Mormons

[Balloon guy 158]

you wouldn't know since you haven't understood a thing i've said.all of the candidates hold crazy, dangerous religious belief - not just the mormon one. singling him out because his religion is less mainstream than the others is prejudice, and a logically stupid way to choose candidates. instead you should be asking which candidate takes his beliefs least seriously - which candidate is least likely to let his crazy core religious belief influence his presidential agenda. romney is no worse than other republicans in that respect - probably in the middle somewhere (huckabee on the extreme end).

This post is the normal FCP athiest platform in a nutshell...You disagree, then you don't understand (hints at not smart). Then all references to religions will first be poisoned with prejoritives ie crazy, dangerous.Throw in a bone for anyone smart enough to not let his religios beliefs actually influence him. Which is exactly the opposite by definition but you guys can't understand that.voila, cut and past this response to 90% of all threads.

[SBriand 4]

There is an undertone of 'any reason to bash Christians' in this section of the forum.

Part of this seems to be directed at me since I was in the discussion with El Guapo. I don't remember posting anything about Christianity in this topic. I also don't remember stating my personal religious beliefs here as well. Me understanding what Speedz was getting at should not equal me being a Christian basher and thinking that is a poor assumption.

The main point of this thread was political, but the highjack is no different than always. Let's not talk about anything unless it is bashing the Christian faith, after all it is CRAZY?

Well, first off, this is a religion forum, not a political forum, so are you really all that surprised? At technically, this was a Mormon topic. You wanted to bash a religion you do not agree with. How is that any different than the others allegedly bashing your religion because they do not agree with it. I can agree that maybe this was not the topic to have this discussion but would you not feel the same way if it was moved to a topic where someone posted they were not voting for whomever because they were Christian and then proceeded to write up a very short history and synopsis of Christianity essentially bashing it. If you found out the topic creator was also a Mormon would you not do what others did in here? I am not one to make assumptions often but I will take a stab at it and say you would do as people like Crow and Speedz did. I also don't think they have done any "bashing". Questioning should not equal bashing IMO. If I am wrong, then I do sincerely apologize. But I doubt you would not take the opportunity to take a stab at it. I can't remember if anyone in this topic has admitted to being a Mormon or not but would your topic not be offensive to them just as a similar topic about Christianity be offensive to you? You stated that Kermit or whomever offended you at one point in this thread so I have to assume (again) that you would agree with my above statement. Or just turn it around on me or something but whatever. Oh well, at least the clock has moved closer to 5.

[KramitDaToad 0]

The main point of this thread was political, but the highjack is no different than always.

I know, and it was a quick hijack this time. Looking back it was post #3 that dropped all political content and started the religion bashing. Irony is that it was by you.If you ever want to swap sides I can get you fast-tracked to junior management. After that you're on your own.

[Balloon guy 158]

Part of this seems to be directed at me since I was in the discussion with El Guapo. I don't remember posting anything about Christianity in this topic. I also don't remember stating my personal religious beliefs here as well. Me understanding what Speedz was getting at should not equal me being a Christian basher and thinking that is a poor assumption. Well, first off, this is a religion forum, not a political forum, so are you really all that surprised? At technically, this was a Mormon topic. You wanted to bash a religion you do not agree with. How is that any different than the others allegedly bashing your religion because they do not agree with it. I can agree that maybe this was not the topic to have this discussion but would you not feel the same way if it was moved to a topic where someone posted they were not voting for whomever because they were Christian and then proceeded to write up a very short history and synopsis of Christianity essentially bashing it. If you found out the topic creator was also a Mormon would you not do what others did in here? I am not one to make assumptions often but I will take a stab at it and say you would do as people like Crow and Speedz did. I also don't think they have done any "bashing". Questioning should not equal bashing IMO. If I am wrong, then I do sincerely apologize. But I doubt you would not take the opportunity to take a stab at it. I can't remember if anyone in this topic has admitted to being a Mormon or not but would your topic not be offensive to them just as a similar topic about Christianity be offensive to you? You stated that Kermit or whomever offended you at one point in this thread so I have to assume (again) that you would agree with my above statement. Or just turn it around on me or something but whatever. Oh well, at least the clock has moved closer to 5.

[Balloon guy 158]

Part of this seems to be directed at me since I was in the discussion with El Guapo. I don't remember posting anything about Christianity in this topic. I also don't remember stating my personal religious beliefs here as well. Me understanding what Speedz was getting at should not equal me being a Christian basher and thinking that is a poor assumption. Didn't really notice what you wrote, but now that I have I think you were wrong about equating Blacks to Mormons.Well, first off, this is a religion forum, not a political forum, so are you really all that surprised? At technically, this was a Mormon topic. You wanted to bash a religion you do not agree with. How is that any different than the others allegedly bashing your religion because they do not agree with it. I can agree that maybe this was not the topic to have this discussion but would you not feel the same way if it was moved to a topic where someone posted they were not voting for whomever because they were Christian and then proceeded to write up a very short history and synopsis of Christianity essentially bashing it. If you found out the topic creator was also a Mormon would you not do what others did in here? I am not one to make assumptions often but I will take a stab at it and say you would do as people like Crow and Speedz did. I also don't think they have done any "bashing". Questioning should not equal bashing IMO. If I am wrong, then I do sincerely apologize. But I doubt you would not take the opportunity to take a stab at it. I can't remember if anyone in this topic has admitted to being a Mormon or not but would your topic not be offensive to them just as a similar topic about Christianity be offensive to you? You stated that Kermit or whomever offended you at one point in this thread so I have to assume (again) that you would agree with my above statement. Or just turn it around on me or something but whatever. Oh well, at least the clock has moved closer to 5.

You are right here, I would definately be guilty of bashing a mormon with what I have written. I thought of that before I started OP, then let myself get sidetracked . But you are right, I pretty much did exactly what I am accusing the atheist posse of doing. I still stand behind my generalization of the people that claim atheism as their religion in this section of FCP, but you have pointed out my hypocrisy.I need to be more respectful of why I think mormonism is wrong if I want others to be respectful of me when thy claim Christianity is wrong.DANG IT I hate to be wrong.Glad it happens so rarely

[SBriand 4]

Wow, Balloon Guy quoted me twice! I am totally turned on right now!

[Balloon guy 158]

Wow, Balloon Guy quoted me twice! I am totally turned on right now!

sorry sir..no e-ghey accepted in the religion section...take that to OT/Gen where it belongs

[David_Nicoson 1]

Leno did a bit that I'll attempt to recreate.Leno:They say that being gay today is like being black 30 years ago.(to a band member) Joe, how did your parents react when you told them you were black?My point is that analogies to racism are pretty superficial.

[pele_br 0]

So pele, a religion that teaches to put on sneakers, and drink the koolaide is identicle to one that says, treat other better than yourself, pay your taxes, don't lie or steal? These are the same in your eyes? The Jewish faith which has thousands of years of tradition and community is no diffferent than David Koresh teaching that he gets to sleep with any girl ages 10 and up?When you lump all religions as one, you are showing that you are closed minded.The main point of this thread was political, but the highjack is no different than always. Let's not talk about anything unless it is bashing the Christian faith, after all it is CRAZY?At least as long as you all get to define what Christianity is and then only look at examples that fit your narrow world view.I bet if you had to pick a nation to live in and the only criteria you were given was it's predominate religion you would have a different scale of judging religions.

BG,Of course a religion that teaches you to put sneaker and drink Kool Aid is no the same as the other one you have described. BUT, what I'm trying to say is that I think that the reason we think religion "x" is just as crazy as religion "y" are not because of specific dogmatic differences, but the standards which we use to investigate (can't find a better word to use at the moment) to one religion should be the same as the ones we use for every religion.So, I don't think that anyone (Atheist or not) in this forum has EVER said that Killing is good, stealing should be accepted, generosity is bad etc etc... Again, COMMON SENSE is enough to realise this. What does not make sense is all the other stuff (myths/exagerations) that are included in a religion.10,000 wives, becoming a God, baptizing the dead = ILLOGICAL and UNSCIENTIFIC72 Virgins waiting in heaven, Angel speaking to Mohammed = ILLOGICAL and UNSCIENTIFICVirgin Birth, Concept of Heaven and Hell, resurrection = ILLOGICAL AND UNSCIENTIFIC

The Jewish faith which has thousands of years of tradition and community is no diffferent than David Koresh teaching that he gets to sleep with any girl ages 10 and up?

From a logical and Scientific point of view, I have to say there is NO DIFFERENCE Balloon Guy. And I really mean that, and I'm Jewish myself. Whatever standards we use to disregard David Koresh can be used to disregard Judaism. I really think that this can be the point of the debate where we reach a stalemate. I have to leave work in 5 minutes, so I'm rushing a bit, and will say more later, I'd just like to add one more thing. I can't speak for all atheists or agnostics, but i would bet that most would agree with me on this. We do not Bash Christianity because it is Christianity. I guarantee you that if a Muslim came on the boards we would be using the same logical and scientific arguments to debate the validity of his beliefs. This would also be true for a Hindu, Jewish etc... Because as I have been trying to say again and again, The only difference between an Atheist and a religious person is taht we chose to not believe in one extra religion. I know this is cliche but it is a Fact. i wish you and other Christians at least understood taht we end up discussing Christianity more than other religions not because it more crazy than others, or we have some hidden agenda agains Christians but not with other religions. This being an American (loads of Canadians too) forum,Christianity is the religion that stands out the most.Purely for geographical reasons. I hope this makes sense, I really have to go now. Have a good day everyone, 'tis holiday season after all.EDIT: http://listverse.com/bizarre/10-weird-religious-practices/ maybe this illustrates what I'm trying to say...

[SBriand 4]

sorry sir..no e-ghey accepted in the religion section...take that to OT/Gen where it belongs

Dammit!*goes back to OT/Gen*

[El Guapo 8]

I think a religion which can be separated from one's beliefs about important things is empty. It misses the point of a religion, imho.

This is a very concise good point.

El Guapo, I don't think you have been bashed at all during this discussion, and it is normal for debates such as this to veer off the OP. I also understand where you are coming from, and I get what you are saying. I also think that everyone else also gets what you are saying. However, I don't think you understand where we are coming from. I think that Crow's quote from above summarizes very simply our approach to this issue. I, for example, do not know enough about the presidential candidates (policywise, or beliefs) in order to contribute to the debate in those regards.But, I can make contributions regarding the double-standards being used when we talk about a Mormon candidate, or a Jewish candidate, or a Christian one. As I have stated earlier, objectively speaking ALL religions should be scrutinized in the same way. We atheists, are baffled how people can use a set of standards to completely disregards one religion (be it Scientology, Islam or Mormonism) and CHOOSE to not to use these same standards to analyze their own religion. This is where we feel compelled to intervene. Especially since there have been countless other threads in the religion forum where BG, brvheart and Lois have expressed their opinions, beliefs and worldviews. It just so happens that in this thread, This double-standard is exposed and we feel compelled to address this issue.I don't want to repeat myself, or repeat what others have said, but here it goes:The EXACT same standards used by people to dismiss one religion can be used to dismiss EVERY other religion. It's as simple as that. If someone chooses to use logic and science to discredit Mormonism, we expect them to use them to analyze their own beliefs as well (is this too much to ask?).Which is why Atheists are very similar to ANY religious person. We just use our logic and knowledge to not believe in 1 more religion than them.Christianity is JUST as crazy as Mormonism, which is just as crazy as Islam, which is just as crazy as Satanism, which is just as crazy as Hinduism...ad infinitum

I actually understand this to a certain extent. And I have scrutinized religion as much as anyone while trying to figure my place in this worl spiritualy, but I think it is short sighted to think regardless of what you believe in a religion/existence of supreme power that some religions are extremist and cause more harm than others. I know a lot of what BG and me were talking aobut the inner working of the mormon church is hush hush, but it is bad. You could probably throw catholism a couple notches below that on the cultish list, and I was baptized catholic although never practiced. You can have degrees of crazynees regardless of how you feel overall on religion.

So pele, a religion that teaches to put on sneakers, and drink the koolaide is identicle to one that says, treat other better than yourself, pay your taxes, don't lie or steal? These are the same in your eyes? This is what I was getting at aboveThe Jewish faith which has thousands of years of tradition and community is no diffferent than David Koresh teaching that he gets to sleep with any girl ages 10 and up?When you lump all religions as one, you are showing that you are closed minded.The main point of this thread was political, but the highjack is no different than always. Let's not talk about anything unless it is bashing the Christian faith, after all it is CRAZY?At least as long as you all get to define what Christianity is and then only look at examples that fit your narrow world view.I bet if you had to pick a nation to live in and the only criteria you were given was it's predominate religion you would have a different scale of judging religions.

You are right here, I would definately be guilty of bashing a mormon with what I have written. I thought of that before I started OP, then let myself get sidetracked . But you are right, I pretty much did exactly what I am accusing the atheist posse of doing. I still stand behind my generalization of the people that claim atheism as their religion in this section of FCP, but you have pointed out my hypocrisy.I need to be more respectful of why I think mormonism is wrong if I want others to be respectful of me when thy claim Christianity is wrong.DANG IT I hate to be wrong.Glad it happens so rarely

Some one needs to put that in their sig.

Leno did a bit that I'll attempt to recreate.Leno:They say that being gay today is like being black 30 years ago.(to a band member) Joe, how did your parents react when you told them you were black?My point is that analogies to racism are pretty superficial.

Another great post.

Dammit!*goes back to OT/Gen*

Thats right pop your head in the hideout for some make up... well you know what.

[brvheart 1,752]

I would imagine a Christian would have a real hard time voting for say Joe Lieberman because he is Jewish and they do not share the same personal belief system. I also believe that it would be hard for a lot of Christians to vote for a Muslim because the do not share the same belief system.

I'm a hard-core Christian and I would have no problem voting for Lieberman. He is a wonderful conservative and an all around good guy. Also, it won't matter to me which of the republican guys get the nomination. I will be voting for Ron Paul in the caucus on January 3rd and I will be voting for the republican nominee at the election, even if Ron Paul runs as a third part candidate which I'm sure he will, and even if Mitt is the nominee.

[Vick07 0]

it has everything to do with favoring christian candidates over romney because mormonism is somehow a more crazy or more dangerous belief system. it isn't - they are both crazy and dangerous.

...Isn't absolutely everything crazy when done out of moderation? Love, sex, sugar, alcohol, M.J., tobacco... religion. I think the difference lies in how often the certain religion or thing goes out of moderation, (that's why you have to be 18 to smoke, 21 to drink, and m.j. is illegal in the U.S....?) and I think at that point we label them radical. I'm sure ration and science can be taken out of moderation as well, though I'm not experienced enough to know how. But you get the point right?

[crowTrobot 2]

...Isn't absolutely everything crazy when done out of moderation? Love, sex, sugar, alcohol, M.J., tobacco... religion. I think the difference lies in how often the certain religion or thing goes out of moderation

that was actually my point - we should be looking at the craziness of the candidates themselves, and not judging them by whos church is crazier. or something like that

[speedz99 145]

I just don't like being called a bigot because I disagree with someone beliefs.

:holding head in hands while screaming face:

El Guapo it's not you.There is an undertone of 'any reason to bash Christians' in this section of the forum. You missed jumping on this bandwagon and stayed on topic after the derail to try to turn this into a Christians are just as bad as mormons debate.

Oh. My. God. You're so uber-sensitive about everything that you can't see when you're actually being bashed. Nobody is bashing Christianity. We're just saying that a Christian calling Mormonism "crazy" is hypocritical. Then we explained why by using examples from what non-Christians might find crazy about Christianity.Edit: It looks like you may have realized this later on in the thread. If that's the case, I apologize for bringing it up again.

you wouldn't know since you haven't understood a thing i've said.all of the candidates hold crazy, dangerous religious belief - not just the mormon one. singling him out because his religion is less mainstream than the others is prejudice, and a logically stupid way to choose candidates. instead you should be asking which candidate takes his beliefs least seriously - which candidate is least likely to let his crazy core religious belief influence his presidential agenda. romney is no worse than other republicans in that respect - probably in the middle somewhere (huckabee on the extreme end).

Yeah, I recommend that you give up on this thread. They don't get it.

This post is the normal FCP athiest platform in a nutshell...You disagree, then you don't understand (hints at not smart). Then all references to religions will first be poisoned with prejoritives ie crazy, dangerous.Throw in a bone for anyone smart enough to not let his religios beliefs actually influence him. Which is exactly the opposite by definition but you guys can't understand that.voila, cut and past this response to 90% of all threads.

You forgot about step one: Make a point that's irrefutable by anyone who is able to think logically and at least somewhat objectively.

[speedz99 145]

that was actually my point - we should be looking at the craziness of the candidates themselves, and not judging them by whos church is crazier. or something like that

You know, I'm actually starting to figure out what's happening here. Guapo can't figure out how anyone would be any less crazy than their religion teaches them to be. My new simpe response is that not everyone is a slave to their religion...these days it's almost the norm to be part of a religion without believing in anything and everything they say.

[Loismustdie 0]

I think we are saying some of the same stuff in different directions. I do not dislike or hate anyone because they are Mormon, but I would not vote for a Mormon because of what I know of their church and how they influence politically. That is a difference of opinion of belief systems. I do not believe that I said no knowledgeable person can vote for a Mormon, if I did I misspoke.big·ot·ry /ˈbɪgətri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uh-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot. I am not intolerant of Mormons individually, I worked for one for 3 years and at the time was probably one of my best friends. He married into the Mormon religion and before that he was a strong non-denominational Christian. When he stopped going to the Mormon church he was threatened by the church to have his family taken away from him, he was afraid of coming home one day and having his wife and 4 children be gone. It was a valid fear, and he was forced to continue attending church through this blackmail. We were trying to get a small start up software company off the ground, and the church tried to get their hands on the company and only wanted Mormon investors and blocked him from getting at other money.So when there is a system in place like that, I have a hard time believing that anyone involved in an organization like this cannot not be influenced by it, especially in the most powerful position in the world. I'm sure someone could say the same thing about George Bush and his speculated membership with skull and crossbones, if you believe that is an immoral organization that does terrible things and you do not think Bush can operate without their influence then you should not vote for him.Our beliefs are bred from our experiences in life and we have to make judgments based on the best available knowledge that you have. Based on the knowledge I know of the Mormon church I could not vote for a Mormon. In my mind that is the same as not being able to vote for someone who is pro abortion if you are completely pro choice. I do not see the difference, you obliviously do.

This is the problem with a mormon candidate, this is a fairly common theme with that religion, and I think that this sort of thought process could be applied to pretty much any religion. That is why I said what I said earlier, which is a person of faith really shouldn't get involved with this stuff anyway. It's all dirty, it all stinks of corruption, power is a drug not meant for the holy. That being said, at the end of the day, the majority of the world would love to have just a chance to live in this great christian nation. Just a chance. This will drive some of you near insane, but the driving force behind this nations greatness has been christianity in some form, and I for one am proud of that.

[crowTrobot 2]

the driving force behind this nations greatness has been christianity in some form, and I for one am proud of that.

care to give a single historical example that supports that? the driving force behind this nations greatness has been tolerance for and adaptation to diversity, not exclusionary fundamentalism.

[speedz99 145]

care to give a single historical example that supports that? the driving force behind this nations greatness has been tolerance for and adaptation to diversity, not exclusionary fundamentalism.

They think that "christian values" are somehow different than everyone else's.

[Vick07 0]

care to give a single historical example that supports that? the driving force behind this nations greatness has been tolerance for and adaptation to diversity, not exclusionary fundamentalism.

For centuries the vast majority of universities were in Christendom, a small number in Muslim lands, and how many anywhere else? Some in China, I suppose, and there was plenty of learning in the ancient Rome and Greece, but after around 1400 AD Christendom dominated China and the rest of the world in the realm of education, progress, and the enlightenment. And since the Dark Ages really sent Europe and most of the world besides China and Persia into a slump after the Classics, I suppose I wouldn't be totally wrong in saying Christendom can be, to an extent, blaimed for your right to be atheist/agnostic. The Catholic church set progress back at times, but all things are best in moderation, and it couldn't handle such radical beliefs like "the earth actually revolves around the sun," all at once... But, say, if the Mongols had succeeded in conquering all of Christendom in the 1300s I don't think you would be sitting at a computer at the moment. IMHO "tolerance for and adaptation to diversity," stemmed from Christianity, perhaps because it offered more hope than other religions, or because it emphasized man's relationship with God, perhaps giving him (man) more significance than in other religions, so signifying man's place in this world and the contributions he can make.... If it were not so the proportion of wealth, education, and "tolerance," would not be so disproportionate in favor of Western Europe (and areas it colonized) as oppose to... say.. Russia? Somalia? Afghanistan? Even Japan would not be so successful if it hadn't been kickstarted by European and American colonization in the late 19th century. I know I'm not explaining it fully, but I'm currently reading "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fall of Human Societies" by Jared Diamond and it's pretty interesting... explains some of this more fully. I just don't believe it's an accidenent the Enligtenment happened in the midst of Christianity. Unless we are climbing another "Mt. Improbable."

[Balloon guy 158]

They think that "christian values" are somehow different than everyone else's.

Not just different; better, superior and based on holy scripture imparted to us directly from the Creator. Of course they are also directly inline with Jewish values, which makes the Judeo-Christian label accurate.

[El Guapo 8]

care to give a single historical example that supports that? the driving force behind this nations greatness has been tolerance for and adaptation to diversity, not exclusionary fundamentalism.

The word god is in the declaration of independence, its all over our money, its in ever court room, we testify by swearing to the bible. I'm agnostic and even I understand this.

[crowTrobot 2]

The word god is in the declaration of independence, its all over our money, its in ever court room, we testify by swearing to the bible. I'm agnostic and even I understand this.

yes i know all that. are you saying having in god we trust on our money makes our country great?

[crowTrobot 2]

I just don't believe it's an accidenent the Enligtenment happened in the midst of Christianity. Unless we are climbing another "Mt. Improbable."

i think it can be historically demonstrated that the enlightenment and the various adoptions of human rights in the west all came about despite christianity, not because of it, but that's a pretty involved topic.anyway, the question was what is it about christianity that intrinsically makes our nation great.

[Balloon guy 158]

yes i know all that. are you saying having in god we trust on our money makes our country great?

No he's saying having a country that willingly puts in God we trust on our money helps make us great.Just like it was comfortable speaking of all our rights coming from our Creator, as well as having all opening days of our congress, senate and supreme courts opened with prayer by a government paid man of faith.But you know all that.