Originally Posted By JohnS1 I heard a good one the other day; a remark by an atheist in response to someone who called atheism a religion: Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color. Still, there are athists and there are antitheists. The first doesn't believe and goes on with his life. The second doesn't believe and wants to make sure nobody else believes either.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 LOL! Good one, John! I love that analogy! I think the distinction between "Atheist" and "Antitheisist" is a great point, too. Except that those definitions leave out a reasonable middle-ground. There are those of us who: don't believe; don't care that others believe; BUT object to having rules based on others' beliefs forced upon us.
Originally Posted By jonvn I personally don't care that "In god we trust" is on the money, or things like that. I simply have to wonder what goes through people's heads to make them think things that there is no reason to believe is not only true, but the absolute truth, despite other people saying things that are quite a bit different claiming to be the absolute truth. They can't both be right, and yet they both claim to hold a lock on what is right. It doesn't really work.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Oops, thought I answered that already. To answer post 60, I don't need to reconcile it. Both claim to be the church as set up by God, but we can't both be right, according to both doctrines. You already know my answer, I believe that my church is the church organized by Jesus.
Originally Posted By utahjosh "They can't both be right, and yet they both claim to hold a lock on what is right. It doesn't really work." It works if one is right, and one is wrong. It's possible.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<I simply have to wonder what goes through people's heads to make them think things that there is no reason to believe is not only true, but the absolute truth, despite other people saying things that are quite a bit different claiming to be the absolute truth. They can't both be right, and yet they both claim to hold a lock on what is right. It doesn't really work.>> Amen, Brother Jon. Most Christian sects believe that all persons of a different denomination (or different religion entirely) are doomed to hell. But they rarely admit to being so scorchingly condemming of other organized religions. Instead, they give the soft-sell message of "respecting" other religions. HUH?! Let's pony up here. These religions believe that theirs is The ONLY Way. So ADMIT that, already! Have the honesty and stones to say explicitly that all other religions are wrong. But they won't. However, they have no problem excoriating those of us who profess to have NO religion. It's like there's some Religion Trade Union. "We'll protect each other (even though we're totally mutually exclusive and it makes NO literal sense for us to try to justify each other) AND we'll jointly go after anyone who says they don't subscribe to any of our organized groups." Whatever.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>There are those of us who: don't believe; don't care that others believe; BUT object to having rules based on others' beliefs forced upon us.<< Ding ding ding ding! I loved John's post though, and agree with the point about antitheists. However, our culture is so deeply religious, and so many people push religion or are cold towards those that don't believe, that some of us probably seem far more negative than we really are, just by trying to defend or explain ourselves. I really don't care what people believe, but when I try and explain why I don't believe, it's automatically seen as an attack because it's hard not to explain without being critical of sacred texts, beliefs, and practices.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Inspector, I've already said it. I believe that the church I belong to is the only church on earth set up by God, with the authority given by God. All others do not have that. Anything else you'd like to hear?
Originally Posted By utahjosh Oh, Inspector, I do have to add that by saying that it does not mean I believe "all persons of a different denomination (or different religion entirely) are doomed to hell."
Originally Posted By ecdc That's kind of a cop out, Josh You do believe that everyone else has to be baptized Mormon, either now or in the afterlife and then choose to be Mormon. While the Mormon version of afterlife is definitely more pleasant than a traditional hell, it's still the same basic message inspector was getting at: be a member of our church or miss out when you die.
Originally Posted By utahjosh ecdc, I know that you know the doctrine of the LDS church, so putting it so simply and in the same realm of what Inspector said is surprising. The LDS doctrine is clear that those who do not follow it's teachings are NOT "doomed to hell." Not even close. What it does clearly teach that following Jesus Christ is the only way to reach your maximum potential. I answered his question: "I believe that the church I belong to is the only church on earth set up by God, with the authority given by God. All others do not have that."
Originally Posted By DlandJB Jesus called apostles and instructed them to teach, he organized a "relgion," and I think He is more than just a man.>>>> I believe he established the church - but semantics come into play here - "the church" is not the same as "religion." And I am not going to have time to go into this much further until later tonight - at which point I'm sure the thread will have gone off in many directions.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I believe that the church I belong to is the only church on earth set up by God, with the authority given by God. All others do not have that." But why do you believe this? I mean, you listen to a Catholic, and they have a very specific set of reasons. They think, for example, that their church was started by Jesus when he told Peter to begin the church, and Peter is considered the first pope. Or something like that. Why is that not right? If anything, that sounds about as close to what would be a direct line as you can get. Why is that wrong, why is your church right, and why do you believe this?
Originally Posted By utahjosh "Why is that wrong, why is your church right, and why do you believe this?" Here is the history as I see it. I can explain WHY I believe these things if you'd like, but I think this is what you are asking: I, like the Catholic church, believe that Jesus organized a way for the gospel to be preached. I believe he gave His authority to Peter and the apostles. This allowed them to Baptize, preach, teach, etc. I call it holding the Priesthood, acting by authority of Go However, I believe that an apostasy occured - that the apostles were killed, and that corrupt men and goverments changed the church, and that God took the priesthood from the earth. I believe that in the early-mid 1800s God again called prophets and apostles, and restored that authority. It happened in a series of visions and appearances. For example, God and Jesus Christ appearing to Joseph Smith. Peter, James, and John appearing to Joseph Smith and other men, and giving to them the Preisthood authority to act in God's name and to organize the Church of Jesus Christ. So we also claim a direct line. As you know, we can't both be right, and you know which one I've chosen to believe.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Why is that not right? If anything, that sounds about as close to what would be a direct line as you can get. Why is that wrong, why is your church right, and why do you believe this?<< Mormons would actually agree with you, jonvn, that it's as close of a line as you can get. However, Mormons believe that shortly after Christ's resurrection, the original church he established apostatized. They believe that the original church looked nearly identical to today's Mormon church, because Joseph Smith restored Jesus' original church on the earth since the early Christians were not true to "the gospel." Mormons often refer to their religion as the "restoration movement" or the "restored gospel." It's partly why Mormons feel so certain and sure of themselves that their religion really is the right one and that everyone must ultimately become a Mormon, because they'll be joining Christ's true church. While they've certainly gotten more tolerant over the years, and softened their language considerably in how they speak about other churches (a Mormon leader in 1958 called the Catholic Church the great and abominable whore of the earth, quoting a Mormon scripture), when pressed, most Mormons will acknowledge that everyone who has lived, is living, and ever will live, must be a part of the Mormon church to reap the full benefits of the afterlife. (Mormons do not believe in hell; they believe in a three-tiered heaven where everyone enjoys paradise, but that only the most faithful will be in the top-tier, which is inevitably better than the others.) I hope this helps. I also agree with you that it's impossible to argue that one religion is somehow more provable than another, or that there's a good reason to follow one and not another. It's a tell-tale sign of almost any organized religion: they think they're unique and that's why they're the right one, but in reality, what they think makes them unique is actually what makes them like every other religion out there.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I can explain WHY I believe these things if you'd like, but I think this is what you are asking" I actually want to know why you believe what you do. For example: "I, like the Catholic church, believe that Jesus organized a way for the gospel to be preached." What makes you believe this is true? "I believe that an apostasy occured - that the apostles were killed, and that corrupt men and goverments changed the church, and that God took the priesthood from the earth." Don't all people die? If the Apostles were killed, wouldn't a church that was driven by God be able to find more people? The Apostles would not have lived forever in any case. So, I don't understand how them dying could mean anything. What you are saying is that God set up this priesthood, then only gave it about a 50 year lifespan? Then waited 1800 years to start it up again? Why would this happen this way? Why not start it up immediately? Why not just keep the one started up and fix that, instead of waiting 1800 years and doing something completely different? "I believe that in the early-mid 1800s God again called prophets and apostles, and restored that authority." Why in the 1800s, why in the USA, why not with the church as it already existed with millions of followers around the world? "As you know, we can't both be right, and you know which one I've chosen to believe." You have told me what you believe. You have not told me why you believe it, as opposed to anything else. Are your parents mormon? Is it that you believe this stuff is true because your parents told you it was? Is this how you came to these ideas? Now for other religions that are very similar. When someone who is Catholic or a Protestant tells me they feel imbued with the Holy Spirit of the lord, are they just lying? How is it that these people can say such a thing? If their church is not really the right one, and they don't have a priesthood connection with God, how can they feel this way, and would not the Holy Spirit move them towards the proper church? Again, I simply don't understand the concepts. Please explain them to me.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It's partly why Mormons feel so certain and sure of themselves that their religion really is the right one and that everyone must ultimately become a Mormon" Perhaps they do feel certain, but I don't understand how or why they can feel so certain of something such as this. Protestants are not exactly happy with the Catholic Church, either. In fact, the entire Protestant Reformation was all about how the Catholic Church was corrupt (or whatever) and so they moved to create a better way to be Christians. Why would God not have moved at that time for those people? Why is Joseph Smith the right one to listen to, as opposed to Martin Luther?
Originally Posted By utahjosh You are asking great questions, jonvn. It would take some time, but I have answers for every single one of them, although once it a while the answer will be "I don't know." God doesn't always explain why he does what he does. I'll answer some of your specific questions, however.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It's a tell-tale sign of almost any organized religion: they think they're unique and that's why they're the right one, but in reality, what they think makes them unique is actually what makes them like every other religion out there." They are all the same. I just don't understand what would make anyone pick one over another, other than just randomly choosing to believe a set of ideas for what comes down to is no real reason. Did you know that anything labeled "soap" in this country has to have a very specific formula? Any time you buy soap from any manufacturer, it's almost identical to soap you buy from another place. The only difference is color and fragrance and shape. If it doesn't follow the formula, they are not allowed to call it soap. Thus, you get products called "cleansing bars," such as Dove, which are not labeled as soap but is advertised in a similar manner. Meanwhile, there is this huge amount of brand loyalty to one soap or another. Ivory, Irish Spring, Dial, you name it. All these soap products competing for your money. I don't see much of a difference between the soap and the religion.
Originally Posted By jonvn <<although once it a while the answer will be "I don't know." >> There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." But for those answers you don't know, are you able to find them out? How would you do such a thing? There are many things in science that we don't know, but we are trying to find out what they are. How do you go about finding out things you don't know, if you don't know them or even know how to know them?
