Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Single Park Passholder said "Let's see if this cracks you up. If you're female, let's say I walk up to you and start groping you. If you're a male, then I'll grope your wife instead. Maybe your daughter, too. Why get offendeded?" 1.you seem very comfortable making yourself the rapist in those examples. 2.SingleParkPassholder maybe you feel like rape is equal to talking but the rest of the world think you are insane ." Pfffft.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>I would also add to Skinnerbox's list any group which twists their book of worship to match their own beliefs while acting completely contrary to what that book actually teaches.<<< This brings up something I've been wondering about Mormonism. I personally know a Mormon couple who are extremely self-centered. They are adults with a family, but VERY MUCH have an attitude that the world owes them so they'll take and take, literally at the expense of others. So my question is, what type of values are taught in the mormon church? Do they teach from the Bible at all, or just the Joseph Smith book (sorry, don't know the name)?
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>FWIW the NT doesn't make references to imaginary places or civilizations. If anything, archeologists keep finding places referenced by either the NT or oral tradition.<<< True. A lot of places and people in the Bible are historically accurate.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>FWIW the NT doesn't make references to imaginary places or civilizations.<< No it doesn't, there's obvious differences between the BoM and the NT. But taken as books of sacred scripture, they both have problems. An examination of the earliest manuscripts reveals stories invented out of whole cloth (such as Jesus' encounter with the woman about to be stoned) and things that do not jive with what we know about civilizations. (The Egyptians did not keep Hebrews as slaves, they built their own structures.) I'll admit, I've lost most of my interest in this stuff. Four or five years ago I could've rattled off dozens of examples; I've lost my touch and I don't have much desire to get it back Bart Ehrmann has done great stuff on this, among others, of course, but he's a popular writer. I have no doubt there's hundreds of Christian websites that'll tell me why he's wrong and why the Bible is infallible. My larger point is thus, and it remains: Scoffing at one religion while clinging to another is silly. Now, if someone wants to live a life of faith, accepting that the Bible wrong in many regards and chooses to see much of it as metaphor, while respecting the faith of others (as millions do), then I'm all for it. But to attack Mormonism as somehow preposterous, then turn around and defend the Bible as literal and infallible (as millions more do) is absolutely no better than Mormons baptizing people for the dead. It simply becomes a childish game of "my religion is better than your religion." From the outside looking in, trust me, they all have their issues that the believers manage to be blind to.
Originally Posted By tink2680 Thanks Road Trip ) As a member who lives in SLC I can honestly say most of us thought the members in CA went a little crazy. And as you say lots of other churches do that kind of thing all the time and usually our church is very restrained on even commenting on politics so it was surprising that they got involved at all. From there some members went a little crazy. I think that the whole fiasco reminded the leaders exactly why they haven't ever done anything like that before and I highly doubt it will happen again. SPP clearly nothing I could say will convince you of the fact that there is no FORCE involved so I am just gonna let you get all crazy with your bad self.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>True. A lot of places and people in the Bible are historically accurate.<< So are Denver and New York City. Doesn't mean "The Stand" isn't fictitious. FWIW, there are entire Mormon publishing companies devoted to writing about why the BoM is historically accurate. You can even take a tour in Central America of supposed Book of Mormon locales. It's nonsense, of course, but it only goes to prove my point: Any community can insulate itself to legitimate criticisms and flaws. The larger Christian community has done just that.
Originally Posted By tink2680 DyG we use the Bible equally in our teachings. In sunday school we spend an entire year studying the OT, then an entire year for the NT and then an entire year on the BOM. In our other lessons we use quotes from both regularly. We also have plenty of lessons on serving others and being humble so their self centered-ness is their own problem.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So are Denver and New York City. Doesn't mean "The Stand" isn't fictitious.<< LOL! now, them's fightin' words!
Originally Posted By DyGDisney Thanks tink. Obviously I don't have a lot of experience with Mormonism, so I guess it's just this couple! I mean, I've known MANY non-religious folks who are far less selfish. I guess some people just are!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "SPP clearly nothing I could say will convince you of the fact that there is no FORCE involved so I am just gonna let you get all crazy with your bad self." Considering you're brainwashed, I expected nothing less in reply.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Now, if someone wants to live a life of faith, accepting that the Bible wrong in many regards and chooses to see much of it as metaphor, while respecting the faith of others (as millions do), then I'm all for it. But to attack Mormonism as somehow preposterous, then turn around and defend the Bible as literal and infallible (as millions more do) is absolutely no better than Mormons baptizing people for the dead. It simply becomes a childish game of "my religion is better than your religion."<< Agree totally with this. What this discussion is about is simple respect: Respect the beliefs (or non beliefs) of others and go ahead and practice your own. It seems pretty basic stuff to me.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox That's what deep ecumenism is about. I study many religions and cultural traditions, but refuse to believe that one is 'true' whilst the others are 'false.' And I firmly believe that this game of "my religion is better than your religion" will be the ultimate downfall of humanity. That is, if climate change doesn't kill us all off first.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox If you've ever attended a conference or workshop with Matthew Fox, you'd know we're already there. 8^D
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<In sunday school we spend an entire year studying the OT, then an entire year for the NT and then an entire year on the BOM.>> But you do not treat all three texts with equal weight. Therein lies the problem with most organized religions. Devoting an entire year to the BoM, which is a much smaller volume than either the Old or New Testament, clearly demonstrates the bias. If you want to be true biblical scholars in this matter, then you should either be spending less time in the BoM, or spending more time in both the OT and NT. But of course, the BoM is the 'true' religion and gets the lion's share of attention, correct? This is why I don't belong to any one organized religion. The goal is not learning about what unites us, but what divides us and makes one group better than the other. The BoM is being taught as the main source of 'truth' contrasted against the previous teachings. That's what makes organized religions such as LDS so dangerous.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "SPP clearly nothing I could say will convince you of the fact that there is no FORCE involved" SPP chose an extreme example, of course, but the point was one about consent. If I say to you "Do not baptize me into any faith other than my own after I'm dead. Do not. I'll repeat that. Don't do it" ...and then you do it anyway, you've done it without my consent. Do you not understand why doing something without someone's consent is not right? In fact, if I say nothing about it, and you do it after I'm dead, you've STILL done it without my consent.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<If you've ever attended a conference or workshop with Matthew Fox, you'd know we're already there>> <a href="http://www.thehunkies.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/matthew_fox.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.thehunkies.com/wp-c..._fox.jpg</a> I'm there. ;-)
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Devoting an entire year to the BoM, which is a much smaller volume than either the Old or New Testament, clearly demonstrates the bias.> Are you sure about that?
Originally Posted By tink2680 >>SPP chose an extreme example, of course, but the point was one about consent. If I say to you "Do not baptize me into any faith other than my own after I'm dead. Do not. I'll repeat that. Don't do it" ...and then you do it anyway, you've done it without my consent. Do you not understand why doing something without someone's consent is not right? In fact, if I say nothing about it, and you do it after I'm dead, you've STILL done it without my consent.<< Oh no I get it. The part that you guys are not getting is that even if someone gets baptised in your name you are not actually baptised unless you consent to accept it. Nothing will happen to you dead or alive unless you consent to it. Your religion will not change unless you want it to. Just like someone could drink a shot of whiskey in my name and nothing will happen to me unless I decide I want to drink it. I won't end up drunk no matter how many times they do it. Anyway it really boils down to you think we are forcing something upon you, or changing your religion without consent and we think we are not doing either of those things. I don't think there is anything you or I could say to each other to change that. I can see how people are offended that they think we are changing their religion but we are not so there is nothing to be offended about.
