Problem with Christianity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

I'm not hostile, Pindar. Sorry if it seemed that way. I was having a laugh that you got me talking about it with such minimal effort, despite my original protestations.

---

That's what I do. ~;)

Quote:

---

Their semi-worship of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young et al means that, yes, I consider (3a) to be accurate.

Joseph Smith's falsified "translation" of a rubric from the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" into the "Book of Abraham", and several other doctrinal farces mean that, yes, I also consider (2) to be true. I did try to qualify this with the fact that I don't consider them to be as bad as some of the other groups out there, but you seem bent on making some point here (I just can't ascertain what it is...)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has recanted physical polygamy and blood atonement, but they can have multiple "spiritual" wives...

Labelled and marginalised? OK, if that's how you see it. Feel free to challenge what I've said, though. I think that you yourself might be gettin' a little snarky here...

---

I'm Mormon so I think its interesting reading the whys and wherefores of labels and what I believe and worship.

I bow to your restraint in responding to my tirade, then...

...and I'm utterly embarrassed as to the graceless manner in which I presented it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

I bow to your restraint in responding to my tirade, then...

...and I'm utterly embarrassed as to the graceless manner in which I presented it.

---

:bow:

No harm no foul.

A representative of a country that produces some of the best surfing around deserves a lot of slack. ~:cool:

Pindar is a surfing Mormon... that I would like to see, black tie, white shirt, colourful boardshorts and a surfboard balancing on the end of a push bike... Yes sir, honest I am going to the beach to tell the surfers about the book of Mormon... I have learned their lingo to talk with them and spread the word... Dude the waves are really like radical so is the Good Book man.

~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

C)Kafeer, this thread is great and will not be closed. And no we are not going to hell for not believing in God. Jesus didn't believe in god for example.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Temporarily closed pending staff review.
--------------------------------------
:tick-tock-tic-tock
--------------------------------------
Action complete. Re-opened for CIVIL discussion.

---

See! The prophecy of BP still holds!
:balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:

Question of faith rquierd is question. If you KNOW God exists, your faith cannot save you....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Yes, your issues with Nibley, the Book of Mormon and/or Mormonism in general do not make for any rebuttal as to whether original Christianity survived its infancy.

---

Good point! :bow:
It is often good to set a thief to catch a thief. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

US faces a decreased democratic process, where lobby has a far larger power than before. This results in less participation in decisions by the voters. Also to note is that US is a democratic republic and not a democracy.

---

True or not true -- where is the link with 'increased secularism' that you spoke of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Pindar is a surfing Mormon... :

---

No Papewaio - you got it wrong - Pindar is a surfing Mormon Lawyer otherwise known as a shark. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

No Papewaio - you got it wrong - Pindar is a surfing Mormon Lawyer otherwise known as a shark. ~D

---

Redleg knows me too well. ~;)

Q: "Why don't sharks eat lawyers?"

A: "Professional courtesy."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bartix

Good point! :bow:
It is often good to set a thief to catch a thief. :book:

---

Again... my postix was not intendedix to rebuttix the pointix...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albino Gorilla

What about Athens?

---

Greece is pretty secular and democratic I would say.... The womens are a bit emotional though.... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I'm Mormon so I think its interesting reading the whys and wherefores of labels and what I believe and worship.

---

Pindar, we know, you are a cult in person..... ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

True or not true -- where is the link with 'increased secularism' that you spoke of?

---

US have a decreased secularism, it's Europe who have the increased secularism..... :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

US have a decreased secularism, it's Europe who have the increased secularism..... :book:

---

I know, I know, but what is the connection with the development of democracy? It is time to prove some of your statements, BMolsson.

Look at it this way, the countries that are more religious tend to have less democracy.

The countries that indulge in adsolute answers rather then exploring the unknown are less likely to be democracies.

Religion has been used for centuries to prop up generations of despots err Kings.

----

The roots of modern democracy can be traced to the Black Plague, printing press and weakening of the Church. People started to question and be better informed to do so... they become the basis of a democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

Again... my postix was not intendedix to rebuttix the pointix...

---

:bow:
I was not thinking you as a thief.
The one crackpot religion being good at revealing the cracks of other was my thougt. Main Stream Churches of today probably far from original Jesus cult in many many fashion!!!! Organization, of course, and messages also!! ~:eeg:
If we truly believe in the Jesus, we must find True Core of Jesus, and not self serving things of Paul and mediaeval inventions of different things!!! :duel: :duel: :duel:


PS...:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

adsolute

---

:smug2: ~;)

Spellcheck stat! :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I know, I know, but what is the connection with the development of democracy? It is time to prove some of your statements, BMolsson.

---

What Papewaio said....

Bottomline, religion is a powerstructure that is in direct conflict with the principles of democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The roots of modern democracy can be traced to the Black Plague, printing press and weakening of the Church. People started to question and be better informed to do so... they become the basis of a democracy.

---

Do you really think that 'people' only started 'questioning' after the Black Plague and that democacy has its roots in Late Medieval Europe? Amazing. I think that its roots go back much farther. And I think that questioning (received) notions about man, society and the universe is an even older urge, as old as mankind to be precise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Bottomline, religion is a powerstructure that is in direct conflict with the principles of democracy.

---

That is nonsense, if you'll excuse my bluntness. As far as the United States is concerned I think a daily dose of Tocqueville will soon cure you of any illusions about linear correlations between religiosity and democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Do you really think that 'people' only started 'questioning' after the Black Plague and that democacy has its roots in Late Medieval Europe? Amazing. I think that its roots go back much farther. And I think that questioning (received) notions about man, society and the universe is an even older urge, as old as mankind to be precise.

---

keyword: modern

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

That is nonsense, if you'll excuse my bluntness. As far as the United States is concerned I think a daily dose of Tocqueville will soon cure you of any illusions about linear correlations between religiosity and democracy.

---

A lot of people want it to be nonsense, including me, but it's not. :book:

I never said it was a linear correlation. There are different religions and the despot over the theocratic organisation can have democratic ambitions, which make that religion more democratic, for example compare Indonesia with Iran. Also to note that the old pagan religions in Europe was more "democratic" than the monoetistic religions. Mostly due to the "tribe" traditions.

I maintain that US and Europe go different directions today, leading to less democratic and more religious US and more democratic and less religious Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

What Papewaio said....

Bottomline, religion is a powerstructure that is in direct conflict with the principles of democracy.

---

The family unit is an undemocratic powerstructure... Anytime you get humans together, you've got a power structure. Quite often, these are not democratic. The corporation, the armed forces.

My parent's church (just as an example) votes on issues of policy. They attend the church because they all have certain articles of belief in common.

Doesn't sound terribly counterdemocratic or oppressive to me.

Again, I think that these generalisations apply more to the theocracies and right-wing fundamentalist societies of the world... and the pages of history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

Doesn't sound terribly counterdemocratic or oppressive to me.

---

Undemocratic doesn't always mean oppression. There are several despots during history that has manage to not be oppressive against it's people, on the contrary, very popular and brought prosperity to their people....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Do you really think that 'people' only started 'questioning' after the Black Plague and that democacy has its roots in Late Medieval Europe? Amazing. I think that its roots go back much farther. And I think that questioning (received) notions about man, society and the universe is an even older urge, as old as mankind to be precise.

---

I'm talking about the the modern roots of democracy, much like the modern olympics it is an old idea that has come about again given the right conditions.

Black Plague showed that being a good Christian did not stop you getting killed indiscriminately. That the Church actually did not have any earthly power. People started to look for answers elsewhere.

Add to that the spread of ideas and information increasing with the printing press. That the Church was no longer the sole holder of information and that others had access to information and started to form opinions on what they read.

Democracy needs informed citizens who ask questions and do not act as automatons. The citizens need to ask Why? They need enough information and understanding to make informed choices when voting.

What the printing press allowed was a flourishing of ideas and the rate of exchange of ideas multiplied. Having a weaker church allowed decentralization of authority and the ability of non-absolute answers to spread.

As new ideas became to flourish, so did the discovery of old ones. Modern democracy had all the right conditions to flourish as it had fertile ground to use. The people found the ideas of old and spread them, it was a lot harder for the Church to contain people when those people had a broader knowledge and the training of logic, reasoning, questioning.

So the modern proto democracy can be looked at like the rest of the Renaissance, an idea thats time had come about again.

Most despots do not function very well with an educated middle class. As such they are some of the first to be either brought to the side of the despot or wiped out. China's cultural revolution, the rise of the soviets, the rise of the Nazis (black shirts in particular) etc.

An unquestioning absolute faith in a we are right monoculture does not a safe democracy make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Undemocratic doesn't always mean oppression. There are several despots during history that has manage to not be oppressive against it's people, on the contrary, very popular and brought prosperity to their people....

---

I totally agree with you, dude. I was not suggesting that the two terms are mutually inclusive.

I threw that word "oppressive" in because you had used it in a previous post concerning the same subject.