. Mormonism does NOT advocate that science is harmful for children. We openly embrace it and accept that we are entirely capable of getting things wrong.
If science contradicts what we believe, we are strongly encouraged to seek out the answer for ourselves. At the end of the day, we believe that God operates according to certain laws that men use science to understand. If there are things God does that are not supported by science, we believe that science hasn't yet come to understand how it works. We do not assume that the science is simply wrong. If we are careful to keep separate the principles of science and religion, we believe both can give us a greater understanding of the world God has created for us.
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.
Neither banking nor fraud are mentioned anywhere in the link you provided. It even states that some of the reports are contradictory. The only thing this is evident of is that Joseph Smith was arrested for "Glass Looking". That is, the act of looking for "treasures" which some might construed as fraudulent behavior. The problem is that the article closes with the following statement:
"However, the fact is that Rev. Walters broke the chain of custody of evidence. He had a vested interest in making Joseph Smith look as bad as possible. He did, in fact, use some of these records for that purpose. His conduct therefore gives rise to not-untenable suspicions about whether the complete body of evidence made it through his hands."
The problem that I frequently encounter is that evidence surfaces that claims against Joseph Smith were made, but not that the claims themselves had any validity. I am fully aware that many, many efforts have been made to discredit Joseph Smith, but I have not found any of these to be objectively sound in their documentation. The link you provided is no different.
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.”
So do you agree with me then that God does not care what protocols/religion you follow? Or is it just that 2/3 of the planet is getting screwed over? Furthermore, would it not be of benefit to be a nonbeliever and a good person, that way you can't say you did any of the things you did hoping for reward?
My perspective on this is that it's just another one of religion's mental traps to keep believers complicit. There will always be an excuse for why there can be no evidence or why God can't provide any. You can't tempt god, etc. etc.
Yes and no. I believe that he DOES care, but that he will not force you one way or another. I also don't believe that 2/3 of the planet is getting screwed over. I covered this in my reply to Eiviyn (also in the same post), but to quickly recap, everyone will have the opportunity to decide whether it be here on Earth or the afterlife. I would agree that is beneficial to be a good person, but I would say being a good person and not believing just to be safe is silly. Either you believe and act accordingly, you're still deciding or you don't and care not. The idea of "hoping for a reward" is also not the focus of this process. It is to become a better person/spirit/being. That, in itself, is the reward.
What I stated doesn't constitute a mental trap because it's a widely used practice in the modern world. Why is it bad when bosses micromanage their employees? Why is it bad when parents baby their children? Why is it bad when governments forcefully rule their subjects? I view God's interaction the same way. It has nothing to do with tempting God and everything to do with allowing us to act precisely as we see fit.
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.
"I don't take the silly parts of the bible literally" is not exactly the greatest defense. But that aside I've already admitted that Catholics are the flavor of the month, so what's the problem? When you understand why you reject Zeus, Thor and Vishnu, you'll understand why I reject your God.
I don't take anything in the bible literally unless other interpretations don't make sense; "Thou shalt not kill" being a pretty clear statement. Why would Jesus speak in parables if the Bible was meant to be taken literally? I think you misunderstand me by believing I'm trying to defend my religion. It doesn't need me to defend it. I am only interested in making sure it is understood properly so that you can make a properly informed decision. I don't care what you decide so long as you do so fairly. In this way, I completely understand why you reject "my God." I am not asking you to accept him, merely that you make sure that you didn't do so before properly understanding what you considered "silly fairy tales."
Jacob's parable about the tame and wild olive trees.
This is the longest and most boring chapter in the most boring book ever written (The Book of Mormon). Thirty-one times it came to pass that the trees were cumbered, grafted, pruned, plucked, dunged, and digged about for no apparent purpose, except to waste 3733 words. 5:1-77
I'll give it a look. I'm not particularly impressed by what I've read so far, but I'm willing to see if it has anything worth discussing.
You should go watch the 'It's all about the Mormons' South Park episode (free to watch on the South Park site), then find the creators' commentary to that on Youtube.
I've actually seen this and think that their commentary is pretty accurate in terms of an outside observer. The broadway musical The Book of Mormon is another interesting take on Mormonism by outsiders that does well to make fun of it while still representing it in a positive light. Mormons definitely emphasize "good living" and it's not uncommon to hear that even if we end up being completely wrong in our beliefs, we feel good about the lives we're living. We care less about what other people think and more about what we think of ourselves.
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.
This makes Christianity exclusive to Christians, though you could argue that Muslims could slip by. Muslims reject Jesus as being the son of God (instead, a prophet) making them mutually exclusive.
Nearly every Christian denomination believes he was a prophet and Muslims agree. Muslim's don't believe Jesus is the literal son God because that would be an abomination. Instead, we are metaphorical children of God. I see this as a technicality because they still believe his teachings, just as Christians do, but do not consider him the literal son of God or a deity. Agreeing that he was a prophet, but disagreeing on his heritage isn't enough of a divide to completely separate them in my eyes. A mutually exclusive belief would be if Muslims claimed he never existed or is the embodiment of evil.
Jews are out because they believe Jesus is not the messiah, claiming he does not meet the requirements for it.
Both Christianity and Judaism discuss the 12 Tribes of Israel. Part of this is that 10 tribes were lost (scattered as slaves of the Assyrians) while 2 remained. These tribes are the tribe of Judah (Judaism) and the tribe of Benjamin which merged with Judah. Many Christian denominations claim to be descendents of various tribes. This is important because of an event described as the Gathering of Israel wherein the 12 tribes would reunite. So while I agree that the modern beliefs of Christianity and Judaism are at odds, I believe parallels can be drawn between core principles that prevent them from being mutually exclusive.
Non-abrahamic religions are out straight off the bat.
I refer to my previous statement regarding Buddhism and reincarnation. To me, exclusive means that absolutely no connections or parallels can be drawn between the two. This isn't the case as I can see portions of many non-Abrahamic religions that resonate with my beliefs and Christianity in general. To me, these represent groups that got a few things right, but missed the bigger picture. I respect the emphasis on harmony many of these religions promote and feel it would be a mistake to exclude them entirely from Christian beliefs. I sometimes feel they are better at being Christ-like than most Christians in the world, they just don't use Christ as their role model.
If they are right, all others are wrong.
Quran 3:19 "The only religion in the sight of God is Islam."
I don't know the Quran as well as I'd like, but I don't agree that this warrants exclusivity. To me, this says "our interpretation is the correct interpretation" which doesn't exactly mean that everything about every other religion is wrong. Imagine 2 doors representing success and failure. If 2 people, having led similar lives, encountered them and picked different doors, picking the wrong door doesn't invalidate their life up to that point. This is similar to the concept of a deathbed conversion wherein a person lives a sinful life and then "finds God" as he's dying just to get into heaven.
I will agree that Islam's reaction to people they believe "failed the exam" is usually quite extreme, though. I will also agree that depending on the perspective, choosing the wrong door really would invalidate your life's choices, but I'm talking from my own perspective.
Pretty loose religion. No real requirements. Pray to whoever, even "invent" your own God. However other religions preclude "false gods" which makes them incompatible with Hinduism.
With tolerance being a significant part of the loosely defined religion, I refer to my points about non-Abrahamic religions. Christianity does more to exclude these religions than they do, which I'd like to mention I don't agree with.
Firstly, Holy Ghost is a requirement. Throwing out every religion bar Christianity. Mormons assert (as you did) that Christianity is corrupt after the death of the New Testament apostles. They also assert that they alone have the uncorrupt version. This, in my opinion, makes Mormons mutually exclusive with Christianity.
Secondly, Mormons believe in 3 separate Gods, who are not eternal. By contrast, Christianity teaches that there are 3 parts, but one God and that He is eternal.
Now, that's a Christian commandment broken there by Mormons. That makes them pretty mutually exclusive to me.
Don't take this as an insult, but you don't know much about Mormonism based on what you've said here.
1) The Holy Ghost is not a requirement for membership, nor is it a requirement for entering into heaven. Everyone can feel the influence of the Holy Ghost if they seek it, but only by being baptized can you receive the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" or his constant companionship (so long as you live righteously).
Being baptized is only a requirement for those who wish to receive the Priesthood (required for things like Missionary work) or enter into a Mormon Temple (temple work or be sealed). It is also a requirement to enter into the Celestial Kingdom. Before you say, "but that's heaven," it's not. As I said a while ago in this thread, we are much more specific about the afterlife than most Christian denominations. We believe the afterlife has many parts, 4 of which pertain to heaven and hell: Perdition (a form of what many call hell) and the 3 Kingdoms of Glory (Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial in order of increasing magnitude)
The Telestial Kingdom is reserved for individuals who did not have the opportunity to hear our teachings. It is here that many will make their choice before being judged according to their actions and desire of their hearts. We believe that everyone, regardless of their situation will have the opportunity to make their choice whether it be here on Earth or in the afterlife. This is why Mormon's engage in baptisms/sealings for the dead wherein we stand as proxies here on Earth for those that have passed.
The Terrestrial Kingdom is a middle ground wherein Jesus can be found, but God will not. While not an exact rule, it is often understood as a place where those who rejected our teachings on Earth, but later accepted them in the afterlife will reside. They had the opportunity but refused it.
The Celestial Kingdom is closest to what most consider heaven wherein Jesus AND God can be found. Being baptized is but one of the many requirements associated with Mormon principles to enter into this kingdom. You can call it the "righteous club" if it makes it easier to understand.
2) We do NOT believe in 3 separate Gods and believe we are ALL eternal. We believe in a form of Nontrinitarianism wherein God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are 3 separate beings. God is the one God, Jesus is the literal son of God sent to Earth for our salvation through the atonement and The Holy Ghost is the constant companion of those who would accept him.
Just because religions disagree doesn't make them exclusive in my eyes. This is primarily due to my beliefs about the afterlife. Mormonism disagrees with the idea that you get one chance to get it right here on Earth and if you screw up you're damned for eternity. We believe we get chance after chance to get it right both in this life and the next. Because of this, I am less willing to isolate the beliefs of others from my own given that sometimes (by my beliefs) they only got it half wrong.
On the contrary, this is actually one of the reasons I'm an atheist.
There are a lot of religions. All are mutually exclusive. You can't be a Mormon and a Christian. They have mutually exclusive requirements. Likewise, Islam rejects Jesus as being the son of God. Hindus are polytheistic, and so on.
All religions are mutually exclusive. Only one can be correct.
This means that, at best, 67% of the world (non-Christians) are wrong.
This is why it's so easy for me to reject the concept of hell (pascal's wager), because I'd be joining most of the world's total population there for, basically, being born into the wrong religion.
I'm not saying that you would become a Christian, I'm stating that much of your argument is built upon Catholic history and does not represent all parts of Christianity. Especially the part where you'd land in hell for being born into the wrong religion. Mormonism (and many other religions) do not believe this. It stands as a prime example of where your knowledge of one small portion of Christianity is generalizing the whole.
I'd also argue that religions are not mutually exclusive and that I am not aware of any requirements in Mormonism that prevent us from being considered Christian. Christianity is, at its core, the belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings through the Bible (and other works). Any other requirements for being considered Christian are imposed by the various denominations and not Christianity itself.
I would also disagree that only one religion can be correct. A suitable analogy would be a school exam. Assume the topic is "Where did we come from?" and there are 10 questions. Most religions believe they got 9/10 while everyone else scored 0-8 out of 10. There are certainly religions that directly oppose each other, but it would be ignorant to NOT see the parallels that run through religions all over the world. I was very specific when I said that Mormonism considers itself the only "complete" restoration. I didn't say the only "true" restoration because that's not what I (nor Mormonism) believe. We fully acknowledge that many religions out there practice beliefs we agree with, but we disagree on parts and/or are more specific about what we believe in. I think it is presumptuous to say that we are the only correct way of believing in God and if you don't believe our way you're not [Insert Religion Here]. You might not be a Mormon, but you could still be a Christian. Just like I wouldn't be a Catholic, but could still be Christian.
This isn't exactly a defense of Christianity. The fact that Christianity is not the only option, let alone of the fact that Christians can't even agree between themselves, is the most telling proof that people have absolutely no idea what god wants or that god even cares whether you follow arcane protocols or not.
The universe does not revolve around us. In the lifetime of the universe it is likely that thousands of other civilizations flourished. There is no reason for God to notice our insignificant speck of a planet, let alone care whether we prostrate to Mecca at a certain time, to what specifications we cut our penis at birth, or whether we work on the Sabbath. There would be no reason for the creator of the entire universe to be thinking about you, Josh. Or you, Sarah. Or you, Kyle.
Granted, this is speculation. I don't know how the mind of an omnipotent creator of the universe would actually work, but neither does anyone else. It's the height of hubris to say otherwise.
So scientists are allowed to consistently disagree (something that will never change so long as science is pursued by humans), but religion (based heavily upon human interpretation of human translations) isn't allowed to disagree? This is a weak argument and a stretch at best.
I'd also suggest that you're making the same mistake as Eiviyn by using one Christian belief to represent the whole. What you're talking about has no bearing on what I believe. I believe in many things including life on other planets as described in the Bible. In fact, many religions believe that life exists on other planets. I find your point to be incredibly ignorant of this. It was the mistake of men (of which some weren't even religious) to claim that we are the center of the universe, not the Bible. You would to better to separate the two.
I also believe there are many reasons for God to care about our planet, but it is not a discussion that I could have with you because it would require you to understand the principles that lead to that conclusion in the first place. I doubt that you know much about Mormon beliefs, so it it would be a waste of time until you researched the subject.
As for the idea that knowing what God wants is hubris, I think you're being dramatically grandiose. You might have a point if religion was based entirely upon the ideas of men without any literature to support it, but that's not the case. We believe God told us what he wants and that the personal accounts of those from Biblical times illustrate these things. We don't assume "God wants us to be good because I think that's what he'd want," we believe this because the scriptures contain what we believe is the word of God.
Obviously you have to believe in these religious texts in the first place, but we don't presume to know what God is thinking. We don't know how his mind works else we wouldn't rely so heavily on faith. Mormons are encouraged to seek out answers for themselves despite the fact that we have a Prophet we believe communes with God. This is because mistakes happen and we shouldn't automatically assume what the Prophet tells is 100% true. Mormonism opposes blind faith.
Even if evolution is totally wrong, this is what the bible proposes as an alternative:
6. Samson slays 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass. This is basically Christianity's version of Hercules.
I can agree this sounds like a fairy tale. You either believe it or you don't. Not really possible to "prove" it happened.
You could have just used this same excuse for all the examples instead of going through a series of mental gymnastics handwaving.
Now you're trying too hard. This isn't an excuse and I'd suggest you go learn what an excuse actually looks like. Not only did I agree with you (it does sound like a fairy tale), I went further and said I couldn't prove it happened. An excuse would have been "I don't need proof, I have faith."
While I would have found that answer acceptable, I knew you wouldn't. Somehow me agreeing with you is still an excuse and thus unacceptable to you. Brushing aside the rest of what I said as "mental gymnastics" and/or "handwaving" tells me that you're not interested in hearing what I have to say. I didn't use the Bible to justify the Bible, I used real world examples to justify the Bible and admitted those points that couldn't justify in a manner you would accept.
I'm not going to entertain anymore of your points until you address mine. It would be a waste of my time to exert effort providing my perspective when you're going to ignore the bulk of my points by jumping to points that I agree with you on. . . which you then attempt to spin as if I'm dodging your criticism.
I think a lot of you are substituting Catholicism for Christianity as a whole. This isn't fair to the many, many other denominations of Christianity that don't share the same beliefs. It's pretty obvious that many of you don't like the Catholic church's history and are using it for the bulk of your evidence for why you believe religion is a terrible thing. I think that it's more reasonable for you to argue that the Catholic church is a terrible thing (from your perspective) instead. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it's silly to lump all forms of religion into one group branded by your own stereotypes.
I'm not correcting all the errors in your post. I genuinely can't be bothered. If you want to summarise some key points, I'll reply.
This is a pretty lazy stance to take. I could just as easily say you don't understand Christianity and leave it at that. Why should anyone bother providing formulated opinions if you're unwilling to do the same?
If you were to view Christianity from the perspective of someone outside Catholicism a lot of your arguments fall apart. A simple example of this is Mormonism. We believe that we're the only complete restoration of the church first founded by Jesus Christ. This means that we don't associate ourselves with Catholicism (or any other religion). Furthermore, we describe the period of time after the death of Christ and His Apostles as the Great Apostasy. During the Great Apostasy, many churches were established, but they did not have priesthood power to lead people. We also believe that parts of the scriptures were corrupted or lost. This means that we don't attribute any of the religious history before Joseph Smith "restored" the LDS church as being a part of "the church." To us, this was a time of corruption during which "Christianity" was incomplete and abused for power by men lacking the spiritual authority to lead.
This also carries over to the Bible. There are so many translations that one of the central principles of Mormonism is that we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, but we only believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. This means that if you are using a version of the Bible other than the one we use (King James Version), your point(s) may not mean anything to us. It would be the same as taking the Book of Mormon and using it as evidence against Catholicism. On the other hand, many denominations don't consider Mormonism (or our books) to be part of Christianity. If Christianity itself can't agree on what makes you Christian, how can you hope to substitute one part for the whole in this argument when some wouldn't even consider the part you're using a part at all? Having the proper context when discussing Christianity makes all the difference.
Even if evolution is totally wrong, this is what the bible proposes as an alternative:
1. Fire breathing monster in the book of job
2. Giants once walked the earth
3. People once lived to be 800 years old
4. A talking donkey
5. The trinity. God gives birth to himself so that he can sacrifice himself to himself
6. Samson slays 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass. This is basically Christianity's version of Hercules.
7. Man lived in a whale for 3 days
8. Jacob wrestles with god WINS
You could switch this stuff with any of the other fairy tales you grew up with, like three little pigs or snow white, and you wouldn't know the difference. Personally, for me, I choose to be an adult. Quote:
1.) This passage describes a conversation in which God describes a creature named the Leviathan to Job. Given the context of the passage, it is likely that this was a creature that existed long before Job. While I can't offer up a definitive example of such creature, it is a common belief that the Leviathan was some form of crocodile.
The Sarcosuchus Imperator is an extinct creature that lends credibility to everything but fire breathing as most believe it probably couldn't produce flames. Given the fact that we are always discovering new species and the majority of Earth is unexplored, it's not unreasonable to believe that a property found in today's Bombardier Beetle could have produced flames in a larger creature.
2.) Some context would be nice. What book, which version of the Bible? I've read of giants in Deuteronomy 3:11 where a bed was 9 cubits by 4 cubits (13.5 feet by 6 feet), David and Goliath (described as a giant) at 6 cubits and a span (9.5+ feet tall) and of course Abraham being the height of 74 men in some books.
Ignoring the 3rd example, a cubit is based on the length from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Today this has been accepted as 18 inches, but using my own arm, a cubit is 17 inches (I'm 5'11.5"). Given that humans are getting taller over time, it's logical that humans were shorter in biblical times. I've seen estimates from 4'10" to 5.4" feet being the average. Taking a few liberties, I'd estimate the following:
In America, a queen size mattress (which I have) is 80 inches by 60 inches. That's 6'8" by 5' (3'1.5" on a twin). Using the Queen length with the Twin width, that's a 2.13:1 ratio. 9 cubits by 4 cubits is a 2.25:1 ratio. Thus the bed is comparable to modern beds in terms of proportionality.
Subtracting my height from the mattress length (6'8" - 5'11.5) we have 8.5 inches.
Used exactly, I approximate a man on a 9 cubit bed being 9.63 to 10.70 feet tall.
Used proportionally, I approximate a man on a 9 cubit bed being 9.5 to 10.62 feet tall
This same process would put Goliath between 6-7 feet tall.
Considering the tallest recorded height is 8'11" and we're continuing to get taller, this doesn't sound that crazy. It's also important to note that the tallest people tend to have a genetic defect that caused them to grow much faster/taller than normal. It is very easy to speculate that a similar occurance happened in Biblical times.
4.) First, I'd like to point out that various birds can mimic human speech. While I agree that Donkey's don't have this ability naturally, it doesn't scream fairy tale. If you believe in God, this makes perfect sense. If you don't, then talking birds provide a potential, albeit stretched, explanation.
5.) Mormonism is a Nontrinitarianism denomenation meaning we believe God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ to be three separate individuals. To us, this statement is utterly false. This only applies to Trinitarianism
6.) I can agree this sounds like a fairy tale. You either believe it or you don't. Not really possible to "prove" it happened.
7.) A lot of explanations are admittedly thin, but this article in particular has portions that explain the natural methods by which this could have happened. Ultimately it's not a matter of whether or not a man could be swallowed whole (because they can), but how long, exactly, Jonah was in the fish/whale and whether or not he could survive that long.
8.) This is another instance where Mormonism doesn't agree. We don't believe Jacob wrestled with God, but with a messenger/angel of God. Entirely plausible as this could have simply been another man.
I don't plan to actively engage in this thread, but I felt that it's important to remember that there are many ways to interpret the Bible and other religious texts. Taking but one example and ignoring the rest is a rather ignorant way of "battling" religion.
I dont come here indirectly insinuating people are idiots, and putting it in so many words. Like you just did. Its easy to be an observer with a clear point of view and perspective, and then come attack people here("Makes you sound like an idiot" to you, and you, and you"), When the people in here can easily fall in those pitfalls.
I understand your message, but your tone was off and you come across sitting on a high horse. . . . Having known you for quite some period of time, I will again point out that your lying and complete inconsideration is shocking.
There is nothing indirect about what I said. I was very to the point and DID call people idiots. I do that a lot and usually because it's warranted and people tend to cool down after I do it. This thread is getting heated for very specific reasons that I have outlined in my post. Just to be clear, I'll do it again:
Many of you in this thread are idiots. Stop being idiots. Is this clear enough?
Secondly, if anything, I'm knocking you and Gradius off your horses. Each of you have been incredibly patronizing in your posts while using a considerable amount of caustic rhetoric. You ask questions you don't really want to know the answers to, rather you hope to make a jab with the question itself. It's as if you're more interested in catching each other in clever traps than actually learning what the other has to say. I've found many of the comments in each of your posts offensive, but I'm not the kind of person that is going to rush to make a post every time you say something unbecoming of a respectable forum goer.
Lastly, you definitely haven't "known" me so much as you've worked with me. I don't consider you a friend, we've never interacted outside of a working relationship and I have had to call you on your behavior in these forums multiple times. My comments are limited to the behavior found within this thread. Your comments are personal and an attempt to demean my character. They aren't even related to this thread or the actual post I made.
I'm going to step in because I've been actively reading this thread (I'm still a moderator despite the color changes in my name lol) and feel that you guys need a few tips on how NOT to sound like raving idiots. . . because that's precisely what you sound like.
Many of you don't seem to care what's being said and are only here to push your own agenda. An agenda that is horribly distorted to fit your limited understanding of the other side of the argument(s). Most of you (if not all of you) are attempting to put forth your opinions as fact and support these non-facts (because they're just opinions) with sweeping generalizations and ridiculous absolutes. You simply can't do this. I'm Mormon (as stated earlier) and I happen to support both Creationism and Evolution. The closest description of this without a lengthy explanation would be a form of Theistic Evolution where I believe God created [Insert Stuffs Here] and later used Evolution to iterate upon these initial creations. I see merit in both arguments and am not foolish enough to automatically assume that "there can only be one!"
That said, it's also important that you remember that having an opinion is not only a good thing but something you should respect. Many of you are sounding more and more like teenage douchebags. You seem to think that just because your opinion is different (and in your mind correct), the other side must be too stupid to see your side of things. This is a fairly immature way of discussing anything. It is entirely possible for someone to understand your perspective/opinion and still disagree with it. If you can't accept this, leave this thread until you can.
To further build upon this: I maintain a firm belief that excessive vulgarity correlates to laziness and diminished intelligence. I see this kind of language as a crutch people use to compensate for their inability to find other ways of describing a situation. Even though I feel this way, you will never see me attacking people for their decision to use such language. This is me understanding that what I think is an opinion and as such should not be forcibly pushed onto others. I respect the fact that people are allowed to make their own decisions and trust that the appropriate consequences (that they can't choose) will follow.
With these things in mind, there are two examples I'd like to highlight that outline these problems perfectly:
Your dirty atheist Government spends billions on technologies like SETI and trying to help find alien life on other planets(When they cant even find microbes on Mars!), when in fact all that finances can go to better helping the poor. Christians try infinitely harder. . . .
This makes you sound like an idiot. You generalize to the point that the efforts in your previous wall of text are entirely undone. "Your dirty athiest" followed by ANYTHING is childish at best. You're clearly religious and you're here to share your views with those that don't agree with you. You aren't going to convince anyone that "Christians try harder" when you show a marked lack of effort in maintaining objectivity in your posts.
I'm Christian (though some Christian groups disagree) and I find myself disagreeing with many of your points. Using the quoted text as an example: some people are actually poor as a result of their decisions (see alcoholism and drugs). I find it despicable to waste the efforts of others on those who would exploit others to maintain their meager lifestyle. This isn't even my opinion, it is fact. Thus your opinion (because that's what it is) shouldn't be treated as fact because the actual facts disagree. Most of your opinions match this tone in that you treat them as fact when you should instead present them as well support opinions from an objective perspective. You'll sound less like an idiot and we're likely to be more receptive of it.
If it wasn't for the internet I would still be a christian.
Not only should this thread remain open, it is the duty of every rational person to combat religion's bigotry and anti-scientific beliefs which are damaging to humanity's progress. . . .
This makes you sound like an idiot as well. I consider myself a rational and (very) intelligent individual, yet I find what you've said to be irrational and somewhat emotional. You sound embittered by some experience that has motivated you to wage war on anyone that still supports something that you disagree with.
One issue that I encounter over and over again with anyone opposing religion is that you make a crucial mistake in how you approach the topic. Religion is not a person. It cannot claim responsibility for those that attribute their actions to its cause. Because of this, it is incredibly silly to blame religion for the multitude of issues many people attach to it. Those historic events that you and many others rail against are not the result of religion, they are the result of an individual or group of individuals that chose to act that way. I will not deny that many atrocities were committed under the guise of religious principles, but I would argue that such cases were the result of those in power exploiting the relationship many have with their religion.
The swastika, which has forever been tarnished through its use by Nazi Germany, wasn't always a symbol of "pure evil" that so many feel compelled to censor. When a group took it and connected it to their crimes against humanity, it's use was forever changed. Religion is obviously a more complex beast to tackle, but it is silly to blame religion for every bad thing ever connected to it. I believe that you really only find what you look for and when you look for all of the bad things, you miss the many, many good things along the way.
What's this? A Catholic priest molested a child? All Catholics are pedophiles! A group of Muslims rammed planes into US buildings? All Muslims are terrorists! Can you see how this narrow-minded view is potentially more damaging to humanity's progress than your nonfactual opinion that religion is hindering science? What if I blew up an entire city block in New York city in the name of StarCraft 2. Does that mean StarCraft 2 players are terrorists?
Even at a more basic level we fight to disprove the stereotype that FPS gamers are violent murders, fantasy gamers are pedophiles and female gamers are fat lesbians. Why is this any different?
I fervently avoid Science vs Religion discussions because I am ceaselessly shocked by its propensity to turn everyone involved into raving children unwilling to adequately listen to the other side. I'd love to be proven wrong for once. . .
And none of you realized that the Internet is this "NWO" and that cats rule it? I'm going to predict that someone will make a reply to this thread sometime in the future.
I had half a mind to lock the thread to prevent future replies JUST to be evil like that ;P
I've talked to you. You're well spoken, you seem intelligent, and very reasonable.
You can't possibly believe that. Surely.
I'd hate to be a mormon. My brother is fucking retarded. Like, Taintedwisp retarded. If he ruled a planet, yeah, no.
Not in this widely misinterpreted fashion, no ;)
Mormons are often isolated from other Christian sects due to our focus on "What happens next?" when it comes to the afterlife. While most assume that we're going to live in heaven forever and ever, we're a tad more practical in that we believe our time on the Earth is but a stepping stone on our path. This path does cover the idea of life on other planets, but this is something the Bible already speaks of.
So in short, no I don't believe I will one day rule my own planet, but I do believe that at some point, there will be those of us that progress forward to repeat God's process with their own "spiritual family." It is an incredibly condensed way of saying it, but it's the simplest way I can explain it without sounding entirely crazy (which is why the misconception was originally formed).
To return to the actual topic of this thread, yes I am religious and would classify myself as a Mormon (LDS: Latter-Day Saint), although I also find this thread somewhat pointless.
And yes. . . one day I will rule over my own planet. . . jealous?
I made a mockup of Battle-Net sometime after BlizzCon 2011. I'm finally releasing it for some feedback before I make another. I'll be collaborating with OneTwo on the new mockup.
Attachment Turret is the name of the Actor you are setting as the Host for your Site Actor
SOpAttachWeapon is a Site Operation Actor created by Blizzard. It is not mentioned elsewhere as you do not need to create it yourself. It already exists.
0
I don't agree with this and I don't find that study as being conclusive evidence of the decline of religion. To me, this aligns with the nature of modern youth to be less and less concerned with spirituality until later in life. Societal pressures have far more pronounced effects on religion amongst youth than science will likely ever have in our lifetimes. Science doesn't push conformity nor does it lash out at you for being different; social norms do. As a 22 year old Mormon, my beliefs are rarely challenged by science. Instead, my beliefs are challenged on a daily basis by those who find my decision to reject profanity, alcohol, drugs and sex as contrary or "silly." None of which have anything to do with scientific advancement.
Religious beliefs tend to become more important when the question of raising a family surfaces. Given that this is also becoming less of a priority for modern couples (get married later, don't always have kids), it is logical that religion is also taking a back seat to personal interests. This ALSO relates to societal pressures considering that there is a rise in the "need" to be independent. Science isn't telling people to postpone having a family in favor of pursuing self-interests.
We're living in a fairly selfish age where youth are encouraged both to conform and focus on their own needs. Those needs being ones that align with social expectations such as sexual reputation. Being a virgin past high school is taboo. What does that have to do with science? Drug use is moving towards legal recreational consumption. Science for the win? Nudity is quickly becoming an acceptable form of family entertainment. Is that science too? The world is all about "does it feel good? Great!" It can be difficult to find religion in the midst of that.
To me, science is more likely to affect the middle-aged person's religion conviction than a twenty-something. I think this particular statement is one of your less thoughtful remarks.
I disagree here. I don't consider the common name to be God. That is an assertion made by you that isn't as common as you suggest. I believe present-God came after the Big Bang. I also believe Evolution was a tool used by God in his creation(s). I find the Bible supports Evolution more than it does Creationism given that most of the support for Creationism comes from assumptions made through interpretations of the Bible that I disagree with.
I support Intelligent Design, but I don't consider it exclusive to Evolution. Is it not logical to assert that Evolution was made possible as a direct result of life being designed to support it? I don't believe our current understanding of Evolution is entirely accurate, however, as I don't believe we all started as single-celled organisms.
I feel that you're trying too hard to prove that only one can be right when in my mind, they are both reliant upon the other to function.
0
There is nothing "basically" about it. It's a complex answer to which Mormon's would say no while others say everything from yes to no. I answered this in the same post you pulled this quote from. I'd encourage you to go back and read it again so that I don't have to quote myself.
In this frame I still disagree because humility requires a certain aspect of humanity that what you're describing doesn't have. Humility is often associated with being respectfully modest or lacking a prideful ego. You can't really say science falls under this definition because it doesn't respect anything. In fact it is often viewed as a VERY disrespectful philosophy because it only cares about the truth. A simple example would be how scientists would like to "farm" embryos for stem cell research. The motivation for doing so isn't necessarily good or evil, but it doesn't respect the sacredness that some people have for these "unborn children." I think a better term that I would agree with is indiscriminate. Science doesn't care who you are, only that what remains at the end is truth. Religion is admittedly more discriminate with regards to the choices people make.
As for "arrogance" or "hubris" in religious texts, I feel that you are being far too biased. Religion, at it's core, is about spiritual salvation through humility and service. This contradicts what you constantly label religion as being. I believe that what you are talking about has more to do with the people than the philosophy itself. I also don't care what "the church" (Catholic in your case) says is more harmful for children because it is not what I believe in. Mormonism does NOT advocate that science is harmful for children. We openly embrace it and accept that we are entirely capable of getting things wrong.
If science contradicts what we believe, we are strongly encouraged to seek out the answer for ourselves. At the end of the day, we believe that God operates according to certain laws that men use science to understand. If there are things God does that are not supported by science, we believe that science hasn't yet come to understand how it works. We do not assume that the science is simply wrong. If we are careful to keep separate the principles of science and religion, we believe both can give us a greater understanding of the world God has created for us.
Neither banking nor fraud are mentioned anywhere in the link you provided. It even states that some of the reports are contradictory. The only thing this is evident of is that Joseph Smith was arrested for "Glass Looking". That is, the act of looking for "treasures" which some might construed as fraudulent behavior. The problem is that the article closes with the following statement:
"However, the fact is that Rev. Walters broke the chain of custody of evidence. He had a vested interest in making Joseph Smith look as bad as possible. He did, in fact, use some of these records for that purpose. His conduct therefore gives rise to not-untenable suspicions about whether the complete body of evidence made it through his hands."
The problem that I frequently encounter is that evidence surfaces that claims against Joseph Smith were made, but not that the claims themselves had any validity. I am fully aware that many, many efforts have been made to discredit Joseph Smith, but I have not found any of these to be objectively sound in their documentation. The link you provided is no different.
Yes and no. I believe that he DOES care, but that he will not force you one way or another. I also don't believe that 2/3 of the planet is getting screwed over. I covered this in my reply to Eiviyn (also in the same post), but to quickly recap, everyone will have the opportunity to decide whether it be here on Earth or the afterlife. I would agree that is beneficial to be a good person, but I would say being a good person and not believing just to be safe is silly. Either you believe and act accordingly, you're still deciding or you don't and care not. The idea of "hoping for a reward" is also not the focus of this process. It is to become a better person/spirit/being. That, in itself, is the reward.
What I stated doesn't constitute a mental trap because it's a widely used practice in the modern world. Why is it bad when bosses micromanage their employees? Why is it bad when parents baby their children? Why is it bad when governments forcefully rule their subjects? I view God's interaction the same way. It has nothing to do with tempting God and everything to do with allowing us to act precisely as we see fit.
I don't take anything in the bible literally unless other interpretations don't make sense; "Thou shalt not kill" being a pretty clear statement. Why would Jesus speak in parables if the Bible was meant to be taken literally? I think you misunderstand me by believing I'm trying to defend my religion. It doesn't need me to defend it. I am only interested in making sure it is understood properly so that you can make a properly informed decision. I don't care what you decide so long as you do so fairly. In this way, I completely understand why you reject "my God." I am not asking you to accept him, merely that you make sure that you didn't do so before properly understanding what you considered "silly fairy tales."
I'll give it a look. I'm not particularly impressed by what I've read so far, but I'm willing to see if it has anything worth discussing.
I've actually seen this and think that their commentary is pretty accurate in terms of an outside observer. The broadway musical The Book of Mormon is another interesting take on Mormonism by outsiders that does well to make fun of it while still representing it in a positive light. Mormons definitely emphasize "good living" and it's not uncommon to hear that even if we end up being completely wrong in our beliefs, we feel good about the lives we're living. We care less about what other people think and more about what we think of ourselves.
0
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.
0
Nearly every Christian denomination believes he was a prophet and Muslims agree. Muslim's don't believe Jesus is the literal son God because that would be an abomination. Instead, we are metaphorical children of God. I see this as a technicality because they still believe his teachings, just as Christians do, but do not consider him the literal son of God or a deity. Agreeing that he was a prophet, but disagreeing on his heritage isn't enough of a divide to completely separate them in my eyes. A mutually exclusive belief would be if Muslims claimed he never existed or is the embodiment of evil.
Both Christianity and Judaism discuss the 12 Tribes of Israel. Part of this is that 10 tribes were lost (scattered as slaves of the Assyrians) while 2 remained. These tribes are the tribe of Judah (Judaism) and the tribe of Benjamin which merged with Judah. Many Christian denominations claim to be descendents of various tribes. This is important because of an event described as the Gathering of Israel wherein the 12 tribes would reunite. So while I agree that the modern beliefs of Christianity and Judaism are at odds, I believe parallels can be drawn between core principles that prevent them from being mutually exclusive.
I refer to my previous statement regarding Buddhism and reincarnation. To me, exclusive means that absolutely no connections or parallels can be drawn between the two. This isn't the case as I can see portions of many non-Abrahamic religions that resonate with my beliefs and Christianity in general. To me, these represent groups that got a few things right, but missed the bigger picture. I respect the emphasis on harmony many of these religions promote and feel it would be a mistake to exclude them entirely from Christian beliefs. I sometimes feel they are better at being Christ-like than most Christians in the world, they just don't use Christ as their role model.
I don't know the Quran as well as I'd like, but I don't agree that this warrants exclusivity. To me, this says "our interpretation is the correct interpretation" which doesn't exactly mean that everything about every other religion is wrong. Imagine 2 doors representing success and failure. If 2 people, having led similar lives, encountered them and picked different doors, picking the wrong door doesn't invalidate their life up to that point. This is similar to the concept of a deathbed conversion wherein a person lives a sinful life and then "finds God" as he's dying just to get into heaven.
I will agree that Islam's reaction to people they believe "failed the exam" is usually quite extreme, though. I will also agree that depending on the perspective, choosing the wrong door really would invalidate your life's choices, but I'm talking from my own perspective.
With tolerance being a significant part of the loosely defined religion, I refer to my points about non-Abrahamic religions. Christianity does more to exclude these religions than they do, which I'd like to mention I don't agree with.
Don't take this as an insult, but you don't know much about Mormonism based on what you've said here.
1) The Holy Ghost is not a requirement for membership, nor is it a requirement for entering into heaven. Everyone can feel the influence of the Holy Ghost if they seek it, but only by being baptized can you receive the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" or his constant companionship (so long as you live righteously).
Being baptized is only a requirement for those who wish to receive the Priesthood (required for things like Missionary work) or enter into a Mormon Temple (temple work or be sealed). It is also a requirement to enter into the Celestial Kingdom. Before you say, "but that's heaven," it's not. As I said a while ago in this thread, we are much more specific about the afterlife than most Christian denominations. We believe the afterlife has many parts, 4 of which pertain to heaven and hell: Perdition (a form of what many call hell) and the 3 Kingdoms of Glory (Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial in order of increasing magnitude)
The Telestial Kingdom is reserved for individuals who did not have the opportunity to hear our teachings. It is here that many will make their choice before being judged according to their actions and desire of their hearts. We believe that everyone, regardless of their situation will have the opportunity to make their choice whether it be here on Earth or in the afterlife. This is why Mormon's engage in baptisms/sealings for the dead wherein we stand as proxies here on Earth for those that have passed.
The Terrestrial Kingdom is a middle ground wherein Jesus can be found, but God will not. While not an exact rule, it is often understood as a place where those who rejected our teachings on Earth, but later accepted them in the afterlife will reside. They had the opportunity but refused it.
The Celestial Kingdom is closest to what most consider heaven wherein Jesus AND God can be found. Being baptized is but one of the many requirements associated with Mormon principles to enter into this kingdom. You can call it the "righteous club" if it makes it easier to understand.
2) We do NOT believe in 3 separate Gods and believe we are ALL eternal. We believe in a form of Nontrinitarianism wherein God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are 3 separate beings. God is the one God, Jesus is the literal son of God sent to Earth for our salvation through the atonement and The Holy Ghost is the constant companion of those who would accept him.
Just because religions disagree doesn't make them exclusive in my eyes. This is primarily due to my beliefs about the afterlife. Mormonism disagrees with the idea that you get one chance to get it right here on Earth and if you screw up you're damned for eternity. We believe we get chance after chance to get it right both in this life and the next. Because of this, I am less willing to isolate the beliefs of others from my own given that sometimes (by my beliefs) they only got it half wrong.
0
I'm not saying that you would become a Christian, I'm stating that much of your argument is built upon Catholic history and does not represent all parts of Christianity. Especially the part where you'd land in hell for being born into the wrong religion. Mormonism (and many other religions) do not believe this. It stands as a prime example of where your knowledge of one small portion of Christianity is generalizing the whole.
I'd also argue that religions are not mutually exclusive and that I am not aware of any requirements in Mormonism that prevent us from being considered Christian. Christianity is, at its core, the belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings through the Bible (and other works). Any other requirements for being considered Christian are imposed by the various denominations and not Christianity itself.
I would also disagree that only one religion can be correct. A suitable analogy would be a school exam. Assume the topic is "Where did we come from?" and there are 10 questions. Most religions believe they got 9/10 while everyone else scored 0-8 out of 10. There are certainly religions that directly oppose each other, but it would be ignorant to NOT see the parallels that run through religions all over the world. I was very specific when I said that Mormonism considers itself the only "complete" restoration. I didn't say the only "true" restoration because that's not what I (nor Mormonism) believe. We fully acknowledge that many religions out there practice beliefs we agree with, but we disagree on parts and/or are more specific about what we believe in. I think it is presumptuous to say that we are the only correct way of believing in God and if you don't believe our way you're not [Insert Religion Here]. You might not be a Mormon, but you could still be a Christian. Just like I wouldn't be a Catholic, but could still be Christian.
So scientists are allowed to consistently disagree (something that will never change so long as science is pursued by humans), but religion (based heavily upon human interpretation of human translations) isn't allowed to disagree? This is a weak argument and a stretch at best.
I'd also suggest that you're making the same mistake as Eiviyn by using one Christian belief to represent the whole. What you're talking about has no bearing on what I believe. I believe in many things including life on other planets as described in the Bible. In fact, many religions believe that life exists on other planets. I find your point to be incredibly ignorant of this. It was the mistake of men (of which some weren't even religious) to claim that we are the center of the universe, not the Bible. You would to better to separate the two.
I also believe there are many reasons for God to care about our planet, but it is not a discussion that I could have with you because it would require you to understand the principles that lead to that conclusion in the first place. I doubt that you know much about Mormon beliefs, so it it would be a waste of time until you researched the subject.
As for the idea that knowing what God wants is hubris, I think you're being dramatically grandiose. You might have a point if religion was based entirely upon the ideas of men without any literature to support it, but that's not the case. We believe God told us what he wants and that the personal accounts of those from Biblical times illustrate these things. We don't assume "God wants us to be good because I think that's what he'd want," we believe this because the scriptures contain what we believe is the word of God.
Obviously you have to believe in these religious texts in the first place, but we don't presume to know what God is thinking. We don't know how his mind works else we wouldn't rely so heavily on faith. Mormons are encouraged to seek out answers for themselves despite the fact that we have a Prophet we believe communes with God. This is because mistakes happen and we shouldn't automatically assume what the Prophet tells is 100% true. Mormonism opposes blind faith.
Now you're trying too hard. This isn't an excuse and I'd suggest you go learn what an excuse actually looks like. Not only did I agree with you (it does sound like a fairy tale), I went further and said I couldn't prove it happened. An excuse would have been "I don't need proof, I have faith."
While I would have found that answer acceptable, I knew you wouldn't. Somehow me agreeing with you is still an excuse and thus unacceptable to you. Brushing aside the rest of what I said as "mental gymnastics" and/or "handwaving" tells me that you're not interested in hearing what I have to say. I didn't use the Bible to justify the Bible, I used real world examples to justify the Bible and admitted those points that couldn't justify in a manner you would accept.
I'm not going to entertain anymore of your points until you address mine. It would be a waste of my time to exert effort providing my perspective when you're going to ignore the bulk of my points by jumping to points that I agree with you on. . . which you then attempt to spin as if I'm dodging your criticism.
0
I think a lot of you are substituting Catholicism for Christianity as a whole. This isn't fair to the many, many other denominations of Christianity that don't share the same beliefs. It's pretty obvious that many of you don't like the Catholic church's history and are using it for the bulk of your evidence for why you believe religion is a terrible thing. I think that it's more reasonable for you to argue that the Catholic church is a terrible thing (from your perspective) instead. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it's silly to lump all forms of religion into one group branded by your own stereotypes.
This is a pretty lazy stance to take. I could just as easily say you don't understand Christianity and leave it at that. Why should anyone bother providing formulated opinions if you're unwilling to do the same?
If you were to view Christianity from the perspective of someone outside Catholicism a lot of your arguments fall apart. A simple example of this is Mormonism. We believe that we're the only complete restoration of the church first founded by Jesus Christ. This means that we don't associate ourselves with Catholicism (or any other religion). Furthermore, we describe the period of time after the death of Christ and His Apostles as the Great Apostasy. During the Great Apostasy, many churches were established, but they did not have priesthood power to lead people. We also believe that parts of the scriptures were corrupted or lost. This means that we don't attribute any of the religious history before Joseph Smith "restored" the LDS church as being a part of "the church." To us, this was a time of corruption during which "Christianity" was incomplete and abused for power by men lacking the spiritual authority to lead.
This also carries over to the Bible. There are so many translations that one of the central principles of Mormonism is that we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, but we only believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. This means that if you are using a version of the Bible other than the one we use (King James Version), your point(s) may not mean anything to us. It would be the same as taking the Book of Mormon and using it as evidence against Catholicism. On the other hand, many denominations don't consider Mormonism (or our books) to be part of Christianity. If Christianity itself can't agree on what makes you Christian, how can you hope to substitute one part for the whole in this argument when some wouldn't even consider the part you're using a part at all? Having the proper context when discussing Christianity makes all the difference.
1.) This passage describes a conversation in which God describes a creature named the Leviathan to Job. Given the context of the passage, it is likely that this was a creature that existed long before Job. While I can't offer up a definitive example of such creature, it is a common belief that the Leviathan was some form of crocodile.
The Sarcosuchus Imperator is an extinct creature that lends credibility to everything but fire breathing as most believe it probably couldn't produce flames. Given the fact that we are always discovering new species and the majority of Earth is unexplored, it's not unreasonable to believe that a property found in today's Bombardier Beetle could have produced flames in a larger creature.
2.) Some context would be nice. What book, which version of the Bible? I've read of giants in Deuteronomy 3:11 where a bed was 9 cubits by 4 cubits (13.5 feet by 6 feet), David and Goliath (described as a giant) at 6 cubits and a span (9.5+ feet tall) and of course Abraham being the height of 74 men in some books.
Ignoring the 3rd example, a cubit is based on the length from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Today this has been accepted as 18 inches, but using my own arm, a cubit is 17 inches (I'm 5'11.5"). Given that humans are getting taller over time, it's logical that humans were shorter in biblical times. I've seen estimates from 4'10" to 5.4" feet being the average. Taking a few liberties, I'd estimate the following:
Me: 5'11.5" (71.5 inches) = 3.97 cubits @ 17 inches/cubit
Biblical Low: 4'10" (58 inches) = 81.12% = 13.79 inches/cubit
9 Cubits = 124.11 inches or 10.34 feet (length of bed)
Biblical High: 5'4" (64 inches) = 89.51% = 15.22 inches/cubit
9 Cubits = 136.95 inches or 11.41 feet (length of bed)
In America, a queen size mattress (which I have) is 80 inches by 60 inches. That's 6'8" by 5' (3'1.5" on a twin). Using the Queen length with the Twin width, that's a 2.13:1 ratio. 9 cubits by 4 cubits is a 2.25:1 ratio. Thus the bed is comparable to modern beds in terms of proportionality.
Subtracting my height from the mattress length (6'8" - 5'11.5) we have 8.5 inches.
Used exactly, I approximate a man on a 9 cubit bed being 9.63 to 10.70 feet tall.
Used proportionally, I approximate a man on a 9 cubit bed being 9.5 to 10.62 feet tall
This same process would put Goliath between 6-7 feet tall.
Considering the tallest recorded height is 8'11" and we're continuing to get taller, this doesn't sound that crazy. It's also important to note that the tallest people tend to have a genetic defect that caused them to grow much faster/taller than normal. It is very easy to speculate that a similar occurance happened in Biblical times.
3.) While this isn't strictly a Mormon belief, here is an interesting attempt at explaining this phenomenon.
4.) First, I'd like to point out that various birds can mimic human speech. While I agree that Donkey's don't have this ability naturally, it doesn't scream fairy tale. If you believe in God, this makes perfect sense. If you don't, then talking birds provide a potential, albeit stretched, explanation.
5.) Mormonism is a Nontrinitarianism denomenation meaning we believe God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ to be three separate individuals. To us, this statement is utterly false. This only applies to Trinitarianism
6.) I can agree this sounds like a fairy tale. You either believe it or you don't. Not really possible to "prove" it happened.
7.) A lot of explanations are admittedly thin, but this article in particular has portions that explain the natural methods by which this could have happened. Ultimately it's not a matter of whether or not a man could be swallowed whole (because they can), but how long, exactly, Jonah was in the fish/whale and whether or not he could survive that long.
8.) This is another instance where Mormonism doesn't agree. We don't believe Jacob wrestled with God, but with a messenger/angel of God. Entirely plausible as this could have simply been another man.
I don't plan to actively engage in this thread, but I felt that it's important to remember that there are many ways to interpret the Bible and other religious texts. Taking but one example and ignoring the rest is a rather ignorant way of "battling" religion.
0
There is nothing indirect about what I said. I was very to the point and DID call people idiots. I do that a lot and usually because it's warranted and people tend to cool down after I do it. This thread is getting heated for very specific reasons that I have outlined in my post. Just to be clear, I'll do it again:
Many of you in this thread are idiots. Stop being idiots. Is this clear enough?
Secondly, if anything, I'm knocking you and Gradius off your horses. Each of you have been incredibly patronizing in your posts while using a considerable amount of caustic rhetoric. You ask questions you don't really want to know the answers to, rather you hope to make a jab with the question itself. It's as if you're more interested in catching each other in clever traps than actually learning what the other has to say. I've found many of the comments in each of your posts offensive, but I'm not the kind of person that is going to rush to make a post every time you say something unbecoming of a respectable forum goer.
Lastly, you definitely haven't "known" me so much as you've worked with me. I don't consider you a friend, we've never interacted outside of a working relationship and I have had to call you on your behavior in these forums multiple times. My comments are limited to the behavior found within this thread. Your comments are personal and an attempt to demean my character. They aren't even related to this thread or the actual post I made.
You're a moderator, start acting like it. . .
0
You're Christian? Could've fooled me. . .
0
I'm going to step in because I've been actively reading this thread (I'm still a moderator despite the color changes in my name lol) and feel that you guys need a few tips on how NOT to sound like raving idiots. . . because that's precisely what you sound like.
Many of you don't seem to care what's being said and are only here to push your own agenda. An agenda that is horribly distorted to fit your limited understanding of the other side of the argument(s). Most of you (if not all of you) are attempting to put forth your opinions as fact and support these non-facts (because they're just opinions) with sweeping generalizations and ridiculous absolutes. You simply can't do this. I'm Mormon (as stated earlier) and I happen to support both Creationism and Evolution. The closest description of this without a lengthy explanation would be a form of Theistic Evolution where I believe God created [Insert Stuffs Here] and later used Evolution to iterate upon these initial creations. I see merit in both arguments and am not foolish enough to automatically assume that "there can only be one!"
That said, it's also important that you remember that having an opinion is not only a good thing but something you should respect. Many of you are sounding more and more like teenage douchebags. You seem to think that just because your opinion is different (and in your mind correct), the other side must be too stupid to see your side of things. This is a fairly immature way of discussing anything. It is entirely possible for someone to understand your perspective/opinion and still disagree with it. If you can't accept this, leave this thread until you can.
To further build upon this: I maintain a firm belief that excessive vulgarity correlates to laziness and diminished intelligence. I see this kind of language as a crutch people use to compensate for their inability to find other ways of describing a situation. Even though I feel this way, you will never see me attacking people for their decision to use such language. This is me understanding that what I think is an opinion and as such should not be forcibly pushed onto others. I respect the fact that people are allowed to make their own decisions and trust that the appropriate consequences (that they can't choose) will follow.
With these things in mind, there are two examples I'd like to highlight that outline these problems perfectly:
This makes you sound like an idiot. You generalize to the point that the efforts in your previous wall of text are entirely undone. "Your dirty athiest" followed by ANYTHING is childish at best. You're clearly religious and you're here to share your views with those that don't agree with you. You aren't going to convince anyone that "Christians try harder" when you show a marked lack of effort in maintaining objectivity in your posts.
I'm Christian (though some Christian groups disagree) and I find myself disagreeing with many of your points. Using the quoted text as an example: some people are actually poor as a result of their decisions (see alcoholism and drugs). I find it despicable to waste the efforts of others on those who would exploit others to maintain their meager lifestyle. This isn't even my opinion, it is fact. Thus your opinion (because that's what it is) shouldn't be treated as fact because the actual facts disagree. Most of your opinions match this tone in that you treat them as fact when you should instead present them as well support opinions from an objective perspective. You'll sound less like an idiot and we're likely to be more receptive of it.
This makes you sound like an idiot as well. I consider myself a rational and (very) intelligent individual, yet I find what you've said to be irrational and somewhat emotional. You sound embittered by some experience that has motivated you to wage war on anyone that still supports something that you disagree with.
One issue that I encounter over and over again with anyone opposing religion is that you make a crucial mistake in how you approach the topic. Religion is not a person. It cannot claim responsibility for those that attribute their actions to its cause. Because of this, it is incredibly silly to blame religion for the multitude of issues many people attach to it. Those historic events that you and many others rail against are not the result of religion, they are the result of an individual or group of individuals that chose to act that way. I will not deny that many atrocities were committed under the guise of religious principles, but I would argue that such cases were the result of those in power exploiting the relationship many have with their religion.
The swastika, which has forever been tarnished through its use by Nazi Germany, wasn't always a symbol of "pure evil" that so many feel compelled to censor. When a group took it and connected it to their crimes against humanity, it's use was forever changed. Religion is obviously a more complex beast to tackle, but it is silly to blame religion for every bad thing ever connected to it. I believe that you really only find what you look for and when you look for all of the bad things, you miss the many, many good things along the way.
What's this? A Catholic priest molested a child? All Catholics are pedophiles! A group of Muslims rammed planes into US buildings? All Muslims are terrorists! Can you see how this narrow-minded view is potentially more damaging to humanity's progress than your nonfactual opinion that religion is hindering science? What if I blew up an entire city block in New York city in the name of StarCraft 2. Does that mean StarCraft 2 players are terrorists?
Even at a more basic level we fight to disprove the stereotype that FPS gamers are violent murders, fantasy gamers are pedophiles and female gamers are fat lesbians. Why is this any different?
I fervently avoid Science vs Religion discussions because I am ceaselessly shocked by its propensity to turn everyone involved into raving children unwilling to adequately listen to the other side. I'd love to be proven wrong for once. . .
0
I had half a mind to lock the thread to prevent future replies JUST to be evil like that ;P
0
Not in this widely misinterpreted fashion, no ;)
Mormons are often isolated from other Christian sects due to our focus on "What happens next?" when it comes to the afterlife. While most assume that we're going to live in heaven forever and ever, we're a tad more practical in that we believe our time on the Earth is but a stepping stone on our path. This path does cover the idea of life on other planets, but this is something the Bible already speaks of.
So in short, no I don't believe I will one day rule my own planet, but I do believe that at some point, there will be those of us that progress forward to repeat God's process with their own "spiritual family." It is an incredibly condensed way of saying it, but it's the simplest way I can explain it without sounding entirely crazy (which is why the misconception was originally formed).
0
To return to the actual topic of this thread, yes I am religious and would classify myself as a Mormon (LDS: Latter-Day Saint), although I also find this thread somewhat pointless.
And yes. . . one day I will rule over my own planet. . . jealous?
0
For anyone interested, I've thrown up a pair of threads you may want to read:
Battle-Net or Team Liquid
Whichever you prefer.
I made a mockup of Battle-Net sometime after BlizzCon 2011. I'm finally releasing it for some feedback before I make another. I'll be collaborating with OneTwo on the new mockup.
Sexy fun times!
0
Attachment Turret is the name of the Actor you are setting as the Host for your Site Actor
SOpAttachWeapon is a Site Operation Actor created by Blizzard. It is not mentioned elsewhere as you do not need to create it yourself. It already exists.
0
I happen to think that the lower your reputation score is, the more elite you are.
I just wish that troll who liked one of my posts would take it back. . . HE RUINED MY PERFECT SCORE!