General Religious discussion

[Writerainge]

Has anyone here seen "religulous"  By Bill Mahr?  I think its something you all should check out.

[Reaves]

I'm not really interested in watching a movie designed to make fun of me.

[mtlhddoc2]

it is people like him that make athiests look bad. Most athiests are not hostile jerks towards anyone with a religious belief.

[The Jade Knight]

it is people like him that make athiests look bad. Most athiests are not hostile jerks towards anyone with a religious belief.

Hear, hear.  And a great many of them are reasonable, too.  Really, it'd be nice if an honest film was made on the topic some day.  Unfortunately, "honest" and "reasonable" don't seem to be strong suits in Hollywood.

[Patriotic Kaz]

Jade it isn't the lifestyle that bothers me its the concept of beleiving without the basic understanding of how or why... faith is just that to believe even though you have no answers to accept even though you don't KNOW... and i can't deal with that...

on a different note i find the LDS church to have less flaws in the basic belief structure than the other denominations (and realize that i truly don't count the church of LDS as a christian denomination whether it was ingrained in me as a kid or not i see to large a difference between there philosphy and any other denomination excuse my tangent) because if you are made in the image of god and that image was originally without flaw how can you not achieve everything he has... though i still find the whole notion of achieving god hood silly... even something such as demi-gods or buddhasatvahs or whatever... i personally think we are not in whatever created us image we are merely intellegent beast that may or may not have a soul...(though i hate to admit it i do believe in a soul... i guess i don't know but to acknowledge that in my heart would most likely lead to despair)

[The Jade Knight]

Jade it isn't the lifestyle that bothers me its the concept of beleiving without the basic understanding of how or why... faith is just that to believe even though you have no answers to accept even though you don't KNOW... and i can't deal with that...

But, see this is exactly what Christian faith isn't.  Faith is "the evidence of things unseen".  Faith requires research and some degree of knowledge; it is never "blind".  And you exercise faith yourself—if you earn money, and pay for goods in money, then you have faith that the dollar will continue to retain a similar value; if you didn't have this faith, you would try to avoid using the US dollar in transactions as much as possible.  You would definitely avoid bank accounts.  See, you don't know that the dollar will retain its value, but you hope it will, and you have reasonable expecation that it will.  This is how faith works.

[mtbikemom]

the God of the Bible (and the Book of Mormon) is made out to be such a capricious, egotistical, overbearing, and generally crappy ruler that the wisest course of action may be to leg it and never look back.

   Whoa, I'd avoid lightning storms and open spaces after a statement like that. 

   Fortunately, nothing you nor I or anyone else believes about God changes who He actually is and what He has freely offered to every person at great personal cost.  Truly did you say that "God . . . is made out to be . . ." because He has not presented Himself that way, either in Word or deed, but has been presented in all manner of negative ways by those who choose to keep him out of their lives. 

   He is a good and fair judge, demanding that the nation of Israel completely wipe out certain people groups who tended to sacrifice their infants to flaming idols and sexually degrade themselves in the name of worship.  If only they had obeyed.  He knew what was coming, after all, and what was best for his chosen people, so don't get "capricious, egotistical, overbearing, and generally crappy ruler" out of that part of the historical biblical record;  get wise sovereign.

   He is compassionate, not willing any to come to destruction.  He is longsuffering, patient, kind, joyful and inestimably loving.  I'm sorry that you have imagined him any other way and I'm sorry for the unpleasant experiences you have had with religion and certain religious people.  Jesus himself had issues with ridiculous religious practices, as I remember, and so have I.  I bet you remember what he said about "true religion." 

   There is a part of you that craves union with and submission to this most-amazing of all beings in the universe.  It is the eternal part of you, your soul . . . otherwise you would not waste time on this thread.  (Ring a bell, Kaz, Writerainge and mtlhddoc2?)

You did not answer my question, Sortitus.  Come on, what are you afraid of?  A little old mom like me?
How many lies do you think you may have told in your life?  It is not a trick question, but there is a purpose to it other than the obvious.

[mtbikemom]

Really, it'd be nice if an honest film was made on the topic some day.  Unfortunately, "honest" and "reasonable" don't seem to be strong suits in Hollywood.

Try "Expelled" by Ben Stein.  He exposes part of the problem.

[mtbikemom]

So, you consider yourself as qualified as a historian to determine how historiographically honest a work of history is?

   I consider myself exactly what I am, a mature, well-read individual with a wealth of life experience and a sometimes-still-quick mind but a dearth of titles and degrees.  Is this a way of diffusing the argument, dearest JK, or are you really this much of a snob?  I'm thinking a little of both and a lack of years. 

  I can't even remember what we were talking about, getting all distracted in defending my poor, uneducated self.  I refrain from boasting, but I have probably had more careers, jobs, passions and life experiences, not to mention read more books, than you probably know exist.  So there. 
 (I re-read old posts)

   Weren't we talking about comparing Mormon church fathers to the giants of the orthodox Christian faith?  That's small-o orthodox, btw.  Back on subject, new intellectually-honest friend, if you please.
   
   I really don't think a few extra years in academia helps one have a truly open mind or be able to discern good beginnings from bad in any organization.  That's all we're really talking about.  Good fruit/bad fruit.  The validity of the source material is important, but there is a preponderance of independent evidence to look at.  Please start with Mr. Bagley's exhaustively researched treatment of LDS history.  I dare ya!

[Skar]

This statement:

Is this a way of diffusing the argument, dearest JK, or are you really this much of a snob?

Coupled with this one from earlier:

I have read about the life and sayings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young written by Mormons, orthodox Christians and a certain "cultural Mormon," most recently.  I have compared these men's lives, writings and practices to men like Charles Spurgeon and Jim Elliot, Andrew Murray and Amy Carmichael (a woman! imagine that!), Michael Behe and  Hudson Taylor.  I urge anyone with an open and curious mind to do the same.  My Mormon friends are the nicest people in the world, but none of them so far have been willing to judge any of their early prophets by their fruits or compare their Mormon beliefs with the Bible.  I have a feeling that someone on this forum might be more intellectually sincere.

makes me giggle. 

JK's a snob for asking about your background AND your mormon friends are intellectually insincere if not lazy for not having the proper background of study, as judged by you.  Surely you can see the irony?

That little incongruence aside, your statements interest me.  Two questions 1: What's the title of the Bagley book your so proud of having read? I'd like to check it out.  2: Why do you say your mormon friends refuse to compare their beliefs to the bible?  Is it something specific to them or do you see a fundamental disconnect between mormonism in general and the bible.  In either case, what is it?

[sortitus]

   Whoa, I'd avoid lightning storms and open spaces after a statement like that. 

Yeah, OK. I'll just ignore the fact that I've said things like that for years now, and haven't had any incredible and deadly incidents with the elements. Besides, who's to say that God would use the lightning and not, say, you with a gun?

   Fortunately, nothing you nor I or anyone else believes about God changes who He actually is and what He has freely offered to every person at great personal cost.  Truly did you say that "God . . . is made out to be . . ." because He has not presented Himself that way, either in Word or deed, but has been presented in all manner of negative ways by those who choose to keep him out of their lives. 

   He is a good and fair judge, demanding that the nation of Israel completely wipe out certain people groups who tended to sacrifice their infants to flaming idols and sexually degrade themselves in the name of worship.  If only they had obeyed.  He knew what was coming, after all, and what was best for his chosen people, so don't get "capricious, egotistical, overbearing, and generally crappy ruler" out of that part of the historical biblical record;  get wise sovereign.

Wise sovereign? Perfect in every way is the official definition, right? Read your religious texts again, and this time remember that God is omniscient and omnipotent. As the ultimate Chessmaster, bloodshed should be entirely unnecessary for God to further his methods. Where you see a wise sovereign, I see an excuse for people to be jerks to each other. The Judgement of Solomon VS The Crusades. Unfortunately, there are very few tales like the former in the Bible, while most of the Old Testament is similar to the latter. The New Testament reads more like a philosophy text.

   He is compassionate, not willing any to come to destruction.  He is longsuffering, patient, kind, joyful and inestimably loving.  I'm sorry that you have imagined him any other way and I'm sorry for the unpleasant experiences you have had with religion and certain religious people.  Jesus himself had issues with ridiculous religious practices, as I remember, and so have I.  I bet you remember what he said about "true religion." 

I don't remember that, no. I am glad to hear that he's so kind, as I was getting ready to spend my life in a bunker avoiding everything that isn't yet fully understood by science.

   There is a part of you that craves union with and submission to this most-amazing of all beings in the universe.  It is the eternal part of you, your soul . . . otherwise you would not waste time on this thread.  (Ring a bell, Kaz, Writerainge and mtlhddoc2?)

Uh... I what? What if I said that that sounds like a somewhat silly proposition, and that I'd rather buy into the Mormon view and believe that I'll become a God than be absorbed into some multi-consciousness. Though if we were originally all parts of God and we were scattered, that would explain why God (or at least portrayals of him) has gotten a lot more intelligent over the years. Rudeness aside, I'm not here because I feel that way. I merely find religion interesting, even if I do find much of it silly at the same time. It's like martial arts; I'm not drawn to them because of the mystical BS many of them contain, but because of the physical and mental benefits they often give. Expanding your awareness can be done in many different ways, and believing that a supreme being is giving you answers is one of them.

You did not answer my question, Sortitus.  Come on, what are you afraid of?  A little old mom like me?
How many lies do you think you may have told in your life?  It is not a trick question, but there is a purpose to it other than the obvious.

I know what you're trying to do, but it's an impossible question for me to answer. Especially since you didn't specify the type of lie. Try the Wikipedia page on Lies to define what you're talking about. It may be worth noting that the statement you quoted in the previous post was (I thought quite obviously) a joke. Maybe not. *shrugs* My sister and her husband are visiting from overseas, so I'm having a bit of a hard time finding time to keep up with this thread.


Jade, thanks for the direct response. I understand that inter-religious marriages are statistically unsound, but I suppose I'm somewhat of a romantic deep down and think that people could make it work if they stopped being so... human.

[Reaves]

This statement:

Is this a way of diffusing the argument, dearest JK, or are you really this much of a snob?

Coupled with this one from earlier:

I have read about the life and sayings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young written by Mormons, orthodox Christians and a certain "cultural Mormon," most recently.  I have compared these men's lives, writings and practices to men like Charles Spurgeon and Jim Elliot, Andrew Murray and Amy Carmichael (a woman! imagine that!), Michael Behe and  Hudson Taylor.  I urge anyone with an open and curious mind to do the same.  My Mormon friends are the nicest people in the world, but none of them so far have been willing to judge any of their early prophets by their fruits or compare their Mormon beliefs with the Bible.  I have a feeling that someone on this forum might be more intellectually sincere.

makes me giggle. 

JK's a snob for asking about your background AND your mormon friends are intellectually insincere if not lazy for not having the proper background of study, as judged by you.  Surely you can see the irony?

I think there is a difference. The first statement is a response to Jade in which he is asking whether she is qualified to judge the historical veracity of the books she has read. He is not questioning that she has, in fact, studied the issue.
In the second statement she is claiming that none of her Mormon friends have actually studied the issue.

In the first, Jade wonders whether she is able to piece together an accurate historical record. In the second, mtbikemon says that her friends have not bothered to try.

Please note, I'm not trying to start or continue an argument, just clear up a perceived misconception.

[The Jade Knight]

So, you consider yourself as qualified as a historian to determine how historiographically honest a work of history is?

   I consider myself exactly what I am, a mature, well-read individual with a wealth of life experience and a sometimes-still-quick mind but a dearth of titles and degrees.  Is this a way of diffusing the argument, dearest JK, or are you really this much of a snob?  I'm thinking a little of both and a lack of years.

So, to tease out the implication, you do believe you're as qualified as a historian to determine how historiographically honest a work of history is?  It's very clever of you, to play the game of ὕβρις and then call me a "snob" when I ask a simple question about how highly you rate your own opinion.

I can't even remember what we were talking about, getting all distracted in defending my poor, uneducated self.  I refrain from boasting, but I have probably had more careers, jobs, passions and life experiences, not to mention read more books, than you probably know exist.  So there. 
 (I re-read old posts)

Despite the fact that I'm quite certain that you're wrong, and the fact that you'd make such a statement and then say that you "refrain from boasting" (how humble of you!), what really amazes me is that you think that I am a snob after all that.

I really don't think a few extra years in academia helps one have a truly open mind or be able to discern good beginnings from bad in any organization.  That's all we're really talking about.  Good fruit/bad fruit.  The validity of the source material is important, but there is a preponderance of independent evidence to look at.  Please start with Mr. Bagley's exhaustively researched treatment of LDS history.  I dare ya!

There is a preponderance of evidence to look at, most definitely.  And this is absolutely why a basic understanding of historiography is critical in discussing such a subject.  Your very statements seem to belie such an understanding, and while I'm sure you'd find it very amusing to exchange such tit-for-tats, I've little interest, I'm afraid.  I'll gladly point you to some resources where you can learn more about historiography, or particular historical issues, however.

Morality, we may be able to have a discussion about.  History?  This much I doubt, I'm afraid.  If this makes me a snob—expecting one to understand the historical equivalent of the scientific method when examining history—so be it.  Better to be called snob than to encourage ignorance.

[The Jade Knight]

Jade, thanks for the direct response. I understand that inter-religious marriages are statistically unsound, but I suppose I'm somewhat of a romantic deep down and think that people could make it work if they stopped being so... human.

Yes, I'm a bit like this, too.  But, really, I don't think it's a wise thing; both parents will almost certainly feel very strongly about their own particular relosophical opinions, and this will almost always create significant conflict in the home when the couple starts trying to raise children after their own independent worldviews.

[Patriotic Kaz]

I have met people who converted just because they wished to marry someone of another faith... I've seen it with Christians and Muslims... but can you really call it conversion to me it sounds like convenience