Real Question
-
I don't have a problem with people who vote or don't vote for someone based on their religious beliefs. Mostly because everyone does it, whether they acknowledge it or not. For instance, I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who has been taken in by Scientology. To me, it says something about their intellectual makeup and their gullibility. Some people view Mormonism in that same way. I don't happen to, but I can certainly see why people do. Mormonism requires people to believe in some things are not only utterly fantastical and surely improbable, but also things that are demonstrably false.
Joseph Smith was a con man. That seem 100% clear to me. The fact that people like Mitt Romney can't see that, or chooses not to see that, is a tad worrisome, yes. For me, it's not a disqualifier. But I can see why it would be for some people. And if someone like Sev wants to come to that conclusion, I think that's fine. As long as he doesn't believe in a religious test for office, he can assemble his voting priorities in whichever way he pleases.
And Vapor, I don't agree that Christianity and Mormonism are the same things. Do both require a belief in miraculous things that you or I believe never happened? Sure. But we know there was a Jesus Christ. We have a real good idea of what he preached about, how he died, etc. Even if you strip away the belief that he was divine, as Jefferson and many others have done, you're still left with some of the most sublime moral philosophies in human history, on which 2000 years of religious tradition have been based.
Mormonism is just something a guy with a wild imagination made up out of whole cloth. None of the people or places in the Book of Mormon have ever been shown to have existed. Some of the central tenets of the book have been proven to be false - or some might say fraudulent. It might as well be called "Harry Potter and the Golden Plates."
That's different.
-
And Steve, I hope you were watching This Week this morning. People from all over the spectrum were weighing in on what a fraud Newt is.
I particularly liked George Will's line about Gingrich's "absurd rhetorical grandiosity" before noting "he's not a historian" (he's really not - he couldn't even get tenure at an obscure college in Georgia) and then this: “It is an amazingly efficient candidacy in that in embodies everything disagreeable about modern Washington."
Even better was Krugman's line that Newt is "a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like."
I think they're both right. But have fun with Newt, the man who thinks describing each of his ideas as "profound" or "historic" makes them so. Honestly, have you even looked at his new Contract For America? For all his talk about "fundamental change" it's just a list of dusted off old ideas, nonsense, and useless slogans. There's absolutely nothing new in it. It could have come from Sarah Palin's Facebook page. And he thinks it's all groundbreaking stuff.
He's a truly strange man.
-
I don't have a problem with people who vote or don't vote for someone based on their religious beliefs. Mostly because everyone does it, whether they acknowledge it or not. For instance, I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who has been taken in by Scientology. To me, it says something about their intellectual makeup and their gullibility. Some people view Mormonism in that same way. I don't happen to, but I can certainly see why people do. Mormonism requires people to believe in some things are not only utterly fantastical and surely improbable, but also things that are demonstrably false.
Joseph Smith was a con man. That seem 100% clear to me. The fact that people like Mitt Romney can't see that, or chooses not to see that, is a tad worrisome, yes. For me, it's not a disqualifier. But I can see why it would be for some people. And if someone like Sev wants to come to that conclusion, I think that's fine. As long as he doesn't believe in a religious test for office, he can assemble his voting priorities in whichever way he pleases.
And Vapor, I don't agree that Christianity and Mormonism are the same things. Do both require a belief in miraculous things that you or I believe never happened? Sure. But we know there was a Jesus Christ. We have a real good idea of what he preached about, how he died, etc. Even if you strip away the belief that he was divine, as Jefferson and many others have done, you're still left with some of the most sublime moral philosophies in human history, on which 2000 years of religious tradition have been based.
Mormonism is just something a guy with a wild imagination made up out of whole cloth. None of the people or places in the Book of Mormon have ever been shown to have existed. Some of the central tenets of the book have been proven to be false - or some might say fraudulent. It might as well be called "Harry Potter and the Golden Plates."
That's different.
And Vapor, I don't agree that Christianity and Mormonism are the same things. Do both require a belief in miraculous things that you or I believe never happened? Sure. But we know there was a Jesus Christ. We have a real good idea of what he preached about, how he died, etc. Even if you strip away the belief that he was divine, as Jefferson and many others have done, you're still left with some of the most sublime moral philosophies in human history, on which 2000 years of religious tradition have been based.
We don't necessarily know that there was a Jesus Christ, and we absolutely don't have a "real good idea" of what he preached about. The succession of various books which were written with different agendas obfuscates what we really can know about him. From my studies, I have come to the conclusion that if he existed, he never claimed to be divine, and Jesus Christ is more likely a compilation of people than a single person. Furthermore, there are no contemporary documents of his life nor his death. Everything we know about him is from things that were written, at best, a decade after his life ended.
Mormonism is just something a guy with a wild imagination made up out of whole cloth. None of the people or places in the Book of Mormon have ever been shown to have existed. Some of the central tenets of the book have been proven to be false - or some might say fraudulent. It might as well be called "Harry Potter and the Golden Plates."
I could go through the NT and point out a whole bunch of tenets from it that are "proven" to be false as well. For example, "Faith can move mountains." No, actually it can't, Jesus was thinking of plate tectonic theory.
-
Heck,
I absolutely do not believe in a religious test to run for office, I am glad in theory that Mitt, Huntsmen and others can run for office legally and IF they get enough popular support can get elected.
That is democracy and a proper application of the separation of church and state..... I am just speaking for myself that I have a profound logical problem electing anyone who buys into concepts so
illogical to me as the most powerful person in the world. It immediately makes me question their critical thinking which I think is the most profound and important skill necessary for being President.
I also happen to think that Mormon's operate to similar to Scientology in terms of a very active/controlling organization which I am not comfortable with. The Mormons PR/money intervention in California
over gay marriage was a demonstration of how far they are willing to go to push their beliefs into law which is a major problem for me.
I dont care what other people believe in, I do not want them to push their beliefs that may stem from their religions on me by law and the Mormons are that type of organization. I am not just singling them out....
I equally have a high disdain for evangelicals and would not vote for someone who I think is influenced by them either.
Its just a personal preference, I am sure most who have read my posts know I do not like any of the mainstream religious establishments however there are a few I really dont like.
-
While much of what you say about the Bible is true, the chronology of it and what not, that's hardly proof that Jesus didn't exist. It suggests embellishment over time, not complete fiction. But historians are pretty certain that Christ exists. The Romans kept their own lists, after all.
And Sev, I'm almost with you on the Mormon thing. I find the religion, the origins of it, almost comical. For the life of me, I can't understand how it convinces a man of Romney's intellect.
I'd just ask you to consider the clownish Republican alternatives. I'll take the two Mormons any day.
-
While much of what you say about the Bible is true, the chronology of it and what not, that's hardly proof that Jesus didn't exist. It suggests embellishment over time, not complete fiction. But historians are pretty certain that Christ exists. The Romans kept their own lists, after all.
And Sev, I'm almost with you on the Mormon thing. I find the religion, the origins of it, almost comical. For the life of me, I can't understand how it convinces a man of Romney's intellect.
I'd just ask you to consider the clownish Republican alternatives. I'll take the two Mormons any day.
While much of what you say about the Bible is true, the chronology of it and what not, that's hardly proof that Jesus didn't exist. It suggests embellishment over time, not complete fiction. But historians are pretty certain that Christ exists. The Romans kept their own lists, after all.
Then please, cite a piece of contemporary evidence of Christ's existence. The Romans were NOT as good of bookkeepers as is held to common belief. And the amount of embellishment is ludicrous. If you actually read the NT, it makes little sense as to why Joseph had to return to Bethlehem, but then they call his son Jesus of Nazareth. It really makes the most sense to me that the guy wasn't divine, but lots of people wanted him to be. That's why he's a conglomeration of Jewish and pagan myths and that's why his deeds were so magnificent. This is how Man created God.
And Sev, I'm almost with you on the Mormon thing. I find the religion, the origins of it, almost comical. For the life of me, I can't understand how it convinces a man of Romney's intellect.
Yet you're okay with someone not questioning alchemy (turning water into wine) and magic (walking on water) and necromancy (rising from the dead)? The NT is just as full of shit as the Book of Mormon. Mary probably got knocked up by Joseph and didn't want to get stoned to death. This little fib became the greatest lie ever told. Granted the battle of good and evil didn't take place in upstate New York, as it did in the BoM, but Lucifer was walking with Jesus for 40 days in the desert. Riiiiiiight. I mean, the whole damn book begins with a talking snake and ends with a 3-headed monster.
While scientist have continued to study and find new discoveries they only confirm that thre is a God and that everything written in the Bible is factual.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
boom roasted
-
While much of what you say about the Bible is true, the chronology of it and what not, that's hardly proof that Jesus didn't exist. It suggests embellishment over time, not complete fiction. But historians are pretty certain that Christ exists. The Romans kept their own lists, after all.
Then please, cite a piece of contemporary evidence of Christ's existence. The Romans were NOT as good of bookkeepers as is held to common belief. And the amount of embellishment is ludicrous. If you actually read the NT, it makes little sense as to why Joseph had to return to Bethlehem, but then they call his son Jesus of Nazareth. It really makes the most sense to me that the guy wasn't divine, but lots of people wanted him to be. That's why he's a conglomeration of Jewish and pagan myths and that's why his deeds were so magnificent. This is how Man created God.
And Sev, I'm almost with you on the Mormon thing. I find the religion, the origins of it, almost comical. For the life of me, I can't understand how it convinces a man of Romney's intellect.
Yet you're okay with someone not questioning alchemy (turning water into wine) and magic (walking on water) and necromancy (rising from the dead)? The NT is just as full of shit as the Book of Mormon. Mary probably got knocked up by Joseph and didn't want to get stoned to death. This little fib became the greatest lie ever told. Granted the battle of good and evil didn't take place in upstate New York, as it did in the BoM, but Lucifer was walking with Jesus for 40 days in the desert. Riiiiiiight. I mean, the whole damn book begins with a talking snake and ends with a 3-headed monster.
While scientist have continued to study and find new discoveries they only confirm that thre is a God and that everything written in the Bible is factual.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
boom roasted
Then please, cite a piece of contemporary
C'mon guys, we don't klnow who shot Kennedy for sure, let alone a tale handed down over two thousand years and amanded every step of the way.
But my guess is that Mormonism is worse than Christianity because the Mormon candidates are Republicans and the fundamentalist Christian is Obama.....
Just a guess.
Would an atheist be just as far wrong?
WSS
-
BTW Heck I missed This Week, though I usually record it.
I like Will a lot but he is what he is.
Also Krugman's line that Newt is "a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like" sounds autobiographical to me.....
And the new covenant with America 🥷 or whatever isn't any worse than Hope and Change I guess.
WSS
-
C'mon guys, we don't klnow who shot Kennedy for sure, let alone a tale handed down over two thousand years and amanded every step of the way.
There's a huge difference between the two as there is video evidence of Jackie O reaching for her husband's brains from the exit wound.
But my guess is that Mormonism is worse than Christianity because the Mormon candidates are Republicans and the fundamentalist Christian is Obama.....
Well, it seems to me that the people who do have a problem with Mormonism tend to be be fundamentalist Christians who also believe Obama is a secret Muslim/African.
Just a guess.
Would an atheist be just as far wrong?
WSS
Apparently, seeing as anyone running for president that claimed to be one would be committing career suicide.
-
C'mon guys, we don't klnow who shot Kennedy for sure, let alone a tale handed down over two thousand years and amanded every step of the way.
There's a huge difference between the two as there is video evidence of Jackie O reaching for her husband's brains from the exit wound.
But my guess is that Mormonism is worse than Christianity because the Mormon candidates are Republicans and the fundamentalist Christian is Obama.....
Well, it seems to me that the people who do have a problem with Mormonism tend to be be fundamentalist Christians who also believe Obama is a secret Muslim/African.
Just a guess.
Would an atheist be just as far wrong?
WSS
Apparently, seeing as anyone running for president that claimed to be one would be committing career suicide.
There's a huge difference between the two as there is video evidence of Jackie O reaching for her husband's brains from the exit wound.
Apparently, seeing as anyone running for president that claimed to be one would be committing career suicide.
Exactly the point doc.
That was within my lifetime and on TV and we still aren't that sure what happened.
Let alone 2000 years ago with little more than word of mouth among a fairly backwward population...
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
While much of what you say about the Bible is true, the chronology of it and what not, that's hardly proof that Jesus didn't exist. It suggests embellishment over time, not complete fiction. But historians are pretty certain that Christ exists. The Romans kept their own lists, after all.
And Sev, I'm almost with you on the Mormon thing. I find the religion, the origins of it, almost comical. For the life of me, I can't understand how it convinces a man of Romney's intellect.
I'd just ask you to consider the clownish Republican alternatives. I'll take the two Mormons any day.
While much of what you say about the Bible is true, the chronology of it and what not, that's hardly proof that Jesus didn't exist. It suggests embellishment over time, not complete fiction. But historians are pretty certain that Christ exists. The Romans kept their own lists, after all.
And Sev, I'm almost with you on the Mormon thing. I find the religion, the origins of it, almost comical. For the life of me, I can't understand how it convinces a man of Romney's intellect.
I'd just ask you to consider the clownish Republican alternatives. I'll take the two Mormons any day.
Dude you are weird. Do you live your life inside of a test tube?
-
There's a huge difference between the two as there is video evidence of Jackie O reaching for her husband's brains from the exit wound.
Apparently, seeing as anyone running for president that claimed to be one would be committing career suicide.
Exactly the point doc.
That was within my lifetime and on TV and we still aren't that sure what happened.
Let alone 2000 years ago with little more than word of mouth among a fairly backwward population...
WSS
Exactly the point doc.
That was within my lifetime and on TV and we still aren't that sure what happened.
Let alone 2000 years ago with little more than word of mouth among a fairly backwward population...
WSS
Sorry, I think that's a bad analogy. What we can conclude from the JFK tapes is that he WAS assassinated. You don't have a single contemporary Roman or Jewish document that says Pontius Pilate asked a crowd to decide a prisoners fate, nor one that says Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on this date/time/location. You're comparing apples to oranges. For JFK, there is contemporary evidence of death, for Jesus, there is not.
-
Exactly the point doc.
That was within my lifetime and on TV and we still aren't that sure what happened.
Let alone 2000 years ago with little more than word of mouth among a fairly backwward population...
WSS
Sorry, I think that's a bad analogy. What we can conclude from the JFK tapes is that he WAS assassinated. You don't have a single contemporary Roman or Jewish document that says Pontius Pilate asked a crowd to decide a prisoners fate, nor one that says Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on this date/time/location. You're comparing apples to oranges. For JFK, there is contemporary evidence of death, for Jesus, there is not.
Sorry, I think that's a bad analogy. What we can conclude from the JFK tapes is that he WAS assassinated. You don't have a single contemporary Roman or Jewish document that says Pontius Pilate asked a crowd to decide a prisoners fate, nor one that says Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on this date/time/location. You're comparing apples to oranges. For JFK, there is contemporary evidence of death, for Jesus, there is not.
Anyrthing documented 2K years ago would be "contemporary" today.
I'd expect that whatever the documentation of that era was is considered contemporary for the time.
WSS
-
Sorry, I think that's a bad analogy. What we can conclude from the JFK tapes is that he WAS assassinated. You don't have a single contemporary Roman or Jewish document that says Pontius Pilate asked a crowd to decide a prisoners fate, nor one that says Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on this date/time/location. You're comparing apples to oranges. For JFK, there is contemporary evidence of death, for Jesus, there is not.
Anyrthing documented 2K years ago would be "contemporary" today.
I'd expect that whatever the documentation of that era was is considered contemporary for the time.
WSS
Anyrthing documented 2K years ago would be "contemporary" today.
I'd expect that whatever the documentation of that era was is considered contemporary for the time.
WSS
Steve, here's what I mean by contemporary.
1 - Related to the subject at hand
2 - First hand accounts of the subject
3 - Written as it happened, not in the same era, but in the same exact set of days or months that an event happened
Yes, you are correct in saying there are contemporary accounts of happenings in the Middle East during the time of Jesus' alleged existence. There are not, however, ANY documents that fit ALL the above criteria; there's a huge difference. If you're trying to find out what actually happened, you need first-hand accounts of it. The earliest known record of Jesus happened at least ten years after his alleged death.
-
Wait, Obama is a fundamentalist Christian? ...Wha?
Paul Krugman, Princeton professor, world-renown economist, and Nobel prize winner is stupid? ..What reality are you working in?
And Hope and Change were slogans, not policy proposals, Steve. It's be like comparing Newt's ideas to "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." There's a fair critique!
-
And Vapor, a contemporary account of Jesus' life would not be the historical barometer to determine whether the man existed, or what he preached. What that would suggest, however, is that you might not want to take everything in the accounts as, you know, gospel.
Jeez, I never thought I'd get an intra-agnostic dispute in here.
We're arguing over the same basic idea. I just happen to think there's more to Christianity than you do, whereas Mormonism is invented out of whole cloth.
And Steve, Harry Reid is a Mormon. Democrats obviously don't have problems with Mormons in high places. And Romney and Huntsman are my two preferred Republican candidates, so I obviously don't have a problem with them as presidents either.
That doesn't change the fact that I find Mormon theology to be a ludicrous con that defies all common sense.
-
And Vapor, a contemporary account of Jesus' life would not be the historical barometer to determine whether the man existed, or what he preached.
No it wouldn't. But if there were a bunch of those contemporary accounts, then I'd absolutely admit that they supported this man's existence. I just find it mind-boggling that there isn't even a single one.
We're arguing over the same basic idea. I just happen to think there's more to Christianity than you do, whereas Mormonism is invented out of whole cloth.
That doesn't change the fact that I find Mormon theology to be a ludicrous con that defies all common sense.
What then, makes mainstream Christianity more legitimate to you?
-
And Vapor, a contemporary account of Jesus' life would not be the historical barometer to determine whether the man existed, or what he preached. What that would suggest, however, is that you might not want to take everything in the accounts as, you know, gospel.
Jeez, I never thought I'd get an intra-agnostic dispute in here.
We're arguing over the same basic idea. I just happen to think there's more to Christianity than you do, whereas Mormonism is invented out of whole cloth.
And Steve, Harry Reid is a Mormon. Democrats obviously don't have problems with Mormons in high places. And Romney and Huntsman are my two preferred Republican candidates, so I obviously don't have a problem with them as presidents either.
That doesn't change the fact that I find Mormon theology to be a ludicrous con that defies all common sense.
And Vapor, a contemporary account of Jesus' life would not be the historical barometer to determine whether the man existed, or what he preached. What that would suggest, however, is that you might not want to take everything in the accounts as, you know, gospel.
Jeez, I never thought I'd get an intra-agnostic dispute in here.
We're arguing over the same basic idea. I just happen to think there's more to Christianity than you do, whereas Mormonism is invented out of whole cloth.
And Steve, Harry Reid is a Mormon. Democrats obviously don't have problems with Mormons in high places. And Romney and Huntsman are my two preferred Republican candidates, so I obviously don't have a problem with them as presidents either.
That doesn't change the fact that I find Mormon theology to be a ludicrous con that defies all common sense.
Oh I was just kinda kidding Heck.
Seems like the left hates Christians if they're Republicans.
They're the "religious right."
WSS
-
Wait, Obama is a fundamentalist Christian? ...Wha?
Paul Krugman, Princeton professor, world-renown economist, and Nobel prize winner is stupid? ..What reality are you working in?
And Hope and Change were slogans, not policy proposals, Steve. It's be like comparing Newt's ideas to "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." There's a fair critique!
Wait, Obama is a fundamentalist Christian? ...Wha?
Paul Krugman, Princeton professor, world-renown economist, and Nobel prize winner is stupid? ..What reality are you working in?
Krugman is a Nobel Laureate like Arafat. Michael Moore has an Oscar.
Eugene Robinson a Pulitzer.
Unfortunately being an idealogue for the left is a foot in the door.
No matter he's a garden variety shill now.
WSS
And Hope and Change were slogans, not policy proposals, Steve. It's be like comparing Newt's ideas to "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." There's a fair critique!
But "Hope and Change" was all he had.
Sure as hell wasnt economic, foreign military or health policy.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login