Why people want to believe there is a god.

Ok TB. I'm getting kind of exhausted of this right now, though I think it's winding down. I'll get around to it eventually. I do apologize for ripping on your beliefs and Christianity at large. That there is an apostasy is our doctrine but it is wrong to boast of it or even imply that others are wrong for worshipping God as their conscience dictates. (LDS AoF)

[QUOTE][B]It is called using your reason.[/QUOTE][/B]On what evidence is your "reasoning" here based? Again, your argument is circular. You start with the assumption that no religion is true and you end up with the same conclusion. [QUOTE][B]Yes. The Easter Bunny demonstrates the validity of the work. [/QUOTE][/B]You can't feel the Easter Bunny validate religious texts so you can't just change names. [QUOTE][B]That you base it all on your faith and nothing else. [/QUOTE][/B]Actually I base it upon the Holy Spirit, which you deny exists. Your reasoning here is circular because you presuppose it does not exist and conclude the same.You have also must have faith that there is no Holy Spirit because you did not try Alma's experiment. [QUOTE][B]Or their accounts of it occured. There is no other accounts. and there is no evidence that they were "revised" either. [/QUOTE][/B]Alright. Their accounts imply it occured. Where are the accounts that "prove" it did not occur? [QUOTE][B]It wouldn't be the first time that some church founders "revised" their accounts.[/QUOTE][/B]You have to show that *my* church "revised" the accounts. [QUOTE][B]I don't take drugs and I'm mentally healthy so it wouldn't work. [/QUOTE][/B]And what evidence do you have that it wouldn't work?This is yet another circular argument. You conclude that it isn't true because it won't work and you think it won't work because you presuppose it isn't true. [QUOTE][B]There can be no further search when none are left.[/QUOTE][/B]You didn't check them all. Therefore you just assumed they are all wrong.

[QUOTE][B]Philosophy in and of itself is not proof of anything. That is why it isn't a hard science and only one step in the process.[/QUOTE][/B]I edited that after you quoted it because I didn't like what I typed. But if your worldview is based upon logic then epistemology should be the driving force in your decision-making process, shouldn't it? [QUOTE][B]If you see an honest opinion as lying[/QUOTE][/B]An opinion is one's twist on something, a fact is demonstrable. You claimed that we have arranged marriages and that JS wrote something after the CW (and after he was dead) and you did so in the guise of a fact. That is commonly seen as a lie. Maybe not a terribly malicious lie but I treat it as the same. [QUOTE][B]You more than prove that your beliefs are wrong, because you have created your god in your own image. [/QUOTE][/B]You are at least implying that you have a logical reason to disbelieve. You should elaborate. [QUOTE][B]There is something to be said for experience. Some gain wisdom as they get older, and some just get older.[/QUOTE][/B]Some just get frustrated, bitter, and disinterested in what once was important to them. I feel the most sorry for these.

[QUOTE][B]When the real manuscript of 'The Pearl of Great Price' was found, it was nothing like what Joseph Smith's translation.[/QUOTE][/B]A fragment of the original was found. However journal entries from eyewitnesses to the translation are not consistent with the piece being the Pearl of Great Price. For one, the original is much longer when unfurled, this is a couple of torn pages in length.I didn't get nasty. Things here got nasty when Schrafinator attacked my church based upon her opinions on how things "should be". Why she bothered is incomprehensible to me, as she is no member of the church and would not be personally affected by how we operate in any way, shape or form. In effect, the whole point is irrelevant. In fact whenver somebody mentions the concept of "making up" a theology she usually chimes in with Smith as an example. This seems strange, as if she has some sort of vendetta to carry out (maybe it goes back to college). I'll be wary of that in the future.NOS I noticed was not a very nice fellow even when he was going after YECs (and Americans), and he was more of a heckler than a participant. His debate styles are shoddy and devoid of logic. He failed to make a case against the spirit witness, only assured me that I have somehow found a way to delude myself. The only outcome from that is that I would eventually get bored and leave and let him have his "victory" celebration. After I round out this post I'll let him get right to it. When I go back to debating YECs I don't want him on my side but as I can't censure him I guess I'll just have to accept it. He's the kind that is rough around the edges and needs to debate a lot of people before he learns the ropes. Maybe then his debates will be better, early on my style of "debate" was much like his, I remember that very well.Mammuthus got scarce when things got rough and that's a point in his favor. But his position that atheism is supported by a lack of evidence in favor of God is not good logic from my point of view. The opposition (Nos) quickly resorted to a quote from Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but my quote from the same, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" was instantly ignored. This is selective thinking on behalf of the opposition and no counterargument was offered.As for peyote, it doesn't grow around here and even if it did I wouldn't get near it because of the Word of Wisdom.As for my lobotomy I haven't found any scars but I can't prove that I haven't had one. I wish my opposition in this thread would take a cue from that perspective and maybe sharpen their own critical thinking skills.Whether my critical thinking skills have been somehow "damaged" or erased I cannot be sure and can make no logical judgement without evidence (again: hint, hint). The way I see it is that I still think the same way I always did, with the same decision-making processes and the same logic (or perhaps lack thereof) that I used when I was arguing on your side in favor of naturalism either last week or four years ago. The only difference is that, for the very first time, I disagree with you and you have immediately responded to it as if I have (A) been damaged (B) had my account hacked (C) mysteriously unlearned a few years of first-hand experience in logical reasoning and debates in this medium or (D) am bored with the lack of YEC activity and am having a bit of fun. Your commentary on how I got where I am interests me because I am the same as I always have been, but now I see that your judgements are based not on how I reason or the quality of my arguments but on which side I am on. (If that was an experiment or a test I was conducting, you failed)For me that seriously cheapens all of this no matter what side I may be on in a thread. I see now that it is more about teams than arguments and the penalty for disagreeing with "my" team once means
I am somehow ignorant or no longer capable of reasoning at their level, a sort of agnostic "fall from grace". Of course their reasoning in that is circular.There is nothing further I can add in defense of my perspective or to continue this thread, it was all categorically ignored from the beginning anyway.[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-06-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Before it was authorized (temporarily) by God, was it considered a sin? If so, how does this work? Is it suddenly no longer sinful because God changed his mind? [/QUOTE][/B]As I understand it this discussion is over so hopefully I won't get attacked just for answering your question.Since your question seems innocent enough I'll try to answer.Normally polygamy is a sin. It would be if I just decided to start practicing it. Interestingly the Book of Mormon says that polygamy is a sin -- except for when God says otherwise. God doesn't just "decide" to reinstitute polygamy. It happens when a population needs to be built quickly and when gender ratios are out of whack.If there were a war next week and it didn't go very well polygamy might be reinstated. But it's a tool for social purposes, not a necessary foundation of theology.

Well the Book of Mormon does not use the word "sin" to describe polygamy but it does say not to engage in the practice unless specifically told otherwise. It's here: Scriptures in verses 27-33.It would be nice if people could make up their own mind but right now there are about 30,000 polygamists living in Utah despite being told by the church that what they are doing is wrong and despite that the church has a wing of missionaries that specialize in trying to reform them. They like the practice so much they just left the church to continue what they do.

[QUOTE][B]A commandment is as close as sin as you can get without actually saying it. Where does it say that God will tell you if he changes his mind?[/QUOTE][/B]It is implied in the scripture reference.Just as it is implied that this discussion is ended.

[QUOTE][B]I have nothing against polygomy and a church is free to make up their own rules or use whatever writings they consider holy to determine what the rules are[/QUOTE][/B]Well I'll tell you what, and this is "The World According to Gene90" and *not* church doctrine...but I think that if people want to practice polygamy, and as long as everyone involved is old enough to make that decision themselves, I think that the State should not interfere (I feel it's a part of the freedom of/from religion). I believe this is partly why authorities in the US and Canada are not enforcing bigamy laws as much as they used to, that and the fact that the laws are almost impossible to enforce (usually the best prosecutors can do is make a case for 'unlawful cohabitation' which is a joke).I do think it is contrary to human nature (whether that nature is planned by God or by purely natural circumstances) to practice polygamy and my religious opinion is, of course, that it is wrong and God doesn't like it. [QUOTE][B]I just don't see how these versus can be interpreted in any way buy that these actions are forbidden, under any circumstances. [/QUOTE][/B]Verse 30 says: [QUOTE][B]For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.[/QUOTE][/B]

[QUOTE][B]As I had stated the early Christians didn't believe in a Hell as we now know the concept. To them it was either heaven or the grave.[/QUOTE][/B]References to Hell can be found in the OT: [QUOTE][B]Job 26:6
Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering.[/QUOTE][/B]Also: [QUOTE][B]Psalm 55:15
Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them. [/QUOTE][/B]Where did you get this idea that early Christians did not believe in Hell? Is the source any better than the one that with the genocidal Mormon missionaries, Shakespeare translating the KJV, and Jesus being a Roman celebrity?

[QUOTE][B]The early Christians did not believe in Hell in the same way that many Christians today believe in Hell.[/QUOTE][/B]Yes, that is exactly what Nos said.That may be but I'm waiting for supporting information and a rebuttal to the passages I quoted.

quote:

---

Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

---

[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-10-2002]

[QUOTE][B]As many Christians like to say, the OT is superseded by the NT.[/QUOTE][/B]That's irrelevant because the OT still is relevant to the Christian faith because Christianity inherited Jewish beliefs. Therefore it stands to reason that if it is in the OT, and not done away with in the NT, it still stands. Also, I want to point out that "many Christians" do not decide the truth, the fallacy you are using is the Argument from Authority. It should be noted that quoting an Episcopalian minister's personal opinion of a theological issue is also the same fallacy, unless it is only done to provide context for the argument. That particular case is ambiguous.Finally, even if you were to disregard the entire OT for whatever reason it matters not, there are references to Hell in the NT that are just as good as the OT. [QUOTE][B]Matthew 5:30 KJV
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.[/QUOTE][/B][QUOTE][B]Matthew 16:18 KJV
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.[/QUOTE][/B][QUOTE][B]Matthew 23:33 KJV
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?[/QUOTE][/B]

[QUOTE][B]It carries a lot of negative connotations but it isn't really the fire and brimstone I was taught.[/QUOTE][/B]Maybe your childhood oppressors got it wrong? Wouldn't surprise me much. Besides my concept of Hell is very different from theres anyway.How much material have you got in the original Hebrew? [QUOTE][B]Perhaps the Prince of Darkness means to make a similar distinction.[/QUOTE][/B]I'd love to have some fun with that at certain televangelists' expense but I'm backing down.

Hey Schrafinator,As a non-Protestant with an unusual (by Christian standards) view of Hell that's an interesting page. But perhaps you could clear something up. The author quotes Young's Literal Translation: [QUOTE][B]and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night-to the ages of the ages.[/QUOTE][/B]Then the author uses this passage to conclude: [QUOTE][B]There is no "hell" or "eternal punishment" in entire Bible.[/QUOTE][/B]So basically we have a pit of fire and brimstone where the "torment" never ends, as opposed to a place with the name "Hell" where we have "eternal punishment"?Still smells like sulfur.Ignored your points? I've always ignored points from the first debate I had with a YEC. Too many small issues that don't interest me. Nobody has called me on it before.John: thanks for the link.

[QUOTE][B]The passage makes no mention of the lake of brimstone as a place for sinners. It mentions the Devil, and it mentions the false prophet, but not sinners.[/QUOTE][/B]Does it *have* to mention that sinners go there too? It certainly implies it now, don't you think? I believe the pronoun used is "they" and there is a certain amount of ambiguity.By the way, will you concede that the claim of the author, that "there is no 'hell' or eternal punishment in (sic) entire Bible" is false? Because in the quote directly above the obviously false claim is the refutation of that very claim. [QUOTE][B]I'm sorry that you think that the misogyny in LDS culture is a small, irrelevant point that isn't interesting.[/QUOTE][/B]I wonder why non-members who are not affected by LDS practice, are concerned about it at all. Especially since I certainly haven't seen any of the alleged 'domination' or whatever it is you claim is going on and I wouldn't stand for it if there were. I find it somewhat offensive that you are accusing my culture of a hatred of women. More offensive is that, since I am a male, and a part of LDS culture, the (heretofore unmentioned and undoubtedly unintended) implication is that I'm either one of those 'oppressors' or am being conditioned to become one.Remember that any categorical claims regarding LDS cultural practices are also claims that involve me.You also called my perspective 'insider thinking'. Well to me it is no different than the blatant insider thinking sometimes used when we tell a YEC with little science background that he lacks the credentials and/or information to argue with people who have degrees or a background in science.That is also insider thinking, and its friend the argument from authority, is it not? And is it not a practical issue? I think it was Larry Handlin who once asked an opponent (paraphrasing), "If I were seriously ill, would I seek advice from a doctor or a janitor?" I would tend to go after advice from somebody who would likely know.Another point that needs to be made regarding LDS treatment of women is the Spotlight Fallacy.[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-14-2002]

[QUOTE][B]If so, then why bother arguing if it's all just a sermon in the end.[/QUOTE][/B]I don't know, why did you bring it up?By the way, I seem to have overlooked the part where you conceded that an author you quoted was obviously wrong, contradicted by his own quote. [QUOTE][B]If you mean that there is no eternal punnishment concept of sinners in the bible, rather than eternal punishment of Satan, etc., then I am not sure it has been refuted. [/QUOTE][/B]The author did not specify sinners, he said that 'there was no eternal punishment in the Bible'. [QUOTE][B]In addition, don't you think it is cruel and hypocritical, given that LDS markets itself as being all about "family", that they do not allow non LDS family and loved ones to witness the weddings of their LDS children/friends? Don't you think that this is a way of pulling the LDS convert away from their families and friends and telling them that only LDS people are "worthy" and "right"?[/QUOTE][/B]No, it is protecting the spiritual worthiness of the temple. And it isn't just non-LDS people, it is people that do not live righteously, as defined by the church.Also, the couple can have a ring-exchanging ceremony outside the temple first if they would prefer, it is a common practice. However the temple ordinance is required.Of course as a lot of couples aren't ready for the temple when they wed, quite a few have a civil marriage outside of church workings and get sealed later. [QUOTE][B]The misogyny is there in the hearts and minds of the women, as well.[/QUOTE][/B]What you mean is, most LDS women don't want the priesthood, just like I don't want the bishopric. What you mean is, that this issue is being forced at the church from the outside, and is being trumped almost exclusively by those that watch from the sidelines, and those who are, quite simply, enemies of the church. [QUOTE][B]Good women support their families and run the houshold because it is there place to do so; God (the natural order of things) says so.[/QUOTE][/B]Yeah, I would expect a woman ("good" or not) to help support the family and do her part running the household.If this is a typo and you are implying that I think that women should all be stay-at-home-moms that is not what I think, I think mothers should be equals with men as far as holding down professional careers, etc. However I also hold to the position that men and women do have their own roles to play. Just as the sexes are biologically different they are different spiritually. Left to our own devices we are not equal: We have the priesthood because it is our lot and I believe that it helps make up the difference. [QUOTE][B]However, if a little LDS girl thought about being a Bishop or a Prophet, it just isn't gonna happen, or at least is EXTREMELY unlikely, and that it would take a huge upheaval in the LDS power structure?[/QUOTE][/B]You make it sound like we males all have ambitions to be bishops or prophets, as if we can file a job application with God and have an interview.Doesn't work that way. Bishops and prophets are chosen by prophecy. If I were to ever be a bishop it would not be by my own choice; I could decline the offer but there is absolutely nothing I could ever do to set about *trying to become* a bishop, except of course living a good life.Your view of the church seems to be similar to that of a competitive marketplace and power-jostling. If you can find a ward that acts like that I'll show you a ward that's fallen from grace in a huge way. [QUOTE][B]I am not talking about blatant brutalization. I am talking about a culture which relegates ALL women and ALL men in the LDS church to certain roles. This is oppression.[/QUOTE][/B]How is it oppression to have a division of labor? If you see life in that way then you have been oppressed by birth, simply by being relegated to a gender. By virtue of your very biology you are oppressed. It seems to me that if you have sort of dismal view of the world then you need to work things out with God Himself rather than with a church because there are more fundamental issues than in human society, the workplace, or the church.By the way, if you aren't talking about 'blatant brutalization' why did you compare LDS culture to female genital mutilation? [QUOTE][B] What about a little LDS girl not wanting to get married and have kids right away, or at all?[/QUOTE][/B]I don't know about little girls that don't want to have kids right away but if I can think of a few LDS women about my age who are more interested in education so that they can have careers and also missions rather than having marrying and having kids.I can also think of clear messages from the church leadership telling the young adults that they need a college education to survive and imploring them to go out and get one. [QUOTE][B]What kind of pressure to conform is she going to get from an early age? [/QUOTE][/B]She's going to have pressure to live a good life and be worthy of a temple marriage and possibly serve a mission. That's exactly the same pressure (or perhaps I should say, 'encouragement') the young men receive. [QUOTE][B]and that it would take a huge upheaval in the LDS power structure?[/QUOTE][/B]We don't have 'huge upheavals' in the 'power structure'. Look at LDS history. We sometimes lose people but that's all there is to it. [QUOTE][B]It is different, Gene, because I could learn every little doctrinal detail about LDS and memorize the Book of Mormon, and I could interview every current and former Mormon church member alive, but you would still tell me that I don't "really understand" because I am not a believer.[/QUOTE][/B]You can read material on carbon dating all day long but I wouldn't take you as seriously as I would somebody who does the test.Interviewing members would be an excellent thing for you to do, however. I heartily recommend it.Yes I can trump you any time I like by bring up the spirit but I'm working around that. [QUOTE][B]If I am going to seek a critical and objective view of a religion, I am not going to ask people who are proponents of that religion.[/QUOTE][/B]So, instead, you are going to get a 'critical and objective view' from people who are openly opposed to the religion?Look, the site you mentioned about my church allegedly interfering with a publication (more likely some misguided official at BYU acting at his own discretion than the church itself) also is pushing this:
Page not found - American AtheistsApparently we can't recognize lands that are a vital part of our history. These guys are atheists. They sit around from nine to five thinking about waging holy war against religion in every way, shape, and form. Hardly an unbiased source.Another source you used was a site that specializes in opposing church progress. They are like the atheists only LDS are their particular specialty. You should look for unbiased sources but good luck in finding any. We have what Nos calls a 'persecution complex'. A look at history will show why.One more thing, are you actually after a 'fair and uncritical view' of LDS culture and religion, or are you just debating the point?If it is the former then you are breaking a tenet of sociology.
http://www.sociology.org.uk/p2d4.htm [QUOTE][B] What about gay people? [/QUOTE][/B]What about them?
http://www.mormon.org/...y/answer/0,9777,1601-1-60-1,00.htmlMy point about the Spotlight Fallacy was not that LDS should be compared to other sects but that I know there are going to be chauvinists in the church just as there will be in any other large organization. There are also going to be people out that lose the spirit and cannot properly execute their duties. It is inevitable that there will be some abuse somewhere in the organization, as I have been told, by many different people, that members are not 'perfect' and I don't expect anyone to be. I just don't think the abuse is the norm, I think that the Spotlight Fallacy is at work here. [QUOTE][B]Is it or is it not true that no women ever has any authority over any man in the administrative hierarchy of the LDS church?[/QUOTE][/B]Conditionally true. First of all we are required to serve others regardless of rank in the hierarchy. Secondly I'd take orders from the LDSSA President (who happens to be female), the Relief Society brass, the administrator of any department of the church, etc. Then there's that lady who assigned me my role in the conference this weekend and is basically running the show.No, I'm not exactly immune to female leadership.But the argument you used is disingenuis because females have a place in the Relief Society hierarchy and males have a place in the Priesthood. Some males get to be bishops and stake presidents, some females get to be Relief Society presidents and hold similar offices. (Since I'm male I'm more familiar with the priesthood than with RS, but I'll be sure and let you know if I ever find anything that the women are missing out on).[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-16-2002]