Jim Henderson wrote:
> Um, maybe that's what they want people to believe, but the Church itself 
> is credited for donating just over $55,000.  That's in the Church's name.

Like I said, I was active for more than 25 years, and that's the first 
time I heard of them taking a stance on a specific piece of legistlation.

> Fact of the matter is that for out-of-state contributions in support of 
> Prop 8, Utah ranked 1st with more than 50% of out-of-state 
> contributions.

That doesn't surprise me.  A large portion of the population of Utah is 
comprised of active LDS members, and the LDS Church (as opposed to, for 
instance, Catholicism) has always inspired more activity than other 
churches (for instance, the practice of going to Church on Easter and 
Christmas, but avoiding it the rest of the year, is rather uncommon 
amongst Mormons, despite being near-epidemic amongst Catholics).

> Remember that this is a church that has repressed women since its 
> inception and minorities until relatively recently.

?  You mean the Church whose members were the first to extend the right 
to vote to women?  (Utah gave suffrage several decades before the rest 
of the nation).

> It's also highly ironic that the Church's historic "marriage" is 
> polygamistic (still practiced by some sects,

Still practiced by excommunicated members.  There are no "sects" of the 
LDS Church practicing polygamy... whenever anyone is discovered 
practicing it, they are excommunicated immediately.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> The video isn't attacking the bible. It's attacking the interpretation of 
> the bible that includes "God has something to do with the appropriateness of 
> any given marriage".

  If that was true, then they would have said "your interpretation of the
bible is wrong" as their conclusion to the posed question. However, that
was not what they are saying. They are saying that the divorce rate is
indicative of God not existing.

  I don't even understand why you are arguing that all they are doing is
questioning some people's interpretation of the bible, while it's quite
clear that they are questioning the entire christian religion and the very
existence of God.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> How about, judging the entire thing based on only its flaws is as bad as 
> what you accuse it of doing, by having any in the first place? All such 
> lists are flawed, because there will be people stating that a) well it 
> doesn't apply to the ones "I" consider to belong to the group it talks 
> about, b) such and such group doesn't include X idea, and I don't 
> imagine Y or Z does either (which just shows a lack of imagination imho 
> lol), or c) it really is, in this one case, a bad argument, whether the 
> rest is sort of accurate or not. So... point out where its inaccurate 
> and be "specific" about who its inaccurate about. Don't presume that 
> because you find it inaccurate that its "not" accurate for the group 
> "they" where talking about, even as a general example of the sort of 
> issues that crop up.

  The entire reason I wrote my response to the video was precisely to
point out that their arguments are flawed. I'm not even claiming that
they are wrong in not believing in God (or even that *I* believe in God).
I'm just pointing out that their arguments are invalid.

  People here seem to argue that their point is "you are interpreting
the bible in the wrong way", even though it's quite clear that their
point is "God doesn't exist". It's a direct attack to all christianity,
not just a specific group inside it.

  (And btw, quotes are not used for emphasis, but for the exact opposite,
ie. de-emphasis.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   What I'm talking about is that whenever atheists attack the bible, they
> > seem to assume there exists an universal moral code accepted by the
> > majority, and then they proceed to show how the bible breaks this universal
> > moral code.

> Atheists aren't attacking the bible: how is your argument going to affect a 
> book?

  Now you are nitpicking on words. You know what I meant.

> They're attacking the belief that the bible applies to those who choose not 
> to believe it. Those who try to apply the bible's morality to those who 
> don't believe it are exactly those people who believe it's a universal moral 
> code.

  Atheists seem to do a quite good job at showing that they have some kind
of universal moral code as well, when they criticize the bible.

> >   That's a shaky premise because there is no such a thing as a universal
> > moral code accepted by the majority.

> But many people believe there is, and many people believe they know what it 
> is, in spite of the fact that many of those people disagree with each other.

  Atheists included. (At least those who point out how the moral code in
the bible is wrong.)

> > Whichever you choose, are you going to tell the others that their moral
> > code is wrong?

> Not only are you going to tell them it's wrong, you're going to MURDER THOSE 
> PEOPLE who you believe is wrong.  You're also going to lobby to prevent 
> life-saving medical research from being carried out because you erroneously 
> think your holy book says it's evil.

  You are constantly side-tracking. I'm not talking about the moral code of
religious people. I'm talking about the moral code of atheists who attack
christianity and criticize the bible for having the wrong moral code. You
probably understand this, but you are still deliberately side-tracking.

  My point is: There is no such universal moral code, and atheists who seem
to assume there is, and based on this imaginary universal moral code
criticize the bible, are being hypocrites.

> >   Americans who advocate the death penalty have their own moral code about
> > that subject. Is their moral code wrong? Why?

> You're missing the point.

  No, it seems that you are. I'm talking about the atheists who criticize
the bible. I'm not talking about religious people.

> >> And yet, that's exactly what Jesus tells people in the Bible, and that's the 
> >> excuse some crazy people use for killing their children.
> > 
> >   Jesus also tells people that their prayers don't get answered because
> > they don't have faith. The message seems clear to me: God does not answer
> > all prayers.

> He doesn't answer the prayers of the unfaithful. If you're willing to starve 
> your child to death because you have the assurance that Jesus will resurrect 
> him, I'm pretty sure you have faith.

  Now you are using a different meaning for the word "faith" than I am.
You are talking about a psychological phenomenon, while I was talking about
a theological one. Those are two wildly different things.

> See, I'm explaining that the video is addressed to the religious fanatics 
> who think God talks to them daily and if he doesn't talk to you, you're 
> going to burn in hell for eternity, and that it's their job to help you get 
> there. You're arguing "not all Christians are like that."  Sure.

  If that's the case, then the video does a very good job at hiding the fact.
It just looks like its point is that God doesn't exist, period. After all,
count how many times it says "God is imaginary". Also count how many times
it mentions that people who believe in God are delusional. (They are not
saying that people who interpret the bible in a certain way are delusional.
They are saying that people who believe in God, period, are delusional.)

> >   Well, they clearly don't want to discuss, they clearly don't want to
> > listen nor hear any answers. Their attitude is "whatever you say, you are
> > just rationalizing". In other words, they are simply and purely being
> > provocative.

> No, I honestly think it's more like "we've heard all 2000 answers to this, 
> and they're all full of crap, and if you think about your answer, you'll see 
> why it's likely full of crap."  It's not like the same arguments aren't on 
> interactive forums also.

  Are the answers "full of crap" because they seriously listened to them,
considered them, thought about them, and then came to the informed conclusion
that they make no sense whatsoever, or was it because they are prejudiced and
automatically dismiss *all* answers which do not conform to their views?

  It's quite easy to use the word "rationalization". It's a very strong word,
and it sounds intelligent, and it's very hard to counter. If your answer is
dismissed as a "rationalization", then how do you respond to that? "No, it
isn't" just sounds childish and doesn't convince anybody. It's a very clever
word, and it can be abused to dismiss anything you don't like.

> Wait. So if God tells his chosen people to go to a country, murder everyone 
> but the young virgins (including women, infants, the infirm, etc), and then 
> take the young virgins home as slaves...  Is that moral? Or is that immoral? 
> Is God telling you to do something good?

  If we assume for a moment that God does indeed exist and the bible is
telling the truth, then all that it is saying is that God did order for
that nation to be eradicated, for whatever reasons God saw fit. The passages
are not taking a stance of the moral reasons or consequences, besides
usually mentioning that the eradicated nation had reached a level of
depravation that God wanted it removed.

> > It's not giving permission for the readers to
> > go and murder someone. 

> And phrases like "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" are indeed giving 
> permission for the readers to go murder someone, yes?

  Do you have the right to judge who is a witch and who isn't?

  The problem is not the laws and commandments. The problem is people
making themselves judges and executioners, without authorization. They
are putting themselves into a position they don't have a right to.

  That's not how it worked in the old testament, no matter how popular
that view seems to be. As an example, the person who broke sabbath was
not stoned right there. He was brought to justice, for the people in charge
to judge. The people who caught him breaking sabbath did not kill him right
there because they understood law and who was allowed to impose it.
(Please skip on nitpicking on whether it's morally right to execute someone
for breaking the sabbath. That's not my point.)

> > You might completely disagree with the *reasons*
> > stated in that passage why God gave this order, but that's not related to
> > whether the passage *promotes* doing it again and again.

> I don't think you're getting the point of the argument.

> If God's will is by definition good, then sometimes genocide, rape, and 
> murder of infants (like the first born sons of every family in an entire 
> country) are sometimes good.

  Is death penalty in the US "by definition good"?

> >   Nobody has the right to say "hey, this passage tells about killing
> > people, thus I can go there and kill those people" because that's not
> > what the passage is telling. It's not giving permission to anybody to
> > do any such thing.

> It's giving permission to the historical people to do that historical act. 
> The act itself is either good or evil. You must admit that God either 
> ordered something evil to be done, or that genocide is OK if God says to do it.

  Is putting someone in jail "good"? Is death penalty "good"?

  There are reasons why people are put in jail and executed, and that doesn't
necessarily have to do with whether the act itself is "good" or "evil". It
may be something that simply has to be done for a purpose.

> Then you have to ask yourself "is genocide really OK, ever?  Would I 
> actually participate in dashing the brains of infants against rocks if my 
> God told me to, and said 'you don't understand why, but do it anyway.'"

  Ah, that verse in that psalm is the favorite of atheists attacking the
bible, isn't it? Most people, including most christians, just don't
understand it. About the only people who understand it are the people who
wrote it, ie. the people in the semitic cultures.

  Different cultures have different ways of insulting and cursing others.
It's quite typical for semitic cultures to have really strong cursewords
and expressions to insult others. If you like, try googling for the worst
insults in different cultures. They can be quite harsh and extragavant.
In western cultures among the worst insults are those who question the
purity of one's mother, or the death of the person being insulted. In
eastern cultures there are even worse insults than that.

  But cursing is intended to offend, not necessarily to be taken literally.
Just because you question the purity of someone's mother doesn't mean you
literally think she is a whore. Just because you wish someone would die
doesn't mean it's a literal desire.

  That passage in the psalm in question is a harsh curse. The writer is
putting in words his worst feelings about the nation being talked about.
That doesn't mean he literally wants for the children to be killed. It's
just an expression.

  Most jewish scholars understand this, but most western people don't.
And of course atheists just love this verse. It's so easy to understand
literally.

  (Yes, go ahead and dismiss this as a "rationalization". After all, no
explanation is ever good enough.)

> >> Why is that good? Is it good because God does it? If 
> >> not, isn't God doing bad? Or are you in agreement that slavery and genocide 
> >> *can* be good?
> > 
> >> That last seems to be what you're arguing with your ice cream analogy.
> > 
> >   You are now misinterpreting *my* writing. I didn't say that it's good.

> You said that believing the more wise father and avoiding the ice cream you 
> want is good, yes? Or am I misunderstanding that?

  To the child getting the ice cream is good, while not getting is bad.
Thus some decisions made by the father are "bad" from the child's point
of view.

> The isomorphic mapping would be that committing genocide and rape when 
> instructed to do so by your God is good, even if you don't understand why.

  You keep mentioning that rape thing. Did God order rape somewhere?
Just because the soldiers did commit rape doesn't mean they were given
permission to do so, or that it was acceptable. It's just mentioned that
they did.

  Of course from a modern western point of view you can consider taking
wives from other cultures by force as "rape", especially if it was an
eradicated nation. You are now contrasting the modern world situation
what that of thousands of years ago, which was rather different. Think
about what would have happened to those women back then if all the men
had been killed (just assume for a moment there was a good reason for
God to order such eradication, so don't nitpick about it) and the women
left alone there, with nobody to support them.

> 1) Everything God orders you to do is good, including the things like
>     widespread genocide, infantcide, rape, even if you don't understand it.
>     This seems to imply that genocide, slavery, murder, human sacrifice,
>     etc is not necessarily immoral.

  You know, I'm becoming tired of you repeating the straw men. I don't feel
like discussing anymore if you keep doing so.

> > However, a bit like conspiracy theorists, they refuse to let go even of
> > the most ridiculous questions.

> Oh come on. You watch Ray Comfort convincing you God exists because the 
> banana is curved and changes colors when it ripens, and you think *atheists* 
> have ridiculous questions?

  That's a straw man right there, plain and simple.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

A question for you chaps who like to talk about religion.
Why to religions insist that you have to believe in a god before you can go to
the good place when you die? Why is it not enough to be a good person?

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > In Finland, for example, you can literally
> > get jailed if you made such a video about islam. There have been concrete
> > cases. 

> Why is that? Some bizarre reading of "human rights" or something?

  The multiculturalism ideology and the "fight against racism" has gone
completely out of control in many European countries, including Finland.

>  > (Christianity, on the other hand, is completely free to be bashed.)

> I find it hard to understand how to reconcile that, except maybe the way 
> that it's common to consider a white person being passed over in favor of a 
> black person "affirmative action" but the reverse being "discrimination."

  Religions themselves have no special protection here, but ethnic groups
have (well, except for white natives, of course). The concept of "ethnic
group" has suffered a huge inflation in the last decade due to the
multiculturalist ideology. Thus criticizing islam is equalled to
criticizing muslims, which is seen as discrimination against an ethnic
group. There have been actual cases of people having been sued and
convicted for creating videos with harsh attacks against islam (technically
not because of the attack against islam, but because of the discrimination
against an ethnic group). All while equally harsh videos against christianity
get nothing.

  Amusingly (or sadly, depending on the point of view), Americans are not
considered a protected "ethnic group", and thus are completely free to be
bashed. Again, actual case.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   (Yes, go ahead and dismiss this as a "rationalization". After all, no
> explanation is ever good enough.)

  Oh, and by the way: Are atheists going to drop that specific verse from
their arsenal after being explained what it means? Of course not. It's way
too valuable of a straw man to be dropped. It's juicy. It makes christians
(who don't understand the verse) uncomfortable. Atheists just *love* this.
That's why they will never drop that verse, even if they silently admit
that the explanation perhaps makes sense.

  In other words, atheists are outright dishonest. They are deliberately
distorting the verse for the sole reason that it makes people uncomfortable,
and they can use it as a weapon to attack them.

  Most of them will just keep up the "it's just a rationalization" facade
to explain away the explanation. In other words, they are fooling themselves,
just to keep this valuable verse. They won't drop it.

  Part of it might also be that publicly admitting you were wrong can be
really hard. How many atheists are going to say "yes, you are right, that
explanation makes sense and I understand the verse now, and I will not use
it anymore in my critique"?

  This kind of dishonesty makes these atheists no better than the religious
fanatics. Lies and distortion, just for the purpose of attacking others.
I find it pathetic.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Individual people have considered it a sin, but that's irrelevent.  As I 
> said before, the LDS church tries to limit how specific it is about 
> people's behavior.

How do you separate out "what the Church says" from "what the Leaders of the 
Church says"?   This sounds an awful lot like the True Scotsman fallacy, 
except that if the President of the church isn't speaking for the church, 
you have *no* true scotsmen around.

"No, that's not what the catholic church believes. That's just the pope's 
decree."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> If you want to get into dietary restraints, the Jewish teachings are 
>>> much more restrictive.  All that stuff about not drinking caffeine is 
>>> BS.
>>
>> It's amazing how often the fallacy of "et tu" comes up in religious 
>> conversations.   "Your religion is broken."  "Well, theirs is broken 
>> worse, so that's OK."
> 
> Sorry, I should have been more clear: I was certainly pointing out that 
> Jewish dietary restrictions are more strict, but I was not claiming the 
> final "so that's OK."

OK. But it seemed you were avoiding answering the question by providing that 
comment instead of an actual answer.

(BTW, sorry if I came across sounding harsh. I let stuff get to me a bit 
personally yesterday.)

> I can see how that could make my position confusing, though, and I 
> should have been more clear.

OK. Altho I must say, if the teaching of the church is that all blacks are 
descendants of the first murderer and cannot be spiritually whole, it kind 
of throws a wrench into the McCain/Obama "vote whoever you feel best about" 
doctrine. :-)

> Yeah, that one surprised a lot of people at the time,

Funny. My understanding from other Mormons is that everyone at the time knew 
exactly why God had commanded that.  Namely, that Mrs Smith didn't like 
cleaning up when people missed the spittoon.

>> To masturbate? To be homosexual?
> Yes, those behaviors are prohibited.

Well, since that's the specific bit we're talking about, and it sounds like 
the church is giving specific instructions about what to do about that, I'm 
not sure why you're disagreeing with me.

> Because of things like that, the Church has had to specify: When the 
> Prophet stands at the podium, and says "Thus saith the Lord," then his 
> words are doctrine.  Everything else is personal opinion,

OK.

>> when he mentioned that homosexuality is unholy?

> What's wrong with saying that homosexuality is unholy?  Whether or not 
> you believe it is your decision, but it's one of the teachings of the 
> LDS Church, and they're unapologetic about it.

Sure. But then to say "but we won't tell you how to vote on the gay marriage 
bill" is being kind of disingenuous.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   The entire reason I wrote my response to the video was precisely to
> point out that their arguments are flawed.

I think that to call an argument a straw man requires that you actually 
exaggerate the argument the opponent is putting forth. I think arguing "not 
all Christians think this way" is not sufficient to establish it as a straw 
man.

>   People here seem to argue that their point is "you are interpreting
> the bible in the wrong way", even though it's quite clear that their
> point is "God doesn't exist". It's a direct attack to all christianity,
> not just a specific group inside it.

Only if you believe in the same God that Fred Phelps and Ray Comfort 
believes in.  One of the problems is that everyone thinks everyone else 
believes the same stuff.  It just isn't true.

Note, by your take, it's not an attack on Christianity, but an attack on at 
least every abrhamic faith.

>   (And btw, quotes are not used for emphasis, but for the exact opposite,
> ie. de-emphasis.)

Yeah. Sometimes the posts are almost unreadable due to that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message