FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » If Al Qaida were like the Mormons (Page 14)

  This topic comprises 18 pages: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18   
Author Topic: If Al Qaida were like the Mormons
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I think Pearce's point -- and I may be wrong, here -- was that not all behavior which someone believes to be the Will of God is in fact "okay."

My point -- which I haven't explicitly stated yet, I realize, so I'll do it here -- is that most religious people are ALREADY aware of this, which is why they tolerate and even endorse limits to their behavior based on a non-Godly standard (like, say, "law.")

The implication is that the Will of God is either occasionally wrong or easily misinterpreted, and that those other arbitrary standards -- like law or "conscience" -- provide checks on those interpretations.

What Tom said. [Smile]

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by gnixing:
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
I think there's an important distinction between jumping to a conclusion and making a logical extension of a given premise.

And Hatrackers often jump to conclusions, and often make illogical extensions of a given premise.
There's a difference between an extension that you disagree with and one that is illogical.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
ditto what Tom said.

Fred Phelps believes he's doing the will of God. Most of us, if not all of us, would disagree. So should there be some outside check on behavior, even if the person is absolutely convinced, in his own mind, that he is in fact doing the will of God?

What Tom is saying, is that he thinks there is. And pH, of course. I happen to agree, even though I do believe in the Will of God for my life, I do acknowledge the place that law, and standards of behavior also have in my life. And I abide by them, and would expect others to abide by them even if they don't agree with my belief in who God is.

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
What else do you want him to say? He's aknowledged the rule of law and believes he's been commanded by God to follow. What you searching for now?

I think people are dangerous in general. I think religion is not a behavior control but something else, something wonderful, and it's worth sharing. I don't like this discussion at all, and it has done nothing to change my opinion of Hatrack's now-suitability as a place to discuss sacred things. It clearly isn't, and that's very, very sad.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Oh, I like Scott's reaction. Y'all will believe whatever you want to, even if you have to search for a way to feel superior.

You know, I tried to think of a civil way to respond to this in detail, and I can't, so I'm just going to quote it and say that I think it's unjustified.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
It saddens me that you think the rest of us aren't trying to engage in honest discussion, but instead looking for a way to feel superior. I'm glad you changed it, but it still hurts to know you feel that way.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gnixing
Member
Member # 768

 - posted      Profile for gnixing   Email gnixing         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
There's a difference between an extension that you disagree with and one that is illogical.

Perhaps. However - the key point of my observation is that Hatrackers lean towards the negative (more unlikely) conclusions.
Then, they explain why those conclusions can be valid and logical in a different context than the one that was previously being discussed.

Tom, I don't see how your conclusions relate to the decision to knock on a door that has a sign warding off solicitors.

I can't and won't argue that people do bad things in the name of religion. But based in the context in which I was engaged when I made my statement, and my understanding of the "will of God" - I stand by my words.

pH: I don't do bad things in the name of God, and I don't believe those that do bad things in the name of God are actually performing those bad things because they believe they are doing the will of God.

Example: I don't believe suicide bombers are doing what they are doing because they believe it is God's will. Maybe you believe that, because that's what they claim. I just don't believe it is true. edit: to add that in my opinion, Fred Phelps is either in need of psychiatric help, or doesn't believe his rhetoric. YMMV

Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
...the key point of my observation is that Hatrackers lean towards the negative (more unlikely) conclusions.
Then, they explain why those conclusions can be valid and logical in a different context than the one that was previously being discussed.

My point was that I think this is your perception. What I'm getting at here is that it's easy to perceive a line of questioning as a direct attack on one's position, but I don't think that means it's always the case.

In other words, I don't accept the validity of your observation. I'm certainly not willing to grant it solely based on your registration date, as you seemed to be suggesting Kate* should.


*Who, I believe, was actually registered here before anyone else who has posted in this thread, but left and then returned.

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gnixing
Member
Member # 768

 - posted      Profile for gnixing   Email gnixing         Edit/Delete Post 
Obviously, everything I post is my perception. The fact that my observation is based on 6 years of reading Hatrack, I believe that it has something of a solid foundation. YMMV.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
I can't believe I'm going here, but. . .

Based on comments made by former missionaries on this forum and elsewhere, about the societal pressure to serve a mission and the fact that they grew up thinking it was "just expected" of them, and also the difference in commitment involved in giving up two years of your life vs. dying, if I had to guess at something that's completely unknowable I'd say that I'd believe that a higher percentage of suicide bombers believe that what they're doing is God's will than LDS missionaries do. I'd also say many of them (bombers, not missionaries,) have probably been manipulated into believing that by people with other motives.

Not that I'm saying there aren't plenty of missionaries who believe with all their heart that they are doing God's will. But I think there are plenty of suicide bombers who do, too.

Please know that I am not trying to be offensive. I would have never made this comparison on my own. I wouldn't have even thought of it on my own.

Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
I can't believe I'm going here, but. . .

Based on comments made by former missionaries on this forum and elsewhere, about the societal pressure to serve a mission and the fact that they grew up thinking it was "just expected" of them, and also the difference in commitment involved in giving up two years of your life vs. dying, if I had to guess at something that's completely unknowable I'd say that I'd believe that a higher percentage of suicide bombers believe that what they're doing is God's will than LDS missionaries do. I'd also say many of them (bombers, not missionaries,) have probably been manipulated into believing that by people with other motives.

Not that I'm saying there aren't plenty of missionaries who believe with all their heart that they are doing God's will. But I think there are plenty of suicide bombers who do, too.

Please know that I am not trying to be offensive. I would have never made this comparison on my own. I wouldn't have even thought of it on my own.

do you mean more total suicide bombers believe they are doing god's will or in terms of ratio, that X:Z suicide bombers is greater then Y:Z missionaries?

X= suicide bombers
Y= Mormon Missionaries
Z= People who believe they are doing God's will.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
I think she meant a percentage of suicide bombers to mean:

IF: X suicide bombers believe they are doing god's will, where X is a subset of the total number of suicide bombers, Y.

AND: A missionaries believe they are doing god's will, where A is a subset of the total number of missionaries, B.

THEN: (X/Y) > (A/B)

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by gnixing:
Example: I don't believe suicide bombers are doing what they are doing because they believe it is God's will.

There's the problem then. I am quite certain that many, if not all, of them absolutely DO believe they are doing God's will. I happen to think they are very, very misguided in that opinion, naturally.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
Ummm, it's been over a decade since I've done any mathamatical notation. [Smile] BlackBlack, I said "a higher percentage," so no, I'm not saying higher total numbers. To me, both of your statements say the same thing, although twinky's is somewhat more precise, and I believe it's an accurate representation of what I mean. With the understanding that I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't understand exactly what either of you were trying to say with notation. Which is why I use words. [Wink]
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, I gotta go with rivka on this one. I don't believe it's God's will but I do think that they (the bombers) believe it is.

Which is why the discussion is relevant - and not an attempt to feel "superior." If people can be misguided as to what they believe is God's will, then there should be some constraints on behavior that don't rely on an individual's interpretation of "God's will."

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sharpie
Member
Member # 482

 - posted      Profile for Sharpie   Email Sharpie         Edit/Delete Post 
gnixing says: "Example: I don't believe suicide bombers are doing what they are doing because they believe it is God's will. Maybe you believe that, because that's what they claim. I just don't believe it is true. edit: to add that in my opinion, Fred Phelps is either in need of psychiatric help, or doesn't believe his rhetoric. YMMV"

Okay, so where do you draw the line? Better yet, where do WE draw the line? There are folks who believe they are doing God's will when they homeschool their children. When they spank their children. When they beat their children. When they beat their wives. When they picket outside abortion clinics. When they bomb abortion clinics. When they vote. When they refuse to vote. When they pray for healing. When they refuse to go to the doctor. When they refuse to take their ill child to a doctor. When they petition the government to prohibit a clinic from pulling the plug on a patient in a persistent vegetative state.

I had a woman tell me she was following God's will by offering me banana flavored pudding. This alarmed me.

How are we supposed to know which ones truly believe they are following God's will and, more importantly, how are we supposed to know which ones really are?

Most importantly, don't I have JUST as much right to say: "that doesn't seem like something God would tell someone" as anyone else does? Don't I have discernment?

Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gnixing
Member
Member # 768

 - posted      Profile for gnixing   Email gnixing         Edit/Delete Post 
First, I want to say that I don't take any of your questions as attacks. I understand that many - if not most or all - are actually trying to gain some insight or understanding.

Now, that said - once I have given a definition of what I believe something to mean, you need to read what I have said within that context. Taking it outside of that context leads to some interesting conversation, but it is in essence putting words into my mouth that I did not say.

Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samarkand
Member
Member # 8379

 - posted      Profile for Samarkand   Email Samarkand         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh good, those last few posts are exactly what I wanted to say but didn't quite feel like taking the time to write out. Any individual could honestly believe that something, anything, is God's will. Many other people could disagree with them on that point. If everyone wanders about annoucing that God said so and bases their lives purely off that, we'll have a royal mess. Therefore, it is very important to have some external, secular checks on behavior and actions.

quote:
Example: I don't believe suicide bombers are doing what they are doing because they believe it is God's will. Maybe you believe that, because that's what they claim. I just don't believe it is true. edit: to add that in my opinion, Fred Phelps is either in need of psychiatric help, or doesn't believe his rhetoric. YMMV
I'm confused as to why you feel that based on your opinion suicide bombers and Fred Phelps MUST be in need of psychiatric help, and are not truly getting direct orders from some diety unless you are appealing to a) a societally accepted secular idea of right and wrong or b) simply your own personal religious beliefs, which without a visitation from a diety are pretty hard to confirm as being more or less right than their beliefs.

To clarify: I think that Fred Phelps and suicide bombers do believe that what they are doing is right and mandated by God. I disagree with them both because 1) when I look at what I believe is moral and just in terms of leading a virtuous life they're breaking a lot of rules, and because 2) if there is a God that encourages heckling people at funerals or blowing other people up, I'll be chilling with Satan and all the other cool kids, thanks much.

I think that if God is telling you to do something and it is harmless to other people, then go for it. But door-to-door missionary work which ignores people's requests to be left alone borders on harassment, which really isn't harmless. People should be able to feel safe in their homes, and like they have some degree of control over who comes onto their property and tries to contact them. That's why there are laws against harassment. And trespassing.

I do not have a No Solictors sign, nor do I have any intention of purchasing and installing one. I personally don't mind when Jehovah's Witnesses show up (I tell them I really like birthday parties) or LDS as I mentioned earlier. But if I did put up a No Solictors sign, I would definitely also mean missionaries, and any knocking anyway would be treated accordingly.

Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gnixing
Member
Member # 768

 - posted      Profile for gnixing   Email gnixing         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samarkand:
I'm confused as to why you feel that based on your opinion suicide bombers and Fred Phelps MUST be in need of psychiatric help, and are not truly getting direct orders from some diety unless you are appealing to a) a societally accepted secular idea of right and wrong or b) simply your own personal religious beliefs, which without a visitation from a diety are pretty hard to confirm as being more or less right than their beliefs.

Both a and b. Sorry if it's hard to imagine, but I don't believe that either Fred Phelps, or suicide bombers are acting out of the belief that they are doing what God wants them to do.

quote:
Originally posted by Samarkand:
I disagree with them both because 1) when I look at what I believe is moral and just in terms of leading a virtuous life they're breaking a lot of rules, and because 2) if there is a God that encourages heckling people at funerals or blowing other people up, I'll be chilling with Satan and all the other cool kids, thanks much.

I'm in complete agreement.

quote:
Originally posted by Samarkand:
But door-to-door missionary work which ignores people's requests to be left alone borders on harassment, which really isn't harmless. People should be able to feel safe in their homes, and like they have some degree of control over who comes onto their property and tries to contact them. That's why there are laws against harassment. And trespassing.

Fundamentally I disagree with your opinion of door-to-door missionary work, as well as your connection to harassment.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
Where does this call to God's will end for you? If someone feels that God is calling him/her to a different religion, does he/she not really believe that that is God's will? To what extent are you willing to concede (or ARE you willing to concede) that people who make decisions with which you disagree may still believe they are doing God's will?

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by gnixing:
Fundamentally I disagree with your opinion of door-to-door missionary work, as well as your connection to harassment.

Forgive me if you've already answered this: I'm curious as to why. Is it because of the particular nature of the subject matter?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Both a and b. Sorry if it's hard to imagine, but I don't believe that either Fred Phelps, or suicide bombers are acting out of the belief that they are doing what God wants them to do.
Why would you disagree with their stated opinion on the matter? Does your god allow you to read minds, so that you know better than Fred himself what his real motivation is?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gnixing
Member
Member # 768

 - posted      Profile for gnixing   Email gnixing         Edit/Delete Post 
pH: I have based my responses upon my beliefs. Based upon that criteria - if someone within that belief structure were to leave for another, I would believe that they had been misled. I further believe that God works in mysterious ways, and that I don't claim to know if other people's decisions are contrary to God's will, even if it is not consistent with what I believe to be His will.

twinky: I don't believe that door-to-door missionary work can be considered harrassment. Missionaries are harmless.

Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by gnixing:
pH: I have based my responses upon my beliefs. Based upon that criteria - if someone within that belief structure were to leave for another, I would believe that they had been misled. I further believe that God works in mysterious ways, and that I don't claim to know if other people's decisions are contrary to God's will, even if it is not consistent with what I believe to be His will.

twinky: I don't believe that door-to-door missionary work can be considered harrassment. Missionaries are harmless.

But you're not answering the question. Do you think that these people believe that they are doing God's will? Or do you think that they somehow know that they aren't and are doing X thing anyway?

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Not relevant. Pats on the bum are harmless too, for any reasonable definition of 'harm'. That doesn't mean they're not harassment.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gnixing
Member
Member # 768

 - posted      Profile for gnixing   Email gnixing         Edit/Delete Post 
pH: In general, I would imagine that people act upon what they believe. When people do things that are as outrageous as Fred Phelps or suicide bombers or other illegal and immoral activities, that is when I lose the ability to believe that their actions are based upon religious convictions.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Why do you believe that all religious convictions are wholesome?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Because no True Christian (tm) could possibly do something bad. Isn't that obvious?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gnixing
Member
Member # 768

 - posted      Profile for gnixing   Email gnixing         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Why do you believe that all religious convictions are wholesome?

Did I say that I did? If so, then perhaps at the moment that I was writing it, I believed that true religious convictions were indeed wholesome, or perhaps I just wasn't thinking about unwholesome religious convictions. I'm not a legal writer, so don't expect everything I say to not have potential loopholes. There's an exception to every rule.

By now, you should at least have a vague idea of what I am trying to say.

Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure I do. Do you think it's possible for a suicide bomber to be primarily motivated by his religious faith?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
I tend to think suicide bombers are like the bottom run of a pyramid scheme. You don't see their leaders doing they stuff they are signing up for.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gnixing
Member
Member # 768

 - posted      Profile for gnixing   Email gnixing         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm not sure I do. Do you think it's possible for a suicide bomber to be primarily motivated by his religious faith?

No. I don't.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
And that's what I can't quite understand. Do you think it's possible for someone to, say, kill a drunk in an alley out of religious conviction? Or take his own son up into the hills to kill him, solely on the belief that this is what God would want?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
gnixing, if you don't think it's possible for a suicide bomber to be primarily motivated by his religious faith, then what do you think is the most likely explaination? I realize that it might be different for different people, but, could you give some examples of what else you think might be the reasons people would do that? I'm just curious.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gnixing
Member
Member # 768

 - posted      Profile for gnixing   Email gnixing         Edit/Delete Post 
Tom: No, not outside of the proper context, and not in our day and age.

ElJay: Mental illness.

Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Because no True Christian (tm) could possibly do something bad. Isn't that obvious?

Its getting old KOM.

Why don't you find an example in the New Testament of a Christian doing something the scriptures describe as good, but could be effectively described as evil.

You know the Pharisees tried the same line of questioning on Jesus as this thread is starting to take. In my own words, "Ceasar says we should pay taxes to him, but isn't God our king? What should we be doing then?"

Jesus said "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's"

We have Paul exhorting Christians to be loyal citizens, and to observe the law. Jesus told the apostles when they went out as missionaries to visit every household and, "If your peace return unto you,..." i.e If they do not welcome you, continue onward and don't look back.

None of this Law of Moses, fire and brimstone God of the Old Testament. Bring Jesus down from his high horse, apparently he was sinless, nobody in the history of the Bible OR Book of Mormon has made such a lofty claim.

Ill stand by this statement. If God ever did command a person to act contrary to the law it had to have produced a greater good then following the law would have produced.

If I was commanded to say, kill a man by God, and I was sure it was of God, I would do it. I would not try to escape the ramifications of that act, if God's will concerning me ceased at that point, I would allow the law to decide my fate, and I would be truthful to the end about my motives and methods. If only evil came of that killing, I would hold God responsible for explaining his reasoning.

But I do not believe in a God that uses unrighteousness to accomplish righteousness. God's tools are overwhelmingly civilized and productive.

Nowhere is this laid out more plainly then the Book of Mormon. You had Nephites arming themselves to defend their nation, and it pleased God. You had Anti Nephi Lehi's allowing themselves to be killed rather then shed the blood of men ever again, and that pleased God more.

We give policemen the power to kill whenever they deem it neccesary, and we strongly review each instance they fire their weapons regardless of cause. We understand that there are instances where its warranted and instances where it is not.

Do we lose sleep at night thinking a policeman might suddenly decide we are a threat and blow our brains out?

Mormons have existed for almost 200 years and have believed strongly in personal revelation. How often have they taken up the sword to fight iniquity? When the US army (a branch of the government) came to put down the Mormon religion for supposedly inciting rebellion not a single life was taken. Mormons were meticulous about damaging the army's ability to wage war but not the soldiers. They prepared the entire town of Salt Lake to be put to the torch and moved everybody else out so that the Army would not molest them.

Does this sound like the actions of a crazy fanatical religion bent on dominating everyone around us?

Does this mean there are not fanatics within our ranks? Of course their are, there are fanatics everywhere. I am saddened that some of them find their way into the church. But good religion makes people GOOD, it makes us more able to live peaceably with one another.

The French revolution was led by a bunch of atheist fanatics, but do we say atheists should all be locked up so they dont build guillotines and start loping our heads off?

In the 50's there was a strong feeling of emnity towards communism developing within the church. It was squelched by sound logic and prayer.

Does anybody accuse atheists of being communists that want to take away our rights to believe as we choose?

Its late (about midnight my time) and thats usually when these lengthy raving posts come out of me, which is why I try to avoid logging onto the forums this time of the night.

At the risk of sounding cliche why can't we have mutual respect for one another? Why do the religious have to constantly prove that we are not mad men, or mad women. That our belief in religion CAN be the result of rational thought and true experience?

Science is a wonderful tool, one that explains "how" better then almost anything. Just because it fails to ever explain some of the WHY that exists in this universe like, "Why is there man?" or "Why does man live on earth?" doesnt mean we should discount it.

It seems to me the conclusion that only that which can be explained exists gives man the completely undeserved quality of omniscience. Only that which we understand can exist.

You want blindly close minded? Try living with the belief that religion has yet to offer anything of value to humanity, and all that is good came from science.

-------Back on topic

We'd wag our fingers if churches had signs like "Outsiders Not Welcome." or, "Do not disturb! We are not interested!"

But shame on the religious for trying to share something they consider valuable. Its unfortunate that we are all human, and prone to error. Apparently that makes any act of charity undesireable for we risk offending somebody.

If you do not want the religious to try and share their beliefs with you, thats fine. But at least approach rejecting them with the same understanding you would expect of them. Namely, they THOUGHT they were doing YOU a favor. Do you yell at another person because they bring you a glass of water when you were not thirsty?

"I have a sign out front that says I'm not thirsty!"

"Well its been there awhile, I thought perhaps you had forgotten why water is good for you, sorry to have disturbed you."

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samarkand
Member
Member # 8379

 - posted      Profile for Samarkand   Email Samarkand         Edit/Delete Post 
And what if the modern day context is that a boy was raised in a poor family in Saudi Arabia, received an education from kindergarten - high school in a mullah-run school, reached maturity and realized there were no viable options to bettering his situation or his family's, despite the tremendous wealth generated by natural resources in his country, met a charismatic leader of Islam, a man of God, was provided with a purpose in life, perceived God's will, was provided with the training and money necessary to further the war against the Great White Satan, God's enemy, and carried out an act to better the world and save his own soul?

Because I'm pretty sure that's what suicide bombers' lives and belief systems look like . . . and that's not even getting into the jolly generation we're about to get that actually had the Great White Satan bust open their front door and ransack the house (Iraq for anyone missing the reference).

No, I don't approve in any way, shape or form of killing other people for any reason other than self-defense - although they may actually believe it IS self-defense. But different people have different ideas than I do. None of us are exactly the same as anyone else, and there's no hope of making any progress if we can't recognize that people have genuine REASONS for acting as they do and believe, in all sincerity, that they are right. Yes, these people believe God is telling them to do this. You don't blow yourself and a whole bunch of other people you don't know up unless you have a damn good reason to think you're doing the right thing.

Do I agree that's it's the right thing? No. To reiterate, before someone miquotes me - killing people bad. Bombing people bad.

Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why don't you find an example in the New Testament of a Christian doing something the scriptures describe as good, but could be effectively described as evil.
Jesus cursing the fig tree.

quote:
At the risk of sounding cliche why can't we have mutual respect for one another? Why do the religious have to constantly prove that we are not mad men, or mad women. That our belief in religion CAN be the result of rational thought and true experience?
Because these things are not true. I don't know how I can put it any more plainly. You believe in things that are as rational as Santa Claus.

quote:
Science is a wonderful tool, one that explains "how" better then almost anything. Just because it fails to ever explain some of the WHY that exists in this universe like, "Why is there man?" or "Why does man live on earth?" doesnt mean we should discount it.
But science does explain those things.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, and aside from what KoM said, I don't really think you have mutual respect for others of different religions, since you refuse to acknowledge that Phelps or suicide bombers might also honestly believe that they are called by God, regardless of mental illness.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TL
Member
Member # 8124

 - posted      Profile for TL   Email TL         Edit/Delete Post 
To gnixing or BlackBlade or katharina or anyone else who cares to answer --

Does it change your minds, at all, about what's okay when it comes to proselytizing, that the majority of non-LDS people in this thread have basically reacted with horror to what you think is okay?

I'm speaking sort of in general terms of rudeness, here.

Will you continue to believe that certain behaviors by some LDS missionaries (such as ignoring or interpreting signs in uncommon ways) are not rude? Even when the consensus amongst non-LDS seems to be: Sorry guys, but it is rude -- at best. Or will you adjust your opinions now, having heard the other side of the story?

Long question.

Thanks in advance for any answers.

Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TL
Member
Member # 8124

 - posted      Profile for TL   Email TL         Edit/Delete Post 
By the way, if I were a reporter, that's the kind of question that could lead to headlines like:

"Katharina refuses to change rude behavior"
"Mormons refuse to conform to societal norms"
"'I was doing god's work' says rude man"

I don't mean to load it that way... I'm genuinely curious what you guys think.

Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Does it change your minds, at all, about what's okay when it comes to proselytizing, that the majority of non-LDS people in this thread have basically reacted with horror to what you think is okay?
Well-- I think 'horror' is a bit strong. But I get your point.

My mind hasn't been changed by this thread. But then again, I think missionaries shouldn't proselyte when there's a no soliciting sign.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Why don't you find an example in the New Testament of a Christian doing something the scriptures describe as good, but could be effectively described as evil.

quote:
Jesus cursing the fig tree.

Where was the evil in this instance? Is it categorically evil to kill a useless plant?

quote:
At the risk of sounding cliche why can't we have mutual respect for one another? Why do the religious have to constantly prove that we are not mad men, or mad women. That our belief in religion CAN be the result of rational thought and true experience?
quote:
Because these things are not true. I don't know how I can put it any more plainly. You believe in things that are as rational as Santa Claus.
Come now KOM do you honestly believe that Santa Claus belief is just as rational as a belief in God? I appreciate your bluntness, its sad you can treat my beliefs with derision and almost open disdain.


quote:
Science is a wonderful tool, one that explains "how" better then almost anything. Just because it fails to ever explain some of the WHY that exists in this universe like, "Why is there man?" or "Why does man live on earth?" doesnt mean we should discount it.
quote:
But science does explain those things.
I don't think it does. Or at least, its explanations are so underdeveloped and inadequate as to be akin to somebody religious saying, "God farted and made Jupiter....I think, because Jupiter is mostly methane." (HERES A NOBEL PRIZE!)

What effective explanation has science offered for what the purpose of life is? Besides simply saying, "Well, we're an animal, we should perpetuate our genes and die."

pH: I think you have me confused with gnixing. I've never entered into the debate of whether or not suicide bombers believe they are doing God's will. But for the record I believe they are some who most certainly are indocterinated into believing they are doing God's will.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
You know, the Mormon church does not send missionaries to lands where they're not wanted. We have no missionaries in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Israel, and China has only recently opened up.

The Church abides the laws of other countries even as it recognizes the need to spread the gospel. There are lots of people/countries without 'No Soliciting' signs posted; the elect are as likely to be among them as those with the signs.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gnixing
Member
Member # 768

 - posted      Profile for gnixing   Email gnixing         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
Well, and aside from what KoM said, I don't really think you have mutual respect for others of different religions, since you refuse to acknowledge that Phelps or suicide bombers might also honestly believe that they are called by God, regardless of mental illness.

-pH

That's an extreme and unwarranted conclusion, IMO.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
gnixing
Member
Member # 768

 - posted      Profile for gnixing   Email gnixing         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TL:
To gnixing or BlackBlade or katharina or anyone else who cares to answer --

Does it change your minds, at all, about what's okay when it comes to proselytizing, that the majority of non-LDS people in this thread have basically reacted with horror to what you think is okay?

I'm speaking sort of in general terms of rudeness, here.

Will you continue to believe that certain behaviors by some LDS missionaries (such as ignoring or interpreting signs in uncommon ways) are not rude? Even when the consensus amongst non-LDS seems to be: Sorry guys, but it is rude -- at best. Or will you adjust your opinions now, having heard the other side of the story?

Long question.

Thanks in advance for any answers.

Does it change my mind? No. I understand, and recognize your points of view - but I don't know that you understand or recognize mine, based on your responses to me.

I'm not a prolific writer by any means. I'm a technical person with a bent towards telecommunications systems. Forgive me if I am unable to express my ideas effectively with you via the forum.

That being said, I've grown weary trying to express my ideas and am done posting in this topic. Sorry guys, I'm just not up to the mind games any more.

Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
[QUOTE]Jesus cursing the fig tree.

Where was the evil in this instance? Is it categorically evil to kill a useless plant?
What harm had the poor tree done him? It was out of season, and in a fit of sheer pique this godling goes and kills it? And then, what harm had the men done Jesus, who when figs were next in season did not get to eat any, all for Jesus's bad mood?

quote:
Come now KOM do you honestly believe that Santa Claus belief is just as rational as a belief in God?
No, actually Santa Claus is a good deal more rational, in that his believers get physical evidence of his existence every Christmas. Or what do you suggest is the difference between Santa and your god? You should please note that I am neither joking nor trolling.

quote:
quote:
But science does explain those things.
I don't think it does. (...)

What effective explanation has science offered for what the purpose of life is? Besides simply saying, "Well, we're an animal, we should perpetuate our genes and die."

There is no purpose to life. A negative answer is a perfectly acceptable one, even if you don't like it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
[QUOTE]Jesus cursing the fig tree.

Where was the evil in this instance? Is it categorically evil to kill a useless plant?
quote:
What harm had the poor tree done him? It was out of season, and in a fit of sheer pique this godling goes and kills it? And then, what harm had the men done Jesus, who when figs were next in season did not get to eat any, all for Jesus's bad mood?
Clearly you do not understand the account of the fig tree that was cursed.

Fig trees bear fruit BEFORE their leaves really come out. The fig tree was VERY leafy, and so Jesus approached it with the intent of picking fruit. Upon finding it barren he cursed it, comparing it to the Pharisees who outwardly show good works but inside are rotten and utterly useless, just like the fig tree. It gives meaning to the phrase, "By their fruits, ye shall know them." It was an object lesson, and call me biased but a very apt one.

quote:
Come now KOM do you honestly believe that Santa Claus belief is just as rational as a belief in God?
quote:
No, actually Santa Claus is a good deal more rational, in that his believers get physical evidence of his existence every Christmas. Or what do you suggest is the difference between Santa and your god? You should please note that I am neither joking nor trolling.

KOM I know you well enough to know that when you are blunt or appearing to be rude, you tend to be found on the side of honesty.

Sure there is physical evidence of Santa Clause's existance. The only problem is just how impossible the delivery method is. With Christianity there is alittle physical evidence and its supported by VERY explicit explanations. You seem to cling only to that which you can experience. Very well, that being the case,

How do you prove some of the conclusions of science to a person born blind, and deaf? Do they have a good reason to doubt that the grass is green? Or that color even exists?

Scientific evidence at least the kind you ask for is utterly useless at being the foundation for people's faith. Its been what almost 50 years since the Apollo moon landing and alittle over 6% of people polled think it was faked? But we have the physical evidence.

Anything that can be seen, heard or touched eventually just passes into the realms of unbelief. If the gospel was just so overwhelmingly obviously true that if could not be denied, what use would it be? Only the most vile would reject it, just as only the most idiotic reject the fact the world is round.

quote:
quote:
But science does explain those things.
I don't think it does. (...)

What effective explanation has science offered for what the purpose of life is? Besides simply saying, "Well, we're an animal, we should perpetuate our genes and die."

quote:
There is no purpose to life. A negative answer is a perfectly acceptable one, even if you don't like it.

Oh please, quit doing me the diservice of assuming I would be unwilling to accept the truth if it turned out to be ugly. When its simply impossible to provide theories supporting an actual purpose, you are basically ASSUMING 50% of all possibilities are wrong (In a black and white situation). Call it crazy, but if a scientist says "I have studied 50% of the possibilities and can go no further, this is my theory..." Would you fault the fellow scientists for not putting much stock in that theory? They might applaud the scientist for trying so hard, but they wouldnt write it down as truth.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stan the man
Member
Member # 6249

 - posted      Profile for Stan the man   Email Stan the man         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by gnixing:
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
Well, and aside from what KoM said, I don't really think you have mutual respect for others of different religions, since you refuse to acknowledge that Phelps or suicide bombers might also honestly believe that they are called by God, regardless of mental illness.

-pH

That's an extreme and unwarranted conclusion, IMO.
And your conclusions? What? your conclusions are infallable? I know GOD is infallable, not humans. My GOD is true and so is yours. Cuz they are the SAME GOD. In our belief anyway. But then, I have never met GOD. So how do I know that Buddism, or Hinduism isn't true? How do we know there is one? I don't, but I have faith that mine is true as so do you in yours.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Mark disagrees with you on fig trees:

quote:
And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
quote:
Sure there is physical evidence of Santa Claus's existance. The only problem is just how impossible the delivery method is.
...says the man who believes in people walking on water. And no, 'God did it' is not an explanation.

quote:
With Christianity there is alittle physical evidence and its supported by VERY explicit explanations.
No, there isn't and it isn't.


quote:
How do you prove some of the conclusions of science to a person born blind, and deaf? Do they have a good reason to doubt that the grass is green? Or that color even exists?
'The colour green exists' is not a conclusion of science, at this time. 'Grass predominantly reflects certain wavelengths of light' is such a conclusion, and I can certainly convince a blind person of that.

quote:
Scientific evidence at least the kind you ask for is utterly useless at being the foundation for people's faith. It's been what almost 50 years since the Apollo moon landing and a little over 6% of people polled think it was faked? But we have the physical evidence.
What's your point?

quote:
Anything that can be seen, heard or touched eventually just passes into the realms of unbelief. If the gospel was just so overwhelmingly obviously true that it could not be denied, what use would it be? Only the most vile would reject it, just as only the most idiotic reject the fact the world is round.
And this would be a bad thing because...? Moreover, this argument assumes that the gospels are actually true, which is precisely the issue in dispute. Surely you can come up with something better than circular reasoning.

[ October 08, 2006, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 18 pages: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2