<strong>I would agree with that in a poetical sense....
But if logic were true: By the definition of God as omnipresent and omniscient, there is no place God would not be: in fact there couldn't be a place without God: if there were, then the definition of omniscience and omnipresents would not be true: because that would mean that God lacked that place: Omniscience by definition lacks nothing. Therefor God is also in Hell: and therefor there is no complete and total absence of God. It is a logical impossibility.
My definition of God would have to be similar to Spinoza: God is that who's substance it is to Be.
and following that, but more elaborately, Heidegger and his ideas about the difference between Beings (things in the world) and Being.
If you were to limit the omnipotence of God then true. But since he is all powerful there is nothing impossible. If he did not want his presence to be there. It will not be there. If he wants it to be a lake of burning sulfur, it will be a lake of burning sulfur. If he wants it to be demons poking you with pointy splintery sticks in your nether regions, well... You cannot limit the power of all powerful omnipotence.
Both mentally defective. Hardly even religions. Oh well.
Gimme a Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim, heck, gimme a secular humanist, those we can work with. But why are there so many "For Dummies" flavors of religion in North America?
Come to think of it, since moron originally describes a mental stage of a pre-pubescent child, and we are all children of God, or, in Utah, at least of uncle Jeb, then is this really so insulting? You want us to be "like children before God." "We're all brothers and sisters in Christ" is a little hard to achieve, but at least we can all be brother's and sisters in Utah!
Oh yeah, other "Religions for Dummies" I completely left out Hare Chrishna. My apologies to all the serial pedophiles out there. May a rabid dog piss on your flowers.
Some 'faiths' (meaning those with which quotes always accompany that title) need ridicule. If people are going to continually pester me at school, on the phone, at my door, and even on TV, then they deserve a little bile vented in their general direction. You probably differ with their beliefs cause they've invented a faith for inbred Simpletons. I see no need to protect their feelings.
Then there's no need to protect your feelings either.
You see the error in your reasoning? Do you want to function in society without being a self-proclaimed bigot? When I hear things like that from people it automatically dinimishes in my mind what you have to say on any other subject. Can I generalize all Canadians as being like you?
<strong>Then there's no need to protect your feelings either.
You see the error in your reasoning? Do you want to function in society without being a self-proclaimed bigot? When I hear things like that from people it automatically dinimishes in my mind what you have to say on any other subject. Can I generalize all Canadians as being like you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Excellent! Progress, sometimes I wish for feelings to protect, but alas, 'tis not my lot in life. I'm hardly a bigot, but I see your point. I guess any person of reason and reflection, but without the typical stodginess, and instead rather full of humors (good and bad), will appear bigotted. Oh well, better sticks and stones than an argument which would decimate such poorly thought ideologies. If only for their protection, and you say I've no heart.
Prosylethizing (sp?) is, i think, the most annoying feature of these new spiritual light weights. If you're going to venture into the conversion business, you ought to at least have something substatial to which to convert. This is why for all their brutalities Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Islamic attempts at conversion can at least claim a social-historical, theological and philosophical depth. Certainly, in many cases, religious depth was a distant and secondary consideration of their exploits, but it was at least present in some cloistered space somewhere on their respective maps. Perhaps Mormons, and their many new world cousins, are less guilty of politics, but where, in all of the formative new-world religious output, is the spiritual depth? Apart from a brief stint of American transcendentalism, how can the rest of the world look at North America, and those early (admittedly persecuted) 'faiths' and see any sign of spiritual sophistication? Perhaps spirituality should eschew 'sophistication' and you can argue from all of the western monothiets that this thread at least exists.
An entire brand of so called 'religions' fails miserably to account for the human condition in most of the scholarly/humanistic senses. Most congregations lock their members in a discourse that cannot enter or even tolerate modern problems. AIDS? Homosex? Genetics? Democracy? Legal and spirtual distinctions? Low Marks all round, generally. Cult like elements worthy of scientology, certainly discount Hare Chrishna, Jehova's Witness type faiths straight away. Mormonism by association* even weakens the considerable improvements of other legitimate American Christian groups, and only the least 'Mormon' of Mormons have anything approaching a recognizable religion -- rather than a suspiciously authorized network of cults.
_________
*edit: this reads like association with Hare Chrishnas and Jehovah's Witnesses which I did not intend. To clarify, I should say that other North American Christian groups are considerably weakened by the specious claims by Mormons who consider themselves the legitimate Christians. They do, however, share many organizational/semantic (and cult-like) traits with Jehovas' Witness, Hare Chrishna, and Scientology.
[quote]I guess any person of reason and reflection, but without the typical stodginess, and instead rather full of humors (good and bad), will appear bigotted.<hr></blockquote>
A person of reason and reflection doesn't make comments like: "Mormon, the second m is optional." and the many other gems you have spewed forth so far in this thread.
What those comments indicate is anything but reasonable reflection.
[quote]Apart from a brief stint of American transcendentalism, how can the rest of the world look at North America, and those early (admittedly persecuted) 'faiths' and see any sign of spiritual sophistication?<hr></blockquote>
"spiritual sophistication"
For someone who speaks positively of transcendentalism, it's odd to see you use such an oxymoron.
Most of that crap doesn't even make sense, Matsu, form a cohesive thought.
<strong>I was going to answer each one of those questions, but I really just can't get over your childish jabs.</strong>
Imagine my surprise that you didn't answer my questions.
<strong>If you're really curious (or anyone for that matter), send me an e-mail or ask in a way that doesn't make you sound like a complete jack-ass.</strong>
With such a polite invitation how can I resist! So let me get this strait- You're deriding all of us for not properly restraining our criticisms of the Mormon faith, bashing us for our ignorance, then refusing to answer questions repeatedly put to you because we aren't showing the proper respect? Answer them or don't answer them, but I'm not going to supplicate myself at your bidding.
<strong>And finally, I specifically said that Mormonism and all religions are open to criticism.</strong>
Nice dodge, but you never answered the question about what YOU deem worthy of criticism. I stated quite clearly what my criteria for criticism are and asked you for yours. You then play this 1st amendment card (everyone's free to criticize everything, I'm not putting a gag in your mouth, yadda yadda) without actually answering the question. I'll ask it again (with no real expectation that you will answer) - What criteria do YOU, yourself, deem worthy for criticizing a religion? Any religion?
Now pay attention because I'm actually going to do something amazing here- it's called answering a question put to me....
<strong>My question to you is:
Why are you unable to take criticism towards your own views and motives?</strong>
I have neither stated, nor demonstrated any such sensitivity. I asked for your criteria for criticism. I stated mine. I freely admit to finding magic underwear, the mormon faith, and a myriad of other supernatural beliefs amusing and worthy of criticsim, comical derision, even outright disrespect. I think that is plainly obvious from any of my posts.
So now feel free to demonize me as an anti-religious bigot if you wish. Of course, as a good Xian would say, hating the sin is not the same as hating the sinner. I think professional wrestling, nascar, soap operas, and most religions are idiotic preoccupations, but I enjoy friendships with people who enjoy all of these. They criticize my position and I criticize theirs. But at least they actually answer my questions.
<strong>Don't know enough Mormons to give them a bad "review." Had a couple knock on my door once -- very Richie Cunningham right down to the red hair.
I do find their religion nothing short of bizarre. I find aspects of my own faith (Roman Catholic) bizarre as well though.
PS: their reported "cures" for homosexuality sound like they're out of a Clockwork Orange. But they wouldn't know would they?
i once made a bumper sticker for this mormon girl i was really close with-
Mormons, only a cult by definition.
i can't stand their exclusionist policies or anti homosexual beliefs... i can't recall the source of the last time i saw the suicide rate of homosexuals from mormon households, but it was staggering- however 20% of all statistics are made up on the spot, YMMV
mormon girls really can't date outside their religion, they can, but really they can't. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Comments
<strong>I would agree with that in a poetical sense....
But if logic were true: By the definition of God as omnipresent and omniscient, there is no place God would not be: in fact there couldn't be a place without God: if there were, then the definition of omniscience and omnipresents would not be true: because that would mean that God lacked that place: Omniscience by definition lacks nothing. Therefor God is also in Hell: and therefor there is no complete and total absence of God. It is a logical impossibility.
My definition of God would have to be similar to Spinoza: God is that who's substance it is to Be.
and following that, but more elaborately, Heidegger and his ideas about the difference between Beings (things in the world) and Being.
[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you were to limit the omnipotence of God then true. But since he is all powerful there is nothing impossible. If he did not want his presence to be there. It will not be there. If he wants it to be a lake of burning sulfur, it will be a lake of burning sulfur. If he wants it to be demons poking you with pointy splintery sticks in your nether regions, well... You cannot limit the power of all powerful omnipotence.
Jehovah's Witness...
Both mentally defective. Hardly even religions. Oh well.
Gimme a Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim, heck, gimme a secular humanist, those we can work with. But why are there so many "For Dummies" flavors of religion in North America?
Come to think of it, since moron originally describes a mental stage of a pre-pubescent child, and we are all children of God, or, in Utah, at least of uncle Jeb, then is this really so insulting? You want us to be "like children before God." "We're all brothers and sisters in Christ" is a little hard to achieve, but at least we can all be brother's and sisters in Utah!
Oh yeah, other "Religions for Dummies" I completely left out Hare Chrishna. My apologies to all the serial pedophiles out there. May a rabid dog piss on your flowers.
You see the error in your reasoning? Do you want to function in society without being a self-proclaimed bigot? When I hear things like that from people it automatically dinimishes in my mind what you have to say on any other subject. Can I generalize all Canadians as being like you?
If you're really curious (or anyone for that matter), send me an e-mail or ask in a way that doesn't make you sound like a complete jack-ass.
And finally, I specifically said that Mormonism and all religions are open to criticism.
My question to you is:
Why are you unable to take criticism towards your own views and motives?
<strong>Then there's no need to protect your feelings either.
You see the error in your reasoning? Do you want to function in society without being a self-proclaimed bigot? When I hear things like that from people it automatically dinimishes in my mind what you have to say on any other subject. Can I generalize all Canadians as being like you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Excellent! Progress, sometimes I wish for feelings to protect, but alas, 'tis not my lot in life. I'm hardly a bigot, but I see your point. I guess any person of reason and reflection, but without the typical stodginess, and instead rather full of humors (good and bad), will appear bigotted. Oh well, better sticks and stones than an argument which would decimate such poorly thought ideologies. If only for their protection, and you say I've no heart.
Prosylethizing (sp?) is, i think, the most annoying feature of these new spiritual light weights. If you're going to venture into the conversion business, you ought to at least have something substatial to which to convert. This is why for all their brutalities Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Islamic attempts at conversion can at least claim a social-historical, theological and philosophical depth. Certainly, in many cases, religious depth was a distant and secondary consideration of their exploits, but it was at least present in some cloistered space somewhere on their respective maps. Perhaps Mormons, and their many new world cousins, are less guilty of politics, but where, in all of the formative new-world religious output, is the spiritual depth? Apart from a brief stint of American transcendentalism, how can the rest of the world look at North America, and those early (admittedly persecuted) 'faiths' and see any sign of spiritual sophistication? Perhaps spirituality should eschew 'sophistication' and you can argue from all of the western monothiets that this thread at least exists.
An entire brand of so called 'religions' fails miserably to account for the human condition in most of the scholarly/humanistic senses. Most congregations lock their members in a discourse that cannot enter or even tolerate modern problems. AIDS? Homosex? Genetics? Democracy? Legal and spirtual distinctions? Low Marks all round, generally. Cult like elements worthy of scientology, certainly discount Hare Chrishna, Jehova's Witness type faiths straight away. Mormonism by association* even weakens the considerable improvements of other legitimate American Christian groups, and only the least 'Mormon' of Mormons have anything approaching a recognizable religion -- rather than a suspiciously authorized network of cults.
_________
*edit: this reads like association with Hare Chrishnas and Jehovah's Witnesses which I did not intend. To clarify, I should say that other North American Christian groups are considerably weakened by the specious claims by Mormons who consider themselves the legitimate Christians. They do, however, share many organizational/semantic (and cult-like) traits with Jehovas' Witness, Hare Chrishna, and Scientology.
[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Intellectual martyrs kill me.
A person of reason and reflection doesn't make comments like: "Mormon, the second m is optional." and the many other gems you have spewed forth so far in this thread.
What those comments indicate is anything but reasonable reflection.
[quote]Apart from a brief stint of American transcendentalism, how can the rest of the world look at North America, and those early (admittedly persecuted) 'faiths' and see any sign of spiritual sophistication?<hr></blockquote>
"spiritual sophistication"
For someone who speaks positively of transcendentalism, it's odd to see you use such an oxymoron.
Most of that crap doesn't even make sense, Matsu, form a cohesive thought.
HAHAHAHHA!!!!!! WHEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
I'm going to the Harem,
and I'm gonna get a Mormon,
Going to to the Chapel on Drugs.
I wanna be a polygamist too -oooh-oooh-oooh!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Shalle whe firste looke intoo de mowre filo-pastry.
eksjdf j fkg dshkfgdlfhk i fdh shkfd i vihdpifd ifd sfdu gdif ifdh ihihfd sidh kdhf dfhv 9rqw]043t jlfvcxkhv ldshkfg 9req78tvcj;kfdjg kfdh gi gg eryi fdhk pifdg h9re7 9h ohiobfpvhb xkpch bq9[fg skhbv pxkchbi hcy v9dyfkn pkhbv 9fb khfpviyb9reu ifvpihfd9ey9ewyr k ifd dhifb fidb er9y re9 ihb ihbdfuo[g eru reip eipfwg fv ioffub ifbg fdhkfdipyg re9e t-ljxcjvbf fkb pfkhfob [oufwuoef guoif fdfj bh ufog fdo v ufg sjodfh jfdsofh ouufd ofu uh euor ouguoe ho
And you don't have the decoder ring, so there, I WIN!
Heyyyy... what's on this pizza man?
Wah-hooo!!!
I like the patterns. And the animals... And the little smily sun. But the clouds look sad
WAHHHHHH!!! :eek:
<strong>I was going to answer each one of those questions, but I really just can't get over your childish jabs.</strong>
Imagine my surprise that you didn't answer my questions.
<strong>If you're really curious (or anyone for that matter), send me an e-mail or ask in a way that doesn't make you sound like a complete jack-ass.</strong>
With such a polite invitation how can I resist! So let me get this strait- You're deriding all of us for not properly restraining our criticisms of the Mormon faith, bashing us for our ignorance, then refusing to answer questions repeatedly put to you because we aren't showing the proper respect? Answer them or don't answer them, but I'm not going to supplicate myself at your bidding.
<strong>And finally, I specifically said that Mormonism and all religions are open to criticism.</strong>
Nice dodge, but you never answered the question about what YOU deem worthy of criticism. I stated quite clearly what my criteria for criticism are and asked you for yours. You then play this 1st amendment card (everyone's free to criticize everything, I'm not putting a gag in your mouth, yadda yadda) without actually answering the question. I'll ask it again (with no real expectation that you will answer) - What criteria do YOU, yourself, deem worthy for criticizing a religion? Any religion?
Now pay attention because I'm actually going to do something amazing here- it's called answering a question put to me....
<strong>My question to you is:
Why are you unable to take criticism towards your own views and motives?</strong>
I have neither stated, nor demonstrated any such sensitivity. I asked for your criteria for criticism. I stated mine. I freely admit to finding magic underwear, the mormon faith, and a myriad of other supernatural beliefs amusing and worthy of criticsim, comical derision, even outright disrespect. I think that is plainly obvious from any of my posts.
So now feel free to demonize me as an anti-religious bigot if you wish. Of course, as a good Xian would say, hating the sin is not the same as hating the sinner. I think professional wrestling, nascar, soap operas, and most religions are idiotic preoccupations, but I enjoy friendships with people who enjoy all of these. They criticize my position and I criticize theirs. But at least they actually answer my questions.
[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
*burns documents that reveal the secret goat raping/burning Mormon rituals*
Phew! I'm glad I bought enough time to take care of that.
Here's the problem:
The only purpose you have is derision, why would I tell you things that you'll only make fun of about people I respect?
If you were to have an animus against a member of my family I wouldn't give you fodder for deriding them, even if it had nothing to do with me.
Find your own material you "intellectual" hack.
[quote]You're deriding all of us for not properly restraining our criticisms of the Mormon faith,<hr></blockquote>
No, criticize all you like.
[quote]bashing us for our ignorance,<hr></blockquote>
Yes. Should I praise you for your ignorance?
[quote]then refusing to answer questions repeatedly put to you because we aren't showing the proper respect?<hr></blockquote>
Don't say "we", genius, you are one person.
And yes, I think that's a perfectly logical reason for not addressing the questions as you phrased them.
[quote]Answer them or don't answer them, but I'm not going to supplicate myself at your bidding.<hr></blockquote>
At my bidding? You're the one so eager to have me answer questions for you.
[quote]Nice dodge, but you never answered the question about what YOU deem worthy of criticism.<hr></blockquote>
Everything can be criticized.
Everything is "worthy" of criticism.
If what you are asking me is, "What can I criticize that you will like me for?" then I'm afraid you're a sad person.
I don't know what you're having a problem with.
You criticize the Mormons, I call you on your ignorance and then you whine. Why do you need validation?
[quote]So now feel free to demonize me as an anti-religious bigot if you wish.<hr></blockquote>
I just think you're an idiot. Don't put words in my mouth.
[edit]
[quote]I have neither stated, nor demonstrated any such sensitivity.<hr></blockquote>
You said this:
"Am I allowed to criticize the use of Burkhas by the Taliban? Can I make fun of the use of E-meters by scientologists?"
In response to me saying nothing about prohibiting your questions, only pointing out that they were/are stupid.
That, my friend, is a textbook example of "showing sensitivity" (a.k.a. - whining).
[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>Don't know enough Mormons to give them a bad "review." Had a couple knock on my door once -- very Richie Cunningham right down to the red hair.
I do find their religion nothing short of bizarre. I find aspects of my own faith (Roman Catholic) bizarre as well though.
PS: their reported "cures" for homosexuality sound like they're out of a Clockwork Orange. But they wouldn't know would they?
[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
i once made a bumper sticker for this mormon girl i was really close with-
Mormons, only a cult by definition.
i can't stand their exclusionist policies or anti homosexual beliefs... i can't recall the source of the last time i saw the suicide rate of homosexuals from mormon households, but it was staggering- however 20% of all statistics are made up on the spot, YMMV
mormon girls really can't date outside their religion, they can, but really they can't. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />