Designated Religion Argument Thread

Remove all ads!

I'll try to throw out some quick answers for my old friend joacqin...the key word being "short".

1. Nothing comes from nothing. Something has to come from something. If you relax your brain and just go with it, it's almost easier for the human mind to conceive of a creator, instead of struggle with theories that in some way are always imperfect. It's not the impossible twist for an unaltered mind to accept a creator, rather the natural end before a mind gets altered. Man has always had an innate sense of a creator; a religious person would say that that is because man is the creation .

2. This one is easy...at least from the standpoint of Christian Doctrine...can't speak for others. The above mentioned Creator, in addition to making massive galaxies, glowing nebulae, blazing stars, verdant planets and extraordinary beasts made one other tiny little carbon base life form. This creature was different from all the others because it was made in the image of the creator...not a physical image...a spiritual one. The Creator breathed into man an eternal soul, making something more than a mere creation...more than a cog...more that a brick in the wall...we were made his children. So when you ask "how could an all powerful creator care for such an insignificant part of its creation"...the question is non-sensical to a person of faith...sort of like saying "how can those parents keep caring for that new baby...all it does is cry, soil diapers and does nothing at all to help them".

3. I'm not even going to touch this now...as my Faith doesn't give me the right to condemn anyone...except for someone who claims to have the same Faith as I, but fails to live it in practice...and then I can only condemn in the interests of exhorting and instructing.

There you go...no mad scientist stuff here. Not as short as I intended, but hopefully simple answers to question that aren't that hard.

 

1. You explain the existance of a creator from a human perspective. We feel the need for a creator and the complete lack of any other satisfactory explanation leads us to turn that need into faith/belief/knowledge. Just because we cannot comprehend of an alternative doesnt negate the possibility or even likelyhood of such an alternative. The idea of a creator just seems so extremely simplistic to me, basically the same thing as explaining thunder as teh work of Thor before we figured out a bit more of how thunder works. Lack of satisfactory answer doesnt equal existance of divine being, feels more like something to put in the whole while we figure out a satisfactory answer or for those who cannot deal with the uncertainty of not knowing.

2. This was the expected answer and I really dont buy that either even if it is hard to argue witn. I find that too rather simplistic and a bit of a cop out. The "why's" are still teeming around the question. All loving god creates speck of dust and for a tiny period of the existance of that dust speck puts sentient beings created in its image on it and then only reveals itself through the mouth of some desert shaman (while at the same time 300 other desert shamans and countless witchdoctors, priests and prophets claim to speak with the voice of one or another being) and demands that his creation ought to do this and that and live in a certain way or be screwed. To me it just seems like pettyness on a scale unimaginable and ascribing such attributes to a creator of the universe shows extreme arrogans on the human part and diminishes the possible creator.

3. Blah, why doesnt anyone ever want to answer this one?

 

Because the only things that they can think of sound stupid even to them.

 

Calling people simpletons and stupid certainly doesn't help in the argument.

 

That is my big fear. I would hate to end up choosing the wrong one and getting caned for it in the hereafter.

 

@HB The correct answer was mormons, mormonism was the right choice. Sorry all you others.

I apologize for the South Park reference but I just couldnt resist.

 

@T2Bruno:
I was just trying to say that there is no logical argument for believing in one faith over the other (aside from scientology, but I don't think that really counts as a religion, per se, but perhaps as an anti-religion). Anything someone could come up with would have to be a rationalization for what they believe. Either that, or it's the real reason they say they believe it, when they don't really believe it in their heart. So anything they could come up with would sound stupid.

@joacqin:
You're talking about the Golden PSP episode, aren't you?

 

I seem to have missed quite a bit of this discussion, but I'll toss in my two cents worth and see what sort of reaction I get.

The old Eastern fable (used by Hindus, Buddhists, and others) about the group of blind men trying to come up with a description of an elephant is a useful starting place. The elephant, of course, can symbolize God or the totality of reality, take your pick. Each blind man comes into sensory contact with one part of the elephant and makes his evaluation based on only the small part that he touches -- everyone familiar with this story?

OK, the upshot of the fable is that from our limited perspective we are simply unable to comprehend the infinite. I'm good with that, but my question is . . . . what if the elephant is not the best symbol for the infinite? What if the elephant could talk?

This, to me, is the essence of western religion (the three religions of the Book, as it were, Judaism, Christianity and Islam). The claim is not "We, being bright and intelligent, understand more than the rest of you morons", it is more "we have been spoken to by God, and he has told us the following things . . ."

God cannot be proved or disproved on an intellectual level by mere mortals. He is beyond us and far, far greater than we are. That being the case, a little humility from humanity is in order. The existence thereof is a matter of humbling oneself and listening to the way he speaks to our spirits.

That said, I wish to point out a few things. Many highly intelligent, scientific, progressive people have also been deeply religious. The insinuation made by some people that "religious folks are, on the basis of their beliefs, fundamentally stupid" is grossly offensive and lacks any grounding in history or logic. Disbelieve if you will, believe we are wrong -- no problem -- but don't just shovel religious folks into a pile marked "idiots" and discount everything they have to say.

Next, the issue of proseletyzing. While some religious people are pushy buggers, proseletyzing is not "shoving your religion down my throat." The whole issue is a catch 22. If a group does proseletyze, they are arrogant slime who do not respect the beliefs of others. If they do not proseletyze, they are insular slime who think they are better than everyone else and are too stupid to realize that a loving God would offer salvation to all people. During my mission, I strove to make sure that the people I spoke with knew that I was sharing a heartfelt belief with them, not spitting on their culture or beliefs. It can be done!

I hate long posts -- I apologize. End of commentary

 

Okay, let me try this again.

First off, I want to make it clear that I do not think religious people are stupid. On the contrary, I consider myself somewhat religious, and at times I find it rather comforting to think that all of this is happening for a reason. What I was trying to say in my previous posts is that religion and logic are in completely different categories. (That sounded a lot better in my head. ) IMO, people can't come up with a good reason for why they believe a certain way because there is no concrete reason.

Maybe I should try to explain it with science. Let's say that every person has a certain frequency that they resonate at. And this frequency will match what the belief system (or religion) that fits best with their personality. So they feel drawn to this belief system, without even knowing why. A setup like that would make it almost impossible for someone to articulate a reason for why they believe a certain way, simply for the reason that they don't know. I know I can't explain why I believe what I believe; it just makes more sense to me than anything else I've ever encountered.

In the end, it just comes down to "Well, it makes sense to me" & "I just do". (Anyone who's ever spoken at length with a two-year old knows what I'm talking about. )

 

But to live by that faith that they try to accpet, means that they do things according to that faith. As they do these things, they gain a testimony of what they are doing, and these doubts would diminish over time.

That I can live with. As I study and think things through, I come up with better answers as I go along (and have a few things I blow corrected along the way)...

There's a feeling of peace and understanding that I don't get among the philosophies of men. I have been the prodigal son, and have had to go through the process of repentence and thus personally can add my witness to those of Alma the Younger and Saul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul) of the miracle of Forgiveness. It's a personal feeling that I get that confirms that it is true.

I am not qualified to speak for the opposing point of view. I am not privy to that point of view. It is likely that some opposing points are as foreign to me (if not more so) as my beliefs are to some others here.

I wasn't always a good little boy. There's things in my past that I'd like to leave there. I've traveled some sinful paths in the past, and in comparison, I am convinced that the path I'm on IS the right one. I've been through the process of repentance, and know that the testimony given by Alma in the Book of Mormon is true. From what I hear, I'm not the only one that's been there either...

Yes, the bible that Joseph Smith grew up with is the King James version. The version we have is the King James version, but with corrections, some in the actual text, some in footnotes, some in a section in the back, depending on the length and such...

Actually, that's the most recent guess I'd heard. I went there because this crowd wouldn't let me off with "Because the Lord said so".

I doubt that my answers will deviate from Hacken Slash's answers much, or that they will be acceptable to you, but here goes...

Needs is irrelevent. I believe that the Universe was created. Just as your parents gave you life, eventually you sustain that life independent of them. God Created the Universe, but it sustains itself for the most part. Basically, God is the Prime mover if you are familiar with that arguement for the existence of God.

Being taught that God is our spiritual father, and that it is the love that a parent has for a child that explains why he cares. If you cannot accept the teaching that God is the father of our souls, then I doubt I can satisfactorily explain that.

Primarily, it's a spiritual connection to the teachings and the Lord. When I am in His service, I feel His love, and know that it is true. On a more nit-picking level, there are points in the Bible that contradict some of the practices that are in place in other religions. I've seen 17 points that are in the Bible. Our church is the only one that meets all 17 of them...

But the question is the same for me as for them. How much faith do you have in whatever you believe or refuse to believe? Are you willing to risk damnation for being in the wrong crowd? I am, and believe that I am right, and thus wouldn't expect damnation.

Just because it starts as a cynical back-up plan, doesn't meant that true faith cannot develop. If you still think of him as a thug rather than a loving father, then I can't change what you think...

But what if the truth really is that simple?

This is why Jesus Christ was sent to earth, to teach the Gospel and to die for our sins that we may be forgiven. This was done as a way to extend mercy and still satisfy Justice.

I tried, but I don't know that you will accept my answer.

Rather blunt, but the point is taken anyway. It's the hardest one to address out of the three.

LMAO. I always get a chuckle out of that line. But IIRC, It takes more than just following the wrong religion to be truly damned.

LKD is right, it's not about attacking, but about sharing. I don't do that very well, despite how hard I try...

Yes, that's the real catch 22 of the position of Religion. Faith cannot be proven. All you have to go by is my report of my experiences in such situation...

That, ultimately, would be the bottom line...

 

I was going to leave this dead-end argument here but this caught my eye:

What, may I ask, is loving and fatherly about a god who goes 'Hey - you don't believe in me. You're going to Hell for eternity.' (wow, that sounded like a bad rap - totally unintentional I assure you)? If there was some chance of the redeeming themselves in Hell and getting to Heaven then sure, I could see an 'overly stern father' maybe - but Hell forever with no chance of redemption doesn't sound very loving to me...

 

I'm very much a believer in God but I will admit that there isn't any proof that God exists. Even the "Someone had to start everything." argument can be rebutted. Still, I still believe. As others have mentioned, it's a leap of faith, simply because you go beyond the borders of logic and science. I'm happy with my religion because I see that it is relevant in my life and I see it alive through my personal experience. I am offended when non-believers think that believers are stupid and when believers think non-believers are stupid. All I can say is that it's practically impossible for both sides to understand the other since the starting points are very different, either there is a God or there isn't one. Both sides can experience exactly the same thing and see it differently, one would be that it's part of a plan by a higher being and the other just a confluence of events. In the end, live and let live. I have friends who are both and we get along just fine.

 

Hmm, umm, Gnarff I am kinda disapointed here. I mean it would have been nice if you put some thought into it, now I got the generic reply which basically amounts to "Because god said/did it".

 

I'm not asking you to speak for it, only to actually look at some of the evidence for it before dismissing it out of hands because it contradicts your religion.

Again, I'm sure most people have done something in their past they rather hadn't. I am guessing here that the sinfull paths you are refering to are actions and this is kind of irrelevant to my point. What I am talking about is the pursuit of knowledge/understanding which generally is not regarded as sinful. I am asking you to question why your faith believes a certain thing, then to look at the evidence and make the decision for yourself. You could say that, in particular, this pertains to your perceived clashes between Religion and Science.

Very interesting, particulary as I understand the King James in particular differs from the oldest texts quite drastically compared to the modern translations (aided incalcuably by the discovery of the dead sea scrolls)

Possibly a lovely bit of circular logic. Are all 17 points only in the Mormon bible? If so then your Church is the only one that meets all 17 of it's own points! I am intrigued as to what the points are, presumably the 10+2 commandments for starters.


Actually I'm very glad that the pursuit of religion has brought you back from "sinful" actions you'd really rather not think about. My biggest bug-bear is the teenagers that hang round the house taking drugs, accosting people and throwing their rubbish over my garden. If finding religion means they'll clean up their manners (and litter) then I'd be more than happy. I wasn't like that as a child, sure there are things I'm embarrassed by, but I never intentionally went out to hurt people or damage property or the environment.

I've never felt empty, not having a belief in God, I've always felt loved and secure in the company of family and friends. (Despite my rather unusual parentage - I have more parents than most people have grand-parents, at least 6 though one is now dead) I believe I've fashioned my own set of philosophies without needing to adopt those of others - meaning I've thought about each one, and analysed why I think that way and how it would affect other people. My philosphies are able to change and adapt as I gain in experience - it's actually quite funny to see myself 5 years ago, and no-doubt will be funny in another 5.

I have no need in my life to believe in a higher being or eternal life - I really don't think it would benefit me in any way. In particular there is no way I could join any religious group - some religious beliefs are so fundamentally different to my own that it would certainly do me more harm than good. I quite simply reject out-right any religion which stigmatises other people based on , farily minor, differences. At the end of the day, man wrote and translated the bible, and to pretend that his own beliefs didn't colour the text is flying in the face of all evidence.

[ July 21, 2005, 14:34: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

As Hack said, I find it hard to swallow the idea that everything came from absolute nothing. Not Order out of Chaos, mind you, but Matter out of the Absence of Matter. The question then becomes for me, where did that original piece of matter come from, and what set it on the cosmological path to where we are now? The idea that there is a Prime Mover behind the universe is thoroughly Aristotelian, and I think you’d be hard pressed to call him a religious zealot.

I don’t think God does meddle in the lives of individual humans. However, being created “in God’s image” gives humans the chance to do one thing that no other living creature (that we know of) can do: create. It’s this creative energy that makes humans special, and what God is more interested in is how that creativity is applied. We all have free will and can choose to follow either our good instincts or our evil ones.

Here’s the tricky part. Suppose that God, knowing that humans are going to use their creative powers for something rather than letting them go to waste, left the universe unfinished? It then becomes our job to fix those gaps and help the universe move closer to perfection. In Judaism this is a concept called tikkun olam. God is finishing Creation through the acts of his agents – people. We’re all responsible for bringing about the promised Messianic Age.

Joac, this is the easy one! Beyond the existence of God, I don’t think that there is any such thing as a religious absolute. Religions were created by humans as a way for people to have a sense of themselves in reation to the Divine and to worship that Divine (I’ll leave the discussion of the corruption of religious hierarchies into populace-control machines to someone else). All any individual can do is find the religion that fits best with his/her personal spiritual beliefs and practices. FOR ME, that’s Reform Judaism. One part of its appeal FOR ME is the belief that Heaven is not a closed-door clubhouse (to borrow dmc’s term), but that the truly devout of all faiths will receive their Divine reward when the time comes. Another is the attempt to resolve the conflicts between modernity and religious traditions. There can be room for both. Turning on the brain doesn't have to mean turning off faith, and vice versa.

 

Seventeen points. That's a new one. I've never heard of only seventeen points (and that was with four years of seminary and two years of institute in college).

 

...got curious to see what would happen?

Can you imagine if God was sitting in La-Z-Boy, drinking ambrosia, and just watching Earth?
"This channel's getting boring. Let's see what's happening in Iraq."

 

Like I said above, people need something to do or their boredom will get them into trouble. Just how many times a day do you come across some piece of crap on the 'net that makes you say "Some people have too much free time" (for example, all those quizzes Chev loves so much...)?

 

Specifically, the Mormons teach that after we die, our spirits go to a world where they will await the resurrection, the rising from the dead with a new, immortal body. During this time, those that never learned of God, or those that didn't believe in him will be given the opportunity to learn of Him in the next world. Then there's the millenium, where Jesus Christ personally reigns and Satan is bound. That's over 1000 years, more for many people, to learn that Jesus is the Christ and develop that faith. I've been taught that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ at the last day.

It's circular I know, and if you do not believe in God, then the points fall apart suddenly. I've been given the Gift of the Holy Ghost shortly after my baptism (Mormon ordinance), and that basically can act as a detector of sorts, giving you the impression when something isn't quite right, but it also gives you a positive feeling when something is right, correct and true. It is that witness that confirms that 1) God lives, Jesus is the Christ, that God create the Heavens and the Earth and all life therein. That 2) God is the father of our spirits, and as such, loves us as his own children. And that 3) The faith I have is right, and that the work I do on His behalf is pleasing unto Him.

Again, it goes back to the point I tried to make about the Gift of the Holy Ghost. It becomes a sixth sence to help to discern whether what I read is right or wrong. In some theories I've seen presented, there is just too much uncertainty for it to be accepted as truth...

When King James had his falling out with the Pope over whether he could divorce his wife or not, one of the things he set forth to do was to have a copy of the Bible in English, so that his people wouldn't be dependent on Rome for spiritual matters. He had teams of scribes working on the translations, sometimes getting multiple ideas on various passages, so they went with the one most likely to please the king.

Modern translations really doesn't sway me. When I was in College, one English course I took involved the study of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight". In one lecture, the professor brought in a passage and about 6 to 8 different translations. Though they seemed similar, they all varied wildly from each other. It's the same story, but dramatically different words.

In looking at some parts of the Bible I have, the difference is quite radical. For example:

John 4: 24 (in the king James version) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 4: 24 (Joseph Smith Translation) For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.

That's a big difference. One version has God being a spirit, and the other, has God promising the Holy Ghost!

Actually, they're in the King James version of the Bible. For example, preaching the Gospel in exchange for money is a sin (or was the word abomination). We don't pay our priesthood. There is a reference in 1 Corinthians to the baptism of the dead. To my knowledge, we are the only religion that does this. I forget what the others are, but I think that having a living prophet (Amos 3:7) may have been one of them.

We do teach our youth a better way to behave. It's not foolproof, and some fools have been able to sabotage this, but it's the best efforts that we humans can make to influene the free agency of others towards moral behaviour...

I used to have a little card with them on it, but that was about 15 years ago. I got it from the bookstore near the Washinton temple in 1989. I haven't seen them in the one in Toronto...

The part in Brackets is more like what I've been taught would occur. The point of no return would be at the judgement seat. Assuming that you would die before the second coming, they would be there (maybe not them in particular, but someone you know and trust who has received the Gospel) to help you to learn the truth. I don't phrase things very well here, and sometimes, despite the fact that he no longer believes, T2Bruno has picked me up in some of these places. LKD has also helped me out in some of these points too.

I heard a quote from a current Mormon leader names Thomas S. Monson, that basically meant that the Lord leaves the masterpieces unpainted, the marble still in huge blocks, some paper still empty etc. so that we may create our own art and write our own stories. We must bring our own taste into the space that we are granted stewardship over...

I just get the image of God banging his head on a wall repeating "Osama, you idiot!"...

Maybe that's why my religion has so much literature I could be studying? Then I won't be going looking to find ways to waste time...

I've left myself wide open on that one, but don't see how I'm going to get stung...