You're an idiot for judging him when you thought he was judging you, even though he clearly was. Probably something unresolved from his childhood made him do it, and you too for that matter.
Joseph Smith taught that the moon was inhabited by people that live to be 1000 years old?
- Thread starter sirkickyass
- Start date
You're an idiot for judging him when you thought he was judging you, even though he clearly was. Probably something unresolved from his childhood made him do it, and you too for that matter.
I feel you're being judgmental about my judging of freak judging my judging of b-lines judgment of AKMVP being judgmental.
Joseph could have claimed that brass monkeys routinely flew out of his bung hole every other Thursday and it still wouldn't change the way I feel. The LDS church is exactly the place/community/standards/faith/etc. that I want to raise my family in. That doesn't work for you and your family? Fine by me. In fact, tell me more about your place/community/standards/faith/etc., because I'd be a fool to discount other possiblities for my family just because I am comfey where I'm at.
I will never understand people that feel the necessity to demean or talk down about another person based on what they do or do not believe as far as religion goes. Sports fandom, yes -- religion, no.
I will never understand people that feel the necessity to demean or talk down about another person based on what they do or do not believe as far as religion goes. Sports fandom, yes -- religion, no.
MVP
Well-Known Member
I am genuinely interested why? What advantage it gives you over being non religious? As far as I understand you have only negatives - losing 10% of your income, dietary restrictions, restrictions what do to on Sundays, etc. Please enlighten me why it is better for your family than for my family?
Instilling what many consider good values like faith, humility and chastity. The dietary restrictions you speak of can be seen as guidelines to stay healthy. The restrictions on what you can do on Sundays are seen as a way to strengthen family and community relations. Losing your income is no different than acts of charity than many of us perform regardless of religion.
Keep in mind that I'm talking about some LDS perspectives, and not my personal view. I do not see faith or chastity as good values (and humility is meh). And I think a rational person can simply adopt the good aspects of religion through the use of reason. But you're making it sound as if any imposition on complete personal freedom is an inherent negative. That is clearly NOT so.
There is also a benefit to religion that is very difficult for non-believers to achieve, and that is the sense of community and belonging. I used to be a member of several secular and atheist organizations, and I would attend their meetings and events. But I never felt any true sense of community the same way I did when I was a believer. Many others feel the same way, which is why many attend non-religious churches. I attended one of those once, and I thought it was comical. A preacher who's pretty much advocating American Liberalism, but with no real message or focus, trying to accomplish the feel of religion by replacing the word "God" with "the universe" or "nature".
I am not saying that religion is the only way to create a strong sense of community (which seems important for the well-being of most humans). I hope we can one day congregate under the banner of humanism or any other rational ideology. But I'm not holding my breath.
b_line
Well-Known Member
Don't think he was comparing with you or your family at all. He was just sayin that it makes the most sense for him and his family.
In my mind, restrictions are not bad at all times. The fact that the lds religion teaches hard work, community values and promotes faith and hope is a good thing for families looking for a way to raise their children and stay together as a family unit after their kids grow up. It is a good way to promote good citizenship in kids, and teach them to be good people who work hard and are honest.
Other religions or organizations might have the same effect, but for some to be without religion makes it harder to have a goal in sight and stay focused on it for their family. Are there bad things that come along with religion? Yes. But there are far worse things that come along with many other trains of thought. I am not proposing an either/or dichotomy, just saying that for me and my family, the lds church is a good way to be happy, healthy and hard working individuals.
MVP
Well-Known Member
So what I understand you need some kind of control, guidance to be that happy, healthy, hard working individual. Nothing wrong with that I guess, although I am sad that you think you would not be able to do same or better without it. Some people are meant to be soldiers, not generals. Some people like sheep need shepherd.
From my personal perspective freedom I achieved by leaving catholic church can never be replaced by anything any religion is offering. Simply impossible.
b_line
Well-Known Member
I don't think that is the case at all. I am sure my family and I would be fine leaving the lds church behind and doing whatever else. It's not about that at all. It's that I have other things that I put effort into as well, and that there is a good community in the church that I have not found elsewhere. The secular humanists that I have interacted with seem to be bitter about not being religious, atheists want to tell everyone else how much better they are than others. In general, it makes my family happy to be Lds. We might be like sheep, but not in the sense you are talking about. We like having a community, regardless of our adherence or not to the directions of a "shepherd". There are teachings I agree with, and teachings I might not agree with.
Aside from that, you seem like a generally unhappy person. Do you really think atheism or leaving the catholic religion made a difference in your life? If so, why do you chose to be unhappy?
MVP
Well-Known Member
Why do you think I am unhappy? That I am bitter about Jazz FO directions? LOL. True, I am unhappy how terrible Jazz turned out in last few years, but my personal life is perfectly fine. I do what I love, make good money, have two beautiful daughters, am in great shape for 43 year old - what else do I need?
Just that weather kind of sucks in my city so maybe I will move somewhere nicer when kids will move out, have no restrictions on that
.
Just that weather kind of sucks in my city so maybe I will move somewhere nicer when kids will move out, have no restrictions on that
.
b_line
Well-Known Member
Why do you think I am unhappy? That I am bitter about Jazz FO directions? LOL. True, I am unhappy how terrible Jazz turned out in last few years, but my personal life is perfectly fine. I do what I love, make good money, have two beautiful daughters, am in great shape for 43 year old - what else do I need?
Just that weather kind of sucks in my city so maybe I will move somewhere nicer when kids will move out, have no restrictions on that
lol, so you are just an unhappy sports fan. What do you do for work? Its good to do what you love, or at least dont hate.
I don't think humanism is that type of philosophy, one that can be the center of a community.
I congregate at board game meetings. It's the closest thing I have to religion, and it scratches that itch acceptably.
Way to be condescending there, big guy.
MVP
Well-Known Member
It's not that religious folks can't understand and empathize with views like yours. Many left your fold to become believers.
The god I imagine exists reportedly said you have to come seeking Him regardless of parents or churches.
You were being expected to comply before you made it your personal quest. It seems almost all religions and believers err sometimes on thar point. Because we are too lazy or comfortable somehow, I think.
Something I'm genuinely curious about:
How did people find "God" before monotheism existed? How do theologians account for this period before anyone believed in a single all powerful "God?"
Did all those ancient people go to hell?
This question/critique of religion strikes me as, in high profile, rejecting science and all human learning because some medieval scientists wre alchemists and mystic sorcerers.
How much of religion is useless or false has no validity towards rejecting anything in it that may be useful or true.
The smarter believers, like Henry E. Eyring, define their beliefs as the whole Venn diagram of truth and hope.
I'm just genuinely curious how theologians account for the significant amount of human existence and the lesser yet still significant amount of time during human civilization when not a single person had any concept of a single all powerful God.
Sure, take it as a critique. Whatever. I just wonder if there is an official explanation.
The question has nothing to do with my own lack of belief in a mystical, omnipotent, creator being.
I just wonder if it is something the Bible addresses?
And while we're on that topic, is my understanding that monotheism began when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai correct?
And since I'm going down this path, apparently...
To say that a rejection of mystical origins of knowledge and understanding based on some not believing in the correct source of mystical knowledge and understanding is the same as rejecting knowledge gained through the scientific method is flat out false. First, I wasn't saying monotheism is proven wrong because polytheism was wrong, or that because all do not follow the same perfect faith that there is no true faith. So, apparently you misunderstood my question altogether. Hopefully someone else will get that I'm asking a technical question that in my mind is separate from any question of legitimacy.
If people want to claim that faith is this vaporous notion of truth and hope that's fine. Lets burn all the bibles, because the bible seems to make specific claims as to the nature and intent of one particular omnipotent creator of the universe.
You can't have it both ways.
To say that a rejection of mystical origins of knowledge and understanding based on some not believing in the correct source of mystical knowledge and understanding is the same as rejecting knowledge gained through the scientific method is flat out false. First, I wasn't saying monotheism is proven wrong because polytheism was wrong, or that because all do not follow the same perfect faith that there is no true faith. So, apparently you misunderstood my question altogether. Hopefully someone else will get that I'm asking a technical question that in my mind is separate from any question of legitimacy.
If people want to claim that faith is this vaporous notion of truth and hope that's fine. Lets burn all the bibles, because the bible seems to make specific claims as to the nature and intent of one particular omnipotent creator of the universe.
You can't have it both ways.
As far as Mormonism goes, we believe that this existence continues into the hereafter (spirit world), and that people are given the opportunity of hearing (and accepting/rejecting) the gospel there.
Not according to the Bible--it goes back to Adam, there. I'm not sure about according to historians, though.