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.

Oh, okay. I know that Mormons use that term to describe kicking people out. I was going to ask you about that experience had it been the case.

I agree. The only other made up book in the same ballpark is the Quaran.

Are you serious? Do you really think the Koran is made up? How is Mohammad's revelation by the angel Gabriel any different from the writers of the old testament being divinely inspired? Or the book of Revelation of St. John?

Divinely inspired does not have to mean (and I do not believe that it means) an angel whispered what to write in the Evangelists' ears. The same is true of Revelations, which is not that important of a text anyway. By contrast, Mohammed asserted that an angel spoke to him in Arabic, telling him what to write.

This link talks of manifistations that happened
during a temple dedication:

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=7bdeaf79ec2b5210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

@Relapse: That's nothing. We've got about eighteen hundred years worth of this stuff on you guys. Here's an especially interesting one: Almost a century ago, three young children claimed to have seen an apparition of the Virgin Mary who told them, among other things, that there would be a miracle involving the sun on 13 October 1917. On that day, tens of thousands of people (including newspaper journalists and photographers) gathered at Cova da Iria, Portugal, reported seeing the sun dance, darken, and fall out of the sky. This strange event is called the Miracle of the Sun. Belief in the miraculous nature of such events is optional for Catholics.

The Koran is not only Mohammad's "conversations" with an angel. They also include the passages taken from Jewish and Christian scriptures. If god talking to man, telling him what to write in the old testament, can be chalked up as divinely inspired. Then the same could be said for Mohammad.

Mohammed, sort of like the Mormons, believed that there was some truth to Jewish and Christian sacred texts but that it had been corrupted over time by apostate religious leaders. Mohammed claimed that God communicated the truth to him word-for-word to eliminate this corruption. I also don't think that God told the authors of the Old Testament books what to write. Many of the Old Testament texts were written by various people over the course of centuries.

Ironhide wrote:The Koran is not only Mohammad's "conversations" with an angel. They also include the passages taken from Jewish and Christian scriptures. If god talking to man, telling him what to write in the old testament, can be chalked up as divinely inspired. Then the same could be said for Mohammad.

The Koran is literally the word of Allah. It went through man but is 100% not of man. To Muslims anyway. That is one reason why followers are expected to learn it in the original language, because it is the language of Allah.

@Manchu: I agree with you fully on your declaration concerning both the Koran and the Book of Mormon. I constantly tell people that I have no doubt that both Mohammad and Joseph Smith saw and communicated with an angelic being of sorts, but I remind them that even Satan can masquerade as an angel of Light. St. Paul declares that it is not unlikely that someone will have visions, but he does assert that it is their responsibility to question the being and demand to know by what authority it speaks. I could not find in either account the questioning and testing of authority, and thus I find them to be lacking in any authority or power. Would you not agree with this idea?

@JEB: I believe that the Book of Mormon and Koran have no religious authority whatsoever. (Speaking sincerely, does this answer your question?)

Yes, and to be honest it is my feeling as well.

Manchu wrote:@JEB: I believe that the Book of Mormon and Koran have no religious authority whatsoever. (Speaking sincerely, does this answer your question?)

That is your belief. Just as I believe the bible has no religious authority aside from what man has placed in it and on it.

Ironhide wrote:

Manchu wrote:@JEB: I believe that the Book of Mormon and Koran have no religious authority whatsoever. (Speaking sincerely, does this answer your question?)

That is your belief. Just as I believe the bible has no religious authority aside from what man has placed in it and on it.

No argument.

@Ironhide: I haven't heard anyone say that you can't believe that.

This thread is difficult to keep up with. You're posting faster than I'm reading at times.

@JEB and Manchu: Would you care to explain to us why you believe the Bible should take religeous prevalence over the Qua'arn (sp?) or the Book of Mormon? What differs it so? Apart from being slightly/much older?

I hesitate to speak for JEB. In my own case, the Bible takes precedence over the Koran and Book of Mormon because I am a Christian rather than a Muslim or Mormon. Yes, it really is as simple as that. No, I did not base my decision to convert to Christianity on the textual merits of the Bible--which are considerable, however.

Sooo...How did you come to the conclusion? Was it sort of a "Whatever Religeon I come across first" type thing? Surely there must have been something about Catholosiscm (*sigh* spelling?) that drew you to it rather than the others?

We've PMed on this subject.

True, you did say what attracted you. (Would you like to send another PM? ) But you didn't actually say what detered you from something like Protestants or CoE or Islam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait, does Buddism count as a religeon or a philosophy?

Manchu wrote:We've PMed on this subject.

They make a cream for that at Eli-Lily I think.

This is my honest opinion: One thing that Protestantism and Islam seem to have in common is their political origin.

Martin Luther probably did not begin with the idea that his theological debates would turn into a series of wars leading to modern nation states. But he quickly aligned himself with a German prince in exchange for protection, even going so far as to write tracts about why it was irreligious for the peasantry to revolt against their proper feudal masters. Moreover, the idea that any given person can decipher the meaning and significance of ancient texts is ridiculous on its face. This idea seems transparently aimed at challenging structures of authority built upon knowledge and expertise. The simplest way, as Henry VIII found, to deal with a religious problem was to relativise it: forego the legitimate authorities when they don't give you the answer you like in favor of proclaiming yourself (or anyone/everyone and so no one) the highest possible authority on the matter.

Similarly, I believe Islam was invented by Mohammed to achieve pecuniary and political goals via capitalizing on cultural unification. He was undoubtedly one of the most brilliant leaders in history. Starting from a position of indigence and ignorance, he quickly improved his circumstances and eventually assembled an unwieldy collection of nomadic peoples into a frighteningly effective army within his own lifetime. By inventing Islam, this man literally invented the Arab people. Not being Arab, this kind of nationalism holds no personal fascination for me. I do not find the religious claims of Islam to be at all compelling or appealing, especially in light of its history. In my opinion this religion expresses a continuing political agenda rather than a message about the meaning of life (except perhaps that the meaning of life is complete submission to Allah/the earthly Islamic authority--whatever that may be).

@Ahtman: I'll look into it.

EF wrote:Wait, does Buddism count as a religeon or a philosophy?

Well, I've heard Buddhism described as 'atheist' before, which tecnically I suppose it is. But I believe that it is in fact a religion, one without a central 'god' figure. It DOES require faith.

Well, looking back the Catholic church has some pretty bloody history itself.

With regards to the Crusades for example, what actually annoys me is that Christians today are so very quick to denounce what (in those times) would have been VERY pious people, willing even to fight and die for thier beliefs and the well-being of others (pilgrims)

Having visited the The Holy Sacre' Cour in Jerusalem and seeing for myself the thousands of First Crusaders' Crosses etched into the walls, I feel a bit upset that a thousand years later the faith they fought for so readily disregards them as bloodthirsty monsters.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that everything (even faith and religeon) is subject to change. What was considered pious a millenia ago would be considered wrong today. What is considered pious today may not be looked at the same way in another millenia.

And my point is that Christ's life, death, and resurrection are not about political power.

Albatross wrote:

EF wrote:Wait, does Buddism count as a religeon or a philosophy?

Well, I've heard Buddhism described as 'atheist' before, which tecnically I suppose it is. But I believe that it is in fact a religion, one without a central 'god' figure. It DOES require faith.

It really depends greatly between what type of Bhuddism you are talking about. Zen? I could buy it as a philosophy, but if you go all the way back to right after historical Buddha died they still were heavily influenced by Hindu and had a much greater religious feel, with dogma, ceremonies and the other such fun things. When it combined with taoism in China you see a move toward less of those things until you get to Japan, though the Korean influence can't be left out. It should also be noted that the norm in Japan is Pureland Buddhism, not Zen, as it is considered more of an academic (read upper caste) form.

@Manchu - I thought the reasons for Jesus' execution were political? I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject though.

As a epilogue to my response to EF regarding Protestantism and Islam, I'd like to say that I didn't convert to Christianity because Islam wasn't as good an option or become Catholic because Protestantism didn't satisfy me. My conversion was not a matter of crossing of items from a list or auditioning various faiths, although I did and still try to learn about them even if I think they are more or less false. In this spirit, I think the following quotation is fitting:

Thomas Merton wrote:I will be a better Catholic, not if I can refute every shade of Protestantism, but if I can affirm the truth in it and still go further. So, too, with the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, etc. This does not mean syncretism, indifferentism, the vapid and careless friendliness that accepts everything by thinking of nothing. There is much that one cannot "affirm" and "accept," but first one must say "yes" where one really can. If I affirm myself as a Catholic merely by denying all that is Muslim, Jewish, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., in the end I will find that there is not much left for me to affirm as a Catholic: and certainly no breath of the Spirit with which to affirm it.

@Albatross: Jesus's killers may have been politically motivated but Christ was certainly not. If anything, His death showed that the standard legitimization of political power--the threat of violence--is hollow. The basis of authority is revealed, in Him, to be love and hope rather than fear and cruelty.

@Ahtman: Taoism has nothing to do with Zen. Nevermind, I get what you mean now.

That sums it up quite well, actually.

But tell me, what ARE your personal thoughts on things like the Crusades? I hate it when people brand the entire thing as political with a religeous cover. I think that the piety of those involved was more than that.

Manchu wrote:I hesitate to speak for JEB. In my own case, the Bible takes precedence over the Koran and Book of Mormon because I am a Christian rather than a Muslim or Mormon. Yes, it really is as simple as that. No, I did not base my decision to convert to Christianity on the textual merits of the Bible--which are considerable, however.

Thank you for your consideration in regards to my own opinion, but they are essentially identical. I am about as Anglo-Catholic as one can be...

Emperors Faithful wrote:Sooo...How did you come to the conclusion? Was it sort of a "Whatever Religion I come across first" type thing?

I cannot answer for Manchu, but mine was a very, very long ordeal. In short I read many texts from other religions when I was younger. Being a historian of sorts though I was always struck by the historicity of much of the Bible. I eventually approached it with an open mind and became a Christian. I did struggle with denominations for a while, going from Fundamentalist to Evangelical to traditional Baptist, until I studied at Oxford for a time. There I was introduced to the glorious institution that is the CoE, and the Archbishop to boot! I have loved it ever since.

Emperors Faithful wrote:With regards to the Crusades for example, what actually annoys me is that Christians today are so very quick to denounce what (in those times) would have been VERY pious people, willing even to fight and die for their beliefs and the well-being of others (pilgrims)

It is mankind's ignorance that wills us to denounce those who fall short of our own standards. A much more informed look at the Crusades suggests that they were not all done with bad intentions and even provoked by Muslims themselves. I could teach whole seminars on the Crusades, and never grow weary of it.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Having visited the The Holy Sacre' Cour in Jerusalem and seeing for myself the thousands of First Crusaders' Crosses etched into the walls, I feel a bit upset that a thousand years later the faith they fought for so readily disregards them as bloodthirsty monsters.

The Crusades are easily one of the most misunderstood events in history. As for the church you visited, I believe you meant that you visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Basilique du Sacré-Cœur is a beautiful church in Paris.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I suppose what I'm trying to say is that everything (even faith and religion) is subject to change. What was considered pious a millenia ago would be considered wrong today. What is considered pious today may not be looked at the same way in another millenia.

Humanity changes even as God does not.

Emperors Faithful wrote:But tell me, what ARE your personal thoughts on things like the Crusades?

I would recommend that you read God's War by Christopher Tyerman.