Mormons

[OneToughHerring]

I recently watched Bill Maher's documentary Religulous, here's a clip of it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TddTBiBNgms) that deals mostly with Mormons. Not a bad documentary that deals with most religions. I hadn't actually looked into the tenets of Mormonism before and wheey, these guys are pretty out there. I can see now how Scientology could be created and get a foothold in the country that produced Mormonism.

Garden of Eden was in Missouri? Holy underwear? :har: And these same guys have knocked on my door as well. :shifty:

[Snestorm]

Ja. They definately are an odd lot.

[TLAM Strike]

Also their scripture is the basis for a lot of stuff in Battlestar Galactica. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_mythological_references_in_Battlesta r_Galactica) :salute:

[Feuer Frei!]

Another denomination, ie a group of "followers" of the Lord who chose to modify the great Book to suit their needs.

[OneToughHerring]

Also their scripture is the basis for a lot of stuff in Battlestar Galactica. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_mythological_references_in_Battlesta r_Galactica) :salute:

Interesting, didn't know that. It's almost like, well, fiction and fiction merging to become...entertainment. Not sure if that made any sense. :)

And to think that Mitt Romney, a Mormon, almost became the Republican presidential candidate. Not that I'm saying other religions are any better.

[Platapus]

Well I find all organized religions pretty funny and don't really see how one can be more "out there" than the others.

I don't think any religion has any cause to look down on another religion. :nope:

[krashkart]

Meh. Lived around and interacted with Mormons for a long time and never had any real problems with 'em -- unless you count the time years ago when I told a Mormon joke within earshot of a rather no-BS kinda gal from that faith. She really gave me the what-for! :O:

[Snestorm]

I don't think any religion has any cause to look down on another religion. :nope:

And yet, they all do.
It's the leading cause of unnatural death of all time.

[Stealth Hunter]

dumbdumbdumbdumbdumb

Man-y peop-le be-lieved Jo-seph

dumbdumbdumbdumbdumb

And th-at night he saw an an-gel

dumbdumbdumbdumbdumb

dumbdumbdumbdumbdumb

Jo-seph Smith was called a pro-phet

dumbdumbdumbdumbdumb

And th-at's how the Book of Mor-mon was writ-ten

dumbdumbdumbdumbdumb

DUMBDEEDUMBDAADUMBDUMBDUMB
DUMBDEEDUMBDAADUMBDUMBDUMB
DUMB-DUMB-DUMB-DUMB-DUMB-DUMB-DUMB
DUMBDUMBDUMB
DUMB

[jumpy]

lol I was just thinking about that episode too.

Round my way we only get mormons canvassing for potential converts once in a while. It's always two polite, respectful young gentlemen dressed in smart suits, with a satchel or small rucksack slung over one shoulder.

Never have any problems when I inform them 'thank you, but I'm not really interested.'
The last two introduced themselves with a polite hand shake, informed me that they were 'brother so-and-so and brother name-escapes-me' and asked if I had time to chat about the book of mormon.
I trotted out the usual 'thanks but no thanks', to which they bid me 'have a nice day, sorry to bother you'. I told them that it was quite all right and wished them the same.

Can't say I ever got the same polite acceptance from the jehova's witnesses... those loons just won't take no for an answer! When they tell me who they are I just close the door on them now, saves a lot of hassle.
Back when I was a student, some of my house mates invited two of them in for a cuppa and a chat... After 3 hours I think they were glad to leave :rotfl2:
I have a good mate who was brought up as a jehova... his family 'disfellowshiped' him when he turned 16 for some indiscretion that teenagers are likely to indulge. To this day (he is 35) they won't speak to him. That and some of the other things he has told me about them, give me a dimmer than average view of their particular brand of religion. He calls them a cult. I'm inclined to agree.

[nikimcbee]

Can't say I ever got the same polite acceptance from the jehova's witnesses... those loons just won't take no for an answer! When they tell me who they are I just close the door on them now, saves a lot of hassle.
Back when I was a student, some of my house mates invited two of them in for a cuppa and a chat... After 3 hours I think they were glad to leave :rotfl2:
I have a good mate who was brought up as a jehova... his family 'disfellowshiped' him when he turned 16 for some indiscretion that teenagers are likely to indulge. To this day (he is 35) they won't speak to him. That and some of the other things he has told me about them, give me a dimmer than average view of their particular brand of religion. He calls them a cult. I'm inclined to agree.
__________________


Ha, those guys are live wires.:haha: They sure love to argue. Just tell them you're muslim:haha:

[Snestorm]

The only difference between a religion and a cult is . . .
the number of believers.

Yesterday's religion is today's cult.
Yesterdays cult is today's religion.

[krashkart]

And yet, they all do.
It's the leading cause of unnatural death of all time.

Yeah, it's kind of annoying sometimes.

@nikimcbee: I once tried telling them that I was a Pagan, and they tried to sell me on how Easter was once a Pagan celebration. :damn: Here's a bit of irony; one side of my family was once Jehova's Witness. They still don't celebrate holidays or birthdays.

The last time a pair of missionaries knocked on my door I politely told them I wasn't going to waste their time and then said "I'm not interested." That seemed to do the trick.


Say, isn't there a Mars, Texas? :06:

[nikimcbee]

I will admit, I love JW art. It is the damn funniest thing I ever scene. They came through here the other day and left a pamplet on the door. It went straight to the garbage, but it did have a smashing picture of "Muscle Jesus." :har:
bah I can't find a copy of it.:88)

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f199/DannyHaszard/JEHOVAH%20WITNESS%20ART/NEWTOONS.jpg

[krashkart]

^^ :har:

All my friends? The Seven Dwarves don't count, man. They drank all my beer and didn't even bother to flush the toilet the last time they were over. :-?

:D

[d@rk51d3]

Interesting bit of Photoshopping there Nickimcbee.

[CaptainHaplo]

When someone like this knocks on your door - remember these three questions:

Is God the 3 Omni's? (Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent - All knowing, All powerful, All present aka everywhere)

Does hell (the lake of fire, place of eternal torment - whatever) exist?

If so - what did God do to be in hell - because by definition he has to be there.......

Be attentive as you watch them scratch their heads, look confused, and slowly start to smoke from the ears. At this point its a good time to take an extra step back as they are likely to blow a fuse and wander off aimlessly and lost.

Go back inside and have a good laugh....

[antikristuseke]

When someone comes peddling their insane make believe as truth I either politely let them know it is in their interest to politely **** off, or if im hung over I just close the door in their face.

[nikimcbee]

^^ :har:

All my friends? The Seven Dwarves don't count, man. They drank all my beer and didn't even bother to flush the toilet the last time they were over. :-?

:D
:har:

[OneToughHerring]

nikimcbee,

muscle-Jesus, lol. They also have those 'modern-looking Jesuses', here's one example.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1353/1384565728_274c48dbc1.jpg

I mean, honestly. Does that guy look like he lived ~2000 years ago? To me he looks pretty modern with perly teeth etc. But then again Jesus could do miracles, maybe he whitened his teeth...:hmmm::O:

[Blood_splat]

I'm free of religion.:rock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIiFGMYpLUc

[nikimcbee]

nikimcbee,

muscle-Jesus, lol. They also have those 'modern-looking Jesuses', here's one example.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1353/1384565728_274c48dbc1.jpg

I mean, honestly. Does that guy look like he lived ~2000 years ago? To me he looks pretty modern with perly teeth etc. But then again Jesus could do miracles, maybe he whitened his teeth...:hmmm::O:

I tried to find an image, but couldn't. Basically he had the crown of thorns and he looked like he a been hitting the gym a lot. He was built like a wrestler:haha:.

This one looks like he's ready for a job interview. My axe to grind with religious art is that everybody always looks like they're from Europe and not the Middle East. So, these guys make me laugh, when everybody is all clean shaven and neat looking.:har:

[Blood_splat]

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/1/17/633677956933614861-raptorjesus.jpg

[frau kaleun]

http://vedru24.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/cyborg_pirate_ninja_jesus.jpg

[XabbaRus]

I've known quite a few mormons. I met most when I lived in the states for 2 years and my dad's colleague was a mormon. Him and his wife and his friends were some of the nicest and helpful people I have ever met.

The wife helped my mum make friends when she didn't know anyone, and when I was having a hellish time at school in Houston (so much for international school with cultural understanding), they did their upmost to help, and unlike some other demoninated people we knew there, they never ever tried to push their religion on to us. At christmas me and my dad were invited to their church to join their nativity ceremony and it was normal and they didn't have any issue that we weren't practising christians let alone not being mormon. So although I find the hardcore ones who make the news odd, on the whole I have no issue with them.

[OneToughHerring]

Xabba,

I don't really have a problem with them as people. I would say that for example the ones who knocked on my door and gave me my 'mormon bible' or whatever it was (I think I misplaced it at some point), were about the most normal looking and square cut individuals I've ever met. And polite etc. In a way that makes it even more stranger when they begin to espouse some of these more outlandish aspects about their religion that I think the majority of them keep wisely pretty quiet about.

[Sailor Steve]

I've lived in downtown Mormonville for almost forty years. They are fine people, but yes, the doctrines are pretty 'interesting'. If you are a mainstream Christian their beliefs seem perverted. On the other hand most beliefs seem pretty weird if you examine them with a logical eye.

But yeah, the Mormon tenets can be kind of strange, and if you bring them up to most Latter-Day Saints they will blink and tell you "We don't believe that!"

[OneToughHerring]

I've lived in downtown Mormonville for almost forty years. They are fine people, but yes, the doctrines are pretty 'interesting'. If you are a mainstream Christian their beliefs seem perverted. On the other hand most beliefs seem pretty weird if you examine them with a logical eye.

But yeah, the Mormon tenets can be kind of strange, and if you bring them up to most Latter-Day Saints they will blink and tell you "We don't believe that!"

Yep. Didn't mean to disparage people from around where you're from. And yes most religions have really strange stuff in it.

[Sailor Steve]

Yep. Didn't mean to disparage people from around where you're from. And yes most religions have really strange stuff in it.
I didn't think you were talking about the people, just the doctrines.

And I agree.:sunny:

[Platapus]

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/1/17/633677956933614861-raptorjesus.jpg

Oh that is so wrong. Funny as crap, but wrong. :yeah::har::har::har:

[krashkart]

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/1/17/633677956933614861-raptorjesus.jpg

LMAO If that don't take the blue ribbon... :har:

[nikimcbee]

okay, I found some funny ones: JW art
http://www.bibleexplained.com/prophets/isai/lamb-w-lion.jpg
http://www.bibleexplained.com/prophets/isai/heaven-joy.jpg

[krashkart]

okay, I found some funny ones: JW art
http://www.bibleexplained.com/prophets/isai/heaven-joy.jpg



OMFG Sister So-and-so! Those mushrooms really are magic!

[nikimcbee]

OMFG Sister So-and-so! Those mushrooms really are magic!


And a hint of minty freshness.:haha:

[OneToughHerring]

I remember as a kid reading one of those JW booklets that had an image of different animals together, including lions with lambs. I remember being a bit sceptical about the whole thing even back then. :)

[Stealth Hunter]

okay, I found some funny ones: JW art
http://www.bibleexplained.com/prophets/isai/lamb-w-lion.jpg

Jesus wasn't white...

Seriously, how many white people with long, stringy hair and blue eyes do you see wandering the Middle East?

[TLAM Strike]

Jesus wasn't white...

Seriously, how many white people with long, stringy hair and blue eyes do you see wandering the Middle East?

Yea and I'm quite sure he wasn't Asian either...
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/2873/christmas2004ourladyofc.jpg (http://img59.imageshack.us/i/christmas2004ourladyofc.jpg/)
"Our Lady of China with Child Jesus"

[OneToughHerring]

Well Jesus is buried in Japan. Yes, it's true. (http://www.zetetique.ldh.org/herai_en.html)

[nikimcbee]

Yea and I'm quite sure he wasn't Asian either...
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/2873/christmas2004ourladyofc.jpg (http://img59.imageshack.us/i/christmas2004ourladyofc.jpg/)
"Our Lady of China with Child Jesus"

:har:
Maybe he's Korean?

[Platapus]

I thought the story was that god made man in his own image? GEN 1:27

Then should we not all look alike? :06:

[Stealth Hunter]

I thought the story was that god made man in his own image? GEN 1:27

Then should we not all look alike? :06:

This.

[antikristuseke]

I thought the story was that god made man in his own image? GEN 1:27

Then should we not all look alike? :06:

God works in mysterious ways, or some such ****.

[Platapus]

God works in mysterious ways, or some such ****.


I try to tell that to my boss -- that I work in mysterious ways. He does not buy it either. :shifty:

[Feuer Frei!]

Obviously we need to keep in mind, as i'm sure most of you do, that unfortunately (depending on which side you base your beliefs on) it is human nature that when we believe in something that we assign pictures to it.
Of course Religion is one such belief, where the stereotypical picture of a bearded white man dressed in white robes and holding a thunderbolt or the like is the picture that most of us have in mind.
Now of course for us Christians, me included, is that one of the first things that comes to mind is that we do not question the word of the Lord, for that is not our purpose.
Also, in regards to the pictures made up in magazines, editorials, subscriptions and the like by everyone, including the other denominations, that is of course normal, once again, human nature tells us that is easier to believe in something if you have an idea of what that belief looks like.
Me personally, i do not need to have an image, ridiculous and stereotypical in most cases, to believe in the Lord.
What i'm writing here is not intended to be a religious lesson, nor is it the intent to criticise other people's beliefs, however i do take the firm stance that it is so ignorant and plain stupid when the ignoramouses of this world make the assumption that it is the religion that is at fault, not the people that actually perpetrated the offenses or causes of alarm.
That is a big gripe of mine.
The word of the Lord does not condone the actions of the unsavoury behaviour of its perpetrators, i'm not sure where people get that idea from.
Once again, people were given the choice to chose right from wrong, it is up to the individual to take it from there.
Religion teaches us to love one another, to stand by each other and respect and cherish what we hold dear in our lives.
To turn the other cheek, etc etc.
Not to kill, to maim, to steal, to rob, to hurt one another.
The people that are in positions of trust within the church that disobey the Lord's teachings are the ones that have chosen the wrong path, not religion.
Quiet clear to see.
Ignorance will tell us of course that the Church is failing, that religion is dead, that the teachings and scriptures are wrong.
I totally agree that there has to be accountability by the church and that those sinners need to be held accountable to the full extent of the law, no doubt.
My $10 worth.

[TLAM Strike]

Not to kill, to maim, to steal, to rob, to hurt one another. ... unless your a follower of the Sith sect of Jediism...

:DL

... yes Jediism is a religion... :rock:

[Ducimus]

Heh, my girlfriend is.. or rather was mormon. She's what they refer to as "non practicing". She doesn't quite go with the church anymore, but since her family is mornon, and she was raised mormon, she'll defend it. We've gotten into some pretty interesting discussions, but i choose to respect her position, and am thankful she's not in the mormon church anymore.

I did go with her to provo Utah some months back to see her sister get married... at a mormon temple..... and umm WOW, that was ahh.. interesting. Coming from a family that has 15 freaking kids and all, nevermind the inlaws.

Of course i couldn't go inside the temple (they have temples, and churchs, and they call them wards or some such), but from what im told on what it looks like inside there, lots of mirrors, they dress in white.. reminds me of something out of science fiction They're quick to try and convert you too if you let them. Which in my book is a big no no. Hearing some of their beliefs described to me, i couldn't beleive what i was hearing, its really out there, acutally WAAAAAY out there if you compare it to what mainsream chrisitiantly drones on about.

Mormonism is BIG in utah. Well, the state was practically founded on it. And there's alot of weird laws and prohibitions (social or legal) because of it. THey're not allowed to drink coffee for instance, its considered a "hot drink" , and you can't go into a supermarket and buy beer either. Have to go to some special state run store. I really got a kick out of going a cafe, and saying out loud, "I'd like a cup of coffee!", and more of then then not, i got at least one person giving me a dirty look. COffee.. hot drink.. bad!

[OneToughHerring]

...

Mormonism is BIG in utah. Well, the state was practically founded on it. And there's alot of weird laws and prohibitions (social or legal) because of it. THey're not allowed to drink coffee for instance, its considered a "hot drink" , and you can't go into a supermarket and buy beer either. Have to go to some special state run store. I really got a kick out of going a cafe, and saying out loud, "I'd like a cup of coffee!", and more of then then not, i got at least one person giving me a dirty look. COffee.. hot drink.. bad!

Interesting "insider" stuff. Yea, I could see how just the coffee-issue would put these people in loggerheads with Finns for good. We Finns really dig our cuppa, I think we drink most of the stuff in the world per capita.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2007/03/finns_lead_the_world_in_coffee_drinking_230777.htm l

Well, at least we try to drink it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3icU9XSgz0

[Feuer Frei!]

Hmm, no coffee eh?
Counts me out then, i like it black and strong, no sugar :D

[kiwi_2005]

Their must be two kinds of Mormons cause the kind i hear about in the news are not the Mormon missionaries i knew, they were easy to get on with never tried to push their religion down your throat and were sports crazy. They loved their American football. This was years ago back then my aunty was a Mormon so i always bumped into a Mormon missionary. Cause the Missionaries were always around my age they would come round to my place to relax, they knew i had no intention of becoming a Mormon so knew not to speak about it. From time to time i would ask about it and got given The book of Mormon, which ive read. Personally i thought it was a great fable. I was pretty much dumbfounded when i first heard about those Mormons that live the way they do, 10 wifes, marrying very young girls etc. Nowhere near to the ones i got to know over the years.

[frau kaleun]

Their must be two kinds of Mormons cause the kind i hear about in the news are not the Mormon missionaries i knew, they were easy to get on with never tried to push their religion down your throat and were sports crazy. They loved their American football. This was years ago back then my aunty was a Mormon so i always bumped into a Mormon missionary. Cause the Missionaries were always around my age they would come round to my place to relax, they knew i had no intention of becoming a Mormon so knew not to speak about it. From time to time i would ask about it and got given The book of Mormon, which ive read. Personally i thought it was a great fable. I was pretty much dumbfounded when i first heard about those Mormons that live the way they do, 10 wifes, marrying very young girls etc. Nowhere near to the ones i got to know over the years.

AFAIK the mainstream Mormon church no longer officially condones or allows the practice of polygamy. The groups that do still practice it are fundamentalist sects that are not recognized by the "official" Church of Latter Day Saints.

Of course those sects would probably tell you that it's the "official" church that has departed from the true path, but that's the way of things.

[Sailor Steve]

I thought the story was that god made man in his own image? GEN 1:27

Then should we not all look alike? :06:
We do. Two eyes above, nose in the middle, mouth under. At least that's what Humpty Dumpty said to Alice.

Mormonism is BIG in utah. Well, the state was practically founded on it.
Practically? After Joseph Smith was martyred, Brigham Young started looking for a place they could go and not be bothered. After talking to John C. Fremont, who had explored the Great Salt Lake in 1840, Young broght the first Mormons here in 1847. No 'practically' about it - Brigham Young founded Utah and only tolerted non-Mormons when he realized there was not much he could do about it.

And there's alot of weird laws and prohibitions (social or legal) because of it. THey're not allowed to drink coffee for instance, its considered a "hot drink",[/quote]
I don't know where the "hot drink" thing comes from. The injunction is against caffeine. Tea is also verboten, hot or cold, as are most soft drinks.

and you can't go into a supermarket and buy beer either. Have to go to some special state run store.
Sure you can buy beer in grocery stores, convenience stores, in fact just about anywhere. But the alcohol content is 3.2%. You have to go the the State-owned liquor stores to by full strength beer or any hard liquor, including wine.

It used to be (right up until last year) that to sell anything stronger than 3.2 beer you had to get a state liquor license, and only private clubs could do that. This meant that:

1. Bars could only sell 3.2 beer, nothing else.

2. Restaurants that wanted to serve wine with dinner had to get a private club license and then a special liquor license. The liquor cabinet was in the back and had a sign on it: State Liquor Store #238. They could bring the bottle (or usually minibottles) to your table, but they couldn't serve it. They would bring the 'setups' - glasses etc - but you had to pour it yourself.

3. Since hard alcohol was only served at private clubs, every ad for a band was accompanied with "A private club for members". But they were very non-exclusive. When I wanted to see a certain band and called to ask about membership, I was told the only requirement was a yearly $25 fee. At the ski resorts they were very careful to ask if visitors were members, and if they weren't to quickly explain that: A. They could get a week-long membership for $5, and they could bring in five guests, or B. "Joe over there is a member. If anybody asks, tell them your his guest."

People used to blame the private clubs for keeping this wacky system going, but the fact is that it was only ten years or so ago that we first got a member on the state liquor commission who actually drank. That, and the minute the law was changed and anybody could get a liquor license, the former private clubs suddenly became regular bars.

But it gets weirder.

[Sailor Steve]

AFAIK the mainstream Mormon church no longer officially condones or allows the practice of polygamy. The groups that do still practice it are fundamentalist sects that are not recognized by the "official" Church of Latter Day Saints.

Of course those sects would probably tell you that it's the "official" church that has departed from the true path, but that's the way of things.
All true. Brigham Young tried again and again to make Utah a state, and was told that wouldn't happen until polygamy was gone. He refused to do that, and it wasn't until he died in 1877 that negotiations really got going.

The Church President and Prophet had a "revelation" telling him that The Faithful should now "obey the laws of the land", and they outlawed the practice. Utah became the 45th state in 1896.

About one percent of the population, or 25,000 people are estimated to still practice polygamy. They outnumber and outgun local law enforcement agencies, so they are left alone until they do something outrageous, like blowing up each other's churches or marrying their fourteen-year-old daughters to their uncles.

Back in the day Mark Twain did a show in Salt Lake City. Since he was famous for his anti-religion stance of course he had some choice words for the Mormons as well. Legend has it that after the show he was approached by a Mormon bishop who asked what he had against polygamy. Twain replied "No one who has read the Bible could ever believe in polygamy. Why, haven't you read where it says 'No man can serve two masters?"

[NeonSamurai]

What i'm writing here is not intended to be a religious lesson, nor is it the intent to criticise other people's beliefs, however i do take the firm stance that it is so ignorant and plain stupid when the ignoramouses of this world make the assumption that it is the religion that is at fault, not the people that actually perpetrated the offenses or causes of alarm.
That is a big gripe of mine.
The word of the Lord does not condone the actions of the unsavoury behaviour of its perpetrators, i'm not sure where people get that idea from.


I don't agree and could really rip into that claim if I wanted to, but I'll be nice and only give it a glancing blow.

Frankly I think this sort of behavior goes part in parcel with the basics of most religions. Your typical religion sets up the statement that they are the only true religion and that all others are false (or often much worse). Even if they do not explicitly say that, the premise is generally still there (if our religion is different then others, then there must one that is right, therefore the others are wrong and these people are ignorant and must see the light). This is basic human nature to, hate and fear that which is different and unalike.

Second, this lack of questioning found in many faiths is what makes members so vulnerable to people who exploit and use them. It is part of what makes suicide bombers, and other religious terrorists possible. They must believe without question. It is also what permits all the other stuff that happens in religion, which most would find highly questionable otherwise.

These 2 things combined together (I am right + lack of questioning) are what create 'holy' wars, forced conversions, the inquisition, the holocaust (Nazism was effectively a religion as practiced by the SS, and the effect of the Christian hatred of Jews), persecution of other groups, justification for racism and slavery, etc etc etc ad nauseum.

So ya I would say the institution is inherently responsible. Now if you want to get to something that really pisses me off... people who put words into "God's" mouth. Who the hell do they think they are, that they think they can claim to know what "God" wants. If there is such an entity, it would have to be completely beyond our comprehension, and understanding, thus rendering us incapable of knowing what it desires (or if it even desires, as that is a mortal trait).


Now as a more general comment, anyone ever noticed, how very quickly people of faith get angry if you even begin to question their beliefs. They can go from happy and pleasant, to angry and rude in the blink of an eye. I find that very odd and attribute it to doubt and anxiety. If a person is secure in their beliefs then logically they should be able to take any amount of questioning or worse. You see a lot of insecurity in the full video OTH started the thread with.

Frankly I think the reason people get so hostile is because they are afraid of being shown their beliefs are not real, or worse of looking stupid for believing something that would otherwise be considered absurd if it wasn't cloaked in religion. Most people are very insecure in their faiths, which makes them quick to take action to reinforce that faith.


Anyhow, ultimately I don't care what other people believe, as long as it does not directly affect me or how I choose to lead my life. But I do not like organized religion, due to it being a power entity and due to what it does in the world, which is mostly harm in my eyes. All of that in exchange for a bit of comfort in a world that is totally mad, and a bit of hope towards that which is forever void of knowledge, death.

[Sailor Steve]

NS, you are in good company. Men with names like Adams, Jefferson and Madison used almost the exact same terms you use.

[krashkart]

okay, I found some funny ones: JW art
http://www.bibleexplained.com/prophets/isai/lamb-w-lion.jpg


Jim Jones used cyanide. We use lions. :yeah:

[frau kaleun]

Jim Jones used cyanide. We use lions. :yeah:

What they don't show you is the lion thinking, "Thank you, Lord, for the bountiful meal which you have brought before me..."

[Ducimus]

Honestly, when it comes to this subject, i have had so much passed my way as far as info and weirdness, i don't even know where to begin. The only thing that sticks out in my mind, is my GF is 33 years old ,and never heard of the Mountain Meadows massacre. I guess they don't like that being known. Of course she went into this whole religious persocution thing as an excuse for what happened. Anyway... its all weird to me.

edit:

Oh yes, they are organized on an uber level. Its damn near its own system of goverment. I have never encountered a religous denomination as organized to the extent of mormonism.

[CaptainHaplo]

Catholicism has em beat on organization - only because for a couple of centuries - the Papacy WAS a government - and the Vatican is still considered a "sovereign" entity.

As for polygamy, its kind of funny to watch modern judeao-xtians struggle with this issue. Morally its deemed reprehensible - yet was an accepted practice in the Old Testament - and was never specifically prohibited in the New Testament either. I have had some seriously engaging discussions with other biblical scholars on this issue - and not one has been successful in demonstrating any directive in either testament that sets such a boundary - except in ONE singular case. Specifically - if one wishes to be a Bishop - your limited to one wife. Actually - the specification that a Bishop could only have one wife - as one theologian had to admit - is credible evidence that polygamy was allowed for the "average joe".

Society adapts its morals to the wishes of the people in that society. Nothing wrong with monogamy at all - but there is no biblical instruction demanding it.

[Feuer Frei!]

Presbyterians and Lutherans are examples of Christian denominations. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are examples of cults (groups claiming to be Christian but denying one or more of the essentials of the Christian faith). Islam and Buddhism are entirely separate religions.

The rise of denominations within the Christian faith can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation, the movement to “reform” the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th century, out of which four major divisions or traditions of Protestantism would emerge: Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican. From these four, other denominations grew over the centuries.

The Lutheran denomination was named after Martin Luther and was based on his teachings. The Methodists got their name because their founder, John Wesley, was famous for coming up with “methods” for spiritual growth. Presbyterians are named for their view on church leadership—the Greek word for elder is presbyteros. Baptists got their name because they have always emphasized the importance of baptism. Each denomination has a slightly different doctrine or emphasis from the others, such as the method of baptism; the availability of the Lord’s Supper to all or just to those whose testimonies can be verified by church leaders; the sovereignty of God vs. free will in the matter of salvation; the future of Israel and the church; pre-tribulation vs. post-tribulation rapture; the existence of the “sign” gifts in the modern era, and so on. The point of these divisions is never Christ as Lord and Savior, but rather honest differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people seeking to honor God and retain doctrinal purity according to their consciences and their understanding of His Word.

Denominations today are many and varied. The original “mainline” denominations mentioned above have spawned numerous offshoots such as Assemblies of God, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Nazarenes, Evangelical Free, independent Bible churches, and others. Some denominations emphasize slight doctrinal differences, but more often they simply offer different styles of worship to fit the differing tastes and preferences of Christians. But make no mistake: as believers, we must be of one mind on the essentials of the faith, but beyond that there is great deal of latitude in how Christians should worship in a corporate setting. This latitude is what causes so many different “flavors” of Christianity. A Presbyterian church in Uganda will have a style of worship much different from a Presbyterian church in Colorado, but their doctrinal stand will be, for the most part, the same. Diversity is a good thing, but disunity is not. If two churches disagree doctrinally, debate and dialogue over the Word may be called for. This type of “iron sharpening iron” (Proverbs 27:17) is beneficial to all. If they disagree on style and form, however, it is fine for them to remain separate. This separation, though, does not lift the responsibility Christians have to love one another (1 John 4:11-12) and ultimately be united as one in Christ (John 17:21-22).

The Downside of Christian Denominations:

There seems to be at least two major problems with denominationalism. First, nowhere in Scripture is there a mandate for denominationalism; to the contrary the mandate is for union and connectivity. Thus, the second problem is that history tells us that denominationalism is the result of, or caused by, conflict and confrontation which leads to division and separation. Jesus told us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. This general principle can and should be applied to the church. We find an example of this in the Corinthian church which was struggling with issues of division and separation. There were those who thought that they should follow Paul and those who thought they should follow the teaching of Apollos, 1 Corinthians 1:12, "What I am saying is this: each of you says, “I’m with Paul,” or “I’m with Apollos,” or “I’m with Cephas,” or “I’m with Christ.” This alone should tell you what Paul thought of denominations or anything else that separates and divides the body. But let’s look further; in verse 13, Paul asks very pointed questions, "Is Christ divided? Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or were you baptized in Paul’s name?” This makes clear how Paul feels, he (Paul) is not the Christ, he is not the one crucified and his message has never been one that divides the church or would lead someone to worship Paul instead of Christ. Obviously, according to Paul, there is only one church and one body of believers and anything that is different weakens and destroys the church (see verse 17). He makes this point stronger in 3:4 by saying that anyone who says they are of Paul or of Apollos is carnal.

Some of the problems we are faced with today as we look at denominationalism and its more recent history:

1. Denominations are based on disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture. An example would be the meaning and purpose of baptism. Is baptism a requirement for salvation or is it symbolic of the salvation process? There are denominations on both sides of this issue and have used the issue to separate and form denominations.

2. Disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture are taken personally and become points of contention. This leads to arguments which can and have done much to destroy the witness of church.

3. The church should be able to resolves it differences inside the body, but once again history tells us that this doesn’t happen. Today the media uses our differences against us to demonstrate that we are not unified in thought or purpose.

4. Denominations are used by man out of self-interest. There are denominations today that are in a state of self-destruction as they are being led into apostasy by those who are promoting their personal agendas.

5. The value of unity is found in the ability to pool our gifts and resources to promote the Kingdom to a lost world. This runs contrary to divisions caused by denominationalism.

What is a believer to do? Should we ignore denominations, should we just not go to church and worship on our own at home? The answer to both questions is no. What we should be seeking is a body of believers where the Gospel of Christ is preached, where you as an individual can have a personal relationship with the Lord, where you can join in Biblical ministries that are spreading the Gospel and glorifying God. Church is important and all believers need to belong to a body that fits the above criteria. We need relationships that can only be found in the body of believers, we need the support that only the church can offer, and we need to serve God in community as well as individually. Pick a church on the basis of its relationship to Christ, how well it is serving the community. Pick a church where the pastor is preaching the Gospel without fear and is encouraged to do so. Christ and His church is all about your relationship to Him and to each other. As believers, there are certain basic doctrines that we must believe, but beyond that there is latitude on how we can serve and worship; it is this latitude that is the only good reason for denominations. This is diversity and not disunity. The first allows us to be individuals in Christ, the latter divides and destroys.
The important thing is to be dogmatic where Scripture is and to avoid being dogmatic where Scripture is not. Churches should strive to follow the model of the early church in Jerusalem: “They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42). There was unity in the early church because they were steadfast in the apostles’ doctrine. There will be unity in the church again when we get back to the apostles’ doctrine and forego the other doctrines, fads, and gimmicks that have crept into the church.
The fact that there are many different denominations is not an argument against Sola Scriptura. Rather, it is evidence that we all fail at truly allowing God’s Word to fully shape our beliefs, practices, and traditions.

[frau kaleun]

Presbyterians and Lutherans are examples of Christian denominations. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are examples of cults (groups claiming to be Christian but denying one or more of the essentials of the Christian faith).


That is only one meaning of the word cult, and is typically only used within the Evangelical Christian movement. It's certainly not what most people think of when the word "cult" is thrown around, which is something entirely more sinister than a mere disagreement over what is and is not "heresy" among those who profess to be Christians.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm:




One of the most confusing and dangerous religious term is "Cult". The word is derived from the French word "culte" which came from Latin noun "cultus." The latter is related to the Latin verb "colere" which means "to worship or give reverence to a deity." Thus, in its original meaning, the term "cult" can be applied to any group of religious believers: Southern Baptists, Mormons (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds.htm), Jehovah's Witnesses (http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness.htm), Roman Catholics (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc.htm), Hindus (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism.htm) or Muslims (http://www.religioustolerance.org/islam.htm). However, the term has since been assigned at least eight new and very different meanings. The original meaning of "cult" remains positive; more recent definitions are neutral, negative, or extremely negative:

Positive Meaning:

Theological usage: Oxford English Dictionary defined "cult" as:

"worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings"
"a particular form or system of religious worship; especially in reference to its external rites and ceremonies"
devotion or homage to a particular person or thing."
This is the historical meaning of the word, but is rarely today heard outside of religious circles. A reference to the "Cult of Mary" appeared in a newspaper report on the Pope's 1999 visit to the Americas. It simply means that the Pope devotes special attention to the Virgin Mary.
Cultural usage: The word is often associated with cult films, cult bands, or cult TV programs. Here, the term "cult" refers to a small but devoted following of a movie, entertainment group or television program. Avid supporters of Star Trek may be referred to as devoted cultists.

Neutral Meanings:

Sociological usage: A small religious group that exists in a state of tension with the predominant religion. Hinduism (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism.htm) might be considered a cult in North America; Christianity (http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ.htm) might be considered a cult in India.
Additional sociological usage: An innovative, fervent religious group, as contrasted with more established and conventional sects and denominations.
The Observer: An English newspaper seemed to use the term to refer to any small religious group, no matter what its age or teachings.
General religious usage: A small, recently created, religious organization which is often headed by a single charismatic leader and is viewed as an spiritually innovative group. A cult in this sense may simply be a new religious movement on its way to becoming a denomination. The Christian religion, as it existed in 30 CE might be considered a cult involving one leader and 12 or 70 devoted disciples as followers. The Mormon denomination (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds.htm) was started in the 19th century by Joseph Smith and a few followers; it met this definition of "cult" but has since grown to become an established denomination of about 15 million members.

Negative Meanings:

Evangelical Christians and Counter-Cult Movement (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ccm.htm) (CCM) usage: They define a cult as any religious group which accepts most but not all of the key historical Christian doctrines (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrcarddoc.htm) (e.g. the divinity of Jesus, virgin birth (http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm), the Trinity, salvation by faith, not works (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savc.htm), etc.). The implication is that the cult's (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ok_cults.htm) theology is invalid; they teach heresy. Under this definition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds.htm)), Unification Church (http://www.religioustolerance.org/unificat.htm), Jehovah's Witnesses (http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness.htm), and many others would be cults. But the CCM would not classify Wicca as such, because it is not associated with Christianity. The earliest use of this meaning of the word "Cult" is believed to be a 1938 book "The Chaos of the Cults" by J.K. VanBaalen. On the other hand, new religious groups such as the Mormons (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds.htm), Unification Church (http://www.religioustolerance.org/unificat.htm) and Jehovah's Witnesses (http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness.htm) generally regard themselves to be the true Christian church. They view all other denominations as being in error. Thus, one group's true church is another group's cult. One group's heresy is the other group's orthodoxy.
Fundamentalist Christian usage: Some Fundamentalists would accept the Evangelical definition of cult defined above. Others brand any religious group which deviates from historical Protestant Christian beliefs as a cult (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ok_cults.htm). This definition would include the LDS Church (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds.htm), Wicca (http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcra.htm), mainline and liberal Christian denominations, Islam (http://www.religioustolerance.org/islam.htm), Hinduism (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism.htm), and all of the other religions of the world. The vast majority of humanity would belong to cults, by this definition.
Anti-cult movement (http://www.religioustolerance.org/acm.htm) usage: The anti-cult movement (ACM) attempts to raise public consciousness about what they see as dangerous and authoritarian mind control cults (http://www.religioustolerance.org/mc_cults.htm) and doomsday cults (http://www.religioustolerance.org/destruct.htm). Most do not care about the faith group's theology. They target only what they see as deceptive practices, and dangerous psychological pressure techniques, such as brainwashing. The ACM appears to hold opinions about the effectiveness of brainwashing that are not shared by the mental-health community generally. They see mind control/doomsday cults as a widespread social problem.

Very negative meaning:

Popular, media usage: A cult is considered a small, evil religious group, often with a single charismatic leader, that engages in brainwashing and other mind control techniques, believes that the end of the world is imminent, and collects large amounts of weaponry in preparation for a massive war. The earliest use of this meaning of the word is believed to have been in a 1965 book by Walter Martin "The Kingdom of the Cults"

We have seen "cult" used to refer to Evangelical denominations, the Roman Catholic Church (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc.htm), Unification Church (http://www.religioustolerance.org/unificat.htm), Church of Scientology (http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol.htm), United Church of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds.htm), Wiccans (http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcra.htm), other Neopagans (http://www.religioustolerance.org/neo_paga.htm) and many other faith groups. The term is essentially meaningless.

Recommended use of the term "cult":


In 1998-MAY, the Associated Press decided to avoid the use of the word "cult" because it had acquired a pejorative aura; they have since given preference to the term "sect."
In 1990-FEB, an editorial by Terry Muck in Christianity Today -- the largest Evangelical magazine in the U.S. -- recommended that Christians should avoid using the word. He cited three reasons:

"The spirit of fair play suggests it is best to refer to groups of people as they refer to themselves."
"There is also a theological reason for avoiding [the label, for it wrongly implies that certain sinners] are the worst kind."
"It simply does not work well to use disparaging terms to describe the people whom we hope will come to faith in Christ.... In fact, we are commanded to love them as ourselves."

We recommend that the word "cult" never be used in reports, articles, essays, sermons, etc. without careful definition in advance -- and perhaps not even then. The negative associations linked to the word are so intense that its use will automatically lead to confusion and misunderstanding.


We recommend:

Using a term such as "new religious movement," "alternative religious movement," "emergent religion," or "faith group." These terms are more precise and have not (yet) been burdened by so many negative connotations, as has "cult."
Using a term such as "heretical" or "spiritual counterfeit" to describe a faith group with whom you disagree on theological grounds. But be aware that the words "heretical" and "heresy" are relative terms. If group "A" considers group "B" to be heretical, then group "B" will probably consider group "A" to also be heretical. They will both be right, relative to their own belief system.
An even better usage is to simply refer to the group by its formal name.

Of course, if you are an author, public speaker or teleminister who wants to direct public fear and hatred against a new religious group, then "cult" is an ideal word to use.


Sorry for the long quotation, however I am one of those people who finds it disturbing when the word "cult" is used to define someone else's religious tradition simply because it doesn't conform to one narrow little set of beliefs and practices.

I have a dear friend and (in some ways) mentor who is a devout practicing Mormon. I also have close friends and acquaintances who follow other spiritual paths, many of whom identify as "Christian" and some who do not. In my opinion and experience none of them is any more involved in a "cult" in any commonly held sense of the word than were the people I grew up with in an evangelical/fundamentalist Christian church.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I remember being in rural Belgium (Flanders), and making a phone call at a booth. Well, sort of a booth, as the phone was exposed. Some Mormons heard me, and we were rather surprised to run into each other in a sort of remote location.

That aside: Orson Scott Card is a die hard Mormon, and writes some great science fiction.

[OneToughHerring]

The way I see these things is that the older religions can sort of sit back and lay low because they've already become established and are, as in the case of christianity and it's main sects, very much a part of the social systems around them. These religions are safe from any change so they don't have to be aggressive, at least on home turf.

But, the new smaller religions and sects, they have to aggressively grow in order to survive. They need new 'paying members' like any club. But unlike a club you can leave these clubs usually take you for life and the majority of their functions is based on a kind of brainwashing-thing etc. making it very difficult to leave, more difficult then say, book of the month - club.

[frau kaleun]

But, the new smaller religions and sects, they have to aggressively grow in order to survive. They need new 'paying members' like any club. But unlike a club you can leave these clubs usually take you for life and the majority of their functions is based on a kind of brainwashing-thing etc. making it very difficult to leave, more difficult then say, book of the month - club.

Nevertheless it can be just as hard to leave an older, "established" tradition than a newer and smaller one. The social and familial pressure is often even greater because the religious practices and beliefs are far more likely to be intertwined with one's existing everyday life and experience, with one's closest and dearest relationships, and with how a person has always self-identified (and been identified by those closest to them) as an individual.

The difference to me is not how old or "mainstream" a spiritual tradition is, it's the amount of personal autonomy the practitioners are required to relinquish in order to be fully "acceptable" to those who are in authority within it and, just as important, the means by which those authorities obtain the support and compliance of their followers.

[OneToughHerring]

Nevertheless it can be just as hard to leave an older, "established" tradition than a newer and smaller one. The social and familial pressure is often even greater because the religious practices and beliefs are far more likely to be intertwined with one's existing everyday life and experience, with one's closest and dearest relationships, and with how a person has always self-identified (and been identified by those closest to them) as an individual.

The difference to me is not how old or "mainstream" a spiritual tradition is, it's the amount of personal autonomy the practitioners are required to relinquish in order to be fully "acceptable" to those who are in authority within it and, just as important, the means by which those authorities obtain the support and compliance of their followers.

Sure it's not easy to leave the older religions. I 'divorced' from the Finnish main religion which is the Finnish Lutheran church or something like that. Most Finns are baptised into it when they are babies so they kind of automatically belong to it, which is kinda sneaky. Members have to pay something called the "church tax" which goes from the salary automatically. There's stuff like burial and other things, the church owns the burial grounds so they're talking about putting prices for non-religious people to be buried etc.

I left the church in 2000 so I'm now celebrating my decade out of church. :woot:

[frau kaleun]

making it very difficult to leave, more difficult then say, book of the month club.


I was gonna mention - have you ever actually TRIED to get out of one of those things? Lol.

There's one that I joined ages ago - and stopped buying anything from a few years ago because, well, Amazon, right? I went to their web site, since pretty much everything except their regular mailings was done on-line by that time - and there was no way there to opt out of the thing.

I had to call a toll-free number listed on the site for customer service. Did that, and was told that in order to leave the club I would have to send something to them IN WRITING requesting it. Otherwise they would continue sending me monthly offers AND I would still have to go to the site each time to decline the 'featured selection.'

So I typed out a nice little letter requesting termination of my membership and sent it off to the address I'd been given.

I continued to get mailings and email from them, and continued to go on-line to decline their 'automatic' offers. After three months of this I called again and was told it takes 90 days to process a termination request. Fine, I think, it's now been 90 days. I continued to get mailings which I threw away. Then I got a book from them because I didn't go on-line to decline a selection that was featured in the mailing I threw in the trash. I refused acceptance of book and returned it unopened and called again. I was told that they would update my account to show I was no longer a member, and stop sending me stuff.

A couple weeks later I got yet another packet of offers from them. I opened it, just in case, and found a letter stating that they had processed my termination of membership, however as a 'courtesy' to me they would continue to send me regular offers and club notices just in case I still wanted to buy something from them or rejoin.

I think they kept sending me stuff about twice a month for another six months after that, until they finally gave up. I only stopped getting email from them when I changed my email address a year or so later.

[OneToughHerring]

Well yea, I know about those too. All these "only a small monthly payment" - type things I stay far away from.

[frau kaleun]

Well yea, I know about those too. All these "only a small monthly payment" - type things I stay far away from.

Well that's the funny thing, they weren't getting any money from me and hadn't for years. There was never a fee to belong, only the need to decline (or by default accept) the purchase of one or two books every month. Once it was obvious to me I was never gonna buy from them again, doing that became a PITA as did all the mail/email from them. A waste of money on their part and of time on mine.

But apparently they don't take 'no thanks go away' very seriously. I've had breakups that were easier!

[tater]

I've been non-religious since before I was Confirmed—yeah, I lied to the priest, and everyone else. It was easier to be an atheist-agnostic on the sly at that point. Besides, by relatives gave me presents.

I tend to see no religion as any sillier than another.

Hitchens was asked in some debate to disprove god or something of the sort. He in reply asked what logical pattern the questioner used to disprove other religions besides their own, and he'd simply follow the same pattern for theirs. ;)

My neighbor up the street was LDS. Nice family, and they were never pushy about it. Kids played together sometimes. Wife still is, but the husband died last year (and they moved). I went to the service, and the thing that struck me was that there was more "sales pitch" for the faith than I'd expect at a funeral. Was kinda creepy.

[Sailor Steve]

Honestly, when it comes to this subject, i have had so much passed my way as far as info and weirdness, i don't even know where to begin. The only thing that sticks out in my mind, is my GF is 33 years old ,and never heard of the Mountain Meadows massacre. I guess they don't like that being known. Of course she went into this whole religious persocution thing as an excuse for what happened. Anyway... its all weird to me.
Sorry to keep responding directly to your comments. It's just that you keep reminding of things I'd forgotten.

When I first came to Utah the prevailing line was that Mountain Meadows never happened. By 1990 it was an accepted fact, but the people who perpetrated it were a small group and were driven to it by the Evil Gentiles. Now it is accepted, but LDS opinions vary. Of course dedicated historians are willing to believe that any group of people is capable of commiting any atrocity against anyone, as long as they believe they have been sufficiently provoked, but most Mormons, like most members of other faiths, are convince that they are right so if someone does it to them they're being persecuted, but if they do it to someone else "they deserved it".

I've always been fond of the ancient Hindu phrase, "No God should ever be judged by the sort of people who claim to worship Him."

Oh yes, they are organized on an uber level. Its damn near its own system of goverment. I have never encountered a religous denomination as organized to the extent of mormonism.
Which leads to wonderful discussions about Church-and-State relations around here.

@ Frau Kaleun: Great quotes on the meaning of "Cult". I used to be a devout evangelical, and of course the Mormons were a cult. Today they're just another group of believers I can have fun talking to.

[Ducimus]

Heh, the word "cult" leads to some interesting discussions around my work. Since im not at work i can type this and not have it go over company logs.

The word itself seems to be used on any religious denomination or movement that is not mainstream, by mainstream beleifs. Mainstream christianity considers everything else not christian a cult. In reality, the only difference between a cult and a religion is how many followers you have. So now here's the funny part. I work for an internet security corp. Have been for the last 10 years. Part of that is maintaing a database of urls. It's an ongoing process and is built upon each and every day. URLs are catagorized. (I think thats as much as i can say without breaking NDA) We used to deliniate between "religion" and "cult". The criteria for these catagories was set down upon us by upper management.. who at the time.. were all mormon! In hushed tones down in the cubes, we'd make reference to the "mormon mafia" that ran our company.

So what went into religion and what went into cult? Well, obviously everything mainstream christian was a religion, everything, and i mean EVERYTHING else, (including things like Buddism) was put in cult. Every time data was put into these catagories, I and my coworkers would cringe. Later on we had some shuffle in management, some wiccan raised a big stink about being labeled a cult and threatened a lawsuit or something, (i dunno), but management backed off and went with customer demands. Now EVERYTHING gets tossed into religion, (cult no longer exists ) and the mantra from up high now, is "were not in the business of deciding what is a religion and what is a cult". (which were thinking the whole time, but dared not voice it) but none of that happened until the "mormon mafia" was broken up. :haha:

[Sailor Steve]

Yeah, that sounds right to me. Frau K quoted some great definitions, but I grew up with the idea that anthing smaller than worldwide was a 'cult'. Of course this means that the first Christians were also a cult. One thing I loved from my recent reading of Tacitus and Suetonius was that since the Jews and Christians didn't believe in all the Roman, Egyptian and other gods, they were considered 'Atheists'.

[CaptainHaplo]

Nobody wanted to argue polygamy.... sheesh! :rotfl2:

The reality of the situation is this...

God - a Higher Being - Creator - Flying Spaghetti Monster - insert your preferred term here - is by definition - above humanity as he is defined in most religions. Thus - any attempt by mankind to "define" god - is trying to put the infinite into a finite box. It simply won't fit. Thus, every religion that tries to dictate what god is - or is not - must by definition be wrong in at least some way. Thus - every ORGANIZED religion has its theological problems. This doesn't just work for Judeao-Xtianity (Protestantism), but applies to Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, etc. Even "anti-religion" suffers from the same problem - as they still haven't explained where the mass that started the big bang came from, among other problems......

Religion is a crutch and a yoke to mankind. It was intended as a guideline - and has turned into a way to control the masses. When you can face that reality, then you can move beyond "religious doctrine" - and accept that some things are beyond the human mind to reason, or understand. This is the truth of faith, and in it there is an individual opportunity for you to face the infinite.

[frau kaleun]

^^:up:

To add to this, it's been my experience that any attempted definition of that transcendental mystery called "divinity" says way more about the person(s) doing the defining than it does about anything else.

[Platapus]

Well a cult is what you belong to when you disagree with my religion. :up:

[Ishmael]

As a Brother of Equal Indignity of the Ancient & Honorable Order of E Clampus Vitus,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Clampus_Vitus

we have 170-year familiarity with the Latter-Day Saints. Also, in the interest of historical accuracy, we do not accept the official Church history as necessarily accurate. We invite our historically-minded friends to investigate the life of THIS man,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Brannan

a friend of Joseph Smith, an early LDS member and the leader appointed by Smith to bring a shipload of Mormon settlers by sea to the New Zion of California. We also invite you to investigate the other concurrent stories involving

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Battalion

and this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Gold_Rush

and this man,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Bennett_(soldier)

The original plan of the LDS, as our historians have found, involved a triple migration to California, Brannan's party by sea, Young's overland party and the Mormon Battalion under Col. Stephen Watts Kearney. It was only when Young's party emerged from the Wasatch range to see the Great Salt Lake that Young had his epiphany.

While this was going on, Brannan's party had already arrived in California with the Mormon Battalion arriving soon after. Many of Brannan's party had settled in the Sacramento area and Brannan had signed a deal to open a dry goods store there in addition to the one he had begun in San Francisco along with his paper, The Alta Californian. All but two of the people Marshall hired to build the sawmill at Coloma were Mormons from Brannan's party. This is where things get interesting.

Contrary to most historical accounts, Bennett was WITH Marshall and, some say, actually saw the gold in the millrace first. Because the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo had not yet been signed, both men were sworn to secrecy by Sutter and kept together until the discovery could be reported to Col. Mason, the military governor of California and his adjutant, Lt. William T. Sherman, who were in Monterey. The only towns between Sutter's Fort and Yerba Buena were in Vallejo, where David G. Farragut was organizing the Mare Island Shipyard, and the newly created town of Benicia, where the ferry landing to the newly-renamed San Francisco was located.

Now there are many historical accounts naming Brannan as the source of the News of the Gold Strike at Coloma, but almost no information on how he obtained it. Here is the answer to that riddle as I have gleaned from local Benicia historians.

On Brannan's trips from SF to Sacramento, he would often tend bar at Von Pfister's Saloon in Benicia. Captain Von Pfister had hired Brannan for the job due to the Mormon's teetotaling ways. So it was Brannan who was working the day Marshall and Bennett rode into town to catch the ferry and packet to Monterey for their report to Mason and Sherman. As they were sitting in the Saloon, with about 2 ounces of gold dust and nuggets in their pockets, Marshall and Bennett witnessed a whole group of Missouri boys who had just come in from Mt. Diablo with news of a coal strike there. This was a big deal since coal could be mined to supply the steamers bringing settlers west. So after about 3-4 hours of talk of the Coal strike, Bennett finally got fed up with it and stated the following:

"I'll show you the kind of "Coal" we're finding at Sutter's Mill!"

and slammed a bag of gold nuggets on the bar. Brannan, on seeing this, took the rest of the day off and spent it and the following day buying up every pick, pan and shovel in Benicia, Vallejo and SF that he didn't already own. Only then, when he owned every piece of mining equipment in Northern California, did he march down Market street yelling,

"Gold! Gold! Gold from the American River!"

Meanwhile, all the Mormon work crew were all finding gold wherever they turned around so work on the sawmill came to a halt. After first holding Sutter up for higher wages, the Mormons finally quit and moved 1/2 mile down the American River to Mormon Island to pan out their piles. This was Brannan's destination after selling out his mining equipment in order to collect the 1/5 of the Mormons' gold as tithes to the church. Sherman's Journals have an amusing story of his and Mason's first encounter with Brannan at Mormon Island some weeks after.

And that's how the word of the gold discovery leaked out, why the Mormon Tabernacle is gilded with California Gold and why they live in Utah instead of California.

Now why should you believe any of this tale? Because one of our Clamper brothers, Samuel Clemens, based his tale, "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County" on a Clamper doins. Also, it was our Brotherhood that was responsible for the great Drake's Bay Plaque Hoax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake%27s_Plate_of_Brass

Credo Quia Absurdum
ECV
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/527/dumbilicusecvlogoaj1.jpg

[AngusJS]

Even "anti-religion" suffers from the same problem - as they still haven't explained where the mass that started the big bang came from, among other problems......You're conflating science and atheism. But anyway, you're right. Science can describe how the universe was only a fraction of a second after an event that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. The scientific method got us only up to that point. As soon as it's reached its limit, it's time to kick it aside and start making **** up! :roll:

As for atheism, there is no need to prove anything. Atheism is the default position, and the position supported by the evidence. Apologists have had millennia to make their case. They've failed.

This is the truth of faith, and in it there is an individual opportunity for you to face the infinite.When I want to face the infinite, I look up at a starry sky. No faith necessary.

As to Mormonism, it's living proof that people can believe absolutely anything. The mists of time give Christianity and other religions wiggle room when examining their founding. Mormonism was founded less than two centuries ago. It gives every indication that it's not true, but people believe it anyway.

[NeonSamurai]

I disagree, atheism takes the opposite stance and has about as much evidence on their side as theists do on theirs. The middle ground is Agnosticism, which is generally the "I don't know, and you don't know either" group. Logically its the most supportable stance as the existence of a supreme being(s) can neither be proven nor disproven (and lack of proof does not mean it does not exist, we may not be able to detect the evidence and may never be able to). To say absolutely one way or another is a act of belief or faith.

As for the big bang theory, honestly I am skeptical about it. It is a little to neat and clean for my tastes, that and other things, but not the thread for that discussion.

[AngusJS]

I disagree, atheism takes the opposite stance and has about as much evidence on their side as theists do on theirs. The middle ground is Agnosticism, which is generally the "I don't know, and you don't know either" group. Logically its the most supportable stance as the existence of a supreme being(s) can neither be proven nor disproven (and lack of proof does not mean it does not exist, we may not be able to detect the evidence and may never be able to). To say absolutely one way or another is a act of belief or faith.

Atheism doesn't take the opposite stance. If someone told you unicorns exist, but can offer no evidence for that claim, not accepting that claim suddenly means you're making the same leap of faith he is?

Virtually no atheist says that there absolutely is no god. They merely cite the lack of evidence for one, and thus take the position that while possible, its existence is less likely than its non-existence.

[Sailor Steve]

Atheism doesn't take the opposite stance. If someone told you unicorns exist, but can offer no evidence for that claim, not accepting that claim suddenly means you're making the same leap of faith he is?

Virtually no atheist says that there absolutely is no god. They merely cite the lack of evidence for one, and thus take the position that while possible, its existence is less likely than its non-existence.
I wouldn't go so far as your "virtually no" statement, merely because I've read a lot of Atheist and 'Sceptic' magazines, and most of them flat-out deny that there is a God, and call anyone who believes so "ignorant", "stupid" and worse. I do know atheists who say they'll believe when someone shows them proof, but not before then.

I fall into the "I don't know" category.

[NeonSamurai]

Atheism doesn't take the opposite stance. If someone told you unicorns exist, but can offer no evidence for that claim, not accepting that claim suddenly means you're making the same leap of faith he is?

Apples and oranges, a unicorn if it existed would be a physical entity and quite visible. Therefor relatively easy to prove or disprove. If something is not detectable, a lack of evidence does not disprove its existence. I can think of countless things which we have only recently discovered which we did not know existed, or theorized may exist, but were simply unable to detect.

Atheism is the opposite end of the spectrum of Theism. The starting point for any scientific perspective is not the claim of lack of existence until proven, but of doubt and uncertainty for either direction, until the weight of evidence leads in a particular direction to either prove or disprove the theory. At this point in time there is no credible evidence for a god(s), or credible evidence for the lack there of. It is an unknown, just as much as what happens after we die. It is something we are incapable of truly knowing one way or another beforehand. Being sceptical is all well and good, but flat out making the claim that it does not exist until proven is unscientific and faith based.

Virtually no atheist says that there absolutely is no god. They merely cite the lack of evidence for one, and thus take the position that while possible, its existence is less likely than its non-existence.

Really? as my experience says quite the opposite. The basic definition atheism is non belief in deities, or that there are no deities. What you are describing falls more within the realm of agnosticism.

[OneToughHerring]

I always thought atheism and agnosticism are bad terms, really. An atheist is supposed to think that "there is no god (as defined by christianity)". But what if you don't believe in, say, hinduism? Don't they have several gods? Is that still atheism or is there a special word to describe folks who don't believe in the many gods of hinduism?

Can an atheist not believe in god but believe in, say, the virgin Mary? Or the holy ghost? How about cherubs? Or angels? Or the devil? Is it possible to be an atheist satanist?

I just define myself as anti-religion and that covers nicely all these gods and mini-gods and their minions and the super baddies etc.

[NeonSamurai]

I always thought atheism and agnosticism are bad terms, really. An atheist is supposed to think that "there is no god (as defined by christianity)". But what if you don't believe in, say, hinduism? Don't they have several gods? Is that still atheism or is there a special word to describe folks who don't believe in the many gods of hinduism?

Can an atheist not believe in god but believe in, say, the virgin Mary? Or the holy ghost? How about cherubs? Or angels? Or the devil? Is it possible to be an atheist satanist?

I just define myself as anti-religion and that covers nicely all these gods and mini-gods and their minions and the super baddies etc.

Atheism denies the existence of any deities or deity or ignores the possibility of deities existing. So that would scratch out most of what you listed. It is also common to also deny the existence of supernatural forces such as angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, etc.

The literal breakdown of the word Atheism is "without belief in god" Though theism in a more specific type of belief in a personal god (as typified in christianity, islam, etc) that god(s) take an active role in the world. Deists on the other hand believe that there is a creator force, but that it does not involve itself with our world or intervene in any way.

In a sense i am also partly a practical Atheist along with being an Agnostic. I have no specific spiritual beliefs, I don't concern myself with contemplating the existence of god or a creator. It is completely unknowable and thus not worth the effort. I do however take the stand that no one knows one way or another, and that we cannot ever really know. As such I neither confirm nor deny the existence of a creator force, though I am very dubious of the claims made by most of the established religions of the world for various reasons.

[AngusJS]

If something is not detectable, a lack of evidence does not disprove its existence.I'm not saying it disproves its existence. No one says that. I'm saying if there's no evidence for something, there is no reason to think it does exist, which is not the same as disproving it, or saying you know with 100% certainty that it doesn't exist. It might exist, but until that can be shown, you have to stick with the evidence you have at the moment. To say otherwise is to open the door to absolutely anything and everything imaginable, which we will be unable to verify, and thus incapable of evaluating. Non-physical space lobsters living in the vicinity of the Crab Nebula? We just can't know either way! And if you say that they aren't likely to exist, based on what we know about space, the Crab Nebula, and lobsters, as well as the lack of any reason to think they exist besides the fact that I just mentioned them, well that requires just as much faith as claiming they do exist in the first place. :doh: I can think of countless things which we have only recently discovered which we did not know existed, or theorized may exist, but were simply unable to detect.And you would have been perfectly justified to state that based on the current evidence, it appears such things don't exist, until shown otherwise.


Atheism is the opposite end of the spectrum of Theism. The starting point for any scientific perspective is not the claim of lack of existence until proven, but of doubt and uncertainty for either direction, until the weight of evidence leads in a particular direction to either prove or disprove the theory. I disagree. Science postulates a null hypothesis which it then attempts to reject with positive evidence. If there is insufficient positive evidence, the null hypothesis stands.

At this point in time there is no credible evidence for a god(s), or credible evidence for the lack there of. It is an unknown, just as much as what happens after we die. It is something we are incapable of truly knowing one way or another beforehand. Being sceptical is all well and good, but flat out making the claim that it does not exist until proven is unscientific and faith based. Nothing has even been shown to occur after permanent death. Maybe something does happen. But to say that it is a leap of faith to hold that based on current knowledge, nothing happens, because there might be something going on which takes place in a hypothetical realm outside of our experience which lacks any kind of support at all, is silly.

Really? as my experience says quite the opposite. The basic definition atheism is non belief in deities, or that there are no deities. What you are describing falls more within the realm of agnosticism.My experience has been the opposite of your experience. :) Most atheists that I know of online are in principle open to new evidence. Even Richard Dawkins says that he is not 100% certain there is no god.

And non-belief does not equal certainty.

[NeonSamurai]

I'm not saying it disproves its existence. No one says that. I'm saying if there's no evidence for something, there is no reason to think it does exist, which is not the same as disproving it, or saying you know with 100% certainty that it doesn't exist. It might exist, but until that can be shown, you have to stick with the evidence you have at the moment. To say otherwise is to open the door to absolutely anything and everything imaginable, which we will be unable to verify, and thus incapable of evaluating. Non-physical space lobsters living in the vicinity of the Crab Nebula? We just can't know either way! And if you say that they aren't likely to exist, based on what we know about space, the Crab Nebula, and lobsters, as well as the lack of any reason to think they exist besides the fact that I just mentioned them, well that requires just as much faith as claiming they do exist in the first place. :doh: And you would have been perfectly justified to state that based on the current evidence, it appears such things don't exist, until shown otherwise.

Yet to deny existence is also equally unfounded. It may be improbable, but you cannot deny the possibility it exists either, or you bias yourself and close your mind to other possibilities. That is not the way of a good scientist. Doubt is perfectly reasonable, asserting non existence with out evidence is not. The best you can do is assert that such entities are improbable. As for your invisible space lobsters, there is no solid evidence either way. Their existence may seem unlikely, but it is still possible.


I disagree. Science postulates a null hypothesis which it then attempts to reject with positive evidence. If there is insufficient positive evidence, the null hypothesis stands.

The null hypothesis only represents no difference, not disproof per say. Accepting the null hypothesis only means that you could not find statistical difference of a significant level (0.05, 0.02, or whatever) that rises well beyond chance. The hypothesis itself can be positive or negative in nature (or both) and attempt to prove, or disprove a theory. The null is pretty much smack in the middle of things and represents nothing (null) and is supposed to be taken only as no evidence.

Nothing has even been shown to occur after permanent death. Maybe something does happen. But to say that it is a leap of faith to hold that based on current knowledge, nothing happens, because there might be something going on which takes place in a hypothetical realm outside of our experience which lacks any kind of support at all, is silly.

To say that nothing happens is also equally silly and also a leap of faith as well. We simply do not know either way. As such rendering any judgment on the subject is illogical and premature.

My experience has been the opposite of your experience. :) Most atheists that I know of online are in principle open to new evidence. Even Richard Dawkins says that he is not 100% certain there is no god.

And non-belief does not equal certainty.

They may not claim absolute certainty but their degree of doubt is minuscule. I doubt very much most religious types reach 100% certainty either as there is always going to be a bit of doubt. Only a total idiot claims absolute certainty about anything at all as there is no such thing, even in science.

[Sailor Steve]

@ AngusJS: That is the best summing-up of the situation I've seen in a long time.

@ NeonSamurai: Your answers are correct, but I'm not sure what your actual point is.

I've seen atheists say "You can't prove there's a God" and believers reply with "You can't prove there isn't one!" Both statements are true, but the second is made in a context that requires proving a negative, and is said by someone who is not interested in finding the truth but in proving that his belief is valid. If there is no proof either way then speculation is fruitless. There may be no justification for the denial but the believer can't afford to accept that his belief may indeed be based purely on speculation.

The problem I've come to have with revealed religion is that it has never been revealed to me, nor to anyone I've met. It's always someone else.

I like AngusJS's explanation of the null hypothosis.

[NeonSamurai]

Very quickly my point got lost in my first few posts. I just don't care for people espousing the idea that there is no god with as much vigor and certainty as those that proclaim there is a god. Both are statements of faith, and lack significant evidence one way or the other. They are stuck at the null hypothesis which is a neutral, no evidence position. As such both positions are speculative.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well said NS.

Ultimately - when dealing with God - the following applied: Regardless of your belief - or lack of it - the facts are that neither position is provable and thus be accepted on faith.

You can't prove God doesn't exist - but an atheist looks at the universe, observes (or takes the observations and statements of others) and interprets it all to mean there is no god. This is thus a personal belief based on the perspective the individual holds.

You can't prove God exists - but a believer looks at the univers, observes (or takes the observations and statements of others) and interprets it all to mean there is a God (or many). This is thus a personal belief based on the perspective the individual holds.

Both are rooted in the FAITH that the view they have is correct.

[OneToughHerring]

Very quickly my point got lost in my first few posts. I just don't care for people espousing the idea that there is no god with as much vigor and certainty as those that proclaim there is a god. Both are statements of faith, and lack significant evidence one way or the other. They are stuck at the null hypothesis which is a neutral, no evidence position. As such both positions are speculative.

That's why there are these weird houses with torture devices etc. on their roofs in the cities and towns of the world. Because religious people and non-religious people are equally stupid. :-?

[Sailor Steve]

:yep: To all three of the above.

[AngusJS]

Yet to deny existence is also equally unfounded. It may be improbable, but you cannot deny the possibility it exists either, or you bias yourself and close your mind to other possibilities.How many times did I say I'm not talking about disproving god? How many times did I say I'm not 100% certain? When did I say god was impossible? :nope:

Imagine that someone decides to go for a picnic in a field. He spends a few hours there, and has an enjoyable time.

Later that day, someone asks him what he thought of the 20 foot monolith that sits in the middle of the field.

He says "What? Based on what I saw, there is no monolith."

The person replies "Oh but there is, it just so happens to have every quality necessary to be unverifiable."

At which point you swoop in and says "Foolish amonolithist! Saying there is no monolith requires just as much faith as saying there is!"

And that's where you're wrong, because the claim is in fact three claims: not just that 1) the monolith exists, it's also that 2) the monolith has whatever characteristic it needs to have to be unverifiable, as well as an implicit 3) claim that while unverifiable, the monolith can still be known and described.

Compare that to the claim that based on the evidence, the monolith does not exist.

The claims ARE NOT EQUAL. Now you could say I'm taking it on faith that materialism is valid, that the most parsimonious explanation is usually the best, etc., but in the end that comes down to meaning that I assume that the pragmatic approach to reality that has gotten us to where we are now, and that everyone uses, is valid. That is no great leap of faith, and pales in comparison to what the "monolithist" claims.

This applies in exactly the same way to god. Saying that there is no god is the same as saying there is no $20 bill in your wallet when you open it and find it empty. Technically, it's possible that in fact there is a $20 bill there, it's just invisible, it has no mass, etc., but that's adding unverifiable assertion upon unverifiable assertion to try and save the claim that there is a $20 bill there. The claims as to the existence or absence of the $20 ARE NOT EQUAL.

Everyone knows that an infinite number of crazy things are possible. Yet no one gets on your case when you say you don't have 20 bucks, because we all understand this, and we all leave it unsaid when saying something doesn't exist.

In fact, those infinite number of crazy things don't have to be as inconsequential as space lobsters or phantom $20 bills. It is trivially easy to start making claims about history.

Did you know the ancient Egyptians didn't build the pyramids? The Assyrians built them. It's just that the Assyrians told the Egyptians to lie and say that they themselves did it. In any event, it's obvious that we will never have every single papyrus scroll or stone inscription ever made in ancient Egypt, so even if the Egyptians did record this fact, we'd never know about it.

Here is a claim that for all practical purposes is just as unverifiable as the space lobsters, or god. Just as with those claims, the central claim and the other "facts" that make it unverifiable are unsupported by any evidence. But if the lack of evidence doesn't matter, then the absence of any evidence for this occurring in the artifacts that we do have (analogous to our experience of reality in the case of god) is irrelevant. That means that this claim is in fact on equal terms with the view that the Egyptians did build the pyramids. They're both leaps of faith after all, and we can't truly decide between one or the other.

In this way we can also say that dinosaurs lived with humans, Nero played "St. Thomas" on his tenor sax (with Tacitus on drums and Seneca on piano) as Rome burned, and the victory of the English at Agincourt was due to Henry V's brilliant deployment of battlemechs.

In fact, I think we should start teaching the controversy. It's not fair to only teach one view when that view is just as much a leap of faith as another. :roll:

And lets move from the not particularly accurate definition of theism we've been using to one more relevant to the real world. To return to an earlier example, "monolithism" doesn't just claim that the monolith exists and is unverifiable, yet can be known; it also claims that his name is Earl, that he enjoys smelling the sweet savour of burnt animal sacrifice, yet he also created all ~200 billion galaxies in the universe. He loves everyone of us, but he also has been known to burn people alive who dare to offer him incense, and is an accessory to countless acts of mass murder.

Theism takes the margins of reality, the realm of the irrelevantly technically possible, and builds not just castles but entire cities in the clouds. The vast difference between theism and atheism should be clear, and it shouldn't be difficult to determine which one is making the grand claims supported only by faith.

Yet even deism, which in fact is essentially what we've been considering, still makes more claims than atheism, and the two are not equal.

Maybe you would have preferred it if instead of saying "as far as we know, god doesn't exist", I said "god's existence is improbable", because it's still possible that it exists. But the "improbable" is unvoiced because just as it's silly when talking about not having $20, it's silly when talking about about god not existing.

Now you could get into hard skepticism, and start doubting uniformitarianism, materialism, or the validity of your senses, even though that applies equally to all knowledge claimed by anyone. But I'm done with this conversation.

[CaptainHaplo]

Now you could get into hard skepticism, and start doubting uniformitarianism, materialism, or the validity of your senses, even though that applies equally to all knowledge claimed by anyone.

Ok - now you have valid points - yet the reality is lets say you believe in evolution - unless you have SEEN evolution occur, which given the time frame science claims is required, is impossible to a human with a limited lifespan. Thus - your taking the word of people who claim to know something - and claim they could prove it - or claim it has been already proven - yet ultimately your just taking someone else's word for it.

Ralph the believer says the invisible, non-provable god exists - mainly because his great, great, great, great grandad read a book that said so - he still has the book, has read it (of course - assumine he can read, right?), so by george he believes it too. Sound's silly. Yet Tom, the athiest, being much more modern and sophisticated, scoff's at Ralph, because everyone knows the universe started with the Big Bang. Tom knows this how though - because he wasn't around for the big bang - but tom has read it in a book. Oh wait - Ralph did that.... Tom however takes the word of science - because science says it knows things like evolution happened - even though no one alive has seen it - and all the in between varients are totally unproven. Whats more - Tom is not just taking the word of science - he is taking the word of all the scientist who write the science - even though some of them are dead. History you know. Odd how Ralph's book - historically - has prove to be rather accurate in many ways, but that must be coincidence. Of course, no one want's to make Tom answer how man, if they came from monkeys - why didn't all the monkeys evolve, or why the moon doesn't have the dust it should on it if it was the billions of years old science says - or even why Niagra Falls doesn't conform to Tom's uniformitarianism theories, or where the tiny little particle that made the bang in the big bang came from, or what was there before that........

See, Tom and Ralph both CHOOSE to have faith in something they cannot prove - something they cannot see themselves, and in many ways - each belief requires some ability to over-ride your own observations while believing what your "told" - either by a book, or by a scientist - alive or dead.

Seems both should cease to throw rocks at the other for being "silly" and "dumb".

[OneToughHerring]

Yea yea whatever.

My question is, how come in todays world it is only the Norwegian black metal figures who are engaging in any serious church burning?

[Sailor Steve]

@ CaptainHaplo: The only quibble I would have with all that is the sceptical middle ground.

No, I don't know anything about the Big Bang, and no, I don't know anything about evolution. The problem is that science observes phenomena and tries to come up with an explanation. Every serious scientist knows that his hypothosis may be proven wrong tomorrow, but today it's the best assumption based on the available evidence. I can make a decision based on what I'm told, because the teller presents his evidence, such as it is.

On the other hand I don't know anything about God either. But the True Believer of any faith expects me to embrace his version of The Truth without any evidence of any kind at all. I can look at the universe and accept or reject what I'm told about what it is based on evidence presented. I can't look at the universe and accept or reject what I'm told about God based on any evidence, because there isn't any. I have to make a decision based on what I'm told by someone who doesn't know either, just believes what he has been told by someone who also doesn't know.

The scientist makes assumptions based on what he can investigate for himself, or on what others can present to him. The believer makes assumptions based on what others say is true, but he can't investigate it because there's nothing to investigate.

[CaptainHaplo]

Steve my friend, you just made the case for intelligent design right there.

Science says that it can look at something and theorize how it came to be. Theologists look at that same something and recognize a superior intellect that designed it in such a way that it all works together. Seriously - what are the chances that from a miniscule (albiet extremely dense) particle that exploded everything you see would come about? The mere statistical improbability boggles the human mind. Look at the human body, or the design of a bird wing, or the growth cycle of a tree, the water cycle, or any of a hundred thousand other things you can look at any moment of the day - and SEE with your own eyes. Now - when you look at them all - in total - and how they all function together - in a way that not only accepts life as we know it - but also supports that life even when humanity screws up the system with its acts of destruction - and tell me that a superior intellect that is beyond our comprehension is LESS likely that it all just happening by "chance".

In fact - science itself (in the second law of Thermodynamics) deals with entropy - or the tendency of any system to break down and degrade. The reality is that this singular scientific observation would mean that instead of evolving - we (and the entire universe of existence) should have always been and always should be DE-volving. Over the gazillion of years though, science says we have done the exact opposite. It literally disregards its own law to say evolution is true - even though it cannot be proven - only because without evolution, science has no answer to the question of "where did we come from", because science cannot accept an answer that says there is something above itself.

I see proof of God every day, based simply on life itself. Does this mean I am going to tell you that you have to believe it? No I won't. But when your other option is putting your FAITH in science - when science disregards its own "laws".... well - thats your choice. Mine is made. But then again - using the old arguement - if I am wrong - what do I lose by living a "moral" life as defined by my beliefs? Absolutely nothing. If I am right, I gain much in the hereafter. On the other hand - if an athiest selects science, and recognizes only his own moral views, if right he has gained nothing, as there is nothing after this time, but if he is wrong, he has lost much.

When science becomes consistent (and it can be if and when it chooses to place itself into a role of seeking to learn what is instead of seeking to state what is) - then you often see science and theology in harmony. I find that rather interesting. Every human can choose for themselves. The truth is there, but one must be willing to accept that they are not the "point of the spear" or the height of the mountain. To think so scoffs not just theology, which people are free to do, but also laughs in the face of the science they claim to believe in.

[antikristuseke]

Ok - now you have valid points - yet the reality is lets say you believe in evolution - unless you have SEEN evolution occur, which given the time frame science claims is required, is impossible to a human with a limited lifespan. Thus - your taking the word of people who claim to know something - and claim they could prove it - or claim it has been already proven - yet ultimately your just taking someone else's word for it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


With presented evidence you are not just taking their word for it. The process has been observed.
Intelligent design is nothing more than goddunit in a fancy dress, lipstick on a pig and all that.

Edit: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

Fin hell, Haplo, you just keep firing PRATTs (Points refuted a thousand times)

[TLAM Strike]

In fact - science itself (in the second law of Thermodynamics) deals with entropy - or the tendency of any system to break down and degrade. The reality is that this singular scientific observation would mean that instead of evolving - we (and the entire universe of existence) should have always been and always should be DE-volving.
Interestingly observations of the universe has shown that following the Big Bang the speed of all matter in the universe isn't slowing either due to drag of the cosmic medium or by gravity created by matter pulling in more matter, or remaining constant, its speeding up! A violation of the 2nd law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
^ Honestly most of that stuff is beyond me, but it still interests me.

However IMHO Entropy doesn't exist in the universe on a cosmological scale since Entropy requires a closed system. We live in a multiverse made of many universes (according to some theories), if wormholes exist (which in theory they do) matter and energy could be moved from one to another. If there is an infinite number of universes in the multiverse then there is an infinite supply of matter and energy.

[CaptainHaplo]

antikrist - interesting links. Let me tackle em one at a time.

Nylon Eating Bacteria - note the following from the same article you linked.

"Scientists have also been able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients."

Interesting how it uses the term EVOLVE. Since you want to quote Wiki - I will do the same: "Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Yet such a adaptation as stated above could not use the term evolve accurately - since it clearly states that the bacterium were forced to live in an environment with no other source of nutrition. Thus, if the initial generation did not find a way to adapt - it would have starved - meaning no successive generations since everything would be dead. However, instead you have a species ADAPTATION that did not require successive generations. By definition, this cannot be used as a proof of evolution since it was not a change over the course of multiple generations of organisms. I would give you an A for effort on that one - except that your third link (on thermodynamics) has the following quote :

"Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). "

Obviously - this merely confirms that your first example isn't actually evolution observe - since no one knows if the changes were in one or many generations. Since science proved it could be a single generation adaptation, its not proof of evolution, sorry. Still a good try, but you ought not to give your opponent ammo to shoot you down.....

Lets deal with that speciation shall we? The second link also dealt with this - and if you scroll down a bit you will find the following:

"Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid."

Real fancy way of saying two plants got cross polynized - but that the result - while a new species - was sterile and thus had no offspring. Still runs into that successive generations problem. So far this whole "observed evolution" thing isn't working out so well for you. So lets say I give you an example of cross species reproduction. Sadly, ya see em every day - stray dogs. (BTW - Spay or neuter your pets when appropriate!!!) Check here:
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/hybriddogs.htm#C (http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/hybriddogs.htm#C)
As you can see - cross-breeding is common today - though often human guided. Obviously - in the wild - such things can happen as well. However, take the example of a mule or hinny - both the offspring of a horse and donkey. Almost always they are infertile - and to date no lengthy series of generations has been successfully bred. But canines can cross species and remain fertile. Yet this isn't due to evolution - the natural selection of traits by the survival of the fittest. So while I won't say that cross species (in the same family) isn't possible, there is nothing proving that any specific inherited trait is passed through each generation.

As for the whole entropy thing - I don't claim to understand it all either. I am aware that the universe as observed is breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How - is beyond my scientific ability to explain. Yet one could argue that on the issue of SPECIES evolution - we are in a closed system - since we are not evolving due to the universe (or universes) at large - but in the closed system of our own planet.

Back to the second link - it also discusses fossil gaps - and links to another page where one can find "transitional vertebrate fossil" claims - but a quick look at this proves my earlier point that your having to take someone else at their word on something that is - even if they are honestly giving their best assumption - is hardly enough evidence to base a "there is no intelligent design" argument on. Let me give you an example - the link given was the following:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1)

It has the following quote in it which will demonstrate what I mean. "Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable."

GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments."

Now lets look at this "proof" of a bridge-gapping fossil shall we? In that short bit of "proof" we have the following words and phrases:

possibly belongs to
seems to be
uncertain
if

So what we have are bone fragments that they really aren't sure what kind of creature they belonged to, so the discoverer guesses (the "seems to be") what it might have been, then says he can't be certain what the thing's purpose was on the animal he thinks it came from, but then includes the "IF" to make his thoughts coincide with a "recently suggested" change to the evolutionary theory he is obviously well versed in.

Sorry - but with that many uncertainties in the "proof" - its no proof at all. I also love the last bit - " Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments." Ya think????? :rotfl2:

What your saying is "Ths guy doesn't know where this came from, he really isnt real sure what it is other than pieces of bone, but he thinks it might possibly be some in-between fossil thingy, so its proof of evolution!"
Go ahead - pull my other leg while your at it! I'm not telling you what to believe - but if thats the best you have, there is no way in the world your going to convince anyone that your belief is not based in FAITH. Cuz friends - you gotta have alot of FAITH to take that as "proof" of evolution.

[Heihachirō]

Very quickly my point got lost in my first few posts. I just don't care for people espousing the idea that there is no god with as much vigor and certainty as those that proclaim there is a god. Both are statements of faith, and lack significant evidence one way or the other. They are stuck at the null hypothesis which is a neutral, no evidence position. As such both positions are speculative.

You know, my understanding was that there are two forms atheism, gnostic atheism, and agnostic atheism. The former claims with abosultey that there is no god and the latter claims that there is a lack of evidence for a god.

One uses faith, the other doesn't. There's a big difference from rejecting someone else's claims and counter claiming something. One is faith based, one is not.

[CaptainHaplo]

Heihachiro - welcome aboard!

You also raise a good point, but an agnostic admits that he doesn't KNOW because there is no proof of the existence - or nonexistence - of a diety. Thus, he really is not an athiest at all.

It is the gnostic athiest that claims there is no proof of god - thus there can be no god.

The problem here is that its been said "sure god is technically possible - BUT......" - meaning someone has taken the "I don't know" and substituted it for "I dont know but I BELIEVE......". It is also telling that while one can claim to not know, the act of mocking those who do believe, by namecalling, tends to indicate they are of the gnostic atheist bend regardless of how they try to mask it.

[Heihachirō]

You also raise a good point, but an agnostic admits that he doesn't KNOW because there is no proof of the existence - or nonexistence - of a diety. Thus, he really is not an athiest at all.
Atheism
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

That's it. Nothing more. Has nothing to do with knowing a deity is not real.

[Noren]

Very interesting. On a small scale I believe bacteria can be used to describe evolution. Bear with me here, but I dont want to write an essay :D

As a medicine student I know that bacteria, which is a cellular organism without a core nucleus or extensive mechanisms of DNA-reparation, often will multiply quickly. They do this by making a clone copy of itself.
Every new attempt at making a perfect clone will often alter the few strands of DNA (known as strings because they are not as cleverly organized as in eubacteria, eq. human cells with a core). This is because real bacteria have no way of cross-checking that each dna-copy is 100% accurate - they simply lack fale-safe mechanisms. Whereas human cells extensively cross-check new cells dna-copies and if errors are found the cell cloning is stopped; DNA is corrected or the cell is ordered to self terminate. Error in many of these mechanisms ultimately leads to cancer - eq. genetic error inherited from your parents can make a woman pre-disposed to breastcancer (one fale-safe mechanism is already weak from birth, BRACA-gene).

Whereas human cells always are 100% accurate copies (well not later in life, thats a theory for age degeneration), if they are not - they willingly terminate (apoptosis) - bacteria copies differ from their parent. Furthermore because bacteria multiply expontially it makes sense to speak of thousands of generations, all different, in just a day. Imagine a bacteria dividing every minute and altering 1% on each occasion, thats 3600 new, in each step slightly different copies in one hour. Many clones differ to much from their parent cell and naturally die but some gain an attractive trait and grow stronger than the rest. Now we have thousands of nearly copies, I would call that evolution. Did they adapt? Well thats a matter of definition, there are ways in which dna-strands of foreign bacteria or viruses incorporates but mostly of it is simply errors in dna-replication-error. I know this, because of my 4 years of pre-clinic medicine studies and while there are factors that alter dna-copying (such as strong radiation, free-radical oxidation or toxic chemicals) most dna-errors happen at random - with no involvent of god if you ask me.

On an interesting note, did you guys know that scientist have traced the original HIV-code to certain places in Africa? Latest news says it was first spread from African butchers, who worked with chimpancee-meat in the markets? They had perhaps bleeding wounds and HIV was in the meat and apeblood. Eventually one butcher got infected, had sex with so and so...and voila HIV made an inter-species-jump.

But if you ask me, it s difficult to pinpoint evolution with mammals, because our generations seldome differ so fast or much as bacteria. But its a nice find to see that we have more genetically in common with monkeys (which we share physical traits with) than say fishes or birds. In my view christians just dont want to be an accendant to apes (they perhaps find it discustful and against the Holy bible) but Im fine with it - after all, why dismis what seems reasonable and logic.

On a last note: When massive doses of antibiotics are given to a patient, patients usually end up with a vastly different bacterial flora in their intestines - simply because antibiotics target unique bacterial processes and terminates them. Luckilly disease-making bacteria die but also good protetive, K-vitaminproducing bacteria in the stomach/intestines dies. Left is a fraction of bacteria what somehow differ from the rest, due to mutation of the their dna. That fraction suddenly find themselves with lots of space and nutrients due to mass-slaughter of the other bacteria and they multiply!!! That was a sudden massive shift in bacteria.
The same can be said for mammans, for eq. the black plague, an external factor, erradicated 3/4 of the human population in Europe several times. Not all died, partly due to some of us beeing naturally resistant to that bacteria. Ergo there was a sudden massive shift in the human population.

An even longer-lasting evolution statement:is'nt it interesting that the western population have genes that allow us to drink milk, even after youth - compared to the rest of the world who only can drink it at birth and up tp say 15? Thousands of years ago, no-one could drink milk after say 15 years of age but suddenly we had a group of people who could - due to mutation. That group of people flourished because milk-producing creatues were abundant in Europe. The not-drinking-population died out and today all westerns can drink milk (more or less) - all due to a lucky mutation. Ergo vesterns are a mutant copy of a dna-error gone good. Africans, Asians etc did'nt need milk to that extent so it did'nt matter to them.

On a similar note, malaria is a big problem in warm regions of the world, causing many deaths and it has done so for centuries - especially in Africa. At one time there was a mutation for the gene that coded blood cells in us humans, causing sickle-cell anaemia. The disease weakens the individual and shortens life but it was found that if you inherited only one false gene and a normal one (we always inherit a father and a mother-gene), you actually lived longer than people with 2 normal genes - in heavily malaria-infested regions of Africa. With one gene you were only partly weakened from the disease but you were also partly cured of malaria! So a disease-mutation actually made Africans lesser inclined to die in malaria, so evolution favoured them. Today 1/3 of the population in Sahara have this gene.

Lastly, on speaking of genetic inheritage: did you know that 1/200 of all asian men can be dna-traced to Ghingis Khan? Its because he raped/ had sex with the most beautiful women of the enemy, in every city during his conquests. He must have had lots of veneral diseases haha.

[TLAM Strike]

An even longer-lasting evolution statement:is'nt it interesting that the western population have genes that allow us to drink milk, even after youth - compared to the rest of the world who only can drink it at birth and up tp say 15? Thousands of years ago, no-one could drink milk after say 15 years of age but suddenly we had a group of people who could - due to mutation. That group of people flourished because milk-producing creatues were abundant in Europe. The not-drinking-population died out and today all westerns can drink milk (more or less) - all due to a lucky mutation. Ergo vesterns are a mutant copy of a dna-error gone good. Africans, Asians etc did'nt need milk to that extent so it did'nt matter to them. Hmm that reminds me of something I read somewhere, since Asians never developed or widely had fermented drinks (ie. beer) their bodies have less tolerance of alcohol in their blood stream so they are easier to get drunk. While Europeans developed a tolerance for alcohol over the centuries.

[antikristuseke]

Atheism
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

That's it. Nothing more. Has nothing to do with knowing a deity is not real.

Don't waste your breath, I have allready tried explaining that in previous threads.

Also Haplo, I will reply to your post, I just need a bit more time as I am busy.