Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:@Oldgrue: Everyone can see clouds in the sky but few people are meteorologists.

Does that make the meteorologists right?

Oldgrue wrote:

Manchu wrote:If by "one of those people" you mean "a Catholic," then yes, I am one of those people.

So your understanding of a certain book is somehow more special and valid than someone without your teaching?

As a Catholic, I can say that my understanding insofar as it is informed by the teachings of the Church that Christ founded is more valid concerning Christianity than someone who's understanding is not informed by those teachings. Furthermore, if someone wants to question whether or not my understanding actually reflects the Tradition of the Church they can do so as that Tradition exists independently from my personal viewpoint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldgrue wrote:

Manchu wrote:@Oldgrue: Everyone can see clouds in the sky but few people are meteorologists.

Does that make the meteorologists right?

It means that they know something that other people don't about the clouds.

Ironhide wrote:If Jesus did exist prior to his birth, then why did god make up a set of rules for man to follow so that might gain access to kingdom of heaven?

It's more helpful if you think of themm as instructions instead of rules. Like needing to turn the key in the ignition before you start the car.
Your course of action determines what happens to you in the afterlife. According to what I have been taught, a man that develops certain character traits will have those traits in the afterlife. These traits will determine where his eternity is spent. He will be in whatever state he can endure or embrace.

As a Catholic, I can say that my understanding insofar as it is informed by the teachings of the Church that Christ founded is more valid concerning Christianity than someone who's understanding is not informed by those teachings.

Except to other Christian variations - like dissenting medical opinions or different flavors of ice cream.
If there are other variations of christianity. Lots of them who all think they're just as right, and have the same source document. Lots of opinions who all acknowledge only their flavor is right. Chocolate, Pistachio, Fudge Ripple, Rocky Road, Neapolitan, and Vanilla all arguing for supremacy with similar evidence of superiority.

If we can discuss the merits of pistacho we should be able to discuss the relative merit of theophagy as well as poke fun at them both.

Edit: fixed quote

Relapse wrote:

Ironhide wrote:If Jesus did exist prior to his birth, then why did god make up a set of rules for man to follow so that might gain access to kingdom of heaven?

It's more helpful if you think of themm as instructions instead of rules. Like needing to turn the key in the ignition before you start the car.
Your course of action determines what happens to you in the afterlife. According to what I have been taught, a man that develops certain character traits will have those traits in the afterlife. These traits will determine where his eternity is spent. He will be in whatever state he can endure or embrace.

I just want to point out that this is at great variance with what Trinitarian Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant Churches) teaches. Relapse, I commend you for qualifying your statements with "according to what I have been taught," but I would suggest you make it more clear that these are LDS positions rather than Christian ones.

edit of many:
Urg. dual post.

@Oldgrue: Watch out for illusory double posts. It looks like you have double-posted but when you reload the page it turns out you have only posted once--usually after you have deleted the "double post" and thereby deleted everything. Always reload before erasing.

Manchu wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Ironhide wrote:If Jesus did exist prior to his birth, then why did god make up a set of rules for man to follow so that might gain access to kingdom of heaven?

It's more helpful if you think of themm as instructions instead of rules. Like needing to turn the key in the ignition before you start the car.
Your course of action determines what happens to you in the afterlife. According to what I have been taught, a man that develops certain character traits will have those traits in the afterlife. These traits will determine where his eternity is spent. He will be in whatever state he can endure or embrace.

I just want to point out that this is at great variance with what Trinitarian Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant Churches) teaches. Relapse, I commend you for qualifying your statements with "according to what I have been taught," but I would suggest you make it more clear that these are LDS positions rather than Christian ones.

We are Christian, but yes, I speak from an LDS perspective.

LDS theology is comparable to Islam in terms of how different it is from Christianity. Christianity is a defined term. While the various Christian denominations do not agree on many things, they do agree on that definition. It is contained in the Nicene Creed. Mormons do not accept the Creed. Most importantly, Mormons do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. Mormons certainly have teachings about Jesus Christ but those teachings are not Christianity.

Manchu wrote:LDS theology is comparable to Islam in terms of how different it is from Christianity. Christianity is a defined term. While the various Christian denominations do not agree on many things, they do agree on that definition. It is contained in the Nicene Creed. Mormons do not accept the Creed. Most importantly, Mormons do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. Mormons certainly have teachings about Jesus Christ but those teachings are not Christianity.

An interesting comment, but we believe that only through Christ, can we be saved. From what little I knowof Islam, they revere Christ as a prophet rather than as our Saviour. We believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are seperate entities.

This thread was good until page 8 and then it turned into a few people bashing religion again.

@Relapse: Yes, I am quite familiar with LDS theology. My comment about Islam was directed at the difference you describe, not because Mormonism and Islam are similar (in that regard at least, they are very similar in other ways). Although Christianity, Mormonism, and Islam all recognize that Jesus is an important figure they all consider him in very different lights. Yes, Christians and Mormons agree that Christ is a sort of savior. But there is little to no agreement between them with regard to what that means.

Can I just point out to Oldgrue that (from where I'm standing) I don't see Manchu arguing that Religeon is too touchy a subject to be questioned. (IMHO it seems that religeon should be open to MORE critisiscm becuase of its importance) Rather it seems to me that he was simply saying that Theologians know more about religeon than your basic person. Like a Meteorologist knows more about the weather than the average person.

This is why I like Manchu. He's always up for a luagh, but comes with a good dose of logic.

Here arethe articles of faith in the LDS church:

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.


2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.


3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.


4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.


5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.


6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.


7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.


8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.


9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.


10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.


11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.


12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.


13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Thank you for posting that, Relapse. I would recommend contrasting it to the Nicene or Apostles Creed at your leisure.

@Relaspe: Interesting point there on No.12. If a government or state forbid worship or praying in tounges or otherwise imposed laws that outlawed some apsects of your Church-life, would the LDS still be obliged to follow them?

Ugg the thread..has gone on so many tangents it's almost unreadable, which I think was the intention of some of the later posters.

At this point, I would recomend splitting the discussions about LDS,spaghetti monsters, and possibly atheism into other distinct threads or pm's.

GG

@GG: You're a bit paranoid there, mate. This thread was OT long ago I don't think this was really intentional...but that's for the OP to reveal at his leisure...

@Manchu, I'll have to do that.

@Emperor's Faithful, It's in the mode of rendering unto Ceasar what is his and unto God what is his.
There are Biblical and Book of Mormon references to prayer being forbidden by unrighteous governments, yet the people continued to pray in spite of that.

Start making em, GGrog.

In any case - having been taught one thing about an interpretation of a book doesn't invalidate the value of a self educated person. Rather it puts the burden of proof on the amateur.

Religion, like ice cream, needs to be open to debate, discussion, and ridicule (Peach! Feh!) else we devalue its impact. Simply stating "My interpretation of this self referential book is right. Accept this or be punished." does not enhance the credibility of the book rather it marginalizes the person making that statement.

Relapse wrote:
@Emperor's Faithful, It's in the mode of rendering unto Ceasar what is his and unto God what is his.
There are Biblical and Book of Mormon references to prayer being forbidden by unrighteous governments, yet the people continued to pray in spite of that.

*shrug*
Fair enough. That's actually a pretty good point, and answers my question satisfactorily enough.

Manchu wrote:Start making em, GGrog.

TBH I would prefer, Oldgrue started his, Relapse started his, EF-Jwang(I'm surprised at you, by the way)- and Gwar!! started theirs.

Did I forget anyone?

LOL

GG

@Oldgrue: In an ideal world, everything would be up for ridicule. I have no doubt that if Jesus really is up there in heaven, he would be laughing his jocks off at Raptor Jesus pictures. (If still feeling sorry for the souls of the people who made them) However, this is not an ideal world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@GG: Orlanth?

John and Gwar! seem to have backed out upon being politely asked to expand their positions if it seemed worth their effort.

@Oldgrue: I really don't get what you mean by punishing you. I can't punish you. Also, you can mock anything. That doesn't subtract from the value of the thing being mocked unless its not actually valuable in the first place. I simply would ask (again) that someone who believes Pastafarianism is as legitimate a religion as Christianity explain why they think so.

It's not. But it does demonstrate a few similiarites between religeon in general and something someone has made up on the spot.

generalgrog wrote:

Manchu wrote:Start making em, GGrog.

TBH I would prefer, Oldgrue started his, Relapse started his, EF-Jwang(I'm surprised at you, by the way)- and Gwar!! started theirs.

Did I forget anyone?

LOL

GG

Sorry bout that, GG. I didn't really mean to take off on a tangent there, I let myself get caught attempting putting my view on Christianity down without trying to getting preachy.

Which is incredibly hard.

Relapse wrote:Sorry bout that, GG. I didn't really mean to take off on a tangent there, I let myself get caught attempting putting my view on Christianity down without trying to getting preachy.

No need to apologize. LDS theology is a fine discussion IMO, but one that needs to be done on it's own, so we don't have to read 5 different topic streams in one thread at once.

GG

I don't mind responding to all of them at once (as I have been trying to do) so long as people don't try and sabotage the thread. Frankly, discussion only picked off once we went slightly offtopic.