Bashing Religions?

Remove all ads!

The site that you pointed out, while helpful in the discussion on Noah and the Great flood, also demonstrates my point of certain religions being under attack. They have a link to discuss Mormonism (lumping the main church with it's off shoot branches) and proceeding to a link which is determined to tell them that their teachings are false. I am of the belief that this person didn't do their research entirely...

 

I would imagine it would be extremely rare, but there is no reason why it doesn't happen in the wild. The most likely scenario is feral dogs and wolves as both may be in reasonable abundance in some locations. Wolves are certainly defined as a different species to dogs, they are believed to be one of the most recent species splits, having seperated about 14,000 years ago in Canis Lupus and Canis familiaris as we define them today.
Actually, I fail to see how being in captivity would necesarily mean that the breeding was un-natural - only if the animals were "forced" together.
I've emailed the lds as it wasn't in the FAQ.

My point is that ALL the distinctions are man made - it's how we split the world up so we can describe it to each other. It's why the innuit have more than 20 different names for snow.
The pit bull and poodle may have different skulls but are currently the same species (The different human races are the same species but have different skulls). They are different Breeds (Breeds being a sub-set of species, being a subset of Genus). In time, (maybe another 14,000 years) the amount of differences between breeds may get to the point where they are scientifically recognised as different species.

But if God hasn't defined the individual species, then what are his teachings? How do you determine what is meant by his teachings? All the examples you give use that man-made nomenclature because that is what is in common usage - not because God has told you that it is the correct way to define something.

I'm not criticising your faith, I'm criticising the fact you don't appear to understand what you are arguing about. You haven't clarified, and therefore I can only assume you don't know, what distinctions you are making to decide something is a "Cheetah" and not a "Acinonyx" (You learn something everyday, relatively recently all cats were believed to be of Genus "Felis" there are now 18 different recognised Genera of cats. The genus Panthera, including the lion, tiger, leopard and jaguar, have several characters which unite them as different from other cats. First, they are the only cats that roar. Second, they can purr both while inhaling and exhaling; the other cats purr on exhaling only. Apparently small differences, but enough to decide they are of a different Genus.

I object to that, I've been asking many questions, including now asking your Church (as you couldn't answer me,) to try and work out what you believe. I need to know what you believe before I can have an understanding of it.

More knowledge, I did not know you have your own version. How did he translate it? Which version did he translate it from? Did he go back to the earliest available copy (in ancient Greek I believe). Surely the text he translated it from must have an influence on his translation, or are you saying that it would be irrelevant what he read as the translation would have been by God? Do you therefore believe that the old translations were wrong, and if so why did he translate something so flawed rather than start afresh?

 

Carcaroth, you're last question is an interesting one. The Mormon's used the King James' Version for over 150 years. The decision was made in the 1970's to use the Joseph Smith version -- this is a version where the 'Holy Spirit' told Joseph Smith which passages were correct and which may have been 'translated incorrectly' over time (he certainly didn't look at the oldest bible available -- the Greek one you mentioned -- with his holy glasses of translation). Joseph Smith made several changes (actually, thousands of changes) to bring the bible more in line with his teachings and philosophies. Probably the biggest change is the entire exclusion of the Songs of Solomon (a boring book of the old testiment which really doesn't say much).

 

Please tell me your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek when you said this, and you just forgot the smiley. Many scholars question the inclusion of the "Song of Solomon" in the Bible not because it's boring, but because it's an incredibly sensual love poem. There are many ways to worship God and give praise for God's many wondrous gifts, which include sex.

 

I watched a programme on the BBC that said that there was a wife of sorts for God (in Song of Songs) that was later removed. Can anyone provide more information on this?

 

You must mean Lilith here, Cesard. Her status is not very clear in the early judean mythology but it found a reflection in the old testament. If it is her you are talking about, she was (according to mythology) the first woman created by God and she was EQUAL to Adam, made of clay as he was. The fact that they were equal, however soon caused severe misunderstandings between her and Adam, because she wanted to dominate in the relationship , she did not want to lay beneath him. Finally she left Adam. That is why god banished her from eden and created Eve from Adam's rib so he would be superior to her and he would easily "tame" her, so that the relationship between men and women would go well. (call God a sexist, now, will you?)
Lilith was cursed by God for her deed to watch one hundred of her children die every day. From this moment forth, she became a demon, who seduces males and kills newborn children. It is said that she has dominion over the infants for some days after their birth, in which it is not certain whether the infant would live or die. To drive her away from the babies, people used to hang different amulets and totems on their doors, so she would pass them by and leave the infant alive.
Some other legends say that she had a relationshp ( ) with Samael, from which she gave birth to a hideous dragon.

Well, this is the short of it.

 

And people wonder why I have problems with God...

To put it bluntly, as far as I'm concerned whether or not the Judeo-Christian God exists is irrelevant. I wouldn't worship Him even if He did exist. There's no way I'd worship anything that commited the atrocities the Bible attributes to God.

If He were human and He did those thing, we'd call Him a psychopath. At best.

 

Well, you are well aware of the fact that the christian god is not the only one around. So are we talking denial towards christianity, or atheism as a whole? I see that you include the supposition that god does exist, so it must be the first case. I will not defend christianity now (I am probably the last person who would do that) but it would be good for somebody making accusations, to be aware of a few facts in advance. Since it came to the "atrocities" of God here, I must say that in the old testament we have a pre-christianic image of God. As you can see the whole old testament is highly mythological and mechanically combines within itself different elements of elder beliefs (you can see this most clearly in the creation of cosmos (order) from chaos, the creation of people, the fall of men, the role of Lucifer the bearer of light and knowledge and s.o.) There we have an older image of the christian God, carrying and showing the features of many mythological divinities, which make him good (undoubtedly) but not as forgiving as his evolved self in the new testament. In other words - ancient deities are as merciless as nature which they most often represent, therefore the first and basic image of christian god is merciless too. To claim that his deeds confront the MUCH NEWER idea of the loving and forgiving god means to forget the important fact that, as every other religion, Christianity also had it's different stages of evolution taking the biblical God from a shepherd-tribe's prime deity, to the unexplainable and unfathomable holy trinity. [/geekery]

 

Not making accusations. Just making myself clear; I don't consider the behavior displayed by God in the Old Testament to be "acceptable".

True. I suppose I'm just unable to reconcile the older vision of God with the newer vision. Of course, there are a number of branches of Christianity that, AFAIK, do not disavow the older vision (Fred Phelps, anyone?), so perhaps discussing Christianity as a whole is neither accurate nor fair.

 

Hmm, I suppose that might be insulting to some people, but I personally consider the old testament at times to be more of a semi-mythologized history of a particular tribe than a holy scripture. The parts about David tend to be quite rich in less-than-religious parts, at least by most contemporary definitions of "religious.

 

I see. But tell me, how do you define "acceptable" here? As a moral category? (keep in mind that your own vision also relies on moral categories) And if so, given the fact that though moral is an initial part of human nature, its christian dimensions, that our culture and tradition has fed us with, are a product of the newer and evolved dogma, does this not mean that again we are measuring the old mythological christianitiy with the measurements of today's faith?

That is so. Generalisation is always unaccurate. The problem is however that all of the (official!) branches of the religion are in such strong connection to the main and root dogma that it is impossible to view and discuss them away from the whole construction of the religion, therefore we must always adress christianity as a whole even when viewing one of its elements.

 

Rallymama: I scored 10% on the gay test ... romantic poetry IS boring. I read it when I was 17 and didn't find it sensual at all (of course at 17 only the blatant sexual references are sensual ... Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, etc.).

 

First off, Caracoth, I'm letting most of your post drop because it gets into areas that I do not know, and i have been advised by Mods to stick with areas that I have some knowledge. But as to the Joseph Smith Translation, afther finishing the translation of the Book of Mormon, he then set about an inspired translation of the Bible. The majority of the work was indeed correct, but there were a number of places that required correction...

I've heard that it wasn't inspired writings to begin with, and had not much place in the Bible itself...

Actually, I've heard that we seldom talk about the actual details of sex because it is a sacred gift from God to married couples, and talking about sex somehow fails to do it justice. Just as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, pornography or other improper sexual behaviour cheapen that sacred gift.

Again, I have heard of this, but know nothing about it, so I'll stay out of that part. However, it is taught in Mormon Theology that God does have a wife, but that nothing is revealed about her...

Not really, In the Old Testament, Prophets were told of the coming of the Messiah, the Son of God. Also, there was a passage, I believe it was in first or Second Chronicles, where Elijah had heard the a still small voice and that was God. That would be the Holy Ghost. This is more clearly explained in the third chapter of Matthew when Jesus Christ was Baptized. The Son was there bein baptized, and the Holy Ghost was represented, and the Vioce of God was heard expressing his joy at His Son's baptism.

Parts of the Old Testament were the histories of the people of Israel. David and Solomon were amongst their great kings.

I've heard a Catholic state why their faith was superior to the Orthodox church, and try to persuede me to convert. I myself have stated my belief in the correctness of my faith over other faiths in other threads here in the AoDA. But the bottom line is their basis in scripture. Whether there are differences in treanslation or even the understanding gained from each scriptural passage, these differences come in. If I'm not mistaken, weren't Luther's 95 theses simply points where he felt that scripture conflicted the practice of the Roman Catholic Church?

One Generalization that I feel I can make is that if you don't feel a spiritual connection to what is being taught (regardless of which branch of Christianity you are involved with, perhaps even trancending the bounds of any given religion), you will not really feel a desire to attend and worship. You will not feel any desire or compulsion to obey. The faithful, however DO feel that connection to whatever they are taught and believe. To them, it can be a serious insult to see things sacred to their faith defaced, and that is what I think should be dealt with. Do they not have the right to worship as they see fit (barring sedition, incitement to violence or solicitation of criminality) without harrassment?

 

Sigh. Sometimes I wish the world would end and we could all these arguments to an end. Of course if there isn't a god ...

 

Good advise anyway. By indulging the Evolution arguements, I was participating in allowing the thread to drift off topic.

 

Blackthorne, not to be a complete jerk, but how do we know when you are speaking as a moderator or as a member? Please advise!

This is the last post I'm going to make in this thread. I have no problem with people who disagree with my religion, whether it be on a scriptural basis or an atheistic one. As I have stated before, the only thing that burns my butt is when someone doesn't get their facts straight.

I have to admit that the people who go to Temple Square to protest and heckle are idiots, IMHO, but they have that right as long as they don't break any laws by physically blocking or otherwise interfering with people going about their normal business.

As for science and the Mormon faith, all I have to say on that is that many Mormons are reputable scientists who have reconciled their religious beliefs with what science asserts. I view any attempt to make us out to be "flat earth" types as either deliberate falsification or gross ignorance. Yet, people are free to believe as they wish, as that is a fundamental human right.

I finally figured out what one fellow was talking about when he said that Mormons have a distrust of anything that cannot be proved scripturally -- I'm guessing that he meant that we do not answer any criticism that is derived from statements made that are not official church policy.

Therefore, if "Church Leader X" says "all zebras are inherently evil", we do not respond to that as it is not part of the official church position (I use the zebra thing as a sarcastic example, please don't flame me, some of my best friends are zebras). I hope that makes sense.

 

Ahhh...if the religious model of reality were true, ...well the world would be a magical and just place.

Oh well...here's to our often incomprehensible, slightly boring and sometimes painful world!

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the statement in parentheses, but yes, acceptable is a moral category.

Actually, this is a very good point. The last church I attended certainly had nothing in common with the eye for eye mentality of the old vision.

At the same time, other versions of "today's faith" most certainly do; Fred Phelps' church, for example, advocates the execution of all homosexuals.

So on the one hand, the new version is, to me, acceptable, but the old version still lingers, and is fairly widespread. Interesting dichotomy, there.