I do believe that the post from CFFriend was for Winace and not specifically for anyone else, however everyone seems to want to comment on it. I believe that CFFriend is open about her faith and would like for others to know God as well, i do not believe that she was judging anyone and i do not think that she was saying that Emily or anyone else is going to hell, that is not for her to say but i do know that she quoted the Lord Jesus Christ and it is in the Bible that anyone that does not believe and accept The Lord Jesus Christ as the Savior is going to hell.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
For Win Ace & Co.
- Thread starter Mockingbird
- Start date
And let me just state how it amazes me that all the more profound logical implications of that (i.e., kids and third-world tribesmen, who don't believe in Jesus, going to Hell) get brushed aside with no Biblical support... <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
WinAce,
I am not meaning to be condescending or anything of the sort, but I can't help but notice that you've studied a lot of theology. Let's say you did choose a religion to practice--have you ever considered which one you would pick? When I say religion, I guess I'm counting Scientology in there too.
I am not meaning to be condescending or anything of the sort, but I can't help but notice that you've studied a lot of theology. Let's say you did choose a religion to practice--have you ever considered which one you would pick? When I say religion, I guess I'm counting Scientology in there too.
Good question! If I became convinced that religion of <i>some</i> stripe was true, but didn't know which one, I'd conclude...
Polytheism of some sort. Not necessarily Hellenistic, but some view that acknowledges multiple, fallible, often competing gods with varying levels of influence. As you'd have no all-powerful God with a master plan watching over the whole mess, the Problem of Evil would be a non-starter. Miracle claims from other religions would be accounted for much more elegantly than they are under monotheism. Gods with a demented sense of humor, the equivalent of Loki or "Q" from Star Trek, could inspire people to commit evil, or destroy whole towns with earthquakes while sparing, say, a statue of Vladimir Lenin in lieu of churches (something which actually happened in a Soviet town). Kinder gods could occasionally miraculously intervene in situations that piqued their compassion, but would be barred from helping all or even most humans because of limits on their power, or non-interference agreements with the other gods. They might enjoy a symbiotic relationship with humans, deriving their power from the prayer of the governed (which would explain their interest in worship), in exchange for favors in this life or the next.
I actually thought up a religion of my own, once, that incorporated reincarnation taken to an extreme: Every individual person, at all different times throughout history, actually being the same soul, switching bodies <i>ala</i> Quantum Leap with the end of each new incarnation. Under such a scenario, you and I would be the same person, but at "different times," interacting with themselves without even realizing it. An ironic part of such a religious view is that anyone you mistreated would be yourself, so anything you did would have a 50/50 chance of quite literally coming back to haunt you (assuming the other persona was a "Future You," as opposed to a "Past You"). This could even be tacked onto monotheism, say, by assuming that God himself was that lone primordial soul, who (out of boredom, perhaps) created the universe as a metaphorical wardrobe of personalities to cycle through.
While it would result in a TON of temporal paradoxes, it's some damn fun speculation, and could make the basis for an excellent novel or even video game.
Polytheism of some sort. Not necessarily Hellenistic, but some view that acknowledges multiple, fallible, often competing gods with varying levels of influence. As you'd have no all-powerful God with a master plan watching over the whole mess, the Problem of Evil would be a non-starter. Miracle claims from other religions would be accounted for much more elegantly than they are under monotheism. Gods with a demented sense of humor, the equivalent of Loki or "Q" from Star Trek, could inspire people to commit evil, or destroy whole towns with earthquakes while sparing, say, a statue of Vladimir Lenin in lieu of churches (something which actually happened in a Soviet town). Kinder gods could occasionally miraculously intervene in situations that piqued their compassion, but would be barred from helping all or even most humans because of limits on their power, or non-interference agreements with the other gods. They might enjoy a symbiotic relationship with humans, deriving their power from the prayer of the governed (which would explain their interest in worship), in exchange for favors in this life or the next.
I actually thought up a religion of my own, once, that incorporated reincarnation taken to an extreme: Every individual person, at all different times throughout history, actually being the same soul, switching bodies <i>ala</i> Quantum Leap with the end of each new incarnation. Under such a scenario, you and I would be the same person, but at "different times," interacting with themselves without even realizing it. An ironic part of such a religious view is that anyone you mistreated would be yourself, so anything you did would have a 50/50 chance of quite literally coming back to haunt you (assuming the other persona was a "Future You," as opposed to a "Past You"). This could even be tacked onto monotheism, say, by assuming that God himself was that lone primordial soul, who (out of boredom, perhaps) created the universe as a metaphorical wardrobe of personalities to cycle through.
While it would result in a TON of temporal paradoxes, it's some damn fun speculation, and could make the basis for an excellent novel or even video game.
Interesting and quite indepth. Not really what I was asking, I wondered what religion out of religions that are already formed, such as Mormonism, Islam, Church of satan, etc. you would pick. I felt pretty safe that you wouldn't say Southern Baptist or something like that<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> but wondered all the same. I would think atheist would pick some of the religions where there is no God, rather you are your own god or with the belief that there are multiple gods. I'm not sure why I say this, just musing I guess.
I'm also surprised that you would develop something w/ an evil 'undertone' (may not be the right word-it's early you know) to it instead of a peaches & cream, everything's perfect in the world kind of religion. But then that would be boring if we all were the same!
Thanks for the response and please take no offense to what I've said since none is intended <img src="i/expressions/heart.gif" border="0">
Hope you get to feeling better.
I'm also surprised that you would develop something w/ an evil 'undertone' (may not be the right word-it's early you know) to it instead of a peaches & cream, everything's perfect in the world kind of religion. But then that would be boring if we all were the same!
Thanks for the response and please take no offense to what I've said since none is intended <img src="i/expressions/heart.gif" border="0">
Hope you get to feeling better.
The variety of established religions we have are generally those that are <i>good at convincing people</i>, not necessarily those that are most accurate. There's a quasi-Darwinian selection process at work there, so qualities of religions that make them <b>good at reproducing</b> become widespread (even if they aren't accurate). Notice that the major religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) put unbelievers at a disadvantage. That isn't a coincidence, it's because the fear of Hell and other punishments inspires more evangelism (both by making adherents worry for their own salvation, and being more fervent as a result, and trying to "save" others because they care about them). Another trait that seems to be more successful is monotheism (or henotheism, the transitional belief in multiple gods with a more powerful ruling god).
So, from the outset, the most popular "established" religions have a high probability of being nonsense, even if an otherworldly realm exists. That would make me wary of them, even if they weren't obvious scams (like Scientology or, to a slightly lesser extent, Mormonism).
The "Church of Satan" doesn't actually have any spiritual beliefs, that I can recall. They're effectively naturalists/atheists who, in an ironic twist, ripped off Satan as a cool symbol for their "defiance" of religious dogma (much like the Catholic Church originally ripped off our familiar horned image of the fallen angel from pagan forest gods). They do argue "you are your own god," but only in a metaphorical sense.
I didn't think my hypothesized religion had an "evil" tone to it at all. I don't believe a feel-good peaches & cream religion (as you said) would be realistic, what with the way our world appears to work, and since I value realism, both views I described are somewhere in between. In the first, the gods would be amoral as a whole, not evil.... in the second, neither evil nor good would really exist, in a sense, since those concepts only make sense within the context of groups, and only one person would exist in the entire universe.
And thanks for the interesting question. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
So, from the outset, the most popular "established" religions have a high probability of being nonsense, even if an otherworldly realm exists. That would make me wary of them, even if they weren't obvious scams (like Scientology or, to a slightly lesser extent, Mormonism).
The "Church of Satan" doesn't actually have any spiritual beliefs, that I can recall. They're effectively naturalists/atheists who, in an ironic twist, ripped off Satan as a cool symbol for their "defiance" of religious dogma (much like the Catholic Church originally ripped off our familiar horned image of the fallen angel from pagan forest gods). They do argue "you are your own god," but only in a metaphorical sense.
I didn't think my hypothesized religion had an "evil" tone to it at all. I don't believe a feel-good peaches & cream religion (as you said) would be realistic, what with the way our world appears to work, and since I value realism, both views I described are somewhere in between. In the first, the gods would be amoral as a whole, not evil.... in the second, neither evil nor good would really exist, in a sense, since those concepts only make sense within the context of groups, and only one person would exist in the entire universe.
And thanks for the interesting question. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
Winace,
What exactly is it that you know about all of these other religions? I am just wondering if you are a scholar on all of them such as scientology or mormonism since these are the ones that you stated. I don't want to put you down for your beliefs or lack thereof but I don't believe that you should be putting all of these religions down when a good deal of the people on this forum do have a great belief in a higher power. It doesn't make them less intellectual or of a weaker sect. I know that other as myself don't have to pay any mind to what you say about there religion or belief I am just curious as to why you continue to put religion as a whole down?
What exactly is it that you know about all of these other religions? I am just wondering if you are a scholar on all of them such as scientology or mormonism since these are the ones that you stated. I don't want to put you down for your beliefs or lack thereof but I don't believe that you should be putting all of these religions down when a good deal of the people on this forum do have a great belief in a higher power. It doesn't make them less intellectual or of a weaker sect. I know that other as myself don't have to pay any mind to what you say about there religion or belief I am just curious as to why you continue to put religion as a whole down?
<i>Was I</i> putting religion as a whole down, though?
Mormonism and Scientology are two religions whose founders, per the evidence, have very little room for sincere error or well-meaning delusion. You could claim you're God and actually believe it; others might assume you're God, and put words in your mouth to that effect; but when you produce a lengthy "translation" of a "lost book" based on some golden plates an angel purportedly gave you, you're making false statements knowing their falsity--i.e., lying. Ditto for a science fiction author who promises, among friends, to "start the biggest scam since Jesus," because "religion is where the real money is," and then just happens to found a sci-fi religion.
There is, in my opinion, enough evidence to convict Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard of being shrewd, outright con artists, who knew what they were saying was false, but duped their well-meaning followers for personal gain anyway. That's what, in my view, makes them "obvious scams." For a lot of other religions, I wouldn't be confident enough to make that judgement.
I'm not a scholar, but <i>have</i> looked at Mormon and Scientologist apologetics in depth, too, and found them unconvincing. Their critiques, on the other hand, are quite compelling.
Mormonism and Scientology are two religions whose founders, per the evidence, have very little room for sincere error or well-meaning delusion. You could claim you're God and actually believe it; others might assume you're God, and put words in your mouth to that effect; but when you produce a lengthy "translation" of a "lost book" based on some golden plates an angel purportedly gave you, you're making false statements knowing their falsity--i.e., lying. Ditto for a science fiction author who promises, among friends, to "start the biggest scam since Jesus," because "religion is where the real money is," and then just happens to found a sci-fi religion.
There is, in my opinion, enough evidence to convict Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard of being shrewd, outright con artists, who knew what they were saying was false, but duped their well-meaning followers for personal gain anyway. That's what, in my view, makes them "obvious scams." For a lot of other religions, I wouldn't be confident enough to make that judgement.
I'm not a scholar, but <i>have</i> looked at Mormon and Scientologist apologetics in depth, too, and found them unconvincing. Their critiques, on the other hand, are quite compelling.
Winace,
The above anonymous post is not from me, I'm the original person that posed the question. The above post may be from a Mormon?? Which I will have to check into details further, but I'm leaning towards being with you on the scam thing w/ Mormonism. I mean really, multiple wives?
I wondered if maybe you would pick that one--what man wouldn't? Just kiddin'. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
My question w/ Mormonism is, why can't the women have multiple husbands? What's good for the goose.....
I realize that all sects of Mormonism don't practice polygamy but I've wondered if there are many pedophiles joining that particular sect. They can have many 14-15 year olds at their disposal. Don't get me wrong, pedophiles are probably in every religion but I wonder if that would make it easier or if there are strict rules on getting "in" that sect of Mormonism? And have those 'gold plates' ever been unearthed/discovered?
The curious one
The above anonymous post is not from me, I'm the original person that posed the question. The above post may be from a Mormon?? Which I will have to check into details further, but I'm leaning towards being with you on the scam thing w/ Mormonism. I mean really, multiple wives?
I wondered if maybe you would pick that one--what man wouldn't? Just kiddin'. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
My question w/ Mormonism is, why can't the women have multiple husbands? What's good for the goose.....
I realize that all sects of Mormonism don't practice polygamy but I've wondered if there are many pedophiles joining that particular sect. They can have many 14-15 year olds at their disposal. Don't get me wrong, pedophiles are probably in every religion but I wonder if that would make it easier or if there are strict rules on getting "in" that sect of Mormonism? And have those 'gold plates' ever been unearthed/discovered?
The curious one
lovingBenandCambree
New member
Curious one,
I in no way want to get into a abattle of religion, I do however think that you should check your facts about mormonism. Multiple wives and wives at 14-15 is just incorrect.
I in no way want to get into a abattle of religion, I do however think that you should check your facts about mormonism. Multiple wives and wives at 14-15 is just incorrect.
So you are telling me that in the groups in Utah, Arizona, etc that they don't still have multiple wives??
And why is it questioned/reported that the teenage boys are getting kicked out when they are of the age to compete for the young girls? I would be curious to know what age the young girls are permitted to be married?
The Curious One
And why is it questioned/reported that the teenage boys are getting kicked out when they are of the age to compete for the young girls? I would be curious to know what age the young girls are permitted to be married?
The Curious One
lovingBenandCambree
New member
First of all yes that is exactly what I am telling you when it is in regards to the mormons or otherwise known as the LDS church, there is a group that broke off of the LDS church which are called the FLDS which I am sure is what you are referring to in which Warren Jeffs is the leader.
I believe in God but I dont believe in Hell!! The only Hell I know is life and if we get through this and its challenges than we will be rewarded by living in Heaven!
However I will NOT preach to people or judge their religion or beliefs especially here. I dont think this is the place for it. THis is a CF board not religious one and telling people what they should believe and preaching your religion is disrespectful. Unless someone asks for you to do so I think religion should be left alone. Everyone has the right to believe in what they wish and should not be judged for it. There are many religions out there and many interpertations of the Bible and Heaven and Hell and so on... So can we just drop it and let it be before someone truly gets upset or offended(it they havent all ready!)
Kris
However I will NOT preach to people or judge their religion or beliefs especially here. I dont think this is the place for it. THis is a CF board not religious one and telling people what they should believe and preaching your religion is disrespectful. Unless someone asks for you to do so I think religion should be left alone. Everyone has the right to believe in what they wish and should not be judged for it. There are many religions out there and many interpertations of the Bible and Heaven and Hell and so on... So can we just drop it and let it be before someone truly gets upset or offended(it they havent all ready!)
Kris
Ohhh.....sorry, I guess I just lumped them in together since I assume? they had the same origins.
Did the Mormon church originally honor polygamy and I wonder when the Mormon church quit practicing polygamy? Was it due to their decision or government pressure or both?
I also wonder what the Mormon church's opinion of the Warren Jeffs cult is?
Maybe I'm too curious.<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif" border="0">
curious one
Did the Mormon church originally honor polygamy and I wonder when the Mormon church quit practicing polygamy? Was it due to their decision or government pressure or both?
I also wonder what the Mormon church's opinion of the Warren Jeffs cult is?
Maybe I'm too curious.<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif" border="0">
curious one
Yeah, it did. See this <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_poly.htm">article at ReligiousTolerance</a> for the whole history of Mormons and their multiple wives. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> As it points out, technically, it's "polygyny," because polygamy implies multiple <i>spouses</i>, while this practice only allowed for multiple <i>wives</i>.
In all fairness, Joseph Smith copied it from the Old Testament. And after it was outlawed, they ceased the practice, excommunicating anyone who entered polygamous marriages.
In all fairness, Joseph Smith copied it from the Old Testament. And after it was outlawed, they ceased the practice, excommunicating anyone who entered polygamous marriages.