Mormonism and Jehovas Witnesses

[Stone]

What if the answers don't come when we die? From there it assumes we would be able to determine one way or another what happens. We may not find clarity in death.

There are no guarantees that I'm aware of nor have I inferred there has to be/will be answers to all questions.
If there is nothing beyond death, there simply will be nothing to consider or discuss nor any spirit/soul to experience it. If there is an afterlife, it exists to experience.
I believe there is.
How can I respond after admitting I don't have any direct knowledge on the afterlife?
Want a pat answer, ask a fundamentalist....but that's your argument with him, not me.

Or you can wait and see

 

[Joe the meek]

In the Russian Orthodox church, a term used at funerals is "eternal rest".

Not to far off from some of the thinking of Socrates, who by all accounts, did not practice Orthodoxy LOL.

 

[Stone]

I pick Christian because that is what I grew up with and am most familiar with including the offical guide. It's easy for you to call any critique "bashing". That is not what I'm doing. Just trying to understand why golden plates in an apple orchard are any more suspect than the unsubstantiated Son of God, 2000 years ago.



Fortunately the time of Smith was recent enough that histories can be more reliably documented. However the interactions Smith had with Angels is no more verifiable, than Jesus had.



Stop it! I am not offended, just wondering how intelligent people can place their trust in Old Testament prophecies? Come on smile!



Hey, I'm not the one that lumped it all together. Are you saying that one is more believable than the other?



I would not categorize my statements regarding spirituality as belief, but as hope. And there could be a God! I might go as far as to call it faith, but I'm still not sure. Faith is for those who have mostly made up their minds. Ancient stories told by ancient superstitious men, just don't hold a lot of weight with me.



I'll confess, I don't know much about Smith and his convictions. Was he a con artist or a persecuted person of faith?




Ehh...

It's easy for you to call any critique "bashing". That is not what I'm doing.

Your posts have been more moderate that the one's I've been referring to.
I've seen you address the corruption of organized religion and haven't had issue with it.
And others the same.


But........
Like in this thread..... http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?83855-Religious-Inconsistencies ....the thread starter begins the rant of bashing and there's only two members that call him on his rant and only one member that calls him on a particular claim that is so incredibly false, it's an outrage to see it posted
with out challenge and then ignored by most as the thread starter shouts down debate.

There's little honesty in that thread.
It's like a simple minded Ford versus Chevy debate.......your shit stinks and mine don't.

That is not what I'm doing. Just trying to understand why golden plates in an apple orchard are any more suspect than the unsubstantiated Son of God, 2000 years ago.

You've received a reasonable and logical answer. Christ was a teacher and Smith a convicted con artist. Christ focused on the soul, Smith focused on his personal wealth, Christ offered up his life as a lesson, Smith gave up his life in a gun battle.

Just trying to understand why golden plates in an apple orchard are any more suspect than the unsubstantiated Son of God, 2000 years ago.

Smith was a convicted con man of disrepute that lead a life of disrepute even after claiming he was the only source of LDS scripture ( the golden plates that Moroni conveniently kept for safe keeping )

However the interactions Smith had with Angels is no more verifiable, than Jesus had.

That would be a logical fallacy, correct in outcome, incorrect in comparison.
Why?.....because Smith has been outed as a criminal with criminal intent to steal.
It's not a comparison of equals, unless you intend to prove Christ was a thief......is that your intent?
If so, present it.

Stop it! I am not offended, just wondering how intelligent people can place their trust in Old Testament prophecies?

Some people are. And especially some interpretations where Genesis is taken literally.
Looks like the prophecies being showcased are the ones that followed up in the New Testament.
No doubt there were prophecies that didn't happen and are likely lost to antiquity.

just wondering how intelligent people can place their trust in Old Testament prophecies?

It's not an issue of trusting the prophecy. The claim ( prophecy ) was made with reports later on of it having occurred.
It's an issue of believing the scenario played out.
But let's play your game with you as the target and focus on spirituality.
'How can intelligent people form a belief that involves spirits with out a basis for their existence?'
You don't need to answer that. Just pointing out that your question was judgmental while at the same time embracing the same logic......believing an abstraction with out any concrete evidence to justify it.
You believe what you find acceptable.

Come on smile!

You must have missed the "Genesis bother you a lot? "
I do notice a lot of Christ bashing that involves discrepancies in the OLD Testament.......ie. not relevant to the story of Christ's life and teachings.
Most of that in GIA's threads.

Hey, I'm not the one that lumped it all together. Are you saying that one is more believable than the other?

You're not really that good with sophistry.
I posted that the story of Christ's life begins with the New Testament.

I would not categorize my statements regarding spirituality as belief, but as hope.

You believe you hope? ....

And there could be a God! I might go as far as to call it faith, but I'm still not sure.

It's up to you what you believe.
But if you claim something as fact, then I might be interested

Faith is for those who have mostly made up their minds. Ancient stories told by ancient superstitious men, just don't hold a lot of weight with me.

That's OK. You don't need to explain your beliefs to me any more than I need to explain mine to anyone else........I'm not selling anything, just debating claims as I expect you would ....like of a fundamentalist that claims facts derived from beliefs.
Some times I challenge fundamentalists on evolution, some times GIA and John on their own fucked up logic

I'll confess, I don't know much about Smith and his convictions. Was he a con artist or a persecuted person of faith?

A real convicted con artist.
The people that did join his cult were persecuted. They were driven westward until they settled in Utah, common thought being no one would likely challenge them for it.
To their credit, the followers did make a successful go of it as we well know.

 

[Johnfromokc]

 

[Stone]

My frustration with religious discussions is really how limiting they are. Christian way versus no Christian way is basically as far as we get, sometimes we get the other big two in the mix, but it's so black and white. There's either a savior god who created and loves us or there's nothing. Really I think the spectrum of possibilities is potentially mind numbing and sometimes it would be nice to be stop banging our heads on the walls we've built and just stand in awe of that idea.

Posts like this don't exactly promote diversity

I saw this and thought you'd like it, John lol

 

[Stone]

This is about the only copy and paste argument you ever got correct.......science isn't about faith.

 

[Johnfromokc]

 

[Stone]

I don't believe you can fix anything, John

 

[Panacea]

nor have I inferred there has to be/will be answers to all questions.

From my view your words "the answers come in passing on" became your inference there has to be/will be answers to all questions. I don't think it was much of a leap for me to assume that lol.

 

[Joe the meek]

From my view your words "the answers come in passing on" became your inference there has to be/will be answers to all questions. I don't think it was much of a leap for me to assume that lol.

I can't speak for Stone, but my take on "the answers come in passing on" is that what happens will be, and you like everyone else who has died, you'll get to experience it.

Per my analogy of a dog understanding powered flight, I don't think it's going to far out on a limb by stating what man actually knows about the universe is very small. We think we're pretty smart, but in the grand scheme of things, our questions about life may be insignificant.

Our problem is we're the smartest animals we know.

 

[Minor Axis]

Your posts have been more moderate that the one's I've been referring to.
I've seen you address the corruption of organized religion and haven't had issue with it.
And others the same.


But........
Like in this thread..... http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?83855-Religious-Inconsistencies ....the thread starter begins the rant of bashing and there's only two members that call him on his rant and only one member that calls him on a particular claim that is so incredibly false, it's an outrage to see it posted
with out challenge and then ignored by most as the thread starter shouts down debate.

There's little honesty in that thread.
It's like a simple minded Ford versus Chevy debate.......your shit stinks and mine don't.

I'll stay focused on my participation in these threads. Some members feel passionate about their positions.

You've received a reasonable and logical answer. Christ was a teacher and Smith a convicted con artist. Christ focused on the soul, Smith focused on his personal wealth, Christ offered up his life as a lesson, Smith gave up his life in a gun battle.

Smith was a convicted con man of disrepute that lead a life of disrepute even after claiming he was the only source of LDS scripture ( the golden plates that Moroni conveniently kept for safe keeping )

That would be a logical fallacy, correct in outcome, incorrect in comparison.
Why?.....because Smith has been outed as a criminal with criminal intent to steal.
It's not a comparison of equals, unless you intend to prove Christ was a thief......is that your intent?
If so, present it.

Then I agree, Smith's integrity is in question. But when I compare two people who claim spiritual interaction what makes that one's claim true and the other false? Everything we know about Jesus is the writings of others. Smith serves as a great example of the power of persuasion. Surround any individual with enough people who believe, and there you go. There is no external proof in the case of Smith or of Jesus. IMO no God required. There are just a bunch of followers who spread the word.

Until I can witness, the miracles attributed to Jesus or whatever miraculous thing Smith was supposed to have done, I'd call it group delusion. The interesting thing about scripture is that my understanding is that very little if anything was written during Jesus life. It was written after his death, in some cases a couple hundred years later. So the people being deluded did not even witness any of the miracles. They are just easily influenced and willing to believe. I can easily imagine God up there, not the Biblical God with all these purported requirements for human beings, but a divine entity sitting there chuckling, "suckers!" That's if it even gets involved with us on a personal basis.

Some people are. And especially some interpretations where Genesis is taken literally.
Looks like the prophecies being showcased are the ones that followed up in the New Testament.
No doubt there were prophecies that didn't happen and are likely lost to antiquity.

It's not an issue of trusting the prophecy. The claim ( prophecy ) was made with reports later on of it having occurred.
It's an issue of believing the scenario played out.
But let's play your game with you as the target and focus on spirituality.
'How can intelligent people form a belief that involves spirits with out a basis for their existence?'
You don't need to answer that. Just pointing out that your question was judgmental while at the same time embracing the same logic......believing an abstraction with out any concrete evidence to justify it.
You believe what you find acceptable.

I'd be happy to hear about any prophecies written close to 2000 years ago that have come true.

The difference between me and a religion is that I've not set up a church and preached this concept as gospel nor have I asked for money to support me and my cause. And as I've said before I have not reached the threshold of belief because I have nothing to go on but a feeling and hope. I make no claims about God's love, expectations, requirements, or punishments. However, I'll admit that the only reason I find the spiritual realm appealing is due to love.

You must have missed the "Genesis bother you a lot? "
I do notice a lot of Christ bashing that involves discrepancies in the OLD Testament.......ie. not relevant to the story of Christ's life and teachings.
Most of that in GIA's threads.

You're not really that good with sophistry.
I posted that the story of Christ's life begins with the New Testament.

The church for whatever reason includes the Old Testament as... a... testament, something that is supposed to have a basis for truth/faith. If it's in the book, it holds as much importance to the Church as Christ's story. I consider a lot of the OT to be a tall tale. Consequently it undermines church teachings and authority. It does serve a purpose though, by keeping around such questionable, I'd say outlandish stories, it helps people like me recognize it for what it is.

Yes, I believe I hope.

 

[Stone]

From my view your words "the answers come in passing on" became your inference there has to be/will be answers to all questions. I don't think it was much of a leap for me to assume that lol.

That's because you took that clip out of context.

I don't think it was much of a leap for me to assume that lol.

Lets review your lols.

This was the rest of that phrase you took out of context and ignored:

the answers come in passing on, and that's a one way trip.( edit, now: my context obviously meaning 'death' in the following passage.) One absolute ( the rejection of belief/faith) holds no realization of the answer. Anything more presents the possibility. Reality, we don't/can't 'know' till that final step of our journey in life ends our participation of it.

You comment is exactly the behavior I find disruptive in an attempt to discredit what I posted with out actually addressing it.
I even clarified what I posted here:

Sorry, I don't understand the question.
Don't what?


edit: I was using the term 'passing on' in reference to death, not a passage to a place.

Your post is classic quote mining out of context.
It's interesting that atheists and fundamentalist are alike in that trait.

 

[Minor Axis]

That's because you took that clip out of context.


Lets review your lols.

This was the rest of that phrase you took out of context and ignored:




You comment is exactly the behavior I find disruptive in an attempt to discredit what I posted with out actually addressing it.
I even clarified what I posted here:




Your post is classic quote mining out of context.
It's interesting that atheists and fundamentalist are alike in that trait.

In the big scheme of arguing this is kind of a minor point. I don't think the intent was to disrupt or discredit your view. Maybe she just overlooked the part about "we don't/can't know" and maybe you a little to sensitive. Chill.

 

[Panacea]

Stone I always knew your words "passing on" meant death. Both times you've clarified that have been unnecessary.

That piece of your post merely brought to mind an additional point to ponder when discussing the possibilities of life and death. It was an honest, what-if question completely void of any attempt to discount religion and only intended to see things from a different angle.

Is it really disruptive to branch out on topics when someone's words remind you of something?

 

[Stone]

I'll stay focused on my participation in these threads. Some members feel passionate about their positions.




Then I agree, Smith's integrity is in question. But when I compare two people who claim spiritual interaction what makes that one's claim true and the other false? Everything we know about Jesus is the writings of others. Smith serves as a great example of the power of persuasion. Surround any individual with enough people who believe, and there you go. There is no external proof in the case of Smith or of Jesus. IMO no God required. There are just a bunch of followers who spread the word.

Until I can witness, the miracles attributed to Jesus or whatever miraculous thing Smith was supposed to have done, I'd call it group delusion. The interesting thing about scripture is that my understanding is that very little if anything was written during Jesus life. It was written after his death, in some cases a couple hundred years later. So the people being deluded did not even witness any of the miracles. They are just easily influenced and willing to believe. I can easily imagine God up there, not the Biblical God with all these purported requirements for human beings, but a divine entity sitting there chuckling, "suckers!" That's if it even gets involved with us on a personal basis.



I'd be happy to hear about any prophecies written close to 2000 years ago that have come true.

The difference between me and a religion is that I've not set up a church and preached this concept as gospel nor have I asked for money to support me and my cause. And as I've said before I have not reached the threshold of belief because I have nothing to go on but a feeling and hope. I make no claims about God's love, expectations, requirements, or punishments. However, I'll admit that the only reason I find the spiritual realm appealing is due to love.



The church for whatever reason includes the Old Testament as... a... testament, something that is supposed to have a basis for truth/faith. If it's in the book, it holds as much importance to the Church as Christ's story. I consider a lot of the OT to be a tall tale. Consequently it undermines church teachings and authority. It does serve a purpose though, by keeping around such questionable, I'd say outlandish stories, it helps people like me recognize it for what it is.

Yes, I believe I hope.

Some members feel passionate about their positions.

Some members seem to feel more passionate about what other members believe

what makes that one's claim true and the other false?

The issue isn't whether Smith's position is true or false.......it's false beyond reasonable doubt. His crimes are documented.
There are no ways to address Christ's life other than the written history of 2000 years ago.
We call that scripture and his life is only chronicled in the New Testament.
It's up to the reader to discern the validity.
You want a trial ( in the legal sense) scenario, but even the concept of the topic ( a superior being that mostly resides out side our physical reality) evades scientific investigation, so forensics are out of the question automatically in regard to most of these ancient claims.
Essentially, it's an issue of considering the accounts of those involved.

Consider, how can you even prove you have a 'spirit' with in you when medical science has problems defining 'conscious thought'. It's not the brain but it definitely has an association with it. Is it real or just an accumulation of interacting electrical impulses?
If it's only the latter, I should point out that after the brain turns off in death, those electrical interactions no longer exist.
So how would you prove the validity of your own belief in spirituality using science....a tool that only investigates this physical/material existence?

You ask for proofs statements where none can be generated because the topic is faith based.

Until I can witness, the miracles attributed to Jesus or whatever miraculous thing Smith was supposed to have done, I'd call it group delusion.

So?
Why should I care what you believe......unless you are imposing it on me?
All you are doing is arguing why you reject certain beliefs.
Sincerely, I don't care what you believe or why beyond curiosity.
If you state a belief as fact, I might be interested on several levels.
First would be enlightenment, the second would be determining the validity of the claim.
I actually enjoy debating fundamentalists on evolution.
But let's face it......your posts do argue for the rejection of Christian faith. I see an agenda that keeps popping up,,,,,,,challenge the unknowable, challenge what can't be addressed, challenge faith as if it were an investigatable fact.

Really, what do you care what faith I embrace?

You are obviously not investigating for your personal benefit/enlightenment.
You've already rejected the concept of a superior being.
But, curiosity again, how are you able to embrace an unknowable on one hand and reject it on another?
You argue with me to prove my faith, but have constructed one for yourself with out a shred of basis.
Why can't you accept that I see my faith as the best explanation for the unprovable.
You do. You see your spirituality as the best explanation.
Should I argue that your beliefs are bogus?

I'd be happy to hear about any prophecies written close to 2000 years ago that have come true.

'true'....again with the sophistry.
See how you constantly attack faith through context?

The coming of Christ in the New Testament is the accepted fulfilling of Old Testament prophecies.
Of course, atheists don't feel the same as the believers
Gotta prove it scientifically

The difference between me and a religion is that I've not set up a church and preached this concept as gospel

I'm not here representing a church or organized religion.
You are here to deny and rebut faith on a scientific level.....a major contradiction of concepts.
I have no idea why you keep explaining your position.
It's irrelevant to the discussion .
You argue essentially that religion/faith is foolish from a secular pov because you can't investigate a belief on a scientific level.
Well of course faith can't be investigated on a scientific level. It wouldn't be faith if it could, it would be evidence with proof statements.
Maybe you are used to arguing with fundamentalists that do consider faith (derivations of the Holy Bible ) as proof statements that can be scientifically studied.......but you aren't addressing one now .

The church for whatever reason includes the Old Testament as... a... testament, something that is supposed to have a basis for truth/faith.

Are you debating me or a church?
What part of 'the life and lessons of Christ' start in the New Testament didn't you understand?
What are you debating?
Attacking organized religion or the concept of faith?

If it's in the book, it holds as much importance to the Church as Christ's story.

So?
I'm not a church.
I'm not a member of a church.
I've never been a member of a church.
What does that statement have to do with anything I've been discussing?
I've even posted my belief that the Holy Bible isn't the inerrant Word of God.

Are you just using this discussion with me to attack organized religion?
The more I discuss faith with you, the more I see that as your agenda.

I consider a lot of the OT to be a tall tale.

That's nice for you.

Yes, I believe I hope.

Indeed

 

[Stone]

............

Is it really disruptive to branch out on topics when someone's words remind you of something?

I'm used to it being a debate tactic for diversion........

 

[Panacea]

I'm used to it being a debate tactic for diversion........

Well...to quote yourself, then... YOU FUCKED UP


I really don't enjoy pointless mudslinging, I'm averse to it. That's why doombug was such a pain in the ass to me. I read these threads, mostly it's bickering, but every now and then something strikes me and I'll comment and my intentions are good.

 

[Stone]

Well...to quote yourself, then... YOU FUCKED UP


I really don't enjoy pointless mudslinging, I'm averse to it. That's why doombug was such a pain in the ass to me. I read these threads, mostly it's bickering, but every now and then something strikes me and I'll comment and my intentions are good.

No.......I corrected you and all is fine

I really don't enjoy pointless mudslinging,

I do when I can prove a point

That's why doombug was such a pain in the ass to me.

doom bug didn't bother me very much. Most everything he posted was easily refuted with him looking the worse. Usually a fool.
I usually post in a manner that addresses the 'audience' with doombug types.
It puts them on display

my intentions are good.

Now I know you a little bit better

 

[Panacea]

No.......I corrected you and all is fine

:umno

doom bug didn't bother me very much. Most everything he posted was easily refuted with him looking the worse. Usually a fool.
I usually post in a manner that addresses the 'audience' with doombug types.
It puts them on display

You saw doombug at his absolute worst and craziest, and by then it was just sad. When he first joined he actually presented himself (well mostly by self report) as someone open to meaningful debate. It was then that he annoyed me, because he'd say one thing and do another. We all gave him chances. Things went to shit pretty fast and he just spiraled into a loon.

Now I know you a little bit better

Really I'm just trying to form my opinions about things and learn. All I've really learned is all of this has to be an internal conversation because it doesn't appear people can come to any mutual ground whatsoever on the topic.

I'm prone to a bit of naivete about people's intentions when discussing these things, and I get bit in the ass often.

 

[Stone]

.......................



Really I'm just trying to form my opinions about things and learn. All I've really learned is all of this has to be an internal conversation because it doesn't appear people can come to any mutual ground whatsoever on the topic.

I'm prone to a bit of naivete about people's intentions when discussing these things, and I get bit in the ass often.

imho...a debate forum isn't a very good learning/teaching experience other than on how to debate.
The art of sophistry and how well you conceal it goes a long way.
Context is often king in a debate and the most abused

I come into these debate forums more for the fun of arguing than expecting to learn something. But I do get surprised from time to time.

As far as religion and faith, most of it posted is just opinion, including mine.


Just be glad doombug isn't a neighbor.......