What are your religions beliefs, if any?

[Houseman]

Alright, I'm actually happy to discuss these things with you, believe it or not, but it seems like you're now just in this to argue.

What makes you think that?

nothing has made more beautiful logical sense than the LDS religion. Not one.

Okay.


So are you going to answer my questions or...

 

[Signa]

Usually. That's not to say we don't get crazy people/shitheads.

Yeah, but I'm gonna call you retarded if you think there are none in any given group. I probably should start calling more people retarded, because I engage too often with people who actually think their group is pure, or the shitheads are justified.

 

[Arnox]

So are you going to answer my questions or...

Yeah. I just wanted confirmation that you were taking this seriously.

I'll be back in an hour and resume answering ya'.

Yeah, but I'm gonna call you retarded if you think there are none in any given group. I probably should start calling more people retarded, because I engage too often with people who actually think their group is pure, or the shitheads are justified.

Call people retarded all you want here. This isn't a "safe space". :tup: Just make sure you're not harassing people as defined in the rules is all.

 

[Signa]

Yeah, I don't plan on harassing anyone. Maybe, just trying to think of some circumstances where I could start skirting the line, I could see myself bringing a previous conversation with someone up from another thread if they are being inconsistent or hypocritical and then telling them off for it. I'm certainly not going to be passive-agressive and use terms like "self important" to get someone banned because of their poor reaction to the false accusation. *wink wink, nudge nudge*

Edit: ok, that was pretty passive-agressive of me :-[

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Ah. So you believe in Monism then?

Not exactly. Particularly its more essentialist aspects. Existence precedes essence. I don't know enough about Monism to talk about it, however.

 

[Arnox]

I don't usually argue with the internet. I assume you copied and pasted that list from somewhere, and didn't just have all those memorized as one would lyrics to a song. The net is vast and infinite, and I am but a lowly mortal. I cannot possibly take the time to refute everything that someone googles up.

However, I have had lists of bible contradictions thrown at me before, and I have spent many hours of my life refuting them. Most can be reconciled. Some are utterly inconsequential, such as the number of horses some ancient king is supposed to have had. If you'd like, pick several of your favorites, and I'll see what I can do to explain them.

Must we blame the bible for the different sects of Christianity? Do all these sects even claim to be based on the bible? Are the differences between these groups based solely on fundamental disagreements over the interpretation of certain verses? Can those LDS sects be blamed on the Book of Mormon?

To be clear: if you are asserting that the number of Christian religions in the world is due to the ambiguity of the bible, I would disagree with this assertion and ask for proof of your claim. However, if you are just asking an innocent question, then I offer mine in response.

If the bible is a filthy, worm-eaten rag, why display it next to the immaculate silk that is the BoM? Have the LDS cleared up all the inconsistencies and patched all the holes?

What do you think led to the bible being in such a sorry state?
Do you think that the same thing will ever happen to the BoM?
Do you believe that the BoM has some sort of special protection over it?
If so, why didn't the bible have this protection?

- Yep. I copypasta'd it. Although I did say, "quick and dirty" didn't I?

- It's not like the problematic passages can't be explained. In fact, it's the opposite. It's that there's too many possible explanations. Too many possible interpretations. Which one is correct? Mine? Yours? Your brother's wife's grandma's?

- Well, let's take your religion for example. You've said that JW's think preaching door to door is the most important duty. The LDS think it's important, but don't think it should be completely spent going door to door at all. In fact, you'd probably be surprised how many new members we get through referrals instead.

- The Bible is actually awesome when you have the Book of Mormon to clarify some very key points. Sometimes even WHY some things happened in the Bible the way they did. Baptism and the sacrament for example. With the BoM, it becomes what it should have been. Without all the clarification and additions the Book of Mormon gives, it becomes a very serious problem. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is much easier to read than the Bible. It's easy to understand yet complex and powerful enough to warrant intense study and reading.

- The Bible is as it currently is due to translation errors, malicious editing, and general mishandling over the years of its existence.

- The Book of Mormon is different from the Bible in terms of transcribing due to it being translated STRAIGHT from the source material by the sheer power of God. Or at least that's our firm belief. It went from symbols on ancient American metal plates straight to common English. Joseph Smith even copied some of the characters from the plates and then the translation for them and then sent them off to an expert for a certificate of authenticity. The first person they went to was actually about to clear it, saying it was a remarkable 1:1 translation, but when he heard who exactly was requesting the certificate, he tore it up purely because he didn't want to be associated with the church.

- Define: special protection. If you mean in terms of entropy/editing over time like the Bible, this makes no sense. The Book of Mormon doesn't need protection. You can read the first edition of it freely if you really want to.

Not exactly. Particularly its more essentialist aspects. Existence precedes essence. I don't know enough about Monism to talk about it, however.

And how did you arrive at these conclusions?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

And how did you arrive at these conclusions?

Bit of Kierkegaard here and there, bit of Camus, bit of Sartre, bit of Beauvoir ...

But mostly I would say my advocacy work for LGBTQ Australians, as well as fairly extensive travelling about SE Asia. I've seen coups, the results of occupation, civil unrest, environmental catastrophes, entrenched poverty...

I'm convinced people can be better. I've seen the 'ordinary' person's strength in the face of truest adversity. I've seen courage and self-authenticity when the weight of the world seeks to crush them for it. I've seen hardship and generosity of those who have nothing left to give and yet find the means to allow others to survive.

Humans are potently vibrant. Brilliant in all their dimensions.

I'm convinced if just enough people saw that chaotic starlight, there'd be no excuses left to see them suffer the predations of the powerful and cruel.

People should count stars.

 

[Houseman]

- It's not like the problematic passages can't be explained. In fact, it's the opposite. It's that there's too many possible explanations. Too many possible interpretations. Which one is correct? Mine? Yours? Your brother's wife's grandma's?

I don't see "too many possible explanations" as a problem when confronted with an alleged biblical inconsistency.

For example, let's say that the inconsistency is in verse A, he's in this country, and in verse B he's in another country. What are the possible explanations? That he simply walked, and that sufficient time had passed between verses to allow him to do so. That the author of verse A was using the modern name of the area, after it was conquered by invaders, similar to how one might call Constantinople "Istanbul". That the author of verse B was using the old name of the country, before it was invaded and renamed. That the two countries bordered and the subject was close enough. That the two countries had very similar names and some copyist made an error. I could go on.

I don't see the above as a bad thing. In this context, the more explanations, the better.

As for "Too many possible interpretations", I see that as a completely different issue, to which I'll ask the same questions I asked earlier: Must we blame the bible for this? If 50% of students fail a math class, should we conclude that the book is too ambiguous?

- Well, let's take your religion for example. You've said that JW's think preaching door to door is the most important duty. The LDS think it's important, but don't think it should be completely spent going door to door at all. In fact, you'd probably be surprised how many new members we get through referrals instead.

Okay. Sorry, I'm having a hard time seeing what point you're trying to make here. You seem to be saying that there are differences between JWs and LDS.

- The Bible is actually awesome when you have the Book of Mormon to clarify some very key points. Sometimes even WHY some things happened in the Bible the way they did. Baptism and the sacrament for example. With the BoM, it becomes what it should have been. Without all the clarification and additions the Book of Mormon gives, it becomes a very serious problem. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is much easier to read than the Bible. It's easy to understand yet complex and powerful enough to warrant intense study and reading.

Can you give an example of a serious problem that exists in the bible, but is resolved by the BoM?

- The Bible is as it currently is due to translation errors, malicious editing, and general mishandling over the years of its existence.

But the LDS still quotes from it, and uses it in their teachings I'd imagine. Why do you trust any part of the bible to be correct, or as it says in the articles of faith, "translated correctly"?

- The Book of Mormon is different from the Bible in terms of transcribing due to it being translated STRAIGHT from the source material by the sheer power of God. Or at least that's our firm belief. It went from symbols on ancient American metal plates straight to common English. Joseph Smith even copied some of the characters from the plates and then the translation for them and then sent them off to an expert for a certificate of authenticity. The first person they went to was actually about to clear it, saying it was a remarkable 1:1 translation, but when he heard who exactly was requesting the certificate, he tore it up purely because he didn't want to be associated with the church.

I read somewhere that the BoM has gone through something like 20+ changes between then and now. Is this true? If so, doesn't this present the same problem?

Also, wasn't "Reformed Egyptian" supposed to be completely unknown? Isn't it still completely unknown to the rest of the modern world? How could there exist an expert for Joseph Smith to send documents to? Was this expert somehow the only other person in the world capable of translating this language? Why didn't this expert teach anybody else about Reformed Egyptian?

- Define: special protection. If you mean in terms of entropy/editing over time like the Bible, this makes no sense. The Book of Mormon doesn't need protection. You can read the first edition of it freely if you really want to.

I was attempting to ask: "What makes you so sure that what happened to the bible won't also happen to the BoM?"

 

[Arnox]

I'm convinced if just enough people saw that chaotic starlight, there'd be no excuses left to see them suffer the predations of a few corrupt elites and thugs.

The big problem is, at what cost shall others push back?

Even if your cause is just. Even if you're only trying to defend yourself and/or your family. Even if the enemy is totally unreasonable, war is still incredibly ugly and nasty on both sides. Sometimes it's completely unavoidable, but it doesn't make it any better. Because when you enter into a war, it doesn't matter anymore who is right and who is wrong. It's about who is left. And that is an incredibly steep price to take on. Whether you're talking individually or as a group.

- It's not like the problematic passages can't be explained. In fact, it's the opposite. It's that there's too many possible explanations. Too many possible interpretations. Which one is correct? Mine? Yours? Your brother's wife's grandma's?

I don't see "too many possible explanations" as a problem when confronted with an alleged biblical inconsistency.

For example, let's say that the inconsistency is in verse A, he's in this country, and in verse B he's in another country. What are the possible explanations? That he simply walked, and that sufficient time had passed between verses to allow him to do so. That the author of verse A was using the modern name of the area, after it was conquered by invaders, similar to how one might call Constantinople "Istanbul". That the author of verse B was using the old name of the country, before it was invaded and renamed. That the two countries bordered and the subject was close enough. That the two countries had very similar names and some copyist made an error. I could go on.

I don't see the above as a bad thing. In this context, the more explanations, the better.

As for "Too many possible interpretations", I see that as a completely different issue, to which I'll ask the same questions I asked earlier: Must we blame the bible for this? If 50% of students fail a math class, should we conclude that the book is too ambiguous?

- Well, let's take your religion for example. You've said that JW's think preaching door to door is the most important duty. The LDS think it's important, but don't think it should be completely spent going door to door at all. In fact, you'd probably be surprised how many new members we get through referrals instead.

Okay. Sorry, I'm having a hard time seeing what point you're trying to make here. You seem to be saying that there are differences between JWs and LDS.

- The Bible is actually awesome when you have the Book of Mormon to clarify some very key points. Sometimes even WHY some things happened in the Bible the way they did. Baptism and the sacrament for example. With the BoM, it becomes what it should have been. Without all the clarification and additions the Book of Mormon gives, it becomes a very serious problem. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is much easier to read than the Bible. It's easy to understand yet complex and powerful enough to warrant intense study and reading.

Can you give an example of a serious problem that exists in the bible, but is resolved by the BoM?

- The Bible is as it currently is due to translation errors, malicious editing, and general mishandling over the years of its existence.

But the LDS still quotes from it, and uses it in their teachings I'd imagine. Why do you trust any part of the bible to be correct, or as it says in the articles of faith, "translated correctly"?

- The Book of Mormon is different from the Bible in terms of transcribing due to it being translated STRAIGHT from the source material by the sheer power of God. Or at least that's our firm belief. It went from symbols on ancient American metal plates straight to common English. Joseph Smith even copied some of the characters from the plates and then the translation for them and then sent them off to an expert for a certificate of authenticity. The first person they went to was actually about to clear it, saying it was a remarkable 1:1 translation, but when he heard who exactly was requesting the certificate, he tore it up purely because he didn't want to be associated with the church.

I read somewhere that the BoM has gone through something like 20+ changes between then and now. Is this true? If so, doesn't this present the same problem?

Also, wasn't "Reformed Egyptian" supposed to be completely unknown? Isn't it still completely unknown to the rest of the modern world? How could there exist an expert for Joseph Smith to send documents to? Was this expert somehow the only other person in the world capable of translating this language? Why didn't this expert teach anybody else about Reformed Egyptian?

- Define: special protection. If you mean in terms of entropy/editing over time like the Bible, this makes no sense. The Book of Mormon doesn't need protection. You can read the first edition of it freely if you really want to.

I was attempting to ask: "What makes you so sure that what happened to the bible won't also happen to the BoM?"

OK, here's how I see it. If you're really incredibly curious and are earnestly trying know what's going on here as I think you are, I HIGHLY recommend you read the Book of Mormon. It will answer a lot of your questions and give you a basis on which to discuss things with me. I'd rather not go over every single little facet of our religion in forum posts. I can answer three, maybe four in-depth questions for you, but more than that and it just gets tiring, and I feel like I'm an answering service. Furthermore, I think you'd get better more precise answers through our website and the BoM.

 

[Houseman]

OK, here's how I see it. If you're really incredibly curious and are earnestly trying know what's going on here as I think you are, I HIGHLY recommend you read the Book of Mormon. It will answer a lot of your questions and give you a basis on which to discuss things with me. I'd rather not go over every single little facet of our religion in forum posts. I can answer three, maybe four in-depth questions for you, but more than that and it just gets tiring, and I feel like I'm an answering service. Furthermore, I think you'd get better more precise answers through our website and the BoM.

Okay. Thanks for the time you've spent so far. This was fun.

 

[Arnox]

Okay. Thanks for the time you've spent so far. This was fun.

Mhm. I'm glad you challenged me though.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The big problem is, at what cost shall others push back?

Even if your cause is just. Even if you're only trying to defend yourself and/or your family. Even if the enemy is totally unreasonable, war is still incredibly ugly and nasty on both sides. Sometimes it's completely unavoidable, but it doesn't make it any better. Because when you enter into a war, it doesn't matter anymore who is right and who is wrong. It's about who is left. And that is an incredibly steep price to take on. Whether you're talking individually or as a group.

All things sre temporal. There's a moral argument against violent revolution in that if the basis foundation of your beliefs is in eventual peace, then when is there an effective justification to violently rebel?

But once again peace and violence is a false dialectic.

Peace or war is juxtaposed by apathy.

The U.S. were selling arms to Indonesia... which allowed Indonesia to invade East Timor. Apathy of the distant is the true cause of suffering. All else is passions. The best way to end apathy is recognition of human beauty, tragic or otherwise. People's 'chaotic starlight'.

This is why I say people should count stars.

That isn't merely actively trying to see beauty in your fellow person, but striving to do so.

 

[Silvanus]

All things sre temporal. There's a moral argument against violent revolution in that if the basis foundation of your beliefs is in eventual peace, then when is there an effective justification to violently rebel?

That's not a difficult argument to counter; if the system against which you're rebelling is inherently violent, and the violence of the rebellion is outweighed by that violence perpetrated by the system over time.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

That's not a difficult argument to counter; if the system against which you're rebelling is inherently violent, and the violence of the rebellion is outweighed by that violence perpetrated by the system over time.

More a conundrum, I shouldn't have said 'argument'. It's more about the 'precipice of the abyss'. I think one factor you're leaving out is the capacity for success. If you're using a utilitarian metric (units of happiness) you need also to accommodate success (results matter) ... which means a fixation on foresight yo combine as humanly possible all aspects of potentiality of agency.

Thus even if a decent person, one can be paralyzed to act (one aspect of Kierkegaardian despair)... or becomes passionate to act (where they throw caution to the wind) ... or they become apathetic to act whereby you have complicity through either refusing to use foresight, or surrender one's empathy (a failure to count stars).

It's best to live passionately than it is to know only the despair of your inadequacy, or to surrender one's empathy and be swallowed whole by the void.

 

[Arnox]

the void.

Have you seen it, metaphorically speaking? As in, truly understand what it is?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

the void.

Have you seen it, metaphorically speaking? As in, truly understand what it is?

I've seen things that makes me lose faith in humans in an individual or collective sense. Mass graves, media actively avoiding reporting out of Libya the second the West murdered Gaddafi... watching as a society degenerated into open air slave auctions, and limb removals.

But I know for a fact that if you spend enough of your life trying to meet as many people in places others would rather forget about, or sensationalize till the point it loses its human dimensions, you're going to see ugliness only humans are capable of summoning.

But hey... you will also meet with the best of us. Savvy genius born amidst the worst slums of the world, a largesse of spirit despite facing nothing but hatred, people scattered across the world like Filipinos... who all dream of something larger than themselves despite a personal and family history riddled with bloodshed and colonialism. A people through that common knowledge or brutality and exploitation are the most displaced people in the world...

The quality of being human is a mind that can observe the known universe and recognize themselves in it, and crucially, that same beauty and esoteric connection in others.

Humans are the greatest entities we will ever concretely have a chance to know... and from that, one can only hope that means better things are on the horizon.

 

[Arnox]

I've seen things that makes me lose faith in humans in an individual or collective sense. Mass graves, media actively avoiding reporting out of Libya the second the West murdered Gaddafi... watching as a society degenerated into open air slave auctions, and limb removals.

But I know for a fact that if you spend enough of your life trying to meet as many people in places others would rather forget about, or sensationalize till the point it loses its human dimensions, you're going to see ugliness only humans are capable of summoning.

But hey... you will also meet with the best of us. Savvy genius born amidst the worst slums of the world, a largesse of spirit despite facing nothing but hatred, people scattered across the world like Filipinos... who all dream of something larger than themselves despite a personal and family history riddled with bloodshed and colonialism. A people through that common knowledge or brutality and exploitation are the most displaced people in the world...

The quality of being human is a mind that can observe the known universe and recognize themselves in it, and crucially, that same beauty and esoteric connection in others.

Humans are the greatest entities we will ever concretely have a chance to know... and from that, one can only hope that means better things are on the horizon.

I agree very much, although I don't think you understand what I'm saying here. What is the worst thing in this world? Nay, this universe? Pain? Torture? Rape? No. The real darkness lies hidden behind all these things. Can you guess what it is?

It's powerlessness.

Unable to change these things. To make them stop at least. When you're powerless, you can only watch helplessly as these things are done to you and/or to others. And this is the true essence of the abyss. This is why demons are as they are. Screaming, crying, and laughing in insanity as they can now only watch a nightmare unfold endlessly before their eyes.

I just wanted to know if you knew that...

 

[Silvanus]

I just wanted to know if you knew that...

It's not really a question of whether they knew that. It's just a perspective, not a matter of fact.

In truth, this all sounds very... Nietszche. Not necessary in sharing his philosophy, but in tone.

 

[Arnox]

It's not really a question of whether they knew that. It's just a perspective, not a matter of fact.

Are you saying that it's subjective?

In truth, this all sounds very... Nietszche. Not necessary in sharing his philosophy, but in tone.

It is pretty dark, yeah, but I don't know if it automatically makes it Nietzsche in tone.

 

[Silvanus]

Are you saying that it's subjective?

That powerlessness is the worst thing in the world? Yeah, that's subjective. Deeming anything "worst" would be subjective; it's a value judgement.

I, for one, think that spiders are the worst thing in the world.

It is pretty dark, yeah, but I don't know if it automatically makes it Nietzsche in tone.

It's not the dark nature of it. "Void", "Abyss", "Nightmare unfold", all that jazz. It's a little bit OTT. I find it difficult to take seriously.

 

[Arnox]

Are you saying that it's subjective?

That powerlessness is the worst thing in the world? Yeah, that's subjective. Deeming anything "worst" would be subjective; it's a value judgement.

I, for one, think that spiders are the worst thing in the world.

It is pretty dark, yeah, but I don't know if it automatically makes it Nietzsche in tone.

It's not the dark nature of it. "Void", "Abyss", "Nightmare unfold", all that jazz. It's a little bit OTT. I find it difficult to take seriously.

Yeah, I sometimes use metaphors like this because they do a better job of conveying the idea(s) I'm trying to get across. It seems over the top to you though because you don't believe me of course. Just be happy that you can snicker at it actually. Some things are best not known.

 

[McElroy]

My view is materialistic. No souls, no spirits, no supernatural, no miracles.


Though I can't say I'm completely irreligious as I'm still a member of the Lutheran church here. This is because I think they preach about good things (generally - people and thus priests are all different). Spirituality is oftentimes useful and very much essential in people's lives. Most of us seek liminal existence at some point and I can't fault people for doing that through theism.


However, I would retire at least some religions if it was up to me or at least remove a bunch of their irrational rules that supposedly came from God.

 

[Silvanus]

Yeah, I sometimes use metaphors like this because they do a better job of conveying the idea(s) I'm trying to get across. It seems over the top to you though because you don't believe me of course. Just be happy that you can snicker at it actually. Some things are best not known.

Can you give me an example?

 

[Houseman]

My view is materialistic. No souls, no spirits, no supernatural, no miracles.

Though I can't say I'm completely irreligious as I'm still a member of the Lutheran church here. This is because I think they preach about good things (generally - people and thus priests are all different).

How does that work? What does your membership entail? How do you benefit?

 

[Arnox]

Can you give me an example?

Well, just like what I talked about. You heard from me that the ultimate hell is powerlessness, but you don't KNOW that. You've probably never truly felt it to that extreme extent. If you did, and you didn't believe in any afterlife then you might get more scared than you could possibly realize. That idea, that possibility, could hound you.