Yeah, you the man, welsh.
*holds up Weber = the man flag*
Wasn't that Europe, according to you?
*holds up Weber = the man flag*
Wasn't that Europe, according to you?
Religion
- Thread starter Ruzdur
- Start date
welsh
Junkmaster
Thanks Kharn- but what I said before was that they were trained and radicalized in Europe.
Oh and for the Mormons out there, I have been checking on this and so far can find no traces of a relationship between the Latin root of Mormos and fraud. But then this was told to me by a person of other religious persuasions.
Oh and for the Mormons out there, I have been checking on this and so far can find no traces of a relationship between the Latin root of Mormos and fraud. But then this was told to me by a person of other religious persuasions.
Okay, I don't have much time on the Internet for the next few months, but I want to comment on the part of Welsh's last post that I read (before the little individual replies started).
As a Christian, I want more of God in our government. I might be a member of a minority faith, but our faith is the fastest growing, and outnumbers many seperate Protestant faiths (for example, their are more Latter-day Saints than Presbyterians and Methodists put together). To introduce anyone to Christianity is a good start. Once you start doing research and seriously looking at the Bible, it becomes obvious that the LDS faith is definitely the most correct of any faith in its adherence to the Bible (read Ephesians 4:11, 12 for a start, and I could point out a whole bunch of other Scriptures in the Bible if I had time).
Our faith is still persecuted a bit. I notice it in the town I live in. they have a sign for "Geneseo Churches" and the LDS Church is 'conveniently' not mentioned on it, though it popped up here a few years ago and has grown.
Gotta run and hit the Order's forum while I still have some time.
EDIT (add-on by Kharn, re-adding Tone's missing post):
Well, to continue on my persecution idea.
I read on a website (a church's official website) related to another Christian faith, that if they were given the Book of Mormon and asked to pray about it and ask God if it was true, they should not do that. It appears that some of the other Christian churches are getting scared of the growth of the LDS Church. My question is, what harm is there in asking God what is right or wrong? Evidently a few other Christian faiths see this as a problem...
James 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Seems like a few Christian denominations are completely ignoring verses out of the Bible. Fortunately, in my faith we are reminded of that same verse, and always encouraged to use it. Before I was baptized, I was not asked, "Do you think on an intellectual level that the Book of Mormon is true and that the Church is true?"
I was asked, "Have you prayed about the Church and the Book of Mormon and been told through the Holy Spirit that it is True?"
Prayer is always the answer, maybe not always the one we want to hear, but it has worked very well for me and many of the other Saints I know.[/quote]
As a Christian, I want more of God in our government. I might be a member of a minority faith, but our faith is the fastest growing, and outnumbers many seperate Protestant faiths (for example, their are more Latter-day Saints than Presbyterians and Methodists put together). To introduce anyone to Christianity is a good start. Once you start doing research and seriously looking at the Bible, it becomes obvious that the LDS faith is definitely the most correct of any faith in its adherence to the Bible (read Ephesians 4:11, 12 for a start, and I could point out a whole bunch of other Scriptures in the Bible if I had time).
Our faith is still persecuted a bit. I notice it in the town I live in. they have a sign for "Geneseo Churches" and the LDS Church is 'conveniently' not mentioned on it, though it popped up here a few years ago and has grown.
Gotta run and hit the Order's forum while I still have some time.
EDIT (add-on by Kharn, re-adding Tone's missing post):
welsh said:
Well, to continue on my persecution idea.
I read on a website (a church's official website) related to another Christian faith, that if they were given the Book of Mormon and asked to pray about it and ask God if it was true, they should not do that. It appears that some of the other Christian churches are getting scared of the growth of the LDS Church. My question is, what harm is there in asking God what is right or wrong? Evidently a few other Christian faiths see this as a problem...
James 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Seems like a few Christian denominations are completely ignoring verses out of the Bible. Fortunately, in my faith we are reminded of that same verse, and always encouraged to use it. Before I was baptized, I was not asked, "Do you think on an intellectual level that the Book of Mormon is true and that the Church is true?"
I was asked, "Have you prayed about the Church and the Book of Mormon and been told through the Holy Spirit that it is True?"
Prayer is always the answer, maybe not always the one we want to hear, but it has worked very well for me and many of the other Saints I know.[/quote]
«ºTone Caponeº» said:
I think you're ignoring almost every single one of welsh's points here, but I suppose that was because you were in a hurry. Re-read his post when you have more time.
Kharn said:
I'll try. I have to use the Internet from a library because my inlaws are concerned about their phone line being tied up. So I have to split this one hour between here and the Airforceots.com site.
I'll check back in a day or so and make time to dedicate to it.
Now, it's on to The Order!
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
Sorry Tone you had a bunch of double posts and i and Kharn were deleting them, seems we deleted the original too...
Sorry for the screw up
Sorry for the screw up
There, fixed...kinda
Carry on.
Carry on.
welsh
Junkmaster
Tone, you scare me man.
The fact is that the history of the US is very tied to religion. If you go back to your founders, you got the plantation economies of the South vs. those who descended from people escaping religious persecution. The religiosity of the Northeast can be seen in the Great Awakenings that were prelude to both the Revolution and the Civil War. You can also see it in the use of the Baptist Churches by Blacks during the Civil Rights movement, and you can see it in the LDS's history in Utah. Even into the 20th century you can find the history of the Northeast's religiosity in the works of Emerson and Thoreau.
That said, you can also see a history or persecution. Not surprisingly, as soon as the pilgrims hit the dirt in the new world they started persecuting non-believers. You see it in the persecutions that sent the Mormons to Utah. Or in the Catholic churches that used to get burned in the South, and one of the reasons for the Knights of Columbus in the US. You see it in the persecution of the Indians, and it was an issue when Kennedy ran for president or in Joel Liberman's campaigns. There is still a sense of "us" v "them" between protestants and catholics, especially in those places were WASPs are coming into contact with hispanic catholics.
Tone, I am not going to get into an argument with you about whether the Book of Mormon is right, or the Catholic Church is right or any other damn faith. If you believe it's right, that's fine. Even if you don't believe in it, that's fine too.
It's also your own business. Not mine, and definitely not the state's.
Now ideally you can understand that other people believe in their faith, and that they should have the right to practice their faith as they want to. That's tolerance. If you don't have that, and fully believe that your faith is the only appropriate one, than your dogmatic, that you believe that your faith is fact, and this conversation is dead.
Arguments about the right or wrong of a faith are unfalsifiable and illogical. Faith is a matter of believing, not knowing. That's why the Catholics says "we explore the mystery of faith. Because its something that is based on belief.
Now if you have tolerance, than we can proceed.
But the problem with tolerance is that its a matter of human will. You and I might elect to be tolerant of each others faith. We might acknowledge that two people of different faiths can have similar religious experiences and think its the hand of God. Or one of us can say "maybe its the work of the DEVIL!!!" People do that sometimes.
Here's the thing. For many people accepting another person's faith as possible is an anathema to their own. Some religions are based on intolerance of other faiths.
Now the question is how much church in state. Well to a certain extent you already have church and state mixed. In Utah, most of the voters might be Mormon, they might pass laws that are good in the Mormon way (no alcohol), they might wish they had other laws that the feds don't want (polygamy?), they might vote for Mormon politicians who pursue issues of interest to the constituents (in otherwords good Mormonesque goals). You are likely to see similar behaviors in states where there are people of other faiths. You find Catholic politicians in Massachusetts and New York, Baptists in the South, Lutherans in the Midwest, etc.
Why, because there are a lot of really religious people out there and they get to vote, and they probably choose people that practice their faith. That's democracy in action.
So in fact there is a mix of church and state. You already have de facto church-state relationships.
But that's different from de jure relationships, in otherwords, relationships between church and state in law.
What if Utah became a LDS state (sorry those of non-LDS persuasion). Well then New York and Massachusettes could be Catholic states (sorry those of Jewish persuasion). Then you will have Baptist states, etc. What about those states where there is a division between the faiths?
You see the problem with the US is that sometimes we aren't tolerant of each others faiths, or lack of faith. Religion is so enmeshed in culture that sometimes its hard to see it. But that's why Equal Protection is about protecting us from religions discrimination as well, why Free Exercise allows us to think what we want, why Free Establishment should keep the mix out.
What happens when people start dividing about religion? What if they start using religion as a means of defining "us" vs "them". What about if the church becomes so entangled with the state that it becomes difficult to divide the two? (Look at Ireland where a girl is imprisoned in a convent because she's too immodest).
We have a country that is built on religion. 'In God we Trust' is the motto. We have the notion of religious freedom from William Penn's Philadephia and this is also part of our history; the notion to practice what you wish, or not to practice. This is a unifying principle, and one of the reasons so many people come here.
Until the bombings of the World Trade Center, one reason why Muslims did not undertake acts of terror in the US is that the US often provides them greater religious freedom than their own country plus the opportunity to live in a secular society. We have religions from all over the world, and people who don't believe at all, who are safe in their ability to believe what they want without the state budding in. Do you want to jeopardize that sense of inclusion and unity?
Tone, really, think about this, will ya?
It's one of the great things that you are blessed with, to think for yourself and be a little skeptical. There are many religious leaders who want more role of religion in state, and sadly too few religious people who say "what the fuck, are you kidding?" History shows we can't trust them and history also shows that religion can be used for repression as easily as for salvation.
Let people find salvation or religious faith in their own ways. The relationship most people have with God is fundamentally a personal one that takes a life time to develop. But that's a relationship that should come freely, without the pressure of the state to push a person into one faith or the other.
The fact is that the history of the US is very tied to religion. If you go back to your founders, you got the plantation economies of the South vs. those who descended from people escaping religious persecution. The religiosity of the Northeast can be seen in the Great Awakenings that were prelude to both the Revolution and the Civil War. You can also see it in the use of the Baptist Churches by Blacks during the Civil Rights movement, and you can see it in the LDS's history in Utah. Even into the 20th century you can find the history of the Northeast's religiosity in the works of Emerson and Thoreau.
That said, you can also see a history or persecution. Not surprisingly, as soon as the pilgrims hit the dirt in the new world they started persecuting non-believers. You see it in the persecutions that sent the Mormons to Utah. Or in the Catholic churches that used to get burned in the South, and one of the reasons for the Knights of Columbus in the US. You see it in the persecution of the Indians, and it was an issue when Kennedy ran for president or in Joel Liberman's campaigns. There is still a sense of "us" v "them" between protestants and catholics, especially in those places were WASPs are coming into contact with hispanic catholics.
Tone, I am not going to get into an argument with you about whether the Book of Mormon is right, or the Catholic Church is right or any other damn faith. If you believe it's right, that's fine. Even if you don't believe in it, that's fine too.
It's also your own business. Not mine, and definitely not the state's.
Now ideally you can understand that other people believe in their faith, and that they should have the right to practice their faith as they want to. That's tolerance. If you don't have that, and fully believe that your faith is the only appropriate one, than your dogmatic, that you believe that your faith is fact, and this conversation is dead.
Arguments about the right or wrong of a faith are unfalsifiable and illogical. Faith is a matter of believing, not knowing. That's why the Catholics says "we explore the mystery of faith. Because its something that is based on belief.
Now if you have tolerance, than we can proceed.
But the problem with tolerance is that its a matter of human will. You and I might elect to be tolerant of each others faith. We might acknowledge that two people of different faiths can have similar religious experiences and think its the hand of God. Or one of us can say "maybe its the work of the DEVIL!!!" People do that sometimes.
Here's the thing. For many people accepting another person's faith as possible is an anathema to their own. Some religions are based on intolerance of other faiths.
Now the question is how much church in state. Well to a certain extent you already have church and state mixed. In Utah, most of the voters might be Mormon, they might pass laws that are good in the Mormon way (no alcohol), they might wish they had other laws that the feds don't want (polygamy?), they might vote for Mormon politicians who pursue issues of interest to the constituents (in otherwords good Mormonesque goals). You are likely to see similar behaviors in states where there are people of other faiths. You find Catholic politicians in Massachusetts and New York, Baptists in the South, Lutherans in the Midwest, etc.
Why, because there are a lot of really religious people out there and they get to vote, and they probably choose people that practice their faith. That's democracy in action.
So in fact there is a mix of church and state. You already have de facto church-state relationships.
But that's different from de jure relationships, in otherwords, relationships between church and state in law.
What if Utah became a LDS state (sorry those of non-LDS persuasion). Well then New York and Massachusettes could be Catholic states (sorry those of Jewish persuasion). Then you will have Baptist states, etc. What about those states where there is a division between the faiths?
You see the problem with the US is that sometimes we aren't tolerant of each others faiths, or lack of faith. Religion is so enmeshed in culture that sometimes its hard to see it. But that's why Equal Protection is about protecting us from religions discrimination as well, why Free Exercise allows us to think what we want, why Free Establishment should keep the mix out.
What happens when people start dividing about religion? What if they start using religion as a means of defining "us" vs "them". What about if the church becomes so entangled with the state that it becomes difficult to divide the two? (Look at Ireland where a girl is imprisoned in a convent because she's too immodest).
We have a country that is built on religion. 'In God we Trust' is the motto. We have the notion of religious freedom from William Penn's Philadephia and this is also part of our history; the notion to practice what you wish, or not to practice. This is a unifying principle, and one of the reasons so many people come here.
Until the bombings of the World Trade Center, one reason why Muslims did not undertake acts of terror in the US is that the US often provides them greater religious freedom than their own country plus the opportunity to live in a secular society. We have religions from all over the world, and people who don't believe at all, who are safe in their ability to believe what they want without the state budding in. Do you want to jeopardize that sense of inclusion and unity?
Tone, really, think about this, will ya?
It's one of the great things that you are blessed with, to think for yourself and be a little skeptical. There are many religious leaders who want more role of religion in state, and sadly too few religious people who say "what the fuck, are you kidding?" History shows we can't trust them and history also shows that religion can be used for repression as easily as for salvation.
Let people find salvation or religious faith in their own ways. The relationship most people have with God is fundamentally a personal one that takes a life time to develop. But that's a relationship that should come freely, without the pressure of the state to push a person into one faith or the other.
I would define myself as an atheist.
I find it funny that the issue of plural marriage always gets tied in with Mormonism. It was practiced, but in 1893 it was decreed that plural marriages were no longer permitted and to do such would mean excommunication from the Church.
I'm not saying that their should be any special attention to any denominations, but sort of a generic attention given to Christianity. As Christians, we all believe in the 10 Commandments (well, I actually like the greatest commandments in Matthew 22:37-39) and can draw a great deal of morals from them (I agree morals can come from a non religious source also though).
I think I'm a very tolerant person. I have close friends and family who are of other faiths, and those who have no faith. What gets me is when people say "God doesn't exist", but the fact is, they really haven't looked for Him. So I ask that question and respond from my own personal experience.
I wish I had more time, but that's life at the moment...
I'm not saying that their should be any special attention to any denominations, but sort of a generic attention given to Christianity. As Christians, we all believe in the 10 Commandments (well, I actually like the greatest commandments in Matthew 22:37-39) and can draw a great deal of morals from them (I agree morals can come from a non religious source also though).
I think I'm a very tolerant person. I have close friends and family who are of other faiths, and those who have no faith. What gets me is when people say "God doesn't exist", but the fact is, they really haven't looked for Him. So I ask that question and respond from my own personal experience.
I wish I had more time, but that's life at the moment...
welsh
Junkmaster
Tone,
You are right to say that people always link Polygamy to Mormonism, but as you noted, that in itself was something that changed from the original teachings. In otherwords, it was human agency, not religion, that changed what the religion says. If its human agency than its falliable. Why not stick with the original text if that's what God wants?
But one can also look to the tradition of polygamy in Islam as well as the expanded families that one used to find in other Eastern cultures. Why not give those traditions right if they are believed to be derived from the will of God. Or, more to the point, why premise the values of Christianity over other religions, if all religions have a fair claim to say that they originate from divine will?
In otherwords, why premise Christianity over other faiths if you are going to allow church and state to mix? If you do premise Christianity, how do avoid alienating people of other faiths, or no faiths. And lets not forget, there are a lot of Christians who believe that LDS is not really a Christian faith, but some strange concoction originating from a teenage boys fantasies.
I am not going to argue with you that Christian values aren't good and that we, as a society, haven't become better for it.
This is also not an argument over which faith is best or right. As argued before, that issue can't be rationally argued.
The problem is one of institutionalizing religion as part of the political and governmental processes. I am glad that you are tolerant, but the problem is that not everyone shares that tolerance. I would also imagine that if you politicized religion by making it part of the state, than you also foster greater intoleration by those who would use faith as a means of political power.
Considering those risks versus the current situation where religion plays a major role in our culture and our society and indirectly influences government and poltics, are we that much better off by mixing church and state?
You are right to say that people always link Polygamy to Mormonism, but as you noted, that in itself was something that changed from the original teachings. In otherwords, it was human agency, not religion, that changed what the religion says. If its human agency than its falliable. Why not stick with the original text if that's what God wants?
But one can also look to the tradition of polygamy in Islam as well as the expanded families that one used to find in other Eastern cultures. Why not give those traditions right if they are believed to be derived from the will of God. Or, more to the point, why premise the values of Christianity over other religions, if all religions have a fair claim to say that they originate from divine will?
In otherwords, why premise Christianity over other faiths if you are going to allow church and state to mix? If you do premise Christianity, how do avoid alienating people of other faiths, or no faiths. And lets not forget, there are a lot of Christians who believe that LDS is not really a Christian faith, but some strange concoction originating from a teenage boys fantasies.
I am not going to argue with you that Christian values aren't good and that we, as a society, haven't become better for it.
This is also not an argument over which faith is best or right. As argued before, that issue can't be rationally argued.
The problem is one of institutionalizing religion as part of the political and governmental processes. I am glad that you are tolerant, but the problem is that not everyone shares that tolerance. I would also imagine that if you politicized religion by making it part of the state, than you also foster greater intoleration by those who would use faith as a means of political power.
Considering those risks versus the current situation where religion plays a major role in our culture and our society and indirectly influences government and poltics, are we that much better off by mixing church and state?
welsh said:
That sentence becomes really silly if you consider the fact that the Western definitions of good and bad are based upon Christian values...
welsh
Junkmaster
Bad English on me. Yes its circular. How do we know if Christian values are good or not if the lens by which we see them is shaped by Christian values. Damn subjectivity.
But wait, that kind of supports my argument.
But wait, that kind of supports my argument.
welsh said:
Yes it does. I wasn't trying to undermine the argument, y'know...
Now tell me how much sig rules...
welsh
Junkmaster
Kinda sweet Sig, Kharn
axelgreese
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Kharn said:
Some dope Tracer Bullet action going on there
Heh, ok, now someone answer me this; where's it from?
Hah!
Hah!
Ugly John
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Calvin and hobes?