Religion

[catstaff]

Going to pop in here quickly.

 

I'm a Mormon that is LDS (Latter Day Saint). I know that I've heard that people 'fear' us or in particularly don't like our religion, but I wanted to say that we're not really as horrible as some people put us to be. I don't particularly care if some don't like us, but it won't change the way I think and believe. I believe in a God and I believe in Prophets and nothing can change my thought on my beliefs.

 

Forgive me, I saw this thread and felt compelled to say a little bit about my own religion. ^^

Most people I know don't so much think Mormons are horrible. However, they are often seen as annoying (same as Jehovah's Witnesses) because they go around knocking on doors in an effort to spread their beliefs.

 

Mind, I don't think there's anything wrong with a little healthy outreach. I just think that canvassing a neighborhood knocking on doors is the wrong way to go about it, and that having a random stranger turn up at the door to give what is in essence a sales pitch is far more likely to make most people want to avoid that religion than to learn about it.

[philpot123]

Going to pop in here quickly.

 

I'm a Mormon that is LDS (Latter Day Saint). I know that I've heard that people 'fear' us or in particularly don't like our religion, but I wanted to say that we're not really as horrible as some people put us to be. I don't particularly care if some don't like us, but it won't change the way I think and believe. I believe in a God and I believe in Prophets and nothing can change my thought on my beliefs.

 

Forgive me, I saw this thread and felt compelled to say a little bit about my own religion. ^^

I promise I'm not scared of you. I just have many serious problems with your worldview and the inconsistencies therein.

 

How do you reconcile the Doctrines and Covenants claim the Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, when his false prophecies (such as D&C 84:4, claiming the Missouri Temple would be built in "this" generation) show that he is a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 18:22?

 

How do you reconcile the doctrinal claim that God is spirit (Lectures on Faith, 5:2) with the D&C claim that the Father has a physical body (D&C 130:22)?

 

How do you reconcile the D&C claim that men become gods (D&C 132:20) with the Book of Mormon claim that there is only one God (Alma 11:28-29) and the Biblical claim that there are no Gods before or after Yahweh (Isaiah 43:10)?

 

These are contradictions. If your source of knowledge is LDS doctrine, your source of knowledge is contradictory. If your source of knowledge is contradictory, how can you know anything for certain?

 

Those aren't the only problems I have with Mormonism, those are just a few glaring contradictions.

[potterwolf]

How do you reconcile the Doctrines and Covenants claim the Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, when his false prophecies (such as D&C 84:4, claiming the Missouri Temple would be built in "this" generation) show that he is a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 18:22?

I know this isn't my conversation, but I felt I had to intrude a little bit a this section.

 

It's been a while, but if I remember correctly, phil, you're a Christian? I just got through taking a New Testament class, and we spent a somewhat significant amount of time on the passages of the Bible where Jesus himself claims that the apocalypse would come during the generation of the disciples.

 

By your own reasoning in criticizing Joseph Smith, wouldn't you also have to reject Jesus as a prophet?

[philpot123]

I know this isn't my conversation, but I felt I had to intrude a little bit a this section.

 

It's been a while, but if I remember correctly, phil, you're a Christian? I just got through taking a New Testament class, and we spent a somewhat significant amount of time on the passages of the Bible where Jesus himself claims that the apocalypse would come during the generation of the disciples.

 

By your own reasoning in criticizing Joseph Smith, wouldn't you also have to reject Jesus as a prophet?

You'd be referring to Matthew 24, where Jesus outlines the "signs of the times" to warn the apostles of things to come. The exact verse is Matthew 24:34 where Jesus says "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." So that begs the question of what "all these things" is referring to. If you go one verse prior, you see "So also when you see all these things, you will know he [the son of man, Christ, the second coming] is near, at the very gates." So clearly Jesus means all of the signs he has previously mentioned will occur before his second coming, within the generation of the apostles.

 

Now, you refer to "the apocalypse." By that, I believe you mean a "Left Behind"-ish idea of a rapture, tribulation, etc? I hold to a preterist view of Biblical eschatological prophecy. That is, these "signs of the times" and most apocalyptic prophecies in scripture refer not to a future tribulation, but to the historical destruction of Jerusalem. Essentially, these "signs of the times," and specifically the "abomination of desolation," that Jesus prophesied of were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD.

Look at the prophecies... there will be wars and rumors of wars, famines, the apostles will be delivered up to persecution and sometimes death... All of these things took place between the time Jesus spoke these words and the time that the last apostle died. So Jesus's words were very clearly fulfilled, while Joseph Smith's prophecy about the building of the temple did not come true within the generation to which he spoke. You're right that those who hold to a "Left Behind" view in which these prophecies speak of events that have not yet occurred are left with an internal inconsistency, but quite frankly, I think that position is not Biblically supportable. Hope that helps

Edited June 23, 2013 by philpot123

[potterwolf]

You'd be referring to Matthew 24, where Jesus outlines the "signs of the times" to warn the apostles of things to come. The exact verse is Matthew 24:34 where Jesus says "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." So that begs the question of what "all these things" is referring to. If you go one verse prior, you see "So also when you see all these things, you will know he [the son of man, Christ, the second coming] is near, at the very gates." So clearly Jesus means all of the signs he has previously mentioned will occur before his second coming, within the generation of the apostles.

 

Now, you refer to "the apocalypse." By that, I believe you mean a "Left Behind"-ish idea of a rapture, tribulation, etc? I hold to a preterist view of Biblical eschatological prophecy. That is, these "signs of the times" and most apocalyptic prophecies in scripture refer not to a future tribulation, but to the historical destruction of Jerusalem. Essentially, these "signs of the times," and specifically the "abomination of desolation," that Jesus prophesied of were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD.

Look at the prophecies... there will be wars and rumors of wars, famines, the apostles will be delivered up to persecution and sometimes death... All of these things took place between the time Jesus spoke these words and the time that the last apostle died. So Jesus's words were very clearly fulfilled, while Joseph Smith's prophecy about the building of the temple did not come true within the generation to which he spoke. You're right that those who hold to a "Left Behind" view in which these prophecies speak of events that have not yet occurred are left with an internal inconsistency, but quite frankly, I think that position is not Biblically supportable. Hope that helps

I see what you're saying, although I wasn't talking about a Left Behind-ish apocalypse per se. I think we can both agree that type of Biblical interpretation is way off-base. I do think, however, that an understanding of Jesus's words in terms of Jewish apocalypticism is not unreasonable. There was still a belief among apocalypticists (which Jesus appears to have been) in an end-times event or era where God's kingdom would come defeat the forces of evil and such.

 

It may very well be that Jesus spoke those words in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem that was coming, but didn't he also say in Matthew that some of his listeners would not taste death before his second coming? Are you suggesting that the so-called second coming already happened?

 

As a side-note, historical evidence seems to suggest that Matthew was written after the destruction of the temple, so it would make sense if the author wrote it in such away that its prophecies seemed already to be fulfilled.

 

To get back to the original point, I bet that Joseph Smith was just trying to sound prophet-like when he made that prophecy of sorts. He was probably just trying to indirectly reference these same sorts of passages from the NT.

[Kai]

Debating the bible like that is like debating Twilight and its fanfiction. It's just a joke. To the guy who popped in... a view that is unchangeable is not really worth having.

[MichealTozier]

I have a weird belief system. I worship the Norse Gods, Loki in particular (wow who woulda guessed) but at the same time, I read and learn about every religion. I don't deny other Gods' existance. I believe they are there just as much as I believe Loki, Odin and Thor are. I never down a person's religion, but the moment they decide to twist it to suit hate or bigotry is the moment I will start sharing my opinions on the subject.

[Arveldir]

i follow a set of more spiritual beliefs than anything- I don't particularly believe in gods or goddesses but I believe in the presence of nature spirits/guardians

I'm in a druidry fellowship, though I don't follow their doctrine very closely. the main beef I have with druidry is the general mono/polytheism many Druids follow. that being said, there's no set dogma to the religion and the only things "universal" are the reverence of nature and honouring of ancestors. as a whole I accept their teachings and the messages of harmony and respect they promote.

my fellowship is also very kind uvu they've been very helpful and understanding from the time I've joined

I've read on other religions though and don't bash or deny their beliefs, each religion is as valid as the next as long as there are those who believe in them

 

[Severus_S]

I have a weird belief system. I worship the Norse Gods, Loki in particular (wow who woulda guessed) but at the same time, I read and learn about every religion. I don't deny other Gods' existance. I believe they are there just as much as I believe Loki, Odin and Thor are. I never down a person's religion, but the moment they decide to twist it to suit hate or bigotry is the moment I will start sharing my opinions on the subject.

Why should that be weird? Seems to me your Asatru, thats all.

I'm going in that direction myself, plus a healthy dose of Wicca and a bit shamanistic practice *g*

[Qwackie]

I'm a sort of strange Asatruer. I believe that the gods are representations of aspects of yourself. I don't think a beefy redhead named Thor is up in the sky watching down on us, but I think that by honoring him with deeds and meditation, you're opening your mind to become a better person. Say I prayed to Tyr. Do I think a one-handed Viking is making me a better person? Not really. But by respecting the god of justice, I'm making myself more just in the process. I don't know what that would be. An athiest heathan?

[Lila]

I want to say I'm a Buddhist because I wholeheartedly love the teachings and texts of Buddhism, but I treat my body like crap and never meditate and/or carry out my dharma. I guess it's something about myself I'll strive to change.

[Obscure_Trash]

~Here ya be~

[DigitalGarden]

Well I'm an open minded Christian. I was kind of born with it and grew up with it. Even though there are some aspects I don't agree with.

 

I usually don't speak about my religion, or religions in general, I had an unpleasant argument once with an extreme atheist. Or rather, an antitheist?, since the person hated religions and all believers. Even though I remained calm through entire discussion, he didn't stop attacking my beliefs, me, accusing of being "closed minded" and such... What's worse, he was interpreting the Bible literally - while it's obviously full of metaphores and logical twists. Meh.

[lightbird]

Well I'm an open minded Christian. I was kind of born with it and grew up with it. Even though there are some aspects I don't agree with.

 

I usually don't speak about my religion, or religions in general, I had an unpleasant argument once with an extreme atheist. Or rather, an antitheist?, since the person hated religions and all believers. Even though I remained calm through entire discussion, he didn't stop attacking my beliefs, me, accusing of being "closed minded" and such... What's worse, he was interpreting the Bible literally - while it's obviously full of metaphores and logical twists. Meh.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist - as in, I think that we can't prove the existence/nonexistence of god (and if we were to, it would be the burden of the believers to prove so, because proving the nonexistence of something is ridiculous), however, history (including history of human brain development), science and my own experiences lead me to believe that I shouldn't think that there is/are any god(s) out there.

I'm sorry you ran into one of the militant types - I find religion interesting from a cultural/societal perspective, and I understand why some people need it, even if I, to be honest, consider it mainly wishful thinking; I don't hate religion and religious people as long as they don't try to shove it down my throat, try to judge my life choices by their religion (I've even had someone tell me they thought my molecular biology studies were horrible because it's unethical and "wrong" to pry the secrets of the cell) or try to legislate going by religion.

 

I've read the bible, KJV, to be more exact, and whenever Christians say that you shouldn't interpret the Bible literally, I'm often genuinely interested - how do you know exactly how something, if it's not to be taken literally, should be interpreted, or how, especially judging the multitude of different translations in Bible in English alone, do you know which is the correct version? And what is, in your opinion, the value of guiding your life by a text whose adherents can't agree about what it's supposed to mean, and which is often mistranslated from the original? This is interesting to me because especially in the US it seems like adherents of different branches of Christianity are happy to jump at each other's throats.

Edited September 17, 2013 by lightbird

[Bacon_Strips]

I'm a "new-gen" Catholic, very open-minded and accepting about certain topics and my opinions aren't tethered to what my religion says. I do think my religion would be viewed in better light if our most vocal and public members weren't so extreme with their opinions, which they "present" as the entire catholic community.

[TikindiDragon]

I've read the bible, KJV, to be more exact, and whenever Christians say that you shouldn't interpret the Bible literally, I'm often genuinely interested - how do you know exactly how something, if it's not to be taken literally, should be interpreted, or how, especially judging the multitude of different translations in Bible in English alone, do you know which is the correct version? And what is, in your opinion, the value of guiding your life by a text whose adherents can't agree about what it's supposed to mean, and which is often mistranslated from the original? This is interesting to me because especially in the US it seems like adherents of different branches of Christianity are happy to jump at each other's throats.

Here you're running into something that historians have to deal with frequently - how does one interpret scources that are not a simple list of facts?

 

Bluntly put, large parts of the Bible (especially the Old Testament) were written records of Oral Traditions. And Oral Tradition often relies on the use of allegory and parable because those carry well and stay in the mind. You are also adding to this that when they *were* eventually written down it was in a language that had a much more limited vocabularly than our own, where the context and the emphesis could change the meaning of the words. With the decline of traditional Hebrew, much fo the inflection would have been lost.

 

A similar problem is encountered when studying the New Testament - it was written some years after the events recorded, and was a recording of the Oral Testimonies of some of the Disciples. Certainly Matthew and Luke appear to have drawn heavily on both the Gospel of Mark, and a second (unknown/lost, referred to as 'Q') scource which appears to have been a written collection of Jesus' teachings and sayings. Jesus, bear in mind, would most probably have spoken Aramaic as his native language - and Aramaic tradition is notorious for using similie to make points - where many of the Gosples were written in Greek and were thus translations even before they were written down.

 

Given the difficulties, therefore, no one can be 100% certain that their interpretation is the correct one. Certainly most Theologians will leave room for doubt in the conclusions they have drawn, in much the same way a scientist will leave open the possibility that their Theory may be proven incorrect with further advances in science. However, as often happens with science, many non-scholars will latch onto something and believe there is no chance they could be incorrect.

 

Thus my own opinion, as a Christian, is that one must try to draw upon the similarities and reccuring themes in the Bible without becoming bogged down in the exact wording. One must also attempt to understand the times in which it was written, and the knowledge level of the people to whom it was adressed, and view the writings through that 'lense'. Like any historical document the Bible cannot simply be taken at face-value in it's English translation (that would be a bit like having someone remember Mein Kampf, write it down in English from memory, and then declaring that it was the exact words of Hitler - not really 100% historically accurate, but good enough as a guide to the mind of the man.).

 

To me being a Christian is being a Follower of Christ. Personally I feel that in order to do that what one must do is study every available record of his teachings, and try to put them into practise in ones own life.

 

Note - please forgive the perhaps overly formal tone I'm sure I've dropped into. Using 'one' (for all it's archaic these days) is actually easier than pointing out I'm using the generic 'you' rather than the personal every time.

[Awdz]

I've read the bible, KJV, to be more exact, and whenever Christians say that you shouldn't interpret the Bible literally, I'm often genuinely interested - how do you know exactly how something, if it's not to be taken literally, should be interpreted, or how, especially judging the multitude of different translations in Bible in English alone, do you know which is the correct version? And what is, in your opinion, the value of guiding your life by a text whose adherents can't agree about what it's supposed to mean, and which is often mistranslated from the original? This is interesting to me because especially in the US it seems like adherents of different branches of Christianity are happy to jump at each other's throats.

I pretty much with what TikindiDragon said in response to this.

 

IMO, statements must be taken in context to be properly understood. The value to studying them comes in understanding the underlying principles for us to reapply in our daily lives.

 

A literal translation does not account for metaphors. For example, I suspect all of us know that the phrase "technicolor rainbow" is a euphemism for vomit. However, someone translating it literally may think instead of color bands on television screens, have no idea why anyone would say to avoid it/get rid of it when it appears, yet be very diligent about preventing the use of electronic displays of rainbows. I think many of the issues cited in the bible would (and should) be dealt with very differently today than they were when originally developed in the completely different setting.

 

As for how do I know the correct version? Essentially, I look for what seems consistent with how Jesus dealt with people.

[Cecona]

I was born into a christian family and was forced to go to church from a very young age but I never liked it and never thought it was real. As I grew older I found science and facts to be much more reliable and more into what I preferred to believe in than what my mom did. After my parents divorced I experimented with other religions- mostly eastern like Buddhism and Shintoism but while they were interesting they weren't for me. I settled with being atheist since it makes the most sense to me. My mom can't stand it that I don't believe in god and we always start fighting when it's brought up. She claims to respect my believes but then she goes and guilt's me into going to church for Christmas and I couldn't handle it. They had just loud music and I could literally feel the floor vibrating. It was causing me to feel anxious and panicky so I just spent the rest of the time in the church's little coffee shop.

 

I still retain a few christian things, like it's habit to say "oh my god" or "oh god no" And I still celebrate holidays like Easter and Christmas but I strictly only celebrate the non-religious versions of them.

[Pokemonfan13]

I'm an atheist. My parents are Episcopalian so I started off going to church. From a pretty darn early age I decided what they were saying just didn't make sense. The problem was I was too young to be left at home, so they had to drag me along. [what I hate is that at this point they almost never go to church. So why couldn't someone stay at home with me back then???] That is probably why I am extremely averse to christian prayers/music/talking at this point.

[SuicideMachine]

I was born and raised Roman Catholic, but around a year or so ago, I began to separate from my religion, as my beliefs contradicted Church doctrine and teachings.

 

I currently consider myself an "agnostic theist", if I may. I believe there is a god of some sort, however I do not know which god it is.

 

I believe mainly in science, but some things seem very...out there.

[Bacon_Strips]

I still retain a few christian things, like it's habit to say "oh my god" or "oh god no"

That phrase is not limited to Christians, it is certainly used by many others of different religious opinions. And Christians actually find the words quite offensive to God.

[TikindiDragon]

I am kind of the opposite. I was raised muslim but we would never go the mosque (like church).

 

When I was about 14-15 I started to go trough a stage where I was questioning everything and I was getting more involved in science. I started to wonder about my purpose and meaning, why on earth I was born but then I also started researching about my own religion and the more I researched the more I came to like it.

 

I am more religious than I was before and attend the mousqe daily.

This is also broadly what happened with me. I was raised with basic Christian ethics (and I did attend a CofE Primary School) but we only went to church at most half a dozen times a year. I went through what was perhaps a bigger stage of questioning everything (and abandoning a lot of it - depression, borderline alcoholism, you get the drift) before I really returned to my faith. And, yes, I have done a load of research, and a load of study. When my health holds I now attend church on a daily basis, and in fact think I may be being called to ministry.

 

It's also interesting to note that my sister, with the same upbringing (and less of a period of abandoning everything), also attends church on a weekly basis. Compared to my Mum who still only goes half a dozen times a year, and my Dad who classifies himself as Agnostic.

[Crocodile]

I was raised as a Catholic but as I grew older I realized that I just didn't believe in what I had been taught as a child. I'm an atheist now, or more specifically, a secular humanist.

[Cecona]

my family went to church religiously (no pun intended) when my sister and I were little, but after my mom realized how neither my sister or I enjoyed it she no longer forced us to go. It wasn't until a few years ago my mom started going back to church every Sunday. It's a really nice church, with the coffee shop I mentioned and other little areas beside the place where the sermons are given. And the priests are nice and don't do the really boring stuff that is normal for a catholic church. My mom is rather upset both of her children aren't religious, but it was obvious from young ages we didn't believe what was being told to us.

 

My dad was actually never really religious, I would say he was agnostic, with a slight leaning towards eastern religions. He liked to buy and display little Buddha statues and figurines. He especially liked the happy versions over the slender meditation looking ones. I guess we took more after him than our mom.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Cecona

[prairiecrow]

Well, it's October, which means that for Wiccans (and some other Pagans as well) Samhain, the festival of the beloved dead, is right around the corner. And as always at this time of year, the debate about how Samhain intersects with Halloween is firing up. Some Wiccans are less than pleased that people dress up as witches at this time of year; others, like myself, could really care less.

 

So here's a question to other Wiccans and Pagans on the board: what are your plans for Samhain (if you celebrate it), and do you find the Halloween connection problematic?