This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Why Your Religion?
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
I'd like to see some references and sources on the bottom one.
Post by
Monday
I believe there is Outer Darkness, but only the Sons of Perdition and the 1/3rd go there, along with apostles who were in the church and the like who deny the church.
Murders, people who fornicate, druggists and the like go to the Telestial Kingdom, which according to us surpasses the earth in its glory.
I'd also like to question this. The following are passages from the BoM about what happens to unbelievers:
2 Nephi 6:15 "They that believe not in him shall be destroyed, both by fire, and by tempest, and by earthquakes, and by bloodsheds, and by pestilence, and by famine."
# 2 Nephi 10:2 "Many of our children shall perish in the flesh because of unbelief."
# 2 Nephi 26:19 "Those who have dwindled in unbelief shall be smitten by the hand of the Gentiles."
That doesn't sound like a glorious place at all
Modern revelation, my friend. That has been changed through new revelation given unto us.
Post by
Monday
81 And again, we asaw the glory of the btelestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the cglory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.
82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the atestimony of Jesus.
83 These are they who adeny not the Holy Spirit.
84 These are they who are thrust down to ahell.
85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the adevil until the blast resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the cLamb, shall have finished his work.
86 These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;
87 And the terrestrial through the aministration of the celestial.
88 And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be aministering spirits for them; for they shall be bheirs of salvation.
89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the atelestial, which surpasses all understanding;
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
81 And again, we asaw the glory of the btelestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the cglory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.
This makes little sense, but if it means what I think it means:
So do you believe in the firmament?
Else if, explain please sir :)
Let me post another version that doesn't have any typos first =P
Just realized the typos are the footnote markings =P
Anyways it is basically saying that the Telestial Glory is unto the stars (the amount of Light the star gives off) as the Terrestrial is like unto the Moon (on the amount of light they give.)
Two notes.
A. Terrestrial symbol for us is the moon, even though Terra means earth. It's just for symbolic sake.
B. I know the moon gives off no light, but it is compared on the amount of light is
appears
to give off.
Post by
Squishalot
You realize that your personal experiences don't apply to the religions on a worldwide scale?
Christianity on the other hand,
it seems
like those folks enjoy harassing you about it. I find it stupid.
Right, just stating my personal opinion. Still, even if I were to state it as fact, you haven't provided any evidence contrary to it.
You're making the implication. You're also taking a limited sample of people and forming your opinion on a global group, which is a poor demonstration from someone who claims to be well grounded in statistics.
Which is a point that I made before to Skreeran, but apparently that means to you that I'm unintelligent.
Edit: It's worth noting the proportion of evangelical Christians in the world. DoctorLore and I have already been through this - America has a significantly higher proportion of evangelical Christians, meaning that the Christians that you encounter are more likely to be ones who will try to push their beliefs onto you.
And for what it's worth, I've never met a Christian who tried to make me feel bad about my lack of faith in their religion until they were in a heated argument with me. But as I said before - anecdotal evidence is meaningless in this discussion.
Post by
TheMediator
You're also taking a limited sample of people and forming your opinion on a global group, which is a poor demonstration from someone who claims to be well grounded in statistics.
Mmmm.... I was trying to think of something witty to say... but you're basically right. Still, its only natural, even it may be incorrect, for a person who has only seen flying birds to assume that all birds fly.
But as I said before - anecdotal evidence is meaningless in this discussion.
I didn't mean to imply that because most of the Christians I've encountered want to force their religion on others, that all did, merely that I'm skeptical that those Christians are a minority in comparison to the rest of the Christian population.
Post by
Monday
You're also taking a limited sample of people and forming your opinion on a global group, which is a poor demonstration from someone who claims to be well grounded in statistics.
Mmmm.... I was trying to think of something witty to say... but you're basically right. Still, its only natural, even it may be incorrect, for a person who has only seen flying birds to assume that all birds fly.
They do O_o?
In all honesty though most of us do that =P
Post by
Squishalot
You're also taking a limited sample of people and forming your opinion on a global group, which is a poor demonstration from someone who claims to be well grounded in statistics.
Mmmm.... I was trying to think of something witty to say... but you're basically right. Still, its only natural, even it may be incorrect, for a person who has only seen flying birds to assume that all birds fly.
I'm sure you'll agree with me when I point out that stupidity is 'natural' (i.e. commonplace, as opposed to innate), and that the ability to think and process thoughts logically is developed :)
Funnily enough, being brought up on a diet of Coyote and Roadrunner, I learned very early on that not all birds fly ;)
But I guess, if we were to really think scientifically about it, we'd observe birds in flight and realise that their wingspan relative to body size would determine their ability to fly, and conclude that certain birds with smaller wingspans relative to body size would be unable to. Fat broiler chickens, as an example.
But as I said before - anecdotal evidence is meaningless in this discussion.
I didn't mean to imply that because most of the Christians I've encountered want to force their religion on others, that all did, merely that I'm skeptical that those Christians are a minority in comparison to the rest of the Christian population.
For what it's worth, the World Evangelical Association (or something, found it on Wiki on the Evangelism page) claims that they represent 420 million evangelical Christians across the globe. Chances are, their claims will be higher than what is actual, because there will be more Christians who attend an evangelical church who do not identify themselves as evangelical (because it's their local church / because friends go there), and few Christians who attend a non-evangelical church who would identify as evangelical (because non-evangelical churches are boring, comparatively :P).
Even at 420 million, that's only about a third of all Christians out there, which is the proportion of Christians identifying themselves as evangelical in the US. The problem is that they're typically the more outspoken ones, and so, it seems like they're more concentrated. What doesn't get processed is the fact that there are plenty of non-evangelical Christians around who you don't notice, because they're not speaking up.
Post by
Skreeran
I dislike faith itself. I dislike the fact that +75% of the world truly believes in elves. That's the thing that irritates me with religion.
Post by
Squishalot
I dislike faith itself. I dislike the fact that +75% of the world truly believes in elves. That's the thing that irritates me with religion.
Do you believe in quantum randomness? Or do you believe that there are hidden variables underlying the random movements?
Post by
Orranis
I dislike faith itself. I dislike the fact that +75% of the world truly believes in elves. That's the thing that irritates me with religion.
Do you believe in quantum randomness? Or do you believe that there are hidden variables underlying the random movements?
Oh boy. The difference is that, with sufficient evidence, he could alter his decision. Faith is unquestioned.
Post by
Squishalot
I dislike faith itself. I dislike the fact that +75% of the world truly believes in elves. That's the thing that irritates me with religion.
Do you believe in quantum randomness? Or do you believe that there are hidden variables underlying the random movements?
Oh boy. The difference is that, with sufficient evidence, he could alter his decision. Faith is unquestioned.
That's an assumption, and one I think most intelligent religious people would feel is unwarranted. So don't present that as fact.
I've said it before - if you could honestly prove that God didn't exist, then I believe that most people would pack up religion and move on. Of course you'd have people who still protested and disagree, but the numbers in that camp would be inversely proportional to the strength of your evidence, I would presume.
Anyway, Skree, I'd still like an answer to the question.
Post by
Orranis
I dislike faith itself. I dislike the fact that +75% of the world truly believes in elves. That's the thing that irritates me with religion.
Do you believe in quantum randomness? Or do you believe that there are hidden variables underlying the random movements?
Oh boy. The difference is that, with sufficient evidence, he could alter his decision. Faith is unquestioned.
That's an assumption, and one I think most intelligent religious people would feel is unwarranted. So don't present that as fact.
I've said it before - if you could honestly prove that God didn't exist, then I believe that most people would pack up religion and move on. Of course you'd have people who still protested and disagree, but the numbers in that camp would be inversely proportional to the strength of your evidence, I would presume.
I can't disprove God. There is tons of evidence that would disprove Creationism, or most 'historical' happenings within the Five Books of Moses (I can't speak for the others, as I have not read them in full.)
Anyway, Skree, I'd still like an answer to the question.
He's already answered it, dig through the pages, you'll find it. I think you asked it as well...
Post by
Squishalot
I can't disprove God. There is tons of evidence that would disprove Creationism, or most 'historical' happenings within the Five Books of Moses (I can't speak for the others, as I have not read them in full.)
I've already pointed out - that's like saying that the experiment to demonstrate quantum randomness was faulty. It's a strawman argument to conclude that the findings aren't correct, it just casts a shroud of unreliability on the experimental validity to come to your argument.
He's already answered it, dig through the pages, you'll find it. I think you asked it as well...
I did ask it, I don't think he answered it, it was either bypassed accidentally or intentionally. Gorefiend noted that noone replied to it either.
The only replies I've gotten on people's belief in the quantum randomness theory are ones saying that quantum randomness doesn't lead to wars or killings over it. Since we're past that now, and the issue is people's blind faith, I want to move on from that blanket strawman response.
Post by
TheMediator
That's an assumption, and one I think most intelligent religious people would feel is unwarranted. So don't present that as fact.
I've said it before - if you could honestly prove that God didn't exist, then I believe that most people would pack up religion and move on. Of course you'd have people who still protested and disagree, but the numbers in that camp would be inversely proportional to the strength of your evidence, I would presume.
Well, part of it depends on how much evidence you need to be convinced. Part of the reason why people believe that the religious are entirely unyielding is that for those who already believe there is no God, they see the fossil record, cosmic radiation, and all the other scientific explanations for the origins of man and the formation of the universe as evidence enough.
It goes both ways though I guess - I was discussing religion with someone, and asked why if God is so interested in whether or not I believed him, he didn't send a miracle down, hell it doesn't even need to benefit me, cure some cripple and I'll drop to my knees, and he claims I won't be convinced by for some reason because apparently I'm too stupid.
Post by
Squishalot
Well, part of it depends on how much evidence you need to be convinced. Part of the reason why people believe that the religious are entirely unyielding is that for those who already believe there is no God, they see the fossil record, cosmic radiation, and all the other scientific explanations for the origins of man and the formation of the universe as evidence enough.
That's precisely it. The amount of evidence you present will 'deconvert' a given number of religious people whose evidence 'tolerance', just say, has been reached.
Moderate Christians would need less convincing than Catholics, for example, who would probably need less convincing than the holier-than-thou Evangelists. But it wouldn't be fair to say that no religious people would be convinced.
It goes both ways though I guess - I was discussing religion with someone, and asked why if God is so interested in whether or not I believed him, he didn't send a miracle down, hell it doesn't even need to benefit me, cure some cripple and I'll drop to my knees, and he claims I won't be convinced by for some reason because apparently I'm too stupid.
That's also very true. Give a scientific person a problem that seems unexplainable, and they'll devote their lifetime to trying to solve it, rather than being convinced that there's a deity. We could get a pillar of fire, and there would be some scientists who would still try to write it off as a natural event.
I know you mentioned earlier that religious people often use after-the-fact justifications of God's existance. The same could potentially be argued about a lot of Earth phenomena - consider the spate of hurricanes in recent years. If a volcano goes off as with Iceland, with little to no warning or evidence that it was developing, how can a scientist argue that they knew it would occur before-the-fact?
Post by
MyTie
I've already explained how the universe could have been created 6K years ago, despite all the evidence that it has been around for a lot longer. It got ignored, and then a few pages later the mocking of creationism started back up like I had said nothing.
I think this thread is just being populated by people who want to insult, and get a rise out of the responses. If our debates continue like this, I'll be disappointed.
Post by
Squishalot
I've already explained how the universe could have been created 6K years ago, despite all the evidence that it has been around for a lot longer. It got ignored, and then a few pages later the mocking of creationism started back up like I had said nothing.
I think this thread is just being populated by people who want to insult, and get a rise out of the responses. If our debates continue like this, I'll be disappointed.
Well no, we're at the stage where we're all agreeing that the 'evidence' can be seen and interpreted differently from both sides, depending on your view.
So we have progressed in the discussion, all things considered.
Post by
MyTie
I've already explained how the universe could have been created 6K years ago, despite all the evidence that it has been around for a lot longer. It got ignored, and then a few pages later the mocking of creationism started back up like I had said nothing.
I think this thread is just being populated by people who want to insult, and get a rise out of the responses. If our debates continue like this, I'll be disappointed.
Well no, we're at the stage where we're all agreeing that the 'evidence' can be seen and interpreted differently from both sides, depending on your view.
So we have progressed in the discussion, all things considered.
I accept the other side's view of the evidence. All of it shows that the universe was created more than 8K years ago, and I still believe in creation. I don't justify these views with 'just cause', or 'God is testing us', or any of that, but I justify it with logic.
However, I already stated my reasoning, and it was soundly ignored. This probably means there was so much truth to it that people chose to ignore it. I took it as a compliment.
Anyway, I'm not going to repeat myself. If you want to read it, dig it up yourself.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.