Christianity [Archive]

unownmew

12-18-2010, 08:54 PM

Here's a good example (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_whole_family/dt13_06-08.html) of why the religion of Abraham is clearly written in such a manner as to play believers against non-believers so badly that believers will have a very difficult time finding the courage to question their faith.

This is written verbatim, no questions asked, no wiggle room, no room for debate, in the Old Testament. (If you want the King James version, here you go (http://kingjbible.com/deuteronomy/13.htm), knock yourself out.) This is the religion of Abraham. Christians will argue, "Well, Jesus came along later and did away with the Old Testament! :D" as an excuse, a veritable Get Out Of Jail Free card they like to play. Problem is: it doesn't change the fact that at one point in history, this is what God told his people to do.

Some people will argue that "it was alright in that cultural time and context," but I think What Would Jesus Not Do? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOfjkl-3SNE) does a good job of ridiculing that line of reasoning.
I'll argue this.

Yes, there is no wiggle room. That was the point of it. The Law of Moses was meant to be harsh. It's stated clearly, the Hebrews were a stiffnecked people. Even after having receiving 7 major signs in Egypt, being delivered from the Egyptians and walking on dry ground across the Red Sea, they still disbelieved in God, and persuaded Aaron to make them an Idol to worship to after fewer then 40 days while Moses was up on the Mount.

The original Tablets Moses brought down and Broke were presumeably the Higher Law, the Law of Christianity. After that, God decided the Hebrews needed a much harsher law to regulate them. So he introduced the "Law of Moses", an Eye for an Eye, to regulate them and see if they would truely obey Him. Even then, the prophets said there would be a time when the Law of Moses would be "Done away with" and replaced with the Higher Law (which is Christianity, "turn the other cheek").

In no way was it ever meant to be an Absolute Law, simply a temporary solution for such a stiff people, which he was (and still is) bound by covenant to guide, and protect.

I'm a Roman Catholic and recognize the practical merits in a large subscribed institution that provides moral guidance. Even if we see that Christian Churchs are be founded on theological ideas that may be flawed, they are very effective at keeping society intact.

A lot of adults in society today have child-like mentalities, or a child-like understanding of the world. They're mostly incapable of understanding tough abstract concepts, and so cannot be taught more rigourous philosophical treatments of morality and ethics. I know first-hand most high school students struggle with the concepts brought forth in the Enlightenment era (when discussing American history, the Constitution, DoI etc.) and many only pass due to memorization. What they take from history class is a respect for the Constitution but no understanding or appreciation of why it deserves that respect.

Religion with a moral bent is necessary to keep these individuals functioning members of society. Atheism is good at refuting the existence of God, but it doesn't prescribe a specific moral or philosophical way of the world. So while this gives atheists some flexibility in how they morally approach the world, atheism doesn't preclude the abscence of morality, and from a child-like, short-sighted viewpoint, no morality is completely utilitarian.

How religion is different from other authoritarian modes of control is it's still effective even with large population size. Early governments in Athens or feudal Europe didn't have to manage populations as massive as the United States, and so a small but ever-present military was effective enough to contain crimes. But no governing body today can sustain large numbers of police, so to cut down crime it becomes necessary for people to regulate their own behaviour, instead of having the government do it for them.

So, when people say "I'm against organized religion" that troubles me deeply, because it's a recipe for diaster and implies a chaotic society. Organized religion is in many ways as essential as constitutional government.

...

Onto theology, I have a very simple view on things. I don't know if God exists, or if I believe he exists, but I want to believe he exists. Faith demands a degree of uncertainty, so people who claim they "know" God or are acting out God's will cannot be people of faith because they are certain God exists and he has told them what to do. For this reason God can't do everything I ask, because that would imply proof of his existence.

Much of the Bible stories are used to showcase God's power, or to gain confidence that he exists. I meet that. I understand that the Bible stories have been altered since they were originally made, but the intent - God is powerful (Old Testament) or God loves people (New Testament) - is still very clear. I am free to question the veracity and details of the stories because the central concept has been internalized. Now I only need pay attention to the stories that prescribe moral philosophy, and I'm set.
I agree with much of what you said here. A society without morals is a society of Anarchy and can never be governed without total, absolute, micromanaging control.

Faith however, IMO, gives way to Knowledge, usually through personal revelation.

Talon87

12-18-2010, 09:20 PM

The Law of Moses was meant to be harsh. It's stated clearly, the Hebrews were a stiffnecked people. Even after having receiving 7 major signs in Egypt, being delivered from the Egyptians and walking on dry ground across the Red Sea, they still disbelieved in God, and persuaded Aaron to make them an Idol to worship to after fewer then 40 days while Moses was up on the Mount.
That isn't the point. Whether the Hebrews were the most obedient tribe ever or the most sinful tribe ever isn't the point. The rules laid down for them are Draconian to the point that you'd have to think anyone who wants to take them seriously is a nutjob. Yes, that's right: if you're telling me that you take these rules seriously in even the dimmest ray of context, then I can't possibly perceive you to be a rational, benevolent member of the human race. Because no rational, benevolent person would argue, "Yeah, it's acceptable to stone your family, no questions asked, if they begin to turn you away from God." Rational people would allow for skepticism. Benevolent people would allow for lost sheep to remain as lost sheep rather than be put to the sword for their wayward beliefs, hoping that maybe some day they might come around again and see the light. And rational and benevolent people do both. Those who put stock in Deuteronomy were neither rational nor benevolent. They were godfearing, selfish sacks of flesh who'd sooner kill their own sister than lose grace in the eyes of God. Fuck 'em. :evil:

History of Judaism and Christianity, blah blah condescending blah.
Yeah, thanks for that ... even though I already made it clear that I neither sought nor needed the history lesson.

Christians will argue, "Well, Jesus came along later and did away with the Old Testament! " as an excuse
I already knew you'd want to do this unless I warned you against it. So I did warn you against it. "Don't do it," I warned. "You're wasting both of our time. Here's why." And I told you why. And yet you still went and recited the history of Judaism's natural evolution into Christianity to me. :roll:

In no way was it ever meant to be an Absolute Law, simply a temporary solution for such a stiff people, which he was (and still is) bound by covenant to guide, and protect.
You're picking and choosing again. And you're not eligible to do so. Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say, "Here are my rules for you guys ... but these are only Sometimes Rules. You need only follow them some of the time." By your logic, it's okay to rape sometimes and not have to pay thirty silver shekels and take the woman you raped as your bride -- provided she was not yet married, of course :roll: -- and yet other times it's not okay to do it. And it's up to society (or in the case of the vagabond Hebrews it's up to the tribal judges) to decide when it's okay and when it's not. Baloney. :roll: Unless a law explicitly states that it is not meant to be an Always Rule, you have to assume that it is one. You have to err on the side of caution and say, "Well, he didn't say that we're allowed to skirt this rule, so better safe than sorry: we'd better follow it."

If you don't like the idea of Deuteronomy, great, neither do I! But it's part of your religious baggage, not mine. "But Jesus came and said--" Irrelevant. :| Yes, he came and the old age of Talmudic Law was ended (according to Christians), but that doesn't change the fact that for hundreds and hundreds of years there was a group of people who were subject to these terrible laws.

I agree with much of what you said here. A society without morals is a society of Anarchy and can never be governed without total, absolute, micromanaging control.
Again, you're playing to something of a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) tune here. Nobody said "Let's have a society without any morals." Yet you're insisting that to do away with religion is to drop society into a chasm of moral decay. Why? Even amongst atheists, there are pro-abortion and anti-abortion people. Even amongst atheists, there are pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage people. All of the hot button so-called "moral issues" in America today are not requisite byproducts of religion. Even in a world without theosophy, there would still be hot debates about moral quandries. Is it okay to rape? Is it okay to cheat? Is it okay to have sex with children? Is it okay to have sex with the mentally challenged? Is it okay to consume alcohol? Is it okay to smoke marijuana? Is it okay to euthanize? Questions like these are all moral questions that have nothing to do with religion. Your religious beliefs may inform your opinions in these matters, but being religious is not a prerequisite to being able to discuss these matters.

We can have a moral society in the absence of the Christian God. (See many civilizations for proof of this.) We can also have a moral society in the absence of any God. Religion offers a code by which to live but usually does so not for the betterment of its followers but for the advancement of those in positions of power within the religious social order. "Do as I say, not as I do" is written all over the faces of religious charlatans at all levels of the pyramid from the very low (televangelists) to the very high (archbishops and popes). There are better ways to live.

Doppleganger

12-18-2010, 11:04 PM

I think that you look at organized religion through rose-colored lenses because you grew up in multicultural, liberal California and you don't know what it really means to grow up in a religious society. Had you grown up in Iran or Saudi Arabia, you might have a very different take on what it means to live in a society where order is maintained by religious decrees that are harshly and unforgivingly enforced.

While it is true I have not experienced a truly conservative environment (and my one brush with a conservative Christian is what lead to my self-profanity filter) I can draw parallels with other authoritarian institutions. I am the kind of person who would willingly concede personal freedoms in a social contract that ensures order and security, provided my faith was well placed in the people I concede my rights to. I am not so Hobbesian that I'd believe a world under an oppressive government that is marginally better than the opportunity government is completely preferrable (I'd be indifferent between them), but I would not hate living under a monarchy or a command government.

I'm not saying a monarchy/command government that I'd find comfortable exists in this world, but hypothetically, if one existed I'd find it preferrable to a US-styled government.

No one is saying that the JudaioChristian world has not offered mankind some good moral lessons. No one is saying this. But that you would insist that we hold onto the religion lest we lose the morality is absurd. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever why we can't pick and choose, discarding the superstitious and downright nonsensical theological bits of the Bible while holding on dearly to the morally-resplendent teachings like "do no harm unto others" or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc. Christians cannot do this. Christians are held to task, are expected to defend the Bible in its entirety. But society is not bound in this manner. Society can choose to not be Christian -- and can most definitely pick and choose.

I don't believe they're seperable.

Morality isn't something I view as instinctual, or biologically based. It's abstract and often works against maximizing non-conceptual utility. Animals aren't moral, and much of what they do to survive many humans deem immoral. Animals don't see the world in terms of right and wrong, but what they can and can't do, and how it benefits them (utilitarian). Humans have the capacity to move beyond that, but since we're animals biologically, utilitarianism is the default setting and we tend to fall back on it in the absence of conscious effort or outside influence.

Superstition, I think, has a root in biology - associated learning. Animals can undergo classical and operant conditioning, but only humans make up explanations for why stuff happens. If we take Plato's prisoner from the "Parable of the Cave" and bring him into the light, he has no idea of the Sun's power until he's spent some time outside and can draw connections between the Sun and events. And when he can't explain what he observes, he invents an explanation to try and manipulate events because such an advantage works toward maximizing his utility. Even if he's not consciously aware of what he's doing, the man is still working on his default of trying to maximize utility from his environment. It is human nature to be both inquisitive/curious and to maximize utility, it's not surprising the two concepts can work with one another.

What are Bible stories, fundamentally? They are heavily embellished historical or completely fictional events blended with superstition. The Old Testament is an amalgam of stories from all over the place, and doesn't exactly have a central message, but the New Testament isn't like that. However Jesus accomplished his miracles, either through divine power or clever trickery, he was able to take advantage of superstition and use it to sell his peaceful message. How else could be persuade someone rich and powerful, like a tax collector, to freely donate all of his money to the poor? A cynic would say, "well, the tax collector is still maximizing his utility, because-" and I agree with that, he's maximizing his utility in any number of ways. But they key is none of them are "tangible" utility, and the overall benefit to society is net positive (the poor can afford food, the tax collector feels good about himself/feels he's gotten good points with God/feels he's done what's morally right).

In all three scenarios, the tax collector's utility is conceptual, something animals aren't capable of. But a belief in superstition was a necessary step to bridge the gap between "tangible" and "intangible" utility. Without superstition, the sum of the collector's lack of ignorance about the world, the tax collector would have had no grounds to belief in Jesus' phantasmic rewards. It's not something he can touch, or even experience in his own life-time. There's considerable, seemingly unnecessary risk from a tangible utilitarianism point of view.

But Jesus also makes big claims. "Yours is the kingdom of heaven" for example. A potentially enormous reward for piety in this life-time. Even if the tax collector believes there is risk (something I deem necessary for him to have "faith") because the rewards are seemingly so great, he bears that risk. Now that the man is tithed, he can be manipulated to follow something completely artificial like a moral philosophy until he's internalized the morality itself, and his initial draw ("endless riches") is downplayed.

Basically, I think that since humans are fundamentally animals, to manipulate their behaviour one has to go through that nature first. Appealing to the intellect won't work in most cases unless the person is already quite rational and philosophical.

Suggesting that we have to keep tugging the religion along behind us -- it and all of its terrible baggage -- if we want to keep a tight hold over the moral teachings co-packaged with it is like saying that we can't possibly hold onto the legal lessons of Rome without reinstating an emperor or that we can't possibly add the good values of Confucianism to our daily lives without devoting ourselves fully to Confucianism with all of its pros and cons. (Start planting mulberry trees, everyone! Mencius told me to!) No: we're civilization, we evolve over time, we learn from our mistakes and come to recognize our greatest accomplishments with time. We can -- and have, and will continue to -- pick and choose which aspects of our current society to hold onto and which ones to throw away.

Civilization is not universally progressive. Remember that the world following Rome was considerably more barbaric than the era that preceded it. Knowledge may have been gained, but it was also forgotten and had to be rediscovered and reapplied.

I think that while it is possible, with rigourous education, to give a particular person a sense of ethics and morals without using religious parable, most humans incapable of that level of understanding. At the end of the day, humans will want to ascribe a meaning to their actions, and I think it's easier to latch onto an interpretation of something observable rather than something completely abstract/conceptual.

Concept

12-19-2010, 12:21 AM

Talon, just a tip for the future; if actually you want to have a decent, civil debate with someone who is trying to have a decent, civil debate with you and is in no way being condescending, quoting them and replacing their post with "History of Judaism and Christianity, blah blah condescending blah." and generally being condesceding is a really douchbaggy thing to do. If you are just aiming to be a douche, sod off and let people debate nicely.

Also if you want to have a serious debate, drop the boob-based avatar, as sad as I will be to see them go - it makes it really hard to concentrate on your post :p.

Christians are held to task, are expected to defend the Bible in its entirety. But society is not bound in this manner. Society can choose to not be Christian -- and can most definitely pick and choose.

Flatmate of mine takes Christian literally as follower of the teachings Christ, and regards the rest of the Bible - both old and new testament (Hebrews, Revelations, whatever) - as meaningless drivel. Following Christs teachings, which is ultimately what it means to be Christian, does not require you to defend some bullshit written a thousand years before him by some tosser trying to advance his own agenda.

An interesting viewpoint I've heard (flatmate of mine again) is thus - various Pope's in the last millennium convinced large groups of people that God was calling them to go march and kill thousands of muslims, hence the crusades. Modern christians in general seem to accept that God did not in fact call them to do any such thing. The only difference between this and many books of the old testament is that in the books of the old testament, the guy wrote them down and embellished them to make it seem like God agreed with the writer. It's important to note that you can't attack the Bible as a whole for something written in some of the books any more than I can attack the Lord of the Rings because of the literary failings of the Twilight series if some idiot decided it would be a good idea to publish them into one compendium. The various books of the Bible were written by different authors, with different agendas, many years apart in various different original languages.

Personally, I've never encountered a definition of God that isn't either meaningless, inherently contradictory or trivial. I mean, look at the range of things it's been applied to over the millennia.

>Dopple

As far as I can see, religion is just another motive amongst many for both morally good and horrendous actions, and if it were gone it'd just make more room other motives to do the same things. People can argue for or against specific religious practices as much as they like. Ultimately I think that a morally perfect, omnipotent dictator, if such a thing existed, would create the closest thing humanity could get to a perfect society, and that is far removed from religion which is a human institution.

It is for that reason, primarily, that I do not believe in the Christian God - because such a being would be able to see that the best way of creating the perfect happy society it ultimately wants is direct intervention, which it refuses to do.

Talon87

12-19-2010, 03:15 AM

I was condescending precisely because of and in response to his own being condescending towards me. I wanted to express the opinion that it was not appropriate to be patronized in such a manner. If you don't see how he was condescending despite my explanation as to how he was, then YOU can kindly "sod off."

Anyway. In response to something you said ...

Flatmate of mine takes Christian literally as follower of the teachings Christ, and regards the rest of the Bible - both old and new testament (Hebrews, Revelations, whatever) - as meaningless drivel. Following Christs teachings, which is ultimately what it means to be Christian
This is all well and good except ... it's his own definition. :| Part of the problem with Christianity is that everyone and his mother is entitled to their own definitions. Which scriptures to toss out and which ones to keep. Which ones to follow 24/7 and which ones to follow only when they feel like it. Etc. You have as many denominations as you do nations because of this. Your friend can claim to be a "true Christian" as he is "a true follower of Christ," but what does that mean? Your friend didn't live 2,000 years ago nor does he know anyone who did. His only knowledge of Christ's teachings, regrettably, is through the Bible. Period. So while your friend might claim that he considers the Bible to be a lot of nonsensical drivel, that isn't really true: because it can't be true, because without the Bible he has nothing based in reality upon which to establish his personal vision of Christ and Christ's teachings. There has to be at least one segment in the Bible which he takes seriously, which he uses to establish his vision of Christ. It's not like there's the Bible and the Webel. Or the Bible, the Webel, and the Gulol. There's just the Bible. The historic Jesus is famously provided to us almost entirely through the lens of the Bible, i.e. there's so little of Christ recorded in non-Biblical sources that we still have and there's even less (and to my knowledge nothing at all) of Christ's teachings recorded in non-Biblical sources other than the Apocrypha. So basically all you have are the Apocrypha and the Bible itself. That's it. You want to find Christ's teachings elsewhere? Then build a time machine and get trekkin'. :|

I understand what your friend is trying to say. "I don't want to put my faith in the Bible because the Bible was created by men with political agendas." True! Very true! But he then says, "So I believe in Christ in my own way." And the problem is, his own way is limited to only one of two possibilities. Either (a) he has a completely fictitious (i.e. personally-invented) version of Jesus Christ to which he subscribes, or else (b) he subscribes to a version of Christ which is based at least in part on the Biblical Christ. Because your friend didn't have the opportunity to really know Christ. Yes, he's absolutely right about the Telephone Game effect applying to the Christian faith between the years of Christ's teachings and Constantine's mother's commissioning of the first Bible three centuries later. But the problem is that being right about this isn't enough: you've got to actually know the original source message, too, to really be on track. And he can't, doesn't, know the original source message. He can't because any message he finds recorded on paper or stone is subject to the same criticisms as the Bible itself and because he wasn't personally there to know Christ's teachings first-hand.

It's no different than someone who says to me, "I don't put much stock in history books because history is written by the victors. Instead, I believe in the true history." The first sentence is 100% a-okay but the second sentence is where we run into problems. How can anyone possibly know what the true history is without having been there? :| They can't. If you want to say, "I don't believe that the image of Jesus today is historically accurate," GREAT, I say, go for it, believe that. But the problem I have is if you then try to tell me, "HERE'S what the REAL Jesus was like." Uhhhhh ............... :| Care to explain how you came to know this? ^^;;;;;;;

Concept

12-19-2010, 10:47 AM

Blah blah condescending view of my friend blah blah not reading what I actually wrote blah blah

Yeah thanks for that... even though I already made it clear I neither sought nor needed someone to invent what I said then treat me like a five year old.

But to seriously address your point;

Flatmate of mine takes Christian literally as follower of the teachings Christ, and regards the rest of the Bible - both old and new testament (Hebrews, Revelations, whatever) - as meaningless drivel. Following Christs teachings, which is ultimately what it means to be Christian

The rest of the Bible. Ie the bits not directly about Jesus. The key difference being that other areas of the Bible largely serve the authors agenda - for most of the Old Testament books, this is to say "look, if you fuck with the Hebrews our God will fuck with you". Unless you consider being hounded and executed, as happened to a hell of a lot of prominent early christians, to be their goal, its distinctly not in the authors interests to make up the teachings of Jesus if they weren't taught that way. It's like, would you be more suspicious of a pamphlet written by the Democrats if it said "this is what's happening, and look if we implement Republican policies we're clearly all fucked!" or one that said "yeah, this is whats happening.. looks like we were wrong on this one." The latter doesn't serve their agenda, so they're much less likely to be lying about it.

This is the point at which my friend and I disagree and I use the Apocrypha to say "well, it serves the Council of Nicea's agenda to present Jesus as divine, hence why the four canonical gospels were chosen over others we have records of others - the moral teachings may be consistent between them, but portraying him as divine serves the agenda of the gospel writers and there's therefore no reason for these gospel writers to have not portrayed him as divine unless he wasn't."

Again, you can't attack the Bible as a whole for parts of it because its no more one book than Twilight, Lord of the Rings and His Dark Materials are just because someone decided to publish all three of them to one volume.

TL;dr version - the moral teachings of Jesus as presented in the gospels - canonical or otherwise - do not serve the agenda of the gospels authors unless you think they wanted to be harassed and executed, so it makes sense that someone they were willing to follow espoused these views quite strongly. By the same argument you can argue that Jesus divinity is unlikely or we wouldn't have stuff from early christian writers that didn't make the point that he was divine.

unownmew

12-19-2010, 09:54 PM

I had a nice big post written, but apparently it timed out and I lost everything. Sufficeth to say, I was not trying to be condescending, so if it appeared that way, I apologize. My point was that the history of the Bible is the Key point in this discussion, but apparently it is the only thing you refuse to discuss.

This is all well and good except ... it's his own definition. :| Part of the problem with Christianity is that everyone and his mother is entitled to their own definitions. Which scriptures to toss out and which ones to keep. Which ones to follow 24/7 and which ones to follow only when they feel like it. Etc. You have as many denominations as you do nations because of this. Your friend can claim to be a "true Christian" as he is "a true follower of Christ," but what does that mean? Your friend didn't live 2,000 years ago nor does he know anyone who did. His only knowledge of Christ's teachings, regrettably, is through the Bible. Period. So while your friend might claim that he considers the Bible to be a lot of nonsensical drivel, that isn't really true: because it can't be true, because without the Bible he has nothing based in reality upon which to establish his personal vision of Christ and Christ's teachings. There has to be at least one segment in the Bible which he takes seriously, which he uses to establish his vision of Christ. It's not like there's the Bible and the Webel. Or the Bible, the Webel, and the Gulol. There's just the Bible. The historic Jesus is famously provided to us almost entirely through the lens of the Bible, i.e. there's so little of Christ recorded in non-Biblical sources that we still have and there's even less (and to my knowledge nothing at all) of Christ's teachings recorded in non-Biblical sources other than the Apocrypha. So basically all you have are the Apocrypha and the Bible itself. That's it. You want to find Christ's teachings elsewhere? Then build a time machine and get trekkin'. :|

This is quite interesting. You're telling me there are absolutely no more books in the world that record Christ's teachings like the Bible?
You've just told me that the complete basis for my religion, the very foundation, does not exist. I think you have not done enough research to make such an absolute claim.

You say there is only the Bible, and that is the Only lense we have through which to see Christ's Teachings, unless perhaps if we include the Apocrypha. And because there are so few mediums recording His teachings, people can pick and choose which ones they use to base their vision of Christ. Is this your argument?

I'm sorry, but here, you are simply dead wrong. There is another Book with Christ's teachings, one meant from the beginning to supplement and complement the Bible, establishing from another veiwpoint the Truths and Teachings of Jesus Christ, irrevokably.

You're welcome to disbelieve me, or mock me, or riddicule me for claming this, or for the book that it is.
Though if you're interested in this book, I'd be happy to name it for you. But only if you're truely interested.

Talon87

12-19-2010, 10:02 PM

Well let's hear it. Surely you can't mean the Vulgate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate), as that's nothing more than a specific version of the Bible; nor do I think you can mean any of the books listed herein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible) since these are all, by definition, "Biblical books."

So sure, let's hear it. Though I'll shit my pants if you're going to tell me it's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon). >_<

unownmew

12-19-2010, 10:59 PM

Talon87

12-19-2010, 11:16 PM

Thank God for Wikipedia so I don't have to type all these arguments out myself. >_>

Book of Mormon - historical authenticity section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon#Historical_authenticity)
Archaeology and the Book of Mormon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon)
Genetics and the Book of Mormon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon)
Linguistics and the Book of Mormon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon)
a list of anachronisms within the Book of Mormon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms) (some overlap with the archaeology article)
Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_authenticity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon) - some overlap with earlier articles
There's also the article "Criticism of the Book of Mormon" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Book_of_Mormon) which is essentially a compilation of all the wikilinks to the various articles on challenging the Book of Mormon's authenticity, many of which were linked to above. However, this may be an optimal place to start since it allows you to tailor your search to your own needs. You can then check out any of the others which you might have missed at a later time.

Here's is just one sample from the many articles. The argument presented is one you are probably familiar with. However, I think it illustrates fairly well just how suspect Joseph Smith's claims really are:
Richard Packham argues that the Greek word "Christ" in the Book of Mormon challenges the authenticity of the work since Joseph Smith clearly stated that, "There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon."

Concept

12-19-2010, 11:22 PM

The Book of Mormon? Really? Where do we start. There's no archaeological evidence whatsoever supporting its claims. No linguistic relationship between Native American languages and Semitic languages as we would expect if, as the Book of Mormon claims, Native Americans were direct descendants of Hebrews who migrated to the Americas. NO of DNA evidence suggesting a similar link. Anachronisms in that it refers to them having animals and technologies that there's no evidence pre-Columbian Americas had. References to the Book of Isaiah which general consensus amongst historians has as being written after the supposed migration. Words of latin origin in the Book of Mormon. Identical translation errors to the King James Bible.

Not to mention that the guy has a reputation for inventing his own biblical books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham).

EDIT the first: Ninja'd.

unownmew

12-20-2010, 12:20 AM

So you've read it and attempted to see both arguements, for and against it? Or are you just telling me all the against arguements you can find listed because it's origin is to riddiculous to believe?

Talon87

12-20-2010, 12:22 AM

Raptor Jesus

12-20-2010, 08:22 PM

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/1200/raptorjesuscuwn.jpg

That's all you need to learn about Christianity!

Concept

12-20-2010, 08:47 PM

It doesn't to my knowledge ever specify in the bible that Jesus wasn't a Raptor. Christians can't prove he wasn't. That's good enough for me.

YUKI.N

12-20-2010, 09:23 PM

Hey, guys. I'd just like to ask that you please refrain from posting mocking or disrespectful comments in this thread. I made this for the purpose of serious debate. Please keep silly pictures and posts in the Miscellaneous forum from now on. Thanks.

unownmew

12-20-2010, 10:10 PM

If you read the links provided, you'll see that they provide the For and Against wherever possible. Unfortunately for the Church of Latter-Day Saints, the persuasive criticisms of the Book of Mormon far outweigh and outnumber its persuasive defenses.

If you insist that the criticisms are not significant, then we'll have reached our first insurmountable impasse. I believe them to be very significant.
I'll read them, but don't expect a quick answer, I'll need to prepare. Please do understand though, that if the Book of Mormon is true, we're halfway to proving the existance of God. So if you're unprepared for that possibility (no matter how slim you may think the chance is), I suggest we stop now.

One thing we can agree on though is that the Bible alone, is not enough to prove or disprove anything relating to Christianity true or not, further scripture is needed to set the mistranslations and misconceptions of the Bible straight.

The reason I believe in the Book of Mormon, is because it nicely fills this gap the Bible alone leaves in solving doctrinal questions.

Hey, guys. I'd just like to ask that you please refrain from posting mocking or disrespectful comments in this thread. I made this for the purpose of serious debate. Please keep silly pictures and posts in the Miscellaneous forum from now on. Thanks.
Thank Blue.

Talon87

12-20-2010, 11:13 PM

If the Book of Mormon is true, then we'd be 100% of the way to proving God is real. I mean, think about it:
(1) The book claims God is real.
(2) So if the claims of the book are correct ...
(3) ... then God is real.

God being real doesn't make the Book of Mormon correct; but the Book of Mormon being correct would mean God has to be real. It's not a symmetric relationship, but anyway... it would be to your advantage to prove the Book of Mormon is real.

Unfortunately for you, this is an impossible task. Belief in the Book of Mormon's legitimacy boils down to a matter of faith (for the believers) and the available evidence which can be levied against claims made by the Book of Mormon (for the non-believers). If you reject all of the evidence against the book, then there is no way for anyone to convince you that it is false. And even if all of the evidence against the Book of Mormon is dealt with by your arguments, it still wouldn't be enough to prove that the Book's claims are valid.

In other words, if I accuse you of lying and I provide three reasons for why I think this is, you could correctly and honestly diffuse all three reasons I had and yet still have been lying.

So ... yeah. Anyway, I would encourage you to read the links Concept and I provided you with first. The arguments against the Book of Mormon are many. The defenses are also many, though less in number, and are largely unsatisfactory in my opinion. However, you may find them to be more than satisfactory. And if you do, then we're at a impasse (as mentioned in my last post). 'Cause I think the apologists' explanations are embarrassingly inadequate. :|

Raptor Jesus

12-20-2010, 11:58 PM

Actually, to an extent, you can argue Raptor Jesus is a sect of Christianity, albeit not a particularly serious one since it was started as an internet meme.

There have been countless cults which have stated they believe in Jesus Christ in some shape or form to be labeled as Christian, which attracts possible followers and can allow the cult to evade taxation by the government.

Christianity itself started as a sect of Judaism and was labeled as a cult for years. Who is to say the Church of Raptor Jesus and Latter Day Evolutions is any different?

unownmew

12-21-2010, 12:38 AM

If the Book of Mormon is true, then we'd be 100% of the way to proving God is real. I mean, think about it:
(1) The book claims God is real.
(2) So if the claims of the book are correct ...
(3) ... then God is real.

God being real doesn't make the Book of Mormon correct; but the Book of Mormon being correct would mean God has to be real. It's not a symmetric relationship, but anyway... it would be to your advantage to prove the Book of Mormon is real.
Actually, it would be to everyone's disadvantage to prove it unargueably true, because then faith would no longer need to exist.

Unfortunately for you, this is an impossible task. Belief in the Book of Mormon's legitimacy boils down to a matter of faith (for the believers) and the available evidence which can be levied against claims made by the Book of Mormon (for the non-believers). If you reject all of the evidence against the book, then there is no way for anyone to convince you that it is false. And even if all of the evidence against the Book of Mormon is dealt with by your arguments, it still wouldn't be enough to prove that the Book's claims are valid.

In other words, if I accuse you of lying and I provide three reasons for why I think this is, you could correctly and honestly diffuse all three reasons I had and yet still have been lying.

So ... yeah. Anyway, I would encourage you to read the links Concept and I provided you with first. The arguments against the Book of Mormon are many. The defenses are also many, though less in number, and are largely unsatisfactory in my opinion. However, you may find them to be more than satisfactory. And if you do, then we're at a impasse (as mentioned in my last post). 'Cause I think the apologists' explanations are embarrassingly inadequate. :|
You have a point, but it goes right back to you. If you reject all evidences for the Book of Mormon, it makes no difference how many I give you or how true they are, you'll still disbelieve me.

In other words, you could accuse me of lying, and provide 3 reasons why you think I am, which I would be incapable of proving wrong, but yet I really was telling the truth.

Mozz

12-21-2010, 03:10 AM

Derp

Talon87

12-22-2010, 02:50 PM

unownmew

12-23-2010, 12:54 AM

A friend tweeted this picture this morning. Yes, it's likely made by your typical 4chan /b/tard so try not to mind the coarse nature of the presentation. Still, I think the nine points it raises are nine amusing and valid ones. :lol:

God is an epic troll (http://i.imgur.com/lvv6h.png)
Well those are certainly easy to explain..

going from right to left:
1. Circumscision is the symbol of a covenant he made with the Hebrews, it's also hygenic in a time when hygiene did not exist. Christians are not commanded to be circumsized, but many choose to have it done anyway.
2. His love is not conditional. He loves us regardless of our choices, but does not protect us from the consequences of our choices.
3. Free will is nessesary for Humans to progress. Otherwise we'd be like animals, and the purpose of our existance (to learn to obey and become like him), would be foiled.
4. The world he created is not the exact same as the world we live in today. (Noah's Flood). Also, perhaps the ratio of water to land was for a purpose.
5. This is a pointless arguement. Goes along with Free Will. Being smart doesn't make someone believe or not believe in God. There has to be opposition for Humans to be choose, believe or not, otherwise we'd have no choices to make and our existance would be pointless.
6. Certain Christian sects take the position to prohibit abortion, not God. however, if he is against it, I believe the reason would be because, 1, it's being abused to avoid taking responsibility for one's actions, and 3, people are aborting much later in their pregnancy then they ought, to a point where the child is actually a living human being, and aborting at that stage, is murder.
7. I doubt God directly interferes with the planet's natural weather and geological cycles on a regular basis. The times that he would, is to stir up a remembrence of Him because many are sinning. Those who do die, are either wicked and ripe for destruction, or their allotted time on earth is up.
8. Hmm, Holocaust, eh? Apparently whoever made this hasn't read the Old Testament. It's stated very plainly that 1, it's not just the Jews that are his Chosen people, All Hebrews are, (this of course would include Hebrews by descent or Adoption). and 2, when the Hebrews have forgotten Him, and sinned, they will be scourged.
9. lol?

Concept

12-24-2010, 11:40 PM

unownmew

12-25-2010, 04:35 PM

>Book of Mormon discussion.

So yeah it turns out that the native people of Britain are descended from one of the lost tribes - this angel appeared to me last night and sent me to where I found some gold plates with the whole story written on them. Fascinating stuff - working on translating it now, from a language that no-one has ever heard of before or will ever see any evidence of - turns out that archaeological digs in the past have completely missed all evidence of a series of cultures the lost tribe bought with them, and the influence on our language and genes they would obviously have has vanished mysteriously in the intervening years. Also I can't show you the plates because the angel told me not to.

Oh, and the references to tigers and buffalo existing when there weren't any in Britain? Totally a typo lol, was meant to say dogs and cows. Easy mistake. The bits about clocks and other anachronistic technologies is a translation error too... yeah divinely inspired translations aren't all they're cracked up to be, use google translator any day.

Oh yeah did I mention I entirely made up another book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham) a while back? Not this one though, this one's totally legit. Scouts honour.

Do you see why some people, even those with no issues accepting mainstream Christianity, might find the Book of Mormon a little hard to swallow, Unownmew?
It's as hard to swallow as God speaking directly with Adam and Eve, taking the City of Enoch up from the Earth, speaking with Abraham, Issac and Jacob, parting the Red sea for Moses, and feeding the Iraelites for 40 years on Manna from Heaven. Oh, and Jesus rising up on the third day after Confirmably dieing. You'd have to be completely MAD to believe such an impossible Tall Tale right?

I can't see why professing Christians can believe Jesus did so many miracles and was ressurected after 3 days being dead, and yet claim that prophets, miracles, and revelation from God does not exist anymore. I mean God has always had prophets right? From Adam down to Noah, down to Abraham down to Jesus Himself. If God is God, and God is unchanging, that would mean he can still have phophets today, would it not?

Unless you completely disbelieve the Bible, I can't see why one would claim that there will never be another prophet on the earth again, except to further their own agenda of keeping people in ignorance..

Personally, the lack of acceptance is comforting. The more persecution something gets, the more true it is. Examples of such are all over the place in the Bible, and History in general.

Concept

12-25-2010, 06:25 PM

It's as hard to swallow as God speaking directly with Adam and Eve, taking the City of Enoch up from the Earth, speaking with Abraham, Issac and Jacob, parting the Red sea for Moses, and feeding the Iraelites for 40 years on Manna from Heaven. Oh, and Jesus rising up on the third day after Confirmably dieing. You'd have to be completely MAD to believe such an impossible Tall Tale right?

Completely different thing. My point is, with regards to the main bible canon, we have evidence of cities mentioned. Places. Ethnic groups. Language. My main arguments against the Book of Mormon;

1) Absolutely no archaeological evidence for any place mentioned.
2) Absolutely no genetic evidence that any Hebrew group was ever in North America at the suggested time.
3) Absolutely no evidence for many of the technologies (chariots etc), flora or fauna (horses) mentioned at that time in the Americas.
4) Absolutely no linguistic evidence that any Hebrew group was ever in North America at the suggested time.

To quote Isaac Asimov: "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be". There is no evidence for the account given in the Book of Mormon outside of the Book or Mormon. Ditto, there is no evidence for Harry Potter outside of the books and the films. These three arguments cannot be levied nearly so much against Biblical Canon. You have to defend the Book of Mormon on its own terms, you can't defend the Bible and hold that as defence of the Book of Mormon anymore than you could defend Harry Potter and use it as a defence of the Book of Mormon.

I would also hold the references to the Book of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon up as a specific example of evidence that those sections cannot have been written when it is claimed they were. They must have been written after the writing of the Book of Isaiah - a book written after the tribe supposedly migrated to America and lost contact - and thus after the events they describe. In fact, these cannot have been written until, at the earliest, the Book of Isaiah was introduced to the Americas - post-Columbian. This places the authorship of those passages at least hundreds and hundreds of years after they claim to have been written.

I can't see why professing Christians can believe Jesus did so many miracles and was ressurected after 3 days being dead, and yet claim that prophets, miracles, and revelation from God does not exist anymore. I mean God has always had prophets right? From Adam down to Noah, down to Abraham down to Jesus Himself. If God is God, and God is unchanging, that would mean he can still have phophets today, would it not?

If God is unchanging, why did he change from the laws of Moses to modern Christian teachings? Assuming your earlier argument when Talon bought this up resurfaces (ie it was the difference in nature of later people from the Hebrews that allowed the change in the laws that was previously not possible) then the same argument can be applied to prophets.

Unless you completely disbelieve the Bible, I can't see why one would claim that there will never be another prophet on the earth again, except to further their own agenda of keeping people in ignorance..

It's an interesting and well covered argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_Continuationism). Large portions of Christianity do not share your view, but there is by no means consensus either way amongst Christians.

Personally, the lack of acceptance is comforting. The more persecution something gets, the more true it is. Examples of such are all over the place in the Bible, and History in general.

Nazi beliefs get pretty heavily persecuted these days. They must be true! GOGO holocaust, amirite?

In the same vein, Jews got pretty heavily persecuted back then. Clearly they must be right and Jesus isn't the Messiah, yes? You have to agree, it must be true, look at all the persecution they suffered!

EDIT the first: My point is this. If I came online tomorrow and claimed to have been converted to your viewpoint by an angel - if I claimed this angel had given me ancient engravings to translate - would you believe me? If I further claimed, later, that I'd translated these engravings, and that the story they told was completely contrary to all archaeological, genetic and linguistic evidence to date and then failed to find any other evidence of the story told in this book - would you believe me? If I further told you that I couldn't show you the only piece of evidence I claimed to have, the engravings, because the angel told me not to - would you believe me?

Concept

12-25-2010, 07:00 PM

Also on the subject of the Red Sea parting as Unownmew mentioned it - I found this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11383620) really interesting.

Raptor Jesus

12-25-2010, 07:14 PM

Also on the subject of the Red Sea parting as Unownmew mentioned it - I found this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11383620) really interesting.

Whoa. That means Moses might have had been a great climatologist rather than a magic man like Kongming.

unownmew

12-25-2010, 08:51 PM

Completely different thing. My point is, with regards to the main bible canon, we have evidence of cities mentioned. Places. Ethnic groups. Language. My main arguments against the Book of Mormon;

1) Absolutely no archaeological evidence for any place mentioned.
2) Absolutely no genetic evidence that any Hebrew group was ever in North America at the suggested time.
3) Absolutely no evidence for many of the technologies (chariots etc), flora or fauna (horses) mentioned at that time in the Americas.
4) Absolutely no linguistic evidence that any Hebrew group was ever in North America at the suggested time.

1. I have personally seen documented evidence of the places along the route described in First Niphi being where they are claimed to have been. As it was a Documentary Film I do not own or have immediate access to, I will try to find it later.
2. This I can not dispute at this time, due to lack of research on the topic.
3. There is no mention of Chariots anywhere in the Book of Mormon that I can remember. Lack of Flora and Fauna evidence could be due the cataclysm that occurs at Jesus's death, or have been referenced in the Book of Ether, which is an abridement of an account of a people who had come to America during the time of the Tower of Bable and the division of languages, and warred themselved to extinction before Nephi and his family had arrived.
4. There are various perspectives on where exactly Lehi's family landed in America. Some claim it was South America, others claim it was North. Either way, languages change greatly over time, especially when there is no official form of writing to reference back to, so it's natural that linguistic evidence would be hard to find in this case.

I would also hold the references to the Book of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon up as a specific example of evidence that those sections cannot have been written when it is claimed they were. They must have been written after the writing of the Book of Isaiah - a book written after the tribe supposedly migrated to America and lost contact - and thus after the events they describe. In fact, these cannot have been written until, at the earliest, the Book of Isaiah was introduced to the Americas - post-Columbian. This places the authorship of those passages at least hundreds and hundreds of years after they claim to have been written.
This is easily disputed.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-Isaiah.html
Date of Writing: The Book of Isaiah was written between 701 and 681 B.C.
The Book of Mormon puts the Family of Lehi's journey out of Jerusalem at right about 600 BC. That's about a 81 year difference, at least, that I can see.

According to Wikipedia though, The Book of Isaiah, according to scholars (which may or may not be right, as it stands I haven't seen any substancial proof for or against their claims, so imo, it's all conjecture), the latter part of the book of Isaiah may have been written by different people. I'll find out where the passages quoted in the Book of Mormon fall in the Book of Isaiah and come back to this)

If God is unchanging, why did he change from the laws of Moses to modern Christian teachings? Assuming your earlier argument when Talon bought this up resurfaces (ie it was the difference in nature of later people from the Hebrews that allowed the change in the laws that was previously not possible) then the same argument can be applied to prophets.
I've tried to explain this already.

Due to the sins of the Israelites, they required a harsh law to govern them. It was meant to be an Absolute Law for the Hebrews only.
From the beginning it was meant to give way to the Higher Law after Christ's Atonement for our sins. Those who follow Christ, follow the Christian Law. The Hebrews that do not, must obey the Law of Moses by default. (Which they do not, and as such is why they are currently being scourged so often)

The Hebrew law is also not the same as the law God gave to Adam and Eve (none of us know the specifics of that law except that it required sacrifices to symbolize Jesus sacrificing himself for our sins). Christianity is the full Law which God has not been able to bring forth until now. That doesn't mean it hasn't been his intention from the beginning. And as such, he has not changed by changing the "Law".

It's an interesting and well covered argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_Continuationism). Large portions of Christianity do not share your view, but there is by no means consensus either way amongst Christians.
Of course. If there was complete consensus, we'd already have passed through Judgement Day and know the full truth ourselves.
There must needs be opposition in all things.

Nazi beliefs get pretty heavily persecuted these days. They must be true! GOGO holocaust, amirite?
Really? How are they persecuted? Are they Tarred and Feathered? Are they threatened with death if they do not renounce their beliefs? Are they jailed on account of false charges? Denyed the rights granted them in their country of citizenship?

Afgan Terrorists are certainly not persecuted much these days. In fact, I recall a large promotion to give American Rights to Terrorist detainees, including giving a certain prominent one a Public Trial New York.

In the same vein, Jews got pretty heavily persecuted back then. Clearly they must be right and Jesus isn't the Messiah, yes? You have to agree, it must be true, look at all the persecution they suffered!
They are certainly more right then the Nazis that persecuted them, being God's Chosen people after all. So, yes, they are "right", but that doesn't mean they are "completely right". You also Ignore God's Covenant with them: When they sin, he will abandon them to be at the mercy of the world.

Lucifer will always put up a huge fight against something he doesn't like: Jews, Christians, Mormons, Morals, Virtue, etc. But will always abandon those who follow him to reap the consequences of their actions as well.

EDIT the first: My point is this. If I came online tomorrow and claimed to have been converted to your viewpoint by an angel - if I claimed this angel had given me ancient engravings to translate - would you believe me? If I further claimed, later, that I'd translated these engravings, and that the story they told was completely contrary to all archaeological, genetic and linguistic evidence to date and then failed to find any other evidence of the story told in this book - would you believe me? If I further told you that I couldn't show you the only piece of evidence I claimed to have, the engravings, because the angel told me not to - would you believe me?
I'd be skeptical, especially if you had no change of heart from what you are right now. But I certainly would not gather a group of people to raid your house looking for the engravings and persecute you every step of your life for such outlandish claims.

What I would do is this:
I'd ask to see them, or, if that was impossible, ask for 3 more witnesses to back your claim (the Book of Mormon has about 14 official witnesses who were shown the Gold Plates and the Urim and Thummin by an Angel, can you top that?), and then ask if you and your witnesses would stake your own lives on this claim. I'd also ask to read the translation, to see if you actually have anything produced from those engravings, and if they go contrary to what I already know is right or not. If they do not, then I'd pray and ask God if what the writings say is true or not, and see how you fair from there. If you're persecuted to death, and your followers continue to endure hardship after hardship without straying from the path your writings tell them to follow and your Church grows larger and larger over the years (to over 13 million members), and God tells me the words are true, then I'd certainly consider what you claimed to be truth.

Concept

12-25-2010, 10:03 PM

I was going to address your post, then I saw this bit.

Lucifer will always put up a huge fight against something he doesn't like: Jews, Christians, Mormons, Morals, Virtue, etc. But will always abandon those who follow him to reap the consequences of their actions as well.

So basically - if the people you agree with get shit, it's evidence that they're right, but if people you disagree with get shit, it's evidence they're wrong?

That's some shit logic right there. What it basically boils down to is "people get persecuted. The ones I agree with are getting persecuted because they are good and right. The ones I disagree with are getting persecuted because they're wrong and evil and deserve it". It's not logic at all.

I invoke your logic of "those I agree with are inherently right and are getting unfairly persecuted, those I disagree with are inherently wrong and deserve persecution." I am agnostic. Therefore you are wrong because I disagree with you. Therefore I'm going to persecute you, and by your own logic you deserve it. You see my point? If you genuinely think this is valid logic, you have a serious mental handicap and there's little point in continuing this discussion because you're demonstrably incapable of objective reasoning. If it was a joke I'll go back and address the rest of your post.

Mercutio

12-25-2010, 10:21 PM

It surprises me that this argument isn't actually as full of morons as I was led to believe. I mean, Moron and Mormon is generally synonymous in that it's just so full of horseshit, but when you consider that many Mormons are fantastic people, and more to the point who generally don't go around burning pictures of Martin Luther King, that's really not so much of an issue.

The whole magic underpants thing is cool though. Maybe Jesus should have time travelled to the future and gotten some of those for the whole crucifixion thing.

unownmew

12-25-2010, 10:52 PM

I was going to address your post, then I saw this bit.

So basically - if the people you agree with get shit, it's evidence that they're right, but if people you disagree with get shit, it's evidence they're wrong?

That's some shit logic right there. What it basically boils down to is "people get persecuted. The ones I agree with are getting persecuted because they are good and right. The ones I disagree with are getting persecuted because they're wrong and evil and deserve it". It's not logic at all.

I invoke your logic of "those I agree with are inherently right and are getting unfairly persecuted, those I disagree with are inherently wrong and deserve persecution." I am agnostic. Therefore you are wrong because I disagree with you. Therefore I'm going to persecute you, and by your own logic you deserve it. You see my point? If you genuinely think this is valid logic, you have a serious mental handicap and there's little point in continuing this discussion because you're demonstrably incapable of objective reasoning. If it was a joke I'll go back and address the rest of your post.
Ok, perhaps there's a miscommunication.

The people doing the persecution are always wrong, regardless of what the persecuted are.
Of course this would also mean that the persecuted will always be more "right" then the persecutor, but that doesn't mean they are completely "right".

BTW, what is your definition of "Persecuted"? This may be part of the issue.

It surprises me that this argument isn't actually as full of morons as I was led to believe. I mean, Moron and Mormon is generally synonymous in that it's just so full of horseshit, but when you consider that many Mormons are fantastic people, and more to the point who generally don't go around burning pictures of Martin Luther King, that's really not so much of an issue.

The whole magic underpants thing is cool though. Maybe Jesus should have time travelled to the future and gotten some of those for the whole crucifixion thing.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here..

Talon87

12-26-2010, 01:03 AM

Personally, the lack of acceptance is comforting. The more persecution something gets, the more true it is.
This is wrong on many levels, some of which have already been addressed.

This also ought to have served as a pretty bright red flag to you, Concept. I'm disappointed that you're continuing to try to reach him in the manner which you are (argumentative reasoning) when clearly he will shut himself off to such approaches. As he's just told you, "the more you tell me I'm wrong, the more I know I'm right."

The best thing you can do at this stage is to ask unownmew, "What would it take for you to doubt a particular claim of the Church of Latter-Day Saints?" You raise a particular claim -- one at a time, one claim per train of posts -- and ask him to tell you what it would take for him to doubt that claim. If he tells you his faith is unshakable in regards to this particular point, either because he's trying to sound bigger than he is or else because he really is that unswayable, you drop it and move on to the next point. If on the other hand he tells you, "I would doubt it if ..." and he provides you with circumstances, you assess whether those circumstances are (a) within the realm of science to prove or disprove and (b) if disprovable, whether they have already been disproven or not. Only when the answer is (a) yes within the realm and (b) yes has been disproven do you then waste spend your time writing up a long post explaining why unownmew ought to consider re-evaluating his belief system.

Of course, this assumes -- and having read your posts I think it a fair assumption -- that your primary goal in this thread at present is to persuade unownmew that the Mormon position is far less defensible than that of other Christian sects. If instead your goal is to merely hold a debate, with unownmew defending the LDS and you going on the offensive, and if instead your primary goal in this thread is to persuade third parties that the Mormon belief system is a lot of crock and bull, then I think you need change little with your approach.

unownmew

12-26-2010, 01:14 AM

So now the focus is trying to get me to let go of my personal beliefs instead of debating Christianity as a whole?

Sorry, but if all you care about is getting me to denounce my faith and join you as an Anti-Mormon, not gunna happen. I'm pretty sure I know more about my faith and it's history, having been raised as such, then you do. That's not to say we can't learn things from each other though.

So, if we could get back to the points being discussed at present, that'd be great.

Talon87

12-26-2010, 02:32 AM

The point being discussed originally was why Christianity is or is not right.

The point being discussed at present is why Mormonism is or is not right.

Perhaps instead of saying, "the goal is to convert you," one should say that the goal is to reach one of these three points as properly yet swiftly as possible:
(1) get you to concede that Mormonism is wrong;
(2) get Concept to concede that Mormonism should be treated with no less respect than Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism; or
(3) get both of you to agree that the other party has exhausted all possibilities for civil debate.

As 3 is the least likely at present, that leaves us with 1 and 2.

Rangeetsuper

12-26-2010, 03:50 AM

Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group.

That is the definition of persecution. So yeah, I have a feeling unownmew has a different one.

Raptor Jesus

12-26-2010, 04:54 AM

WE ARE PERSECUTING UNOWNMEW! HE IS IN THE RIGHT BY HIS LOGIC! HE WINS THE THREAD!

Concept

12-26-2010, 02:04 PM

Ok, in light of Talon's post;

Christians; what would persuade you that Christianity is wrong, or to cause you to doubt it strongly? Non-Christians, what would it take to persuade you that Christianity is right?

A point I've seen raised for the former, made by Richard Dawkins (whom I will not make a habit of quoting - brilliant evolutionary biologist, but shit theologian, far too fond of straw man arguments and generally capable of being quite offensive) that I thought interesting (Dawkins was a Christian until his teenage years) - the presence of numerous and diverse religions across the world, many with beliefs no less defensible than Christianity and followers no less devoted.

Adherents to any religion (and atheists, for that matter) need to address this point when asking why themselves why they think they're right (faith is nothing unless tested) - why do they think everyone else is wrong? For Christians - what specifically about Islam/Judaism/Sikhism/Hinduism/Greek Mythology/Norse Mythology persuades you it's not just as valid as your own beliefs?

If some totally logical argument for the existence of the Christian God were possible (I don't know of anyone who claims it is - rather at odds with the point of faith), I'd probably accept that. Otherwise, something biblical. Biblical figures saw their miracles, if the Bible is right - direct evidence of God's intervention - the ten plagues, feeding of the five thousand, Joshua stopping the sun, etc. When Thomas the apostle doubted the resurrection of Jesus, the Bible says, Jesus appeared to him and allowed him to touch his wounds to prove it. Why is it that in the case of Thomas, he gets given absolute proof when he refused to rely on blind faith, yet for millions of people today the same is denied? This is a man who supposedly had been seeing Jesus perform miracles all his life - he had more valid, logical reasons to believe than anyone alive today - and yet he still doubted, and was given yet MORE proof. Double standards much?

Jerichi

01-03-2011, 04:11 AM

Totally jumping into the middle of this conversation to say that there is some historical fact behind the Bible and I wouldn't totally dismiss it as historically inaccurate even if it consists mostly of the legend of the Judeo-Christian Faith.

unownmew

01-07-2011, 02:15 PM

To the opposing parties: If you're going to argue against the Book of Mormon, may I request that you also read it, instead of simply reading about it?

Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group.

That is the definition of persecution. So yeah, I have a feeling unownmew has a different one.
sys·tem·at·ic /ˌsɪstəˈmætɪk/ Show Spelled
[sis-tuh-mat-ik]
–adjective
1. having, showing, or involving a system, method, or plan: a systematic course of reading; systematic efforts.
2. given to or using a system or method; methodical: a systematic person.
3. arranged in or comprising an ordered system: systematic theology.
This is the definition of Systematic.

Simply being laughed at, made fun of, injured, or warred against, is not persecution.
Persecution is when one person/group is singled out to recieve injustice or mistreatment.

Jews were persecuted, Christians were persecuted, African americans, scientists going against the Catholic Church in the middle ages, false witches, and Mormons have all been persecuted.
Nazis and similarly evil groups/people have never been "persecuted", they are the ones that always do the persecution. And they receive justice, either in this world or the next.

Ok, in light of Talon's post;

Christians; what would persuade you that Christianity is wrong, or to cause you to doubt it strongly? Non-Christians, what would it take to persuade you that Christianity is right?
Hmm... probably direct revelation saying that Christianity is false and then a personal feeling that what I was told is true, would be the only thing that would make me change my mind.

A point I've seen raised for the former, made by Richard Dawkins (whom I will not make a habit of quoting - brilliant evolutionary biologist, but shit theologian, far too fond of straw man arguments and generally capable of being quite offensive) that I thought interesting (Dawkins was a Christian until his teenage years) - the presence of numerous and diverse religions across the world, many with beliefs no less defensible than Christianity and followers no less devoted.

Adherents to any religion (and atheists, for that matter) need to address this point when asking why themselves why they think they're right (faith is nothing unless tested) - why do they think everyone else is wrong? For Christians - what specifically about Islam/Judaism/Sikhism/Hinduism/Greek Mythology/Norse Mythology persuades you it's not just as valid as your own beliefs?
IMO, for some, it's not that they think they're right, and we're wrong, they just don't want to change, regardless of how much "Proof" they are given. For others, they Feel that what they have is the "most right" of everything they currently know, but if they had more knowledge and understanding, they would definitely change. They just don't have the knowledge yet and/or are not seeking it.

If some totally logical argument for the existence of the Christian God were possible (I don't know of anyone who claims it is - rather at odds with the point of faith), I'd probably accept that. Otherwise, something biblical. Biblical figures saw their miracles, if the Bible is right - direct evidence of God's intervention - the ten plagues, feeding of the five thousand, Joshua stopping the sun, etc. When Thomas the apostle doubted the resurrection of Jesus, the Bible says, Jesus appeared to him and allowed him to touch his wounds to prove it. Why is it that in the case of Thomas, he gets given absolute proof when he refused to rely on blind faith, yet for millions of people today the same is denied? This is a man who supposedly had been seeing Jesus perform miracles all his life - he had more valid, logical reasons to believe than anyone alive today - and yet he still doubted, and was given yet MORE proof. Double standards much?
There are no double standards. You yourself, and everyone else in the world is entitled to just as much divine revelation as Joseph Smith, Thomas, Moses, Joshua, Abraham, Saul/Paul, John the baptist, John the beloved, etc, etc.

You will be given all that you need to know. What does it say in the Bible?

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.
6. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7 Ask and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

All you need to do is ask for proof, and you'll get it. The problem is, no one asks, they think it should be handed to them without any effort at all on their part.
Study it out in your mind, then ask if it is true, and you'll be answered.

Totally jumping into the middle of this conversation to say that there is some historical fact behind the Bible and I wouldn't totally dismiss it as historically inaccurate even if it consists mostly of the legend of the Judeo-Christian Faith.
Thanks for the support.

I found these (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml) few (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=archaeological+evidence+of+the+book+of+mormon&aq=5l&aqi=g-l10&aql=&oq=Archeolgical+evidence+of+&gs_rfai=)sites (http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.htm l) interesting. Of course they are partial to the Book of Mormon (just as the sites that say the Book of Mormon has no evidence are partial against the Book of Mormom), but it does refute much of your arguements regarding the lack of archeological proof for the Book of Mormon, and I trust the source material isn't phony (you're welcome to check it if you'd like).

Unfortunately, as evidenced by the Jews many times over, Knowledge does not convert, only faith. And even proving the Book of Mormon irrefutably true would not cause people to wholely believe it was found and translated by Divine Power, even if it is the only logical answer. In the end, knowing it's truth would only be a condemning factor for those who chose not to act on it.

If you're interested, I can continue, if not, It's best if I bow out.

6 Give not that which is Holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Not saying any of you are dogs or swine, only that if you're not ready to hear it, I can say no more.

Jerichi

01-07-2011, 10:04 PM

Talon87

01-15-2011, 01:58 PM

Not quite prepared to join back into this conversation, but I did want to link this here instead of in MiscDisc since it's relevant to the thread at hand and it may provide some great talking points for either side: scene from the film "God on Trial" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xwZt8ypufE) in which one Jewish prisoner in Auschwitz explains his belief that, if there is a God, that he is not a good God.

Shuckle

09-01-2011, 11:37 PM

Ok, in light of Talon's post;

Christians; what would persuade you that Christianity is wrong, or to cause you to doubt it strongly? Non-Christians, what would it take to persuade you that Christianity is right?If a great voice came down from the heavens and yelled, "There is no God," I would probably not be skeptical.

But more to the point, it would take proof. I would like to see someone explain exactly why God can't possibly exist. Free will is a common front, but I'm still waiting for somebody to actually give a satisfactory attack on it. Evolution is old hat.

A point I've seen raised for the former, made by Richard Dawkins (whom I will not make a habit of quoting - brilliant evolutionary biologist, but shit theologian, far too fond of straw man arguments and generally capable of being quite offensive) that I thought interesting (Dawkins was a Christian until his teenage years) - the presence of numerous and diverse religions across the world, many with beliefs no less defensible than Christianity and followers no less devoted.

Adherents to any religion (and atheists, for that matter) need to address this point when asking why themselves why they think they're right (faith is nothing unless tested) - why do they think everyone else is wrong? For Christians - what specifically about Islam/Judaism/Sikhism/Hinduism/Greek Mythology/Norse Mythology persuades you it's not just as valid as your own beliefs?It is. Welcome to Roman Catholicism, buddy, that believes that all other religions are true except for where they conflict with Christianity. Where they conflict with each other and not Christianity is a different (and far messier) matter that is best discreetly swept up under the carpet. Fortunately, such instances are rare enough that I haven't heard of any.Not everything in false religion is false, nor is everything in the true religion (or Christianity) supernatural.A little piece of wisdom I like to use sometimes whenever I'm feeling particularly depressed by the state of the internets.If some totally logical argument for the existence of the Christian God were possible (I don't know of anyone who claims it is - rather at odds with the point of faith), I'd probably accept that."The Babel fish," said the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Well, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Otherwise, something biblical. Biblical figures saw their miracles, if the Bible is right - direct evidence of God's intervention - the ten plagues, feeding of the five thousand, Joshua stopping the sun, etc. When Thomas the apostle doubted the resurrection of Jesus, the Bible says, Jesus appeared to him and allowed him to touch his wounds to prove it. Why is it that in the case of Thomas, he gets given absolute proof when he refused to rely on blind faith, yet for millions of people today the same is denied? This is a man who supposedly had been seeing Jesus perform miracles all his life - he had more valid, logical reasons to believe than anyone alive today - and yet he still doubted, and was given yet MORE proof. Double standards much?Ummm...no. That is overexaggeration, plain and simple. It's also taken far out of context, and it was a totally unprepared-for miracle that required proof. If I told you that I had just turned into a helcopter, flew over the Atlantic Ocean in six and a half seconds, and then flew back and showed up at your house, what would you think? I think you'd think I was off my rocker, and I think I would, too. What Jesus did was so amazing, somebody needed to be shown, or else nobody would believe it. He didn't go off and do miracles off in the woods by himself, you know. Or, if he did, then we didn't hear about them.

tl;drDoubting Thomas is blind faith embodied. Jesus showed him the marks so that he could believe, and then tell everyone about it. In other words, he was told so that he could tell. Capisci?

Raptor Jesus

09-01-2011, 11:55 PM

Thanks for an 8 and a half month necromancy post.

Shuckle

09-02-2011, 12:15 AM

I never pay attention to dates...sorry :3

unownmew

09-02-2011, 01:52 PM

>All you need to do is ask for proof, and you'll get it. The problem is, no one asks, they think it should be handed to them without any effort at all on their part.

I think part of the problem with that is it's not quite that simple. How do you ask for proof? How do you know it's proof when it's presented to you and not just random happenstance?

Personally, I think it all derives from personal perspective and your own interpretation - your view of the world is your reality, and for someone to tell you something different is them imposing a non-reality (for lack of a better term) on you. If you believe something to be true or proof of something else, it is to you until you convince yourself otherwise.

That's why I don't really support or believe in organized religion - spirituality is a personal journey and experience and not something that can be dictated by man, church, book or even a divine being.
I like this post. I completely agree. People do not know how to ask, or even if they can ask, so they do not. Religion is not something that can be dictated by any being, earthly, or divine, so telling someone what they know is false, just won't work.

That is why The Holy Spirit exists. As mentioned at the Baptism of Jesus by John, the Spirit of God descended like a dove. (not "in the form of a dove," but in a similar manner as a dove would; lightly, and gently)
It is through this Spirit that we can know the truth of all things, and all humans are entitled to feel it's presence. It is feeling the Holy Spirit that converts, not logic and reasoning. It's all about recognizing it.

Now, I could go and describe what it feels like, but then you'll probably just say, "that's no different from any other feeling, you're simply calling a common emotion 'divine.'" But it is much more then that. Feeling the Holy Spirit is a feeling of peace, warm, comfort and calm, almost a glow resonating with your whole being. But it's much different from what would commonly be considered calm, warm, and comfortable. It really is something you can only recognize once you have felt it.

That is why our church sends out missionaries. Not to proclaim your religions are false and ours is true, but to invite people to feel the Holy Spirit, teach them how to recognize it, and allow make their own decision about what is true and what is false. I'm sure they would do a much better job explaining this all to you then I could though.

If a great voice came down from the heavens and yelled, "There is no God," I would probably not be skeptical.

But more to the point, it would take proof. I would like to see someone explain exactly why God can't possibly exist. Free will is a common front, but I'm still waiting for somebody to actually give a satisfactory attack on it. Evolution is old hat.

It is. Welcome to Roman Catholicism, buddy, that believes that all other religions are true except for where they conflict with Christianity. Where they conflict with each other and not Christianity is a different (and far messier) matter that is best discreetly swept up under the carpet. Fortunately, such instances are rare enough that I haven't heard of any.A little piece of wisdom I like to use sometimes whenever I'm feeling particularly depressed by the state of the internets."The Babel fish," said the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Well, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Ummm...no. That is overexaggeration, plain and simple. It's also taken far out of context, and it was a totally unprepared-for miracle that required proof. If I told you that I had just turned into a helcopter, flew over the Atlantic Ocean in six and a half seconds, and then flew back and showed up at your house, what would you think? I think you'd think I was off my rocker, and I think I would, too. What Jesus did was so amazing, somebody needed to be shown, or else nobody would believe it. He didn't go off and do miracles off in the woods by himself, you know. Or, if he did, then we didn't hear about them.

tl;drDoubting Thomas is blind faith embodied. Jesus showed him the marks so that he could believe, and then tell everyone about it. In other words, he was told so that he could tell. Capisci?
I completely agree with everything you said.

Our Church does not deny that other religions have some truth to them. After all, legends are based off facts, that have been distorted through the ages. Many religions, even non-christian ones agree on a flood myth, yet science can not prove such a flood ever occured. Even if the Hebrews borrowed much of their "History" from the other civilizations living during their time, is that to say the other religions were wrong? Or had they simply become corrupted versions of the "true religion" God had given to Adam and Eve?

Our church claims only to have the Fullness of the Truth, the complete Truth.
Mind you, we never claimed to have a fullness of Knowledge, and there are probably a vast number of secrets from the Ancients that we will never know again until the Millennium where Christ Reigns.

IMO, and IMO only (my church does not claim this), the Pagan Religions contain the Ancient Knowledge, (Natural Laws of the Universe, and ways to use them), but the Christian Religions contain the Ancient Truths (the Divine Laws of God, and how to become "Gods" ourselves).

Both of which filtered through the sieve of time and manipulation of evil to become not quite as accurate, save ours, which was given directly from God much more recently, and has not yet become corrupted at it's root.

Shuckle

09-02-2011, 09:24 PM

and has not yet become corrupted at it's root....

Not according to one recently deceased terrorist leader. If you listen to him, pretty much the whole world is corrupted except for the people who wholeheartedly support blowing it up.

unownmew

09-02-2011, 09:48 PM

...

Not according to one recently deceased terrorist leader. If you listen to him, pretty much the whole world is corrupted except for the people who wholeheartedly support blowing it up.
And the opinion of a terrorist concerns me why?

Milotic111

09-02-2011, 09:50 PM

And the opinion of a terrorist concerns me why?

Because he's taking everything from his holy book litteral?

The Koran isn't nice if you do that, but the Bible isn't innocent either.

Lonely Cubone

09-02-2011, 10:06 PM

Don't worry, any Hitchiker's Guide quote forgives necromancy automatically.

deoxys

09-02-2011, 10:18 PM

Mozz

09-02-2011, 10:21 PM

ROUND UP THE JEWS

DaveTheFishGuy

09-02-2011, 10:23 PM

I was going to write a long argument against organized religion and why it's inherently bad for society (to a degree), even though I'm a Christian myself (how hypocritical of me, right?), but then I realized I don't particularly feel like debating this topic.

Carry on then.

Essentially my standpoint here too. I'm a Christian but organised religion has a bad influence on the world.

Also, quoting Hitchhiker's Insane Troll Logic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic) doesn't count as an argument, no matter how awesome it is.

Doppleganger

09-02-2011, 11:43 PM

Welcome to Roman Catholicism, buddy, that believes that all other religions are true except for where they conflict with Christianity.

Our Church does not deny that other religions have some truth to them.

Huh?

Are we talking about the same Roman Catholic Church here, and not, say, Freemasonry? Because while the RCC takes a blind eye to non-standard localized practices among its members (like voodoo/hoodoo in Louisiana) doctrinally everything religious in nature when non-Catholic is anti-Catholic. The RCC would be much more hardcore on hammering out obedience to central dogma if the Church still had a monopoly on Western religion and fingers in politics pies, but it doesn't anymore. The only reason it is permissive of deviant practices is to maintain membership, in an ideal world we'd merge back with the Russian Orthodox Church and all opposing religions extinguished.

unownmew

09-03-2011, 12:06 AM

Because he's taking everything from his holy book litteral?

The Koran isn't nice if you do that, but the Bible isn't innocent either.
I see. IMO, the teachings of the bible should be internalized figuratively, however knowledge and history out to be taken literaly. (With a grain of salt, since it's undergone so many re-translations that parts of it are completely incorrect, or missing, by accident or design)

I was going to write a long argument against organized religion and why it's inherently bad for society (to a degree), even though I'm a Christian myself (how hypocritical of me, right?), but then I realized I don't particularly feel like debating this topic.

Carry on then.
I'm curious. You don't have to debate it.

I can see where organized religion can be bad for society (when it's corrupted, used to gain power, used to control the population, etc.)
But a true religion, IMO, can not bad, and organized religion, when used correctly, can be a great source of good in the world.

unownmew

09-03-2011, 12:17 AM

Huh?

Are we talking about the same Roman Catholic Church here, and not, say, Freemasonry? Because while the RCC takes a blind eye to non-standard localized practices among its members (like voodoo/hoodoo in Louisiana) doctrinally everything religious in nature when non-Catholic is anti-Catholic. The RCC would be much more hardcore on hammering out obedience to central dogma if the Church still had a monopoly on Western religion and fingers in politics pies, but it doesn't anymore. The only reason it is permissive of deviant practices is to maintain membership, in an ideal world we'd merge back with the Russian Orthodox Church and all opposing religions extinguished.
I'm not Roman Catholic, so I don't know any of their workings.

Shuckle

09-03-2011, 01:06 AM

Also, quoting Hitchhiker's Insane Troll Logic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic) doesn't count as an argument, no matter how awesome it is.However, it does work wonders when exposing flaws in others' logic, as you can clearly see.Huh?

Are we talking about the same Roman Catholic Church here, and not, say, Freemasonry? Because while the RCC takes a blind eye to non-standard localized practices among its members (like voodoo/hoodoo in Louisiana) doctrinally everything religious in nature when non-Catholic is anti-Catholic. The RCC would be much more hardcore on hammering out obedience to central dogma if the Church still had a monopoly on Western religion and fingers in politics pies, but it doesn't anymore. The only reason it is permissive of deviant practices is to maintain membership, in an ideal world we'd merge back with the Russian Orthodox Church and all opposing religions extinguished....

I don't think we're talking about the same Roman Catholic Church here, either. What I learned from my couple of years at Catholic school (which is limited, true) was that Catholicism was religion in its fullest, truest form. My teacher(s) explained that, if Catholicism dismissed outright all other religions in the world, then it would collapse. Case in point flood myths and other random crap that also happens to please those sciency blokes. Those things are included in the Bible and thus are part of the religion, but other religions have their input, too. So, Roman Catholicism says that the flood happened (truth in other religions), but that God caused it (falsehood in other religions).

In addition, the RCC does, as I understand it, actively support the existence of evolution, explaining that science and religion have the same goal, which is to find the truth. Our only stipulation is that it was God who caused it, and not Random Chance alone.

:P Not actually debating here, just discussing at this point. Nobody's come across with a "God doesn't exist" or "Allah be praised, Jesus is a phoney" yet.

Oh, and I found some evidence from JPII, may he R.I.P. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_John_Paul_II) Still working on finding some evidence for the "other religions have little bit true, little bit false" claims, which are mostly due to memory and days spent in church ^^;

Concept

09-03-2011, 01:34 AM

I don't think we're talking about the same Roman Catholic Church here, either. What I learned from my couple of years at Catholic school (which is limited, true) was that Catholicism was religion in its fullest, truest form.

A protestant will tell you the same about protestantism, as will Shi'a and Sunni Muslims about their own respective beliefs and so on. Until any religion has significantly more than "no me!", you'll forgive me for remaining sceptical about any claims made.

Out of interest, can any of the religious here give me a good reason - any good reason - that believing in a religion is a good thing? And by "good reason" I mean one that doesn't go "I have faith the religion is true, thus having faith the religion is true is right because it says so" or Pascals Wager (which is massively flawed). I don't, I should clarify, think it's necessarily a bad thing (religion gets blamed for all sorts of stuff but humans are bastards and would find excuses to butched each other without it).

It's also taken far out of context, and it was a totally unprepared-for miracle that required proof. If I told you that I had just turned into a helcopter, flew over the Atlantic Ocean in six and a half seconds, and then flew back and showed up at your house, what would you think? I think you'd think I was off my rocker, and I think I would, too. What Jesus did was so amazing, somebody needed to be shown, or else nobody would believe it. He didn't go off and do miracles off in the woods by himself, you know. Or, if he did, then we didn't hear about them.

The bolded part is pretty much my attitude to religion, yes. You've just argued the need for proof, yet religion provides none - so why believe? I mean, I don't definitely believe, 100% totally sure, not even the remotest possibility I'm wrong that there isn't a God, that's presumptious. But I don't definitely believe, 100% totally sure, not even the remotest possibility I'm wrong that there's definitely not a teapot on the moon, and I have the same amount of reason to believe that there is as I do to believe there's a God.

I also fail to see how someone who required proof before he'd believe is "blind faith emobodied". Surely blind faith requires no proof?

Shuckle

09-03-2011, 02:53 AM

A protestant will tell you the same about protestantism, as will Shi'a and Sunni Muslims about their own respective beliefs and so on. Until any religion has significantly more than "no me!", you'll forgive me for remaining sceptical about any claims made.

Out of interest, can any of the religious here give me a good reason - any good reason - that believing in a religion is a good thing? And by "good reason" I mean one that doesn't go "I have faith the religion is true, thus having faith the religion is true is right because it says so" or Pascals Wager (which is massively flawed). I don't, I should clarify, think it's necessarily a bad thing (religion gets blamed for all sorts of stuff but humans are bastards and would find excuses to butched each other without it).I believe and subscribe to the Catholic Church because, in my mind, it makes complete and total sense. Looking at the world around me, how I think and feel, how emotion came to be; there's so much that can't possibly be explained in any way. Not only complexity; there's also the concept of beauty, complete with the Golden Ratio, the spirituality inherent in human beings, and the fact that miracles happen almost all the time that simply does away with any argument against it.

I am a biased creature, I do admit. I was raised with good morals and a strong faith, and I lack nothing in my life spiritually. The same cannot be said for many others, both Christian and atheist, and I consider myself lucky that I am such a blessed person.

Oh, and before you denounce that as a sappy anecdote, that's what I really and truly believe in my mind. It isn't as fun as "I was such a baaaad boy and then I was good :D", but it does for me.

I don't actually have a great big reason for convincing you to subscribe to some form of Christianity. If I had to guess, it might be that I'm so happy and excited about my religion, I would like others to share in what I have found. It's human nature, I suppose.I also fail to see how someone who required proof before he'd believe is "blind faith emobodied". Surely blind faith requires no proof?Gah...this is hard to articulate. Let me try again.

Doubting Thomas is a story about how miracles can be hard to understand, but that we should believe in them anyway, blindly. In the midst of such darkness, the Lord can take us and lead us onward, but only if our hands are out and reaching. Thomas the apostle refused to believe on faith alone, and he was reprimanded. Key word being punished, chided, scolded. Thomas wasn't the priveleged one who got to see what he wanted, he was the silly one whose head, pointed towards the ground, needed a light smack to see a little more clearly.

Talon87

09-03-2011, 03:19 AM

Doubting Thomas is a story about how miracles can be hard to understand, but that we should believe in them anyway, blindly. In the midst of such darkness, the Lord can take us and lead us onward, but only if our hands are out and reaching. Thomas the apostle refused to believe on faith alone, and he was reprimanded. Key word being punished, chided, scolded. Thomas wasn't the priveleged one who got to see what he wanted, he was the silly one whose head, pointed towards the ground, needed a light smack to see a little more clearly.
Do you not realize that an organization which would want you to blindly obey them would feed you this very sort of moral? Do you not realize that under no circumstances is blind faith acceptable? Sometimes you have to make uninformed decisions, but it is never better to make a decision in the absence of evidence or knowledge when the very same decision could have easily been made with that evidence or that knowledge. Saying "it's all part of God's plan," "He wants to know if you truly believe in him," etc etc isn't a convincing argument: it's just more of the same. These are the very arguments you're going to hear out of the leader of any religious group who is trying to get you to obey his commands, be it Catholicism, be it Islam, or be it Heaven's Gate.

By creating the character of Doubting Thomas and painting him to be a jackass of sorts -- "let us all laugh at the sensible man who demands proof of Our Heavenly Zombie! :lol:" -- the Church is furthering its very agenda. It's the very sort of trap which, once ensnared in, most theists find it impossible to get out of.

deoxys

09-03-2011, 03:41 AM

I'm curious. You don't have to debate it.

I can see where organized religion can be bad for society (when it's corrupted, used to gain power, used to control the population, etc.)
But a true religion, IMO, can not bad, and organized religion, when used correctly, can be a great source of good in the world.

after having reread my below post... meh, I was pretty tempted to scratch it all and just be done with it, but at this point, what the hell, I already wrote out this much, so I'll just leave it, I suppose... -_- Here goes nothing...

I feel like I'm being goaded, but if I am, I'm just bringing this on myself sigh.

Well, okay I guess. Let me add here at the beginning; I had written out a very large explanation against the idea of organized religion, but after I reread it it was full of gaping holes in arguments that really didn't make much sense, so I just deleted it. I basically tore down (my own religion) Christianity (since that's what the topic is about, I used it as the example) and that wasn't my intention at all, which I find hilariously depressing.

Basically, here's a TL;DR: The concept behind Christianity is a fantastic one. One that most people can benefit from. The same goes for other religions. But when they become organized, you run into a few large problems.

(A) It becomes very easy to manipulate followers of the movement. All you need to do is put on your pokerface for a few years, work your way up into the ranks, and then spread the message out that you want to spread, and make it convincing. This is especially easy to do when you have a guy who seems trust worthy and you've known for years or whatever. Let's take, I dunno, Billy Graham, for example. One of the most popular evangelicals out there. Lotta Christian's respect him. Let's be honest here, if he wanted, he could say "I just had a vision from God, and the world is going to end in 2012. Give me all of your money and we can stop it", and bam, it would work, I guarantee it (obviously that isn't going to happen, but you see what I mean, right?)

(B) Power. It's a human instinct, and a fucked up one, but it's a natural thing. You hear about corrupt megachurch pastors almost every other week it seems. Some pastor gets put into a position where he's a leader to people, and, sure, like point A, he can mislead people. Or, he becomes so blinded by the size of his own preachy girth, he suddenly thinks he can do whatever the hell he wants and get away with it. In fact, I've seen this happen to a pastor of a church my parents attended when I was a kid. Donations come in from hundreds of churchgoers, and man, that new 2012 Mustang looks really nice... you see where I'm going with this?

(C) Political agenda. In my completely and honest opinion, all forms of religion need to stay out of politics. Sure, it's great and all to know that such and such has values, that's fine. But when you go insane with your power and your religious beliefs, you need to stop being a politician because you're putting a lot at risk. I'll give a few examples, which you probably will not like or agree with in the least. Rick Perry, had 30,000 evangelicals pray for him when he entered the race (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/07/rick-perrys-call-to-prayer), Michele Bachmann and her husband, both of whom run a therapy to 'pray the gay away' (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-candidates-clinic/story?id=14048691), and also have a FEAR of gay people (http://news.yahoo.com/depth-michele-bachmanns-fear-gays-144455333.html) (whether you're pro gay or anti gay, if you look at people as decent human beings, this is completely unacceptable behavior, especially for a politician). Those are just two examples of that in society today, there are much more. Other examples would be sects like the Muslim Brotherhood who have intent to create a theocracy in unstable muslim countries (can't find any really good links for this, sorry), Operation Snow White, where Scientologist's attempted to infiltrate the US Gov't in the '70s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White), Ahmedinijad's fervent stance against other religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Other_statements), etc etc etc, the list goes on and on and on. Politics today is literally littered with religious extremists all over the world, some who have their own agenda, and others who think they are supposed to be some catalyst of prophetic events, which is quite honestly scary as fuck and incredibly dangerous to the well being of society. And since they're so religious, most of these politicians have the base to back them and have a dedicated amount of people who will honestly do or believe anything they say.

I could go on, write books, as there is A LOT more that can be discussed, but those are the ones that instantly come to mind... but I think I've made my point... I don't really want to debate it, like I said, but I think after having written all of that, it's most likely too late, haha. I dunno. EDIT: Let me add here, there are indeed some good uses for religion, such as missionaries who go to third world countries with food and water, or help out with projects like habitat for humanity (in order to be an example, but let's be honest, their number once mission is to spread the message they carry and hopefully convert), and of course helping the poor with donations such as money, food, and shelter... there are I'm sure other great things that help out people from religious backgrounds, but unfortunately, the bad really does outweigh the good, even if it's just because the bad is a lot more vocal than the good....

As for the actual topic of Christianity we're discussing, let me close with this well known quote: "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi. Why do you think he said that? Honestly? Because most Christian's themselves don't see it, because they aren't on the outside looking in. Many Christian's are incredibly prideful for who they are, think they're out doing something great and are very arrogant about it. Some take a different path, in which they become bitterly hateful towards other religions (sure, there are others that are hateful towards Christianity, but what was that thing Jesus said again? Something about turning the other cheek?), and in doing so, they contradict their own belief of loving their neighbor. There is way too much seething animosity between many religious extremists right now, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, being the three big ones that immediately come to mind, and it's fucking stupid. None of these people are actually practicing what they preach. I can't even properly fathom the sheer amount of stupid that radiates from the very thought that they are taken seriously at all. There is so much unnecessary tension between these three in specific when the three of them are honestly the most closely related religions in the world. It greatly upsets me and really puts me off. Nothing ruins my day faster than to hear some nonsensical "Christian" American who shouts "Wooo! Bomb 'dem towelheads!" or something to that effect.

*SIGH*

I think that's a lot of something I've been needing to get off my chest for a while. I feel a little better now, just having typed that out.

Again. I know for a fact there were many, many things in there which could stir up controversy or be cause for debate, and maybe I will, I don't know, it depends on my mood and lately I'm just not really feeling in 'debate' mode. The above was all for ranting purposes... keep in mind.

Oh, also, if anyone wants to discuss Roman Catholicism, I, not even being Catholic at any point in my life, have 12 years of catholic school begrudgingly ingrained into my system, so even though I'm not actually one, I know the religion very well, to the point where, in high school, I was actually having debates with catholics who lost and were completely destroyed when they didn't even know what they were supposed to believe on certain topics and I did. Catholicism, in my opinion, is just so... aaaa.... So, yeah, I'll be glad to pitch in there if needed :P

Shuckle

09-03-2011, 02:19 PM

Do you not realize that an organization which would want you to blindly obey them would feed you this very sort of moral? Do you not realize that under no circumstances is blind faith acceptable? Let me explain the two kinds of belief.

Belief Number 1. This is the kind of belief that most people like to have. It is the Direct Belief; if you see it happen, then you believe it happened. If you know it is happening, then you believe it is happening. Sensory input is essential to this kind of belief; you believe a user named Shuckle is telling you this because you are reading his words and probably disagreeing with most of them.

Belief Number 2. This is the kind of belief that most people end up with. Anything from a history textbook is this kind of belief. It is Belief With Authority. How do you know that Napoleon was defeated at the battle of Waterloo and exiled to the island of Elba? How do you know that the Earth revolves around the Sun? You yourself have not provided the necessary calculations for you to know for sure should you only rely on direct belief.

And this is why blind faith exists. Because we are able to take things and believe them on authority, or a source that we know and trust, or maybe just trust, then we are able to know and believe that Jesus was the son of God, that he died and rose again after three days, etc. etc.Sometimes you have to make uninformed decisions, but it is never better to make a decision in the absence of evidence or knowledge when the very same decision could have easily been made with that evidence or that knowledge. Saying "it's all part of God's plan," "He wants to know if you truly believe in him," etc etc isn't a convincing argument: it's just more of the same. These are the very arguments you're going to hear out of the leader of any religious group who is trying to get you to obey his commands, be it Catholicism, be it Islam, or be it Heaven's Gate.

By creating the character of Doubting Thomas and painting him to be a jackass of sorts -- "let us all laugh at the sensible man who demands proof of Our Heavenly Zombie! :lol:" -- the Church is furthering its very agenda. It's the very sort of trap which, once ensnared in, most theists find it impossible to get out of.And assuming that theism is a "trap" that ensnares those who wish to believe in it is immature and silly, in my humble opinion. This is basically saying that I am trapped and held against my will in a system that tells me how to behave and what I should be doing every week. I'll tell you this much; I'd much rather have Christianity doing that than high school. :/

>Organized religion

Organized anything becomes corrupt as soon as it expands in the number of members. Organized crime, organized sports, organized government...it's hard for human beings to resist temptation, which is what makes the ones who do so amazing; JPII, for instance. It's always sad to hear about examples of power abuse.

The Tea Party is a destructive influence on the world. I don't even know what they think, but whatever it is, it's sick and twisted and heavily influenced by their own interpretations on evidence, both factual and quacktual. While this is the Onion and thus not to be taken as actual news, this article (http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-gop-strategy-involves-reelecting-obama-making,21113/) is mainly funny because it's probably true. I have no idea what the Tea Party is doing, but if it's anything like what they've been doing, I don't want any of it.

unownmew

09-03-2011, 03:44 PM

Out of interest, can any of the religious here give me a good reason - any good reason - that believing in a religion is a good thing? And by "good reason" I mean one that doesn't go "I have faith the religion is true, thus having faith the religion is true is right because it says so" or Pascals Wager (which is massively flawed). I don't, I should clarify, think it's necessarily a bad thing (religion gets blamed for all sorts of stuff but humans are bastards and would find excuses to butched each other without it).
here's a couple:
1. For those who truly believe and practice the spirit of the Christian Law (as opposed to following it absolutely literally), it gives them a sense of peace and comfort despite all hardships that they may encounter.
2. Those believing in a religion, whether true or not, have a sense of purpose in their lives where, according to evolutionary science, there is none. In Christianity, even more so, "if I endure long enough and obey with faith, I will be welcomed into Heaven with open arms by Jesus himself." Discount it as a false promise if you'd like, but it certainly allows people to do great things they would otherwise be unable to do.
3. If everyone in the world followed the Spirit of the Christian Religion (does not require being engaged in organized religion, but if everyone was following the law, faithful religious membership would result regardless), ever improving, repentant, humble, Charitable, ect. The world would be a Utopia. (Granted, this isn't ever going to happen until the Second Coming, but it's a worthy goal.)

The bolded part is pretty much my attitude to religion, yes. You've just argued the need for proof, yet religion provides none - so why believe? I mean, I don't definitely believe, 100% totally sure, not even the remotest possibility I'm wrong that there isn't a God, that's presumptious. But I don't definitely believe, 100% totally sure, not even the remotest possibility I'm wrong that there's definitely not a teapot on the moon, and I have the same amount of reason to believe that there is as I do to believe there's a God.

I also fail to see how someone who required proof before he'd believe is "blind faith emobodied". Surely blind faith requires no proof?
Blind Faith it just that, blind, and it's not really faith.
Faith is the belief of things unseen, which are true. I have faith Moses parted the Read Sea. I didn't see him do it, but I believe he did.

The thing is, to have something to have faith in, requires that something to have been seen at one point, otherwise there's nothing to have faith in. If there was no record of Moses parting the Red Sea, I'd be unable to have faith in it. So, God did many miracles in the Ancient past, not so much for the benefit of those of them who saw them, but for the benefit of those who would come later.
Faith brings knowledge. Once someone believes, they can be shown. If you believe wholeheartedly in miracles, you will witness them. Whereas, if you do not believe, even if one occurred right in front of you, you would not believe it.
A good example of this, is the Brazen Serpent Moses erected, where the Isrealites, who were bitten by serpents, if they looked, would be healed, but those who did not believe they would be healed by the look, did not look at all, and died.

God provides knowledge to those who believe, and evidences even to those who do not. But it is only the believers who learn.
My religion does not ask or require blind faith in itself or it's teachings, it often encourages us to take all the tools we can find, and find out the truth on our own. Direct Revelation from God, is possible for everyone in the world, though seeing a vision is unlikely. However, according to your faith, so will it be.

I believe and subscribe to the Catholic Church because, in my mind, it makes complete and total sense. Looking at the world around me, how I think and feel, how emotion came to be; there's so much that can't possibly be explained in any way. Not only complexity; there's also the concept of beauty, complete with the Golden Ratio, the spirituality inherent in human beings, and the fact that miracles happen almost all the time that simply does away with any argument against it.

I am a biased creature, I do admit. I was raised with good morals and a strong faith, and I lack nothing in my life spiritually. The same cannot be said for many others, both Christian and atheist, and I consider myself lucky that I am such a blessed person.

Oh, and before you denounce that as a sappy anecdote, that's what I really and truly believe in my mind. It isn't as fun as "I was such a baaaad boy and then I was good :D", but it does for me.

I don't actually have a great big reason for convincing you to subscribe to some form of Christianity. If I had to guess, it might be that I'm so happy and excited about my religion, I would like others to share in what I have found. It's human nature, I suppose.Gah...this is hard to articulate. Let me try again.

I'm glad you are so devoted to your religion. It is people like you, who, are true believers, and real Christians.
I do not want to sound like a missionary, but you seem like the one here who would be most accepting. I do not mean to say your religion is false, for, it does contain much truth, but, if you wish, I invite you to learn more. It is entirely up to you though. If you read the Book of Mormon, I believe you will learn many things, which will only support and encourage your Christian beliefs.

Do you not realize that an organization which would want you to blindly obey them would feed you this very sort of moral? Do you not realize that under no circumstances is blind faith acceptable? Sometimes you have to make uninformed decisions, but it is never better to make a decision in the absence of evidence or knowledge when the very same decision could have easily been made with that evidence or that knowledge. Saying "it's all part of God's plan," "He wants to know if you truly believe in him," etc etc isn't a convincing argument: it's just more of the same. These are the very arguments you're going to hear out of the leader of any religious group who is trying to get you to obey his commands, be it Catholicism, be it Islam, or be it Heaven's Gate.

By creating the character of Doubting Thomas and painting him to be a jackass of sorts -- "let us all laugh at the sensible man who demands proof of Our Heavenly Zombie! :lol:" -- the Church is furthering its very agenda. It's the very sort of trap which, once ensnared in, most theists find it impossible to get out of.
IMO, the morale of that story is not, "blind faith", but more, "even the doubting are allowed to see evidences of God if they seek it."

after having reread my below post... meh, I was pretty tempted to scratch it all and just be done with it, but at this point, what the hell, I already wrote out this much, so I'll just leave it, I suppose... -_- Here goes nothing...

I feel like I'm being goaded, but if I am, I'm just bringing this on myself sigh.

Well, okay I guess. Let me add here at the beginning; I had written out a very large explanation against the idea of organized religion, but after I reread it it was full of gaping holes in arguments that really didn't make much sense, so I just deleted it. I basically tore down (my own religion) Christianity (since that's what the topic is about, I used it as the example) and that wasn't my intention at all, which I find hilariously depressing.

Basically, here's a TL;DR: The concept behind Christianity is a fantastic one. One that most people can benefit from. The same goes for other religions. But when they become organized, you run into a few large problems.

(A) It becomes very easy to manipulate followers of the movement. All you need to do is put on your pokerface for a few years, work your way up into the ranks, and then spread the message out that you want to spread, and make it convincing. This is especially easy to do when you have a guy who seems trust worthy and you've known for years or whatever. Let's take, I dunno, Billy Graham, for example. One of the most popular evangelicals out there. Lotta Christian's respect him. Let's be honest here, if he wanted, he could say "I just had a vision from God, and the world is going to end in 2012. Give me all of your money and we can stop it", and bam, it would work, I guarantee it (obviously that isn't going to happen, but you see what I mean, right?)

(B) Power. It's a human instinct, and a fucked up one, but it's a natural thing. You hear about corrupt megachurch pastors almost every other week it seems. Some pastor gets put into a position where he's a leader to people, and, sure, like point A, he can mislead people. Or, he becomes so blinded by the size of his own preachy girth, he suddenly thinks he can do whatever the hell he wants and get away with it. In fact, I've seen this happen to a pastor of a church my parents attended when I was a kid. Donations come in from hundreds of churchgoers, and man, that new 2012 Mustang looks really nice... you see where I'm going with this?

(C) Political agenda. In my completely and honest opinion, all forms of religion need to stay out of politics. Sure, it's great and all to know that such and such has values, that's fine. But when you go insane with your power and your religious beliefs, you need to stop being a politician because you're putting a lot at risk. I'll give a few examples, which you probably will not like or agree with in the least. Rick Perry, had 30,000 evangelicals pray for him when he entered the race (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/07/rick-perrys-call-to-prayer), Michele Bachmann and her husband, both of whom run a therapy to 'pray the gay away' (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-candidates-clinic/story?id=14048691), and also have a FEAR of gay people (http://news.yahoo.com/depth-michele-bachmanns-fear-gays-144455333.html) (whether you're pro gay or anti gay, if you look at people as decent human beings, this is completely unacceptable behavior, especially for a politician). Those are just two examples of that in society today, there are much more. Other examples would be sects like the Muslim Brotherhood who have intent to create a theocracy in unstable muslim countries (can't find any really good links for this, sorry), Operation Snow White, where Scientologist's attempted to infiltrate the US Gov't in the '70s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White), Ahmedinijad's fervent stance against other religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Other_statements), etc etc etc, the list goes on and on and on. Politics today is literally littered with religious extremists all over the world, some who have their own agenda, and others who think they are supposed to be some catalyst of prophetic events, which is quite honestly scary as fuck and incredibly dangerous to the well being of society. And since they're so religious, most of these politicians have the base to back them and have a dedicated amount of people who will honestly do or believe anything they say.

I could go on, write books, as there is A LOT more that can be discussed, but those are the ones that instantly come to mind... but I think I've made my point... I don't really want to debate it, like I said, but I think after having written all of that, it's most likely too late, haha. I dunno. EDIT: Let me add here, there are indeed some good uses for religion, such as missionaries who go to third world countries with food and water, or help out with projects like habitat for humanity (in order to be an example, but let's be honest, their number once mission is to spread the message they carry and hopefully convert), and of course helping the poor with donations such as money, food, and shelter... there are I'm sure other great things that help out people from religious backgrounds, but unfortunately, the bad really does outweigh the good, even if it's just because the bad is a lot more vocal than the good....

As for the actual topic of Christianity we're discussing, let me close with this well known quote: "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi. Why do you think he said that? Honestly? Because most Christian's themselves don't see it, because they aren't on the outside looking in. Many Christian's are incredibly prideful for who they are, think they're out doing something great and are very arrogant about it. Some take a different path, in which they become bitterly hateful towards other religions (sure, there are others that are hateful towards Christianity, but what was that thing Jesus said again? Something about turning the other cheek?), and in doing so, they contradict their own belief of loving their neighbor. There is way too much seething animosity between many religious extremists right now, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, being the three big ones that immediately come to mind, and it's fucking stupid. None of these people are actually practicing what they preach. I can't even properly fathom the sheer amount of stupid that radiates from the very thought that they are taken seriously at all. There is so much unnecessary tension between these three in specific when the three of them are honestly the most closely related religions in the world. It greatly upsets me and really puts me off. Nothing ruins my day faster than to hear some nonsensical "Christian" American who shouts "Wooo! Bomb 'dem towelheads!" or something to that effect.

*SIGH*

I think that's a lot of something I've been needing to get off my chest for a while. I feel a little better now, just having typed that out.

Again. I know for a fact there were many, many things in there which could stir up controversy or be cause for debate, and maybe I will, I don't know, it depends on my mood and lately I'm just not really feeling in 'debate' mode. The above was all for ranting purposes... keep in mind.

Oh, also, if anyone wants to discuss Roman Catholicism, I, not even being Catholic at any point in my life, have 12 years of catholic school begrudgingly ingrained into my system, so even though I'm not actually one, I know the religion very well, to the point where, in high school, I was actually having debates with catholics who lost and were completely destroyed when they didn't even know what they were supposed to believe on certain topics and I did. Catholicism, in my opinion, is just so... aaaa.... So, yeah, I'll be glad to pitch in there if needed :P
Now seeing it, I'm tempted to address your post point by point, however, I did say you did not have to debate, so I will resist. Thank you for sharing your opinions.

Let me explain the two kinds of belief.

Belief Number 1. This is the kind of belief that most people like to have. It is the Direct Belief; if you see it happen, then you believe it happened. If you know it is happening, then you believe it is happening. Sensory input is essential to this kind of belief; you believe a user named Shuckle is telling you this because you are reading his words and probably disagreeing with most of them.

Belief Number 2. This is the kind of belief that most people end up with. Anything from a history textbook is this kind of belief. It is Belief With Authority. How do you know that Napoleon was defeated at the battle of Waterloo and exiled to the island of Elba? How do you know that the Earth revolves around the Sun? You yourself have not provided the necessary calculations for you to know for sure should you only rely on direct belief.

And this is why blind faith exists. Because we are able to take things and believe them on authority, or a source that we know and trust, or maybe just trust, then we are able to know and believe that Jesus was the son of God, that he died and rose again after three days, etc. etc.And assuming that theism is a "trap" that ensnares those who wish to believe in it is immature and silly, in my humble opinion. This is basically saying that I am trapped and held against my will in a system that tells me how to behave and what I should be doing every week. I'll tell you this much; I'd much rather have Christianity doing that than high school. :/

>Organized religion

Organized anything becomes corrupt as soon as it expands in the number of members. Organized crime, organized sports, organized government...it's hard for human beings to resist temptation, which is what makes the ones who do so amazing; JPII, for instance. It's always sad to hear about examples of power abuse.

The Tea Party is a destructive influence on the world. I don't even know what they think, but whatever it is, it's sick and twisted and heavily influenced by their own interpretations on evidence, both factual and quacktual. While this is the Onion and thus not to be taken as actual news, this article (http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-gop-strategy-involves-reelecting-obama-making,21113/) is mainly funny because it's probably true. I have no idea what the Tea Party is doing, but if it's anything like what they've been doing, I don't want any of it.
I've already addressed my views on Blind Faith, though I would say, we are not "required" to obey anything, even if our religion says we ought. If a religion tells us we do not have a choice, then that religion, or at least that pastor/teacher, is teaching false doctrine.
If we choose to obey the "morals" or "restraints" our Church places on us, (I'm ashamed to say, that I do not), we do so because we Want to. Because we feel it is the "right" thing to do. Not because someone tells us to.

I agree on organized anything, it will become corrupt, unless it is founded entirely on the Divine.
My Church has, 1 Prophet or "President of the Church", who presides over the whole church, with 3 councilors. Then 12 Apostles, just like Jesus had. Under these councilors are 70 others who preside over the various regions around the world where our church is located (I think it may be 70 per region, I don't remember exactly). Then there are various Branches, which contain stakes, which then contain wards, Each one set up with a President and 3 councilors presiding, except a Ward, which has a Bishop and 3 councilors.
Every single one of our "Clergy" are unpaid, including the prophet, so there's no worry about corruption there. Our leaders, as we as all other positions in our church are chosen by those in direct higher authority, through divine revelation, prayer and fasting, and then a vote of confidence is given by all the members that would be affected. If someone has concerns with a particular choice, the hierarchy allows any member to bypass their direct leaders and discuss with higher authority their concerns.

Our Prophet is chosen by prayer and fasting and a consensus of the 12 Apostles, revealed to them inside our Holy Temples. And voted on by all members in the next Annual Conference. There is no "Moving up the ladder," and All Positions of Authority save the 70, the 12, and the Prophet, are temporary, though their title will remain. It's just as likely a previous Bishop will be called to become a Nursery Teacher, as he will be called to a position of higher authority.

Talon87

09-03-2011, 04:12 PM

IMO, the morale of that story is not, "blind faith", but more, "even the doubting are allowed to see evidences of God if they seek it."
I seek evidence. So where is it? Stories in a questionable manuscript are not evidence. Where is my Moses moment? My Daniel moment? My Peter? My Paul? My David? Where is my proof? "No, you just get to believe the stories we've fed you, simpleton." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :roll: I'll believe Moses parted the Red Sea because you tell me he did, got it.

Apparently that actually is good enough for you, but for the rest of us extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Pointing to a story in a book is not extraordinary evidence. It's not even evidence period, but were it evidence it would be evidence of the most ordinary kind. The Old Testament actually does a good job of owning up to this idea (that bold claims require bold evidence) by granting its famous doubters all manner of crazy miracles, from burning bushes and rivers of blood to pillars of salt and surviving inside the belly of a leviathan. The funny thing is that the Old Testament itself is nothing more than a story you've inherited thousands of years after the fact. It cannot be, and should not be, submitted as evidence of the very claims it makes. That doesn't make any sense at all. That would be like saying that I have a paper which claims that I invented the light bulb and that the proof I invented the light bulb is, well, this paper which says so! It doesn't work that way: pointing to the Biblical stories of others who received proof of God's existence and saying to me, "See? There's your proof that God is real" is nonsense.

unownmew

09-03-2011, 05:09 PM

I seek evidence. So where is it? Stories in a questionable manuscript are not evidence. Where is my Moses moment? My Daniel moment? My Peter? My Paul? My David? Where is my proof? "No, you just get to believe the stories we've fed you, simpleton." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :roll: I'll believe Moses parted the Red Sea because you tell me he did, got it.
Well for one, you need to drop your pride, and seek humbly, otherwise you deserve nothing. What would you consider evidence?

Would you truly change your mind if you saw a miracle? Or would you go out of your way to excuse it? Fire and Brimstone from Heaven, "Oh it's just a freak meteor shower, we should have seen this coming, but we just weren't looking closely enough it until it was too late."

For what purpose do you seek a miracle, or proof of God's Existence? To disprove it so as to prove yourself right? Or do you seek the truth in order to convert yourself when you do see it?

I've quoted before, I'll paraphrase now, "If you seek wisdom, ask of God, but ask in faith, nothing wavering, and God will reveal the truth unto you."
Faith before Evidence. If you're not truly interested in changing, why should God accommodate you?

But would you really lose something if you tried to have a little faith just to see? It's a completely reasonable request. God's not asking you to put your life in danger, or mutilate your body, nor is he asking you to become a zealous missionary leaving your whole life behind you to live day to day preaching the word for him (yet). Although, with knowledge comes responsibility, so be cautious of that. If you're unprepared and take my advice, and gain a knowledge, we'll both be held accountable in the afterlife for what you do with that knowledge.

Apparently that actually is good enough for you, but for the rest of us extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Pointing to a story in a book is not extraordinary evidence. It's not even evidence period, but were it evidence it would be evidence of the most ordinary kind. The Old Testament actually does a good job of owning up to this idea (that bold claims require bold evidence) by granting its famous doubters all manner of crazy miracles, from burning bushes and rivers of blood to pillars of salt and surviving inside the belly of a leviathan. The funny thing is that the Old Testament itself is nothing more than a story you've inherited thousands of years after the fact. It cannot be, and should not be, submitted as evidence of the very claims it makes. That doesn't make any sense at all. That would be like saying that I have a paper which claims that I invented the light bulb and that the proof I invented the light bulb is, well, this paper which says so! It doesn't work that way: pointing to the Biblical stories of others who received proof of God's existence and saying to me, "See? There's your proof that God is real" is nonsense.
Pointing to evidence in an old book is not evidence? So, Archeologists who find ancient records of a people must assume such a people never existed, and that their history is just a fraud?

A more correct comparison, would be, finding a paper someone wrote in the past, about Edison's electric lightbulb, saying the premise of the electric light was actually designed by someone else, and Edison simply improved upon that design by inventing the carbon filament to make it viable. Which we know as a fact from hearsay. But since none of us was around when the light was actually invented, how can we know it to be true? By Faith, obviously.

If a written document, or multiple documents saying similar things can not be considered evidence, what can?

Doppleganger

09-03-2011, 05:23 PM

I don't think we're talking about the same Roman Catholic Church here, either. What I learned from my couple of years at Catholic school (which is limited, true) was that Catholicism was religion in its fullest, truest form. My teacher(s) explained that, if Catholicism dismissed outright all other religions in the world, then it would collapse. Case in point flood myths and other random crap that also happens to please those sciency blokes. Those things are included in the Bible and thus are part of the religion, but other religions have their input, too. So, Roman Catholicism says that the flood happened (truth in other religions), but that God caused it (falsehood in other religions).

Catholicism is "open" to other religions for the reasons I stated.

In the US, there are Christian denominations to satisfy any preferred doctrine or political bent. You decide what you want to believe, then pick the church that matches up with your beliefs. You could even invent your own if there isn't a pre-existing one. Protestant churches want membership but not so badly that they'd compromise their dogma or politics, since there's very little allegiance to the church itself and rather to the beliefs, and people would easily switch to another denomination.

The RCC isn't like that, it prioritizes membership above all else and is willing to informally bend its rules to accomodate anyone who provides donations. A great example is who to pray to. According to the Catholic Church, you are only supposed to pray to God the Father, but defer to ("ask") Jesus, Mary, Saints & Apostles or anyone else if God has reason to be angry at you. One does not worship anyone else aside from God the Father, even Jesus the Son.

Japanese Catholics and Latin Catholics have their native traditions blended into mainstream rituals. Latins pray to Mary, supposedly derived from a Pagan traditional belief in the "earth mother". I don't know specifically, but I'd surmise the RCC would connect praying to Saints with the Buddhist ancestor worship tradition. Officially, however, one is supposed to pray to God the Father and nobody else. In communities where flexible doctrine isn't mandatory to preserve membership, this is enforced, like in my church (the "English mass" was the only one told this specific bit of information, while it wasn't brought up in the "Spanish mass").

Out of interest, can any of the religious here give me a good reason - any good reason - that believing in a religion is a good thing? And by "good reason" I mean one that doesn't go "I have faith the religion is true, thus having faith the religion is true is right because it says so" or Pascals Wager (which is massively flawed). I don't, I should clarify, think it's necessarily a bad thing (religion gets blamed for all sorts of stuff but humans are bastards and would find excuses to butched each other without it).

If you think of religous stories as fiction, we can apply the fictional characteristics (plot, setting, characters, style, themes) to describe them.

All true religious fables have a moral message meant to influence society. Morality is what elevates human organization and behaviour above animals and the utilitarians. It's the driving reason we've been successful as a species. You can appeal to logic, but most humans don't respond well to logical arguments. Superstition persists because of human nature, even critical thinkers are still susceptible to irrational fears or illogical practices. Stories are thus the most effective way to sell a moral message, but because the message is hidden, priests are needed to clarify the message so people don't behave errantly.

From a sociological standpoint, religion is necessary in whatever form to promote order. It doesn't matter what the plot, setting, characters or style are, so long as the themes are understood and followed. The problem is, not all religious stories favour the same message, and too many people get caught up in the superficial narrative elements of plot/story/characters.

Individually, spirituality done right promotes relief/comfort beyond bodily passions. A perceived sense of stablity stemming from a belief in God also allows one to control one's emotions better.

Most of what I've said isn't unique to religions, and is in common with phenomenon like oral tradition and propoganda,.

The bolded part is pretty much my attitude to religion, yes. You've just argued the need for proof, yet religion provides none - so why believe? I mean, I don't definitely believe, 100% totally sure, not even the remotest possibility I'm wrong that there isn't a God, that's presumptious. But I don't definitely believe, 100% totally sure, not even the remotest possibility I'm wrong that there's definitely not a teapot on the moon, and I have the same amount of reason to believe that there is as I do to believe there's a God.

Think of it this way - first degree murder is punishable by death. The law is in place, and there has been historical precedent for it. Rationally, then, people should never murder another, because death is the highest price one can pay for a crime. But people still do, for an inconceivable number of reasons.

Even if you had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of God's existence, your behaviour wouldn't change because you'd still buy into "beliefs" so long as you lack omniscience. People who murder strategically believe they can commit the crime without punishment from the law. They don't know everything, but have enough evidence to convince themselves they can kill without repercussion. Likewise, if people knew God exists, they'd still murder knowing that any punishment would come after death, and that the punishment (if it is indeed coming) could be alleviated by good works and prayer. God killing them in this life-time as punishment wouldn't even be thought possible by someone confident they know the rules of the world.

If you buy Descartes, what you percieve to be the rules of the universe might be distorted if you doubt everything. To live a functioning life, then, you must draw a line at a point where you stop doubting. God's existence is a good theshold point. There is significant upside to believing in God if he exists (going to paradise), significant downside to not believing if he does (going to heck) and no effect if he doesn't exist at all.

Since you don't know what the rules and punishments are, you can't "game" the law-books and try to sin without retribution. You take on a lot of risk doing that.

Sleep time.

Talon87

09-03-2011, 05:52 PM

Pointing to evidence in an old book is not evidence? So, Archeologists who find ancient records of a people must assume such a people never existed, and that their history is just a fraud?
1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming who was the king of an ancient kingdom or who invented a particular invention ... these sorts of things aren't even in the same galaxy, never mind the same ballpark, as claiming that a deity is real and should be worshiped.

2) History based on only one source is INDEED sketchy. The Chinese claim that there was a Xia Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xia_Dynasty) which predated their Shang Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang_Dynasty). Most Western Sinologists consider even the Shang Dynasty to be of dubious historical origins. The Zhou Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Dynasty) is the first one we really have any proof of. But out of respect for the Chinese, and out of confidence that there was a pre-Zhou society in ancient China, most Western Sinologists acknowledge the Shang Dynasty. But the Xia Dynasty? The one that the Chinese claim came before the Shang? Most Western Sinologists (and even some Chinese Sinologists) don't acknowledge the Xia Dynasty as anything more than a myth. (Note: no one debates Shang or even pre-Shang civilization. Oracle bones, bronze engravings, etc abound. The debate is with regards to the existence of an actual dynasty, the historical figures of importance advanced by Chinese tradition, the geographical expanse of the dynasty, etc.)

In Japan, the entire history of the nation up until the 8th Century A.D. is grounded in the claims of several historical texts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikkokushi) penned in the 8th and 9th Centuries A.D. Even in Japan, historians are skeptical about many of the texts' claims about events predating their authorship. But in the West? It is totally considered myth with faint inklings of truth. (Just like the Bible! No one denies that the Old Testament does not contain archaeologically-relevant histories. But neither do people advance the claim in any seriousness that there were people who lived for 600+ years, that there was a 900-year old alcoholic who built a boat and placed two of every animal onto it, etc.) This brings us to ...

3) There is a difference between penning a history contemporaneously and penning one many years after the fact. The New Testament was not collected until several centuries after Christ, with the earliest known proto-manuscripts still dating back to a century after his death. And this is sadly a step up from the Old Testament whose stories were penned centuries, perhaps even a millennium after they occurred! There is unfortunately no archaeological evidence which proves that the story of Moses entered into the Old Testament within decades of Moses's leadership. We do not have an Old Testament that omits the story of Moses. In fact, many historians believe (contrary to claims by the Jewish community) that the ancient Hebrew texts were not put together any earlier than the 8th Century B.C. In other words, over five hundred years (minimum) to as many as one thousand years after the Biblical Moses would have existed and purportedly led Israel out of Egypt. This is the single greatest weakness of the story of Exodus: that we have no proof of its authenticity by way of proof that manuscripts detailing the story of Exodus existed around the time it would have occurred. It's the very same reason that historians reject many of the supposed proto-emperors of Japan as detailed by the Nihon Shoki and other historical texts from the 8th century A.D. Even if we found one book from the 8th Century B.C., it would not prove that the man listed in it as king of the land was indeed the king of the land. But it would at least be something. It would at least be sixteen hundred years closer to the truth than claims made in the 8th Century A.D. Similarly, the Old Testament's story of Exodus fails the test. Not only is the Old Testament the only record of the Exodus, it was also penned nearly a millenium after that exodus. (Penned circa 800 B.C., the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as described by Exodus itself, believed to have been someone who ruled Egypt between 1550 and 1200 BC.)

These are just three reasons why your line of reasoning is wrong. Any one of them is good enough to completely deflate your rebuttal, but I offer you all three to completely stamp it out.

unownmew

09-03-2011, 06:20 PM

1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming who was the king of an ancient kingdom or who invented a particular invention ... these sorts of things aren't even in the same galaxy, never mind the same ballpark, as claiming that a deity is real and should be worshiped.

2) History based on only one source is INDEED sketchy. The Chinese claim that there was a Xia Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xia_Dynasty) which predated their Shang Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang_Dynasty). Most Western Sinologists consider even the Shang Dynasty to be of dubious historical origins. The Zhou Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Dynasty) is the first one we really have any proof of. But out of respect for the Chinese, and out of confidence that there was a pre-Zhou society in ancient China, most Western Sinologists acknowledge the Shang Dynasty. But the Xia Dynasty? The one that the Chinese claim came before the Shang? Most Western Sinologists (and even some Chinese Sinologists) don't acknowledge the Xia Dynasty as anything more than a myth. (Note: no one debates Shang or even pre-Shang civilization. Oracle bones, bronze engravings, etc abound. The debate is with regards to the existence of an actual dynasty, the historical figures of importance advanced by Chinese tradition, the geographical expanse of the dynasty, etc.)

In Japan, the entire history of the nation up until the 8th Century A.D. is grounded in the claims of several historical texts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikkokushi) penned in the 8th and 9th Centuries A.D. Even in Japan, historians are skeptical about many of the texts' claims about events predating their authorship. But in the West? It is totally considered myth with faint inklings of truth. (Just like the Bible! No one denies that the Old Testament does not contain archaeologically-relevant histories. But neither do people advance the claim in any seriousness that there were people who lived for 600+ years, that there was a 900-year old alcoholic who built a boat and placed two of every animal onto it, etc.) This brings us to ...

3) There is a difference between penning a history contemporaneously and penning one many years after the fact. The New Testament was not collected until several centuries after Christ, with the earliest known proto-manuscripts still dating back to a century after his death. And this is sadly a step up from the Old Testament whose stories were penned centuries, perhaps even a millennium after they occurred! There is unfortunately no archaeological evidence which proves that the story of Moses entered into the Old Testament within decades of Moses's leadership. We do not have an Old Testament that omits the story of Moses. In fact, many historians believe (contrary to claims by the Jewish community) that the ancient Hebrew texts were not put together any earlier than the 8th Century B.C. In other words, over five hundred years (minimum) to as many as one thousand years after the Biblical Moses would have existed and purportedly led Israel out of Egypt. This is the single greatest weakness of the story of Exodus: that we have no proof of its authenticity by way of proof that manuscripts detailing the story of Exodus existed around the time it would have occurred. It's the very same reason that historians reject many of the supposed proto-emperors of Japan as detailed by the Nihon Shoki and other historical texts from the 8th century A.D. Even if we found one book from the 8th Century B.C., it would not prove that the man listed in it as king of the land was indeed the king of the land. But it would at least be something. It would at least be sixteen hundred years closer to the truth than claims made in the 8th Century A.D. Similarly, the Old Testament's story of Exodus fails the test. Not only is the Old Testament the only record of the Exodus, it was also penned nearly a millenium after that exodus. (Penned circa 800 B.C., the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as described by Exodus itself, believed to have been someone who ruled Egypt between 1550 and 1200 BC.)

These are just three reasons why your line of reasoning is wrong. Any one of them is good enough to completely deflate your rebuttal, but I offer you all three to completely stamp it out.
You have quite the powerful argument, and I can not dispute that, as a whole, the bible can not be relied upon for absolute proof. (Though I would venture to argue that it was never intended to be anyway.) It's a Compilation of Compilations of Compilations, where records were taken, and then compiled, further and further, and probably lots of data and truth was lost in these abridgements. Or it's complete and utter fantasy. (which, while the easiest to accept, is also the hardest to assume)

So, I say again:

A more correct comparison, would be, finding a paper someone wrote in the past, about Edison's electric lightbulb, saying the premise of the electric light was actually designed by someone else, and Edison simply improved upon that design by inventing the carbon filament to make it viable. Which we know as a fact from hearsay. But since none of us was around when the light was actually invented, how can we know it to be true? How can we assume someone named Thomas Edison ever really lived? Edit: (ignoring census records and official documents, which are likely the first to go if there's ever a national disaster)

If a written document, or multiple documents saying similar things can not be considered evidence, what can?
What would you consider an evidence then? Or do you even want to see such evidence?

deoxys

09-03-2011, 07:17 PM

Fuck it, tear apart my post and debate it, and I may or may not debate back. I want to see what you have to say :)

Mozz

09-04-2011, 02:46 PM

What would you consider an evidence then? Or do you even want to see such evidence?

A re-grown limb? A modern miracle comparable with anything in the Bible? Yahweh saying hi?

unownmew

09-10-2011, 10:34 PM

Forgot to address this earlier.

The Tea Party is a destructive influence on the world. I don't even know what they think, but whatever it is, it's sick and twisted and heavily influenced by their own interpretations on evidence, both factual and quacktual. While this is the Onion and thus not to be taken as actual news, this article (http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-gop-strategy-involves-reelecting-obama-making,21113/) is mainly funny because it's probably true. I have no idea what the Tea Party is doing, but if it's anything like what they've been doing, I don't want any of it.
You directly say you don't know anything about what we're doing or our beliefs, and yet you claim all sorts of things about us? Perhaps you should educate yourself about it before spouting off nonsense and unfounded lies.

The TEA party's primary goal is to vote Obama out of office as soon as possible, and vote out Democrat Senators and House Representatives that have held the Supermajority in Congress until this most recent Congressional election, and even then Control the majority in the Senate and still have almost enough votes to pass any legislation in the House if they're willing to put their own name on it instead of playing political games by forcing Republicans to vote for bad legislation so the Republicans get blamed for it.

The secondary goal, is to elect a Conservative president and a Conservative Congress in order to have the voting power to repeal completely Obamacare, enact a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution (so that America will be forced by law to stop accruing obscene debt and spending), cut taxes to increase domestic growth and put a stop to our current "Recession" and reform medicare and medicaid back to sustainability without hurting those who are dependent on it. Hopefully reform tax code as well, to promote businesses setting up in our country so We get their Tax revenues and increased job growth.

The tertiary goal, is to educate normal Americans about proven workable domestic policies that promote growth and prosperity, and educate them about the failed policies that Democrats attempt time and again every single time they control the Congress. As well as encourage Americans to become more involved in politics, regardless of the affiliation.

As for your link, the GOP, is the Republican establishment, it has no official affiliation with the TEA party, and many prominent "Republican" elites from that establisment would rather the TEA party never existed. I can assure you the TEA party would never conspire to let Obama win another election. It is the common cry that, America can not survive another 4 years under Obama, and so he must be voted out, in THIS coming election, not 4 years from now.

unownmew

09-11-2011, 12:20 AM

Well, you said to tear it apart so, here goes.

after having reread my below post... meh, I was pretty tempted to scratch it all and just be done with it, but at this point, what the hell, I already wrote out this much, so I'll just leave it, I suppose... -_- Here goes nothing...

I feel like I'm being goaded, but if I am, I'm just bringing this on myself sigh.

Well, okay I guess. Let me add here at the beginning; I had written out a very large explanation against the idea of organized religion, but after I reread it it was full of gaping holes in arguments that really didn't make much sense, so I just deleted it. I basically tore down (my own religion) Christianity (since that's what the topic is about, I used it as the example) and that wasn't my intention at all, which I find hilariously depressing.

Basically, here's a TL;DR: The concept behind Christianity is a fantastic one. One that most people can benefit from. The same goes for other religions. But when they become organized, you run into a few large problems.

(A) It becomes very easy to manipulate followers of the movement. All you need to do is put on your pokerface for a few years, work your way up into the ranks, and then spread the message out that you want to spread, and make it convincing. This is especially easy to do when you have a guy who seems trust worthy and you've known for years or whatever. Let's take, I dunno, Billy Graham, for example. One of the most popular evangelicals out there. Lotta Christian's respect him. Let's be honest here, if he wanted, he could say "I just had a vision from God, and the world is going to end in 2012. Give me all of your money and we can stop it", and bam, it would work, I guarantee it (obviously that isn't going to happen, but you see what I mean, right?)
That is completely correct. It is only a truly divine religion with continuous divine support that can not be corrupted. Religion should be a personal thing, but organization can be helpful in it's spread and organization of members for a greater help to others then a single person can be alone.

I really like the Buddhist, Taoist, etc, monks from the Asias, who put their focus on personal enlightmentment, over organized religion. Though they still have "religious laws" and organization that they follow and a "meeting place for worship", it seems they act more like a "guide" for those on a spiritual journey, instructing "how to look", instead of "where to look".
IMO, this really is the key to Religion. Religion should not be teaching What to think, but How to think for yourself, considering universal values. If all organized religion taught this, I think wondrous things would happen, and it would be neigh impossible to corrupt.

(B) Power. It's a human instinct, and a fucked up one, but it's a natural thing. You hear about corrupt megachurch pastors almost every other week it seems. Some pastor gets put into a position where he's a leader to people, and, sure, like point A, he can mislead people. Or, he becomes so blinded by the size of his own preachy girth, he suddenly thinks he can do whatever the hell he wants and get away with it. In fact, I've seen this happen to a pastor of a church my parents attended when I was a kid. Donations come in from hundreds of churchgoers, and man, that new 2012 Mustang looks really nice... you see where I'm going with this?
Completely agree. It is the payment to Religious Figures by the members (called "Preistcraft" in my religion), that really adds to the corruptibility of a church. You preach what your congregation wants to hear, and so they enjoy hearing it and more join, so you get more donations.
So if a position is paid, you can assume it will likely get corrupted.

It is only an unpaid position that can even be considered if you want your religion to remain uncorrupted for as long as possible.

(C) Political agenda. In my completely and honest opinion, all forms of religion need to stay out of politics. Sure, it's great and all to know that such and such has values, that's fine. But when you go insane with your power and your religious beliefs, you need to stop being a politician because you're putting a lot at risk. I'll give a few examples, which you probably will not like or agree with in the least. Rick Perry, had 30,000 evangelicals pray for him when he entered the race (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/07/rick-perrys-call-to-prayer), Michele Bachmann and her husband, both of whom run a therapy to 'pray the gay away' (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-candidates-clinic/story?id=14048691), and also have a FEAR of gay people (http://news.yahoo.com/depth-michele-bachmanns-fear-gays-144455333.html) (whether you're pro gay or anti gay, if you look at people as decent human beings, this is completely unacceptable behavior, especially for a politician). Those are just two examples of that in society today, there are much more. Other examples would be sects like the Muslim Brotherhood who have intent to create a theocracy in unstable muslim countries (can't find any really good links for this, sorry), Operation Snow White, where Scientologist's attempted to infiltrate the US Gov't in the '70s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White), Ahmedinijad's fervent stance against other religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Other_statements), etc etc etc, the list goes on and on and on. Politics today is literally littered with religious extremists all over the world, some who have their own agenda, and others who think they are supposed to be some catalyst of prophetic events, which is quite honestly scary as fuck and incredibly dangerous to the well being of society. And since they're so religious, most of these politicians have the base to back them and have a dedicated amount of people who will honestly do or believe anything they say.
This. However, ours is a government with freedom OF religion, not, freedom FROM religion. I completely support Politicians practicing their religions, and asking for religious participation in their politics, such as a request to be prayed for, a request for the nation to pray (to whatever god), an appeal to God in a speech, Swearing on the Bible when they take office, or having "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

What I do not agree with, is forcing the practice of your religion (or absence of such) on others. No matter how you want to look at it, Ours is a Christian nation, with a government founded upon christian ideals and biblical law, intended to rule over a Christian people. That does not mean that you yourself as a citizen of the country have to be christian, or like that our country was founded in Christianity. You're free to practice as you will, that's your freedom of religion, but you are not given the right to be free from encountering a differing religion. If the nation stops being a majority christian, our entire government will crumble, because it can only work with a moral people. Remove the morals, and we'll end up in Anarchy, or a Dictatorship.

While a politician can, and IMO should, be active in their religion, and legislate according to their beliefs, Religion, or protection from encountering such, should not be a sole reason for a law, otherwise you have abuse.

Unfortunately, there's more to religion then you'd think. Atheism is a religion of "no god," and scientists may proscribe to worshiping their science or knowledge. I'd even call Global Warming something of a religion to some people (not all proponents of course). And each of these religions are clashing in the Political arena vying for passage of laws forcing their "religion" on others, under the guise of "not being a religion" because there is no "God" being worshipped. This is a serious abuse in politics, because, what seems not to be a religion, is in fact, corrupt organized (and unorganized in some cases) religion attempting to take over politics and policy creation.

I could go on, write books, as there is A LOT more that can be discussed, but those are the ones that instantly come to mind... but I think I've made my point... I don't really want to debate it, like I said, but I think after having written all of that, it's most likely too late, haha. I dunno. EDIT: Let me add here, there are indeed some good uses for religion, such as missionaries who go to third world countries with food and water, or help out with projects like habitat for humanity (in order to be an example, but let's be honest, their number once mission is to spread the message they carry and hopefully convert), and of course helping the poor with donations such as money, food, and shelter... there are I'm sure other great things that help out people from religious backgrounds, but unfortunately, the bad really does outweigh the good, even if it's just because the bad is a lot more vocal than the good....
I'd just like to put out here that my religion has organized disaster relief efforts (potential and ongoing), as well as aid to poor and struggling families, spreading the entire globe, so, at least some portion of our "evil organized religion" is beneficial. ;)
And the more and more I hear about the corruptibility of churches and organized religion, the more it reaffirms to me that the Religion I belong to, is true and uncorrupted.

It is our goal to enhance the spiritual and temporal (physical) welfare of all of God's Children. And we invite people to learn and make their own decisions about the truth of our church. Strangely, it would seem, anyone who seriously does so, can not deny it, though they may still choose not to join.

As for the actual topic of Christianity we're discussing, let me close with this well known quote: "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi. Why do you think he said that? Honestly? Because most Christian's themselves don't see it, because they aren't on the outside looking in. Many Christian's are incredibly prideful for who they are, think they're out doing something great and are very arrogant about it. Some take a different path, in which they become bitterly hateful towards other religions (sure, there are others that are hateful towards Christianity, but what was that thing Jesus said again? Something about turning the other cheek?), and in doing so, they contradict their own belief of loving their neighbor. There is way too much seething animosity between many religious extremists right now, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, being the three big ones that immediately come to mind, and it's fucking stupid. None of these people are actually practicing what they preach. I can't even properly fathom the sheer amount of stupid that radiates from the very thought that they are taken seriously at all. There is so much unnecessary tension between these three in specific when the three of them are honestly the most closely related religions in the world. It greatly upsets me and really puts me off. Nothing ruins my day faster than to hear some nonsensical "Christian" American who shouts "Wooo! Bomb 'dem towelheads!" or something to that effect.
I completely agree, there's often way to many "churchgoers," (our church included, unfortunately) that don't really care for or internalize real Christian Values, despite claiming the title of a "Christian".

The problem is, no one is perfect, so there will always be bad apples in any religion you go to. While someone may make a judgement on a religion based on some of the members, they really ought not to. Spirituality can only be a personal thing, but organized religion helps to spread and organize the members for a greater good then a single person can do alone.

As well, at least in our teachings, there are specific rites that are needed in order to be "saved," (such as baptism) and without those rites, no one can enter the Kingdom of God. So organized religion is required for those rites to be performed among them members. (Our church performs those rites for those who have died without receiving them as well.)

*SIGH*

I think that's a lot of something I've been needing to get off my chest for a while. I feel a little better now, just having typed that out.

Again. I know for a fact there were many, many things in there which could stir up controversy or be cause for debate, and maybe I will, I don't know, it depends on my mood and lately I'm just not really feeling in 'debate' mode. The above was all for ranting purposes... keep in mind.

Oh, also, if anyone wants to discuss Roman Catholicism, I, not even being Catholic at any point in my life, have 12 years of catholic school begrudgingly ingrained into my system, so even though I'm not actually one, I know the religion very well, to the point where, in high school, I was actually having debates with catholics who lost and were completely destroyed when they didn't even know what they were supposed to believe on certain topics and I did. Catholicism, in my opinion, is just so... aaaa.... So, yeah, I'll be glad to pitch in there if needed :P
I appreciate your contribution.

unownmew

12-12-2011, 01:23 AM

Another thread devolved into this subject, so I'm placing my excerpts where they belong:

Whether or not you regard that as the original or current intention or just an unfortunate side effect, this is exactly what the abrahamic religions do - destroy self esteem by teaching that we are all inherently sinful, bad people, labelling any questioning of its doctrine as heretical and leading to eternal damnation and preaching that only by following their rules can we hope to improve ourself. Whether or not the abrahamic religions are correct or not, the above is true.
This is true in a sense, however, it's much more complicated then you make it out to be.

When the Israelites were freed from Egypt and Moses got the ten commandments, the first tablets he destroyed, was the higher law, presumably a form of Christianity. When discovered that the Israelites where not ready for this law, God gave them instead a very strict and very harsh law to keep them in line, thus the Law of Moses. Which God would still require of them to follow, except they convert to Christianity.

The Law of Christianity is meant to be a joyous law. Yeah, the natural man is carnal and sinful, but we are only bad if we chose not to control it, but to let it control us. Interpretations by various preachers and past Churches from the Catholics down to now, may have distorted it, "You are Evil, repent or you will Burn in Hell!" "Death to the Heretics!", etc. But that is neither the essence of the law, nor anything like how my church preaches.

As opposed to teaching we are evil, My religion teaches we are all Sons and Daughters of God with an inherent Divine Nature, but that we are here to be tested and trialed to learn and prove ourselves, and that part of that, is learning how to control our physical carnal selves.

This isn't something you can presuppose in any rational debate, any more than I can presuppose the existance of a strongly left wing God waiting to send all Republican supporters to eternal damnation.
Debating it would be the same as debating if there is a God or not. I could, but, are you sure you're ready for the answer?

You saying this wins me the argument.

The Nicene Creed is the definition of a Christian. A Christian is a person who believes that there is a Triune God, three persons in one substance, and that furthermore the Word is Jesus Christ, who is both fully man and fully God.
If this were true, what in the world were the "Christians" that were converted in Jesus' and Paul's time, the Early "Church of Christ" from which the Gospels were obtained and the Nicene Creed was later based upon? Because theirs is the Church I'd want to be a part of.

The Nicene Creed is not the Definition of Christianity, it is the origins of the Catholic Church. From which all other "Christian" Religions stemmed from, simply because they were the only ones with access to any of the teachings of Jesus, the Scriptures if you will.
I'd even say, for myself, the LDS church stemmed slightly (but not fully) from these various Christian Churches, because our Founder Joseph Smith participated often in their worship services in his own search for truth, until he received his first vision.

That is the definition of Christianity for the churches around the world. This Creed, and the beliefs it entails, are why I can say that Protestants and the Orthodox Churches are Christian (with only slight exceptions). It's because they follow this definition of Jesus Christ.
Well, if your definition of Christian specifically Excludes those of the Early Church who were members of Christ's Church long before the Nicene Creed was written, then I want no part of that label.
This is what sets our Religion apart, our link to the very first Church whom Paul was a member of and spread throughout the world, before the Apostasy and the Martyrdom of the Apostles of Christ.

And yet:
Cultural Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Christianity)

Christianity definition

The religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, sent by God. They believe that Jesus, by dying and rising from the dead, made up for the sin of Adam and thus redeemed the world, allowing all who believe in him to enter heaven. Christians rely on the Bible as the inspired word of God. ( See also gospel, Nativity, Resurrection, salvation, and Sermon on the Mount.)

You would not include Hindus as Christians merely because they incorporate a certain view of Christ into their religion. You are doing no better than them.
No, I exclude Hindus because they do not believe in Jesus, nor that he was the Savior and Redeemer of the world. ;-)

Furthermore, you can't argue that the Nicene Creed is silly because it was composed hundreds of years after Jesus' death because the GOSPELS were composed at least a hundred years after Jesus' death: they weren't even written by apostles, they were written by the students of the disciples. Moreover, if the length of time after Jesus' life that something is written is such a big concern for you, how in the world can you believe in John Smith's golden plates?
I wasn't saying it was silly, I was saying that their definition of the Holy Trinity is wholly confusing if you read it.

I was also saying that it cannot be used to define a Christian, because it was compiled long after the original Church of Christ was organized, and after it had fallen into disarray following the Martyrdom of the Apostles.
It had nothing to do with how long it was between the two occurrances.

Also, evil is a privation of good, not a substance. Satan is not fully evil, because he was made by God, who only makes good things. Satan was originally good and chose to rebel against God: he became less than he was in so doing this. Satan is not equal to God or any bullshit like that. And if you believe in heaven (LOL as a "Christian" you pretty much have to) you believe that there will be a time when there is no more evil: it's called the beatific vision.
Touche.
Though, my religion has a different definition of Heaven.
there's the "Heaven and Hell" which for us, is after we die, a spiritual Paradise or Prison, depending on our state of righteousness at time of death, which will continue until our Resurrection during or after the Millennium.
After the bar of Judgement by God, saving we have not committed the unforgivable sin, we will then be placed in 1 of 3 Kingdoms of Glory
which, in fact are actually described in the Bible.

Additionally, doesn't the doctrine of a "Third Revelation" - which is what the plates are - really discount the first two revelations? Don't your Mormon plates insinuate that the fullness of Christ's redemptive act was not revealed in the New Testament? Doesn't that mean that you don't think the Old and New Testament are enough for salvation, even though they say they are? Smith's plates are an attack on the very inerrancy of the Bible you claim to uphold and believe.
No, the fullness of his act was revealed, all the teachings are the same, simply confirmed. It is the Church itself, the correct rites and ordinances, which were lost. Originally from the first church after Jesus' death, they survived only in bits and pieces in the Bible during the Period of Apostasy, which was foretold in the Bible itself.

I would highly suggest you actually read the source material before making claims about what it does and does not say and how it conflicts with the bible. Just a thought. ;-)

Amras.MG

12-12-2011, 03:59 AM

unownmew, you have admitted that your religion does not fall into the definition of Christianity that Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism fall into. The conversation is over. You are not a part of the group of those called Christians. If you deny the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, you, like the Jews, believe in a different God than the Christians.

Nothing further need be said here.

Jerichi

12-12-2011, 04:12 AM

>you, like the Jews, believe in a different God than the Christians.

Not going to jump in on this debate, but Anthropologically speaking, it's the same God but a completely different interpretation of the deity.

So technically, it's the same, but in practice, entirely different.

Carry on.

Talon87

12-12-2011, 04:20 AM

If you deny the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, you, like the Jews, believe in a different God than the Christians.
A different god from that of the Jews? :? The whole premise of Christianity is that Jesus was the Messiah, capital M, as in the messianic figure sent down by Yahweh and for whom the Jews were waiting and for whom modern-day Jews continue to wait as they believe that he has yet to come. The two religions very much worship the same deity. They may ascribe to him different personality attributes, different powers, so on and so forth, providing for enough differences that you may be tempted to say "AHA! Then they are not the same entity! :D I win! I WIIIIIIIIIIN! :D", but the fact of the matter is, Christians themselves make the claim "The God we believe in is the God of Moses and of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob. He is the one true God."

Amras.MG

12-12-2011, 07:20 AM

unownmew

12-12-2011, 03:09 PM

A different god from that of the Jews? :? The whole premise of Christianity is that Jesus was the Messiah, capital M, as in the messianic figure sent down by Yahweh and for whom the Jews were waiting and for whom modern-day Jews continue to wait as they believe that he has yet to come. The two religions very much worship the same deity. They may ascribe to him different personality attributes, different powers, so on and so forth, providing for enough differences that you may be tempted to say "AHA! Then they are not the same entity! :D I win! I WIIIIIIIIIIN! :D", but the fact of the matter is, Christians themselves make the claim "The God we believe in is the God of Moses and of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob. He is the one true God."
I do appreciate your words here. I doubt I would have been able to defend myself with such eloquence. :oops:
I agree with your point.

Talon and Jeri: I'm merely emphasizing the lack of the Trinity in Jewish religion. If I'm not mistaken, the Christians argue that the Jews only really recognize one person of the Trinity - God the Father - and not the Holy Spirit or Jesus. Therefore, they don't know God fully. Their limited understanding effectively renders them worshiping a different God.

Of course I know that Christians are heirs to Yahweh. I'm not stupid, and I was unaware that my post conveyed that. Further, because the Jewish people deny Jesus' divinity, they do not actually know or worship him: they don't worship the same God as Christians.
The Holy Trinity, is a construct of the Nicene Creed, and is mentioned nowhere in the Bible, in fact, it often contradicts it, particularly at the Baptism of Jesus.

LDS religion: God, His Son, and the Holy Ghost, are three separate entities, who are wholly united in purpose.
God is God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses.
He sent his literal Son, Jesus the Christ, to atone for our sins and die, to make way for the Resurrection of every man, and the Eternal Life of those who are worthy.
Jesus left the Holy Spirit with the world to testify of Him, and to comfort the Righteous.

I would much rather belong to the religion of the first Church of Christ, organized by Paul. I'd rather worship the God of Abraham, and the Bible, then the God of the Nicene Creed.

And that's really the point of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church. Either we are the one and only true church, and every other one, while right to degrees, lack the fullness. Or we are absolutely founded upon a lie.

In which case, regardless of the other Christian Churches, only the Catholic Church can lay claim of being the True and Right Church, being as it was the first founded upon the Nicene Creed.

And if Neither of these two churches can lay claim as being the True and Right Church, only the Hebrew Religion, imperfect and incomplete though it may be, is the only one we can give Credit to being "True." And lament the fact that the True Church of Jesus, was lost to the ravages of time.

And if you believe that "There are many roads to God," you need only read the Bible to know this is false.

Note, I'm not discounting the good other Christian churches have done, nor am I saying that they do not teach truth. Only that, they do not have everything, and only one of 3 Religious Sects have the Right to claim that their church is the only true Church, which by necessity, invalidates all the other Sects as only having truth in degrees.

deoxys

12-12-2011, 10:55 PM

Talon and Jeri: I'm merely emphasizing the lack of the Trinity in Jewish religion. If I'm not mistaken, the Christians argue that the Jews only really recognize one person of the Trinity - God the Father - and not the Holy Spirit or Jesus. Therefore, they don't know God fully. Their limited understanding effectively renders them worshiping a different God.

Of course I know that Christians are heirs to Yahweh. I'm not stupid, and I was unaware that my post conveyed that. Further, because the Jewish people deny Jesus' divinity, they do not actually know or worship him: they don't worship the same God as Christians.

I just want to jump into to say that you've put quite a bit of emphasis on the trinity, the trinity isn't really prominent or even talked about much in protestant branches of Christianity save maybe Lutheran, it's mainly a Catholic thing. But you're still correct.

Carry on.

deoxys

12-12-2011, 11:16 PM

I do appreciate your words here. I doubt I would have been able to defend myself with such eloquence. :oops:
I agree with your point.

The Holy Trinity, is a construct of the Nicene Creed, and is mentioned nowhere in the Bible, in fact, it often contradicts it, particularly at the Baptism of Jesus.

This is actually how most non-Catholics look at it.

LDS religion: God, His Son, and the Holy Ghost, are three separate entities, who are wholly united in purpose.
God is God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses.
He sent his literal Son, Jesus the Christ, to atone for our sins and die, to make way for the Resurrection of every man, and the Eternal Life of those who are worthy.
Jesus left the Holy Spirit with the world to testify of Him, and to comfort the Righteous.

Aren't you forgetting one Joseph Smith, who sits next to Jesus and God (I mean, Elohim) at the time of judgment while the three work as a triumvirate essentially?

And that's really the point of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church. Either we are the one and only true church, and every other one, while right to degrees, lack the fullness. Or we are absolutely founded upon a lie.

No, it's not.

I'm not one to try and school someone else on their own personal beliefs or things that they potentially know more about than I do, but the LDS is a much more complicated religion that integrates aspects of Christianity with some completely non-Christian ideologies, and even some that most Christians would consider blasphemies. Polygamy, dying and becoming a god, the belief that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers who had differing beliefs, Jesus had three wives and came to America, and that Native Americans were Israelites, God (Elohim) was born as a human and then died and became our God and rules over us from a distant solar system that circles the star of Koloff... there are way, way too many things to list, including some beliefs that a lot of people may interpret as racist.

I would much rather belong to the religion of the first Church of Christ, organized by Paul. I'd rather worship the God of Abraham, and the Bible, then the God of the Nicene Creed.

Then you should probably find a new church.

I'm just saying that you are arguing more actual Christian beliefs and sticking to your guns on them whilst not backing down from the fact that you're a Mormon, but the deep Mormon beliefs are really not at all Christian ideals. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a Mormon, but don't piss in the water bottle and tell me that it's actually lemon gatorade simply because it's yellow.

unownmew

12-14-2011, 08:02 PM

Aren't you forgetting one Joseph Smith, who sits next to Jesus and God (I mean, Elohim) at the time of judgment while the three work as a triumvirate essentially?
I don't know where you got that belief, it's certainly not doctrine I'm aware of in my religion, perhaps some overzealous description of his importance to the world and our religion?
Joseph Smith, I imagine, would be with all the other prophets like Abraham and Moses, at the time of judgement. Standing as witnesses for or against us and arguing for us with Jesus, after being judged themselves.

We consider him one of the most important men in history, second to Jesus, due to his work in restoring the gospel to the world, but don't elevate him above being "a man and a prophet." Any elevation he gets at judgement, will be by God's judgement alone, we don't know anything, nor make any decisive claims, until that time comes.

No, it's not.

I'm not one to try and school someone else on their own personal beliefs or things that they potentially know more about than I do, but the LDS is a much more complicated religion that integrates aspects of Christianity with some completely non-Christian ideologies, and even some that most Christians would consider blasphemies. Polygamy, dying and becoming a god, ...
Well, I'm curious where you found this information, because just because one place says something, doesn't mean it's actually true. We get a lot of False accusations by disgruntled people.

Polygamy: David and Solomon had many wives, And the Hebrew religion itself makes provisions for multiple marriages. Abraham also had Sarah's handmaiden Hagar. It is our belief that those marriages can be enforced in the afterlife, and inherently, there is nothing wrong with Polygamy when consented, or commanded by God.
Modernly however, in order to comply with laws, we excommunicate for Polygamy.

Die and Become Gods: This is a greatly oversimplified statement. I could simply say, "this is not true," but that wouldn't accomplish anything, so I'll outline our beliefs about death.
We believe that God is the father, both of Jesus, as well as our ourselves. Obviously, this means there is a great inheritance available for us when we return to him.

Now, most Christian Religions simply believe there is a heaven and a hell, one of which is good, the other of which, will be terrible torment. Ask any further and they won't go into any details (because they can't). Most depictions being, we'll be angels with halos and wings in fluffy white clouds eternally worshiping God.

For, us, we are the only ones that will, and actually can, go into detail about the past and the future of the State of Man.
We beleive that, when anyone dies, they enter a spiritual world, parallel to our own physical. This is what relates most to what other religions would call heaven or hell, but we don't meet God at this time. We "live," so to speak, as a spirit, lacking any physical attributes, until we are resurrected during the millennium. Both "Condemned" and "Saved" souls, inhabit the same plane, and the difference between what we call "Spiritual Paradise", and "Spirit Prison," is the attitude of the soul. Someone mentally addicted to some physical substance or practice, for example, is going to be in agony since they'll be unable to partake of that substance or perform that practice. Someone completely at peace with themselves however, will find it a relief from the cares of the physical world.

During this time, souls will be given a second chance at "accepting Christ," something rather alien to most Christian Religions, yet, falls perfectly in line with the nature of the God they worship. (If someone dies without ever hearing the truth or being baptized, are they automatically damned? How is that fair? Why would a Loving Christian God ever allow that?) This means that no one is absolutely set in their redemptive state at death, but, it will be much harder to change as a spirit then if we were physical beings, and until that time, their own attitude/sins will cause them to be miserable.

Finally, at the judgment, after everyone has been resurrected and given their chances, God will judge us on our works, Jesus will advocate for us based on his atonement and our attempts, and our variable states of righteousness will be rewarded accordingly. It is at this time, that as perfect beings, we will have a perfect knowledge of our own guilt, and it is this knowledge, and perhaps the regret, that will eternally burn in us.

Of these rewards, there are three degrees of Glory, which in all actuality, are mentioned in the Bible, but expounded upon in our own doctrine, one of the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial, the Stars, Moon and Sun, respectively, within with are even more degrees for the numerous variable states of Righteousness.

It is among the very most righteous of these people that are judged at Judgement and found to be worthy of the highest degrees within the Celestial Kingdom, that will be given the greatest inheritance God can give, which is be to be "As Him," or so interpreted, Become a God and create worlds and spiritual children ourselves.

...the belief that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers who had differing beliefs, Jesus had three wives and came to America, and that Native Americans were Israelites, God (Elohim) was born as a human and then died and became our God and rules over us from a distant solar system that circles the star of Koloff... there are way, way too many things to list, including some beliefs that a lot of people may interpret as racist.
Jesus and Lucifer are brothers: We believe God is the Father of all, so naturally, he would have been the father of Lucifer as well. Lucifer, according to us, was exiled from Heaven (along with his followers), due to his desire to prevent free agency (to ensure everyone is "saved"), and take God's Glory for it. Of course, this also meets the Criteria for the law "There must needs be opposition in all things."

God rules from a distant planet and was once human: God, is God, yesterday today and forever. We make no doctrinal assumptions as to his origin. Though if one were, one could naturally assume from our doctrine that, yes, he may once have been a human put to the same trials we were before he became God. God is One Eternal Round. But that fact is irrelevant to the Gospel, it's principles, and the salvation of Men on Earth, and we make no claims affirmative or denying either. For us on Earth, God is God, and that's all we need to know about it (but he rewards righteousness with knowledge about the kingdom). As for "Koloff", the actual name is Kolab, and it's not that he Rules from it, or lives on it, it is that this is the Planet closest to him whose reckoning of time, is the closest to his own. Which differs from our own, and is decidedly inexact.
One day on Kolab, is about 1000 years on Earth, used to explain God's reckoning of time to Abraham, but makes the provision, that this is only the "most accurate," and not the actuality.

Racist Beliefs: I'm unaware of these, if you could point them out, and why people think they are racist, I could address them. Unless you refer to the "Curse" God placed on the Lamanites which darkened their skin color? (Awaiting confirmation before addressing)

Then you should probably find a new church.
Nope, because our church is the only one that actually claims to be that Church. The only one founded upon continued Revelation (God is the Same Yesterday, Today, and Forever, if he had prophets at one point, why would he not still have prophets now?), the only one that makes any sense (to me), and the only one that makes any correlation back to the ancient Israelites' practices and prophecies.

I'm just saying that you are arguing more actual Christian beliefs and sticking to your guns on them whilst not backing down from the fact that you're a Mormon, but the deep Mormon beliefs are really not at all Christian ideals. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a Mormon, but don't piss in the water bottle and tell me that it's actually lemon gatorade simply because it's yellow.
Well, you're certainly allowed to consider us whatever you wish, and exclude us from whatever category you so choose according to your own personal discretion, but, by dictionary definition, a Christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus, and a Christian church, any that teaches those beliefs.
If you were to see any [practicing and devoted] member of our church, and not know their religion, you would consider them to be Christian.

edit: Edited in missed claims

Handymankg2

12-14-2011, 08:57 PM

DaveTheFishGuy

12-14-2011, 09:43 PM

I feel halfway tempted to post my exact beliefs but based on past experience I'm just going to be told 'BUT THAT MEANS YOU'RE NOT A REAL CHRISTIAN' so can't really be arsed.

deoxys

12-14-2011, 10:50 PM

I feel halfway tempted to post my exact beliefs but based on past experience I'm just going to be told 'BUT THAT MEANS YOU'RE NOT A REAL CHRISTIAN' so can't really be arsed.

I don't go to Church anymore and that argument has been used on me dozens of times. I heartily laugh at it.

You can post, I'm not going to judge if you're afraid it's me, don't let what I said to him scare you off!! :lol: --- I was simply pointing out mew (who is still wrong, but I'll address that issue at another time) is more or less saying things about his belief which aren't true or make no sense.

Talon87

12-14-2011, 11:18 PM

Jesus and Lucifer are brothers: We believe God is the Father of all, so naturally, he would have been the father of Lucifer as well. Lucifer, according to us, was exiled from Heaven (along with his followers), due to his desire to prevent free agency (to ensure everyone is "saved"), and take God's Glory for it. Of course, this also meets the Criteria for the law "There must needs be opposition in all things."
As an atheist who tends to romanticize things, I'm quite fond of this view of Genesis. That stated, I'm pretty sure that most Christians would take issue with the religiophilisophical acrobatics you undertake and which deliver you to the following locations:
the first man and the first deer are brothers
the first archangel and the first butterfly are brothers
the first planet and the first proton are brothers
the first anything made by God and the first anything else made by god are brothers
For something to be called a "brother" to something else, I think most people would argue not only for the same parentage but also for the same rung on the Existence ladder. So for example, if God made Adam from clay and if he later made Jesus from clay, people would be okay with you calling them brothers; but because most Christians believe that God made Adam from clay while he made Jesus out of his own self, they wouldn't call the two brothers. I would. You would. Hell, when I put my thinking cap on and play "Let's imagine what Christianity could be like for a great novel," I think of Jesus as Homo sapiens v.2.0 where v.1.0 is basically H. sapiens sapiens (Adam on down to us) and v.2.0 is H. sapiens divinitus. ;-) Now obviously I don't really believe in this (atheist, evolutionary biologist), but let's roll with it for now. My point is, most Christians reject this. They do not accept the claim that Jesus is Homo sapiens Mark II. They believe that Jesus either is:
(a) budded off from God and was implanted in the womb of a woman from Nazareth or else
(b) is God having fun roleplaying inside the fleshy body of this carpenter's son from Nazareth
(c) other, there are a whole lot of Christians and a whole lot of messy ways to interpret the origins of Christ
But none of these groups believe in the following analogy:
Adam : prototype :: Jesus : finished product
That was always how I saw it, even when I did believe in God, and that may be how you see it too -- a way which easily allows you to perceive the two men as "brothers" separated in time by millenia -- but I don't think most of the Christians on UPN will see it this way.

So now let's move on over to Lucifer. Lucifer's even headier. Again, I would agree with you that insofar as Lucifer is a human-or-superhuman entity that can trace its parentage back immediately to God himself, and insofar as Adam is the very same, then Adam and Lucifer are "brothers." But I think a lot of people would feel that what you're claiming here is that the baby which the toymaker makes with his wife and the baby doll the toymaker makes out of rubber and ball bearings are "brothers" too. Yes, they were created by the same man, but no, they are in no way, shape, or form "brothers" because they're not even in the same category. Fanfic-wise, I love the idea of Lucifer, Adam, and Jesus as brothers. But one man's fanfic is another man's religion is another man's heresy: and it seems to me that you're going to encounter a lot of people calling you a heretic if you push for the Lucifer-Adam-Jesus brother theory. People will accuse you of personifying Lucifer too much, of losing yourself in semantics, and so on.

The best thing you could probably do, as a Christian, is look to the Old Testament and the New Testament for any evidence that Lucifer was ever compared to Adam as a brother or if Jesus was ever compared to Adam as a brother. Find it, QED, you win. Don't find it, and you'll have to give the opposition the point. And no, unfortunately, pointing to the literature of the Church of Latter-Day Saints won't cut it. It has to be from the shared Old and New Testaments.

unownmew

12-15-2011, 02:20 AM

Church of England (Protestant) just popping in to ask a question.

I realise that this isn't relevant in the slightest to the current debate, but I was just wondering if you (unownmew) would be willing to explain the concept of baptism of the dead to me, and why your church practices it/feels like it's justified or supported by the Bible, as I remember hearing someone talking about it in the past and wondering. Ta if you're willing to respond.

*flees*
Oh, I was hoping to get to that somehow, thanks. :D

"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" 1 Corinthians 15:29

In LDS doctrine are outlined numerous practices, some of which are only performed in our temples. One of which is a proxy baptism for someone who has died without being baptized into Christ's church (baptism by full immersion), by proper authority. Some of these practices are related in a fashion to certain ancient Hebrew practices (Jesus did away with animal sacrifices though, so we don't do that), others are what was done in the Church during New Testament times, but only lightly mentioned in the Bible, like Baptism for the Dead

The reasoning for baptising for the dead is that Baptism is an essential rite for eternal salvation and exaltation. Even Jesus, perfect though he was, needed to be baptized. That's why other Christian religions say to the "heathen," if you're not baptized, you "go to hell." (It's good that I just explained our beliefs about death, because this factors in.) Its true, if you've not been baptized, you can not fully enter Spirit Paradise, nor be resurrected in the first resurrection at the Millennium. Those who are not resurrected at that time, will have to wait until their work is done. So it is our responsibility, as a Church, to get as many people baptized as possible, so that they can have the opportunity to accept it or not. This applies both for the living, as well as for the dead. Beyond that, it is our responsibility, and we'll be judged on how well we carry it out individually.

Not only baptism, there other rites required for Exaltation, but baptism is the start. A Sealed Marriage is the qualifier for the Celestial Kingdom (Sealed meaning in effect for not just time, but all Eternity as well.) We also do those via proxy for the deceased.

While non-members and unworthy members are not allowed in our temples, and certain details are sacred and not (supposed to be) disclosed outside of the temple, you're welcome to ask questions of any member. :)

I feel halfway tempted to post my exact beliefs but based on past experience I'm just going to be told 'BUT THAT MEANS YOU'RE NOT A REAL CHRISTIAN' so can't really be arsed.
So long as you adhere to Christian Values or belong to a Christian Church, I'd consider you Christian.

As an atheist who tends to romanticize things, I'm quite fond of this view of Genesis. That stated, I'm pretty sure that most Christians would take issue with the religiophilisophical acrobatics you undertake and which deliver you to the following locations:
the first man and the first deer are brothers
the first archangel and the first butterfly are brothers
the first planet and the first proton are brothers
the first anything made by God and the first anything else made by god are brothers
For something to be called a "brother" to something else, I think most people would argue not only for the same parentage but also for the same rung on the Existence ladder. So for example, if God made Adam from clay and if he later made Jesus from clay, people would be okay with you calling them brothers; but because most Christians believe that God made Adam from clay while he made Jesus out of his own self, they wouldn't call the two brothers. I would. You would. Hell, when I put my thinking cap on and play "Let's imagine what Christianity could be like for a great novel," I think of Jesus as Homo sapiens v.2.0 where v.1.0 is basically H. sapiens sapiens (Adam on down to us) and v.2.0 is H. sapiens divinitus. ;-) Now obviously I don't really believe in this (atheist, evolutionary biologist), but let's roll with it for now. My point is, most Christians reject this. They do not accept the claim that Jesus is Homo sapiens Mark II. They believe that Jesus either is:
(a) budded off from God and was implanted in the womb of a woman from Nazareth or else
(b) is God having fun roleplaying inside the fleshy body of this carpenter's son from Nazareth
(c) other, there are a whole lot of Christians and a whole lot of messy ways to interpret the origins of Christ
But none of these groups believe in the following analogy:
Adam : prototype :: Jesus : finished product
That was always how I saw it, even when I did believe in God, and that may be how you see it too -- a way which easily allows you to perceive the two men as "brothers" separated in time by millenia -- but I don't think most of the Christians on UPN will see it this way.
That's one way to put it. As for the difference between man and other animals, man has free agency, animals are driven by instinct. Man also has instinct, but man can control that instinct if he choses.

Adam and Jesus were both originally spirit. Spiritual, and brothers. LDS Doctrine, our purpose for being on Earth, to receive a physical body, as well as be tested for worthiness, to be placed in a Degree of Glory.

Your analogy of Jesus being Homo Sapien 2.0, is quite spot-on, and exactly what we believe as LDS. Man gets a body, man dies. Man gets resurrected in Body 2.0, and becomes much more then a simple human.

You are right, though, that most Christians don't see this way, probably because they never really heard it before.

You may not believe it, but, you certainly have it down well. What caused you to change religions?

So now let's move on over to Lucifer. Lucifer's even headier. Again, I would agree with you that insofar as Lucifer is a human-or-superhuman entity that can trace its parentage back immediately to God himself, and insofar as Adam is the very same, then Adam and Lucifer are "brothers." But I think a lot of people would feel that what you're claiming here is that the baby which the toymaker makes with his wife and the baby doll the toymaker makes out of rubber and ball bearings are "brothers" too. Yes, they were created by the same man, but no, they are in no way, shape, or form "brothers" because they're not even in the same category. Fanfic-wise, I love the idea of Lucifer, Adam, and Jesus as brothers. But one man's fanfic is another man's religion is another man's heresy: and it seems to me that you're going to encounter a lot of people calling you a heretic if you push for the Lucifer-Adam-Jesus brother theory. People will accuse you of personifying Lucifer too much, of losing yourself in semantics, and so on.
Well, Lucifer's difference from us, is the point, it's the curse God put on him for rebelling against God.
LDS doctrine: Jesus, all humans, and Lucifer, were originally created as spirits. Spiritual Sons and Daughters of God. However, Lucifer rebelled against God, and so God punished him. His punishment: unlike us, he would not get a physical body, which is apparently a big deal in heaven.

The best thing you could probably do, as a Christian, is look to the Old Testament and the New Testament for any evidence that Lucifer was ever compared to Adam as a brother or if Jesus was ever compared to Adam as a brother. Find it, QED, you win. Don't find it, and you'll have to give the opposition the point. And no, unfortunately, pointing to the literature of the Church of Latter-Day Saints won't cut it. It has to be from the shared Old and New Testaments.
Fair enough. I'm not so sure it's really worth my time to scour the Bible for such a reference though. I already put in way more time then I need to making these posts. It'd be better to convert people to the truth of the Book of Mormon anyway. Then they'll naturally have to assume our doctrine. :twisted:

DaveTheFishGuy

12-15-2011, 04:05 PM

I don't go to Church anymore and that argument has been used on me dozens of times. I heartily laugh at it.

You can post, I'm not going to judge if you're afraid it's me, don't let what I said to him scare you off!! :lol: --- I was simply pointing out mew (who is still wrong, but I'll address that issue at another time) is more or less saying things about his belief which aren't true or make no sense.

So long as you adhere to Christian Values or belong to a Christian Church, I'd consider you Christian.

Eh, got some time to kill so might as well. Just bear in mind that I'm 'officially' Church of England, like Handy.

First of all, kinda like Deo, I've not gone to Church for ages outside of Christmas midnight service and possibly Easter Sunday. I used to go every week, but after a while I ended up thinking that it wasn't overly worth it. I didn't really get anything out of going and, to paraphrase a quote I can't remember exactly, 'I’m baffled by the notion of a God that takes attendance.' If God is everywhere, why should I drag my arse to a building a mile away to worship him?

The schism in my belief compared to how I was raised started in my early teen years - I've always been interested in biology and natural history, and had just been introduced to the concept of evolution. I decided that there was just too much evidence supporting the theory and that it made enough sense that it couldn't just be written off (like certain sects of religion have attempted to do ever since it was first proposed), but I retained my belief in the Bible and couldn't just scrap that either. So I compromised.

WARNING: The following is extremely bad thanks to my inability to put it exacty into words.

After a good few years of trying to work out just what exactly I believe, I finally worked it out as the following - before the Universe as we know it came into being, there existed a much smaller reality inhabited by a race of creatures much higher than we currently know (think energy beings). After reaching their peak and wanting to expand the scope of reality, these creatures combined their power to fracture their Universe, setting off the Big Bang and expanding it into the Universe we know today. This all but destroyed the origin of the creatures, but allowed them to disperse throughout the new Universe to explore. Some of them settled around new planets, one of these being Earth.

So far so crazy, amirite? It gets better.

So right, there's a theory that the earliest life-forms on Earth were formed due to the right chemicals being mixed together, with some sort of ignition (possibly lightning) providing a spark to fuse them together into the first self-replicating proteins. I reckon that this lightning was sent by the energy creature that had taken residence up over Earth. As life evolved, the being watched and observed, occaisionly directing the path of evolution by intervening, either protecting life (acting as a shield during the Gamma burst that caused the Ordovician-Silurian Extinction Event), or culling a group that was past its prime (the pulling in the asteroid that set off the Cretaceous–Tertiary Extinction Event, killing off the weakened Dinosaurs that were slowly going extinct on an overheating and polluting planets).

Eventually, after millions of years, one animal reached a level approaching intelligence - humans. Curious to see if these new creatures could understand him, the being decided to contact one of them. That man was Abraham (which is the point in the Bible that I pick up due to not really believing in Adam & Eve / The Ark / Tower of Babel), who assigned the being the title of 'God' due to its all-powerful nature. Due to being accepted, God was protective of his followers against other humans, which leads to much of the Old Testament, and occaisionly spoke to his followers, who became known as the Prophets.

Regarding Jesus, I believe that he was the son of God, in as much as this being was able to blend himself with a human on a genetic level, and the resulting offspring had ties to God.

I really don't know how much of this makes sense. Reading it back, it doesn't even make that much sense to me - this is just how things settled in my mind when I tried to think of how everything I believe to be true can coexist. I believe in God and Jesus, I just have a different tack on how everything started. I probably come off as totally wacko, though.

I might also point out that God has a fair-sized entry on TV Tropes' Eldritch Abomination (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/EldritchAbomination/MythologyAndReligion) page anyways, so this kinda builds on that I guess. Just my thoughts, feel free to tear them to shreds.

Can you spot why people have said I'm not Christian?

And then everyone thought Dave was crazy.

Muyotwo

12-16-2011, 02:11 AM

Your religious explanation isn't bad, Dave, but without the "Omnipotent/Omnipresent/Omniscient" Christian God your explanation is even more vulnerable to the question of origin- your energy beings are there for your universal origin without any explanation of how they came to be or what manner of being/natural effect created them in the first place. The standard Christian response to this is "God was just always there", and that doesn't seem to work as well with your example.

unownmew

12-16-2011, 03:43 PM

Eh, got some time to kill so might as well. Just bear in mind that I'm 'officially' Church of England, like Handy.

First of all, kinda like Deo, I've not gone to Church for ages outside of Christmas midnight service and possibly Easter Sunday. I used to go every week, but after a while I ended up thinking that it wasn't overly worth it. I didn't really get anything out of going and, to paraphrase a quote I can't remember exactly, 'I’m baffled by the notion of a God that takes attendance.' If God is everywhere, why should I drag my arse to a building a mile away to worship him?

The schism in my belief compared to how I was raised started in my early teen years - I've always been interested in biology and natural history, and had just been introduced to the concept of evolution. I decided that there was just too much evidence supporting the theory and that it made enough sense that it couldn't just be written off (like certain sects of religion have attempted to do ever since it was first proposed), but I retained my belief in the Bible and couldn't just scrap that either. So I compromised.

WARNING: The following is extremely bad thanks to my inability to put it exacty into words.

After a good few years of trying to work out just what exactly I believe, I finally worked it out as the following - before the Universe as we know it came into being, there existed a much smaller reality inhabited by a race of creatures much higher than we currently know (think energy beings). After reaching their peak and wanting to expand the scope of reality, these creatures combined their power to fracture their Universe, setting off the Big Bang and expanding it into the Universe we know today. This all but destroyed the origin of the creatures, but allowed them to disperse throughout the new Universe to explore. Some of them settled around new planets, one of these being Earth.

So far so crazy, amirite? It gets better.

So right, there's a theory that the earliest life-forms on Earth were formed due to the right chemicals being mixed together, with some sort of ignition (possibly lightning) providing a spark to fuse them together into the first self-replicating proteins. I reckon that this lightning was sent by the energy creature that had taken residence up over Earth. As life evolved, the being watched and observed, occaisionly directing the path of evolution by intervening, either protecting life (acting as a shield during the Gamma burst that caused the Ordovician-Silurian Extinction Event), or culling a group that was past its prime (the pulling in the asteroid that set off the Cretaceous–Tertiary Extinction Event, killing off the weakened Dinosaurs that were slowly going extinct on an overheating and polluting planets).

Eventually, after millions of years, one animal reached a level approaching intelligence - humans. Curious to see if these new creatures could understand him, the being decided to contact one of them. That man was Abraham (which is the point in the Bible that I pick up due to not really believing in Adam & Eve / The Ark / Tower of Babel), who assigned the being the title of 'God' due to its all-powerful nature. Due to being accepted, God was protective of his followers against other humans, which leads to much of the Old Testament, and occaisionly spoke to his followers, who became known as the Prophets.

Regarding Jesus, I believe that he was the son of God, in as much as this being was able to blend himself with a human on a genetic level, and the resulting offspring had ties to God.

I really don't know how much of this makes sense. Reading it back, it doesn't even make that much sense to me - this is just how things settled in my mind when I tried to think of how everything I believe to be true can coexist. I believe in God and Jesus, I just have a different tack on how everything started. I probably come off as totally wacko, though.

I might also point out that God has a fair-sized entry on TV Tropes' Eldritch Abomination (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/EldritchAbomination/MythologyAndReligion) page anyways, so this kinda builds on that I guess. Just my thoughts, feel free to tear them to shreds.

Can you spot why people have said I'm not Christian?

And then everyone thought Dave was crazy.
That's not a terribly bad theory Dave. The only things I see that would cause people to consider you not Christian are: not going to church, evolution, and your origin of "God," none of which are actually fully doctrinally challenged by Christianity.

Not going to church: While I also believe God is not one who actually counts attendance, He has given commandments, of which we are to be faithful in regardless, unless we want it noted at judgement against us, or we repent and start obeying better. The Hebrews were given the "Letter of the Law," by which, they were commanded to follow exactly. Jesus made way for the "Spirit of the Law," we still ought to follow for the most part exactly, but what truly matters is not what we do or how well we behave, but our attitude a the time. If we're continually striving, even if we slip up, we regret it, ask forgiveness and move on, we're no longer charged by the exact letter of the law "Do This," instead, "Strive to be Like This."
So on the one hand, you're justified in your reasoning, but you still ought to go to church and "keep the Sabbath day holy', as a flippant attitude regarding commandments, isn't much appreciated by God.
If nothing else, usually going to a church keeps you rooted in your faith and ever learning the doctrine, keeps you from going totally astray, and, if you have a good service, can grant you a spiritual boost for the rest of the week. It's always for our own benefit or the benefit of others that God gives commandments.
In my church, we have responsibilities, beyond just going to church, which are essential for the salvation of others, which is for us, one of the reasons why God wants us to obey. We also have a practice every week, The Sacrament," which we consider, a renewing of our Covenants, as well as a remission of our sins from the past week, should we worthily partake of it, which is another reason we're encouraged to attend regularly.

Evolution and the origin of God: only slightly unorthodox, and not totally "alien abduction wacko." You wouldn't be the only one who's tried to marry the two theories of Intelligent Design and evolution. I myself went through a phase where I thought that, since in my Church, a Day for God, is akin to 1000 Earth years, so that's plenty of time for him to induce evolution here in the way of Creation. So you're entirely justified in this belief, because, the Bible says "God Created," but says nothing about "How God Creates," the Bible is for Spiritual matters, and Spiritual Law, not for learning the Secrets of God's Power and Divinity. If we are righteous and faithful enough, and ask, God will reveal his secrets to us (Though usually this carries the stipulation that we'll be Prophets or missionaries afterward if it's a whole revelatory vision). I've since seen the shortcomings of the Theory of Evolution, and entirely abandoned it. I don't claim to know How God creates, I only know He did.

As for the origin of God, for someone who's not been given to know His Secrets, it's entirely natural to wonder the hows and whys. Your theory doesn't wholly discount God's Hand in creation, nor his power, nor his commitments to Humanity, only the scope of his inherent "Foreverness," and, unfortunately, makes little room for the Atonement and Ressurrection, or all the prophets that came before Abraham. But it does coincide with my Church's beliefs that, the righteous followers are more favored of God (though he still loves everyone equally).
As my church also believes it is possible for us to become Gods as well after the judgement, your theory would be more possible with our beliefs then other Christians', and actually partially supported, regarding his origin, but, it focuses too heavily on the "how", and not enough on the "why," such that some of the key teachings are much discounted.
While your theory clearly stems from Christianity, it is here that I'm forced to say it's devolved enough that it can't be Fully considered Christian, because it makes little to no room to allow for the Atonement of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Dead, which are The Key points of Christianity. Everything else taught revolves around them in some degree or another.

Modifying it though to allow for those would be a simple order, and if you personally follow general Christian ethics or believe the Bible, I can still consider you a general Christian (just not the theory).

Shuckle

12-19-2011, 06:17 AM

There are a lot of people who give every religion in the world a bad name, and some even religion in general, as well as the lack of it.

Communism is good in theory, and in fact is a basic representation of deeply held human values - sharing, herd instinct, etc. However, there are a few people who just don't seem to understand that communism isn't all about having one person rule over the masses, and that's what made it fail so dramatically. I'm sure we could implement Communism easily here on UPN if we wanted to. It would take a little bit of verbal maneuvering to make sure everything's set out the way it should be, but it's possible, and you would probably enjoy it for a very long time. It's the same way with religion; sometimes, you have to deal with the theory, and deal only with the people who follow that theory.

Atheism as a theory sucks, so I don't want to believe that, and agnosticism...I don't know :lol: I was raised Catholic, as a Polish-American, so that's what I believe.

I don't see how this is a debate, anyway. We should have a poll instead.

Rangeetsuper

12-19-2011, 06:20 AM

Atheism as a theory sucks

I'd like you to explain this.

Shuckle

12-19-2011, 06:37 AM

I'd like you to explain this.Okay, so this is 2:30 am version and you probably won't like it.

Basically, atheists believe there is no God, right? So if there's no God, then what is there? You have your wide range of theories, involving aliens and random chance and a whole lot of luck, and then out comes the awful truth - atheists really just believe in a whole bunch of nothing.

Science is a silly way to govern your life. Science says that they will find out everything and be done, but they can never really find out anything. They can just test and observe, and let other people do the work. This is fine when things are obvious, but when you get into complicated shit it just doesn't hold up. Atheists have no moral compass other than the one they impose on themselves, and saying that science provides a moral compass is complete bullshit. Basically, atheists are trying to follow a good Christian morality while saying "There is no God, only science", and science is saying "We can't tell you everything, and oh by the way we are retesting ourselves to prove us wrong", and you just get this overwhelming malaise from the utter inanity of it all. Nothing matters. Science is unreliable, and despite claiming it is reliable it is constantly trying to prove to itself that it is unreliable. You can't trust anything as an atheist, and so you just kind of do things and don't care.

Yeah. I'm sure atheists will love to party and stay up late because it doesn't matter anyway. After a while, they'll end up broke because those are the kinds of people who can't look ahead. Oh, cultural ruination, you so painful.

That's why spiritual health is so vital - we need motivation or we go kaput. You can say that God's a myth, but the main point is that we need him to exist so we can try our best for someone who is always looking at us, caring about us, listening to everything we say and praising us for everything we do. It has the unfortunate side effect of seeming a little like Big Brother, but that's where forgiveness comes in.

Yay all bases covered, ten minutes gone.

Of course, if you have any independent indication that atheism as a theory is good, feel free.

Rangeetsuper

12-19-2011, 06:51 AM

Your argument about Science makes no sense. Science does things in a rational, logical manner. It gives us the most probable explanation- to everything- and this is only when it cannot find FACTS. It will always change as new facts are discovered, changing what is most probably, what is true, which laws hold and which don't.

Atheists have a moral compass that says "Enjoy life. Let everyone enjoy it, because there are no facts that says afterlife exists." The only way to really enjoy life is to let everyone enjoy it. Atheists will love to party and stay up late...why not? The aim is to enjoy life. In the stages of growth, there are different ways. In the age of adulthood-mid twenties, that is the best way to enjoy life. Then they can get a job and maybe start a family...so that everyone else can, again, enjoy the only thing that we know exists.

Why would we need motivation or go kaput? A lot of people will be insulted by saying they need a carrot in front and a stick behind- which is the only thing God does- to stay moral.

If anything, believing in a random God you have no proof exists that says random things and following those things just because God said it. Your entire argument is based on the thought that morality needs religion...which it does not. Do a simple google search for "morality does not require religion". There are many sources to convince you as you see fit.

Shuckle

12-19-2011, 07:08 AM

Had rebuke, did not remember.

Insomnia is bad, don't do it. I might come back in the foreseeable future with something relevant, though.

deoxys

12-19-2011, 08:11 AM

Suffering insomnia right now as well, about to pass out any second. Going to jump in here and say that I completely disagree with the notion that atheists can't have a moral compass. Right and wrong as basic fundamentals of society are still in place. I know of atheists who were once religious, but realized they were only because of moral reasons, and found they didn't believe in a higher power, so they stopped. It's also not as if atheists have a thought process such as "Hm, well, nothing happens when I die, so there is no consequence for me just living out life without a care in the world!" I'm certain less than maybe 2% actually feel that way.

Personally? I do believe there are things science can't explain, and that science may never explain. God is a scientist. He crafted the universe through the big bang, maybe even the mythical Higgs Boson, then us and this planet as it is today through elaborate evolution, and highly likely other planets, too. I don't really want to get into any religious debates about this opinion... and it's not that I'm trying to evade being called out, it's more or less that I've had this conversation 50+ times and I've grown quite tired of it (you can call bullshit on this if you like, I don't really care).

I personally cannot understand why it seems an impossibility for a higher power beyond our knowledge to exist --- who are we to so arrogantly decide that (I mean this in the absolute least offensive of ways)? We have no physical evidence that one exists, certainly, but it's a really poor argument from a logical standpoint to outright write it off as a scientific probability. We have certainly come incredibly far scientifically in the past century, but I can't help but feel that we as a society are also too prideful of that fact. I'll be so bold as to say what could easily be a piss poor argument, but then again I'm tto tired to think this through before I say it (seriously my eyelids are fumbling), "There are planets elsewhere in the universe, but we don't have physical evidence of them. Therefore, we can't know if they exist or not." If one is atheistic for reasons that involve cutting ties with organized religion, I can completely understand that, but some of the most intelligent people I personally know, staunchly opinionated against religion and a lot of the things it produces, still remain agnostic-theistic or agnostic-atheistic as opposed to atheistic.

Basically, the safest route to go should really be agnostic-atheist, using the 'celestial teapot' example as a guide. (Schrodingers God =P)

And with that, I leave you not just one incredibly interesting read (http://galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html), but two interesting reads (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html).

Rangeetsuper

12-19-2011, 08:17 AM

I'm never saying that God CANNOT exist. I'm simply saying two things: a) you cannot prove something doesn't exist and b) there is, so far, no proof that God exists.

So if we find actual proof of God's existence, I will definitely believe it. I'm not saying it's impossible God exists, I'm saying that with the current facts, he doesn't.

Talon87

12-19-2011, 02:01 PM

Basically, atheists believe there is no God, right? So if there's no God, then what is there? You have your wide range of theories, involving aliens and random chance and a whole lot of luck, and then out comes the awful truth - atheists really just believe in a whole bunch of nothing.
It isn't that we believe in nothing: it's that we reject belief in invented bogeymen. We demand evidence. And, as Rangeet has already pointed out, the utter lack of persuasive, definitive evidence that God is real and that he exists is all the reason in the world not to believe in him. It doesn't mean that we're deadset against believing in him, oh no: like Rangeet says, if the evidence presented itself, we would most of us surely convert. Atheism is not a rejection of God: it is a rejection of belief in theories that have no persuasive empirical evidence to back them up. We no more believe in God than we believe in a flying spaghetti monster -- hence the FSM's creation in the first place, as a way to point out the utter ridiculousness of most organized religions today.

Science is a silly way to govern your life.
Oh, okay! :roll:

Science says that they will find out everything and be done, but they can never really find out anything.
Oh, okay! :lol: Guess we can't find anything out about this world. Like ...
all of modern medicine (example: how to treat diphtheria)
all of modern astrophysics (example: how the planets came into being)
all of modern meteorology (example: which states is this hurricane going to smash into so that we can prepare in advance)
all of modern civil engineering (example: how to build better bridges)
all of modern mechanical engineering (example: how to build robots)
all of modern chemical engineering (example: how to meet the enormous demand for plastics in our modern world)
all of modern chemistry (example: how do we create an antidepressant?)
On and on this ridiculous list goes. Are you really so religiously brainwashed as to believe that science can contribute nothing to our understanding of how the world works? The amount of knowledge all of theology has given us over all time is like a thimble of water in an ocean of knowledge that is the knowledge contributed by science.

They can just test and observe, and let other people do the work.
What the fuck is this bullshit? :lol: So now you're insinuating that scientists take the credit for theologians' work? :lol: That scientists create these fancy experiments but don't know how to solve them themselves so they phone the Archdiocese and have someone sent over to finish the proof? :lol: :roll: Puh-lease.

Atheists have no moral compass other than the one they impose on themselves
This is no different than how your Christian values came into being. You believe that they were God-given when, in reality, the Ten Commandments were a code to live by that the Jews in the desert came up with so they didn't destroy themselves. They were the basic rules that applied to everyone and which carried the severest penalties. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not murder. These are pretty good rules which ensure the cohesiveness of any herd of human beings. It has nothing to do with "Okay, we only follow these rules because God told us to; otherwise, we'd happily murder anyone and everyone" and instead has everything to do with, "Okay, these rules make for a pretty good social contract."

Rejecting a code of ethics on the ground that it was made up by men and not God-ordained is pretty silly. You may as well reject all of Aristotle and Plato, then, and feel that they have nothing to contribute on questions of morality. Same thing goes for Confucius and Mencius. Same thing goes for the Buddha. Same thing goes for any set of ethical guidelines ever that was conceived by non-Christians.

Talon87

12-19-2011, 02:19 PM

Was reminded by Shuckle's posts of the existence of QualiaSoup. He's a Youtuber who makes good informative classroom-style videos about science and religion. I thought I'd link you to some of them here. Deoxys should check out "the Faith Cake." unownmew might want to check out "Evolution." I think all parties would benefit from watching every video, to be perfectly honest.

The Faith Cake (http://youtu.be/SlaCq3dKvvI) - in which he talks about the difference between evidence-based science and faith-based religion and addresses several common claims that Christians make about "faith-based science"

Hell is an Excessive Punishment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaL7CkQaQpU) - in which he talks about how Hell, if it is real, is all the grounds you need to reject the claim that God is compassionate and rational

Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8) - in which he talks about the theory of evolution in a very easy to understand way

Open-Mindedness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI) - in which he addresses the criticism that scientists are not open-minded, pointing out that true scientists are the very image of open-mindedness

Putting Faith in its Place (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo) - in which he addresses the common claim that "God exists outside our realm" and addresses why, even if this claim were true, that since we can't know it to be true it has no place in any rational debate. Rational debates concern themselves only with that which can be certainly known.

===============================

EDIT: I also just remembered TheraminTrees' videos. I want to link you to a particularly salient one:

Transition to Atheism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0WwZc-Vz7Y) - Theramin details his seven-step personal evolution from die-hard Christian to happy atheist.

Perhaps one of the best quotes from that video is "People who don't want you to think are never your friend."

Char

12-19-2011, 09:59 PM

"Science rules." - Bill Nye

EDIT: Suffering insomnia right now as well, about to pass out any second. Going to jump in here and say that I completely disagree with the notion that atheists can't have a moral compass. Right and wrong as basic fundamentals of society are still in place. I know of atheists who were once religious, but realized they were only because of moral reasons, and found they didn't believe in a higher power, so they stopped. It's also not as if atheists have a thought process such as "Hm, well, nothing happens when I die, so there is no consequence for me just living out life without a care in the world!" I'm certain less than maybe 2% actually feel that way.

Personally? I do believe there are things science can't explain, and that science may never explain. God is a scientist. He crafted the universe through the big bang, maybe even the mythical Higgs Boson, then us and this planet as it is today through elaborate evolution, and highly likely other planets, too. I don't really want to get into any religious debates about this opinion... and it's not that I'm trying to evade being called out, it's more or less that I've had this conversation 50+ times and I've grown quite tired of it (you can call bullshit on this if you like, I don't really care).

I personally cannot understand why it seems an impossibility for a higher power beyond our knowledge to exist --- who are we to so arrogantly decide that (I mean this in the absolute least offensive of ways)? We have no physical evidence that one exists, certainly, but it's a really poor argument from a logical standpoint to outright write it off as a scientific probability. We have certainly come incredibly far scientifically in the past century, but I can't help but feel that we as a society are also too prideful of that fact. I'll be so bold as to say what could easily be a piss poor argument, but then again I'm tto tired to think this through before I say it (seriously my eyelids are fumbling), "There are planets elsewhere in the universe, but we don't have physical evidence of them. Therefore, we can't know if they exist or not." If one is atheistic for reasons that involve cutting ties with organized religion, I can completely understand that, but some of the most intelligent people I personally know, staunchly opinionated against religion and a lot of the things it produces, still remain agnostic-theistic or agnostic-atheistic as opposed to atheistic.

Basically, the safest route to go should really be agnostic-atheist, using the 'celestial teapot' example as a guide. (Schrodingers God =P)

And with that, I leave you not just one incredibly interesting read (http://galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html), but two interesting reads (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html).

I identify as an agnostic-atheist. I've also read the stuff in both those links you gave (surprise, I'm not that much of a reader). I do love me some Isaac Asimov short stories though. I could never bother with his longer works.

Amras.MG

12-19-2011, 11:39 PM

Atheists: Defeat all 20 (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm), and we'll talk.

Also: one version of Aquinas' arguments (http://www.saintaquinas.com/belief_in_God.html).

Talon87

12-19-2011, 11:52 PM

Atheists: Defeat all 20 (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm), and we'll talk.
*looks at list*
*sees Pascal's Wager on there*

lololololol

Let's talk after you've done some real research, young one. :) For now, let's go ahead and address why Pascal's Wager is no proof for God's existence. Quite simply:

(1) Pascal's Wager does not presume to prove that God exists. It is merely a statistical analysis of the risks and benefits in believing or not believing in God. It says, "If there is a God and if he is like the God of the Abrahamic religions, then those who believe in him are most richly rewarded and those who do not most severely punished; while if he is fake, not believing in him gets you no greater benefit than believing in him; thus, you're better off believing than not believing."

And

(2) This talk of "better off" statistics doesn't have any effect over what you truly believe. Which is to say, I cannot will myself into believing in God's existence merely because I rationally understand (as I do) Pascal's wager. Either I believe in him for other reasons or I do not. Pascal's Wager in and of itself can't persuade me of God's existence. It is no better than saying, "If you see the sky as red, then you get $10,000. If you see it as blue, then I will shoot you in between the eyes." Obviously I do not wish to die, but neither can I fool the test-giver with a lie. I know I see blue, he knows I see blue, and so saying I see red (when really I see blue) is no better than confessing I see blue. Either way, I'm dead. (Same thing with the omnipotent Christian God. Or does your Church seriously argue that God is so stupid that a mere mortal can pull the wool over his eyes with Pascal's Wager? :lol: :roll:) God knows who truly believes in him and who claims to believe in him (yet does not truly believe in him) simply so that he may escape punishment. Thus, Pascal's Wager is useless even as the life raft its proponents purport it to be.

Similar deconstructions for the other 19 arguments in that list. But you'd not read them all were I to write them up and I've not the time to waste on the "AHA! GOTCHA!"s of a teenager. Been there, done that. Like I said before, if you really want to do yourself a favor, watch any of the videos I linked you. Too scared to? Then what does that say about your confidence in your religion? I mean, really: what have you got to lose? If you watch one or two videos I linked and still disagree, then you've only lost ~20 minutes of your time, tops. But if you watch them and start to say, "Hey ... this guy is right :o", then at least things will start falling into place for you.

Amras.MG

12-19-2011, 11:54 PM

I think it's hilarious that you looked at the last argument on the list, one which I know doesn't work, and then just ignored the rest. I'm not going to spend time forming these arguments for you guys: you've obviously just shown that you don't care at all. This isn't about truth. You don't WANT there to be a god.

Talon87

12-20-2011, 12:30 AM

YOU DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A GOD! ;_;

Grow up. Pick any argument on that list and I'll explain to you why it doesn't prove God's existence. But I'm not wasting my time on you to do all nineteen. Sorry, but some random child on the Internet isn't worth that much of my time, as self-important as you may think yourself to be in everyone else's world.

If you really want to learn, you have to be willing to invest the time yourself. I shouldn't have to spoonfeed you everything nor should anybody else.

Amras.MG

12-20-2011, 12:46 AM

Talon, I went through the arguments myself, and couldn't defeat them. I also went through other ones, such as Descartes' Meditations.

I accepted that I could not logically defeat the arguments, and that is why I am a theist. I did further study, and thus came to my current beliefs.

I believe you are the one not wanting to learn here, not me. I did my work. And the only reason you people are atheists (or so it seems to me) is because you don't see proof. I am offering you logical proof.

You're quite presumptuous. I am only linking because I can't say the arguments better: I'm not a self-important position. I realize my limits.

Excellent ad hominem, though.

Talon87

12-20-2011, 12:48 AM

I repeat: pick one. I'm not sitting here deconstructing all nineteen for you to trololol and be like "Way to waste your life, suckah!" Pick one. I'll answer. If we're game, we can keep going. And going. Bit by bit. But for now, I promise to do one and only one more. But you can pick any one you like.

Amras.MG

12-20-2011, 12:50 AM

Number 13: The Ontological Argument
13. The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument was devised by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), who wanted to produce a single, simple demonstration which would show that God is and what God is. Single it may be, but far from simple. It is, perhaps, the most controversial proof for the existence of God. Most people who first hear it are tempted to dismiss it immediately as an interesting riddle, but distinguished thinkers of every age, including our own, have risen to defend it. For this very reason it is the most intensely philosophical proof for God's existence; its place of honor is not within popular piety, but rather textbooks and professional journals. We include it, with a minimum of discussion, not because we think it conclusive or irrefutable, but for the sake of completeness.

Anselm's Version

It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
"God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).
But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

Question 1: Suppose I deny that God exists in the mind?

Reply: In that case the argument could not conclude that God exists in the mind and in reality. But note: the denial commits you to the view that there is no concept of God. And very few would wish to go that far.

Question 2: Is it really greater for something to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone?

Reply: The first premise of this argument is often misunderstood. People sometimes say: "Isn't an imaginary disease better than a real one?" Well it certainly is better—and so a greater thing—for you that the disease is not real. But that strengthens Anselm's side of the argument. Real bacteria are greater than imaginary ones, just because they have something that imaginary ones lack: real being. They have an independence, and therefore an ability to harm, that nothing can have whose existence is wholly dependent on your thought. It is this greater level of independence that makes them greater as beings. And that line of thinking does not seem elusive or farfetched.

Question 3: But is real being just another "thought" or "concept"? Is "real being" just one more concept or characteristic (like "omniscience" or "omnipotence") that could make a difference to the kind of being God is?

Reply: Real being does make a real difference. The question is: Does it make a conceptual difference? Critics of the argument say that it does not. They say that just because real being makes all the difference it cannot be one more quality among others. Rather it is the condition of there being something there to have any qualities at all. When the proof says that God is the greatest being that can be "thought," it means that there are various perfections or qualities that God has to a degree no creature possibly could, qualities that are supremely admirable. But to say that such a being exists is to say that there really is something which is supremely admirable. And that is not one more admirable quality among others.

Is it greater to exist in reality as well as in the mind? Of course, incomparably greater. But the difference is not a conceptual one. And yet the argument seems to treat it as if it were—as if the believer and the nonbeliever could not share the same concept of God. Clearly they do. They disagree not about the content of this concept, but about whether the kind of being it describes really exists. And that seems beyond the power of merely conceptual analysis, as used in this argument, to answer. So question 3, we think, really does invalidate this form of the ontological argument.

Modal Version

Charles Hartshorne and Norman Malcolm developed this version of the ontological argument. Both find it implicitly contained in the third chapter of Anselm's Proslogion.

The expression "that being than which a greater cannot be thought" (GCB, for short) expresses a consistent concept.
GCB cannot be thought of as: a. necessarily nonexistent; or as b. contingently existing but only as c. necessarily existing.
So GCB can only be thought of as the kind of being that cannot not exist, that must exist.
But what must be so is so.
Therefore, GCB (i.e., God) exists.

Question: Just because GCB must be thought of as existing, does that mean that GCB really exists?

Reply: If you must think of something as existing, you cannot think of it as not existing. But then you cannot deny that GCB exists; for then you are thinking what you say cannot be thought—namely, that GCB does not exist.

Possible Worlds Version

This variation on the modal version has been worked out in great detail by Alvin Plantinga. We have done our best to simplify it.

Definitions:

Maximal excellence: To have omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection in some world.

Maximal greatness: To have maximal excellence in every possible world.

There is a possible world (W) in which there is a being (X) with maximal greatness.
But X is maximally great only if X has maximal excellence in every possible world.
Therefore X is maximally great only if X has omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection in every possible world.
In W, the proposition "There is no omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being" would be impossible—that is, necessarily false.
But what is impossible does not vary from world to world.
Therefore, the proposition, "There is no omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being" is necessarily false in this actual world, too.
Therefore, there actually exists in this world, and must exist in every possible world, an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being.

Talon87

12-20-2011, 01:52 AM

Why The Ontological Argument is Bogus According to Catholics:
Quoth the Wiki,
St. Thomas Aquinas, while proposing five proofs of God's existence in his Summa Theologica, objected to Anselm's argument. He suggested that people cannot know the nature of God and, therefore, cannot conceive of God in the way Anselm proposed. The ontological argument would be meaningful only to someone who understands the essence of God completely. Aquinas reasoned that, as only God can completely know his essence, only he can use the argument. Aquinas' rejection of the ontological argument caused some Catholic theologians to also reject the argument.
So, even as a member of the Catholic Church, you ought to question the soundness of this argument. One of the champions of Catholic thought, Thomas Aquinas, rejected this argument. But he only rejected it on the grounds that it is presumptuous for men to claim to understand God, a claim most atheists wouldn't really accept -- and one I'm sure you're not eager to accept, either. You probably would like a fuller demonstration as to why the Ontological Argument is wrong. Well, here goes!

Why The Ontological Argument is Bogus According to Skeptics:
Immanuel Kant:
A necessary proposition (e.g. if an almighty God exists, then he must exist in both mind and reality") does not make the existence of the entity itself necessary. Kant uses the example of triangles to demonstrate, explaining, "If a triangle exists, then it must have three sides. However, that we can conceive of this does not itself prove the existence of triangles." The ontological argument suggests, "If God exists, then he must be a supreme power who exists in body and mind." Great, says Kant: but so what? You haven't actually proven that such a God exists. All you've proven is that if such a god exists, then it must indeed be almighty. But you have presupposed the existence of God in order to prove his almightiness: you have yet to actually prove whether he exists or not. To rephrase:
Thus, [Kant] argued that if the proposition "X exists" is posited, it would follow that, if X exists, it exists necessarily; this does not mean that X does exist in reality.

Talon:
Far be it from me to put myself on the same pedestal as Immanuel Kant, but I'll explain my own take on this.

The ontological argument is a word-play argument, little else. It says:
(1) It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
(2) "God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
(3) Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
(4) Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).
(5) But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
(6) Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.
The fallacy lies in line #6. Anselm claims to have proven the existence of God when really all he has done is to disprove the existence of a supreme being (i.e. a god who fits his definition of God, i.e. "that than which a greater cannot be thought") which exists in thought alone. That is all the ontological argument can be said to prove: that if there is such a thing as an omnipotent God, then by definition of his omnipotence he cannot exist only in our minds. But Anselm seems to make the radical leap from "since we can imagine an omnipotent being" to "therefore omnipotent beings must be real: because if they're truly omnipotent, they can't only exist in our minds." He can never quite escape that pesky if: if they're truly omnipotent, if there is such a thing as a God, if, if, if. He has done a very good job proving everything to the right-hand side of this two-letter word but somehow he can't address the if itself.

Disproof by substitution:
It's pretty easy to dismantle this entire argument just by way of working within the same rules as Anselm did but tweaking one or two words. Observe:

(1) It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
(2) "The perfect Go strategy" means "that than which a greater Go strategy cannot be thought."
(3) Suppose that the perfect Go strategy exists in the mind but not in reality.
(4) Then a greater than perfect Go strategy could be thought (namely, a Go strategy that has all the qualities our thought of the perfect Go strategy has plus real existence).
(5) But this is impossible, for a perfect Go strategy is "that than which a greater Go strategy cannot be thought."
(6) Therefore the perfect Go strategy exists in the mind and in reality.

Despite this line of reasoning, no "perfect" Go strategy seems to exist. Sure, there are joseki and such, familiar patterns which everyone recognizes and ways you can play into them by which both parties emerge equally scathed; but the perfect Go strategy, by definition, is one in which you obtain the upper hand over your opponent every time. It is the Go strategy where, no matter where your opponent plays, you can always beat him in the end. We can conceive of this concept -- we can use words to describe it or use it in sentences, as I am doing right now -- but we can just as easily conceive of the fact that it very probably does not exist. So, too, can we conceive of the improbability of an omnipotent God. Merely imagining such a being as God (i.e. a perfect being) does not in and of itself make perfect beings fact.

Thorough enough for you?
(1) Why Catholics say it's garbage
(2) Why Immanuel Kant says it's baloney
(3) Why I myself think it's nothing more than a word-play trick
(4) How you can easily demonstrate its deconstruction by substituting one perfect entity in for God and following the argument to its endpoint

Not only did I disprove it once, I disproved four times.

And like I said: I could do this with anything in that list.

Now, do me a favor and check out some of those videos I posted. I think you'll find them enlightening, I really do. Especially if you've got an open mind inside that head of yours and are really looking for answers, for truth, and not just for those arguments that seem to support your current worldview. :)

Amras.MG

12-20-2011, 02:18 AM

Well done, Talon. I will conceded that you defeated the ontological argument... though if you recall, I only agreed to pick one of the ones off that list. Not necessarily the strongest one.

To address your contentions:
1) I agree with Aquinas and the Catholic church. This is more of a warm up proof.

2) Kant's a tricky one to use, just for future reference. He was a brilliant brilliant man, but (in my opinion) some of his philosophy is absolutely wrong, but the way he's built it into the system, it's nearly unprovably wrong. He deals in tautologies (just like the ontological argument!).

3) It's a tautology.

4) Substitution doesn't always work in logic, so I'd be careful there. Some things have properties that don't translate well into a simplistic logical system. I don't really care enough to symbolize that, but I do know that it might not follow in symbolic logic, mainly because on the one hand you're dealing with a conceptual perfection and on the other, an actual, infinite one (God... or so I'd hold).

What do you think of the first cause argument? I know that science still hasn't answered it. (And no, Hawking, a singularity cannot just arise from nothing... logically, the only thing that can make things ex nihilo is an omnipotent being, whose power implies creation out of nothing.) Could you explain this from a logical viewpoint, not scientific?

Also, I don't disagree with anything in the Faith Cake video (which I've just watched). I'm a conservative Catholic, yes, but I'm also a scientist. I hold evolution and the Big Bang Theory (or whichever other theory they come up with that's better) as true things. My only point of contention is that there are some philosophers who have (to my satisfaction at least) logically proved the existence of God. My faith is completely based in logic: faith is only reason extended to things not seen. I hold the Bible as inerrant only because I identified Christianity (and in particular, Catholic Christianity) as the correct religion, and the weight of authority has persuaded me to believe in the Bible, among other reasons. I don't expect to change you at all - I think you're too far gone in your own views, but then again I'm a pessimist - I think I'd really just like to show you if possible that there are some reasons I'm a Christian. I was an atheist for a long time, and on top of that, was very anti-Christian.

I'll watch the others sometime else if I have time... don't really have a lot of time to devote to Youtube videos and arguments.

Talon87

12-20-2011, 02:34 AM

Amras.MG

12-20-2011, 02:44 AM

Are you saying my reason is tautological? Or his is? Because my entire point is that his is the tautology. So lol if you're saying "your line of reasoning is itself self-fulfilling." That's the whole problem with his line of reasoning, as pointed out. He's just playing word games.

And for the record: Kant and I aren't best buds or anything, so you needn't lecture me there. ^^;

This isn't a case of being too forgone or anything: this is a case of, "There is no good evidence for God that I have seen. And some people demand good evidence before subscribing to a belief system while others are willing to settle for less." I've known plenty of scientist-colleagues, among them a few former atheists, who have been religious. None of them has subscribed to a 100% empirical belief in God. Every last one of them introduces some element of "well I had a personal experience" or "well I just know" or "well here are the arguments that convinced me *sees arguments, utterly unconvincing*." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as it has been said. Claiming that there is such a being as God? That he is very real and that he is the Creator of the known universe? That's a hefty claim.

I'm agreeing with you that the argument is tautological.

I actually agree with you empirically. I don't think humans can have complete, 100% knowledge of God in empirical terms. This is why I'm a metaphysicist, though. I know that there are things out there that can't be explained in fully empirical terms. I think that consciousness and God are two of those things, for example. I also know that the world as we know it is not fully material, or at least I think I know that. There is something immaterial, even if it is only the concepts used to express the world.

I wrote a paper on this in my refutation of Locke, maybe I should look it up. Anyways. I think you and I are a lot closer than you think.

Unfortunately I'm not doing a very good job for Team God. Descartes' Meditations and then Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles were what convinced me.

Oh. And I hate the necessity of faith.

Rangeetsuper

12-20-2011, 04:28 AM

I'm sorry, but aren't like the first three or four arguments God of the Gaps?

Amras.MG

12-20-2011, 02:44 PM

What is God of the Gaps?

Talon87

12-20-2011, 03:20 PM

"God of the Gaps" refers to the idea that whatever cannot be explained by science is attributable to God. For example, in astrophysics, you might have the following dialogue:

Person 1: How was the Earth created?
Person 2: *provides lengthy explanation about planetary formation*
Person 1: Well then, how was the Sun created?
Person 2: *provides lengthy explanation about stellar genesis and our own Sun's history*
Person 1: Well then, how did the galaxy form?
And so on. Until finally we come to the question ...
Person 1: Well, what created the Big Bang?
Person 2: I don't know.
Person 1: Aaaah. :) Well you see: there's where God factors in.
Person 2: Excuse me? :?
Person 1: Yes, you see, God created the Big Bang.
Person 2: But you haven't any evidence for that! :?
Person 1: Ah, no! But nor have you a better explanation!

This is the God of the Gaps. The reason the God of the Gaps is so thoroughly rejected by atheists is because, as science explores ever deeper into the universe and unravels ever more mysteries, the domain of this God of the Gaps grows increasingly smaller. In ancient times, His was the domain of the creation of Man, the planets, and the stars. Today, he is little more than the plaything of Intelligent Design proponents and theist astrophysicists who point to him as "the initiator of all things." However far back science can explain, the theist merely moves God's boardpiece one square back so as to move out of reach of science. The God of the Gaps is thus the chess piece of choice of pseudo-intellectual theists.

For a non-Talon explanation, consider these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
http://www.theopedia.com/God_of_the_Gaps

It is interesting to note that most respected theologians also reject the God of the Gaps approach. It is not difficult to imagine why.

Amras.MG

12-20-2011, 05:56 PM

Well yeah, it's a stupid argument.

Shuckle

12-20-2011, 07:22 PM

Talon87

12-20-2011, 08:01 PM

Simply from curiosity.

15. The Argument from Conscience
Since moral subjectivism is very popular today, the following version of, or twist to, the moral argument should be effective, since it does not presuppose moral objectivism. Modern people often say they believe that there are no universally binding moral obligations, that we must all follow our own private conscience. But that very admission is enough of a premise to prove the existence of God.
Isn't it remarkable that no one, even the most consistent subjectivist, believes that it is ever good for anyone to deliberately and knowingly disobey his or her own conscience? Even if different people's consciences tell them to do or avoid totally different things, there remains one moral absolute for everyone: never disobey your own conscience.
Now where did conscience get such an absolute authority—an authority admitted even by the moral subjectivist and relativist? There are only four possibilities.
From something less than me (nature)
From me (individual)
From others equal to me (society)
From something above me (God)
Let's consider each of these possibilities in order.
How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me—for example, by animal instinct or practical need for material survival?
How can I obligate myself absolutely? Am I absolute? Do I have the right to demand absolute obedience from anyone, even myself? And if I am the one who locked myself in this prison of obligation, I can also let myself out, thus destroying the absoluteness of the obligation which we admitted as our premise.
How can society obligate me? What right do my equals have to impose their values on me? Does quantity make quality? Do a million human beings make a relative into an absolute? Is "society" God?
The only source of absolute moral obligation left is something superior to me. This binds my will, morally, with rightful demands for complete obedience.
Thus God, or something like God, is the only adequate source and ground for the absolute moral obligation we all feel to obey our conscience. Conscience is thus explainable only as the voice of God in the soul. The Ten Commandments are ten divine footprints in our psychic sand.
Addendum on Religion and Morality
In drawing this connection between morality and religion, we do not want to create any confusion or misunderstanding. We have not said that people can never discover human moral goods unless they acknowledge that God exists. Obviously they can. Believers and nonbelievers can know that knowledge and friendship, for example, are things that we really ought to strive for, and that cruelty and deceit are objectively wrong. Our question has been: which account of the way things really are best makes sense of the moral rules we all acknowledge—that of the believer or that of the non-believer?
If we are the products of a good and loving Creator, this explains why we have a nature that discovers a value that is really there. But how can atheists explain this? For if atheists are right, then no objective moral values can exist. Dostoyevsky said, "If God does not exist, everything is permissible." Atheists may know that some things are not permissible, but they do not know why.
Consider the following analogy. Many scientists examine secondary causes all their lives without acknowledging the First Cause, God. But, as we have seen, those secondary causes could not be without the First Cause, even though they can be known without knowing the First Cause. The same is true of objective moral goods. Thus the moral argument and the various metaphysical arguments share a certain similarity in structure.
Most of us, whatever our religious faith, or lack of it, can recognize that in the life of someone like Francis of Assisi human nature is operating the right way, the way it ought to operate. You need not be a theist to see that St. Francis's life was admirable, but you do need to be a theist to see why. Theism explains that our response to this believer's life is, ultimately, our response to the call of our Creator to live the kind of life he made us to live.
There are four possible relations between religion and morality, God and goodness.
Religion and morality may be thought to be independent. Kierkegaard's sharp contrast between "the ethical" and "the religious," especially in Fear and Trembling, may lead to such a supposition. But (a) an amoral God, indifferent to morality, would not be a wholly good God, for one of the primary meanings of "good" involves the "moral"—just, loving, wise, righteous, holy, kind. And (b) such a morality, not having any connection with God, the Absolute Being, would not have absolute reality behind it.
God may be thought of as the inventor of morality, as he is the inventor of birds. The moral law is often thought of as simply a product of God's choice. This is the Divine Command Theory: a thing is good only because God commands it and evil because he forbids it. If that is all, however, we have a serious problem: God and his morality are arbitrary and based on mere power. If God commanded us to kill innocent people, that would become good, since good here means "whatever God commands." The Divine Command Theory reduces morality to power. Socrates refuted the Divine Command Theory pretty conclusively in Plato's Euthyphro. He asked Euthyphro, "Is a thing pious because the gods will it, or do the gods will it because it is pious?" He refuted the first alternative, and thought he was left with the second as the only alternative.
But the idea that God commands a thing because it is good is also unacceptable, because it makes God conform to a law higher than himself, a law that overarches God and humanity alike. The God of the Bible is no more separated from moral goodness by being under it than he is by being over it. He no more obeys a higher law that binds him, than he creates the law as an artifact that could change and could well have been different, like a planet.
The only rationally acceptable answer to the question of the relation between God and morality is the biblical one: morality is based on God's eternal nature. That is why morality is essentially unchangeable. "I am the Lord your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy" (Lev. 11:44). Our obligation to be just, kind, honest, loving and righteous "goes all the way up" to ultimate reality, to the eternal nature of God, to what God is. That is why morality has absolute and unchangeable binding force on our conscience.
The only other possible sources of moral obligation are:
a. My ideals, purposes, aspirations, and desires, something created by my mind or will, like the rules of baseball. This utterly fails to account for why it is always wrong to disobey or change the rules.
b. My moral will itself. Some read Kant this way: I impose morality on myself. But how can the one bound and the one who binds be the same? If the locksmith locks himself in a room, he is not really locked in, for he can also unlock himself.
c. Another human being may be thought to be the one who imposes morality on me—my parents, for example. But this fails to account for its binding character. If your father commands you to deal drugs, your moral obligation is to disobey him. No human being can have absolute authority over another.
d. "Society" is a popular answer to the question of the origin of morality "this or that specific person" is a very unpopular answer. Yet the two are the same. "Society" only means more individuals. What right do they have to legislate morality to me? Quantity cannot yield quality; adding numbers cannot change the rules of a relative game to the rightful absolute demands of conscience.
e. The universe, evolution, natural selection and survival all fare even worse as explanations for morality. You cannot get more out of less. The principle of causality is violated here. How could the primordial slime pools gurgle up the Sermon on the Mount?
Atheists often claim that Christians make a category mistake in using God to explain nature; they say it is like the Greeks using Zeus to explain lightning. In fact, lightning should be explained on its own level, as a material, natural, scientific phenomenon. The same with morality. Why bring in God?
Because morality is more like Zeus than like lightning. Morality exists only on the level of persons, spirits, souls, minds, wills—not mere molecules. You can make correlations between moral obligations and persons (e.g., persons should love other persons), but you cannot make any correlations between morality and molecules. No one has even tried to explain the difference between good and evil in terms, for example, of the difference between heavy and light atoms.
So it is really the atheist who makes the same category mistake as the ancient pagan who explained lightning by the will of Zeus. The atheist uses a merely material thing to explain a spiritual thing. That is a far sillier version of the category mistake than the one the ancients made; for it is possible that the greater (Zeus, spirit) caused the lesser (lightning) and explains it; but it is not possible that the lesser (molecules) adequately caused and explains the greater (morality). A good will might create molecules, but how could molecules create a good will? How can electricity obligate me? Only a good will can demand a good will; only Love can demand love.If the master debater Talon would jiggle this one until it is refuted in a burst of logic?
This one is even easier. He hides legitimate answers in plain sight and/or ridicules them but provides no appropriate and logical reasoning for said ridicule.
Quote:
How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me—for example, by animal instinct or practical need for material survival?
This is all he has to say -- literally all he has to say! -- in response to the serious question, "Does our sense of right and wrong come from our animal instincts?" I would argue that it most definitely does in large part come from there, as would (I think) most biologists. "Right and wrong" are something that we perceive based on how our brains are wired. See the following links for one particular study of the dozens of similar studies done over the past few decades:
Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329152516.htm)
Discovery News (http://news.discovery.com/tech/magnet-brain-morality.html)
Live Science (http://www.livescience.com/8183-morality-altered-brain-stimulation.html)
ABC News.com (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/brains-moral-compass-shifted-magnets-study-finds/story?id=10243784)
So yes: ask any biologist "what decides whether we think something is right or wrong?" and they'll most certainly tell you that it at least in part (if not in full) comes from how our brains are wired. In the same sense that you might argue, "But we perceive morality! D: We know right from wrong!", so too do we perceive color, do we know red from blue: and yet "color" is nothing more than how our brains happen to represent particular wavelengths of light that enter into a particular organ in our bodies. Why don't we see gravity? Why don't we see air? Why don't we see X-rays or gamma rays? It's all because of how we evolved and not because color (as a concept) in and of itself is "real." The property that light has a wavelength is very real, yes. The property that certain sounds make certain tones is also real. But as to why we see beauty in certain visuals, or as to why we hear music in some arrangements of sound but hear only dissonance in others, is not intrinsic to the media themselves but rather is a human spin that we're putting on those signals. And as for why we put such a spin on those signals, because:
seeing colors is very advantageous to being able to tell apart various foods, habitat elements, enemies, etc. In short, it's evolutionarily advantageous for us to see in color.
hearing music in sound, and being able to tell music from noise, was advantageous for us because our own mating calls can be told apart from random noise. Music is likely a vestigial (or rather, an odd off-shoot accidental) evolution of this property. But our ancestor organisms most definitely would have benefited from being able to tell apart random noise from noise created by other organisms from noise created by their own species.
and so too is it with morality.
The argument can be made -- is being made, in this very post and in research labs around the world -- that morality is (1) entirely perceptional and (2) entirely manipulable within the brain. Given this, it is likely that our sense of right and wrong is little different, evolutionarily, than our sense of C-sharp from G-flat.

Does this invalidate morality? Does this mean that we ought to quit living as moral creatures? No and no. It no more invalidates morality than does the recognition that color is a human construct invalidate the claim that the sky is blue or that the grass is green. These are facts. So, too, might we argue for certain "moral facts" of life. We might argue that, just as the sky is factually blue -- even if there's no more reason to see the sky as blue for the wavelength of light entering our eyes from it than there is to see it as yellow for the intensity of that light or as orange for the temperature of the air touching our eyes from that same sky -- that so too is it "factually wrong" to force your will upon another man, i.e. that rape is "fundamentally wrong." We acknowledge the reality that this belief holds no sway in the grand cosmic scheme of things -- it is no more right to rape a man than it is to not rape a man -- but within our world, within our little corner of the cosmos, where we operate based on the way our brains have us operate, it is very much so a belief that holds sway, a belief which is "right."

And before you say, "Whenceforth then this neural wiring? or the evolution which drives it? Eh? Eh? :D", Rangeet and I will kindly redirect you to the rejection of the God of the Gaps-line of reasoning that you would be beginning to embark upon should you so argue.

tl;dr "That we have a conscience no more proves God's existence than that we are inclined to find breasts erotic and yet not teeth." Morality is a side-effect of evolution which ensured better survival of those of our ancestors who were moral vs. those of our ancestors who were amoral.

Shuckle

12-22-2011, 09:16 PM

The argument can be made -- is being made, in this very post and in research labs around the world -- that morality is (1) entirely perceptional and (2) entirely manipulable within the brain. Given this, it is likely that our sense of right and wrong is little different, evolutionarily, than our sense of C-sharp from G-flat.

Does this invalidate morality? Does this mean that we ought to quit living as moral creatures? No and no. It no more invalidates morality than does the recognition that color is a human construct invalidate the claim that the sky is blue or that the grass is green. These are facts. So, too, might we argue for certain "moral facts" of life. We might argue that, just as the sky is factually blue -- even if there's no more reason to see the sky as blue for the wavelength of light entering our eyes from it than there is to see it as yellow for the intensity of that light or as orange for the temperature of the air touching our eyes from that same sky -- that so too is it "factually wrong" to force your will upon another man, i.e. that rape is "fundamentally wrong." We acknowledge the reality that this belief holds no sway in the grand cosmic scheme of things -- it is no more right to rape a man than it is to not rape a man -- but within our world, within our little corner of the cosmos, where we operate based on the way our brains have us operate, it is very much so a belief that holds sway, a belief which is "right."Forgive me, Talon, for doubting your research, but it seems almost as though you are merely covering yourself, protecting your interests, especially with that last "Oh, and don't be all God of the Gaps on me, because that's the only possible defense against this attack and you'd have to be blind (lol) not to see that it is the only one. It does no good to be looking for any other". Come now, I use that strategy in chess all the time - oh, I'm having difficulty getting to your king, now excuse me while I take your queen"! You can't expect me to fall for that. So, I did a little heavy reading, and reading your post several times over, I am struck by a sense of a "lame and impotent conclusion".

You see, seeing in color and defining right and wrong are not exactly a related subject, and despite your verbal posturing they do not even appear to be. You claim that color has a specific use - for survival, no less - and I concede that evolution was at least partially responsible for the development of color vision, if not completely responsible. Yes, it could be used for keeping yourself alive, such as defining which plants were which and which were poisonous and if mold was growing on that orange...but where does morality factor in?

In no uncertain terms, the basis of my counterargument is:

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU USED YOUR MORALITY TO KEEP YOURSELF HEALTHY? WHAT ABOUT YOUR COLOR VISION?

Morality, I will argue, cannot be an evolutionary trait. It is not beneficial to the survival of the species and emotions that come as a result of it, like guilt, are actually detrimental to mental health and can result in malaise and mental/physical deterioration. Color vision is a trait that is common to some or most mammals, lizards, and fish, and all birds. It has a definite evolutionary impact. A conscience is common to one animal, with extremely limited forms in a few other primates and maybe a parrot or two (though that's probably mimicry+intelligence). What could possibly have caused morality to develop in such a strong form in human beings, if not (excuse me the term) divine intervention or evolution?

Note that I am not citing the God of the Gaps, as you will no doubt construe of my counter/question/probe, but instead questioning the validity of the fact that evolution was responsible in any way for the sense of morality, or even the point of developing morality in the first place.

Read over your argument again and tell me the point you were making about morality and its supposedly evolutionary origin, if you will.

Talon87

12-22-2011, 09:58 PM

Morality, I will argue, cannot be an evolutionary trait. It is not beneficial to the survival of the species and emotions that come as a result of it, like guilt, are actually detrimental to mental health and can result in malaise and mental/physical deterioration.
See, this is where you'd be wrong. Very wrong, in fact, so if you refuse to budge on this point, then I can only bid you (1) agree to disagree or else (2) go and take some courses in population biology. Because evolution needn't concern itself with the benefit of the individual (as you seem to presuppose it does by way of making this sort of argument) but rather the species as a whole. Things which benefit the species as a whole will, in the long run, be selected for or favored in natural selection; while things which do not benefit the species as a whole will, in the long run, be selected against. This can best be understood through the following simple examples:

Tribe 1 of hominids:
Some asshole decides to be greedy and eat all of the meat that the other hunters had gathered. What's done is done and, regardless of whether the others choose to punish him or not, they're all going to starve except for him. Now, suppose this one survives. Even if he manages to pair off with a woman -- say he stole enough meat for her to live on, too -- they've created a population bottleneck and, after only a few generations, their "neo-tribe" that they attempted to create through procreation will die off because of some pretty bad abnormalities, genetic in origin.

Tribe 2 of hominids:
Not a single person in this tribe is an asshole. They have a "moral sense" that tells them that it is "not right" to eat the meat that someone else has worked hard to gather for the benefit of the tribe. They have a "moral sense" that tells them they ought only to eat their fair share. So they do. And, in the end, the entire tribe survives. Which means that they create progeny of their own who inherit the same genes which predispose them towards these same behaviors, and so on and so forth; and with the tribe being sufficiently large and populous as is, there are no concerns about any population bottlenecks whatsoever.

Now, would I even suggest that this simple story which illustrates how evolution selects against tribe-dooming gluttony and selects in favor of tribe-enriching fairness began with hominids? No, I wouldn't. I think it began much, much further back in the evolutionary timeline. But I pick the hominids as an example that is illustrative and easy for you to understand. Here you see a very simple, easy example of how:
Morality can and does affect survival.
Morality can be and is selected for evolutionarily.
Immorally-acting selfish individuals can still exist in a society; however, the society as a whole must needs behave with some sense of fairness or else things will fall apart very quickly. This can spell extinction for every member of the society if the organisms work together as a team (as do humans and other hominids) and not merely as individuals.

Just as being able to tell the red flower (edible) from the yellow flower (poisonous) can help people to survive, so too can a moral conscienceness be the by-product of millions of years of evolution. If you don't want to accept that, that isn't really my problem. Like I said, stay ignorant or take some coursework in population biology, your choice.

Shuckle

12-23-2011, 03:42 PM

Things which benefit the species as a whole will, in the long run, be selected for or favored in natural selection; while things which do not benefit the species as a whole will, in the long run, be selected against.Hey, everybody! Look! Evolution has a brain again!

From the Berkeley site of Misconceptions about Evolution. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b4)

MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection acts for the good of the species.

CORRECTION: When we hear about altruism in nature (e.g., dolphins spending energy to support a sick individual, or a meerkat calling to warn others of an approaching predator, even though this puts the alarm sounder at extra risk), it's tempting to think that those behaviors arose through natural selection that favors the survival of the species — that natural selection promotes behaviors that are good for the species as a whole, even if they are risky or detrimental for individuals in the population. However, this impression is incorrect. Natural selection has no foresight or intentions. It simply selects among individuals in a population, favoring traits that enable individuals to survive and reproduce, yielding more copies of those individuals' genes in the next generation. Theoretically, in fact, a trait that is advantageous to the individual (e.g., being an efficient predator) could become more and more frequent and wind up driving the whole population to extinction (e.g., if the efficient predation actually wiped out the entire prey population, leaving the predators without a food source).

So what's the evolutionary explanation for altruism if it's not for the good of the species? There are many ways that such behaviors can evolve. For example, if altruistic acts are "repaid" at other times, this sort of behavior may be favored by natural selection. Similarly, if altruistic behavior increases the survival and reproduction of an individual's kin (who are also likely to carry altruistic genes), this behavior can spread through a population via natural selection.

Advanced students of evolutionary biology may be interested to know that selection can act at different levels and that, in some circumstances, species-level selection may occur. However, it's important to remember that, even in this case, selection has no foresight and is not "aiming" at any outcome; it is simply favoring the reproducing units that are best at leaving copies of themselves in the next generation.The above italicized line is false and I refute it as scientific wordplay. There is no such thing as an altruistic gene, nor is there such thing as a greedy gene, an addiction gene, a height gene, a favorite-color gene, or a dance gene. Yes, those things could help an organism find mates, but they certainly are acquired traits, not genetic.

You seem to insist that morality acts for the good of the species, which is entirely wrong. Evolution CANNOT act for the good of the species, only for the good of the individual, and natural selection CANNOT explain in a satisfactory manner why behaviors are carried down through generations. If evolution had a brain, then it would all work - but wait, that's GOD, and we don't believe in GOD! :roll:

(Interestingly enough, my wording was poor in my earlier argument and for that I apologize. My position on evolution is that it often acts as though it has a brain, and thus it must have a brain, and God is behind everything.)

What started as a clarification request has become a full-on debate. En garde, Talon!

Talon87

12-23-2011, 04:16 PM

Hey, everybody! Look! Evolution has a brain again!

From the Berkeley site of Misconceptions about Evolution. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b4)
This is a straw man argument and a pedantic one at that. I didn't say that evolution has a brain. I said that evolution, as a driving force, "favors" certain outcomes. If you want to be a pedantic twit and say that in so using the verb "favors" I am arguing that evolution has a will, has a desire, that it "thinks" for itself and that it "consciously" chooses the best outcome, then you're just a little troll. The very term "natural selection" would fall under attack from you as the very verb "to select" is something which implies choice (which in turn implies will) and you would be all "OH LORDY! HE'S SAYING EVOLUTION HAS A BRAIN AGAIN!" Wrong.

Evolution is a force like gravity. Insofar as it "favors" certain outcomes, I am using this word no differently than I might say that thermodynamics "favors" the state of lowest resting energy. I would be no more guilty of lending thermodynamics a brain than I would be evolution. If you want to be pedantic on the one front, then you must necessarily carry over to the other. And incur the ridicule of every rational-minded person reading this thread.

Or, you could take back your childish straw man and confront facts with facts instead of trying to deconstruct a claim that was never made.

To put it very simply, the mechanisms behind evolution are random; natural selection is, however, non-random. Thus we can say that evolution (via natural selection) favors particular outcomes over others in the long run. The processes of evolution themselves do not care (e.g. UV radiation no more cares whether it targets a gene in my skin cell that controls cell replication than it cares whether it targets genes in charge of sugar management or liposome development) but the parent process of evolution, of which natural selection is very much so a part of it, "cares" insofar as mutations to unimportant genes have no net effect, mutations to important genes which cause detriment have deleterious effects, and mutations to important genes which cause gain have promoting effects.

The above italicized line is false and I refute it as scientific wordplay. There is no such thing as an altruistic gene, nor is there such thing as a greedy gene, an addiction gene, a height gene, a favorite-color gene, or a dance gene. Yes, those things could help an organism find mates, but they certainly are acquired traits, not genetic.

You seem to insist that morality acts for the good of the species, which is entirely wrong. Evolution CANNOT act for the good of the species, only for the good of the individual, and natural selection CANNOT explain in a satisfactory manner why behaviors are carried down through generations. If evolution had a brain, then it would all work - but wait, that's GOD, and we don't believe in GOD! :roll:
You couldn't be more wrong. :lol: If you're going to sit there and categorically reject what I am telling you, then we are not having a civil debate, you're being a closed-minded pissant, and I am done replying to you from here on out. See: this chart. (http://www.midmichiganobjectivists.org/Debate-Flow-Chart1.png) If you are behaving as described previously, then you are answering the very first question on the chart with a declarative "NO" and we are done talking.

Now, if you're going to be a good little boy and answer triple "YES" to the first three questions posed in that flowchart, then I can point you to some reading which might help you to understand how evolution really works. You seem to have a misunderstanding that evolution is all about survival of the individual. It is not.

First of all, since you insist on being a pedant, let's make sure we have our terms absolutely clear. Henceforth and in all posts previously, I shall use and have used "evolution" to mean not only those processes by which evolution takes place but also to mean natural selection. If this is a problem for you, I can make adjustments to future posts and use the term "natural selection" instead. For instance, I see that a quick Google search leads you to some pedantic hits where people claim that "evolution doesn't care about the survival of the species or the individual." This is true if by "evolution" we strictly mean the random mutations which occur in genes. It is absolutely true that random mutations are, by their nature, random and therefore can be as deleterious as they can be beneficial. It is also a fact that, as an evolved species, we are still not perfect and have many characteristics or attributes which limit our viability. However, insofar as we incorporate the term "natural selection" into the parent, blanket term of "evolution," it would be false to claim that evolution does not (in the long run) produce changes in species which afford them greater survivability in their respective niches.

Let's start you off with the simplest and most accessible resource of all: Wikipedia. You can read about natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection) here:
Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.
Note what that says. "Non-random." "Population." Evolution (via natural selection) is a non-random process which ultimately concerns itself not with the benefits or travails of the individual but instead with the species population as a whole.

Once you've read that, a somewhat more advanced topic but again a very light introductory read (Wikipedia) would be that of the selfish gene theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution). I'll kindly ask you to check your pedantic baggage at the door before you read this one. "Selfishness" herein does not imply that genes have a consciousness and that they are consciously selfish; instead, it is merely a word used to illustrate the phenomenon in a way that makes it readily understandable to us as human beings. In any event, here again you will find two important tidbits:
that evolution (via natural selection) does not concern itself with the individual
that altruism can be explained as a natural end-point for many communities of creatures in ways that the outmoded selfish-organism theory does not
You may not like this. You may wish to think that altruism's very existence in animals is a proof of our God-given morality. But the fact of the matter is that altruism can be explained, and has been being explained, as a result of natural selection for at least the past thirty-five years.

Again: if you want to just reject these facts out of hand as rubbish, then we're done talking. You're being a stubborn child and you're refusing to keep an open mind about things. But if you want to address these claims with some counter evidence of your own, then by all means, please do so.

Amras.MG

12-23-2011, 05:08 PM

Talon87

12-23-2011, 06:09 PM

Why don't you move this debate (which is correctly degenerating into unownmew-style ad hominem) into a different thread, Talon?

I don't really see a discussion of Christianity in your arguments. It's getting just plain annoying. Especially since your tone (and Shuckle's, and mine for that matter) have just gotten either passive-aggressive or downright condescending.
Why is the burden on me all of a sudden? I'm not the one who steered this into an evolutionary debate. Why isn't the onus on Shuckle? Way to pick sides. :roll: :lol:

Not only that, but ad hominem? Really? :? I think you might want to study up on what that term means again, Amras. An ad hominem attack is when, confronted by an opponent's superior wit or reasoning, you resort to discrediting them by way of personal attack. For example, if I was debating Christianity with unownmew, he successfully proved God's existence to me, but then I said, "Well ................... you're a Tea Party douchebag! SO THERE! XP", that would be an ad hominem. Pointing out someone else's logical fallacies is by no means an ad hominem attack -- and the fact that you would try and paint it as such should be alarming to every single third party reading this thread right now. "Look at Amras. He's trying to discredit Talon by accusing him of ad hominem attacking Shuckle by calling him a pedant!" That isn't an ad hominem, dude: not when the other person actually is demonstrably guilty of pedantry, something of a FAUX PAS in most debates, no? :roll: Pedantry, like the ad hominem itself, is a distraction that attempts to divert people's eyes from the truth. The pedant focuses in on the fact that the opposition may have not used a word correctly and tries to use this to completely discredit their entire argument -- even when the argument is so sound that they have nothing better to offer up but more pedantry. If pointing out that Shuckle was being pedantic is itself an ad hominem attack, then I don't want any part in this forum whatsoever. :lol: Because you guys aren't even wanting to abide by the natural rules of civil discourse and debate. You accuse others of ad hominems when all they've done is to point out somebody else's logical fallacies! :lol: Ridiculous in the extreme.

In any event, this started off theological with Shuckle raising some questions. I gave him my answers. And things swang evolutionarily from there. If you would like to return to the matter at hand, the question poised to me was "Do we have innate morality? If not, where does it come from? If so, where did it originate from?" I answered that I believe we do have innate morality (in addition to what we are taught by society, but that what society has to teach us itself originated from within) and that it came about as the result of natural selection. I would consider that proof of God's existence thus deflated; you may not. If you do not, then we're at an impasse and have to agree to disagree. I think I've provided numerous examples why the argument of God's existence from mankind's sense of morality doesn't necessarily follow. (It could follow, but not necessarily. It is not the definitive proof Shuckle or the site you cited made it out to be.) If you're going to continue to reject each and every last one of these examples out of hand, then I'd refer you to the same schematic I referred Shuckle. Otherwise? Let's hear what your responses are.

Amras.MG

12-23-2011, 06:50 PM

I'm simply pointing out the tone.

Plus, I addressed it to you because you're the vet here. I identified myself, you, AND SHUCKLE as having a tone problem.

No need to launch into a tirade against me for suggesting that you shift the discussion to a different thread.

Shuckle

12-23-2011, 07:11 PM

Why don't you move this debate (which is correctly degenerating into unownmew-style ad hominem) into a different thread, Talon?

I don't really see a discussion of Christianity in your arguments. It's getting just plain annoying. Especially since your tone (and Shuckle's, and mine for that matter) have just gotten either passive-aggressive or downright condescending.Trying to keep civil, failing.

You couldn't be more wrong. If you're going to sit there and categorically reject what I am telling you, then we are not having a civil debate, you're being a closed-minded pissant, and I am done replying to you from here on out. See: this chart. If you are behaving as described previously, then you are answering the very first question on the chart with a declarative "NO" and we are done talking.Talon seems to believe that open-mindedness only applies to other people because he is "right and there is no other way of being right". I thin he's getting very defensive and, while that brings a sort of savage delight, it's upsetting to be spoken to in this way.

So far, these are the points you've made.

1. Morality exists in the brain. (cited because affected by magnets)
2. Morality is entirely perceptive. (verbatim, or close enough to be)

I would say those two points refute each other, wouldn't you? I'm sure there's a way that they can get along, but then there is in fact a way for God and evolution to get along, too, so I'm not sure I want to hear that explanation.

3. Morality was created by evolution as a survival skill (?)
4. Morality is therefore like color vision
5. Morality is thus a side effect of evolution

Here's where it starts to become an incomplete argument. You stop on color and then draw a conclusion about morality out of thin air. You are waiting for me to refute your arguments, and then you can attack my refutations; thus you are, by your own chart, cheating. I'm not as harsh as that, but I am going to have to pretend the debate is over in order to continue the review.

I asked you to clarify and made a few refutations of my own, and clearly you have failed to make an adequate connection between color and morality, meaning that your post about color is made of pure fluff. You are trying to disguise your points in wordplay, and that's unforgivable.

6. Evolution and natural selection are acting for the survival of the species
7. Just like color, morality helps the individual survive

What?

Then you tell me that I am wrong on all counts and that all of your previous arguments stand. They refute themselves! You're setting your bricks on a spiderweb, buddy!

I'll close this debate with another Precalculus analogy, this time from verifying identities. One question we had for homework, nobody could figure out. Everybody ended up with a completely different answer, and none of them were right. Yet, the concepts they used to figure out their "answer" were also correct. Identities, division, factoring...and yet the answers were different. Sine theta plus something or other equals this or that times cosine theta has nothing to do with tan theta secant theta, nor does it have anything to do with cotan theta plus cosine squared theta...

The correct answer ended up making sense under rules provided later on by the teacher - a good analogy for either a God or a fighter for atheists at an intellectual level the magnitude of Thomas Aquinas. We can't know for certain, and if I can't convince you and you can't provide a compelling enough argument for my standards then we are at an impasse and it does no good to throw ourselves at walls.

That is all.

P.S. - written after Amras' first post above, posted after walked dog.

unownmew

12-23-2011, 08:40 PM

I'm not going to waste time looking at links atm, though there does seem to be some good discussion going on. [Edit: it seems new posts were made while I was writing. ^^; If you want to discuss Evolution, I'd be happy to prove it wrong, but please take it to a different thread]

I'm going to bounce off a few things here:

Okay, so this is 2:30 am version and you probably won't like it.

Basically, atheists believe there is no God, right? So if there's no God, then what is there? You have your wide range of theories, involving aliens and random chance and a whole lot of luck, and then out comes the awful truth - atheists really just believe in a whole bunch of nothing.
This is true. There are as many different sects of Atheism as there are for other organized Religions. Aliens, Random Chance, Evolution, Agnostic, Spiritualists, anti-God, Scientologists, ect.

All Stemming from one core belief: There is no God.
But as you can see from the numerous beliefs of the different sects, without a God, everything devolves into Chaos. What is Right? What is Wrong? Without a God, that can only be defined by the individual. Society tries to impose it's "highly evolved morality" on individuals, but, even then, personal decisions cannot be invalidated under Atheist beliefs, without breaking the very morality it tries to impose.

I'm sure we can all agree that a Serial Killer, a Rapist and a Pedophile are all "Evil," but, without a God, WHY do we think that? Are they bad? Is it detrimental to the species as a whole? Would not killing off all the weak be ideal? And Planting your seed as much as possible to ensure your "better" genes survive?

"Might Makes Right", "Survival of the Fittest", and, "To Each Their Own," are the only Mantra an Atheist can cling to without espousing to Religious Morals, and by each of these 3 mantra, the most Evil of acts can be justified.
It is only by Relinquishing these 3 morals, that Evil can be defined.
(Unless you circle through Might Makes Right, to say that, more people believe X so together they are mightier then Y, and can impose their morality on believers of Y because of it)

Ultimately, Atheists believe a bunch of conflicting statements they pick and choose from to fit the right moments. Though they may not be aware of it.

Science is a silly way to govern your life. Science says that they will find out everything and be done, but they can never really find out anything. They can just test and observe, and let other people do the work. This is fine when things are obvious, but when you get into complicated shit it just doesn't hold up. Atheists have no moral compass other than the one they impose on themselves, and saying that science provides a moral compass is complete bullshit. Basically, atheists are trying to follow a good Christian morality while saying "There is no God, only science", and science is saying "We can't tell you everything, and oh by the way we are retesting ourselves to prove us wrong", and you just get this overwhelming malaise from the utter inanity of it all. Nothing matters. Science is unreliable, and despite claiming it is reliable it is constantly trying to prove to itself that it is unreliable. You can't trust anything as an atheist, and so you just kind of do things and don't care.
Science, itself is not bad. It's core reason for Existence is to find the "Hows," however, should it delve into the "Whys," it would then become a organized Religion itself. This is how Science and Religion can coexist without conflicting each other.

God uses Science, he works within their Laws, actually, He IS the Laws. It's simply that, our Current Level of Scientific Knowledge is still much lacking to show how this works.

Your argument about Science makes no sense. Science does things in a rational, logical manner. It gives us the most probable explanation- to everything- and this is only when it cannot find FACTS. It will always change as new facts are discovered, changing what is most probably, what is true, which laws hold and which don't.
"Science gives us the most probable explanation." This is the worse thing Science can ever do. As I said Above, Science is to find the "Hows," that is "How does this work?" It should never get into the "Whys," "This works because of this and this and this," because then it is stepping into Religious territory.
("Clouds form because water condenses" = Wrong. "This is how water causes Cloud Formation" = Right. When you get start making absolute Claims for "Why things works" especially when it's not absolutely 100% proven, no exceptions, it's easy to defend and spread misinformation, that is idolized and turned into a religion.

Atheists have a moral compass that says "Enjoy life. Let everyone enjoy it, because there are no facts that says afterlife exists." The only way to really enjoy life is to let everyone enjoy it. Atheists will love to party and stay up late...why not? The aim is to enjoy life. In the stages of growth, there are different ways. In the age of adulthood-mid twenties, that is the best way to enjoy life. Then they can get a job and maybe start a family...so that everyone else can, again, enjoy the only thing that we know exists.
There is nothing wrong with finding Joy in life, however, with morals like that, anything and everything evil can be justly defended.

"I want to enjoy life. But what if my method of "enjoyment" involves Rape, Murder and Pedophilia? Oh, and I'd love to get a few kicks out of Bombing places and watching the people burn, or fly about in multiple pieces. May as well get as much of is as possible before getting caught by the religious moral police and sentenced to death. Of course, I'm going to die anyway, and since when life is over, I cease to exist, that's not really much of a problem for me now is it? I've spread my seed already so my genes will survive. The only reason I'd want to live longer is to indulge myself longer."

I'm sure you can clearly see how convoluted and terrible that way of thinking is.
(Note, I neither condone, nor aspire to anything on that list. the list was made simply to illustrate the worse aspects of such a moral system.)

If anything, believing in a random God you have no proof exists that says random things and following those things just because God said it. Your entire argument is based on the thought that morality needs religion...which it does not. Do a simple google search for "morality does not require religion". There are many sources to convince you as you see fit.
Morality does not need religion, but all social morality began with religion, and a compete lack of organized religion will eventually devolve into amorality as more and more people decide to put their morals into their own hands, and their own desires.

I'm never saying that God CANNOT exist. I'm simply saying two things: a) you cannot prove something doesn't exist and b) there is, so far, no proof that God exists.

So if we find actual proof of God's existence, I will definitely believe it. I'm not saying it's impossible God exists, I'm saying that with the current facts, he doesn't.
That's a really meaty question, and I'd like to pose one back, to you, as well as Talon.

It isn't that we believe in nothing: it's that we reject belief in invented bogeymen. We demand evidence. And, as Rangeet has already pointed out, the utter lack of persuasive, definitive evidence that God is real and that he exists is all the reason in the world not to believe in him. It doesn't mean that we're deadset against believing in him, oh no: like Rangeet says, if the evidence presented itself, we would most of us surely convert. Atheism is not a rejection of God: it is a rejection of belief in theories that have no persuasive empirical evidence to back them up. We no more believe in God than we believe in a flying spaghetti monster -- hence the FSM's creation in the first place, as a way to point out the utter ridiculousness of most organized religions today.
Some Atheist may believe if they are given proof, but others most certainly would not. You can only speak for yourself, not anyone else of the Atheist Religion.

Since you require proof of God before believing... actually, that's impossible, once you have proof, there's no more chance to "believe", it would be an absolute knowledge.
Anyway, What constitutes "Proof" to your eyes?
A secondhand account of Miracles? No, you'd need to see it with your OWN eyes.

A Prophecy being fulfilled? No, you'd write that off as simply a coincidence should you ever see proof of that.

Seeing someone recovering miraculously from a sickness? You'd say it had something to do with the medicine, treatment, random chance, or the person's own body, that's not a miracle at all.

Seeing someone being raised from the dead? You'd call it a trick, or a sorcery. There's actually a toxin that can cause deathlike effects, that must be what happened.

Frogs, Pestilence, Famine, locust, flies, disease. These are all just natural occurrences, there's nothing Divine about them plaguing us, though, the rapid succession between them is curious and unfortunate. I'm sure science has the answer!

Fire from heaven? A meteor shower, comet, or asteroid, I must have missed the predictions on TV earlier. Or they must not have noticed it till too late. Or it's some strange freak event that just can't yet be explained, like Psychics!, but Science will do it eventually! Even if I'm dead by then!

Food From Heaven? uh, what? Some airplane must have dropped it for some reason while I was sleeping.

So, it's clear none of those would prove anything to you, even if you saw them with your very own eyes. Not to mention they're not completely out of Satan's range of power either, so if you did see those with your own eyes, you may have gotten sucked into the Anti-Christ and start worshiping The Beast. So, what REALY constitutes Proof?

God popping out of the clouds to say "Hey, remember me?"? A voice when no one is around saying "I Do exist, you idiot!"?
A Heavenly Vision? An Angel floating in front of you in power and great glory with a voice of Thunder? Seeing the afterlife with your own (now spiritual) eyes?
Yet how likely is it that any of those things would occur to you? Especially since you're not actively LOOKING for them? Very little, and you know it. God doesn't need your vote for him to exist. And you're content with not giving it.

You're not looking, you're not seeing, and you probably don't want to change anything about yourself to align with God's commandments either, should you find he Does exists.

Conclusion: You don't WANT there to be a God, or you don't CARE whether there is a God or not. If you did, you'd be actively searching for proof of his existence, instead of sitting back and waiting for God to come to you.

The only proof that would seem to truly sway you, that will actually occur for you, would be,
Jesus Descending from the Clouds in All His Glory, The Millennium you spend locked in the Spirit World before being resurrected, and Meeting God at the Final Judgement just before you say, "Oh... oops. ^^; "
Am I wrong?

Oh, okay! :roll:

Oh, okay! :lol: Guess we can't find anything out about this world. Like ...
all of modern medicine (example: how to treat diphtheria)
all of modern astrophysics (example: how the planets came into being)
all of modern meteorology (example: which states is this hurricane going to smash into so that we can prepare in advance)
all of modern civil engineering (example: how to build better bridges)
all of modern mechanical engineering (example: how to build robots)
all of modern chemical engineering (example: how to meet the enormous demand for plastics in our modern world)
all of modern chemistry (example: how do we create an antidepressant?)
On and on this ridiculous list goes. Are you really so religiously brainwashed as to believe that science can contribute nothing to our understanding of how the world works? The amount of knowledge all of theology has given us over all time is like a thimble of water in an ocean of knowledge that is the knowledge contributed by science.
Science gives the How, Religion gives the Why. That's how it should work, the two can coexist quite happily together, either working together or standing alone, when this occurs.

It's only When science touts Theories (like Evolution) as fact or attempts to invalidate religion, without 100% proof, that the two get mixed up poorly.

This is no different than how your Christian values came into being. You believe that they were God-given when, in reality, the Ten Commandments were a code to live by that the Jews in the desert came up with so they didn't destroy themselves. They were the basic rules that applied to everyone and which carried the severest penalties. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not murder. These are pretty good rules which ensure the cohesiveness of any herd of human beings. It has nothing to do with "Okay, we only follow these rules because God told us to; otherwise, we'd happily murder anyone and everyone" and instead has everything to do with, "Okay, these rules make for a pretty good social contract."
No, if you've actually read the account in the Bible, you can see that either Moses alone, or God himself must have made those rules for the Israelites, which were much more comprehensive then just the 10 Commandments. The Israelites themselves would never have created such a strict and complicated code for themselves, particularly one so heavily focused in a Religion they didn't believe in, as clearly evidenced by their behavior.
Actually the Laws were quite advanced for their era, including even Personal hygiene.

I'm sorry, but, your claim that the Hebrew Religion was just a "simple social contract, a byproduct of evolutionary morals" is clearly untrue, and quite preposterous when you actually think hard about it.

Rejecting a code of ethics on the ground that it was made up by men and not God-ordained is pretty silly. You may as well reject all of Aristotle and Plato, then, and feel that they have nothing to contribute on questions of morality. Same thing goes for Confucius and Mencius. Same thing goes for the Buddha. Same thing goes for any set of ethical guidelines ever that was conceived by non-Christians.
Simply because it was not given in a vision, or face to face, can not mean something is not ordained of God. But he picks and chooses what he inspires men to think. The Declaration of Independence, can be described as an "inspired" Document. It's clear God would think highly of it. But the writers certainly didn't see any visions when they wrote it.
God often tells us in scripture, all good things come from Him. So, if it's good or inspires to do good, it's ordained of God. If it's imperfect, that's the result of Human-kind's imperfections.

Who's to say, Confucious and Budda were not inspired by previous, now lost, documents originating from other religions or religious sects which were originally Ordained of God.

Who's to say their role in life was not entirely intended to bring as close a representation of the Gospel as possible to as many people as possible so-as to make a way for a better, more righteous society, and prepare as many as possible for the Gospel for when they do get the chance to hear it?

Lonely Cubone

12-23-2011, 08:49 PM

You all need to get out more.

Concept

12-23-2011, 09:48 PM

Milotic111

12-23-2011, 10:15 PM

Concept

12-23-2011, 10:24 PM

And now I can't even delete when I inevitable wake up tomorrow morning and decide I can't be bothered with having this argument. Cheers Milo :p. Inb4 the inevitable, probably justified, hatred.

unownmew

12-24-2011, 12:20 AM

>Morality requires religion.

Not really. Humans are a social animal - we have a much higher chance of surviving and reproducing if we're good at working together. Species survival traits (co-operation within our own group, competition with other groups) is the basis for pretty much all morality.

As for me, I choose not to care if their's a God. If there is, then either he's incapable of helping the world or he chooses not to. The first way he's impotent, the second he's a jackass whose sense of morality is entirely at odds with all human morality. I hear from a lot of Christians and other religious people is the whole "look at how intricate the universe around you is, how can you not believe?" Well Christians, look at the universe around you - how can you possibly believe there's some almighty good out there? Face it, we are alone in a universe that doesn't care if we live or die or suffer. And if when I die it turns out the Christian God does exist, I for one will bitchslap his ass for being the most horrifically sociopathic mass-murdering scumbag in history. I mean how dare he. What gives him the right to send tsunamies and hurricanes and random horrible evil? Because he's allpowerful (might makes right)? Fuck that.

Seriously the idea that anyone agrees with the sense of morality displayed in Gods actions in the Bible (particularly the old testament) makes me feel physically sick. And no this isn't very tolerant, because I don't see why I should be any more tolerant of a group that condones such actions as genocide than I should of groups who condone child rape.

Which is a shame because most Christians I've met have come across as nice enough people who are simply in denial about the fact that the universe is inherently shit.
You seem to have a terribly twisted viewpoint, and I sorrow for the place you'll receive at the Judgement, should you keep that viewpoint.
You may even have been one of the most valiant of Spirits fighting in Heaven against Satan's plan of compulsory Salvation.

yes, Compulsory Salvation. Which is exactly what you described as hating God for not doing. If I may explain:

1. Humanity has Free agency. We are free to choose anything and everything we so desire, and even have the choice of having it or giving it up to someone else. This is the reason we're actually on earth right now, instead of in Heaven. We had a choice in Heaven, and each and every one of us who's lived, rejected Satan's plan, and because of this, we have a body, and will receive a perfected one at the resurrection. Everyone who followed Satan's plan, was punished, they will never receive a Body (Apparently it's a big deal in Heaven to have a physical body). Everyone else, even you, will be resurrected.

God honors this right of Agency so highly, that even He, the Greatest of All, will not intervene (completely) should one person use his agency against others. He may inspire and call others to defend and protect those that are being abused by others, fight injustice, and execute Earthly judgement, but he will rarely do something himself until, as he says, "they are fully ripe in their iniquity."

2. Humanity is to learn and grow. All Humans are here to learn, grow, develop, and be tested. God is God, and has many mansions prepared for us in Heaven. But obviously he can't just give us the best one regardless of what we do, that was Satan's plan: We go, learn nothing, are either compelled to do everything right, or whatever we do doesn't matter, and then return in Glory to the highest Kingdom. No, it is we ourselves, through our choices that will prove ourselves deserving of a certain Kingdom. Necessarily this creates an inequality, and some of us will get better things then others. But we all have the choice and the chance to get the highest glory, if we are so deserving. All of us will get a glory of some sort or another, greater then imagination, save those of us who deny God even after we know him. The punishment for sin then, is, knowing there's something even better we can no longer attain.
Can this not be the work of a Supremely Kind and Compassionate God?

Though the trials of Earth be harsh, hurricanes, torture, rape, disease, disfigurement, tornados, tsunamis, etc. He gave His First Son Jesus to experience it all, as well as the infinite punishment we would have gotten for being imperfect as humans. Do you expect he did not ache himself in sorrow when that occurred? But, it was necessary, all of this, what you and I and everyone else experiences, is necessary to receive Glory beyond imagination. And we even are given the promise, that all things are for our improvement, growth, and shall not be beyond our ability to overcome.

3. God's commands to the Israelites, may have been harsh, in fact, they were supremely harsh, "kill every man woman, child, and every beast," in essence, eradicate them, however, those commands served a purpose. Probably several purposes, If we remember back to the time of Abraham, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, to kill him. Abraham obeyed, and it was only until he was nigh on casting the knife into Isaac that God intervened, and provided a Ram for the sacrifice instead. It was a test, to show the extent of Abraham's faith. Abraham passed, and needed not to slay his own son. This "genocide," was likely a test for the Israelites (which they truly failed), in the same manner.
Not only this, but in following with the strictness of their law, and the Israelites' tendency to disobey, God knew the damage that would be done, to his Covenanted people should they have coexisted with the non-believers, and, because they did fail the test, such damage did occur, and so we see the relatively weak state of Israel right now because of it. They prophecy truly did come to pass, their curse enforced, they have abandoned their God, and have become the hiss and the byword of all other nations. God did not want to see this falling away, so he ordered them to kill the wicked inhabitants of the land. We know nothing of the extent of those people's sins when God ordered them exterminated, they could very well have deserved it, not unlike Sodom and Gomorrah. Surely we both can agree evil/crime needs justice, and the Death Penalty has long been a form of such justice in the past.

As well, if I'm not mistaken, the Land of Canaan originally belonged to Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, and it was only when Jacob and his family moved with Joseph to Egypt because of famine that it lay open for other nations to take what did not belong to them. So, technically, they were also reclaiming what belonged to them from a people who would not have given it up otherwise.
Who are we to tell God what is just and unjust?

You're free to disagree, of course, that is your God-given and honored right, but, hopefully, you can change your perspective at least slightly in light of this. Hate him though you may, God's plan includes you, and he'll always welcome home one of his Prodigal Sons.

Tyranidos

12-24-2011, 02:37 AM

Rangeetsuper

12-24-2011, 03:40 AM

Butting in to say: Talon, I think this is a simpler version of explaining Evolution and Natural Selection:

Let us say there is a species of worms. They move around on the ground of a forest. They are also coloured very bright orange and are very tasty for predators(gonna refer to them as birds hereafter) to have.
So, birds eat quite a few of these worms.
Now, as is quite natural, a mutation is bound to happen. Now, this mutation is usually random. However, this is the part where natural selection comes into play. Now,
A) The mutation is negative, like the worm prefers higher, open, ground where birds can easily eat it. Now, this will not pass, because all worms with this mutation will be eaten and will die.
B) The mutation is positive, like the worm is coloured a shade of green mixing in with the undergrowth. These worms will survive and this trait will likely be integrated into the species: As you know, reproduction with one individual with a mutation means the baby is LIKELY to have the mutation too, and so on, and so forth. A few worms later, soon the entire species will be coloured that shade of green(soon in biological terms).

The end result is Evolution, which happens as a result of natural selection. I think I got this right?

deoxys

12-24-2011, 06:31 AM

Which is a shame because most Christians I've met have come across as nice enough people who are simply in denial about the fact that the universe is inherently shit.

Sorry you feel that way, because if you take a second and watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pfwY2TNehw), you'd know that the universe is indeed a beautiful place.

As a bonus, watch this too. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLci5DoZqHU)

Muyotwo

12-24-2011, 11:58 AM

unownmew

12-24-2011, 01:37 PM

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

-Epicurus

Just chiming in to say I'm on the same boat as Concept. There may or may not be a God, I don't care either way.
Nay, he is able, and willing, but chooses not to. Why? Not because he is Malevolent, but because he is Benevolent. How can anyone choose between good and evil, to learn and grow, if good is the only choice available? Riddle me that.

I liked your last post better before you deleted it, Deo.

Oh, as long as I've made a post here I may as well ask a question I've always wanted a straight Christian answer to. So to you non unownmew Christians: How do you pick and choose which parts of the Bible are still relevant today? We'll set aside the slavery endorsement: we have laws against that now, but why do you eat meat on Fridays, cut your hair, cut your beards, wear clothes with mixed fabrics, etc when the Bible says not to? And if it's just a bit of old hooey, then why do you still put so much stock in the same parts that are against homosexuality and such?
Aw, why am I excluded? We LDS believe the Bible just as much as our other book.

deoxys

12-24-2011, 07:34 PM

Nay, he is able, and willing, but chooses not to. Why? Not because he is Malevolent, but because he is Benevolent. How can anyone choose between good and evil, to learn and grow, if good is the only choice available? Riddle me that.

Aw, why am I excluded? We LDS believe the Bible just as much as our other book.

Okay, no. I deleted my last post because I realized it was more or less flamebaiting, but this is absurd.

LDS: When you die, you become a god and get your own planet and a multitude of wives, and your children populate that planet.

Standard Christianity: Have you been good? Welcome to Heaven! Were you an asshole? Go to Hell, bitch!

You can't pick and choose here. What are you?

Shuckle

12-24-2011, 08:30 PM

I liked your last post better before you deleted it, Deo.

Oh, as long as I've made a post here I may as well ask a question I've always wanted a straight Christian answer to. So to you non unownmew Christians: How do you pick and choose which parts of the Bible are still relevant today? We'll set aside the slavery endorsement: we have laws against that now, but why do you eat meat on Fridays, cut your hair, cut your beards, wear clothes with mixed fabrics, etc when the Bible says not to? And if it's just a bit of old hooey, then why do you still put so much stock in the same parts that are against homosexuality and such?Hey, hey. Careful what you say, there.

The Bible does not actually warn against homosexuality. I don't know if I could find it again, but to sum it all up, the part that the King James version translates as "mate with their own sex" translates more directly to "mate with boys" - in other words pedophilia. I think we can all agree pedophilia is wrong.

But more importantly, I think your point is that we select bits of the Bible we like and ignore the rest, yes? To answer that question, you have to accept that the Bible was not written by God or Jesus or Moses. This bit was written by the Church of the day. Let me explain.

Now, you know of the custom of Lent, yes? We don't eat meat on Fridays during Lent, we fast every so often, we fast from a specific thing all of those several weeks. Is this a fundamental thing that is a specific aspect of Church doctrine that defines the central point of the Church? Of course not. It is pretty much a religious "law" or edict or something else, a religious ritual that you use to show your faith. The Catholic Church could easily say, "No, we don't want to do that. We want to dress up as giant bunny rabbits to celebrate our faith" and you would see a whole bunch of ridiculous-looking people every year.

Now I'll close the analogy and say that the Church has changed its position on "clean animals", "use of condoms to protect against STD's" and most interestingly, "The relevance of science and how it reconciles with the faith". Believe it or not, Catholicism actually does acknowledge evolution, but postulates that everything connects back to religion in a great harmony of truth and knowledge.

That's my view on it.

Concept

12-24-2011, 08:37 PM

The Catholic Church could easily say, "No, we don't want to do that. We want to dress up as giant bunny rabbits to celebrate our faith" and you would see a whole bunch of ridiculous-looking people every year.

So how does the Catholid Church decide which bits of the Bible it ignores and which bits it doesn't?

unownmew

12-24-2011, 10:42 PM

Okay, no. I deleted my last post because I realized it was more or less flamebaiting, but this is absurd.

LDS: When you die, you become a god and get your own planet and a multitude of wives, and your children populate that planet.

Standard Christianity: Have you been good? Welcome to Heaven! Were you an asshole? Go to Hell, bitch!

You can't pick and choose here. What are you?
You ought to be careful how you 'summarize,' as you're insinuating things that are not true, or are you doing that purposefully?

We don't believe we will be given a multitude of wives, that's Islam, we believe that polygamous marriages can be enforced in heaven, and inherently, are not wrong. We don't believe we become Gods when we die, we believe that the very most righteous of all people can become Gods after they are resurrected.
And the Spirit Children of those who became Gods, will populate a planet or planets in physical bodies just like we, sons and daughters of God, populate Earth. One Eternal Round.

There are two interpretations of Hell in LDS doctrine, One is "Spirit Prison", a state of being unrighteous spirits will inhabit while awaiting resurrection. And "Outer Darkness," which is most like the Hell in other Christian religions, where Satan dwells along with his followers. This is, indescribable torment, where those who reject God after knowing him without doubt, such as those who would hate God even after being resurrected. And only if you do that, are you placed in that place, everyone else, will inhabit one of the three degrees of glory.

Nothing in our doctrine contradicts the teachings of the Bible, and we regularly use it for references and teaching. The Book of Mormon, was designed as a Companion to the Bible, clarifying things that are unclear in the Bible, and building upon the Gospel as taught in it, and adding a second witness of Jesus the Christ, a proof if you will, of God.

So how does the Catholid Church decide which bits of the Bible it ignores and which bits it doesn't?
They were the ones who compiled the Bible (at the Council of Nicaea) out of the various Christian documents (picking and choosing what they wanted out of them and leaving out or changing what they didn't). They tweaked things back then, they can pick and choose whatever they desire still. Thankfully most of the essence of the teachings are still there.

deoxys

12-25-2011, 06:04 AM

tl;dr-

n3BqLZ8UoZk

Shuckle

12-25-2011, 02:13 PM

They were the ones who compiled the Bible (at the Council of Nicaea) out of the various Christian documents (picking and choosing what they wanted out of them and leaving out or changing what they didn't). They tweaked things back then, they can pick and choose whatever they desire still. Thankfully most of the essence of the teachings are still there.

Ah, unownmew beat me to it, Concept. Around 325 AD, this guy named Arius went around claiming that Jesus was not God, a heresy that contradicted all the Church teachings. So, the Church officials went around and collected everybody in a town called Nicea and created the Nicene Creed, which pretty much explained everything about modern faith. They did such a complete job that the Creed holds to this day. It was and is a unifier for the Catholic faith.

One, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and all that.

By the way, the God of the Gaps is ahead of you as well as behind you.

unownmew

12-25-2011, 02:47 PM

tl;dr-

n3BqLZ8UoZk

Wow... Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong...

Whoever made that video has never read the Book of Mormon, nor done any sufficient research into our actual teachings and practices (probably just summaries), and deliberately made assumptions and put a spin to everything to ensure we look bad.

The basic Concepts are slightly accurate, but the tone, and the assertions are just plain false, and are nowhere in our doctrine.
The way he says it, implies (probably deliberately) that the cartoon is official church doctrine or endorsed by it, though, from the lack of documentation, and overall tone, I can tell it's not. Strangely enough, he mentions that our beliefs are in direct contradiction of the bible, yet, never specifies what parts of the Bible those beliefs contradict. Even stranger, we use both the Bible and Book of Mormon regularly in teachings, Seminary, and Sunday School, yet, never have I seen such a direct contradiction in all my years of attending.

How did God become God? This is neither in our doctrine, nor, a necessary question. God is God, and we obey. We'll learn the deep answers after the resurrection. It's called faith. What we do know about our futures could be applied to God, but it is only implied, it is neither confirmed, nor denied, nor addressed in any manner in our official doctrine. The Mysteries of God are not for man to know, save God reveals them to him, and then they are for him alone, unless God commands otherwise.

Polygamous Goddesses? The only thing actually in our doctrine is that, Marriages can be sealed for eternity, polygamous marriages can also be enforced in the same manner, and the Righteous receive that which the wicked forfeit by being wicked.

Endless Goddess Sex? WTF? That is nowhere in our doctrine. What is though, is that Marriage is sacred, which only infers sex is as well. (which is why Humanity in the past has had such a stigma against extramarital affairs) Obviously, if the righteous who become Gods are to have spirit children, some form of creation is necessary, which could imply sex, but that is not in our doctrine.

Blacks were the fence sitters in the "War in Heaven"? That's absolutely nowhere in our doctrine, and I've never even heard of such a thing. As far as I can tell, Blacks are the decedents of Cain, who was cursed for killing Abel (also not in our doctrine, it's simply a wild guess on my part), and the decedents of Laman and Lemuel cursed for their rebellion against their brother and God, in our Book of Mormon, to ensure the easily swayed were not corrupted by their evil traditions.
Also, during the time after Jesus appeared in the Americas, there were no more "Cursed" people, they lived and intermingled with everyone else, (probably eventually turning the nice tan color we see native Americans have today), and at the final war, they separated themselves by lineage and beliefs, not by skin color.

We will be judged by Joseph Smith, Jesus and God together? No, not in our doctrine either.
Joseph Smith is the most important man in history, greater even than Jesus? Perhaps he is misinterpreting a common Phrase we have which states (approximately), "Joseph Smith has done more for Humanity save Jesus only."
Which specifically states, Joseph Smith is UNDER Jesus in importance.

The Word of Wisdom, yes we abstain from Coffee and Tea, tobacco, and addictive, or illicit drugs. Yes our worthiness depends on how well we keep it, however, it is Words of Wisdom for our personal benefit, and only guidance, up for individual interpretation except where defined by our Prophet.

Jesus had Wives? I've never heard this ever discussed in Church, and nothing even close to suggesting such is in any of our doctrine. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. We don't know, nor will we, until the Millennium/Resurrection, and the answer means little to our Gospel, or Christian teachings as a whole.

Joseph Smith a Direct Descendent of Jesus? Huh?! The only place I've ever heard about Jesus having descendents is in The Davincci Code, which was a work of Fiction. LDS doctrine does not claim Jesus had wives, nor descendents. We claim Joseph Smith to be a Direct Descendent of Joseph of Egypt, not Jesus the Christ.

Sorry, your video reeks of bias and spin.

tl;dr
http://img2.imagesbn.com/images/111350000/111355793.jpg
Sorry, there is no tl;dr, either read our actual doctrine, or stop making assumptions about our beliefs.

Unless it comes straight out of the mouth of one of our Prophets, or is personally approved by him, it is neither official, nor binding, but simply guidance and personal interpretation.
Things endorsed by the church are not always official, but simply agreed that they are "of spiritual worth," and things made by members should always be taken with a grain of salt, and understood that they are not official, even if made by an official in our church.

Edit: Toned down initial hostility, and addressed additional false claims I'd forgotten.

Concept

12-25-2011, 04:29 PM

Ah, unownmew beat me to it, Concept. Around 325 AD, this guy named Arius went around claiming that Jesus was not God, a heresy that contradicted all the Church teachings. So, the Church officials went around and collected everybody in a town called Nicea and created the Nicene Creed, which pretty much explained everything about modern faith. They did such a complete job that the Creed holds to this day. It was and is a unifier for the Catholic faith.

One, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and all that.

By the way, the God of the Gaps is ahead of you as well as behind you.

My point was mainly things like the whole stoning, et al. God's pretty clear on the "you must stone people who do this stuff" bit. You guys all enjoy a good stoning, right? Or, for example, there's the bit where it says that bastards and all their descendants up to the tenth generation are forbidden from entering church - screws me right over, as one set of my great grandparents never married.

On a lighter note, Merry Christmas to all of you.

unownmew

12-25-2011, 10:19 PM

My point was mainly things like the whole stoning, et al. God's pretty clear on the "you must stone people who do this stuff" bit. You guys all enjoy a good stoning, right? Or, for example, there's the bit where it says that bastards and all their descendants up to the tenth generation are forbidden from entering church - screws me right over, as one set of my great grandparents never married.

On a lighter note, Merry Christmas to all of you.

The stoning thing, was part of the Law of Moses, which Law was completely done away with by Jesus' atonement.

Instead, we have, Turn the other Cheek, love thy neighbor, and Love and obey God.

but Yes, Merry Christmas to all, celebrating the Birth of our Savior.

unownmew

01-16-2012, 01:44 AM

Just felt the urge to share a few links describing what my church is about in a less confrontational manner. (and would apologize for my confrontational attitude in posts past.) For those that are truly interested in our differences from other Christian religions, as well as the similarities.

Addressing Anti-mormon arguments (http://www.allaboutmormons.com/brief_critique_anti-mormon_propaganda.php)

For misconceptions concerning our beliefs (http://www.allaboutmormons.com/misconceptions_jesus_christ_god_the_father_christi anity_joseph_smith.php)

A more thorough description of our real beliefs (http://www.allaboutmormons.com/mormon_beliefs_god_the_father.php)

(Yes those 3 are all the same site, for those interested, please navigate around for further information. The comments are also good.)

13 key points of our beliefs. A very brief rundown, known to us as The Articles of Faith (http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html)

Our Official Website (http://lds.org/?lang=eng)

I'd also like to share my personal favorite hymn:

If You Could Hie to Kolab
1. If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye, And then continue onward With that same speed to fly, Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity, Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?

2. Or see the grand beginning, Where space did not extend? Or view the last creation, Where Gods and matter end? Me thinks the Spirit whispers, "No man has found 'pure space,' Nor seen the outside curtains, Where nothing has a place."

3. The works of God continue, And worlds and lives abound; Improvement and progression Have one eternal round. There is no end to matter; There is no end to space; There is no end to spirit; There is no end to race.

4. There is no end to virtue; There is no end to might; There is no end to wisdom; There is no end to light. There is no end to union; There is no end to youth; There is no end to priesthood; There is no end to truth.

5. There is no end to glory; There is no end to love; There is no end to being; There is no death above. There is no end to glory; There is no end to love; There is no end to being; There is no death above.
The instrumental music can be found here (http://www.allaboutmormons.com/Blog/free_mp3_hie_kolob_pioneer_ENG_20.php).

Kairne

01-17-2012, 05:59 AM

I tend to find it a discredit to a religion to have an official website. I just find that it saps away from the creative spirit to make your own decisions and interpretations.

Muyotwo

01-17-2012, 07:07 AM

the creative spirit to make your own decisions and interpretations.
You're new to religion, aren't you? The entire point is they don't want you to do that.

Kairne

01-17-2012, 07:21 AM

I've been through and experienced more than a couple religions, which is why I favor belief systems that rely on the personal rather than blind faith.

Although, to be fair, I have seen individuals in many religions that don't follow the pack at every turn, which is rather refreshing at times. Not every Christian I have met is an unownmew, despite what my childhood would tell me. I wholly support spiritual groups of a few people meeting for love and knowledge, not for hate. However rare that may be.

unownmew

01-17-2012, 03:04 PM

I tend to find it a discredit to a religion to have an official website. I just find that it saps away from the creative spirit to make your own decisions and interpretations.

I take it then you haven't even looked at the website I linked?

The purpose of the website is to:
1. Let nonmembers know what we're really about, instead of them having to rely on secondhand information (which is oftentimes prejudiced against us).
2. Provide materials for members to use in teaching and personal enlightenment
3. Provide references for anyone's use.
4. link to other useful sites with information to be used.

We're still free to make our own decisions and interpretations, except where our Prophet, speaking for God, clarifies certain ambiguities in past doctrine.
Even then, we do not deny others their God given free agency.

We have a set and clarified doctrine we ought to comply with, but everything else, including any unclarified ambiguities, are up for personal interpretation/revelation. And as we get better at the basic doctrines, and improve our relationship with our God, God will provide us with personal revelation of further truths and deeper doctrine, beyond what our church preaches regularly. It's not about the letter of the law, it's all about the heart of the person following it.

I've been through and experienced more than a couple religions, which is why I favor belief systems that rely on the personal rather than blind faith.
Well then, you'd be right at home with the LDS Religion, we expressly exhort each and every member to "find out for themselves," to find the truth or untruth of anything and everything any one of us says, EVEN our prophet. And we don't admit converts to our records until they are baptized, which qualifications require having or wanting a testimony of the truth of our church, and a penitent heart, among a few other things. (nonmembers are still always welcome to "come and see" at any time though)

Although, to be fair, I have seen individuals in many religions that don't follow the pack at every turn, which is rather refreshing at times. Not every Christian I have met is an unownmew, despite what my childhood would tell me. I wholly support spiritual groups of a few people meeting for love and knowledge, not for hate. However rare that may be.

I am sensing insinuations here that you think my religion is all about hate, and that I'm just following the crowd. Am I wrong?

Because, that is the exact opposite of what our church is about (though no one is perfect). And I would exhort you to find out for yourself before you start stating things as fact.

As for myself, I am a very poor representative for my church, and ashamed to be such. But the actions of one person does not, can not, speak for the group as a whole. (unless you stereotype, which I'm sure we can both agree is wrong to do). I at least can embody the fact that my religion does not "force" others, or require blind faith.

You're new to religion, aren't you? The entire point is they don't want you to do that.
The entire point of many, yes. But that's because they have no substance, and if people were to find out for themselves, the religion would fall apart under the weight of it's own falsehoods. However, my Religion looks down on "Blind faith." It's useful to rely on the testimony of others, but only up to a point, particularly for those struggling with their own testimony, or children still learning, but eventually we are required to "Know for ourselves." Each and every one of our members are continually encouraged to "Find out for ourselves," to speak with God directly (pray), and have Him reveal the truth or untruth of everything our religion teaches, of everything a teacher says, and everything our Prophet tells us to do. You could say, the LDS church is founded entirely upon personal revelation from God Himself, and if that were to disappear, the church itself would fall utterly apart.

And I highly doubt that if this were not the case, our church would never have grown from a measly 6 people in 1830, to over 14 Million in 2010, and have temples and chapels in numerous countries around the world.

We don't preach, "join us or you'll be damned!" we preach, "you have some, that is good, let us give you more, that you may have the chance to accept an even greater salvation then your current state qualifies you for." But with the greater knowledge, comes the greater responsibilities to your fellow man.

There's something very peculiar about truth, it scares those who do not care, it enrages people who do not wish to hear it, and it comforts all those who embrace it.

unownmew

02-08-2012, 08:03 PM

Taken from another thread:

I have to go soon, but a last point, about your argument of free will. You say that god gives us free will for a purpose, but I've read the bible. The surest way to damn yourself in his books is to exercise that very gift. There is a reason he wants sheep and not goats. Quite frankly, what God wants is an Orwellian society, where you're allowed to do ir say what you want, but the second you toe a line, or question too much, you're vaporised. We must ask, if god gave us free will, why is the cost of it eternal damnation?
That is such an easy question, I'm surprised you didn't consider it yourself.
It's even mentioned in the bible, so you couldn't possibly have missed it:

There must needs be opposition in all things.
Just like Light will always cast a Shadow, if there is a "Good", there must also be a "Bad." Otherwise there could be neither.
For us to have any choice at all, there must be two opposites between which we can choose.

For a "Righteous God" to exist, there must also be a "Wicked anti-God."
In order that there be Eternal Joy, there must also be Eternal Misery.
Eternal Glory requires the presence of an Eternal lack thereof.
For there to be Eternal Physicality, there must also be Eternal Spirituality.
And if there is an Evil and a Good, there must also be a Just judgement between them.

And for us, sinful, physical, carnal, and unGodlike beings that we are, to ever possibly have a chance at gaining an Eternal Glory like God, which otherwise we would never be allowed to attain, there must also be an Eternal Mercy.
The Atonement of Jesus Christ, God's Sacrifice for us to possibly attain Eternal Life, is proof God desires us to be happy forever. But, God won't force us to be happy, we only can choose that. If we don't want to be Eternally Happy, we don't have to obey him. Simple as that.

You can decry it as Orwellian as much as you want, but it can't change how the universe is set up. So we might as well seek the option for Eternal Happiness over Eternal Misery. Once we're resurrected, we'll be partitioned off into whichever segment of Righteousness we belong to, and (I think, personal interpretation here) we will be incapable of sinning from then on, so whatever we do will make us happy. Unless we opt to reject God at resurrection, in which case we'll end up eternally miserable regardless.

Aside from that, the free will argument is, in my opinion, bollocks. If god knows how things will always turn out, free will is an illusion and therefore everyone's destiny is preordained, and no one can truly be saved because everyone who is going to hell is going to hell and everyone going to heaven will go to heaven, no surprises, no exceptions. If he doesn't, then he ceases to be the omnipotent, omniscient being he claims to be, meaning he is less than all-powerful. Either way, I don't see how the belief in free will is compatible with the belief that an all-powerful God exists, unless he is malicious or apathetic to humanity as a whole. Personally, I think the former of the two would be more likely.

EDIT: We may need to move this to the Christianity thread

Well, here's how I think about it; but please note, debates of this sort are rather fruitless, as we'll never know how God operates until we are resurrected, or become prophets privy to see all the cosmos, so we should just trust what he says;
God knows all outcomes. But the outcome that we get is entirely dependent on our free will in the moment.

As God is from Everlasting to Everlasting, time is meaningless. He exists before our births, before our outcomes are decided, and after we have been placed, at the same time. He may be all powerful, but even God has Limitations.
If God were to ever Lie, he would cease to be God, and if God ceased to be God, all things he has Created would also cease. We would cease, because if God, existing from Everlasting to Everlasting, ceased at any moment, he would cease also from all moments, and our creation would never have occurred.
So I think I can trust what God says, seeing as we're still in existence.

Rangeetsuper

02-09-2012, 06:06 AM

Is your God omniscient, unownmew? A simple question, and I expect a simple answer.

Doppleganger

02-09-2012, 08:24 AM

Wait, unownmew you're a Mormon?

deoxys

02-09-2012, 02:35 PM

Wait, unownmew you're a Mormon?

:079:

unownmew

02-09-2012, 04:21 PM

Is your God omniscient, unownmew? A simple question, and I expect a simple answer.
Simple Answers? You should know better then to expect those from me. :P

Omnicient in that he can see anything and everything, past, present, and future, he desires to see.
I'll make no claim as to what he does see at any given "time," but by the doctrine of my religion, he is "Omniscient."
Wait, unownmew you're a Mormon?
Uh, yes?

I'm a member of the Church, but I'm not so good at adhering to the doctrine (to my own damnation).

Doppleganger

02-09-2012, 09:55 PM

Yeah, you don't sound like any Mormons I know. My best friend is an Elder, and I picked up most of my abstinent traits from him (no smoking, no masturbation, no cursing, etc.).

:079:

I'm a king, where's my crown?

unownmew

02-09-2012, 10:06 PM

Yeah, you don't sound like any Mormons I know. My best friend is an Elder, and I picked up most of my abstinent traits from him (no smoking, no masturbation, no cursing, etc.).

Ouch, now I'm even more ashamed of myself. >_>
I'm glad you have a better example then I to look to.
Please don't let sinners like me detract from the good of the Church as a whole.

I ought to be an Elder too, but I'm withholding myself from it for my sins..

Kairne

02-09-2012, 10:36 PM

But... everybody sins. Seriously, it's unavoidable. If you want to stop sinning, wouldn't the best thing to do be put yourself in a position that encourages you to stop those activities? Just logically speaking.

Chaotic

02-09-2012, 10:50 PM

If you believe in sin, it's indeed impossible to avoid. xd

unownmew

02-10-2012, 01:09 AM

Chaotic

02-10-2012, 01:21 AM

Swearing: Unless you take God's name in vain, it's only society that condemns using naughty language.

deoxys

02-10-2012, 01:24 AM

That's the point, I don't quite want to stop sinning, just yet.
I do, but I also don't.
So until I figure myself out, I'm holding off on receiving offices where greater righteousness is required. If I were to take them on, I feel I'll be damning myself further, because I'd have greater responsibility to be righteous.

Obviously everyone makes mistakes and everyone sins, but if you're not consciously striving to be better, you're not worthy of the Forgiveness and Atonement of Jesus for those sins.

I think for the most part I'm pretty good, but I have two major problems:
My mouth - I've gotten bad at controlling my mouth, so I swear sometimes.
Anime - I'm much too interested in H, something my religion takes very seriously.

Of course, I'm sure people observing me could point out a few other things as well.

What you said reminds me of what someone once said along the lines of "Jesus already died for my sins, all of my sins, so this essentially gives me leeway to sin as much as I want, because I've already been forgiven for all of the sins I haven't yet committed."

Kind of paradoxical but also seemingly holding water. I don't subscribe to that belief though whether it's true or not. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should

Also, Chaotic is right. Even using God's name in vain is up in the air, because God is a title, not his actual name. I've had this discussion with a few people who graduated with a theology degree. They almost all said that saying "Oh my god" isn't actually swearing with God's name, even if it is intended to, as it is his given title.

unownmew

02-10-2012, 01:25 AM

Swearing: Unless you take God's name in vain, it's only society that condemns using naughty language.
According to my religion, all obscene language is sinful.
And I have taken His name in vain. Much more often then I would like. >_>

Kairne

02-10-2012, 01:34 AM

unownmew

02-10-2012, 01:36 AM

What you said reminds me of what someone once said along the lines of "Jesus already died for my sins, all of my sins, so this essentially gives me leeway to sin as much as I want, because I've already been forgiven for all of the sins I haven't yet committed."

Kind of paradoxical but also seemingly holding water. I don't subscribe to that belief though whether it's true or not. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should
TECHNICALLY, the saying is correct.
He suffered an infinite atonement, so as long as you repent, it doesn't matter how much you sin.

However. Even if you prescribe to that, you won't be forgiven for any of your sins if you try to repent with that same attitude. And if you know better and do it anyway, you're worse off then if you never knew to begin with.

To repent means to truly and deeply regret your action, to forsake the sin entirely, and to strive continually from then on to never do that sin again. Slip-ups can happen, but if you keep trying to be better, you'll be excused.
It is a process by which you ever try to become a perfect being.

unownmew

02-10-2012, 01:41 AM

Well, Godammit unownmew. If you can't even uphold your religion's doctrine in the least, how in the name of Christ do you expect us to take your debates for it at face value. Ay, dioces mios!

I don't think that was quite blasphemous enough. jesus!
Aye, it is a problem, I'll not deny that.

Everyone is a sinner, but that doesn't change truth. Am I not allowed to try to bring others to salvation even if my own is forfeit?
I have my own situation, as does everyone, but if I thought my religion was false, why would I be so critical of myself regarding how well I followed it?

Kairne

02-10-2012, 01:44 AM

But if you're as consistently unrepentant as you are sounding, then what should really make me believe that you have some form of ultimate truth in your hands?

unownmew

02-10-2012, 01:50 AM

But if you're as consistently unrepentant as you are sounding, then what should really make me believe that you have some form of ultimate truth in your hands?

Because I've not fully given up on myself yet.

You're right to believe, I have no right to expect others to believe me if I am a hypocrite, but, dang-it I'll try anyway!

The Proof I have is absolute for myself. I can not deny it. To do so would seal my damnation absolutely, but I am unprepared to have it nevertheless. Thus I am in limbo.

This is why I kept trying in other pages to make sure Talon and others really wanted to know if God existed or not, because proving it absolutely without converting the heart would put you in the same state I'm in.

Kairne

02-10-2012, 01:59 AM

so you're not even a true convert?

Also, re: free will:
The standard question would be "if an action is predetermined, is it actually free?" which I'm inclined to say a firm "no" on. If I will be given a choice of A or B at some point in my life, and yet, before I am born, my choosing A is known then I would have to say that I was not free to choose B. There could be some disagreement on semantics, but the general idea is very troubling on the issue of free will.

The eternal wisdom of Muyo speaks. No comic book responses, please.

Rangeetsuper

02-10-2012, 06:01 AM

So we're done with omniscient. Is he also omnipotent?

unownmew

02-10-2012, 02:37 PM

so you're not even a true convert?
Not true in my Heart. I was born into the Church, and I have been exposed to it all my life. My testimony is borrowed off others, except, all logical Proof I've witnessed points in the direction of my Church being absolutely True. But I've fallen off the path, and I'm still struggling to accept everything with my heart, though my brain knows 100%.

Also, re: free will:

The eternal wisdom of Muyo speaks. No comic book responses, please.
Consider a pre-scripted dialogue where you are given two choices.
Each choice has a pre-scripted response.
But which response you read depends on which choice you make.

That's free agency.

Either:
God sees all the outcomes of our choices but does not know which choice we'll actually make until we make it.
God can see which outcome we will get but chooses not to look.
God Knows which choices we'll make, but we ourselves do not, so while it is predestined, it's still our choice.
God is powerful enough to call himself Omniscient, but isn't in actuality. (Doesn't change the fact that He's still our God regardless of how he portrays himself) OR
It's far beyond our understanding and such questions should be left alone until we are capable of understanding them.

Any further discussion on the matter is meaningless, as not even the prophets are privy to that kind of knowledge (or at least at not allowed to share it), so it's best we just do what we know and act like we're free and worry about whether we were really free once we are resurrected.

In the end it doesn't really matter if we have agency or not. If we do, we can choose to be happy forever, or miserable forever. (I'd elect to be happy, but that's just me)
And if we don't, we may as well hope for the first option, that we do have agency, and "act" on it anyway. Since WE don't know our fates, there's no proof we don't have agency, and we may as well hope and act like we do.

Another related Question: If God is almighty, why can't he make us choose one way or another?

Kairne

02-10-2012, 03:14 PM

That means he's either

1) Less than all-powerful, and therefore unworthy of the devotion you want to give him, because he is fallible.

2) Ignorant, which is worse than being just plain dumb.

3) Makes no sense, actually. That only confirms the argument that free will is just an illusion.

4) He is a liar, and therefore how can we expect everything else he claims if we can consider his omniscience a lie?

5) Willful ignorance on your part.

And as for your question about god forcing us to choose: that was my point. If you God exists (which I highly doubt in the first place), then it was he who chose that I be Pagan, that you be LDS. He would be the one who chooses who goes to heaven and who, hell, because that's predestination. If we accept, for the sake of argument that:

1. God knows all and sees all
2. God is not bound by time
3. God created the universe

Then he is one sick bastard. If he knew exactly how humanity would fall, but set the events in motion at the very beginning regardless, then that means, quite simply, he wanted Eve to eat the fruit, tempt Adam, et al. If he didn't, he could have easily set events in motion a slightly different way, in which the result would have been all good. If he did not like the result, he could have changed it beforehand. And since we're here having this discussion, he (or she, or it, actually. More correctly, God would be an it) obviously changed nothing. And since he actively set the events of the universe in motion, he is directly the cause of it all.

If you believe in your own God's power, you must also believe this:

I'm gay, I'm Pagan, because it was your god's will that I was. Who are you to question his logic?

Obviously, you probably won't just accept that. But by you saying:
It's far beyond our understanding and such questions should be left alone until we are capable of understanding them.
is the same fucking thing. Impossible to truly dispute, impossible to prove, and an attempt to halt a debate with metaphysical blockades.

DaveTheFishGuy

02-10-2012, 03:15 PM

Not true in my Heart. I was born into the Church, and I have been exposed to it all my life. My testimony is borrowed off others, except, all logical Proof I've witnessed points in the direction of my Church being absolutely True. But I've fallen off the path, and I'm still struggling to accept everything with my heart, though my brain knows 100%.

This sound like brainwashing to anyone else?

Kairne

02-10-2012, 03:26 PM

Latter Days? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345551/)

blazeVA

02-10-2012, 04:59 PM

This sound like brainwashing to anyone else?

Religion is a large brainwashing machine. That should be known.

deoxys

02-10-2012, 06:03 PM

This sound like brainwashing to anyone else?

That's the technique many mormons and and other religious groups use. For all intents and purposes, it essentially is brain washing. It's not as bad as what Scientologists do, though.

Kairne

02-10-2012, 06:07 PM

I saw what you did there, deoxys. Eggcorns abound

unownmew

02-10-2012, 06:56 PM

That means he's either

1) Less than all-powerful, and therefore unworthy of the devotion you want to give him, because he is fallible.
Power has nothing to do with seeing. It means he's not omniscient. :roll:
That doesn't change whether he has enough power to send us to hell if we reject him. So whether he's worthy of our devotion or not, we still had better listen. He uses both Fear And Love.

2) Ignorant, which is worse than being just plain dumb.
Choosing to be ignorant of something, does not make one dumb, particularly if the ignorance leads to the benefit of others, like our free agency. You're just trying to discredit Him here, since you can't argue against it.

3) Makes no sense, actually. That only confirms the argument that free will is just an illusion.
I agree, it confirms the illusion. I listed it because it's a possibility, not because I believe it.

4) He is a liar, and therefore how can we expect everything else he claims if we can consider his omniscience a lie?
Faith. Obviously if he is provably a liar, he must exist to be able to lie. We can't really understand or know what his intentions are if he is a liar, but, what choice do we have? If he's powerful enough to do all the miracles he has done, it would be foolhardy to reject him.
(I do not believe he is a liar, but I listed it as a possibility)

5) Willful ignorance on your part.
Not willful ignorance. Acceptance that we will never know regardless of how long or hard it's debated, because it is entirely unprovable either way.

And as for your question about god forcing us to choose: that was my point. If you God exists (which I highly doubt in the first place), then it was he who chose that I be Pagan, that you be LDS. He would be the one who chooses who goes to heaven and who, hell, because that's predestination.
I asked it to see if you could come up with any reasons why it would work, contrary to your firmly held beliefs.

If we accept, for the sake of argument that:

1. God knows all and sees all
2. God is not bound by time
3. God created the universe

Then he is one sick bastard. If he knew exactly how humanity would fall, but set the events in motion at the very beginning regardless, then that means, quite simply, he wanted Eve to eat the fruit, tempt Adam, et al. If he didn't, he could have easily set events in motion a slightly different way, in which the result would have been all good. If he did not like the result, he could have changed it beforehand. And since we're here having this discussion, he (or she, or it, actually. More correctly, God would be an it) obviously changed nothing. And since he actively set the events of the universe in motion, he is directly the cause of it all.
He did know how Adam would fall. He set it up that way precisely so that he would fall, because it was necessary for the plan to give Man free agency to work. He knew Satan would tempt Eve to eat the fruit if he ordered them not to partake of it. If Adam and Eve had not partaken of it, he would have remained in the garden of Eden eternally, and Humankind as a Race would exist as only 2, ignorant and eternal beings, knowing no good because they knew no evil, knowing no joy, for they knew no pain.

Actually this brings up something I hadn't thought of before. The Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, as Satan said, would have made man as God, knowing the difference between the two. Does an All-seeing God know the mind of another God? Perhaps our perception of God is incomplete.

If you believe in your own God's power, you must also believe this:

I'm gay, I'm Pagan, because it was your god's will that I was. Who are you to question his logic?

Obviously, you probably won't just accept that. But by you saying:

is the same fucking thing. Impossible to truly dispute, impossible to prove, and an attempt to halt a debate with metaphysical blockades.

Mmm, no, my God is not a liar. So obviously he must be what he says he is, and we must have free agency if he says we do. Anything that contradicts that must by default be wrong. We don't have a perfect knowledge, so how could we possibly attempt to understand the mind of an Eternal and Perfect Being, God?

But you don't have to take my word for it. You can pray and speak with God yourself, and he'll tell you if I'm right or wrong.

This sound like brainwashing to anyone else?
No, there's physical evidence I've found that is unexplainable in any other way, almost as substantial as if God spoke to me directly. But my heart is not yet ready to accept it fully. Which is why I can not divulge that information to you. Besides the fact that you wouldn't even look even if I did.

Latter Days? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345551/)
Sounds like bigotry, ridicule, and attempts at spreading misinformation.
Further supported if it was not written by a practicing LDS member for spiritual enlightenment.
I have no interest in investigating further.

Kairne

02-10-2012, 07:02 PM

Latter Days is actually a very good movie, you should give it a chance.

unownmew

02-10-2012, 07:39 PM

What's the result?
My opinion resides entirely in what message it tries to portray. Considering how much homosexuality is attempted to be idolized nowadays, I have little hope for any movie regarding it.

Kairne

02-10-2012, 07:48 PM

PikaGod

02-10-2012, 07:49 PM

blazeVA

02-10-2012, 07:53 PM

No, there's physical evidence I've found that is unexplainable in any other way, almost as substantial as if God spoke to me directly. But my heart is not yet ready to accept it fully. Which is why I can not divulge that information to you. Besides the fact that you wouldn't even look even if I did.

Maybe we should not just assume that when we see something we cannot explin that we not blame it on God and tell ourselves that we do not understand the world around us as good as we should.

GO ERAGON!

Talon87

02-10-2012, 07:54 PM

Sounds like bigotry, ridicule, and attempts at spreading misinformation.
Further supported if it was not written by a practicing LDS member for spiritual enlightenment.
How can you say that? :? Say I want to write a thoughtful screenplay about Mormons. Are you saying you would immediately discredit me, my two years of research, my dozens of interviews with practicing Mormons at various levels of the church hierarchy, etc, and all because I myself am not a fellow Mormon? :? That's like saying Richard Attenborough's Gandhi was insulting to Indians because Attenborough is a Caucasian Englishman. That's like saying that James Clavell ought never to have written Shōgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8Dgun_%28novel%29) because he was neither Japanese-born nor raised.

Why does a movie depicting Mormons have to be written "for spiritual enlightenment" for it to be credible, wholesome, or enjoyable? :?

unownmew

02-10-2012, 08:07 PM

Oh, it's a gay movie alright, but it far from idolizes it. I actually don't see how homosexuality is idolized in modern society anyway, though. Tolerated and accepted more and more? Yes, as it should be. But idolized? Nobody really wanted to be gay. They either are or they aren't/ And most of us who are have at some point wished we were normal. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that, though. It's just not a choice.

Idolize, as in tell us that sin is tolerable.

I don't condemn you for being gay, and to be honest I have no right to tell you this being a sinner myself, but I fully believe you (and I) DO have the choice. It may be difficult to change, or you may not even want to change, and you may have tendencies even after changing. But that doesn't mean you don't have the choice.

And even if you can't "change" yourself, there's still no reason that can excuse acting on the urges. If you are, but desire not to be, and try hard not to be, God will accept your efforts. If you simply give in or seek after it, you have no forgiveness.

The act of Sodomy is one of few things God has outright called an Abomination, and the acceptance of such as a civilization will result in first, corruption, depicted in the Bible by Sodom and the Tribe of Benjamin, and then destruction, depicted by the same.

PikaGod

02-10-2012, 08:20 PM

So essentially you are saying, be abstinent or go to hell? Wow that sounds like an excellent pair of choices.

unownmew

02-10-2012, 08:48 PM

So essentially you are saying, be abstinent or go to hell? Wow that sounds like an excellent pair of choices.
Abstain from gay conduct, just like abstaining from Adultery, Drunkenness, taking the Lord's name in vain, Addiction, murder, and other sinful activities.

That's always been the only choices. :roll:

Kairne

02-10-2012, 08:48 PM

I for one do not believe in abstinence. We should not pretend sex is not pleasurable, as long as it is done safely.

Spoilers: gay sex is even more fun (for some)

unownmew

02-10-2012, 09:14 PM

I for one do not believe in abstinence. We should not pretend sex is not pleasurable, as long as it is done safely.

Spoilers: gay sex is even more fun (for some)

No one said to completely abstain from it. Just not to engage in it with members of the same gender, or outside of wedlock. Not because it's an evil, but because it's sacred and should be treated as such.

Talon87

02-10-2012, 09:16 PM

Asking a gay man to have sex only with women would be like asking a straight man to have sex only with men. There's no meaningful difference to either party between that and just not having any sex at all. In other words, no, you cannot reasonably expect a gay man to be happy if you tell him, "You may have sex. Just not with other men."

Kairne

02-10-2012, 09:28 PM

Oh, don't get me wrong, sex is very sacred to me. In fact, it is a largely religious part of my life. And it's gay sex.

Not only do I hold sex as sacred, I see is as one of humanity's greatest gifts. What is a gift that you don't make use of but worthless?

unownmew

02-10-2012, 09:44 PM

If you want to debate why homosexuality is a sinful abomination of nature and ought not to be acceptable in any way, I'm game.

But it seems you're just trying to mock me, so it's pointless to continue. Go your sinful way, and I'll work on getting the rest of civilization to change. I can at least take comfort you'll receive your just deserts when you finally meet God if you refuse to repent.

Kairne

02-10-2012, 09:51 PM

I love you too, unownmew.

I'm actually being entirely serious, though. Sex actually is largely religious for me, and since I am gay, it is of course gay sex. Are there any non-religious reasons why you think homosexuality is bad, though? The best secular debates on why homosexuality is bad that I've seen boil down to either "it's icky" or stereotyping about AIDS. Oh, and the fallicious debates about it being a slippery slope that will somehow go from two consenting adults who love each other getting married to a person and an animal that cannot consent, or with a child that is not mature enough to make that kind of decision. Please, do try to offer me a secular debate about why homosexuality is, as you say, an abomination, without bringing any of those into it.

phoopes

02-10-2012, 09:52 PM

Quick question: For those of you who don't believe in God, how do you think the universe was created? Just wondering.

Kairne

02-10-2012, 09:57 PM

Talon87

02-10-2012, 10:38 PM

Quick question: For those of you who don't believe in God, how do you think the universe was created? Just wondering.
Possibility 1: it's always been.

Possibility 2: it has an origin, but what gave rise to it has always been (e.g. a parent universe). Or that what gave rise to that has always been. Or that what gave rise to that has always been. Which brings us to ...

Possibility 3: Nothing in the chain of universe-births has always been -- every universe has come into being thanks to events in some other, parent universe and thus can be said to have had a conceptually-demonstrable origin -- but the string of these events is itself one without origin or terminus. That is to say, there are infinitely many such "births," extending in both directions, and that you cannot pinpoint a "first birth."

Possibility 4: others. Many others. If you really want an answer to this question and are not merely thinking you've "Aha! :D GOTCHA!"'d us atheists, go ahead and google for theories on how the universe may have come into being.

In any event, one does not require the Judeo-Christian God to explain the beginnings of space and time. In fact, one could even say that elements of Christian faith are mirrored in Possibility 2 above. (Whereby we swap out our universe's parent universe for God and terminate the chain there at a length of only two chain links. Link 1 = God = has always been, Link 2 = our universe = came into being at some definite point in time when God chose to make it.) So if you can accept the idea of an all-powerful being who "has always been and will ever be," then you should have no trouble applying that very same property to the universe itself (or to its parent universe, or to its grandparent universe, etc etc) and removing God from the equation. And if you reject the idea of a universe which has always been, there are theories like Possibility 3 that I mentioned. Either way, God is not requisite to have a satisfactory belief about how Existence may have come into being ... or how it may simply have always been.

phoopes

02-10-2012, 10:39 PM

Maybe it didn't need creating. Perhaps it was just there at the beginning. I don't think we've really gone much into it because both sides normally agree that something existed so early on, whether the Christian side believes it was God, or the secular side believe in the Big Bang or whatever other scientific theory.

But see, here's the thing. According to the laws of energy, (which, along with other laws of physics, make the universe go 'round) energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed into a different kind of energy. So just something being there couldn't have existed, unless we are going to change the laws of the universe. Which means that something supernatural that is beyond the universe that we can comprehend (i.e.: a higher power, such as God) must have created the energy. This is a logical explanation of why God should exist. However, there would be nothing to create that something that created energy itself, so that's where it all gets confusing.

Talon87

02-10-2012, 10:49 PM

But see, here's the thing. According to the laws of energy, (which, along with other laws of physics, make the universe go 'round) energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed into a different kind of energy. So just something being there couldn't have existed, unless we are going to change the laws of the universe. Which means that something supernatural that is beyond the universe that we can comprehend (i.e.: a higher power, such as God) must have created the energy. This is a logical explanation of why God should exist. However, there would be nothing to create that something that created energy itself, so that's where it all gets confusing.
This isn't logical at all. You're claiming that thermodynamics disproves a Godless universe. But if it were that simple, then every single particle physicist in the world would be a surefire believer in God. The fact that most are in fact secular atheists should be pretty telling to you. :lol: The reason your logic doesn't follow is this:

Suppose a Universe which, at the point just before/at the Big Bang, was a compact, pinpoint "sphere" of pure energy. Suppose that, from the Big Bang onward, much of that energy was converted into matter. This did not require a God or an external force: the conservation of energy and matter was kept as some of the energy became matter. Further suppose that, prior to the Big Bang ...
(a) our Universe's entire allotment of energy existed in a mixed form of both energy and matter. (E.g. our Big Bang was directly preceded by a Big Crunch and we happen to be living in iteration #infinity+5742 of Universes.)
(b) our Universe's entire allotment of energy came from a parent universe, so that (from the time of the Big Bang forward), our parent universe was now {Parent Energy - Child Energy} energy rich while our universe was now {Child Energy} rich. (This assumes that, in the first place, the laws of thermodynamics equally apply to our parent universe.)

The point is, it's not like the energy needed to create this universe came from somewhere and that somewhere had to be God. As letter A demonstrates, it may not have come from anywhere at all: it may have already been here. As letter B demonstrates, it may well in fact have come from somewhere else but that that somewhere is not necessarily God.

phoopes

02-11-2012, 12:03 AM

The Big Bang Theory doesn't really make sense, when you think about it. It states that all the matter in our universe was crammed into a small point, and then a catalyst made it explode and led to what we know today. This is impossible, because the universe is infinite. That means that it never ends, ever. And since it never ends, it is highly illogical to say that something that is infinite could be fit into a "sphere of pure energy," as you put it. That would mean rewriting the definition of the word "infinite." While it is true that a very large amount of matter can fit into a small space, (see: Black Holes) nothing infinite could be held anywhere, because it never ends.

And our universe couldn't have come from a parent universe for the same reason- our universe is infinite. Our universe could not have spawned from something, since it was infinite. That would mean it came from something with larger than something that is infinite, which is impossible by the very definition of th

Hur-dur. I'm in idiot. It is unknown whether the universe is infinite or not, making my argument illogical. My apologies.

Tyranidos

02-11-2012, 12:20 AM

The universe isn't infinite, but it is expanding at an exponential rate. There isn't going to be a Big Crunch.

unownmew

02-11-2012, 12:56 AM

I'm actually being entirely serious, though. Sex actually is largely religious for me, and since I am gay, it is of course gay sex. Are there any non-religious reasons why you think homosexuality is bad, though? The best secular debates on why homosexuality is bad that I've seen boil down to either "it's icky" or stereotyping about AIDS. Oh, and the fallicious debates about it being a slippery slope that will somehow go from two consenting adults who love each other getting married to a person and an animal that cannot consent, or with a child that is not mature enough to make that kind of decision. Please, do try to offer me a secular debate about why homosexuality is, as you say, an abomination, without bringing any of those into it.
[/COLOR]
I have religious and nonreligious reasons. The religious ones are the most compelling for me, but the nonreligious ones are probably the more converting for you. I highly doubt you have any intention of changing even if I could prove my case irrevocably, though. Am I wrong?

I'm quite worried about your religious gay sex, but I agree sex is sacred. Because it is the power of creation, the same power God wields, and to use it contrary to it's design is blasphemy. God designed it to be used between a Man and a Woman, so that's how it should be used. Otherwise it wouldn't have been a Male and a Female, Adam and Eve, that were the parents of the human race.

As for nonreligious reasons:
Nature necessitates a male and a female animal in order to give birth. There are no exceptions save hermaphrodites, which are few and far between. And even they mate using the appropriate sex organs.

You will never see other animals engaging in gay sex. I've heard the "proof" for gay being acceptable in nature by the extremely rare occasions where animals of the same gender would seem to "nest" together like a couple, but I've yet to hear about any of those animals actually engaging in gay sex.

Male and Females are mentally different, with exclusive traits, meant to complement each other. Male Male and Female Female relationships lack these traits, particularly impacting Child rearing.

It also erodes public morals and destroys the institution of family and marriage.

Here are secular statistics, among other things, directly contrasting your views.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

If you read nothing else, please read this:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT00E1
For example, when a man puts the part of himself that represents life into the cavity of another man that represents decay and expulsion, there is just no way to make the act mean something different from "Life, be swallowed up in death.

Rangeetsuper

02-11-2012, 01:11 AM

Re: Talon/phoopes, Many people admit they simply don't have enough proof to know. If only Christians would admit that. There's also the theory floating around that the laws of physics wouldn't work very well in the initial stages of the universe.

Unownmew: You expect us to follow the "laws of Nature?" When we have beaten them so far that Nature doesn't even want to follow us anymore? That's a particularly stupid argument, because the Earth is overpopulated anyway. It's for the better if a "brake" is put on the acceleration of population.

And then...Just scroll down to the first bit. "Selected images." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)

There are a load of more links. Not just coupling and creating nests, no, but actually indulging in gay sex.

Finally, your last point is futile, since it has already been proved that animals do it, but if you want another argument, it would mean anal sex in general is bad, but YET another argument says that MASTURBATION would be bad, and a final argument states that sex where either of the parties are non-fertile would be bad. All of this scenarios result in this "life" being unable to produce, y'know, LIFE. You could even stretch it to no sex unless the woman HAS to be pregnant with that "batch" of sperm.

I'll leave it to others(Read:Talon) to dispute the statistics.

Jerichi

02-11-2012, 01:16 AM

>Here are secular statistics, among other things, directly contrasting your views.

These statistics are HARDLY secular considering their presentation.

Show me something else that presents them that is not on a website whose subtitle is "Advancing Faith, Family and Freedom" and maybe you'll start convincing me.

Not to mention, this is a horrid skewing and misrepresentation of facts.

Let's see why:

The first paragraphs and graphs talk about marriages and marriage length between heterosexual couples. A graph is presented stating the longevity of marriages on average.

The second paragraph quotes a series of statistics gathered by The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census. It discusses "current relationships" - not "committed relationships" or "marriages" or "domestic partnerships". A "current relationship". That could be anything from a long-term domestic partnership or marriage to a month-long fling. Apples and oranges.

The next heading, "MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP".

Once again, Heterosexual Married Men are compared to ANY KIND OF HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. Once again, apples and oranges.

They go on to present statistics about commitment. Who do they poll again? That's right, you guessed it! Married heterosexuals and EVERY HOMOSEXUAL.

This is horrible, skewed statistics at its worse. It is, frankly, insulting that you would present this to us as any kind of proof.

unownmew

02-11-2012, 01:17 AM

Funny thing that Big Bang. You Atheists must have a lot of faith to believe in something that uncertain, unseen, unprovable, and oh-so-fickle. I see no scientific evidence proving that that's really what happened. I think I'll stick with my religion, as it's much easier to believe, and has a greater historical basis.

Rangeetsuper

02-11-2012, 01:19 AM

No, actually, not everyone believes in the Big Bang. There are other theories. But if I've got it right, it's the most probable theory. Unlike religion.

Tyranidos

02-11-2012, 01:23 AM

Jerichi

02-11-2012, 01:25 AM

Big Bang? Unprovable?

Is it just me or did Math and Physics suddenly cease to exist without my knowing?

Muyotwo

02-11-2012, 01:28 AM

The universe isn't infinite, but it is expanding at an exponential rate. There isn't going to be a Big Crunch.
Actually, depending on the total mass of matter in the universe it is still possible that the universe will contract- though the most likely result at the moment is that the universe will slow its expansion, but never actually stop expanding- so eventually we wouldn't be able to see the light from other stars anymore (If, of course, Earth were to survive that long, which it won't).

Tyranidos

02-11-2012, 01:33 AM

Actually, depending on the total mass of matter in the universe it is still possible that the universe will contract- though the most likely result at the moment is that the universe will slow its expansion, but never actually stop expanding- so eventually we wouldn't be able to see the light from other stars anymore (If, of course, Earth were to survive that long, which it won't).

Yeah, I had forgotten about "dark matter." At present, though, the universe shows no signs of slowing its expansion.

Kairne

02-11-2012, 02:08 AM

The institution of family, eh? Such as the APA saying that evidence suggests that children raised by homosexual parents are just fine (http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx) and in no way proven to be any less loved or supported than those in heterosexual households?

And maybe periodicals (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm) will help to strengthen that argument. About dot com (http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gayadoptionstat.htm) shows counters to that misconception.

And wow, that one you wanted me to read was really just... awful. Not only is it hugely a religious source, as are all three you linked to. "Advancing Faith, Family, and Freedom" should have of course been a dead giveaway.

As far as the institution of family and marriage, you have no right to tell me what a family is or isn't. My biological father was a worse bastard than anyone I have ever met, and likely more than I ever will meet. He is the most cruel, sadistic, hypocritical excuse for something that calls itself a man but is no better than the beasts he treads on. He is the most predatory person I have ever known, and he has hurt more people close to my heart than anything else could. He's no fucking father of mine.

Sure, there's the lesser crimes of his, like forcing his kids into religion, compulsive lying to everyone, including himself, and the cheating on my mother.

And then there are the really bad things. Because Ralph only had two variations: abuse and neglect. One of my favourite stories about just how much of a sick bastard he is was when we went camping. I looked at the shed cicada shells on the trees. He tells me to turn around, and as I do, there is a cicada in him hands literally about an inch from my face. Of course I backed up. For one, everybody knew, especially him, that I have a horrible fear of bees and wasps (he himself is allergic to bees), and as he is pushing this buzzing insect that I cannot identify right in my face, I step back. Who wouldn't in my position, especially with that fear or flying, buzzing, stinging insects. I tripped as a stepped back, and sprained my ankle. That was bad enough. But that was before he laughed at me, knowing I had sprained it. And then he told me it was my fault for stepping backwards, not apologizing, not seeing how he in any way was to blame for even a single iota of it.

Or, how about the fact that he yelled so much that now I just cannot stand yelling? People yelling will literally induce tears in me because of that bastard, preying upon his youngest child. Actually, all his children. Out of 4 of us (5 is you include the daughter from his first marriage, which was not to my mother), only 1 still really talks to him, and that's because she was always able to wrap him around her little finger. But even she gets scared shitless when he yells. And he yells a lot.

You have no clue how often I wished I had a real set of parents, gay, lesbian, straight, it didn't matter. Anything would be better than that bastard. So you have absolutely no place telling me what destroys your so-treasured institution of family.

As far as denying one's homosexuality, seeking to make gay people not act on it, trying to change their sexual orientation:
PFLAG (http://community.pflag.org/page.aspx?pid=503)
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed the term "homosexuality" from the list of mental and emotional disorders. Sexual orientation is not a disorder; therefore, it does not need to be cured.

In 1990, the American Psychological Association stated that scientific evidence shows that reparative therapy does not work and that it can do more harm than good.

In 1998, the American Psychiatric Association stated it was opposed to reparative therapy, stating "psychiatric literature strongly demonstrates that treatment attempts to change sexual orientation are ineffective. However, the potential risks are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive [suicidal] behavior..."

The American Medical Association, states in its policy number H-160.991, that it “opposes, the use of ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation”.

In 2001, The U.S. Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior asserted that homosexuality is not "a reversible lifestyle choice”.

Richard Cohen, one of the main reparative therapists, is permanently excluded from the American Counseling Association (ACA).

“Reparative therapy” is unethical. It does not work and it is dangerous and destructive. The damage that can be done by this practice is real. It can destroy someone's self esteem and faith and may lead to self-destructive and suicidal behavior.

As far as symbolism, you have an inherent bias against it, and obviously cannot see the beauty of the male form in that way. That's okay; I never said you have to. But as for myself, and many, many other gay men, we see it differently.

For the animals argument... I'm too tired to look up a few sources at the moment. But you are lying to yourself if you think that no animals have gay sex. Many are functionally bisexual as species themselves, for various reasons.

Lastly, I see the eroding of public morals every time I see a Matthew Sheppard being beaten to death because of a simple, yet inherent part of himself.

Also, this (http://www.prestongrant.com/2011/12/homosexuality-response-sweat/#.TzXcT4G61dg) may sway a bit, too, as it shows a biological reaction difference.

deoxys

02-11-2012, 02:34 AM

http://i.imgur.com/lknP8.png

CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS.

edit: why the hell is it so hard for Christians to accept that maybe God is a scientist?

Muyotwo

02-11-2012, 02:39 AM

Well damn. Can't argue with that.

Kairne

02-11-2012, 02:40 AM

I was vaguely tempted to use Godwin's law as a rebuttal, but that would not be kind to the Christians here who are wholesome people.

EDIT: The comparison to um may also be offensive to whom Godwin's law refers, so doubly no

deoxys

02-11-2012, 02:42 AM

Doppleganger

02-11-2012, 03:22 AM

unownmew

02-11-2012, 04:56 PM

Unownmew: You expect us to follow the "laws of Nature?" When we have beaten them so far that Nature doesn't even want to follow us anymore? That's a particularly stupid argument, because the Earth is overpopulated anyway. It's for the better if a "brake" is put on the acceleration of population.
Yes, I do expect us to follow them. We still do. We haven't beaten them in any shape, manner or form, we just know how to use some of them to our advantage. Beating them would mean to transcend them, in other words, be able to change them, or no longer being subjected to them. I still have to eat every day.. We haven't beaten that law yet.

You can't claim the Earth is overcrowded, that's ridiculous, not when we still have such gigantic swaths of unpopulated land here on Earth, especially in 3rd world countries. Even if we were overpopulated, there's no need for a "brake," let's just let human ingenuity create new places to populate, like the Moon, and Mars, among other solutions.
Multiply and Replenish the Earth is a commandment still in effect for Christians.

And then...Just scroll down to the first bit. "Selected images." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)

There are a load of more links. Not just coupling and creating nests, no, but actually indulging in gay sex.
I stand corrected, and appalled, and shaken. Though I had to search through the various reference materials to get any actually substantial claims of evidence. Even then there's no 100% proof like a photo or anything, just second hand reports and inferences I have to trust aren't lying or misinformed.

Kinda similar to you Atheists' claims about Christians' God Arguments, there's no 100% proof I can go to. :roll:

Finally, your last point is futile, since it has already been proved that animals do it, but if you want another argument, it would mean anal sex in general is bad, but YET another argument says that MASTURBATION would be bad, and a final argument states that sex where either of the parties are non-fertile would be bad. All of this scenarios result in this "life" being unable to produce, y'know, LIFE. You could even stretch it to no sex unless the woman HAS to be pregnant with that "batch" of sperm.

Yes Anal sex is bad, yes Masturbation is bad, according to my religion. There's no contradiction there.
Wrong however that infertile sex is bad, because you're still using the appropriate organs, and for the appropriate purpose: either attempting procreation, or unification with your other half (Males and Females are different for a reason).
Let's remember though, that in the time of the Hebrews, it was considered a reproach from God to be infertile, but if you were faithful, and desired it, He would cure it.

>Here are secular statistics, among other things, directly contrasting your views.

These statistics are HARDLY secular considering their presentation.

Show me something else that presents them that is not on a website whose subtitle is "Advancing Faith, Family and Freedom" and maybe you'll start convincing me.
Sorry, but it's obvious that only an organization that cared to argue against something would actually do so, so naturally, they must be inherently biased already. I can't imagine a homosexual-leaning organization would come out with anything but facts supporting their own bias. :roll:

So, instead of worrying about WHERE the information is coming, from, how about we look at the actual information presented instead, regardless of it's origins. Hmm? 8)

Not to mention, this is a horrid skewing and misrepresentation of facts.

Let's see why:

The first paragraphs and graphs talk about marriages and marriage length between heterosexual couples. A graph is presented stating the longevity of marriages on average.

The second paragraph quotes a series of statistics gathered by The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census. It discusses "current relationships" - not "committed relationships" or "marriages" or "domestic partnerships". A "current relationship". That could be anything from a long-term domestic partnership or marriage to a month-long fling. Apples and oranges.
It's comparing the differences between Marriages (Committed Relationships), which until recently, could only be heterosexual, and ANY relationship on the behalf of homosexual couples. It's actually oversampling the size in favor of the homosexuals by doing this. It's not apples and oranges, it's intentionally biased in favor of the homosexuals, but even with the bias it still can't overcome the sheer data.

The next heading, "MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP".

Once again, Heterosexual Married Men are compared to ANY KIND OF HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. Once again, apples and oranges.

They go on to present statistics about commitment. Who do they poll again? That's right, you guessed it! Married heterosexuals and EVERY HOMOSEXUAL.

This is horrible, skewed statistics at its worse. It is, frankly, insulting that you would present this to us as any kind of proof.
You think it's skewed. You're absolutely right. It's entirely skewed to put the Homosexuals in the best light.
If they had sampled heterosexual women as well, the data would have had an even lower promiscuity rate and a higher commitment, and if they had sampled only homosexual males, the rate would likely have been even higher promiscuity and lower commitment for their side.

Though you do have a slightly valid point. Perhaps I'll look for a more equal poll.

Funny thing about God. Your own words are an accurate description.
That was exactly my point. ;-)

Big Bang? Unprovable?

Is it just me or did Math and Physics suddenly cease to exist without my knowing?
Since when were math and physics capable of proving an event occurred in the past. Not just theorize about how it might be possible, but, actually prove that it DID happen.

That's what I thought.

The institution of family, eh? Such as the APA saying that evidence suggests that children raised by homosexual parents are just fine (http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx) and in no way proven to be any less loved or supported than those in heterosexual households?

And maybe periodicals (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm) will help to strengthen that argument. About dot com (http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gayadoptionstat.htm) shows counters to that misconception.
Hmm, considering the fact that males and females are mentally wired differently, and each have unique trait strengths and weaknesses, I find your claims hard to swallow.
A Man can not substitute for a woman when it comes to child bearing, that's impossible, and it should be a huge clue for anyone with common sense that, if the female bears the child, the female is the one designed to raise it, a man can't substitute that role. I'll not say a man can't do a fair enough job at raising a child, many widower men have done it, but even they admit they can't substitute for the need of the child to have an actual Mother.

And wow, that one you wanted me to read was really just... awful. Not only is it hugely a religious source, as are all three you linked to. "Advancing Faith, Family, and Freedom" should have of course been a dead giveaway.
Again, it doesn't matter where the information comes from, look at the actual information. Just like all you're ever going to see from homosexual-supportive organizations is proof favoring their views, there's no way I'm going to find anti-arguments from anywhere but places with that bias already.

As far as the institution of family and marriage, you have no right to tell me what a family is or isn't. My biological father was a worse bastard than anyone I have ever met, and likely more than I ever will meet. He is the most cruel, sadistic, hypocritical excuse for something that calls itself a man but is no better than the beasts he treads on. He is the most predatory person I have ever known, and he has hurt more people close to my heart than anything else could. He's no fucking father of mine.

Sure, there's the lesser crimes of his, like forcing his kids into religion, compulsive lying to everyone, including himself, and the cheating on my mother.

And then there are the really bad things. Because Ralph only had two variations: abuse and neglect. One of my favourite stories about just how much of a sick bastard he is was when we went camping. I looked at the shed cicada shells on the trees. He tells me to turn around, and as I do, there is a cicada in him hands literally about an inch from my face. Of course I backed up. For one, everybody knew, especially him, that I have a horrible fear of bees and wasps (he himself is allergic to bees), and as he is pushing this buzzing insect that I cannot identify right in my face, I step back. Who wouldn't in my position, especially with that fear or flying, buzzing, stinging insects. I tripped as a stepped back, and sprained my ankle. That was bad enough. But that was before he laughed at me, knowing I had sprained it. And then he told me it was my fault for stepping backwards, not apologizing, not seeing how he in any way was to blame for even a single iota of it.

Or, how about the fact that he yelled so much that now I just cannot stand yelling? People yelling will literally induce tears in me because of that bastard, preying upon his youngest child. Actually, all his children. Out of 4 of us (5 is you include the daughter from his first marriage, which was not to my mother), only 1 still really talks to him, and that's because she was always able to wrap him around her little finger. But even she gets scared shitless when he yells. And he yells a lot.

You have no clue how often I wished I had a real set of parents, gay, lesbian, straight, it didn't matter. Anything would be better than that bastard. So you have absolutely no place telling me what destroys your so-treasured institution of family.
We all have our own sob stories. I'm sorry to hear about what happened to you. I'd be lying to say I was raised in an environment as abusive as yours, but I certainly didn't get that much better IMO. I wish I had had better parents as well, and I will admit, any loving and caring couple, homosexual or otherwise, can do a better job at raising kids then an abusive parent/s.

But that doesn't change what a family is designed to be, and has been understood to be since the beginning of record-keeping. A Mother and a Father, married, unified in love, and the purpose of raising virtuous children the best they can. One male, one female, and children. Any variation, heterosexual or homo, is an insult, disgrace, and enemy, to the institution of the Family. Couples without children, if they were capable of having them, do not count fully as a family either, IMO.

And people can change, if they choose to. My childhood was rather terrible, but my parents are taking counseling (finally), and, while not perfect, are getting a little better.

As far as denying one's homosexuality, seeking to make gay people not act on it, trying to change their sexual orientation:
I wonder how many of those "rehabilitation" programs use love and guidance, and how many attempt to shame gays into changing. Obviously there'll be a difference between the outcomes of those two methods, and the shaming one is undoubtedly going to have negative impacts. Unfortunately it just blankets generally "rehabilitation," as bad.

Of course, nothing's going to work if the subject resolutely refuses to want to change. Which is why conversion of the heart is so essential to everything.

As far as symbolism, you have an inherent bias against it, and obviously cannot see the beauty of the male form in that way. That's okay; I never said you have to. But as for myself, and many, many other gay men, we see it differently.
I could choose to be a homosexual at any time, and don't doubt I might even enjoy it. But in my heart I find it absolutely abhorrent, and so I avoid all semblances of it.

Taste is a matter of choice, just like one decides what foods one likes and dislikes, which color you prefer, and which scents you enjoy. Even if you dislike something initially, you can choose to like it later, and vice versus. The same goes for Orientation.

For the animals argument... I'm too tired to look up a few sources at the moment. But you are lying to yourself if you think that no animals have gay sex. Many are functionally bisexual as species themselves, for various reasons.
I wasn't lying to myself, I was genuinely ignorant. Species that were designed to be able to reproduce bi-sexually however, don't count as homosexuals.

Lastly, I see the eroding of public morals every time I see a Matthew Sheppard being beaten to death because of a simple, yet inherent part of himself.
I deplore the violence that killed Matthew Shepard, and I mourn the perversion that caused him to be sexually attracted to strange violent men.
I'll agree the Public morals are eroded in many ways besides homosexuality, but that doesn't excuse it's part in that erosion.

Also, this (http://www.prestongrant.com/2011/12/homosexuality-response-sweat/#.TzXcT4G61dg) may sway a bit, too, as it shows a biological reaction difference.
I'm attracted to the scent of Vanilla. Does that mean it's appropriate for me to have sex with plants?

As, I said before, personal tastes are not rigidly set, at any time you can change your mind as to what scents, shapes, and colors you are attracted to, if you so chose to do so.
Or are we to believe that Necrophiliacs also can't control an innate affection for the scent of death, and Pedophiles unable to overcome their attraction to small children? Are they not also sexual orientations, with basis for biological attraction?

Funny thing about that article, if it is true, then it's proof that homophobia is just as natural as Homosexuality. So people can't say homophobes need to "get over themselves," because they can't change it, it's innate. (And, surprise surprise, it's the homosexual's fault)

CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS.

edit: why the hell is it so hard for Christians to accept that maybe God is a scientist?
God is a scientist, because he created/uses the Laws of Nature. In my mind I have no problem accepting that God used science in order to create the universe, the earth, and all living things. (A higher science then our current scientists are capable of) Whether he used machines, or scientific instruments, psychic power, or a magic wave of his Divine hand means little to my religion.

The problem comes if you're actually trying to tell me scientists are God. Which I flatly refuse.

Jerichi

02-11-2012, 05:38 PM

>Sorry, but it's obvious that only an organization that cared to argue against something would actually do so, so naturally, they must be inherently biased already. I can't imagine a homosexual-leaning organization would come out with anything but facts supporting their own bias.

Wow. No.

Why don't you find something from a third party instead that has done legitimate research instead of someone who is clearly biased?

If I were to present such statistical data, I would have made an effort to find something that is from a source as unbiased as possible, instead of simply picking the first link on Google and treating it as legitimate.

Since when were math and physics capable of proving an event occurred in the past. Not just theorize about how it might be possible, but, actually prove that it DID happen.

That's what I thought.

You don't actually understand how science works, do you?

We are pretty much unable to observe a huge majority of the universe. What we know about the universe is based on data we gather and inferences we can make about this data. The Big Bang is just that - an inference made on the basis of data that we have gathered over hundreds of years of scientific inquiry. Is it infallible? No; you'd have to be an idiot to say that. Is it probable? Very much so. We have plenty of mathematical and physical proofs to corroborate this theory.

Not to mention, I don't see how the Big Bang doesn't play well with the idea of God. I'm not an atheist or even an agnostic (though I'm not exactly a Christian either) and I can say that I firmly have belief in the Big Bang. Scientists have provided a great deal of proof for it, and therefore, I believe it, like any rational and logical person would.

Now, if you're a creationist, I'm not even going to bother arguing with you there. You've made your stubborn little bed of ignorance and you can feel free to sleep in it all you want. I'm not gonna get involved in that.

It's comparing the differences between Marriages (Committed Relationships), which until recently, could only be heterosexual, and ANY relationship on the behalf of homosexual couples. It's actually oversampling the size in favor of the homosexuals by doing this. It's not apples and oranges, it's intentionally biased in favor of the homosexuals, but even with the bias it still can't overcome the sheer data.

How the hell is this oversampling? This is missampling. You're choosing two completely distinct groups and trying to draw conclusions based on completely different criteria.

It is totally illogical to compare two groups that have two clearly and legally defined differences in relationship status. Drawing conclusions from statistics comparing any homosexual couple with only married heterosexual couples is like saying all non-athletes are bad at being athletes simply because they are not actually athletes.

This kind of comparison is meaningless until there is a way to actually determine some sort of committed partnership among homosexual couples. This survey puts any and all homosexual relationship on the same level as marriages while excluding any data about non-marital relationships (which, by the way, look a LOT like homosexual relationships). This is a complete and heinous misrepresentation of facts.

You think it's skewed. You're absolutely right. It's entirely skewed to put the Homosexuals in the best light.
If they had sampled heterosexual women as well, the data would have had an even lower promiscuity rate and a higher commitment, and if they had sampled only homosexual males, the rate would likely have been even higher promiscuity and lower commitment for their side.

Though you do have a slightly valid point. Perhaps I'll look for a more equal poll.

You're delusional if you think this is putting homosexuals in a good light. You're even more delusional (and frankly, extremely sexist) for thinking that just for including lesbians or women that it will change your statistics.

Not to mention, read your own fucking source. It says "Homosexual Males" in every single graph.

Let's pull some other links into this discussion, shall we?
Here's (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm) a great refutation of one of the main sources referenced in your link, the "Dutch Study". It's faulty science with horrible sampling that hardly says anything about what they're actually looking at, let alone what people want to derive from it.

Warning: There is bias! There is always going to be bias. That is unavoidable. However, it presents each point logically and gives logical refutation for each as to why it is poor science.

I could choose to be a homosexual at any time, and don't doubt I might even enjoy it. But in my heart I find it absolutely abhorrent, and so I avoid all semblances of it.

I really, really doubt that. Number one, I think you're misinterpreting what it means to "be a homosexual". Being a homosexual doesn't mean having sexual relationships with a man. There are plenty of men who have had sexual relationships with another man and identify as heterosexual.

If you're a heterosexual, and by this, I mean 100%, entirely heterosexual (which is kind of a ridiculous idea, but bear with me for the purpose of this), you aren't going to get it up for a man. You can really hope and try and want it, but it's not going to happen. Same thing for any homosexual male and women. It's not about choice. It is biological wiring.

As a heterosexual man, you will never feel any attraction to someone of the same sex, romantic, sexual or otherwise. Because you are hardwired to feel this biological and psychological attraction to women. Saying you can become a homosexual is frankly insulting to you as a heterosexual man, because it is implying that you're attempting to defy how your body works. You may choose to do certain acts or engage in certain things, but that does not mean that you're choosing your sexual orientation. Sexual orientation and your choice to act on your sexual desires are two entirely separate things.

Similarly, a homosexual man or woman denying their homosexuality is equally insulting to them. It's how our body works. Just because yours doesn't work that way, doesn't mean ours cannot.

But, I have no means to convince you of this since you'll never be able to actually understand what it is to be a homosexual. Clearly, since you've established yourself as a heterosexual, we are unable to ever be on even grounds of understanding. I don't even have very much scientific research currently to support my claims, simply because very little has been done. So, for now, all I can say with confidence is that we can't come to any conclusions, and until some more science has been done, it is unfair to everyone to jump to any.

Talon87

02-11-2012, 06:28 PM

Being a homosexual doesn't mean having sexual relationships with a man. There are plenty of men who have had sexual relationships with another man and identify as heterosexual.
This. It's why, as a physician, you don't ask your male patients "Are you gay?" when taking their sexual history but instead "Do you have sex with men?" (along with the follow-up "Have you had sex with men?" if they deny the first but have already established in response to earlier questions that they are not virgins). When discussing AIDS, you'll often find the acronym in the medical literature "MSM," which is shorthand for "men who have sex with men," and not "gays," "gay men," or "homosexual men." Pretty much because the medical community is more interested in disease incidence as it compares with sexual practices and not in disease incidence as it compares with sexual preferences or sexual identities.

Not to mention that if you ask a bisexual patient "Are you gay?" and he honestly answers "No," you then have to follow that up with "Are you bi?" Makes the interviews awkward for both parties as it makes the patient feel like the doctor is prying and it makes the doctor feel like an ass for making the patient feel uncomfortable. Asking the silver bullet question "Do you have sex with men?" pretty much nails all possibilities: heterosexuals who partake in what society considers to be homosexual activities, homosexuals, and bisexuals.

The More You Know™

deoxys

02-11-2012, 06:56 PM

The problem comes if you're actually trying to tell me scientists are God. Which I flatly refuse.

Excuse me? No I'm not, don't put words in my mouth.

I was making a point that if "with God, all things are possible", then how is it so hard to accept that he may have used very precise scientific methods to create eveything? And by that, I mean to suggest that perhaps the true "Creationist" theory and Evolution are one in the same, in that "What if God created all life through Evolution?" or, "What if God created the universe, with the Big Bang."

Just look at all of the beginning of Genesis, it's incredibly open to interpretation.

Now, listen to this song that is only slightly relevant/ Genesis by VNV Nation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kOHF4YS5r8)

Shuckle

02-11-2012, 07:37 PM

The proper term for that is "Deism", as in "God started it and the natural laws did the rest of it".

I prefer "God is in the natural laws. He is gravity, and he is physics, and he is also the reason 2+2 is 4".

Of course, neither contradicts the Bible.

Speaking of contradicting the Bible:

Leviticus 18:22

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some for of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. For example:
The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They confuse the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden."
On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."
The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under. There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:
Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."
Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Isreal unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the death penalty.
The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse. For example:

The Net Bible® translation 1 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."
An alternate translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for heterosexual sex.Received after a little googling from this (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/homosexuality_is_a_sin.htm)amusing site. A few experts of their laudable hatemongering:The Democrats don't need an exclusive special homo group. Almost all active Democratic Party political professionals are bisexual and gay. Those who aren't are into other weird, abnormal sexual behavior—satanic sex bondage rituals, etc.Recently, some 600 homosexual congressmen and politicians threw another wild party, this time inside a certain federal building in Washington, D.C. Security guards were led to vomit at what they saw going on inside and even outside, on the grounds. You may be interested in knowing that among the "proud" sponsors of this disgusting homo-sex gala were wealthy corporations such as American Airlines, Snapple beverages, Miller Lite beer, Starbucks coffee, and Ben and Jerry's ice cream.(Remember, about 2% of the population is gay. Also, there are only 632 Congressmen, if you count Senators who are not actually called "congressmen", and we know that a great deal of them have been hitting it up a little too wildly with the ladies, as well as maybe also being married.

After that weirdness, here's another interesting thing I found:

[On Romans 1:27]
Paul is criticising heterosexual people who engages in homosexual activities
which are “against their nature” (Boswell; cf Wink 1999:36), and his criticism is not directed against people who are homosexual by nature, and for whom
homosexual relations and activities would be “natural”.

The point of this is, of course, to remind you all to check your sources for other interpretations. A Genesis, Bara, God, the heaven, and the Country on and, to beCurrently accepted translation: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".

unownmew

02-11-2012, 08:19 PM

[COLOR="YellowGreen"]>Sorry, but it's obvious that only an organization that cared to argue against something would actually do so, so naturally, they must be inherently biased already. I can't imagine a homosexual-leaning organization would come out with anything but facts supporting their own bias.

Wow. No.

Why don't you find something from a third party instead that has done legitimate research instead of someone who is clearly biased?
Because even third parties are biased, and despite what they say, could just as easily miss-sample or over-sample on purpose but claim they're completely legit.

If I were to present such statistical data, I would have made an effort to find something that is from a source as unbiased as possible, instead of simply picking the first link on Google and treating it as legitimate.
I'm going to go back to that site and recheck a few things, but, I did admit you had a point earlier.

You don't actually understand how science works, do you?

We are pretty much unable to observe a huge majority of the universe. What we know about the universe is based on data we gather and inferences we can make about this data. The Big Bang is just that - an inference made on the basis of data that we have gathered over hundreds of years of scientific inquiry. Is it infallible? No; you'd have to be an idiot to say that. Is it probable? Very much so. We have plenty of mathematical and physical proofs to corroborate this theory.
What I was saying was, the standing The Big Bang has, is no better then the standing God has. Both can not be 100% absolutely proven with science. And yet People tout the Big bang (among other creation theories) as proof God doesn't exist.

Not to mention, I don't see how the Big Bang doesn't play well with the idea of God. I'm not an atheist or even an agnostic (though I'm not exactly a Christian either) and I can say that I firmly have belief in the Big Bang. Scientists have provided a great deal of proof for it, and therefore, I believe it, like any rational and logical person would.
It doesn't play well with God, because people use it to prove God doesn't exist. And yet, as I've said over and over in this thread, Science is the HOW, whereas Religion is the WHY. Science goes to tell us HOW God does things and how natural laws works, and Religion tells us the WHY. Philosophy's also in there somewhere.. For a total 3 different things, that can not interfere with each others' findings or change them. The problem is when people start to take science as reasoning proof against God's existence, when it can do no such thing.

Now, if you're a creationist, I'm not even going to bother arguing with you there. You've made your stubborn little bed of ignorance and you can feel free to sleep in it all you want. I'm not gonna get involved in that.
I believe God created all things spiritually, and then temporally. I believe Science shows us how things work, but when it starts delving into the Why they work, it is no longer science, and starts to become an actual religion, with all the failings that come with it.

You're delusional if you think this is putting homosexuals in a good light. You're even more delusional (and frankly, extremely sexist) for thinking that just for including lesbians or women that it will change your statistics.
No, it's clearly not Sexist. Sexist is prejudice and discrimination of a group based on gender (not necessarily females), what is IS though, is Stereotyping.

As for putting homosexuals in a bad light... I think they do that just fine on their own, polls just depict it. It's clearly giving them the benefit of the doubt. What they do with that benefit is their problem.

Let's pull some other links into this discussion, shall we?
Here's (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm) a great refutation of one of the main sources referenced in your link, the "Dutch Study". It's faulty science with horrible sampling that hardly says anything about what they're actually looking at, let alone what people want to derive from it.[/quote]
A fair enough refutation. I wonder if anyone has done any actual research on the duration of homosexual relationship if this is the case.

Warning: There is bias! There is always going to be bias. That is unavoidable.
Thank you.

I really, really doubt that. Number one, I think you're misinterpreting what it means to "be a homosexual". Being a homosexual doesn't mean having sexual relationships with a man. There are plenty of men who have had sexual relationships with another man and identify as heterosexual.
If I tried hard enough, I'm sure I could change my thinking about men, AND women, and eventually identify myself as a homosexual. I don't want to, though, so I'm not going to try it.

If you're a heterosexual, and by this, I mean 100%, entirely heterosexual (which is kind of a ridiculous idea, but bear with me for the purpose of this), you aren't going to get it up for a man. You can really hope and try and want it, but it's not going to happen. Same thing for any homosexual male and women. It's not about choice. It is biological wiring.
That's an obvious observation for a hetero. But biological wiring can be adapted. Or are you saying my attraction to small bust is biological and unchangable?

As a heterosexual man, you will never feel any attraction to someone of the same sex, romantic, sexual or otherwise. Because you are hardwired to feel this biological and psychological attraction to women. Saying you can become a homosexual is frankly insulting to you as a heterosexual man, because it is implying that you're attempting to defy how your body works. You may choose to do certain acts or engage in certain things, but that does not mean that you're choosing your sexual orientation. Sexual orientation and your choice to act on your sexual desires are two entirely separate things.
Oh, so now you're saying homosexuals are no longer obliged to engage in homosexual activities just because they have a certain orientation?
You just told me I can perform homosexual activities while still remaining hetero..

IMO, and my experience, sexual orientation is based entirely in personal thought. It is your mind that determines what you find attractive, and not, but it does take effort to alter it.

Similarly, a homosexual man or woman denying their homosexuality is equally insulting to them. It's how our body works. Just because yours doesn't work that way, doesn't mean ours cannot.
I have ADD, and AS. It's how my brain is wired, it's biological, it's just how my body works. People without probably can't possibly imagine what it's like to have these things know as Mental Disorders. And yet I'm required by society to perform like everyone else, fully functional, I don't get special treatment anywhere I go. I have to find ways to adapt to my disorder and appear "functional." They even make medicine designed to "Fix" some of these disorders, as if it's something diseased or unnatural.
I make do as best I can, I don't take medication, I've learned to control myself better then that, and I'm getting counseling to learn better methods of adaptation.
I can't completely change how I'm wired, but I can change how I act, how I think, how I feel, and what I want.

So don't give me this shit about how it's wrong to deny how your body is wired, and that it's unchangeable and just needs to be accepted. It's insulting to me and everyone else with "mental disorders" who are trying to survive, or have actually made success in this world.

Kairne

02-11-2012, 08:21 PM

> "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."

Well, that's just unfair.

Then again, I am Pagan, so I don't really make an effort to follow the Bible, anyway.

unownmew

02-11-2012, 08:39 PM

Excuse me? No I'm not, don't put words in my mouth.
Which is why I said "IF you were trying to tell me that."

I was making a point that if "with God, all things are possible", then how is it so hard to accept that he may have used very precise scientific methods to create eveything? And by that, I mean to suggest that perhaps the true "Creationist" theory and Evolution are one in the same, in that "What if God created all life through Evolution?" or, "What if God created the universe, with the Big Bang."
This, I have no issue with. Though I dispute evolution on other grounds.

The proper term for that is "Deism", as in "God started it and the natural laws did the rest of it".

I prefer "God is in the natural laws. He is gravity, and he is physics, and he is also the reason 2+2 is 4".

Of course, neither contradicts the Bible.
I believe he created the laws, and then started the processes that would use those laws. Not too different from what you said

On the topic of Biblical passages relating to homosexuality:
the Hebrew Kings were often commanded to cut down the groves, and utterly destroy the Sodomites. I suppose one could interpret that as just meaning men who have sex with men, or it might relate to eliminating the pagans from their land entirely.

My religion, a living religion (that is, we have prophets which receive and teach the word of God, adding to the scriptures, like the prophets of old did), has received clarification on some things of biblical nature, I don't remember the specifics, but I think all homosexual behavior is considered sinful, but not the homosexual orientation by itself.

> "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."

Well, that's just unfair.

Then again, I am Pagan, so I don't really make an effort to follow the Bible, anyway.

Oh, things make a lot more sense now. No wonder you're so deep seated in your beliefs.

Doppleganger

02-12-2012, 02:02 AM

Because even third parties are biased, and despite what they say, could just as easily miss-sample or over-sample on purpose but claim they're completely legit.

There are always going to be errors and scope problems, but the point is to minimize those discrepancies to get close to the truth. Even if you were to assume "third party analysis is inherently flawed, therefore it can't be trusted" logically you can't bridge that to "therefore, I will trust more clearly biased sources because ___".

What I was saying was, the standing The Big Bang has, is no better then the standing God has. Both can not be 100% absolutely proven with science. And yet People tout the Big bang (among other creation theories) as proof God doesn't exist.

The distinction here is the Big Bang can be inferred by the rules of the universe as we understand it. God is a supernatural entity who exists beyond the rules of the universe, and can never be proven to exist with science.

God's existence is un-falsifiable. The Big Bang isn't.

It doesn't play well with God, because people use it to prove God doesn't exist. And yet, as I've said over and over in this thread, Science is the HOW, whereas Religion is the WHY. Science goes to tell us HOW God does things and how natural laws works, and Religion tells us the WHY.

I don't understand this distinction. "Why" seems like a question, and "how" is the answer. Taken to a logical extreme, if we have all the answers about how the universe works, there isn't really anymore room for questions, meaning religion is obviated.

Philosophy's also in there somewhere.. For a total 3 different things, that can not interfere with each others' findings or change them. The problem is when people start to take science as reasoning proof against God's existence, when it can do no such thing.

Science is a specific branch of philosophy, and evolved out of empiricism. It's still functionally the same.

Rangeetsuper

02-12-2012, 02:45 AM

Wait wait wait.

How are we ignoring the fact that unownmew just compared ADD to being gay.

I'm not sure if that insults gay people or the APA more.

News flash, unownmew: The APA does not consider homosexuality a disease. This has been posted repeatedly- REPEATEDLY- in this thread. Yet you choose to ignore it and go full steam ahead with comparing ADD and being gay.

unownmew

02-12-2012, 03:56 PM

There are always going to be errors and scope problems, but the point is to minimize those discrepancies to get close to the truth. Even if you were to assume "third party analysis is inherently flawed, therefore it can't be trusted" logically you can't bridge that to "therefore, I will trust more clearly biased sources because ___".
I trust "more clearly biased sources" just the same as possibly biased sources.
Any source that draws a conclusion from a set of facts is biased, and I'd rather not spend 5+ days researching source materials and writing up a 10 page report with my own conclusions. Some of the posts I make already take the majority of my waking hours to write..

If something I source is disproven (I'm not perfect, some of you guys' arguments never even occur to me), I move to a different source that hopefully does a better job, irregardless of it's bias.

The distinction here is the Big Bang can be inferred by the rules of the universe as we understand it. God is a supernatural entity who exists beyond the rules of the universe, and can never be proven to exist with science.
The Big Bang really can't be assumed by the rules of the universe though. We have no rules or equations that can model how a point of super-condensed matter in a void without space (never mind explaining where that matter came from in the first place), would spontaneously and without external action, explode and expand into infinity, giving rise to galaxies, suns, and worlds that somehow react in perfect harmony using laws that could never have worked before the explosion.
We can infer only that the universe is expanding, but going any further then that is making unfounded assumptions. It could just as easily be that as opposed to expanding, the bodies in the universe are simply all moving at differing speeds from us in some massive but very finite bubble.

God's existence is un-falsifiable. The Big Bang isn't.
Are you saying here that God's existence can't be confirmed nor denied, but the Big Bang can?

I don't understand this distinction. "Why" seems like a question, and "how" is the answer. Taken to a logical extreme, if we have all the answers about how the universe works, there isn't really anymore room for questions, meaning religion is obviated.
Science:
Q: How do the planets move? A: gravity
a better answer:
Q: How do the Planets move? A: In accordance to a law we define as gravity. We can not prove the existence of this law as we define it however, only the effects of it's presence. 2+2 = 4, but 1+3 also equals 4. 4 is the effect, the equation we use 2+2, though it may work alone, it may not work when substituted into the great equation that models the entirety of life.

Religion:
Q: Why do the planets move? A: God said so.
a better answer:
Q; Why do the planets move? A: Because God designed the universe to be one of order. They move so that we can experience day and night, seasons, and the beauty of his work. They are also for giving signs in the heavens of His glory.

Yeah, if we know all the natural laws of the universe, we practically are Gods, but then our very existence is a proof for religion. ;-)

Wait wait wait.

How are we ignoring the fact that unownmew just compared ADD to being gay.

I'm not sure if that insults gay people or the APA more.

News flash, unownmew: The APA does not consider homosexuality a disease. This has been posted repeatedly- REPEATEDLY- in this thread. Yet you choose to ignore it and go full steam ahead with comparing ADD and being gay.
That was my entire point. I don't care one single bit what some group of failliable humans want to categorize stuff as. Real Mental disorders (at least those categorized as "Real") have much less standing in society then Gays, even though both are, as you guys say "biologically wired and unchangeable."

Interesting though, how you failed to mention the OTHER mental disorder I mentioned along with ADD. Have an explanation for that, or were you intentionally ignoring it because you couldn't contradict it?
What's insulting is your comments downplaying mental disorders.

phoopes

02-12-2012, 04:22 PM

Being gay is not the same as having a mental disability. A mental disibility is something that is "wrong" in the body or mind, which makes it act a certain way that is different from the normal. Being gay is not something that is "wrong" with the body or mind. While it certainly is different from the normal, (as in, the majority of people are heterosexual) being gay certainly does not go into the same category as diseases which make the body or mind function improperly. A more apt comparison for being gay is liking liver and onions. While the majority of people do not like the taste of liver and onions, it is certainly not "wrong" if you do.

Chaotic

02-12-2012, 04:30 PM

To be classified as a mental disorder, it must be "adverse behavior." Being gay is not an adverse behavior.

unownmew

02-12-2012, 05:00 PM

Who defines "Adverse"?

The only difference between gay and Mental disorders is one is considered "Wrong" and the other used to be considered wrong, but is now accepted as perfectly fine.

They both act on the biological and mental levels to cause "difference" from "normal."
(both terms are subjectively defined)

Kairne

02-12-2012, 05:01 PM

the APA, who declared homosexuality not a mental disorder.

Chaotic

02-12-2012, 05:04 PM

Adverse: Preventing success or development; harmful; unfavorable

Being gay does none of this.

unownmew

02-12-2012, 05:08 PM

The only difference between gay and Mental disorders is one is considered "Wrong" and the other used to be considered wrong, but is now accepted as perfectly fine.

They both act on the biological and mental levels to cause "difference" from "normal."
(both terms are subjectively defined)

Chaotic

02-12-2012, 05:12 PM

Abnormal =/= Adverse

Kairne

02-12-2012, 05:12 PM

Then being tall is a physical disorder, and must be bad, because they are a "difference" from "normal".

Which is why your logic does not hold up.

Talon87

02-12-2012, 05:13 PM

To be classified as a mental disorder, it must be "adverse behavior."
Not quite. The DSM-IV defines a mental disorder as "a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual [which] is associated with present distress...or disability...or with a significant increased risk of suffering." In other words ...
On the one hand, you can't be classified as having a psychiatric disorder if you do not acknowledge that you are suffering due to your aberrant thought processes or behaviors.
On the other hand, if somebody is distressed by their behavior or thinking, then they could be argued to have a clinically-definable psychiatric condition.
This presents something of a Catch-22 with the homosexual community. While most of us would agree that being gay is not a mental disorder per se, if a gay youth is quite distressed by the fact that he is gay -- "I wish I weren't gay :cry:, being gay is ruining my life :cry:, man I wish I were straight" -- then it would certainly seem to fall in line with the DSM-IV's diagnostic criteria if we were to say that this youth suffers from a psychiatric affliction. This is precisely why, up until the early 1970s, homosexuality was considered a mental illness in this country, why even in the '70s the APA sidestepped the issue by replacing "homosexuality" with "sexual orientation disturbance" in the DSM. The definition was later changed to ego-dystonic sexual orientation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego-dystonic_sexual_orientation), which precisely describes the hypothetical scenario given above of the gay youth who is distressed by his sexual orientation. (Note, then, that gays happy to be gay would be considered mentally fit but gays unhappy to be gay would not be.) Of note, the World Health Organization still classifies ego-dystonic sexual orientation as a clinical disorder. Sidestepping criticism from GLBT activists in the 1980s, the APA decided to remove the controversial "sexual orientation disturbance" diagnosis but still had everything covered under "sexual disorder not otherwise specified," a diagnosis which is precisely what we still use to this day to clinically diagnose somebody who is suffering from anxiety or depression relating to their sexual orientation.

The important thing to note, then, is that the trend in the 20th century was to move away from classifying homosexuality itself as a mental disorder and towards classifying the occasional sequelae of homosexuality as mental disorders, a.k.a. classifying as mental disorders the anxiety or depression that may result from being gay. But it should also be noted that you don't have to be doing what society considers to be "adverse behavior" for it to still classify as a mental illness. For example, if I feel compelled to check my voicemail once a day every day and that is tearing me apart inside and causing me huge emotional distress, I have a clinical illness -- even though society would say, "Uh :?, wtf, calm down, so you like to check your voicemail once a day every day, so what? Not a big deal." If it's a big deal to me, and it's causing me grief, then the APA says I have a psychiatric problem.

unownmew

02-12-2012, 05:36 PM

Thank you Talon.

That actually educated me a little bit. I had that basic idea down, but couldn't explain it as well as you did. I appreciate the effort you took to make that post.

Jerichi

02-12-2012, 05:45 PM

None of this proves your point.

>The important thing to note, then, is that the trend in the 20th century was to move away from classifying homosexuality itself as a mental disorder and towards classifying the occasional sequelae of homosexuality as mental disorders, a.k.a. classifying as mental disorders the anxiety or depression that may result from being gay.

This. Homosexuality is listed as a cause or reason for disorders, not the disorder itself.

And all of this is caused by the social pressure, discrimination, mental, physical and emotional abuse directed towards homosexuals.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. This kind of treatment as homosexuality as "wrong" and "different" and "unacceptable" causes feelings of dissociation and shame among homosexuals, which causes mental distress and trauma.

deoxys

02-12-2012, 05:55 PM

Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum should read this thread.

unownmew

02-12-2012, 06:06 PM

Talon87

02-12-2012, 06:22 PM

Homosexuality is listed as a cause or reason for disorders, not the disorder itself.

And all of this is caused by the social pressure, discrimination, mental, physical and emotional abuse directed towards homosexuals.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. This kind of treatment as homosexuality as "wrong" and "different" and "unacceptable" causes feelings of dissociation and shame among homosexuals, which causes mental distress and trauma.
Precisely. Though (if we want to play anal-retentive Devil's Advocates here) even in a world where homosexuality was 100% a-okay with everybody you might still find somebody who is gay and who also suffers from ego-dystonic sexual orientation. To give an example of how you could find such an individual in the world of today, just imagine a heterosexual who considers herself a fair-minded, kind-hearted person and who is just beating herself up for not being bi, who is in tears over the fact that she is repulsed by the idea of making love to another woman.

Jerichi: That's a bit of a stretch. :|
Talon: Well, I did say we were playing Devil's Advocates, didn't I? ^^;

Until science can prove it definitively one way or another, I suppose one possible source for unhappiness in the gay youth, even in a world which welcomes gays with open and loving arms, would be trying to reconcile their orientation with the argument that they aren't "evolutionarily fit," per se, as they do not pass their genes on. (As I say, until science can prove it one way or the other. There is no shortage of population biology studies which claim to prove one way or another that gays are evolutionarily fit or unfit. As far as I understand the debate, the jury is still out on it. If someone who knows more about this would like to correct me, by all means, please do so.) Another possible source for unhappiness for gays would be that they cannot have a child with the guy they love. They can adopt, yes, but just as there are many heterosexual couples in this world who choose not to adopt because their ideal future is one in which they make their own children, so too could we imagine a gay couple who, if they could have it their way, would rather procreate together than to adopt and who therefore feel that they are having to "settle" for something less by adopting. (Insert ragey, pro-adoption rant here. ^^; )

Anyway, tangent.

And discrimination, social pressure, and emotional abuse of those with "other" mental (or even physical) disorders/differences is different, why?

With homosexuality, the APA's stance is no longer that both the underlying homosexuality and the resulting problems (e.g. depression and anxiety) are psychiatric illnesses but instead that only the resulting problems are. So, in this sense, the APA is saying that being depressed and gay is no different than being depressed and Jewish. Being Jewish is not a psychiatric illness, but one could easily imagine a Jew who is depressed because, among other things in his life, he suffers endless torment, is the butt of many Jew jokes, has had women dump him when they found out he was Jewish, has had family issues because his traditional Jewish parents had high expectations for him and he failed to meet them, has had threats against his life from racial supremacists, etc etc. In short, he goes into his shrink saying, "Man, I wish I wasn't Jewish." That doesn't mean that his being Jewish is a psychiatric illness. :? It just means that he suffers from a psychiatric illness -- in this case, clinical depression -- as a result of his being Jewish and of being who he is. Obviously, there are a lot of successful and happy Jews in the world. Thus, we can't say "Jewish = psychiatric illness." Just because this one Jewish guy is upset to be Jewish doesn't mean that they all are. That's what the APA is saying about homosexuality too: that just because homosexuality can be the source of a particular psych patient's suffering doesn't mean that homosexuality is in and of itself a psychiatric illness.

You're trying to say "someone who is depressed about being bipolar is no different than someone who is depressed about being homosexual." That may work for your worldview, but that worldview doesn't jive with (1) most of ours on UPN and (2) the APA's. To most of us, you're comparing two different things. The bipolar guy has a psych problem in and of itself -- the bipolar disorder -- about which he is also depressed. So he has two problems. Whereas the homosexual, who doesn't have a psych problem to start off with just from being gay, incidentally suffers from depression related to his sexual orientation. He has only the one problem. He doesn't need to be cured out of his gayness. He just needs some counseling. Like the Jewish guy in the example above.