S/O Mormonism... I just don't get it...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McVeigh was an atheist.

Just for the record:

McVeigh was a registered Republican when he lived in Buffalo, New York in the 1980s, and had a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military. McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic. During his childhood, he and his father attended Mass regularly. McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985. In a March, 1996, interview with Time magazine, McVeigh professed his belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."

In the 2001 book American Terrorist, McVeigh stated that he did not believe in Hell and that science is his religion.
In June, 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News claiming to be an agnostic.
Before his execution, McVeigh took the Catholic sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.

In other words he was born and raised a Catholic, said he was something of a lapsed Catholic in jail. Five years later gave an interview in which he claimed to be "agnostic" (i.e. he wasn't sure of the existence of God), and finally, before dying took communion.

Sounds like a Christian to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that this is a nasty bigoted post. The beauty of this country is that we have separation of church and state. It does not matter whether you get Mormonism as long as they are not forcing non-members to live by their principles then live and let live.

That's what they're doing though. They don't see any separation of church and state when they fund the entire Prop 8 campaign. How is that a separation? They are incredibly politically active, as is the Catholic church, and until they recognize the boundaries just as they expect that doctrine to work in their favor, why shouldn't we treat them the same way we treat other lobbying organizations? Because that's what they are.

You misunderstand the concept of "separation of church and state." It means that the government cannot establish a religion and force you to participate. It does not prohibit individuals or groups, informed by their religious beliefs, from petitioning the government or otherwise mobilizing to change laws, public policy etc. That is simply the exercise of democracy. The remedy (if you do not agree with their position) is to mobilize and express your opinions. In the end, democracy will decide who wins the argument after a vigorous debate.

Sure, but when large organizations direct their members to vote in certain politically directed ways, it's perfectly legitimate to call those organizations out for their intolerance. Frankly, it was a shitty thing to do, and the LDS got called out on it. There were Mormons who were unhappy with the church's stance. I'm not a Mormon, but it sure as Hell eroded a lot of my goodwill towards LDS.

[Anonymous]

It's not a cult. It has survived well past the death of the founder and has many adherents. That's not a cult.

[Anonymous]

It's a little more complicated than that. You've described the Establishment Clause. The First Amendment also contains a Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits Congress from making laws impinging upon the free exercise of religion. That has been interpreted (for a long time) to mean that the government can't tax religions (perhaps taking the "free" part of "free exercise" too literally). But, here's a question - if religions want to have active lobbying efforts (and they do), shouldn't they be taxed?

In the words of the late, great George Carlin, "If churches want to play the game of politics, let them pay admission like everyone else."

[Anonymous]

You misunderstand the concept of "separation of church and state." It means that the government cannot establish a religion and force you to participate. It does not prohibit individuals or groups, informed by their religious beliefs, from petitioning the government or otherwise mobilizing to change laws, public policy etc. That is simply the exercise of democracy. The remedy (if you do not agree with their position) is to mobilize and express your opinions. In the end, democracy will decide who wins the argument after a vigorous debate.

It's a little more complicated than that. You've described the Establishment Clause. The First Amendment also contains a Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits Congress from making laws impinging upon the free exercise of religion. That has been interpreted (for a long time) to mean that the government can't tax religions (perhaps taking the "free" part of "free exercise" too literally). But, here's a question - if religions want to have active lobbying efforts (and they do), shouldn't they be taxed?

In the words of the late, great George Carlin, "If churches want to play the game of politics, let them pay admission like everyone else."

[Anonymous]

Oh gawd, not again....

It seems like we can't let a day or two go by on DCUM by without somebody starting a new thread to trash some religion, or some aspect of religion. Then OP and one or two other posters (there don't seem to be more than a handful) pile on gleefully to trash all religions.

It's like an old LP stuck repeating itself. Or watching 3-year-olds play in the sandbox -- the insults are often that immature and that unreflective.

You guys need to get another hobby. You're starting to look pathetic and obsessed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All religions have bizarre narratives--it's what you are used to.

Judaism: burning bushes, tablets from God, a man who almost sacrifices his own child because God told him to. Don't forget the circumcision business, too. It's weird.

Christianity: Macabre. A father--omnipotent, omniscient-- allows his son to die a torturous death--he's nailed to wood. Uh huh, exactly.

Your point is?

I think the point is, all religions have bizarre narratives.

Well, Islam is pretty straightforward. If you believe in a god and that he speaks to certain individuals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All religions have bizarre narratives--it's what you are used to.

Judaism: burning bushes, tablets from God, a man who almost sacrifices his own child because God told him to. Don't forget the circumcision business, too. It's weird.

Christianity: Macabre. A father--omnipotent, omniscient-- allows his son to die a torturous death--he's nailed to wood. Uh huh, exactly.

Your point is?

I think the point is, all religions have bizarre narratives.

Well, Islam is pretty straightforward. If you believe in a god and that he speaks to certain individuals.

Well, there are some other aspects of Islam, especially re women, apostates and non-believers, that are a little difficult.

[Anonymous]

I think the PP was saying Islam is lacking in fanciful stories, not that Islam has no flaws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that this is a nasty bigoted post. The beauty of this country is that we have separation of church and state. It does not matter whether you get Mormonism as long as they are not forcing non-members to live by their principles then live and let live.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:53, historians do agree that the historical Jesus existed. Not the "Christ" part, of course, just the fact that a radical rabbi by the names of Jesus seemed to have developed a following that was threatening to the Roman republic.

That's all.

Don't confuse the Jesus with the Christ part.

Look PP is a biblical scholar. He's pretty much outlined the "case" for historical Jesus, the evidence in support of which seems to amount to "we all believe it". Sorry, but "all four gospels mention Jesus and the Romans used to crucify people" is some pretty damned weak tea. The best thing about a liberal arts education is that you don't need to be a physicist (or a biblical scholar) to know when a small group of scholars are blowing smoke up one another's asses. Especially when their livelihood depends on it.

This is the danger of too little knowledge. Biblical scholars have PhDs, read the texts in the original, understand historical documents and documentation, and basically know a heck of a lot more than someone with a BA. I assume that the biblical scholar didn't give you the whole story because of the nature of this forum. Your responses are the equivalent of someone who doesn't believe in global climate change despite the expert consensus because you think that their evidence is flawed.

[Anonymous]

I'm no Biblical scholar, but didn't Tacitus, or some Roman chronicler of that era, write about Jesus contemporaneously.

I am a researcher, however, and the "biblical scholar's" methodological approach to evaluating the evidence seems pretty sound to me. Whereas the poster who just sneers that this is "blowing smoke" has nothing to offer, except of course her sneering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a member of the LDS church I have read this thread with interest. I will not go into detail here, because it obviously isn't a very open or welcoming thread for me and my religion, but I want to state that many of the "facts" presented here are either entirely false or very wrongheaded interpretations of our beliefs. If anyone here is interested in what members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints actually believes and practices, I encourage you to ask your LDS friends and neighbors about their religious life, or visit mormon.org for answers to some common questions.

Ahhh...mormon.org what a great site. A favorite of the internet trolls: http://artoftrolling.memebase.com/category/mormon-chat/
There is an internet meme that mormons don't know how magnets work...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a member of the LDS church I have read this thread with interest. I will not go into detail here, because it obviously isn't a very open or welcoming thread for me and my religion, but I want to state that many of the "facts" presented here are either entirely false or very wrongheaded interpretations of our beliefs. If anyone here is interested in what members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints actually believes and practices, I encourage you to ask your LDS friends and neighbors about their religious life, or visit mormon.org for answers to some common questions.

Ahhh...mormon.org what a great site. A favorite of the internet trolls: http://artoftrolling.memebase.com/category/mormon-chat/
There is an internet meme that mormons don't know how magnets work...

Why the gratuitous nastiness? Magnets? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

Here's a question for you: how many nasty posts have you contributed to this thread today? I'm guessing about a dozen, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's more.

Not a mormom, but somebody who is sick of how childish you atheists look. Grow up!

[Anonymous]

Seriously, the atheists on DCUM come off as a pretty childish bunch. Or maybe not a bunch, more likely just 2 or 3 people who post again and again.

It's sort of like DCUM's resident conservatives - a few are definitely thoughtful people, but there are one or two who just post idiotic rants about Obama. Really, atheists, do you want to be perceived that way?