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.

 The Bringer wrote:


EDIT: Wait, are you a Jew? I don't know what you mean that by Judaic Law you are a Jew.

I believe that anyone who is born of a jewish woman is automatically jewish.

I'm Mormon here.

Atheist? Cool.
Deist? Right on.
Pagan? Keep it up.
Chaos? Burn heretic!

Except for ruinous powers, I say live and let live. Everyone has different experiences and different ways to find truth. Each person is on their own journey and will do what they believe to be right. Some of the finest people I've known were atheist and some of the worst were religious and vice versa. Everyone's an individual and sees the world differently.

 The Bringer wrote:
Leviticus was part of a covenant with the Jews, which Jews don't consider to be binding on the rest of humanity.

Yes, but what does it means ? It means only the Jews had to stone the blasphemers, non-Jew could let them live. It certainly doesn't mean that non-Jews were allowed to blaspheme.

 The Bringer wrote:
EDIT: Wait, are you a Jew? I don't know what you mean that by Judaic Law you are a Jew.

*
It means my maternal grand-mother had to flee through all of Europe instead of studying, and some of her family died, why ? I say by Judaic law, because it says you are a Jew if you have a Jew mother, which I do.

You are completely failing to address the point of whether or not you support this act of obvious religious intolerance, and if you don't why is it not a contradiction to God's alleged benevolence and goodness.

 The Bringer wrote:
Sorry for loosing my cool, there is no excuse for it.

I challenge any 1 of you to list the 5 of the most glaring inconsistencies in the Bible, and I will challenge them, but no more.

Here's some of my favourites:

#1 - God is omnipotent, yet when he visits Egypt in order to MURDER all the first-born BABIES in the country, he needs the Jews to paint blood on their front doors so that he doesn't accidentally send his "destroyer" past the doorway to murder the Jewish babies too.

#2 - Jesus says before he ascends into Heaven that he'll be back to begin his reign on earth before everyone-then-alive had died. He then goes AWOL for 2000 years.

#3 - Hebrews 6:18 says God can't lie. In Genesis God lies to Adam (when he tells Adam that if he eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, he will die within one day. Adam eats the fruit and goes on to live until the age of nine hundred and thirty).

#4 - The words above Jesus on the cross are given four times, each time different:
"THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS"
"JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS"

#5 - Jesus was crucified at three o'clock (Mark 15:25), and six o'clock (John 19:14-16).



#Bonus #1 - When the crowd are chanting for the release of "Barabbas", and Pilate washes his hands of Jesus' death, as someone born a Jew I can tell you that in Hebrew "Bar Abbas" means "Son of the Father". Something has gotten very messed up with the translation there, and somehow the Romans (who ruled the early church) ended up looking really blameless in the eventual codified Bible, even though the crowd are clearly chanting for the release of Jesus ("Bar Abbas" is simply not a name in Hebrew, it is a description). There is of course no record of any such "criminal release ceremony" ever happening in history, which makes it even more likely to be garbled apocrypha.

#Bonus #2 - The Old Testament prophesies that the Messiah will come from Bethlehem, yet Jesus comes from Nazareth. Therefore we end up with the account of Mary traveling home to the town of her birth in order to have Jesus, and then return to Nazareth soon after. The reason given in the Bible for this is that the Romans required people to return to the town of their birth for the census... we know from historical records that the Romans required no such thing for the census. The whole census/Mary/Bethlehem/Nazareth thing reads to me like 1st/2nd century Christians inventing a narrative that makes their Jesus (who came from Nazareth) have been born in Bethlehem so as to match the Old Testament requirement for the Messiah's birthplace. Pity they invented a reason for the migration that we know from historical records didn't happen. That inconsistency with reality is actually persuasive evidence for Jesus' existence as a real man IMO, because if you were making up the entire story from scratch you'd just write him up as having come from Bethlehem in the first place, rather than trying to patch together the life of a man inconsistent with the requirements of the Old Testament.

 The Bringer wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

The Bringer wrote:I don't think that religious differences is a reason a justifiable reason to kill others. Give me specific cases.

I already did. It just so happened you either missed the message or didn't care to answer. But I can do it again, if need be. But really, the first example is very interesting in how you seemed to defend the idea that killing people for worshiping a golden calf was not a contradiction toward the Thou shalt not “[kill] based off of hatred, or some other sinful emotion” commandment. Is it a contradiction, or is it not ?

Sorry, I skimmed through your post because your ideas were all over the place and I didn't want to bother to make sense of it all.

Also the Israelites were not killed for worshiping a golden calf iirc, they were simply punished.

Nope. When God and Moses are chatting atop Mount Sinai, God sees the Jews worshipping the calf and wants to kill them all. Moses talks him out of it (apparently God can be made to change his mind even though he's perfect).
Then Moses comes down the mountain, sees the worship going on, and is overcome with rage and has his Levites kill 3000 of his own followers.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm Mormon here.

So you believe in a religion started by a convicted confidence trickster / conman, whose "book of Abraham" has been exposed as undeniable fraud?
Why?

 necrondog99 wrote:
I am a Christian, and I find the majority of Christians tend to be inconsistent with their own beliefs. Take for instance the aids outbreak in the 1980s, where the church should have stepped up and lovingly treated this new generation of plague sufferers. Instead the "Christian Right" used it as an opportunity to turn homosexuals into pariahs.
....

/ I am sure I will get incoming DAKKA for this post.

- J

Well, the Bible, including the New Testament, is very consistent in saying that being gay is an abomination in the eyes of God (the standard punishment for Abomination in the Bible is death).

 The Bringer wrote:

 Riquende wrote:

Way to ignore the fact that not all religions are biblical.

I give 1 case when the argument is wrong, and the statement is disproven. Besides, there are many other religions that involve divine revelation.

 Riquende wrote:

And actually, there is some small degree of evidence that he's right - as human cultures have developed in different, isolated parts of the world, they have created unique, non-compatible religions: Pagan elemental beings, the Greco-Roman gods, the Hindu gods, the Viking gods, Native American spirit worship, the Judeo-Christian god, etc. This points to the fact that a human culture, without any outside influence doesn't tend to any one particular version of religion, and there's nothing to indicate that any religions created after this reset button is pressed would bear any indication to current ones except for YOUR assumption that scripture is true.

Everything you have said so far is "suggests". There is nothing concrete, far from it. I make no assumption. I am merely giving reasons why the blanket statement given is false, and the reasoning flawed.

And besides, you're wrong to says that human culture hasn't gravitated towards any religion, as Islam and Christianity are both the largest religion and share VERY similar roots.

So?
There have been times when the largest religion was something else, Grecian-Roman Polytheism, for example.

The history of Homo Sapiens stretches back at least a hundred thousand years, but it's only the God that announced himself 2000 years ago in Judea that's the important one to consider?

You can trace their roots back to 2 brothers.

I'm assuming you're speaking metaphorically here, because Jesus & Mohammad definitely weren't brothers.

Please don't insult mine or other people's religions.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Please don't insult mine or other people's religions.

I didn't insult your religion, I asked why you believe in the religion started by a convicted confidence trickster, whose translations of Egyptian hieroglyphs in the "Book of Abraham" have been exposed as fraudulent?

Those are factual, impartial statements; Smith was convicted for being a conman (before he revealed the book of Mormon), and his translations of hieroglyphs have been shown to be wholly inaccurate.

So, why?
What is it about Mormonism that you find more plausible than other religions?
Is it the stuff about God living on planet Kolob with his wives?

I just find Mormonism especially incomprehensible. So what is it that makes it great?

Evil & Chaos wrote:
#1 - God is omnipotent, yet when he visits Egypt in order to MURDER all the first-born BABIES in the country, he needs the Jews to paint blood on their front doors so that he doesn't accidentally send his "destroyer" past the doorway to murder the Jewish babies too.

Maybe he just likes blood for the sake of blood. Do we know if he killed the firstborn in a very gory way ?


Also, there is something else that have always hitched me since I started talking about religion on the internetz.See, in French we don't have the neutral gender, it's always masculine and feminine, and we have this rule than we speaking about a bunch of things, with some feminine and other masculine, we use the masculine form. So there's nothing surprising about the fact we use the masculine form for god. But in English, there is a neutral gender. So why are we always talking of this immaterial unique being using the masculine form ? Wouldn't the neutral form be the obvious right choice ?

Maybe he just likes blood for the sake of blood. Do we know if he killed the firstborn in a very gory way ?

IIRC we're not told, other than that it was a fairly quick death (happened in one night and was done by morning).

God could have made their heads explode, or he could have simply stopped the innocent little babies breathing.

Doesn't really matter to me - it's still murder of innocents as part of vicarious punishment for the crimes of Pharaoh.

And to top it off, Pharaoh isn't even guilty of his own crimes, because God messes with Pharaoh's brain chemistry to "harden his heart" and make him keep ahold of the Jews even though Pharaoh's natural inclination is to let the Jews go.

So God made Pharaoh keep the Jews so that God could show off to the world by murdering all the first-born children and first-born cattle of Egypt.

Yep, God also kills all the first-born cattle in the 10th plague, even though He already killed all the cattle of Egypt in the 5th plague... this book makes no sense, sigh.

why are we always talking of this immaterial unique being using the masculine form ? Wouldn't the neutral form be the obvious right choice ?

Because the original Hebrew consistently refers to God as male, I guess.

It's part of the implicit patriarchy of Judaism (and 99% of religions), I'd argue, I mean you don't even get past Genesis III without God telling Eve that it is natural law that her husband will rule over her.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
Because the original Hebrew consistently refers to God as male, I guess.

I checked, Hebrew has only two genders, no neutral. So no problem here, it's the same as in French. But as far as I know most of the New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew originally, so… There are a bunch of Greek manuscripts, and I do know that ancient Greek had a neutral gender. So did Latin, and I guess Jesus must have known it somehow. If Jesus was actually God, since most people know their gender, I guess he could certainly have clarified that information. Either he didn't because for some obscure reason he wanted people to mistake God as a male, or some implicit patriarchy is at work. Or maybe God actually have some kind of an ethereal di… I mean, male reproductive system. And it's bigger than ours, no doubt.

@evil&chaos, I'll get back to you after classes are over. Some of those I've never heard before, and some I'm familiar with.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
Because the original Hebrew consistently refers to God as male, I guess.

I checked, Hebrew has only two genders, no neutral. So no problem here, it's the same as in French. But as far as I know most of the New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew originally, so…

Aye but by Jesus' time Judaism was many centuries old already - it seems logical that it would have already become ingrained in the Jewish culture to call God "Father" and not "Mother", so Jesus would presumably have been doing what the Jews at the time did.

There are a bunch of Greek manuscripts, and I do know that ancient Greek had a neutral gender. So did Latin, and I guess Jesus must have known it somehow. If Jesus was actually God, since most people know their gender, I guess he could certainly have clarified that information.

It'd be worth noting that, Jesus was a Jew so he would have spoken ancient Hebrew (Aramaic), and would thus have been restricted in his use of language - it wouldn't matter what language his words were later translated into, because even if that new language did have a gender-neutral term available, it would be changing the meaning of Jesus' words to use it.

Either he didn't because for some obscure reason he wanted people to mistake God as a male, or some implicit patriarchy is at work. Or maybe God actually have some kind of an ethereal di… I mean, male reproductive system. And it's bigger than ours, no doubt.

IIRC, Mormons, who are a sub-sect of Christianity, believe that God lives on the planet Kolob with his wives (multiple).
God also manifests as a physical man at several points in the Old Testament (once he has a wrestling match with a guy named Jacob!)

So the Abrahamic tradition isn't in itself incompatible with God being a dude, I guess.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
It'd be worth noting that, Jesus was a Jew so he would have spoken ancient Hebrew (Aramaic)

Not necessarily only Hebrew. I mean, he was living in the Roman empire, didn't he ? Because Jews living in France usually speak French too, Jew living in the US tend to know English, and so on.
Yeah, at that time Jews were more concentrated in a smaller area, so with less imperative to know another language, but still.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
God also manifests as a physical man at several points in the Old Testament (once he has a wrestling match with a guy named Jacob!)

Oh, nice ! Who won ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Oh, nice ! Who won ?

Iron Man and Aqua Man tag teamed him

No, you insulted mormonism pretty harshly. that was way out of line. keep it civil.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
God also manifests as a physical man at several points in the Old Testament (once he has a wrestling match with a guy named Jacob!)

Oh, nice ! Who won ?

I want to know what cool stuff was in the lost 116 pages. I'm guessing something cool like how to be immortal. Damn that woman for being Satan's tool!

A court appearance paper written by the same people that later made it legal to hunt and kill Mormons.... yeah, I'd trust that. Also, your "facts" are wrong. Next time do some research before so casually insulting someone's religion. if you want a rational discourse, PM me. Stop bringing your second hand anti Mormon propaganda here. It's not the time or place for it.

 Musashi363 wrote:
A court appearance paper written by the same people that later made it legal to hunt and kill Mormons....

I didn't know that happened and have just looked it up - interesting stuff

However, since of the 10,000 mormons involved exactly none were actually killed by soldiers/etc, I can't say that it particularly matters that the order was given. Nor does it invalidate the fact that the court apparently found him guilty of conning people.

Also, your "facts" are wrong.

My I ask which ones and in what way they are wrong?

Next time do some research before so casually insulting someone's religion.

I would not say he was insulting someone's religion, I would say he was pointing out some pretty huge flaws in the character of the person who quite literally pulled said religion out of his hat and the pretty huge holes in the religion itself.

Stop bringing your second hand anti Mormon propaganda here.

It seems to me that nothing he has said is untrue, at least from my reading of the surrounding information.

It's not the time or place for it.

It's a thread about religion - it is the perfect place to discuss religion and the reason people believe certain things.

No, they are not true. That makes it bashing. This is not a Mormon bashing thread last time i checked. Yes Joseph Smith was convicted, but by the people that would later kill him. If you take the words of the people that would kill over religion, i dont know what to tell you. PM if you want a line by line explanation.

 Musashi363 wrote:
No, they are not true. That makes it bashing. This is not a Mormon bashing thread last time i checked. Yes Joseph Smith was convicted, but by the people that would later kill him. If you take the words of the people that would kill over religion, i dont know what to tell you. PM if you want a line by line explanation.

He doesn't want a rational conversation, he just wants to insult and condescend. This thread was supposed to be about sharing what religion you were, not bashing other people's.

 Musashi363 wrote:
No, they are not true. That makes it bashing. This is not a Mormon bashing thread last time i checked. Yes Joseph Smith was convicted, but by the people that would later kill him. If you take the words of the people that would kill over religion, i dont know what to tell you. PM if you want a line by line explanation.

Again - which points are untrue and why/how? As far as i can see from the information available nothing E&C has said is untrue - maybe you have evidence that will put some od it into context - i dont know since you seem not to want to share it and simply post that "it is untrue!" And claim persecution as defence.

Smith wasnt killed by the state, nor are the records of the state the only information we have about him, his life and death. It is not about taking the word of "those who killed him" and somehow using that idea to whitewash his life and actions while claiming bias - that itself is an incredible act of lazy and biased (i might even go so far as to say blinkered) thinking.

 Musashi363 wrote:
No, they are not true. That makes it bashing.

Please correct me on which aspects I got wrong, as I didn't set out to bash Mormonism, I set out to describe some of the main elements of the Mormon religion, and some of the known events of the founder of Mormonism's life.

Yes Joseph Smith was convicted, but by the people that would later kill him.

His early life trial & conviction for being a confidence trickster (a "glass looker") was in Bainbridge New York, and he was killed by a mob in Carthage Illanois.

Those are different places.

 Musashi363 wrote:
If you take the words of the people that would kill over religion, i dont know what to tell you.

I know, right. Doesn't sound a good idea. Yet still people keep taking the word of that old nasty guy named Moses, even after the Golden Calf Accident ! I wish they would stop .

Since I haven't received any PMs, I'm assuming you don't want a rational discourse. And like I said, no this is not the time or place. This is a thread about sharing what religion we are not "Google any dirt we can find online and attack others religion" thread.

 Musashi363 wrote:
Since I haven't received any PMs, I'm assuming you don't want a rational discourse. And like I said, no this is not the time or place. This is a thread about sharing what religion we are not "Google any dirt we can find online and attack others religion" thread.

There's been 16 pages of debates on and around religion so far. I rather expect that will continue no matter what you say.

You can either correct my (possibly misremembered) facts about the Mormon religion & its founder, or you can leave your flat "that's all lies!" statement to stand, that's your choice really.

IIRC Mormons vicariously baptise dead Jews and non-Mormon Christians (Including Adolf Hitler, IIRC), so that they can be converted into being Mormons in the afterlife. That's nice of them.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
IIRC Mormons vicariously baptise dead Jews and non-Mormon Christians (Including Adolf Hitler, IIRC), so that they can be converted into being Mormons in the afterlife.

They don't do that to atheist, hindus or buddhists ? Unfair !

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
IIRC Mormons vicariously baptise dead Jews and non-Mormon Christians (Including Adolf Hitler, IIRC), so that they can be converted into being Mormons in the afterlife.

They don't do that to atheist, hindus or buddhists ? Unfair !

I don't know; Perhaps one of the Mormons present could tell us?

I do know they promised Jewish groups who were very upset about the whole thing that they'd stop vicariously baptising Jewish holocaust victims, but then some Mormon groups carried on doing it in secret anyway.

 Musashi363 wrote:
Since I haven't received any PMs, I'm assuming you don't want a rational discourse. And like I said, no this is not the time or place. This is a thread about sharing what religion we are not "Google any dirt we can find online and attack others religion" thread.

I don't know about you, but I've been at work all day and haven't had time

However, why stick to PM? This thread is all about exploring religion and there are a few calls for you to put information out there regards your beliefs (and even if there were not, this is certainly the thread on Dakka where you could!).

You know who my favourite people in the world are? Condescending atheists.

 djones520 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'm not sure this thread will end well...

Nah, we're good here. We might actually make it to the second page.

That would be nice. As an Atheist, nothing annoys me more then seeing my fellow Atheists go out of their way to pick fights.

QFT from the first page.

 Gutsnagga wrote:
You know who my favourite people in the world are? Condescending atheists.

They are great, aren't they.

However, your username indicates you may be a follower of Gork and Mork - those are some gods I could get behind


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gutsnagga wrote:
QFT from the first page.

If only I could hide behind my lack of religious beliefs as a magical shield against criticism... but sadly if you have a point of view and you express it you should be able to discuss it rationally, including the basis for your view, how it was formed, etc.