DjDan Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I think DjDan is busy 6 months 3 weeks next Saturday. Okay... my sense of humour must be out the window here... because i just haven't the clue what you are even referring to (???) edit: the other thing i don't get is who gave me the picture of jesus with a gun? and why? please remove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjDan Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Mormons - 1. They are Americans - explains nearly everything. 2. (Mind you, we are expected to believe in virgin births, resurrection, arks, and miracles). 3. No mention of America in the Bible so they decided to fit themselves into the story. 4. Joseph Smith finds tablet of stone in wood with a 'new' version to explain 3. above 5. As if..... 6. Con-man cons gullible Americans, desperate for some history of their own and to be included in the book they foolishly live by. 7. They are Americans Dan. Why haven't you responded to this one? Are you waiting for the good lord to give you answers? I'm sorry..... did i miss something?? What am i to respond to? Virginia ranted out a lot of crap... I don't think he/she was after a response - why? - because it's all crap. Not one bit is accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. Nice one Mojo. However, if you are going to quote Marx you always need to quote in context. His famous comment which you have faithfully reproduced was made inside a specific context [as he perceived it]. He viewed religious belief as illusory. On that basis the abolition of religion would lead to demands for genuine happiness rather than the illusion of happiness promised by religion. To quote Marx further "To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions." Makes sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjDan Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 but i guess with the intellect of this board, that's hardly suprising. I'd recommend you toddle off back to christianforums.com then where you can bask in their warm embrace. funny enough... mormons are rejected there. They don't consider us "christians" because we don't believe in the "trinity". I'm happy here thanx. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 every religion have people that follow them that will not tolerate a bad word said about their beliefs!! And everybody is expected to just accept that? Yes, everyone is expected to just accept that. We have a long standing tradition of tolerance in this part of the world. Embedded in that paradigm [tolerance] is a strong consensus that people should be free to follow their own belief system / religion without being held up to ridicule, without being villified, without having to defend what may or may not appear nonsense to others. We hear a lot about local culture on this forum. Well, so there is no mistake on this matter, the paradigm of religious tolerance iis very much a central part of our culture. Lonewolf, I'm stuck on this one. I totally agree with you that people have the right to hold a religous belief and to carry on their religious practices without interference ... as long as they do not cause social problems ... for example a religion has no right to abuse children. Oh DjDan ... don't certain Mormon sects marry off their 13 year olds to the Sect Leader ... 15 wives, 7 under 16 all rotating into and out of the Leaders bed. You'll say nothing to do with the LDS ... but its everywhere in the Book of Mormon. Now does the right to practice a religion mean we cannot hold up religion to ridicule and villification? How does doing that stop a person practicing and holding a religious belief? Athiests, agnostics and free thinkers have been burned at the stake for thousands of years. I think theists can put up with a lot of ridicule and villification before it becomes such an issue that it interfers with their practicing of their faith. Maybe there may be a time when that ridicule becomes so severe as to affect a persons practicing of their faith ... in China you will get sacked due to holding a religious faith ... but even with attempts to ban veils etc we are no where near that. The rights of a tolerant society go both ways ... you can practice your faith, but you can't burn us at the stake for not following your religion and you take the rough with the smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Every penny is accounted for every week, and if there is anything wrong in the accounting, a church leader may be removed from his position. Accounting interesting word ... I tried to find some accounts for the LDS ... trying to see how much money they recieved each year. Oddly their web site is silent on such matters. Just like the Vatican ... isn't that strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjDan Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Oh DjDan ... don't certain Mormon sects marry off their 13 year olds to the Sect Leader ... 15 wives, 7 under 16 all rotating into and out of the Leaders bed. You'll say nothing to do with the LDS ... but its everywhere in the Book of Mormon. Yes I believe they do. But that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with our church. All those sects are seperate from the church. And that is everywhere in the book of mormon? Wow chinahand, you must have read it a lot... yet not closely enough huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Now does the right to practice a religion mean we cannot hold up religion to ridicule and villification? There is an existing and strongly held consensus that individuals should not be ridiculed etc for their religious beliefs. This operates at most levels of our society. For example, most pub landlords would not tolerate this sort of behaviour on their premises. [no politics no religion!!] The rights of a tolerant society go both ways ... you can practice your faith, but you can't burn us at the stake for not following your religion and you take the rough with the smooth. Thats no reason at all for bullying people or for making inappropiate remarks about others' beliefs. Its also totally different to the way DjDan has been targetted on this forum. You responded to his ill judged invitation for questions in an entirely appropriate manner and indeed posed some questions he wasnt willing to answer. Im afraid others on the forum havent. I just dont like people being bullied for no good reason. No mystery about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The various branches of Aethiesm and Agnosticism talk to varying degrees about not believing in God. In not believing in God they already fall in with the notion of there being 'one God' to not believe in. As opposed to many gods or even a completely different metaphor for all of the things which we don't understand. In that sense their ideas are already exactly based on religious thinking. Even in so much as they stand as an alternative. Christianity, Islam, Agnosticism and Aethiesm are all basically philisophically schismatic from what became modern Judaism. The thinking which became modern Judasim basically made current the notion of a single metaphor or personification for all of the things which go beyond understanding. Broadly expressed by the Biblical Israelites, for example, as 'God'. Before the 'one God universe' there were many gods, metaphors and personifications of the metaphors. The establishment of the modern metaphorical notion of one single God (to explain all that we don't understand) was a hugely important philosophical evolutionary leap forward. The notion of 'one God' was a unification of metaphors which ultimately brings us to the wider unification of philosophical and then scientific ideas. Leading, for example, to the notion of science in terms of ever more tightly unified theories. This is a pattern of thinking which is clearly derived from historical religious philosophy. Without the 'one God' version of religious metaphors there would be no modern science - since modern science it is rooted in a development of ideas which owes its lineage to the establishment of the notion of a single God metaphor - at a point before science and theology would have been considered apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The various branches of Aethiesm and Agnosticism talk to varying degrees about not believing in God. In not believing in God they already fall in with the notion of there being 'one God' to not believe in. As opposed to many gods or even a completely different metaphor for all of the things which we don't understand. In that sense their ideas are already exactly based on religious thinking. Even in so much as they stand as an alternative. Christianity, Islam, Agnosticism and Aethiesm are all basically philisophically schismatic from what became modern Judaism. The thinking which became modern Judasim basically made current the notion of a single metaphor or personification for all of the things which go beyond understanding. Broadly expressed by the Biblical Israelites, for example, as 'God'. Before the 'one God universe' there were many gods, metaphors and personifications of the metaphors. The establishment of the modern metaphorical notion of one single God (to explain all that we don't understand) was a hugely important philosophical evolutionary leap forward. The notion of 'one God' was a unification of metaphors which ultimately brings us to the wider unification of philosophical and then scientific ideas. Leading, for example, to the notion of science in terms of ever more tightly unified theories. This is a pattern of thinking which is clearly derived from historical religious philosophy. Without the 'one God' version of religious metaphors there would be no modern science - since modern science it is rooted in a development of ideas which owes it's lineage to the establishment of the notion of a single God metaphor - at a point before science and theology would have been considered apart. Interesting Simon, thanks for the insights. Marx, of course, who Mojo is quoting, was more concerned, in terms of social relations and interactions, with establishing conditions where people would have a rational perception of their status or position. Marx on Religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsea Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The various branches of Aethiesm and Agnosticism talk to varying degrees about not believing in God. In not believing in God they already fall in with the notion of there being 'one God' to not believe in. As opposed to many gods or even a completely different metaphor for all of the things which we don't understand. In that sense their ideas are already exactly based on religious thinking. Even in so much as they stand as an alternative. So if I dont believe in God then I believe that there isnt a God to believe in? Im confused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Fascinating Simon, but I feel its an arts' students take on the history of science. It totally ignores the development of scientific theories and mathematics in pantheistic cultures like India and China. It makes beautiful language, but I am not convinced. The problems start even in your first line - you've twisted the definition of atheism and agnosticism to fit your thesis - "about not believing in [a unitary] God." Does Metaphor create our understanding? Does the meaning and definition we provide words limit and bound our understanding of the world and the divine? Not convinced. The Ontological Argument for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.P1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a being which has every perfection P2. Existence is a perfection. C. Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Fascinating Simon, but I feel its an arts' students take on the history of science.It totally ignores the development of scientific theories and mathematics in pantheistic cultures like India and China. Seems to fit quite neatly with the history of the Enlightenment though ? [Depending on which history you might choose to read] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 funny enough... mormons are rejected there. They don't consider us "christians" because we don't believe in the "trinity". Maybe you need to read the scriptures of sarcasm. Glad you liked the picture though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Fascinating Simon, but I feel its an arts' students take on the history of science. It totally ignores the development of scientific theories and mathematics in pantheistic cultures like India and China. Seems to fit quite neatly with the history of the Enlightenment though ? [Depending on which history you might choose to read] No Monotheism had been the dominate metaphor for about 1600 years prior to the Enlightenment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.