Designated Religion Argument Thread

Remove all ads!

@Harbourboy:
By 'unclean', I meant spiritually unclean.

EDIT: Never mind my theory. Just read dmc's post below. Thanks for the info!

 

I'm glad that Catholicism has no prohibition on any type of food. It promotes abstaining from meat on Fridays during Lent but that's a totally different matter.

 

In re the pork issue: Do you know what they used to feed pigs? Spiritually unclean, yes, but literally also. Had they not changed the way they keep pigs, most people with the wealth to choose ( the First World ) very few people would eat it anyway.

EDIT: Decided to write some more.

I think the point is that they're all mind-altering drugs. Yes, I know caffeine is much safer than, for example, heroin, but still. Personally, I think it (although perhaps a good idea) not a reason for rules, but seems to me that unnessecary legislation is a speciality of religion..

perhaps. I certainly cannot state that it is proved that the Big Bang was not deliberate, just that there has never been any indication of existence of a deity which is more probably due to other cause. But when religion goes against what is proven to be true, then it should be argued against. You'll note that personally I only have a problem with fundamentalists.

I'm going to hope that you mean something other than the "mode of life" stated above. Because if you don't, you're making stuff up, you're in a "us vs them" mentality, and I don't really want to be involved in any discussions involving you.

[ July 19, 2005, 08:42: Message edited by: Yirimyah ]

 

Finally, someone says it to his face! Err ... gem. Whatever.

 

****ing myself indeed - but that's what I was trying to say. The nice idealistic part of me is saying 'I'd rather totally **** myself over and get sent to hell for all eternity than to serve in Heaven under a god that would send people there'. Especially when I consider what the crimes for burning for all eternity seem to be ... not believing in this guy, for one, which seems a petty reason for someone to suffer eternal torture.

But yeah - I'm glad I don't believe a being like that exists

 

As a point of interest on the whole Kosher thing Muslims can buy meat from Jewish butchers too, not that this often happens I should imagine, as it is considered Halal (the Muslim equivalent to Kosher)

 

And at the same time partially re-wrote the Bible. No offense intended Gnarf but I would be very interested in how closely your version is to the oldest Bible copies (Those presumably being the least corrupted.) I personally think there would be even more differences - Evolution at work!. Obviously this doen't prove anything, maybe the original Bible was never written correctly in the first place and we're gradually getting closer to the true message...
Is my scepticism showing yet?

You believe Smith (& Young?) were prophets. I believe they were men. (Was Smith that young boy?)This is off topic, but again I'm interested in how you resolve the plural marriages of Smith and Young verses the current stance of the LDS (Excommunication I believe?)

 

Carc: Plural marriage is in the bible. It's roots are clearly supported by the story of Isreal (the man, not the country). I love this line from a Mormon website in response to the question 'why don't you still have plural marriage':

Polygamy is actually prohibited by the Book of Mormon except when the Lord commands it. Just looking at the history of the time (i.e., a LOT of Mormon men being killed off), it would make sense that the "Lord would command" plural marriage (this assumes that Joseph Smith was a prophet and talked to God -- but that's a seperate arguement). By the 1880's the reason for plural marriage was gone (the Mormons were quite prosperous in Utah) and the "Lord commanded" the Mormons to stop practising polygamy. By odd coincidence the United States was refusing to allow Utah statehood until plural marriage was forbidden -- the Mormon proclamation against plural marriage came out in 1890 and Utah became a state in 1896 (it took a few years for all the divorces and excommunications to be accomplished).

I no longer believe, but the history is fun.

On a personal note, my great-great-grandfather divorced ALL NINE of his wives in 1891. He was a wealthy landowner in Arizona who gave half of his lands to his first wife, half of what was left to his second, and so on. My great-great-grandmother was the ninth wife and probably only got an outhouse (actually, she and the eighth wife got to share a small farm). According to family legend, the cad went off to Sweden to receive an inheritance -- it seems his father was the child of an annulled royal wedding (don't know how truthful this is). Sometimes rewards are just and he arrive in Sweden just a few months too late to claim his inheritance and died a pauper in Sweden.

 

Now that is a classic story.

 

I briefly dated a girl from Hong Kong I met at college. Her grandfather, a lively and spry Chinese man approaching ninety years of age, had two wives, both currently living. Here's the kicker: They were sisters! Apparently there was some trouble in the house as the man would always take the same one out over and over, leaving the other behind to do the household chores. The girl I dated was the grand-daughter of the one who cooked and cleaned. Seems an unfair and sad situation for her grand-mother if you ask me.

 

Well, one wife was clearly more fun than the other one. The cleaning one should really have tried harder.

 

Tea contains Tanic Acid, which is used in tanning leather. It is used to turn cow hide into actual leather. It can't be good for the stomach. This was not known in 1833 mind you. The Word of Wisdom is as much a test of obedience as a guideline to health.

It's hard sometimes. But usually trying to get a full night's rest before helps.

The core premise for what we do. Basically the existence and what we are taught of the nature of God. There are some, even in this thread, who have called His existence into question, where as we take that for granted. They question what we teach about God, and about the Atonement of Jesus Christ (these are they that don't believe, and as such reject what is taught). They reject those basics. That is what I meant.

I gotta go back to Pascal's Wager on that comment. If I'm wrong, and God doesn't exist, then ultimately I get the same result afterward that I would get if I don't believe, which is nothingness, and as such, this life wouldn't matter. But if I'm right, and those that continue to reject this at the last day end up damned, then I won't look so foolish. How much confidence do you have that I'm full of it?

That's your choice. Nothing will change your mind, then all I can ask is that you not mock or put down my religious beliefs.

Actually, it should be truly accurate as long as the translator is competent. We believe that these translations of the Bible were done under Divine guidance. We also believe that the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price were translated under the same Divine Guidance.

Too clearly. I do my best to answer your questions, but you simply cut them to pieces...

T2Bruno handled the question of Polygamy better than I could. All I have to refer to is the official declaration where the practice was discontinued...

Yes, Joseph Smith was about 14 when he received his first vision. He was 44 I believe (the number may be off) when he was murdered in Illinois. He, as well as Brigham Young, and all those that have followed after were Prophets of God.

 

Do you believe that someone can force their own belief and be genuine enough to be accepted? A skeptic to converts on the basis of 'Say! I might get into Heaven if I do. Sure beats nothing!' is surely going hold some pretty big doubts. Forced 'belief' is crap, and, IMO, cowardly. Stand by what you believe (actually believe, that is, not pretend to believe because there's a chance of a reward at the end). Sure, the non-believer might end up going to hell, but they had the guts to stick with their lack of belief despite the possible consquences instead of trying to fake their way out.

Er - that rant up there hasn't much to do with what you actually said there - think of it as a response to the other stuff you said about Pascal's Wager in that other thread I didn't post in.

I won't mock or put down, but seeing that we're in the AoDA I'll be happy to debate the snot out of it with you
So tell me, why do you follow this god? What makes you want to serve him? Maybe I can gain some understanding.

You're such an inspiration to the ways that I would never ever choose to be - A Perfect Circle

 

I appologise if you feel harrased, but this is the designated argument thread! I admit to getting frustrated when people provide answers quoted from doctrine/scripture rather than actually researching the oposing point of view to see if it has any merrit (Though I am guilty of this as well) As you say though, I do ask questions to get a better understanding (and do some of my own online research). I honestly believe people would better serve their faith by questioning it, researching the opposing views and (more importantly) evidence for them, and still be able to confirm their faith rather than just a blind obediance to it.

I'm afraid you've now confused me. I understand that you believe that the Mormon Bible is letter perfect to the will of the Lord. The Mormon bible certainly differs from the Catholic and Anglican ones. The various versions of the Catholic and Anglican Bibles certainly differ from each other and also from the oldest examples of the bible still available. I seem to recall that the Bible that Smith knew was the King James.
General experience of Mankind indicates that things changes gradually over time (Yes it's that evolution again). Whether it's from simple typographical errors in translations or translating into a language which doesn't have the same nuances.
For instance, English generally uses seperate masculine and feminine forms, whereas Hebrew and Greek don't. "ish" in Hebrew and "anthropos" in Greek mean Human species/Man and Woman whereas the translations have generally been Man or Husband. Further examples exist at http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/nrsv.html which predominantly deals with the New Revised Standard Version which did actually go back to to the orriginal texts. Even so, the language has been modernised for todays benefit.

Spot the Difference:

Leviticus 18:6-10

The NAS (New American Standard literal translation) reads: "None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. The nakedness of your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover. The nakedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours."

The NIV (New International Version dynamic translation) reads: "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord. Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father. Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you."

My point? The most accurate Bible available has got to be the oldest ones available, in ancient Greek (and Hebrew) After all, all later Bibles have been based on these. Therefore, if the Mormon Bible is a divinely inspired version, we would expect the ancient copies would be more like it than the later translations. Agreed?

My scepticism is simply that I believe that the Mormon bible will be closer to the King James version, because that is the one that Smith knew.

 

Gnarf you're guessing. Tannins are also found in the cocoa bean -- last I checked chocolate was still on the list of okay beverages.... A while ago the excuse was the caffeine in coffee and tea (Spencer W. Kimball said in conference that sodas with caffeine would not be served in his home) -- yet chocolate also contains caffeine.

The Mormon bible is very close to the King James version.

 

I was tempted to post in the atheist bashing thread but thought it would be best to follow the rules.

Gnarff, you seem to like to argue and explain your stance and the like so I would like you to answer three questions I have yet to get a satisfactory answer or even an answer in the first place from a religious person.

1. Why do you feel that the universe needs a creator? That some conscious entity have created everything?

2. Given the existance of a creator, what convinces you that said creator would spare any interest in beings living on a short period of the existance of a speck of dust that came to be and disapeared in a blink of a universal eye? Humans exists for a tiny fraction of the earths "life" and the existance of earth and the sun is such a tiny amount of time in the span of the universe that it is less than neglible. What arrogance tells you that a creator would even register our existance? Frankly it scares me that such a being would lower itself to such a level as to bother with nothings such as us, if it doesnt have better things to do the universe is a petty place indeed.

3. Ignoring the two previous questions, what makes you certain that just your faith is the correct one. There are thousands and thousands in existance today and throughout history there have been thousands upon thousands more. By the very nature, of at least monotheistic, religion only one can be true. How can you be sure that the one you was born into and later picked is the right one?


Religious people like to come off as meek but the very act of faith speaks of an arrogance greater than any mad scientist trying to fiddle with the fabric of nature.

 

@Carcaroth: Don't forget that the Hebrew used on those most ancient scrolls has no vowel marks, so it's very difficult to tell exactly what each word is supposed to be. The Hebrew language focuses on word roots - combinations of letters that change only by the vowels added. While the resulting words are all somehow related, the implications can still change pretty drastically.

And if anyone needs proof that the Bible is rife with human interpretation of the Word of God, just look at the four Gospels. They all tell the same core story, but each is skewed to support its author's personal agenda. And that was long before King James felt the need to go mucking around with things!

@Joac: Are your questions open for anyone to answer, or do you want to hear from Gnarfflinger first?

 

Rally, anyone is free to answer of course. I would appreciate it though if some serious believer could give them a shot. I find most religious discussions are on a completely wrong level, we "non-believers" are led to discuss theology when the fundamental premis of religion is so extremely flawed and uncertain that no discussion really should go further than that. Way too often the discussion goes from "well, I cant disprove the existance of a god so mayhap there might be something" into "Jesus said X and Y" when a logical discussion ought to have stopped on the first argument, the very existance of an almighty being. The leap from that discussion to what Jeebus said is so vast that I cannot comprehend how it can so often and so easily be jumped. There are so many steps in between that hack away any shred of sense you might find in religion if you only discuss the first and last step. It is those steps I would for like to for once hear a believer, not explain to me but rather tell me how they ignore/accept/incorporate them.