Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I feel like no matter what I say you're just going to ask me questions that me, as an eighteen year old, can't possibly answer because I have no physical proof to give you. Isn't that what some religions are based on? Faith is things that are hoped for which are not seen.  I would visit www.lds.org or talk to some local missionaries if you want more info on these bigger questions

I'm not trying to browbeat you into submission or anything like that. There's just a lot of things about Mormonism that bother me, things that no one has been able to explain to me to satisfaction. The lack of archaeological evidence is the biggest concern for me.

 

I have faith regarding spiritual, supernatural occurrences recorded in scripture. But when I read a record of battles the scale of the ones recorded in the BoM, I would expect there to be plentiful evidence. But I don't see it.

 

Do you consider evolution and creation exclusive of one another? I know a Christian woman who believes that life as such was first created by god, and then god orchestrated the flow of evolution, so to speak.

 

To preserve Reformed Christian orthodoxy, yes. They're exclusive. Biblically, death came as a consequence of sin. Death did not exist before sin. If life was evolving towards humans, that would place death before sin. Some people don't have a problem with that, but I believe many central doctrines of the Christian faith depend on the fact that death came as a consequence of sin.

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post

And if you're not homosexual, I don't believe anyone would ever expect you to "participate" anyway, seeing as homosexuality is a type of sexuality and not an activity.

The funny part is this idea is relatively new. Sexuality wasn't really seen as an identity for a long time and people DID actually go act by act.

 

 

We can not see gravity, can we? But we know its there. There evidence it exists and we have faith that it will continue. When you take a step outside, you are believing that gravity will hold you down...otherwise would you be walking outside? Side note: Gravity is something we take for granted...

 

Ah, but creation is the same way from our view. We see faults in evolution as you see faults in creation. (Or in any of "educated guess" that's out there.) but, as I said, until someone can actually go back and see how life was created, we'll never know. Until then, we have faith in our instincts and what not that tell us what we should and shouldn't accept.

 

...If any of that made any sense?

Except gravity is an observable phenomena. It can be quantified and tested and explained and used in a formulaic way to achieve certain results. We "know" it will continue because it is simply a consistent fact (probably not the best word to use here but eh) of physics and there doesn't seem to be anything that would disrupt it. Faith is often-if-not-always none of that.

 

Problem with evolution that stems from what? Doctrine and tradition aren't good enough to combat such a huge and studied theory. Science isn't instincts, it's observations and exhaustive study and evidence.

Edited by NixAyum

Share this post


Link to post
Problem with evolution that stems from what? Doctrine and tradition aren't good enough to combat such a huge and studied theory. Science isn't instincts, it's observations and exhaustive study and evidence.

Although, to play devil's advocate here, while it can be seen and studied that small changes happen within species (that can eventually snowball into enough changes to make a seperate species) not one has been able to observe or recreate the development of something as complex as an eye, or the digestive system as a whole (rather than just the specifics of what it digests best). These things are highly specialised, and often wouldn't work except in conjunction with other parts of the body. And many of them, on thier own, would serve no evolutionary benefit without the other parts of the system they function within.

 

Evolution can only go back so far before you start to get parts of it that don't make logical sense. The lengthening of bones to produce animals of different statures is one thing - but how did bones come about in the first place? Especially when you look at them in conjunction with bone marrow, which does a job a long way removed from simply providing a rigid structure. Bone marrow produces blood... but then how did blood start to come about? If blood came after bone marrow... how did bones begin to develop before there was an animal with a circulatory system that would require that kind of support?

 

And this isn't even getting into Abiogenesis (which, to be fair, is seperate form the theory of evolution) and all the major flaws with that particular idea.

Share this post


Link to post

Gravity is also a Scientific Theory.

 

Just like evolution.

 

No one has EVER disproved either of them.

Share this post


Link to post
If you see the faults in evolution, why haven't they been published in a scientific journal? The scientific community would love it for someone to point out a serious flaw in the theory of evolution so that the theory could be better adjusted.

 

Further, evolution does not make assumptions about the creation of life or the world. That is a different.

I have seen quite a few of them. You just have to know where to look.

 

I did not mean it that way at all. I just picked creation because it is the polar opposite of evolution. Also, t'was the first thing that popped into my head.

 

 

Shienvien: Certainly not! As I said, it was the first thing that popped into my head. I know a few people like that too. I've considered it. I personally don't believe it.

 

 

NixAyum: I used it as an example. I know what gravity is.

 

Moeru: No one has ever completely proved that evolution happened.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
I have seen quite a few of them. You just have to know where to look.

 

I did not mean it that way at all. I just picked creation because it is the polar opposite of evolution. Also, t'was the first thing that popped into my head.

 

 

Shienvien: Certainly not! As I said, it was the first thing that popped into my head. I know a few people like that too. I've considered it. I personally don't believe it.

 

 

NixAyum: I used it as an example. I know what gravity is.

 

Moeru: No one has ever completely proved that evolution happened.

That's a cop out if I ever saw one.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not trying to browbeat you into submission or anything like that. There's just a lot of things about Mormonism that bother me, things that no one has been able to explain to me to satisfaction. The lack of archaeological evidence is the biggest concern for me.

 

I have faith regarding spiritual, supernatural occurrences recorded in scripture. But when I read a record of battles the scale of the ones recorded in the BoM, I would expect there to be plentiful evidence. But I don't see it.

 

 

 

To preserve Reformed Christian orthodoxy, yes. They're exclusive. Biblically, death came as a consequence of sin. Death did not exist before sin. If life was evolving towards humans, that would place death before sin. Some people don't have a problem with that, but I believe many central doctrines of the Christian faith depend on the fact that death came as a consequence of sin.

I understand where you are coming from. I never really questioned where the physical evidence is; Mormonism just clicked with me and I never thought twice about it. I think to find artifacts 1) they would have to have an idea where the battles took place, and the BoM doesn't really say where, it just uses the ancient people's names for places and 2) they'd have to dig down pretty deep. And maybe the environment changed enough that many of the artifacts were wiped out. Unlike some historical sites in Britain that have awesome artifacts well preserved in the mud.

 

Today in my Seminary class I asked my teacher about this. He said they recently discovered a site where a mass amount of skulls were found, probably from be-headings, that could possibly be from the BoM time period, but he didn't remember where he read it or where this site was.

Share this post


Link to post

Today in my Seminary class I asked my teacher about this. He said they recently discovered a site where a mass amount of skulls were found, probably from be-headings, that could possibly be from the BoM time period, but he didn't remember where he read it or where this site was.

As an inactive (former?) Mormon, I would be absolutely fascinated if they did find evidence of some of the stuff! I was active in highschool, but never took seminary and never thought to ask the good questions like that ^^'

Share this post


Link to post

When I was little, I was told, that evolution and creation are two sides of the same story, one from a secular point of view, and one from a religious view, but that both are right.

 

As a child, we were Ultra Orthodox Roman Catholics, but we also had Santa Clause. My mom told me that Santa Clause brings all good little kids presents, in honor of Jesus' birthday.

 

I also was able to have Halloween. Again, I was told that dressing up in costumes was to frighten away the Devil and his minions, and as a reward for that, we get candy.

 

I realize now, my parents were really creative and determined that I get a good solid religious upbringing as well as having all the benefits of a fun childhood.

 

I raised my son up with these ideals, and he probably will do the same with his kids.

 

Religion and Science do not have to exclude each other, they can work in tandem, but only if you have an open enough mind.

 

I just can't understand why people promote so much hate in the name of religion and God, the God I was raised with was while just, also kind, good, and loved everyone for what they were, for after all, he is the one who created them. Gays were born that way, so God caused them to be the way they are for a reason.

 

And, regardless of how anyone feels about Gays, every year, every generation, more and more kids accept them and see them as normal, in spite of the determination of many parents to instill otherwise. When this generation is grown and running things, it will be different than it is now. Guaranteed, whether we like it or not.

Edited by Riverwillows

Share this post


Link to post

who cares if god "disproves of it"

 

if gays are sinning, which they're not, why should religious people care? it's not affecting them

Some people care and some do not. I personally couldn't give two cents whether a person is gay or not. I however would be sad for them if they chose to live a life of abstinence. It would be the right thing to do, but It's sad because everyone, no matter who you are, we all long for physical romantic relationships. And if they wanted to live a Godly lifestyle, they would have to be abstinent to stay away from disobeying God by not partaking in homosexual activities. However...

 

I believe they should have the same equal rights as heteros to live how they want because who am I to tell them otherwise.

 

According to my God, homosexual activities are sinful, so acting on it is wrong. But I'm not going to go around preaching this on the street corners and I would never tell a gay couple they were disobeying God. Unless of course they asked me for my personal belief, then I would tell them. Other than that, I don't care, because everyone has the right to make their own choices for themselves and live the way they want to live. I'm not held accountable for their actions.. they are.

Edited by luckynicole659

Share this post


Link to post

And that's another thing. I don't get how people can insist that being Gay is a choice. Almost every gay person, male and female, I have ever known (TONS, most personally), have all said they had yearnings even as young kids toward the same gender. Crushes in grade school, as young as kindergartners, most didn't even realize what it meant until they started puberty.

 

Kids don't even understand sex really, til about 9 or 10. And most I know had these feelings much younger than that, didn't know any difference.

 

That's not choice, that's being born that way. Ask any gay person, male or female. They will probably tell you the same thing, feelings before they were even old enough to understand.

 

I respect all religions, but a religion that says gay is sinful....I question that. It's obvious that it is natural.

Edited by Riverwillows

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't dogs be a perfect, observable proof of evolution? Granted, it was done with help of humans, but they still evolved.

Share this post


Link to post

Good point, Point! (lol...had to say that!)

 

Dogs as they are didn't exist 10,000 or so years ago. Took thousands of years of selective breeding, and forced captivity of coyotes and wolves to create the dogs we know today.

Share this post


Link to post
Wouldn't dogs be a perfect, observable proof of evolution? Granted, it was done with help of humans, but they still evolved.

See my previous post about evolution. The theory can be said to be broadly proven on the speciation level, but it can be argued to have major gaps when you start getting a long way back.

 

Incidently even Darwin viewed things like the Cambrian explosion as posing major difficulties to his theory.

 

<- still playing devils advocate. Although I must observe that there are some parts of evolutionary theory as usually understood by the common man that I have severe issues with.

Share this post


Link to post
Although, to play devil's advocate here, while it can be seen and studied that small changes happen within species (that can eventually snowball into enough changes to make a seperate species) not one has been able to observe or recreate the development of something as complex as an eye, or the digestive system as a whole (rather than just the specifics of what it digests best). These things are highly specialised, and often wouldn't work except in conjunction with other parts of the body. And many of them, on thier own, would serve no evolutionary benefit without the other parts of the system they function within.

 

Evolution can only go back so far before you start to get parts of it that don't make logical sense. The lengthening of bones to produce animals of different statures is one thing - but how did bones come about in the first place? Especially when you look at them in conjunction with bone marrow, which does a job a long way removed from simply providing a rigid structure. Bone marrow produces blood... but then how did blood start to come about? If blood came after bone marrow... how did bones begin to develop before there was an animal with a circulatory system that would require that kind of support?

 

And this isn't even getting into Abiogenesis (which, to be fair, is seperate form the theory of evolution) and all the major flaws with that particular idea.

I'll be cheeky and say that the reason why we haven't observed major evolutionary changes is that humankind hasn't been around for nearly a long enough time.

 

Speaking about eyes, you can readily observe eyes of various complexity in the animal world. The main things that are common is that all of them have pigmented cells and nerve cells, everything else that came later (vitreous bodies, complex lenses etc.) are accessories, so to say. Granted, the most primitive eyes do not much else besides discerning light from dark, however, I wouldn't say that "half an eye" is as useless as having no eyes at all.

 

Yes, there are a lot of things that we don't yet know about the emergence of certain cell/tissue types, but, as a scientist, I put the emphasis on *yet* c;.

 

Also, evolution doesn't concern itself with the emergence of life, afaik, only the changes of it.

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't dogs be a perfect, observable proof of evolution? Granted, it was done with help of humans, but they still evolved.

I think everything is proof of evolution.

 

 

And that's another thing. I don't get how people can insist that being Gay is a choice. Almost every gay person, male and female, I have ever known (TONS, most personally), have all said they had yearnings even as young kids toward the same gender. Crushes in grade school, as young as kindergartners, most didn't even realize what it meant until they started puberty.

 

Kids don't even understand sex really, til about 9 or 10. And most I know had these feelings much younger than that, didn't know any difference.

 

That's not choice, that's being born that way. Ask any gay person, male or female. They will probably tell you the same thing, feelings before they were even old enough to understand.

 

I respect all religions, but a religion that says gay is sinful....I question that. It's obvious that it is natural.

They definitely are born gay. But if you read the bible, there were fallen angels that bred with the females. Fallen angels are demons. Ever heard of the nephilim? The sin is in our genes. Human DNA was mixed with fallen angel or 'demon' DNA.

 

Now someone is probably going to say, 'but didn't God destroy the wicked people with the flood'?

 

Yes, HOWEVER, the bible mentions that the sin comes back. That people would eventually be like how they were in Noah's time. And that is what we are witnessing now.

Edited by luckynicole659

Share this post


Link to post
I think everything is proof of evolution.

 

 

So do I. That was just the first proof that I remembered for all those "we:ve never observed evolution" type of people. But, I have a feeling that creationists wouldn't take thT as a proof since, you know, Earth is just 6000 years old / sarcasm.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
I think everything is proof of evolution.

 

 

 

They definitely are born gay. But if you read the bible, there were fallen angels that bred with the females. Fallen angels are demons. Ever heard of the nephilim? The sin is in our genes. Human DNA was mixed with fallen angel or 'demon' DNA.

 

Now someone is probably going to say, 'but didn't God destroy the wicked people with the flood'?

 

Yes, HOWEVER, the bible mentions that the sin comes back. That people would eventually be like how they were in Noah's time. And that is what we are witnessing now.

I'm part fallen angel? 8D

 

This has probably been the coolest thing I've read yet so far in this thread |D

Share this post


Link to post
They definitely are born gay. But if you read the bible, there were fallen angels that bred with the females. Fallen angels are demons. Ever heard of the nephilim? The sin is in our genes. Human DNA was mixed with fallen angel or 'demon' DNA.

 

This is the funniest thing I've ever read.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
This is the funniest thing I've ever read.

When I was an atheist I used to think things like that were insane.

 

But It's in the bible, and as a Christian, what else am I supposed to believe?

 

Either I take the bible as truth or a lie. If its in there, then I must believe it, right?

Share this post


Link to post

If its in there, then I must believe it, right?

no

 

 

I'm outta here

Edited by MaggieXawesomeness

Share this post


Link to post

IMO, the Bible was never meant to be taken literally, only meant to be used as a guideline for people back in those days. Some of those 'guidelines' are no longer applicable in age we are living in now.

 

Things like the 'we are part fallen angel' bit I believe were attempts to explain why some people were just plain nasty individuals by the people of the time: same with beliefs in demonic possession and such. We know so much more about how our minds work and mental/physical illness now then we did back then (though we still have a lot to learn!).

 

That said, I do believe in a higher power, but She has a largely 'hands off' policy. We're given the Golden rule (Live the best you can, so long as you do not harm others for selfish reasons), with occassional 'reminders' via chosen messengers (angels and mortal prophets). Of course, we are not infalible: we screw up, more evil minded individuals twist the golden rule to better serve them and eventually fall down (die). She picks us up, dusts us off, and sends us back to life (reincarnation) to try again, until we get it right and can join Her at Her side in eternity.

Share this post


Link to post
IMO, the Bible was never meant to be taken literally, only meant to be used as a guideline for people back in those days. Some of those 'guidelines' are no longer applicable in age we are living in now.

 

Things like the 'we are part fallen angel' bit I believe were attempts to explain why some people were just plain nasty individuals by the people of the time: same with beliefs in demonic possession and such. We know so much more about how our minds work and mental/physical illness now then we did back then (though we still have a lot to learn!).

 

That said, I do believe in a higher power, but She has a largely 'hands off' policy. We're given the Golden rule (Live the best you can, so long as you do not harm others for selfish reasons), with occassional 'reminders' via chosen messengers (angels and mortal prophets). Of course, we are not infalible: we screw up, more evil minded individuals twist the golden rule to better serve them and eventually fall down (die). She picks us up, dusts us off, and sends us back to life (reincarnation) to try again, until we get it right and can join Her at Her side in eternity.

Are you Hindu? Just curious. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Are you Hindu? Just curious. smile.gif

Nope, I don't follow any 'named' religion. What I believe is a bit of a mash up of a number of different things (Roman Catholic, Buddisim, Wicca, etc). The reason is that I feel no one religion has the whole truth, that most of them have been tainted by the selfishness of humankind over time.

Share this post


Link to post
When I was an atheist I used to think things like that were insane.

 

But It's in the bible, and as a Christian, what else am I supposed to believe?

 

Either I take the bible as truth or a lie. If its in there, then I must believe it, right?

Well, there's the possibility that any English translation (or other language, for that matter) isn't entirely accurate, for one thing. I'm told by a Hebrew scholar I'm acquainted with that the Hebrew word "almah" means an unmarried woman, full stop. No assumptions made as to the status of said unmarried woman's virginity. Yet it's that word, "almah" which has been translated to "virgin" in English-language Bibles.

 

For that matter, the meaning of words can change over time. This site shows a few amusing examples, of which this one is my personal favorite:

 

Punk: This one is hilarious, especially in connection with steam punk (steam meaning “scented, perfumed”). Punk was first used as a word for a harlot or prostitute in 1596. No one really knows where it came from. It was also used to describe the submissive partner in a homosexual relationship, so when it was used to mean “criminal’s apprentice” in 1904 it had heavy overtones of “catamite.” However, it soon lost the overtones and simply meant “apprentice, inexperienced person” by 1923. In the 1970s the “young criminal” aspect was the inspiration for the naming of punk rock and so “punk” has simply come to mean “person of no worth.”

 

So steam punk; perfumed harlot? *snort*

 

Also, how do you explain the direct contradictions in the Bible? On the one hand, it says "Thou shalt not kill," yet on the other hand, it calls for blasphemers, murderers, and adulterers to be put to death. So it says not to kill but then it says to kill, so how does that make sense? Anyone helping to kill the criminal in question would then himself be a killer and therefore should also be put to death, no? The Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill unless thou art an executioner" after all.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.